Thursday, March 11, 2010

The ZigZag Café

We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.

For today:

Would you see inalienable human rights as having their roots in, and being a central characteristic of, Christianity?


Living Spiritual Rhythms For Today


Lukas und Céline Kuhs said...

What gives a human value? Their human rights? No, but their being in image of God. And Gods love towards them.

God makes humans invaluable. Their human rights derive from his appreciation/valuation.

This is my take on it...

Greg said...

Thanks. So you do see human rights as bestowed by God?

Lukas und Céline Kuhs said...

The declaration (of today's human rights) happened after the enlightenment, but the definition comes from God.

If you see bestow in the sense of "allow", then I would not agree. If you see bestow in the sense of "to make a gift", then I would agree. The best sense is probably the one of "to bestow a title to someone". For he bestowed the title "made in his image" to us and therefore the right to live. No one is allowed to kill another "image of God".

Greg said...

Thanks. I guess I veer towards responsibilities more than rights when it comes to being images of God. Maybe God gives us responsibilities and not per se human rights as they may often be thought of today.

Ron Krumpos said...


As you say, "Maybe God gives us responsibilities..." To paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what God can do for you, but what you can do for God."

Greg said...

Thanks. Yes, the thought of being responsible carries with it the notion of not demanding, but fulfilling a mandate. That mandate, shall we say, imaging God and following in the footsteps of Christ does not deny rights given, but it suggests that today's version of rights as primary, in fact is not the case.