← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 20629 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2005-10-12
2005-10-12 19:41 | User Profile
What do you think about this?
(from James Jordan's book [I]Failure of the American Baptist Culture,[/I] pp. 11-12)
[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/cc_1/cc_1.html[/url] [COLOR=Navy] [SIZE=3][FONT=Trebuchet MS] "Perhaps one other observation can be made, to illustrate the differences between Reformed and Baptistic thinking. That is the matter of human rights. [B]From the standpoint of subjectivism, which emphasizes manââ¬â¢s faith and manââ¬â¢s actions, the foundation of human society will be seen as something proceeding out of men: human rights. [/B]Human rights are seen as the safeguard against tyranny. Even a moderately Reformed thinker such as Francis Schaeffer can subtitle his book [I]Whatever Happened to the Human Race?[/I] with the phrase ââ¬ÅExposing our rapid yet subtle loss of human rights. ââ¬Â [B] "Is the catholic and Reformed faith opposed to human rights? Yes, very much so.[U] It is not human rights but Divine law which is the foundation of liberty and the safeguard against tyranny[/U].[/B] It is not something proceeding from man (rights), but something proceeding from God (revealed law) which is to order Christian society. [B]As T. Robert Ingram has brilliantly shown, the notion of human rights was introduced by Satan in the Garden of Eden, and the notion that men have inherent rights is simply a way of affirming original sin.[/B] (See Ingram, [I]Whatââ¬â¢s Wrong with Human Rights?[/I] [Houston, TX: St. Thomas Press, 1978]. If you would be wise, get this book and read it. ) [B] "The notion of human rights underlies all pagan revolutionism. As our civilization becomes more tyrannical, we must not adopt the rhetoric of human rights, but hold forth the law of God as the answer to menââ¬â¢s ills[/B].[/FONT] [/SIZE][/COLOR]
It was this attitude that Reformed South African Boers long subscribed to.
It has been widely noted how significant role [B]Prometheus[/B] plays in Communist (or Masonic) symbolism, a mythical Greek giant who defended[I] the rights of men [/I]against jealous gods.
We might as well quote Saul Alinsky in here: [FONT=Trebuchet MS] [I]"Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.""[/I][/FONT]
[url]http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Alinsky-SaulRef.html[/url]
Petr
2005-10-12 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]What do you think about this?
"Is the catholic and Reformed faith opposed to human rights? Yes, very much so.[U] It is not human rights but Divine law which is the foundation of liberty and the safeguard against tyranny[/U]. It is not something proceeding from man (rights), but something proceeding from God (revealed law) which is to order Christian society. This is something really that underlay the thinking of the founders also. Even Thomas Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of "the rights of nature and of nature's God" and later wrote, I shudder to think what will happen if our people no longer consider their rights as something coming from and ordained of God.
[QUOTE]"The notion of human rights underlies all pagan revolutionism. As our civilization becomes more tyrannical, we must not adopt the rhetoric of human rights, but hold forth the law of God as the answer to menââ¬â¢s ills.[/QUOTE] The rhetoric perhaps. But any purview of the Old Testament will reveal that God's law establishes inalienable rights for mankind, and that he sorely is offended if these are breached.
It is this pervasive concern for humanity and for human rights after all that distinguishes Christianity from say the Eastern religions. People who don't emphasize this in their rhetoric seem to be just inviting the charge of "Christian Talibanist" which is a stupid concept to push for or drift towards.
Chalcedon sometimes misses the distinction between "conservative" and "reactionary".
2005-10-12 21:32 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "But any purview of the Old Testament will reveal that God's law establishes inalienable rights for mankind, and that he sorely is offended if these are breached."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
This is true. There is a spark of Divine in man, and it is written: [COLOR=DarkRed] [B][U]Genesis 9:6:[/U] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. [/B] [/COLOR] The idea of man as an essentially worthy creature, an image of God in spite of having fallen from his former glorious status, is the backbone of Western culture.
Compare this to Islamic theology - there man is definitely [B]not [/B]taught to be "an image of Allah" but his[B] slave.[/B]
Someone once said that when a Christian (or even a person raised within a Christian culture) sees another man, he ultimately recognizes that spark of divinity beneath all that unworthy surface. On the other hand, when a [B]Muslim[/B] looks at another human being, he sees ultimately a rather insignificant insect, whom Allah created for his own pleasure and who can be discarded with the greatest of ease.
Image of God versus lowly insect. Law of liberty versus Oriental despotism.
This fundamental difference explains why Islamic countries can so often easily show such imperious contempt towards human life and the rights of an individual.
The equivalent error (that humanists perpetrate) is to ignore the reality of Fall and Original Sin, and thus [B]over[/B]-value man and his rights, which leads to anarchic hyper-individualism.
Petr
2005-10-12 21:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Image of God versus lowly insect. Law of liberty versus Oriental despotism.
This fundamental difference explains why Islamic countries can so often easily show such imperious contempt towards human life and the rights of an individual.
The equivalent error (that humanists perpetrate) is to ignore the reality of Fall and Original Sin, and thus over-value man and his rights, which leads to anarchic hyper-individualism. [/QUOTE]And the way these writers word it, attacking Francis Schaeffer for bring this this concept up, certainly doesn't underline that these fellows are pushing "the law of liberty".
Chalcedon just often seems to take the tack of passing off weirdness for innovativeness and extremism for principaled belief. That's one of the reasons they have so little influence. At times I'd say you could call them the VNN of conservative religious activism.
2005-10-12 22:20 | User Profile
I think that modern Christendom is so steeped in Stoic/Epicurean humanism going under the thin veneer of Gospel that Chalcedon boys feel it necessary to use some verbal shock tactics every now and then to wake people up from their complacency. That has been the unpleasant duty of prophets from the beginning.
Petr
2005-10-12 22:57 | User Profile
Here is an example on how Luciferian occultists can use the term "human rights":
[url]http://www.cuttingedge.org/free11.html[/url] [COLOR=DarkGreen] [FONT=Arial] Pike then gives concrete evidence of Freemason's worship of Satan/Lucifer on the very front of the cover of [I]Morals and Dogma[/I]! Below the round seal of "God", Pike writes a phrase written in Latin, which proves to be a typical Satanic phrase. One look at this phrase would alert any Satanist that the contents of this book are Satanic! A Satanist would also understand immediately that all of Freemasonry is Satanic.
What is this phrase? [B] "DEUS MEUMQUE JUS" The literal meaning is "God and My Right"[/B]
Doc Marquis says this statement is a very typical one within Satanism. [B] It has two meanings, one within the other. First, this phrase means that the Freemason can depend upon their God to determine their Right and Justice. Secondly, since the God of Freemasonry is Lucifer, Masons are saying that they are [/B][B]"using occult methods", through Lucifer, to achieve their Rights and Justice. [/B] Marquis says that this phrase is very powerful and very dangerous within Satanism. The second a Satanist sees this phrase in Latin on Pike's book, he knows the material within is Satanism, without reading a word![/FONT][/COLOR]
Petr
2005-10-12 23:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I think that modern Christendom is so steeped in Stoic/Epicurean humanism going under the thin veneer of Gospel that Chalcedon boys feel it necessary to use some verbal shock tactics every now and then to wake people up from their complacency. That has been the unpleasant duty of prophets from the beginning.
Petr[/QUOTE]Maybe they think its the duty of Prophets. But the downside of strict adherance to the law has always been the temptation of legalism and to become Phariseeical, saying your more righteous than anyone else and drawing your interpretation of the law to absurbity.
Chalcedon has some good ideas, but few people in the mainstream world listens to them, and I don't think Chalcedon is wholly immune for responsibility for this.
Its a pity churches, in great spiritual hunger, are driven to books like "Left Behind" and "The Purpose Driven Life" but its in good measure Chalcedon's fault that it hasn't become a more mainstream alternative. Phariseeism tends to automatically equate obscurity and rejection by "the accursed multitude, who knoweth not the law" as confirmation of their own righteousness. Often its just self-righteousness. (A phenomenon we on these boards, in a political sense, are certainly not immune from)
2005-10-12 23:18 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Phariseeism tends to automatically equate obscurity and rejection by "the accursed multitude, who knoweth not the law" as confirmation of their own righteousness."[/B][/I][/FONT] [/COLOR] Spiritual pride is indeed something we've got to be on a constant lookout.
Petr
2005-10-13 01:07 | User Profile
Human rights exist as the byproducts of human instincts. Most people instinctively know what's acceptable behavior toward their fellow men, though many choose to ignore their natural consciences. People also possess the instinct of self-preservation, and this instinct is stronger in some people than their instinct toward respecting the interests of others. Even lower social animals have these instincts of right and wrong, fair and unfair. (Watch a few documentaries on ape behavior to see it with your own eyes.) Primitive Jewish fables about serpents and the Garden of Eden have nothing to do with it.
"God's law" doesn't guarantee freedom because (1) no one knows if any personal God even exists, and (2) even if one does exist, he's never given anyone his law in any manner than can be verified. Any clown can write a book and say, "God told me to write this book -- it has his rules in it." That doesn't necessarily make it the truth, does it? If you can't prove it or at least provide some pretty strong evidence for it, then you don't know it.
What really guarantees freedom is simple: force or the threat of force directed against those who would use force to take it away. That's how the real world works without exception.
2005-10-13 01:24 | User Profile
What is this "natural conscience" you are talking about, Angler? What if it tells me to eat my neighbor, which is what apes often do?
Here is R.J. Rushdoony's take on bankruptcy of secular/polytheistic ethics:
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Trebuchet MS] "The consequences for law of this fact are total: it means[I] one God, one law[/I]. [B]The premise of polytheism is that we live in a multiverse, not a universe, that a variety of law-orders and hence lords exist, and that man cannot therefore be under one law [I]except [/I]by virtue of imperialism[/B]. [B]Modern legal positivism denies the existence of any absolute; it is hostile, because of its relativism, to the concept of a universe and of a universe of law.[/B] Instead, societies of men exist, each with its order of positive law, and each order of law lacks any absolute or universal validity. The law of Buddhist states is seen as valid for Buddhist nations, the law of Islam for Moslem states, the law of pragmatism for humanistic states, and the laws of Scripture for Christian states, but none, it is held, have the right to claim that their law represents truth in any absolute sense. This, of course, militates against the Biblical declaration that God's order is absolute and absolutely binding on men and nations.
"[B]Even more, because an absolute law is denied, it means that the only universal law possible is an[I] imperialistic law[/I], a law imposed by force and and having no validity other than the coercive imposition.[/B] Any one world order on such a premise is of necessity imperialistic. Having denied absolute law, it cannot appeal to men to return to the true order from whence man is fallen. A relativistic, pragmatic law has no premise for missionary activity: the "truth" it proclaims is no more valid than the "truth" held by the people it seeks to unite to itself. If it holds, "we are better off one," it cannot justify this statement except by saying that "I hold it to be so," to which the resister can reply, "I hold that we are better off many." [B]Under pragmatic law, it is held that every man is his own law-system, because there is no absolute over-arching law-order[/B]. But this means anarchy. Thus, while pragmatism or relativism (or existentialism, or positivism or any other form of this faith) holds to the absolute immunity of the individual implicitly or explicitly, in effect its only argument is the coercion of the individual, because it has no other bridge between man and man. It can speak of love, but there is no ground calling love more valid than hate. [B]Indeed, the Marquis de Sade logically saw no crime in murder; on nominalistic, relativistic grounds, what could be wrong with murder? /B [B]If there is no absolute law, then every man is his own law.[/B] As the writer of Judges declared, "In those days there was no king in Israel (i.e., the people had rejected God as their king) ; every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25; cf. 17:6; 18:1; 19;1). [B]The law forbids man's self-law: "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes" (Deut. 12:8)[/B], and this applies to worship as well as to moral order. The [I]first [/I]principle of the [I]Shema Israel[/I] is thus [I]one God, one law[/I]. It is the declaration of an absolute moral order to which man must conform. If Israel cannot admit another god or another law-order, it cannot recognize any other religion or law-order as valid either for itself or for anyone else. [B][I]Because God is one, truth is one.[/I] [/B]Other people will perish in their way, lest they turn be converted (Ps. 2:12). The basic coercion is reserved to God.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Petr
2005-10-13 01:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]What is this "natural conscience" you are talking about, Angler? What if it tells me to eat my neighbor, which is what apes often do? Apes eat their neighbors? Which apes do this? I thought apes were plant-eaters. (Maybe insects, too.)
The "natural conscience" is a set of instincts that social animals have evolved. These instincts increase their chances of survival by inclining them toward group cooperation rather than pure dog-eat-dog competition.
Your conscience is unlikely to compel you to eat your neighbor. Your self-preservation instinct might cause you to do that, however, if you are in danger of starvation. Did you ever see the movie Alive?
"[B]Even more, because an absolute law is denied, it means that the only universal law possible is an[I] imperialistic law[/I], a law imposed by force and and having no validity other than the coercive imposition.[/B][/QUOTE]This is basically a fallacious argument from undesired consequences. "I don't like the consequences of there being no higher law than 'might makes right,' so therefore there must be some divine law."
Sorry, but what we want has absolutely no effect on reality. If there is no objective right and wrong, then that's that. In the real world, right and wrong are defined solely by what human beings think they are. These concepts vary among times and cultures, though there are certain common threads (e.g., it's almost universally believed that it's wrong to kill young children -- at least without a "command from God"). And there are always a few "sickos" whose views of right and wrong are different from the rest of the world's.
In a practical sense, the only law is the law of the jungle. Might really doesn't necessarily make right, but it does make things happen, for better or for worse.
As far as talk about "divine laws," I need to see some compelling evidence that a God exists who cares about humanity and has given us directives. A booming voice from the heavens heard around the world would do just fine. I suspect the reason God "hides" from people today is because he's really not there at all. I would probably change my mind if God acted today like He's portrayed as having acted in the Old Testament (sending fire down from heaven, etc.). Why don't those things happen today?
2005-10-13 02:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Apes eat their neighbors? Which apes do this? I thought apes were plant-eaters. (Maybe insects, too.) I'm surprised that a man like you knew nothing about this. We're talking about chimpanzees, one of our closest relatives among the primates. Everyone was shocked when Jane Goodal disclosed they're massive cannabalistic tendencies.
[QUOTE]1. The "natural conscience" is a set of instincts that social animals have evolved. These instincts increase their chances of survival by inclining them toward group cooperation rather than pure dog-eat-dog competition.
Your conscience is unlikely to compel you to eat your neighbor. Your self-preservation instinct might cause you to do that, however, if you are in danger of starvation. Did you ever see the movie Alive?.............
As far as talk about "divine laws," I need to see some compelling evidence that a God exists who cares about humanity and has given us directives. A booming voice from the heavens heard around the world would do just fine. I suspect the reason God "hides" from people today is because he's really not there at all. I would probably change my mind if God acted today like He's portrayed as having acted in the Old Testament (sending fire down from heaven, etc.). Why don't those things happen today?[/QUOTE]"A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given, but the sign of Jonah". You read your Bible Angler I know.