Post Reply
Page 433 of 807  •  Prev 1 ... 431 432 433 434 435 ... 807 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The 'existence' of gods
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 11:48AM #4321
mountain_man
Posts: 39,129

Apr 13, 2012 -- 1:05AM, El Cid wrote:

I notice you failed to answer my question.


If one were to keep count I'm sure they'd find over a thousand questions that YOU have failed to answer.


I will take that as an unable to.


Which is exactly what we assume about the questions you failed to answer.


God as the creator that gave the fetus life has the right to take it away.


That's your belief and one we are not obligated to follow.


We don't except in the cases of capital punishment and just war.


You mean you're following situational ethics?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 12:25PM #4322
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 13, 2012 -- 12:54AM, El Cid wrote:

Ok, please explain where human rights come from.


That's easy. Human rights come from humans. You have a right to do anything you can persuade or compel your fellow humans to allow you to do.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 12:33PM #4323
christine3
Posts: 6,983

Apr 13, 2012 -- 12:25PM, Ken wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 12:54AM, El Cid wrote:

Ok, please explain where human rights come from.


That's easy. Human rights come from humans. You have a right to do anything you can persuade or compel your fellow humans to allow you to do.





True. How humans live in the world and how they experience the world depends on how they think about the world. Then they make laws based on all of this. Today, the reason humans have rights over all other unique species and the natural biodiversity of the planet is because humans decided on what was the most important...themselves and how to make money for themselves.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 2:15PM #4324
wohali
Posts: 10,227

"Ok, please explain where human rights come from."


Human rights come from the body politic. As an example, prior to 1865 slavery existed legally in areas of the United States. After 1865 ownership of human beings became illegal in all parts of the United States. In Great Britian this occured in the 1830's. The body politic of each nation defined rights, not anyone's concept of "god".


"And how humans are equal if you think they are equal."


No one is any more or less human than anyone else.



Moderated by rangerken on Apr 13, 2012 - 10:59PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 12:44AM #4325
El Cid
Posts: 1,660

Mar 19, 2012 -- 10:57AM, christine3 wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:17AM, El Cid wrote:


No, genocide is the wiping out of a group of people because of WHO they are, God was meteing out justice on people because of what they had done, ie sin.




The Jehovah god is a young god; he can't tell the difference and he doesn't know any better.  If people don't obey he just wipes them out.  That is what came to America.  






Tell the difference about what? Even though they deserved death, God also showed mercy and left many people alive. Sin is far more serious than you realize, it can affect entire planets like the earth and generations of people. What came to America?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 1:09AM #4326
El Cid
Posts: 1,660

Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:41AM, Ken wrote:

ec: Also, Christianity teaches universal human rights, the greeks did not.


ken: The Greeks did. In fact, modern Western thinking about universal rights was based directly upon Stoic philosophy and owed little to Christianity. You're familiar with Stoicism, aren't you?


ec: I am referring to the majority of greeks, they believed that certain classes of people were created by the gods to be slaves and permanent social inferiors.


ken: Some believed that; others disagreed. Alcidamas the Sophist, for example, expressly declared "God has set everyone free. No one is made a slave by nature." In both Greek and Roman law, the children of freed slaves enjoyed full citizenship without restrictions. Given the frequency of manumission, it was difficult if not impossible to ascertain after several generations who was descended from a slave and who was not.



The majority did not agree with Alcidamas. In biblical law the children of freed slaves were also full citizens in ancient Israel.  


ec: The fact remains that the modern concept of universal human rights was derived from Stoicism. Indeed, the Christian concept of universal brotherhood was derived from Stoicism as well. The Stoic influence on Christian ethics has often been noted.



The concept of universal brotherhood was derived from Moses revelation from God that all humans are created in his image, long before Stoicism ever existed, ie 1400 BC. And universal human rights were plainly implied long before Stoicism by the Ten Commandments.


Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:55AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Christianity teaches that all humans were originally created free. Due to war and economic necessity, slavery and indentured servitude were sometimes allowed, but the Christian ideal was and is always freedom. Paul was revolutionary in instructing a social superior to respect the call of duty to a social inferior in Ephesians and Philemon. This was unheard of in greco-roman culture.


ken: Paul's recommendations about the treatment of slaves were not revolutionary. They merely reflect the views of the Stoics, which had been popular among the upper classes for centuries. By the first century CE most Greek and Roman slaveowners regarded them as sound practice.



Evidence?


Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:55AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Also, as a hebrew, he still believed in the Year of Jubilee principle, ie that all slaves should be freed during that year.


ken: Only Hebrew debt slaves (not indentured servants - indentured servitude did not exist in antiquity) were freed during a Jubilee. Bondslaves, who were of foreign origin, were not.


Debt slaves and indentured servants were very similar, both worked for their eventual freedom. No, foreign slaves that had lived in Israel were also freed, see Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9. Permanent slavery would have been oppression of sojourners and foreigners. POW slaves were not freed however.


 

ken: The Jubilee ceased to be observed after the Babylonian exile, and I am not aware that Paul suggested reviving it.



Officially that is true, but as a hebrew he believed in the principle of it.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 10:49AM #4327
mountain_man
Posts: 39,129

Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:

The concept of universal brotherhood was derived from Moses revelation from God that all humans are created in his image, long before Stoicism ever existed, ie 1400 BC. And universal human rights were plainly implied long before Stoicism by the Ten Commandments.


The problem with that is that there are no "universal human rights" in the Ten Commandments, or in the bible. The other minor problem is that Moses never existed. It's an allegorical tale as is much of the bible. The Garden of Eden, the Flood, the whole Moses bit, all of the "miracles" of the NT, are all allegorical, not historical events. To believe they actually happened shows a complete misunderstanding of the bible.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 11:38AM #4328
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ec: I am referring to the majority of greeks, they believed that certain classes of people were created by the gods to be slaves and permanent social inferiors.


Some believed that; others disagreed. Alcidamas the Sophist, for example, expressly declared "God has set everyone free. No one is made a slave by nature." In both Greek and Roman law, the children of freed slaves enjoyed full citizenship without restrictions. Given the frequency of manumission, it was difficult if not impossible to ascertain after several generations who was descended from a slave and who was not.



The majority did not agree with Alcidamas.


You have no idea what the majority believed. Their opinions were not recorded.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

The fact remains that the modern concept of universal human rights was derived from Stoicism. Indeed, the Christian concept of universal brotherhood was derived from Stoicism as well. The Stoic influence on Christian ethics has often been noted.



The concept of universal brotherhood was derived from Moses revelation from God that all humans are created in his image, long before Stoicism ever existed, ie 1400 BC. And universal human rights were plainly implied long before Stoicism by the Ten Commandments.


The idea that God looks like a human being is common to many cultures. It in no way entails the concept of universal brotherhood. The Ten Commandments don't mention it either.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

Paul's recommendations about the treatment of slaves were not revolutionary. They merely reflect the views of the Stoics, which had been popular among the upper classes for centuries. By the first century CE most Greek and Roman slaveowners regarded them as sound practice.



Evidence?


Study the Stoics and the social history of classical antiquity.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ec: Also, as a hebrew, he still believed in the Year of Jubilee principle, ie that all slaves should be freed during that year.


Only Hebrew debt slaves (not indentured servants - indentured servitude did not exist in antiquity) were freed during a Jubilee. Bondslaves, who were of foreign origin, were not.


Debt slaves and indentured servants were very similar, both worked for their eventual freedom. No, foreign slaves that had lived in Israel were also freed, see Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9. Permanent slavery would have been oppression of sojourners and foreigners. POW slaves were not freed however.


Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9 are referring to free foreign residents, not slaves.Bondslaves, who were of freign origin, were not freed. See Leviticus 25:44 - 46.


25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you, you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.


25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property.


25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

The Jubilee ceased to be observed after the Babylonian exile, and I am not aware that Paul suggested reviving it.



Officially that is true, but as a hebrew he believed in the principle of it.


Where does he say so? You are not entitled to conclude that he believed in the principle because he was Jewish. After all, he was a very bad Jew who betrayed his religion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 12:10PM #4329
El Cid
Posts: 1,660

Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:41AM, Ken wrote:

ec: According to Plutarch, the greeks kept their women under lock and key. They had to have permission from their husbands to leave the house. Christian women can come and go when they please and can initate divorce from their husbands if he commits adultery among other things. Christianity has greatly raised the status of women far beyond the greeks.


ken: Plutarch was referring to Greek customs in the fifth century BCE and earlier. Specifically, he was referring to upper-class Greek customs - lower-class Greeks couldn't afford the luxury of keeping their women locked up. During the Hellenistic era Greek women came to enjoy far more liberty, and this was carried even further under the Roman Empire. The Romans even established a special form of marriage that allowed women to retain their own property, divorce their husbands at will, and do as they pleased without their husbands' consent. By the first century this had become the dominant form of marriage.


ec: Nevertheless that was the Greek ideal even if not always practiced by the poor greeks.


ken: It was the Greek ideal in the fifth century BCE. As I've just pointed out, the ideal subsequently changed.



Evidence?


Mar 19, 2012 -- 12:55AM, El Cid wrote:

The Romans had even worse rules for women. Under Caesar Augustus, husbands had the power of life and death over their wives and children.


ken: No, they didn't. Those laws dated from the early Republic. By Augustus' time they had either been superceded by later legislation or were simply ignored. The special form of marriage (marriage sine manu as opposed to marriage cum manu, which was virtually extinct by the end of the first century BCE) also served to greatly diminish the husband's power over his wife and children.



Nevertheless, there was a much higher rate of female infanticide among the Romans. While the early Christians opposed infanticide for both males and females. Augustus confirmed the power of the husband when he passed lex Julia adulteriis in 18 BC. 


ken: All of these liberties were lost when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, and women were once again reduced to being their husbands' chattels. Christianity was an unmitigated disaster for women's rights. Let's face it - Christianity is a rotten religion. Throughout most of its history it has enthusiastically supported tyranny, slavery, and the subjugation of women.


ec: No, although in practice many christians did not always follow biblical teachings regarding women and government. Over time, with greater biblical knowledge women came to be treated much better than other religions.


ken: The position of women improved as a direct result of the secularization of Western society. As the influence of traditional Christianity ebbed from more and more areas of social life, more humane and enlightened values came to be adopted in those areas. Even today, attitudes are far more humane and enlightened in highly secularized regions and nations than in regions and nations still in thrall to traditional Christianity.



In 374 AD the Christian emperor Valentinian I finally repealed 1000 year old patria potestas. The ancient practice of marrying prepubertal brides gradually diminished under the influence of Chistianity. Research has shown that Christian women married later than their pagan Roman counterparts. Christianity made divorce more difficult so that men could not just get rid of their wife when they got tired of them. Christians were instrumental in ending polygamy, thereby greatly increasing the happiness and independence of women in marriage. The first women rights activists in America were mostly Christians, such as Susan B. Anthony.


ken: Compare New England to the South. The latter would still have chattel slavery if the rest of the country hadn't forced them to give it up.





No, even in the 19th century most intelligent southerners like Robert E. Lee and Mary Chestnut knew that chattel slavery was on its way out eventually because of its incompatiblity with Christianity and the coming of the industrial revolution.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 3:06PM #4330
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ec: According to Plutarch, the greeks kept their women under lock and key. They had to have permission from their husbands to leave the house. Christian women can come and go when they please and can initate divorce from their husbands if he commits adultery among other things. Christianity has greatly raised the status of women far beyond the greeks.


Plutarch was referring to Greek customs in the fifth century BCE and earlier. Specifically, he was referring to upper-class Greek customs - lower-class Greeks couldn't afford the luxury of keeping their women locked up. During the Hellenistic era Greek women came to enjoy far more liberty, and this was carried even further under the Roman Empire. The Romans even established a special form of marriage that allowed women to retain their own property, divorce their husbands at will, and do as they pleased without their husbands' consent. By the first century this had become the dominant form of marriage.



Evidence?


It's cute how you ask for evidence only when you can't think of a snappy retort.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ec: The Romans had even worse rules for women. Under Caesar Augustus, husbands had the power of life and death over their wives and children.


ken: No, they didn't. Those laws dated from the early Republic. By Augustus' time they had either been superceded by later legislation or were simply ignored. The special form of marriage (marriage sine manu as opposed to marriage cum manu, which was virtually extinct by the end of the first century BCE) also served to greatly diminish the husband's power over his wife and children.



Nevertheless, there was a much higher rate of female infanticide among the Romans. While the early Christians opposed infanticide for both males and females. Augustus confirmed the power of the husband when he passed lex Julia adulteriis in 18 BC.


And yet when Christians had the power to abolish infanticide they failed to do so. Valentian's law of 374 was routinely ignored and led to few prosecutions. It had little effect on infanticide, even among Christians. Until the late Middle Ages infanticide remained widespread throughout Christendom - in Rome, women drowned unwanted newborns in the Tiber in broad daylight and nobody stopped them. In Germany, women had a legal right to commit infanticide.


The Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis was a notorious failure, rarely if ever enforced.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

The position of women improved as a direct result of the secularization of Western society. As the influence of traditional Christianity ebbed from more and more areas of social life, more humane and enlightened values came to be adopted in those areas. Even today, attitudes are far more humane and enlightened in highly secularized regions and nations than in regions and nations still in thrall to traditional Christianity.



In 374 AD the Christian emperor Valentinian I finally repealed 1000 year old patria potestas. The ancient practice of marrying prepubertal brides gradually diminished under the influence of Chistianity. Research has shown that Christian women married later than their pagan Roman counterparts. Christianity made divorce more difficult so that men could not just get rid of their wife when they got tired of them. Christians were instrumental in ending polygamy, thereby greatly increasing the happiness and independence of women in marriage. The first women rights activists in America were mostly Christians, such as Susan B. Anthony.


Valentinian's law was a failure. It was never customary to consummate a marriage with a prepubertal bride until she reached puberty - the marriage was in effect a betrothal and the groom was usually prepubertal as well. Such marriages continued among the aristocracy until the early modern era. The Christian ban on divorce meant that women couldn't free themselves from bad husbands. Polygamy was not a Roman practice. It doesn't matter what women's rights activists in American were - the concept of women's rights was a secular ideal, not a Christian one. After all, most of the opposition to women's rights came from Christians as well. It still does today. 


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

Compare New England to the South. The latter would still have chattel slavery if the rest of the country hadn't forced them to give it up.




No, even in the 19th century most intelligent southerners like Robert E. Lee and Mary Chestnut knew that chattel slavery was on its way out eventually because of its incompatiblity with Christianity and the coming of the industrial revolution.


Don't be silly. The South regarded slavery as a positive good and fought a major war in an attempt to preserve it. After they lost the war, Southerners still contrived to keep their black population in a condition as close to slavery as possible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 433 of 807  •  Prev 1 ... 431 432 433 434 435 ... 807 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook