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:

<<<it appears that you are saying that there should be a UN committee set up for purpose of examining what people believe and declaring if they are allowed to believe it or not>>>

So I need to clarify: belief per se is not a problem (and BTW I recognise there are huge, positive, life-affirming aspects to belief), whereas fundamentalist *action* consequent to belief in inerrant God-given scripture most certainly is a problem, in current world affairs.

I see article 18 actually conflates belief and action (an error in my view):

"...and freedom, either in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in *teaching, practice* (my emphasis)...."

So can I design an amendment to article 18, acceptable to most readers? (And ultimately, rule of law has to be acceptable to a majority, whether at the local, state, national or international level).

"provided that, where any action consequent to belief in inerrant scripture either in form or interpretation, conflicts with this and/or other articles in the Declaration, then such action shall be examined by a UN committee and if deemed necessary proscribed by a properly constituted ICJ (International Court of Justice)".

------

Sermon for the day :

Ultimately, "Wir glauben all' an einem Gott" (organ chorale prelude, BWV 680, by JS Bach).

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.

[Danmark]

The UN should have no ability to address beliefs, only practices that violate basic human rights. For example, religious practice, no matter how derived, that denies full rights to people because of their gender, or that result in the mutilation of the genitals should be allowed.

There are few loaded terms here, i.e. full rights, gender, and mutilation. Who determines what are "full rights"? By gender, are you referring to psychology, physiology or both? Also, does "mutilation" include the transgendered?

"Loaded" terms? Whatever do you mean by that?
You may substitute "all" for "full" if you want, yielding "all rights."

I thought my meaning was very clear. When any religion [or other custom, superstition, or personal selfish motive] prompts an adult to remove the genitals or other body part, partially or completely, from a child for any reason other than medical necessity, this constitutes the willful deprivation of the child's right to enjoy his or her own body. It makes no difference whether the infant is male, female or 'transgender.' BTW, I don't see any reason not to consider the term 'transgender' offensive. If an adult has surgically corrected his or her body to be appropriate to his or her true gender, then they are not 'transgender.' They are who they are.

You've provided yet another example of how religion can make otherwise reasonable, kind people do and say things which are mean.

[bjs]

bjs wrote:

<<<it appears that you are saying that there should be a UN committee set up for purpose of examining what people believe and declaring if they are allowed to believe it or not>>>

So I need to clarify: belief per se is not a problem (and BTW I recognise there are huge, positive, life-affirming aspects to belief), whereas fundamentalist *action* consequent to belief in inerrant God-given scripture most certainly is a problem, in current world affairs.

I see article 18 actually conflates belief and action (an error in my view):

"...and freedom, either in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in *teaching, practice* (my emphasis)...."

So can I design an amendment to article 18, acceptable to most readers? (And ultimately, rule of law has to be acceptable to a majority, whether at the local, state, national or international level).

"provided that, where any action consequent to belief in inerrant scripture either in form or interpretation, conflicts with this and/or other articles in the Declaration, then such action shall be examined by a UN committee and if deemed necessary proscribed by a properly constituted ICJ (International Court of Justice)".

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.

Think of it this way: Imagine is someone said to man, “You can be homosexual as long as you don’t have a sexual relationship with another male. The belief per se is not the problem, whereas the actions consequent of belief is a problem.�

Now, 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. There is no need for an amendment since that is already the official position of the UN. (Of course reality has taught us that it is not that simple. Not all cultures agree on what constitutes human rights.)

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. If you want to single out a specific religious doctrine that has the potential to cause people to infringe on the rights of others – as opposed to all the other religious, political, philosophical, economic and personal reason that people infringe on the rights of others – then I would suggest that this only a personal bias. It should not be part of any governing body’s legislation.

Sermon for the day :

Ultimately, "Wir glauben all' an einem Gott" (organ chorale prelude, BWV 680, by JS Bach).

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.

We have had the resources and technology to eradicate poverty and war for centuries. What we have learned is to accomplish that goal we would likely have to eradicate human nature. The problem isn’t technology or resources. The problem is in us.

[bluethread]

The UN should have no ability to address beliefs, only practices that violate basic human rights. For example, religious practice, no matter how derived, that denies full rights to people because of their gender, or that result in the mutilation of the genitals should be allowed.

There are few loaded terms here, i.e. full rights, gender, and mutilation. Who determines what are "full rights"? By gender, are you referring to psychology, physiology or both? Also, does "mutilation" include the transgendered?

"Loaded" terms? Whatever do you mean by that?
You may substitute "all" for "full" if you want, yielding "all rights."

I thought my meaning was very clear. When any religion [or other custom, superstition, or personal selfish motive] prompts an adult to remove the genitals or other body part, partially or completely, from a child for any reason other than medical necessity, this constitutes the willful deprivation of the child's right to enjoy his or her own body. It makes no difference whether the infant is male, female or 'transgender.' BTW, I don't see any reason not to consider the term 'transgender' offensive. If an adult has surgically corrected his or her body to be appropriate to his or her true gender, then they are not 'transgender.' They are who they are.

You've provided yet another example of how religion can make otherwise reasonable, kind people do and say things which are mean.

Well, your presumption that all of that is clear in the example you presented is yet another example of how loaded these concepts are. Reasonable, kind people can easily be thought of as mean when certain concepts are considered beyond question. That is why I appreciate the fact that all civil inquiry is permitted on this site, even when it addresses things that I think are unreasonable or unkind. So, to the crux of the matter, who decides what are or are not "basic human rights" and on what authority do they make those determinations?

[Danmark]

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."

[Danmark]

Reasonable, kind people can easily be thought of as mean when certain concepts are considered beyond question. That is why I appreciate the fact that all civil inquiry is permitted on this site, even when it addresses things that I think are unreasonable or unkind. So, to the crux of the matter, who decides what are or are not "basic human rights" and on what authority do they make those determinations?

Is there some controversy about the notion we all have the right to pursue happiness, to be treated equally, to be treated fairly, to have at least a limited right to privacy and freedom of expression (within time, place, and manner restrictions)? When I think of basic human rights, I think of those enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. These are rights that are fundamental to a well ordered and fair society.

If you disagree and believe some are not entitled to the rights enumerated therein, or by me, just name them specifically and then we can move on to your question about "who decides." Unless there is a controversy, I find it boring and unnecessary to explain what needs no explanation.

[bluethread]

Reasonable, kind people can easily be thought of as mean when certain concepts are considered beyond question. That is why I appreciate the fact that all civil inquiry is permitted on this site, even when it addresses things that I think are unreasonable or unkind. So, to the crux of the matter, who decides what are or are not "basic human rights" and on what authority do they make those determinations?

Is there some controversy about the notion we all have the right to pursue happiness, to be treated equally, to be treated fairly, to have at least a limited right to privacy and freedom of expression (within time, place, and manner restrictions)? When I think of basic human rights, I think of those enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. These are rights that are fundamental to a well ordered and fair society.

If you disagree and believe some are not entitled to the rights enumerated therein, or by me, just name them specifically and then we can move on to your question about "who decides." Unless there is a controversy, I find it boring and unnecessary to explain what needs no explanation.

Well, the right to pursue happiness, was originally the right to property, so that was controversial at the time. Along with that, the concepts of equality, fairness, privacy, and, yes, even freedom of expression are never granted without exception and as they say, "The devil is in the details." Speaking of spiritual beings, the man who listed the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, said that they were endowed by our creator, not some random collection of nation states. It is interesting to note that those terms did not mean what Progressives claim they mean today, when they were "enshrined" in the Constitution of these United States. Also, it should be noted that the freedom to exercise one's religion, and to keep and bare arms are also "enshrined" there. Finally, it is clear, in the Constitution of these Unitied States, that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the States and the people respectively. Nowhere does it grant authority to the Unitied Nations.

[Danmark]

Reasonable, kind people can easily be thought of as mean when certain concepts are considered beyond question. That is why I appreciate the fact that all civil inquiry is permitted on this site, even when it addresses things that I think are unreasonable or unkind. So, to the crux of the matter, who decides what are or are not "basic human rights" and on what authority do they make those determinations?

Is there some controversy about the notion we all have the right to pursue happiness, to be treated equally, to be treated fairly, to have at least a limited right to privacy and freedom of expression (within time, place, and manner restrictions)? When I think of basic human rights, I think of those enshrined in the U. S. Constitution. These are rights that are fundamental to a well ordered and fair society.

If you disagree and believe some are not entitled to the rights enumerated therein, or by me, just name them specifically and then we can move on to your question about "who decides." Unless there is a controversy, I find it boring and unnecessary to explain what needs no explanation.

Well, the right to pursue happiness, was originally the right to property, so that was controversial at the time. Along with that, the concepts of equality, fairness, privacy, and, yes, even freedom of expression are never granted without exception and as they say, "The devil is in the details." Speaking of spiritual beings, the man who listed the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, said that they were endowed by our creator, not some random collection of nation states. It is interesting to note that those terms did not mean what Progressives claim they mean today, when they were "enshrined" in the Constitution of these United States. Also, it should also be noted that the freedom to exercise one's religion, and to keep and bare arms are also "enshrined" there. Finally, it is clear, in the Constitution of these Unitied States, that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the States and the people respectively. Nowhere does it grant authority to the Unitied Nations.

Then it sounds to me as if you have no disagreement with the rights I mentioned. I certainly agree the right to bare arms is not a basic right. So, it seems you are quibbling just to quibble; that you have no disagreement after all. I am at a loss as to why you have raised the issue.

[bluethread]

Then it sounds to me as if you have no disagreement with the rights I mentioned. I certainly agree the right to bare arms is not a basic right. So, it seems you are quibbling just to quibble; that you have no disagreement after all. I am at a loss as to why you have raised the issue.

You apparently suffer from selective hearing. As you pointed out with regard to the right to bare arms, what you say is "enshrined" in the Constitution of these United States are not necessarily "basic rights". The question is how does one determine what are "basic rights" and on what authority are those rights granted? I consider a woman's right to be free from unwanted exposure to male genitalia to be rather basic. However, there are some who quite strongly disagree with that, some on this site. So, to get back to the OP, why should anyone care about the U.N. Human Rights Declaration?

[Danmark]

As you pointed out with regard to the right to bare arms, what you say is "enshrined" in the Constitution of these United States are not necessarily "basic rights". The question is how does one determine what are "basic rights" and on what authority are those rights granted? I consider a woman's right to be free from unwanted exposure to male genitalia to be rather basic. However, there are some who quite strongly disagree with that, some on this site. So, to get back to the OP, why should anyone care about the U.N. Human Rights Declaration?

I thank you for pointing out 'the right to bare arms,' because altho' I did not mention it specifically, it is in the Constitution [2d Amendment] and is not a fundamental right. Neither is some spurious right to be free from seeing reality.

This unnecessary aside of yours onto the ridiculous bathroom debate is laughable, as is the bathroom debate itself. Never once in my 60 some years of using public restrooms have I ever suffered "unwanted exposure" to genitalia. I just don't look there. Why would I?

Are you really afraid that if a woman used the men's room you might see her pudendum? Let's suppose you did, accidentally. Please tell us the terrible harm you think you would suffer.
What a weenie!