The time has come...

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What God did not give us

God didn't tell us what rights we have in Scripture. The only mention of rights are the ones that Paul claimed for himself as a citizen of Rome, these were rights, they were legal rights, and they were political rights.

(The seed of the idea of inalienable rights didn't appear until the Romans had to decide how to handle foreigners, they had laws and rights for Roman citizens, and they had different sets for other people from other lands. The idea that people have some rights even if they're not a citizen doesn't appear in Scripture, not as such.)

What God gave us

God did give us laws, explicitly in the Old Testament, and there is a distinct echo of many of these laws in the New Testament, particularly with Paul, who constantly condemned both idolatry (sacrificing to false gods /devils /demons) and perversion (the Greek 'porneia'), among many other vices, which were both also condemned in God's written laws of the OT, just for example.

And He gave us a conscience.

What do we do

With these things we are to be good stewards, since He did not specifically tell us that people have inalienable rights.

We have theorized ever since as to the best choices to make, as individuals, and as polities (basically 'nations').

The theory that I hold is called 'liberalism', and I specifically interpret liberalism as founded upon individual human rights. It means that whatever flowery language various liberal thinkers might have used to describe the theory, I don't hold to that language, I only hold to the rights themselves.

God gave us our inalienable rights

Atheists and Catholics alike can agree on which rights we have, even if we differ about why we have them, where they came from (are they in our DNA?), or what they're for. And we can agree how to treat them. We all agree that certain individual rights are absolute and that it is never justified in violating them, for example violent rape, murder, and uncoerced perjury is always condemned in very many of our modern countries. These laws protect our rights against such things being done to us.

What is a legal right

Legal rights are a matter of legal fact. Statutes and case law recognizes rights in the same way, no matter whether they are genuine human rights, or if they are created rights, like voting. Rights are 'holes' in the law. They are where our government is not permitted to interfere. When a 'hole' is filled in, then the right disappears as a legal fact.

Legal rights do not necessarily correspond to our inalienable rights. As a liberal, I would that this were always the case, but the present and history demonstrates that we have failed.

Legal theory

We all have a legal theory, it is how we understand the law. The simplest theories aren't even examined or consciously thought about, they are like 'obey the law' and that's the end of it. The idea that it might be moral to break the law never occurs to them.

Our justices all have legal theories too. Answering questions like what is the law, and what should the law be?

Moral theory

We all have moral theories as well, and our moral theory interacts with our legal theory. As far as I'm concerned, my political moral theory (contrasted with my ethics) is also liberalism, which characterizes any unjustified invasion against anybody's rights as immoral. This filters up to my legal theory, which is that all our laws should be in the service of protecting and defending all of our inalienable rights.

Ethics

Ethical theory is very personal, though not private. We all pursue things, and the pursuit itself shows our values. Our values are a matter of ethics.

In contrast to the vices I mentioned above, the corresponding values would be Christian piety and chastity.

Our theory of ethics is how we understand all of the above, all integrated together. It includes every last thing that we do, and there is no limit to its reach. Part of my moral theory is that imposing your ethics upon someone else violates their rights. This is called the right to the pursuit of happiness, and as far as I'm concerned that's the right to your own ethics, it's the right to ethical independence.

Religion

Religion figures into this two ways. One is that religion is the source of our faith, whether that faith is in God, or in something else. And the other, is that religion concerns sacrifices.

The latter is informed, I admit, by my own religion. People don't 'do' altars anymore, not like they did in Paul's day, nor in Muhammad's (SAW). That kind of sacrificing is a thing of the past, but what was true then is still true today, in that the most valuable sacrifice that people can offer, is their time and work; themselves; their lives.

When people get their ethics from religion, they sacrifice to their god, whether or not they believe in God or in science or some other entity. As they pursue their values, they are sacrificing to their god.

Values

As said, values are demonstrable by examining our pursuits. We always pursue our values, or put another way, we always pursue what is valuable to us. Whatever it is that we are actually pursuing is what we actually value, and this is even true in the face of our thinking otherwise.

Plenty of times, we may think we value one thing, but our actions belie that we actually value something else.

I value Jesus
Self contradictory nonsense stated with exactly zero awareness of not only what the bible says but what you say yourself!

Do you read what you're typing or was this stupidity copy/pasted?

The bible doesn't tell us what our rights are in one sentence but the bible gives us laws in the VERY NEXT sentence! How is it possible to be this dim witted?

The very first thing that popped instantly into my mind after reading the first sentence of this nonsensical post was where Jesus Himself talks about rights...

Matthew 20: 15 Is it not lawful for me (i.e. do I not have the right) to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’​

It is the very laws you cite that define the rights of those under that law! Not only that but there is a really good reason why the word "right" is used both in terms of legality and in terms of morality. Unjust law is immoral law and legal justice, whether criminal or civil, is governmental morality.

What you said about ethics and religion was so completely worthless that it's not even worth responding to except to quote a single passage of scripture that shows your humanistic beliefs to be the falsehoods that they are...

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!​
I encourage you to repent! Stop getting your beliefs from nonsensical Catholic dogma and start reading the bible and conforming your beliefs to the precepts found in God's word. Use the rational faculty that God gave you and which is the very image of the Logos in which you were created. Reject that which contradicts as the lies they are! Hold to that which is true (i.e. consistent) and only that!

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Sadly, lost politicians not only believe murdering babies is not wrong, but they also do everything they can to force acceptance of the bloody practice on the whole world. Lost politicians also see nothing wrong with persecuting anyone who disagrees with their mob-think false ideologies and practices no matter how wrong or devastating those policies or edicts are.
Who here has said anything to the contrary?

You are the only one who has talked about "a woman's right to manage her own body", not me!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Like you, I do not believe women have a right to murder their unborn babies.
So, what were you doing, trying to put that evil nonsense in my mouth as though that was the line of thinking that was in my mind?

If not that, then just what was your point? Did you even have one or was it just another lateral jump in thought on your part that had nothing really to do with anything anyone here has said?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Sadly, lost politicians not only believe murdering babies is not wrong, but they also do everything they can to force acceptance of the bloody practice on the whole world. Lost politicians also see nothing wrong with persecuting anyone who disagrees with their mob-think false ideologies and practices no matter how wrong or devastating those policies or edicts are.
No one here has suggested otherwise.

These vaccines, however, are the opposite of "wrong or devastating". On the contrary, they have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Clete
 

marke

Well-known member
No one here has suggested otherwise.

These vaccines, however, are the opposite of "wrong or devastating". On the contrary, they have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Clete
Vaccines may actually prevent most people from getting covid for a few months or longer, but I cannot forget those poor souls who have gotten seriously sick or have died from the shot.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Then it should be easy for you to say the following:

"I, Idolater, condemn the killing of innocent babies in the womb under any circumstance, with no exceptions, and affirm that there is no such thing as a 'right to abortion.'"

If you can't say that much, Idolater, then your above statement is a lie, because you ARE defending abortion to any extent.

Don't lie, Idolater. Don't defend murder, otherwise you are just as guilty of it, as it makes you an accomplice to it.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Don't be a coward, Idolater.

Then it should be easy for you to say the following:

"I, Idolater, condemn the killing of innocent babies in the womb under any circumstance, with no exceptions, and affirm that there is no such thing as a 'right to abortion.'"

If you can't say that much, Idolater, then your above statement is a lie, because you ARE defending abortion to any extent.

Don't lie, Idolater. Don't defend murder, otherwise you are just as guilty of it, as it makes you an accomplice to it.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Don't be a coward, Idolater.
This is what Catholicism believes, and what the bishops teach, and it is what I believe:

2270
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person ---- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." "My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."

Spoiler

2271
Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." "God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."

2272
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication 'latae sententiae,' by the very commission of the offense, and subject to the conditions provided by canon law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole society.

2273
The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a 'constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation': "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death." "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined . . . [sic]. As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

2274
Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. 'Prenatal diagnosis' is morally licit, if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual . . . [sic]. It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.
Pope Francis hasn't changed these texts, and hasn't tried to change them either.

I believe every word of that, so if you want to test me any further on the issue, 'bet into me'.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is what Catholicism believes, and what the bishops teach, and it is what I believe:

. . .

I believe every word of that, so if you want to test me any further on the issue, 'bet into me'.

Don't be a coward, Idolater. Stop hiding behind the RCC:

Then it should be easy for you to say the following:

"I, Idolater, condemn the killing of innocent babies in the womb under any circumstance, with no exceptions, and affirm that there is no such thing as a 'right to abortion.'"

If you can't say that much, Idolater, then your above statement is a lie, because you ARE defending abortion to any extent.

Don't lie, Idolater. Don't defend murder, otherwise you are just as guilty of it, as it makes you an accomplice to it.

Can you CONDEMN it?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Our Lord Jesus Christ is merciful.

Don't be a coward, Idolater.

Can you CONDEMN it?

Then it should be easy for you to say the following:

"I, Idolater, condemn the killing of innocent babies in the womb under any circumstance, with no exceptions, and affirm that there is no such thing as a 'right to abortion.'"

If you can't say that much, Idolater, then your above statement is a lie, because you ARE defending abortion to any extent.

Don't lie, Idolater. Don't defend murder, otherwise you are just as guilty of it, as it makes you an accomplice to it.

Or are you too scared to stand up for Christ?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member

and it’s coming hard and fast now from every angle. we’re being bum-rushed before the mid-terms flip the power structure. note that they even added “democracy” to their list.

brace for broadsides of how in person voting, voter accountability, election supervision, and requiring ID or even citizenship to vote is racist/sexist/anti-trans/cruel to sunshine and lollipops from the same people who claim that requiring proof of vaccination to go shopping is a moral imperative.

they are hypocrites to the bone and morally bereft. this is not about principles and never was. it’s about pretext to grab and wield power and to make damn sure that power stays with them and theirs. it’s all the ever wanted.

whether this process is a pendulum to be swung back or a snowball that is gaining mass and will crush the town below seems like the question of our times.

and the answer depends on us.

everyone is exhausted after the last 2 years. they are counting on the exhaustion. it’s why now is the time for them to make their move. this is the 4th quarter defense where it’s just getting hard to run anymore and harder to hold the line. but if you want to get out of this game with your freedom, buckle down, because we damn well better.

it’s clear from the disaster squirting out of ever side where ideas like this are going to take us. the past is replete with cautionary tales and devoid of counterexamples. if ever you cared about your future freedom, now is the time to stop this.

you’re being sold your own serfdom as though it’s a vacation package.

history is not kind to those who fall for that one.
 

ok doser

Well-known member

and it’s coming hard and fast now from every angle. we’re being bum-rushed before the mid-terms flip the power structure. note that they even added “democracy” to their list.

brace for broadsides of how in person voting, voter accountability, election supervision, and requiring ID or even citizenship to vote is racist/sexist/anti-trans/cruel to sunshine and lollipops from the same people who claim that requiring proof of vaccination to go shopping is a moral imperative.

they are hypocrites to the bone and morally bereft. this is not about principles and never was. it’s about pretext to grab and wield power and to make damn sure that power stays with them and theirs. it’s all the ever wanted.

whether this process is a pendulum to be swung back or a snowball that is gaining mass and will crush the town below seems like the question of our times.

and the answer depends on us.

everyone is exhausted after the last 2 years. they are counting on the exhaustion. it’s why now is the time for them to make their move. this is the 4th quarter defense where it’s just getting hard to run anymore and harder to hold the line. but if you want to get out of this game with your freedom, buckle down, because we damn well better.

it’s clear from the disaster squirting out of ever side where ideas like this are going to take us. the past is replete with cautionary tales and devoid of counterexamples. if ever you cared about your future freedom, now is the time to stop this.

you’re being sold your own serfdom as though it’s a vacation package.

history is not kind to those who fall for that one.
Not sure if you ran across this yet - I saw it this morning and meant to post something on it. New Zealand prime minister determining who does and doesn't have rights. Yes it's New Zealand and they're kind of weird anyway, but they are part of the British common law heritage, as are we. And here she is, denying rights to citizens based on her determination of their worthiness.

In other circumstances she would be tried for treason and executed.

 

ok doser

Well-known member
Note that the whole gist of her argument hinges on the fear that vaccinated people have of catching the disease from unvaccinated people.

Because they're retarded and don't trust the vaccination to protect themselves, but in their retardedness they believe that if others are vaccinated then they - the retarded people - will be protected.


I give you PM Ardern, Queen of the Retards.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Not sure if you ran across this yet - I saw it this morning and meant to post something on it. New Zealand prime minister determining who does and doesn't have rights. Yes it's New Zealand and they're kind of weird anyway, but they are part of the British common law heritage, as are we. And here she is, denying rights to citizens based on her determination of their worthiness.

In other circumstances she would be tried for treason and executed.


My medical history and status is none of anyone's business but mine and my doctor's.

She seems to have forgotten that.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Note that the whole gist of her argument hinges on the fear that vaccinated people have of catching the disease from unvaccinated people.

Because they're retarded and don't trust the vaccination to protect themselves, but in their retardedness they believe that if others are vaccinated then they - the retarded people - will be protected.


I give you PM Ardern, Queen of the Retards.
its not about the virus.

she thinks the people are stupid , she might be right :unsure:


Screenshot_2021-10-06 Dr Fang Fang Bang Bang ( DocFangFang) Twitter.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2021-10-06 Dr Fang Fang Bang Bang ( DocFangFang) Twitter.png
    Screenshot_2021-10-06 Dr Fang Fang Bang Bang ( DocFangFang) Twitter.png
    50.2 KB · Views: 0
Top