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.

Kind of a worthless argument....

The bible was written by men....men are not perfect... I believe in God...but I don't think we need to go to the bible to find a passage that gives us rights to believe in the instinctive human desire to be free and not shackled by other men.

So.....call them "basic human rights" "God given rights" or whatever you want....they are healthy things for a healthy human race and I don't need any version of the bible to tell me that...


you are seriously attractive - btw.....hahaha.....

Paper Money Violates All Ten Commandments

Rights, Duties, and TransActions.
Jason Hommel explains in detail, supported by Bible verses /references.

1. Paper money debt enslaves you to something other than God.
2. Valuing paper money is an act of idolatry.
3. "In God we trust" takes the Lord's name in vain.
4. The sabbath debt forgiveness times are ignored.
5. Lack of honest standards dishonors our parents.
6. Paper money has funded mass murder; two world wars.
7. Lenders, usurers, are committing spiritual adultery.
8. Paper money and banking is institutionalized theft.
9. Paper money requires a mountain of false testimony.
10. Paper money is supported by greed and covetousness.

Read commentary on each point # - command =

SteveMT's picture

The Holy Grail of Money, Atlas Shrugged, agrees w/you, Najam.

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.
- Francisco d'Anconia

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion...when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing...when you see your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you...when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice...you may know that your society is doomed."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Republicae's picture

Actually Steve, Ayn Rand does

Actually Steve, Ayn Rand does not agree with Najam on interest and took the totally opposite view of those that opposed interest on money lending. What Rand opposed was the use of State powers to manipulate and manage the markets, including interest and to issue paper money substitutes (fraud) in place of actual real money, or gold and silver. Rand regarded the principle of the greatest productive power on earth as the objective human mind.

Additionally, she defended money lending, at interest, as not only moral, but essential for a free market and the voluntary ability to contract. It should be obvious that Rand did not believe the same way as Najam, for she opposed all types of government regulation or oversight which would pose a non-voluntary nature on the market and on man himself, in Najam’s world would be necessary in order to enforce his outlawing of interest. Thus, Najam’s 7th Commandment would be anathema to Ayn Rand’s concept of the freedom to voluntary contract.

“In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.” Ayn Rand

“Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.” Rand


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

SteveMT's picture

Consider that the lending with #7 is not "pure" lending.

It's done by manipulation and with the backing of the government and the Fed., i.e. Repeal of Glass-Steagall, Dodd-Frank bill, LIBOR and the previous housing bubble. Those banks should be bankrupt, and the bankers should be in jail. I agree with you about how lending was viewed by Rand. She is not alone. Nothing is done for nothing is what Rand is saying. If someone wants to borrow money, there should be a price involved. She is talking about borrowing real value-based money. Thanks for pointing that out.

Republicae's picture

I agree however, Najam is

I agree however, Najam is speaking of something entirely different, he believes in essentially "outlawing" interest of all types, based on my understanding of what he has said therefore, I doubt if he would find Ayn Rand's objectivism supportive of his stance in any fashion, thankfully! Additionally, he stands in opposition to an actual Free Market for within such a market the ideal of voluntary contract would be impeded by such a ban on one of the more vital processes of economic calculation, that being interest or rent on money.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Ayn Rand on Interest.

+1, thanks for sharing, great quotes. I have not read her works, I want to know what is her opinion /views about usury /interest.

Republicae's picture

I'm afraid you would not like

I'm afraid you would not like what she thought about interest. Since she was a firm advocate of the ability of people to freely contract together, it was a matter of voluntary action between two parties to determine freely, without compulsion or government intervention, the terms of contracts between them. That is at the heart of the Free Market after all, the ability for each person to freely decide the terms of the contracts between them.

I would suggest that you read a book, parts of it were published by The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and it is entitled Capital, Interest and Rent: The Theory of Distribution by Frank Fetter. I think you will come away with a totally different and approximately correct view of the proper role that interest plays in a Free Market Economy where people are allowed, without government manipulation or coercion, to contract between themselves any terms that are agreeable to them.

Addtionally, I think you would really enjoy a book entitled Honest Money:The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking by Gary North.

I would assume that you are also opposed to anyone charging rent on property as well, since you are opposed to charging interest, they are, after all, essentially the same thing. Rent is charging for the usage of a good, the property of the owner, for a specific period of time. In many regards, rent is interest charged above the actual principle sum used to purchase the property, that money is simply in a different form setting idle as property in a similar way that money that is loaned out is. Interest is nothing more than the rent of money, it is the price of renting a sum of money for a given period of time. Therefore, if you are against interest you must also, by principle be against the ability of a person to charge rent on idle property just as interest is charged on idle money or excess money. That is part of the Marxist ideal, rent and interest are essentially the same.

Now, if you are more specific in your opposition, stating that you are against the ability of the State to manipulate and control interest, or the fact that fraud is coerced on people through the artificial banking structure that the government sponsors, then that is a different story, we are in agreement on that point. But to simply make a blanket statement that you are against interest without fully understanding the complete structure of interest within the market that is quite another.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

re Interest & Rent.

thanks for your comment. I read some comments about Ayn Rand above, and did some reading on my own , and saw a few videos, - Any Rand comes out like a little demon, who is a zionist, arrogant & racist.

re Rent. I had typed about the differences 2-3 times before, on DP. I will search for the link-s and post here, or copy paste.

I had been reading Gary North's articles on Lew-Rockwell, a learned scholar no doubt who professes the Christian faith, but his jewish colleagues & teachers (at Mises Inst.) had their effect, he leans towards & defends usury.

You wrote - "I would assume that you are also opposed to anyone charging rent on property". No, no. Money is like a consumable item, it is (as eaten up or lost) spent, gone, given away by the borrower.
Property, e.g. house, car, tool, is retained by the borrower, if he canNot afford to keep it he can/will return the property.
In the case of money it has to be re-earned to repay, in the mean-time the interest meter increases the loan amount, making it more heavy & difficult to repay.

Therefore renting property is a service, = legal & moral.
Lending money on interest (usury) is immoral, sinful, unethical, unjust, cruel,- and condemned in Scriptures.

hope this brief reply clarifies the difference in rent & usury.

Republicae's picture

I’ve never been a big fan of

I’ve never been a big fan of Rand and like Rothbard, hold her works with little esteem, I was merely pointing out to SteveM the contradiction between what he said and the position Rand took.

No, it is not a matter of Jewish colleagues who have had influence on North, but the fact that the history of economics has had an influence upon him, as well as well-established principles of economic operation. There are a multitude of economic thinkers who were not “jewish” as you put it who were also influential on North, just as they were upon Ron Paul. Mises’ religion had nothing to do with the way he saw the principles of economic calculation, nor did Rothbard’s or anyone else’s in Austrian Economic thought. I find it extremely odd that you would even state such a thing here on the DP.

So, you don’t believe that anyone should lend or borrow, for that is what will happen if interest is banned and it would have to be banned by the State in order for it to be enforced, thus you simply can’t believe in the Free Market or the voluntary actions of contract between two private parties. You would also, by necessity, be against private property rights, for you would tell a person what he could and could not do with his private property. Can you tell me just how economic calculation would occur without interest, which is a measure of time preference within the economy? How would capitalization occur? How bout the pricing structure of money, or how decisions would be made in determining the health of the economy, how would that take place with interest being banned? Do you know what the proper role of interest is within an economy and why is so vitally important that interest not only be allowed to function properly, but also why it is so devastating economically speaking when interest is artificially manipulated by the central banks of the world? The thing is that we would be just as poor with the banning of interest as we are with the mass destructive manipulation of interest by the central banks.

You would do well to read the works of David Hume, who, by the way, was not a Jew, but who was influential in several areas of economic thought, he had quite a bit to say on the subject of interest and how vital it was not only to the economic health of a country, but also to all commerce, including foreign trade and the cycles of that trade, as well as the balance of trade that was and is also influenced by nothing less than interest.

Why would one person risk his money on another without covering that risk with a payment above the amount loaned, i.e. interest? Interest is the assessment of risk. Do you realize just what our lives would really be like without the economic principle of interest being allowed to properly function within a society. Interest is rent, it is the time that the lender allows the borrower to use his money, thus the payment of interest is little more than a rent for a term, similar to a lease term on a rental house, the same is true of interest. Just as a landlord takes a certain risk associated with renting his home to a stranger, so too does a lender take a certain risk in lending his money to a stranger. Few people, in their right mind that is, would lend money to a stranger without taking into consideration that risk and seek some compensation on the fact that there is a risk associated with lending a sum to a borrower.

Ah, now you state that usury or interest is condemned in the scriptures, well that is like other things in scripture isn’t it? The question is when we get down to the actual wording in both the ancient Hebrew and Greek, rather than the commonly read versions available today, what do you read and how those words are used in the context of the narrative is most important. I find it very interesting that people are willing to take words in English and assume that because a certain word is used in English that their understanding of the scriptures is explained exactly as they understand the meaning, not in Hebrew or Greek, but rather only in the English.

For instance, what does the word usury in the Hebrew actually mean, and how many times in the old testament were different Hebrew words used with only the word usury in English. Likewise, the same should hold true in the new testament Greek or Aramaic, the words that we understand with the narrow definitions of English are not always the same as in the original language. The fact is that our use and understanding of the word usury is not remotely the same understanding in the Hebrew or Greek, and yet, you state that both usury and interest are condemned by the scripture therefore, you base your complete understanding upon that assumption. Look up the word usury, for instance, in Hebrew and all the references of that word, what you will find is that it is used in ways that would make absolutely no sense if the word “usury” was substituted in many of the references therefore, you make a scriptural assumption based not upon the ancient Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic, but only upon the narrow understanding of an English word that was nothing more than a translation arbitrarily used because it seemed to fit a certain context, but was not a direct translation of the ancient usages.

Don’t you also find it very odd that Jesus himself used usury in a parable in Mathew 25 in a very positive way, rather than condemning it in the parable he spoke of it quite differently. Read the parable of the Talents.

If you are truly interesting in getting the closest understanding of both the ancient Greek and Hebrew then get a copy of Young’s Literal Translation, it is difficult to read because instead of simply using the most common or convenient word in a translation, it uses words that are far more closely aligned with the ancient languages. Of course, to do that means that some of your long-held beliefs might be challenged since most Christians today rely upon a commonly held understanding based purely on a usage of the English language rather than contextual usage.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Republicae's picture

The philosophy that

The philosophy that encompassed the ideals of what many call “god-given rights” are, at least in terms of our country’s history, the results of several political philosophers, who, during their life-times, were subject to a political reality that rejected the idea of the natural rights of man. In most cases, it was the Devine Right of Kings that was the ideal, it was the law and, in general, the idea that the common man had any rights except those granted by the mercy of the crown, was completely rejected. Remember, by during the 17th Century, throughout Europe and England, there was heavy repression of everything to do with the everyday lives of the common man, for the most part they were not thought of at all except in terms of what they could provide to those in the hierarchy of the State, whether that be in the form of taxation or pressing those people into service, such as in the military.

But, by the middle of the 17th Century, there were new ideas arising, ideals that were certainly radical in every way, one of those was that there was a moral obligation of government to serve the people and to do this by placing itself as a standard of protection for the life, the liberty and the property of the individual. Remember, up to the middle of the 17th Century land ownership was held tightly in the hands of what we call the landed gentry and the crown through a merit system of patronages.

The idea of natural rights arose with the idea that if the government violates the rights of the people then the people no longer have a duty to obey the government and indeed, have not only the right, but also the moral duty to rebel and seek to overthrow the government. As expected, such a philosophy, perhaps one of the most radical ideologies to arise in the history of man, posed a direct and very dangerous threat to the accepted order of not only power, but also economics.

Remember, John Locke didn’t even sign his Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government, he revealed the fact that he had written it in his will. Thus, the radical ideas that he and others were espousing were so very radical and threatened the status quo; in fact, it threatened everything that made up the entire socio-political structure, as it had existed for hundreds of years.

Thus, the idea that man has rights for just being man, for being born the same way as every other man, as every king, every priest, every lord and aristocrat was indeed radical and upset the accepted socio-political order. This radically new philosophy had at its heart, the ideal that no man is above another, that we are indeed born equal and it was through the combination those facts that we are all born and thus born equal then there must therefore be natural rights associated with that combination.

Remember, these ideas did not come from the church, which, by all measures, had always been a part of the power structure, and as such, it primarily was in support of the power rather than the common man. The idea of natural rights cannot readily be equated to what is commonly called “god-given rights”. Natural rights arise from reasoning, from rational observations, from a philosophy that negates the idea that one man is above another. These men of reason attacked, without any equivocation, the claim that god had somehow sanctioned the absolute power and right of kings. Remember, the claim was that the Bible not only sanctioned the right of kings, but that it essentially voided the rights of the common man through such a claim.

Perhaps that is why many of the Founders were, in fact, Deists rather than holding the more commonly held religious persuasions of the period, theirs was a rational religion that, while not excluding the idea of god, certainly espoused the idea that god did not extend his arm into the affairs of man. The idea that man should rather base their convictions on reason, rational consideration rooted in observations of nature, in particular, human nature.

As Locke declared: “Reason, which is that law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions…to have a standing Rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not the subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.”

The idea that there are indeed Natural Rights therefore, is rooted, as Locke said, in: “Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”

Thus, it matters not about what the Bible might or might not say about “god-given rights”, what is of a concern is the natural rights that arose from the rational observations of humanity.

Liberty in Reason


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun



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 the Bible, all men are

In the Bible, all men are equal . "There are neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, all are one in Christ Jesus". From this equality and the supreme lordship of God over government we derive rights and the means to protect those rights.

Im a utilitarian but this is the defense of God given rights.

Ventura 2012

SteveMT's picture

God's chosen people had more rights than those not.

At least, they did not act like they were just equal. God gave them the right to kill everyone else including women and babies and that these acts were not to be counted as sin. These people had been given the Divine power over life and death. The Popes believed that they had this same Divine power given to them as well with the ordering of the seven crusades over 200 years.

"God Given"

to me means natural rights. The rights each of us have as living,thinking beings in a free world. Isn't that what we are fighting to return to? Too often religion is used as a weapon instead of what it is intended to be.Our chosen method as individuals and community of connecting with the Creator and ourselves.

Luckily for me

I don't subscribe to fairy tales. My rights come from my humanity.

That sure seems like fuzzy

That sure seems like fuzzy logic for someone who claims not to subscribe to faery tales...survival of the fittest then? So if you're fat, or lazy, or slow, or mentally slower then others or whatnot, you don't have a right to survive then. Kinda silly to rely on some invisible thing called your own 'humanity'. Perhaps you should think this through a little more thoroughly because 'humanity' doesn't mean shiht, it's just a word (your own faery tale).

Does your country feel lucky.

Droughts,fires, higher taxes, housing collapse, high unemployment higher food prices,massive crop failures financial coming collapse.Gas will be going up twenty more cents by next week.Got to make gasohol with whats left with corn. We simply need a good case of famine to go with it.Lions and tigers and bears .OH MY. A country can only fall by two ways.One by sword. One buy debt.Pretty easy to figure out which one by now.Its up to humans to fix it.Right.I believe mighty mouse would come to the rescue first.

Money talks and dogs bark


Your comment has exactly what to do with mine?

God given rights come from Ten Commandments applied to State

Obviously , the founders used the 10 commandments as a template to write the Bill of Rights. But they applied it to the state. The state was told : You cannot kill the citizens, you must let them assemble, you must not make yourself God over the citizens, you cannot make a god(idol) over the citizens, you cannot steal from the citizens, you cannot take away or lust the mates, papers, fields, farms, animals, employees, companies, or anything that belongs to a citizen cause that is stealing. You cannot bear false witness against the citizens, you cannot cheat the citizens(steal), you cannot put high bonds on the citizens (stealing), you must honor parents of children and their wishes for their children( no lust or stealing), You must allow parents to speak(free speech/honor parents), people have a right to take one day off from work (right to assemble), the laws of the city, county, state and Federal government cannot be mixed together (no adultery/adulterating), Laws of other countries cannot be mixed with US laws (no adultery/adulterating), you shall have fair courts with citizen juries (no bearing false witness against neighbor(citizens).

Rights in the Bible

Life - "Thou shalt not murder"

Liberty - God gave us free will. If the perfect Creator of the universe did not impose restrictions on His creation, surely it is not okay for fallible man to do it to his fellow man.

Pursuit of happiness - Goes back to "liberty". God allows us to choose our own path even if it is not best.

Property - "Thou shalt not steal"

Etc, etc

“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

Blessed is the nation whose God is Lord

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves,and pray and seek My face,and turn from their wicked ways,then I will hear from heaven,and forgive their sin and heal their land.I believe God is still waiting for a call from America.

Money talks and dogs bark

the "IF" & "Then" in 2Chronicles 7:14.

+1, thanks for quoting this verse, its important & now so relevant. A correction in verse number is required, Psalms 93 has only 5 verses, and they do not contain the words you quoted. The correct verse number is 2Chronicles 7:14. It has been posted on DP before.

You will notice the first word of the verse is "IF". That means there is a condition, or qualification is emphasized right at the beginning,=
= "Called by My Name".

2nd condition, = be humble & amend, "then" you will be heard.

When "God given rights" are refered to in a governmental

context, I think reference is drawn more from the Declaration of Independence, than from the Bible.

The first few lines of the Declaration of Independence are:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,......"

This establishes the idea that these truths are "self evident", in other words not based on religous text but more on common sense. If they had wanted to establish a Christian Theocracy (a government specifically based on the Christian Bible) they might have looked for a religious reference to back up whatever they were saying. These were very learned men. But they were acknowledging with this document, a philosophical agreement in principal and in common between the men who gathered to sign it.

It goes back thousands of

It goes back thousands of years, so seems self evident. Locke Mentions it, Blackstone mentions is, Aquinas mentions it, we even had someone post for the 4th of July that Jefferson's Italian neighbor wrote a published paper on it before the Declaration was written with the sources.

The ideas in the Declaration of Independence aren't new. It was formed by a committee of five. Parts of are like other revolution documents printed before it. The last paragraph is from Lee's resolution in congress. (etc).

What is new is that it was used as justification for a country's independence, and in particular ours. That's what's new - not the ideas but the use in our history.

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.

What I was trying to get across was that, while there may be no

place in the Christian Bible where God says "Hey. I'm God. These are your God given rights from me. And your government better let you have them. Or else."

There are rights commonly refered to as "God given" or "endowed by our Creator" rights mentioned in the Declaration.

And while the Declaration of Independence is of course not a document comparing to the Constitution, it still serves to explain where our founding fathers were coming from and what assumptions they had regarding God given rights.

Poster had it right below in

Poster had it right below in this thread.

Rights are just an extension of wrongs and wronging other people, which the Bible does go into quite a bit.

You shall not murder - you have a right to life.
You shall not steal - you have a right to your property,


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.



This is from Blackstone, which does mention God, and sounds a lot like the Declaration in its way.

My point was - first - if I keep posting links and getting people curious, they'll start looking things up themselves - objective look at history and where things came from. I never looked up anything when I was younger either.

Two - common law was developed over a long time, and mentions God in connection to rights like the above. It is self evident, but it was also what was commonly accepted.

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.

The way I understand it as

The way I understand it as God created natural law, or its existence is a priori - hence its name and Dr. Paul making similar statements in his stump speeches.

We are bound to following natural law and it is the only law required for society to function. Other than the restrictions on actions by natural law, people are free to act. That is the God given freedom.

Any laws beyond the natural laws are the laws of man and the laws of man, despite good intentions, take away from this God given freedom.