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

[37818]

". . . truths to be self-evident, . . .
Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."
That God Himself happens to be the fundamental self-evident truth of all other self-evident truths by which all other self-evident truths are even evident. The self-evident reality by which we ". . . live and move and have our being . . ." Is identified as God, Acts of the Apostles 17:28.

 

[37818]

Case closed.

It is a Biblical fact that Phebe was a deaconess in the church of Cenchrea per the Apostle Paul in Romans 16:1. ". . . ουσαν διακονον . . . ."

 

[AustinC]

". . . truths to be self-evident, . . .
Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."
That God Himself happens to be the fundamental self-evident truth of all other self-evident truths by which all other self-evident truths are even evident. The self-evident reality by which we ". . . live and move and have our being . . ." Is identified as God, Acts of the Apostles 17:28.

Acts 17:28 ...for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Explain the connection.

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

I am completely puzzled by this ridiculous pitting of a right to life against Gods glory. Apples and refrigerators

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”?

your definition lacks context specifically with regards to the constitution.

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.

more dopa boxing lacking context. All of your tirade shows you have a lack of understanding of the history of the language used in the DOI. I suggest you do some homework before jumping up on that box.

 

[37818]

Acts 17:28 ...for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Explain the connection.

The Apostle Paul credits God to be, "
". . . in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." The fact is we live and move and have our being in our reality. So unless God Himself is understood to be all of reality, in which tings exist, the statement Paul made would not be true about our omnipresent God. Otherwise I do not understand your question. Reality is a self-evident truth.

 

[JonC]

I am completely puzzled by this ridiculous pitting of a right to life against Gods glory. Apples and refrigerators



your definition lacks context specifically with regards to the constitution.




more dopa boxing lacking context. All of your tirade shows you have a lack of understanding of the history of the language used in the DOI. I suggest you do some homework before jumping up on that box.

I am not pitting the idea men have a God given and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other unlisted God given unalienable rights men are supposedly entitled) against God's glory. I am saying it is foreign to and incompatible with Scripture.

These entitlements you prize are not given to all men by God as unalienable rights.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am not pitting the idea men have a God given and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other unlisted God given unalienable rights men are supposedly entitled) against God's glory. I am saying it is foreign to and incompatible with Scripture.

These entitlements you prize are not given to all men by God as unalienable rights.

yes you are and no it’s not. You make the claim but do not show you have a working knowledge of the wording of the DOI, it’s wording, or the basis for the wording. By the way posting dictionary definitions of those words does not make your case. I suggest you study the men who wrote and influenced it before going here. This thread is foolish.

 

[AustinC]

The Apostle Paul credits God to be, "
". . . in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." The fact is we live and move and have our being in our reality. So unless God Himself is understood to be all of reality, in which tings exist, the statement Paul made would not be true about our omnipresent God. Otherwise I do not understand your question. Reality is a self-evident truth.

I don't see the connection to humans having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that verse. Is there a connection?

 

[37818]

I don't see the connection to humans having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that verse. Is there a connection?

My argument was simply that God Himself is self-evident. The document claim is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident truths. Now the question then is how are they self-evident? We are born with life. The importance of liberty is to be free to know what is really true. Is there truth? The fact of truth makes liberty a necessity, hence it's necessary makes it a self-evident truth. Happiness it's persuit, why would it not be a self-evident truth? There is such thing as happiness? Right? Refute these arguments.

 

[Aaron]

Our nation gives men the right to marry men.

I'm glad you brought up the subject of marriage, because this seals the deal.

But I'm going to rescue marriage from your assault. Men can't marry. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. What you should say is, the nation gives men the right to engage in sodomy and assault the divine institution.

I'm going to talk about real marriage as defined by natural law and nature's God, the main pillars of which have been universally recognized in custom and law from time immemorial to now.

All law has it's roots in the institution of marriage. It is the basic doctrine that guides all human interaction.

Where does marriage come from? Nature (and nature's God), or the state?

The answer to that will determine the answers of the following.

Do parents have authority over a child? Where does that authority come from? When can the state (or king, even) justly intervene in a parent's will for his child?

Unless one is merely a statist drone, one can't help but answer that marriage comes from nature and nature's God, that, yes, parents have authority over their children, and that the state can intervene only for the true safety of that child.

So here you see that the concept of limited government is indeed something that can be discerned by an enlightened view of nature. Men have certain rights by nature, and that these rights are endowed by their Creator.

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

Who denies that? The whole subject is concerned with those who are living natural lives, and what is just in another's actions toward them.

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

LOL. Real Calvinism was the heart of the Protestant Reformation, and you said the Reformation doesn't cut it for you.

But I guess it does if you think it provides you a means of escape.

 

[AustinC]

My argument was simply that God Himself is self-evident. The document claim is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident truths. Now the question then is how are they self-evident? We are born with life. The importance of liberty is to be free to know what is really true. Is there truth? The fact of truth makes liberty a necessity, hence it's necessary makes it a self-evident truth. Happiness it's persuit, why would it not be a self-evident truth? There is such thing as happiness? Right? Refute these arguments.

You prove my point that Jefferson was a Deist who was making the assertion through reason and rationalism, not through biblical claim.

 

[JonC]

yes you are and no it’s not. You make the claim but do not show you have a working knowledge of the wording of the DOI, it’s wording, or the basis for the wording. By the way posting dictionary definitions of those words does not make your case. I suggest you study the men who wrote and influenced it I understand the DOI.

I am saying that per Scripture men do not have a God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other unlisted God given unalienable rights.

I see your mistake. If I do not understand the DOI then you do not understand the Bible. I doubt either the case.

I understand the DOI. I am not arguing against the DOI (if anything, the Constitution amply clarifies these "rights").

That is where your argument lost ground. I am arguing against the idea that men have been endowed by God with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other supposedly God given unalienable rights.

Nothing to do with the DOI.

I am saying the idea that we have thise rights are unbiblical.

I am saying that per Scripture men do not have a God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other unlisted God given unalienable rights.

You are arguing the DOI. I am arguing the Bible. We are talking past one another.

 

[37818]

You prove my point that Jefferson was a Deist who was making the assertion through reason and rationalism, not through biblical claim.

The argument claim is that those inalienable rights are self-evident [apart from the holy scriptures].

 

[JonC]

The argument claim is that those inalienable rights are self-evident [apart from the holy scriptures].

You mean despite the Holy Scriotures. It is humanism.

 

[JonC]

". . . truths to be self-evident, . . .
Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."
That God Himself happens to be the fundamental self-evident truth of all other self-evident truths by which all other self-evident truths are even evident. The self-evident reality by which we ". . . live and move and have our being . . ." Is identified as God, Acts of the Apostles 17:28.

How on earth do you get from God being the Sourse of life (indeed our very existence) to men having the God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?????

Please consider the passage, brother, and think whether you may have stretched its context and meaning beyond all reasonable merit:


Acts 17:25–29 25 Neither is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. 26 From one man he has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. 27 He did this so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 29 Since, then, we are God’s offspring, we shouldn’t think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination.

 

[Revmitchell]

I see your mistake. If I do not understand the DOI then you do not understand the Bible. I doubt either the case.

I understand the DOI. I am not arguing against the DOI (if anything, the Constitution amply clarifies these "rights").

That is where your argument lost ground. I am arguing against the idea that men have been endowed by God with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other supposedly God given unalienable rights.

Nothing to do with the DOI.

I am saying the idea that we have thise rights are unbiblical.

I am saying that per Scripture men do not have a God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other unlisted God given unalienable rights.

You are arguing the DOI. I am arguing the Bible. We are talking past one another.

nope you are talking past me because you do not understand the DOI or where the basis of its claims come from. Based on this post you you don’t really seem to care.

 

[JonC]

nope you are talking past me because you do not understand the DOI or where the basis of its claims come from. Based on this post you you don’t really seem to care.

You have overstepped your knowledge (yours was an extraordinary foolish post, Mitch).

You do not know what I understand about the basis of the Declaration of Independence because I have not commented on the Declaration of Independence except to acknowledge wording that Americans often take for granted (apart from the DOI).

You would do better to speak of what you do know, defend your views, and perhaps realize your "omniscience" is misplaced.

I am talking about the idea (expressed in but divorced from the DOI) that God has given all men unalienable rights among which is the God given unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, you could play the fool and go to the Declaration of Independence, but I am - have been - am now - and have clarified for your benefit that I am speaking of Scripture.

I am not interested here in that discussion (I may, perhaps elsewhere, but it would be the DOI in its own contest as a complete document). So save your strawman.

@37818 is correct about the DOI - it does not base these rights on Scripture but that they are self evident - and that is within a specific context.

I am assuming you do not hold the Declaration of Independence as Scripture (if the DOI is your "Bible" then I apologize for the assumotion....if not then get with the program, bro.).

Put your money where your mouth is. Give a passage stating that God gave men the right to pursue their happiness as an unalienable right.

Give a passage that men have been given by God the unalienable right to their own life.

Show the verse where God gives all men the unalienable right to liberty.

I dare you.

For my part, I will provide verses that says even our existence is dependent on Hod and not our right. I will show where man has not green given the right to seek after their own happiness as an unalienable right. I can even show where men are condemned and enslaved....and when freed it is to serve God.

 

[Revmitchell]

You have overstepped your knowledge (yours was an extraordinary foolish post, Mitch).

You do not know what I understand about the basis of the Declaration of Independence because I have not commented on the Declaration of Independence except to acknowledge wording that Americans often take for granted (apart from the DOI).

You would do better to speak of what you do know, defend your views, and perhaps realize your "omniscience" is misplaced.

I am talking about the idea (expressed in but divorced from the DOI) that God has given all men unalienable rights among which is the God given unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, you could play the fool and go to the Declaration of Independence, but I am - have been - am now - and have clarified for your benefit that I am speaking of Scripture.

I am not interested here in that discussion (I may, perhaps elsewhere, but it would be the DOI in its own contest as a complete document). So save your strawman.

@37818 is correct about the DOI - it does not base these rights on Scripture but that they are self evident - and that is within a specific context.

I am assuming you do not hold the Declaration of Independence as Scripture (if the DOI is your "Bible" then I apologize for the assumotion....if not then get with the program, bro.).

Put your money where your mouth is. Give a passage stating that God gave men the right to pursue their happiness as an unalienable right.

Give a passage that men have been given by God the unalienable right to their own life.

Show the verse where God gives all men the unalienable right to liberty.

I dare you.

For my part, I will provide verses that says even our existence is dependent on Hod and not our right. I will show where man has not green given the right to seek after their own happiness as an unalienable right. I can even show where men are condemned and enslaved....and when freed it is to serve God.

sigh so then the title of this thread did not come from the DOI?

 

[JonC]

sigh so then the title of this thread did not come from the DOI?

No. It came from me to discuss the popular idea that we have the God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is in the DOI, and for that reason I think we take it for granted. But the DOI is not the topic. Those rights as actually given by God as unalienable rights and if that is supported by Scripture is the topic.

In the future,, if you will take the time to read beyond the thread title these misunderstandings can be avoided.

 

[Revmitchell]

No. It came from me to discuss the popular idea that we have the God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is in the DOI, and for that reason I think we take it for granted. But the DOI is not the topic. Those rights as actually given by God as unalienable rights and if that is supported by Scripture is the topic.

In the future,, if you will take the time to read beyond the thread title these misunderstandings can be avoided.

just because I mentioned the thread title doesn’t mean that is all I read. Second, you mentioned the DOI in the op. Do you get that. You reference the DOI in the op. I’ll say it again, you reference the DOI in the op.

if you are going to critique the phrase you need to understand it’s origins. You seem to want to divorce it in order to make it mean whatever you want. Probably because you don’t understand the phrase “the laws of nature and natures God” or it’s origins. If you are going to criticize these rights you say are not in scripture then your criticism needs to be based on that and a clear understanding of the logic of John Lock must be part of the conversation. Without any of that your attempt is inept at best.