Yes , Lee we are free to do whatever we do but God knows all that we will be doing because it has all been done by Him , beforehand , on a spiritual level.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Heyup Archy, > > Yes I think I agree with you. You do know the scripture referancein > my last post was in reply to Pat's and my ongoing disagreement on > freewill, rather then anywhere on topic here? Heh heh yes I know this > thing does tend to stretch across threads with Pat and I. > > On Jun 10, 4:57 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe in human rights - yet they don't ground intellectually. To >> say they are social conventions is trite, and misses a lot of what we >> know of biology. Usama didn't have any at the end and any argument on >> the subject falls prey to flatulence. What of an unborn fetus, or of >> eggs and sperm that fail or are willfully destroyed. Infanticide has >> been legal in history. >> One might argue for them as a legal concept, but the farce of the HRA >> 1998 in the UK soon puts paid to such. In jail there's a big >> separation of rights and privileges. >> >> Scripture may have been written by idiots and plenty in it is >> disgusting. Inventing god for the purpose of human rights really just >> leads to religious law. >> American universities are buying land in Africa and chucking farmers >> off it - we know that stinks and can guess some form of human rights >> may be behind our disgust. >> My guess is they are as 'real' as currency and the real debate is >> about what they should be and whether we'd want a world without them. >> To ground them is rationalist fantasy and one just doesn't have to. >> >> On Jun 10, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Naaa Pat I think you have the reasons for my view wrong. >> >> > My view is based upon my understanding of scripture. >> >> > On Jun 10, 2:57 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
