14 posts were split to a new topic: @jongarvey’s Shift on Genesis 1 and 2
Pinker’s work has been critiqued in the first of theis year’s (prestigious) Reith Lectures. Worth listening to, if you can find it out there.
In Q&As one of the commenters pointed out how violence has often been conducted in a quieter way since the Enlightenment - he cited the slow genocides of the indigenous populations of USA, Canada, Australia and parts of Africa, all accompanied by civilised treaties and legislation, and land grants - all to be reneged upon with the backing of technological violence in due time.
2 Likes
Yes, Pinker’s work has been critiqued in the past. He addresses all of these critiques with a whole new set of up-to-date graphs showing how the promises of the Enlightment is happening Now. Extraodinary progress in living longer, less war, less famine, less poverty, safer food and water, safer transportation. Sure there is much more to be done, but wasting time saying “the end is near” or the world is falling apart because Christianity is in decline is patently false.
Pinkerton is an excellent cherry-picker. I’ll not clog the thread with the whole thing, but this should make most of the point…
“In the same way the illusion of prosperity is maintained by writing a trillion dollars worth of hot checks on the accounts of the next generation- something past ages of people were less willing to do to the innocent. The present Masters of the World have not invented a system so perfect that no one needs to be good anymore. All they have done is found a way to hide for a time the outward costs of human evil. But the truth will out, and time will tell what happens to souls and to societies which are built on the shifting sand of collective consensus rather than the solid rock of transcendent moral truth.”
2 Likes
A very good point. The decline in the economic prosperity of the USA and UK (and it would seem the entire western world, given the rise of “popularism” so-called) seems to me to be more than simply mismanagement of capital, etc.
I wonder if it may be more a feature of the slow effects of having run out of colonies and slave-labour to fund our luxury. And there still seems to be a good case for believing in the manipulation of markets by the rich - exemplified as much by the “economic colonialism” of the rising powers like China as the decline of the old ones.
To take a parallel case, the effect of IT on many African countries (and Mexico in the case of the USA?) appears to have been less to improve prosperity than to inform people that the only way to improve their lot is to risk everything to reach Europe or America, where everybody is rich, or so it seems. Meanwhile, the poverty at home is more often blamed on past colonialism than scientific ignorance.
2 Likes
The Creator seems to be the grantor of all of our core rights and those are revealed to us as He sees fit. Seems this used to be called covenant and we now call it rights? But it seems we know what the rights are for living, modern humans and should be able to agree on what those are for the most part. It’s the hypothetical (AI, aliens, human hybrids) and the historical (Neanderthals, animals) where we have trouble knowing His intent.
1 Like
It seems to me the first of the two phrases here is sufficient! It represents a belief, but what other possible grounding isn’t?
Since this thread got bumped, I think I’ll share some passing thoughts.
In the Lutheran view, the Imago Dei was lost at the fall (however, humans still have special dignity as we were created in the image of God). We also say that the Image of God is being restored in Christians.
Anyway, when I consider my neighbor, it is powerful to think about how much Christ loves him. In Christ, all humans have inestimable value. If Christ loved a person enough to die and rise for that person, that person deserves respect from me.
How does that work for the people outside the Garden?
I don’t think there were any (pre-adamites, that is), and (to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong), that is also the traditional view. So, ultimately, I think I will leave your thought-provoking question to be answered by someone here (preferably a Lutheran) who thinks that people outside the garden were a thing. 
Peace.
There are a number of traditional views. That’s probably the majority view, though. Do you know how a Lutheran who believes there were people outside the Garden would handle this?
I do not, but perhaps our friends @Mlkluther and/or @EvolvingLutheran would like to share their thoughts?
I agree that there is no such thing as human rights. instead there is rights that humans, made in Gods image and so mini gods, have that are inalienable.
Humans can not invent human rights. its a conflict of interest.
Our rights must exist without any humans agreeing. jUst god is needed.
The best humans, without God, could do is have a mutual contract that humans have human rights.
however butterflys could do this for butterflys but it would not be any more true then for us.
Nope. In was in America that rights existing beyond human consent, from the creator, was put into the government. the human rights movement distorted this and started making human rights anything SOME humans wanted as rights and no one was to question it.
Thats why human rights has no legitamacy , if it opposes Gods rights to us, or if it says human rights is beyond the peoples decision of what they are.
There is now a long list of left wing HUMAN RIGHTS that reject the peoples right to govern ourselves.
They ruined it in thes other countries(or Canada).
they took a beautiful saving idea of GOD GOVEN rights that no man or gov’t can take AND sewitched it to just another set of laws from dictators who say the people must obey same laws.
human rights is not a bad or evil term and not binding on free people.
If that were the case we wouldn’t need a judicial system and a police force. Since those two things are required for human rights to exist, it appears you are wrong.
Human rights are something humans invented and support. We are the ones who decide what those rights are, and how to protect them. No Gods are necessary. If you want to believe that God is involved somehow, then knock yourself out. At the same time, we humans need to actively support those rights with our own actions.
Go to the most repressive Middle Eastern countries and tell us how that model is working out.
Hi @John_Harshman. I’d simply say that scripture is silent on the existence of people outside the Garden. It neither confirms nor denies since its not essential to the message of salvation. For instance, it doesn’t say where the sons of Adam got their wives etc., which gives rise in some quarters that they married their sisters. So, that’s one idea based on the presupposition that all human life came from one couple. I find the concept of genealogical descent offered by @swamidass is quite interesting on this matter you could find with an easy search on this site.
The difference for me is not in image lost as much as image restored, which we see in Christ. “He is the image of the invisible God”. And those brought into His body have that image restored through “Christ in you the hope of glory”.
Now, to the idea of Human Rights, I don’t think therefore that the Imago Dei can be used to ground it. These things may inform a Christian ethic of human rights in that we have equal standing before God. But not everyone believes God exists. And those that do don’t agree on what is the basis for human rights. So I think it’s not equal standing before the Gospel but rather equal standing before the Law that forms the “grounding” for human rights. In a sense it is as @T_aquaticus said it. We define it, whatever our believes personally are, from a human standpoint we agree on and actively support those rights with our actions.
Only by defining it in that way can we reach common understanding as to what constitutes our rights and on what basis they can be denied.
That said, I think things like the UN declaration on human rights fall short of Christian ideals because it uses the terms “born with” and “reason” as the basis for those inherent rights. But some would say, “What about the unborn?”. Others might say, “What about those with limited or no reason?” “What about those in a persistent vegetative state like Terri Shiavo? or those with severe Downs syndrome? Or those with dementia?” On what basis may their rights be denied? These are the areas where I think it moves from the academic and theoretical to the practical things that are really important.
1 Like
BINGO. you hit the target. you are most wrong. The british and american system of justice is based on our rights coming from God. in fact they use the word natural as opposed to human invention. you are most wrong about this fact.
Humans did not invent human rights and denying of rights in important conclusions. if this was true then Humans denying rights to humans would trump any claim to natural rights.
The whole point of God/natural rights insight was to overthrow the common historic mankind opinion that humans decided what our important rights were. THAT was the problem.
I don’t know if middle east countries are more repressive then others. A few are pretty bad but so is China.
Our government/America, Canada, Britiain etc only legitimacy to govern us IS if they back up our natural rights. thats pure Lockeian belief.
If they do not they are null and void. I believe Canada government is illegal , PARTLY, because of this reason.
Yes the government endorses our natural rights and created rights.
By the w3ay. if humans were the source of rights then that would mean a RIGHT could win by a 51-49 vote. Surely a absurdity to say a human right came from this close vote.
There are no human rights but rather humans are given God/natural rights that humans must obey.
thats our historic beliefs in the Anglo American world…
How do those rights require them to come from God?
If human rights were a natural law then humans wouldn’t be able to violate them.
Apparently, you haven’t heard of democracies. That’s exactly how it works in many democratic countries. The rights spelled out in the US Constitution can be added to, some removed, or altered based on votes. We humans are the ones who decide what human rights are, and we decided to enforce and protect them.