Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

[1689Dave]

He is sovereign. He can do anything He chooses. He won't choose to break His Word, but He would not be sovereign if He we're not capable to do so.

God cannot change to imperfection. Sovereignty is part of His perfection.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

When it comes to the Declaration of Independence and our "God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", are these actually positive rights or derived by the inverse?

What I mean is, do I have a God-given right to life?

Or

Is it that another person does not have the right to take my life?

As usual, context is of utmost importance here. The DOI is not a declaration aimed at God. The DOI is not demanding creation, life, liberty, or any right of God, but rather attributing them to God as their source.

The DOI clearly indicates that all of it is God-given, thus men do not have the right to deny these to other men arbitrarily.

Suggesting that the DOI is demanding rights from God or claiming to be above God is foreign to the document, a serious misrepresentation.

Perhaps the confusion is due to imagining the DOI is some sort of covenant between God and man rather than what it is, namely a political document among men insisting on recognizing God as supreme rather than man.

 

[JonC]

As usual, context is of utmost importance here. The DOI is not a declaration aimed at God. The DOI is not demanding creation, life, liberty, or any right of God, but rather attributing them to God as their source.

The DOI clearly indicates that all of it is God-given, thus men do not have the right to deny these to other men arbitrarily.

Suggesting that the DOI is demanding rights from God or claiming to be above God is foreign to the document, a serious misrepresentation.

Perhaps the confusion is due to imagining the DOI is some sort of covenant between God and man rather than what it is, namely a political document among men insisting on recognizing God as supreme rather than man.

You are right that context matters. It is, as you say, a political document (it was literally declaring our independence from England).

I believe this may also be evident as the chief author of the DOI was not Christian. Even so, Jefferson realized that men did not have the right to deprive others of life, liberty, and the pursuitof happiness. The worth of man in general is attributed Biblically to men being created in God's image.

 

[JonC]

God cannot change to imperfection. Sovereignty is part of His perfection.

Another way to look at it is God is known to us by His nature revealed to us.

 

[37818]

He is sovereign. He can do anything He chooses. He won't choose to break His Word, but He would not be sovereign if He we're not capable to do so.

He wouldn't be God if sovereignty meant He could lie and change his promises or His council.

 

[Reynolds]

He wouldn't be God if sovereignty meant He could lie and change his promises or His council.

Nothing can make Him not God.

 

[37818]

Nothing can make Him not God.

God is indeed Sovereign. But God is not capricious. God is infinitely good. False notions about God are not God. 1 John 5:10, ". . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar . . . ."

 

[Reynolds]

 

[Two Wings]

On another thread a member insisted that human beings have a God-given entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The context is not within a society or under a government, but an unequivocal and universal entitlement.

My view is these are rights within humanity. A man does not have the right to take these away. But these rights do not extend beyond how men treat one another (God is not obligated to provide us with life, with happiness, or with liberty....and when we die God has not violated a human right).

My premise is that God is not obligated to sustain man, and man is not entitled to God's gifts and blessings....even the gift of life.

sounds like you're either strawmanning ... or arguing both sides of the same coin.

If the member did say "God-given entitlement" ... God-given being operative part of that. Did God bestow upon His highest creation, the one to whom dominion of the planet was given (for a time), the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?"

I recognize this isn't a phrase directly from scripture but quoting (if right/entitlement aren't the same) the Declaration of Independence.

If God gave it ... then it's just and true. The Declaration also recognizes the rights "endowed by our Creator" .... so while that's not a canonical statement, we do hold it to be true from scripture. If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed. (John 8:36). Given He does not want any to perish but all to come into repentance (2 Pet 3:9) ... then I'd say it's God who has made the declaration ... and the Declaration for the Founding of this nation.

Because the other side you argue is God's obligation. Even if the member DID say "God-given Entitlement" rather than a right, it seems this is failure to read the statement even you copied. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if God instituted it ... then that's what it is. There's no haggling about it.

entitlement vice right ... well ... OK.

 

[JonC]

sounds like you're either strawmanning ... or arguing both sides of the same coin.

If the member did say "God-given entitlement" ... God-given being operative part of that. Did God bestow upon His highest creation, the one to whom dominion of the planet was given (for a time), the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?"

I recognize this isn't a phrase directly from scripture but quoting (if right/entitlement aren't the same) the Declaration of Independence.

If God gave it ... then it's just and true. The Declaration also recognizes the rights "endowed by our Creator" .... so while that's not a canonical statement, we do hold it to be true from scripture. If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed. (John 8:36). Given He does not want any to perish but all to come into repentance (2 Pet 3:9) ... then I'd say it's God who has made the declaration ... and the Declaration for the Founding of this nation.

Because the other side you argue is God's obligation. Even if the member DID say "God-given Entitlement" rather than a right, it seems this is failure to read the statement even you copied. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if God instituted it ... then that's what it is. There's no haggling about it.

entitlement vice right ... well ... OK.

And why is this member apparently unable to participate in this thread? @Aaron ?

Controlling the Microphone

No. I'm saying context matters.

Life is not an entitlement. We do not have the right to our life.

But at the sametime we do not have the right to take another person's life.

The reason given in Scripture is that we are made in God's image.

So under a government we do have the right to life insofar as another person does not have the right to take our life. This is God given as we are created in His image.


This is also a fairly basic concept. Theology and sociology are not the same thing. Context matters.

 

[Two Wings]

No. I'm saying context matters.

Life is not an entitlement. We do not have the right to our life.

But at the sametime we do not have the right to take another person's life.

The reason given in Scripture is that we are made in God's image.

So under a government we do have the right to life insofar as another person does not have the right to take our life. This is God given as we are created in His image.


This is also a fairly basic concept. Theology and sociology are not the same thing. Context matters.

the only contestable I see in the original statement from the thread you referenced but didn't link ... entitlement vs right.

words matter, too.

I think you've inferred God's obligation, but even still, as has been stated earlier. God's character doesn't change. He is faithful to keep His promises. If He promises, then He's obligated Himself. Who am I to say He's no longer obligated if He has already said so?

It's a basic concept. If God said it, that settles it.

God said it.

SMH.

 

[JonC]

the only contestable I see in the original statement from the thread you referenced but didn't link ... entitlement vs right.

words matter, too.

I think you've inferred God's obligation, but even still, as has been stated earlier. God's character doesn't change. He is faithful to keep His promises. If He promises, then He's obligated Himself. Who am I to say He's no longer obligated if He has already said so?

It's a basic concept. If God said it, that settles it.

God said it.

SMH.

Here is the link to the other thread (which has been closed).

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


I disagree about the word issue. A given right implies entitlement.

A right is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

The point is these rights have limits and they reside in a specific context.

 

[Two Wings]

I disagree about the word issue. A given right implies entitlement.

well, there's social security entitlement which DEFINES a very large scope of paid money. From those who had it confiscated for decades (legit claim) ... to those who didn't pay a dime but are receiving from it. Both are called entitlement benefits.

I think the proper context is in how it is explained in The Bible of what God has done and promised.

A righteous government (Constitutional Republic or Monarchy) will reflect those very precepts God created, instituted, and USES for His purpose.

 

[JonC]

well, there's social security entitlement which DEFINES a very large scope of paid money. From those who had it confiscated for decades (legit claim) ... to those who didn't pay a dime but are receiving from it. Both are called entitlement benefits.

I think the proper context is in how it is explained in The Bible of what God has done and promised.

A righteous government (Constitutional Republic or Monarchy) will reflect those very precepts God created, instituted, and USES for His purpose.

I agree, mostly. I do not believe there are any righteous secular governments. They should be godly, but they are not.

Our nation was founded on Christian values, but not necessarily as a Christian nation. The DOI reflects a religious character, even drawing on Christian values.

But at the same time it is a political document authored by a non-Christian.

I think this is important to remember (perhaps not relevant, but important).

 

[Two Wings]

But at the same time it is a political document authored by a non-Christian.

Cyrus was a non-Christian, but wrote a declaration which resulted in the Hebrews returning to their land ... I think that was a good thing ... God-Orchestrated.

before we go baggin on Jefferson for being less than a Baptist Preacher, we should remember he was an instrument of God in the Founding of the two eagles' wings off of the lion. (Daniel beasts)

 

[JonC]

Cyrus was a non-Christian, but wrote a declaration which resulted in the Hebrews returning to their land ... I think that was a good thing ... God-Orchestrated.

before we go baggin on Jefferson for being less than a Baptist Preacher, we should remember he was an instrument of God in the Founding of the two eagles' wings off of the lion. (Daniel beasts)

I agree. God is a God of means. I have argued the same regarding scientists and vaccines.

Not only that but God establishes and tears down governments. I am not saying God did not ordain the creation of the US.

That the revolt was biblical in terms of our American forefathers, though, is another story.

My issue with Jefferson is I do not believe anybody who rejects the divinity of Christ and the resurrection of Christ is a Christian. This does not mean God did not use him. (I have the same issue with MLK Jr. He defined the resurrection as Christ's ideas and movement not dying with Him).

I believe the creation of the US was a good thing. Not really because of men but because of God. The rights we have under our government has been used for God's glory.

 

[37818]

In the context of Scripture the prohibition is against taking life.

Why is being created in God's image dispite the fallen human nature mandate a proabition in killing a fellow human being as murder and one's life NOT being deemed a right?

 

[JonC]

Why is being created in God's image dispite the fallen human nature mandate a proabition in killing a fellow human being as murder. One's life NOT being deemed a right?

The reason man being created in God's image is the prohibition against murder is precisely because it is not a human right but is about God.

Ones life is a right, but it is a right belonging to God, not man.

 

[37818]

Life is not an entitlement.

But it is a command of God to man to do, ". . . Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, . . ." Silling reasoning that life is not a right.

 

[JonC]

But it is a command of God to man to do, ". . . Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, . . ." Silling reasoning that life is not a right.

Yes, it is a command given - not a right but a responsibility.