"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.
It doesn't matter what you
It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what is.
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.
True enough, but thats funny
True enough, but thats funny coming from a group of folks who believe in something with 0 proof, and who are infact just supposed to "accept" this bogus story on "faith." They aren't even allowed to critically examine the logic of the story for fear of "questioning" and thus angering the giant cosmic big brother.
Note to self.
Note to self regarding commenting on a comment:
Read the first comment first, before you comment on a comment.
As Emily Litella would say "Never Mind".
Troll
Just kidding :-)
"The bible's entire text outlines a celestial monarchy"
Brilliant
I like that you did not say "God's Word"
I can have a religio-imaginative God and not require him (in absolute terms) to be tied down to the limitations and un-clear and un-imaginative declarations that "men" have obviously made inthe Bible.
Oh if ONLY JRR Tolkien wrote the Bible.
Hahahahaha
Bad gas can be cured with right-diet
It is hard to eliminate the "funk" of absolutism and absolution-seeking.
How can one be an individualist who seeks absolution, hahahahaha.
By-the-By -- NO CHRISTIAN RELIGIONIST can support Jefferson; he re-wrote and chopped the living *pluck out of the KJV. What a brass pair he had?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Jefferson did not rewrite the Bible
He compiled a book of Jesus's moral teachings for his own personal study and improvement. And yes, it does include references to God and miracles.
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien
Okay -- He "omitted" the parts of the Bible
From wiki:
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Why don't you just actually
Why don't you just actually read it, you've posted so much about it with no knowledge.
There are two versions from around 1900 and both are online on google books. One is a facsimile, the other is a hatchet job that looks nothing like the physical copy. Look at the actual original.
Myths of the "bible":
Jefferson never called it a Bible, and still went to church every week listening to sermons from the whole Bible.
It was never published.
It was never used for self study - it is a flimsy book with pieces glued to it, and would have never held up that long. As it is, it has a long section missing right at the end of 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.
Oh -- so you are saying it does not exist?
In his letters to Adams he talks about it's construction, its purpose, and the parts of Sola Scriptura he cuts out.
Which "branch" of Christianity does not look as the WHOLE Bible as the inspired or literal word of God?
He was born Anglican but spent a lot of time with Deists and Unitarians.
The WHOLE of Protestantism stands on the Sola Scriptura -- so I ask you what parts can be cut out willy nilly and which denomination approves of this approach?
I understand if you do not want to answer direct questions.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
He went to the same Anglican
He went to the same Anglican church most of his life. He designed his church when they built a new one - I believe towards the end of his life.
What does it matter? He was a professing Christian. Whether he was a good Christian or not is up to His maker. He was in good standing at his church - never disciplined him apparently.
But what Jefferson was or wasn't doesn't help you being saved yourself.
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.
You are tap dancing around my very direct question
A Baptist does not think an Anglican is "right with Scripture" -- and to be wrong with scripture (Sola Scriptura) is to go to Hell, in the absolute sense of it. An Anglican feels the same about the Baptist.
If "specifics" on "how to practice" are not important and one can just say "Jesus save me" and "from now on I'll follow your commandments" then why would there need to be a Church with so many opinions?
I'm not arguing for the need for churches, I'm pointing out the ridiculous nature of absolutist-thinking.
There can ONLY be one "correct" path -- there is no "overlap" that covers the "basics" -- Absolution-Seeking requires Absolute-Correctness (regarding observances, thoughts, actions, and belief).
So -- which path of absolutism are you on, which "house" of Protestantism do you follow so I can tell you the number of people that are in Hell and that are going to Hell for not following said path, because that's how the arguments line up.
According to "someone" I'm going to Hell.
Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thy self"
How does one "love" his neighbor if the fear, or worry, or concern, or disgust regarding his hell-bound status is in the same heart-mind?
The answer is you can't -- so there's a disconnect, possibly a forgery of Christ's words. On the one hand love thy neighbor and on the other steer clear of "sin" and "sin-meme"
Would you let your children hang out with the gay couple next door? Probably not. What about you, would you hang out with them, as a Christian? How then can you "love" someone if you refuse to mingle and if behind their back you instruct your children that they are going to Hell.
It's the organizational base ideologies that pollute gentle Jesus' message of love, acceptance, patience, and tollerance. Organizations get caught in the net of absolutism, because they suggest "they" can direct peoples lives better than the individual.
Now an open-source organization might avoid those pitfalls, but try to imagine what an open source religion would look like; you'd have to strip away all hard-absolutist positions first off -- so no "lists" of who's going to hell and who's not. In fact "hell" would need to be removed from the conversation.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
A number of points for objectors here or on other threads
A short and quick list of some points I just wrote which answer different posts I've seen objecting to Christianity, particular point 1 and 2.
1) God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, that is why Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from hell.
2) Nevertheless, there is a hell. Jesus Christ wouldn't have died on a cross for you unless there was a hell.
3) To the thought, but why couldn't God just save me without doing that, is the point that is the way God has done it. He is sovereign, and that is the only way he has decided. I can think of many reasons why this makes sense, but the actual thing to know is what actually is, not why God did it that way.
4) To the thought, but why is there a hell if God loves me, is the same answer, and many people will be there.
5) If men can punish men, how is it that God can not punish, whose justice is completely good, completetly omnipotent, all knowing and wise, and completely merciful. If men think that it is a good thing that the wicked on earth be punished sometimes, how is it that God shouldn't punish? How could that be possible?
6) If men punish a thief for 20 years, how is it that a thief who never repents but keeps on thieving shouldn't keep on being punished? A sinner that never repents is a sinner that is continuing to do wickedly for eternity, and even under man's laws would merit eternal punishment.
7) If a lifeline is thrown to a man, and he refuses to grab onto it and drowns, how is that the fault of the men on the boat? How is it that God, who asks you justly to repent of your sins and believe on Jesus Christ - who died on the cross for your sins, and doing that - you will be saved, forgiven, given eternal life, a glorious mansion, given a new body, perfected, glorified, and accepted as sons - who were wicked sinners and enemies of God, how is that not merciful? That is not anything like the world would do - that is the most merciful thing ever - that is the Lord's mercy.
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.
An eternity of suffering in
An eternity of suffering in hell,sheol,hades,gehenna etc... for a temporal crime seems much more like something vengeful humans and medieval priests thirsty for power and/or projecting guilt would think up than a punishment devised by a merciful God. Also why was it called the good news if it was announcing that the majority of mankind was going to spend eternity suffering in hell? Doesn't exactly sound like good news to me. Have you ever considered that the church arrogantly took it upon themselves to create eternal suffering in hell to save the feeble masses at the point in time that they withheld the bible from commoners by using the threat of death for disobeying them? Doesn't seem very Christian to me and it throws alot of their dogma into doubt, especially when it is considered that you can know them by their fruits.
Didn't you actually read what
Didn't you actually read what was posted before replying?
That is point number 6, addressed exactly to this objection.
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 read it and it makes no
I read it and it makes no sense. Why exactly can't one repent in hell? Also the entire concept becomes even more dubious considering the facts I stated about priests behavior in the dark ages especially if one really digs into how these concepts were interpreted with pagan Greek concepts of hades interpolating with words such as Gehenna, so I replied.
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.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
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?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
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.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
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?
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
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"
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
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