Posted on 06/18/2002 9:48:13 PM PDT by old-ager
Good question. I'm a religious guy, and I believe that the possibility (not the right!) of salvation comes from God. For me, God also gives us moral precepts, and He hopes that we'll follow them (don't kill, don't commit adultery, love thy neighbor as yourself, etc.). A lot of people use the word 'rights' when referring to what God expects from others. (God says don't kill, therefore I have the 'right' not to be killed. - In actuality, if you believe in God, YOU don't have the right to kill. Since God gives people free will, someone else may kill you one day.) When the word 'rights' is used in the context of nation-states, it signifies to most people the collective agreement that those people entered into with regard to the setup of that state. In the US, we have the Constitution, and our nation-state rights flow from that Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence for this country, the framers mentioned the 'inalienable rights' from our Creator. But again, this was their way of saying that we should be bound by the Demands of our Creator.
Hey Monday. I DO believe in freedom, and I am more libertarian than many. But I don't believe in UNLIMITED freedom. As Farah pointed out, there are cases where all our freedom needs to be constrained, given that the social cost (due to irresponsible, bad people) of not doing so becomes too high.
Well, there are a lot of things banned that I personally hold dear. For instance, I can't walk my dog in the park in our town. But I understand that when people were allowed to do so, a great many of them didn't clean up after their dogs, some brought dangerous and life-threatening dogs to the park, kids were knocked over and hurt by big dogs, dogs got into peoples' picnic food, etc. etc. The cost of patrolling the park on a continuous basis by the police, and checking to make sure that every dog owner used a pooper-scooper (the poop police) was too great for the town to responsibly bear. I can accept that. Such decisions are indicative of the sorts of decisions governments make every day.
Joe puts into words well, the things he makes up and attributes to others.
Correct. Precisely enough to defend our rights, not one bit less, or more.
Note the lower case. It has nothing to do with political parties. You make the same mistake most make.
As to God's political philosophy, he is a monarchist. He is king, all others are subservient to him.
That's not blasphemy, it's theology.
Reducing the Almighty and Omniscient True God down to fit into a manmade political view is BLASPHEMY.
He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and He in no way can be brought down to the level of thought of a mere man.
Period.
And, lastly, if you or anyone else doesn't like this, tough! But it is the absolute truth. Deal with it.
The fact that you don't give a flip is why you made the mistake. Sad truth. You are mistaken.
Reducing the Almighty and Omniscient True God down to fit into a manmade political view is BLASPHEMY.
Glad to have your opinion. It will get the respect it deserves.
He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords,
I rest my case. He is what we call a monarchist. He is my king as well.
and He in no way can be brought down to the level of thought of a mere man.
No one suggested he could. Which does not preclude us from trying to describe him in terms we can understand. The bible tells us to seek after him. I'll follow the bible and I don't give a flip about your ideas.
And, lastly, if you or anyone else doesn't like this, tough! But it is the absolute truth. Deal with it.
You don't define the truth. It's a good thing too. Deal with it.
And lastly, if you don't like this next thing, tough! Only God defines absolute truth, and you ain't God. You just think you are.
Well Yendu, you are entitled to believe what ever you wish. However you can not use the argument FOR ME . You can not expect an entire country to go by YOUR BELIEFS! In the Bill of Rights, Rights are to be exercised FREELY By man,without Government INTRUSION Or Infringement. That Congress "SHALL MAKE NO LAW" infringing on specific rights. IF you choose to surrender such rights, You may do so for what ever reason you wish, However not you or anyone else can "dictate" to another "FREE" person how they are allowed to exercise their own rights.
Your argument using murder is lame, and very Taliban like IMO. Murder of course WOULD be infringing on another's RIGHT TO LIVE. Perhaps you don't realize or grasp just what freedom is all about, I suggest you get a copy of a pocket constitution and carry it around an memorize it.
Live Free or Die Trying
That last statement makes you a bald-faced liar. Nowhere did I ever intimate or even suggest that I was God and you know it. Since you made the claim, substantiate it. Back it up.
I don't define absolute truth. I stand on it in His Word.
I don't take too kindly with liars. Mark that. We can debate, and we may disagree. But don't
EVER
lie on me as I most certainly won't lie on you.
Tsk, tsk. Caught declaring ABSOLUTE TRUTH can get one very testy when it exposes them. I didn't lie.
Nowhere did I ever intimate or even suggest that I was God and you know it. Since you made the claim, substantiate it. Back it up.
You declared absolute truth. YOU said it. You made no attribution to anyone else. If you choose to now back off that claim, feel free to do so. Until then, YOU claimed absolute truth. As I pointed out, only God knows absolute truth. Better backpedal or you are intimating you have taken God's attributes.
I don't define absolute truth. I stand on it in His Word.
Please cite his word then, chapter and verse, and GIVE ATTRIBUTION.
I don't take too kindly with liars. Mark that. We can debate, and we may disagree.
Mark this.
I don't take to kindly with you, so push it where the sun don't shine. .
Hey, you asked me a question, and I gave you an honest answer - which was that for most people rights are seen to emanate from the Constitution. Never said I had the right to define rights for you at all. Not sure why you're so upset. I DO have a good knowledge of the Constitution - and it is a great document (one of the greatest!).
Therefore Freedom is how ever you choose to exercise your rights, with out being regulated. Once regulation starts on "rights",Then Government then tells you what "rights" you have. Government then self appoints themselves the giver of rights, and that is NOT the case. Regulations are infringements.
Live Free or Die Trying
I see. Interesting and attractive idea. But then where do the rights come from?
This is why I posted my previous statement Yendu. what part of "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW" do you NOT understand? LOL! The constitution was written as a "RULE" book to the GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THE PEOPLE!
You did in fact lie when you said that I thought I was God. And you still haven't given any evidence of how I inferred or said that I thought I was God. You didn't give an opinion. You stated it as fact and got called on it. Now, if you can't produce evidence that I did say this, let it be known that you are a contemptuous liar.
That's two.
Give attribution? Okay. Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. In other words, on the whole of the Word I stand.
OP, Jean, Mom, drstevej, Dr. Eckleburg; Ambassador, please give your opinion(s) as dispassionate third parties to this. Read what I wrote then what ThomasJefferson wrote about me. Was this or was this not a blatant lie?
I'll let others decide, and I won't submit another word to this until I receive their judgements.
It's real out here on the battlefield. Ya heard?
Here is what I said to back up my opinion. Opinions aren't lies. Your own words lead people to think things about you and form opinions.
Now you add an attribution that includes the whole bible. I think you might be mentally unbalanced. That is also an opinion.
And when you say I am contemptous, you are correct. I hold you in contempt.
Well Yendu, Standing in a no country zone? Who's going to stop them? I'm not sure of your question exactly. If you're in a "country" with no laws or government who's going to stop them from doing anything they want?
As I have stated you need to clarify what you mean by this statement. I am referring to the BILL OF RIGHTS, where congress shall pass no law on specifically stated Rights and liberties. I don't understand why you go to the extreme and say something I completely didn't say or stress. Please clarify your comment, Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.