Where do your rights come from?

[80fl]

nualle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please keep in mind that what were referred to as "slaves" in the writing of the KJV,are today known as "employees".

The practice of "being employed" is a fairly new idea. Even at the commencement of our own country, employment, in the now conventional sense, was virtually unheard of.

If you change "slave" to "employee", and "master" to "boss", it creates a message not often heard in todays world.

 

[Jim March]

There are indeed some critters I'd have to be damned hungry to chow down on...particularly animals with advanced social structures such as wolves, the higher primates, dolphins and such. But hey, that's me, and I don't push that on anybody else.

Yes, I eat chicken, fish, beef, pork, etc with no problems. I see awareness as a "spectrum" versus on/off. Maybe that's a minority view...so be it. There's a freakin' Gorilla out there with over 300 words of sign language that can carry out conversations and answer questions...would you feel comfy about eating THAT? I sure as hell wouldn't. Shoot it in dire self defense, sure, but...

Like the vast majority of hunters (which I'm not yet, due to lack of time/money) I believe in preserving ecosytems wherever possible as the highest priority, species as the next priority below that, and individual critters a distant third. I do NOT believe in trampling private property rights or other human rights to do it, and THAT is the biggest difference between myself and the PETA/Greenpeace idiots.

80FL, have you had pets, esp. a dog or a ferret? (Cats are harder to read, IMHO.) Have you paid attention to what you're seeing? They dream. Literally. It's easiest to see with a ferret, because they'll sleep right on your lap laying on their back and don't wake up easily. I've seen one make walking motions with his legs straight up, eyes moving under closed eyelids, then it stopped "walking" and started making lapping motions with his tounge, obviously "drinking" - it then started "walking" again. It was dreaming. Literally.

OK, let's take another example. Of the two small female ferts my brother had years ago, one had a habit of playing with people's feet, gently nibbling, nothing too nasty but annoying - he'd been trying to train her out of it. So one day, I'm watching from a ways away while he lay asleep on the couch, and sure enough Samia goes and messes with his feet. He told me later that he was dreaming that his feet were being tweaked, and then in mid-dream realized it WASN'T a dream, it was Samia chewin' on toes again, so he lurches awake to catch her at it.

She squirted off towards the bed-basket where her sister was already sleeping, darting under their blanket. I heard my brother say "Samia, you bad weasel, I caught ya this time!" and he went over to their bed. I joined him as he pulled the blanket back.

What we saw were two sleeping ferrets. 'Cept the ferret on top is breathing hard, and cracks one eyelid...and slams it shut when she sees us.

Get it yet? She wasn't just aware she'd been "bad", she was coming up with an ALIBI!



Not bad for something that fits in a jacket pocket, or can sleep curled up on my outstretched palm and fingers.

Heck, ask ANY ferret owner about the "ghost poopies" phenomenon. See, when you take your ferret out for a walk, and it takes maybe half hour to get to the park or whatever, any ferret owner knows they have a small bladder and colon and therefore should "go" before you leave. Fine. So you pick up the skinnykitty and put it in the litterbox.

They *know* what this means, same as a dog will get excited when you get the leash out - "oh boy, we're going out!". So you'll see the fert back into a corner of the litterbox, raises it's tail, heaves it's belly, all the signs of ferret do-do in progress...then comes running out and looks up at you expectantly.

Uh huh. Right. Check the box. Nuthin' there. It's in a hurry, so it fakes it . Stick it back in until you really see something .

This is ALL pretty human behavior .

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by 80fl


Please keep in mind that what were referred to as "slaves" in the writing of the KJV,are today known as "employees".

The practice of "being employed" is a fairly new idea. Even at the commencement of our own country, employment, in the now conventional sense, was virtually unheard of.

If you change "slave" to "employee", and "master" to "boss", it creates a message not often heard in todays world.

No, sorry, that is certainly NOT so. Yes, some few people sold themselves into slavery to avoid starvation but the VAST MAJORITY were either born into slavery or captured during military operations. It was NOT voluntary for the vast majority of slaves and they could not "quit" whenever they wanted.

 

[nualle]

mack wrote:

Paul is not speaking about politics, except to say that politics are secondary to following Christ.

This entire section (from the middle of Ephesians 4 to the quoted bit of Ephesians 6) is precisely about politics... that is, how believers are to act and treat others in this world. In chapter 5, Paul exhorts believers not to be greedy and not to make lewd jokes. He notices those yet somehow misses that believers ought not to enslave others? (Paul's dictum is even more permissive of slavery than the Mosaic law. Leviticus 25 forbids believers from having fellow believers as slaves, or even working them, as employees, as if they were slaves. [Yes, even then, they could tell the difference.])

 

[biere]

That michael moore quote says it all. The people who fought to make this the USA, they dreamed of a government where there was a BoR. They dreamed of elected officials that were elected in a fair manner. They wrote their wants down on paper and made the country they wanted. However, writing it down did not make it so. God did not make it so. The men fought, killed, suffered, and died to make the USA.

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by biere
That michael moore quote says it all. The people who fought to make this the USA, they dreamed of a government where there was a BoR. They dreamed of elected officials that were elected in a fair manner. They wrote their wants down on paper and made the country they wanted. However, writing it down did not make it so. God did not make it so. The men fought, killed, suffered, and died to make the USA.

Well said.

 

[Lancel]

inalienable right

"No one can take away your right to never surrender." - Cory Hart

 

[RikWriter]

Re: inalienable right

Originally posted by Lancel
"No one can take away your right to never surrender." - Cory Hart

As long as you wear your sunglasses at night anyway...

 

[biere]

I actually looked up "give" just to see how many definitions my little dictionary had. There are several. And other than the ones that deal with "giving up" none require the receiver to do anything. Somehow, if God gave man rights I don't think he "gave them up" or conceeded them to man.

For me a right is something that is, or is not. It can not be taken away, it can not be suppressed, it is mine to use any time I want.

And of course since I think what I typed above I really disagree with the idea that a right can be made dormant, like the rights of the jews and others burned in big furnaces.

On cartoons a carrot on a stick was always used to get the donkey going. Now every now and then you had to let the donkey get a carrot so it would want another one. For those who think a right can be suppressed, I wonder if you are looking at your carrot. See a carrot is a cheap reliable way to get the donkey to pull your cart to market or where ever. And I bet the donkey is pretty content since it must like carrots. However, if I step back and see the entire picture I see reality is not what the donkey thinks. Now sometimes, not knowing reality makes things easy because you are content with what you have. If you see true reality, often you get upset and find out how hard it is to change things. And now you are unhappy. This is the pill concept from the matrix.

I think blackhawk hit it with the idea that rights are simply what society around you gives you. I think many who feel rights are given are still riding on the people in the past who fought the make the country, defend the country, and defend our way of life that does not really exist anywhere else on earth.

Now, I do think there is a creator. I also think every human born has the ability to fight for their freedom. So many people post that their brain is the weapon and a gun is a tool.

Even if you are born into slavery, you have the ability to rebel. It may mean death, it may mean pain. But you have the brain that can reason things out. I also agree animals are not stupid.

A person is smart. People as a whole are dumb. An animal is smart. Animals as a whole are dumb.

A bell curve will show you some are always smarter than others.

I think for all animals, humans are way up in the smart part. But rights are a privledge the past humans have fought for.

Nothing other than society allows me to vote, speak out, have a firearm, or anything.

Rights come from the threat and usage of force. So it has always been. So it will always be.

 

[80fl]

Rik:

No, sorry, that is certainly NOT so. Yes, some few people sold themselves into slavery to avoid starvation but the VAST MAJORITY were either born into slavery or captured during military operations. It was NOT voluntary for the vast majority of slaves and they could not "quit" whenever they wanted.

Although we disagree on many issues, this is a case of misunderstanding.
I am fully aware that slavery was widespread in Biblical times. What I'm attempting to convey is that it was extremely rare to work for someone in an employee/employer relationship.
There were two dominant structures in Biblical times; and actually up until the industrial revolution.
You had Slavery, which was a matter of course; and you had "self employment", which was also a given.
It would have been rare for a man to live in his own home with his family and "go to work" for someone else.
The context that the Bible was written in was, in effect, pointing out the employer/employee relationship; it just happened to be written at a time of master/slave. I happen to believe that I, as an employer, am directed by God to treat my employees fairly and with respect.

The same moral principle holds true, whether you are a slave, master, self employed plumber-carpenter-etc, or a consumer who is hiring said plumber.
As said self employed plumber, you are, in effect, the "slave", who is working for the "master" (consumer).

 

[RikWriter]

I'm sorry, 80FL, but I just can't agree with your interpretation of the passage in question.

 

[mack]

"Mack: what CS Lewis didn't understand was that there's no such thing as "collective rights". ALL rights are individual. A thief has no "right" to rob you, not even if he gets together with a dozen of his buddies and decides to get you as a group...the fact that the 12 of them "outvote you for your property" doesn't make their theft moral. (That in turns undermines the entire *concept* of a "government", especially where taxes are concerned.)

It also takes apart Lewis' example, especially since a state that lasts 1,000 years and violates individual rights isn't "something worthy of preservation", it is instead an abomination to be destroyed at the earliest opportunity. Jim March "

Jim you miss his point, it does not turn on rights and who has them. He is addressing the utilitarian argument. After all, a utilitarian would say: so what if individuals have rights, so what if they are inalienable, so what if collective rights don't exist, it doesn't in the least matter, all that matters is what is the greatest good for the greatest number. Lewis' point is that this utilitarian view, (that values the needs of the many over the needs or rights of the individual), fails its own value test if Christianity is true.


nualle, I assume you agree with the rest of my post, since you confine yourself to addressing the first five words of a sentence in the middle.

 

[Jim March]

Well Mack, then he's wrong.

Because to try and twist humanity in a way that we aren't wired to go inevitably leads to moral and legal abominations.

Gun control is one such instance. How many people here have heard of cases of cops looking the other way despite illegal gun carry on the part of somebody the cop figured to be "OK"? I know of a PILE of such events. A uniformed California city cop once advised my brother (then a cabbie) to pack. Sounds great, 'cept then carrying becomes a crapshoot based on which cop you happen to run into, and whether the cop likes your race/socioeconomic status/fashion sense/etc. It makes a mockery of the entire concept of "nation of laws, not of men".

And it happens because the law directly contradicts basic human rights, which in my opinion is wired all the way to biology.

Russia today has a MASSIVE crime problem because for over 70 years, you *had* to break the law (and morality, same as the government) just to survive. So lawlessness became ingrained in the culture.

Got it? These civil rights violations always have measurable, direct "downsides" because they violate our basic sense of right and wrong.

They're not just "theoretical wrongs".

 

[Bainx]

According to the sheeple, from our elected officials.

 

[nualle]

mack asked:

nualle, I assume you agree with the rest of my post, since you confine yourself to addressing the first five words of a sentence in the middle.

I quoted an entire sentence of your post and addressed it. As to the rest of your post, I agree that Paul tells slaves at several points to gain their freedom if they can. But at no point that I know of does any Christian authority of the era (nor of any era thereafter for centuries) tell slaveowners to free their slaves as a requirement of the faith or as evidence of growth in the faith.

I reiterate: in both testaments of the bible, slavery is as natural an institution as the nuclear family. If the text is presumed to be the inerrantly transmitted will of God, then human enslavement is acceptable to that God, even if it is distasteful. That same God cannot, by definition, contradict Himself in being the origin for the unalienable right of human liberty.

I believe humans have rights relative to each other. I find sufficient origin for those rights in the foundational principle of human equality. That's it and all about it.

That foundational principle does pre-exist this government (and in an ethical sense, all governments). In this, I think we agree.

 

[Viking6]

Y'all do a lot more thinking than I do. Rights are a human construct, almost like proving a negative. Do you know you have a right unless it's threatened? In my mind it's like time, another human construct. Rights mean you can do certain things and can't do others. What particular rights are we talking about? Do I have the right to spew filthy language in front of your spouse and children? Certain societies place more value on individual responsibility than individual rights. Human developed from groups for protection, procreation/survival. Humans in earlier times had deep dependency on each other, moreso than now. Could you go off in the wilderness with your rifle, knife and some salt to survive? Yes, but all three are the result of a group of people in some factory manufacturing them. So did early humans have rights or a responsibility to their survival group? In my humble opinion and decayed understanding of the Bible, the passage about slave obey the master and another about render unto Caesar.... are within the context of earthly life being short and the soul/Kingdom of God (Heaven or Hell) being eternal. Again I applaud everyone's thought and opinion on this one and turn it back over to the pros.

 

[G-Raptor]

Originally posted by nualle
I reiterate: in both testaments of the bible, slavery is as natural an institution as the nuclear family. If the text is presumed to be the inerrantly transmitted will of God, then human enslavement is acceptable to that God, even if it is distasteful. That same God cannot, by definition, contradict Himself in being the origin for the unalienable right of human liberty.

I seem to have heard this argument somewhere before. I guess that's why more blacks are becoming Moslem.

But then, there was that whole Exodus thing with Moses and Pharoah. So, I'm a bit confused over the contradiction.

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by G-Raptor
But then, there was that whole Exodus thing with Moses and Pharoah. So, I'm a bit confused over the contradiction.

The problem with the Egyptian captivity wasn't the institution of slavery but the subjugation of God's chosen people by another nation.

 

[labgrade]

Not even a chance to read through likely a very interesting thread (here & at TFL) ...

I have rights simply because I can recognise that fact. I'm human.

Being American, likely I've had some historical precedence/education along these lines & can be quite uppity about the whole affair.

Very simplistic for me, really. I could go on & be quite a bore. You don't want to hear it & I ain't taking the time.

 

[G-Raptor]

Originally posted by RikWriter
The problem with the Egyptian captivity wasn't the institution of slavery but the subjugation of God's chosen people by another nation.

Let's see, work seven days a week, no time off, don't get paid, can't quit your job. Uuuhhh, that still sounds a bit like slavery to me.

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by G-Raptor
Let's see, work seven days a week, no time off, don't get paid, can't quit your job. Uuuhhh, that still sounds a bit like slavery to me.

Roll your eyes all you want, but if you can't read the post coherently then don't respond.
I never said there was no slavery in the situation, I said that the PROBLEM with the situation which caused the Israelites to rebel and leave Egypt wasn't that Egypt practiced the institution of slavery, it was that a foreign country had subjugated God's chosenb people.

 

[nualle]

G-Raptor, your Exodus example illustrates my point rather than contradicting it. There is a double standard throughout the old testament. God's chosen believers are not to suffer slavery by foreigners and they are not to enslave each other. OTOH, they are allowed to be masters over—to enslave—foreigners and unbelievers. Abraham had at least one Egyptian slave we know about. It was standard practice to enslave the noncombatant populations of Canaanite towns the Israelites conquered.

All of this argues for a special status for God's believers over all other humans. This is incompatible with universal human equality and universal human rights.

The new testament seems to drop the requirement of believers not enslaving each other. This would tend to equalize believers with everyone else, but it still tolerates forced bondage. Possible human equality (even noises in that direction), but no universal human rights. No cigar.

So we're back to the human origin of human rights. No contradiction, no problem.

 

[mack]

Jim and nualle, I appreciate your responses. I have been off line the last couple of days due to electrical problems; half the power to our house was off and on due to a bad line connection. Although we agree on the primacy of individual rights, we disagree on their origin.

Unfortunately, I see all secular arguments in favor of individual rights as doomed to fall to the behaviorists and Prozac if you will. As a Christian, I do not see this as a problem, except that the rift between the world of faith and the secular worldview will continue to grow. Governments worldwide will move more and more to the corporate state model, where the unholy alliance of business and government will continue with their gradual encroachment on individual rights and liberties, marginalizing the individual. This will result in a faux form of individual liberty that is really a series of carefully licensed government privileges. The preferred method of control being property rights, taxes, government handouts, and corporate/state control of information through a loose monopoly on information, (primarily state run education, election reform, and marketing and commercial advertising). No high conspiracy to be sure, just a simple convergence of money, power, and interests. Think of the similarities between running a successful election campaign and a successful advertising campaign for soda pop. Both are looking for ways to shape their message to sell their product, both use focus groups and polls, both shape their product to appeal to their market, both look for ways to increase their market share while minimizing their competitors. No concern for individuals, just a purely behavioral approach, this pitch with this product will net this number of dollars or votes. The concept of the individual is being deconstructed and with it individual rights. Heck, you can even see this cancer in many so called religious organizations.

I hope I am wrong about the direction things are going, but when man is the measure, and science is the judge, then I fear we will truly find ourselves beyond freedom and dignity – with nothing is sacred or forbidden and individuals are merely collections of DNA and physiological responses to be manipulated.

I know we disagree, but I see God as the only salvation, that will save man from himself.

 

[RikWriter]

Unfortunately, I see all secular arguments in favor of individual rights as doomed to fall to the behaviorists and Prozac if you will.

No, that depends entirely on the ability of those making the arguments.
But let's examine your statement a minute: are you saying that there IS no defense of human rights possible through secular argument? That the ONLY defense is a religious one?
If that's true, we've lost already because not all religions believe the same. The fact is, if we can't mount a secular argument in support of our rights and our freedoms, we HAVE no argument.

 

[G-Raptor]

I never said there was no slavery in the situation, I said that the PROBLEM with the situation which caused the Israelites to rebel and leave Egypt wasn't that Egypt practiced the institution of slavery, it was that a foreign country had subjugated God's chosenb people.

So God only objects to slavery when it applies to his chosen people? I was taught that he was everybody's God. But I guess you're saying that if one of the "unchosen" people enslaves some other "unchosen" people, that's ok with him? Considering the difficulty in getting chosen, I guess that pretty much leaves the rest of us out.

IMO, slavery in an institution of man, not God. As has been pointed out, it was the "normal" state of affair in ancient time. However, the fact that it existed did not justify it. If you want to believe that God sanctions it, you're free to do so.

However, my original argument was not about the nature of God or a particular set of religious beliefs. As I said, the founders invoked God as a political statement, not a religious one.