Where do rights come from?

[JettaKnight]

So, applying some Jetta level reduction to absurdity[SUP]TM[/SUP]; are you saying that if planned parenthood took off the mask and acknowledged their fealty to Baal and that murdering children as an offering was their true raison d'être, you think the government would have no power constitutionally to prohibit it

'Pursuit of happiness' can never be mistaken for 'Do what thou wilt'

FIFY.




Hi Bug!

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, applying some Jetta level reduction to absurdity; are you saying that if planned parenthood took off the mask and acknowledged their fealty to Baal and that murdering children as an offering was their true raison d'être, you think the government would have no power constitutionally to prohibit it

'Pursuit of happiness' can never be mistaken for 'Do what thou wilt'

Im sorry I thought it was well understood that rights at the end of my fist, end just before the tip of your nose. Given the example you provided, I'm not sure you understand this.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Here, let's divide by zero.

For the Christians, is freedom to practice any religion, a right? I ask this, because if God grants rights, how does this reconcile with his Commandment to not have any other god before him? A Commandment isn't a suggestion. If you believe that freedom of religion is a right, then you are admitting that rights are really suggestions.

I think this falls within the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It's a good point. The First Amendment (in the Constitution) acknowledges this right (freedom to practice any religion). In the DoI, it is implied, but still refers to "their Creator" and not the Judeo-Christian God per se.

 

[nonobaddog]

I think one could legitimately say I don't know how to use the word 'right' correctly here.
To me there are real Rights - life, think, act - and then there is everything else - voting, religion, jury trials, etc.

The 'everything else' category is all man-made.

Even religions are man-made. God did not make religions and they did not exist before man made them. They are man's attempts to explain God and organize this explanation and get others to buy into their explanation. They are all attempting the same thing - however some intolerant religions that condone killing members of other religions have some serious problems in their thinking.

 

[2A_Tom]

Glad someone quoted this one.

Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 Here, let's divide by zero.


For the Christians, is freedom to practice any religion, a right? I ask this, because if God grants rights, how does this reconcile with his Commandment to not have any other god before him? A Commandment isn't a suggestion. If you believe that freedom of religion is a right, then you are admitting that rights are really suggestions.

God gives everyone free will.

I can witness to anyone, pray for them, cry for them, preach the truth but I cannot make them believe.

As a Saved person since your Salvation is between God and you I have to tolerate your unbelief. Toleration is after all a Christian belief.

 

[Spear Dane]

In Christianity, the Bible say a Christian has no guarantee of any of those - we are enslaved to God, and to a much lesser extent, Caesar.

Paul even writes about slaves being the best slaves they can be.

Exactly so. Anyone looking to the Bible for the right to have rights is going to be very disappointed.

 

[BigRed]

Simple question: where do rights come from?

From our Creator.

 

[2A_Tom]

You folk are not reading the KJV that is for sure. Wescot and Hort phoney versions make you slaves whereas Testus Receptus KJV Calls us servants.
The greatest among you shall be called a servant.

You are arguing the same thing as Rabbi's in this article.


https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ng-in-judaism/

Jews and Guns

 

[churchmouse]

Remind me where that's enumerated in the US Constitution. I see that described in the Declaration of Independence... a document written by a select group of men.


Again, not in the Constitution.



I don't disagree with the premise of granting those rights to all, but I do disagree with ascribing them to a gift from God. Just because you say they came from God, doesn't make it so. That's just bad theology on the lines of claims by Joel Osteen et al that God wants me to be happy, healthy, and wealthy.



I really don't think that's a road we want to start traveling here on INGO.

Really. Thanks for the heads up. I was replying to CP's statement that force got us those rights not advocating this is needed at this time. I think you now better than that. Read the post and the reply in context please.

 

[BugI02]

Freedom of Religion falls nicely under "pursuit of happiness," which I recall you listing as a right.... and the part relevant in the Constitution would be the "make no law....prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I'm giving you an instance in which the government would be on constitutionally sound ground to make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think this falls within the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It's a good point. The First Amendment (in the Constitution) acknowledges this right (freedom to practice any religion). In the DoI, it is implied, but still refers to "their Creator" and not the Judeo-Christian God per se.

That is my belief also. I believe that "rights" are things that everyone should recognize others as having, something innate, that neither gods nor man can deny. As a free man, I should be able to live, work, and play as I please, as long as my expression of rights doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't need gods nor man to tell me this. So if we say creator, perhaps it's more accurate to say "laws of the universe."

 

[2A_Tom]

They outlawed polygamy.

The pursuit of happiness is actually a stupid Hamiltonian revision that makes no sense at all as a right.

Life is the only real right. God gives it to you. He reserves the right to take it away. (except in self defense and punishment for murder)

Liberty is an extension of Life. This includes freedom of thought which gives you freedom of religion.

Liberty also implies the rights of association, self incrimination through search or vocalization and the ability to employ others in your defense.

Life so long as you interfere with no one else's life.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They outlawed polygamy.

The pursuit of happiness is actually a stupid Hamiltonian revision that makes no sense at all as a right.

Life is the only real right. God gives it to you. He reserves the right to take it away. (except in self defense and punishment for murder)

Liberty is an extension of Life. This includes freedom of thought which gives you freedom of religion.

Liberty also implies the rights of association, self incrimination through search or vocalization and the ability to employ others in your defense.

Life so long as you interfere with no one else's life.

Can't say I've heard of a Christian giving exceptions to God's authority to give and take away life. (i.e. Abraham and Isaac)

 

[nonobaddog]

Oh, God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No" Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want, Abe, but
The next time you see me comin', you better run"
Well, Abe said, "Where d'you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"

Bob Dylan

A little comic relief.

 

[BigRed]

They outlawed polygamy.

The pursuit of happiness is actually a stupid Hamiltonian revision that makes no sense at all as a right.

Life is the only real right. God gives it to you. He reserves the right to take it away. (except in self defense and punishment for murder)

Liberty is an extension of Life. This includes freedom of thought which gives you freedom of religion.

Liberty also implies the rights of association, self incrimination through search or vocalization and the ability to employ others in your defense.

Life so long as you interfere with no one else's life.

Life, Liberty, Property.

 

[NKBJ]

From our Creator.

bingo

 

[churchmouse]

That is my belief also. I believe that "rights" are things that everyone should recognize others as having, something innate, that neither gods nor man can deny. As a free man, I should be able to live, work, and play as I please, as long as my expression of rights doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't need gods nor man to tell me this. So if we say creator, perhaps it's more accurate to say "laws of the universe."

I can not make an argument to this. Not at all.

 

[Spear Dane]

Originally Posted by churchmouse
But in this rapid slide towards the edge it may be force that lets us keep those rights. It was force that removed the over bearing rule of the British from this land so we as a people could put them in place. This is by mandate. Nothing else.

I really don't think that's a road we want to start traveling here on INGO.

And yet CM is correct. In the end the only 'rights' people have are the ones they are willing to fight for and can successfully defend.

 

[churchmouse]

And yet CM is correct. In the end the only 'rights' people have are the ones they are willing to fight for and can successfully defend.

That was my point. Not anarchy.

 

[DefeatingPropaganda]

That is my belief also. I believe that "rights" are things that everyone should recognize others as having, something innate, that neither gods nor man can deny. As a free man, I should be able to live, work, and play as I please, as long as my expression of rights doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't need gods nor man to tell me this. So if we say creator, perhaps it's more accurate to say "laws of the universe."

I don't really think this is an unreasonable opinion, and I am not personally attacking you by expressing my disagreement.

From a Christian perspective, I do think the Bible makes it very clear that God has every right to do with us as He pleases. Even if that were to violate our "rights." He is the potter we are the clay, the analogy is used in both testaments.

That being said, it is the natural order of things for certain actions to be permissible only for someone in a certain position of authority: e.g. parents have "rights" the children do not. From one human being to another, I think the Bible is very clear for us to not infringe upon one-another's rights.

Yet at the same time, look at how this universal application of rights has been abused by the Left to destroy our society. Sexual degeneracy, drug use, etc. pushed in the media and schools to our children. Really the only arguments to stop these are moral ones, yet everyone has the "right" to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Islam also advances and subverts by abusing the freedom of religion in western societies, while it is really much more than a religion.

I am not advocating for a Christian theocracy, but I do think that on a local scale, if a majority of the population wants things to be a certain way, they should be able to make that decision. If a town wants to pass laws clearly based on Christian morals, then fine. If a town wants every kid taught creationism and evolution both, then so be it. If a town wants to outlaw the adult book & video store and strip clubs, so be it. If you don't like any of that, move to another town. Yet I would abhor a federal law doing either of those things.

Maybe it's just that human beings are fallen, and there is no perfect system, so anything in time will corrupt and decay. Because I see how the Left and Islam abuse our western tolerance, and I do second-guess our approach.