Do you have natural rights? If so, what are the root elements of them?

[donnay]

Where in the Bible does it say we have such rights?

God's Word says nothing about rights, per se. His Word does speak of Liberty and Freedom.

[Swordsmyth]

Unalienable right is an 'absolute' right. Yes, we have a right to the things that sustain our lives.

But only if we acquire them for ourselves, the left falls into the trap of claiming an absolute right to them even if they must be taken from others.

We should have the liberty to move about freely, government does not grant rights, therefore they should not take them away.

We should not have the right to enter a foreign people's territory without their permission and they should not have the right to enter our territory without permission.
Determining who owns what territory is a different and much more complex question.

[TER]

Unalienable right is an 'absolute' right. Yes, we have a right to the things that sustain our lives.

Where does it say that in the Bible? Does God owe us something that we can demand such a right?

If someone premeditatively takes someone's life, God said, send them to me. (Numbers 35:30 - 35:31 - KJV)

This applies to premeditative murder. This doesn’t mean we have an absolute right to life. Rather, it demonstrates that murder is a grave sin before God because (ultimately) it is a violent act towards God Who is the Creator. It is not because we have some unalienable right.

[TER]

God's Word says nothing about rights, per se. His Word does speak of Liberty and Freedom.

Yes, it does, but not because it is some right we have because we exist, which is what Thomas Jefferson said.

[donnay]

But only if we acquire them for ourselves, the left falls into the trap of claiming an absolute right to them even if they must be taken from others.

Then taking from others is an infringement, and not an 'unalienable right.'

We should not have the right to enter a foreign people's territory without their permission and they should not have the right to enter our territory without permission.
Determining who owns what territory is a different and much more complex question.

Yes, there are oppressive governments out there. I should have said within our territories.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, it does, but not because it is some right we have because we exist, which is what Thomas Jefferson said.

He did say they were given to us by our creator, I believe he meant that other mortals could not alienate them from us.

[TER]

He did say the were given to us by our creator, I believe he meant that other mortals could not alienate them from us.

Yes, he said that. But where did Christ say that? Or where did the Bible say that? Just because Thomas Jefferson said it, doesn’t mean it is true.

I am speaking as a Christian. Of course, people can believe what they want, and side with TJ on this matter or with TJ in denying Christ was the Incarnate Son of God. I am simply saying to my fellow Christians, be careful who you follow.

[donnay]

Where does it say that in the Bible? Does God owe us something that we can demand such a right?

Where did I say it was in the Bible? I said earlier in this thread that Thomas Jefferson understood what unalienable right meant as an absolute right endowed by our Creator by virtue of being born.

This applies to premeditative murder. This doesn’t mean we have an absolute right to life. Rather, it demonstrates that murder is a grave sin before God because (ultimately) it is a violent act towards God Who is the Creator. It is not because we have some unalienable right.

This debate is going in circles.

[TER]

Where did I say it was in the Bible? I said earlier in this thread that Thomas Jefferson understood what unalienable right meant as an absolute right endowed by our Creator by virtue of being born.

And I am saying that what he meant, and what you are defending, has no Christian basis.

This debate is going in circles.

I think you are right.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, he said that. But where did Christ say that? Or where did the Bible say that? Just because Thomas Jefferson said it, doesn’t mean it is true.

The 10 commandments establish many of them from the negative side (what you are not allowed to do to others), I would have to search the bible to see if there are any more specific examples.
For the most part GOD has not spoken on politics, I believe he has done so in order to test us.

I am speaking as a Christian. Of course, people can believe what they want, and side with TJ on this matter

I do, I believe GOD given rights are at least implied in the Bible and that they are self-evident to any honest and intelligent observer.

or with TJ in denying Christ was the Incarnate Son of God.

Here I would absolutely reject TJ's position.

I am simply saying to my fellow Christians, be careful who you follow.

And how tightly you follow them.

[donnay]

And I am saying that what he meant, and what you are defending, has no Christian basis.

I am not here to judge Thomas Jefferson and none of us knew what he said minutes before he died. It's not our job to judge--it says that explicitly in the God's Word.

I know what the DOI says and it is pretty clear to me, Thomas Jefferson believed in a Creator who endowed us with unalienable rights.

[TER]

The 10 commandments establish many of them from the negative side (what you are not allowed to do to others), I would have to search the bible to see if there are any more specific examples.

Correct observation. These laws however do not mean that we have some inalienable right, but rather that God has decreed certain laws whereby if we follow them, we will live.

For the most part GOD has not spoken on politics, I believe he has done so in order to test us.

Actually He has. The only political structure which has been ordained by God is the monarchy. Not to say that others do not have benefits or value, but rather that if we are strictly speaking to what political structure which God has blessed on account of our weakness, it is the monarchical system, with anointed and ordained kings.

I do, I believe GOD given rights are at least implied in the Bible and that they are self-evident to any honest and intelligent observer.

People do not sin against other people. Rather, they sin against God. Even when someone’s life is taken, the sin is not against the person who was killed, but rather against God. Like King David said in his epic psalm (51) of repentance for murdering Uriah:

Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge.

The judgement is not because King David took away some inalienable rights of Uriah, but because he sinned against God.

Here I would absolutely reject TJ's position.

As you should. But his deist religious views heavily influence his political and philosophical views. So when he speaks about God-given anything, be careful.

[TER]

I am not here to judge Thomas Jefferson and none of us knew what he said minutes before he died. It's not our job to judge--it says that explicitly in the God's Word.

I know what the DOI says and it is pretty clear to me, Thomas Jefferson believed in a Creator who endowed us with unalienable rights.

I never claimed to judge the eternal salvation of TJ, which is up to God, so your judging my intent is false.

What I am judging is his claim that we are born with inalienable rights, which is simply not true and definitely not based on any teachings of Christ.

[Swordsmyth]

Correct observation. These laws however do not mean that we have some inalienable right, but rather that God has decreed certain laws whereby if we follow them, we will live.

With relation to one another they are rights that he has granted to us.

Actually He has. The only political structure which has been ordained by God is the monarchy. Not to say that others do not have benefits or value, but rather that if we strictly speaking to what political structure which God has blessed on account of our weakness, it is the monarchical system, with anointed and ordained kings.

Actually he cursed the Israelites with a King when they demanded one and rejected his Judges, it can be argued that the tribal princes were also part of his system but GOD's Divinely appointed Judges were superior to them.

People do not sin against other people. Rather, they sin against God. Even when someone’s life is taken, the sin is not against the person who was killed, but rather against God. Like King David said in his epic psalm (51) of repentance for murdering Uriah:

Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge.

The judgement is not because King David took away some inalienable rings of Uriah, but because he sinned against God.

Sin is only related to GOD but it is possible to offend against other mortals, if GOD has given his children rights then to violate them is the sin of theft as well.

As you should. But his deist religious views heavily influence his political and philosophical views. So when he speaks about God-given anything, be careful.

Caution is mandatory when dealing with any philosopher.

[donnay]

Correct observation. These laws however do not mean that we have some inalienable right, but rather that God has decreed certain laws whereby if we follow them, we will live.

You keep on saying, "inalienable" and I am saying "unalienable."

Here is an excellent explanation:
https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...s-inalienable/

[Swordsmyth]

Originally Posted by TER

Actually He has. The only political structure which has been ordained by God is the monarchy. Not to say that others do not have benefits or value, but rather that if we strictly speaking to what political structure which God has blessed on account of our weakness, it is the monarchical system, with anointed and ordained kings.

I believe we do not have GOD's system available to us, if that is so then we must design and operate the best one we can until he makes his available to us once again.

I do not believe that the church at the time of CONstantine or after had the authority or the legitimacy to anoint or ordain a legitimate king, such an ordination would require a revelation to a prophet.

[TER]

With relation to one another they are rights that he has granted to us.

If we start speaking relatively, then we can come up a whole bunch of assertions which may be ultimately way off the mark!

Because it is a sin to kill, does not mean that, by necessity, the one who was killed had some unalienable right taken from them.

If that was the case, then God would not have allowed for capital punishment, since it would infringe on the person’s right. The Israelites of the OT certainly didn’t speak of any such unalienable right, and neither did Christ.

Our sins is not against persons, but against God, for disobeying His commandments. That doesn’t give us some right, even if we try to justify it by claiming relational reasons.

Meanwhile, TJ wrote about God-given rights of liberty, while at the same time owning slaves. Ah! But, relatively speaking, ‘liberty’ can mean different things.

Actually he cursed the Israelites with a King when they demanded one and rejected his Judges, it can be argued that the tribal princes were also part of his system but GOD's Divinely appointed Judges were superior to them.

He cursed them so much with a King, that King David brought Israel to its greatest victories and King Solomon built the Temple of Jerusalem! He didn’t curse them with it, He gave them a dispensation on account of their weakness. Nevertheless, it was certainly a God-approved political system. The only democracies and republics of the ancient times were all pagan, and short lived comparatively. By the looks of what the American experiment is unfortunately demonstrating, it sometimes seems it is headed there as well.

As for the Judges, they were also allowed by God but I cannot recall if they were ordained, as in being anointed with holy oil. Would need to look it up.

Sin is only related to GOD but it is possible to offend against other mortals, if GOD has given his children rights then to violate them is the sin of theft as well.

It is most certainly possible to offend other mortals. This doesn’t mean God has given ‘rights’.

[TER]

You keep on saying, "inalienable" and I am saying "unalienable."

Here is an excellent explanation:
https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...s-inalienable/

Thank you for this. I don’t believe it makes much difference though to what we are discussing, but I may be wrong.

[TER]

I believe we do not have GOD's system available to us, if that is so then we must design and operate the best one we can until he makes his available to us once again.

I do not believe that the church at the time of CONstantine or after had the authority or the legitimacy to anoint or ordain a legitimate king, such an ordination would require a revelation to a prophet.

I am assuming you are writing “CONstantine” as some form of derogatory manner which is unfortunate. I am also beginning to think that you have the idea that the Church fell way at some time and fell into complete apostasy only to be reclaimed again at some later date (a la Joseph Smith). In other words, you believe that the Holy Spirit failed, and that the historic Church disappeared when Constantine stopped the persecution of the Christians. That is very unfortunate and I respectfully suggest that you study more the ancient writings instead of following novel ahistorical and unfactual claims.

[TER]

Addendum:

From the Jewish Virtual Library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anointing

‘In Israel, anointment conferred upon the king the ru'aḥ YHWH ("the spirit of the Lord"), i.e., His support (I Sam. 16:13–14; 18:12), strength (Ps. 89:21–25), and wisdom (Isaiah 11:1–4; see *Messiah ). The king absorbs divine attributes through unction. The anointment of the high priest served an entirely different function. It conferred neither ru'aḥ nor any other divine attribute.’

Does not appear that the Judges were anointed with Holy Oil, unless they were of the priestly ranks(?)

The first use mentioned in the Scriptures of anointing a political figure is Samuel anointing David.

This was not a curse by any stretch of the imagination. It was a divine sacrament conferring the grace of God upon the recepient.

[Swordsmyth]

If we start speaking relatively, then we can come up a whole bunch of assertions which may be ultimately way off the mark!

Because it is a sin to kill, does not mean that, by necessity, the one who was killed had some unalienable right taken from them.

If that was the case, then God would not have allowed for capital punishment, since it would infringe on the person’s right.

Since GOD granted the right he can set conditions under which it may be removed, murder is one of those conditions.

The Israelites of the OT certainly didn’t speak of any such unalienable right, and neither did Christ.

That does not mean that such rights don't exist, there are many things that are not in the bible but do exist.

Our sins is not against persons, but against God, for disobeying His commandments. That doesn’t give us some right, even if we try to justify it by claiming relationtional reasons.

If I have children and give one of them a bike and tell the others not to take it from him he has a right to that bike until I take it from him, it is the same with GOD and his children.

Meanwhile, TJ wrote about God-given rights of liberty, while at the same time owning slaves. Ah! But, relatively speaking, ‘liberty’ can mean different things.

A hypocrisy he acknowledged and agonized over, he did set them free in his will.
I don't intend to judge him favorably or unfavorably about it because it is not my place and it is also not necessary for my argument, hypocrisy does not indicate that a position is wrong, it only indicates that the person is not practicing what they preach.

He cursed them so much with a King, that King David brought Israel to its greatest victories and King Solomon built the Temple of Jerusalem! He didn’t curse them with it, He gave them a dispensation on account of their weakness.

1 Samuel
Chapter 8


4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

It sounds like a curse to me.

Nevertheless, it was certainly a God-approved political system. The only democracies and republics of the ancient times were all pagan, and short lived comparatively. By the looks of what the American experiment is unfortunately demonstrating, it sometimes seems it is headed there as well.

No system has ever worked very well because people tend to be wicked, absent direct theocracy I believe that a limited Republic with monarchy like elements is the best we can do for ourselves.

As for the Judges, they were also allowed by God but I cannot recall if they were ordained, as in being anointed with holy oil. Would need to look it up.

I do not remember any of them being anointed with oil, those that I remember were chosen by direct revelation from GOD.

It is most certainly possible to offend other mortals. This doesn’t mean God has given ‘rights’.

See above.

I am assuming you are writing “CONstantine” as some form of derogatory manner which is unfortunate.

Constantine never truly converted and sought to pervert the church in order to use it as a tool of the empire, he had absolutely no authority to do what he did.

I am also beginning to think that you have the idea that the Church fell way at some time and fell into complete apostasy only to be reclaimed again at some later date (a la Joseph Smith). In other words, you believe that the Holy Spirit failed, and that the historic Church disappeared when Constantine stopped the persecution of the Christians. That is very unfortunate and I respectfully suggest that you study more the ancient writings instead of following novel ahistorical and unfactual claims.

I am a Mormon and I would suggest that you are missing some things in your understanding of the Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:3

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

King James Version (KJV)



Matthew 24:28

“For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.”

King James Version (KJV)




A carcase is a dead body, even Mormonism has succumbed to much heresy and corruption, it began in the founding generation and has only gained ground since.

[Swordsmyth]

...

[Swordsmyth]

Addendum:

From the Jewish Virtual Library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anointing

‘In Israel, anointment conferred upon the king the ru'aḥ YHWH ("the spirit of the Lord"), i.e., His support (I Sam. 16:13–14; 18:12), strength (Ps. 89:21–25), and wisdom (Isaiah 11:1–4; see *Messiah ). The king absorbs divine attributes through unction. The anointment of the high priest served an entirely different function. It conferred neither ru'aḥ nor any other divine attribute.’

But who has the authority to anoint a king and have it recognized and accepted by GOD?
Samuel was a prophet.

David committed murder after being anointed king and Saul sinned so greatly that GOD took the kingdom away from him and his seed even though Johnathan was a righteous man so we know that being anointed does not make one holy or infallible.

Without a prophet to receive revelation how would a society know when to change dynasties?

Do you believe that subjects are ever justified in rebelling against a tyrannical king?
If so what circumstances would justify it?

[CaptUSA]

Oh brother. Let me try to get this thread back on track and keep it out of the religion forum.


By virtue of being individual sentient beings, it should be self-evident that we have sole dominion over our thoughts. (How we got that dominion is a topic for that other subforum)

Since our thoughts drive our words and actions, it follows that any fruits or repercussions related to those words and actions are the sole responsibility of the owner of those thoughts. We each make millions of decisions every day based on those thoughts and no one else is capable of having those thoughts for us. (Although, these thoughts are often easily influenced.) This is the base precept of self-ownership and why it can never be otherwise. And since each person is a self-owner, the Enlightenment sages finally acknowledged that we are all equal. Not in physical attributes or possession, but in that each individual owns himself. From this is where our natural rights derive and why it is impossible for groups to have rights.

This self-ownership extends to our decisions as well. Since we own our thoughts and our thoughts drive our bodies, we own them too. Since our thoughts enable us to gain wealth, we own that too. Conversely, if our thoughts cause us harm, we own that too.

Mutual respect demands that because we are all self-owners, we can do anything we want as long as we don't infringe upon someone else's ability to do the same. We can no more force a man to move his pinky finger against his free will, than we can to remove his property. This has been distilled down to "life, liberty, and property" but it all derives from the same place: Self-evident self-ownership.

Do you have a right to free air, water, food or care as a basis for your life? Obviously, no. But no other human can prevent you from using your actions to acquire those things for yourself without violating your liberty.

[Ender]

Oh brother. Let me try to get this thread back on track and keep it out of the religion forum.


By virtue of being individual sentient beings, it should be self-evident that we have sole dominion over our thoughts. (How we got that dominion is a topic for that other subforum)

Since our thoughts drive our words and actions, it follows that any fruits or repercussions related to those words and actions are the sole responsibility of the owner of those thoughts. We each make millions of decisions every day based on those thoughts and no one else is capable of having those thoughts for us. (Although, these thoughts are often easily influenced.) This is the base precept of self-ownership and why it can never be otherwise. And since each person is a self-owner, the Enlightenment sages finally acknowledged that we are all equal. Not in physical attributes or possession, but in that each individual owns himself. From this is where our natural rights derive and why it is impossible for groups to have rights.

This self-ownership extends to our decisions as well. Since we own our thoughts and our thoughts drive our bodies, we own them too. Since our thoughts enable us to gain wealth, we own that too. Conversely, if our thoughts cause us harm, we own that too.

Mutual respect demands that because we are all self-owners, we can do anything we want as long as we don't infringe upon someone else's ability to do the same. We can no more force a man to move his pinky finger against his free will, than we can to remove his property. This has been distilled down to "life, liberty, and property" but it all derives from the same place: Self-evident self-ownership.

Do you have a right to free air, water, food or care as a basis for your life? Obviously, no. But no other human can prevent you from using your actions to acquire those things for yourself without violating your liberty.

Exactly- and thank you!

[CCTelander]

Oh brother. Let me try to get this thread back on track and keep it out of the religion forum.


By virtue of being individual sentient beings, it should be self-evident that we have sole dominion over our thoughts. (How we got that dominion is a topic for that other subforum)

Since our thoughts drive our words and actions, it follows that any fruits or repercussions related to those words and actions are the sole responsibility of the owner of those thoughts. We each make millions of decisions every day based on those thoughts and no one else is capable of having those thoughts for us. (Although, these thoughts are often easily influenced.) This is the base precept of self-ownership and why it can never be otherwise. And since each person is a self-owner, the Enlightenment sages finally acknowledged that we are all equal. Not in physical attributes or possession, but in that each individual owns himself. From this is where our natural rights derive and why it is impossible for groups to have rights.

This self-ownership extends to our decisions as well. Since we own our thoughts and our thoughts drive our bodies, we own them too. Since our thoughts enable us to gain wealth, we own that too. Conversely, if our thoughts cause us harm, we own that too.

Mutual respect demands that because we are all self-owners, we can do anything we want as long as we don't infringe upon someone else's ability to do the same. We can no more force a man to move his pinky finger against his free will, than we can to remove his property. This has been distilled down to "life, liberty, and property" but it all derives from the same place: Self-evident self-ownership.

Do you have a right to free air, water, food or care as a basis for your life? Obviously, no. But no other human can prevent you from using your actions to acquire those things for yourself without violating your liberty.

^^^^THIS^^^^ +rep

[Suzanimal]

Per the title, do you have natural rights?

Yes

If so, what are they and what are the root elements of them? Most specifically, I'm interested to break down the ideas and concepts into their most fundamental pieces.

1. Life
2. Liberty (as long as it doesn't violate 1)
3. Property (as long as it doesn't violate 1 or 2)

I believe this is Locke's view and I think it's the easiest guideline to follow.

As far as where they come from, it doesn't really concern me. But to give you an answer - Because I say so.

For example, saying we have the right to liberty can be viewed as a right, but how can this be further quantified? How can you break this down? Does this mean you have the freedom of movement? But is that really a sub-element of the freedom of self-determination? As well, there are some limits to the freedom of movement.

Thanks for any viewpoints.

I believe I have the right to literally do anything I want as long as it doesn't violate 1, 2 and 3 above.

[TheTexan]

I have a natural right to vote.

The right to vote is the foundation of all other rights, without which the other rights could not exist

[r3volution 3.0]

The Biblical and apostolic teachings I am mentioning above was established long before Constantinople was founded.

As for the original Greek word used in that verse, the word used was Καίσαρος, which translates to Cæsar.

Kaisaros, interesting, I assumed the Greeks used one of their own terms, not a transliteration of the Latin.

[r3volution 3.0]

As an aside, this is an important principle. If you have borrowed something from Caesar then you should give it back, it is his. Conversely, the fruits of your labor are your and yours alone. If Caesar has earned goodwill then it's good to give it to him.

The state is a criminal enterprise: an extortion racket, essentially.

From the libertarian perspective, it can be justified (and is justified) only pragmatically.

That is, the alternative (civil war, with the winner constructing a new state anyway) is worse.

If this is what that Biblical passage means (as I would assume it does), then it's very sound.

Whereas, if it means slavish obedience to established authority, simply because that authority exists at the moment, then it is most unsound.