Search results

I'd be more than happy to admit all the nations of Europe as some form of new states to our Union. So basically, agreed.

You need to measure your words better Hoping. If you believe that without informed consent, no one can be guilty of any sin that they commit in such a state (i.e. without giving informed consent), then you need to change your 'messaging' because to all the world it sounds like you're advocating...

Hebrews 7: 11 " If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed...

In fact, I think, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, that's why they're called 'the Gospels'.

Germany and Japan was in the age of nuclear weapons, but I get your meaning. Our occupation of West Germany bordered Soviet controlled East Germany, so we were able to do this in a very 'tactical' manner with zero overflow into East Germany. We occupied that whole country until we were...

Bump @Skeeter understood if you have no answer. It's because your utilitarianism morality is wrong.

You don't have a right against ever getting arrested, just a right against ever getting arrested without justification. I listed rape. Which "limit" is there on the absolute universal human right against being raped?

Extrapolation again. Big time.

And this is when they are sinning with informed consent only, right Hoping? Because we all know that someone might be sinning without giving their informed consent, and then what you're saying here is unkind. These people are "committing sin" and you, without knowing whether they have given...

Jeremiah 31:33 " . . . I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts . . . " What law did God put in your inward parts and write in your heart, Hoping? Is it the Old Testament law? Or is it something else? If it isn't the OT, then does whatever law is in your inward...

Yes they are. Rights against being murdered, being raped, being kidnapped, rights against being perjured against, rights against cruel and unusual punishment, these and many others are absolute. Laws do this all the time, immoral laws. And this means throw out the baby with the bathwater, to...

Their conviction is that universal human rights exist. And yet they believe in human rights. They are our allies, not our enemies. Our enemies would be all those who don't believe in human rights. Like China.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." It's pretty strong. The limit right now isn't the Constitution, it's all the independent sovereign states who aren't under it right now. It's democratically 'directed'. You mean partisan. So what did you actually mean.

So iow they are correct, you just don't like their reasoning.

The Civil War was righteously waged based on the Declaration. It's the strongest 'scheme' we have. That's what the Supreme Court is for, and that is 'directed' democratically. I don't know what you mean.

Are you denying that there are many atheists who believe in human rights, or not?

They base it on self-evidence, which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

All other moral theories have been dispatched since human rights were finally recognized. Because we judge all other moral and ethical theories against our conception of human rights. Which means that human rights are the moral theory now.

There are plenty of people who believe in human rights and are atheists.

Switzerland. And it's not untenable, it's just long term. It is, but it's been done. It was done successfully and completely in Germany and in Japan after WWII, and it was even done successfully in the American South after the Civil War----except that occupation was aborted due to partisan...