God vs Human Rights

rossum

Well-known member
You gave no context for the quote.
What part of "Romans 5:8" do you have a problem with. That gives the context, it is a Bible verse from one of the Epistles. Surely you have a copy of the Bible to hand?
 

Howie

Well-known member
What part of "Romans 5:8" do you have a problem with. That gives the context, it is a Bible verse from one of the Epistles. Surely you have a copy of the Bible to hand?
As i said, you gave no context for the quote ... until now.
 

rossum

Well-known member
I have a question for you, were those pregnant women upstanding and upright according to the law, or were they lawbreakers, deserving of death?
I have a question for you, were the unborn children those pregnant women were carrying upstanding and upright according to the law?
 

Howie

Well-known member
I have a question for you, were the unborn children those pregnant women were carrying upstanding and upright according to the law?
Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23), proving the only ones who die are sinners. Do babies die? Of course they do. Thereby proving that one does not become a sinner when one sins, but that one sins because is a sinner.

Scripture is consistent.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
The issue here is that most people agree that freedom of religion is a human right
most people do not know what freedom is.
- even if it is a human notion.
If freedom is a human notion then humans would be free to do whatever they please.
I am pointing out that what most people consider to be a human right is diametrically opposite to what the Christian God supposedly does, which indicates the Christian God is the worst human rights abuser in history.
I don't see how what most people consider has to do with what God does.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Scripture says, "the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23), proving the only ones who die are sinners. Do babies die? Of course they do. Thereby proving that one does not become a sinner when one sins, but that one sins because is a sinner.

Scripture is consistent.
So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die. Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law? You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.
 

Howie

Well-known member
So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die. Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law? You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.
Scripture says He is without sin. (Heb 4:15)
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
So no humans at all are upstanding and upright according to the law because all humans die.
Your logic is not sound...Humans were dying before the law. The Law only identifies what people do wrong and the penalties
Jesus died on the cross; does that mean that He was not upstanding and upright according to the law?
No Jesus died because he was killed. Crucifixion does not treat the upstanding and upright differently from those guilty of crimes.
You seem to be getting your theology in a tangle here.
Your logic does not show a tangle.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I am curious how you arrive at God is against human rights when the people who wrote article 9 also believe God created humans.
I wrote quite a length post at the start of the thread explaining how I arrived at it. Which bit do you not understand?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
most people do not know what freedom is.
How is that relevant to the topic?

Do you think people who not not properly understand freedom should not be given it?!?

If freedom is a human notion then humans would be free to do whatever they please.
The fact that every society every has devised laws for its people indicates otherwise.

But this is specifically about freedom of religion, so in that regard, what you say is true. Humans invented the notion of freedom of religion, and then - hopefully - allow humans to worship whoever they please.

I don't see how what most people consider has to do with what God does.
I see that a lot. Christians often take the view that just because humans consider killing and torture wrong, that consideration does not extend to God.

i can kind of see it, but I think it misses the point here that a god who indulges in wholesale killing and torture is not a god of love, even if we suppose killing and torture are perfectly moral for that god.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
........... a god who indulges in wholesale killing and torture ........

Still coming up empty-handed finding a Bible verse stating that God tortures? Oh, that' right, the Bible doesn't say it, "Christianity"does, so let me rephrase that: Still coming up empty-handed finding a single CARM Christian stating that God tortures?
 

Howie

Well-known member
How is that relevant to the topic?

Do you think people who not not properly understand freedom should not be given it?!?


The fact that every society every has devised laws for its people indicates otherwise.

But this is specifically about freedom of religion, so in that regard, what you say is true. Humans invented the notion of freedom of religion, and then - hopefully - allow humans to worship whoever they please.


I see that a lot. Christians often take the view that just because humans consider killing and torture wrong, that consideration does not extend to God.

i can kind of see it, but I think it misses the point here that a god who indulges in wholesale killing and torture is not a god of love, even if we suppose killing and torture are perfectly moral for that god.
You are absolutely controlled by your emotions.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Or you have to leave the decision of whom to defer to, to each of our own arbitrary whims. Sooner or later, it is up to you.

(Parenthetically, I do not think careful, reasoned assessments are "arbitrary whims". I think people make their calls as best they can, with the knowledge that they can be in error. )

That would extend to our choice of whom and what we should trust, too, as far as I can see.

I'm glad you put some effort into morality. I'm not trying to knock that.

But there is a veil of deception over our own motivations. We are not pure, but we really love to think we are.

When you value something besides the infinite source of value, somewhere you have to decide what value you make primary, what you put first, and these are all in relation to what things make you feel about yourself.

For example, suppose you decide you want to give up your own organs/blood for someone else who is going to die, and you are the only compatible match in the world. Here you are being noble and selfless, giving up your life for another person. Most people wouldn't even do that much. But even when you do, how do I know why you are doing? Maybe you are doing it because you just hate life and want to die, maybe you are doing it because you think you are noble and virtuous and in the end are just glorifying yourself, maybe you feel guilty about something you did and hope this noble act will somehow make it up.

Most people think shallow, and most people measure an act only by its result, not by its motivations.

And the one most devalued thing in the whole world is in fact, the single most valuable thing, the thing that created the ability to value itself, and what is good and right for something that thinks the most precious thing is worthless?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Scripture says He is without sin. (Heb 4:15)
Then death is not caused by sin if someone without sin can die, is it. There must be some other cause that applies to Jesus a well as to all other humans. I pick birth as the cause of death. Jesus was born, as all other humans are born.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Then death is not caused by sin if someone without sin can die, is it. There must be some other cause that applies to Jesus a well as to all other humans. I pick birth as the cause of death. Jesus was born, as all other humans are born.

I would associate sin with Jesus' death, as the voluntary acquisition of the world's sins. There is a sin you can commit, and there is a sin that the Judge has the right to voluntarily impute to himself if he so wishes, because sin is not violated a cosmic principle of karma, sin requires an seat of consciousness that feels one way or another about the action done. For example, I can only sin against you because you have a feeling about what I did one way or the other. Now, I am not a person of infinite power and worth, so I forgive without demanding a punishment against you. However this would not be fitting for the worth and dignity of the Infinite. Now Jesus in fact is the one who truly fulfilled the punishment of sin and illustrated the result of death, because he decided to take the fate of the guilty himself and account the sins to his own self, and the only way he could do that without devaluing his own worth was to pay truly what the extent of devaluing the most precious thing demands. And that is what it takes to be reconciled with the Infinite.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I'm glad you put some effort into morality. I'm not trying to knock that.

But there is a veil of deception over our own motivations. We are not pure, but we really love to think we are.
Everybody likes to flatter themselves, not only that their own motives are good, but that they have a particular insight into the truth of things.

When you value something besides the infinite source of value, somewhere you have to decide what value you make primary, what you put first, and these are all in relation to what things make you feel about yourself.

How does one reliably establish what the source of value is, and whether or not it is infinite? (edited for clarity)
For example, suppose you decide you want to give up your own organs/blood for someone else who is going to die, and you are the only compatible match in the world. Here you are being noble and selfless, giving up your life for another person. Most people wouldn't even do that much. But even when you do, how do I know why you are doing? Maybe you are doing it because you just hate life and want to die, maybe you are doing it because you think you are noble and virtuous and in the end are just glorifying yourself, maybe you feel guilty about something you did and hope this noble act will somehow make it up.

Most people think shallow, and most people measure an act only by its result, not by its motivations.
Nietzche once pointed out that the decision to measure an action by its motives was mere prejudice: why ISN'T outcome a better way? In societies that emphasize fairness, motive is important, because we ask ""Could anyone have made a better decision themselves"?. In societies that emphasize honor and authority, outcome is more important, because they ask "Did you injure or help those to whom you owe deference?"

(note: I think motive is very important, but the question is still a good one, and, of course, I come from a society where intent/motive is important).

And the one most devalued thing in the whole world is in fact, the single most valuable thing, the thing that created the ability to value itself, and what is good and right for something that thinks the most precious thing is worthless?
I think that the thing that created the ability to value is probably the universe. Seems difficult to employ as a measure to distinguish valuations.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
I wrote quite a length post at the start of the thread explaining how I arrived at it. Which bit do you not understand?
I read the OP...it didn't explain how you arrived at anything. You put article 9 vs Ex20:3-4 as a background to say...anyone exercising their basic human right to freedom to religion will get tortured by God for doing so.
 
Top