There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PM
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
Define clothed, define housed,
Death and life has no gray area, you are one of the two, while clothed can range anywhere from a potato sack, to a 3 piece suit, define clothed, or while you're at it, define shelter.
Am I not responsible for myself in any of these areas, such as having enough sense to get the Hell out of the rain, and seek a cave, or fallen tree, did God not give you the gift of free thought and to have enough sense to responsible for yourself?
Once you allow someone power over your welfare, you relinquish the rights they entail.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PM
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
What individuals and/or entities should be responsible for doing all this clothing and housing?
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PM
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
You clearly have no depth of understanding of Scriptures much less correct application of them.
If you really are interested in understanding the Bible you need a much deeper level of education.
Quote from: kroz on June 23, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
You clearly have no depth of understanding of Scriptures much less correct application of them.
If you really are interested in understanding the Bible you need a much deeper level of education.
I think cubey is a "hit & run" artist.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 24, 2015, 04:40:38 AM
I think cubey is a "hit & run" artist.
No, he came back and responded to one thread he posted, but I don't think he actually thought his ideas/views would be challenged.
I look at what he wrote, and the bubble in which he resides, a place where he never realized an opposing view existed beyond his tiny world of protected academia, all his peers, Profs, and family came from privilege, liberal privilege.
Sad really, his reality is not real, and it's not his fault in the least, and he's not alone.
Quote from: kroz on June 23, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
You clearly have no depth of understanding of Scriptures much less correct application of them.
If you really are interested in understanding the Bible you need a much deeper level of education.
You could be right.
What does this mean right here? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-60&version=NIV
I've heard the term "God given rights." When I look and read the bible all I see is a collection of stories, parables, commands, commandments and statutes from God.
Two of the edicts God gave our "Choose Life" and "Thou shalt not Kill." Someway, somehow that is beyond my comprehension these two commands are transformed into a right to life given by God. If this is true and I have a right to life that is derived from these commands then based upon the passages provided don't the hungry have the right to be fed and the thirsty have the right to be quenched.
To claim that a right comes from a command in one subset of a given set and not apply it to the other subsets in the given set makes no sense.
Either all commands from God turn into rights that different parties have a right to since they're God given rights or rights do not exist at all and do not come from anything and all there is, is a series of commands, commandments or statues that come from God and nothing more. Your beliefs and standards are inconsistent and I don't follow.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 24, 2015, 01:44:11 PM
You could be right.
What does this mean right here? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-60&version=NIV
I've heard the term "God given rights." When I look and read the bible all I see is a collection of stories, parables, commands, commandments and statutes from God.
Two of the edicts God gave our "Choose Life" and "Thou shalt not Kill." Someway, somehow that is beyond my comprehension these two commands are transformed into a right to life given by God. If this is true and I have a right to life that is derived from these commands then based upon the passages provided don't the hungry have the right to be fed and the thirsty have the right to be quenched.
To claim that a right comes from a command in one subset of a given set and not apply it to the other subsets in the given set makes no sense.
No, it ends at right to life, in the way that if you're attacked, you equally have the right to take the life attacking and trying to take yours.
Just because you have a right, conversely, it does not give you the right to take what others own, just to feed yourself, that falls under "Though Shall Not Steal".
This is where that critical thinking thing kicks in.
QuoteEither all commands from God turn into rights that different parties have a right to since they're God given rights or rights do not exist at all and do not come from anything and all there is, is a series of commands, commandments or statues that come from God and nothing more. Your beliefs and standards are inconsistent and I don't follow.
We're all humans, God did not see different specie, so all Gods laws apply across the board.
Rights do not allow you to oppress another with your Right, we all share in these rights..
Quote from: cubedemon on June 24, 2015, 01:44:11 PM
You could be right.
What does this mean right here? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-60&version=NIV
I've heard the term "God given rights." When I look and read the bible all I see is a collection of stories, parables, commands, commandments and statutes from God.
Two of the edicts God gave our "Choose Life" and "Thou shalt not Kill." Someway, somehow that is beyond my comprehension these two commands are transformed into a right to life given by God. If this is true and I have a right to life that is derived from these commands then based upon the passages provided don't the hungry have the right to be fed and the thirsty have the right to be quenched.
To claim that a right comes from a command in one subset of a given set and not apply it to the other subsets in the given set makes no sense.
Either all commands from God turn into rights that different parties have a right to since they're God given rights or rights do not exist at all and do not come from anything and all there is, is a series of commands, commandments or statues that come from God and nothing more. Your beliefs and standards are inconsistent and I don't follow.
Without going into great detail, I will point out that you have taken a few verses and ripped them from the context of what Jesus was teaching. This was a small portion of His sermon on the Mt. of Olives..... known as the Olivet Discourse.
Chapters 24 and 25 of Matthew are specifically related to the Jewish Nation as related to end times prophecy. This is the Seven Years of Tribulation which Jesus speaks. There is a direct parallel between the 24th chapter and the seven Seals Judgements in Revelation.
If you look at verse 40 of the passage which you posted, you will see that Jesus refers to these brothers and sisters of His. He is not referring to Christians.... because the Church has already been raptured at this point in history. He is talking about the Jewish people..... His ethnic brothers and sisters.
The Sheep and Goat judgment does not involve the Church. It is those people who live through the great tribulation and suffered and died. Although not all will die. Some will remain when Jesus returns.
So, this passage is specific to a time and age which has yet to happen.
In Jesus' Church His children are indwelt with the Holy Spirit which speaks to their hearts. They are called to heed the promptings of the Spirit. He speaks to our hearts and directs us how and when to do things. We are called to care for the orphans and widows IN THE CHURCH. We are not called upon to feed and clothe the world.
Jesus said, "For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me. (Mark 14:7, John 12:8)
Jesus Himself did not help everyone He saw that had a need. He was selective with His divine help to people. We should follow his example. When the Spirit prompts us to help, we should do so.
As far as our Right to Life is concerned...... we are created by God in His image and He numbers the days of our life. IF (conditional) we put our trust and faith in Him, He will provide for us...... that is our basic needs.... food, clothing, shelter. These things are not God given "rights" to everyone. These are His blessings to His children.
This is the very abbreviated edition of the issues you address.
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 02:28:01 PM
Without going into great detail, I will point out that you have taken a few verses and ripped them from the context of what Jesus was teaching. This was a small portion of His sermon on the Mt. of Olives..... known as the Olivet Discourse.
Chapters 24 and 25 of Matthew are specifically related to the Jewish Nation as related to end times prophecy. This is the Seven Years of Tribulation which Jesus speaks. There is a direct parallel between the 24th chapter and the seven Seals Judgements in Revelation.
If you look at verse 40 of the passage which you posted, you will see that Jesus refers to these brothers and sisters of His. He is not referring to Christians.... because the Church has already been raptured at this point in history. He is talking about the Jewish people..... His ethnic brothers and sisters.
The Sheep and Goat judgment does not involve the Church. It is those people who live through the great tribulation and suffered and died. Although not all will die. Some will remain when Jesus returns.
So, this passage is specific to a time and age which has yet to happen.
In Jesus' Church His children are indwelt with the Holy Spirit which speaks to their hearts. They are called to heed the promptings of the Spirit. He speaks to our hearts and directs us how and when to do things. We are called to care for the orphans and widows IN THE CHURCH. We are not called upon to feed and clothe the world.
Jesus said, "For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me. (Mark 14:7, John 12:8)
Jesus Himself did not help everyone He saw that had a need. He was selective with His divine help to people. We should follow his example. When the Spirit prompts us to help, we should do so.
As far as our Right to Life is concerned...... we are created by God in His image and He numbers the days of our life. IF (conditional) we put our trust and faith in Him, He will provide for us...... that is our basic needs.... food, clothing, shelter. These things are not God given "rights" to everyone. These are His blessings to His children.
This is the very abbreviated edition of the issues you address.
Just to make sure I am understanding things clearly and without error in my understanding will you answer two more questions if you do not mind. I appreciate it.
1. Who are God's children?
2. Can you define what the Church is?
I suspect in a number of my writings I may have errors in my thinking and my interpretation of things.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 24, 2015, 03:52:20 PM
Just to make sure I am understanding things clearly and without error in my understanding will you answer two more questions if you do not mind. I appreciate it.
1. Who are God's children?
2. Can you define what the Church is?
I suspect in a number of my writings I may have errors in my thinking and my interpretation of things.
The way in which I used the term "God's children" is those who embrace Him as their Savior. That would be Christians.
The Church is made up of Believers in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior...... it has nothing to do with denomination. There are true believers in all christian denominations.
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 04:04:05 PM
The way in which I used the term "God's children" is those who embrace Him as their Savior. That would be Christians.
The Church is made up of Believers in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior...... it has nothing to do with denomination. There are true believers in all christian denominations.
So the Children that have not heard of God or Jesus before they die will just have to bit the bullet. :rolleyes:
Quote from: walkstall on June 24, 2015, 05:08:51 PM
So the Children that have not heard of God or Jesus before they die will just have to bit the bullet. :rolleyes:
Romans 1 tells us that God has revealed Himself to all men through nature.
I personally know of a Cambodian woman who told me she looked at the birds in the air and trees and knew that her mother's idol did not make them. She shook her fist and demanded that God reveal Himself to her. She said, "I don't know who you are but I want to know you!"
She later came to a saving knowledge of her Creator during her incarceration in Indonesia. She was a "boat refugee" that was captured by the Indonesians and my husband and I taught them about Christ.
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 06:17:47 PM
Romans 1 tells us that God has revealed Himself to all men through nature.
I personally know of a Cambodian woman who told me she looked at the birds in the air and trees and knew that her mother's idol did not make them. She shook her fist and demanded that God reveal Himself to her. She said, "I don't know who you are but I want to know you!"
She later came to a saving knowledge of her Creator during her incarceration in Indonesia. She was a "boat refugee" that was captured by the Indonesians and my husband and I taught them about Christ.
Like I said "So the Children that have not heard of God or Jesus before they die will just have to bit the bullet." What does a 1 mouth old or even a 6 mouth old kid know about nature.
Quote from: walkstall on June 24, 2015, 06:28:44 PM
Like I said "So the Children that have not heard of God or Jesus before they die will just have to bit the bullet." What does a 1 mouth old or even a 6 mouth old kid know about nature.
Okay, this is a very deep subject that requires more than a few sentences. But I will say that I believe the Scriptures when they say that "Before the foundation of the earth, God pre-ordained" those who would become believers in Him. That is a very difficult doctrine, but it is pure Scripture. I could give you many scriptures to support this.
The point is..... God ordains who will become His people. That includes infants and all mankind. His sheep will hear His voice.
Romans 9 tells us that God created some for destruction. That is a difficult doctrine.... but truth. Some people will never become believers because it is not providential.
I think the best way of looking at it is that if there were no blackness, we would be unable to understand the blessing of light. Sin exists because we can better appreciate and understand God's grace.
The old testament law was given to us as a tutor (according to Hebrews) that we might be able to understand good vs. evil. That we might be able to see the wonder of God's grace to sinners.
God reveals Himself to all men, but not all men will respond to Him.
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 06:53:10 PM
Okay, this is a very deep subject that requires more than a few sentences. But I will say that I believe the Scriptures when they say that "Before the foundation of the earth, God pre-ordained" those who would become believers in Him. That is a very difficult doctrine, but it is pure Scripture. I could give you many scriptures to support this.
The point is..... God ordains who will become His people. That includes infants and all mankind. His sheep will hear His voice.
Romans 9 tells us that God created some for destruction. That is a difficult doctrine.... but truth. Some people will never become believers because it is not providential.
I think the best way of looking at it is that if there were no blackness, we would be unable to understand the blessing of light. Sin exists because we can better appreciate and understand God's grace.
The old testament law was given to us as a tutor (according to Hebrews) that we might be able to understand good vs. evil. That we might be able to see the wonder of God's grace to sinners.
God reveals Himself to all men, but not all men will respond to Him.
So those not "pre-ordained" can bite the bullet also.
Quote from: walkstall on June 24, 2015, 07:10:44 PM
So those not "pre-ordained" can bite the bullet also.
Yes, but it is not that bad.
In reality NONE of us would accept Christ if left to our own thinking. We ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God. It is only those whom He draws to Him that will receive Him. It is God who initiates the salvation process and we will not resist his amazing grace.
Jesus said when he was still here on earth that he would not lose any whom His Father had given to Him.
When did the Father give them to Him? Before the foundation of the earth.
This is very heavy doctrine that requires much time and study to comprehend. I have studied it for 35 years and am convinced that God is sovereign over all things..... including our salvation.
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 07:21:07 PM
Yes, but it is not that bad.
In reality NONE of us would accept Christ if left to our own thinking. We ALL sin and fall short of the glory of God. It is only those whom He draws to Him that will receive Him. It is God who initiates the salvation process and we will not resist his amazing grace.
Jesus said when he was still here on earth that he would not lose any whom His Father had given to Him.
When did the Father give them to Him? Before the foundation of the earth.
This is very heavy doctrine that requires much time and study to comprehend. I have studied it for 35 years and am convinced that God is sovereign over all things..... including our salvation.
Well when I get to the other side I will find out if I was "pre-ordained" or "just hung out to dry."
The one who must be obeyed has talked to me in many ways in my life time. But s/he has not told me if I was "pre-ordained" that I know of, BUT I could have missed that along the way.
Quote from: walkstall on June 24, 2015, 07:55:48 PM
Well when I get to the other side I will find out if I was "pre-ordained" or "just hung out to dry."
The one who must be obeyed has talked to me in many ways in my life time. But s/he has not told me if I was "pre-ordained" that I know of, BUT I could have missed that along the way.
But the Bible tells you that......
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Eph 1:5
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
Eph 1:8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
Eph 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance,
having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
Eph 1:12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
I could give you many more place where He says we are predestined......
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 08:13:19 PM
But the Bible tells you that......
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Eph 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
Eph 1:8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
Eph 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
Eph 1:12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
I could give you many more place where He says we are predestined......
kroz your wasting your time with me. Organized religion went out the door along time ago for me when they told me my wife's live was not important.
Quote from: walkstall on June 24, 2015, 09:21:14 PM
kroz your wasting your time with me. Organized religion went out the door along time ago for me when they told me my wife's live was not important.
I am so sorry about that.
I cannot imagine anyone saying that! I have never heard of such a horrible thing. What kind of church was that?
Quote from: kroz on June 25, 2015, 04:43:36 AM
I am so sorry about that.
I cannot imagine anyone saying that! I have never heard of such a horrible thing. What kind of church was that?
Christians
Quote from: walkstall on June 25, 2015, 06:39:19 AM
Christians
Not everyone who claims to be Christian really is! Anyone can SAY they are a Christian.
Can you give me any more information?
Quote from: kroz on June 25, 2015, 06:42:07 AM
Not everyone who claims to be Christian really is! Anyone can SAY they are a Christian.
Can you give me any more information?
No, as others are very happy in what they have or need.
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 24, 2015, 04:40:38 AMI think cubey is a "hit & run" artist.
Well, I suspect he is, too. This is same old tired rhetoric the left spreads around. It is what is taught in colleges and seminaries around the Christian world. Here is the giveaway to me, the key phrases highlighted in red by yours truly:
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PM
This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent?
Doesn't this sound just as if it were Obama talking? I'd say Michelle, too, but she is a little off the deep end even to phrase it so well.
So, there we have it folks, this is the official party line. "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
ruminations on rights by our founding fathers and other intellectuals."
Do you think those "other intellectuals" who, like Bill Ayers and Barack Obama, get fat public jobs they are in no way qualified for might be in for a shock when and if real communists take over and start going house to house to "interview" those "other intellectuals?" Where is the Bunko Squad when we need 'em?
Quote from: red_dirt on June 25, 2015, 12:26:31 PM
Well, I suspect he is, too. This is same old tired rhetoric the left spreads around. It is what is taught in colleges and seminaries around the Christian world. Here is the giveaway to me, the key phrases highlighted in red by yours truly:
Doesn't this sound just as if it were Obama talking? I'd say Michelle, too, but she is a little off the deep end even to phrase it so well.
So, there we have it folks, this is the official party line. "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are ruminations on rights by our founding fathers and other intellectuals."
Do you think those "other intellectuals" who, like Bill Ayers and Barack Obama, get fat public jobs they are in no way qualified for might be in for a shock when and if real communists take over and start going house to house to "interview" those "other intellectuals?" Where is the Bunko Squad when we need 'em?
We have to come to find out he has autism so that explained much about his posts.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PM
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
Although it is obvious you are a socialist and that is the reason why you ask this question, it is actually another question: Whether we need human laws at all, or we just need faith in God? First Israelites didn't have human laws, they had only their faith in God. God thought state and human laws will spoil them. And that is what actually happens when man creates state and human laws, that human laws become secular and distant from God. But, if we agree that we must have some kind of state in order to protect ourselves, then we must have some human laws, too. But that means human laws should be minimalistic, in order to be less distant from God. Less human laws mean less distance from God - more human laws mean more distance from God. That is why we don't make all God's commandments into human laws, and why socialist state is more distant from God than capitalist state, because it has more human laws.
Quote from: milos on June 26, 2015, 02:51:03 AM
Although it is obvious you are a socialist and that is the reason why you ask this question, it is actually another question: Whether we need human laws at all, or we just need faith in God? First Israelites didn't have human laws, they had only their faith in God. God thought state and human laws will spoil them. And that is what actually happens when man creates state and human laws, that human laws become secular and distant from God. But, if we agree that we must have some kind of state in order to protect ourselves, then we must have some human laws, too. But that means human laws should be minimalistic, in order to be less distant from God. Less human laws mean less distance from God - more human laws mean more distance from God. That is why we don't make all God's commandments into human laws, and why socialist state is more distant from God than capitalist state, because it has more human laws.
The reason I asked this question is so that I can achieve completion in thought and in deed. To do these things one must free one self from error. Contradictions are ideas that are and aren't in the same instance. Contradictions are a form of error. To achieve completion one must free oneself from this form error. If socialism and capitalism are free from contradiction then they're complete. If not, expunge the contradictions. If expunging is not possible then discard the ideas and thoughts. To remove logical contradictions is the path to completion.
If a set of inalienable rights are inconsistent to each other then they are not inalienable since to be something one can't not be something either. For example, Typhoid Mary. She claimed to have liberty to do what she did. Yet what she did was killing people. Her liberty had to be taken away to save lives.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 26, 2015, 09:30:30 AM
The reason I asked this question is so that I can achieve completion in thought and in deed. To do these things one must free one self from error. Contradictions are ideas that are and aren't in the same instance. Contradictions are a form of error. To achieve completion one must free oneself from this form error. If socialism and capitalism are free from contradiction then they're complete. If not, expunge the contradictions. If expunging is not possible then discard the ideas and thoughts. To remove logical contradictions is the path to completion.
There is no contradiction, socialism and capitalism are complete opposite ends of the spectrum, where one believes one exchanges goods and services equally, while the other interferes with the transaction, placing penalty and tax for said transaction.
One is free, while the other ystem is a leech.\
QuoteIf a set of inalienable rights are inconsistent to each other then they are not inalienable since to be something one can't not be something either. For example, Typhoid Mary. She claimed to have liberty to do what she did. Yet what she did was killing people. Her liberty had to be taken away to save lives.
She was delusional, she has no right to seize the right of another, therefore her actions necessitated her removal from society.
QuoteShe was delusional, she has no right to seize the right of another, therefore her actions necessitated her removal from society.
Agreed 100% with her removal of society. For a right to be inalienable then the logic has to hold up in all iterations. Let's say one makes the claim that All Swans are white. If one finds a swan that is black then the claim that All Swans are white has been falsified.
If one can find a counter example that disproves a claim or maxim then the maxim or claim can't hold up. The idea of liberty cannot be inalienable because it fails to be upheld as inalienable in at least one iteration which is the typhoid Mary situation. To claim liberty as an inalienable which has been demonstrated to be true in all iterations due to other people's rights as well is falsified.
One does have liberty within certain constraints but to claim it to be inalienable can't be accepted as truth. It makes no sense to stand by the claim that liberty is an inalienable right. What I am saying is that there is a black Swan.
They made the correct decision to quarantine her and by not treating her liberty as inalienable. Therefore, the lesson is that black swans exist so therefore one can't accept as true that All Swans are White.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 26, 2015, 10:54:57 AM
Agreed 100% with her removal of society. For a right to be inalienable then the logic has to hold up in all iterations. Let's say one makes the claim that All Swans are white. If one finds a swan that is black then the claim that All Swans are white has been falsified.
If one can find a counter example that disproves a claim or maxim then the maxim or claim can't hold up. The idea of liberty cannot be inalienable because it fails to be upheld as inalienable in at least one iteration which is the typhoid Mary situation. To claim liberty as an inalienable which has been demonstrated to be true in all iterations due to other people's rights as well is falsified.
One does have liberty within certain constraints but to claim it to be inalienable can't be accepted as truth. It makes no sense to stand by the claim that liberty is an inalienable right. What I am saying is that there is a black Swan.
They made the correct decision to quarantine her and by not treating her liberty as inalienable. Therefore, the lesson is that black swans exist so therefore one can't accept as true that All Swans are White.
Liberty is not inalienablele. Inalienable Rights is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, leaving States to decide, but prohibits the Federal govt form usurping said Rights.
Quote from: Solar on June 26, 2015, 12:42:40 PM
Liberty is not inalienablele. Inalienable Rights is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, leaving States to decide, but prohibits the Federal govt form usurping said Rights.
Speaking of Bill of Rights, looking at the first amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Here is something I don't get. Why do people claim that others are banning their free speech when it only applies to congress? Why can't state legislatures ban certain speech? Why can't forum mods censure as well? Let's say I own an apartment complex could I ban profanity as a stipulation for living there? No one, not even I, is congress but only congress is congress. It makes no sense but people apply the first amendment to other groups besides congress. Why?
Quote from: cubedemon on June 26, 2015, 05:56:20 PM
Speaking of Bill of Rights, looking at the first amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Here is something I don't get. Why do people claim that others are banning their free speech when it only applies to congress? Why can't state legislatures ban certain speech? Why can't forum mods censure as well? Let's say I own an apartment complex could I ban profanity as a stipulation for living there? No one, not even I, is congress but only congress is congress. It makes no sense but people apply the first amendment to other groups besides congress. Why?
Because they received a liberal education, and don't have the first clue about our Founding Documents and the restrictions put on Congress.
The Bill of Rights was to keep Congress at bay, leaving the States to set their laws, which is why this so called Fag marriage BS was totally unconstitutional on several levels.
They usurped States Rights, they killed and trampled the First Amendment etc.
And yes, we do ban people on this forum that spew hate and bigotry, and no, they do not have a First Amendment Right to abuse a privilege granted to them by Taxed, me, Boo, Walks, you and all the other members, by spewing their bull shit, and I refuse to allow them a podium from which to spread their Leftist hate.
JOHN 10:10 (NIV)
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
Might be the scripture the founders got it from.
I think that it's important to remember the Constitution's main function is to limit government. The Bill of Rights just further spells it out.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 26, 2015, 09:30:30 AM
The reason I asked this question is so that I can achieve completion in thought and in deed. To do these things one must free one self from error. Contradictions are ideas that are and aren't in the same instance. Contradictions are a form of error. To achieve completion one must free oneself from this form error. If socialism and capitalism are free from contradiction then they're complete. If not, expunge the contradictions. If expunging is not possible then discard the ideas and thoughts. To remove logical contradictions is the path to completion.
If a set of inalienable rights are inconsistent to each other then they are not inalienable since to be something one can't not be something either. For example, Typhoid Mary. She claimed to have liberty to do what she did. Yet what she did was killing people. Her liberty had to be taken away to save lives.
You are right that a state can't be perfect. Because, state is a manly creation, state is always secular by its nature, so it can't be perfect. Only God is perfect. From God's point of view, we don't need human laws, we just need his commandments. Establishing human laws is kind of opposing the God. That is why I believe a Christian anarcho-capitalism would be the perfect political system. But, the general opinion is that it would not be possible to sustain in this modern world we are living in, and that we need a state.
Speaking of liberty, Christians believe that God himself gave us free will, so that we are personally responsible for our actions. So, our inalienable personal liberty comes directly from our Christian belief. Since we are personally responsible for our actions, we must not allow someone hurt other people, so we must stop that. If we do nothing to stop a crime we are witnessing, then we are accomplices in that crime, and we are equally guilty for that crime.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PM
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn't it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
If you are familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand, she posits that there is only one "right" in all of existence - that is the right to one's own life. All other so-called rights are derived from that one basic right.
Ironically, even though Rand was an atheist, her concept fits nicely with our founders belief in
God given unalienable rights. If there really is only one true "right" - the right to ones own life - and that life is, as Christian believe, a gift from God, then that right is truly God given and unalienable - as are the rights that are derived from it.
Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. That is where voluntary cooperation comes in.
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 02, 2015, 10:19:53 AM
If you are familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand, she posits that there is only one "right" in all of existence - that is the right to one's own life. All other so-called rights are derived from that one basic right.
Ironically, even though Rand was an atheist, her concept fits nicely with our founders belief in God given unalienable rights. If there really is only one true "right" - the right to ones own life - and that life is, as Christian believe, a gift from God, then that right is truly God given and unalienable - as are the rights that are derived from it.
Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. That is where voluntary cooperation comes in.
Forgetting welfare programs and the morality of them for a second and let's touch upon an idea you brought up which is voluntary cooperation. Problem is, is that we already tried this with the Articles of Confederation. What you want is unanimous or 100% consent by the governed. This has been proven to not work especially since the federal government could not collect taxes to pay off the war debts and put down rebellions without an ok from all of the states.
An all voluntary cooperative society cannot work especially if it going to be a coherent society in which things can get done that need to get done. None of us agree upon everything and do all members on this board agree with all of the policies on this board? I am sure there have been squabbles and hurt feelings. If you all don't agree with what the rules are here and how things are done then any member doesn't have to come back and can go to another board of their liking.
I wrote this here a while back about Ayn Rand and social security and she still collected social security even though she believed it was immoral. This is my rebuttal. https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/my-response-to-mr-ghate/
By the nature of staying in our society we implicitly agree that we may not get what we want and we may have to compromise since 100% agreement and consent is impossible. The problem with the old Soviet Union and East Germany is that they built a wall to prevent people from leaving.
Back to the idea of welfare and you said "Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. " This has been agreed to without unanimous consent, which is impossible to obtain in almost any avenue outside of this, and if one does not agree with how things are now one can add one's voice to the mix like you all are doing or one can vote with his feet and attempt to create a new society with 100% cooperation.
I may complain a lot about how people are and about society in general and how things can be better for people and how things are unfair but there is one thing I love about American society and other societies like ours. We have a checks and balance type system, not only within our government but from people to the government, government to the people, people to people.
We all check each other and no one has absolute power. No one is going to agree upon everything but those who are here in the USA and other socities which don't block their citizens from leaving and have not left has implicitly consented to be govern by the laws done through process of checks and balances through our various branches of governments and by the people themselves in which we can all put our two cents in, write about, vote, write our representatives, etc, etc.
Speaking of Ayn Rand...... I attended a political Conference in D.C. a few years ago. All the typical "think tank" organizations were represented with speakers and break-out groups. The usual groups are Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and similar groups. However, this Convention had a break-out evening presentation by the Ayn Rand Society. It was well attended. There were many different speakers during the evening but I was shocked at the anti-semitism in some of the speeches. One man in particular was extremely anti-semitic. There was a question and answer session at the end of the evening and the audience made it very clear that they did not agree with the anti-semitism being expressed during the evening. Most of the audience were TEA people and very conservative.
Since then I have wondered if Ayn was anti-semitic. I don't recall anything about it in her books. Maybe it went over my head.
Quote from: kroz on July 02, 2015, 12:53:58 PM
Since then I have wondered if Ayn was anti-semitic. I don't recall anything about it in her books. Maybe it went over my head.
Ayn was a Jew herself, born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum.
Quote from: cubedemon on July 02, 2015, 11:13:23 AM
Forgetting welfare programs and the morality of them for a second and let's touch upon an idea you brought up which is voluntary cooperation. Problem is, is that we already tried this with the Articles of Confederation. What you want is unanimous or 100% consent by the governed. This has been proven to not work especially since the federal government could not collect taxes to pay off the war debts and put down rebellions without an ok from all of the states.
An all voluntary cooperative society cannot work especially if it going to be a coherent society in which things can get done that need to get done. None of us agree upon everything and do all members on this board agree with all of the policies on this board? I am sure there have been squabbles and hurt feelings. If you all don't agree with what the rules are here and how things are done then any member doesn't have to come back and can go to another board of their liking.
I wrote this here a while back about Ayn Rand and social security and she still collected social security even though she believed it was immoral. This is my rebuttal. https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/my-response-to-mr-ghate/
By the nature of staying in our society we implicitly agree that we may not get what we want and we may have to compromise since 100% agreement and consent is impossible. The problem with the old Soviet Union and East Germany is that they built a wall to prevent people from leaving.
Back to the idea of welfare and you said "Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. " This has been agreed to without unanimous consent, which is impossible to obtain in almost any avenue outside of this, and if one does not agree with how things are now one can add one's voice to the mix like you all are doing or one can vote with his feet and attempt to create a new society with 100% cooperation.
I may complain a lot about how people are and about society in general and how things can be better for people and how things are unfair but there is one thing I love about American society and other societies like ours. We have a checks and balance type system, not only within our government but from people to the government, government to the people, people to people.
We all check each other and no one has absolute power. No one is going to agree upon everything but those who are here in the USA and other socities which don't block their citizens from leaving and have not left has implicitly consented to be govern by the laws done through process of checks and balances through our various branches of governments and by the people themselves in which we can all put our two cents in, write about, vote, write our representatives, etc, etc.
Slow day at the office?
The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?
As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?
While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.
They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!
Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 03, 2015, 07:59:08 AM
Slow day at the office?
The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?
As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?
While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.
They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!
Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
I am in total agreement with that post!!
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 03, 2015, 07:59:08 AM
Slow day at the office?
The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?
As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?
While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.
They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!
Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
Prove it! Hehe, just channeling Cube. :biggrin:
No offense Cube, just teasing. You do understand teasing, right?
Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2015, 02:26:45 PM
Prove it! Hehe, just channeling Cube. :biggrin:
No offense Cube, just teasing. You do understand teasing, right?
It's more provable than Global Warming! :rolleyes:
QuoteSlow day at the office?
Why are you asking me this question?
QuoteThe only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?
Neither
https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/rights-do-we-really-have-them/
QuoteAs far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?
Then, by this logic having a military, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, etc is immoral since the government has to stick a gun in your face and say "GIVE" to fund these things. If a is a member of z and b and c are members of z and if the superset of these subsets is true then all of these members must be true as well. If something is true in one iteration then why isn't it true in all iterations?
QuoteWhile it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone?
A lot of liberals did not support the war in Iraq and disagreed with it. By your logic, why put a gun to their head to force them to pay for it through their tax dollars? For a given maxim, in order for it to hold up then it must be true in all iterations.
QuotePrivate organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.
How do you know?
QuoteThey are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty.
How do you know?
QuoteThe Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption ...
So are private institutions or at least some of them.
Quote...and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!
What is the vested interest?
QuoteNot to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
Who is the definer of what these things are, what the Government's job is, and how do you know they had every relevant piece of data to come up with these things? What was the criteria that made the data relevant?
Quote from: cubedemon on July 04, 2015, 09:14:58 PM
Then, by this logic having a military, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, etc is immoral since the government has to stick a gun in your face and say "GIVE" to fund these things. If a is a member of z and b and c are members of z and if the superset of these subsets is true then all of these members must be true as well. If something is true in one iteration then why isn't it true in all iterations?
Classic "apples to oranges" comparison!
In the case of the military, police departments, fire departments etc, citizens are paying for services provided by those organization for the common good. Money is paid for services rendered.
In the case of the Welfare State, the Government is arbitrarily taking wealth from one group of citizens and re-distributing it to another group of citizens.
QuoteA lot of liberals did not support the war in Iraq and disagreed with it. By your logic, why put a gun to their head to force them to pay for it through their tax dollars? For a given maxim, in order for it to hold up then it must be true in all iterations.
A lot of Conservatives don't support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan either. However, the military (and its use) is specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Redistribution of wealth is not. The maxim holds up because, as with the fire department, police department, etc, it is money paid for services rendered. If you don't like what your elected officials are doing with those services, maybe you should think about electing officials who will repeal the War Powers act.
QuoteHow do you know?
How do you know?
Because that is the way it worked for about 150 years before the Government decided it had a sworn duty to "help the poor".
QuoteSo are private institutions or at least some of them.
It is far easier to hold corrupt private organization to account than it is the Federal Government.
QuoteWhat is the vested interest?
The development of a large class of poor people who are dependent upon the Government for their very livelihood.
QuoteWho is the definer of what these things are, what the Government's job is, and how do you know they had every relevant piece of data to come up with these things? What was the criteria that made the data relevant?
The Constitution of the United States of America.
Perhaps you should read it sometime...
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Darth Fife on July 06, 2015, 07:32:41 AM
QuotePerhaps you should read it sometime...
:rolleyes:
Sir do you have time to answer 500.000.000 questions? Around the Constitution of the United States of America.
QuoteClassic "apples to oranges" comparison!
I can see why you would see it this way. Your answer below adds more caramel to the apples.
QuoteIn the case of the military, police departments, fire departments etc, citizens are paying for services provided by those organization for the common good. Money is paid for services rendered.
In the case of the Welfare State, the Government is arbitrarily taking wealth from one group of citizens and re-distributing it to another group of citizens.
So, what you're telling me is that it is moral for the government to stick a gun in your face and say "GIVE" to fund these things if it meets the following conditions, a. it is utilitarian meaning that it provides value and/or utility and b. it has to be specifically authorized in the constitution. Is this correct?
QuoteA lot of Conservatives don't support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan either. However, the military (and its use) is specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Redistribution of wealth is not. The maxim holds up because, as with the fire department, police department, etc, it is money paid for services rendered. If you don't like what your elected officials are doing with those services, maybe you should think about electing officials who will repeal the War Powers act.
1. See Above
2. I was talking about concepts and ideas not what is specifically written in our US Constitution.
QuoteIt is far easier to hold corrupt private organization to account than it is the Federal Government.
Again, how do you know this?
QuoteThe development of a large class of poor people who are dependent upon the Government for their very livelihood.
Based upon how welfare is today including what it provides, the rules for staying on it and how much it does provide including SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) and the stigma that comes with these things why would anyone choose to be on welfare or SSDI? Why would anyone make such a choice?
I don't know about other states but in the state of Georgia which is a very conservative state. Here are the rules to be able to utilize TANF.
http://dfcs.dhs.georgia.gov/tanf-eligibility-requirements
Why would anyone subject themselves to this?
Now, let's look at the State of New York which I presume is a very liberal state
https://otda.ny.gov/programs/temporary-assistance/
One has a time limit for receiving of benefits even in a very liberal state.
Again, why would anyone subject themselves to this and how is anyone making a livelihood from this?
Can you show me specific people right now making a livelihood from the government? Who is receiving this mysterious livelihood?
As a person on SSDI and a person who has talked to others on SSDI, one doesn't receive much on SSDI. One does not make a livelihood from that. Yes, I did manage to have some jobs only by the grace of God. I didn't seek them out on my own nor earn them on my own. I was simply in the right place at the right time. What I've been told is that my state is the most difficult state to qualify for SSDI benefits and I somehow managed to qualify for them the first time I applied.
SSDI requires one to have been working, so one can pay taxes including taxes for social security. SSDI is not welfare because it is money from the taxes I did manage to put in for social security from the jobs I did have plus some interest. So, I did earn my SSDI because I qualified under its parameters including putting my own money in. SSDI does not pay much so again, where is the livelihood. Even if I was receiving a livelihood then it's something I earned.
QuoteThe Constitution of the United States of America.
No need for the sarcastic eye roll. Here is the point. Anyway, who were the authors of these things? Who were they? They're the founding fathers who were imperfect men. They're the ones who laid down the parameters of the constitution based upon ideas they had. When they met for the constitutional convention because The Articles of Confederation failed none of them agreed upon everything. None of them always got what they wanted. They had to compromise on a lot of things which politicians and people in their everyday life do today. The constitution is a series of compromises that comprises the structure of our government including the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial in which each branch was supposed to check each other therefore limiting and spreading out who has power so not one person or group has absolute power.
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that one must have a rebellion every 20 years or so. I could be wrong about this fact. To me, it doesn't just mean a literal revolution with guns and soldiers. It means one should re-think one's ideas from time to time. One must question one's ideas and the ideas of others. The constitution is not a holy document with ideas that are infallible. The ideas are ideals that we as Americans try to subscribe to the best we can. They're just that. Ideals. Not things that are set in stone.
The two excellent things about our nation and others like ours which nations like North Korea and others like NK lack is a. the ability to even discuss this stuff without fear of imprisonment and/or death b. the idea that there is a checks and balances not just amongst various governments in our society including the federal but amongst us, the citizenry. By we the people even discussing tyranny and we as a people fearing tyranny, tyranny will be kept at bay. The government is made up of people with their roles with various beliefs and ideas of their own and we the people who are not in government have our own ideas and beliefs of our own. We're all the checks and balances and we're all America and as long as these discussions go on things will be okay.
Quote from: kroz on June 24, 2015, 06:53:10 PM
Okay, this is a very deep subject that requires more than a few sentences. But I will say that I believe the Scriptures when they say that "Before the foundation of the earth, God pre-ordained" those who would become believers in Him. That is a very difficult doctrine, but it is pure Scripture. I could give you many scriptures to support this.
The point is..... God ordains who will become His people. That includes infants and all mankind. His sheep will hear His voice.
Romans 9 tells us that God created some for destruction. That is a difficult doctrine.... but truth. Some people will never become believers because it is not providential.
I think the best way of looking at it is that if there were no blackness, we would be unable to understand the blessing of light. Sin exists because we can better appreciate and understand God's grace.
The old testament law was given to us as a tutor (according to Hebrews) that we might be able to understand good vs. evil. That we might be able to see the wonder of God's grace to sinners.
God reveals Himself to all men, but not all men will respond to Him.
I know this is over 120 days but this is still difficult for me to understand.
Why do not all respond to him? Is it because God doesn't allow them to or they choose not to? Can they choose to respond whatsoever? Is it their own ego? If it is, what causes the ego? Do they cause their own ego or does God choose them to have the ego so they can't choose God?
Why do we need sin to better appreciate and understand God's grace? Why must darkness exist with light?
Does this mean that it was God's purpose for Satan was to rebel against him?
If we put aside for a second the devil in Eden when God banished Adam and Eve because they ate the apple which caused them to realize they were naked and become "aware"
do you think God does not want us to know everything? He wants to keep us below a certain level?
what do you think?
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 03:59:04 PM
If we put aside for a second the devil in Eden when God banished Adam and Eve because they ate the apple which caused them to realize they were naked and become "aware"
do you think God does not want us to know everything? He wants to keep us below a certain level?
what do you think?
So does SPHR stand for, Senior Professional in Human Resources or Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights?
the first one. I am in HR.
Like many I use this moniker on other boards (HR) and they contain numerous conservatives so in the event I meet someone who knows me here they will recognize me.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
the first one. I am in HR.
Like many I use this moniker on other boards (HR) and they contain numerous conservatives so in the event I meet someone who knows me here they will recognize me.
I feel your pain, my wife just transferred out of HR.
Welcome to the forum...
:lol:
If it were not for the people, HR would be a pretty good job!
Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it.
I've been reading for a few days which is what attracted me here. This seems like a very popular active board with some very intelligent passionate people who like to discuss things in some detail which is what I am looking for.
Thanks again, Solar.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
the first one. I am in HR.
Like many I use this moniker on other boards (HR) and they contain numerous conservatives so in the event I meet someone who knows me here they will recognize me.
My youngest daughter is also in HR for a very large company in Seattle.
Welcome young man.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
the first one. I am in HR.
Like many I use this moniker on other boards (HR) and they contain numerous conservatives so in the event I meet someone who knows me here they will recognize me.
Welcome aboard Steve from a rabid Bronco fan.
Thank you, Walks, I appreciate the welcome!
Your daughter is in Seattle, wonderful place, how do you reconcile she is with all those Liberals?
Just kidding, thanks again!
:biggrin:
Quote from: tac on July 14, 2016, 05:21:05 PM
Welcome aboard Steve from a rabid Bronco fan.
WONDERFUL! tac thank you for the welcome I have to say that AFC Championship game WAS the Super Bowl last year. Your Broncos beat the Patriots like no one else could have. I have always really respected Wade Phillips. What a great guy I was really happy he got to reach this goal after being with so many crappy teams in his whole career. He is a defensive Genius!
If it wasn't for Wade Phillips the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl again but I take my hat off to you and your team, well done and I couldn't desire a better outcome for Peyton unless it was for TomBrady!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 06:32:33 PM
Thank you, Walks, I appreciate the welcome!
Your daughter is in Seattle, wonderful place, how do you reconcile she is with all those Liberals?
Just kidding, thanks again!
In her spare time her and my young grandson are educating the Liberals. They both learned sitting at my knee as I learned from my father. But some times I had to go into the wood shed for additional training. :lol: :biggrin:
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 04:36:02 PM
:lol:
If it were not for the people, HR would be a pretty good job!
Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate it.
I've been reading for a few days which is what attracted me here. This seems like a very popular active board with some very intelligent passionate people who like to discuss things in some detail which is what I am looking for.
Thanks again, Solar.
Welcome to the board. Like Solar, I appreciate the fact you took the time to digest this board for awhile to get a feel foe what we are.
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 15, 2016, 04:21:58 AM
Welcome to the board. Like Solar, I appreciate the fact you took the time to digest this board for awhile to get a feel foe what we are.
Thanks for the welcome, I really appreciate it!
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 14, 2016, 03:59:04 PM
If we put aside for a second the devil in Eden when God banished Adam and Eve because they ate the apple which caused them to realize they were naked and become "aware"
do you think God does not want us to know everything? He wants to keep us below a certain level?
what do you think?
It doesn't matter what I think. Thinking implies my subjective opinion. Problem with that is your red could be my green.
Another thing, It seems that based upon what some say nature implies God. Why can't nature imply Zeus, Apollo, hectate, Titans or any other God as well?
Quote from: cubedemon on July 16, 2016, 09:43:30 AM
It doesn't matter what I think. Thinking implies my subjective opinion. Problem with that is your red could be my green.
Another thing, It seems that based upon what some say nature implies God. Why can't nature imply Zeus, Apollo, hectate, Titans or any other God as well?
First, to Steve, SPHR... God definitely wants us to know Him and has given us amply information to do so. The only thing he keeps from us is His face. He has spoken audibly to the Patriarchs and given us His written word to live by.
So what was the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"
Good was exemplified by obedience to God. (Do not eat.) Evil was disobedience to God.
Before they ate they had no concept of evil. Once they ate they experienced guilt and remorse. Their eyes were opened to the inner turmoil of disobedience. They also faced the consequences of the sin by being expelled from the Garden.
BTW, there is no mention of an apple in Genesis. It merely says "fruit".
Now to Cubedemon.. You are absolutely right about our opinions being of no value. The only thing that matters is God's will for us and our obedience to his written revelation in the Bible. He has interacted with His creation since the beginning of time. No other "god" has done that. He has explained His creation in glorious grandeur in the Bible. He has given us everything we need for achieving our full potential for which we were created. He has also revealed Himself in the form of Jesus Christ who was God incarnate.
God knew from the beginning that his creation would be disobedient because He gave them a free will to disobey. Therefore he provided an atonement for our disobedience in the form of the blood of Christ.
Why did He do it this way? One day we can ask Him when we really start living.. in eternity.
Quote from: kroz on July 16, 2016, 10:27:23 AM
First, to Steve, SPHR... God definitely wants us to know Him and has given us amply information to do so. The only thing he keeps from us is His face. He has spoken audibly to the Patriarchs and given us His written word to live by.
So what was the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"
Good was exemplified by obedience to God. (Do not eat.) Evil was disobedience to God.
Before they ate they had no concept of evil. Once they ate they experienced guilt and remorse. Their eyes were opened to the inner turmoil of disobedience. They also faced the consequences of the sin by being expelled from the Garden.
BTW, there is no mention of an apple in Genesis. It merely says "fruit".
Now to Cubedemon.. You are absolutely right about our opinions being of no value. The only thing that matters is God's will for us and our obedience to his written revelation in the Bible. He has interacted with His creation since the beginning of time. No other "god" has done that. He has explained His creation in glorious grandeur in the Bible. He has given us everything we need for achieving our full potential for which we were created. He has also revealed Himself in the form of Jesus Christ who was God incarnate.
God knew from the beginning that his creation would be disobedient because He gave them a free will to disobey. Therefore he provided an atonement for our disobedience in the form of the blood of Christ.
Why did He do it this way? One day we can ask Him when we really start living.. in eternity.
Right on. :thumbup:
Good to hear from you. Hope you have been well and continue to visit. We have missed you good lady.
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 16, 2016, 11:39:50 AM
Right on. :thumbup:
Good to hear from you. Hope you have been well and continue to visit. We have missed you good lady.
She been be doing a lot of looky-looing on the board.
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 16, 2016, 11:39:50 AM
Right on. :thumbup:
Good to hear from you. Hope you have been well and continue to visit. We have missed you good lady.
Thank you sup. I appreciate your kind words. I visit when I get email notifications. (not a lot) I am doing very well.
Quote from: kroz on July 16, 2016, 10:27:23 AM
First, to Steve, SPHR... God definitely wants us to know Him and has given us amply information to do so. The only thing he keeps from us is His face. He has spoken audibly to the Patriarchs and given us His written word to live by.
So what was the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"
Good was exemplified by obedience to God. (Do not eat.) Evil was disobedience to God.
Before they ate they had no concept of evil. Once they ate they experienced guilt and remorse. Their eyes were opened to the inner turmoil of disobedience. They also faced the consequences of the sin by being expelled from the Garden.
BTW, there is no mention of an apple in Genesis. It merely says "fruit".
Now to Cubedemon.. You are absolutely right about our opinions being of no value. The only thing that matters is God's will for us and our obedience to his written revelation in the Bible. He has interacted with His creation since the beginning of time. No other "god" has done that. He has explained His creation in glorious grandeur in the Bible. He has given us everything we need for achieving our full potential for which we were created. He has also revealed Himself in the form of Jesus Christ who was God incarnate.
God knew from the beginning that his creation would be disobedient because He gave them a free will to disobey. Therefore he provided an atonement for our disobedience in the form of the blood of Christ.
Why did He do it this way? One day we can ask Him when we really start living.. in eternity.
Ten commandments:
http://aumamen.com/s/i/t/h/the-ten-commandments-2.png
Looking at all ten commandments, statutes, laws, commands, etc I think we can derive a zeroth commandment which is simply
Obey God.Similar to the concept of the three laws of robotics by Issac Asimov in logical structure which are
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
and the zeroth law says
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
Quote from: kroz on July 16, 2016, 10:27:23 AM
Now to Cubedemon.. You are absolutely right about our opinions being of no value. The only thing that matters is God's will for us and our obedience to his written revelation in the Bible. He has interacted with His creation since the beginning of time. No other "god" has done that. He has explained His creation in glorious grandeur in the Bible. He has given us everything we need for achieving our full potential for which we were created. He has also revealed Himself in the form of Jesus Christ who was God incarnate.
God knew from the beginning that his creation would be disobedient because He gave them a free will to disobey. Therefore he provided an atonement for our disobedience in the form of the blood of Christ.
Why did He do it this way? One day we can ask Him when we really start living.. in eternity.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/commands-from-god-vs-our-inalienable-rights/msg247644/#msg247644
Looking at your post above you said God has ordained some will become his people and you said God created some for destruction. If what you say is truth here then how do we have free will to obey or disobey at all? If God created some for destruction as you say then are they not obeying God as well? By this logic and the definition of murder (murder is unlawful or unauthorized killing), there is no such thing as murder and all killing is authorized and lawful by God since some who were created for destruction are killers as well.
So, I am not really understanding what you're saying here. Is there something that you're implying that I am missing? If there is, I do have difficulty with things that are implied and not stated out due to my autism.
How can those who were chosen for destruction choose or not choose to obey God or are they already obeying God especially if obeying God is the zeroth commandment to all of his commandments, statutes, laws, etc?
Quote from: cubedemon on July 18, 2016, 06:05:20 AM
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/new-board/commands-from-god-vs-our-inalienable-rights/msg247644/#msg247644
Looking at your post above you said God has ordained some will become his people and you said God created some for destruction. If what you say is truth here then how do we have free will to obey or disobey at all? If God created some for destruction as you say then are they not obeying God as well? By this logic and the definition of murder (murder is unlawful or unauthorized killing), there is no such thing as murder and all killing is authorized and lawful by God since some who were created for destruction are killers as well.
So, I am not really understanding what you're saying here. Is there something that you're implying that I am missing? If there is, I do have difficulty with things that are implied and not stated out due to my autism.
How can those who were chosen for destruction choose or not choose to obey God or are they already obeying God especially if obeying God is the zeroth commandment to all of his commandments, statutes, laws, etc?
That is an excellent question, cubedemon.
What you fail to realize is that NONE of us would choose to obey God. We are all sinful creatures and are totally powerless to obey God within our own flesh. None in the Old Testament totally obeyed the Mosaic Law. In our flesh we have a bent toward sinfulness.
However, in God's sovereign providence He has chosen to draw some of us to Himself. The Holy Spirit pricks our hearts and draws us toward our Creator. When He does this, we will recognize that this is a force outside of ourselves and we will respond by receiving Him into our heart. That is not our own doing, but all of it comes from God. We merely receive Him into our hearts.
We do not know why God chooses to convict some of their sins and not others. It is God's providential choice. It is His grace and mercy showered on a chosen few. But Scripture tells us that He determined His chosen ones before the foundation of the earth was laid. As Romans 8 and 9 says, before we were even born we were predestined to be conformed to His image..... "before we had done anything right or wrong."
But that does not mean we do not ALL have free wills. The ONLY thing outside of our free will is our predestined election by God. Without that, we would ALL be doomed to hell. None of us has the power to save ourselves. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.
Even after we are saved by God's sovereign choice, we continue to sin and fall short. However, we have the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to prick our hearts and conscience to do the things that would please the Father. We have a new bent to please our Father. God knows that we will never be perfect before reaching eternity but we will continue to grow and mature in our relationship with God until we reach eternity. And He will use us for His purposes while we are still here on earth. That is why I emerge from retirement to this forum to answer your questions. God continues to prick my heart to reach out to others who may be His elect but have not yet understood the truth. I pray that truth takes root in your heart and God's Spirit draws you to Him.
Quote from: kroz on July 18, 2016, 07:51:24 AM
That is an excellent question, cubedemon.
What you fail to realize is that NONE of us would choose to obey God. We are all sinful creatures and are totally powerless to obey God within our own flesh. None in the Old Testament totally obeyed the Mosaic Law. In our flesh we have a bent toward sinfulness.
However, in God's sovereign providence He has chosen to draw some of us to Himself. The Holy Spirit pricks our hearts and draws us toward our Creator. When He does this, we will recognize that this is a force outside of ourselves and we will respond by receiving Him into our heart. That is not our own doing, but all of it comes from God. We merely receive Him into our hearts.
We do not know why God chooses to convict some of their sins and not others. It is God's providential choice. It is His grace and mercy showered on a chosen few. But Scripture tells us that He determined His chosen ones before the foundation of the earth was laid. As Romans 8 and 9 says, before we were even born we were predestined to be conformed to His image..... "before we had done anything right or wrong."
But that does not mean we do not ALL have free wills. The ONLY thing outside of our free will is our predestined election by God. Without that, we would ALL be doomed to hell. None of us has the power to save ourselves. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.
Even after we are saved by God's sovereign choice, we continue to sin and fall short. However, we have the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to prick our hearts and conscience to do the things that would please the Father. We have a new bent to please our Father. God knows that we will never be perfect before reaching eternity but we will continue to grow and mature in our relationship with God until we reach eternity. And He will use us for His purposes while we are still here on earth. That is why I emerge from retirement to this forum to answer your questions. God continues to prick my heart to reach out to others who may be His elect but have not yet understood the truth. I pray that truth takes root in your heart and God's Spirit draws you to Him.
Let's pull these two statements out. "What you fail to realize is that NONE of us would choose to obey God. We are all sinful creatures and are totally powerless to obey God within our own flesh. "
First statement: "Would" implies that the ability to choose to obey God is within us and our own flesh; one simply chooses not to obey him. Second statement: Totally Powerless implies that one can't choose to obey God b/c of our condition (fleshly nature).
I don't get it. Is it that one chooses not to obey or one literally can't obey w/o God's prickling?
Quote from: cubedemon on July 20, 2016, 08:39:39 AM
Let's pull these two statements out. "What you fail to realize is that NONE of us would choose to obey God. We are all sinful creatures and are totally powerless to obey God within our own flesh. "
First statement: "Would" implies that the ability to choose to obey God is within us and our own flesh; one simply chooses not to obey him. Second statement: Totally Powerless implies that one can't choose to obey God b/c of our condition (fleshly nature).
I don't get it. Is it that one chooses not to obey or one literally can't obey w/o God's prickling?
You have very keen insight on this subject, cubedemon, and ask good questions.
We are ALL born with a sin nature which we inherited from Adam. a sinful nature dwells within us and reigns over us. Romans 3: 10 12 says "as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one."
Man does not seek God. It is God who seeks after men. Apart from the indwelling Spirit of God we cannot truly obey God. We can strive to be good and moral people, but our "works" can never save us. However, we can know that He exists because of our knowledge of His creation. So we are without excuse for not seeking after God. But the truth is that no one does truly seek after God in his own flesh. Sin reigns within us and we are incapable of pleasing God.
So, the answer to your question is yes, we cannot obey apart from God's drawing us to Himself.
The fact that you ask such good questions makes me think that God may already be working in your heart. If He is, He will convict you of your sinfulness and give you a contrite heart. At that point all you have to do is acknowledge your sin and receive His free gift of grace. From that day forward you will sense the Spirit of God within you and seek to conform to the image of God and please Him. Yes, you will continue to sin but your conscience will prick your heart and lead you to repentence. It is an ongoing relationship and He will never leave you. The rest of your life will be a spiritual maturing process.
.
Quote from: kroz on July 20, 2016, 11:51:54 AM
You have very keen insight on this subject, cubedemon, and ask good questions.
We are ALL born with a sin nature which we inherited from Adam. a sinful nature dwells within us and reigns over us. Romans 3: 10 12 says "as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one."
Man does not seek God. It is God who seeks after men. Apart from the indwelling Spirit of God we cannot truly obey God. We can strive to be good and moral people, but our "works" can never save us. However, we can know that He exists because of our knowledge of His creation. So we are without excuse for not seeking after God. But the truth is that no one does truly seek after God in his own flesh. Sin reigns within us and we are incapable of pleasing God.
So, the answer to your question is yes, we cannot obey apart from God's drawing us to Himself.
The fact that you ask such good questions makes me think that God may already be working in your heart. If He is, He will convict you of your sinfulness and give you a contrite heart. At that point all you have to do is acknowledge your sin and receive His free gift of grace. From that day forward you will sense the Spirit of God within you and seek to conform to the image of God and please Him. Yes, you will continue to sin but your conscience will prick your heart and lead you to repentence. It is an ongoing relationship and He will never leave you. The rest of your life will be a spiritual maturing process.
.
Thanks for the compliment.
I would like to sum this up in bullet points just to make sure I'm understanding this fully.
a. Anyone who is not obedient to God is not saved and is therefore sinful since sin means disobedience to God.
b. No one is obedient to God because of their nature and therefore everyone is sinful.
c. God chooses who he will bring to him and save.
d. Those who he chooses will continue to stumble and fall but God will prick at them and still draw them to him but they will become obedient.
e. God chooses some for destruction.
f. Whether God chooses one for life or destruction God's desire for each person is being fulfilled whether it is life and eternity with him or death and eternity without him.
g. Everyone, whether chosen for life or destruction, is a part of fulfilling God's plan.
Is all of what I am saying correct? Do I have any inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or misrepresentations?
Quote from: cubedemon on July 21, 2016, 11:33:06 AM
Thanks for the compliment.
I would like to sum this up in bullet points just to make sure I'm understanding this fully.
a. Anyone who is not obedient to God is not saved and is therefore sinful since sin means disobedience to God.
b. No one is obedient to God because of their nature and therefore everyone is sinful.
c. God chooses who he will bring to him and save.
d. Those who he chooses will continue to stumble and fall but God will prick at them and still draw them to him but they will become obedient.
e. God chooses some for destruction.
f. Whether God chooses one for life or destruction God's desire for each person is being fulfilled whether it is life and eternity with him or death and eternity without him.
g. Everyone, whether chosen for life or destruction, is a part of fulfilling God's plan.
Is all of what I am saying correct? Do I have any inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or misrepresentations?
Almost right!
God really does not desire that any would perish. He would love for all to be obedient, but Adam made that impossible. (But God foreknew that Adam would disobey..... because He gave Adam a freewill to do so.) But it is important that we understand that Adam was NOT condemned to hell for his disobedience. He suffered loss and was doomed to die, but he repented and still had a relationship with God and taught his children to be obedient to the Father. But full obedience was no longer possible.
a. Is not correct because none of us are totally obedient to God. And those who are not "called" of God cannot obey because they do not possess the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit prompts us to do certain things which God wills us to do. It may be something as small as reaching out to someone that has been placed on your heart to help in a time of need. God wants to use believers to accomplish His will on earth. To the extent that we heed the H.S.'s voice that speaks to our heart, we are rewarded in heaven. But there are many times that we do not follow the promptings of the Spirit. It does not affect our salvation but it causes us to lose rewards and blessings in eternity. Obedience has nothing to do with our salvation. Our salvation is a pure gift from God apart from anything we do. Obedience is something we do to please the Father, much like a child wants to please their parent.
b. and c. are totally correct.
d. is mostly correct but no believer becomes totally obedient. Many are not often obedient. Not all Christians grow to maturity. Some die as immature Christians. In eternity they will regret their disobedience on earth because they will suffer a form of "loss". We don't know exactly what all that involves but the Scriptures say that we are given "crowns" for our obedience. We are also given assignments of various levels of leadership in the Millennial kingdom. Those assignment will be based upon our faithfulness on earth. Scripture says we will reign with Him. There is much to look forward to. This life is just a proving ground for the real life which will last forever.
e. f. and g. are correct. Read Romans chapter nine for a better understanding of it.
Quote from: cubedemon on June 22, 2015, 11:42:15 PMThere are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.
For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life...If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.
If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn't one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn't one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?
Good questions which some might just find convenient enough to keep a single loaf of bread from ever going around. So where was the U.S. Constitution first found? Some say it was at least partly derived from some American Indians' sacred burial mounds, while others may say it was already found inside of their Bibles. Perhaps, so, it was found in both places. Who really actually knows? And exactly how or who did design that same exact flag all say she created by the name of Betsy Ross. All some may know is that the word says that God is a judge, a lawgiver and a king, as in Isaiah 33:22. So there are the three compartments separated.
Just the church at Philadelphia, is that all still some kind of Jewish history, or does it perhaps just perhaps have something to really do with those exact same colonialists? There's nothing that says anyone has a right to leave out the Ten Commandments as being what would be the right to receive as gifts the Ten Amendments. Without one living to have obedience to God, they might say that no one just gets to just have the other ones. As in, those who hate what the Founding Fathers managed to arrange by the divine providence of God, that most assuredly some have only made it big to provide a conduit to the whole truth of who is the Christ will be solved.
That the light of the truth shall have finally evolved: Isaiah 11:4 > "But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked." So if one has the wealth or even a way to help someone else, but never does, because of what reason it may mean to them, that they would know they are outside of ownership of all that they own just because they did it inside of malice, that it would be entered into the Book of Life as failed, soullessly, the whole of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, just because money into their heartlessness was all they ever imported.
Revelation 20:12, books were opened and there was present with them all they had done, whether good or bad. So, when evil is called good, is that just okay by God? The second death is the lake of fire is if they never turned it around or thought it would meet in the middle of the exchanged. Some like to say the lake of fire is not real. But all are also judged as much by the book of life for all that was to become dead. Blessed and holy who partakes in the first resurrection! That Satan has been loosed as he was also just as much another victim of binding by the way of all the same bondage given. The one reality is that slow-of-speech is no excuse to not understand. And even if they don't, just because they never wanted it, that will be all theirs right to the altered.