Scripture compatible with U.N. Human Rights Declaration?

[a better world]

As I see it, there are several major obstacles to claims of divine authorship of scripture, especially that of the "Peoples of the Book".

Old Testament:

1. Disagreement among scholars over the (human) authorship and dates concerning the text of many chapters/parts of chapters.

2. Problems surrounding the ethics of a vengeful, tribal, genocidal God given to periodic rage against His own creation (including the tribe of Israel).


New Testament:

1. Early disagreement over works to be admitted to the N.T. canon.

2. Early disagreement over the relationship of the (evolving) N.T. canon to the O.T. canon, and the significance of this relationship: eg, church father and compiler of the early N.T. canon, Marcion (c.65-160A.D.), rejected identification of Jesus with Jehovah. Meanwhile, most Jews at the time (and still do) rejected Jesus as the "Messiah", while Christians deified Jesus and saw him as the messiah purportably prophesied in the OT.

3. Christian adoption of later extra-biblical dogma such as the Holy Trinity. and opposing Christian doctrines including Arianism, during the period of consolidation of 'orthodox' dogma.

Koran:

1. Of the three traditions, the Koran's authorship is indeed miraculous(?), received by revelation to the (reportedly illiterate) Prophet over a 20 year period at the beginning of the 7th cenury AD, with many references to biblical scripture. He railed against and despised the many divisions he observed both within and between the Christians and Jews of his time (noted above).

Tragically, he failed to anoint a successor, resulting in the Shia-Sunni split, almost immediately after his death. Nevertheless the rapid advance of Islam is seemingly miraculous; an army out of the desert of Arabia, of no particular interest to previous empires, rapidly spread Islam over much of the globe. (Only 100 years after the Prophet's death, Islam claimed countries from Spain in the West to Afghanistan in the East).

Note: the Koran failed to predict that Israel would be recreated - c. 1400 years later, through the agency of a technologically superior new Christian (British) empire - resulting in outrage and confusion within the present Islamic world.

2. In many ways the Koran offers the most straightforward and simplest access to the One True God - the All-knowing , the Infinite, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the All-Wise, etc; but the Koran, like all scripture, is rooted in the culture of its time, and is harmed by the barbaric 6th century punishments prescribed for "infidels" and criminals (and being carried out to the letter in Saudi Arabia and Iran to this day!).

3. The Prophet accepted the OT prophets and Jesus as messengers of God, but like the Jews, rejected identification of Jesus with God (Jehovah/Allah).


Relationship to the UN:

The OT, with its election of a chosen people and divine authorisation of genocide, is incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights and modern international law (nascent as this law is, with its current acceptance of war as an arbiter of international affairs.).

Islamic terrorism is deeply rooted in a fundalmentalist belief that the Koran is the "final, perfect Word of God", a tragedy because many ISIS fighters see themselves as warriors of God, carrying out the 'Word' to the letter. Throw in the attraction that many young people feel in possessing the actual 'Word of God', plus widespread dissatisfaction with current economic circumstances around the globe, and we can explain the successes of ISIS recruitment even from Western countries.

But this terrorism is undoubtably fueled by the contending Christian belief in divine authorship of the Bible, with some strands of Christianity seeing the recreation of Greater Israel and the Jewish temple as NT prophecy related to Christ's return. Then we have Jewish terrorism, based on OT authorisation of territorial possession, which Prime Minister Rabin paid for with his life.

Conclusion: Scripture is not the Word of God, but the word of men searching for God (mostly in times long past). Failure to recognise this simple reality at the level of the UN will continue to be a major source of unrest in the world.

[a better world]

bjs wrote:

<<<There is no way to separate action from belief. To say that the belief is not the problem but the actions from that belief is a problem is to say, “You can believe what you want as long as you say and do what I want.� That is fascism>>>.

Can we rephrase, namely: "you can believe and say what you want, as long as you do what the government ie, government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' decide"? It's not fascism, it's rule of law, as determined by accepted processes of government, that is required for a well-ordered society in any given nation.

Ditto for well-ordered international relations.

Now if the US people, through their government, determine that a well-ordered US society requires every citizen to be armed with an assault rifle (!), that is the business of the US people.

But the world well knows, through the experience of the 2nd WW, that allowing every nation to be armed with nuclear weapons is a recipe for the ultimate disaster; that is the business, through the UN, of all of us.

<<<Not all cultures agree on what constitutes human rights........if your only point (as Danmark suggested) is that the UN should not allow the infringement of human rights for any reason, then that is all well and good... If you want to go beyond the UN’s current stance then I would want to know in what way and how you think it should be enforced.>>>

Well, I do want the UN to be constituted to examine and intelligently deal with infringement of those human rights specified in the UN Declaration, in so far as international relations are involved, in an environmant of established international law. In principle, it's really no big deal - rule of law expanding through all levels of government, from local (eg, street parking regulations), through state, national, and international concerns.

<<<how (do) you think (human rights should be agreed) and enforced>>>

Yesterday the Indonesian Government (governing the world's largest Muslim population) expressed the urgent necessity for the Islamic world to disavow fundamentalist teaching that results in terrorism. This conversation should be immediately taken up by the UN General Assembly, and broadcast all around the world. A guaranteed TV ratings success! (although much hampered by the poverty that excludes much of the population that needs to hear such a conversation.) No doubt Iran and Saudi Arabia would resist, but even so the conversation would reach many individuals in those countries (through current IT channels), in particular those individuals crying out for access to human rights (you see, there are such things as agreed human rights, in *all* cultures!).

'Enforcement' (of agreed human rights, at UN level)?

Well, the US Supreme Court has 9 justices...without veto power! The matter is carried by a 5-4 majority. The US population accept this as a process of the rule of law.

The UN is nothing more than another level of government, instituted to foster and maintain a well-ordered international community.

Hence, a 9 member Security Council (the present 5 plus, say, Japan, Germany, India and Indonesia, accounting for the most populous and economically powerful nations in the world) *without veto power*, advised by an ICJ comprising the world's finest jurists. [Thus saving US taxpayers at least half a trillion dollars anually by relieving them of their ridiculous role of 'international policeman' (which role by the way is a disaster for those nations that conflict with US self-interest).

Poverty and unemployment are a major catastrophe in the world today, fueling much conflict, apart from the injury to human rights. THe IMF could deal with it immediately, and, eg, 'create' the money to fund the connection of everyone to high speed broadband, not to mention funding access to education for every child on the planet (education consists basically of one person transferring knowledge to others, time is the material 'consumed' in the process - the 'wealth' already exists in the teacher's knowledge, whether the 'money' exists (or not) to pay the teacher. (Did I hear Donald Trump talking about money 'printing' recently....?)

Cheap, sustainable, non-polluting energy, another requirement for global poverty eradication: on reflection, we are not there yet, but rapidly approaching that goal (although powerful vested interests are no doubt hindering the process). So we are only just approaching the capability of eradicating global poverty; the world economy has always, and still, relies on slave labour (in one form or another).

Whew! Politics, economics, and religion - all intimately interwoven!











,

[Monta]

[Replying to a better world]

"Let's get on with it. We have within our grasp the resources and technology, for the first time in history, to eradicate poverty, ignorance and war on this planet, it's only a matter of intelligent management. A reforming and vigorous UN can play a vital role in this achievement."

Intelligent management?
UN is a great idea and a great institution were it given the respect it deserves and if all the nations were to honor its resolutions.

it is 'intelligent' people who have attacked various countries last 15 ys who most of the time did not get UN (UNSC) permission. This has only added to unimaginable poverty of people which UN is trying to eliminate.

[a better world]

Monta wrote:

<<<it is 'intelligent' people who have attacked various countries last 15 ys who most of the time did not get UN (UNSC) permission. This has only added to unimaginable poverty of people which UN is trying to eliminate>>>.

Agreed, but by intelligent management I am referring to the possibility of men designing a UN that is capable of inspiring the respect you (rightly) say the institution deserves.

Do the citizens of the US respect the institutions of the US Supreme Court? [I'm aware some US citizens despise all govermment, they have their reasons, and ofcourse they will despise a UN level of government even more. These people complain that the UN is presently - useless - a waste of time etc etc, - but they will be the first to hinder any process enabling effective functioning of the UNSC, along the lines I outlined in my previous post].

BTW, a political malaise is currently enveloping the politics of practically every nation on the planet. This is because, in a global economy, an international oversight is required to assist proper functioning of the individual (national) parts of this global economy. Look at the trade wars, currency wars, wide-spread suspicion (rightly) of "free" trade agreements, falling mean wages, local manufacturing collapsing as industry seeks the lowest cost production (in countries with virtual slave labour) and so on, and look at the absolutely banal ideas that have come out of today's G7 summit in Japan! And then we have Trump who wants to "make America great again" - through trade wars?

[Christine Legarde has the world in her hands, but unfortunately she is totally unaware of it. The Americans rejected Keynes' proposals for a new IMF-led post war financial system (at the Bretton Woods conference, in 1944) that would have enabled poverty reduction in every nation. The IMF that was eventually instituted has proven to be totally ineffective, probably inflicting more poverty on innocent people than actually aiding development, bringing to mind Wall Street, or rather some very clever derivative traders on Wall Street, who managed to siphon off vast amounts of money from the American - and world - economy, while millions of ordinary people across the globe were ruined economically].

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe". H,G. Wells.

[bjs]

There is no way to separate action from belief. To say that the belief is not the problem but the actions from that belief is a problem is to say, “You can believe what you want as long as you say and do what I want.� That is fascism.

You lost me at "There is no way to separate action from belief." Perhaps you meant something else, or you meant it in a limited way. Ordinarily we can quite readily separate actions from beliefs. I believe in being kind and patient, but I only sometimes practice the former and rarely the latter. There have been people whom I honestly believed needed killing, but I have never acted on those beliefs, despite the fact I believed the world would be better off if I had. So, perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you write: "There is no way to separate action from belief."

My original comment was in the context of the law, so let me start there.

Think of it this way: Imagine a country that passes a Religious Activity Act. The Act says that every individual muse join a religion. Each individual must pray and study their religion's scriptures daily, financially support the religion, and must participate in corporate worship at least every other week. There is not a law that says you must believe in God, but any lack of believe must be kept to the privacy of your own home. In public you must always act and speak in accordance with the beliefs of a religion.

Has this imaginary country outlawed atheism or not?

It seems to me that it has outlawed atheism, even though it has not outlawed the belief itself. There is no way to separate the action from the belief.


I will go farther into the philosophical realm. I do not think one can separate action from belief. I imagine that you believe that kindness and patience are ideals to be sought after, not things which can in practice be perfectly achieved.

The more concrete example you gave was about killing. I must ask: Do you genuinely believe that it would be right, wise and possible to murder certain individuals? The fact that you have not (presumably) committed murder suggest that you do not actually believe murder to be right, wise and possible. We can talk about theoretical beliefs all we want, but our action reveal our beliefs and nature.

[Danmark]

Think of it this way: Imagine a country that passes a Religious Activity Act. The Act says that every individual muse join a religion. Each individual must pray and study their religion's scriptures daily, financially support the religion, and must participate in corporate worship at least every other week. There is not a law that says you must believe in God, but any lack of believe must be kept to the privacy of your own home. In public you must always act and speak in accordance with the beliefs of a religion.

Has this imaginary country outlawed atheism or not?

It seems to me that it has outlawed atheism, even though it has not outlawed the belief itself. There is no way to separate the action from the belief.

I will go farther into the philosophical realm. I do not think one can separate action from belief. I imagine that you believe that kindness and patience are ideals to be sought after, not things which can in practice be perfectly achieved.

The more concrete example you gave was about killing. I must ask: Do you genuinely believe that it would be right, wise and possible to murder certain individuals? The fact that you have not (presumably) committed murder suggest that you do not actually believe murder to be right, wise and possible. We can talk about theoretical beliefs all we want, but our action reveal our beliefs and nature.

Yes, the imaginary country has outlawed atheism. But it cannot enforce the actual belief (or rather lack of belief).

No, I did not murder a politician because I did not believe in murder or be cause I believed taking his life was immoral. I did not kill him because of a variety of factors: cowardice, or inertia, or lack of opportunity, or fear of punishment, or a combination of those.

Beliefs and actions are clearly separate.

[bjs]

Yes, the imaginary country has outlawed atheism. But it cannot enforce the actual belief (or rather lack of belief).

No, I did not murder a politician because I did not believe in murder or be cause I believed taking his life was immoral. I did not kill him because of a variety of factors: cowardice, or inertia, or lack of opportunity, or fear of punishment, or a combination of those.

Beliefs and actions are clearly separate.

You will have to explain this, because your first two paragraphs appear to contradict your conclusion.

You say that the imaginary country has outlawed atheism even though the law explicitly does not outlaw a belief (or lack of belief).

You say that the reason you have not murdered a certain politician is because of a set of beliefs, namely cowardice, inertia, etc.

So how are beliefs and actions separate?

At the very least, do you agree with my original point that outlawing all the actions that come from a belief is the same as outlawing the belief?

[Danmark]

Yes, the imaginary country has outlawed atheism. But it cannot enforce the actual belief (or rather lack of belief).

No, I did not murder a politician because I did not believe in murder or be cause I believed taking his life was immoral. I did not kill him because of a variety of factors: cowardice, or inertia, or lack of opportunity, or fear of punishment, or a combination of those.

Beliefs and actions are clearly separate.

You will have to explain this, because your first two paragraphs appear to contradict your conclusion.

You say that the imaginary country has outlawed atheism even though the law explicitly does not outlaw a belief (or lack of belief).

You say that the reason you have not murdered a certain politician is because of a set of beliefs, namely cowardice, inertia, etc.

So how are beliefs and actions separate?

At the very least, do you agree with my original point that outlawing all the actions that come from a belief is the same as outlawing the belief?

No. There is no contradiction and I do not have to explain it. You may not understand, but I cannot help that. There is a difference between a law and the ability to enforce the law. Do I need to explain that?

I really do not know how to help your lack of understanding. Any further effort seems condescending. But since you have invited it:

Anyone may believe something, yet not act upon that belief for a variety of reasons, including sheer laziness. I may believe I want a drink. I may also be comfortable and content and decide to forgo my desire for a drink because it isn't worth the effort. I may believe that the leader of the Taliban should be killed yet decide not to act on that belief because I don't want to risk death and imprisonment.

And no, I do not agree with your "original point that outlawing all the actions that come from a belief is the same as outlawing the belief?" This statement is, frankly, ridiculous and not worth further argument. A government may outlaw murder, yet it cannot effectively outlaw the belief in murder. In fact it is obvious that altho' the act of murder is outlawed, the belief persists. We know this because for example in the U.S. in 2014 there was a murder every 37 minutes.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... ional-data

[a better world]

bjs wrote (in reply to Danmark):

<<<You say that the reason you have not murdered a certain politician is because of a set of beliefs, namely cowardice, inertia, etc.>>>

(bjs left out "opportunity"):

These things are not beliefs, they are states of mind or environment. (BTW, I don't want to waste time defining all my terms to defend that plain proposition).

<<<At the very least, do you agree with my original point that outlawing all the actions that come from a belief is the same as outlawing the belief?>>>

I'm not sure about Danmark's position, (I prefer to leave such arcane discussion to philosophers), but please recall my proposed (revised) amendment to article 18: there is nothing about outlawing "all" actions that come from a belief, only those actions that conflict with rights that are agreed as basic and desired by all (ofcourse you deny the possibilty that such agreement can be attained, but the very existence of the UN Declaration, though undefendable (as opposed to unenforcable) at present, is testament to desire leading to results. The next part of the continuing process is to enhance the Declaration's defendability/effective application to all.

Those who are well off, or in positions of power, in this world will always defend the status quo, violently if necessary. But the status quo itself always *breeds* violence, as long as there is injustice and denial of universal human rights.

[JoeyKnothead]

I propose that human rights are independent of "scripture".

Where we declare humans have rights, we should not fret with whether "scripture" says they deserve 'em or not.

Conclusions:

"These are our rights, and if some "holy" text says otherwise, then to Hell with that!"

We should be beyond the days when we fret what an unproven to exist god has to think on how we humans oughta treat one another.

What are we gonna do, start outlawing poly-cotton blends?

[a better world]

Following the debate so far:

Should the 18th Article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, namely:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance".

be amended by adding the following words:

Provided that any manifestation of the afore-mentioned practice shall not conflict with other rights set out in the Declaration.

-------

Then we could all relax around, eg, women wearing full body 'tents' as swim-wear! Variety is the spice of life, except those actions which violate the right to life - it is these that we need to be concerned about.