". . . truths to be self-evident, . . .
Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."
That God Himself happens to be the fundamental self-evident truth of all other self-evident truths by which all other self-evident truths are even evident. The self-evident reality by which we ". . . live and move and have our being . . ." Is identified as God, Acts of the Apostles 17:28.
God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by JonC, May 21, 2021.
Page 3 of 7
-
-
Explain the connection. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
". . . in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." The fact is we live and move and have our being in our reality. So unless God Himself is understood to be all of reality, in which tings exist, the statement Paul made would not be true about our omnipresent God. Otherwise I do not understand your question. Reality is a self-evident truth. -
These entitlements you prize are not given to all men by God as unalienable rights. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
But I'm going to rescue marriage from your assault. Men can't marry. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. What you should say is, the nation gives men the right to engage in sodomy and assault the divine institution.
I'm going to talk about real marriage as defined by natural law and nature's God, the main pillars of which have been universally recognized in custom and law from time immemorial to now.
All law has it's roots in the institution of marriage. It is the basic doctrine that guides all human interaction.
Where does marriage come from? Nature (and nature's God), or the state?
The answer to that will determine the answers of the following.
Do parents have authority over a child? Where does that authority come from? When can the state (or king, even) justly intervene in a parent's will for his child?
Unless one is merely a statist drone, one can't help but answer that marriage comes from nature and nature's God, that, yes, parents have authority over their children, and that the state can intervene only for the true safety of that child.
So here you see that the concept of limited government is indeed something that can be discerned by an enlightened view of nature. Men have certain rights by nature, and that these rights are endowed by their Creator.
But I guess it does if you think it provides you a means of escape. :Laugh -
-
I understand the DOI. I am not arguing against the DOI (if anything, the Constitution amply clarifies these "rights").
That is where your argument lost ground. I am arguing against the idea that men have been endowed by God with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other supposedly God given unalienable rights.
Nothing to do with the DOI.
I am saying the idea that we have thise rights are unbiblical.
I am saying that per Scripture men do not have a God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among other unlisted God given unalienable rights.
You are arguing the DOI. I am arguing the Bible. We are talking past one another. -
-
-
Please consider the passage, brother, and think whether you may have stretched its context and meaning beyond all reasonable merit:
Acts 17:25–29 25 Neither is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. 26 From one man he has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. 27 He did this so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ 29 Since, then, we are God’s offspring, we shouldn’t think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
You do not know what I understand about the basis of the Declaration of Independence because I have not commented on the Declaration of Independence except to acknowledge wording that Americans often take for granted (apart from the DOI).
You would do better to speak of what you do know, defend your views, and perhaps realize your "omniscience" is misplaced.
I am talking about the idea (expressed in but divorced from the DOI) that God has given all men unalienable rights among which is the God given unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, you could play the fool and go to the Declaration of Independence, but I am - have been - am now - and have clarified for your benefit that I am speaking of Scripture.
I am not interested here in that discussion (I may, perhaps elsewhere, but it would be the DOI in its own contest as a complete document). So save your strawman.
@37818 is correct about the DOI - it does not base these rights on Scripture but that they are self evident - and that is within a specific context.
I am assuming you do not hold the Declaration of Independence as Scripture (if the DOI is your "Bible" then I apologize for the assumotion....if not then get with the program, bro.).
Put your money where your mouth is. Give a passage stating that God gave men the right to pursue their happiness as an unalienable right.
Give a passage that men have been given by God the unalienable right to their own life.
Show the verse where God gives all men the unalienable right to liberty.
I dare you.
For my part, I will provide verses that says even our existence is dependent on Hod and not our right. I will show where man has not green given the right to seek after their own happiness as an unalienable right. I can even show where men are condemned and enslaved....and when freed it is to serve God. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
It is in the DOI, and for that reason I think we take it for granted. But the DOI is not the topic. Those rights as actually given by God as unalienable rights and if that is supported by Scripture is the topic.
In the future,, if you will take the time to read beyond the thread title these misunderstandings can be avoided. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
if you are going to critique the phrase you need to understand it’s origins. You seem to want to divorce it in order to make it mean whatever you want. Probably because you don’t understand the phrase “the laws of nature and natures God” or it’s origins. If you are going to criticize these rights you say are not in scripture then your criticism needs to be based on that and a clear understanding of the logic of John Lock must be part of the conversation. Without any of that your attempt is inept at best.
Page 3 of 7