A Bible question!!

[Felch]

Sorry, I don't get it, and the Wiki and the Google have failed me. "Law of birds"? Wuzzat?

I'm in a Sunny mood now that they're back in season.

[grumbler]

Is it possible that some "natural" rights aren't even in the constitution?

The Founding Fathers of the US believed this, of course. They explicitly said so in the Ninth Amendment. The Bill of Rights grants no rights; it simply lists specific actions the Federal government cannot take with regard to some of those rights, and says that there are other, non-enumerated rights, which are just as inviolable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Strange bedfellows.

Berz + me on one side, Elok and Kid on the other.

Anyways:

If Moses wrote the Torah, why did he die before it was written? Somebody pointed that out in Perfie's thread at cfc and its a good question.

Most of the Torah, everything from Genesis 12 to somewhere around Deuteronomy 25 were written by Moses.

Everything after, likely was written by someone else, reporting on Moses.

Everything before, Genesis 1 to 11 is a much more interesting question, and that answer is at present unknown and was unknown even 2000 years ago. May have been unknown in the time of Moses too. But the story starting from Genesis 12 was first written down by Moses, but the stuff from before was already some 1000 years old even in his day, and is unlikely that Moses had any direct contact.

We really don't know, but the vast, vast majority of the books were written down by Moses.

The textual proof of such has been lost for about 1500 years. It's not known what the LXX used precisely, or what form it took prior to the LXX. It is likely from what we know that the 5 existed in the time of Josiah and were rediscovered then. After, the books would have been written, up to Ezra when they were in Exile before the building of the second temple.

[BeBMan]

In what sense do they exist in the absence of a government? If there's no law around, you can say you have a right to life and liberty, but do you really? If I try to kill or enslave you, who will guarantee or protect your rights? Rights only exist where there is power to enforce them.

The theoretical construct ("natural/inalienable/whatever rights") exists if there are people making it. If they can practically defend it is another question. Still, even if they can't at a certain point it might not be irrelevant if it serves as orientation for others (well, that's how certain ideas won ground even before they were put in practice). If a gov states those ideas in constitutions/laws/whatever it also serves as dedication to uphold certain principles.

My 0.2 cents.

[Ben Kenobi]

The theoretical construct ("natural/inalienable/whatever rights") exists if there are people making it. If they can practically defend it is another question. Still, even if they can't at a certain point it might not be irrelevant if it serves as orientation for others (well, that's how certain ideas won ground even before they were put in practice). If a gov states those ideas in constitutions/laws/whatever it also serves as dedication to uphold certain principles.

Rights exist like gravity does, they do not exist because people recognise them, they exist simply because they have always existed.

If no people were around the rights would still exist. Rights did not suddenly begin with their codification, they were always there in the first place, which is why they were codified.

If you argue that rights only become rights if they are defended, then that's no different from saying that 'might makes right'. Successfully subjugating people is not divine favour of your right to rule over them as slaves.

[BeBMan]

Rights exist like gravity does, they do not exist because people recognise them, they exist simply because they have always existed.

That's belief, not fact. A belief I don't share.

If no people were around the rights would still exist. Rights did not suddenly begin with their codification, they were always there in the first place, which is why they were codified.

If you argue that rights only become rights if they are defended, then that's no different from saying that 'might makes right'. Successfully subjugating people is not divine favour of your right to rule over them as slaves.

That's not what I'm saying.

[Kidlicious]

absolute authority != moral authority

rights = moral authority

moral authority = self defense

self defense = right

If Moses wrote the Torah, why did he die before it was written? Somebody pointed that out in Perfie's thread at cfc and its a good question.

I didn't say absolute authority is moral just because it's absolute. What I am saying is that rights have to be backed by authority or they aren't rights at all. They are nothing but political rhetoric made by rebels.

[Kidlicious]

God created the law of gravity. Men create laws of rights. One changes the other doesn't.

Also God made the strong to rule over the weak. Now I am not saying that the strong are always right but they get to say who has rights.

[Elok]

The theoretical construct ("natural/inalienable/whatever rights") exists if there are people making it. If they can practically defend it is another question. Still, even if they can't at a certain point it might not be irrelevant if it serves as orientation for others (well, that's how certain ideas won ground even before they were put in practice). If a gov states those ideas in constitutions/laws/whatever it also serves as dedication to uphold certain principles.

My 0.2 cents.

Rights can exist if there are people coming up with them, yes, but only in the sense that the space elevator exists now; people have imagined both, they're good ideas, but they remain unimplemented and so unreal. They can win power as ideas--but only in the way any other idea can. This is not to deny the power of ideas, but I think it's crucial to remember that they're just ideas.

"You know what would be cool? If we had the right to speak our minds without getting thumbscrewed!" "You know what else would be cool? Mint chocolate chip ice cream!" "You're right! Let's invent both!" (it's a quirk of history that the ice cream type, while far easier to generate, became available to the masses far later than freedom of speech--except in China)

[Kidlicious]

God gives things that exist, not things that don't. For example He gives life, but not the right to life.

[Boris Godunov]

.
I don't believe in following my gut feeling. In fact a lot of things that I do goes against my gut feeling, but that's where faith comes in.

Funny that, because Jepthah thought the same thing when he made his "rash" vow:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. ³⁰ And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, ³¹ whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

So the Holy Spirit within prompts him to make a promise, but is curiously silent when he has to fulfill it by killing his daughter.

He was condemned.

You don't think he was condemned because the people around him in the story didn't condemn him. But you don't read the Bible, so you don't understand. It is like me taking a few sentences out of Ulysses or something and making conclusions about the characters and what the author thinks about them without any context.

No, he was not, and no amount of assertion on your part will make that the case. It says he was full of the Holy Spirit. That spirit doesn't stop him killing his own daughter. It never condemns him for his actions--and the NT goes on to praise him. Jepthah goes on to rule Israel for 6 years and he is successful in war the Ephraimites (slaughtering 42,000 it says). You're trying to read something into the story that is clearly not there because it's really inconvenient for you.

The stories of judges were included in scripture at the same time as a number of the other old testament books. In every case, human sacrifice is completely and utterly condemned. Like in a 'look at how evil this king has fallen' sort of way.

It's *not* condemned for Jepthah! You can't say "it's condemned in every case" when it clearly isn't condemned here! It's held up as *virtue,* because Jepthah killed his daughter rather than renege on a deal.

Of course, you don't seek to understand anything, and are not willing to read, so you conclude differently (and are no different than those of the fundamentalist camp).

If you want to review God's morality in the OT, you can choose other verses (the CENSUS one/etc is better, for example).

You are being really stupid here.

Or rather, you will be an apologist for anything in the Bible because of the vested emotional interest you have in it. You're biased.

I love how you always make these debate personal like this. And yes, there are plenty of other examples of the Biblical god being a monster. Jepthah was brought up to show that (among other instances in the Bible), killing innocent children is clearly not frowned upon in all cases by the Biblical lord. You cannot deny this simple fact of the OT.

As for the slew of atrocities committed by god, the video I linked does cover that stuff rather neatly, so pretending I haven't brought those up is nonsense.

As for being stupid, *I'm* not the one making excuses for moral atrocities. I guess I'd rather be stupid than apologizing for horrific acts.

[Boris Godunov]

Scientifically it is a human being.

The fact that humans are willing to kill others if it is convenient for them is because humans have evil inclinations.

JM

No, it's a proto-human at best. That is both scientific and traditional. There's a reason nobody celebrates their conception day rather than their birthday, after all.

[Boris Godunov]

God could act to stop all murders. To stop all sickness. And so on.

And then we would have no free choice and be robots.

Obviously, according to God's morality, freedom is more important.

And I agree with Him.

JM

God (the Holy Spirit) interfered enough with Jepthah to inspire him to make his vow. Why couldn't the same thing happen to stop him killing his child?

God directly intervenes many, many times in the OT. It's strangely selective for that god to inspire someone to make a rash vow and then be silent when fulfilling said vow means killing an innocent child. Would you have stood aside were you god in that case? If not, why make excuses for a god who did?

[Boris Godunov]

Borus,
I think the Bible makes a good case that killing your child is bad. You aren't doing well here.

The Bible specifically instructs to kill disobedient children. The OT God targets children specifically to kill.

I'm not saying the Bible isn't contradictory, if that's the problem. Clearly, it is. Practically schizo, in fact. That's what you get from a book compiled from hundreds of different authors over thousands of years.

[Kidlicious]

Boris,
That passage doesn't say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he made the deal with God. It sayys that he was when he won the battles before that. The thing you aren't getting is when you are filled with the Holy Spirit you forget your own will to do God's will. Jepthath was driven by his own will that was his sin.