The Beasts Smell Blood

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are confusing our arguments.

I never claimed that men are independent of God. Quite the opposite.

Where we disagree is why it is wrong to take a human life

You say it is because man has an unalienable right to his life. But I (and Scripture) say it is because God has made man in His image.

You are confusing prohibition towards something with having a right to the thing protected.

The Bible's reason for prohibiting murder points to God, not to man.

If Man has an unalienable right to life then there is no sense whereby that right will be alienated from man. This is what "unalienable" means.

But Scripture never speaks of life as a human right Men are prohibited from murder because of Imago Dei, not because of man's rights.

No one is saying you claim man is independent of God. Read my comment on that in context with the previous statement.

We don’t disagree on why it is wrong to take human life. I've already covered that.

We disagree on what the DOI means by what it says. I’m arguing that in context it cannot mean what you seem to want it to mean, nor imply what you want it to imply.

I could understand some of your objections, if it did mean what you want. Since neither of us can budge on that, we’ve probably gone as far as we can go with this. It’s been fun.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27

Yeah, God already covered that with Noah way back. Where've you been?

 

[JonC]

No one is saying you claim man is independent of God. Read my comment on that in context with the previous statement.

We don’t disagree on why it is wrong to take human life. I've already covered that.

We disagree on what the DOI means by what it says. I’m arguing that in context it cannot mean what you seem to want it to mean, nor imply what you want it to imply.

I could understand some of your objections, if it did mean what you want. Since neither of us can budge on that, we’ve probably gone as far as we can go with this. It’s been fun.

I know what the DOI says.

My issue is whether it is true.

Does man have an inalienable right, endowed to man by God, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Scripture absolutely says "no", life is not a right but a blessing, liberty is not given by God except in Christ as a freedom from the bondage of sin and death, under a different "Yoke", and man does not have the right to presue his or her own happiness.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I know what the DOI says. …

Everyone who reads it knows what it says. That isn’t what was cited as the problem.

The debate is over its aims, its meanings, its intents, its scope, its limitations.

You can disagree that that is what the issue is, but that won't resolve anything, only highlight the underlying reason for the impasse.

 

[JonC]

Everyone who reads it knows what it says. That isn’t what was cited as the problem.

The debate is over its aims, its meanings, its intents, its scope, its limitations.

You can disagree that that is what the issue is, but that won't resolve anything, only highlight the underlying reason for the impasse.

I see it as a basis for its aims (the government should strive to protect a citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)....and that is a good thing, I agree with the aims. I have no problem with the DOI.

The problem is that it is not actually true.