In his 1889 essay Twilight of the Idols (ix.5), Nietzsche cynically remarked:
"G. Eliot. They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
"We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet . This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth ⎯ it stands or falls with faith in God.
"When the English actually believe that they know 'intuitively' what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem."
Oddly enough CS Lewis made comparable observations. In his autobiography (Surprised by Joy), Lewis observed that shortly after WWI when he began his university studies little had changed since Nietzsche’s initial observations (1955 : 209-210)
“But there were in those days all sorts of blankets, insulators, and insurances which enabled one to get all the conveniences of Theism, without believing in God. The English Hegelians, writers like T. H. Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet (then mighty names), dealt in precisely such wares. The Absolute Mind — better still, the Absolute — was impersonal, or it knew itself (but not us?) only in us, and it was so absolute that it wasn't really much more like a mind than anything else. And anyway, the more muddled one got about it and the more contradictions one committed, the more this proved that our discursive thought moved only on the level of "Appearance", and "Reality" must be somewhere else. And where else but, of course, in the Absolute? There, not here, was "the fuller splendour" behind the "sensuous curtain". The emotion that went with all this was certainly religious. But this was a religion that cost nothing. We could talk religiously about the Absolute: but there was no danger of Its doing anything about us. It was "there"; safely and immovably "there". It would never come "here", never (to be blunt) make a nuisance of Itself. This quasi-religion was all a one-way street; all eros (as Dr. Nygren would say) steaming up, but no agape darting down. There was nothing to fear; better still, nothing to obey.”
This “discovery” leads to the question, had Lewis by any chance read and commented about Nietzsche? Nietzsche’s works were of course translated by the 1920s and Lewis could manage reading German though not write in German. I checked the “Chronologically Lewis” file and found nothing. I also checked “The collected letters of CS Lewis”
But this only turned up brief comments literary comments, such as “Nietzsche was a better poet than a philosopher.”... In any case, both Nietzsche and Lewis expose the fact that both morals and rights require a foundation. A foundation that the Enlightenment (and all it’s derivative modern ideologies) can NOT supply. In the end, both Stalin’s Constitution and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are there for marketing purposes and nothing else... Perhaps such thougths led to TS Eliot writing his poem “The Wasteland”...
Paul, gosh is this helpful. And relevant. And... thank you. The last part, the part of these rights all being marketing... this is an important point. And it begs the question: "For the sale of what?" And that answer, the spectre of it, does indeed scare me.
Dunno if tooting one’s own horn is permitted, but the issue of marketing "for the sale of what?" is addressed in my Flight From the Absolute book series, particularly volume 1. Which leads to addressing the presuppositions of the Postmodern worldview, a rather different beast than modern ideologies, which still maintained too many residues of Judeo-Christian influence, such as publishing explicit creeds (think the Communist Manifesto or Hitler’s Mein Kampf), though of course materialistic creeds... Postmoderns eschew such gestures as these lay the cards on the table (and put a target on one’s back)... Thus Postmoderns VERY much prefer to keep their cards to themselves. My Flight series attempts to put together the pieces of puzzle of the Postmodern belief system.
So that WAS your brother on Prom Night😂... yeah I'm just thinking out loud as is usual...shallow and wide not deep and narrow that's my motto😉... anyway just thinking about whether or not Job had any inalienable rights? As I read the story God gave the devil the right to fuck with him. Does that make God a human rights Violator? Seems to me the idea of human rights is a modern invention... since modern man thinks of himself as the highest Authority I guess it's just a post Enlightenment way of throwing up some (spiritual but not religious) guardrails so that things don't get too out of hand. Of course we've seen how well that works. As The Bard says "God's bodkin, man, much better: use every man after his desert, and who shall scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity -- the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty"... so I guess the only thing we have a right to is whipping...😂...I love what you do brother. I keep promising to come down and see you at the table. God willing...one day....
Hey John great picture of your brother with his bouquet of orchids On Prom Night. Probably joined the priesthood shortly after that episode based on what I see in the picture.... anyway I don't believe there is such a thing as natural rights.. but rather...only right ways of acting.... human rights are a secondary cause from primary Behavior... they are Downstream from right action.
Frank, love it. Yes... our editor Andrew is having fun with out new substack. I kind of like it! As for the "downstream" concept... it does seem that much of modernity emphasizes the secondary nature of existence over the primary. I think it is an Aristotelian tendency, to see meaning in the parts. But alas, love the comment. Hope you are well good brother!
This post really resonates with me. One of my favorite statements on this topic was written by Heiromonk Gabriel of the Holy Cross Monastery in West Virginia:
"What kind of right can a Christian claim while hanging on the Cross?"
Statement in context:
"Before men learned to speak of rights, they used to speak of something much better: the ancients spoke of virtue. But after they learned to speak of virtue, Christ taught them to speak of something even higher: he taught them to speak of love. And more than this, He taught them to be “doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
He taught them to take up the Cross.
How petty, after all, are these “rights” which we hold so dear! “Give me that, don’t do this, I deserve such and such.” How pale and insignificant is such merely earthly justice, when measured against the love by which a man lays down his life for his friends!
How worthless are our rights, when set against the glory of the saints! How sad are our lives when we cling to our rights, in comparison with the lives of those who, like St. Paul, “count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
What kind of right can a Christian claim while hanging on the Cross?
My brothers and sisters, let us not allow ourselves to be defrauded. Let us not deceive ourselves with the empty riches and illusory freedoms which are all that this vain world can offer. Let us not settle for those things which pass so swiftly away, and which bring no lasting peace nor profit to those who choose them.
The modern world loves to boast of its rights and its freedoms. But let us say rather with St. Paul: “God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Amen."
Does saying human itself disengage from the divine?
The OED suggests that humans come from people. Which reminds me of the big bang. The problem of origin is always one step removed.
"Etymology: < Anglo-Norman humeigne (feminine), humane (feminine), Anglo-Norman and Middle French humain, humayn (French humain ) of or belonging to people (as opposed either to animals or to God) (1119 in Anglo-Norman), having human nature or characteristics (c1170), composed of people (c1174), benevolent (c1175), having people (as opposed to God) as its subject (1552 in letres humaines : compare humane letters n. at humane adj. Special uses) and its etymon classical Latin hūmānus of or belonging to people (as opposed either to animals or to divine beings), characteristic of people, civilized, cultured, cultivated, kindly, considerate, merciful, indulgent < the same base as homin- , homō homo n.1 + -ānus -an suffix, although the origin of the vocalism is unclear. Compare Old Occitan uman , Catalan humà (14th cent.), Spanish humano (c1200), Portuguese humano (13th cent.), Italian umano (13th cent.). With use as noun compare classical Latin hūmānus human being, hūmānum that which is human (uses as noun of masculine and neuter respectively of hūmānus , adjective), French humain human being (1340 in Middle French, usually in plural), human nature (a1630). Compare humane adj."
If there's just us people here, anything goes. Unless someone makes some rules to reign in the inevitable chaos. But hey, we don't need God for that. We can make our own LAWS, thank you very much.
So what’s your alternative? Will you accept living in, say, a nation governed by the principle that we owe sacrifice to Odin? Which one of those rights are you wiling to give up for yourself and all of your children and grandchildren?
Societies seem to have trouble keeping to the middle of the road and out of the ditch on one side of legalism and on the other license. The middle of the road is probably grace - that which most can't accept from God and certainly are reluctant to extend to others. We try to set up frameworks to balance freedom and responsibility, but these invariably (perhaps by design) favor some over others. In the end it seems the best we can do is second best. But if there is a second doesn't that beg the question "what is first ?". If there is anything that should create a hunger for an all good transcendent beyond ourselves it is the admission that our best efforts always fall short. Alas, there is the pride that we will sort it out some way, somehow, someday.
Hi, John - I can see how the underlying process of such declarations is utilitarian rather than universal, and the statements mostly Western. I wonder if this declaration was ratified by all the members of the UN? If so, would it matter where they originated? In other words, in principal, can universal statements be articulated by a few and agreed to by all? And was this the case with the UN?
I know this doesn't solve the problem of having statements of universal claims declared without any justification, and this is impossible to do without reference to a transcendent source or the derivative understanding of what it means to be human. I agree with your conclusion. But I wonder if the mistaken claim to being universal by the authors of the declaration could at least be seen as understandable if most of the countries of the world signed it. (Did they?)
On a related note, I am wondering about your/postmodernists' attribution of the imposition of these "universal" rights to the colonial mindset. I am interested to know what you think of missionary work, which persuades/imposes what they understand as universal principles onto foreign peoples. Is this simply colonialism? If not, what is the difference both to colonialism and to the UN declaration?
Finally, how do we understand the alternative "calling" to responsibility as a universal one without falling into the same problem (colonial mindset), since this idea comes from one subset of people but is intended for all? How would such a calling be implemented today? (Loved the way you framed the notion of the calling, btw)
I'm happy to wait until Aug 1 for further discussion if you prefer, since I think the mention of colonialism also raises questions of whether world-wide agreement on human nature, rights and responsibilities is necessary, desirable or other; or if this is an awkward, ultimately futile process to address a dilemma brought about by increasing globalism (i.e. modern colonialism?); that raises questions about the whole issue of globalism - good or evil?, should/can the tide be turned or should it be celebrated?; Universalism/Globalism/Empire - compare and contrast; can/should rights & responsibilities be sustainably determined by utilitarianism without shared religion? etc. etc. Looking forward to chomping this over with you!
Let's do it August 1st. But seriously, the part about colonialism and the missionary spirit is intriguing indeed. See you soon. I think the answer to the question is in understanding heresy. For real. Sounds heavy but it's not. The teaching has changed and we've called it "Christian missionary work". But it's not. More on this soon!
What would you say to people who believe that yes, these rights are not universal, but not because they are disengaged from any ultimate reality, but because they are temporary, in that they are are merely in line with where we are now in psycho-social evolution, and may change in the near or far future as we continuously evolve. I.e. moral relativism in the context of evolutionary absolutism.
Dawn, peace to you! I'd say this: Fine. Well done. A very select group of people have culled a set of principles they are calling universal for a specific time, and a specific place. And well, that seems nice. But this groups universal rights are anything but universal. They are mostly European and scientific in nature, made by a group of people for that group of people. In this type of world, there is no peace, only war. Which, of course, is the very principle of survival of the fittest.As Nietzsche hints, and Dostoevsky points out, when you kill god, you sacrifice the potential for peace. There's no way around it. So... good luck enforcing your universal rights. I think this is what the postmoderns call, and I think rightly, the colonial mindset. But the postmodern provides no positive critique beyond what I've written above. The only true answer to the question is a God who dies out of voluntary love for His creation. The "calling" is not to rights, but to a certain type of responsibility. In that type of world, peace is possible. Difficult, and hard earned, but possible.
The name of God in the Tanakh is often not spoken or written allegedly out out of fear/reverence - but we have a few names for Jehova and Elohim, one being Adonai. The Sephardic Jews pronounce it as a Londoner would say “Add an I”.
As a Gnostic I know a name for God is Jesus. Now, add an I.
Je suis. In French that’s I am / I follow.
John says “Je suis Jesus”
And Jesus says, “Je Suis”
Humble your I to i
And find yourself in the body - the crust that is holey.
When it reigns it pores.
The Pharaoh moans and the Whore moans back.
Straight from the whore cis mouth. The Sarah Bellum
The Prince S War.
Je suis syzygy.
“Heavy things done lightly” is an anagram for “VANISHING YOD, GHYLL TEETH”
To answer your question what is a human, it is a divine sovereign emanation of our creator. The idea of divine personal sovereignty was spread across the world by the Christian movement, in whose scriptures are in bedded instructions for creating a parallel structure immune from oppressive government in the 21st-century.
The carbon atom, when it is stable, has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.
Unstable carbon 13 has an extra covalent electron. That’s Judas, the radio active. The dozen do Zen, but the dirty dozen like to fight.
The Eye A.M
A bad spell.
That’s sic, Bro.
There’s no K (11th letter)
There’s nein eleven. No II
No cis -
know 2 are alike.
This is for the Adam’s of the West with eyes toosie.
In his 1889 essay Twilight of the Idols (ix.5), Nietzsche cynically remarked:
"G. Eliot. They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
"We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet . This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth ⎯ it stands or falls with faith in God.
"When the English actually believe that they know 'intuitively' what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem."
Oddly enough CS Lewis made comparable observations. In his autobiography (Surprised by Joy), Lewis observed that shortly after WWI when he began his university studies little had changed since Nietzsche’s initial observations (1955 : 209-210)
“But there were in those days all sorts of blankets, insulators, and insurances which enabled one to get all the conveniences of Theism, without believing in God. The English Hegelians, writers like T. H. Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet (then mighty names), dealt in precisely such wares. The Absolute Mind — better still, the Absolute — was impersonal, or it knew itself (but not us?) only in us, and it was so absolute that it wasn't really much more like a mind than anything else. And anyway, the more muddled one got about it and the more contradictions one committed, the more this proved that our discursive thought moved only on the level of "Appearance", and "Reality" must be somewhere else. And where else but, of course, in the Absolute? There, not here, was "the fuller splendour" behind the "sensuous curtain". The emotion that went with all this was certainly religious. But this was a religion that cost nothing. We could talk religiously about the Absolute: but there was no danger of Its doing anything about us. It was "there"; safely and immovably "there". It would never come "here", never (to be blunt) make a nuisance of Itself. This quasi-religion was all a one-way street; all eros (as Dr. Nygren would say) steaming up, but no agape darting down. There was nothing to fear; better still, nothing to obey.”
This “discovery” leads to the question, had Lewis by any chance read and commented about Nietzsche? Nietzsche’s works were of course translated by the 1920s and Lewis could manage reading German though not write in German. I checked the “Chronologically Lewis” file and found nothing. I also checked “The collected letters of CS Lewis”
https://jwkeena.github.io/csl-letters/
But this only turned up brief comments literary comments, such as “Nietzsche was a better poet than a philosopher.”... In any case, both Nietzsche and Lewis expose the fact that both morals and rights require a foundation. A foundation that the Enlightenment (and all it’s derivative modern ideologies) can NOT supply. In the end, both Stalin’s Constitution and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are there for marketing purposes and nothing else... Perhaps such thougths led to TS Eliot writing his poem “The Wasteland”...
Re-reading this comment and just so thankful and in awe of the clarity of Lewis and Nietzsche. Thank you.
Paul, gosh is this helpful. And relevant. And... thank you. The last part, the part of these rights all being marketing... this is an important point. And it begs the question: "For the sale of what?" And that answer, the spectre of it, does indeed scare me.
Dunno if tooting one’s own horn is permitted, but the issue of marketing "for the sale of what?" is addressed in my Flight From the Absolute book series, particularly volume 1. Which leads to addressing the presuppositions of the Postmodern worldview, a rather different beast than modern ideologies, which still maintained too many residues of Judeo-Christian influence, such as publishing explicit creeds (think the Communist Manifesto or Hitler’s Mein Kampf), though of course materialistic creeds... Postmoderns eschew such gestures as these lay the cards on the table (and put a target on one’s back)... Thus Postmoderns VERY much prefer to keep their cards to themselves. My Flight series attempts to put together the pieces of puzzle of the Postmodern belief system.
Sounds most excellent... I shall go and find this. Can't wait. Best spot to do so?
For a hard copy, Amazon is good. For an Ebook try SmashWords
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/386292
Though Amazon has a Kindle version if you need that.
So that WAS your brother on Prom Night😂... yeah I'm just thinking out loud as is usual...shallow and wide not deep and narrow that's my motto😉... anyway just thinking about whether or not Job had any inalienable rights? As I read the story God gave the devil the right to fuck with him. Does that make God a human rights Violator? Seems to me the idea of human rights is a modern invention... since modern man thinks of himself as the highest Authority I guess it's just a post Enlightenment way of throwing up some (spiritual but not religious) guardrails so that things don't get too out of hand. Of course we've seen how well that works. As The Bard says "God's bodkin, man, much better: use every man after his desert, and who shall scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity -- the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty"... so I guess the only thing we have a right to is whipping...😂...I love what you do brother. I keep promising to come down and see you at the table. God willing...one day....
Hey John great picture of your brother with his bouquet of orchids On Prom Night. Probably joined the priesthood shortly after that episode based on what I see in the picture.... anyway I don't believe there is such a thing as natural rights.. but rather...only right ways of acting.... human rights are a secondary cause from primary Behavior... they are Downstream from right action.
Frank, love it. Yes... our editor Andrew is having fun with out new substack. I kind of like it! As for the "downstream" concept... it does seem that much of modernity emphasizes the secondary nature of existence over the primary. I think it is an Aristotelian tendency, to see meaning in the parts. But alas, love the comment. Hope you are well good brother!
This post really resonates with me. One of my favorite statements on this topic was written by Heiromonk Gabriel of the Holy Cross Monastery in West Virginia:
"What kind of right can a Christian claim while hanging on the Cross?"
Statement in context:
"Before men learned to speak of rights, they used to speak of something much better: the ancients spoke of virtue. But after they learned to speak of virtue, Christ taught them to speak of something even higher: he taught them to speak of love. And more than this, He taught them to be “doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
He taught them to take up the Cross.
How petty, after all, are these “rights” which we hold so dear! “Give me that, don’t do this, I deserve such and such.” How pale and insignificant is such merely earthly justice, when measured against the love by which a man lays down his life for his friends!
How worthless are our rights, when set against the glory of the saints! How sad are our lives when we cling to our rights, in comparison with the lives of those who, like St. Paul, “count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
What kind of right can a Christian claim while hanging on the Cross?
My brothers and sisters, let us not allow ourselves to be defrauded. Let us not deceive ourselves with the empty riches and illusory freedoms which are all that this vain world can offer. Let us not settle for those things which pass so swiftly away, and which bring no lasting peace nor profit to those who choose them.
The modern world loves to boast of its rights and its freedoms. But let us say rather with St. Paul: “God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Amen."
Does saying human itself disengage from the divine?
The OED suggests that humans come from people. Which reminds me of the big bang. The problem of origin is always one step removed.
"Etymology: < Anglo-Norman humeigne (feminine), humane (feminine), Anglo-Norman and Middle French humain, humayn (French humain ) of or belonging to people (as opposed either to animals or to God) (1119 in Anglo-Norman), having human nature or characteristics (c1170), composed of people (c1174), benevolent (c1175), having people (as opposed to God) as its subject (1552 in letres humaines : compare humane letters n. at humane adj. Special uses) and its etymon classical Latin hūmānus of or belonging to people (as opposed either to animals or to divine beings), characteristic of people, civilized, cultured, cultivated, kindly, considerate, merciful, indulgent < the same base as homin- , homō homo n.1 + -ānus -an suffix, although the origin of the vocalism is unclear. Compare Old Occitan uman , Catalan humà (14th cent.), Spanish humano (c1200), Portuguese humano (13th cent.), Italian umano (13th cent.). With use as noun compare classical Latin hūmānus human being, hūmānum that which is human (uses as noun of masculine and neuter respectively of hūmānus , adjective), French humain human being (1340 in Middle French, usually in plural), human nature (a1630). Compare humane adj."
If there's just us people here, anything goes. Unless someone makes some rules to reign in the inevitable chaos. But hey, we don't need God for that. We can make our own LAWS, thank you very much.
So what’s your alternative? Will you accept living in, say, a nation governed by the principle that we owe sacrifice to Odin? Which one of those rights are you wiling to give up for yourself and all of your children and grandchildren?
Societies seem to have trouble keeping to the middle of the road and out of the ditch on one side of legalism and on the other license. The middle of the road is probably grace - that which most can't accept from God and certainly are reluctant to extend to others. We try to set up frameworks to balance freedom and responsibility, but these invariably (perhaps by design) favor some over others. In the end it seems the best we can do is second best. But if there is a second doesn't that beg the question "what is first ?". If there is anything that should create a hunger for an all good transcendent beyond ourselves it is the admission that our best efforts always fall short. Alas, there is the pride that we will sort it out some way, somehow, someday.
Hi, John - I can see how the underlying process of such declarations is utilitarian rather than universal, and the statements mostly Western. I wonder if this declaration was ratified by all the members of the UN? If so, would it matter where they originated? In other words, in principal, can universal statements be articulated by a few and agreed to by all? And was this the case with the UN?
I know this doesn't solve the problem of having statements of universal claims declared without any justification, and this is impossible to do without reference to a transcendent source or the derivative understanding of what it means to be human. I agree with your conclusion. But I wonder if the mistaken claim to being universal by the authors of the declaration could at least be seen as understandable if most of the countries of the world signed it. (Did they?)
On a related note, I am wondering about your/postmodernists' attribution of the imposition of these "universal" rights to the colonial mindset. I am interested to know what you think of missionary work, which persuades/imposes what they understand as universal principles onto foreign peoples. Is this simply colonialism? If not, what is the difference both to colonialism and to the UN declaration?
Finally, how do we understand the alternative "calling" to responsibility as a universal one without falling into the same problem (colonial mindset), since this idea comes from one subset of people but is intended for all? How would such a calling be implemented today? (Loved the way you framed the notion of the calling, btw)
I'm happy to wait until Aug 1 for further discussion if you prefer, since I think the mention of colonialism also raises questions of whether world-wide agreement on human nature, rights and responsibilities is necessary, desirable or other; or if this is an awkward, ultimately futile process to address a dilemma brought about by increasing globalism (i.e. modern colonialism?); that raises questions about the whole issue of globalism - good or evil?, should/can the tide be turned or should it be celebrated?; Universalism/Globalism/Empire - compare and contrast; can/should rights & responsibilities be sustainably determined by utilitarianism without shared religion? etc. etc. Looking forward to chomping this over with you!
Let's do it August 1st. But seriously, the part about colonialism and the missionary spirit is intriguing indeed. See you soon. I think the answer to the question is in understanding heresy. For real. Sounds heavy but it's not. The teaching has changed and we've called it "Christian missionary work". But it's not. More on this soon!
What would you say to people who believe that yes, these rights are not universal, but not because they are disengaged from any ultimate reality, but because they are temporary, in that they are are merely in line with where we are now in psycho-social evolution, and may change in the near or far future as we continuously evolve. I.e. moral relativism in the context of evolutionary absolutism.
Dawn, peace to you! I'd say this: Fine. Well done. A very select group of people have culled a set of principles they are calling universal for a specific time, and a specific place. And well, that seems nice. But this groups universal rights are anything but universal. They are mostly European and scientific in nature, made by a group of people for that group of people. In this type of world, there is no peace, only war. Which, of course, is the very principle of survival of the fittest.As Nietzsche hints, and Dostoevsky points out, when you kill god, you sacrifice the potential for peace. There's no way around it. So... good luck enforcing your universal rights. I think this is what the postmoderns call, and I think rightly, the colonial mindset. But the postmodern provides no positive critique beyond what I've written above. The only true answer to the question is a God who dies out of voluntary love for His creation. The "calling" is not to rights, but to a certain type of responsibility. In that type of world, peace is possible. Difficult, and hard earned, but possible.
The name of God in the Tanakh is often not spoken or written allegedly out out of fear/reverence - but we have a few names for Jehova and Elohim, one being Adonai. The Sephardic Jews pronounce it as a Londoner would say “Add an I”.
As a Gnostic I know a name for God is Jesus. Now, add an I.
Je suis. In French that’s I am / I follow.
John says “Je suis Jesus”
And Jesus says, “Je Suis”
Humble your I to i
And find yourself in the body - the crust that is holey.
When it reigns it pores.
The Pharaoh moans and the Whore moans back.
Straight from the whore cis mouth. The Sarah Bellum
The Prince S War.
Je suis syzygy.
“Heavy things done lightly” is an anagram for “VANISHING YOD, GHYLL TEETH”
Maybe that’s too heavy
Heavy = Y He A/V
The sin optics
Hey Zeus
He’s Us
Je’s Us
Je Suis
To answer your question what is a human, it is a divine sovereign emanation of our creator. The idea of divine personal sovereignty was spread across the world by the Christian movement, in whose scriptures are in bedded instructions for creating a parallel structure immune from oppressive government in the 21st-century.
The carbon atom, when it is stable, has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.
Unstable carbon 13 has an extra covalent electron. That’s Judas, the radio active. The dozen do Zen, but the dirty dozen like to fight.
The Eye A.M
A bad spell.
That’s sic, Bro.
There’s no K (11th letter)
There’s nein eleven. No II
No cis -
know 2 are alike.
This is for the Adam’s of the West with eyes toosie.