PDA

View Full Version : Human rights



Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 12:24 AM
I am having an interesting discussion with another member of bibleforums on human rights. I have several questions I would like to throw out there for discussion.

1. What is the accepted definition in society today for a right?

2. What do you think is the scriptural definition for a right? As a follow up question, do we have scriptural rights?

3. Assuming we have rights, what is the scriptural response when someone treads on those rights?

4. If we have rights, how should that impact our reaction to government intrusion to those rights? Or how should we respond in a democracy as individuals? I am not sure what I am trying to ask with question 4 other than to get a response on what people think a christian response should be concerning rights when it comes to government, voting, protest, etc.

Is the following scripture applicable for this discussion?

Phil 2:1-11

2 If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NASB

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 04:44 PM
An interesting topic.

Are we attempting to make a distinction between a God-given right or secular rights granted from the societies we are part of?


1. What is the excepted definition in society today for a right?
I presume you mean accepted definition :).



I think Jesus showed that we really have no claims to any rights. He certainly made no claims to any rights. Granted there weren’t many under Roman rule, but based on the audience with Pilate he was afforded the opportunity to speak and defend himself but refused.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 05:07 PM
An interesting topic.

Are we attempting to make a distinction between a God-given right or secular rights granted from the societies we are part of?

If there is a distinction, then yes. (I think there might be one.)


I presume you mean accepted definition :).

You would presume correctly. Funny how that typing thing works. Thanks for the notice. I'll change it in the original post.


I think Jesus showed that we really have no claims to any rights. He certainly made no claims to any rights. Granted there weren’t many under Roman rule, but based on the audience with Pilate he was afforded the opportunity to speak and defend himself but refused.

Is there not a difference between claiming a right and having one? That's part of the reason I started this thread to discuss that very point. Thanks for the input.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 05:25 PM
Christians have no "human rights" afforded to them in scriptures.

We have...

The right to be hated by all men.

The right to be slaughtered.

The right to deny ourselves.

Etc., most of which are counter intuitive to modern concepts of "human rights".

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 05:27 PM
Christians have no "human rights" afforded to them in scriptures.

We have...

The right to be hated by all men.

The right to be slaughtered.

The right to deny ourselves.

Etc., most of which are counter intuitive to modern concepts of "human rights".

So when God says "Thou shalt not murder" he is not recognizing a right to life?

Did Jesus have the right to make himself equal to God? But did he do so?

I think we confuse at times the idea of "rights" from a western perspective, i.e. something that is owed to us that we can demand, with something God recognizes that all men should have even if we don't. Of course, God also requires that we lay them down too.

Theophilus
Mar 10th 2010, 05:39 PM
Rights? 1 Corintians 4, particularly 9-13, really spells it out for me. We give up our "rights" when we become servants.

The rights we have here on earth given by men can be just as easily taken away by men...but remember, our citizenship is not here, but in a realm to come.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 05:43 PM
Rights? 1 Corintians 4, particularly 9-13, really spells it out for me. We give up our "rights" when we become servants.

The rights we have here on earth given by men can be just as easily taken away by men...but remember, our citizenship is not here, but in a realm to come.

Can you give me a definition you are using for rights? Does God think all men have the "right to life" since he said "Do not murder"?

Theophilus
Mar 10th 2010, 05:45 PM
So when God says "Thou shalt not murder" he is not recognizing a right to life?

Not necessarily...it could just be that He doesn't like us murdering something made in His image.

After all, we're all eternal...some just have a fleshly covering. Does it make a difference to God if you're wearing a skin suit or not? ;)

Theophilus
Mar 10th 2010, 05:48 PM
Rights? Sure...the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. That's what I would consider "man given", as an example.

Although I can't say I don't like all those rights, I don't need them to be a follower of Christ.

I'm not trying to yank your chain or anything, BM...this is all just off the top of my head (which may explain a lot!)

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 05:49 PM
Not necessarily...it could just be that He doesn't like us murdering something made in His image.

Then the thing in his image (us) really has no inherit value to live? It's just the act of murder that's wrong?


After all, we're all eternal...some just have a fleshly covering. Does it make a difference to God if you're wearing a skin suit or not? ;)But is that fleshly covering a temple with value?

Anyway, back to the question at hand... what is your working definition of a "right"? I don't feel like you are yanking my chain. I started this thread for good discussion. I think we hang on to far too much these days. But I see a difference between demanding a right and having a right.

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 06:03 PM
Then the thing in his image (us) really has no inherit value to live? It's just the act of murder that's wrong?
Based on Genesis, my thoughts are that our value is to worship our Creator, and be the stewards of his Creation. I'm not sure if that is a right or not.:hmm:

Jesus pointed out that hating one's brother equates to murder.

Perhaps our main right as Christians is to love? And as others pointed out, as we are servants of God, we have given up any rights except to serve Him. I'm probably being unclear, because it is unclear in my mind yet.


But is that fleshly covering a temple with value?Even if something has an intrinsic value, I don't think that means it has any rights.


Anyway, back to the question at hand... what is your working definition of a "right"? I don't feel like you are yanking my chain. I started this thread for good discussion. I think we hang on to far too much these days. But I see a difference between demanding a right and having a right.The only rights as far as defnition would be those granted under our secular societies (in my case the Charter of Rights).

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 06:08 PM
So when God says "Thou shalt not murder" he is not recognizing a right to life?

Jesus also said... "Take no thought for your life", "whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it", and "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."

Longsufferer
Mar 10th 2010, 06:19 PM
1. It is irrelevant in this world´s secular society, which perpetually modifies righteousness to accommodate sin.
2. (John 5:30) We which do believe are to deny our own will, and give up our rights.
3. (Luke 23:34)
4. With none. Our concerns should not be in what the carnally minded are minding, but what the spiritual minded are minding.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 06:22 PM
So when God says "Thou shalt not murder" he is not recognizing a right to life?

Could it be that God is recognizing our lack of authority to take a life without just cause?

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 06:29 PM
Jesus also said... "Take no thought for your life", "whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it", and "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."

But you are referring to "holding onto something" instead of a "right to something". I think we will all agree that we are not to hold on to something. (And IMO, Jesus is speaking spiritually there. He is not saying go commit suicide and you will live.)

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 06:31 PM
Could it be that God is recognizing our lack of authority to take a life without just cause?

Perhaps. But is he not also giving value to that life and suggesting the owner of the life should be able to choose to keep his life? IOW, he has a right to his life?

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 06:37 PM
Perhaps. But is he not also giving value to that life and suggesting the owner of the life should be able to choose to keep his life? IOW, he has a right to his life?

If you suggest one can choose to keep one's life, then one must be able to choose to end it.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 06:44 PM
If you suggest one can choose to keep one's life, then one must be able to choose to end it.

...and this is where the theology of "human rights" begins to unravel... ;)

If one says "God is saying we do not have the right to end human life" it will remain theologically consistent.

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 06:52 PM
...and this is where the theology of "human rights" begins to unravel... ;)

If one says "God is saying we do not have the right to end human life" it will remain theologically consistent.

I think we are in agreement here, but could you flesh that out a bit? Thanks.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 06:53 PM
If you suggest one can choose to keep one's life, then one must be able to choose to end it.

Except that God said "do not murder". He has a right to life and a right to keep it for himself. Does God grant him a right to take it?

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:08 PM
Except that God said "do not murder". He has a right to life and a right to keep it for himself. Does God grant him a right to take it?

I think you are confusing "right" and "responsibility". As the Po-Po says "If you choose to give up your right..."

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 07:08 PM
Except that God said "do not murder". He has a right to life and a right to keep it for himself. Does God grant him a right to take it?

I meant that comment in the context of an individuals choice, not another's choice.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:11 PM
I think you are confusing "right" and "responsibility". As the Po-Po says "If you choose to give up your right..."

I think you confuse the difference between having a right, and holding on to a right. ;)

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:13 PM
I think we are in agreement here, but could you flesh that out a bit? Thanks.

If we have the "right to life" then it creates several theological caveats. Namely, the one you mentioned, and several others.

If we do not have the right/authority to end a life without just cause (i.e.- something only God has the authority to do) then you can remain consistent with your interpretation of scriptures. It is one of the reasons (I believe) that God DID delegate authority to take human life under certain circumstances. God is not limited at all in who lives and who dies. We are.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:14 PM
I meant that comment in the context of an individuals choice, not another's choice.

I know. And that was what my response was aimed at. God grants us life but he grants no one the authority to take it, except authority in some situations. So one can have the right to life, but does he have the right to take his own life? IMO, not if we define rights in what I would consider a biblical way.

I think the western definition of a right is bunk. It has a sense of entitlement and demanding to it that we are not granted by God.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:15 PM
I think you confuse the difference between having a right, and holding on to a right. ;)

Now you are right back to where you started. If you do not have to hold onto such a right, you condone suicide. If you DO have to hold on to it, it is a responsibility. ;)

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 07:16 PM
If we have the "right to life" then it creates several theological caveats. Namely, the one you mentioned, and several others.

If we do not have the right/authority to end a life without just cause (i.e.- something only God has the authority to do) then you can remain consistent with your interpretation of scriptures. It is one of the reasons (I believe) that God DID delegate authority to take human life under certain circumstances. God is not limited at all in who lives and who dies. We are.Thanks, UM.
.........

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:22 PM
Now you are right back to where you started. If you do not have to hold onto such a right, you condone suicide.

Not true. Murder is wrong whether I murder another or myself. Holding on to a right means not willing to lay my right down. I can have the right to life without having the right to take my life. I can have the right to life and still lay my life down for others and give it up. Doesn't mean I have the right to murder myself.

If I hold on to my right to life, then I am not willing to die for another. God tells us to lay down those things which are ours. It's part of the workings of the cross. He doesn't tell us we have no right to hold on to it.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:25 PM
Doesn't mean I have the right to murder myself.

EXACTLY! You do NOT have the right to take a life without just cause. This is exactly what I am saying...

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:29 PM
EXACTLY! You do NOT have the right to take a life without just cause. This is exactly what I am saying...

No it's not. You are also suggesting there is no right to life. I am suggesting there is a right to life and no right to take life (outside of some authority passed down by God), biblically speaking. If all you are saying is we have no right to take our life, then I am not sure why we are disagreeing.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:37 PM
Because you suggest we have the right to life. Us not having the right/authority to take a life DOES NOT require a "right to life." If we have a "right to life" as you suppose, then how is God just in his decision to take a 6 month old's life with SIDS?

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 07:37 PM
Not true. Murder is wrong whether I murder another or myself. Holding on to a right means not willing to lay my right down. I can have the right to life without having the right to take my life. I can have the right to life and still lay my life down for others and give it up. Doesn't mean I have the right to murder myself.

If I hold on to my right to life, then I am not willing to die for another. God tells us to lay down those things which are ours. It's part of the workings of the cross. He doesn't tell us we have no right to hold on to it.
Are you alluding to this passage?

Rom 5:6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I don't see this as a right to lay down one's life. This is an expression of love.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:39 PM
Because you suggest we have the right to life. Us not having the right/authority to take a life DOES NOT require a "right to life." If we have a "right to life" as you suppose, then how is God just in his decision to take a 6 month old's life with SIDS?

God gives rights and can take rights away. He is not bound as we are. I am speaking not of rights as viewed by westerners. But rather, rights as granted by God. He alone has the authority to override such things along with those to whom he grants such authority.

Are you suggesting that a right is greater than God? That is not what I mean at all!

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:40 PM
Are you alluding to this passage?

Rom 5:6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I don't see this as a right to lay down one's life. This is an expression of love.

That's why I asked all what there definition of right was. IMO, a right means I have authority, granted by God, to act, receive, own, etc. though that definition probably needs fleshing out.

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:42 PM
Define "right". You keep saying "not speaking of rights as viewed by westerners" to mostly western people in a western context, but yet, you have not defined it.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 07:46 PM
Define "right". You keep saying "not speaking of rights as viewed by westerners" to mostly western people in a western context, but yet, you have not defined it.

I know. I was hoping others would give their definition. If you look at the OP, I requested a definition. (At least I think I did.) Anyway, check out the post above your post. I gave a definition there. I'll give it another go.

A right is something granted by God to a human being that he expects other human beings to respect. When a man has a right, he can then act, own, or otherwise use that right within his God given parameters and not sin. When he uses that right against God, then it is sinful. Just fleshing it out and not saying it is accurate.

But I do think we see rights implied in scripture but not spelled out.

Westerners seem to have a definition of rights as being owed something. If I have a right to health care, then society must make sure I have it. Or if I have a right to something, then government can't take it away. IOW, rights often seem to be defined as entitlements in western thinking. Right means "I am entitled to such and such".

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 07:48 PM
That's why I asked all what there definition of right was. IMO, a right means I have authority, granted by God, to act, receive, own, etc. though that definition probably needs fleshing out.

So are your asking if right=authority?

Firefighter
Mar 10th 2010, 07:50 PM
But I do think we see rights implied in scripture but not spelled out.

That's called speculative theology... and I really stink at speculating. What we do have is scripture.

How can scriptures possibly imply we have a right, when we don't even know what a right is according to God? If such a thing exists (right to life), then surely something that important would have been spelled out in scripture, right?

IMHO, I think life, along with everything else is a privilege, not a right.

teddyv
Mar 10th 2010, 08:01 PM
That's called speculative theology... and I really stink at speculating. What we do have is scripture.

How can scriptures possibly imply we have a right, when we don't even know what a right is according to God? If such a thing exists (right to life), then surely something that important would have been spelled out in scripture, right?

IMHO, I think life, along with everything else is a privilege, not a right.
I agree with this. I don't see rights really spelled out.

Maybe this? Nah.:)

Ecc 12:13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 11:08 PM
That's called speculative theology... and I really stink at speculating. What we do have is scripture.

Baloney! I've seen you speculate plenty on this board. For instance, give me a verse that says we have no rights. You can give me one that says we lay down things we own. But there is nothing that says "there are no rights". Yet, you insist they aren't there.


How can scriptures possibly imply we have a right, when we don't even know what a right is according to God? If such a thing exists (right to life), then surely something that important would have been spelled out in scripture, right?It is. Look at how God speaks of what is man's and what is not. Did Ananias and Saphira own land? Was it their's? Did they have to sell it? Could they do with it what they wanted within boundaries? Of course. That is an implied right, IMO.


IMHO, I think life, along with everything else is a privilege, not a right.Based on what verse? Sounds like speculative theology to me.:rolleyes: .... Sarcasm laid aside for the moment. ;)

I would draw a distinction this way. People have a right to own land in scripture. It's a privilege if they can afford to do so. But God sets out the concept of land ownership in the OT. Does that mean we have the right to own land all the time? No. We have the right to own it. But it is a privilege to own the land. IOW, man can't demand to own land. But he is given the right to do so, by God. If he is fortunate enough to be able to afford it, then he is a privileged man indeed.

I am open to things being different than what i am suggesting. But when I read the scriptures, it seems to me that God lays out the idea of man owning certain things. Ownership to me, suggest a right. But I might be wrong.

Brother Mark
Mar 10th 2010, 11:09 PM
So are your asking if right=authority?

authority, ownership, power, etc. God can do anything to me as I am his. I have no rights before him. But he has said that other men are not to do certain things to me, i.e. murder me, take 'my' property, covet my wife, etc. Before God, I can demand nothing. Before men, I can appeal to God.

Firefighter
Mar 11th 2010, 12:08 AM
Baloney! I've seen you speculate plenty on this board. For instance, give me a verse that says we have no rights. You can give me one that says we lay down things we own. But there is nothing that says "there are no rights". Yet, you insist they aren't there.

It is. Look at how God speaks of what is man's and what is not. Did Ananias and Saphira own land? Was it their's? Did they have to sell it? Could they do with it what they wanted within boundaries? Of course. That is an implied right, IMO.

Based on what verse? Sounds like speculative theology to me.:rolleyes: .... Sarcasm laid aside for the moment. ;)

I would draw a distinction this way. People have a right to own land in scripture. It's a privilege if they can afford to do so. But God sets out the concept of land ownership in the OT. Does that mean we have the right to own land all the time? No. We have the right to own it. But it is a privilege to own the land. IOW, man can't demand to own land. But he is given the right to do so, by God. If he is fortunate enough to be able to afford it, then he is a privileged man indeed.

I am open to things being different than what i am suggesting. But when I read the scriptures, it seems to me that God lays out the idea of man owning certain things. Ownership to me, suggest a right. But I might be wrong.

How can you possibly think scripture suggests a right when you don't even know what a right is???

Firefighter
Mar 11th 2010, 12:10 AM
authority, ownership, power, etc. God can do anything to me as I am his. I have no rights before him. But he has said that other men are not to do certain things to me, i.e. murder me, take 'my' property, covet my wife, etc. Before God, I can demand nothing. Before men, I can appeal to God.

Now you're talking... ;)

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2010, 12:24 AM
How can you possibly think scripture suggests a right when you don't even know what a right is???

I've given a definition for the moment that seems to fit what I am trying to communicate.

Brother Mark
Mar 11th 2010, 12:32 AM
Now you're talking... ;)

No where in this thread have I said we have rights before God for then the rights would be above God. If I own a cow, and I decide to slaughter the cow for food, I have not mistreated the cow. The cow was mine all along. Now, when it comes to other cows, they do not have the "right" to treat that cow any way they see fit.

Anyway, it has not been suggested anywhere that we have "rights" before God in this thread. Though there are times, like with Ananias and Saphira, he grants us the "right" to choose what we wish to do, if you want to call it that.

Jemand
Mar 11th 2010, 12:40 AM
Under the Old Testament Law, Jewish men had some God-given rights, such as the right to be recompensed for losses caused by another.

Exodus 21:12. "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.
13. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.
14. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
15. "Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
16. "Whoever steals a man, whether he sells him or is found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
17. "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
18. "When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but keeps his bed,
19. then if the man rises again and walks abroad with his staff, he that struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.
20. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
21. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
22. "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25. burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (RSV)

Under the New Testament of grace, Christians have no similar God-given rights, but instead may enjoy privileges. Some might argue that Christians have a God-given right to obey Him. I would argue, however, that it is our responsibility rather than our right.

Acts 4:18. And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.
19. But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge;
20. for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard." (NASB, 1995)

Acts 5:27. When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them,
28. saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
29. But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
30. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
31. "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32. "And we are witnesses of these things; and {so is} the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." (NASB, 1995)


Main Entry: 2right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3 : something that one may properly claim as due <knowing the truth is her right>
4 : the cause of truth or justice
5 a : right hand 1a; also : a blow struck with this hand <gave him a hard right on the jaw> b : the location or direction of the right side <woods on his right> c : the part on the right side d : right field e : a turn to the right <take a right at the stop sign>
6 a : the true account or correct interpretation b : the quality or state of being factually correct
7 often capitalized a : the part of a legislative chamber located to the right of the presiding officer b : the members of a continental European legislative body occupying the right as a result of holding more conservative political views than other members
8 a often capitalized : individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies b often capitalized : a conservative position
9 a : a privilege given stockholders to subscribe pro rata to a new issue of securities generally below market price b : the negotiable certificate evidencing such privilege —usually used in plural
— right•most \-ˌmōst\ adjective
— by rights also by all rights : with reason or justice : properly
— in one's own right : by virtue of one's own qualifications or properties
— of right 1 : as an absolute right
2 : legally or morally exactable
— to rights : into proper order

(Source: Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary)

Firefighter
Mar 11th 2010, 01:06 AM
No where in this thread have I said we have rights before God for then the rights would be above God.

Anyway, it has not been suggested anywhere that we have "rights" before God in this thread.

Who is the giver of life? Who determines when, where and how long your life will be? Who knew from the beginning the exact second you would take your last breath?

God.

When you suggest that we have the right to life, you suggest that God is either violating our rights (through death), or they are not really rights. Rights are defined as...

Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.

A better case can be made from scripture that we have the right to die (physically) than we can form the right to life.

Life is a gift. It is NOT owed to us, as God owes us nothing. We are not entitled to anything. Nothing, including our next breath is promised nor owed to us. How can that be a right?

Sam07
Mar 11th 2010, 11:04 PM
Hey everyone

When we were born we were automatically granted by that country the rights of a citizen to exercise our civil liberties, these rights are designed and structured to provide each person with the same or equal opportunities to achieve there relevant objectives.

When we become Christians we automatically become the representatives of God inheriting all Gods assets and resources he has provided for us to utilize according to the guidelines and regulations set out in his word.

Our father’s word is like a contract and legal agreement that we must become familiar and intimate with, so we can understand its purpose and objects and exercise our authority and spiritual rights in accordance with our father’s word.

This is necessary because we have an enemy and adversary who we are constantly at war with, so it is imperative that we follow our father’s guidelines accurately to enforce our father’s legal dominion over things visible and invisible according to his word.

Our rights obligations and liberties are all set out in our father’s word, but I think beyond our rights there is no greater sacrifice then the examples and wisdom of Jesus.

Peace

Sam