A Bible question!!

[Ben Kenobi]

The whole language of rights is something of a reverse of the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective, which emphasizes individual duties instead.

Someone needs to read Thomas Aquinas. Apparently Elok is a Christian and Aquinas is not.

[giblets]

Are you unfamiliar with dialectics? There is a 4ifferent way to convey meaning than by direct communication. A better way.

I thought dialectics was concerned with finding the truth. If you think you know what the truth is and want to coney it I think directly stating it is probably the best way to get the point across.

[grumbler]

It was the justifying principle...200+ years ago. If you are arguing, as you just did, that privacy is one of many rights which predate government itself, then the impossibility of rights existing without government is entirely relevant. And that people went to war for an idea, does not make that idea in any sense "real." Don't make me Godwinize this sucker.

This is not an argument, it is a mere series of assertions. Rights exist outside of government according to US law. It is entirely moot whether or not you accept that "self-evident truth."

It wasn't a strawman; that would entail an intentional distortion of your beliefs. Rather, that was my honest, sincere best attempt to figure out WTF you were talking about. Really. It sounds like a lot of muddle to me, and I'm trying to organize it into some kind of coherent framework here. It's hard.

The way you find out what I mean is to ask, not to restate in strawman form. If you want to understand the coherent framework in which I am approaching this issue, you will need, as I have stated before, to do some research. If you don't understand the basic principles upon which the US Constitution is founded, it is difficult for you to understand what I am talking about, or what the Supreme Court was talking about in RvW. Read the Declaration of Independence, for a start. It articulates the reason the Founders believed that could establish a legitimate US government. When you make statements like "It was the justifying principle...200+ years ago" you reveal a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the law; legitimacy derives from first principals (in the case of the US, that government only exists to secure the rights of the governed), and the passage of time doesn't change them.

And that war was won by a completely uncoordinated, ungoverned mass, I take it?

Not in the histories I read, but feel free to believe that it was if you wish; it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Judicial review is entirely appropriate when it makes at least some vague attempt to refer to the Constitution.

Federal judicial review should refer to the Constitution (a la RvW) or else Federal law, yes. Glad you agree that RvW's repeated reference to the US Constitution demonstrates that it was an entirely appropriate example of judicial review.

Still, you have my sincere thanks for getting me to think about the Constitution.

If the point of diminishing returns has been reached, I am perfectly content to stop. I appreciate the debate, and thank you for maintaining a high tone throughout.

[Kidlicious]

I thought dialectics was concerned with finding the truth. If you think you know what the truth is and want to coney it I think directly stating it is probably the best way to get the point across.

If the Bible were just a list of directly stated commands would you believe it? It's not enough to simply undestand it. It must be believed. It works. That's all I'm saying.

[Elok]

Sounds good to me, Grumbler. Adios.

Someone needs to read Thomas Aquinas. Apparently Elok is a Christian and Aquinas is not.

Well, I wouldn't say I need to read TA (what little I've read of him is deadly boring, and he's not relevant to Eastern Christianity), but I may have overstepped there. I was unaware of any Christian role in developing the language of rights; I thought they were largely the descendant of classical Greco-Roman ideas. Can you summarize how he derives the concept of rights from Christian/biblical ideas? The two approaches seem entirely contradictory--morals based on what others owe us vs. what we owe others. They add up to something very similar, but they approach from opposite directions.

[giblets]

If the Bible were just a list of directly stated commands would you believe it? It's not enough to simply undestand it. It must be believed. It works. That's all I'm saying.

No, I wouldn't believe it, but I already don't believe the Bible.

[Kidlicious]

Someone needs to read Thomas Aquinas. Apparently Elok is a Christian and Aquinas is not.

Do you think heresy is a right?

[grumbler]

That's a stretch. Nowhere does it mention any "battles before that." The only battle mentioned is the one against Ammonites, and he makes the vow before then. I don't buy that the Holy Spirit was needed just to move his armies into enemy territory.

You guys are just making stuff up to try and get around this.

True, but you don't really expect them to concede that their deity is a bronze-age deity with bronze-age values, do you?

Jephthah is celebrated in the bible because he kept his promise to his god (a promise which resulted in his god giving his enemies into his hands), even though the promise turned out to be the killing of his own beloved daughter. That the daughter agreed with him that he must fulfill his promise to sacrifice her, but asked for two months of time to mourn her fate, is also classic bronze-age thinking.

Today the deliberate sacrifice of one's children to one's god is frowned upon, so naturally biblical apologists try to pretend that the story must mean something other than what it obviously does mean. The god of today is, after all, made in the image of the worshipers of today, and the perfect, unchanging god they worship today can't have been a different god in the past. SO stories about what that god did back then have toi be re=parsed so they conform to the modern god's modern values.

The Romans had the same problem with the Magna Mater and the related old Phrygian ceremonies of castration and human sacrifice. The Romans pretended that the traditional castration ceremonies really meant the sacrifice of bull's testicles, not men's, and so continued those traditions as animal sacrifices when they brought the Magna Mater to Rome.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I wouldn't say I need to read TA (what little I've read of him is deadly boring, and he's not relevant to Eastern Christianity), but I may have overstepped there. I was unaware of any Christian role in developing the language of rights;

He's boring, but worth it. I wouldn't advise it if I hadn't found it helpful myself. Thomism is essential to understanding folks who came later, like Locke and Hume, especially.

Start here. This is a pretty good overview. I had a lawyer friend and we did a bible study of parts of the Summa, we were both Protestants at the time!

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

I thought they were largely the descendant of classical Greco-Roman ideas.

Thomism is called the Great Synthesis for a reason, it represents merging Greek and Platonic ideals, especially with Judeo-Christian ethics. You have to remember that Moses came first, the Greeks and their laws were quite a bit later. I found it profoundly influential at least on my understanding of natural law.

Can you summarize how he derives the concept of rights from Christian/biblical ideas? The two approaches seem entirely contradictory--morals based on what others owe us vs. what we owe others. They add up to something very similar, but they approach from opposite directions.

Yes, but they come from the same root. Remember what John says about the Word being with God and the Word being God, both at the same time? God, in a sense, IS the Law and the prophets. This is why the Law, which is the source of our rights, comes from Him. It has always existed, even before man, and we were shaped with a partial understanding of the law written on our conscience.

Our time here uncovers the understanding of the true law, much in the way that occurs with the natural sciences. Observations in this field share similar consequences and developments over time. There's a reason why sciences were called natural philosophy for aeons, until just very recently.

Societies choose which parts of the Law they will uphold, but they do not change the law, any more than they can change the physical constants. This is a big feature of Thomism and also in Aristotle as well. It's for this reason that the Great Synthesis was seen as the triumph of aristotelianism.

I know he's not popular with the East, but his works are valuable. I say that as a Protestant that I haven't seen rights the same way since I read what he had to say about Thomism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you think heresy is a right?

I believe it is the right of a man to express himself as he feels he ought, and to curtail said expression causes greater harm.

[Kidlicious]

I believe it is the right of a man to express himself as he feels he ought, and to curtail said expression causes greater harm.

Would you say that a person who believed that heretics should be executed believed in human rights?

[Kidlicious]

True, but you don't really expect them to concede that their deity is a bronze-age deity with bronze-age values, do you?

Jephthah is celebrated in the bible because he kept his promise to his god (a promise which resulted in his god giving his enemies into his hands), even though the promise turned out to be the killing of his own beloved daughter. That the daughter agreed with him that he must fulfill his promise to sacrifice her, but asked for two months of time to mourn her fate, is also classic bronze-age thinking.

Today the deliberate sacrifice of one's children to one's god is frowned upon, so naturally biblical apologists try to pretend that the story must mean something other than what it obviously does mean. The god of today is, after all, made in the image of the worshipers of today, and the perfect, unchanging god they worship today can't have been a different god in the past. SO stories about what that god did back then have toi be re=parsed so they conform to the modern god's modern values.

The Romans had the same problem with the Magna Mater and the related old Phrygian ceremonies of castration and human sacrifice. The Romans pretended that the traditional castration ceremonies really meant the sacrifice of bull's testicles, not men's, and so continued those traditions as animal sacrifices when they brought the Magna Mater to Rome.

Do you think a Christian and a Muslim believe the same thing because they are part of the same generation?

[Elok]

BTW, Boris, if you don't mind my asking, why do you participate in these arguments? I'm just curious, because obviously you're not going to change BK's mind, nor Kid's, nor they yours. The argument doesn't really expand anyone's horizons either. Do you just enjoy the exercise of debate, or is it a way of letting off steam or something? It's puzzling to me, since a never-ending, unproductive argument over religion is my idea of perfect misery.

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you say that a person who believed that heretics should be executed believed in human rights?

I would argue that your conception of human rights is different from my own.

A better question would be:

"would a person who believed that heretics should be executed uphold what I understand to be the natural law?"

I would argue no.

[Kidlicious]

I would argue that your conception of human rights is different from my own.
O
A better question would be:

"would a person who believed that heretics should be executed uphold what I understand to be the natural law?"

I would argue no.

What's the problem with answering my question?