dk

1. lpetrich:
   However, if (the Jews) had been as rich as aristocrats, they would have bought themselves aristocrat status. But they were unable to.
   dk: There have always been a surplus of bankrupt aristocrats, and they tend to survive just fine.
   lpetrich:
   Because they already have assets: their estates. Get a clue.
   dk:: You’re simply wrong, aristocracy is about title and lineage not estates. From the Middle ages in Europe loosing one’s estate didn’t necessitate the execution of a king or nobleman’s entire family, whereas in Asia this was exactly the case. In 755 Pepin (father of Charlemagne) deposed the Merovingians, he didn’t assassinate the entire line of Merovingians because he ruled under the Blessing of the Pope, with the Grace of God. Now I’ll grant you the Merovingians King died in prison, but previous to Pepin the Barbarians that overran the Western Roman Empire practiced a much more ruthless tradition, even to murder their own sons who might one day challenge the throne. The French and Russian Revolution (being anti-Christian) though hailed as enlightened reverted back to the Barbarians tradition of assassination. Another example of the King being under the law.
   o
2. dk: Jews on the other hand being excluded have to work and earn their prosperity one day at a time.
   lpetrich:
   However, contrary to the rich-Jew stereotype, many Jews had remained relatively poor.
   dk: There have always been poor people, some Jewish. Often Jewish people faired better economically than their Christian peers because they were productive and prosperous under the Law.
   o
3. lpetrich:
   (Twelve Tables representing equality before law more clearly...)
   dk: Except nothing, the Roman Republic was replaced by a god emperor, so clearly led to tyranny.
   lpetrich:
   So what? Do wicked monarchs invalidate the Bible?
   dk: First a monarch is not a emperor or a god. Second, Rome being ruled by a God emperor put their rulers above the law, even the Ten Tables. I’m arguing that the Ten Commandment put the government under the Law, and being under the law all men are created equal. This built the bridge that lead to the enlightened concept of “inalienable rights”.
   o
4. dk: I don?t think you could find 1 in a million people that could list the Roman Twelve Tables, yet most common people have a working knowledge of the Ten Commandments, even those that argue against them. ...
   lpetrich:
   Including the one that forbids making representations of anything?
   dk: Good point, Jesus Christ had a body, and as such the covenant of the crucifixion and resurrection offered new possibilities. Christians don’t worship statues, they symbolize the metaphysical reality of God made man, and the Covenant of Grace.
   o
5. lpetrich:
   And let us not forget (snip)
   dk: off topic, each Covenant reflects upon the previous, if this appears to present contradictions you’ve missed the lesson. We all know appearances can deceive, but Law is hierarchical, so the meaning of all the commandments rests upon the Greatest Two Commandments. In Romans 13:8010 Paul teaches Love Fulfills the Law.
   o
6. lpetrich:
   I don't see the connection temporal > finite > caused.
   dk: Anything that exists in temporal time has a beginning, therefore contingent upon some preceding event. A baby is finite, therefore contingent upon an act of procreation. I don?t know how anyone can miss the connection.
   lpetrich:
   If a closed loop of time is possible, then an entity can be both temporal and uncaused.
   dk: Big if, and in Revelations 21:6 “Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.” If you want to get into this argument I will, from a Christian perspective it means God being the unmoved mover created time, so the existence of everything material is contingent upon the unmoved mover. What do you think?

Ion

This gets me every time here:

this Law is from the Bible, an incoherent and materially unsupported book.

Consequently, this 'Law' is a fiction.

dk

I'll take that as a doctrinal statement.

Ion

I agree:

now, you and me, we both take your 'Law' as "...a doctrinal statement.".

Just make no more of these doctrinal statements, will you?

dk

So you're saying Universal Human Rights are doctrinal, please explain?

lpetrich

dk:
The French and Russian Revolution (being anti-Christian) though hailed as enlightened reverted back to the Barbarians tradition of assassination. ...

Like what Oliver Cromwell's regime did to King Charles I of England in 1649?

There have always been poor people, some Jewish. Often Jewish people faired better economically than their Christian peers because they were productive and prosperous under the Law.

So Christianity has involved rejection of some of the Law?

... Rome being ruled by a God emperor put their rulers above the law, even the Ten Tables. I’m arguing that the Ten Commandment put the government under the Law, and being under the law all men are created equal. ....

Except that a monarch could make the same sort of claim about deriving authority straight from the Christian God.

lpetrich:
If a closed loop of time is possible, then an entity can be both temporal and uncaused.
dk:
Big if, and in Revelations 21:6 “Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.” If you want to get into this argument I will, from a Christian perspective it means God being the unmoved mover created time, so the existence of everything material is contingent upon the unmoved mover. What do you think?

So what about the Bible? To me, the Bible has no more authority than the Iliad or the Koran or the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita or ...

Ion

Did I?
When?

Guess what I am saying since beginning of February:

1) there are no Universal Human Rights in the Bible; the Bible is doctrinal, and a fiction;
there are Universal Human Rights in the UN Code of Human Rights, as social constructs built on human nature;
the UN Code of Human Rights is not doctrinal;

or

2) there are Universal Human Rights in the UN Code of Human Rights;
the UN Code of Human Rights is doctrinal, following the doctrinal 'divine' Bible.

Which one?
1) or 2)?

Today being February 18, I worry:
is this discussion a little too hard for you to follow?

To spoon feed you, since beginning of February I say:
1) there are no Universal Human Rights in the Bible; the Bible is doctrinal, and a fiction;
there are Universal Human Rights in the UN Code of Human Rights, as social constructs built on human nature;
the UN Code of Human Rights is not doctrinal.

dk

First, since many historical events in the Bible have been confirmed, its your opinion that the Bible is fictional. I think what you meant to say was that the Bible is a doctrinal fiction or unreliable as a source of doctrine. I don’t want rehash old arguments but we fundamentally disagree.
Second, back in a post on January 18th I said UNBoR was based on human nature. I’ll take this as an item of agreement. Human beings differ qualitatively from animals, and human rights are derived from these differences.

You seem to be fanatic about human rights being non-doctrinal, so pray tell where did the UN find the social construct called human nature, from which human rights have been derived?

Ion

What is confirmed from the Bible, is the ordinary.

Zero extraordinary events described in the Bible have been confirmed:
Exodus is considered as not having happened.
Genesis and Jesus, too.

So the Bible, abundant on the extraordinary, is mainly fiction.

Ion

Science observes human nature.

For example, science doesn't support differences between human races, and the UN Code of Human Rights follows science in the same vein.