You have no rights...?

[tonyrey]

For example, in addition to the ones I’ve already cited, 2 Samuel 15, where God randomly inflicts civilians with disease. Today we consider the use of chemical or biological weapons to be a war crime, and their use against civilians is certainly a human rights violation.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Yahweh is not the Christian God.
The Christian concept of God is found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.
Yahweh is not the Christian God.
The Christian concept of God is found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.

Heresy? On Catholic forums? It’s more likely than you think.

Marcionism

Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament… The premise of Marcionism is that many of the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. Focusing on the Pauline traditions of the Gospel, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially any association with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth.

Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy, and written against, notably by Tertullian, in a five-book treatise Adversus Marcionem, written about 208.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No mental gymnastics are required if we are aware of the Sola Scriptura fallacy. Scripture cannot explain and justify itself. It needs to be interpreted by the community that was founded by Jesus. He didn’t come to write a book but to demonstrate how to live. He perfected the Law and fulfilled the prophecies. The fundamental concept of God is the same in the Old and New Testaments. “He Who Is” is a rare if not unique concept of God among ancient religions. The prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah who would liberate the Chosen People from their legalistic mentality on the one hand and immorality on the other: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings”. - Hosea (6:6)

You’re really hung up on the literal interpretation thing. I’m not interpreting them literally. I believe most of the old testament is a-historical. I’m saying that if God wanted to teach us that he was kind and loving, why do so many of his stories involve him killing people seemingly at random (e.g. these two guys whose only crime seems to have been doing a burnt offering the wrong way):
“And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them. And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them, and they died before the Lord.” - Leviticus 10:1-2

It’s exactly like asking if a politician is really pro-life when he explains his policies by telling a bunch of stories involving positive outcomes from abortion.

Thank you for acknowledging - like Dawkins - the superiority of Christ’s moral teaching which is the basis of the UNDHR and the principles of liberty, equality and (above all) fraternity which only make sense if God is a loving Father. Otherwise why should we should regard and treat everyone as our brothers and sisters? Being related solely by an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

I’m not sure where I said it was superior. I have also acknowledged another poster’s idea of using the value of creativity as a basis for human rights, and suggested my own (i.e. to take a Rawlsian approach.) I did not make a comparison between these ideas.

 

[tonyrey]

No mental gymnastics are required if we are aware of the Sola Scriptura fallacy. Scripture cannot explain and justify itself. It needs to be interpreted by the community that was founded by Jesus. He didn’t come to write a book but to demonstrate how to live. He perfected the Law and fulfilled the prophecies. The fundamental concept of God is the same in the Old and New Testaments. “He Who Is” is a rare if not unique concept of God among ancient religions. The prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah who would liberate the Chosen People from their legalistic mentality on the one hand and immorality on the other: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings”. - Hosea (6:6)

Ad hominem.

I’m not interpreting them literally. I believe most of the old testament is a-historical.

Unsurprising considering most of its books were not thus intended.

I’m saying that if God wanted to teach us that he was kind and loving, why do so many of his stories involve him killing people seemingly at random (e.g. these two guys whose only crime seems to have been doing a burnt offering the wrong way):
“And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them. And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them, and they died before the Lord.” - Leviticus 10:1-2

Written centuries before Christ was born when the concept of Yahweh was predominant.

It’s exactly like asking if a politician is really pro-life when he explains his policies by telling a bunch of stories involving positive outcomes from abortion.

You’re overlooking the Psalms and prophetic books.

Thank you for acknowledging - like Dawkins - the superiority of Christ’s moral teaching which is the basis of the UNDHR and the principles of liberty, equality and (above all) fraternity which only make sense if God is a loving Father. Otherwise why should we should regard and treat everyone as our brothers and sisters? Being related solely by an accident of birth is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

I’m not sure where I said it was superior.

In a begrudging way:

You’re probably right, you could find some basis for human rights if you restricted yourself exclusively to the gospels (i.e. 4 closely-related books) and ignored the rest!

“some basis” should be “the only rational basis”.

I have also acknowledged another poster’s idea of using the value of creativity as a basis for human rights, and suggested my own (i.e. to take a Rawlsian approach.) I did not make a comparison between these ideas.

How did creativity originate? Chance events are not a rational basis for rights of any description.

 

[tonyrey]

Yahweh is not the Christian God.
The Christian concept of God is found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.

• Yahweh is not the Christian God.*

False dilemma. The prophets corrected the prevailing misconceptions of God as an angry tyrant who demanded animal sacrifice and struck down those who defied His laws but they did not reject the pure monotheism of Judaism. Jesus came to perfect the Law.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ad hominem.
Unsurprising considering most of its books were not thus intended.
Written centuries before Christ was born when the concept of Yahweh was predominant.

You’re overlooking the Psalms and prophetic books.
In a begrudging way:
“some basis” should be “the only rational basis”.
How did creativity originate? Chance events are not a rational basis for rights of any description.

So your final defense is a watered down form of the Marcionism heresy?

 

[tonyrey]

So your final defense is a watered down form of the Marcionism heresy?

Non sequitur - a very common fallacy - and labels are worthless. It would be far more relevant to address my statements…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Non sequitur - a very common fallacy - and labels are worthless. It would be far more relevant to address my statements…

Sure: The beliefs that the Old Testament Yahweh is not the same as the New Testament God and that the gospels were the correct way of understanding God were cornerstones of the Marcionism heresy that has been condemned by the Catholic Church since the beginning.

It’s fine if you want to stick by your guns, but by so doing you lose the “prestige” that comes with toeing the Catholic line. In other words, it makes it much harder for you to answer the question I asked earlier, why should I believe your interpretation of the bible over my own?

 

[ynotzap]

Sure: The beliefs that the Old Testament Yahweh is not the same as the New Testament God and that the gospels were the correct way of understanding God were cornerstones of the Marcionism heresy that has been condemned by the Catholic Church since the beginning.

It’s fine if you want to stick by your guns, but by so doing you lose the “prestige” that comes with toeing the Catholic line. In other words, it makes it much harder for you to answer the question I asked earlier, why should I believe your interpretation of the bible over my own?

Tetragrammation; derived from Greek, meaning “…of four letters” It indicates the name by which God is commonly designated in the Hebrew Bible (about 6823 times) It consists of four letters:JHWH and it reads Jahweh. While other names signify the nature of God (eg. 'el, elohim), this one designates His very person and is the most holy and incommunicable name. After the exile (fifth century B.C.) the Hebrews out of reverence, avoided pronouncing it; at the time of Christ it was licit for the high priest alone to mention it during the solemn annual ceremony of the expiation.
After the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem (A.D-70) the sacred name was substituted in the Bible by Adonai (My Lord) and Elohim (God). The four original letters were preserved, but there were added to them the vowels of the other two names which were pronounced by the reader, substituting the consonants: in the Bible Jehovah or Jehowih were written, but one read Adonai and Elohim. By ignorance of such substitution the erroneous reading Jehovah entered into use in the fourteenth century. The Tetragrammation was revealed by God to Moses as a new name, when He entrusted to him the task of freeing the people from slavery of Egypt (Exod. 3:13-16; 6;3-8) Its meaning is given by Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses : I Am Who Am. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He Who Is, hath sent me to you” The name in fact derives from the Hebrew root HJH (hajah) or HWH (hawah) and is the first person singular of the imperfect tense, improperly so called preformative on account of it’s morphological property of being formed from the root by means of a preforming letterJ. From the verbal sentence “I Am Who Am,” spontaneous passage was made to the name represented by the third person: JaHWeH-“he who is,” which signifies: He who truly is, He whose essential property is to be. (see divine essence) Some authors derive the name from the causal form of the verbal root, obtaining the meaning:“He who gives being,” eg. “the Creator”
In all the vast domain of the Semitic languages to which the Hebrew belongs, no other divine name is formed from a verb, especially from the performative tense, all the other names are of noun formation, for the most part substantive. This shows that the Tetragrammation is not a spontaneous product of the popular relilgion of an invention of men; it is, as the Bible says, directly revealed by God ( taken from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology)

Japanese Kappa: You are right, but you are trying to reason some of the apparent contradictions found in the Bible. Reason will never explain the Bible, although it will not contradict reason, reason and Faith are from the same God. Christianity is a gift, not a product of reasoning, once received many things will become clear. But to judge from the outside puts one at a great disadvantage. Personally, I find my Faith very consistent with right reasoning, following the Teachers and Fathers of the Church. We are fallible, but we believe that Jesus Christ gave the Church in her doctrinal teachings the gift of “Infallibility” all are fallible, even St. Thomas, it belongs to God alone.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure: The beliefs that the Old Testament Yahweh is not the same as the New Testament God and that the gospels were the correct way of understanding God were cornerstones of the Marcionism heresy that has been condemned by the Catholic Church since the beginning.

It’s fine if you want to stick by your guns, but by so doing you lose the “prestige” that comes with toeing the Catholic line. In other words, it makes it much harder for you to answer the question I asked earlier, why should I believe your interpretation of the bible over my own?

You haven’t explained how my interpretation is identical with Marcion’s nor have you refuted my statements:

1. The prophets corrected the prevailing misconceptions of God as an angry tyrant who demanded animal sacrifice and struck down those who defied His laws.
2. They upheld the pure monotheism of Judaism.
3. Jesus fulfilled their prophecies and came to perfect the Law with His teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You haven’t explained how my interpretation is identical with Marcion’s nor have you refuted my statements:

1. The prophets corrected the prevailing misconceptions of God as an angry tyrant who demanded animal sacrifice and struck down those who defied His laws.
2. They upheld the pure monotheism of Judaism.
3. Jesus fulfilled their prophecies and came to perfect the Law with His teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children.

I didn’t say it was identical, I called it a “watered down version of.” I have been directly addressing your points, and you have been shifting the goalposts. See how your current bullet points have almost nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

To recap: my major thesis was

I was pointing out that the assertion that we have some inherent right to life is not correct based on scripture. Indeed, I do not believe we have any rights in the eyes of God.

I think human rights are fundamentally a human undertaking. Human rights are for the protection of humans from other humans and humans are the only ones who can put the rights into practice. We do not accuse animals of violating human rights, nor do we extend human rights to animals. Religious people do not expect their God to abide by or defend their human rights.
Human rights are by the humans for the humans.

You objected, on two grounds: that I was interpreting the old testament too literally (several times)

I have already pointed out that only Fundamentalists interpret the whole of the Old Testament literally. If you confine yourself to the Gospels you will discover that your allegations are unsubstantiated and amount to ad hominems…

And that human rights can only be explained by God

And rights are not invented by man. They stem from the immense value of life which cannot be explained if we think we exist by chance.

To the second, I responded

Even if you base your rights on the “immense value of life,” we humans are the ones doing the valuing. Therefore, we did invent the rights, we just did so indirectly through our decision on how much value to place on human lives.
If you still want to argue they are some sort of property of the universe, you’ll have to explain why doesn’t God recognize them:

And later it came up that there were at least two other ways of deriving human rights which did not depend on religious conviction. However, you continued with the first objection even after I had already responded that I wasn’t interpreting it literally:

This doesn’t need to be interpreted literally. In fact, I don’t believe the entire Exodus story actually happened. The question I’ve always asked while reading bible stories is “what is the take home message or overarching theme here?” There are numerous instances in the old testament where the message seems to me to be: God doesn’t recognize any human rights.

It’s exactly like asking if a politician is really pro-life when he explains his policies by telling a bunch of stories involving positive outcomes from abortion.

Eventually you seemed to be feeling cornered, and you came up with this idea:

Yahweh is not the Christian God.
The Christian concept of God is found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.
Yahweh is not the Christian God.

Unsurprising considering most of its books were not thus intended. Written centuries before Christ was born when the concept of Yahweh was predominant.

If the stories that God **did **smite people are a primitive interpretation of events it doesn’t make sense to ask me to look at them from the point of view of the person on the ground. They were mistaken and that’s the end of the matter.

But I’ve pointed out that this sounds a lot like the Marcionian heresy that has been condemned by the Catholic Church, and your only response has been to complain that it’s not identically the same. I will add one final point: Is everything in the bible true? which quotes Pope Leo XIII as writing in his encyclical:

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond . . . this system cannot be tolerated.

And so I now say that it is you who has not answered me.

1. If human rights are actually inherent in the value of life, why does God act as though he does not recognize human rights? Why do his stories involve him violating human rights for petty reasons? (Don’t pretend that I have failed to provide any examples)
2. I’ve admitted that if we chose to believe the Gospels in isolation (i.e. if we ignore the evidence from the OT,) we could probably find some basis for human rights. However, you have not yet adequately explained why we should do this.

 

[ynotzap]

Mostly because

But you’re basically splitting hairs here. Sure, we could make reasonable arguments that the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky deserve some basic fish-rights and bird-rights. But we were talking about human rights, not bird-rights or fish-rights.

Which is a fine sentiment, but why doesn’t God act like that is the case?
If that is the case, then I challenge you to go back and read the bible from the point of view of the “least of these” people God smited. What did everyone other than Noah learn about God while drowning? What did the slave-mothers of Egypt learn about God during the Exodus? What did Job’s family think about being handed over to the devil? What did the children of Amalek learn about the God who had ordered their destruction? If you’re right, and God loves all of us, especially the least ones, then we should see that love no matter whose perspective we take. Or perhaps you believe that in the entire country of Egypt, there was not a single firstborn son who loved others enough to be worth sparing.

The error of the Marcion Heresy was that the God of the Old Testament

It’s easy to read the bible and imagine yourself on the side of the “good guys,” or the side of the winners. From that vantage point, of course God looks caring and loving. He is on your side, and helping out after all. But I believe that when you imagine yourself lying on the ground with your family, and an Israelite is counting off which of you will live and which will die (2 Samuel 8:2) you learn something completely different. I’m not asking you to interpret the stories literally, I’m asking you to look at them from the point of view of the person on the ground, not the one doing the counting.

Looking at things as the person on the ground, yes it does from a human perspective is as if God is wrathful, vengeful, cruel. And it was these ideas that caused Marcion to commit heresy. His belief was that the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh) was not the God of the New Testament (Jesus), Yahweh is the same God, the I Am Who Am. Are you not in the same heretical mind set? You see, you are judging from a purely human perspective and giving your interpretation of what you read in the Bible. The Bible is a divinely inspired word of God, and without revelation none of it would make sense. So how can you judge? Not all interpret the Bible in the same way, what is called " Private Interpretation" Jesus appointed those who were to interpret the Bible, and with the gift of infallibility given to the Pope when teaching from the Chair. So it is not surprising that this is the way it appears to you, you do not possess the Christian belief, or understanding, and any argument offered will do little if any to change your opinion. As I said, Faith in Christianity, in Jesus, is a gift, and it can only come from Him, in a personal encounter. But we do make a stand on our beliefs, whether people agree, or disagree.

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t say it was identical, I called it a “watered down version of.” I have been directly addressing your points, and you have been shifting the goalposts. See how your current bullet points have almost nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

You are sadly mistaken. The teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children is** the only rational foundation **of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity without which human rights would be merely human conventions.

I was pointing out that the assertion that we have some inherent right to life is not correct based on scripture. Indeed, I do not believe we have any rights in the eyes of God.

Then you are sadly mistaken again. It would be a very peculiar father who thinks his children are worthless and he can treat them just as he likes! Evil would be a better description.

I think human rights are fundamentally a human undertaking. Human rights are for the protection of humans from other humans and humans are the only ones who can put the rights into practice. We do not accuse animals of violating human rights, nor do we extend human rights to animals.

Religious people do not expect their God to abide by or defend their human rights.

Again you are sadly mistaken. Jesus condemned those who do not love their neighbours and fail to help them when they are in trouble.

Human rights are by the humans for the humans.

Ask any criminal if he believes that. Human rights presuppose the value of human life which is not self-evident.

Even if you base your rights on the “immense value of life,” we humans are the ones doing the valuing. Therefore, we did invent the rights, we just did so indirectly through our decision on how much value to place on human lives.

The Nazis did just that… Who decides who is right - and why?

If you still want to argue they are some sort of property of the universe, you’ll have to explain why doesn’t God recognize them:
And later it came up that there were at least two other ways of deriving human rights which did not depend on religious conviction. However, you continued with the first objection even after I had already responded that I wasn’t interpreting it literally.

All the ways you have mentioned are in the same “human invention” category.

This doesn’t need to be interpreted literally. In fact, I don’t believe the entire Exodus story actually happened. The question I’ve always asked while reading bible stories is “what is the take home message or overarching theme here?” There are numerous instances in the old testament where the message seems to me to be: God doesn’t recognize any human rights.
It’s exactly like asking if a politician is really pro-life when he explains his policies by telling a bunch of stories involving positive outcomes from abortion.

I entirely agree with you.

But I’ve pointed out that this sounds a lot like the Marcionian heresy that has been condemned by the Catholic Church, and your only response has been to complain that it’s not identically the same. I will add one final point: Is everything in the bible true? which quotes Pope Leo XIII as writing in his encyclical:
Quote:
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond . . . this system cannot be tolerated.

“sounds a lot like” sums up your view perfectly! That is a far cry from being a Marcionite. If I were a heretic I am quite sure I would have been banned from this forum at some point in the last five years, having submitted almost twenty thousand posts with many quotations from the Old and NewTestaments. It shouldn’t have been too difficult to detect any deviation from orthodox Catholic teaching - unless you believe the moderators are hopelessly inefficient. Pope Leo XIII did not state that every single statement in the Old Testament is literally true. You may not realise to call another member of this forum a heretic is a very serious allegation…

And so I now say that it is you who has not answered me.

1. If human rights are actually inherent in the value of life, why does God act as though he does not recognize human rights? Why do his stories involve him violating human rights for petty reasons? (Don’t pretend that I have failed to provide any examples)

1. I’ve admitted that if we chose to believe the Gospels in isolation (i.e. if we ignore the evidence from the OT,) we could probably find some basis for human rights. However, you have not yet adequately explained why we should do this.

For the simple reason that Jesus said He came to perfect the Law, quoting the prophet Hosea :

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings’’ Hosea 6:6

That one short sentence disposes of your argument for once and for all because it implies that some human interpretations of events in the Old Testament are fallible even though it was inspired by God with its concept of the Deity, the prophecies of the Messiah, the Ten Commandments and the history of the Chosen People. As there were no eye witnesses of the Creation what other source could there be? Either you or Jesus is mistaken… I know which of you I believe is more credible!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You are sadly mistaken. The teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children is** the only rational foundation **of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity without which human rights would be merely human conventions.

I am saying that human rights are conventions that can be defended rationally (e.g. via a Rawlsian approach.)

Then you are sadly mistaken again. It would be a very peculiar father who thinks his children are worthless and he can treat them just as he likes! Evil would be a better description… [but those examples do not matter] For the simple reason that Jesus said He came to perfect the Law

This seems to me to be a non-sequitur. I was never arguing that the old testament laws failed to protect human rights. Unless you’re saying that we are now allowed to disobey or defy God when he commands us to violations of human rights.

Again you are sadly mistaken. Jesus condemned those who do not love their neighbours and fail to help them when they are in trouble.
Ask any criminal if he believes that. Human rights presuppose the value of human life which is not self-evident.
The Nazis did just that… Who decides who is right - and why?

Since you brought up the Nazis, I wonder if you ever watched “God on Trial,” an excellent movie about Jews during the holocaust debating whether or not God had abandoned them. Here is a relevant section. I will remind you the Germans had a motto “Gott Mit Uns” (God is with us) and not “human lives don’t matter.” The question asked in the video there was: why couldn’t God be on the Nazi’s side? After all, he has been on the side of people who did such things before (i.e. in the Old Testament stories.)

All the ways you have mentioned are in the same “human invention” category.

Right, because my argument is that that’s what they are. It would be strange for me to say they are human conventions and then defend them by citing the Hindu gods.

“sounds a lot like” sums up your view perfectly! That is a far cry from being a Marcionite. If I were a heretic I am quite sure I would have been banned from this forum at some point in the last five years, having submitted almost twenty thousand posts with many quotations from the Old and NewTestaments.

Why would the moderators ban a heretic? I suppose they are not so much inefficient as they are tolerant, but I guess I’m not surprised you’d expect some ideas to be censored here.

That one short sentence disposes of your argument for once and for all because it implies that some human interpretations of events in the Old Testament are fallible even though it was inspired by God with its concept of the Deity, the prophecies of the Messiah, the Ten Commandments and the history of the Chosen People. As there were no eye witnesses of the Creation what other source could there be? Either you or Jesus is mistaken… I know which of you I believe is more credible!

Look, obviously some interpretations are wrong. For example, if I read the old testament and then said “this book is clearly talking about the Shinto religion” I would be wrong. But like I said before, the fewest-mental-gymnastics interpretation of the bible is the one where you see the bible as a collection of ancient myths, poems, philosophy, etc instead of as a self-consistent treatise on God. “Jesus said so” is hardly the sort of reasoning that would be convincing to anyone other than people who are already Christian. SuperLuigi asked what we would say to people who violated human rights:

The ones that bend over backwards for sharia law but persecute Christians while thinking their philosophy will win out with little to no effort other than professional protesting just because?
In some places, it’s still okay to have slaves. Are you going to tell them what to do based on the standards of another human like yourself?

I wonder if your “Jesus says” pronouncement would be convincing to such people. Many of them already believe they are doing God’s will. I think some of the other approaches here are more likely to be effective, since they don’t require a religious conversion to convince compliance.

 

[ynotzap]

Japanese Kappa: Since you mentioned Jesus, the knowledge that we have of Jesus is in the Bible. Again we come to the proper interpretation, but because of private interpretation, then there is cause for conflict. Is God, Jesus so divided? Or is truth One?

Even if one did not have a conversion, society would have to come up with a set of laws and rights to insure civil harmony. More than likely, they would have to come up with something like the l0 Commandments. Of course in a secular society, I wouldn’t expect them to acknowledge the first three.

In the Declaration of Independence, of the United States of America it states:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men. Even if one wasn’t converted to Christianity, he can still enjoy the freedom of these rights. But in this country , we are suffering, because there seems to be not need for God among many to insure our unalienable rights, rights that can not be taken away from us. No need for conversion to understand these basic truths, and rights.

 

[tonyrey]

You are sadly mistaken. The teaching that God is a loving Father who cares for all His children is the only rational foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity without which human rights would be merely human conventions.

A “veil of ignorance” is hardly a rational foundation for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. It reveals a void at the heart of reality which is a recipe for the law of the jungle. The urge to survive overcomes armchair speculation like a shot…

Then you are sadly mistaken again. It would be a very peculiar father who thinks his children are worthless and he can treat them just as he likes! Evil would be a better description.

This seems to me to be a non-sequitur. I was never arguing that the old testament laws failed to protect human rights. Unless you’re saying that we are now allowed to disobey or defy God when he commands us to violations of human rights.

You implied that the God worshipped by the Jews is a monster of cruelty and injustice. Yet Jesus condemned those who do not love their neighbours and fail to help them when they are in trouble. Human rights presuppose the value of human life which is not self-evident.

Since you brought up the Nazis, I wonder if you ever watched “God on Trial,” an excellent movie about Jews during the holocaust debating whether or not God had abandoned them. Here is a relevant section. I will remind you the Germans had a motto “Gott Mit Uns” (God is with us) and not “human lives don’t matter.” The question asked in the video there was: why couldn’t God be on the Nazi’s side? After all, he has been on the side of people who did such things before (i.e. in the Old Testament stories.)

The Jews had good reason to wonder why God seemed to have abandoned them but that doesn’t answer the question, Who decides what is right - and why? Morality is an anomaly in an amoral universe. It has no rational basis whatsoever and criminals are well aware of that fact. If you can get away with deceit and corruption there is nothing to stop you. That is why there is so much misery and injustice in the world.

All the ways you have mentioned are in the same “human invention” category.

Right, because my argument is that that’s what they are. It would be strange for me to say they are human conventions and then defend them by citing the Hindu gods.

If rights are no more than human conventions they cannot be categorical imperatives.

“sounds a lot like” sums up your view perfectly! That is a far cry from being a Marcionite. If I were a heretic I am quite sure I would have been banned from this forum at some point in the last five years, having submitted almost twenty thousand posts with many quotations from the Old and NewTestaments.

Why would the moderators ban a heretic? I suppose they are not so much inefficient as they are tolerant, but I guess I’m not surprised you’d expect some ideas to be censored here.

For the simple reason that a heretic who claims to be a Catholic is an impostor and breaks the forum rule of respect for the Catholic faith…

That one short sentence disposes of your argument for once and for all because it implies that some human interpretations of events in the Old Testament are fallible even though it was inspired by God with its concept of the Deity, the prophecies of the Messiah, the Ten Commandments and the history of the Chosen People. As there were no eye witnesses of the Creation what other source could there be? Either you or Jesus is mistaken… I know which of you I believe is more credible!

Look, obviously some interpretations are wrong. For example, if I read the old testament and then said “this book is clearly talking about the Shinto religion” I would be wrong. But like I said before, the fewest-mental-gymnastics interpretation of the bible is the one where you see the bible as a collection of ancient myths, poems, philosophy, etc instead of as a self-consistent treatise on God. “Jesus said so” is hardly the sort of reasoning that would be convincing to anyone other than people who are already Christian.

The Bible is a collection of diverse writings by different men and women over a period of centuries which serves different purposes: theological, metaphysical, moral, social, historical, poetical and prophetic. It is hardly surprising that the one-size-fits-all approach is unsuccessful but it has one underlying theme from start to finish: that the Jews are the Chosen People from whom the Messiah would come and liberate the world from evil and injustice, a message summed up and perfected by Jesus who revealed that we don’t exist by Chance but by Design. It is a rational interpretation of reality that has convinced intelligent non-Christians throughout the world for over two thousand years and is the basis of modern civilised values expressed in the UNDHR.
“A veil of ignorance” convinces no one when it comes to living in the real world. In fact it amounts to an admission of ignorance and intellectual impotence, a futile attempt to derive value from the valueless, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless…

 

[tonyrey]

A “veil of ignorance” is hardly a rational foundation for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. It reveals a void at the heart of reality which is a recipe for the law of the jungle. The urge to survive overcomes armchair speculation like a shot…

You implied that the God worshipped by the Jews is a monster of cruelty and injustice. Yet Jesus condemned those who do not love their neighbours and fail to help them when they are in trouble. Human rights presuppose the value of human life which is not self-evident.

The Jews had good reason to wonder why God seemed to have abandoned them but that doesn’t answer the question, Who decides what is right - and why? Morality is an anomaly in an amoral universe. It has no rational basis whatsoever and criminals are well aware of that fact. If you can get away with deceit and corruption there is nothing to stop you. That is why there is so much misery and injustice in the world.

The Bible is a collection of diverse writings by different men and women over a period of centuries which serves different purposes: theological, metaphysical, moral, social, historical, poetical and prophetic. It is hardly surprising that the one-size-fits-all approach is unsuccessful but it has one underlying theme from start to finish: that the Jews are the Chosen People from whom the Messiah would come and liberate the world from evil and injustice, a message summed up and perfected by Jesus who revealed that we don’t exist by Chance but by Design. It is a rational interpretation of reality that has convinced intelligent non-Christians throughout the world for over two thousand years and is the basis of modern civilised values expressed in the UNDHR.

“A veil of ignorance” convinces no one when it comes to living in the real world. In fact it amounts to an admission of ignorance and intellectual impotence, a futile attempt to derive value from the valueless, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless…

The more I think about it the more absurd it seems that an intelligent person can appeal to ignorance as a rational foundation for human rights. It is a sign of despair in the vain attempt to dispense with the divine origin of human existence and retain our rights. It amounts to rejecting the cake and wanting to eat it! We cannot have something for nothing - except life itself - but even then we have to do something to make it worth having.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The more I think about it the more absurd it seems that an intelligent person can appeal to ignorance as a rational foundation for human rights. It is a sign of despair in the vain attempt to dispense with the divine origin of human existence and retain our rights. It amounts to rejecting the cake and wanting to eat it! We cannot have something for nothing - except life itself - but even then we have to do something to make it worth having.

The idea of the veil of ignorance is essentially this:

“We should try to construct the society we would want to live in if we didn’t know in advance who we would be.”

Its meant to be a tool for removing our own selfish interests from the equation. For example, without the veil of ignorance, someone as zealous as yourself might institute a Catholic theocracy. But the veil of ignorance is there to remind you that you could be inserted into the resulting society as a homosexual. A slave owner might think that slavery is perfectly fine, but the veil of ignorance is there to remind that person that they could be a slave.

Perhaps you can clarify: were you just confused about what the veil of ignorance is, or do you think that it is better to design a society with your own selfish interests in mind?

 

[tonyrey]

The more I think about it the more absurd it seems that an intelligent person can appeal to ignorance as a rational foundation for human rights. It is a sign of despair in the vain attempt to dispense with the divine origin of human existence and retain our rights. It amounts to rejecting the cake and wanting to eat it! We cannot have something for nothing - except life itself - but even then we have to do something to make it worth having.

What on earth does that mean? Except that we shall be the same persons?

Its meant to be a tool for removing our own selfish interests from the equation.

In that case it assumes that selfishness is not good - which begs the question.

For example, without the veil of ignorance, someone as zealous as yourself might institute a Catholic theocracy.

A further example of an unwarranted assumption which implies that zeal inevitably leads to intolerance.

But the veil of ignorance is there to remind you that you could be inserted into the resulting society as a homosexual.

Yet another unwarranted assumption - that homosexuality is undesirable or even evil.

A slave owner might think that slavery is perfectly fine, but the veil of ignorance is there to remind that person that they could be a slave.

Not necessarily. A state of ignorance need not remind us of anything. It certainly takes far more than ignorance to justify the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. As Lear said, nothing shall come from nothing…

Perhaps you can clarify: were you just confused about what the veil of ignorance is, or do you think that it is better to design a society with your own selfish interests in mind?

There’s nothing confusing about a veil or state of ignorance. Nor is there any a priori reason why selfishness is undesirable. The flaw in democracy is that the majority are not always right and often neglect or even victimise the minority. A good dictator is better than any type of unjust system of government.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What on earth does that mean? Except that we shall be the same persons?

I think it is fairly self explanatory. You come up with a set of rules for society, specifically human rights, and then you get inserted into that society. However, you cannot control where you get inserted, so you have to give the least-well-off people in the society a position that you would find tolerable.

In that case it assumes that selfishness is not good - which begs the question.
A further example of an unwarranted assumption which implies that zeal inevitably leads to intolerance.
Yet another unwarranted assumption - that homosexuality is undesirable or even evil.

What question? We were talking about human rights. My contention was that human rights are by humans for humans. The veil of ignorance is a way to derive a set of rights without being clouded by your own social status. Without a veil of ignorance, the slave owner only considers his position and thinks that slavery is not a violation of any sort of human rights. However, once he is confronted with the possibility of losing his status as owner and instead finding himself as a slave (i.e. through this exercise) he will quickly realize that slavery is not something a society should recognize, and would create a human right to liberty.

Not necessarily. A state of ignorance need not remind us of anything. It certainly takes far more than ignorance to justify the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. As Lear said, nothing shall come from nothing…

Yes, you keep asserting this. But I have demonstrated otherwise.