hackenslash wrote:Ah, playground it is then. About the right level for your apologetics.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:
The thread's over. You lost.

No, I really didn't. Typical of the posters here, the depth of analysis is superficial. For starters, you can look what wiki has reported. Take a look under the subheading "human rights". http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_cylinder

Remind me why I should take your posts seriously again?

You should read the whole article, not just the paragraph or two quoted. Also read the Wiki articles on human rights and gasp and the complete lack of mention of Christianity.
And you're trying to criticise me over depth of analysis

I do criticize you, since you were obviously unaware that whether he offered a conception of human rights is a matter of contention. Admit it-you didn't know! You just saw some UN site and ran with it, thinking you had an obvious and irrefutable rebutter. How humorous. It is a good thing that I am a patient teacher.

Don't expect UN to mention Christianity, since the UN was sharply criticized for adopting much of its influence when it embarked on formulating the Declaration of Human Rights, for such influence is hardly a basis for multiculturalism. The UN will do its best to insulate the formation of human rights from religious origin for precisely that reason. You might want to read up on that, too.

You have a lot of reading to do.

Cito di Pense wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Ah, playground it is then. About the right level for your apologetics.

You're the Earl Manigault of this asphalt. Stay away from H-O-R-S-E.

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

No, I really didn't. Typical of the posters here, the depth of analysis is superficial. For starters, you can look what wiki has reported. Take a look under the subheading "human rights". http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_cylinder

Remind me why I should take your posts seriously again?

You should read the whole article, not just the paragraph or two quoted. Also read the Wiki articles on human rights and gasp and the complete lack of mention of Christianity.
And you're trying to criticise me over depth of analysis

I do criticize you, since you were obviously unaware that whether he offered a conception of human rights is a matter of contention. Admit it-you didn't know! You just saw some UN site and ran with it, thinking you had an obvious and irrefutable rebutter. How humorous. It is a good thing that I am a patient teacher.

Don't expect UN to mention Christianity, since the UN was sharply criticized for adopting much of its influence when it embarked on formulating the Declaration of Human Rights, for such influence is hardly a basis for multiculturalism. The UN will do its best to insulate the formation of human rights from religious origin for precisely that reason. You might want to read up on that, too.

You have a lot of reading to do.

I don't have fuck all reading to do. I'm certainly not going to read the biased, ahistorical, revisionist screeds by Christian cheerleaders like Dinesh D'Souza and Ann Coulter of the type that would be in agreement with you.

Mick wrote:I do criticize you, since you were obviously unaware that whether he offered a conception of human rights is a matter of contention. Admit it-you didn't know! You just saw some UN site and ran with it, thinking you had an obvious and irrefutable rebutter. How humorous. It is a good thing that I am a patient teacher.

From Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action:

Most students of human rights trace the origins of the concept to ancient Greece and Rome, where it was closely tied to the doctrines of the Stoics, who held that human conduct should be judged according to, and brought into harmony with, the law of nature.

SkyMutt wrote:

Mick wrote:I do criticize you, since you were obviously unaware that whether he offered a conception of human rights is a matter of contention. Admit it-you didn't know! You just saw some UN site and ran with it, thinking you had an obvious and irrefutable rebutter. How humorous. It is a good thing that I am a patient teacher.

If you had paid attention, as any good teacher should, you would have noticed that it was I who quoted the article about human rights, and Animavore merely quoted my quote. Having had this discussion elsewhere, I am aware that there is some disagreement whether the Cyrus Cylinder is or is not an early example of a declaration of human rights. That disagreement is actually irrelevant to this discussion, in my opinion, because there is also disagreement with the assertion that the origin of human rights in the West is Judeo-Christian. What we have, then, are two assertions, neither of which is indisputable. On the other hand, we can also look to other conceptions of human rights in the west which are independent of the Judeo-Christian context:

From Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action:

Most students of human rights trace the origins of the concept to ancient Greece and Rome, where it was closely tied to the doctrines of the Stoics, who held that human conduct should be judged according to, and brought into harmony with, the law of nature.

Mick wrote:
Nothing about what I said to Aminavore requires that he originally offered the link. What matters is that he supported it and concluded this discussion closed. That is what earned my derision.

I'm more than ready to debate whatever you have to offer.

Mick wrote:Cito follows me around a lot.

Mick wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:

Mick wrote:I do criticize you, since you were obviously unaware that whether he offered a conception of human rights is a matter of contention. Admit it-you didn't know! You just saw some UN site and ran with it, thinking you had an obvious and irrefutable rebutter. How humorous. It is a good thing that I am a patient teacher.

If you had paid attention, as any good teacher should, you would have noticed that it was I who quoted the article about human rights, and Animavore merely quoted my quote. Having had this discussion elsewhere, I am aware that there is some disagreement whether the Cyrus Cylinder is or is not an early example of a declaration of human rights. That disagreement is actually irrelevant to this discussion, in my opinion, because there is also disagreement with the assertion that the origin of human rights in the West is Judeo-Christian. What we have, then, are two assertions, neither of which is indisputable. On the other hand, we can also look to other conceptions of human rights in the west which are independent of the Judeo-Christian context:

From Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action:

Most students of human rights trace the origins of the concept to ancient Greece and Rome, where it was closely tied to the doctrines of the Stoics, who held that human conduct should be judged according to, and brought into harmony with, the law of nature.

Nothing about what I said to Aminavore requires that he originally offered the link. What matters is that he supported it and concluded this discussion closed. That is what earned my derision.

I'm more than ready to debate whatever you have to offer.

Mick wrote:Cito follows me around a lot.

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

yes, because the biblical exhortations to slaughter unbelievers, or stone those who transgress idiotic moral precepts, is born out of respect for the intrinsic dignity of all people

Say what you wish, but it is a matter of historical fact.

What is? That your opinion is that there is no better account of human rights? So what? Your opinion doesn't count for much. Or the fact of biblical calls to undignified acts upon various persons, which hardly bolsters your case?

No, it is a matter of historical fact that the conception here in the West concerning human rights is anchored or takes historical root in the Abrahamic faith.

Mick wrote:It began with the Jews (image of god)

Mick wrote:and Christianity extended it

Mick wrote:from there it developed and flourished.

Mick wrote:You think the pagans had such ideas? Egyptians? Greek monotheists? Not a chance.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Gays are human

We are all human. What's your point?

Denying gays rights is denying human rights

Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

Mick wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

You mean conceptions of human rights that are derived from reason rather than superstition

Let's hear these concepts, those from reason.

Do I have to run you through the biological basis for empathy and ethical reasoning all over again?

Sure. Try it in the formal debate forum. I encourage you to debate me on ethics, something which I have plenty of formal training in.

Mick wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Mick wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

What's contentious about it?

Mainly the reasons given by those who think its true. Lol.

Which are? Lol.

You tell me. I presume you think it is true that gay rights are human rights, Amiright? Those reasons will be contested; and so we call them contentious, especially since many, many people do not agree.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

What's contentious about it?

Mainly the reasons given by those who think its true. Lol.

Think what's true? That gays are humans deserving of the same rights as everyone else?

I don't get what's funny about that.

You're changing propositions.

Mick wrote:Gay people are often-and rightfully so-afforded the same basic human rights as we are all.

Mick wrote:That's not what we call "gay rights". Prohibition against killing gay people is not a "gay right"-it is a basic human right held by everyone, gays included. You might as well speak of brown-haired person rights if that's how you're gonna construe it.

SkyMutt wrote:

From A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:

From A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

/thread

You might want to dig a little deeper. Read up on what a human right is and what this guy said.

The policies of Cyrus with respect to treatment of minority religions are well documented in Babylonian texts as well as Jewish sources and the historians accounts. Cyrus had a general policy of religious tolerance throughout his vast empire. Whether this was a new policy or the continuation of policies followed by the Babylonians and Assyrians (as Lester Grabbe maintains)[98] is disputed. He brought peace to the Babylonians and is said to have kept his army away from the temples and restored the statues of the Babylonian gods to their sanctuaries.[20]

His treatment of the Jews during their exile in Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem is reported in the Bible. The Jewish Bible's Ketuvim ends in Second Chronicles with the decree of Cyrus, which returned the exiles to the Promised Land from Babylon along with a commission to rebuild the temple.

Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people – the LORD, his God, be with him – let him go there. (2 Chronicles 36:23)

This edict is also fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra.

In the first year of King Cyrus, Cyrus the king issued a decree: "Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the temple, the place where sacrifices are offered, be rebuilt and let its foundations be retained, its height being 60 cubits and its width 60 cubits; with three layers of huge stones and one layer of timbers. And let the cost be paid from the royal treasury. Also let the gold and silver utensils of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be returned and brought to their places in the temple in Jerusalem; and you shall put them in the house of God." (Ezra 6:3–5)

As a result of Cyrus's policies, the Jews honored him as a dignified and righteous king. He is the only Gentile to be designated as Messiah, a divinely appointed leader, in the Tanakh (Isaiah 45:1–6). Isaiah 45:13: "I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says Yahweh Almighty." As the text suggests, Cyrus did ultimately release the nation of Israel from its exile without compensation or tribute. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40–55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[99] Whereas Isaiah 1–39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24–25), and the restoration as imminent (Isa 42:1–9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isa 39:6–7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isa 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[100] According to the traditional view, these final chapters were written by the same author, who spoke about a future situation of which he had prophetic knowledge.

Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, relates the traditional view of the Jews regarding the prediction of Cyrus in Isaiah in his Antiquities of the Jews, book 11, chapter 1:[101]

In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. And these things God did afford them; for he stirred up the mind of Cyrus, and made him write this throughout all Asia: "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea." This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said that God had spoken thus to him in a secret vision: "My will is, that Cyrus, whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the Divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices.

Mick wrote:Cali: if you want me to reply, don't throw monster posts at me. I'm on my phone; and so I don't have time to go through your blather.

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Mick wrote:

Animavore wrote:
Gays are human

We are all human. What's your point?

Denying gays rights is denying human rights

Ah, and now the contentious and presumed premise rears its head.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh, but being able to form a committed relationship with the person one loves isn't a human right? Because that's what you're insinuating here with your frankly nasty apologetics. You're trying to tell us that the only permitted committed loving relationships are the ones dictated by your mythology, that any not conforming thereto don't count, and as a corollary, that those people seeking such a relationship don't deserve to be treated as human beings, simply because of that failure to conform to the strictures of your mythology. Quite simply, the only possible response to this collection of assertions, is "fuck that".

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Answer this question, Mick.

What exactly is wrong with treating gay people as fellow human beings?

I really want to know this. Because each time you launch a thread like this, the inference everyone obtains from your posts, is that you do think it's wrong. Except of course when it's your beloved men in funny hats buggering altar boys, at which point you launch into all manner of odious apologetic fabrications to defend them.

I wonder if we’ll get an answer to this question?

It is a loaded question

No it isn't. The only possible reason for treating this simple question as "loaded", is because it happens to be awkward for your apologetics. Which in turn are erected to try and tell the rest of us that certain people somehow magically deserve not to be treated as human beings, because their lives happen not to conform to strictures laid down by piss-smelling Middle Eastern nomads, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. And the only reason a large contingent of people still rejoice in those strictures, is because they think it confers some sort of "legitimacy" on their bigotry and hatred.

Mick wrote:Cali: if you want me to reply, don't throw monster posts at me. I'm on my phone; and so I don't have time to go through your blather.