The point I was trying to make was that these "rights" are an artifact of the human mind in the case of "no controlling legal authority". That does not mean I disagree with the "right" only that Albert Gore may have a different view than we do.
Posted on 03/10/2002 11:53:20 AM PST by JediGirl
Sarcasm is beneath you.
Also, God sacrificed himself, not a third party and God was the only sacrifice that would work, a "perfect" sacrifice, the only sacrifice that would satisfy God's call for perfect justice. God did not visit harm on anyone else, thus your reasoning is flawed and your basic premise is in error.
I can see at least 2 problems with your scenario. First, the assumption that all humans are guilty. Guilty of what?
I will therefore assume you agree that God requires perfect justice and God is merciful. Your problems are not with my scenario. You problem is with God. Argue with him if you like. The assumption is logical given the nature of mankind.
Are you referring to Original Sin? That's another very flawed parable, IMO. Basically we're guilty just for existing as humans in the first place.
You are only partially correct, Original sinned caused our fall from grace, making all of us less than perfect. Unless you know of a perfect person?? If so let me know. Therefore, we are all imperfect, flawed, sinful, use any adjective you like. Unless, you can prove you or anyone else is perfect, the assumption is logically sustainable. Therefore the assumption until proven otherwise, is correct.
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for living!
Exactly God's point and the idea behind his perfect mercy and the topic we are discussing. I actually believe you are catching on.
I accept no guilt for the so-called crime of merely existing, nor for anything my distant ancestors may have done.
As pointed out above (unless you're perfect), this statement is not at issue. Therefore, not a valid argument. God is not holding you accountable for anyone else's problems.
The second problem is the scapegoat. Just thinking off the top of my head, a rigorously just yet merciful response would simply entail forgiveness of whatever actual sins we as individuals commit, and for which we truly repent & try to pay back the damages.
So many flaws; where to start. First, perfect justice requires perfect punishment. Someone must pay for the crime or else it wouldn't be perfect justice. God cannot deny himself. Second, as pointed out above, there is no "scapegoat", God needed to satisfy perfect mercy and he did it with himself, once again no third party involved. Third, repentence is good and God accepts that, but someone still must pay for the crime or perfect justice would not be served.
I think the whole idea of "mercy" is based on not enforcing one's right to restitution or revenge.
Nothing to do with either of these, mercy is the setting aside of punishment. Restitution and revenge are not in play here. God will set aside our deserved punishment because he is merciful, but this only satisfies half of the equation. God must also satisfy perfect justice. Someone must suffer the consequences of sin.
It's simple, to the point, and deals with the debt the criminal owes to the victim.
But fails to answer the question of perfect justice. God cannot deny himself. Therefore this is flawed thinking, we are not discussing debt, but justice (someone must be punished) and in God's mercy, the transference of that punishment, in essence to himself.
W.K.
Then ... where's the sacrifice? I thought I understood all of this, but I'm getting confused.
The point I was trying to make was that these "rights" are an artifact of the human mind in the case of "no controlling legal authority". That does not mean I disagree with the "right" only that Albert Gore may have a different view than we do.
Paragraph 13 end of second and beginning of 3rd line should read "God needed to satisfy perfect justice and he did it with himself...
Got to sign off for the night; enjoy.
W.K.
Evolution theory identifies natural selection as an existing mechanism in nature. It did not invent it. It does not praise it. It does not pass any kind of moral judgement upon it. Evolution theory only describes it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Nobody's shooting the messenger. However, you have delivered the death blow to Objectivism, and on libertarian ideas based on Rand's ideas. Objectivism, after all, prides itself on a strict adherence to operating within the bounds of objective reality. However, objective reality includes "survival of the fittest," or "might makes right." The problem with an insistence on "rationally-derived absolutes," such as "it is wrong to initiate force," is that such claims simply cannot survive contact with survival of the fittest.
If the principle of non-initiation of force is indeed absolute, the origins of its absoluteness cannot come from objective reality, as defined by Rand and friends -- the counter-examples are too numerous.
Skipping to the end of the argument, the choices boil down to "because God said so;" or "the moral absolutes defined by Rand, or libertarians who follow her reasoning, cannot be obtioned through application of reason alone."
Rand (and many FR libertarians) reject God. As such, their moral reasoning cannot be supported by anything other than "because I said so."
And I had thought that religion started when the first Knave encountered the first Fool.
Well for those who believe evolution is not immoral let's remember what the basis of it is: survival of the fittest, or in other words, might makes right. The obscenity of this is plainly displayed by the following quote from Darwin:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
It's not about justice, it's about Love, but of course, you would never understand. It's about the kind of love a parent has towards a wayward child.
A perfect and sinless man, who also had to be God. As St. Anselm put it, the God-Man.
Her youth is what I was pointing out, but she did not deserve my scorn, which is why I retracted my remark.
Sounds just like Marx's "Religion is the opiat of the people." Politics is out to make anything and anyone its handmaiden--but true religion, that is a genuine love relationship to God (and therefore others), is handmaiden only to her Husband, the Lord Jesus. That is why historically the most devout (and politically harmless) Christians have often died at the hands of ruthless rulers--and it continues today--look at Sudan or China...
Jesus Himself was killed due to politics (the Romans trying to appease corrupt local political/religious leaders...), so what else is new? Yet God in spite of the most heiniously evil act in history, brought about the greatest good...
Should a person who steps on an ant be prosecuted for murder?
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.