Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

[AZKing]

What is the justification for the golden rule in atheism?

 

[swatmc]

I am about to read this "authentic claim" of the bible but I am suspicious.

Can you admit there are certain parts of the bible that are physically impossible, immoral, and/or inaccurate?

OK, just read your link.

Please answer my question first and then we will talk about the "authenticity" of the bible.

First some perspective.

What are human beings technically made of?

 

[Theocrat]

Context Helps

I cut the founding fathers serious slack with their use of the word "creator."

Isn't it interesting how they didn't say "Jesus" or "The Christian god" but left it up to interpretation?

That's an interesting point. However, you have to realize that there is a linguistic understanding from the speaker to the audience whenever certain words are used in a particular context. For instance, you all know when I use the word "God" on the forums, I am speaking specifically of the triune God from Scripture. I don't have to qualify the word "God" by saying "Christian God" every time I use that word.

And so it is with the term "Creator." It was already understood in the culture of the time that "Creator" referred to the God of Christianity. The context of the culture dictates how the words were used and their meanings amongst the people.

 

[swatmc]

That's an interesting point. However, you have to realize that there is a linguistic understanding from the speaker to the audience whenever certain words are used in a particular context. For instance, you all know when I use the word "God" on the forums, I am speaking specifically of the triune God from Scripture. I don't have to qualify the word "God" by saying "Christian God" every time I use that word.

And so it is with the term "Creator." It was already understood in the culture of the time that "Creator" referred to the God of Christianity. The context of the culture dictates how the words were used and their meanings amongst the people.

Ah, I understand.

But the founders used the following words in the second amendment: "the right to bear arms." They didn't say the right to "own a musket" because they know that the definition of arms will change in the future.

When it comes to using the phrase "our creator" it might be interpreted as being open to change once we actually found out who/or what actually created us.

Some of the founders don't seem like they were huge fans of christianity.

 

[Ranger29860]

Why these morals must come from the one true God is another story, but a very compelling one, nonetheless. For example, no historian will deny that the Bible is the most authentic piece of literature in human history. It is also very scientifically accurate about many facts about which people "back then" supposedly could not have known. Society was completely different back then.

Here is a source for the "most authentic" claim, made by FF Bruce, one of the world's leading textual critics: http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm

Holy crap my head hurts after reading that link. The bible is accurate because the part that was written after the first fits into what the first predicted?

"There are 371 predictions/prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah – all written at least 600-800 years before Jesus lived and most of which were fulfilled by Jesus! How is this possible without God’s intervention? "

I don't know that's a very good question.... WAIT WHAT?!?!?!
that is the stupidest thing i have ever read. A man that we have NO proof ever actually existed had his existence recorded 100(around) after his death. Fits near perfect into what the old testament says. What could possibly be the reason for that? o i know HE IS MADE UP. IT IS THE SAME REASON SANTA CLAUSE LIVES IN A PLACE WHERE A KID CAN"T EASILY CHECK TO SEE IF HE IS REAL.

 

[swatmc]

I leave the religious folks on this board with this, because the weekend has begun and it's time to get silly.

But think about what religions have told you your entire life. Think about how they told you that you were sick, and were commanded to be well by irrationally submitting to an unseen authority.

The bible was written by people who had NO IDEA what was really out there.

This is what you are made of:



This is what we know about a FRACTION of the known universe:



This is how science saved MY soul and might just save yours:


Are you willing to trade ALL of this beauty, scientific observations, and truth for any of the words written by MEN who claim to be speaking for the divine?

The universe is a very scary but interesting place.

Humans have only reached a fraction of our potential.

The first step towards TRULY making progress and jumping head first into the future is the rejection of organized religion. They have been holding us back for far too long and continue to be the antithesis of liberty.

Keep up the fight against tyrannies/oppression in ALL it's forms.

QUESTION AUTHORITY.

 

[ClayTrainor]

In the atheist view, why is it wrong to reject the idea of self-ownership?

Self-ownership is a logical axiom. To argue against it can only result in a performative contradiction.

What is the justification for the golden rule in atheism? I know what the justification is in Christianity, but I'm asking you what the justification is in atheism.

The Golden Rule is derivative of logical axioms such as Self-Ownership and the NAP. What is the logical justification for it in Christianity? A Book 100% written and translated by men?

You are telling me it is immoral to not follow the golden rule?

I'm saying the Golden Rule is the basis for morality itself.

Why? Why is it wrong for me to do something you think is immoral?

It's not wrong because I think it's wrong. I own myself and you own yourself. It is immoral for me to initiate aggression on you, because you own yourself. It is immoral for you to initiate aggression against me because I own myself.

I've answered most, if not all of your questions I believe, can you please answer my 1 question before asking me more.

 

[Theocrat]

Language Considerations

Ah, I understand.

But the founders used the following words in the second amendment: "the right to bear arms." They didn't say the right to "own a musket" because they know that the definition of arms will change in the future.

When it comes to using the phrase "our creator" it might be interpreted as being open to change once we actually found out who/or what actually created us.

Some of the founders don't seem like they were huge fans of christianity.

Embedded in the phrase "the right to bear arms" is the assumption that one is free to use weapons to defend himself and his neighbor in a particular way. I agree that it doesn't say "the right to own a musket," however, a musket is a type of arm, just as a rifle is a type of arm in 21st Century America. From principle, that can apply to any weapon one uses to arm himself with, no matter what the era is.

I don't believe the Founders "left it open to the future" for words to be rearranged and reinterpreted to meet the needs of the masses on a whim. That sounds an awful lot like the idea of the Constitution being a "living" document, by which anyone can interpret it, based on their own standard. We need to reject that relativistic way of thinking, especially in matters of law.

What if we applied that same reasoning to the Founders' use of words, like "rights" and "liberty"? Should those words, too be "open" for us to anticipate future generations to interpret what their meanings should be of their own time? I don't think that's a wise literary approach. It leads to the kinds of tyrannical acts that we observe in our political culture today, as in judicial activism from our courts in their interpretation of certain clauses of the Constitution.

I also agree with you that some, and arguably few, of the Founders had a problem with Christianity. Some of them became Deists, but even so, they weren't so blind that they concluded there was no Creator at all, which is what many "atheist" historians and students would have us believe about Deism (as an excuse to downplay the role of God in early American jurisprudence).

 

[swatmc]

Embedded in the phrase "the right to bear arms" is the assumption that one is free to use weapons to defend himself and his neighbor in a particular way. I agree that it doesn't say "the right to own a musket," however, a musket is a type of arm, just as a rifle is a type of arm in 21st Century America. From principle, that can apply to any weapon one uses to arm himself with, no matter what the era is.

I don't believe the Founders "left it open to the future" for words to be rearranged and reinterpreted to meet the needs of the masses on a whim. That sounds an awful lot like the idea of the Constitution being a "living" document, by which anyone can interpret it, based on their own standard. We need to reject that relativistic way of thinking, especially in matters of law.

What if we applied that same reasoning to the Founders' use of words, like "rights" and "liberty"? Should those words, too be "open" for us to anticipate future generations to interpret what their meanings should be of their own time? I don't think that's a wise literary approach. It leads to the kinds of tyrannical acts that we observe in our political culture today, as in judicial activism from our courts in their interpretation of certain clauses of the Constitution.

I also agree with you that some, and arguably few, of the Founders had a problem with Christianity. Some of them became Deists, but even so, they weren't so blind that they concluded there was no Creator at all, which is what many "atheist" historians and students would have us believe about Deism (as an excuse to downplay the role of God in early American jurisprudence).

Well a quick response and then I really need to run.

Again, I cut the founders some slack in their views of god because this was Pre-Darwin, Pre-Hubble telescope, Pre-space travel, Pre-Large Hadron Collider, etc, etc.

If we disproved the existence of the christian/muslim/jewish god that would not take away our liberty according to the founders. It would still be there and that is comforting.

One more video for the road:

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't believe in an objective authority, ESPECIALLY one that may or may not exist. I try to be moral for it's own sake. Would your morality change if there was no god?



I still think that the golden rule applies to a society that believes in god or one that does not believe in god. The problem is that it's hard for people to actually abide by that rule for a multitude of reasons.




I don't think the government should impose taxes on the people except for maintaining roads, civil services, and national defense.

I think it's immoral to tax one's income because you are taking money out of their pocket and giving it to the government, and in all likelihood, it will be wasted.

I think all on the RP forums could agree with that.




I am about to read this "authentic claim" of the bible but I am suspicious.

Can you admit there are certain parts of the bible that are physically impossible, immoral, and/or inaccurate?

No. Like I said, there is no right or wrong or "immoral" without an objective authority, so you, as an atheist, would have no basis to call the Bible immoral. Ever. And no to the others as well.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

OK, just read your link.

Please answer my question first and then we will talk about the "authenticity" of the bible.

First some perspective.

What are human beings technically made of?

They were formed from the Earth in Genesis. What of it? My view states that God + dirt = humans. Your view states that time + dirt = humans.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Holy crap my head hurts after reading that link. The bible is accurate because the part that was written after the first fits into what the first predicted?

"There are 371 predictions/prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah – all written at least 600-800 years before Jesus lived and most of which were fulfilled by Jesus! How is this possible without God’s intervention? "

I don't know that's a very good question.... WAIT WHAT?!?!?!
that is the stupidest thing i have ever read. A man that we have NO proof ever actually existed had his existence recorded 100(around) after his death. Fits near perfect into what the old testament says. What could possibly be the reason for that? o i know HE IS MADE UP. IT IS THE SAME REASON SANTA CLAUSE LIVES IN A PLACE WHERE A KID CAN"T EASILY CHECK TO SEE IF HE IS REAL.

If you are going to argue that Jesus never existed, then you are running up against almost all historians, atheist and theist alike.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Self-ownership is a logical axiom. To argue against it can only result in a performative contradiction.



The Golden Rule is derivative of logical axioms such as Self-Ownership and the NAP. What is the logical justification for it in Christianity? A Book 100% written and translated by men?



I'm saying the Golden Rule is the basis for morality itself.



It's not wrong because I think it's wrong. I own myself and you own yourself. It is immoral for me to initiate aggression on you, because you own yourself. It is immoral for you to initiate aggression against me because I own myself.

I've answered most, if not all of your questions I believe, can you please answer my 1 question before asking me more.

Except humans can act against your supposed rule of self-ownership. What's to stop them? Why is the golden rule basis for anything? Think about it. If all we are is particles arranged over millions of years by chance, then who decides what is right and wrong? Self ownership is only moral to YOU. If someone else does not hold the idea that self-ownership is important and goes around violating it, then what right do you have to tell them that their morality is wrong? What is it based on? The whole idea of morality in an atheistic worldview is contradictory because it must presuppose morality's existence. If we are just particles arranged by chance, then morality does not exist, and you have no right to argue with anyone else's idea of morality. If they don't like the idea of society and self-ownership... too bad!

 

[ClayTrainor]

No. Like I said, there is no right or wrong or "immoral" without an objective authority, so you, as an atheist, would have no basis to call the Bible immoral.

If some kind of Overlord is the "Objective Authority" on morality in this universe, why doesn't he intervene to enforce it when, for example, the life of an innocent human is threatened by another human? Is it not powerful enough? Does it not care enough about the innocent?

If an objective Authority established the golden rule, why doesn't it enforce it?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Well a quick response and then I really need to run.

Again, I cut the founders some slack in their views of god because this was Pre-Darwin, Pre-Hubble telescope, Pre-space travel, Pre-Large Hadron Collider, etc, etc.

If we disproved the existence of the christian/muslim/jewish god that would not take away our liberty according to the founders. It would still be there and that is comforting.

One more video for the road:

It would be there in your mind, but it would not be based on anything. If someone else wanted to violate your moral laws, then you have no right to tell them you are wrong. Self-ownership only applies to the person. It is not a basis for societal norms.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If some kind of Overlord is the "Objective Authority" on morality in this universe, why doesn't he intervene to enforce it when, for example, the life of an innocent human is threatened by another human? Is it not powerful enough? Does it not care enough about the innocent?

If an objective Authority established the golden rule, why doesn't it enforce it?

Because only God knows His plan for humanity. Sometimes, we must live to see evil before we can know what good is. If God intervened all the time, that would defeat the purpose.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Except humans can act against your supposed rule of self-ownership. What's to stop them?

That doesn't negate the principle of self-ownership, it is one or more self-owning persons initiation the use of force against another self-owning individual.

I can physically steal your car, but that doesn't negate the logic of theft being immoral.

Why is the golden rule basis for anything? Think about it.

The Golden Rule is derivative of logical axioms such as Self-Ownership and the NAP. What is the logical justification for it in Christianity? A Book 100% written and translated by men?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Because only God knows His plan for humanity. Sometimes, we must live to see evil before we can know what good is. If God intervened all the time, that would defeat the purpose.

So, he is powerful enough to protect an innocent child from an attacker, and is fully aware of it, but refuses to intervene?

 

[ClayTrainor]

I have a better response to this, than I provided in my previous post....

Except humans can act against your supposed rule of self-ownership.

Not they cannot. It's not a man-made rule, it's a logical axiom. A self evident truth.

"To argue against self-ownership is to be caught in a "performative contradiction" because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who he is trying to persuade have a right to disagree. If they have a right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves" - Hoppe

It is true that humans can act against another human, but this is a violation of the non-aggression principle, not the principle of self-ownership. Acting Humans are exercising ownership of themselves.

 

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul rocks! What else can I say?

Ron Paul: True Liberties Come From Our Creator, Not the Government
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ron-paul-our-liberties-come-from-our-creator-50858/