On Jun 8, 4:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ahh Pat yes that is not exactly what you said,I pared it down for you > and once again used differant words to say what I 'concluded' you > where saying. > > Of course as you know I'll just have to disagree with your particular > 'truth' here, perhaps after I have read your book I may not. Who > knows! >
That is the key, I think. In order to judge the whole, you have to be presented with the whole. Personally, I doubt my book will change your view but that isn't because I'm incorrect bu that you are comfortable wit hyour view and not with mine. My view puts your control in the hands of God--who you should trust--but your view allows you to retain control. In my view, your opinion is related to a control issue and not reliant on any extrinsic truth at all. But, of course, that, too, is simply an opinion. In 'truth', I'm not sure I really know you THAT well to fairly state what I've just stated. ;-) I.e., I mean no offence and please take it with a huge grain of metaphorical salt!!! > On Jun 8, 4:33 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 8, 2:44 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Is the right to use your intelect to draw conclusions really a right? > > > > Naaa I would not have thought so. > > > Ahh, but that's not exactly what I said. I said, "you have the > > granted right to misinterpret the truth at your leisure". Drawing > > conclusions is, though, the larger part of thinking. Do we not have > > the appearance of the right to think? The truth, of course, is that > > our thoughts are God's and we're just multiprocessors with differing > > firmware. But it might take an IT guru to fully grasp that analogy. > > > > On Jun 8, 1:46 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 8, 9:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Umm now that is a question. > > > > > > If I assume that I have right and the reality is that I have not taken > > > > > it or been granted it, is it a right at all? > > > > > > I think I would have to say no, so yes rights can be falsely assumed. > > > > > Well, you have the granted right to misinterpret the truth at your > > > > leisure. That is, based on the environment in which you've been > > > > placed, you can, due to your intelligence, draw conclusions. Whether > > > > or not those conclusions are valid is guaranteed only by your belief > > > > that they are. Clear as mud? > > > > > > On Jun 7, 7:04 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Or falsely assumed? > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:46 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think you missed this bit Rigsy: > > > > > > > > 'If in reality God has grnated such rights then they would be > > > > > > > impossible for us to live without them, it is clear that we do > > > > > > > though' > > > > > > > > Which is saying no God has not objectivly granted us rights. > > > > > > > There is > > > > > > > no objective source for any rights, rights are either taken or > > > > > > > granted, that is all. > > > > > > > > Justice is decided upon by the people or the lawmakers. In both > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > these cases the rights by which justice is decided are rights > > > > > > > that are > > > > > > > taken or granted. > > > > > > > > I'll say it agian, there are no natural human rights, all rights > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > taken or granted. > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 7:15 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It might be grounded in our biology as a fetus will pull what > > > > > > > > it needs > > > > > > > > from the mother in order to develop and be born unless > > > > > > > > interrupted by > > > > > > > > Nature or laws. > > > > > > > > > And in wars, each side announces God's favor for their cause. > > > > > > > > So too, > > > > > > > > in political systems, though it is masked. > > > > > > > > > And do you really think laws are divinely motivated in various > > > > > > > > governments? How is justice dispensed? How are rights > > > > > > > > distributed? > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:27 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nope I have to disagree OM. Now I have read the piece I > > > > > > > > > find nowt to > > > > > > > > > make me change my mind. > > > > > > > > > > From what source do such rights stem? > > > > > > > > > > My stance is grounded in our history. All the rights we have > > > > > > > > > now have > > > > > > > > > bee faught for, that is they have been taken. Once taken > > > > > > > > > progresive > > > > > > > > > goveremtns have enshrined them in law and now they are > > > > > > > > > granted. > > > > > > > > > > These laws, as all laws, can be changed. In which case the > > > > > > > > > granted > > > > > > > > > rights will have been resincinded and well not have them back > > > > > > > > > again > > > > > > > > > without 'taking' them back. > > > > > > > > > > There is no objective source from which such rights stem > > > > > > > > > except for > > > > > > > > > God. If in reality God has grnated such rights then they > > > > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > > > impossible for us to live without them, it is clear that we > > > > > > > > > do though. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 12:11 pm, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Just reading through it now. > > > > > > > > > > > I find I can't agree with this bit at all: > > > > > > > > > > > 'In contrast to these objections, I would contend that if > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > communities or nations on earth enjoy the same sort of > > > > > > > > > > autonomy that > > > > > > > > > > legitimates any action that they deem acceptable and can be > > > > > > > > > > sustained > > > > > > > > > > for a period of time, then the moral relativists win. > > > > > > > > > > There are no > > > > > > > > > > natural human rights, and the whole enterprise should be > > > > > > > > > > thrown into > > > > > > > > > > the gutter.' > > > > > > > > > > > I would ask why if it is shown that these natural human > > > > > > > > > > rights do not > > > > > > > > > > exist (which is indeed my stance) why the whole concept of > > > > > > > > > > them need > > > > > > > > > > to be thrown in the gutter? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 7:19 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks rigsy! This is one of the best (read: accurate) > > > > > > > > > > > articles on the > > > > > > > > > > > subject I've read in a long time. I feel this philosopher > > > > > > > > > > > has it > > > > > > > > > > > 'right' as far as I can tell. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 6:37 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/are-there-natural-hum... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I started to read the comments which are lively but I > > > > > > > > > > > > need breakfast...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
