Discussions
What are "God-Given Rights?"
Posted by NT77 • 9/02/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: god-given, rights
I hear a lot of talk about our "God-Given Rights." Can someone please explain to me what makes a right "God-Given?"
What distinguishes a "God-Given Right from any other right granted by a governing body?
User Comments
-
I think that people call rights "God-given" when they want to suggest that those rights are inalienable. It's kind of ironic, though, because I don't know about other religions, but the Christian Bible doesn't contain a hint of God giving anyone "rights". In fact, it says directly that we should expect to be trampled over in just about every way.-
Natural Rights ethics in a nutshell. -
John 3:16, NIV: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This view of God is only reconcilable with eternal damnation and all the evil in the world if we are free to fail in every possible way, the Libertarian vision of God-given rights. If this is not so, God hates us. Period. So either accept God-given rights or toss your bible in the incinerator. -
I think part of the misunderstanding is you believe rights are "entitlements," things that are given to you to protect you or make your life easier. Rights are responsibilities, places where you have breathing room and failing room, where you are neither forced nor entitled to protection. To truly protect rights, you have to be willing to forgo coercive force, even to the point of allowing your own death, out of respect for the responsibility you have been given.
-
Free to fail in every possible way? So then, a person who is, for instance, in solitary confinement in prison and has no access to murder someone or steal or rape or any of a thousand other sinful actions one can't commit when locked in a cell alone, then God must hate him? That's just silly. No person on earth is free to "fail in every possible way". We all have physical and practical limitations and limitations imposed by outside forces.
-
Both Wicca and Satanism teach that we as humans have the right to do as we please as long as we are willing to accept the outcome. -
@SweetViolet: The problem is that you are looking at this from a 21st Century point of view. The enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions, the Industrial Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, these things and our idea of "freedom" did not yet exist. You know, in a primitive ranching and farming culture, individualism and freedom are actually somewhat threatening, so while God very much supports them, he can't up right and say it because the idea that these things are inherently good is really an idea that's only been mainstream for a few centuries (progress.)
@MadameX: LOL. You forgot the "possible" part. The point is, God is pretty darn libertarian.
-
-
Rights we don't really have. -
Poop, pee, fart, burp, eat, sleep, and breathe.-
Well that makes sense. I guess "Death" should be included too.
-
-
Live and die -
Whatever they are, responsibilities come with 'em. -
It really depends on your favorite ethical theory.
-
The problem is that there really is no such thing as "rights." Ethics are a human invention.
-
I prefer to think of them as inalienable rights to which all human beings are entitled. Some of the most important are set forth in the American Bill of Rights. -
Well it depends on what "rights" we are talking about here. Are we talking about the rights given to us in the natural world? In that case, they would be relatively few in number. Basically all in all it would be the right to fight for survival.
However since the word "right" is used I would assume that we are talking about the rights of the civilized world. This then becomes a completely separate issue entirely. The bill of Rights sums it up quite nicely and also these words: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Being that every single right we now enjoy as Americans can be grouped into one of those three categories, I think that those would be the inalienable right of the civilized world. In other words, those are our god given rights.-
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are neither set out nor guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, they are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law.
As Mme X states above, the Bible is silent on rights of any kind, making the phrase "God-given rights" meaningless.
Rights devolve from human thought and, as much as we would like to think otherwise, are granted. They differ from one location/culture/society to another and while we like to think some of them are inalienable, they are subject to being abridged under a host of circumstances: the Bill of Rights' grant of the right to bear arms is abridged in the case of convicted felons and, in some locations, by local law (NYC for example).
The short answer to the OP's question is that there are none. -
@SV: Read 1 Corinthians 6: 1-9 and 1 Samuel 12, the antigovernment rant. Look at the commandments in full. Also, look at the entirety of Genesis and the way that God kills off King Asa for hypocritical judgements regarding faith. Consider what Jesus said, "Permit even this," as he was carried off to be crucified. It is true though that the Bible was not written for 21st Century Americans.
-
okay let me clarify then since it wasn't clear enough. When I said "The Bill of Rights Sums it up quite nicely and also along with these words, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" I was not implying that those words were part of the Bill of Rights being that I included the phrase "and along with these words..." as in saying in addition to the Bill of Rights. Somehow I thought that would be obvious but apparently I am wrong.
As for the the notion that there are no basic human rights, like I said before, in the natural order of the world, no there isn't. However we lived in a civilized society and therefore humans do have basic rights, i.e. the right to live. Thus why murder is illegal.
And if the bible is mute on rights, why does it call murder a sin? Why did Jesus teach to heal the sick if not because it was their right as a human being and it would be the Christian thing to do to make sure that they are given that right? -
@RM: The rights you are given in the natural world are the right to use what you have, to fight, and to be strong to the best of your abilities. A very libertarian vision of rights.
-
You may interpret passages in any book and imbue them with the a variety of meanings.
How about you actually quote passages from the bible that specifically give people rights directly granted from your god? And don't forget to include the scriptural citation so others can look them up as well.
On the mountain, Moses received commandments directly from his god...no interpretation of the text needed to understand that event, although the meaning of the commandments is often massaged. But giving commandments is a far cry from granting rights...it could even be interpreted as being antithetical. -
"But giving commandments is a far cry from granting rights...it could even be interpreted as being antithetical."
Not if commandments apply to those in authority. Further, laws and protections serve to prevent criminal elements from creating mob rule, especially the kind (thou shalt not kill) that God was handing out. And then there's the simple fact that John 3:16, Hell, and a tyrannical view of God are unreconcilable. -
Uh, in case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about the rights of those in authority here, we are talking about the rights of the common person in relation to those in authority.
You have thus far failed to bring one piece of text from the book that grants from your god to mankind, without massaging or interpretation or inference, any right whatsoever. The commandments were delivered in a straightforward manner...if your god can deliver commandments, he can deliver rights that way, too. Where are they?
"You have the right to redress of wrongs"
"You have the right to have your spouse be faithful to you"
"You have the right to life"
"You have the right to oppress others and force your will upon them, especially people who are not as strong or educated as you are."
"You have the right to force your desires on the unwilling"
"You have the right to be prideful and self-righteous"
"You have the right shame and belittle people you don't agree with, even to say they are going to hell because of that disagreement"
"You have the right to exclude people, for whatever reasons you choose, from some of these rights"
"You have the right to infer and interpret the book, and otherwise twist what it says, even to the point of ignoring what is inconvenient to you and making up stuff that supports you."
Where are these, and similar rights, found in your book? -
Okay for one when one of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not commit murder" its basically saying do not kill people. It doesn't take much to read into that. Second the only reason why I have invoked "God" into this discussion is because Madame X's view that God did not give any rights to mankind. From my understanding of a) the ten commandments, and the fact that "God" gave mankind a choice between heaven and hell, according to the christian idea of things, that would also imply the right of choice. That we as humans have a right to choose between heaven and hell. The very fact that there is a choice there implies that the choice is in and of itself a right.
Third, as clearly noted in the first post, I have agreed with most people here that in the natural world, mankind's only right is the right to ATTMEPT survival. However as part of a civilized world, as in the society of the United States of America, we have certain rights are granted to the citizens of this great country, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Those are inalienable rights because our ruling government says they are and that is all.
As for the desire to have some archaic passage to be pulled out of that fairy tale book known as the bile that says that God gave mankind a specific basic human right in blatant modern terms cannot be done because the bible is not meant to be read in that manner. Anyone who has truly studied scripture would know that the bible is meant to be INTERPRETED not simply read at face value. If that were the case, and then eating shrimp or wearing wool with linen would be punishable by death according to a face value reading of the bible. Now are there any Christians here who believe that should be the case with regards to eating shrimp or wearing wool with linen...no?? I thought not. Why? Because the bible is meant to be interpreted through the idiom of its time. Plain and simple. -
"And if the bible is mute on rights, why does it call murder a sin?"
Murder is a sin because human life belongs to God, not to man to dispose of as he pleases. If it were a "rights" issue, then suicide wouldn't be a sin, would it? -
However since you asked for specific scripture where God is saying treat people equally (i.e. the right of equality) here you go.
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." Proverbs 14:31
Thus implying that all men are created equal. Hmm...that sounds familiar. I know I've heard that somewhere before! Oh yes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of Massachusetts which predates the federal constitution by nearly 7 years. -
"Murder is a sin because life belongs to God..."
Ahh but do you not have the right to make that choice, to choose to attempt to end your life? From my understanding of the bible, God gave mankind the right to choose between sin and living in accordance with God's word. Thus this would imply that choice is the sole God given right.
-
-
Free Choice. -
Whatever created the universe, it clearly allowed us these abilities and built it in to our nature that we should be able to handle them and desire them. I believe in the one true God, and MadameX is wrong. "Permit even this" as Christ put it. Further, how in heaven's name do you reconcile John 3:16 and Hell without freedom? And why would Christ even bother telling us wisdom if that was the case? Did you ever consider that it is EXACTLY because we love freedom that you're supposed to turn the other cheek? Read 1 Corinthians 6:1-9.
-
[MadameX is wrong]
That's quite a bold claim.
My take on it is that both of your interpretations of scripture are irrelevant to reality, even if one of you is correct. -
As I said, John 3:16 and Hell. Unreconilable. Either the entire Bible is verbose garbage or we have unalienable rights.
-
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
The only way this view of God can be reconciled with eternal damnation is if we are free to fail. -
JJ, what the hail does John 3:16 have to do with "god-given rights"?
That was the first piece of scripture I memorized and even as a child I was pretty clear on what it meant: if you "believe in Jesus" (whatever that means) your soul will live forever in heaven.
That grants no rights whatsoever...it is a bargain, quite the opposite of a right. This verse basically says "if you do this (believe in Jesus) then your you get that in (soul won't go to hell) in return"---that is an exchange, not a grant. A grant would be "you exist, so you are entitled to go to heaven"---a right is an entitlement, with no bargaining necessary.
Entitlements can be taken away, but they cannot be part of a bargain, as that negates their condition as an entitlement. -
@SV: "For God so loved the World..." Does that first clause mean nothing to you? Look, the idea is that God is a loving God, and that freedom comes with the freedom to fail. Why would God want your "bargain?" But if you don't accept Christ (more then simply believing he exists, you must TRUST and LOVE him, just like believing in SweetViolet), you cannot accept the Kingdom of Heaven. God, betrayed, then retaliates. But why does he let himself be betrayed this way to begin with? Simple, because human beings cannot be complete if they are not free, even to the detriment of them and the anger of God.
-
Jeremy, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the question here. Whether or not we have freedom is a different question entirely. We are, of course, always free to ignore the law and act according to conscience and accept the consequences. However, the debate over "natural rights", "human rights", "God-given rights", etc., etc. is centered in the idea that God has given us rights that man isn't allowed to abridge--that God has placed certain areas off limits for government and that we are therefore entitled to have laws in place that protect, or at least don't interfere with, those "God-given" rights. That idea is, as I'm sure you are aware, a direct contradiction of the Bible.
-
@MadameX: Really? Read Samuel's antigovernment tirade in 1st Samuel 12, though you are right that, effectively, God says "You guys are complete morons and working against my will, but I'll give you a King anyways and you get to deal with the consequences." You can even argue that it is because of this bad decision that Isreal never got the full extent of their inheritance, which was supposed to be from the Nile to the Euphrates, and the next period in Isreal's history is the darkest period in Isreal's history.
Basically, IT IS against God's will for tyranny to exist. And those who promote tyranny will be, as Christ makes it clear many times with the Pharisees, assigned to the lowest part of Hell. BUT, the ends do not justify the means for 85% of antigovernment actions, and the love of violence, whether government violence or civil violence, is unacceptable. There is nothing in the bible against freedom, far from it, and God's law is really, as is pointed out in an epistle (can't remember which one), "not burdensome," and besides that, do you know of any country in the world with only 614 laws? AND, under some rare cirucmstances (as seen with Christ healing on the Sabbath and "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed" (Exodus 22:2)) there are even exceptions to them! Plus, you are COMPLETELY responsible for your own decisions. That's pretty libertarian.
See, God wants humans to mostly be free and to say otherwise is to basically say that free will was a worthless gift that nobody wanted and nobody gains from, and an extreme hyperbole from the relative simplicity and ease of these light commandments. To say that the gift we (and God, in terms of emotional distress through Cain and the crucifiction of his Son) have paid the highest price for has no value is truly an insult to the Lord.
-
-
Another way of looking at this is that we, as humans, have the right to do whatever it is we want to do. The outcome of those actions may be favorable or unfavorable but we still have the right to take actions and make the choices that will lead to those outcomes, thus we have an inalienable right of choice which is supported through every form of philosophy be it Christian to Satanist, to Wiccan to Hindu. We have that right and it is a basic human right because it is not something that can be taken away. No matter what we will always have a right to choose between one thing and another. Thus we have a right.
-
Rights, God-given or otherwise, are a human invention. In reality, there is only what happens and what people do.
-
Hm...so if you are paralyzed in an accident you still have the right to choose to walk? If you are restrained in a cage, you have the right to choose to leave?
It's certainly true that we can choose to act in ways that are prohibited and to accept or attempt to escape the consequences, but the idea that choice "cannot be taken away" is really unrealistic. The only choices that literally can't be taken away are those relating to internal processes--thoughts, beliefs, etc. -
Duplicate
-
Cause and effect...I knew u would say something like that.
@ NP
-
-
This is true that we can be restrained through various means. However like you said, they cannot stop thought process. We can choose what to think and what not to think on any given issue. Thus that is choice.
But just for arguments sake, you can choose, maybe not to walk but to eat or not to eat. You may be restrained in a cage but you can choose what to do in the cage. Yes various choices can be taken away, however there will always be a choice for us to choose. The only exemption to that rule is if you are in a vegetative state however then you aren't really alive then are you? Do we not define life as a culture by what we are able to do with our thoughts and/or actions, not simply if we are breathing and certain bodily functions are still working?
Even if we look into the animal kingdom, to the most primal aspects of human existence, which I feel this whole idea of God given rights has spawned, we as animals would have the right to choose to fight for our survival or not to. In then end there is always a choice, be it a physical action or a thought. Which is why I believe that the concept of choice is the only right we are given by "God."
The whole idea of rights in the legalistic sense spawns from the fact that we do not live in a primal world of survival of the fittest. We live in a civilized society which is why there are certain "rights" that are supposed to be guaranteed to us, in the case of America. They may not be "God" given but they are given. Personally however, I feel that most people use the phrase "God given rights" as a means of expression not as literal fact. That is I, personally do not use it in a literal sense because I do not believe in a man made concept such as God.
However this entire discussion has been quite illuminating as to what actually defines a right. All in all, this in my view, has been a discussion based solely on semantics. Thus much of which is referred to as an inalienable right would be more correctly referred to as a freedom. However the chance to play devils advocate on the issue is just so tempting that its hard to resist. lol.
By the way, most everyone here has brought up, in my own opinion, very intelligent, valid arguments. I was quite challenged on this issue. Though it may not be over, I am so happy to actually have found people that I can have a civil debate with and not feel bad about entering into it because of irrational comments. Kudos to everyone for keeping this as civil as we have. Perhaps it is not my place to state that but I feel it was something that needed to be said.-
Rene, you make some good points. But still a choice is not a right-they're too different things. The fact that I can choose to stand or remain seated is not a right; it's just something I'm able to do.
-
-
Life, Liberty and Property. Finally found the passage I've been looking for. The Story of Ahab & Nobath:
1 Kings 21, NIV:
1 And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria.
2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house; and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it: or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.
3 And Naboth said to Ahab, Jehovah forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.
4 And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.
5 But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread?
6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard.
7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thy heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, and that dwelt with Naboth.
9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:
10 and set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst curse God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him to death.
11 And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them.
12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people.
13 And the two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him: and the base fellows bare witness against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did curse God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him to death with stones.
14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead.
15 And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead.
16 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.
17 And the word of Jehovah came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,
18 Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who dwelleth in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to take possession of it.
19 And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, Hast thou killed and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.
20 And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? And he answered, I have found thee, because thou hast sold thyself to do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah.
21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will utterly sweep thee away and will cut off from Ahab every man-child, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel:
22 and I will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah for the provocation wherewith thou hast provoked me to anger, and hast made Israel to sin.
23 And of Jezebel also spake Jehovah, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the rampart of Jezreel.
24 Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the birds of the heavens eat.
25 (But there was none like unto Ahab, who did sell himself to do that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.
26 And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites did, whom Jehovah cast out before the children of Israel.)
27 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly.
28 And the word of Jehovah came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,
29 Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house.
So as MadameX pointed out, we all have the option of going against God's will, and there will be wrath for doing so, in this case, WOOF WOOF.-
Without all of the Biblical verses, what are you trying to say?
-
@NT77, Don't confuse the poor guy. I think you scared him away with that question.
@jeremyjanson, stop if it starts hurting, but do you ever think before making a post? -
OK Jeremy, I read all that and I still don't know what you're trying to say. What I got was:
1. The king wanted some poor guy's vineyard and the guy said "no."
2. The king went home sulking and told his wife.
3. Without the king's knowledge, his wife ordered the death of the vineyard owner using the king's name.
4. Once the vineyard owner was dead, the king took the vineyard.
5. God got pissed and told his prophet to go call the king a murderer (which kind of says that God hadn't been paying attention).
6. The prophet told the king that, for an act which the king had no knowlegde of, God was going to kill the king's whole family, even the slaves.
7. The prophet added that dogs would eat the bodies of the king's relatives who died in town.
8. When the king heard this, he was depressed.
9. God told the prophet that since the king was depressed, that he would wait to kill off the innocent members of the king's family until the king was dead and his son had taken over.
But seriously, what in the world does this have to do with "God-Given Rights?" -
@NT77: I'll tell you what it has to do with god-given rights. This king violates an innocent man's right to property and justice, and is punished by God profoundly for it, having his entire line cut off and dynasty brought to an end. This communicates very sternly that God believes in rights. Hence, God-given rights.
-
Jezebel violated the innocent man's right to property and justice, not Ahab. If I read it correctly, Ahab knew nothing about it. Then God decides to kill all of the innocent members of Ahab's family for Jezebel's actions.
What it tells me is that God is unjust and has no regards for rights of any kind. -
Dude, Ahab knew EXACTLY what Jezebel was going to do. You can't say what she said and have good intentions.
-
I didn't get that by my reading of it, but even it you did manage to get that meaning from it, what about the punishment of the innocent members of Ahab's household? By murdering them, God is showing that he has no respect for life.
And if God cared about Naboth's right to property, he would have stopped Jezebel before she had him killed. -
@NT77: As for your first objection, in a royal household there IS no such thing as innocent members. Those princes are potential rulers, and if any of them are left alive, they can sue for power and struggle against whoever rules in their stead. Also, it should be noted that even after Ahab had passed up warning 1, he knew about what was occurring against Naboth and neither stopped his wife nor condemned her. This is especially awful as in Anicent Isreal, if you died by hanging your name was cursed forever and you were buried in an unmarked grave or garbage dump.
As for your second objection, God gives man free-will. I'm sorry. Rights mean nothing without it. That includes even princes; 99.999% of the time, wrath and intervention must be after the fact. The other 0.001% is a mystery for only God to know, though I suppose it comes down to the way our world is without absolutes. -
So your interpretation of "God"-Given Rights is that we must all suffer for mistakes of our forefathers. Therefore, if anyone is arrested, to adhere to God's version of rights, we should arrest his whole family. Since my question was about present-day America, I'm assuming that you're advocating invoking these ancient Israelite "Rights" of God.
As for free will, once God intervenes, the free will ends. So you're saying that God only gives free will to an extent.
And concerning free will, what about Judas Iscariot? -
@NT77: If you're talking about revelations with "Once God intervenes," that is a myth, a complete myth and one built upon the false premise that any kind of justice, principle, or morality means that there is no free will. The whole point to God's judgement is that those who are condemned can't live in God's kingdom because they don't believe in it - if free will were ending, why would it matter? Besides, the kingdom of heaven is full of free-will, sheer pandemonium as a matter of fact, look at the Book of Job!
As for "suffering the mistakes of our forefathers," yeah! It's called consequences, and no man is an island. Their your rights, and unfortunately, you can screw someone else over with em, just like a guy driving on the freeway who sideswipes someone else because he's being stupid changing lanes. Guess what! That's part of who you are too.
EDITED: But as for "arrest his whole family," again, that's a royal family and is a matter of the safety of a people. -
What I'm saying is that if you believe God metted out punishment to Ahab and his descendents while they were still alive, then free-will has its limits. If God truly gave free will, then he would have waited until Ahab and his relatives died before passing out punishment. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath, where life and property apparently have no value to him.
"Their your rights, and unfortunately, you can screw someone else over with em"
But we cannot infringe on the rights of others in the exercising of our rights. My right to the pursuit of happiness cannot be at the expense of your pursuit of happiness. Are you saying that God planned it otherwise, and therefore we are abusing our "God-Given Rights" by not doing it God's way?
"The whole point to God's judgement is that those who are condemned can't live in God's kingdom because they don't believe in it
This is like saying I can't live in the Kingdom of the Fairies because I don't believe in it. Or are you saying that those who choose to go against God's will are forbidden to enter God's Kingdom? If so, then this is a choice, not a right. I have a choice to follow God's will, and in doing so I will be rewarded with entry into God's Kingdom. No Right involved. If you believe that God granted free-will, then that is a gift, not a right. A gift that involves choice. Again, no rights involved.
And what about Judas Iscariot's lack of free will?
As for Job, he did nothing wrong yet God took his whole family from him (I know you're going to sat Satan did it, but it was with God's permission). What kind of justice is that? A whole family killed just for a test of loyalty? I know that God tells Job that humans have no right to question God. If you believe this, and this is your rationale for justifying the actions of God that I perceive as cruel, then fine. Your argument is faith, and it's hard to have a rational argument against blind faith.
As for me, I believe that many of the Biblical stories are simply allegories. Many also, I believe are the story of a superior race of beings being worshipped as gods (or a "God") by inferior beings - in this case humans. Sort of the way the Spaniards were considered gods by the Mayans. In my opinion, the God of the Old Testament exhibits far too many undesirable qualities to be a devine being. His jealosy, vindictiveness, pompousness and cruelity seem more in line with a spoiled human,
No disrespect for your opinion Jeremy, but I still can't see any rights as being given by God.
-
-
Anybody else think jeremyjanson should get a life?
-
Be nice
-
Didn't mean to offend you, princess. I'm guessing your a Christian too?
Jeremyjanson is going around quoting the bible... the quotes have nothing to do with anything, so what the hell is he talking about? -
I think he's just picking out random parts from the bible and posting them here. I guess he's realy bored. I like what you said about his suicidal thoughts before. Hilarious. -
It wasn't ment to be hillarious. I was serious.
I joined your group by the way, Neo. I enjoy your blog but you should do some research on The New World Order. That's somthing thats just as threatening as the topics you cover. -
I mention the NWO somtimes in my blog, but very rarley. Thanks though.
-
@TLAnarchist: If you actually bothered reading it, you'd realize that it is entirely about "Life, Liberty, Property."
@neo: Yeah, it's a pretty common thing to say really, shows no especial imagination on TLAnarchists part. -
How old are you Jeramy? Leaving me a message calling me a jerk? Kind of childish. I think your auctually a kid pretending to be an adult.
-
The message to TLA is between me and TLA. Now stop posting personal things to this discussion. Yes, I know, he brought it up, but what I do is my business (it was a personal message, by the way) and what you do is yours.
-
-
God given rights are being born and dying. We add all the crap thats somewere in between. -
@NT77
I had originally thought you were really into this whole God-Given-Rights thing. Like, wondering what god owes you or somthing, then I noticed you are an aithiest (you joined aithiest groups,) so what i think is, you started this discussion to get a whole bunch of lame-ass christians pissed off about some non-excistant old man just to laugh at the dumbass answers these losers give. That's extreamly cruel and shows you have no regard for these peoples opinions and feelings...... pretty awesome, keep up the good work.-
Damn! Somebody figured me out. Pretty sharp, TLAnarchist.
True, I don't believe in God, but I really have nothing against Christians. Basically they're good people. It's the Church hierarchy that I hold culpable for any misguided beliefs.
And I'm not really trying to piss-off the Christians. I'm really looking for serious answers from them because I'll be damned if I can figure out how their minds work. How can seemingly intelligent people believe some of the things that they believe when it comes to religion.
Look at my blog, "Unexplained Mysteries of the Bible." To me, there is no way that anyone can take it as anything but satire, yet look at some of the comments I get from die-hard Christians.
In reference to this discussion, I had really hoped for someone who truly believes in "God-Given Rights" to intelligently explain to me how any rights given to us by our ruling powers, have come from "God." I must admit though, that I was happy to see the discussion taken over mainly by intellectuals instead.
BTW, TLAnarchist, welcome to BC! I've really enjoyed your contributions in the short time you've been here.
-
-
Hey i love these religion topics , but listen to me peeps , theres no God , theres alien civilizations some hostile , some not , so i reccomend you to watch Matrix once again and get real , your God is so fake.-
Hmmm? The Anunnaki? Are you suggesting that the God of the Old Testament may have just been a member of the Anunnaki?
That might, uhhh, make some sense . . . .
-
-
The United States' founding documents are based on the principle that the citizenry is "endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's from the Declaration of Independence of 1776 - you could look it up.-
I understand what's written in the Declaration of Independence, Nate, but those words were written by humans. I could write that the Creator has endowed me with superpowers, but those words would mean nothing.
And look at how those founding "human" fathers acted in regard to those rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Slavery existed in America from day one. Are we to believe that the Creator implied that liberty and the pursuit of happiness were only for people of European descent?
The humans in power at the time determine rights, and it is they who enforce them. -
@NT77, auctually, God wrote the declaration... I think it's in the bible...
"Work hard and become a leader; be lazy and never succeed. (Proverbs 12:24)”
Yup, there it is! -
I love posting meaningless bible verses on your boards. It makes me feel all warm inside. Here are a bunch that have nothing to do with anything.
"We love Him because He first loved us."
1 John 4:9-10
"And Jesus said unto them ... , "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to younder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you."
Romans 1:17
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you."
Deuteronomy 31:6
The LORD gave this command to Joshua son of Nun: "Be strong and courageous, for you will bring the Israelites into the land I promised them on oath, and I myself will be with you."Deuteronomy 31:23
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."
Joshua 1:9
Then you will have success if you are careful to observe the decrees and laws that the LORD gave Moses for Israel. Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or discouraged.
1 Chronicles 22:13
Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.
1 Corinthians 16:13
Hope Jeremyjanson posts some later today! -
Jeremyjanson just called me a jerk. I feel offended...
-
-
The irony, NT77, is that it's humanists, not theists, who first spoke about God-given rights. You can fault the Christians for many things, but not for that.
-
I honestly didn't know where the term originated, but thanks Marty.
I'm not faulting the Christians for coming up with "God-Given Rights," I'm just curious as to what makes modern Christians actually believe that rights were given by God, as opposed to being given by those in power. -
The truth is, there's no such thing as rights, nature is total anarchy. But for our won protection and well-being we want to believe such rights exist, and to justify this desire on our part we cite God as our source. It's even hard for atheists to accept the indifference of the universe.
-
That's a rational though and I can perfectely accept that. I guess it's human nature to not want to think that we're alone.
-
"humanists... first spoke about God-given rights"
This is true. Regardless of what other religious traditions (or lack thereof) they held, those who believed in individual rights were humanists. -
As I recall though, wasn't the first true humanist (St. Thomas Aquinas, circa 1200's) a christian? Sort of like Existentialism (Sweyn Kirkegaard) and the study of Space-Time (St. Augustine), didn't it start in Christianity and then grow outside of it with eventually outside of it taking the lead?
-
-
You may be confusing nature with civil society.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
