"God Given"

WalkingWolf said:

Well Jake, let's do it this way. There is no God, so rights are not god given, so gooberment has no reason to honor them, since they are not god given and we are just animals. Why fuss over something that would make keeping our rights harder, whether you believe or not.

Click to expand...

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. Once all belief in God is gone in government there is no HIGHER god than the government. This means our rights can be dictated by the whims on men that don't have our BEST interest at heart.

We already seen that since the attack on prayer & public displays of Christianity began, our country has gone into a downward spiral and corruption greatly increase in our government. When the government can dictate "religion" (Pro or Con) and religious rights of believers, they can dictate any secular right as well. We need believers & Unbelievers alike to stand up for ALL rights.

I am a believer & a minister that opposes what the Bible speaks of as sin. But IMHO, it is not the job of government to dictate what goes on in the privacy of someones bedroom. I also believe it is the governments job to do what it can to protect life. Therefore, I think abortion should be more regulated and allowed only is cases rape, incest & health of the mother. But, as for other "religious" opinions & beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with others rights, they should be left OUT of government rule.

Lastly, giving a shout out to Big Gay Al & Bikenut-

-

Since my rights are God given, that is, the bearing of arms is a fundamental part of my chosen doctrine, they should be protected not only by the second amendment, but the first.

Citizen said:

and, now you want to turn it back to men again.

Click to expand...

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. If kings claim divine right how is it different from us claiming divine right?


-jakeus

WalkingWolf said:

Well Jake, let's do it this way. There is no God, so rights are not god given, so gooberment has no reason to honor them, since they are not god given and we are just animals. Why fuss over something that would make keeping our rights harder, whether you believe or not.

Click to expand...

How about this. I don't know if there is a God. We are exceptional animals. Many people died establishing and preserving our Constitution. Our government is based on that constitution.

How does this make keeping our rights harder?


-jakeus

tcox4freedom said:

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. Once all belief in God is gone in government there is no HIGHER god than the government. This means our rights can be dictated by the whims on men that don't have our BEST interest at heart.

We already seen that since the attack on prayer & public displays of Christianity began, our country has gone into a downward spiral and corruption greatly increase in our government. When the government can dictate "religion" (Pro or Con) and religious rights of believers, they can dictate any secular right as well. We need believers & Unbelievers alike to stand up for ALL rights.

I am a believer & a minister that opposes what the Bible speaks of as sin. But IMHO, it is not the job of government to dictate what goes on in the privacy of someones bedroom. I also believe it is the governments job to do what it can to protect life. Therefore, I think abortion should be more regulated and allowed only is cases rape, incest & health of the mother. But, as for other "religious" opinions & beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with others rights, they should be left OUT of government rule.

Lastly, giving a shout out to Big Gay Al & Bikenut-

-

Click to expand...

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


-jakeus

mpguy said:

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

Click to expand...

see, this is the type of stuff that really bothers me about this site. that is your personal religious view, many of us do not believe in that and I don't think quoting scripture should be allowed on OCDO. take it to a religious forum if you want to write that stuff.

detroit_fan said:

see, this is the type of stuff that really bothers me about this site. that is your personal religious view, many of us do not believe in that and I don't think quoting scripture should be allowed on OCDO. take it to a religious forum if you want to write that stuff.

Click to expand...

It only slightly bothers me that it's just a quote. It's always nice when people supplement their quotes with their own thoughts.


-jakeus

Jakeus314 said:

It only slightly bothers me that it's just a quote. It's always nice when people supplement their quotes with their own thoughts.


-jakeus

Click to expand...

The op asked for a opinion. The quote states what I believe in. Nothing else needs to be said. Why banter on about it and waste peoples time. It's the internet folks...

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

Jakeus314 said:

How about this. I don't know if there is a God. We are exceptional animals. Many people died establishing and preserving our Constitution. Our government is based on that constitution.

How does this make keeping our rights harder?


-jakeus

Click to expand...

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.

Jakeus314 said:

I don't want to piss people off, but does anyone really think our rights are "god" given?

I personally think it makes rights advocates look a little nutty. It just seems like an unnecessary exaggeration. I don't wish to discuss religion, but perhaps it may be necessary.

-jakeus

Click to expand...

Jakeus,

In a way I am sort of responding to all your posts so far, but quoting your first one as the rest seem aligned on this first one, and this first one contains what I think might be the central issue: arguing a God source for rights makes advocates look a little nutty.

There are a number of reasons you can let go of that concern:

The God-given angle on rights was a huge advancement. I'm not saying there is a God. In fact, I wouldn't let the underlying premise that there is a God get in the way at all--the advancement was too important. The God-given angle removed rights from being founded on the capriciousness of king and government.

The God-given argument may have started earlier, but a major milestone was the Enlightenment period. So its at least 300 years old. Its got a lot of tradition behind it. This is how it ended up in the Declaration of Independence. Remember Obama's comment about clinging to guns and bibles? My all time favorite reply was, "Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns."

There are a lot of people who believe in God or a Creator. Some are deeply pious. Some only show up to church on Easter and Christmas. The number of people who will think the God-given argument is nutty, while not insignificant, are not enough to be all that worried about. Especially since other arguments for rights are available that do not depend on a god for their premise.

Jakeus314 said:

I'm clear on what is implied in the writings...

"god given" just sounds like "god gave us these rights" to me.

I see them as hard earned by brave and selfless individuals. Earned.


-jakeus

Click to expand...

The conflict is only seeming. Rights are earned by brave people. They have to be because some people (government people) are not willing to recognize rights whatever their source might actually be.

For example, lets say the Christians got it all wrong, and its not their God, but Vishnu who/which is the source of rights. He waved six or seven hands and (shazzam!), men are endowed with rights. But, some men feel rights get in the way of their ruling over others, so they refuse to recognize Vishnu-given rights. The men who want to exercise those rights still have to fight and argue with the rulers in order to make the rulers recognize those rights.

The distinction is between source and recognition.

Jakeus314 said:

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. If kings claim divine right how is it different from us claiming divine right?


-jakeus

Click to expand...

Um, we don't claim divine rights. We claim natural rights. Kings, queens and emperors claim the divine right to rule over their subjects. We claim the natural rights, or if you prefer, the rights of man. And that's a HUGE difference if you ask me. Our natural rights do not give us the right to rule over others, but the right to rule ourselves. Too bad today's government doesn't get it.

Big Gay Al said:

Um, we don't claim divine rights. We claim natural rights. Kings, queens and emperors claim the divine right to rule over their subjects. We claim the natural rights, or if you prefer, the rights of man. And that's a HUGE difference if you ask me. Our natural rights do not give us the right to rule over others, but the right to rule ourselves. Too bad today's government doesn't get it.

Click to expand...

I've heard many people say their rights are god given. Is that not the same as saying divine rights?


-jakeus

Jakeus314 said:

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. If kings claim divine right how is it different from us claiming divine right?


-jakeus

Click to expand...

According to the documentary I viewed, medieval English kings cited a passage in the Old Testament for their divine right. I don't recall the citation or even the quote anymore. I have this vague impression the passage said God gave the Jews a king.

The problem is that the kings abused the divine source argument to establish supremacy and make themselves unanswerable for their violations of other people's rights. Meaning, the subjects' rights became whatever the king as a man said they were. The short of it is that kings were men who asserted a divine authority to do whatever they wanted. Just men. Who only used the divine right angle as cover to get away with their misdeeds.

The main thrust of the God-given argument is to take the source of rights away from men (kings, government, etc) and put it somewhere else. By attributing it to God, God's Laws of Nature, Natural Rights, etc., rights are then placed squarely in an objective frame where anybody can look. For example, anybody can look and determine, agree or disagree that "Self-preservation is the strongest impulse in nature." Now, your life no longer depends entirely on the whim of a king. You have the additional protection of the political scene: he has to come up with a really good reason to kill you or others who agree you have a right to live might make things pretty arduous or uncomfortable for him.

Jakeus314 said:

I'm clear on what is implied in the writings...

"god given" just sounds like "god gave us these rights" to me.

I see them as hard earned by brave and selfless individuals. Earned.


-jakeus

Click to expand...

You have to understand the underpinnings of the God-given argument. Essentially, the premise is that God, or whatever agency created the universe, set things up according to certain laws. Law of gravity. Law of physics. Plants don't grow in bad soil. Etc. These are also referred to as the Laws of Nature.

As a side note, even if one actively rejects a creative agency--the universe just happened, it wasn't caused--the Laws of Nature still exist and are discoverable. Including the laws of human nature.

sudden valley gunner said:

Good post, all of it just quoting your well put conclusion for emphasis.

I have been reading Conceived in Liberty , by Rothbard, much of the history you mentioned had a lot of effect on the colonies too in ways I wouldn't have expected. Liberties grew and waned and were very much effected by those in power a continent away. Libertarian minded colonies often were compelled to comprise liberties in different ways even when "liberal" rulers were in power in England.

Click to expand...

Looks like I got another one to put on the list. Thanks!

Citizen said:

So, look earlier. One place to look is why either side is being used. What's the point of arguing from either side? To persuade, of course.

Thus, if you are trying to persuade a buncha religious zealots, why waste time arguing and explaining and persuading from an athiest's viewpoint? Just go directly to the >>>>God-given set<<<< of arguments and logics.

Whereas, if you are trying to persuade an athiest, why build an >>>>impenetrable wall<<<< for yourself by bringing up God?

Just realize that the God-given angle is a persuasion method, an argument, nothing more. If the person you are trying to persuade doesn't buy the God-given angle, go for the Natural Rights angle....

Click to expand...

I missed this before. Thank You! When arguing for our rights it should be a top priority to minimize tangents for disagreement. I may start asking people if they believe in god before I discuss my various rights. Even though I am strongly atheist, I may be willing to use "god given" as a tool for reaching a believer. I hesitate only because I respect the sacrifices made by those who I believe deserve the credit for giving me these rights... So much.

Note: I added the >>>><<<<'s to the original text.

-jakeus

Venator said:

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of life is to reproduce one's self. That is, live long enough to create off-springs. I have, so my task is done. Goodbye........

Click to expand...

There could never be another like you Ven!!!!!




Whether or not that is a good thing.................................. :shocker:



:lol:

Jakeus314 said:

I missed this before. Thank You! When arguing for our rights it should be a top priority to minimize tangents for disagreement. I may start asking people if they believe in god before I discuss my various rights. Even though I am strongly atheist, I may be willing to use "god given" as a tool for reaching a believer. I hesitate only because I respect the sacrifices made by those who I believe deserve the credit for giving me these rights... So much.

Note: I added the >>>><<<<'s to the original text.

-jakeus

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Regarding top priority when arguing for our rights, it basically goes without saying that one wants to minimize tangents for disagreements. Persuasion 101. No husband who wants to go out to dinner and has a lick of sense is going to cite his wife's poor cooking skills as the reason to persuade her. Minimizing tangents for disagreements is something we do all day long every day anyway.

This thread has highlighted for me that a certain percentage of those who use any arugment in favor of rights probably haven't had the opportunity to learn about the rationales behind all the arguments very deeply. I am thinking that even more beneficial than arguing for rights is educating about the foundations of the arguments.

tcox4freedom said:

-snip-

Lastly, giving a shout out to Big Gay Al & Bikenut-

-

Click to expand...

Hey.... you look familiar....