God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Ok, I stand corrected. You are correct, there are some “rights” that do not apply to all citizens.

peace to you

 

As a Christian, I assumed I gave up all rights just as Jesus did. And am willing to suffer because of it.

 

"still aren't"? Imagine how deep the desire to virtue-signal must be in order to make a statement so divorced from reality.
And I say that as an Arab immigrant to Canada with plenty of immediate family in the US.
Man, how I wish I could get your kind to come live with me in the Middle East for a few years to see how minorities are treated.

 

It did, not kidding: Isa_3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Under the law, only the men took decisions that impacted national life. In the church women aren't allowed to speak. But how many deacons would dare tell their wives that?

 

The author of the liberty is the one who can take it away. If God is not the author of human rights, then there is no such thing as an oppressive government. There is no such thing as persecution. The strong live free by the oppression of the weak and the poor.

It's quite the wresting to insinuate that the authors of the DOI were meaning, or even intended to imply in the wording, that evil doers could not be deprived of life, liberty or property. Government exists to execute the wrath of God on the evildoer, and to praise those who do well. If due process, and the law, God's law, is truly observed, then God is the one who has dealt the death, not man--just as God is the one who joins in marriage, and not the minister, nor the civil servant.

What they mean by inalienable, is that innocent men cannot be deprived of these things justly, not even by kings. And to be created equal means there is no such thing as royalty. A royal is one who is presupposed to be above and superior to the commoner by nature, and is therefore by virtue of that nature a ruler of lower men.

It doesn't matter how you slice it. The rights are God-given. Not government given, as Leftists are wont to assert.

 

The early church had female deacons...

 

And pink unicorns too. It's right there in 2Philippians.

 

Based on what? Wishful thinking? Or are the inalienable rights logically derived? If derived by what reasons are any such rights inalienable? Or is our declaration of indepenance openning argument based of falsehood? From an atheistic perspective it is.

 

Read Romans 16 where Paul addresses women who were deacons in Rome. The early church also reveals women as deacons.

Romans 16:1-16
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

 

The whole idea of inalienable rights from God is they cannot or should not be taken away by government. Thus conscription by coercion, is based on the corruption of the constitution. More than half of the deaths of Army solders (listed on the Viet Nam Wall) were drafted, disproportionately from the South, from Blacks, from Hispanics, and those who did not obtain "deferments" due to marriage, or college. And the actual number would be even higher because some of the volunteers in the other services did so to get non-combat assignments.

We only have the rights we are able to defend, because there are plenty of folks willing to deny rights of others for their own benefit.

The bible teaches it is better to be free than slave, and therefore those who seek to take way our "inalienable" rights are not of God.

 

You're confusing heaven and earth again. You don't get to do that.

What Christians realize is that governments are not God, they are His servants, and are therefore accountable to His commandments. The secular and leftist position is the antithesis of that. You don't get to revise history either.

 

Actually, per Scripture, and the law of God as discerned by nature.

Semantics. And who on earth is right to deny anyone these?

Not on earth, as already shown.

 

You need more filler to distract from the fact that Phoebe wasn't a deacon. I suggest you quote the entire book of Romans next time.

 

You are free to deny the fact that the early church had female deacons. You do so, ignoring what we see in Romans 16. You can ignore early church records of women deacons.

Dr Thomas Schreiner - Southern Theological Seminary - says:

"We see an early example of women serving as deacons in the correspondence between Pliny the younger and the emperor Trajan (AD 98–117). In a fascinating conversation, Pliny asks Trajan for advice about what he should do as the legate to the province in Bithynia with Christians.

We want to think about one small piece of the conversation. Pliny refers to two Christian women, who were called ministrae in Latin. In English we can translate this word as “ministers,” and that is a good translation into Latin of the Greek word diakonos, which means “servant” or “minister.” We thus have an early example—in the second decade of the second century—of women serving as deacons. Obviously, such an example doesn’t prove women should serve as deacons, but it suggests women functioned as deacons in the early church."

Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes.

 

Extra-Biblical source. Case closed.

 

George, we have intra-biblical evidence and evidence in the early church. It's not "case closed", it's "your mind is closed."
In any case, we will find out soon enough when we meet Jesus. However, since the Bible tells us there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female, we know that Jesus views the roles of the church different than you or I do.