"God Given"

[eye95]

God created me and has given me all that I have, including my rights. Thanks be to God (the very purpose of tomorrow's feast).

I am not saying they anyone else must believe this. I do.

At the very least, however, your rights pre-existed any government, and even if you do not believe that they come from God, they are part of your nature and are your natural rights. I tend to use the term "natural rights" because that term is understood by those who believe rights come from God and those who do not--and will not cause religious differences to interfere with the discussion of rights that we bring into the collective with us and retain.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP At the very least, however, your rights pre-existed any government, and even if you do not believe that they come from God, they are part of your nature and are your natural rights. I tend to use the term "natural rights" because that term is understood by those who believe rights come from God and those who do not--and will not cause religious differences to interfere with the discussion of rights that we bring into the collective with us and retain.

+1 I tend to do the same thing. Start out arguing natural rights. If it turns out he's a believer, I just shift the terminology.

Good point about rights pre-existing any government. Its a limited argument, though, so one wants to be a little careful. It only applies convincingly to enumerated and recognized rights. If you're arguing for a right not already enumerated or recognized by a large number of people, you have to fall back on the 9th Amendment which is pretty vague and still leaves your persuade-ee wide open opportunity to claim it did not pre-exist government. When arguing for a right not already enumerated or largely recognized, I've had some luck tying it back into natural rights.

For example, the economic rights and the right to sound money. Huh? "Never heard of those before." Just explain them in terms of natural rights to property and the produce of your labor. Then people start to get it. You can almost see the lights come on when they do.

 

[renoglock22]

Then said he unto them … he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

So if the right to bear arms is a "God given" right then why are guns illegal in England, a Christian nation? Our rights are not granted by a god that no one can prove but fought for by individuals who were tired of not having those rights.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Man has certain rights.

These rights have always existed.

These rights existed BEFORE government was created.

Government was created in order to protect these rights.

 

[tcox4freedom]

The PEOPLE are the higher god that government should be worshiping.


-jakeus

Therein lies another reason to elect government leaders that believe in God or a higher power than themselves. When our halls of government gets filled with people that see themselves as the highest being in the universe, they end up acting like "demigods" passing laws & rules that are self-grandizing and insure that they will remain in power and the size of the power the wield will increase.

By electing leaders that place belief in something greater than themselves because they realize one day they will be held accountable is good for everybody; believer & unbeliever alike.

For instance;
In Christianity, the Bible teaches believers that they are supposed to count others as better than themselves. It also encourages believers to remain humble in leadership & service of others.

​

When people are "entrusted" to rule that do not have this set of beliefs and the foundation of Faith in God, they will always default to "self" preservation; even at the expense of an ENTIRE society.

I agree 110% that the people should "lord" over the government. But, after almost a hundred years of electing people on their "popularity" & "likability" instead of qualifications & merits of morality, we find us in a place where our government has grown almost to the point of total & complete control over every area of our life.

We also see our halls of congress filled with people who have made a life of power & grandeur for themselves while selling the rest of the country to the slave-masters of foreign lands. These people will never see hardship & face the consequences of their selfish & power hungry decisions. But, the rest of us will.

-

 

[WalkingWolf]

So if the right to bear arms is a "God given" right then why are guns illegal in England, a Christian nation? Our rights are not granted by a god that no one can prove but fought for by individuals who were tired of not having those rights.

Because it is not in their constitution, it is in ours. Because the right to bear arms was there to protect the other rights, from the dirty hands of gooberment. The right to bear arms was supposed to be the safety valve, until the courts diluted it's meaning to be self defense. The right to bear arms is the right to rise up, and hold gooberment accountable, it is the metal to liberty. But without a belief system there is no need, because as animals we can be owned.

 

[Citizen]

Because it is not in their constitution, it is in ours. Because the right to bear arms was there to protect the other rights, from the dirty hands of gooberment. The right to bear arms was supposed to be the safety valve, until the courts diluted it's meaning to be self defense. The right to bear arms is the right to rise up, and hold gooberment accountable, it is the metal to liberty. But without a belief system there is no need, because as animals we can be owned.

This meant more to be informative for WW and other readers, not contradictory.

Believe it or not, the British constitution does in fact contain a right to arms.

The trouble starts with the form of the British constitution. Its not a single document. Its a whole series of documents and traditions and customs across almost a thousand years. Magna Carta is a big one.

The one that includes a right to arms is the Declaration of Rights of 1689. The seventh item says, "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

http://www.constitution.org/bor/eng_bor.htm

 

[WalkingWolf]

This meant more to be informative for WW and other readers, not contradictory.

Believe it or not, the British constitution does in fact contain a right to arms.

The trouble starts with the form of the British constitution. Its not a single document. Its a whole series of documents and traditions and customs across almost a thousand years. Magna Carta is a big one.

The one that includes a right to arms is the Declaration of Rights of 1689. The seventh item says, "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

http://www.constitution.org/bor/eng_bor.htm

That little part there is what ******* it up. If that had been in our constitution we would already be in the shape they are.

 

[Citizen]

That little part there is what ******* it up. If that had been in our constitution we would already be in the shape they are.

Nah, that's not it. If you applied that interpration, the result is a nullification of the whole thing, which is a legal absurdity. If, when writing it, you intend for lots of later laws that erase it, there is no point in writing it in the first place. This violates the rules of construction which we got from them before the break.

I don't know for sure, but I'm betting that is their version of "subject to reasonable regulation."

 

[Ca Patriot]

I remember one time in 2004 having this exact debate with a homosexual.

I said to her "if God doesnt grant man rights then who does" ?

She said "the government grants rights through the people".

I replied, "yeah, and george bush was elected by the people to run the government so you dont get the right to marry"

She wasnt quite sure what to say to that.

 

[Citizen]

I remember one time in 2004 having this exact debate with a homosexual.

I said to her "if God doesnt grant man rights then who does" ?

She said "the government grants rights through the people".

I replied, "yeah, and george bush was elected by the people to run the government so you dont get the right to marry"

She wasnt quite sure what to say to that.

(chuckle)

Legal positivist runs smack into their own argument. Priceless.

 

[boyscout399]

I am a Christian and definitely believe rights are given from God. When arguing with atheists however, it's pointless to use the "God given" argument. Instead I use the term "Natural Rights." When talking guns I also try and turn it into the right to self defense versus the right to guns, then frame the guns as the tools for the natural right to defend yourself from attacks.

 

[sharkey]

Because whether you like hearing it or not, if there is no god we are just animals. And animals are slaughtered, made into pets, raised for food. If that is the case we deserve no more rights than they do. Again like it or not in every single society there is a believe in a higher power, and that power dictates the morality of the society. Yes you can be moral and not believe in god, but that morality comes from a society that is believe based.

A republic democracy would be the work of Satan not God. God teaches obedience and control.

If rights are God given why are there no mentions of rights like we speak in the bible?

Freedom from slavery is a human concept, not a God concept.

Rights were created by men who were tired of being controlled. These men fought hard and gifted you rights. They erode over time.

Therefore rights are derived from Satan.

Anyways, I still say God given even though I don't believe in God. If you truly believe in God and the bible you should not claim rights in his name. That's a sin and contrary to what he teaches.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/kingdom/kingdom_vs_democracy.htm

We must identify and reject the well sounding but vain philosophy of "relative equality" in opinion and position, which continues to permeate the subculture of believers (Col 2:8). The Kingdom of God is obviously not a democracy, and for very good reasons. Whether we are ordained ministers or simply members of a congregation, our opinions, even all of our opinions put together, have no place or standing in the just and righteous rule of God's Kingdom, unless they are in line with God’s will: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he hears us:" (1Jo 5:14)

 

[sharkey]

Op-
Wolf is hitting on an important point. One of the most important reasons to keep believers of GOD in government is to keep the belief of our founding fathers

****Snipped ****

-

Why do people insist on this claim?

"There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice....." [Thomas Paine]

Shall I continue one founding father at a time? If so the next quote will be Jefferson.

 

[david.ross]

Because whether you like hearing it or not, if there is no god we are just animals. And animals are slaughtered, made into pets, raised for food. If that is the case we deserve no more rights than they do.

I don't agree with your opinion, I prefer to base my opinions on science("facts").

Speaking as an atheist, there is no god and we are all just animals. Some countries still have slavery, making people work forcefully. Some people would say using dogs for sled pulling, using horses and other farm animals for work is slavery too. This includes using animals for as guide dogs, protection dogs, and other animals which serve humans. I'm not a animal rights individual, I do believe in using other animals for the benefit of gain. Are non-humans animals which are used for purposes of gain considered to be slaves? Sure are and I'm glad to use them!

Again like it or not in every single society there is a believe in a higher power, and that power dictates the morality of the society. Yes you can be moral and not believe in god, but that morality comes from a society that is believe based.

Morality are nothing more than social instincts. A set of rules we follow without a higher system like our legal system. Morality is order by society or person, not just bound to the human species. A single individual can develop morality without the need of others, it doesn't require stimulus from others.

"The development of the moral qualities is a more interesting problem. The foundation lies in the social instincts, including under this term the family ties. These instincts are highly complex, and in the case of the lower animals give special tendencies towards certain definite actions… " Darwin

A writeup on animal moriality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

You can find many more with a google search to .edu sites:
https://www.google.com/search?q=animals+morality

I personally find people who want to place humans above other non-human animals very humorous yet expected. Most humans believe they're the top of the food chain, and I'd be inclined to agree when in human settings. Stick a human in the wild, they'll probably get eaten by one of the larger animals in the wild if they're not in possession of a weapon.

There are plenty of studies on morality of animals ranging from monkeys to non-sapiens, you should take some time to read them... be enlightened.

 

[eye95]

So if the right to bear arms is a "God given" right then why are guns illegal in England, a Christian nation? Our rights are not granted by a god that no one can prove but fought for by individuals who were tired of not having those rights.

God gives you life. Another man can take that gift away, right? It is wrong, but he can do it. God endows you with rights, by the very act of creating you. Another man (or other men in the form of government) can take them away, right? It may be wrong, but he or they can do it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[tcox4freedom]

I am a Christian and definitely believe rights are given from God. When arguing with atheists however, it's pointless to use the "God given" argument. Instead I use the term "Natural Rights." When talking guns I also try and turn it into the right to self defense versus the right to guns, then frame the guns as the tools for the natural right to defend yourself from attacks.

^^^Agree^^^

I find arguing with an atheist is pretty much pointless. They are perfectly happy to live life with blinders on and their narrow minds completely shut off and intolerant to any beliefs other than their own. (Just another reason to have more opened minded believers in something greater than themselves in elected office.)

Don't get me wrong, I have several friends in my life that are atheist. I just don't argue with them. Instead I quietly lift them up to God in prayer.

-

 

[Anonymouse]

^^^Agree^^^

I find arguing with an atheist is pretty much pointless. They are perfectly happy to live life with blinders on and their narrow minds completely shut off and intolerant to any beliefs other than their own. (Just another reason to have more opened minded believers in something greater than themselves in elected office.)

Don't get me wrong, I have several friends in my life that are atheist. I just don't argue with them. Instead I quietly lift them up to God in prayer.

This is just silly. Atheists are believers in a dogma just like Christians and Muslims.

Just listen to your post. Blinders??? Says the blind man.

Denying the existence of A god is as silly as insisting that god exists. Children arguing over Santa Claus.

The best people tend to be agnostic or quietly spiritual. The rest tend to be blind believers that their way is correct.

As evidenced by the arrogant "I'll lift them in prayer" remark...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[david.ross]

I find arguing with an atheist is pretty much pointless. They are perfectly happy to live life with blinders on and their narrow minds completely shut off and intolerant to any beliefs other than their own. (Just another reason to have more opened minded believers in something greater than themselves in elected office.)

Don't get me wrong, I have several friends in my life that are atheist. I just don't argue with them. Instead I quietly lift them up to God in prayer.

-

"happy to live life with blinders" - Which is why the portion of religious people who are against gays put fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala"
"intolerant to any beliefs other than their own" - Which is why religious bigots try legislating the productive rights of women away, am I right?

As an atheist, I'm unlikely to argue with you even if you did start an argument. I'm more likely to say, "Excuse me, I've better things to do than argue about religious beliefs," and walk away, which is probably why you don't argue with atheists, we don't want to waste our time.

EDIT:

Denying the existence of A god is as silly as insisting that god exists. Children arguing over Santa Claus.

 

[eye95]

When I get into an argument with an atheist, it is because he has blinders on. I've been in many a discussion with an open-minded atheist.

I firmly believe that militant atheists, the kind who argue about it and make legal issues about it, actually believe in God, or they wouldn't fight so hard against something they claim does not exist. I think they are just trying to deny the sovereignty of God the only way they know how, by denying His existence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>