The Beasts Smell Blood

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Where do you see God giving an unalienable right of life, of liberty, of the pursuit of happiness, to a nation????

Please provide the passage, because if this is true then the gospel itself is invalid.

Instead it seems God has given us a command to die to this world, to the flesh, to seek not our happiness but His glory, to rest not in unalienable rights but in Christ.

Let's start with one and then go on to others.

What passage gives us the right to pursue our happiness as an unalienable right?

Paul asserted his rights to go to Rome and be a witness of Christ, and to die for Him. I don't think this quite applies.

Read my post again. The unalienable rights mentioned were specifically not to a nation nor to any government. Rather they emanate from the Creator directly to human creatures.

Unless you are interpreting Creator to mean government. Surely you are not attempting to impose on the DOI some sort of atheistic naturalism?

IMO, neither is America, nor any government, God. And neither are America's, nor any government's, documents the Bible.

What one is and has prior to becoming a Christian might be a good question to address. It would certainly not invalidate the Gospel.

However, we already know how Christians who were even apostles treated the right of Roman citizenship. Is there some good reason to ignore this? I see none.

 

[JonC]

Read my post again. The unalienable rights mentioned were specifically not to a nation nor to any government. Rather they emanate from the Creator directly to human creatures.

Unless you are interpreting Creator to mean government. Surely you are not attempting to impose on the DOI some sort of atheistic naturalism?

IMO, neither is America, nor any government, God. And neither are America's, nor any government's, documents the Bible.

What one is and has prior to becoming a Christian might be a good question to address. It would certainly not invalidate the Gospel.

However, we already know how Christians who were even apostles treated the right of Roman citizenship. Is there some good reason to ignore this? I see none.

OK. Provide a passage that gives man the unalienable right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.

I agree that we use our abilities to witness for Christ (as Paul did). But Paul was not picking up his rights on his own behalf. He was going to Rome to witness and ultimately to die (Luke tells us he went to "preach the kingdom of God").

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

OK. Provide a passage that gives man the unalienable right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.

I agree that we use our abilities to witness for Christ (as Paul did). But Paul was not picking up his rights on his own behalf. He was going to Rome to witness and ultimately to die (Luke tells us he went to "preach the kingdom of God").

Again, read my posts. They don't say that. And the last one specifically said they don't say that. I might as well tell you to quit trying to treat the DOI as if it were the Bible. We both already know it is not, and neither of us has said it is.

As for Paul avoiding that beating in Jerusalem, your assertion doesn't seem to hold. He had once been stoned and left for dead. Besides, it doesn't matter why Paul asserted his earthly citizenship rights, the fact is that he did so. But there is no indication that every situation afforded the opportunity to do so.

Perhaps it would help to put it this way. The government does not have the authority to say, "As a Christian, you are not entitled to the rights and freedoms recognized for other citizens."

 

[Aaron]

You are riding a fence. That takes no courage. It is the cowards move.

A coward's move is not to make public the defacto rules one is presuming to enforce.

Yes, political liberty granted by the government...NOT Christian liberty. There is a difference.

Freedom of religion.

 

[Aaron]

OK. Provide a passage that gives man the unalienable right to life,

Thou shalt not kill.

to liberty,

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

and to the pursuit of happiness.

Thou shalt not steal.

 

[SGO]

You are riding a fence. That takes no courage. It is the cowards move.

Aren't you a Moderator?
Now you are going beyond just to express your opinion.
Oh, that's right, you get to protect your opinion by censorship.
You are name calling.
Please resign but don't leave the forum.

 

[AustinC]

Read my post again. The unalienable rights mentioned were specifically not to a nation nor to any government. Rather they emanate from the Creator directly to human creatures.

Unless you are interpreting Creator to mean government. Surely you are not attempting to impose on the DOI some sort of atheistic naturalism?

IMO, neither is America, nor any government, God. And neither are America's, nor any government's, documents the Bible.

What one is and has prior to becoming a Christian might be a good question to address. It would certainly not invalidate the Gospel.

However, we already know how Christians who were even apostles treated the right of Roman citizenship. Is there some good reason to ignore this? I see none.

Do you recognize that these "unalienable rights" were espoused by Deists who viewed God as the great clockmaker who created and left his creation to know Him through reason and rationalism? This is what Jefferson meant when he penned that phrase.

Where do we find those teachings in scripture?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Do you recognize that these "unalienable rights" were espoused by Deists who viewed God as the great clockmaker who created and left his creation to know Him through reason and rationalism? This is what Jefferson meant when he penned that phrase.

Where do we find those teachings in scripture?

Law of the land wouldn't care, now would it? But there is a capricious nature to these challenges, that suggests a fundamental flaw in understanding.

So let's turn this around and see where the problem lies. Where in Scripture does it deny these rights? How do you read it?

 

[JonC]

Law of the land wouldn't care, now would it? But there is a capricious nature to these challenges, that suggests a fundamental flaw in understanding.

So let's turn this around and see where the problem lies. Where in Scripture does it deny these rights? How do you read it?

That is a logical fallacy. You need to prove the positive statement (that Scripture affords those rights( not demand proof of the negative (that Scripture does not afford those rights).

The proof, btw, that Scripture does not recognize those "unalienable rights" is that Scripture does not recognize those "unalienable rights".

For illustration, I could say we have a God given right to act like a moose on Fridays. You may say that is silly and not in Scripture. So provide a verse saying we do not have the God given right to act like a mooae on Friday. That is a fallacy (the burden of proof is for me to provide a verse describing Friday moose acting as a God given right.

Can you provide a verse stating man has the God given unalienable right to life? To liberty? To the pursuit of happiness?

Keep in mind Christ's example and his prayer in the Garden.

 

[JonC]

Bottom line is Scripture does not present God as giving men the rights we as Americans hold. I am grateful for these rights and freedoms. But they are not God given unalienable.

Nowhere in Scripture is man endowed by God with the right of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Scripture does not give us the right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

We are blessed with those freedoms, for now, but these are not God given unalienable rights.

 

[AustinC]

Law of the land wouldn't care, now would it? But there is a capricious nature to these challenges, that suggests a fundamental flaw in understanding.

So let's turn this around and see where the problem lies. Where in Scripture does it deny these rights? How do you read it?

You are trying to argue from silence. It's like me asking where the Bible forbids using cocaine.

Jefferson wrote his declaration based upon observation in nature of universal human traits via Deism. God may desire this for humans, but there is no explicit declaration of such in scripture.

 

[SGO]

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the LORD is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are trying to argue from silence. …

That is a logical fallacy. ...

Maybe, sort of, but not quite. It is already rather clear where all of this leads.

Bill Cosby’s dad telling him as a kid, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out,” while having a humorous element, is self-evidently false.

Everyone knows that would be murder, thus wrong. But Christians know that murder is so wrong that God commanded Noah and his descendants to execute murderers.

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them,… “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” –Genesis 9:1a, 5 & 6​

Obviously, per God's word, a man has the right to his life, that is no one has the right to take it, unless God who gives it commands otherwise.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are trying to argue from silence. …

That is a logical fallacy. ...

Actually, the accusations are much better aimed the other way. The given is that a man has life. Otherwise, there would be no discussion. One should have to prove the right to take a man’s life, not for the man to keep it.
"You are badly mistaken."

 

[AustinC]

Actually, the accusations are much better aimed the other way. The given is that a man has life. Otherwise, there would be no discussion. One should have to prove the right to take a man’s life, not for the man to keep it.
"You are badly mistaken."

All humans know, internally that murder is wrong. Thus Jefferson deduced from observation that the Creator endowed people with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ultimately the argument is from reason and rationalism.

 

[SGO]

All humans know, internally that murder is wrong. T.

Where is this from ("All humans know, internally"), the bible?
If so, how did abortion become legal?

 

[Scott Downey]

OK. Provide a passage that gives man the unalienable right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.

I agree that we use our abilities to witness for Christ (as Paul did). But Paul was not picking up his rights on his own behalf. He was going to Rome to witness and ultimately to die (Luke tells us he went to "preach the kingdom of God").

True, when Christ tells us if He makes us free, we will be free indeed, it is not freedom to sin, it is freedom from the effect of the wages of sin which is death.
We become slaves of God. And God is a benevolent tyrant. His commands are not burdensome, but they are absolute. The sons are free of this world.

Matthew 17:25-27
New King James Version

25 He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”


2 Corinthians 12:14
Love for the Church
Now for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

 

[JonC]

Maybe, sort of, but not quite. It is already rather clear where all of this leads.

Bill Cosby’s dad telling him as a kid, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out,” while having a humorous element, is self-evidently false.

Everyone knows that would be murder, thus wrong. But Christians know that murder is so wrong that God commanded Noah and his descendants to execute murderers.

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them,… “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” –Genesis 9:1a, 5 & 6​

Obviously, per God's word, a man has the right to his life, that is no one has the right to take it, unless God who gives it commands otherwise.

We're this true then God has violated man's "right to life". You leave this as an exception ("unless God commands otherwise") but that is inconsistent.

You are right that we have no right to take the life of others (thou shalt not kill), BUT you are falsely assuming this gives man a right to life.

 

[JonC]

Actually, the accusations are much better aimed the other way. The given is that a man has life. Otherwise, there would be no discussion. One should have to prove the right to take a man’s life, not for the man to keep it.
"You are badly mistaken."

Man has a lot of things. This does not mean man has a God-given unalienable right to those things.

Scripture presents our existence as by God's grace and will, NOT by an unalienable right.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

We're this true then God has violated man's "right to life". You leave this as an exception ("unless God commands otherwise") but that is inconsistent.

You are right that we have no right to take the life of others (thou shalt not kill), BUT you are falsely assuming this gives man a right to life.

Man has a lot of things. This does not mean man has a God-given unalienable right to those things.

Scripture presents our existence as by God's grace and will, NOT by an unalienable right.

That is talking past and sounds like complete confusion of the issue.

No one said God cannot follow his own will in a matter. God obviously holds the ultimate determination. This is easily and readily agreed to and not at all in question.

The DOI is not fist-shaking at God, but acknowledging that the Creator, not government, is the source and determiner of life. A government that does not acknowledge this is an invalid government indeed, and so recognizes the DOI.

Is there a law anywhere that even presumes to protect from an act of God? Perhaps that is where we need to start, since your objections seem to presuppose it.