"Bob Moss" <Noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Gpvvb.116134$ri.17859973@twister.nyc.rr.com...

Glenn wrote:

But life itself can, like anything
else, whether unalienable or alienable, be taken away.
Capital punishment does not revoke the *right*.
That does *not* prove the *right* to life is not unalienable,
anymore than legally owned stocks can not be taken away.
Legally owned stocks (not unalienable),
while legally owned ( compare to unalienable),
can be taken away. The *legally owned* would not be
taken away. Only the stocks would be taken away.
The "right" to ownership would still be valid.

If it can *legally* be taken away, then it is not a right.

The death penalty 'legally' takes away the life of the subject.
Ergo facto, the 'LIFE' is not a right.

You are mistaken. The right to life is still unalienable (not to be taken
away). The death penalty simply abrogates (treats as nonexistent) the
unalienable right to life. That does not in any way change the basic
principle:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident
[since the contrary would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs], that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness." (See the US Declaration of Independence
http://www.house.gov/house/Declaration.html )

Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.

David Jensen wrote:

Philosophical propositions are never self-evident.

I'd be careful there. For instance,
"'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white"
could be taken as a "philosophical proposition";
certainly it was proposed by a philosopher (Tarski).
And it appears to me, at least, to be self-evident.

What the Declaration did was point out clearly for all the world to see some basic
principles already established as truths we hold to be self evident

"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kb6krvgtc1fnt1aphii1beioo6da20ov0b@4ax.com...

If it can be or is taken away, it's not an unalienable right. HTH.
HAND.

Balderdash.

Are you kidding? It's not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof).
It is a truth that we hold to be self evident

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d5u5svs62i7tf8hhnevmbci1vfnvq56ted@4ax.com...

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:24 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:

--

Yes. Jesus died for OUR sins.

Speak for yourself, god-boy.

I spoke for the Bible. Jesus died for everyone's sins.

*****. You stupidly quoted your religious doctrine in the real
world outside your religion.

Oh boy. Talking to an atheist again.

I did not "stupidly quote", moron. It is well accepted
that Jesus claimed to die for everyone, not
just the "saved", as is implied in the part of the
thread that was snipped.

You couldn't find your butt with both hands tied
behind your back.

Non-Christians cannot sin by definition,

That is insane. But then you are an atheist.

No, it is a fact. "Sin" is merely something in your religion.

Sins are fairly well defined in the Bible, although

I have, below, admitted that sin is technically rebellion
against God, and not any particular act or behavior.
But that is what Christians believe. Sins however

are well defined, and translate to all people, Christians
and non-Christians alike.

Only the idiot atheists with chips on their shoulders
who can not be reasoned with do not accept this.

because that is merely your religious belief, as is Jesus.

Of course it is my religious belief! I'm a Christian.

We know.

But it hasn't given you the remotest understanding of how the real
world outside Christianity works.

You really must have a swelled head the size of an baseball.

And this particular little part of the thread starts out
(as you can see above) with what "xtians claim".

One might have expected you to understand the difference between fact
and claim.

You just can't handle even simple concepts.

I have never intended to or implied that non-Christians
are bound to the same laws or beliefs that Christians are.
That does not diminish what pride, avarice, greed are.

But religious belief or lack of does not change the fact
that everyone sins.

That is insane. But then you are a Christian.

I really think you have a form of insanity.

Pride isn't one of your atheist sins?

Idiot.

My intepretation of sin is rebellion against God.

Demonstrate that there is anything to rebel against. Until you do that
it is no different than yoiur rebelliuon against Zeus.

As I said, you can't be reasoned with, and are
unable to see reason. I did not say that non-Christians
are rebelling against God when they commit what
Christians call "sins". I said above that was
*my* interpretation of sin as a Christian.
It does not have to be yours. You still sin.

But - the word can and is used in the secular
world as an offense or a fault.

Nope. At most it's tongue-in-cheek.

Nope and at most? Bah.
It's frequently tongue in cheek in Christians churches also.

What I really asked you is how atheists regard
pride. I see your reply.

Like I said, you're an idiot.

Yep. Revert to pure ad hominem.

Pride is not always seen as a fault, it is
sometimes valued. But it can also make you fall
flat on your face and look like an idiot.

Especially if you're a Christian whose pride won't let him see the
real world outside his religion.

I haven't gone to church in years, moron.

I'm not a "fundy".

You are.