The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
31 votes

"Our God Given Rights" Where in the Bible does God give?

I agree we have em, but I don't really have the reference to back it up... Anyone?

Chapter, verse, and version of Bible please

I have a B.A. in theology, maybe Im missing it?

Just wondering what everyone is usually referring to when they mention God Given Rights. We know the Right to Life is taken away by abortion, so all those beautiful children I bet would wonder too...
I think we should be clearer in how we say it?

To the guy who said I should read it and find out:
Clever. And I do read the Bible everyday. Every version of it too.

My main question is not if I believe it otr not it is asking why we say the bible gives us our God given Rights from the Bible. If it is deduced from reading the Bible that this is true, then OK I can agree. But we keep acting like there is one or a few specific places God gives them to us in the Bible. We should be straightforward, thats all.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Is that your "fantasy football 'big balla'" photo -- hahaha

Wise words my friend.

Thanks...

I appreciate it.

What Was That Tree ?

that took away Adam's shirt , = disrobed.
must be thorny ^^^ - that nick,
or a TRIck, that made him TriP,
treat not as TriVia, nor TRIfle,
here we offer no TriLogy.

It's very simple.... God gave

It's very simple.... God gave us life and free will.... Sounds much like liberty....

What I never understood in

What I
never understood in the Bible is why did God destroy cities and people for being wicked when he gave us free will? I find this contradictory.

Psssssff *whispers in ear* "It's because MOST of the Bible

was metaphorical" as was most "eastern philosophy"

Men watched cities being destroyed and when women and children cried out "why Lord why" the men came up with answers.

They took the things they understood as inequities or perversions and saw how those things were "common" practice and put a highlighter over each one.

Then as the stories were re-told -- orally -- to scare new generations they'd say "and owing to the walkman and devil music, God spat Sodom and Gamorrah from his gaping maw"

*took some liberties there*

But who hasn't -- whoooo hasn't it, seriously I'm in good company.

buckly up

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101103173/First-Four-of-Sixteen-Se...

These are the first four sermons from Dr. John Witherspoon on basic Christian doctrine. Since he is one of our founding fathers, and this is two hundred years ago, this might be interesting for both our histroy and because you know it hasn't been watered down in the modern age.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I don't think John would approve of "rock type music" being

played in nearly every modern Church - I've even seen them in Catholic Churches.

So far I've never seen them in a Hindu Temple; but they have the Esraj and really cool drums (they are inspired drummers) to play during Bajans.

I found his sermons to be of the "old inifinite sinner" and the "tongue is the vilest of all members [of the body]"

He owned slaves, so that type of perpetual guilt seems understandable.

You couldn't have possibly

You couldn't have possibly read them and thought about them that fast. It's taken me a week. And I can see - a preacher saying it instead of me is a lot better.

Sometimes we have to get out of our comfort zone and consider another point of view. The point of view that we are deeply sinful creatures is not a comfort zone.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

It is POINTLESS to think that one is a "sinner"

Why not say we are all "consumers" -- at least from their the logical extension would be (and a happy one) that of Consumer-Sovereignty (Mises -- RP's Mentor).

Can you imagine "Sinner-Sovereignty?" Who would want that on their bumper sticker, smile.

Obviously Witherspoon did not understand Meme-Theory.

You will not see "viral" trending on Google Analytics for "Sinner Sovereignty"

Any page you find discussing sin will have a low number of views, followers, or shares compared to topics people like and care about.

Now "sinner fail" -- where we get to watch sinners face-plant off their skate-boards, that would get a lot of hits.

Ron Paul "liberty" will trend better than Ron Paul "sinner"

This is not the Daily-Sinner (you should go buy that by-the-by).

For you sinner-lovin' folk -- when I say human, you say sinner -- human *blinks* (say it)........Okay, when I say human, you say sinner........human *blinks*

Worse -- it's not only that sinner = human (so why not just say human) it's that it's "perpetual-sinner" (you guys like to be clear on that).

The problem with people is that we "one-up" each other (naturally) and when it relates to natural things-thoughts-actions that's great -- competition. But when people one-up each other over sin (meaning they develop gradations of sins) then a caste system forms.

People naturally think, "if my son/daughter becomes a preacher, or a priest, or marries one (not the priest)" then I will be more fortunate. They do think this way.

It's because if anyone has a chance to be a "less" of a sinner it's a preacher -- which is why you see sinners abdicating their understanding of scripture over-to another sinner (preacher) -- who is the fastest and loudest and most vociferous claimer of sinnfullness.

I once heard to preachers "bragging" about who was the greatest sinner and while listening to their laundry list of horrible deeds I sat there and thought "I rarely curse in my mind, I never steal, and lie and covet less than these fools" *dismount to conclusion* "I'm 'better' then them and I never spend anytime thinking about how I'm a sinner" -- maybe that's the key.

For Mises human = consumer

See there's Big Bang or Big God Spark; either or, this was the ONLY moment of production -- everything that followed was "consumption"

Consumption means -- to transform, to use, to waste (diminish)

We consume -- ideas, thoughts, energy, fuel, words, sounds, nutrients, water, air, emotions, tools, and resources.

We can ONLY consume

So if God and Jesus are the ONLY non-sinners then they must not be "consumers" rather they are pure observers.

Try not being a consumer for 5mins -- when you turn blue you'll breathe again, hahahaha.

You seem to think popularity

You seem to think popularity makes right.

Matthew 7:13-14
King James Version (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Interesting, on an "individualism" board we have an argument that popular makes right, or even desirable. The government didn't give us a bad world. That's why they call it "worldliness". Many will go to hell. However, I've mentioned the way, and hope you'll find it.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Free-Market is a Popular-Market

Meaning people "produce" for what most individuals want, they do not create 100,000 units of "something" that only 100 want.

You did not mention "the way" because you were not specific as to which denomination is getting it right -- Religion makes absolutist statements therefore only one "form" of Christianity by your own reasoning is getting it right.

There is no way for religious people to think "respectfully" toward one another because of absolutism -- you cann't be kind in your mind to others if you "know" they are going to hell. You will treat them different then your "saved" friends -- you will not want your children spending time with them; you will educate your children who's going to hell and who isn't.

Or do you say, as many Unitarians or Universalists say that it's okay for gays and lesbians to marry?

Do you believe in Limited Atonement or Unlimited -- does it matter which one a person believes in?

Which Bible is the correct one to read?

I find most Christians can't answer these specific questions because they are trained not to publically point out which denomiations are "getting it" and which ones are not.

Because to "not get it right" is going to Hell.

Octo,You keep saying it.

Octo,

You keep saying it. but it's *your* salvation that should be your greatest concern, and God your focus. Not what other people are or aren't.

John Witherspoon, one of the founding fathers, mentions that in one of his sermons. They sounded pretty good to me. The point that it's common to always be self-justifying with relative sins in comparison to other people before you are saved; when you aren't saved and have had your sins washed away by the blood of the Lamb of God.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The man checking the maintenence of an elevator or a draw bridge

have one set of checks. They are not allowed to make multiple-interpretations. There is only ONE way to do it right.

Because the owners pay insurance and the insurance companies demand ever-increasing improvement regarding the checks.

Where is this with Religious Organizations -- Who "insures" that the path your own is the right-one; what humans are held accountable for creating side-paths to Martin Luther's Scriptura Sola vs Calvin's Scriptura Sola.

Which do you believe Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement?

Can you answer that question?

ERRRR...No Can't Answer That One

...because I think there is another, better choice.

I will not be limited to only those two choices... ; )

I will hold out for my own atonement belief system. Personal scaffolding ...: ) it is. Works for me.

fonta

Maybe you do not recognize the phrasing?

Depending on the branch of Protestantism you follow you will belief in either Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement.

I understad -- I find most Christians are quite slippery when it comes to "absolutism" -- they are absolutists but to appear "open minded" they do not like to be held to their positions.

Are you empathetic to the 10 billion or so souls who will die (in the next 100 years) and will burn forever in Hell -or- Are you indifferent (meaning you don't think too much about it)?

If I truly believed that 10 billion people (souls) would be tortured in hell forever and ever (many family members and friends) and I would not (because of a "pact" I made) I would be distraught -- seriously distraught; I think it might cause psychosis, because I am deeply empathetic to peoples minor sufferings (which is why I chose not to read or watch the news).

My daughter bumped her head pretty hard a few months back and was fading in and out of consciousness and I was worried sick.

I could not imagine "knowing" that 10 billion people would be in the grips of the most un-speakable torture (by the decree of their Father-Creator) for ever and ever?

Even more cruel than that realization would be if I was "in-different" to it (meaning I rarely thought of it); as it would be impossible for me to imagine being indifferent to a "little" pain my daughter is going through, let alone her sould burning forever and ever?

So -- are you perpetually distraught (chillin in the bliss of Christ) or indifferent to the plight of billions (knowing you and your's are "saved")?

Or will you take the 5th on that one too -- I can NEVER get Christians to honestly answer those ones: Are you Perpetually Distraught or Mostly Indifferent? Regarding the fate of 10 billion people over the next 100 years.

OCTO- I Said Neither Because

...I am a Christian who does not believe in the atonement doctrine as it is presented in most branches of institutionalized religion.

My God *would not* and *could not* condemn his SON to such unspeakable agony. My God would never require nine words..."I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal savior" as some kind of all important password phrase to "get into heaven."

My God and his Son having foreknowledge of all things (which, to me, does not contradict freewill) *might* have chosen this backwards little planet with all its darkness and willful greed, deceit, confusion...as a backdrop for an expression of the Father's love and mercy (quite an upstep from the wrathful God of Old Testament written and rewritten and edited history.

My God just might have a natural law that the entrance to heaven has more to do with *not* being void of anything of value to carry over to the next life even with his immeasurable "mercy credits" making up for the obvious handicaps of life on such a planet. I try not to judge; however, many on this planet must be using up their mercy credits given the acts they commit.

My God and his Son would ensure that *anyone* lacking in spiritual curiosity due to upbringing, education, geography would, of course, have an much opportunity to make eternity decisions.

And, perhaps...just perhaps Bible restatements of real (not allegory to me) events like the great temptation (he wasn't tempted but we were, are and will continue to be) and the Sermon on the Mount just might be seen after we graduate from this time/space orb of confusion in a different light.

And, I AM NOT 'chillin in the bliss' because I believe "to he whom much is given, much is expected" and I am not only NOT indifferent to the fate of 10 billion people...I am everyday devastated and sorrowful about it.

And, finally, I believe that Jesus came to give us his knowledge and relationship with Our Father and never intended that the emphasis be placed on what men did to beauty, truth and goodness. Oh, and I do believe he resurrected and *that* that was part of the plan. Would have worked out much better if he had been able to stick around a little longer until he real message took root...die an natural death of old age...and resurrect in the same way for the same purpose; ie to show that it sure doesn't have to be all over after 7 or so decades on this not very evolved planet. Oh, and I believe in evolution and creationism and see no conflict although both stories are probably at this point pretty incomplete.

fonta

Your "words" please my mind

I'd welcome you and your DID to my table any day of the week -- at the very least it would be entertaining to watch the flow of your streaming consciousness -- if you could handle in-all-good-humor my Twain-esque repartee.

By what tradition have you come to "believe" in the way you do -- if absolutism be without a house-of-referrence cannot it be absolutism?

If it be not then the Hell cannot exist to you -- if it is compulsory that we go to Hell for "not knowing" something (blindly) then that is not a philosophy of individualism, rather a dogmatic-doctrine-(of)-dictatorship.

Since I would not "lord over" others my mind cannot be troubled by "hell" (or that they might wind up there) -- if I thought for once that that was a possibility I would be like you and have no peace.

Being "bewildered - bedraggled - bewitched" by the march to eternal torture that 99% of all created are-in and 99% of those living today (or those that will come tomorrow) will-be-in would be(rightly so) maddening.

I don't envy your inner torture but it is just -- otherwise if you had a moment of ecstacy, rapture, bliss, or peace (in God) you would be in-humane (to say the least).

Your God must be in the longest throws of torture -- if he were watching his children march into perpetual tearing-ripping-burning-gnawing hell.

But -- if you and I are correct that means 99% of all those that ever "believed" in Hell and 99% that still do are wasting their time.

The worst I've ever done to my daughter was to ground her (to her room) -- maybe a spanking or two. If I'm created as spark of the divine image then I'd expect him to be MORE compassionate rather than less.

If the latter is what I accept then what parts of the Bible do I start ignoring and to whom to I keep my fellowship?

Wouldn't it be wiser then to find religions that never offer a hell or who have proven to create wiser-smarter-more-peaceful products?

Where does your absolutism begin and end (in the former regard -- are you "open" to practicing any religion that suits one?)?

Octo and Fonta Have Communion

"I'd welcome you and your DID to my table any day of the week -- at the very least it would be entertaining to watch the flow of your streaming consciousness -- if you could handle in-all-good-humor my Twain-esque repartee."

Have no idea what my DID is but I would never tire of Twain-esque repartee and would be most honored to sit at your table and share my streaming consciousness with your streaming consciousness. . I would know I was in a "safe place" however vigorous the "streaming." Such a rare event that experience is now days. I do not like to debate only from scriptures and religious texts as I feel they have all been tampered with and require being placed both in a historical context and an understanding of the motives of those placing them into the annals of history.

So I would prefer NOT to come from that place at your table as you have a vast amount of knowledge that I simply do not have. I have no interest in debating historical religious texts although I have read much, absorbed some and have utmost respect for the texts and the proponents of the texts. Personally believe that Jesus spoke in parables for many reasons. Perhaps there was a message therein to come from your own life, your own experiences...to stream and share from that unique standpoint, profiting all participants to the maximum with something they have not heard before. Let others debate texts. I'll read...but seem to have little to offer.

"By what tradition have you come to "believe" in the way you do -- if absolutism be without a house-of-referrence cannot it be absolutism?"

Traditions? Many and all. However, once upon a time someone gave me a religious text and in doing so said "Do not believe a word in it." Since that time I have flown like a liberated bird in reading any religious text, convinced that it was neither blasphemous nor ignorant *not* to believe every word in it. Now I just flit hither and yon..collecting nuggets and gems, curious about everything, respectful of others...but following my own path as dots connect in my own personal spiritual experience. Absolutism about anything? Hardly,as that would be quite vain and it is important to me to believe it is a never-ending quest of personal exploration and adventure. In fact, I am rather suspicious of anyone on this planet who seems to think they have found the end-all answer to anything. I do not believe that is possible and only leads to a closed mind.

"If it be not then the Hell cannot exist to you -- if it is compulsory that we go to Hell for "not knowing" something (blindly) then that is not a philosophy of individualism, rather a dogmatic-doctrine-(of)-dictatorship."

In agreement. How dare anyone put such constraints on the individual. Not compulsory as I do not come from fear. What greater hell for one who is driven to proceed and grow than to, than of their own volition , use up all available mercy credits and have absolutely nothing to add to a higher level or dimension of existence. To be as if one had never been...now that would be a much greater hell then to eternally incinerate as demons laugh and ridicule. It does however seem much like living in such a hell as I see innocents incinerated while demons laugh and ridicule them. Such a life on such a planet. Still I have peace in knowing this is but a prelude.

"But -- if you and I are correct that means 99% of all those that ever "believed" in Hell and 99% that still do are wasting their time."

Don't know the percentile...however, cannot imagine living in that kind of fear day in and day out. To me, there is a much better way; however, apparently many disagree or else they have just not considered an alternative.

"The worst I've ever done to my daughter was to ground her (to her room) -- maybe a spanking or two. If I'm created as spark of the divine image then I'd expect him to be MORE compassionate rather than less."

That has for many years been my conviction and what a plan that we have the opportunity to learn that thorough the unconditional love of parenthood. Came to the same conclusions through he same experience, I did.

"If the latter is what I accept then what parts of the Bible do I start ignoring and to whom to I keep my fellowship? Wouldn't it be wiser then to find religions that never offer a hell or who have proven to create wiser-smarter-more-peaceful products?"

The person who told me..."don't believe a word in it" (who believe it or not has no recollection of saying that to me)...added, "you will know what to accept when your truth bells go off." It has worked for me. I don't worry about it if my truth bells don't go off. Either I am not ready for it...it is irrelevant...it is not true....or, if it seems possibly true...then use it for scaffolding. The book the person gave me is called The Urantia Book. It put my Christian background in a different perspective...actually brought it back to me with more depth and satisfaction. Do I believe every word in it or discount other texts? Absolutely not. And, that is as close to absolutism as I can get.

"Where does your absolutism begin and end (in the former regard -- are you "open" to practicing any religion that suits one?)?"

Not really. Seem to be on the grow as you go plan. And, I have "fellow-shipped" several places and find that satisfying...much more so now that I am much older and *things* don't set me off like they used to. Tolerance seems to come with age...ya know.

Communion is whenever two are more are gathered in the *name* of that divine spark that lives within each of us and insures we have the opportunity to grow spiritually as the unique expression of God that we are intended to be. I have very much enjoyed this communion with you.

http://www.stjoan-center.com/twain/atheists.html

Interesting guy...thought you might like this that I just stumbled upon as I googled Mark Twain and communion.

fonta

But God isn't indifferent to

But God isn't indifferent to it. That's the whole point of Jesus Christ dying on the cross.

When you stand before God's throne, your answer that well, I wasn't sure who to ask so I could be saved isn't going to sound good, when the answer is JESUS CHRIST.

You keep putting in organizations of men to be saved, but that prayer you make to God isn't to an organization, and generally no one is around. It's to Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

A person must first have an attraction to "authorities" on topic

that's that can't be proven or that need to be taken on "blind belief" or by "psycho-emotional belief" (otherwise known as faith).

One has to have fear -- fear of the un-known.

Which is why so much of the Bible deals with absolutes -- people want an absolute guarantee against death or they want an absolute "plan" for a happy life -- they want an authority of final opinion so they do not have to rely on chance or deal with the uncertainties of life.

This is why Jesus says you must approach God "child-like" -- it means "in full trust" and "innocence" (naivite).

The skeptical mind of an investigator is not a good mind to have to be a religionist -or- he must have the ability to never look at religion critically or ask too many questions.

When he does he is met with absolutist qualifiers for what he should do -- as you have done here.

All that I'm saying has nothing to do with "spirituality" it has to do with religious-absolutism and how this type of mentality will either never chose individualism (logically) or will only be able to go so far with it (in real terms).

This is why the religious-abdicator or secular-abdicator go on voting and lobbying -- because "they" have a mindset to abdicate to authority and are willing to pay for it with other people's purchasing-power.

You don't have that excuse. It's Jesus you go to.

Back to the basics.

You said you dislike Christians that just preach Christ crucified, but Paul says that is the way to evangelize. It isn't Christians that save you, it is Jesus Christ that saves you.

You say you don't know which denomination to go to to be saved, but you know it's Jesus you have to go to. Where's the excuse? God gives you the faith by His grace. You may not have that faith, but ask him for it. But this isn't a reason.

1 Corinthians 1
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Paul "authorized" himself -- He did not know Christ in the Flesh

did he?

No no my friend.

Absolutism cannot be housed in all differing denominations -- only one can be right.

Although I'm more apt to agree with Fonta (on this matter) I know his words would not be shared by most Denomination-Affiliated belief structures.

"Correctness" in Dogmatic Traditions is a very serious issue.
---It literally means heaven or hell

There are denominations who discount all of Paul's commentary (as "commentary" and not "gospel").

I asked Fonta this question: "Do you believe in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement"?

Are you a Calvinist, Lutheran, Weylanist (sp?), Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, or Catholic?

I find most online Christians unable to answer just where their interpritations of the Bible come from.

Search for the true ~.

+1, re - above. Please see -
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/05/08/hiding-the-true-jesus/

[[ That’s why Rev. Howard Bess says the search for the true Maseah (Jesus?) is crucial. ]]

Rev Bess "authority" is based on what?

The Moody Bible College?

I DO NOT accept "authorities" on topics (if given any other genre would be rejected on sight) that can be surmised as psycho-emotional or hyper-imaginative.

Does that make sense -- that one "should not" accept authority on such fantastical topics?

A D&D Historian (considered the best among his peers) could articulate a better history for his fantasy-genre then could any historian could on the "life" of Jesus. This goes without question given the ability to fact check against all claims, but also because it is better conceived with 1000’s of accepted view points and open-source debate platforms. The latter does not exist among Christendom, save in the last 20 or 30 years.
***D&D = Dungeon and Dragons

The article you sent, while I agree with its sentiment (that Jesus was a forgiving-based healer and not a vengeance-is-mine "healer"), the basis for Bess argument is on two fallacious premises: 1) that the "true" Jesus is the opposite of Paul's accounts (which means the "authoritative" basis for all Christian Sects is false) and 2) that Josephus was absolutely without false-hoods or embellishments in "his-own" record of the life of Jesus.

If you or Bess are correct instead of ending peoples dogmatic blind psycho-emotive belief system it would only offer another in its place.

This is a perfect example -- I would be unaware of Bess' argument had I not followed your recommendation to go read it, which was softly and deftly requested.

Now -- how many were introduced by "force" into religion -- how many people and cultures were destroyed to make room for religion?

Those are the bookends -- Softly Requested (meaning there's a choice) or Forced-Compliance.

If people were "silent and humble" religion would of died out ions ago.

But they can't be quiet because of the absolutist positions -- you'll go to hell if you don't x, y, and z. If I believe said reasons I would be the most horrible person imaginable for not warning others

All the "low-hell importance" religions have people who have lived under the rule of others (and horrifically so) for ions.

While all the "high-hell importance" religions have been the one's ruling (others) or going through periods of waste-and-want but only for short periods.

Jews - Buddhists - Hindus - Certain Pagan Groups (American Indians most Traditional Africans) are a "low-hell importance" lot of religions. They have all had their arses handed to them again-and-again-and-again.

Christians - Muslims - Certain Pagan Groups (Vikings for one) have been pounding the hell out of each other (as high-hell importance groups) and the other low-hell importance religions.

Thoughts?

Religion & Authority.

thank you for your attention & response, and please excuse my delayed reply. I did read Bess's article & your post again.

Rev Bess is no authority, neither was it suggested in my post to you. I simply forwarded the link to his article after reading the title of your post above =>
[Paul "authorized" himself -- He did not know Christ in the Flesh = by OctoBox on 08/02/2012 01:37].

Rev Bess wrote something similar = [ ~ ~ a theological construction of Paul, who never knew Jesus and had little knowledge of his life. Indeed, in Paul’s many writings, he never indicates any awareness of the life of Jesus or his teachings.]

It was a mere coincidence, when I read your exchange with MaxK I had an open tab with Rev Bess's article, - (I do not recall how I reached there), then I felt it would be useful in your discussion, so I sent the link to you.

Now I feel it should be shared on top of page. When people are seeking, without arrogant stubbornness they are more open to discussion - and shed what is false, foul, or useless, - then they will find the alternate, get closer to & receive the True.

you crazy

"There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge."
Hunter S. Thompson

"Prophesying is lying professionally."
Thomas Paine

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

When I breath I am not

When I breath I am not consuming... I am producing... Oxygen Cycle...

Define your terms just so we know what you are talking about!

An excellent book by George H. Smith does just that in Atheism: The Case Against God in which he does discuss the meaning of the word god in a most lucid manner.

It is an interesting exercise to imagine for an hour or so how the universe works if there really were no such thing as a god to "explain" or "create" it.

Those of us who do not accept the existence of anything for which there is no rational evidence, such as the "supernatural," are in awe that Nature has been able to give rise to living things over the 14 billion years we are able to know about with telescopes.

I have a new grandson now and marvel that he is what he is all by natural processes.

Others have commented that Ron Paul only lacks the passion of Dennis Kucinich but he also lacks the understanding of science regarding the universe in the 21st Century instead of the beliefs of a primitive, supernatural religion which denies the reality of Evolution and a universe which has been in existence for at least 14 billion years and not just 6000 years.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

You'd be better off using Google. . .

The idea of 'God given rights' is related to the concept of Natural Law and 'inalienable rights endowed by the Creator'. The founders looked to John Locke for their philosophical inspiration.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson