(Go to "Unalienable Rights?" Part 2 of 2)
Disclaimer: The following thoughts tend to be politically conservative. I do have many liberal-minded friends. I think this may offend some of you, but I didn't write it to attack you - only to present the truth as I see it, and to show my good intentions I will write as graciously as possible.
The notion of "rights" has been curious to me this morning. I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which contains probably the most well-known phrase to the U.S. people:
"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."
Except for the five words "all men are created equal," I believe this famous quote is entirely unbiblical. This isn't to say it hasn't accomplished wonderful things! Those words were the pivotal argument to freeing slaves. It helped form one of the most successful governments in the world today. Not to mention (obviously) that it succinctly describes the entire argument on which the 13 States seceded from Britain and became the powerful nation she is today. This is a beautiful statement that has accomplished wonderful things, even godly things - yet I do not believe it is biblical.
I'd like to break down this famous quote and share why I think it's not Scriptural, or even realistic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" - "We believe the following is so obviously true that we don't need anything to back it up"
"that all men are created equal" - This is a beautiful Scriptural truth that, in my opinion, is followed by untruths that are made to sound Scriptural as well. Interesting that when Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement, he owned hundreds of slaves. It is said that he did oppose the slave trade, and perhaps that means he treated his slaves well, but they were still slaves (even if he did free a few of them!)
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - Here is where my ears perk up, as any believer's should - because as soon as you claim that God did something, these aren't just words anymore. These are words that claim to be in sync with the Bible. If they are not, then the "Creator" referred to must not be the "YHWH" that we worship. And indeed, many of us know that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, but a "Deist" - someone who believes there is a God who created the world but has no further involvement in our lives or deaths. If the Declaration's "Creator" isn't the same as the "Creator" I worship, then I'm really going to be paying attention to the following statements:
"that among these [rights] are Life" - Ears are fully perked now, because this is definitely not what I see in the Bible. Or perhaps Thomas Jefferson never read past Genesis 2. Saying that our Creator has given us the right to life is the opposite of what the Bible teaches!
Genesis 3:14-19 comes after God describes how the serpent, woman, and man are cursed for their disobedience. These curses describe curses in life: pain in childbearing, pain in working the ground, etc. It concludes with this statement: "...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." With that statement, Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, David, Paul the Apostle, Julius Caesar, Homer, Augustine,
the Pilgrims, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Smith, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Bill Clinton, President Obama, you, and I are all given the "right" of death.
The first part of Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death." (Yes, I am purposely ignoring the second half of the verse, because my point is that we deserve death.)
Forgive me for not researching this more; but if asked, I can produce more Scripture to prove this point; it would just require some study! These were just off the top of my head. Any student of the Bible is very familiar with the idea that we are destined to death because of our own actions.
"Liberty" - Did God give us the right to liberty? Well, he gave us free will (see the next section on "the pursuit of happiness.") But in this context, I think Jefferson was specifically referring to being under the authority of someone else - namely, the King of Britain.
Did he intend this right to be applied elsewhere? Here is where I get really confused, because again, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. And then biblically, when we choose to disobey, we put ourselves into a slavery from which we cannot free ourselves. We do not have the right to liberty from sin's effects; in fact, if we choose to disobey God, then we have the "right" be owned by sin. His gift of liberty is not a "right," because we do not deserve it!
"the pursuit of Happiness" - "Happiness" sounds like such a good thing, until you remember that some people are made happy by molesting children or raping women, or torturing people. Forgive me for setting up a straw man, but it's just me and my computer here, so I have to come up with potential arguments on my own.
Possible response #1: "The right to pursue happiness" means "within the law."
My response: Which law?
Governmental law? Because governmental law varies throughout the world. In some countries, if a person desires to torture, they may.
U.S. law only? Well, that is a shade narcissistic. And if everyone could pursue their happiness within U.S. law, then why would they have reason break it?
God's law? Following God's law is definitely not happy. If you even fantasize about a forbidden sin like sex outside of marriage or beating someone up, you've broken the law.
Possible response #2: "The right to pursue happiness" means "as long as you don't hurt anyone else."
My response: First of all, who determines what hurt is? I love people who follow a homosexual lifestyle, though I believe they are disobeying God. They may claim that I am denying them the right to "pursue happiness," even if I don't physically stand in the way of their actions.
(side note: I don't oppose legalizing gay marriage - in fact, I only follow my government's law to the extent that it follows God's law. I am held to a law much more strict than the U.S. Government's - a law so strict that I cannot follow it unless Jesus is there to absorb the consequences from all the times I break it. And yes, his law shuns gay marriage and gay relationships. But if you do not claim to be held to God's law, why should I force you? Technically, if a buffalo and a man are both consenting, they should be allowed to be married too, because they can "pursue happiness without hurting anyone." The only reason this isn't legal is because the animals can't give their consent; otherwise, according to the Declaration, it would have to be legal.)
Possible response #3: "The right to pursue happiness" simply refers to our free will.
My response: This seems the most likely meaning, but it doesn't mean I disagree any less! We do have the free will to say or do anything we want, but then, we are 1. limited to our own power, and 2. subject to the consequences. Being "limited" to one thing and "subject" to something else - these are barriers in the pursuit of my happiness! So if I cannot pursue happiness unless I am omnipotent and above the law, then is it really a right?
The next post will be about why we think we have rights. If these ideas are unbiblical, then why do they seem so Christian?
Disclaimer: The following thoughts tend to be politically conservative. I do have many liberal-minded friends. I think this may offend some of you, but I didn't write it to attack you - only to present the truth as I see it, and to show my good intentions I will write as graciously as possible.
The notion of "rights" has been curious to me this morning. I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which contains probably the most well-known phrase to the U.S. people:
"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."
Except for the five words "all men are created equal," I believe this famous quote is entirely unbiblical. This isn't to say it hasn't accomplished wonderful things! Those words were the pivotal argument to freeing slaves. It helped form one of the most successful governments in the world today. Not to mention (obviously) that it succinctly describes the entire argument on which the 13 States seceded from Britain and became the powerful nation she is today. This is a beautiful statement that has accomplished wonderful things, even godly things - yet I do not believe it is biblical.
I'd like to break down this famous quote and share why I think it's not Scriptural, or even realistic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" - "We believe the following is so obviously true that we don't need anything to back it up"
"that all men are created equal" - This is a beautiful Scriptural truth that, in my opinion, is followed by untruths that are made to sound Scriptural as well. Interesting that when Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement, he owned hundreds of slaves. It is said that he did oppose the slave trade, and perhaps that means he treated his slaves well, but they were still slaves (even if he did free a few of them!)
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - Here is where my ears perk up, as any believer's should - because as soon as you claim that God did something, these aren't just words anymore. These are words that claim to be in sync with the Bible. If they are not, then the "Creator" referred to must not be the "YHWH" that we worship. And indeed, many of us know that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, but a "Deist" - someone who believes there is a God who created the world but has no further involvement in our lives or deaths. If the Declaration's "Creator" isn't the same as the "Creator" I worship, then I'm really going to be paying attention to the following statements:
"that among these [rights] are Life" - Ears are fully perked now, because this is definitely not what I see in the Bible. Or perhaps Thomas Jefferson never read past Genesis 2. Saying that our Creator has given us the right to life is the opposite of what the Bible teaches!
Genesis 3:14-19 comes after God describes how the serpent, woman, and man are cursed for their disobedience. These curses describe curses in life: pain in childbearing, pain in working the ground, etc. It concludes with this statement: "...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." With that statement, Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, David, Paul the Apostle, Julius Caesar, Homer, Augustine,
the Pilgrims, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Smith, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Bill Clinton, President Obama, you, and I are all given the "right" of death.
The first part of Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death." (Yes, I am purposely ignoring the second half of the verse, because my point is that we deserve death.)
Forgive me for not researching this more; but if asked, I can produce more Scripture to prove this point; it would just require some study! These were just off the top of my head. Any student of the Bible is very familiar with the idea that we are destined to death because of our own actions.
"Liberty" - Did God give us the right to liberty? Well, he gave us free will (see the next section on "the pursuit of happiness.") But in this context, I think Jefferson was specifically referring to being under the authority of someone else - namely, the King of Britain.
Did he intend this right to be applied elsewhere? Here is where I get really confused, because again, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. And then biblically, when we choose to disobey, we put ourselves into a slavery from which we cannot free ourselves. We do not have the right to liberty from sin's effects; in fact, if we choose to disobey God, then we have the "right" be owned by sin. His gift of liberty is not a "right," because we do not deserve it!
"the pursuit of Happiness" - "Happiness" sounds like such a good thing, until you remember that some people are made happy by molesting children or raping women, or torturing people. Forgive me for setting up a straw man, but it's just me and my computer here, so I have to come up with potential arguments on my own.
Possible response #1: "The right to pursue happiness" means "within the law."
My response: Which law?
Governmental law? Because governmental law varies throughout the world. In some countries, if a person desires to torture, they may.
U.S. law only? Well, that is a shade narcissistic. And if everyone could pursue their happiness within U.S. law, then why would they have reason break it?
God's law? Following God's law is definitely not happy. If you even fantasize about a forbidden sin like sex outside of marriage or beating someone up, you've broken the law.
Possible response #2: "The right to pursue happiness" means "as long as you don't hurt anyone else."
My response: First of all, who determines what hurt is? I love people who follow a homosexual lifestyle, though I believe they are disobeying God. They may claim that I am denying them the right to "pursue happiness," even if I don't physically stand in the way of their actions.
(side note: I don't oppose legalizing gay marriage - in fact, I only follow my government's law to the extent that it follows God's law. I am held to a law much more strict than the U.S. Government's - a law so strict that I cannot follow it unless Jesus is there to absorb the consequences from all the times I break it. And yes, his law shuns gay marriage and gay relationships. But if you do not claim to be held to God's law, why should I force you? Technically, if a buffalo and a man are both consenting, they should be allowed to be married too, because they can "pursue happiness without hurting anyone." The only reason this isn't legal is because the animals can't give their consent; otherwise, according to the Declaration, it would have to be legal.)
Possible response #3: "The right to pursue happiness" simply refers to our free will.
My response: This seems the most likely meaning, but it doesn't mean I disagree any less! We do have the free will to say or do anything we want, but then, we are 1. limited to our own power, and 2. subject to the consequences. Being "limited" to one thing and "subject" to something else - these are barriers in the pursuit of my happiness! So if I cannot pursue happiness unless I am omnipotent and above the law, then is it really a right?
The next post will be about why we think we have rights. If these ideas are unbiblical, then why do they seem so Christian?
Comments
Post a Comment