Conservative vs Liberal

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 2 pm EST / 11 am PST

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

Correct, the reference is to God. A reference to God is a theological reference.

But we agree that this does not make the DOI a theological treatise.

However, as far as it goes, it is correct in its theological references.

God is creator of man. What man has comes from God. What God has given man is not for other men to presume to separate from him.

This results in certain rights being recognized among men as emanating from God.

Only God has the authority or the power to separate him from them.

God is supreme over men, even over their governments.

There is nothing unbiblical about any of that.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

I’ll just close by posting a reference for anyone interested in seeing an earlier document that more fully represents the ideas the DOI incorporates.

The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams
The Rights of the Colonists

 

[Aaron]

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

You're arguing that they were saying justice cannot be done, which is false.

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

Reading further into the list of abuses enumerated in the DOI tells us exactly what they meant.

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.

But you don't believe anyone has any rights by nature. What can a government or corporation take, violate, or otherwise infringe upon that is not possessed by another?

Are you now arguing that men are endowed with certain rights?

 

[Aaron]

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.”

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

...


It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."​

 

[37818]

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).

As you correctly pointed out self evident.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I’ll just close by posting a reference for anyone interested in seeing an earlier document that more fully represents the ideas the DOI incorporates.

The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams
The Rights of the Colonists

Here are a couple of excerpts from the article:

“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations, and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.


…In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights: the principal of which… are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.​

 

[JonC]

You're arguing that they were saying justice cannot be done, which is false.

Reading further into the list of abuses enumerated in the DOI tells us exactly what they meant.

But you don't believe anyone has any rights by nature. What can a government or corporation take, violate, or otherwise infringe upon that is not possessed by another?

Are you now arguing that men are endowed with certain rights?

Where do you get your ideas?

I'm not arguing that justice cannot be done. I'm arguing that you are not seeking justice.

Men are endowed with rights in the context of "a people" in that they are benefactors if what man is prohibited to do.

But I still insist on the Sovereignty of God over creation (even man).

 

[JonC]

As you correctly pointed out self evident.

Yes. It is self evident that murder is wrong.

 

[JonC]

I'll conclude by restating my position.

Man lives not by his own right but by the grace of God. He is the Potter, we are the clay.

The rights in the DOI ate in a specific political context doing with human rights within "a people".

God is Sovereign.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 2 pm EST / 11 am PST

This thread is closed