NotTwoShure
Well-known member
Interesting, radical Baptist (a.k.a. Christian) is a new idea/term/concept for me. Just a comment.
Can You Handle The Truth?
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
Interesting, radical Baptist (a.k.a. Christian) is a new idea/term/concept for me. Just a comment.
unalienable=inalienable= not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
unalienable in this case has nothing to do with god, nor any religion. those unalienable rights are granted to us by that document you are reading, the Constitution. that document says those are our rights and cannot be taken away, period. that was the entire point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. they granted us those things listed, so they could not be taken away or infringed.
Just curious. Does the education you have obtained over the years really lead you to believe that the constitution granted us certain rights? I believe you have misspoke here. Care to restate your opinion?
There is a big difference between "recognizing" rights and "granting" rights.
We have rights because of our nature as people. They are our birthrights that were endowed on us by our creator, and as such are inalienable. Some believe our creator is a god, others nature. Makes no difference in this argument. The constitution was a declaration of law, stating the government would not violate those certain rights that are ours by birth.
BC1
,
I didn't get the game in NY but saw the hilights.
In 2008 I found out my cardiac surgeon was a big Stan Musial fan. He grew up in the farmlands of the mid-west and idolozed Stan the man. He had a shrine to him in his office, including photos together and a signed bat. In thanks for his efforts I gave him a Topps 1959 Stan Musial Cardinals card. It was only graded VG so it was pretty affordable. He was real happy. He added it to his "Wall."
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Yep............
You are right, recognition vs. granted. I still don't believe it to be granted by any mythical figure though.
Fair enough, thanks.
convos
New member
From the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Again, the reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted the way they were is because our Founders understood that rights are not granted by man. That "document" grants us nothing - it recognizes and makes law prohibiting any infringment on "UNALIENABLE" rights. our entire system of government was crafted to ensure those rights granted by our Creator were recognized, upheld, and untouchable by man.
I do however see your point. you see our rights as granted by a piece of paper, worded in such a way as to not be infringed. The problem is, is that if man granted those rights, then man can take away those rights. I do disagree however, that "unalienable has nothing to do with God." It has everything to do with God, or whatever higher power you ascribe to. The whole point is that man has rights that are intrinsic to his nature, not because a king, a comittee, or a president allow them.
msimmons
New member
Just going on a limb here but have you ever seen "Ancient Aliens" you can literally apply any adaptation on the bible and make the assumption that it is "true". However fact being that it's 2000 years old, and reinterpreted so many times it virtually has no validity. Any theologists will tell you that there is a common traits among all religions, and your argument that your posting right now, was in fact the same kind of arguments used against Christianity when the notion of one god was mentioned to polytheistic believers.This was the context for Rome's conflict with Christianity, which Romans variously regarded as a form of atheism and novel superstition.
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
Ancient Aliens is New Age "Imagination Inflation". I stand by my post.
msimmons
New member
I like that word "Imagination Inflation", and like any person could just imagine anything from nothing really? Or from some statues? or even a book? Sounds a lot like your getting on to something with that statement.
convos
New member
Having studied many religions i can tell you that they are NOT all the same. one of the interesting things that sets Christianity apart (other than grace and love) is the fact that the Bible is the only religious text that is peer reviewed. Has anyone actually noticed that? most holy books are written by one person, and essentially copied down word for word whatever their ascribed deity told them to write. The Bible is written by many - and is peer reviewed from the inside out, as well as from the outside in. The gospels - 4 accounts of the same event in history. Peer reviewed, and from different points of view and different times (they even are called the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John). Matthew was a tax collector; Mark was a young lad who followed from an early age, and spent a good chunk interpreting for Peter; Luke, a doctor, never met Jesus - so his account was more of a research piece; John was a fisherman and also wrote Revelation. Then you have the councils and ultimately the canonization of the text. No other religious text has done this that i am aware of.
I am speaking about the New Testament - Old Testament is different. The Torah (first 5 books of OT) is believed to have been dictated by God to Moses over the course of time. and as far as validity goes - the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the integrity of translation over the course of millennia is sound.
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
:agree: :thank_you2:
msimmons
New member
"common traits" does not mean all religions are the same...they share the similar characteristics, so I'm confused where you would have misinterpreted my words. Take in mind religion is an incredible force, it is a driver in a social society and is subjective on the ones who write it. If your referring to the integrity by which the dead sea scrolls hold, they are still subjective.
msimmons
New member
The Wikipedia article on the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) gives a very precise and objective history and overview of what the DSS say. Also included is all the various and conflicting conclusions by scholars on the origin of the scrolls. It is anything but cut and dry, as the gloss-over answer below would suggest.
Regarding translation accuracy, from the scholars that studied the DSS, it would seem that some books of the Bible in the DSS match up very well with what is currently read, while others match up terribly, illustrating the Bible was anything but set in stone at that time. The books that match up well might have been copied to the DSS after they were canonized, thus explaining why they are very nearly the same as they are today.
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
For those who refuse to believe no amount of proof is sufficient. You have Wikipedia and the likes of Shirley MacLaine to consult and feed your belief, so be it.
