Prove to me objective "rights" exist.

[Sovereign Investor]

Lets say I grant that your 2 theses are valid for you.

How does that give you the right to determine that there are "natural laws" that bind me?  It may be that I have beliefs that clash with your laws.

I think it is important to consider two things. 

1.    It is not the purpose of government to force religion or atheism on its population.  People and their rights to free exercise of religion and speech should be  protected.  Religious expressions have their limits, however.  The free exercise of religion cannot be used as a cloak to hurt others.
2.   Natural Law, whether moral or scientific, is binding on all people.  To go against it, is to bring injury to oneself. 

I may decide that gravity is not binding on me…but if I jump off a bridge or a mountain without a parachute I will soon discover that gravity is binding whether I acknowledge it or not.  My beliefs may clash with gravity but in the end the objective reality of gravity supersedes my subjective belief. 

The Supreme Legislator created the law we know as gravity…when violated, there are ramifications. 

Moral natural law is similar.  We understand that in a civil society, where natural laws are not binding on everyone, there will be chaos. 

I may determine that murder and stealing are contrary to my beliefs but if I commit one or the other or both, if caught, I will face the consequences for those actions.  Why?  Because I have broken the social contract and injured others. 

The Supreme Legislator created the laws prohibiting murder and stealing…when violated, there are consequences. 

All religions believe in these notions or in some varieties of these notions. 

[1713586624]

1713586624

[1713586624]

1713586624

[1713586624]

1713586624

[1713586624]

1713586624

[Hawker]

1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.

If there is a natural law, it appears the natural law been hidden to all who came before us including Moses (a slave owner), Jesus (spoke approvingly of torturing disobedient slaves in the parable of 10000 talents) and Mohammed (a slave owner).

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

[FirstAscent]

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

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.

[benjamindees]

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

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.

[Hawker]

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

Technically, what changed was that humanity ran out of undeveloped land into which to expand.  Morally, 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.

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.

[bb113]

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.

[bb113]

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

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

[Sovereign Investor]

1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion a heinous offence.  Today abortion is normal and slavery is a heinous offence.

If there is a natural law, it appears the natural law been hidden to all who came before us including Moses (a slave owner), Jesus (spoke approvingly of torturing disobedient slaves in the parable of 10000 talents) and Mohammed (a slave owner).

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

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...

[Sovereign Investor]

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

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.

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. 

[Sovereign Investor]

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.

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. 

[Sovereign Investor]

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

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

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

[bb113]

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

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

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

I see. How did it work?

[Sovereign Investor]

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

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

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

I see. How did it work?

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. 

[Matthew N. Wright]

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

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

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

I see. How did it work?

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.  

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

Welcome to hell.

[bb113]

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

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

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

I see. How did it work?

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. 

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.

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

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

[Explodicle]

What changed? How come we now have "natural" rights like the right to abortion in the US that are new and the right to own a slave has been lost?

Technically, what changed was that humanity ran out of undeveloped land into which to expand.  Morally, 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.

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.

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?

[Sovereign Investor]

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?

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. 

[Sovereign Investor]

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.

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. 

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

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.

[bb113]

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

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

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.

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?

[Sovereign Investor]

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 theories.

Fair enough.  You are entitled to your position.  

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

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?