Featured Historical Revisionism

We are missing something here - i abhor the concept of religious law. I appreciate the fact that the US Constitution left God totally out - but recognised that sinful man needed more limits than himself and therefore wrote what the hoped would be an enduring document.

I don't accept that there is any evidence to support the fact that man is endowed with inalienable rights by the God of the Bible. Adam and Eve had those rights - but their sin broke the world for good.

 

C4K, I lied. I really believe that Jefferson was thinking of Jesus when he said that man had inalienable rights because what the government gives you the government can take away. I think that liberals/progressives are historical revisionists when they say that God gave man no rights.

I am sure that you will disagree with the SBC on this:

 

I was trying to 'think no evil' and assume the best.

Why would I disagree with that? It says nothing about God given inalienable rights - it merely says what the role of believers is in a broken world.

I would give you view consideration if there was one shred of Bible evidence to support the view that God grants men rights.

Jesus tells us only that we will be hated - not given rights and freedoms.

You may disagree with liberals, but they are not revising history. Jefferson denied that Christ was God, denied his miracles, and called Paul the great corrupter of Jesus' teachings. Why does such a man hold such great sway for so many Christians?

 

About every American leader and politician has said things about Jesus. What are you to think when FDR starts talking about Jesus? I just think that Jefferson spoke the truth because no government wants to give their citizens any rights and none of the false religions want to give their adherents any human rights. When you speak of Adam and Eve, you are omitting the work on the Cross, aren't you?

 

The cross did not redeem the whole world. It is still broken. I see no Bible evidence that God gave human rights to a world that rejects him.

Those who are redeemed can expect nothing but persecution and hatred from that broken world. We can't expect rights from a world that rejects our God.

Good discussion. Bed time over here though.

 

Historical revisionism has said that rights come only from government. That is incorrect. Jefferson was correct. Because of human depravity, governments are incapable of originating human rights.

The idea that Christians are to suffer tribulation does not mean that tribulation is the natural and correct state of the world. The tribulation is unjust. Human rights originate in the Christian idea that man is made in the image of God. The entire Mosaic code, setting aside the specific rules for the Jewish theocracy, is the most advanced law system in the history of the world.

At Nuremburg this issue was debated. German law said that there was nothing illegal in what Germany had done. American prosecutors, when faced with German law, said there was a natural law that rendered German law null and void. The natural law is that thou shalt not murder, among other things. Therefore, war criminals were executed. The fundamental appeal was to the ten commandments. Therefore human rights originate with Jesus. Man does not know good from evil and the only lamp to light man's path is Scripture.

Jefferson was correct.

 

Strawman.

You have failed C4K's challenge of showing scripture that says humans have "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Please show in the Bible where God has decreed this and not Thomas Jefferson's idea of what God said. Jefferson said many, many unbiblical things, even so far as editing the Bible to suit himself, so I'd hardly take his word on anything related to theology.

 

It is not a strawman to say that rights come from government because that is what Democrats believe. Reread all the attacks that Democrats made on Jefferson on this thread.

I have not failed to show that rights come from Scripture. I pointed out that man does not know the difference from right and wrong and Scripture is the only lamp for his feet in the darkness of this world. I pointed out that natural law was upheld by the Democrats at Nuremburg, a position which they have since abandoned, by showing that the law of Germany that legalized the concentration camps and the holocaust was proven to be illegal by use of the ten commandments. So human rights originate with Jesus, and under Allah, Buddha, and all of the other manmade and demonic gods there are no human rights.

Does anyone seriously believe that the human depravity could even imagine human rights?

Jefferson is correct.

 

You would be incorrect in that failure of acceptance. He provides common blessing for every man, to the ability for them to survive. And He makes available for all men His blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life"
Deuteronomy 32, NASB
46 he said to them, "Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law.
47 "For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life. And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess."

"Liberty"
John 8
31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

"Happiness"
Psalm 19
8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. ​

Jesus excludes no one from access to these God-given rights. In fact, through His common blessing, He provides comfort to each man, giving him time to note, examine and analyze the evidence for God, who draws all men to Him through that evidence. Nonetheless, not all will come to faith, which explains why your next comment is also incorrect.

He does promise those freedoms to all who will believe, and He excludes no one from belief.

Your characterization of Jefferson is grossly inaccurate, as He did not deny Christ, and to say he was a deist is a total misunderstanding of his rather unique but nonetheless biblically foundational beliefs. That's another thread.

In answer to your statements, the "world" can see limited benefit of those God-given rights even without Christ. The very existence of the United States, the fact that people are born here and aren't required to be Christian to enjoy them, is proof they are, indeed, God-given. Full realization of those rights and privileges is not available, however, without Christ. Let's look at the ultimate fulfillment of the promises in the light of Christ.

"Life"
Matthew 4
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "

"Liberty"
James 1
25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

"Happiness"
John 15
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full." ​

No, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not fully God-given to any but the faithful, but nonetheless, God has indeed blessed all with versions of these rights, in these United States and other nations as well, though them to a lesser extent and (another thread also) we in this country have surrendered most of them to a man-centered, collectivist government that pretends it can outdo God's provision.

But nonetheless we enjoy, even celebrate, those rights and privileges despite the persecution, and all have access to those rights and privileges in Christ.

 

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820


:thumbs:

 

This is what was said about historical revisionism:

Saying the Founding Father's were mostly devoted evangelical Christians.
Saying the Constitution is a God ordained, God inspired document.
Saying the America was a Christian nation from its inception.

No one said that historical revisionism was that rights are derived from government except you. You raised an argument that no one else has broached and then tried to tear it down. That is the definition of strawman.

So where is your scripture verse where God says humans have inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? C4K and I are looking for concrete scripture, not some oblique rationale.

 

You might want to consider reading all the posts.

 

Yeah, I saw your post about how God rescued the Israelites from the Egyptians, does not apply to mankind in general. Your Micah reference is a general statement and is akin to the Golden Rule. There is nothing in these verses about God giving humans the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

I would suggest that is a most ridiculous conclusion.

God creates and at once recognizes the value of what He has created. That God has created man should be sufficient reason to believe God has given man the very rights Jefferson suggested in the Declaration. If we lived in a world that lived in total harmony, Jefferson would never have found it necessary to wax eloquent about rights "endowed by [our] Creator," because the value of each person would be respected and, in fact, obvious. But it is not treated as such. The language of "personal rights" is necessary because humans torture, beaten, raped, denied property, denied opportunity, denied access to their God -- all by other human beings. It becomes necessary to assert for the very rights God's creation of us implies. Human dignity is not human dignity as such, but the very fact it is so often denied.

Without the love and salvation of God in the world, our depravity would drive us to annihilate one another, using each other for our own purposes along the way. Human life as we live it is deeply flawed. As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

It is these two truths -- that we were created for life, liberty and happiness but that we manage, essentially, to deny ourselves those rights -- that these rights are actually affirmed, as well as the responsibilities we have to God, our families, and our world. God also endowed us with those responsibilities, along side those rights.

We do not become fully able to discern right from wrong unless we know Christ, but there is a limited amount of such knowledge available to the unbeliever as well, as God limits the effects of sin so that the world does not destroy itself. People can choose to treat others with respect and dignity without knowing Christ, or with Him being their motivation. But once Christ is known, the need to love and give grace to others in the same measure by which He has given it to us becomes paramount to our Christian walk. It isn't that becoming a Christian grants us these rights. But becoming a Christian does enable us to appreciate and respect those rights, and extend them to others.

On the panels of the Jefferson Memorial is this forgotten quote from him regarding slavery:

So much for him not his endorsing his own thoughts from the Declaration, or that he ever "rejected" God or Christ.

 

So, still no scripture...

 

So you say. Anyone can see I've posted Scripture and explained it. That's your problem. As is making no effort to refute the argument.

:BangHead:

 

So, becoming a slave to Christ, becoming humble servants, giving up everything, even our lives, to serve God, to advance His kingdom, to lift Him up to be glorified, is equal to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? No wonder the church is dying. Life, outside of eternal life, liberty and happiness are the last things we are to worry with. There is a reason folks are having to twist scripture more than a Chinese contortionist could to try and make it resemble a logical argument.

 

And in addition to all this Jefferson didn't even practice what he claimed he believed (and that God had ordained) - he owned people. Apparently some men were created to be owned by others. Hardly equals - and hardly life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those folks.

 

You have a woefully lacking opinion of Thomas Jefferson. He was unique, but he was not the unChristian slave driver you and others seem to believe him to have been.

 

Do you have any evidence that he ever put his faith in Christ as his personal Saviour? I don't know how any Christian could call Paul the great corrupter of the teachings of Jesus.

And, pretty obviously, I never called him a slave driver - I said he owned people, and he did.

And then there is this - from another letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

'
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.'