• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"God Given"

Jakeus314

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
81
Location
Michigan
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
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
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

Whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the concept of good correct? Our founding fathers made sure to separate Gov. from Church because they had been oppressed by both in their time, both controlled by King George.

They also held certain rights to be unalienable such as: free speech, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, The right not to be forced to bear witness against ones self... And the right to bear arms to protect those rights from tyrants.

See text below for history


The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. 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.
 
Last edited:

Jakeus314

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
81
Location
Michigan
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
 

mpguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
689
Location
Suffolk Virginia
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
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
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

Humans (non Psychopaths) understand that to enslave, abuse, control other humans is wrong. Where we get this from is up to each of us to decide. But without it, we would not be able to choose to stand up for ourselves and our fellow humans. I think that is the underlying theme of "God given".
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Humans (non Psychopaths)

I must correct you on this since I've a background in healthcare. Not all psychopaths are criminals, which is contrary to what hollywood depicts. Psychopaths are human too. Unless of course you'd like to believe what hollywood sells regarding guns too?

I encourage you to learn the levels of psychopathy, some make great businessmen and I'm sure there are some grade A people who do own firearms too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
We've discussed at length here. Not a dedicated thread, but intra-thread discussions.

Over the years I have learned a handy little analysis method that I offer for others. When you reach an unresolveable loggerheads, when two pieces of information seemed directly counter-opposed, look one step earlier or one step higher in the process. Almost always you'll find the thing that unbalances the problem and opens it to resolution.

For example, God-given rights vs not-from-God. Impasse.

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. Natural Rights are basically the same thing; just swap the word nature for God. God-given rights as approached by John Locke are discernable from nature and our natures.

The whole point of the development of the line of thinking for God-given or Natural Rights was to expand the arguments for rights and shift the foundation onto something a little more solid and objective than the king's capriciousness. To argue over the source of rights is really just an internal argument or side argument about which method of persuasion we're going to use.

----------------------------

Its too coincidental you brought this up this evening. I just wrapped up watching a documentary on the Tudors and Stuarts. A great big problem for these monarchs was the supremacy of the monarch over the church. As a quick history lesson, Henry VIII couldn't get papal approval to divorce his wife, something he desperately needed because she wasn't giving him a male heir. So, he broke with Rome. And, set himself up as the Supreme Head of the Church in England. Nifty little solution, except that in order to help make it stick he also had to re-assert the medieval doctrine that the king was chosen by God and was answerable only to God.

We know that doctrine as divine right. Well, there was a buncha upset and turmoil in Henry's realm over his break with Rome. Plenty of clergy hated it. Thomas More lost his head over it. At Henry's death, his son Edward became king for a few years and continued his father's shift to Anglicanism. Edward got sick and died only a few years after ascending the throne.

Next, Henry's eldest daughter Mary became queen. One little problem--she was Catholic. You could say virulently so. More turmoil as she shifted the country back to Catholism, angering all the Protestants, and making some Catholics happy to have revenge for their sufferings under Henry and Edward. After about eleven or twelve years, Mary got sick and died.

Then, Henry's younger daughter Elizabeth became queen. One little problem--she was Protestant. She shifted the country back to Anglicanism. More turmoil. She tried to steer a middle path that would satisfy all but the extremists on each side. This was a fine idea, except the extremists on both sides were not content and one or both forced her hand. Among other things she re-asserted her supremacy on religious matters as chosen by God. Chosen by God and answerable to no one but God. Meaning, she didn't have to explain herself or answer to the extremists.

When Elizabeth died, James IV of Scotland came over to become James I of England. I'll leave out his religious troubles. Its kinda complicated.

His son, Charles I, was incompetent and bossy. Caused a lot of problems. He was too stupid to yield when he needed to. Oliver Cromwell & Co. really only wanted him to make concessions. He wouldn't. When Charles fomented a second civil war from his prison cell, Cromwell & Co. decided enough was enough. They cut off his head. What do you suppose was one of Charles' arguments? Yep. You guessed it. Chosen by God. Answerable to no one. Divine right. Except he wasn't doing it to get out from under the pope or establish religious supremacy. He was saying it for political supremacy.

End of history lesson. Back to God-given rights.

So, I was thinking about all this just this evening, and it occured to me that it is too easy an argument when a legal positivist (rights and law come from man) starts mouthing off against the idea of Natural Rights or God-given Rights. Just look him in the eye and accuse him of returning us to the day when kings claimed supremacy because of divine right. Huh? Yeah, we spent about 500 years trying to get rights away from men (kings) who abused/misused the concept of God by claiming divine right and putting it onto an objective source; and, now you want to turn it back to men again. Thanks a lot, bucko.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I must correct you on this since I've a background in healthcare. Not all psychopaths are criminals, which is contrary to what hollywood depicts. Psychopaths are human too. Unless of course you'd like to believe what hollywood sells regarding guns too?

I encourage you to learn the levels of psychopathy, some make great businessmen and I'm sure there are some grade A people who do own firearms too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/


Am I the only one who doesn't see a correction here?

FreeinAZ didn't say anything about criminals, so I don't understand the reference in the quote above about criminals.

I even looked up the definition of psychopath to make sure I had it right. Once you get around all the psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo and inability to define the condition, you can sorta distill out from what's left that AZ in fact was using the term correctly. As correct as a bunch of fraudsters like psych's can be anyway.

So, I don't see a correction in the quote just above. Nor, do I see an error in FreeinAZ's reference to psychopaths.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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

God given or "natural rights" .. hardly a true religious debate ... see US 9th amendment for your answer
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Am I the only one who doesn't see a correction here?

Yes, it's just you.

I'm referring to his "(non psychopaths)" section, as if people who are "psychopaths" are not human. I know exactly what people think when they say such things.

I even looked up the definition of psychopath to make sure I had it right.

Correct. The DSM doesn't have a definition for "psychopathy".
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
Yes, it's just you.

I'm referring to his "(non psychopaths)" section, as if people who are "psychopaths" are not human. I know exactly what people think when they say such things.

Since you seem to think you know what I was thinking, let me correct you. I was referring to those with "shallow or lacking in feelings for others" in layman's terms that is. Or from one of the many definitions online www.psychologytoday.com/basics/psychopathyPsychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. The psychopath can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack conscience and empathy, ...

I know you have a PhD or higher, but until you can pick the winning lotto numbers, please do not attempt to tell me what I am thinking. ;)
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Yes, it's just you.

I'm referring to his "(non psychopaths)" section, as if people who are "psychopaths" are not human. I know exactly what people think when they say such things.



Correct. The DSM doesn't have a definition for "psychopathy".

So, why did your correction address criminals when he didn't say anything about criminals? Don't bother. That's a rhetorical question. I know you were reading something into it that wasn't there.

Furthermore, he didn't say or even imply that psychopaths were nonhuman. He said humans and excluded the subset that is psychopathic.

And, just exactly how many people do you think really think psychopaths are not human? I mean really? If someone said "that man is a dog", would you feel the need to correct him? Supposing in your own mind that he really thought the man was dog?

Give me a break.
 
Last edited:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
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
As it has already been pointed out, certain rights are either "God Given" or they are simply "Natural." In other words, we are "Endowed with certain inalienable rights." Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of as many guns as I can afford to buy. While I'll concede there are some rights that do have to be earned. The right of self defense (and the tools necessary to carry out that self defense) is a natural right.

And if you disagree with me on that, I'll hit you with my purse! :)
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
And, just out of decorum, can we not have an argument on psychopathy? It's not relevant to this discussion. :)

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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
Well... this thread is already interesting... but I'll give my extremely simplistic understanding of "rights".

Each and every living thing, simply because it lives, has the right to try to keep on living. After all.. what is the point of life if one is dead? Hence the right to self defense. Many creatures have built in weapons like claws and teeth but human's have a much better weapon... their brain .. that allows them to create their own version of "claws and teeth".

God given? Natural? Earned? The word used to describe the desire to not be dead doesn't matter... what matters is just because we are alive we have the right to try to stay that way.

As far as getting into Who created life and who gives life? To me (my opinion) that delves into personal beliefs and still really doesn't matter since.... regardless of Who, if anyone/anything, gave us life there is still the right to try to protect that life so as not to be dead.

And all the other rights that humans have stem from that one simple right to try to stay alive since if a person is not alive the entire concept of rights is... moot.

My two cents worth (lemme factor in inflation) .. umm... next to nothing.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Well... this thread is already interesting... but I'll give my extremely simplistic understanding of "rights".

Each and every living thing, simply because it lives, has the right to try to keep on living. After all.. what is the point of life if one is dead? Hence the right to self defense. Many creatures have built in weapons like claws and teeth but human's have a much better weapon... their brain .. that allows them to create their own version of "claws and teeth".

God given? Natural? Earned? The word used to describe the desire to not be dead doesn't matter... what matters is just because we are alive we have the right to try to stay that way.

As far as getting into Who created life and who gives life? To me (my opinion) that delves into personal beliefs and still really doesn't matter since.... regardless of Who, if anyone/anything, gave us life there is still the right to try to protect that life so as not to be dead.

And all the other rights that humans have stem from that one simple right to try to stay alive since if a person is not alive the entire concept of rights is... moot.

My two cents worth (lemme factor in inflation) .. umm... next to nothing.

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........
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So, I was thinking about all this just this evening, and it occured to me that it is too easy an argument when a legal positivist (rights and law come from man) starts mouthing off against the idea of Natural Rights or God-given Rights. Just look him in the eye and accuse him of returning us to the day when kings claimed supremacy because of divine right. Huh? Yeah, we spent about 500 years trying to get rights away from men (kings) who abused/misused the concept of God by claiming divine right and putting it onto an objective source; and, now you want to turn it back to men again. Thanks a lot, bucko.


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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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

God is the word and the word is the law.

It's referring to a natural right. A right of natural law. The right is granted simply by our state of self awareness and our ability to think.
 

hjmoosejaw

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
406
Location
N.W. Pa.
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

This is the one I was trying to remember. There are other quotes also. This one, along with the replies between here and your OP, I think, is pretty much all one needs. There are a few answers there that just put it as basic and true as it could get. Have a good one!
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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

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.
 
Top