1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Natural Origin of Rights

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by FR7 Baptist, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Say it any way you want. With out law, there are no rights. I'm perfectly happy to say either I have the right to property, or that you have no right to steal from me.

    I'm saying the same thing.
     
  2. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh I totally agree that without law there are no rights. No dispute there. The disagreement is that you notice law and derive from this fact that rights exist - I note that such a conclusion does not necessarily follow. We are agreeing about the fact of universal law and that men know it exists, but we are not saying the same thing about what the means for men having rights.
     
  3. AresMan

    AresMan Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How exactly does this match with what I asserted in the two statements?

    1. Everyone has a natural, God-given right to the fruits of his or her own labor.
    2. No one has a natural or God-given right to that of another without consent.

    How is #1 exclusive from #2? If you imply that natural disasters can deprive one of #1, I suppose I will give you that, but that is not what I had in mind.

    If you are referring to taxation for #1, I would still argue that taxation is rightful only by the consent of the governed. Taxation is not some form of natural process; it is intervention from others. If it is without representation, it violates #2.
     
  4. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are not exclusive. What I pointed out is that 2 being true does not imply that 1 must be true. As an example:

    Lets say you own an animal, a horse for instance. We would agree that it would be wrong for me to kill that horse w/o your permission - that I do no have the right to take the life of that horse (as in point 2). And we both agree that if you put a saddle on the horse or gave them some of your hay to eat (and called them the "horse's saddle" and the "horse's hay") that I wouldn't have a right to come and take this saddle or hay (as in point 2). However, we would probably both agree that agreement on these facts does not lead to the conclusion that the cow therefore must have a right to life or a right to property.

    So, when I asked how you know that we have rights, you used the fact of the lack of rights to steal, kill, etc. as proof that rights exist. However, as shown in the example, that while points 1 and 2 are in no way exclusive of each other or contradictory to each other, the fact of point 2 does not necessarily imply the existence of point 1.

    Now, I certainly agree that IF point 1 is true THEN violating 1 necessarily violates 2, but that still leaves the question...How do you know point 1 is true to begin with? It can't be because of the truth of point 2 since point 2 does not prove point 1.
     
    #44 dwmoeller1, Oct 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2010
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    RE: Genocide of the Canaanites.

    We are God's creation to do with as He sees fit.

    He destroyed the entire world with a flood sparing Noah and family.

    Having done some study of Semite history, the Canaanites were a perfect example of total depravity.

    Leviticus 18 prohibitions gives a general picture of their perversions.

    Both Scripture and history show that they were the epitome of depravity having given themselves over to unbridled lust and every kind of perversion.

    Though they were cultured and religious, they were barbaric practicing unspeakable acts. e.g. Parents were obligated to sacrifice their first-born by fire then cannibalize the infant body with the canaanite priests.

    It was called "Happy Day" presumaby because of the sardonic facial expression of the infant in the fire.

    Zealous parents could also sacrifice subsequent children or hand them over to the priests for temple ritual perversions.

    There are other practices which must remain untold.

    Canaanite skeletal remains show evidence of STDs and cannibalism (kuru) to the point of genetic damage and malformity.

    Again, it is God's perogative to deal with a social cancer in the way He sees fit in order to protect the common good.


    HankD
     
Loading...