God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

". . . truths to be self-evident, . . .
Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."
That God Himself happens to be the fundamental self-evident truth of all other self-evident truths by which all other self-evident truths are even evident. The self-evident reality by which we ". . . live and move and have our being . . ." Is identified as God, Acts of the Apostles 17:28.

 

It is a Biblical fact that Phebe was a deaconess in the church of Cenchrea per the Apostle Paul in Romans 16:1. ". . . ουσαν διακονον . . . ."

 

Acts 17:28 ...for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Explain the connection.

 

I am completely puzzled by this ridiculous pitting of a right to life against Gods glory. Apples and refrigerators

your definition lacks context specifically with regards to the constitution.

more dopa boxing lacking context. All of your tirade shows you have a lack of understanding of the history of the language used in the DOI. I suggest you do some homework before jumping up on that box.

 

The Apostle Paul credits God to be, "
". . . in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." The fact is we live and move and have our being in our reality. So unless God Himself is understood to be all of reality, in which tings exist, the statement Paul made would not be true about our omnipresent God. Otherwise I do not understand your question. Reality is a self-evident truth.

 

yes you are and no it’s not. You make the claim but do not show you have a working knowledge of the wording of the DOI, it’s wording, or the basis for the wording. By the way posting dictionary definitions of those words does not make your case. I suggest you study the men who wrote and influenced it before going here. This thread is foolish.

 

I don't see the connection to humans having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that verse. Is there a connection?

 

My argument was simply that God Himself is self-evident. The document claim is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident truths. Now the question then is how are they self-evident? We are born with life. The importance of liberty is to be free to know what is really true. Is there truth? The fact of truth makes liberty a necessity, hence it's necessary makes it a self-evident truth. Happiness it's persuit, why would it not be a self-evident truth? There is such thing as happiness? Right? Refute these arguments.

 

I'm glad you brought up the subject of marriage, because this seals the deal.

But I'm going to rescue marriage from your assault. Men can't marry. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. What you should say is, the nation gives men the right to engage in sodomy and assault the divine institution.

I'm going to talk about real marriage as defined by natural law and nature's God, the main pillars of which have been universally recognized in custom and law from time immemorial to now.

All law has it's roots in the institution of marriage. It is the basic doctrine that guides all human interaction.

Where does marriage come from? Nature (and nature's God), or the state?

The answer to that will determine the answers of the following.

Do parents have authority over a child? Where does that authority come from? When can the state (or king, even) justly intervene in a parent's will for his child?

Unless one is merely a statist drone, one can't help but answer that marriage comes from nature and nature's God, that, yes, parents have authority over their children, and that the state can intervene only for the true safety of that child.

So here you see that the concept of limited government is indeed something that can be discerned by an enlightened view of nature. Men have certain rights by nature, and that these rights are endowed by their Creator.

Who denies that? The whole subject is concerned with those who are living natural lives, and what is just in another's actions toward them.

LOL. Real Calvinism was the heart of the Protestant Reformation, and you said the Reformation doesn't cut it for you.

But I guess it does if you think it provides you a means of escape.

 

You prove my point that Jefferson was a Deist who was making the assertion through reason and rationalism, not through biblical claim.

 

The argument claim is that those inalienable rights are self-evident [apart from the holy scriptures].

 

nope you are talking past me because you do not understand the DOI or where the basis of its claims come from. Based on this post you you don’t really seem to care.

 

sigh so then the title of this thread did not come from the DOI?

 

just because I mentioned the thread title doesn’t mean that is all I read. Second, you mentioned the DOI in the op. Do you get that. You reference the DOI in the op. I’ll say it again, you reference the DOI in the op.

if you are going to critique the phrase you need to understand it’s origins. You seem to want to divorce it in order to make it mean whatever you want. Probably because you don’t understand the phrase “the laws of nature and natures God” or it’s origins. If you are going to criticize these rights you say are not in scripture then your criticism needs to be based on that and a clear understanding of the logic of John Lock must be part of the conversation. Without any of that your attempt is inept at best.