30 votes

"Our God Given Rights" Where in the Bible does God give?

I agree we have em, but I don't really have the reference to back it up... Anyone?

Chapter, verse, and version of Bible please

I have a B.A. in theology, maybe Im missing it?

Just wondering what everyone is usually referring to when they mention God Given Rights. We know the Right to Life is taken away by abortion, so all those beautiful children I bet would wonder too...
I think we should be clearer in how we say it?

To the guy who said I should read it and find out:
Clever. And I do read the Bible everyday. Every version of it too.

My main question is not if I believe it otr not it is asking why we say the bible gives us our God given Rights from the Bible. If it is deduced from reading the Bible that this is true, then OK I can agree. But we keep acting like there is one or a few specific places God gives them to us in the Bible. We should be straightforward, thats all.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So you're maintaining that

So you're maintaining that you can repent of your sins and believe on Jesus Christ in hell?

First - HOW DO YOU PRESUPPOSE TO DO THIS?

Your sinning all the time now. Every day, you add sins to your own life that you don't want others to know, and if you were honest with yourself, you are adding sins to yourself every part of the day that no one but you could know - safe from the world, but God knows.

You can't stop sinning. It is part of your nature.

Could you tell me how, something you can't stop doing now you will be able to in eternity? You have no explanation of how you can change yourself but you know you can't do it.

Under man's own laws, you would be punished for eternity, because you'd be committing new crimes all the time. How is God unjust, and you know wickedness must be punished, and allow that men should do so?

God punishes it, and he isn't unmerciful. But if you won't accept the line he's thrown you from the boat, and you drown, it is your fault - your own wickedness caused it.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Whatever mechanism gets

Whatever mechanism gets people saved now would be the same mechanism that saves people in hell. If it can be done now there is no reason God cannot allow it to be done at any moment. Your views about eternal suffering in hell lead to 2 conclusions. 1)That God is not all loving and the source of grace and instead wants some humans to eternally suffer in hell 2)If 1 is untrue then God is powerless over hell and cannot stop people from suffering there for eternity. Those sound like ideas that come from sinning humans, not truth.

You also completely ignored the matters of translation, interpretation, interpolation, cultural concepts influencing words and the behavior of priests who violently and arrogantly withheld the bible from commoners in the "Dark ages".

Why should God offer it

Why should God offer it again?

You rejected God coming down and dying on the cross. You're sinning by even suggesting such a thing. You can't accept grace with sin.

God won't save you this way. And that is from God.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Ever thought you may be the

Ever thought you may be the one sinning by believing that large numbers of humans are going to suffer in hell for eternity? Also nowhere did I reject that the Son of God died on the cross. Your view that that happened with the final result being that the vast majority of humans suffer in hell for eternity is the sinful position in my view, one that represents the fall of man very well. What I do reject is the biased interpretations and interpolated pagan concepts of arrogant and violently authoritarian medieval priests thirsty for power. A statement I have made many times which you continuously ignore so you can retain your untenable position, one that makes God either hateful or weak. That you can entertain and keep that position indicates a very harsh judgement against the majority of humans that does not square with Matt 7:1-6 well at all.

Check out George MacDonald's...

...Unspoken Sermons -- 'Justice' for an interesting take on these matters. Has me rethinking things a little.

There are "aspects" and "experiences" had in spiritual quest

that could be argued as "best of practices"

Meditation for instance -- There are systems of meditation that will get you "connected" to health, peace, and ralaxation faster than others.

Just as a Good MMA gym will make you a better fighter than ANY Tai Chi club. Save when "luck" decides the fight rather than skill; but having "skill" (applicable skill) creates peace-of-mind and thus improves fight-results from a methodological standpoint as well as philosophical.

But the particulars of who is going to Hell and who is Not or if there is Heaven or Hell could not be MORE unclear.

There are no best-of-practices when it comes to religion because the "determinants" are un-knowable, must be taken on faith.

It is categorically idiotical for any "serious" religionist to say that All Calvinists and all Wesleyanists are going to Heaven (let alone Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, or Muslims -- 90% of the planet).

Does God demand Limited Atonement "faith" or Unlimited Atonement "faith"

Because these are mutually exclusive.

And that's only ONE example in the pantheon of disagreence happening just under Protestantism.

So there can be NO RELIEF offered by religion because we cannot determine "best-of-practices" and there's NO REWARD for effort -- it's either Heaven or Hell (absolutely-right or absolutely-wrong in regard to which path you chose).

I just cannot believe if their is a God as we "imagine" (there might be one as we cannot imagine) that he is an absolutist who encourages individualism -- the two are mutually exclusive.

It couldn't be more clear.

It couldn't be more clear.

Everyone is going to hell already. If you do not repent and believe on Jesus Christ, you are still going to hell.

You are deserving of hell right now. You are headed there because God is perfectly Just.

The greatest concern should be, what is the one thing you must do to be saved.

God has also made a way out, and is perfectly merciful.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

No it is NOT "clear"

Which path does one follow -- which branch of Christianity the correct one?

Catholicism?

Eastern Orthodox?

Which branch of Protestantism?

These are mutually exclusive ideologies, each of which is seeking "absolution" of sin; absolution-seeking breeds absolutism, and when it comes to "hell" and how to avoid it there can be only ONE-Path.

So, which one?

Do you believe in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement -- that's kind of a big one right there?

Jesus Christ saves you.

Jesus Christ saves you. That is the only one you need to ask.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Will he "save me" if I'm a Catholic?

This "each according to their own" philosophy Christians like to throw around ignores 1000 years of in-fighting and hurling (by the heads of all the branches of christianity) the term "atheist."

Martin Luther said the Pope was the anti-Christ and thus an Atheist.

Many Pope's have said Martin Luther (and Calvin) -- thus ALL Protestants, was an "atheist"

So when I ask "which path" you have an answer, an answer you'd want your child to adhere to -- if you take the hell-bound soul-saving Sola Scriptura seriously.

If you child came to you and said, "I'm going to be a Mormon" you'd freak out (more so depending on the sect of Christianity you adhere too); you'd feel her soul was bound for hell for chosing a false-religion a coven of the devil or anti-christ.

Though I'm not religious I'm offended that you care not for my immortal soul because you know perfectly well "which path" is the one earmarked for salvation and which ones are not -- that is the unfortunate aspect of absolution-seeking and absolutism; there can ONLY be one.

So -- which sect of Christianity "saves me" as they are ALL mutually exclusive.

I can't save you. You have

I can't save you. You have to ask Jesus Christ to save you.

I'm pointing at the one name under heaven by which you must be saved.

Acts 4:
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

But I will pray for you.

But I will pray for you.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Your "I will pray for you" sounds a lot like "bugger off"

to me.

Go ahead -- pray for my username.

If I "knew" there was a hell and even thought for the shortest of micro-second measurements that YOU were heading towards it AND you asked me to direct you to a sure-path (one I profess to know) then I would send you there.

But you (et al - everyone) cannot answer a basic question: Which path of Christianity is getting it right?

Mutually Exclusive Ideologies (thus practices, beleifs, and observances) postulated as Absolutes by organizations claiming to know who's Heaven-bound and who is NOT is not an Ambiguous Journey -- There can ONLY be one correct path.

Either you are on it or you are not.

So -- which is the correct path to save my precious soul -- How about Mormonism? or a denomination that allows Gays to Lead?

Can you be direct on those questions (mormonism or denominations willing to marry gays -- if I follow their observances, rituals, ministry, beliefs, or versions of the Bible will I be saved?

Just My Opinion...But It Seems

...your path is certainly not institutionalized religion of any flavor...LOL.

I think your path is just fine because you ask all the right questions.
And, you seem to be well read and enjoy the topic. Even drawn to it.

I think sometimes you are refreshingly...not in a box. Your *immortal soul* has an eternity to ask questions. Your *immortal soul* will give you the answers...not this blog.

Peace.

fonta

Smile ;-)

*whispers in ear* "Shhhhhhhh, I'm hunting wabbit"

Wascal...

...I shall watch and learn wabbit hunting. : )

(Heck of a lot more interesting than some of the stuff on here lately.
I'm going for side-dishes as the main course is giving me indigestion.)

carry on.

fonta

it's really not that hard to

it's really not that hard to understand, and here I thought I did alot of overthinking, lol

Misusing the Word GOD.

Misusing the Word GOD
Religion, War and Bigotry in the Age of Globalization, by Richard Cook
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24688

the link was posted in a comment a few months back,- more relevant on this page.

In conclusion the author writes - " ~ in the West, the search for spiritual meaning and experience has never been stronger. So the likelihood remains that whatever the truth may be that hides behind the word “God,” it is a truth that continually calls to humanity for its exploration, understanding, and expression. For many, this search for truth has become a living fire."

Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 lol

I would say king James version when the creator makes the heavens and the earth and breathes life into a formless energy source (ie. the universe)
Correct me if I'm not wrong, but God never actually uses the word give in the bible as far as referring to him physically or mentally giving some thing to anybody (except perhaps giving Jesus up so that people may live free of sin).
He gives us life from the beginning my friend. By breathing into us spirit, intuition, imagination, logic reason love critical thinking creativity and all these wonderful things that make us such wonderful and damning creations. As a side note, do you believe he created Evil so that in enduring hardship and sacrifice we might learn a greater purpose to life ? Your thoughts would be appreciated . One thing he didn't given us is a concious, ego self esteem. He gave us the option for that by telling Adam and eve not to eat the fruit of knowledge, they did, thereupon felt guilty, and that is key , felt guilty and ashamed because they knew they did something wrong. Bam that's the knowledge of good and evil plus ego-tistical views of other people that we have and also how we view ourselves ,(beauty, popularity, judgement, etcetera )

Oath of Freedom
for the True north, strong & free!

It's an interesting question

But, in a sense, I don't think it matters. Here's my understanding. The Bible says God is our Creator - the Holy Bible of Christians, with an "Old Testament" that belonged to the Hebrews even earlier; Muslims also trace their heritage to the God of Abraham; and if expressed differently, many other cultures/religions also believe in a Creator. Most importantly, it's what America's predominantly Christian, Bible literate, founders believed.

According to the Bible, God created the heavens and the earth. And on earth, that included the mineral, plant, animal, and human kingdoms - with human beings having some similarities with those other kingdoms (our physical composition, life and growth, ability to move of our own volition...), but also distinctly different attributes, such as a mind of our own that allows for free will. The time frame or means by which this was facilitated doesn't matter: we humans are who we are.

Also from the Bible, in myriad direct and indirect references (some of which are quoted below), there is no question that, furthermore, God wants us to experience health, prosperity, and happiness. And the Bible says that God created the means - all we would need to thrive.

And so I think it's irrelevant whether or not it would state in the Bible, in words, that God granted us certain rights. It's implicit. If we believe in a Creator, a Creator who gave us free will, and we believe that our Creator wishes us to thrive, it follows that we would need certain rights, that is, certain rights that acknowledged our humanity and allowed us to pursue those things that would allow for us to thrive.

All that matters is WHAT WE BELIEVE. And those beliefs are what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on and what distinguishes our constitution from all others. WE believe certain rights are endowed to us by our Creator, NOT the government; therefore, what government did not grant, government has no right to take away. And for those Americans who don't believe in God? They're still protected by our Constitution, whether they can appreciate where those protections come from or not.

Well, that's how I see it. And I thank you for raising the question. It's given a lot of us pause for thought.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Just to clarify, for people that don't believe in a Creator

Our in alien able rights placed in stone by the constitution would have come from Nature itself. The fact that we are born, the Earth made us as humans, naturally, we think, breathe , live, therefore we have the natural right to retain these things

Oath of Freedom
for the True north, strong & free!

Yes, while it's clear Who the founders

had in mind in referring to our Creator, it's essentially the same principle. Our rights are implicit in who we are.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

The Second of the Great Commandments

The second of the Great Commandments, which is "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" - Leviticus 19:18. This is the Biblical postulation of the Non-Aggression Principle, which is logically equivalent to the negative right of self-ownership and those that proceed from it.

And of course, we can construct, by reason, the right of self-ownership from our existence (as was done by Locke and others). If we then also can state that God is the sole source of our existence, then God would necessarily be the source of our rights. This is less Biblical, but no less valid theologically.

Proof of God's existence

I am a "spiritual" man -- an Anti-Churchist an Individualist and Anti-Religionist.

Spiritual (to me) means: To encourage the acceleration of positive psycho-emotional "feeling" -- To extract joy by recollection or imagination -- To extract peace and bliss from meditational effort and To transmute negative emotions into use-full energy to be applied expertly where I deem fit.

My religio-irrational views are simple: To approach the awesome yet-to-be-understand "miracles" of life as a child (full of awe and wonder). When the "thing" becomes explained I add it to the very long list of "appreciative knowledge" and stay open minded to the new and ever-imaginative. For me this is the "Christ-Way" (it's what I call "awe-way" -- to be child-like and inquisitive (open minded); to un-ravel mystery knowing (without fear) that there will NEVER be and end to mysteries.

I never try to "prove" God's existence -- Nor do I advocate a specific religio-box for someone to enter into. I "accept" my spirituality and religio-imaginative lives are my-own and too weird to rationalize.

Most "proof" of God's existence (the miracles) fall to 3 Sorts:

1) Extrapolation of Experience
---An experience happens and rather seeing randomness the person brings God's hand in (only when it's positive)

2) Extrapolation of Literature
---Taking a reading from a book that usually justifies the genocide of whole peoples or slavery (sexual and physical) and claiming that as "proof"

3) Emotional Declarative
---A person has a "feeling" that came at an opportune moment and then extrapolates that as "God's Presence" or "God's Grace" which further invites others to agree that that person is indeed "blessed" (special)

If you can "prove" God by avoiding the above three then please do so -- because if the Christ story is true (and not borrowed from other traditions) then you are truly a peer-in-God

Then answer this -- Would you accept Emotional Declarative, Extrapolation of Authority, or Extrapolation of Experience as "proof" in any other area of your life (where you rely on science and logic to keep things moving)?

Say an elevator -- would you allow its engineering and maintenence to be an act of "faith" or would you expect logic and procedure to "prove" its serviceability?

How about a car? A bridge? Your computer? The Voting Machine? Your Lobbying Dollars?

If you can understand the latter and the former then you separate your "lives" -- the rational from the irrational and share one the individual in front of you wants to participate in. Being an indivdiualist (a man of liberty) requires that we respect the space and individuality of others.

There is no proof more solid

There is no proof more solid than a definition. If I name a wooden seat a chair then there is nothing that can be more rooted in my consciousness than that, that is proof. Following along that line of thought God needs to be defined also. If you have no definition there is nothing to prove, so proof is impossible. A useful definition is that God is the totality of all existence. If something doesn't have existence, or it is negated, then it is not in God. One negation is believing "I am higher than God". By believing this false idea that has absolutely no existence one removes themselves from God and experiences less joy. Removing negations brings us more inline with God and more joy results because a belief in a lie is a belief that we know better than God and are therefore higher than God. That is the path to heaven that Jesus the son of God took and which everyone must follow in faith, with all Glory going to him our Saviour sent by God. Then comes the choice to accept this concept or reject it. After that comes the hard work of finding out where we went wrong and correcting it so we hold no falsehoods, only the truth of God.

I reject your definition (for many reasons) but the easiest

would be "how do you 'know'?"

How do you know God is the totality of all existence and why would that be useful?

If that statement were true then it would be far that if God is everything "in" creation then we know less than 1% of 1% about God's "nature" and "laws" let alone what's going on "outside" creation.

If there is ONLY God (in and out of creation) then what's he made of, how does he have the ability to disassemble his parts and reshape them as he wants?

The vastness of such a being should inspire silence, not pontification. Nor should anyone havethe Gall to presume or preach his "word"

I mean bacteria is infinitely closer to our own size then we are compared to the size of just our solar system, let alone galaxy, let alone galaxy cluster, let alone super galaxy cluster.

On my own I know nothing. The

On my own I know nothing. The rejection is your own to make.

I can prove it

Unless you have redefined the word.

I am ALHYM. (usually translated Elohim)

I can create, change things, and make laws.

We are laborers together.

If I am, He is.

All credit to the Father who revealed this in 1 Cor 3:9, Psalm 82:6, and John 10:34.

Have a nice day.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

It's fine if a person has an area of their life of pure

imagination or reserved for psycho-emotive intelligence / development.

You will admit (wont you?) that the kind of "proof" you gave above would not be tolerable where your safety, livelihood, or wealth were dependent? You will admit that right?

Once you admit that and you can admit that the "differing" opinions regarding salvation (how to obtain, maintain, and believe) avowed by the various sects of Protestantism are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (where "exclusivity" in regard to being heaven-bound or hell-bound is crucial and absolute).

Unlimited Atonement vs Limited Atonement
---where do you stand or do you find it un-important?

That's just one area that Wesleyan, Calvinists, and Lutherans disagree.

Are you a "free-will" Christian? Methodist? Presbyterian? Anglican? Catholic?

Absolution-Seekers must be careful when chosing a path of Absolutism, right?

My safety, livelihood, and wealth

do depend on it. Everything falls under the premise of existence. Without existence, there is no wealth, no livelihood, no safety.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.