Christianity is a diverse religious phenomenon, there is no singular position on the subjects we are discussing or anything else. That said, the idea of humanity having a 'Father in heaven' and humans being the 'children' of that deity is likely to be found in most Christian theologies so I have referred to most Christians believing this... this would certainly be true for your handful of Christian interlocutors here.I am still not clear, then, what the Christian position is.
I've been making observations about how human rights actually function in our world... there is nothing prescriptive about my comments. Adults can and do routinely disregard the rights of children, if they consider them rights-bearers at all... applying this to the aforementioned metaphor of humanity's relationship to the divine, it was not surprising that most of your Christian interlocutors more or less balked at the idea of human rights right out of the gate and dialogue dried up soon thereafter. As flawed as the UNCRC is, it is no coincidence that the only nation yet to ratify it is the US with its large right-leaning religious population opposed to any notion of children's political rights.Are you suggesting rights are relative? That is, a person only has to respect the rights of their peers, and not of their inferiors? Thus an adult can disregard the rights of a child; God can disregard the rights of an adult.
As noted in one of my earlier posts, the history of human rights legislation has been a succession of battles by and on behalf of disenfranchised peoples to share in the rights claimed by those in power for themselves --- if there is any genuine notion that rights are intrinsic for all humans, it isn't because the experiment started out that way and it has hardly achieved such an ideal.To me, that is antithetical to the whole concept of rights, which should in intrinsic. It is a short step from there to saying the ruling elite is not required to respect the rights of citizens; citizens are not expected to respect the rights of slaves.
No, your argument is with a subsection of Christianity... one, no doubt, with a strong presence on this forum. You would have very little if anything to criticize about the position of Christians in whose circles I run in...My argument is with Christianity.
See my criticism above on the non-homogenous nature of Christianity. As noted in my previous post, I'm not convinced it is prudent to build scenarios based on misreadings -- however common they may be -- of the biblical text. Sure, it's easy this way to knock down the naïve and inconsistent form of Christianity circulating amongst fundamentalists and some evangelicals, but this can be done without compromising a contextually-sensitive interpretation and your conclusion to reject, insofar as it seems to apply to Christianity generally, does not follow.My point is that there is a dichotomy between God's disregard for human rights, specifically with having those who fail to worship him suffer in hell for eternity, and the claim "God is love". Christianity is therefore inconsistent, and so can be rejected. Therefore what is important with regards the First Commandment is not how it was originally intended, but how it is understood by Christians today.