Featured Historical Revisionism

At Nuremberg the war criminals said that everything that they did was legal by German law and they had obeyed the laws of Germany. The USA and the other Allies said that there is a natural law, but that idea is now discarded by the left.

As for your examples of murder of the unborn child by the mother and the abomination of sodomy, those are man-made rights. As you correctly imply, they contradict Scripture, the only true source of human rights. Americans think the mother has the right to murder the unborn child and Americans think that sodomy is not an abomination just as Germans thought that the Holocaust was legal.

 

As I've said several times, Romans 13:1 (and for that matter, vv. 2-7) prove that we have a responsibility to obey the government God has placed over us. Let's review that passage.

Romans 13, NASB
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. ​

God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice. It is apparent Paul was commanding us to obey the government in all that is required of us, i.e., paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, and showing respect. Failing in those responsibilities is to ultimately show disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us.

And before anyone reminds me, yes, I show disrespect toward the man in the White House. I can't say I have a legitimate biblical excuse for doing so, and it is apparent that respect for others is demanded by God. We are not to take the world's attitude that respect is "earned," because it is not. Trust, yes, but not respect. That said, I also don't have to obey him or any other government entity or official when they interfere with my obedience to God.

Acts 5
27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them,
28 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." ​

This passage indicates that, as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. Once that contradiction occurs, we must obey God first, but even then, we are to accept the authority of the government over us and accept whatever punishment may result in our disobedience to it. Peter and the others demonstrated that by not protesting the flogging the Sanhedrin orders, and in Acts 5:40-42 rejoiced that they had been allowed to suffer for Christ's sake.

This is very basic stuff, folks. I'm not certain why it isn't being accepted.

 

Because saying that government is ordained of God and that we are to obey the law of the land has nothing to do with the contention that the Bible says men are given "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

Also saying that government is ordained by God means there is no room for criticizing a government or what it does. If God ordained it then to oppose it means you are opposing what God ordained. Not logical and God is a logical God.

If government is ordained by God then all those folk who continually scream and shout against Obama are opposing what God ordained.

 

And as I said in that earlier post -- you did read it, right? -- it of course does not say that specifically. But there is no doubt that God has given us those rights. Here. Read it again. Maybe it will make an impression this time.

 

It won't.

Did you know that "God helps those that help themselves" is in the Bible?
So is: "When God closes a door, he opens a window."

Whaddya mean, it's not in the Bible? I could certainly make a stronger argument that these axioms are in the Bible compared to your argument that the Bible says men have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Then I guess you'll have to live in denial, then. You've got all the proof you need, and choose to ignore it. So be it.

 

I've been following this tread. I have seen a lot of opinion, but no real proof.

Also I have noticed you remain silent when the logical outcome of you stance is shown.

 

The right to life comes from the commandment that thou shalt not murder.

That came from Jesus, not from men.

When a man with his depraved mind thinks of rights they are things like abortion, sodomy, polygamy, etc.

What freedom there is in this world resides in Christian societies.

 

Deut. 20:16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

So Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, etc. had the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness given to them from God?

 

There you go again! You are confusing the now defunct Jewish theocracy with Christianity. Next you will be telling me not to eat pork chops.

 

So you can use the OT to support 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' but you can't use it to refute it?

 

This doesn't even make sense. How is this an actual response to his question? It has nothing to do with it. Are you trolling? I feel dumber having read your response. Are you suggesting that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only came with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Are you suggesting God changes? The OT was still the partial revelation of God. Quit avoiding answering the questions with these inane ramblings of a mad man.

 

Don't be silly.

 

What do you mean? The Jews had a theocratic government until the time of the Messiah. Does that negate the Ten Commandments? No.

If you think human rights come from human beings, then good luck to you.