You can't have freedom without structure.
And God doesn't prevent people from doing what they will.
That's because he can't.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can't have freedom without structure.
And God doesn't prevent people from doing what they will.
One could argue that they don't follow the true God, which is the problem.
It's not just any God. Human rights come from I Am, and I'd say Allah is not he.
But answer this...would you rather have human rights dictated by the strictures of God or by the strictures of a corrupt government...which changes from time to time depending on the quality of the people who run it?
If I were a Christian I would do as Christ did and submit. If I were an atheist or secular-humanist I would exercise my natural right to self defense and defend my family and myself.
Now how is it rights can only exist if there is a god?
Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion. That being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.
It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense.
There are few more secular nations that the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailent, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The
People oh Great Britain for their having taken offensive action against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use.a fire arm in defense oh their life or that of another.
So it is clear
God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, OVA Solutions as that realized in the opening scenario...
The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and zer this timeless and stand ineffected by the idiocy of mankind.
Publius Infinitum said:Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion; that being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.
So your assertion is that Christ would kill an attacker save for his “specific purpose?” Which one of Christ sermons do you base this reasoning?
Publius Infinitum said:It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense.
The only way for a law to be natural is if it is secular otherwise it would be a very unnatural law predicated by a supernatural god.
Publius Infinitum said:It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense. There are few more secular nations than the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailant, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The People' of Great Britain for their having taken 'offensive action' against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use of a fire arm in defense of their life or that of another.
So it is clear that in those two MOST secular nations that the right to defend one's life is Not a right at all; in those secular states 'the people,' have determined that it is the responsibility of the the state to determine what life will be protected and if you or your family is killed or severely injured, well that's tough for you; 'you should have been more careful.'
You just blew a load of smoke out your butt. Just how is it you see that a "clear?"
Publius Infinitum said:God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, such as that realized in the opening scenario...
I give no authority to any god so how can it be beyond me?
Publius Infinitum said:The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and are thus timeless and stand unaffected by the idiocy of mankind.
The rights bestowed by a supernatural god are interpreted by natural Man. How can gods reasoning be perfect if it is delivered by a very imperfect Man?
I don't think you can prove it, it's not really provable or unprovable either way. It's just a philosophy. Can you prove a philosophy correct or incorrect? Not really.
Christ had a very specific purpose for submitting to the crucifixion. That being to die on that cross and in so doing pay for your and my sins; sacrificing his own Innocent life, so that we, the guilty, could join with the father. An act he knowingly accepted, thus the gift which is at the core of the good news that we are all since worthy of salvation; which absent his incomprehensible sacrifice would be impossible.
It's remarkable to me that you're standing on some heretofore unheard of notion that there is a secular 'natural right' to self defense. There are few more secular nations than the UK and that nation has completely rinsed from its culture any notion that the individual has a right to defend their life against unjustified attack. Should a subject find themselves having taken action in defense of their own life or that of another which resulted in the injury or death of the assailent, they will most certainly be prosecuted by 'The People' of Great Britain for their having taken 'offensive action' against another person. The same is true in Australia where they have, as is the case in the UK determined that the individual citizen does NOT possess the right to own and use.a fire arm in defense oh their life or that of another.
So it is clear that in those two MOST secular nations that the right to defend one's life is Not a right at all; in those secular states 'the people,' have determined that it is the responsibility of the the state to determine what life will be protected and if you or your family is killed or severely injured, well that's tough for you; 'you should have been more careful.'
God's authority is beyond that of 'The People' (read: the state] thus rights endowed by the creator are not subject to popular whimsy, as such was realized in the opening scenario...
The rights inherent from God rest on perfect reason and are thus timeless and stand uneffected by the idiocy of mankind.
The question remains, would Christ harm someone that seeks to harm an innocent and is there any evidence of Christ taking offensive action to defend the weak from injury or death?
First, I'd advance that Christ stood up for the whole of humanity and protected us all from the certainty of everlasting damnation...
Second, where he saw the temple being used for purposes other than worship, he realized that this behavior was an offense that prevented the weak, the innocent, the poor from entering the temple and stood up to run the money changers out of the temple.
Third, when discussing the consequences of those that would harm a child... he responded that those who harm children will realize a fate that would make being crushed from head to toe by a giant millstone preferable to what they've got coming...
And finally Christ has said that any that does not turn to him, that does not accept his gift, will not enter the kingdom of heaven and will be sentenced at judgment to spend eternity in the agony
You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between secular humanism and 'secular'
Secular Humanism displaces God as the high authority; rejecting God on the whole and resting on the idiocy that humanity is the high authority.
Rights founded in Secular Humanism will and MUST change as the popular whimsy of humanity changes;
The Opening Scenario is illustrative of the folly of such 'feelings' and proves that 'human rights' are not a viable concept within the scope of secular humanism.
I'm going to have to take you on here Pub. The laws of self defence in Australia are located in state/territory law and they do exit. The laws of self defence don't mention firearms.
The possession and use of firearms in Australia is also controlled at the state/territory level. Some weapons have been prohibited and while I might agree that it's sensible to prohibit a fully automatic weapon I vehemently disagree with the prohibition (forced on the states by a conservative federal government) on gas-operated or slide operated s/auto shotguns and the prohibition on large magazines in s/auto rifles. Handguns aren't prohibited, there are requirements before a private citizen can own one though.
If I had a firearm I'd shoot the bastards.
But this is truly bizarre.
Human rights are human invention. As is God. So it looks like humans are an inventive lot.
We invented God. We invented human rights.
That's so that someone could one day come along and say God gave us human rights and we could fight about it on an internet forum
LOL... Color me shocked... but before I begin, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration which you've invested in your response... Now with that said: "What pray tell would these would-be conservatives be 'conserving'?"
The simple fact is Big D, that Australia is on the same rack as the UK; the ownership and use of a firearm in Australia is flat on the way OUT and the secular humanists running Australia will flat tell you that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE A FIRE ARM IN DEFENSE OF YOUR LIFE... As a matter of fact, that is exactly what your Prime Minister said when he was busy disarming you people.
Sure, there are various categories of fire arms, that a citizen of Australia may be able to own, assuming that one can acquire the licenses... and the 5% of Australians who have managed to do so tends towards the suggestion that it's not as simple as some might suggest it otherwise would be...
The ownership of a fire arm wouldn't do much for a person needing to defend their life in Australia even if they needed it; given that part and parcel of getting that license is the requirement that the fire arm be locked in a safe where there can be no ammunition...
Now for those that believe that with only 5% of Australians legally owning guns in Australia that violent crime in Australia MUST be way down... you're dead wrong... since the disarming of the Australian public, violent crime is up and rising...
In just one year after the 1997 ban:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
http://johnrlott.tripod.com
Since the ban there has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of Australia's senior citizens.
In the first year after the ban the membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association rose 200% to 112,000 in response to the ban in an attempt to organize against further controls, which were expected and realized... it's now illegal to own a sword, a laser pointer and yes even the TOY GUN is banned from the once ruggedly independent Aussie...
Now ten years hence, with violent crime steadily on the rise, Australian politicians have no means to explain why there is no improvement in "public safety" since they conned a sheepish citizenry into spending a half a billion dollars to disarm the law abiding Australian public... they're response is that they need more time to get the guns out of the hands of criminals... which is hilarious given that they've been trying to get the guns out of the hands of criminals since THE FIRST DAY THE FIRST CRIMINAL GOT HIS HANDS ON HIS FIRST GUN... well BEFORE they usurped the unalienable right of the law abiding Australian to protect his life and property through the ownership and use of a firearm.
In point of fact, if an Australian citizen harms a person who illegally invades their home or tries to rob them of their belongings, they will be prosecuted by the Australian government for having taken offensive violence against that criminal... the notion that an Australian has a right to defend his life and property amounts to nothing more than 'the color of right'.
In reality, IF the Australian people recognized the natural right to life and the inherent duty to defend innocent life, they would never have even considered banning the most effective means of doing so; the ownership, training and use of a firearm.
Publius Infinitum said:The question remains, would Christ harm someone that seeks to harm an innocent and is there any evidence of Christ taking offensive action to defend the weak from injury or death?
No, the question remains would Christ kill as a matter of self defense. Read your original diatribe ...
Unless you have a proof of the existence of hell, damnation isnt certain. What is your proof?
Christ didnt kill anyone nor, in fact, did he even harm anyone. How are you construing this as an intent to kill as a matter of self defense under natural law?
Publius Infinitm said:Third, when discussing the consequences of those that would harm a child... he responded that those who harm children will realize a fate that would make being crushed from head to toe by a giant millstone preferable to what they've got coming...
But Christ isnt causing this action nor is this a defense of life. This is like saying that executing a child killer defends the slain child. It doesnt, but in fact shows a failure to defend.
Publius Infinitum said:And finally Christ has said that any that does not turn to him, those that do not accept his gift, will not enter the kingdom of heaven and will be sentenced at judgment to spend eternity in the agony
How does this correlate to the right of self defense or that Christ would kill as a matter of self defense?
In fact, if you go back to your original diatribe you now have Christ as the persecutor killing purely because someone has a different belief.
This now begs the question, by whose law, Man or gods, do we have a natural right to self defense against the tyrant Christ?
Publius Infinitum said:You're intentionally trying to blur the distinction between secular humanism and 'secular'... Natural Law is founded directly upon the premise of Nature's God... it is secular in the context that it is non-denominational...resting upon religious principle that God exists, that God is the ultimate authority in the universe and all lower forms of life are subservient to God, but is absent specific denominational doctrine. Secular; as in a secular government, where God is recognized as the ultimate authority but governance rests upon religious principle, but does not hinge and is not executed upon the doctrine of any given denomination.
Actually you are the only one blurring anything. A secular priest ministers to all denominations.
A secular priest who legislates his beliefs over all acts in a sectarian not secular manor.
You do not understand the difference between secularism in religion and secularism in government. The two are not the same...
Webster's Collegiate 2008: Definition of "secular" said:Main Entry:1secular
Pronunciation:*se-ky*-l*r
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date:14th century
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal *secular concerns* b : not overtly or specifically religious *secular music* c : not ecclesiastical or clerical *secular courts* *secular landowners*
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically: of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation *a secular priest*
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
secularity \*se-ky*-*lar-*-t*\ noun
secularly \*se-ky*-l*r-l*\ adverb
First, secular humanism doesnt reject god.
Webster's Collegiate 2008: Definition of "secular humanism" said:Main Entry:secular humanism
Function:noun
Date:1933
: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
secular humanist noun or adjective
It cant. Secular humanism is based on reason and there exists no logical or empirical argument for or against the existence of god.
Second, freedom is based on the principle of the individual as their own sovereign. This is only idiocy if you think the Founders intended us to live in tyranny. Did they?
Publius Infinitum said:Rights founded in Secular Humanism will and MUST change as the popular whimsy of humanity changes; thus what was your 'right' yesterday is no longer a 'right' today... and Peter, that means that what you THOUGHT was a 'right' yesterday was NEVER A RIGHT... it was at BEST a privilege which 'the people' allowed due to whatever rationalization is rattling around at any given time.
I take it you have never read Leviticus. Is your position that gods law remains unchanged?
There are those who would like to make it so. I believe we call them terrorists. Are we wrong?
Publius Infinitum said:The Opening Scenario is illustrative of the folly of such 'feelings' and proves that 'human rights' are not a viable concept within the scope of secular humanism.
Again, since you paint Christ as a tyrant out to kill based based on how individuals believe it would seem the only way for human rights to exist is by Man and not god.
Would you care to go on???
LOL... sure and any adult that can meet the requirements can suit up with the Patriots, Fly state of the art combat aircraft and solo in a grand tenor voice on the world's great stages...Just a couple of points. Firstly, the statistics. A very good independent source for statistics is the Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Institute of Criminology
This is how things were and are here. Each state and territory has its own firearms laws. Prior to 1996 they were all pretty much different but the easiest state in which to legally acquire a firearm was Tasmania. After the Port Arthur incident the commonwealth governent forced the states to tighten their firearms laws. That was the Howard government at its populist worse.
In self defence anyone here is permitted to use reasonable force to the point of lethal force if needed. The self defence laws of each state differ slightly but that's the guts of it. I can use a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a bludgeon or whatever to protect me or anyone else from attack and if I kill the attacker then as long as lethal force was necessary I will not be convicted of murder or manslaughter.
You can own a sword here, you just better have a very good reason for carrying it in the street. You can own a laser pointer - I own one, I use it for instructional purposes. There is consideration being given to banning large laser pointers because brain-dead idiots think it's funny to point them at the flight deck of aircraft landing at airports here. The toy gun isn't banned.
Any adult who meets the requirements can own/possess/use a firearm. I used to own a Colt Diamondback. I used to own a Remington shotgun. I have used a number of firearms. Howard's populism removed some firearms such as gas-operated shotguns and semi-auto rifles. Howard pulled a stupid move but he was trading on the public disquiet after Port Arthur. Howard never let a chance go by if it meant he could pull a stunt that would give him kudos.
I think we're lucky in this country because the average person doesn't feel as if they need a firearm in the house to defend themselves from attack.
When are jesus freak americans going to start thinking for themselves?
FACT... 100% of american jesus freaks supported the unprovoked US terrorism in Iraq.... Coincidence? I think not.
US Jesus freakism is entirely based upon fear and hatred of others.
I'll take on anyone on this forum to prove that GOD exist??? open a debate and ill burn you a new back door.... Nothing exist without purpose and nothing exist by accident...Burn baby burn
LOL... sure and any adult that can meet the requirements can suit up with the Patriots, Fly state of the art combat aircraft and solo in a grand tenor voice on the world's great stages...
Well I've visited your source many times over the last few years and I've seen it sourced by others... The last time I checked it was not in contest of anything I've reported... Violent crime in up exponentially in Australia and its up because it's easy to be a violent criminal in Australia... all you need to be a successful at violent crime is the means to be more violent than those your targeting. And an unarmed population makes for a target rich environment.
Of course, here in the US, we have a ton of violent crime... just not so much where the citizens are prepared to be the most violent in circumstances where they're given few alternatives. Break into my house while I'm gone and the cops will find you from the video you leave on the IP server... you'll have about 2 minutes to get what you came for before the cops get here.
If you break in while any of us are home, the good news is your finally finished making bad decisions; as the odds of you getting out alive are virtually non-existant and if you do, you won't get far unless you're mortally wounded forty is faster than the dogs and that's fairly unlikely. The point is, you may break in once... but you won't do it twice and most likely neither will anyone that knows you, of you or those who knew someone that knew you and if they do... no problem. But I digress...
I have spoken at length to dozens of Australian Ex-patriots, mostly shooters who left Australia entirely or who enjoy second homes here in Naples and most shoot competively in our local group; in and around the US.
I will say that they have entirely distinct and most decidely oppossing perspectives than yours.
As to your feelings regarding how Australians do not feel the need to own a gun for personal protection... this is the feeling commonly held by FOOD. Although I expect that they're opinion spikes towards change when they're looking at a gun or knife wielding moron(s) threatening the life of their family and friends and toward mind bending REGRET where that or those morons are given the means to strip a life of it's rights because they were insufficient to maintain their responsibility to defend that life by not possessing an effective means to do so.
Make note of this... in one generation (inside 20 years) gun ownership will be outlawed in Australia; and it is an absolute certainty that those who don't give a damn about the law... will be armed to the teeth and doing a bang up job violating the rights of the FOOD in Australia.
With any regard I appreciate your contribution; it's always respectful and that's always appreciated.
Now that is a fine baseless assertion... Some would call it nonsense; but I prefer to call it 'pretty high thinking for an imbecile.'
And for fun... I enjoy doing this: Hey Mikey... any chance that you can post a supporting basis through fact and reason for any of that idiocy?
(Now this is where the fun begins... and there are only two possibilities:
First she tries to respond and just digs herself into an even greater expose of her intellectual depravity or...
Second, she runs like a Michael Collins from a dick measuring contest... and pretends at some point that she measured up and held her own despite her own internal certainty that such is simply not possible.)