They forfeit their human rights...

Who said that there was no punishment? Where're you getting this bilge? To receive God's grace one has to ask to be forgiven; ask Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior and to truly believe in their own heart, that they have sinned, recognize what the sin was and is AND: change their ways... I'm not aware of any scenario such as that you've described...


He forfeits his human life... He did so with the first life he destroyed.

I don't know who told you there were no consequences, but scooter, you've been misinformed.

Where do you find your life? If you find it you'll have found your Rights... it's not long division sport... pursue that you believe will provide your life with fulfillment and don't do anything to keep someone else from doing the same.

Second major point:
I think your argument that without God there is no such thing as "human rights" is basically correct. [/quote]

Well that's close enough for me sport...

Congrats... ya made it.

It's official, you just won the sociopath award. Congratulations. You really suck at the whole "human rights" thing, but you know, that was a liberal construction to begin with. The basis of conservativism is that "rights" and "liberalism" weaken society and that a single morality should be upheld. Meanwhile, liberalism takes the standpoint that everyone has human rights. It is unsurprising, then, that you suck at the whole "everybody gets rights" thing. Funny, though, you are claiming that the morally homogeneous force of religion is what gives rights meaning. You are quite the character. Ignorant and viscerally terrifying at times, but still quite an amusing bloke.

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank

Actually friend, there is something I can point to and say: "This is a Right"... I point to my life... it's mine, I'm entitled to it; it was endowed to me by my creator and I am rightfully able to do anything with my life that leads to fulfillment of that life, so long as I do not infringe on the rights of another in the process...

Now some of those things may be protected privileges and they may not... but neither man nor man's government can strip me of that right... as they are not of NEARLY sufficient authority to do so; the BEST that they can do is impart sufficient power to prevent my ability to exercise my right, at which time they forfeit their own.


You're confusing rights with Government sponsored privilege; meaning that if it's illegal, it's no longer a right... which is nonsense. Even the daffy atheists are entitled to their life as a result of their creator's endowment. Their rejecting the concept of God has no bearing on God's existence, no more so than if they rejected on a conceptual level your existence... thus the rights endowed by God are likewise unaffected.

You're confusing 'advocates of liberty;' OKA: Liberals, with the advocates for the tyrannical collective; OKA: Leftists.

I'm a liberal; you're a leftist.

I understand human rights are the cornerstone of freedom; that God is the highest authority; God is the source of my life, thus my Rights... and that government has no means to adjust my rights... that all government possesses is power... this is precisely the understanding of the Framers of the US... I understand that my rights remain constant without regard to what government says about it. You believe that government is the highest authority and that if the SCOTUS declares it a right, then it's a RIGHT!

But hey... that's the nature of delusion. AKA: Leftism.

If I point to you I will be pointing to a human being. I could put you in chains and drive you into my salt mine and you would have no rights whatsoever whatever you say or believe. It happens/happened all the time.

My view is that a system that allows this is not a good one for the reasons I've already stated - it does not allow all humans an opportunity to flourish, and while today I'm the slave-owner tomorrow I or my children may be the slaves.

Rights are a useful concept that allow men to live together peacefully and to their mutual benefit. However many words you pack around the name of the concept it is still not a thing with independent existance in the universe; when separated from the context of the concrete reality of humans living in society it has no meaning. The closest you can come to what you want to make of it is this: The reason this concept is valuable is because it arises out of the very nature of man, as seen in this definition of rights: "Conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival."

God Ray... Who is recognizing him is irrelevant.



False... Humans can advance a privilege which may tolerate a given activity, or they can suppress an activity given sufficient power to do so... Again as is your wont you confuse human rights with civil rights...


This is my point... Congrats... you made it.


What humans feel about human rights has no bearing on what human rights are what so ever. There is only one human right and that is the right to pursue fulfillment of the life endowed by God... that right comes with the sacred responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right. That's it... period.


There is nothing in the bible regaring gravity, quarks, supernova, ebola, The HIV or pretty much most of it... it being the Universe.

Jefferson spoke to the ultimate authority of LEGITIMATE RIGHTS... The ONLY RIGHTS... HUMAN RIGHTS. All other rights are the intellectual flatulence of man which sits on the whimsy of a popular majority and isn't worth the paper it's written upon. In contrast to the endowed rights of humanity to pursue the fulfillment of their God given rights... which is eternal and rest upon an authority well in excess of any government of man.

WHOAH, when did I say what I believe. What I believe has nothing to do with my critique of you. I just need you to realize that it is a conservative administration that is so militaristically geared. It is a conservative administration that is restricting rights and doing away with civil liberties. There have been strong arguments about why those things are undermining to society, just at least admit that the form of government which you propose has got nothing to do with rights. At heart you are a conservative, so just shut the hell up about rights, because they are antithetical to conservativism. That doesn't mean that conservatives have no respect for human life or decency, just they don't believe in rights. Or, you believe in rights so that kinda makes you a liberal, just a really sucky one because you believe that your personal ideology is what all rights are based off of. I am not saying that rights are decided by the government either, that is a BS standpoint. When the government is wrong we are entitled to do what we can to make it right.

Also, would you define leftist for me? I am just curious what you think it means... Are you just using it as an insult, or if not and it has nothing to do with liberalism then I just want to know what you are using it as.

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank

False... Your chains would merely prevent me from exercising my rights... my rights remain whole and given their authority and the sacred responsibility inherent in them, it is my solemn duty to destroy you, in that by usurping my rights you have forfeited those fo your own; It is my obligation to do so, by what ever means is available to me... as long as I am able, until such time as my life expires...

Again you return to confuse Rights with privilege...

What you are precedes you... it is in your wake and sits on the rhetorical breeze through every word you post...

Here's a clue:

That is the pungent funk of the left... the rotting corpse of a long discredited ideology...

Now you may feel you're a centrist, a moderate, a progressive... but what you are is a leftists... You're a leftist sis... through and through, top to bottom...

That's malicious BS.

The father of modern conservatism was Edmund Burke, who had a sophisticated view of society as a "organic" interweaving of customs and institutions which are interelated in ways that are difficult to perceive. Reforms should be gradual, because with all those interconnections it's real easy to screw things up. Hayek is an intellectual descendent of Burke. Adam Smith is the Godfather of conservatism; his understanding of human nature has never been found wanting, and every effort to deny it (Rousseau, Marx) has ended in oceans of blood (the French Revolution, the Evil Empire, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.).

Conservatism is an honorable intellectual tradition that is completely legitimate. Statements like the one in the quoted post are not just an illegitimate rhetorical device, they are uncivil.

You may have a legitimate complaint with certain political positions in the current era that claim to be "conservative," and that's fine. As used in the current political environment the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have become largely useless in denoting any particular ideology. The quoted remark is still malicious and uncivil.

~~~~~~~~

Rousseau and Marx are the fathers of modern liberalism. Rousseau says man is basically good but society screws him up, Marx says human nature can be changed to create a "new socialist man." As TV's Dr. Phil might say, "How's that workin' for ya'?"