Rights and religion

6,544 Views | 104 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Zobel
FIDO95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:04p, 9/4/25
AG
Just a friendly reminder about the origin of our "rights". Just as Satan convinced the woman in the garden with deception, there is serious danger when prominent government officials web a similar deception that threatens our liberty. The original statement:



The brilliant response:

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
13
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:31a, 9/5/25
AG
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.

Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
15
Mark Fairchild
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FIDO95 • 12:03p, 9/5/25
AG
Thank you for your post!
Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:12p, 9/5/25
AG
God help us.

That kind of statement, made in the open by a sitting US Senator should strike terror in any thinking American. Sadly, maybe half the country understands why it's so pernicious. It's Stalinist/Maoist. How many other elected officials share this view? How can so many supposedly educated people in Arlington VA be so ignorant? Or maybe they are not ignorant and truly believe what their senator said.

Truly, truly horrifying.
Reply Quote
8
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 8:18p, 9/5/25
ramblin_ag02 said:
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.

Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there


Those rights weren't particularly important to Christianity until after a couple centuries of brutal religious wars caused a massive splintering of Christianity that required toleration to reduce violence and resulted in a massive wave of humanist philosophy that questioned the basic precepts of revealed religion. Don't assume Christianity has always preached equality before the law or inalienable individual rights.
Reply Quote
8
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:08p, 9/5/25
AG
I think the more dangerous idea is that rights are somehow inherent and immutable. It implies that the rights we currently enjoy weren't fought for and don't have to be defended. Both are wrong.

And as for the talk about rights being granted by God, I admit that's not something that makes a lot sense to me. So God granted people rights? Which people? Just his chosen few or everybody? And what rights did he grant? I'd like to see that list. No matter what your answer is, there are people in the world right now who being denied that God granted right. And what are the consequences of that? Both for the person whose rights are being infringed and the ones doing so? Nothing readily apparent in this lifetime, it seems to me.

To be more blunt, I don't see what good having a "God given right" does me in practical terms.
Reply Quote
6
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 10:27p, 9/5/25
AG
Rocag said:
I think the more dangerous idea is that rights are somehow inherent and immutable. It implies that the rights we currently enjoy weren't fought for and don't have to be defended. Both are wrong.

And as for the talk about rights being granted by God, I admit that's not something that makes a lot sense to me. So God granted people rights? Which people? Just his chosen few or everybody? And what rights did he grant? I'd like to see that list. No matter what your answer is, there are people in the world right now who being denied that God granted right. And what are the consequences of that? Both for the person whose rights are being infringed and the ones doing so? Nothing readily apparent in this lifetime, it seems to me.

To be more blunt, I don't see what good having a "God given right" does me in practical terms.


.
Reply Quote
1 edit
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 12:35p, 9/6/25
AG
Sapper Redux said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.

Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there


Those rights weren't particularly important to Christianity until after a couple centuries of brutal religious wars caused a massive splintering of Christianity that required toleration to reduce violence and resulted in a massive wave of humanist philosophy that questioned the basic precepts of revealed religion. Don't assume Christianity has always preached equality before the law or inalienable individual rights.

No argument there, but at least these are fundamental tenets of Christianity. It gives us a basis to look back on those situations and cast judgement, because they should have known better. If rights are granted or withheld from the powerful to the powerless, then what basis of judgment do you have to condemn tyranny?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 12:38p, 9/6/25
AG
Quote:
To be more blunt, I don't see what good having a "God given right" does me in practical terms.


If you're an American or Western European, then this is the pinnacle of irony
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
11
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 12:54p, 9/6/25
AG
And yet no one is even willing to attempt to answer my questions. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the rights that our culture has come to believe people are entitled to, just that saying they are granted by God is an empty platitude. It means nothing. If the only thing defending those so called God given rights are governments and forces created by people then they might as well have been derived from those people.

I could just as easily claim to grant you some right but if I don't do anything to enforce that have I really given you anything?
Reply Quote
6
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 1:16p, 9/6/25
AG
Rocag said:
And yet no one is even willing to attempt to answer my questions. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the rights that our culture has come to believe people are entitled to, just that saying they are granted by God is an empty platitude. It means nothing. If the only thing defending those so called God given rights are governments and forces created by people then they might as well have been derived from those people.

I could just as easily claim to grant you some right but if I don't do anything to enforce that have I really given you anything?


I think we should consider how societies that espouse the sort of legal positivism you seem to be describing treat people over time. The logical end of such a system is that power is the only thing that matters.

The reason our founders established a constitutional republic and enshrined a bill of rights based on limiting the power of the government and a very difficult amendment process is precisely because they understood that any system that doesn't enshrine the those the transcendent rights as described in the Declaration is eventually going to succumb to those rights being violated or politically or legally eliminated.

But to answer your question directly, I cannot prove to you that the source of a right is transcendent other than to say if we say that the right to be safe and free from harm in your person are not natural rights, then upon what basis do we say that the government cannot kill you if you don't agree with the policies of those in power? Upon what basis do we say the government is not allowed to force you into labor for the state?
Reply Quote
4
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 1:40p, 9/6/25
AG
That sounds like you're saying you choose to believe God has granted us rights because you don't like the implications of having to derive rights some other way. OK. And?

Who has rights? What rights do they have? Christianity has never offered a clear answer on this at any point in its history and certainly doesn't today. The only lesson history tells us is that if you want rights you have to fight to get them and be willing to defend them because someone out there might try to take them away. Our founders may have believed God granted them rights, but they were at least pragmatic enough to see that claiming it didn't make it true in practice. Hence the the Revolutionary War.

Again, I really do wish someone would be willing to list the specific rights that God has granted humanity. If it's so clear our rights come from God that request shouldn't be difficult, should it?
Reply Quote
5
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 2:05p, 9/6/25
AG
Rocag said:
That sounds like you're saying you choose to believe God has granted us rights because you don't like the implications of having to derive rights some other way. OK. And?

Who has rights? What rights do they have? Christianity has never offered a clear answer on this at any point in its history and certainly doesn't today. The only lesson history tells us is that if you want rights you have to fight to get them and be willing to defend them because someone out there might try to take them away. Our founders may have believed God granted them rights, but they were at least pragmatic enough to see that claiming it didn't make it true in practice. Hence the the Revolutionary War.

Again, I really do wish someone would be willing to list the specific rights that God has granted humanity. If it's so clear our rights come from God that request shouldn't be difficult, should it?


I will try and respond. There are some rights which are inherent. I refer to those as natural rights.

Natural rights are rights inherent to every human person by virtue of their human nature, which is created by God. These rights are not granted by society or government but are universally possessed by all individuals. Here's how I understand natural rights.

The concept of natural rights is grounded in the intrinsic dignity of the human person, who is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). This is transcendent and the basis for such rights not being derived from or based on whatever human authority deigns to recognize them. Every human being possesses an inherent worth that demands respect and protection.

Natural rights are universal, meaning they apply to every person regardless of culture, race, or belief, and inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or surrendered because they are part of our God-given human nature; i.e. they are inherent because they are founded in the truth that we are created in the image and likeness of God.

The most fundamental natural right is the right to life, which is the foundation for all other rights. This includes the protection of life from conception to natural death and the rejection of practices that undermine human dignity, such as abortion and euthanasia.

The right to religious freedom, which entails the freedom to worship God according to one's conscience and to live out one's faith without coercion or persecution, is also a natural right.

The freedom to seek truth, to pursue education, to engage in work, and to establish a family. These are considered essential for the development of the person and the common good of society and I would also consider natural rights.

While natural rights emphasize individual dignity, but they must be understood in the context of social responsibility and the common good, balancing personal rights with the needs of others.
Reply Quote
6
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 3:25p, 9/6/25
AG
Fair enough. I've got some issues with the list (such as disagreeing with the idea that the same God who created Hell would prioritize freedom of religion) but I commend you for at least putting a list together.

But the question is once that God has granted humanity rights, what now? Say you were some peasant in China a thousand years ago who had never even heard of Christianity or Judaism but apparently still have rights given to you by God. Then someone infringes on those rights. What happens next? What practical good does that God given right do you? What real world impact does it have? Or by right do you just mean an aspiration, something you believe God wants all people to have but not enough to step in and ensure they do?
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 5:27p, 9/6/25
AG
Rocag said:
Fair enough. I've got some issues with the list (such as disagreeing with the idea that the same God who created Hell would prioritize freedom of religion) but I commend you for at least putting a list together.

But the question is once that God has granted humanity rights, what now? Say you were some peasant in China a thousand years ago who had never even heard of Christianity or Judaism but apparently still have rights given to you by God. Then someone infringes on those rights. What happens next? What practical good does that God given right do you? What real world impact does it have? Or by right do you just mean an aspiration, something you believe God wants all people to have but not enough to step in and ensure they do?

We've already discussed several implications of God-given human rights. First, God-fearing societies will enshrine and honor those rights. That is an obvious benefit to everyone in those societies, even those individuals who are not God-fearing. Those societies will also try to influence other societies to honor those rights. So there is a general benefit to the world when these God-fearing societies persuade or cajole other societies to respect these.

Second, it gives us a benchmark for justice and action. For instance, if all men have a right to live, then killing people is wrong. A society that commits genocide on its own citizens is therefore unjust, tyrannical, and evil. If a state starts to do that, then other states can and should step in to oppose this. The citizens of the state can and should oppose this. Sedition, treason, and revolution become morally acceptable, if not imperative.

However, If the right to live comes from the state, then the state does nothing wrong when genociding its own citizens. The powerful controllers of the state become the ultimate judges of ethics and morality. The citizens have no room to complain when dying en mass. They lived only at the mercy of the state anyway. The state has the power to do it, so it's right for the state to do it. A more powerful state can stop them, but only because the more powerful always dictate rights to the less powerful. Might makes right. You can make the same arguments for state sponsored piracy, serfdom, slavery, and oppression.

And these are just the earthly benefits. We Christian people believe in a just God and a life after death. We believe that all injustices will be made right in time by God Himself. The fact that someone treated a peasant badly 1000 years ago in China and didn't receive immediate punishment is not obstacle for us. The offender and the peasant will receive perfect justice eventually. Therefore we Christian people can warn those in power that their bad actions are seen by God and will be punished by Him eventually. If they believe us, then maybe they act less terribly and this world becomes a better place for it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 7:19p, 9/6/25
AG
Rocag said:
Fair enough. I've got some issues with the list (such as disagreeing with the idea that the same God who created Hell would prioritize freedom of religion) but I commend you for at least putting a list together.

But the question is once that God has granted humanity rights, what now? Say you were some peasant in China a thousand years ago who had never even heard of Christianity or Judaism but apparently still have rights given to you by God. Then someone infringes on those rights. What happens next? What practical good does that God given right do you? What real world impact does it have? Or by right do you just mean an aspiration, something you believe God wants all people to have but not enough to step in and ensure they do?

Fair question. My response is that these are natural rights, not Judeo-Christian rights. I am arguing for their existence. I am not arguing that they are self-enforcing or self-preserving. I can't help but refer this back to the DoI.

Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --


I shared that to point out that regardless of what anyone thinks about the origin of so-called "rights", all forms of society, even anarchy, presume and consist of a system "instituted among men" whose purpose is to "secure these rights", whatever they might be and to whatever extent they are deemed rights by that system.

The fact that a person or a government, which is a collection of persons, might violate someone's natural rights doesn't negate the existence of those rights. It only means that the person or government violated them and to that extent the person or the government is disordered.

It also means that the best form of government is that government that seeks to protect and enforce those rights as justly as possible under the circumstances. Our own government enshrined many of those rights into our Constitution but almost immediately failed to protect them for enslaved Africans, or Catholics, or women, etc ALTHOUGH, after much struggle, suffering and loss, it would eventually do so and it continues to imperfectly wrestle with how to do so for all people and will undoubtedly do so as long as it exists.

I guess the point you're trying to make is that a theoretical right is not a right unless there is an authority with the ability to enforce it and the will to do so. But I think the slow and painful progression of history says otherwise. People living in a feudal state understood that they had rights that they were not allowed to exercise but that does not mean they didn't understand the deprivation that was taking place.

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 9:37a, 9/7/25
Sapper Redux said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.

Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there


Those rights weren't particularly important to Christianity until after a couple centuries of brutal religious wars caused a massive splintering of Christianity that required toleration to reduce violence and resulted in a massive wave of humanist philosophy that questioned the basic precepts of revealed religion. Don't assume Christianity has always preached equality before the law or inalienable individual rights.


Hey! These Christians took some time to perfect the practice of universal truths. They should be like we atheists who argue that universal truths don't exist, but Christians are still definitely bad.

Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38a, 9/7/25
The most important thing about laws is remembering the government cannot make them, except about procedural issues without a moral component. The government exists to recognize laws, not create them
Reply Quote
KingofHazor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 1:24p, 9/7/25
Quo Vadis? said:
The most important thing about laws is remembering the government cannot make them, except about procedural issues without a moral component. The government exists to recognize laws, not create them

Huh? Not sure if serious.
Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 1:33p, 9/7/25
KingofHazor said:
Quo Vadis? said:
The most important thing about laws is remembering the government cannot make them, except about procedural issues without a moral component. The government exists to recognize laws, not create them

Huh? Not sure if serious.


The government doesn't have power to rewrite the rules of nature. They can recognize marriage between a man and a woman, but they cannot say that marriage is between two men.

My statement about procedural issues are more about things like the speed limit or age of voting
Reply Quote
2
KingofHazor
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 4:18p, 9/7/25
Gotcha. That distinction is frequently referred to with the terms "malum in se" (wrong in itself) and "malum prohibitum" (wrong only because we said it is).
Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KingofHazor • 4:40p, 9/7/25
KingofHazor said:
Gotcha. That distinction is frequently referred to with the terms "malum in se" (wrong in itself) and "malum prohibitum" (wrong only because we said it is).


Indeed
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 6:43p, 9/7/25
AG
Quo Vadis? said:
Sapper Redux said:
ramblin_ag02 said:
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.

Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there


Those rights weren't particularly important to Christianity until after a couple centuries of brutal religious wars caused a massive splintering of Christianity that required toleration to reduce violence and resulted in a massive wave of humanist philosophy that questioned the basic precepts of revealed religion. Don't assume Christianity has always preached equality before the law or inalienable individual rights.


Hey! These Christians took some time to perfect the practice of universal truths. They should be like we atheists who argue that universal truths don't exist, but Christians are still definitely bad.



There are no universal truths other than the universal truth that says there are no universal truths.
Reply Quote
3
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 8:31a, 9/8/25
AG
With that description, "God given rights" are no different than just saying Christians have a shared belief about how they feel the world should work. Now sure, it might work out as a convincing argument for those proposed rights but only as it relates to other Christians. Telling a non-Christian that the Christian god granted whatever rights you believed they did isn't going to be very convincing for them. So your benchmark is of limited use. Comparatively, any group with a shared religious or philosophical belief could come up with a list of rights they believe people should have and an argument for why. Would you find it convincing? Maybe not, but is that any different than your own argument as it concerns other people?

I do find it amusing that you seem to think people can only have opinions if they are based on an objective standard ("The citizens have no room to complain when dying en mass" Really?). Governments are incapable of stopping people from having opinions or acting based on those. By that I'm not saying there's an inherent right to do either, just that their ability to do so exists. And people will fight for the rights they believe they should have.

Going back to the original post, the idea was that it was somehow dangerous to not believe that rights come from God, but it's just a shallow argument to try and prevent people from believing we're entitled to a different set of rights than the ones they argue for.
Reply Quote
1
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 10:22a, 9/8/25
AG
Quote:
With that description, "God given rights" are no different than just saying Christians have a shared belief about how they feel the world should work.


I'm sure it looks that way to someone who doesn't believe in God.

I'm still waiting for anyone on the "rights come from government" side to give me a reasoned, intellectually consistent condemnation of state sponsored genocide or state sponsored slavery. Any worldview that can't do that is worthless
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 10:35a, 9/8/25
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:
Quote:
With that description, "God given rights" are no different than just saying Christians have a shared belief about how they feel the world should work.


I'm sure it looks that way to someone who doesn't believe in God.

I'm still waiting for anyone on the "rights come from government" side to give me a reasoned, intellectually consistent condemnation of state sponsored genocide or state sponsored slavery. Any worldview that can't do that is worthless


Harumph! Well said sir.
Reply Quote
1
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ramblin_ag02 • 11:31a, 9/8/25
AG
Any argument I give you will be necessity be a subjective one because I don't believe there is any objective standard to refer to. So the real question is whether or not you would even be willing to accept an argument that doesn't depend on the existence of an objective standard. If the answer is no, then the discussion pretty much has to end there.
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 11:41a, 9/8/25
Rocag said:
Any argument I give you will be necessity be a subjective one because I don't believe there is any objective standard to refer to. So the real question is whether or not you would even be willing to accept an argument that doesn't depend on the existence of an objective standard. If the answer is no, then the discussion pretty much has to end there.

Which is exactly the point. We sent over 1,000,000 men to die or suffer grievous injury to end slavery, and all because opinions on the issue changed? We forcibly changed the entire economic structure of the south because it was something we change our minds on?

If it's all subjective, then there is no "right" and no "wrong". I'm sure you're comfortable with that statement, but the fact is major societal changes are fought because of "right" and "wrong". Just like the modern LGBT movement will say the conservatives will be on the "wrong" side of history, when "wrong" shouldn't exist. You co-opt the language, remove the source of the language, turning it into a subjective exercise, and then say we should get on board anyway because we're in the "wrong".

Idk about you, but I think the vast majority of humans aren't going to war or to the ballot box because "opinion"
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 11:44a, 9/8/25
Rocag said:
Any argument I give you will be necessity be a subjective one because I don't believe there is any objective standard to refer to. So the real question is whether or not you would even be willing to accept an argument that doesn't depend on the existence of an objective standard. If the answer is no, then the discussion pretty much has to end there.


All you're telling us is might makes right and that we need to force society to accept our version of morality by any means necessary; because ours is as good as any other.
Reply Quote
6
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 12:15p, 9/8/25
Quo Vadis? said:
Rocag said:
Any argument I give you will be necessity be a subjective one because I don't believe there is any objective standard to refer to. So the real question is whether or not you would even be willing to accept an argument that doesn't depend on the existence of an objective standard. If the answer is no, then the discussion pretty much has to end there.


All you're telling us is might makes right and that we need to force society to accept our version of morality by any means necessary; because ours is as good as any other.

yep. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
Reply Quote
2
Rocag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:35p, 9/8/25
AG
Of course the Civil War was fought over a difference of opinion. One side argued people had a God given right to be free and the other said they had a God given right to own slaves. And to their credit, the Bible does explicitly provide rules for slave ownership. What do you call that if not a difference of opinion? And sure, both sides claimed divine backing for their cause. Both sides absolutely claimed they were right and their opponents were wrong. How can we know what the "objective standard" has to say on the matter? Any judgement you can provide on that is subjective. An opinion. And that's all you have.

Look at history and you will see a dramatic change in opinions on who had rights and what those rights were, even within largely Christian western culture. And these aren't just small changes. Look at the divine right of kings, for example. Who is the king accountable to? Just God or to the people they rule over as well? Christians fought wars with each other over differences of opinion on topics like this. Countless people dying because your so called objective standard is in practice unknowable (or non-existant).
Reply Quote
3
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:40p, 9/8/25
AG
The Banned said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Rocag said:
Any argument I give you will be necessity be a subjective one because I don't believe there is any objective standard to refer to. So the real question is whether or not you would even be willing to accept an argument that doesn't depend on the existence of an objective standard. If the answer is no, then the discussion pretty much has to end there.


All you're telling us is might makes right and that we need to force society to accept our version of morality by any means necessary; because ours is as good as any other.

yep. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...


Double harumph! In the absence of a transcendent source of right and wrong in the first instance and an objectively just or unjust law in the second instance, It's all down to arbitrary power. Mao understood this quite well when he said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Reply Quote
1 edit
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rocag • 2:23p, 9/8/25
Rocag said:
Of course the Civil War was fought over a difference of opinion. One side argued people had a God given right to be free and the other said they had a God given right to own slaves. And to their credit, the Bible does explicitly provide rules for slave ownership. What do you call that if not a difference of opinion? And sure, both sides claimed divine backing for their cause. Both sides absolutely claimed they were right and their opponents were wrong. How can we know what the "objective standard" has to say on the matter? Any judgement you can provide on that is subjective. An opinion. And that's all you have.

Look at history and you will see a dramatic change in opinions on who had rights and what those rights were, even within largely Christian western culture. And these aren't just small changes. Look at the divine right of kings, for example. Who is the king accountable to? Just God or to the people they rule over as well? Christians fought wars with each other over differences of opinion on topics like this. Countless people dying because your so called objective standard is in practice unknowable (or non-existant).

It's not a drastic as it's made out to be. Christians were speaking out against the conditions of slaves in the 2nd century. 1st century if you're willing to take Paul's writings into consideration. There were papal encyclicals on not enslaving the people's of the canary islands long before Columbus ever sailed the seas. The only "pro-slavery" opinions you can find pre-Reformation are in the context of wars. We would say the perpetual enslavement of POWs is not licit today, but we have different incarceration capacities today. Back in the 1400s, it was either mass killings or perpetual POW status.

Now I will grant you the American South was big on using the bible to protect their slave trade, but even the founders knew it was wrong. Even the guys that owned slaves, like Washington, knew it was immoral. It was a matter of practicality that led to them leaving it in place. When taken in context, it's is the radical minority of Christians located in two particular places (American South and Brazil) that staunchly held the idea that slavery was a moral good. All other Christian acceptance of the practice was a practical tolerance of it, not an endorsement.

I know you'll say that it's a difference without a distinction, but I would disagree. I think adultery is an objective evil. I think some level of punishment for it is fair. But I also don't think imprisoning all adulterers is a good idea. Opinion may shape our application of the objective truth, but it doesn't determine what the objective truth is.

Divine right of kings was most strongly espoused by the English monarch who was a descendant of a monarch who broke away from the Church so he could divorce another wife. A few others dabbled with it, but it wasn't widely practiced. Hardly a good example of Christianity at large.

You are touching on a subject that is widespread in American Christianity, which is that we all read the bible and kind of figure out for ourselves what we believe. That's not the way it was originally set up. It was set up with an objective authority to help settle these matters, which is clear when we look at church history.

All that aside, let me agree with your premise that the Civil War was simply an opinion based war: how do you feel about millions of people having their lives end or upended for the benefit of millions of other people that they didn't know all because their government made them? Does that sicken you? Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?

ETA for the bold: there was maybe one or two wars pre-reformation that would have some sort of doctrinal reasoning for it. Basically every pre-reformation war between two Christian countries centered around the usual disputes: land and money.
Reply Quote
4 edits
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 3:05p, 9/8/25
Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?


Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.

Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
Reply Quote
3
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 3:17p, 9/8/25
Sapper Redux said:
Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?


Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.

Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.

Amen sapper, let's give a big hand to white people. Slavery was an institution for 10 thousand years, and we ended it in about 300. Huge accomplishment for Whites.
Reply Quote
4
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.