No he's not, not if fraud propelled the votes for him.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Conservative vs Liberal
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
This is a false statement.
Where you uplift man above God I am saying man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the context of secular government. We disagree only in the origin of those rights.
I agree those rights are ontogical, but I disagree in that I believe they are strictly in the context of human interaction.
A lion who kills a man has not violated man's rights. When God causes one's death He does not violate his rights. It is when man takes a life that a man's right to life is violated.
No, you are incorrect.
I am not saying those who believe there was fraud, or illegitimate election practices are anti-American.
I am saying those idiots who couldn't face the fact that Biden was constitutionally (per the US Constitution) installed as POTUS are anti-American.
They are either idiots or illiterates who never took the time to read the US Constitution.
It's a very true statement. You painted the idea of individual rights as merely a sense of entitlement all over this thread.
God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Entitlement is the idea of being worthy or deserving of something. And that is the definition you employed early in the thread, equating entitlement with merit.
But later in the thread, to wiggle out of a corner, you tried to say you weren't using "entitled" in that sense, but only in the sense of being given something, thereby contradicting your assertion that men are given life, but aren't entitled to it.
But the founding fathers didn't say we were entitled to individual rights. They said we were endowed with individual rights. God, by His grace, has given us possession of them.
And if one of our possessions is taken away unjustly, then we are owed justice. If we possess no dignity by nature, it would be impossible for any of us to have a debtor. It would be impossible for us to practice the two main acts of our faith, love and forgiveness.
And this is just the desperate cavil of someone trying to look spiritual.
I want the reader to parse the above sentences very carefully. What he's really saying is that men do not possess any right at all by nature, and that any right we have is granted by the state.
And in the aforementioned thread he argues that the idea of individual rights is actually harmful to the state.
Marx asserted these very things.
Jon is arguing Marxism.
It's a very true statement. You painted the idea of individual rights as merely a sense of entitlement all over this thread.
God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Entitlement is the idea of being worthy or deserving of something. And that is the definition you employed early in the thread, equating entitlement with merit.
But later in the thread, to wiggle out of a corner, you tried to say you weren't using "entitled" in that sense, but only in the sense of being given something, thereby contradicting your assertion that men are given life, but aren't entitled to it.
But the founding fathers didn't say we were entitled to individual rights. They said we were endowed with individual rights. God, by His grace, has given us possession of them.
And if one of our possessions is taken away unjustly, then we are owed justice. If we possess no dignity by nature, it would be impossible for any of us to have a debtor. It would be impossible for us to practice the two main acts of our faith, love and forgiveness.
And this is just the desperate cavil of someone trying to look spiritual.
I want the reader to parse the above sentences very carefully. What he's really saying is that men do not possess any right at all by nature, and that any right we have is granted by the state.
And in the aforementioned thread he argues that the idea of individual rights is actually harmful to the state.
Marx asserted these very things.
Jon is arguing Marxism.
Reading includes comprehension, but it also includes a basic familiarity with historical concepts introduced.
You fail on both accounts. My belief in the sovereignty of God is not Marxism. Your claim to the contrary, that we have a right to live as opposed to living by God's grace, is wrong.
Saying that human rights are in the context of human interaction is not Marxism.
But your insistence that men live by their own rights rather than God's grace is telling.
Where you are wrong is in your rejection of the sovereignty of God.
You make man a god and diminish God to a little lower than man.
You are a Secular Humanist. And, to be fair, your beliefs are much closer to Marxism than mine. Marx was also a Secular Humanist.
Educate yourself next time and you may avoid embarrassment.
Yes, God allows man to live as long as God so pleases.
Life is not a right that we possess. Life belongs to God so it is also not something we have a right to take.
The right to be called a child of God is a God given right. It is so because it is descriptive of a new birth.
37818
Well-Known Member
How does God grant or never grant any kind of right?
God gives us the right to be called a child of God by recreating us into a child of God.
The reason we do not have a right to life should be self-evident to Christians. Scrioture teaches that we do not have the right to TAKE a man's life. The reason is we are created in God's image. But we are not God. Our life is His to do with as He pleases.
He is the Potter. We are the clay. The rights belong to the Potter, not the clay. The clay only has a right to be whatever the Potter makes of it.
37818
Well-Known Member
That is how you understand John 1:12-13.
God made man in His image. As evidence in Genesis 9:6 God did not take this away. So arguably being in God's image is in fact an inalienable.
Yes to the first part.
The second part, not so much. Scripture does not present being created in the image of God as the reason we have a right to life but the reason we are not to kill.
I oppose suicide for the same reason. We do not have a right to our lives. We are the clay, not the Potter.
The interesting part comes in when people insist man has an inalienable right to life yet support the death penalty. Surely they see the hypocrisy.
This is your rebuttal?
Reading includes comprehension, but it also includes a basic familiarity with historical concepts introduced.
You fail on both accounts. My belief in the sovereignty of God is not Marxism. Your claim to the contrary, that we have a right to live as opposed to living by God's grace, is wrong.
Saying that human rights are in the context of human interaction is not Marxism.
But your insistence that men live by their own rights rather than God's grace is telling.
Where you are wrong is in your rejection of the sovereignty of God.
You make man a god and diminish God to a little lower than man.
You are a Secular Humanist. And, to be fair, your beliefs are much closer to Marxism than mine. Marx was also a Secular Humanist.
Educate yourself next time and you may avoid embarrassment.
I don't think I'm the one being embarrassed.
Moving on with your own 'reasoning': God does not give rights, the state does--an undeniably Marxist assertion despite your sanctimonious bluster to the contrary.
Oft-cited thread where you undeniably (thought not for a lack of trying to deny it on your part) asserted that the idea of individual rights stems from a sense of entitlement (another undeniably Marxist assertion), you also assert that "Our nation gives men the right to marry men." Do you believe that to be a legitimate right?
37818
Well-Known Member
God made man in His image. And man being made in His image is effectively inalienable.
On what bases would you identify what would be inalienable?
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
No, not hypocritical, but biblical.
This inalienable or God-given right to life (an endowment that includes being made in God’s image) is the reason for capital punishment. Soon after the Flood, God instituted the death penalty for man to carry out for the sin of homicide. This was given to Noah, from whom all descend. See Genesis 9:5c-6.
“And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
I agree that man being made in God's image is inalienable.
I would define something that is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred", that is a thing "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor" as being inalienable.
Our government does not treat life or liberty as an inalienable right. Neither did our forefathers. They believed the right to liberty could be taken away upon committing a crime. They believed the right to life could be taken away as well. They did not believe those rights were inalienable.
Same with Scripture. God demanded the life of one who committed murder. That man's right to live was taken away.
The context of the DOI is interaction within a governed people and among one another.
Man has no right to take another man's life because man is created in God's image. NOTE that the reason is God, not man's right.
If you are killed by a shark your rights have not been violated. If you die of a heart attack your rights have not been violated. God is not violating your rights when He demands your life.
That verse proves the opposite.
Man does not have the right to live, much less have that as an inalienable right.
The reason for the prohibition against murder is God - NOT man. And the man who murders is alienated from his own life.
The DOI provides a specific context - man's rights under government.
Man and government does not have the right to take another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
The main point regarded the unbiblical notion that capital punishment for murder is hypocrisy. Scripture is clear on this.
God holds man responsible to carry out capital punishment for murder. No "mark of Cain." Capital punishment. God made it clear all the way back to our common ancestor Noah.
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, one cannot give one's life to anything or anyone. One's life is never transferable. It can be lost or taken, but never transfered.
I am not saying capitol punishment is murder.
I am saying that capital punishment takes away what you refer to as an inalienable right given by God.
If you are correct that man has an inalienable right to life then capital punishment has to be wrong as it alienates man from that right.
My observation is that Scripture stands against the idea. Man shall not murder based on God - not inalienable human rights.
Exactly. It is not inalienable.
It can be surrendered. It can be taken.
We live by the grace of God, not by human right.
- Status