Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
It is within the power of the individual to work with his/her neighbours to guarantee what you deem to be 'God-given rights'.
I have said it a few times now, so clearly you haven't read these posts or have skipped over them, but in the interests of clarity I'll say it again: the state can not possibly grant anyone 'rights', nor remove these 'rights', nor can God grant or remove such things.
Only the individual working with his/her neighbours can ever prescribe and attain 'rights'.
So to clarify yet another step, if you put 2 men on an island, one of them is you, without neighbors to gaurd your your rights you still have them. You will still claim you have the right to life and you will 'instinctively' defend that right should man 2 try to take it away from you.
If you put 100 legal observers on the same island who are not party to your affairs, and you kill the other man because he tried to take your life when you did not threaten him the observers would deem you innocent the other man guilty of attempting to murder you.
God-given right does not mean some invisible person tapped you on the shoulder and handed you a bag of rights, it means rights acknowledged based on the core nature of the man and every living thing.
You stood up and claimed your body as yours, you do not need so much as 1 other person on the planet to make that claim and in the event someone were to take your life wrongfully, that does not erase your claim. Your claim is still remains.
So God-given rights have nothing to do with having neighbors. the claim stands in and of itself. What you are looking at when people say God-given rights are the observation and recognition of the laws of nature at work. When one man or animal attacks another they will instinctively defend themselves. These are not things that anyone would negotiate away, [unalienable] not a claim that can be transferred to someone else, and perfectly in tune with nature, which is perfectly in tune with what we call God.
That is how God-given right came into existence. You just did it yourself when you claimed that you had a sole claim on your own life despite the fact no one authorized you to make that claim, as will every other living person make the same claim. Societal recognition that you as well as everyone else has that right and recognition that your claim is valid thus a good rule to live by is a separate topic than the 'origin' of your claim.
You do not need even so much as one other person to make your claim, neither do you need recognition, and other people did not authorize you to make that claim, you did so purely upon your own volition and demand that no one take your life or you will take theirs to prevent them from doing so, so the way I see it your argument "that God-given rights are obsolete" fails on those grounds alone.
So we are down to a claim where the origin is either dependent on other people to show obsolescence versus your claim, alone, and without other people, in which case status quo remains standing.
You need to show, in argument, some other source that has been reduced as the origin and further than it already has. We are down to one man without need for another with claim to his own life, [you] (hence a God-given right), I cant fathom how this can be reduced further or correctly directed to some other source to show obsolescence? [since your claim stands even if you are alone or with wild animals in the jungle]
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 8/8/2015 7:20:18 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread