"Our God Given Rights" Where in the Bible does God give?
Submitted by RonPaulGirls on Fri, 04/02/2010 - 03:18I 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.
The Bible God gave nefarious Rights, too. Do they count?
By that I mean that these wicked Rights were given selectively, inconsistently, and all after the Ten Commandments were given. According to the Bible, these Rights below were certainly God given. Did God give them or did others give them in the name of God to serve their own purposes, not those of The Almighty? These are Old Testament examples, but there are also some in the New Testament if someone wants to know more.
The Right to kill, steal, and commit adultery given:
1 Samuel 15
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but everything that was despised and worthless, that they destroyed utterly.
Numbers 31
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
1 Kings 11
2 The LORD had clearly instructed the people of Israel, 'You must not marry them, because they will turn your hearts to their gods.' Yet Solomon insisted on loving them anyway.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
Nefarious Rights?
Steve MT,
You referenced 1 Kings 11,
2 The LORD had clearly instructed the people of Israel, 'You must not marry them, because they will turn your hearts to their gods.' Yet Solomon insisted on loving them anyway.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
You included this text as "proof" that the Lord gave evil rights. It says, "you must not..." This passage is a statement of historical fact and in no way condones Solomon’s actions or grants him "evil rights." In fact, it is passages such as this that reveal that the Bible is unlike any other “religious” text. It does not gloss it’s flawes characters, in fact it reveals warts and all of every character. All other religious texts prop up their leaders, minimizing or ignoring criminal or sinful acts.
The Bible shouts that Solomon was wrong for his immorality and suffered the loss of his legacy for it. One example, Nehemiah 13:26, 27 “Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin . Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?”
What translation Steve
NIV, KJV? God will allow His wrath to be handed to people by man if they are sinners, and even the innocent will lose their lives at the hand of sinners, it has been this way since day one. Satan was given power over this world from his fall, one needs only to read the Book of Job to understand.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
This is all from the KJV.
I have many problems with these passages above as well as many others like them. I cannot reconcile them as ever being from God, so I don't believe that they are. You make this right to kill given from God sound so matter-of fact, so easy. It's impossible for me to explain away as you have done.
Genesis 1:28 KJV
Speaking to Adam and Eve:
"28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Then John 13:34 KJV "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another"
Loving one another is freedom. I suppose all libertys can be derived from this. If we love one another, we will do no injury. On purpose anyway.
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
My vote for best answer!
My vote for best answer!
Were we born into servitude or were we born free?
I don´t believe in a god, but don´t we get our right in a natural way or are we born into servitude ?
Believing in god is another thing, a personal choice, but absent belief in god, does not equal born as a slave.
/Mike
Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
Servitude starts with a Social Security #.
The sooner one is obtained, the sooner one becomes a servant.
Yes, and I want to have a
Yes, and I want to have a national card burning, but it occurred to me the other day that that type of civil disobedience might just force the RFID implant issue…
By that national card burning, I am not saying don’t pay taxes, I am just saying everyone start living life without using that number…no more giving out that number on anything.
In the present system
we are born into servitude. You cannot live in a house or create from your own mind without paying a portion of the fruits of your labor to the government. And governments today are owned by banks which are owned by the very rich elitists of this world.
The world is one beg feudal system owned by the rich, and we are the slaves of the rich, providing the goods they need to live and also the monetary wealth they crave.
In a different system we are born free to build and create and keep the fruits of our labor, free to make our own choices and take responsibility for the consequences. In a system of freedom and liberty, we do not owe our lives to Government and Bankers. This is what Ron Paul teaches.
If we are born in servitude
If we are born in servitude it is because we are born into a world which contains many lies. But it is our responsibility to root them out and therein lies our freedom.
Our God Given Rights
We come into this world naked, initially having only the will to eat, and then we find a way to get up and walk. After that we try to create things from our own imaginations that will make our lives easier and more beautiful. Nature is simply there and we use it for our own needs.
What makes us different from animals is our creative abilities and abstract reasoning abilities. Humans progress and build their abilities by learning as they go along with increasingly complex abstract reasoning. We are capable of making things with our minds, making a blueprint and creating it outside ourselves. That is how God created us in his image, giving us the ability to create from whatever we imagine.
Somehow a group on this planet have stolen our God given rights by taking most of the fruits of our labor for themselves by way of taxes, goods, and interest on debt. It is deliberate theft. This group would like to enslave us completely, using our abilities in service to them. They were once called Pharaohs, Kings, Lords, Ladies, and we call them Bankers today.
We have a God given right to the fruits of our labor and the creativity of our minds. But at the present time, we are born into slavery to Government and Bank.
My 2 cents...
While I don't know of an individual verse to reference, I believe that the Bible as a whole both supports and explains how God and only God is the source of our freedoms and liberties. Such a complex issue cannot be solved or proven with one verse, and you should never read a Bible verse - any single verse or two can be taken grossly out of context. Read the chapter, the book and understand who the author is and what they are trying to say.
Basically we were made in the image of God according to Genesis. This image is not physical and temporary, it is spiritual and eternal. This is why every individual has value, worth, purpose and a destiny. The freedom and the liberty exist as a result of the perfect love God has for us - that perfect love necessitates a choice, and that ability to choose is our freedom.
God is not a tyrant that controls our daily lives; we have liberty in this life. I am just as free to worship and submit to God as I am to blaspheme and renounce God in this life. Obviously there are consequences we must face for our actions and our decisions, which God made clear, but this is the very definition of freedom, yes?
Sin is tyranny and thus a restriction of our freedoms. The results of our negative choices have both temporal and eternal consequences. Christ is described by Paul as providing freedom from sin because we were created and originally intended to be free from sin, thus being free from tyranny. We all have the opportunity to shake off the chains because we were all intended to be free. Christ is the key.
Submission to God is not tyranny or slavery, it is perfect freedom, because God is perfect love, goodness, holiness, righteousness and justice. Because of His perfection He provided us with freedom and liberty, which we bungled and ruined.
Obviously if you do not believe that God is perfect and the creator of humanity (and all things) then you won't see it this way. Without God our freedoms come from nature or a government or another individual or group, all of them a cruel and heartless master that is far from perfect.
Apart from God tyranny and death is both a temporal and eternal fate.
"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."
Since when did all god
Since when did all god believers read the bible
Nowhere
Human rights are an invention of human intelligence.
Stripped of any mystical baggage, rights can be defined as those implicit interests of individuals in the protocols on fundamental civility that history has shown repeatedly to lead to societies with the greatest degrees of health, happiness, prosperity, and peace.
Contrariwise, selflessness and mysticism lead to oppression, tyranny, mass-murder, and self sacrifice.
There is plenty of wisdom, beauty, and poetry to be found in Judeo-Christian mythology, but so is there in the works of Oscar Wilde, Ayn Rand, Steve Ditko, and Robert Heinlein.
dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr
Keywords
Keywords - "selflessness", "self sacrifice", "Judeo-Christian" - they are opposite religions, and "Ayn Rand".
It is not in anyone's honest interest to confuse two opposite religions together - the liar hates the one he is lying to.
The work that Rand plagiarized from is about mutual interest, not selfishness. Mutual interest precludes things like plagiarizing, lying, stealing from others, massive bank frauds . It ultimately can lead to love, which is why The Driver - of human cooperation, is better than the train wreck of Rand's selfishness.
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.
I neither confuse nor conflate.
I simply point out common threads and am able to separate the message from the messenger.
I no more indict the sublime beauty of David's songbook in light of vengeful bears enforcing Jehovah's ire against naughty children than I let allegations of Jackson Browne's beating up Darryl Hannah spoil my love of Linda Paloma.
Good stuff is where you find it, and so far as I can tell, the best stuff comes from human intelligence.
"What a piece of work is Man, how noble and reasoned..."
(To others -- muchos majalos for the down votes. "Any press is good press.")
dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr
***** = Liars Hate ~ ~ ~
+1, & 5*s for whipping the 'selfish' liar.
"the liar hates the one he is lying to."
MaxK, you are doing great, saved me a lot of heavy labor.
Thanks, & may you have more Light, strength & stamina.
Ticks, Trick$ & Traps - http://www.usDebtClock.org/
Hitmen Confess - https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dn7Fzm1hEiDQ
Misinformed finds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpROEzHEtOI
RonPaulgirls: Have you read Man's Rights ...
in either Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or The Objectivist Newsletter 1962-1965?
Ayn Rand was one of the most rational, brilliant, creative geniuses who ever lived. She was inspired as a young girl by certain heroic characters in literature,e.g. Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three and wanted to live in a world inhabited by such men and women. She came to realize she would have to create such a world by becoming a writer.
She knew that heroes are those who are loyal to certain values and set out to discover what values it make the most sense to be loyal to. She explored what passes for wisdom in the realm of ethics and found that the history of mankind has been dominated by the idea that one should sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others and that the only choice would mean to sacrifice others for one's own benefit.
She understood that either choice rests on the metaphysical premise that Man is a sacrificial animal which she rejected.
The question is whether Man is a sacrificial animal or whether Man has a right to exist for his own sake.
To be a sacrificial animal is to be a rightless creature.
Ayn Rand identified that a human being is a living organism which possesses a volitional, conceptual consciousness. Read Nathaniel Branden's works to learn more about the meaning of that.
It is meaningless to talk of rights regarding any entity which does not possess the capacity to think on the conceptual level. It is Man's capacity to think conceptually which gives rise to his or her rights, the rights to take the actions its life requires.
No supernatural entities are required and can not be the source of Man's Rights. Man's nature is the source of Man's Rights.
Think about it.
"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the
Five things wrong before you even open up her book
Rand was a bigot and a plagiarizer, and as Rothbard said, colossally ignorant.
She stole her very first line - who is Henry m Galt and much of the setting and plot idea for Atlas Shrugged from The Driver (a much better book) (theft); while at the same time saying she owed no one anything for the ideas from the book except Aristotle in the introduction (liar).
Despite what a character - Francisco - says in the book that Atlas was holding the whole world on his shoulders - the line from where the TITLE of the book comes, it was the celestrial sky (ignorance).
She dedicated the original copies of the book to her husband and the guy she was having an adulterous fair with (cheat).
Aristotle is not the model of objective thinking as she suggests in the preface and section names. In fact, it was exactly Aristotle that men like Galileo and Bacon had to overcome to ignite the scientific revolution - because assumed premises in Aristotelian logic is the definition of SUBJECTIVITY.
That's five things wrong with the book before you get past the first page. Title, dedication, reason given for the section names, first line, introduction blurb - representing ignorance, adultery, subjectivity, theft, and lying.
She was also a bigot. She only surrounded herself with Jewish people in her organization (bizarre for an intellectual organization, but not for a cult), which she called "the collective", her views on Arabs are on youtube, and well known, and she was an extreme anti-Christian bigot.
Rothbard, who knew her well, has her down to a T in his satirical play.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
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.
"Mr. Rearden," said Fransico,
"Mr. Rearden," said Fransico, his voice solemnly calm, "If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds theworld on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, bood running down his chest, his knees bucklig, his arms tembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders - what would you tell him to do?"
"I...don't know. What... could he do? What would you tell him?"
'To shrug"
p 429, 1957.
That's the quote for the title of her book. It's completely wrong. "genius".
And yes, I'm completely right about The Driver. The title of The Driver is taken from a specific scene in the book about what motivates people. It isn't just the Very first line and recurring motif that was taken, but substantially the whole point of both works. And that's despite the fact the both also take place around trains, and the other book was written by a well known free market writer. It's well beyond normal borrowing - although we'd kick you out of class in my university for this, because she explicitly said she owed no one else on her blurb introduction. That statement leaves no room left that it is intentional plagiarism.
This stuff, by the way, the title, the plagiarism - not just anyplace, but beginning with the first line of the book, the dedication of the book to a man she was committing adultery with, wasn't accidental I argue. It's malice. So arguing she didn't intend plagiarism is taking away her "genius". She wanted some people to know it, and some people not to. It's an example of selfish values.
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.
That is your opinion that I appreciated reading.
Others disagree:
Although The Driver is flawed by its sketchy characterization and its bewildering and extraneous subplot involving Galt's family, it is still to be recommended for the portrait it paints of a hard working, visionary, passionate, loyal, and competent businessman and for the sense of the "drive of the age" that it conveys. It is certainly not in the same class as Atlas Shrugged but what is? It is a good book and a quick read and I recommend it to you, if you can find it. It is a shame that it is not still in print.
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050315-16.htm
There is no doubt that Atlas, whatever else may be said about it, is original. Even if Rand was influenced by Garrett, there is simply no case to be made for plagiarism or deception.
http://archive.mises.org/7246/ayn-rand-and-garet-garrett/
Lying, plagerism, adultery - more selfish examples
Not acknowledging something you took is plagiarism. When it's the first line of the book - it becomes the theme of the book. Deception is another thing and there is quite a bit of deception in the cover and introduction as well.
Here is an example of lying in the book to cover up the adultery - lying before you even open the book. Lying, plagiarism, adultery are all selfish values.
"To Frank O'Connor
and Nathaniel Branden."Original dedication of Atlas Shrugged was to her husband and the man she was committing adultery with. She later got mad at him, removed the dedication, and required everyone to sign a loyalty oath to her ‘objectivist’ cult – (she called it the collective). Also this originally appeared at the end and was removed later. Since we know she had a long term adulterous relationship with Nathaniel, it’s just lying to explain the dedication.
"My other acknowledgement is on the dedication page of this novel. I knew what values of character that I wanted to find in a man. I met such a man -- and we have been married for twenty-eight years. His name is Frank O'Connor.
When I wrote The Fountainhead, I was addressing myself to an ideal reader -- to as rational and independent a mind as I could conceive of. I found such a reader -- through a fan letter he wrote me about The Fountainhead when he was nineteen years old. He is my intellectual heir. His name is Nathaniel Branden."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.
In addition, ideas on selfish
In addition, ideas on selfish philosophy are not new, in fact some of our founding fathers discussed them and dismissed them as unworkable, including Roger Sherman and Thomas Jefferson.
Selfish philosophy is where you get men like Alan Greenspan - who was part of Rand's inner circle and wrote articles for her, proclaiming the gold standard, and then going on & chairing the biggest counterfeit money operation in the world - the Federal Reserve. Same reason you have someone plagiarize her book, and claim she didn't owe anyone but Aristotle credit.
Our founders didn't believe that. In fact, they said the country couldn't work but with a moral and religious people.
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.
Malachi 3:16
Malachi 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His Name.
take a break, and think for a while, on worthy & weighty matters.
Ticks, Trick$ & Traps - http://www.usDebtClock.org/
Hitmen Confess - https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dn7Fzm1hEiDQ
Misinformed finds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpROEzHEtOI
Thanks for the scriptural
Thanks for the scriptural encouragement! God bless 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.
Bibilical or not...
We as human beings have rights. We have rights to live peacefully, we have rights to take care of our families, we have rights to fight those that do us harm. I personally believe in God, unfortuately, for us we live in man's world, and we need to protect our laws that our government has given us, but those laws still give us the right to protect ourselves, and our families, or at least they used to in the America I, and my ancestors were born to
.
Religion is submission to authority
it gets your comfortable of a higher authority taking away your rights cause lets face it many of the laws in those books are as oppressive as the ones we have in our goverment. Religion has led people to give away their rights to the higher authority it gets them treating goverment as they would god.
The very first commandment is
The very first commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If someone has made Government God then they are not following the religion indicated by the bible, they are doing the opposite. I would argue that due to the first commandment religion leads away from making government God, not towards it.
So is
@ Individualism: In many cases, science a tool to submission to government. Because there is a draught, as confirmed by experts and obvious observations, people often willingly submit to authority because the science (such as climate change) dictates, in their perspective, that it is necessay to save mankind. So is in many cases, ironically, anarchy, the most obvious example of individualism, such as that which was the result of the in the French Revolution that gave rise to Robespierre. It is strange that you would not include these observations. What about nationalism? Often it has led to more usurpation of power than anything that religious authorities could ever hope to achieve.
What about fairness? In my opinion, the biggest suckers for statism are the suckers who consistently advocate fairness.
Practically any idea, no matter how noble, can be used as a weapon against liberty and serve as a breeding ground for tyranny. As such, why would you single out one example such as religion? Besides, it is my opinion that a religious institution could be employed as a tool to power temporal power, though there is some risk in that idea.
It is my opinion that the twentieth century, the most secular of all centuries, was the one with the most tyranny despite (or perhaps because?) a lack of religion. The twentieth century was certainly the most centralizing of any recent century and evidence would support my contention that it was the bloodiest ever.
There will, unfortunately, always be a state due to the inability of every person to check their own passions. It is my opinion that the most we can do is check power. Perhaps it is the punishment for original sin, though perhaps I will be accused of submitting to the state.