Topic: Prove to me objective "rights" exist. - page 6. (Read 9591 times)

From Wikipedia:
"Just because we can string words together to form what looks like a coherent sentence does not mean the sentence really makes any sense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Immovable object = Object that cannot be moved

It's not an argument so much as a question. I am trying to discover if you can reason about abstract concepts or will just repeat platitudes.

Fair enough.  You are entitled to your position.  


For man, I would say it most probably is.  For God, however, no.  God is the author of life and the creator of all things, movable or immovable.  However, what exactly would you define as an immovable object?  And what is the point of your argument?  

Fair enough about the bible, you are probably right about that quote. It was just on the first page I found googling.


First off, I don't believe in macro evolution. I find it believable or, more aptly put, plausible. Even better is the phrase more plausible than any alternative explanations.

Anyway, would you describe "moving an immovable object" as a logical impossibility?

This can be true with any written book or oral tradition.  This proves nothing except that people interpret information differently.  However, this does not mean a certain piece of information cannot have one true meaning.  The bible is misunderstood by a great deal because they do not peruse it carefully.  Your original post about Numbers and abortion cannot be interpreted to mean abortion.  The context plainly states it is about marital infidelity. 


Nothing is impossible with God--God can do all things.  However, I think I know where you are going with this but I will be reticent until you explain your meaning. 

Either way, we can agree to disagree. 

You believe in macro evolution and that rights are a social construct; I believe in creation and God given laws.

The Bible has never been wrong on anything, it is 100% accurate.  The Bible did not create slavery; the Old Testament must be understood in the light of the cultural practices of the time, like polygamy.

You have your opinion and I have mine.  I leave it at that. 

Sorry to feed the trolls, but this guy keeps posting the same goddamn thing in every thread. IS != OUGHT, HAWKER. The bible was morally wrong about slavery then and it still is now, regardless of who voted on it and who was in charge at whatever time.

Is it too hard for you to perform ANY moral reasoning on your own? Must local opinion shape every single thing you believe is right and wrong?

Well my original point was that there is always a bible passage that can be taken to support whatever point you want to make. Much like you can watch four historical documentaries about the same subject and get four different versions of history. I don't really think it is productive to argue about it.


Let me ask you this:
Can God move an immovable object?

Only 43 posts and already wasting your entire day preaching religion are we?

Welcome to hell.

Look, I see your point.  Any modern person reading this passage or in fact, many of the passages in the Old Testament, may think to themselves that they are profoundly illogical and superstitious.  The Old Testament sacrificial system of slaughtering animals, human slavery, certain customs (such as the passover), and many other things, at face value, are "illogical" and "stupid." 

It is in many ways a primitive form of writing by a primitive people...some of the laws are seemingly barbaric and primitive, with weird and often illogical superstitions. 

However, one must interpret these writings in their societal and historic contexts; and more importantly, they must be viewed in the light of the New Testament.  Apart from interpreting the Old Testament via the New Testament, there is little of any sense in the Old Testament at face value. 

It is the prophecies of the Old Testament, both hidden and public, that reveal to us that it is God breathed. 

I see. How did it work?

This passage has nothing to do with abortion.  This was a test of marital fidelity...to establish whether a woman committed adultery. 

No such passages exist.  Your ignorance on this subject is profound.  Rachel, the wife of Jacob, died giving birth. 

Please cite your passages for proof. 

This is an interesting, albeit silly theory.  Darwinian evolution is not only a chimeric fancy of the atheists, but an impossibility of nature.  Although no one would dispute micro evolution (changes within specifies), to suggest that macro evolution (changes from one specie to another) explains why "natural rights" evolve to survive is pure rubbish. 

Owning a slave and abortion are not natural rights...they were and are positive laws---in other words, laws established by parliaments. 

Interesting reply...

1. There is a difference between "natural law" and "biblical law."  Natural law is a law that has been interpreted throughout the ages as a law discernible by the light of reason alone; and that such a law is writ on the hearts of men, though flawed because of sin. 

2.  Biblical law is "revealed law," wherein the Supreme Legislator reveals to his prophets the laws of God.  In this "revealed law," there is a moral and ceremonial law.  Although the moral law is applicable to all, the ceremonial law was only applicable to a certain people for a certain time. 

3.  Old Testament Biblical law was based on a theocratic state.  In the New Testament, the Mosaic law (the law of Moses) is understood as a law of compromise, a law establishing the sinfulness of all men, and as a shadow of the coming things.  The ceremonial law in particular is seen as a shadow of the coming things...i.e. pictures of Christ.  In fact, the Mosaic law is called a "schoolmaster." 

4. Jesus' parable of the talents is misrepresented by you.  The Greek word "doulos," which means "servant," can also mean "slave."  However, the parable of the ten talents (not 10000) does not mention anything about torturing or approving torture of any disobedient slaves. 

You have to take this parable in context.  Two thousand years, there was a system of commerce established where a husbandmen would hire servants to work on his land and be profitable.  One of the servants was not profitable.  Rather than being rewarded, he was punished by forcing him to relinquish his talents.  The story concludes by saying the servant was fired and because of this, he was weeping and gnashing his teeth (out of anger and rejection). 

Please show all of us on this forum where Jesus approved this man's torture? 

Slavery in the Old Testament must be looked at in its cultural, historic, and symbolic context. 

You are mistaken about the natural law being hidden to all who came before us...natural law does not mean that human beings can not err.  Human beings are imperfect and often times violate the laws of nature.  This does not mean that natural law does not exist...it means that humans beings are sinners and struggle to keep the laws of nature.  The temptation of sin is very strong...

The priests would poison the fetus somehow? Really who knows though. Multiple translations, etc.

Now go find a quote from there about abortion... there are a bunch of passages indicating abortion was commonly accepted. In fact, if there was an unwanted pregnancy back then, they would usually just kill the mother as well.

Um, slavery certainly was a moral right.  Read the bible.

"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. "

Women, kids, cattle, all much the same thing.  That's slavery.

Technically, what changed was that humanity ran out of undeveloped land into which to expand.  Morally Ethically, neither abortion nor slavery have ever been rights.  It's just that rights are violated every day, and the choices we make regarding which violations to suffer and ignore changes over time and place.

I'll tell you what changed. Religion obeys the natural law of Darwinian evolution and evolves to survive within the environment which fosters it, which in this case, is human culture.