10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[NavarreMan 10]

"(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust"

That's what I'm talking about

I fail to see where having faith correlates to a "suspension of intellect".

[jundp 191]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

i'm aware of all of that.

Then I'm not sure how you can say it has no teeth. Germany wasn't allowed to try the Nazis so the human rights violation of a "civilized country" was tried by a tribunal made up of reps from Russia, USA, and UK. Not by the country in which the violations occurred. That was your point earlier...that each country should be responsible for its own trials without the need for something like the UDHR to exist. Yet it was created because of that need.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I said when you raised the point, whether or not it has any 'teeth' is not pivotal to the argument as to whether the Declaration of Human Rights is important and worth preserving or not - although it's an interesting argument in its own right.

I suggested right from the start that you misunderstand the importance of the Declaration of Human Rights, you misunderstand what it is and what it does. You insist that without these 'teeth' it is worthless but you are mistaken. Even if you were correct and it didn't have any 'teeth' without that declaration there is no standard as to what is understood as a human right.

Nothing you have said has changed that, not least briging up Nurenburg, although these trials are extremely interesting and are worthy of further study.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Peikko 1,575]

GG, I've answered you now 3 times over differing months/weeks, but you have yet to acknowledge me once. So. Here's the thing-- I don't think you actually want an answer, even though you asked me yourself. I don't think you will ever actually accept an answer either, and it shouldn't matter to you as you do not believe in G-d anyway. I'm not really sure why you won't accept any of the answers given; you are using some circular logic, but that in itself wouldn't really prevent you from accepting an answer.

If I ask a question about Islam and I am given an answer I find absurd, I accept it as being valid within the framework of their belief system. Being that you do not hold that G-d is really there anyway, isn't it logical to do the same?

Because you have been asking a question which presupposes a belief in G-d in the first place and also that gives authority to your assertion of what the Bible says as His words.

I would like to point out that you still ignored context and chose to do pick and choose. If I write a sentence, and I say "I think it is OK to kill someone in self-defence" and then you cut my sentance to say I said it is OK to kill someone and use it to justify murder, then how is that taking my thought in context? You are choosing to do the same thing here. That is fine if you wish to pick and choose, but you cannot say that it means what you assert then at that point.

Lastly, I would like to point out that it appears, and I could be wrong, that you are presupposing that G-d is fair. G-s is not fair and never has been and never will be. If G-d were fair, we would all go to hell.

Wow, very well written.

I agree there comes a point in threads where instead of just asking what the beliefs are, it becomes a questioning of why are those the beliefs. I could question so many things in this world, in so many religions and philosophies that I see giant holes in, but I don't do so in every thread about such a topic . If it's being discussed I might jump in with an opinion, but I don't go bringing it up myself all the time. My questions are: Why don't people believe there could be a God? Why is that opinion any more valid than believing in God? It's not. There is no proof that there is no God and there is not the kind of proof for a God existing that some people want. I believe there is proof of His existence in my life, certain things don't just happen coincidentally all the time. I have answered questions I have had about my own beliefs, which is why I have them.

"(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust"

That's what I'm talking about

I fail to see where having faith correlates to a "suspension of intellect".

A suspension of intellect, no. However, the belief in god requires one to ignore some of the realities that we experience in the physical world.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

i'm aware of all of that.

Then I'm not sure how you can say it has no teeth. Germany wasn't allowed to try the Nazis so the human rights violation of a "civilized country" was tried by a tribunal made up of reps from Russia, USA, and UK. Not by the country in which the violations occurred. That was your point earlier...that each country should be responsible for its own trials without the need for something like the UDHR to exist. Yet it was created because of that need.

they lost the war, and given the reach the nazi party had, that would have been very foolhardy to allow german judges to sit in judgement over people who probably had a major hand in their obtaining their job....

As I said when you raised the point, whether or not it has any 'teeth' is not pivotal to the argument as to whether the Declaration of Human Rights is important and worth preserving or not - although it's an interesting argument in its own right.

I suggested right from the start that you misunderstand the importance of the Declaration of Human Rights, you misunderstand what it is and what it does. You insist that without these 'teeth' it is worthless but you are mistaken. Even if you were correct and it didn't have any 'teeth' without that declaration there is no standard as to what is understood as a human right.

Nothing you have said has changed that, not least briging up Nurenburg, although these trials are extremely interesting and are worthy of further study.

ever considered opening your own waffle house?

[jundp 191]

Of course they lost the war and it would be foolhardy. But that's not what you said earlier about "civilized nations." You said they should be allowed to try for human rights violations themselves.

I don't agree. I wouldn't trust the Rwandan government to try the leaders responsible for inflicting horrific human rights violations on their people any more than the Germans should have been trusted at that time.

I think you are backtracking because you don't want to admit that the UDHR does have merit and is a worthy document and has been useful.

[Peikko 1,575]

the fact is, the nuremburg trials were held and people were found guilty of crimes involving human rights. you may wish to dance around that all you want, but it is proof positive that nations can do the policing without some nebulous international court system.

open societies can monitor human rights violations as human rights are codified as part of their laws. while on that subject, if they are not part of their legal system how can it be noticed and raised to this international court system you are so fond of? and why are nations so quick to divorce themselves from responsibility - is this more big brother?

Yes, but who held and adjudicated the Nuernberg trials? It was the International Military Tribunal, was it not? Which was composed of a a number of people from the Allied Forces, no?

Also, the UDHR came as a direct result of WWII and the Nuernberg Trials, I believe. Because people did NOT want to see the genocide that occurred in WWII happen again. (Though it has. Many times.)

i'm aware of all of that.

Then I'm not sure how you can say it has no teeth. Germany wasn't allowed to try the Nazis so the human rights violation of a "civilized country" was tried by a tribunal made up of reps from Russia, USA, and UK. Not by the country in which the violations occurred. That was your point earlier...that each country should be responsible for its own trials without the need for something like the UDHR to exist. Yet it was created because of that need.

they lost the war, and given the reach the nazi party had, that would have been very foolhardy to allow german judges to sit in judgement over people who probably had a major hand in their obtaining their job....

As I said when you raised the point, whether or not it has any 'teeth' is not pivotal to the argument as to whether the Declaration of Human Rights is important and worth preserving or not - although it's an interesting argument in its own right.

I suggested right from the start that you misunderstand the importance of the Declaration of Human Rights, you misunderstand what it is and what it does. You insist that without these 'teeth' it is worthless but you are mistaken. Even if you were correct and it didn't have any 'teeth' without that declaration there is no standard as to what is understood as a human right.

Nothing you have said has changed that, not least briging up Nurenburg, although these trials are extremely interesting and are worthy of further study.

ever considered opening your own waffle house?

What does your argument consist of at this point? You cite the Nuremburg trials as a triumph of an open sovereign government policing itself on human rights issues (when the trials themselves were about agressive war mongering not human rights, just so we know were we are at). In fact the trials were the necessity of the allies policing Germany.

The fact that they could do so at the time at all was due to the fact that Germany suspended sovereignty by issuing an unconditional surrender. At the time of the trials, there was no Germany in any real sense, the allies assumed conditional sovereignty.

None of this negates the need for an independant declaration of human rights, and in fact the logical extension of the problems highlighted by the prosecution of the Nuremburg trails was the perceived need to enshrine human rights into an independantly held Declaration.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Of course they lost the war and it would be foolhardy. But that's not what you said earlier about "civilized nations." You said they should be allowed to try for human rights violations themselves.

I don't agree. I wouldn't trust the Rwandan government to try the leaders responsible for inflicting horrific human rights violations on their people any more than the Germans should have been trusted at that time.

I think you are backtracking because you don't want to admit that the UDHR does have merit and is a worthy document and has been useful.

that begs the question then of if then nazi germany could be considered civilized, wouldn't it?

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course they lost the war and it would be foolhardy. But that's not what you said earlier about "civilized nations." You said they should be allowed to try for human rights violations themselves.

I don't agree. I wouldn't trust the Rwandan government to try the leaders responsible for inflicting horrific human rights violations on their people any more than the Germans should have been trusted at that time.

I think you are backtracking because you don't want to admit that the UDHR does have merit and is a worthy document and has been useful.

that begs the question then of if then nazi germany could be considered civilized, wouldn't it?

I'd walk away Charles, that hole you are digging is just getting bigger, and bigger...

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

What does your argument consist of at this point? You cite the Nuremburg trials as a triumph of an open sovereign government policing itself on human rights issues (when the trials themselves were about agressive war mongering not human rights, just so we know were we are at). In fact the trials were the necessity of the allies policing Germany.

that was in response to your statement:

regarding "No nation can or should have the responsbility to adjudicate Human Rights" - be sure to tell that to those who held the nuremburg trials. and i think they did a pretty good job of it. so toss that opinion of yours where it belongs and flush it.

modern, open societies are quite capable of monitoring any "human rights" violations that occur within their borders. to think they can't is a slap in the face of civilization.

do try to stay up with me and try not to confuse me answering your earlier posts with the topic at hand

The fact that they could do so at the time at all was due to the fact that Germany suspended sovereignty by issuing an unconditional surrender. At the time of the trials, there was no Germany in any real sense, the allies assumed conditional sovereignty.

None of this negates the need for an independant declaration of human rights, and in fact the logical extension of the problems highlighted by the prosecution of the Nuremburg trails was the perceived need to enshrine human rights into an independantly held Declaration.

it indicates that nations are capable of it taking care of the business at hand.

Of course they lost the war and it would be foolhardy. But that's not what you said earlier about "civilized nations." You said they should be allowed to try for human rights violations themselves.

I don't agree. I wouldn't trust the Rwandan government to try the leaders responsible for inflicting horrific human rights violations on their people any more than the Germans should have been trusted at that time.

I think you are backtracking because you don't want to admit that the UDHR does have merit and is a worthy document and has been useful.

that begs the question then of if then nazi germany could be considered civilized, wouldn't it?

I'd walk away Charles, that hole you are digging is just getting bigger, and bigger...

if you can't see the difference between my earlier statement about a civilized nation and nazi germany, then i feel sorry for you.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

"(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust"

That's what I'm talking about

I fail to see where having faith correlates to a "suspension of intellect".

I can. I don't think she means to say that these people are stupid at all, but it requires a suspension of something to believe in something that you have no proof exists. If I were to say that there was a million dollars in $1 bills saddled to my unicorn in my backyard, you probably would not believe me, and rightly so. I have not provided evidence that it existed. And what of the people who did believe me? Do you think that it makes sense to believe me based on nothing but my statement that it does exist? What if I were to say that I was the fifth reincaration of Julius Caesar? You would ask me to speak some Classical Latin and be tested by prominant Roman scholars, right? You wouldn't just take my word for it.

To date, I don't really have any substantial evidence that any particular god exists. It doesn't mean they don't, just that it is very doubtful. If Jesus or Zeus or Indra were to have tea with me today, sure I would change my mind, but at this point, I don't see them walking up to the door.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, so your argument isn't that nations can be self policing, but that Nuremburg proves that nations can come together to police other nations should the need arise?

As I said, you have dug such a huge hole, I'd step away if I were you, you risk burying yourself so deep you might never get out again.

[NavarreMan 10]

GG, I've answered you now 3 times over differing months/weeks, but you have yet to acknowledge me once. So. Here's the thing-- I don't think you actually want an answer, even though you asked me yourself. I don't think you will ever actually accept an answer either, and it shouldn't matter to you as you do not believe in G-d anyway. I'm not really sure why you won't accept any of the answers given; you are using some circular logic, but that in itself wouldn't really prevent you from accepting an answer.

If I ask a question about Islam and I am given an answer I find absurd, I accept it as being valid within the framework of their belief system. Being that you do not hold that G-d is really there anyway, isn't it logical to do the same?

Because you have been asking a question which presupposes a belief in G-d in the first place and also that gives authority to your assertion of what the Bible says as His words.

I would like to point out that you still ignored context and chose to do pick and choose. If I write a sentence, and I say "I think it is OK to kill someone in self-defence" and then you cut my sentance to say I said it is OK to kill someone and use it to justify murder, then how is that taking my thought in context? You are choosing to do the same thing here. That is fine if you wish to pick and choose, but you cannot say that it means what you assert then at that point.

Lastly, I would like to point out that it appears, and I could be wrong, that you are presupposing that G-d is fair. G-s is not fair and never has been and never will be. If G-d were fair, we would all go to hell.

Wow, very well written.

I agree there comes a point in threads where instead of just asking what the beliefs are, it becomes a questioning of why are those the beliefs. I could question so many things in this world, in so many religions and philosophies that I see giant holes in, but I don't do so in every thread about such a topic . If it's being discussed I might jump in with an opinion, but I don't go bringing it up myself all the time. My questions are: Why don't people believe there could be a God? Why is that opinion any more valid than believing in God? It's not. There is no proof that there is no God and there is not the kind of proof for a God existing that some people want. I believe there is proof of His existence in my life, certain things don't just happen coincidentally all the time. I have answered questions I have had about my own beliefs, which is why I have them.

"(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust"

That's what I'm talking about

I fail to see where having faith correlates to a "suspension of intellect".

A suspension of intellect, no. However, the belief in god requires one to ignore some of the realities that we experience in the physical world.

Depends on your belief in God, but I was only addressing the definition of faith. I have faith that the sun will "rise" tomorrow. I have no proof that it will, though common sense, scientific theory and mathematical practice says it is a near certainty. None of this means I have suspended my intellect to believe in this. Having faith in something or someone does not necessarily make one stupid. IMO praying to God to save your life when you are on a plane flown by suicidal maniacs is stupid and pointless. Praying to God to help you find the strength in difficult times can be quite uplifting. To each their own. Just don't try and sell me a piece of toast with Jesus' face on it.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Oh, so your argument isn't that nations can be self policing, but that Nuremburg proves that nations can come together to police other nations should the need arise?

As I said, you have dug such a huge hole, I'd step away if I were you, you risk burying yourself so deep you might never get out again.

again, reread what i wrote. jeesh.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

No, but his words and deeds are recorded in the Gospels, at least two of which were written by men who were with Jesus throughout his three-year ministry. But if you do not believe that those books actually record what Jesus really said, do you mean to say that if there were a "Book of Jesus," written by his hand, you would accept that as authentic? The fact is, most people in those times did not actually write down their own words directly; the normal practice was to dictate to a scribe who did the actual writing.

A book that we know was written by Jesus himself would not necessarily prove his divinity, but at least we would know from the horse's mouth, so to speak, what kind of people he envisioned his followers would be. Then we could apply the "True Christian" label more correctly. Right now, all we can really say is that we know maybe what he said filtered through his disciples who started writing the gospels a few years after he had died. Doesn't mean all they wrote was bad, just that we cannot be sure how much was correctly attributed.