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

[AustinC]

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

I understand that. The question is whether that claim has any biblical basis and whether it actually is self-evident.

 

[JonC]

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.

Yes. I did mention the DOI. Like I said (in the post you just quoted - I believe Americans have accepted those "divinely given unalienable human rights" precisely because they are in the DOI. But the topic is why do Christians accept that God gave man the unalienable right to pursue their happiness, to live their lives, ect. since it is contrary to Scripture.

Per the DOI those rights are SELF EVIDENT. Now you act as if they are inseparable from and dependent on the DOI.

As a Christian using the Bible why do you believe man has the God given unalienable right to pursue happiness, even to their own life?

Stop blowing smoke. If you want to talk about the DOI start a thread.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes. I did mention the DOI. Like I said (in the post you just quoted - I believe Americans have accepted those "divinely given unalienable human rights" precisely because they are in the DOI. But the topic is why do Christians accept that God gave man the unalienable right to pursue their happiness, to live their lives, ect. since it is contrary to Scripture.

Per the DOI those rights are SELF EVIDENT. Now you act as if they are inseparable from and dependent on the DOI.

As a Christian using the Bible why do you believe man has the God given unalienable right to pursue happiness, even to their own life?

Stop blowing smoke. If you want to talk about the DOI start a thread.

I’ll say it again You brought up the DOI and you got it from the DOI the very nature of understanding it comes from the DOI therefor it is inseparable from the DOI. The very evidence of that is the fact that you felt you had to include the DOI in the op.


In order to understand the logic behind the claim of these rights as coming from God you must have knowledge of and fully understand the phrase “ the laws of nature and natures God”.

If you do not understand that or it’s origins then you cannot intelligently argue that it’s not found in scripture. You replaced any understanding of that phrase with decontextualized definitions of a few words misleading any true understanding of this topic.

the direction you are taking this topic is simply intellectually dishonest.

 

[JonC]

I’ll say it again You brought up the DOI and you got it from the DOI the very nature of understanding it comes from the DOI therefor it is inseparable from the DOI. The very evidence of that is the fact that you felt you had to include the DOI in the op.


In order to understand the logic behind the claim of these rights as coming from God you must have knowledge of and fully understand the phrase “ the laws of nature and natures God”.

If you do not understand that or it’s origins then you cannot intelligently argue that it’s not found in scripture. You replaced any understanding of that phrase with decontextualized definitions of a few words misleading any true understanding of this topic.

the direction you are taking this topic is simply intellectually dishonest.

So you believe those "rights" originate with the DOI.

At least we can agree they do not come from Gid's Word.

That is my discussion. Now if you want to discuss the Declaration of Independence and what theses rights mean in that context then ho ahead (on another thread)

I am discussing whether men have those entitlements per Scripture.

What is intellectually dishonest is denying an authors explanation of his own intent (what you are doing here).

You can say that I expressed my intent poorly- BUT you are being intellectually dishonest to lecture me on my intent.

 

[JonC]

Again - I am discussing the fact that the idea men have the entitlement to life, to pursue their happiness, and even to liberty is not only nor in the Bible but it is unbiblical (opposed to what the Bible teaches).

That is why I chose the General Baptist Discussion forum for this thread.

I am not discussing what the founders of out nation took those rights to be, the nature of the Declaration of Independence, ect.

@Revmitchell has made it clear that a biblical defense cannot be made for those entitlements. I agree. If we want to discuss the DOI then we can start thread about the DOI.

I am talking about those supposed entitlements as God given in context of the Bible.

I apologize if I sound snippy but I find it an extremely dishonest argument to claim I mean something contrary my own explanation of what I mean.

I do not understand why @Revmitchell feels he has the authority to define my posts for me against my own explanation. That is intellectually dishonest.

In a discussion each member gets to explain their own posts - their own intent. Another person NEVER has that right.

I respect you, @Revmitchell , I value your opinion. But you are wrong here. I am talking about those supposed entitlements in light of the Bible - not the founding of our nation. Your topic us interesting and would make a good thread. But it is not my topic here.

 

[Revmitchell]

Again - I am discussing the fact that the idea men have the entitlement to life, to pursue their happiness, and even to liberty is not only nor in the Bible but it is unbiblical (opposed to what the Bible teaches).

That is why I chose the General Baptist Discussion forum for this thread.

I am not discussing what the founders of out nation took those rights to be, the nature of the Declaration of Independence, ect.

@Revmitchell has made it clear that a biblical defense cannot be made for those entitlements. I agree. If we want to discuss the DOI then we can start thread about the DOI.

I am talking about those supposed entitlements as God given in context of the Bible.

I apologize if I sound snippy but I find it an extremely dishonest argument to claim I mean something contrary my own explanation of what I mean.

I do not understand why @Revmitchell feels he has the authority to define my posts for me against my own explanation. That is intellectually dishonest.

In a discussion each member gets to explain their own posts - their own intent. Another person NEVER has that right.

I respect you, @Revmitchell , I value your opinion. But you are wrong here. I am talking about those supposed entitlements in light of the Bible - not the founding of our nation. Your topic us interesting and would make a good thread. But it is not my topic here.

I did not say that there is no biblical case for those rights. I came no where close to saying that. I said you are trying to pull the claim of rights as God given from the DOI but divorce those claims from the DOI once you pull them from there. It’s intellectually dishonest.

 

[37818]

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?????

The conclusions are indeed extra Biblical. But not contrary to Biblical truths. Self-evident rights. To understand how they are self-evident is at issue.

 

[JonC]

I did not say that there is no biblical case for those rights. I came no where close to saying that. I said you are trying to pull the claim of rights as God given from the DOI but divorce those claims from the DOI once you pull them from there. It’s intellectually dishonest.

This thread is discussing passages that entitlements men to the God given right to pursue their happiness, to their own life, and to their individual liberty.

You may think it is incorrect to talk about these rights separated from the DOI, but that is neither here nor there.

The topic of this thread is whether God has given men those rights.

I have started another thread where you can discuss the DOI. You do not need to hijack this one.

You are being intelligently dishonest here, Rev. You say these entitlements are in Scripture, cannot provide where, and keep going to the DOI

 

[JonC]

The conclusions are indeed extra Biblical. But not contrary to Biblical truths. Self-evident rights. To understand how they are self-evident is at issue.

Yes, they are extra biblical. Now we can see if they are contrary to biblical truth (I'll start off speaking generally) or perhaps derived from biblical truth.

My position is that Scripture does not support the idea that men have the right to pursue their own happiness. Instead it seems to me that men were created for God's purposes and their very existence hinges on His will (not man's will).

It also seems that Scripture presents men as having life based on Hod's providence, sovereignty and will (God's pleasure) rather than entitlement.

 

[Revmitchell]

This thread is discussing passages that entitlements men to the God given right to pursue their happiness, to their own life, and to their individual liberty.

You may think it is incorrect to talk about these rights separated from the DOI, but that is neither here nor there.

The topic of this thread is whether God has given men those rights.

I have started another thread where you can discuss the DOI. You do not need to hijack this one.

You are being intelligently dishonest here, Rev. You say these entitlements are in Scripture, cannot provide where, and keep going to the DOI

once again you accuse me of saying something I haven’t said. I have been singularly focused on your lack of properly dealing with this topic. I have not expressed my view on anything else in this thread yet you continue to make false claims about what I “say”.

why is that?

 

[37818]

My position is that Scripture does not support the idea that men have the right to pursue their own happiness. Instead it seems to me that men were created for God's purposes and their very existence hinges on His will (not man's will).

The problem of wills. Basically man's will, from our Biblical view, is contrary to God's will. Or a salvation would never be needed.

Does God go out of His way to prevent every person from making wrong choices? What God indeed allows can be perceived as God giving mankind the right to a persuit of happiness. (Acts of the Apostles 17:26-27, Proverbs 16:20.)

 

[Alcott]

I've read this entire thread and I do see that it serves any purpose except possibly...

Don't thank God for our rights; he didn't give them to us.

If we pursue any rights other than none, we are claiming a status of entitlement, and therefore superiority.

The right to do anything-- even to think anything-- is absolutely separate of God's will.

Are these ideas the purpose behind this?

 

[AustinC]

I've read this entire thread and I do see that it serves any purpose except possibly...

Don't thank God for our rights; he didn't give them to us.

If we pursue any rights other than none, we are claiming a status of entitlement, and therefore superiority.

The right to do anything-- even to think anything-- is absolutely separate of God's will.

Are these ideas the purpose behind this?

I see it as "Don't claim something in God's name that He has not explicitly promised."

Perhaps I interpreted the thread incorrectly.

 

[JonC]

once again you accuse me of saying something I haven’t said. I have been singularly focused on your lack of properly dealing with this topic. I have not expressed my view on anything else in this thread yet you continue to make false claims about what I “say”.

why is that?

I accused you of being unable to separate a discusdion of these unalienable rights from the context of the DOI because that is where you always seem to return.

My statement is that we oftwn accept these rights because of the DOI, but my argument has nothing to do with the doccument (something you find "intellectually dishonest").

You claim that I am not "properly" dealing with these supposed human entitlements because I turn to the Bible and not the DOI.

This only shows you do not understand the topic or believe these supposed entitlements are inseparable from the DOI (either is fine for you to believe).

BUT you are missing the topic of the thread, have refused to engage the topic, and continue to blow smoke.

There is another thread (in the politics section) dealing with the DOI and our "unalienable rights".

This thread is very simple.

Many seem to think that men have the Hod given unalienable right to pursue their happiness, to their own lives, and their individual liberty. Thus idea is foreign to Scripture.

Is this the context of the DOI? No, of course not. That is where YOU take it, not me. My point is many see men as having those unalienable divinely entitlements.

Get with the program, dude. You are arguing on the wrong thread.

 

[JonC]

The problem of wills. Basically man's will, from our Biblical view, is contrary to God's will. Or a salvation would never be needed.

Does God go out of His way to prevent every person from making wrong choices? What God indeed allows can be perceived as God giving mankind the right to a persuit of happiness. (Acts of the Apostles 17:26-27, Proverbs 16:20.)

I do not think God makes man make choices. I also see no evidence in Acts 17 that God has given men the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness.

I cannot see how you stretch the verse to cover the claim.

Please post the passage and highlight where the pursuit of happiness is a human entitlement (I e , show your work as I am not seeing the link between the passage and your conclusion).

Thanks.

 

[Van]

Lets see:

As a young person who hears the gospel, can I choose to pursue happiness by trusting Christ to provide me salvation from the punishment I deserve?

If born anew, do I then have the inalienable right to life, eternal life?

Can I choose to be set free from from the bondage of sin, and be placed under the Law of Liberty?

I can see how Christians believe in these inalienable rights as coming from God as promised in scripture.

But at spiritual rebirth, not our conception in iniquity.

 

[37818]

I do not think God makes man make choices. I also see no evidence in Acts 17 that God has given men the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness.

I cannot see how you stretch the verse to cover the claim.

Please post the passage and highlight where the pursuit of happiness is a human entitlement (I e , show your work as I am not seeing the link between the passage and your conclusion).

Thanks.

My argument. God caused man to have "bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord." That man might find the LORD to trust Him. He, the LORD, being the only true source of happiness per Proverbs 16:20.

 

[Aaron]

Oo. I was formulating a response and was searching for something that I thought I remembered JonC saying in the last few days about the Declaration of Independence being wrong.

Because that's his real aim in all this. Invalidate the premise of god-given rights, and you invalidate the U.S.

And this little gem popped up.

How Does a Christian Choose?
Jon said:

The U.S. government is responsible for the lives of people who fall within her jurisdiction. This includes both citizens and non-citizens. The U.S. Constitution recognizes rights to both citizens and non-citizens. But the right to life is not a constitutionally given right, it is a God given right (and so recognized in the Constitution). Citizenship is derived from laws within a secular government. If we base the right to live on citizenship we have surrendered the fight to the pro-abortionists. Life is a God given right because life is given by God, not by man.​

 

[JonC]

My argument. God caused man to have "bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord." That man might find the LORD to trust Him. He, the LORD, being the only true source of happiness per Proverbs 16:20.

I agree with the passage. I disagree, however, that the passage is descriptive of God giving men the unalienable right or entitlement to pursue his or her own happiness, to his or her life, or liberty.

I do not understand how you interpret the verse to speak of human entitlements.

 

[JonC]

Lets see:

As a young person who hears the gospel, can I choose to pursue happiness by trusting Christ to provide me salvation from the punishment I deserve?

If born anew, do I then have the inalienable right to life, eternal life?

Can I choose to be set free from from the bondage of sin, and be placed under the Law of Liberty?

I can see how Christians believe in these inalienable rights as coming from God as promised in scripture.

But at spiritual rebirth, not our conception in iniquity.

Those are given only to men through salvation in Christ.

Is it then fair to say you believe salvation is a human right, that men are entitled to salvation???

Your liberal theology is what has torn down the traditional church and your liberal politics & entitlements is what is tearing apart our nation.

Life is a God given right (per the Constitution) and in that context (society...i.e., the context of the Constitution) there is a right to life. BUT this is not an individual right given by God. A people have no right to kill because man is created in God's image- NOT because of entitlement.