Right Divider
Body part
The ten commandments does not say anything about sexual perversion.
Censored
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
So you want a theocracy. Which religions' leaders get to run it?
Right Divider
Body part
Israel will get a theocracy when the Lord returns to them.
So you want everyone to do what seems right in their own eyes? Even when some will decide that sexual perversion, theft, murder, etc. is OK?
No, I'm just pointing out that is is far more complicated than some think. What if the One Correct Truth in your country turns out to be Somebody Else's Truth. If you don't know what I mean- take a look at Iran.
Right Divider
Body part
Who are these people?
That's a problem then, isn't it?
Are you one of those people that cannot tell the difference between right and wrong?
"Billions" don't have a say in what is objective. That's the beauty of an objective standard.
"Thou shall not commit adultery."
It's right there.
No sex outside of one's own marriage. (Which implies you have to be married to have sex).
And marriage is defined by God as being "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
You do realize that there is such a thing as a theonomy, right?
I'm a monarchist, and a theonomist. I want a king, and God's law.
The ten commandments does not say anything about sexual perversion.
It does, in "Thou shall not commit adultery"
Except that it is listed in the 10C.
Objective truth is not dependent on what anyone thinks.
I want a theonomistic monarchy.
Right Divider
Body part
Understood, I was actually referring to the homosexual comment above in post #16.
I know full well what is right and what is wrong. I just don't want religion to decide for everybody. Minimize government - remember that idea? Freedom?
Tell me, which branch of Christianity will get to decide what is right and what is wrong? The Catholics? Methodists? Or perhaps just let the Shiite Muslims run the show?
Right Divider
Body part
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Some people think that pedophilia is moral. And it's not listed in the 10 commandments either.
Have you read the sermon on the mount and how Jesus actually expanded on what the Jews thought keeping the commandments meant? If a man looks at a woman as an object of his lust he's already committed adultery. The physical act of sex doesn't even have to take place.
That means the ten commandments don't have to explicitly spell out every form of sexual sin. Looking on another person with lust in the heart breaks the commandment. That covers every form of sexual perversion.
Thou shalt not covet takes in a lot too. Look at what Paul says about it.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, I have read it. It's still not in the ten commandments.
Yes, I understand that. It's still not in the ten commandments.
I agree. It's still not in the ten commandments.
Right Divider
Body part
I already stick with Jesus and Paul. You can believe whatever you like.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
With the exception of human rights---we all have to believe in human rights, even if we don't want to, or don't believe in them in our heart of hearts. If we act like we don't believe in human rights, that means we're violating them, and that's a crime, which means that human rights are not optional; saying that we can believe whatever we like, is not unconditional. You can't believe that it's OK to infringe human rights. You're not allowed to, and nor should you be. They are God-given.
What does the term "human rights" mean? What rights do humans have and why?
Don't misunderstand, I agree that humans have rights, I believe that those rights are innate and I believe in natural law, I'm simply pointing out that not everyone agrees with what those rights ought to be or why. Some particularly stupid and evil people believe that humans have the right to an income and food to eat and a home to live in. These same fools believe a mother has the right to rip a baby's legs, feet and head from his torso in order to end a pregnancy and they are so blind to anything moral that they cannot see the contradiction nor do they want to see it.
Is it a contradiction though? In one sense it is because they say people have the right to food and shelter while ripping babies a piece at a time from the best shelter any human being will ever experience in this life but in a more fundamental sense it is entirely consistent. A person's rights are derived from the fact that he is a living being and that he has the right to to his own life. If you have the right to income, food or housing that someone else must produced then you have the right to their life. They have lost the right to their own life and have become a slave. This is justified in the mind's of those on the left on the basis of your lack of a ability to earn the things used to sustain you own life and at the expense of the slaves ability. It is therefore a philosophy based on anti-life and so where's the surprise that they wish to kill babies?
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
Clete