Christianity

[henry quirk]

Henry’s “natural rights” argument implies a giver of rights.

Of course.

If natural rights exist for us, then some level of rights must exist for them. If not, we undermine our own right.

All animals seek to preserve their life. Their very ‘person’ is their physical self. They value themselves — obviously.

Of course they don't. A chicken lacks mind. It has only canned reactions. It decides nuthin', considers nuthin', imagines nuthin'. It -- along with most, mebbe all, non-human life -- is incapable of valuing.

[Harbal]

A person has natural rights.

Where can one get a copy of these rights?

Here ya go...

Harbal is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

You can't can't fool me, henry, you just made that up yourself.

[henry quirk]

The entire world (of life and beings) does not think of itself. We are the only ones who do or can. Thinking and ‘fretting’ form the base of morality. No thought, no moral sense.

Well, there's a little bit more to it than that, but you're on the right track.

The issue being discussed is one of substantial importance. It is one of the ultimate and emergent ethical and moral questions.

It's the most important we can ask. Is a man a person (a free will with natural rights) or meat? There's no middle place between to shelter in.

[henry quirk]

Where can one get a copy of these rights?

Here ya go...

Harbal is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

You can't can't fool me, henry, you just made that up yourself.

Actually, I didn't. You need to read more political/philosophical history. Natural rights theory goes way back.

Anyway, you don't need a codification to know you're a free will with natural rights. Pretty much like every- and any-one else you live as one. So, keep doin' that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Same page check: what do you think I mean when I talk about natural rights?

Note: I am unclear how you go about defending *human natural rights* if such rights are not granted by an authority.

If your human rights are granted solely by human authority that seems problematic to me.

If human authority grants human rights to humans, but denies similar rights to other creatures, and indeed ecological systems, forests and oceans, then the value-system us merely arbitrary and self-serving.

Your view of natural rights has seemed to me grounded in sentiment, not on a *factual* base. True, every man feels he has a right over himself (his life snd his destiny) but so does any other sentient creature.

Finally, if man assigns rights to Man, and an external authority is not presupposed (God, metaphysical law) I might believe in that assignation if it were thoroughly coherent. And to be so it would have to apply widely and to all life forms.

[henry quirk]

I've identified myself as a deist, over and over in multiple threads (including this one); have sourced natural rights with the Creator over and over, in multiple threads (including this one).

Your post above is an example of why I visit the forum less and less, and post less and less: my posts aren't being read (so why waste my time?).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Henry wrote: Your post above is an example of why I visit the forum less and less, and post less and less: my posts aren't being read (so why waste my time?).

Over the top reaction on your part. My questions are apropos and reasonable.

It is not that I have not understood how you explain your concept of human natural rights, it is that your definition of deism is actually a theism if theistic is taken as especially interested in and concerned about humans. (That is if I understand correctly).

I.e. a more direct and ‘personal’ involvement in human affairs, and exclusive of others.

But in this deistic view my question involves why this absent or removed God does not extend rights, in whatever degree, to other creatures and to natural systems.

Based in this definition:

A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.

Deism: the acknowledgment of the existence of a god upon the testimony of reason and of nature and its laws, and the rejection of the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs and of special revelation.

[henry quirk]

Over the top reaction on your part.

No, it 's a reasonable response.

My questions are apropos and reasonable.

If posed to an atheist who claims natural rights.

It is not that I have not understood how you explain your concept of human natural rights, it is that your definition of deism is actually a theism if theistic is taken as especially interested in and concerned about humans. (That is if I understand correctly).

You didn't/don't understand. And you assume deism is a monolithic line of thought. It isn't. Thing is: I've posted aboit thst too, in multiple threads (including this one). You didn't read 'em, or you read and they made no impression. In any event: I've explained my views on deism and -- no -- it's not really theism.

I.e. a more direct and ‘personal’ involvement in human affairs, and exclusive of others.

See, I never said that or hinted at it.

But in this deistic view my question involves why this absent or removed God does not extend rights, in whatever degree, to other creatures and to natural systems.

Cuz natural rights are part & parcel to free will. Most if not all non-human life is just bio-machinery.

Based in this definition: A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.

Deism: the acknowledgment of the existence of a god upon the testimony of reason and of nature and its laws, and the rejection of the possibility of supernatural intervention in human affairs and of special revelation.

I've never said such things.

Now I'll go pull up what I have said and post it (as evidence).

[henry quirk]

Just from this thread...

Are we goin' any where with this, AJ?

Question: is that true in Nature, in the world? Or is it true in the world of men exclusively?

Morality, being free wills, natural rights, these are exclusively for man and God (*person and the Person). Penguins, pigs, protozoa are not persons (they're, as far as I know, only bio-automata) and have no moral dimension. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and leprosy are events in a causal chain and aren't responsible.

*which raises the question: what is a person? With man it means to be a composite of spirit and substance, to be ensouled. With **God it means He is the Spirit from which all spirit and substance comes.

**And on that subject: there was some nonsense, up-thread, about deism.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Deism

And if that's too much: ask a deist what he believes...I'll entertain serious questions
if anyone just wants to poke fun: get bent

Morality, being free wills, natural rights, these are exclusively for man and God (*persons and the Person). Penguins, pigs, protozoa are not persons (they're, as far as I know, only bio-automata) and have no moral dimension.

So, for example, a penguine's life, liberty and property are not its own? By what authority do you claim something for yourself that you would deny the penguine, henry?

Have you had a bad experience with a penguine, henry?

If you wanna treat penguins, pigs, protozoa, hurricanes, earthquakes, leprosy, apples, and your kitchen table as persons, morally self-responsible free wills with exclusive claims to themselves, knock yourself out.

As to whether or not the God of the Bible, and hence of that commandment, is Henry's God, you'll have to ask Henry.

Henry sez no, it appears not.

Henry wonders since I don't actually worship God, but merely recognize Him, am I in violation of the 1st commandment?

Henry sez The Big Book of Deism is silent on the matter.

Henry asks what do you think, biggy, am I goin' to hell?

Henry opines if I'm goin' then for sure so are you, biggy...bet you'll get there first, fat boy.

Henry mocks jiggle in terror, biggy, jiggle in terror!

I find that there is such stark difference between your position and the ideas I have and am committed to, that in relation to your position, I cannot see a way forward.

I agree.

I would ask for you to extract from the Gospels you refer to the specific scenes or quotes that support the positions that you define. Is it possible that you write out a brief outline of who Jesus Christ was and what he set out to do? If you did so I would better understand your position and why you have it. Did Jesus Christ have a mission and a plan? If so, what was it?

I won't, or rather can't. To do it right would demand a commitment of time I won't take away from my kid and that I can't afford to take away from my work. I got 24 hours a day like anyone, and a good chunk of it is for him and it (and he and it are never on the table for short-changin'). As compromise, I suggest Jefferson's cut & paste experiment. His result isn't perfect but strippin' away all supranatural elements allows one to get to the meat of the man, and His morality. At the same time, from a more conventional Christian perspective, becuz His divinity is taken off the table for consideration, Jefferson's work might be thought of as rootless. It would be the same, I figure, if I wrote an essay. Right off the bat someone would complain I've neuter'd the hound and rendered Him useless.

I am confused by another element: Jesus Christ is defined by the Gospels, and through the Gospels, as being -- literally -- the Godhead incarnated into a man's body. Jesus Christ is, therefore, God incarnate. Do you hold that view?

No. I don't accept His divinity. As I say: my interest lies in the morality of the man which I find elegant (but not without flaw: many Christian Anarchists were, are, pacifists, turning the other check. I will not, not figuratively or literally, turn the other cheek. All in all: were I Christian -- orthodox, so to speak, or anarchistic -- I'd be a bad one).

And if you do hold that view why then, or on what basis, do you define yourself as a deist?

I'm a deist becuz of a conundrum : how can man be a free will in a deterministic universe? He is, and it is, and each precludes the other. And yet here we are, free willed men and women livin' in a universe that ought not allow for us.

Then there's natural rights which I sum up as a man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his. Each man, every man, any where, any when, knows this is true. He knows he is his own, and he knows it's wrong for another to murder him or leash him or abuse him or rob him. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows this about himself.
While this knowledge, this deep-in-the-bones intuition may be simply a brute fact it seems far too clean and direct to just be some adaptive trait.

So the impossible reality of man as free will coupled with man's natural claim to himself and no other (plus some illuminatin' conversations with a dear friend, a Christian) moved me from a dead end atheism to (a peculiar kind of) deism.

Do you see Jesus as representing a Law (a set of demands and proscriptions) or do you imagine that Jesus-God allows any particular thing (in the sense of being lawless or 'open to anything' or perhaps unconcerned). If you clarify some of this I will likely be beter able to understand how you orient yourself.

As I see it: God built man with reason, free will, and conscience (to think & feel, to exercise causal & creative power, to be moral & morally discerning). He built man with this, as I say, deep-in-the-bones intuition or knowledge of his own self-possession or ownness. What it comes to: man self-directs, self-relies, is self-responsible. He recognizes himself as sumthin' more than an animal. He chooses to recognize the same of the other guy (to be moral) or he chooses to ignore that recognition (to be immoral).

Vanilla deism sez God is indifferent. He may be absent, but, as He made man as a creature with a moral aspect, it does not seem to me He is indifferent to what man does over a lifetime.

I could write more, explain more, but I'll spare everyone and stop here.

Let's start with Christianity and speak of it, historically, as an effort to *define the world* in the most holistic sense.

No. I reject that. Christianity is the framing of one man's relationship with God: the framing or framework, the skeleton, of that relationship bein' the life, the words, the acts of Jesus as portrayed in the 4 Gospels.

There is no place at all for a 'Christian anarchist'.

You don't, I think, know diddly about anarchism (as philosophy) or Christian Anarchism (as, I believe it is, a pure Christianity).

I'm not particularly inclined to educate you, but, if you ask, I will.

you likely choose to exist in a world without definitions

Have you read anything I've posted in-forum (outside of this thread)? If you had you wouldn't assess so poorly.

Mankind -- all cultures and civilizations -- define a metaphysics, explain what God is, and define what people should and must do in relation to that defined world.

No, mankind doesn't do this. Men of a peculiar mind do this. Bastiat called them the finer clay. Me, folksy sum'bitch I am, I call 'em slavers. All stripes, from overt ratbastards or Lewis's benevolent tyrants, are incorrigible directors and spoliers for self-profit and -benefit.

Christianity, as derived from the words and acts of that guy, empowers no rulers and can fill no coffers. No, it must be interpreted and expanded, organized and regimented to turn a profit.

A cosmology, one reinforcin' Earthly hierarchy, is crafted and, as I say, God is quietly moved from bein the Reality a man can and should face alone and freely, to bein' a Commodity to be divied accordin' to men's whims and interpretations.

So let us imagine that you, Henry Quirk, have been given the task of truly and honestly telling me just what this world is, what it was made for, who made it, what is a 'person', what are 'proper ethics', what is morality and why does morality exist -- and then go down the line of stating in each and every domain all that these definitions ramify for mankind as a result of the definitions you (sensibly and intelligently) propose to me.

Oh, I written often about...

A moral realism: I-A man belongs to himself. II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his. III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

A minarchism: To defend, and offer redress of violations of, life, liberty, and property, the following safeguards are recommended... I-a local constabulary II-a local court of last resort III-a border patrol IIII-militia

A direct realism: The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.

A deism: The Creator creates. Reality is an on-going Creation. Man is made as a *free will (self-directing) with a moral sense (self-responsible). What a man does with himself may or may not interest the Creator.

...and what extends out of each, and how each is part & parcel of the other. I mebbe haven't ramified to the extent of declarin' how toothpicks ought be laid next to the dinner plate on the Sabbath, but then I don't believe that's necessary.

So what is happening now -- I am that reed of truth and clear statement swaying in the wind and simply try to express this! -- is that one Holistic and Defining Declaration about 'what the world is' (and all else that ramifies from this) has collapsed. The world is not longer seen nor understood through the former metaphysics. That metaphysics has been replaced with another one. Or to state it even more accurately the former metaphysics is in a process of being replaced, and there are battles, the real reasons for which are often unintelligible to those who participate in them, occurring all around us as a result of these essential definitional issues and problems.

Man, it's nuthin' but the same War that's been at play since before Man fell out of the trees, and what's comin' (it's just a little ways down the road), well, none of us are ready for it.

Okay but do the deists believe in some kind of return to that 'above' state they descended from after death... or do they believe life continues in some other way?

I don't.

What are the details of their version of the immortality of the soul? Newton, Jefferson, Paine, Emerson, any of em. Give it to me.

I can't cuz I don't know 'em, and I wouldn't if I did cuz I don't care what them guys thought.

-----

You dumb motherfuckers need to disabuse yourselves of the idea that deism is a club with set rules and a rulin' body and a mission statement. Shit, there isn't even a common understanding of what it means for God to be absent or indifferent or withdrawn.

Certainly, you dumb motherfuckers need to stop lookin' to me as forum defender of vanilla deism or famous deists of yesteryear.

I shouldn't, I guess, blame you dumb motherfuckers: most of you have so deeply immersed yourselves in garbage thinkin', herd thinkin', you can't help but treat everyone as the cattle you are.

Henry sez he's libertarian, so he must align with all libertarians; henry sez he's a deist, so he must align with all deists; he favors free enterprise, so he must love corporate capitalism, and on and on...

Fuck you, you dumb motherfucker, you.

You have that magic, "intuitional," knowledge, that one just owns themself and that everyone has a right to life and freedom. And you have that mystical internal guide you call, "conscience," that just shows you the right way. You don't have to have any evidence or reason for it, you just know it. That's your supernatural blessing.

You might be right if deism has brought me to natural rights and free will, but: it didn't.

Deism came last, well after libertarian agent causation and natural rights.

But what came first -- before notions of God or free will or natural rights -- was that intuition I am my own.

As I say elsewhere...

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

The toddler indeed, as he goes about discoverin' what his limits are, where the world begins and he ends, instinctually knows he is his own...it's the very basis for his fearless exploration...to him everything, all of it, is his...it's through exploration and experience that he comes to understand the world is not his.

What he never arrives at -- except when taught otherwise -- is the conclusion that he is not his own (and even in the teaching -- indoctrination, really -- the road is long and hard for the teacher...as I say, you have to wear a man, or boy, down to a nub, make him crazy through abuse and deprivation to get him to willingly accept the yoke, to accept he is not his own).

So: no soup for you!

Aren't you greatful?

Yeah, I think I'm fulla greatness.

Jay,

Here ya go, from just up-thread...

Nick,

Could you back up for a moment. Am I wrong to assume you are a Deist and as such do not see any personal Gods interacting with humanity. I am the same way and believe our source and the source of consciousness is beyond the limits of time and space and what creates the material contents of consciousness within time and space. The Son in the image of God is within creation serving as an intermediary between the father and Man. That is why the Son and the Cross are the essence of Christianity. What they have provided makes conscious evolution possible. But how is a personal God part Deism unless you believe the Father and the Son are the same?

So if you believe God is concerned with individuals, what is the deist God concept you refer to?

Yeah, let me explain...

Like any vanilla deist, I don't believe God is directly, personally, involved in Reality. I have a couple of reasons why I think this is the case (which we can talk about, if you like).

Unlike the vanilla deist: I don't believe God is disinterested. Man has reason, free will, and conscience. Conscience -- to be dramatic about it -- is God's will or purpose inscribed into our souls. We haven't been abandoned: we've been tasked. As free wills, we each can choose to ignore that task, but that's on us, as individuals, not Him.

So, God works in the world, thru each of us, as each of us agrees to let Him.

It's a peculiar take on deism, yeah.

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

A deist recognises humans are animals and a deist does not recognise an ongoing supernatural Being. A deist claims God made all this and then left it all to its own devices.

As with theism, deism has different strains.

In mine: man is not just an animal; God exists and has an interest in His Creation(s); His interventions are indirect (specifically by way of a man's conscience).

owl,

The novelist is not the novel, the photo is not the photographer and the sculpture is not the sculptor because the novelist, the photographer and the sculptor are not omnipresent, one of the attributes ascribed to divinity, along with omniscience and omnipotence.

Are you sayin' becuz God is omnipresent (not sumthin' I necessarily attribute to God, by the way [there's nuthin' in my deism that sez God is everywhere]) He has no choice but to be one with Creation? Being also all-knowing and all-powerful (two other attributes I don't necessarily ascribe to God), it seems to me God can choose to be where He likes.


People create from something.

Yes. We, being finite, must scrounge for our materials. God, being God, it seems to me, can call into being any material He likes.


De Sade’s bodily fluids is an interesting example of something someone has by proxy.

I'm not sure what you mean by proxy. As I reckon it: The film's De Sade was his own. but his will was blunted by his enemies. He was stripped of the materials he used to create. Ingeniously, he literally made use of his own substance to set his thoughts down, to give those thoughts an independence.

Owl,

The problem with deism is that it does not pass the test of logic. If there is one God; one substance, then creation must be made of that substance, as there is no other.

I can't speak as to what God is made of, or what Reality, and what's in Reality, is -- at rock bottom -- made of.

Seems to me, though: the novel is not the novelist, the photograph is not the photographer, the sculpture is not the sculptor (hey you! I'll burst your bubble in a bit), the meal is not the cook, and the Creation is not the Creator.


So the belief that the Creator is not involved in creation which is viewed as something other than the substance of the Creator, requires an explanation of what the created substance is and how it maintains its life, being autonomous.

I don't see why. We accept, know, Sol exists without fully understanding it. We guess at its interior workings and structure, and we're probably pretty close in those guessings, but ultimately it's just guesswork. And Sol's substance? Primarily hydrogen: one electron, one proton. Simple, yeah? What are these two particles made of? Again, we guess at it: superstrings (silly strings?)? Up, down, strange, quark, leptons? And what are these more basic particles made up? Is it turtles all the way down? Probably not. But we don't know. Supposedly the quark is rock bottom: a quark is made of quark. Is quark God's substance, His rock bottom? Let's say it is. In Quills, De Sade, after being denied his writing materials, used his own bodily fluids, his own substance, to make a kind of paint which he used to write his plays on the walls of his cell. If a man can use his own blood and other things to create sumthin' independent of himself, why can't God?


It does not appear that any life is independent of the whole or capable of surviving without being connected to or enlivened by its source. In the quantum world everything is entangled.

The clockmaker designs, constructs, winds up the clock, then goes off for a nice evening with his missus. God designs, constructs, winds up the universe, then does. Two creators, mostly different becuz of scale, creating. Two mechanisms, finite in longevity, tickin' away on their own. Same difference.


Pantheism would appear to be the most logical perspective or theism. Although theism appears to see creation as something other than the original substance, the Creator perceived as connected only through oversight.

Theists are accused of wanting a big Sky Daddy to be responsible for them, to take care of them. Pantheism, it seems to me, goes one step further, sayin' we're all part of God (as bits of his liver or pancreas). Seems to me the pantheist wants to be absorbed by God (a notion I find horrific).

As I reckon it: God didn't build a universe to eat it, or to endlessly fiddle with it. He built it, and us, for the thrill of Creation. He built Reality, and us, to stand alone, just as the novelist, the photographer, the sculptor creates his works to stand alone.

[iambiguous]

The entire world (of life and beings) does not think of itself. We are the only ones who do or can. Thinking and ‘fretting’ form the base of morality. No thought, no moral sense.

Okay, but then, again, let's note all of the different ways in which mere mortals have connected [and still connect and will connect] the dots historically and culturally between thought and morality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

This thread revolves around the manner in which Christians go about it. But even among them there are any number of diverse and ofttimes conflicting assessments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

So, it boggles the mind of some here that there are those who actually insist that only their very own take on religion and morality is the most rational and virtuous and spiritually sound path. A path that one must choose in order to acquire objective morality, immortality and salvation.

And that their own convictions have little or nothing to do with the manner in which I assess such beliefs as [subjectively/subjunctively] the embodiment of dasein. No, they have, what, personally examined all of the above One True Paths and, using the tools of philosophy here, were able to determine that their own beliefs are in fact the soundest?

In arguments, for example?

[iambiguous]

I've identified myself as a deist, over and over in multiple threads (including this one); have sourced natural rights with the Creator over and over, in multiple threads (including this one).

Just for the record, this is how the mother of all moral and political objectivisms views Deism:

The Atlas Society:

Question: How does Objectivism respond to the conception of God presented by the Deist school of thought? If a belief in some kind of divine Creator is based on reason, not mysticism, can this be reconciled with an Objectivist philosophy?

Answer: Deism is the belief that an omnipotent, eternal, and all-knowing God created reality and set its rules, but that the Deity does not intervene in the natural workings of His universe.

In essence, Deism retains the idea of God on the basis of some of the classic arguments for God, and abandons other classic arguments for God, such as the argument from miracles. However, since none of the classic arguments for God stand up to reasoned inquiry, Deism is both false and unnecessary. Deism keeps the idea of God at a distance from practical affairs. This is to the good, to be sure, but it does not make Deism a position founded in reason.

Do we need to posit a Creator of all existence? No, because it is an escapable and fundamental fact of reality that existence simply exists. Since a Creator, to create the rest of reality, would need to exist, such a Creator would be a part of existence. If we are not satisfied with the axiom that existence simply exists, needing no further explanation, positing a Creator won't help us, since we should not be satisfied either with the idea that the Creator simply exists, needing no further explanation. Deists have also appealed to the argument from design. In modern form, this refers to the elegance of biological evolution, or to the laws of physics, or to the values of certain physical constants, and supposes that this natural order must be the product of a conscious Designer. But everything that exists must exist in some fashion or other: this is the fact that is described by the Objectivist axiom of Identity and that is summarized in the canons of logic. Reality must exist in some particular way.

In any case, it is only after millennia of investigation and many false starts that people have managed to summarize some basic physical facts through concise principles like Newton's three laws of motion. And not all science is so simple and elegant. To think God or reality deserves the credit for the brilliant discoveries of the human mind is putting the cart rather before the horse.

In the 1700s, before the development of evolutionary biology, paleontology, and modern geology, the order and diversity of the living world lacked any scientific explanation. In this context, the argument from design had a certain plausibility, and so Deism was then a genuine home for people committed to reason, such as Thomas Jefferson and others of the Founding generation. But that plausibility has disappeared as we have not only learned the history of life on Earth, but have also come to understand its inner workings.

Today, for any person whose thinking is based in reality, atheism is simply a matter of integrity.

In any event, with Christianity "natural rights" revolve around the will of God. A God that is very much still a part of our lives. Only with Christianity there is Judgment Day. One either attains immortality and salvation above or below.

With Deists however the question of whether one's natural rights continue beyond the grave is, well, murkier:

"Immortality of the soul

Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous. Anthony Collins, Bolingbroke, Thomas Chubb, and Peter Annet were materialists and either denied or doubted the immortality of the soul. Benjamin Franklin believed in reincarnation or resurrection. Lord Herbert of Cherbury and William Wollaston held that souls exist, survive death, and in the afterlife are rewarded or punished by God for their behavior in life. Thomas Paine believed in the "probability" of the immortality of the soul." wiki

You'd think the Deist God -- any God -- would be rather clear regarding something like that, wouldn't you?

As for "natural rights" on this side of the grave...rights pertaining to "life, liberty and property", just note an issue like abortion, guns and homosexuality. Henry will then tell you exactly what your natural rights are.

Though it's still unclear to me how he connects the dots between this and God. After all, there is no actual Scripture one can turn to.

Right, IC?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’m going to lay down the law here. I brook no opposition. If you-plural pipe up and start talking shit, you’ll pay for it dearly. Be warned!

If rights are assigned especially to man — if god assigns or if men assign to Man — then Rights are recognized for all things that exist. Your dog has rights if you have them. Same with your damned front lawn, hummingbirds, the Bay of Biscayne, the atmosphere.

Don’t piss me off, assholes!! I’m right on the edge.

If Man assigns rights it is an act of Applied Metaphysics. If Man perceives that God has assigned rights that’s an apperception of metaphysics understood to exist.

In whatever case, the more aware and sensate that men become, the more Rights are recognized as extending from himself to other creatures and ecosystems.

On one level it is a sign of higher consciousness if Man subtracts rights from himself and assigns them to natural creatures and ecosystems.

[henry quirk]

If rights are assigned especially to man — if god assigns or if men assign to Man — then Rights are recognized for all things that exist. Your dog has rights if you have them. Same with your damned front lawn, hummingbirds, the Bay of Biscayne, the atmosphere.

No. The bear that eats your face is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights. The Poison Ivy that infects you is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights. The hurricane that wrecks your house is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights.

Natural rights are assigned by the Creator to free wills, to persons, not roombas and heat exchanges.

I’m right on the edge.

Jump.

On one level it is a sign of higher consciousness if Man subtracts rights from himself and assigns them to natural creatures and ecosystems.

No. That's foolish. That's unnecessary self-denigration. A communitarian spirit. A misbegotten notion that only degrades and never elevates.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No. The bear that eats your face is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights. The Poison Ivy that infects you is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights. The hurricane that wrecks your house is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights.

Natural rights are assigned by the Creator to free wills, to persons, not roombas and heat exchanges.

First, it is Man who has moral sense and thinks things through. As far as I know there are no other creatures with any similar sense.

However, there are creatures with sense, and also with behavior that is comparable, even if remotely, with our moral behavior. Conscious life shares a commonality.

Selah.

The statements I made -- about rights -- do not depend on an animal's having or not having moral judgment. The recognition of rights extends from man to animal, from man to ecosystem, from many to the creation.

I said that all creatures and all ecosystems and the creation itself -- if Man has rights -- have rights as well. It is an arbitrary designation to refer to creatures as robots or automatons. One cannot assign rights to man and fail to understand that rights are -- naturally -- extended to the very platform of life: the created world.

What I say here is true. No counter-arguments will be accepted.

Zip it!

No. That's foolish. That's unnecessary self-denigration. A communitarian spirit. A misbegotten notion that only degrades and never elevates.

I said that it is possible, when seen from a certain angle, that when a man chooses to place the world surrounding him on a plane of valuation that even exceeds his own, that it may well be a sign of higher consciousness. To read into this self-denigration is to assign a negative value where a positive one is more apt.

People who oppose me make me very very angry. To say nothing of people who oppose Revealed Truth.

The man who destroys forests because he does not have foresight and awareness of ecological interconnectedness is a fool. Take as an example the rather famous Japanese respect for the land, the forests, the natural systems. I am on the verge of a violent and tyranical episode and will soon curse EVERYONE if they do not see things my way! but the man who sees his way to preservation of natural systems, and for harmony and beauty, is of a higher sort.

Very much on the contrary this spirit and attitude arises because the man in question has risen to a greater height within consciousness. Indeed consciousness is defined in that way. The brute or the idiot who wantonly destroys the very ground that has produces him and sustains him is a -- well, you get the picture.

End.of.story.

[Immanuel Can]

No. The bear that eats your face is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights. The Poison Ivy that infects you is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights. The hurricane that wrecks your house is not capable of or subject to moral judgement. It isn't a free will. It has no natural rights.

Natural rights are assigned by the Creator to free wills, to persons, not roombas and heat exchanges.

First, it is Man who has moral sense and thinks things through. As far as I know there are no other creatures with any similar sense.

However, there are creatures with sense,

Meaning what? The ability to choose between going left and going right? We're not even sure how much of that is directed by pure instinct. But self-awareness? Morality? Certainly not. That's why we put no moral expectations on bears, ocelots, barracudas and paramecia. They aren't even in the game.

The statements I made -- about rights -- do not depend on an animal's having or not having moral judgment. The recognition of rights extends from man to animal, from man to ecosystem, from many to the creation.

Well, if any "rights" are going to be "extended from man to animal," they will be purely imputed by man. The ecosystem has no claims of its own at all...indifferent nature does not care even if the whole Earth perishes. It collapses whole stars and planets all the time.

So your first job will have to be to prove that man has "rights." And those "rights" will obviously not extend further than the agency that assures us of them.

One cannot assign rights to man and fail to understand that rights are -- naturally -- extended to the very platform of life: the created world.

Actually, one can. One can say that man has rights, but rocks don't. One can say that man has rights and bears don't. There's no automatic or logical leap from the first claim to the second. So you'd have to make some gesture to show that what you're claiming is true, because it certainly does not have to be accepted.

What I say here is true. No counter-arguments will be accepted.

A little anti-intellectual, don't you think? We are, after all, on a philosophy forum, were all reasonable questions can be entertained. This is certainly a reasonable one.

The man who destroys forests because he does not have foresight and awareness of ecological interconnectedness is a fool.

Perhaps. But not for the reason you suppose. It's not because trees have natural rights, but because of some other line of argument. From the pragmatist, a good one would be that trees are necessary to life -- though cutting down a limited selection would not offend that pragmatic principle. A better one would be that trees don't ultimately belong to us, but to God; and we hold sway over them only in stewardship of the creation, and in accountability to Him -- though that's an alternative many will reject for their own reasons, obviously.

There's no obvious sense, though, in which your claim above is self-evident. You would need to fortify it with reasons before you should expect anyone to accept it...far less to simply shut up and go away, which isn't a reasonable or productive posture in philosophical discussion.