Conservative vs Liberal

[JonC]

??? indeed.

Who thinks humans created their existence, gave themselves life?

Certainly not those behind the DOI. The idea of inalienable rights affirms God as the source of it all. It would be unfair and unreasonable to interpret the DOI in any other way.

God’s bestowal of life establishes inalienable rights from the human perspective, not God’s. The DOI is addressing man’s position with and responsibilities to man, not God’s or God.

From God’s perspective, life is more a privilege or grace. How God deals with that is beyond man’s purview, including any human court, whether secular or sacred.

As far as I know nobody believes those things.

So why do you dedicate a post to argue against them??

I am saying that life is not an inalienable human right -per Scripture.

We exist by God's grace, not our right to exist.

Same with liberty. God did not command that a person caught by the IRS cheating on taxes lose his liberty. Man determined that. That man's liberty is taken. It is not inalienable.

 

[JonC]

Well, yes. Self evident truths. God Himself is the, not mentioned, self evident truth.

Ok.....let's walk through a senerio.

Jim gets caught with heroin. The judge sentences Jim to 2 years in prison. Jim explains that he has an inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The judge, of course, must let Jim go as he cannot alienate Jim from his rights if they are inalienable.

Matt runs into one of his enemies and kills him. It wasn't planned. He was just in the moment. Scripture says Matt cannot be killed for the murder but can take refuge in an appointed place. Yet that deprives Matt of liberty (he is essentially a prisioner), his pursuit of happiness, and if he does leave his life.

Ben is caught drinking and driving in SC. This was the 3rd time. He was not in an accident but was pulled over for swerving. The judge sentences him to 3 years.....but wait....that would alienate Ben of his right to liberty. Judge must let him go.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The right to something is not the same as that something nor the same as having that something. Conflating those will only lead to confusion.

Denying someone his rights, depriving him of exercising those rights, violating his rights, etc., is not at all the same as alienating him from those rights.


The inalienability of rights does not apply to God, and the DOI does not suggest otherwise.

When God finally judges, we will find out when or if someone’s rights were alienated from him. But only God can do any actual alienating of rights. Man has neither the authority nor the power.


But speaking of existing by virtue of the right to existence has the concept of inalienable rights exactly backward. The right to life is inalienable by virtue of God bestowing it.

 

[JonC]

The right to something is not the same as that something nor the same as having that something. Conflating those will only lead to confusion.

Denying someone his rights, depriving him of exercising those rights, violating his rights, etc., is not at all the same as alienating him from those rights.


The inalienability of rights does not apply to God, and the DOI does not suggest otherwise.

When God finally judges, we will find out when or if someone’s rights were alienated from him. But only God can do any actual alienating of rights. Man has neither the authority nor the power.


But speaking of existing by virtue of the right to existence has the concept of inalienable rights exactly backward. The right to life is inalienable by virtue of God bestowing it.

I agree the right to do something isn't the same as that something or having it.

That is kinda my point.

The DOI is in the context of "dissolving the political bands which have connected [one people] with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Governments are established to secure these unalienable rights.

The context is a people and government.

The DOI is a political declaration. It is not theological.

Living among men we have the right to exist without another taking our life.

But theologically we have life by God's grace, not human right.

He is the Potter, we are the clay.

 

[37818]

Jim gets caught with heroin. The judge sentences Jim to 2 years in prison. Jim explains that he has an inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The judge, of course, must let Jim go as he cannot alienate Jim from his rights if they are inalienable.

For starters you are term switching.

 

[JonC]

For starters you are term switching.

No, I am not. I am talking about the right to life and liberty as an inalienable right of a man.

If the right can be taken away it is not inalienable.

The main reason for my disagreement, however, is that the idea man has an inalienable right to life is unbiblical.

Scripture presents man as having life by God's grace rather than a human right.

 

[37818]

No, I am not. I am talking about the right to life and liberty as an inalienable right of a man.

inalienable at DuckDuckGo
Not transferable to another.

 

[JonC]

inalienable at DuckDuckGo
Not transferable to another.

I used the Websters dictionary.

Either way, your definition does not work.

Saying the Founding Fathers wanted to communicate that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain "NON-TRANSFERABLE" rights simply does not make sense.

How would you transfer the right to life? To whom was this right to life being transferred.

If all men have it, for what purpose is a man's right to life transferred.

I encourage you to read the DOI Substituting your definition. It makes the DOI meaningless.

It means that those rights cannot be taken away, BTW. I'm actually not sure why it is even a point of discussion as it has never been a debatable issue.

 

[37818]

I used the Websters dictionary.

Either way, your definition does not work.

Saying the Founding Fathers wanted to communicate that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain "NON-TRANSFERABLE" rights simply does not make sense.

How would you transfer the right to life? To whom was this right to life being transferred.

If all men have it, for what purpose is a man's right to life transferred.

I encourage you to read the DOI Substituting your definition. It makes the DOI meaningless.

It means that those rights cannot be taken away, BTW. I'm actually not sure why it is even a point of discussion as it has never been a debatable issue.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English

UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

Inalienable
INA'LIENABLE, a. [L. alieno, alienus.]

Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

 

[JonC]

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English

UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

Inalienable
INA'LIENABLE, a. [L. alieno, alienus.]

Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

Exactly!!!!!

Why do you focus on non-transferable when nobody (except you) believe that the meaning of unalienable in the DOI?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree the right to do something isn't the same as that something or having it.

That is kinda my point.

The DOI is in the context of "dissolving the political bands which have connected [one people] with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

Governments are established to secure these unalienable rights.

The context is a people and government.

The DOI is a political declaration. It is not theological.

Living among men we have the right to exist without another taking our life.

But theologically we have life by God's grace, not human right.

He is the Potter, we are the clay.

Good. That doesn’t say anything contrary to the DOI, nor the DOI to scripture.

The DOI is a political document, but does contain theological references, which it employs correctly.

Unalienable refers to man having no authority to claim what God has graciously endowed another with.

Per the DOI, the origin of our unalienable rights is divine, not human. It does not say we have these by human right.

The context of the DOI includes God as supreme. It does not deny God’s sovereignty over man or his government.

 

[37818]

Exactly!!!!!

Why do you focus on non-transferable when nobody (except you) believe that the meaning of unalienable in the DOI?

Evidently we are understanding the same written definition differently. The Latin from which the "alien" comes means "other."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Exactly!!!!!

Why do you focus on non-transferable when nobody (except you) believe that the meaning of unalienable in the DOI?

I’m not so sure that’s true. (Or I may be that nobody. )

The concept of alienable in the case of rights can include the idea that someone other than the person has the right to his life, his liberty, etc.

In other words, they are in essence attempting to transfer to themselves what actually belongs to that person.

Only God would have such an authority or power. But there are those who would play God.

 

[JonC]

Good. That doesn’t say anything contrary to the DOI, nor the DOI to scripture.

The DOI is a political document, but does contain theological references, which it employs correctly.

Unalienable refers to man having no authority to claim what God has graciously endowed another with.

Per the DOI, the origin of our unalienable rights is divine, not human. It does not say we have these by human right.

The context of the DOI includes God as supreme. It does not deny God’s sovereignty over man or his government.

It doesn't employ theological references at all.

The DOI is a declaration of why one people would separate from another. Theology deals with man and God.

In a government people do not have the right to take away human rights. BUT human rights are within the context of governed people.

The theological point is that murder is a sin against God because man is created in God's image.

Man does not have a right to life. Man lives by God's grace. God, not man, is sovereing here. Man has no right to murder because this is a sin against God.

 

[JonC]

Evidently we are understanding the same written definition differently. The Latin from which the "alien" comes means "other."

We may be.

But in the DOI saying men have the "non-transferable" right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among other "non-transferable" rights just does not make sence.

That is why nobody has ever read the DOI or the Constitution as you ate suggesting.

The point is these are to be unalienable rights (rights that cannot be alienated from the person).

 

[JonC]

I’m not so sure that’s true. (Or I may be that nobody. )

The concept of alienable in the case of rights can include the idea that someone other than the person has the right to his life, his liberty, etc.

In other words, they are in essence attempting to transfer to themselves what actually belongs to that person.

Only God would have such an authority or power. But there are those who would play God.

I am arguing that unalienable rights means rights that cannot be alienated from the person.

It does not mean one person's rights transferred to another person as the DOI declares that ALL men already have these rights.

It means the government cannot (or should not, as the argument is England did) take away human rights. The government exists to protect and defend the rights of its citizens.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It doesn't employ theological references at all. …

That seems to be the rub. According to the DOI (see excerpt below), “all men…are endowed by their Creator.” If “Creator” is not a reference to God, then who is it a reference to?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I am arguing that unalienable rights means rights that cannot be alienated from the person.

It does not mean one person's rights transferred to another person as the DOI declares that ALL men already have these rights.

It means the government cannot (or should not, as the argument is England did) take away human rights. The government exists to protect and defend the rights of its citizens.

I’m not sure how much the idea of transference really matters here. But if the right to something is taken away, alienated from a person, then the question might arise where did that right go?

Is it in limbo, or does someone else claim it? The latter alienation would be a transference.

Either way, the DOI argues against it. But it does seem that the other side is essentially arguing that such transference is both possible and right, though perhaps not in those terms.

 

[JonC]

That seems to be the rub. According to the DOI (see excerpt below), “all men…are endowed by their Creator.” If “Creator” is not a reference to God, then who is it a reference to?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is a reference to God. But all men being endowed by God with unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a political statement (NOT a theological one).

That statement is not only not in Scripture, but it actually runs contrary to what Scripture teaches (slaves being content in their situation, the life of murderers bring the penalty of murder, not pursuing our own desires, etc.).

If it is a theological statement then it is incorrect.

But it isn't. The DOI itself claims to be a political declaration, explaining why a people will dissolve political bonds with another people.

 

[JonC]

I’m not sure how much the idea of transference really matters here. But if the right to something is taken away, alienated from a person, then the question might arise where did that right go?

Is it in limbo, or does someone else claim it? The latter alienation would be a transference.

Either way, the DOI argues against it. But it does seem that the other side is essentially arguing that such transference is both possible and right, though perhaps not in those terms.

I don't think transference has anything to do with the topic. That is simply not what unalienable means in the DOI.

The DOI was a declaration of our nation's independence- dissolving the political bonds between our nation and England. The explanation that governments are instituted among man, deriving their power from the men governed. In this context men have those rights (the government does not have the authority to take them away except in extreme circumstances because it is from the governed, and for the governed, that the government has power.