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

[JonC]

Interestingly, John Adam’s wife was pushing her husband to allow women the right to vote.

And that started our downfall!!!!

(Kidding....just kidding... )

 

[canadyjd]

I was specifically responding to Jon's statement:

Thus, I brought up citizens who are under the age of 18.

Ok, I stand corrected. You are correct, there are some “rights” that do not apply to all citizens.

peace to you

 

[1689Dave]

As a Christian, I assumed I gave up all rights just as Jesus did. And am willing to suffer because of it.

 

[George Antonios]

As I understand what followed, those rights were not available to Native Americans nor Blacks, nor non-European Immigrants and still aren't.

"still aren't"? Imagine how deep the desire to virtue-signal must be in order to make a statement so divorced from reality.
And I say that as an Arab immigrant to Canada with plenty of immediate family in the US.
Man, how I wish I could get your kind to come live with me in the Middle East for a few years to see how minorities are treated.

 

[George Antonios]

And that started our downfall!!!!

(Kidding....just kidding... )

It did, not kidding: Isa_3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Under the law, only the men took decisions that impacted national life. In the church women aren't allowed to speak. But how many deacons would dare tell their wives that?

 

[Aaron]

Inalienable (or “unalienable”) means “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” (Merriam-Webster) and “incapable of being removed” (Cambridge Dictionary).

An “unalienable right” is a right that “can’t be transferred to someone else, taken away, or denied”.

Unalienable and inalienable are synonyms, although some have argued that “unalienable” is something which is inalienable from birth (as opposed to something granted, that is, something ontological to the personhood of man). But the difference here does not matter as the Declaration of Independence describes these unalienable rights as being endowed by God and applicable to all man.


So let’s look at these “unalienable rights” that we are supposedly given by God.


The right to life:

The Declaration of Independence claims that God has endowed man with the unalienable right to life (that man has a right to his life and that this life cannot be removed or surrendered).

Is this true? Is the execution of a murderer a violation of the criminal’s right to life – a right that cannot be removed, alienated, or surrendered?

Why does man have a intrinsic right to life? Why do we think that God has given man this right? Why does Scripture tend to shy away from this idea, favoring instead that God created man not for man’s own purposes but for His glory – existing on this earth at the will of God rather than an unalienable right?

The right to liberty:

We are told that men have a right to liberty that is both unalienable and God given.

Liberty means “the power to do as one pleases; freedom from physical restraint, freedom from arbitrary or despotic control, a positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges; the power to choose” (Merriam-Webster).

Yet Scripture does not afford man this type of liberty, so is this really “endowed by our Creator”?


The right to the pursuit of happiness:

The Declaration of Independence declares that God has endowed men with the right to pursue happiness. This is perhaps the most obviously inconsistent “right” when we examine the list against Scripture. The reason is the context of the Declaration of Independence. The document is not a theological dissertation dealing with the Christian’s joy in Christ, but rather a document describing why a country is proclaiming its independence. It is a secular document. Do men have an unalienable right given by God since their birth to seek after their own happiness? No, of course not.


The irony is that the U.S. Constitution violates these rights. Where the Declaration of Independence proclaims the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be God given and unalienable rights the U.S. Constitution allows for secular governmental laws to remove from its citizens these rights endowed by God which cannot be removed.

I am grateful the government seeks to give us these rights. But these are not God given, unalienable rights.

The author of the liberty is the one who can take it away. If God is not the author of human rights, then there is no such thing as an oppressive government. There is no such thing as persecution. The strong live free by the oppression of the weak and the poor.

It's quite the wresting to insinuate that the authors of the DOI were meaning, or even intended to imply in the wording, that evil doers could not be deprived of life, liberty or property. Government exists to execute the wrath of God on the evildoer, and to praise those who do well. If due process, and the law, God's law, is truly observed, then God is the one who has dealt the death, not man--just as God is the one who joins in marriage, and not the minister, nor the civil servant.

What they mean by inalienable, is that innocent men cannot be deprived of these things justly, not even by kings. And to be created equal means there is no such thing as royalty. A royal is one who is presupposed to be above and superior to the commoner by nature, and is therefore by virtue of that nature a ruler of lower men.

It doesn't matter how you slice it. The rights are God-given. Not government given, as Leftists are wont to assert.

 

[AustinC]

It did, not kidding: Isa_3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Under the law, only the men took decisions that impacted national life. In the church women aren't allowed to speak. But how many deacons would dare tell their wives that?

The early church had female deacons...

 

[George Antonios]

The early church had female deacons...

And pink unicorns too. It's right there in 2Philippians.

 

[JonC]

The author of the liberty is the one who can take it away. If God is not the author of human rights, then there is no such thing as an oppressive government. There is no such thing as persecution. The strong live free by the oppression of the weak and the poor.

It's quite the wresting to insinuate that the authors of the DOI were meaning, or even intended to imply in the wording, that evil doers could not be deprived of life, liberty or property. Government exists to execute the wrath of God on the evildoer, and to praise those who do well. If due process, and the law, God's law, is truly observed, then God is the one who has dealt the death, not man--just as God is the one who joins in marriage, and not the minister, nor the civil servant.

What they mean by inalienable, is that innocent men cannot be deprived of these things justly, not even by kings. And to be created equal means there is no such thing as royalty. A royal is one who is presupposed to be above and superior to the commoner by nature, and is therefore by virtue of that nature a ruler of lower men.

It doesn't matter how you slice it. The rights are God-given. Not government given, as Leftists are wont to assert.

The US Constitution says the government can take away these supposedly God given unalienable rights.

The issue, however, is that Scripture does not have Hod giving men the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other rights).

Instead Scripture presents our very existence on the grace and will of God. It is not by our right we live but by God's grace.

Men are not entitled to these things. Your position here is the leftist position. It elevates men to the point they entitled o pursuing their happiness as a right, entitled to life as a right, entitled even to liberty as an ontological right.

This entitlement is the basis for the Democrat agenda. Christians should realize that men ate not entitled to these things.

We merit only condemnation. But the leftist position always looks to entitlement and personal rights.

 

[37818]

They are, per the Declaration of Independence, divinely bestowed on all men as unalienable rights.

Based on what? Wishful thinking? Or are the inalienable rights logically derived? If derived by what reasons are any such rights inalienable? Or is our declaration of indepenance openning argument based of falsehood? From an atheistic perspective it is.

 

[AustinC]

And pink unicorns too. It's right there in 2Philippians.

Read Romans 16 where Paul addresses women who were deacons in Rome. The early church also reveals women as deacons.

Romans 16:1-16
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

 

[Van]

The whole idea of inalienable rights from God is they cannot or should not be taken away by government. Thus conscription by coercion, is based on the corruption of the constitution. More than half of the deaths of Army solders (listed on the Viet Nam Wall) were drafted, disproportionately from the South, from Blacks, from Hispanics, and those who did not obtain "deferments" due to marriage, or college. And the actual number would be even higher because some of the volunteers in the other services did so to get non-combat assignments.

We only have the rights we are able to defend, because there are plenty of folks willing to deny rights of others for their own benefit.

The bible teaches it is better to be free than slave, and therefore those who seek to take way our "inalienable" rights are not of God.

 

[JonC]

Based on what? Wishful thinking? Or are the inalienable rights logically derived? If derived by what reasons are any such rights inalienable? Or is our declaration of indepenance openning argument based of falsehood? From an atheistic perspective it is.

Per the Declaration of Indeoendance, denied by Scripture.

We are NOT entitled to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Those are blessings, not rights.

The only entitlement natural to man is condemnation.

 

[Aaron]

The US Constitution says the government can take away these supposedly God given unalienable rights.

The issue, however, is that Scripture does not have Hod giving men the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other rights).

Instead Scripture presents our very existence on the grace and will of God. It is not by our right we live but by God's grace.

Men are not entitled to these things. Your position here is the leftist position. It elevates men to the point they entitled o pursuing their happiness as a right, entitled to life as a right, entitled even to liberty as an ontological right.

This entitlement is the basis for the Democrat agenda. Christians should realize that men ate not entitled to these things.

We merit only condemnation. But the leftist position always looks to entitlement and personal rights.

You're confusing heaven and earth again. You don't get to do that.

What Christians realize is that governments are not God, they are His servants, and are therefore accountable to His commandments. The secular and leftist position is the antithesis of that. You don't get to revise history either.

 

[Aaron]

Per the Declaration of Indeoendance, denied by Scripture.

Actually, per Scripture, and the law of God as discerned by nature.

We are NOT entitled to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Those are blessings, not rights.

Semantics. And who on earth is right to deny anyone these?

The only entitlement natural to man is condemnation.

Not on earth, as already shown.

 

[JonC]

Actually, per Scripture, and the law of God as discerned by nature.

Semantics. And who on earth is right to deny anyone these?

Not on earth, as already shown.

Our nation gives men the right to marry men. I know, "that's a God given unalienable right as we are not in the kingdom yet".

You are wrong. It is by God's grace, not our right, that we have life.

Get with a Calvinist (a real one). At least they get this part. We are only entitled to condemnation.

 

[George Antonios]

Read Romans 16 where Paul addresses women who were deacons in Rome. The early church also reveals women as deacons.

Romans 16:1-16
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

You need more filler to distract from the fact that Phoebe wasn't a deacon. I suggest you quote the entire book of Romans next time.

 

[AustinC]

You need more filler to distract from the fact that Phoebe wasn't a deacon. I suggest you quote the entire book of Romans next time.

You are free to deny the fact that the early church had female deacons. You do so, ignoring what we see in Romans 16. You can ignore early church records of women deacons.

Dr Thomas Schreiner - Southern Theological Seminary - says:

"We see an early example of women serving as deacons in the correspondence between Pliny the younger and the emperor Trajan (AD 98–117). In a fascinating conversation, Pliny asks Trajan for advice about what he should do as the legate to the province in Bithynia with Christians.

We want to think about one small piece of the conversation. Pliny refers to two Christian women, who were called ministrae in Latin. In English we can translate this word as “ministers,” and that is a good translation into Latin of the Greek word diakonos, which means “servant” or “minister.” We thus have an early example—in the second decade of the second century—of women serving as deacons. Obviously, such an example doesn’t prove women should serve as deacons, but it suggests women functioned as deacons in the early church."

Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes.

 

[George Antonios]

You are free to deny the fact that the early church had female deacons. You do so, ignoring what we see in Romans 16. You can ignore early church records of women deacons.

Dr Thomas Schreiner - Southern Theological Seminary - says:

"We see an early example of women serving as deacons in the correspondence between Pliny the younger and the emperor Trajan (AD 98–117). In a fascinating conversation, Pliny asks Trajan for advice about what he should do as the legate to the province in Bithynia with Christians.

We want to think about one small piece of the conversation. Pliny refers to two Christian women, who were called ministrae in Latin. In English we can translate this word as “ministers,” and that is a good translation into Latin of the Greek word diakonos, which means “servant” or “minister.” We thus have an early example—in the second decade of the second century—of women serving as deacons. Obviously, such an example doesn’t prove women should serve as deacons, but it suggests women functioned as deacons in the early church."

Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes.

Extra-Biblical source. Case closed.

 

[AustinC]

Extra-Biblical source. Case closed.

George, we have intra-biblical evidence and evidence in the early church. It's not "case closed", it's "your mind is closed."
In any case, we will find out soon enough when we meet Jesus. However, since the Bible tells us there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female, we know that Jesus views the roles of the church different than you or I do.