Actually, this is not quite so. Consider this essay:
http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...s-freedom.html
As you can see, there actually is an invariant - human life. It is most safe to say, for example, that the vast and overwhelming majority of people in the USA (let us forget about the rest of the world for the sake of this exchange) do not wish to be murdered, robbed, raped, or beaten. We already have 4 elements of "the invariant", i.e., the standard by which proper action is defined and the limits of our prerogatives delimited.
Which is suggestive of a traitor's treason, or at least an ignoramus' willingness to be directed by others, regardless of where it may lead. To the latter point, it is most often overlooked by even the likes of those found here to discover those behind the scenes. Without a concentrated effort at exposing, investigating, and possibly prosecuting and even executing such people and destroying the organizations to which they owe fealty and in whose interests they operate, no amount of cleansing effort will produce the desired result.
The existence of "God" is predicated wholly upon the definition. The argument of whether God exists is idiotic on its face when no definition of the term is given. Take my own point of view, for example: I do not believe God exists - I know God exists. The very fact that we exist proves to me beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists as well. This is a trivial point, however, because the question that makes the real difference in these metaphysical musings asks "what is the nature of God?" That is the lynch pin on which any such conversation turns. That is the question over which people have butchered one another for thousands of years and continue to do so today.
If you read the essay above, then the basis for issue becomes abundantly apparent.
Your question reflects the all-too-common and wholesale misconception of what it means to be free. Freedom does not mean "anything goes". Freedom is bounded, and that is a very good thing for those metes and bounds act as the guide to the most fundamental aspects of proper behavior.Obama has no moral basis for violating my rights, nor those of anyone else. I am a sovereign being, so Obama can screw off with his opinions, as can anyone else with notions of violating my space. You appear to be of the mind that your idea of "God" is necessary for proper action. I assure you that it is not only unnecessary, it is a most unsound way of approaching the matter. Put a million people in a room and I promise you that there will be at least 2 million definitions and opinions on what God is and what God wants. More like twenty million, but perhaps the point is made.
The only safe standard is life as viewed through the lens of the Golden Rule. Live. Let live. Don't want to be a ****? Don' be one, but leave that decision for each and every person to make for themselves. Believe as you choose to believe - God, no God, kitchen sink, whatever - and allow others to do so as well in the way that accords with the dictates of their respective consciences. This is the only sound approach. If a group wishes to live as socialists, let them. If they attempt to impose that life on you, shoot them. There is no excuse for violating the consensual choices of individuals as that or in groups so long as they do not infringe upon your choices. Live. Let live. It is the perfect formula for living.I think we got that one.
It may be for you. For others it is not. Let it go.
I must assume you are a "man of faith". If so, you violate your status by speaking as if you knew the first thing about God. I seriously doubt that you do. Faith is just that: belief, and that is perfectly valid. But if you believe this or that about "God", you really should refrain from making any positive assertions about "God" that do not begin with "I believe" or "It is my opinion that". Anything other than this is claiming knowledge rather than expounding one's faith.
The bible is not the basis of our form of government.
That rationale is fallacious - wholly invalid, and untrue to boot. Just because something is said, it does not follow that it is true.
There is an objective moral standard. We call it "life". I direct you to this essay once again:
http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...s-freedom.html
One does not get more objective than that.
Friend, you ain't seen nothing yet!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=223823
Welcome to RPF.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us