From where are rights derived?

[InChrist]

Both Old and New Testament disagree with you. Yes, you can go to heaven, not a very good one but it is a possibility in the Bible. But there are also verses that supported eternal torment:

Ten Foundational Verses for Eternal Punishment in Hell

In his contribution to the book in Two Views of Hell, Robert Peterson sets forth ten passages that as part of the “overwhelming evidence” to support the historical interpretation of hell as everlasting punishment. I agree with Peterson’s citation of Augustine, “who cautions us against following...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Yes, eternal torment; self-inflicted torment, NOT God inflicted “torture”, which was the word you initially used. If you refuse God’s love and goodness, your own conscience will torment you forever. God is the Source of all that is, good, light, beauty, joy…life. To be separated from that eternally will be miserably tormenting.



“Certainly, the fire that shall "try every man's work of what sort it is" (1 Cor:3:13) is not physical. It must be the "fire" of God's justice, holiness, purity, and truth that exposes motives and would surely torment the conscience of the damned forever. This alone could constitute the flames in the Lake of Fire. No longer is any excuse plausible even to the most perverted. With no tree to hide behind, no fig leaf to cover, and standing naked before God, the flame of His justice burns the conscience with supernatural conviction. That eternal torment will be beyond anything we could imagine.”

Justice, Forgiveness, and Transformation

The Bible declares, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." After the creation of all else, God said, "Let us make man in our image....So God made man in his imag

www.thebereancall.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, eternal torment; self-inflicted torment, NOT God inflicted “torture”, which was the word you initially used. If you refuse God’s love and goodness, your own conscience will torment you forever. God is the Source of all that is, good, light, beauty, joy…life. To be separated from that eternally will be miserably tormenting.

Potato potahtoe. That is torture.

“Certainly, the fire that shall "try every man's work of what sort it is" (1 Cor:3:13) is not physical. It must be the "fire" of God's justice, holiness, purity, and truth that exposes motives and would surely torment the conscience of the damned forever. This alone could constitute the flames in the Lake of Fire. No longer is any excuse plausible even to the most perverted. With no tree to hide behind, no fig leaf to cover, and standing naked before God, the flame of His justice burns the conscience with supernatural conviction. That eternal torment will be beyond anything we could imagine.”

Justice, Forgiveness, and Transformation

The Bible declares, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." After the creation of all else, God said, "Let us make man in our image....So God made man in his imag

www.thebereancall.org

Sorry, apologetics does not excuse the evil behaviors of your God. The Bible does not have justice. It has vengeance.

 

[InChrist]

Excuse me, but you seem to be forgetting -- by your own belief, we've already had a Saviour. So how the heck can we still be in desperate need? Did the first one fail?

Who is “we”? Yes, there’s a Savior, but each person must choose to personally place faith in Him. One thing I think you don’t understand is that this world is a fallen world/planet. God is not going to save this world, rather people are being saved out of it for a new heaven and earth free of pain, suffering, and death for eternity.

 

[InChrist]

Potato potahtoe. That is torture.

Sorry, apologetics does not excuse the evil behaviors of your God. The Bible does not have justice. It has vengeance.

No, not the same. Those who who are “separated” from God are not being tortured by God. Their torment is self-inflicted anguish, which they will all to well realize is their own fault.

The Bible has justice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not the same. Those who who are “separated” from God are not being tortured by God. Their torment is self-inflicted anguish, which they will all to well realize is their own fault.

The Bible has justice.

Why would separation from God be torment? You need to justify that assumption. The Bible does not describe that. There are clear verses about the eternal fire.

And you also need to demonstrate that the Bible has justice, I am betting that most examples that you can come up with will not be just.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes, eternal torment; self-inflicted torment, NOT God inflicted “torture”, which was the word you initially used. If you refuse God’s love and goodness, your own conscience will torment you forever. God is the Source of all that is, good, light, beauty, joy…life. To be separated from that eternally will be miserably tormenting.

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

Even people who ACCEPT God's love and goodness might be commanded to part from God it seems. This verse seems to suggest that even some die-hard Christians might not fare so well on judgment day. And this includes people who prophecy and perform miracles, and even destroy demons in Jesus' name. It sounds like these folks have convinced themselves that Jesus is going to have high praise for them on judgment day. As far as they can tell, they are best buds with Jesus.

But (in a major plot twist) Jesus is like: "Who the **** are you?" And he commands them to depart from his presence... because they are in fact evil doers who have hurt their fellow human beings. All that praise.... all that fervor... all that belief... even driving out demons... none of that matters because these individuals apparently didn't do the simple things that God commanded (ie. love thy neighbor as thyself).

 

[Augustus]

I think the history of political abuse by England and what you sugest are both plausible motives. It is the only document that appeals to a divine, so I've always been curious why it is the only one.

American notions of liberty were just English notions of liberty derived from a mythical pre-Norman Ancient Constitution, and there was a fair amount of support for the colonials at all levels of society in Britain.

What we now see as stereotypically mawkish American talk of freedom and liberty, is really just the continuation of popular English political thought from the 17th and 18th C where, via parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional monarchy they differentiated themselves from 'tyrannical' Catholic absolutism. As they were common at the moment of the country's birth, they have been better preserved in American memory, and turned into an American innovation rather than being a moderate evolution in an English trend.

An anti-monarchical switch to painting George as a tyrant was a late development among the colonials, although attitudes towards monarchy varied and some had been more hostile from the start.

The idea of a return to the liberties of an ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution and the Providential Deist idea of a return to a True Religion of natural rights that existed prior to its corruption seem congruent with the idea of being 'created' equal and that this is self-evidently true. But as you say, there are other potential reasons for such a rhetorical flourish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who is “we”? Yes, there’s a Savior, but each person must choose to personally place faith in Him. One thing I think you don’t understand is that this world is a fallen world/planet. God is not going to save this world, rather people are being saved out of it for a new heaven and earth free of pain, suffering, and death for eternity.

I never cease to be amazed at how so many mere mortals are able to tell us all about what "God" wants and will do, and how. But by gum, a whole bunch of you make the claim -- every darn day!

Do you all get memos, or what?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, eternal torment; self-inflicted torment, NOT God inflicted “torture”, which was the word you initially used.

Explain, in simple words for us dummies, how over a quarter of a million people "self-inflicted" themselves with a tsunami that killed them, tore their children from their protecting arms!

Shylock, in my own humble opinion, had it totally right: "what fools these Christians are!"

 

[InChrist]

Why would separation from God be torment? You need to justify that assumption. The Bible does not describe that. There are clear verses about the eternal fire.

And you also need to demonstrate that the Bible has justice, I am betting that most examples that you can come up with will not be just.

Separation from God in the eternal realm will be (self) torment because God is Life, the only source of real life with love, light, beauty, joy, etc. In the Bible ultimate death is defined as separation from God/eternal life resulting in eternal outer darkness and misery alone.

The Bible reveals justice, in that God is holy, good, and perfectly righteous, therefore He will not let evil persist forever. Evil and sin will come to a final end. That is why no one should want to cling to sin.

 

[InChrist]

Explain, in simple words for us dummies, how over a quarter of a million people "self-inflicted" themselves with a tsunami that killed them, tore their children from their protecting arms!

Shylock, in my own humble opinion, had it totally right: "what fools these Christians are!"

I didn’t say anything about, nor was I referring to self-inflicted suffering here on earth in a tsunami or any other disaster.

 

[InChrist]

I never cease to be amazed at how so many mere mortals are able to tell us all about what "God" wants and will do, and how. But by gum, a whole bunch of you make the claim -- every darn day!

Do you all get memos, or what?

I, as well as you, have can have access to God and His revealed Word in the biblical scriptures. Otherwise, we would all be clueless about God’s wants or will.

 

[InChrist]

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

Even people who ACCEPT God's love and goodness might be commanded to part from God it seems. This verse seems to suggest that even some die-hard Christians might not fare so well on judgment day. And this includes people who prophecy and perform miracles, and even destroy demons in Jesus' name. It sounds like these folks have convinced themselves that Jesus is going to have high praise for them on judgment day. As far as they can tell, they are best buds with Jesus.

But (in a major plot twist) Jesus is like: "Who the **** are you?" And he commands them to depart from his presence... because they are in fact evil doers who have hurt their fellow human beings. All that praise.... all that fervor... all that belief... even driving out demons... none of that matters because these individuals apparently didn't do the simple things that God commanded (ie. love thy neighbor as thyself).

There are plenty of religious, fake “professing Christians “, who only use the name of Christ for their own personal gain, power or profit… charlatans. Jesus knows who they are and that they don’t sincerely know or love Him or others. One day, those will hear His words…”I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers”.

 

[We Never Know]

It looks like several think a human/person only has rights because of the government gives them to them.

Or am I misunderstanding some posts?

 

[vulcanlogician]

There are plenty of religious, fake “professing Christians “, who only use the name of Christ for their own personal gain, power or profit… charlatans. Jesus knows who they are and that they don’t sincerely know or love Him or others. One day, those will hear His words…”I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers”.

Sure. But doesn't that also imply that it isn't quite obvious who these "fake" Christians are? I mean, sure, Jesus can spot them from a mile away. But can you? I don't think I can.

And as the parable of the workers suggests (Matthew 20: 1-16), it is also difficult to spot "real" Christians. All three groups of workers served God in a manner which God saw as sufficient. But the first and second group of workers were prone to say that the third group was undeserving of God's blessing.

I think the big takeaway from that parable is that it is not up to the first group of workers to judge the other workers. God will give them what God wants.

To me, the first group of workers represent doctrinal Christians, such as yourself. You guys are aware that you have an agreement with God, and you know that God will make good on that agreement. But you folks have an issue. You think your doctrine (ie. your agreement with God) is the only way to serve God and reap the rewards of serving God. But that isn't true.

God went out and got another batch of people after he got you working. And the agreement he made with them is that he would pay them what is right. This second group didn't need an explicit promise or doctrine in order to be convinced to serve God. All they needed was to receive "what is right". Therefore, everyone who strives to do the right thing counts as a servant of Christ. Even though they don't accept the doctrine, or have a firm agreement (like the first group of workers) they still do the work.

But it goes even farther than that.

There is a third group who serves Christ. This group does the least service to Christ compared to the other two. But this third group expects nothing in return for their work. They work simply because God came to them and asked. This third group does not only not accept Christian doctrine, they don't even expect to be fairly compensated for their labor. But still, they do the work.

As I'm sure you're well aware, all three parties are compensated equally at the end of the day. Much to the chagrin of those who did more work.

Concerning the third group of workers, I am reminded of a news story I saw like 5 years ago which concerned a woman in India who was a destitute prostitute on the streets. Presumably a Hindu, though her religion was not explicitly mentioned. This woman was a victim of human trafficking and was forced into prostitution on the streets. Anyway, one day, she saw that a young girl was being turned out. She took this young girl to a couple of tourists and explained the situation of the young girl and begged them to rescue her, which they did.

When her pimps found out what she had done, this woman was severely beaten. She expected this to happen. But she did what she did anyway.

As I said, I don't know what this woman's religion is or was. Perhaps she was a Hindu? But I would place her among group 3 of the workers in Christ's parable. She was commanded to do the righteous thing and she did it, expecting nothing but punishment. She had no doctrine or guarantee that she would be rewarded for the good that she had done. In fact, she was punished for her deed and probably expected as much. But let me ask you, even if this woman was a Hindu (or some other religion, or even an atheist).... could you not say that God commanded her and she obeyed. And yet she didn't need a doctrine or a reward system to motivate her to serve Christ. She was like the third group of workers. She had not yet found (righteous) work, but she was looking for it.

The story does have a happy ending. The couple not only rescued the young girl, but returned to India to free the woman from her bondage as well.

I suppose my primary thesis here is: sure, there are fake "professing Christians." But there may also be real Christians, who, while they genuinely serve Christ, do not profess Christianity.

What's your opinion concerning that?

 

[InChrist]

Sure. But doesn't that also imply that it isn't quite obvious who these "fake" Christians are? I mean, sure, Jesus can spot them from a mile away. But can you? I don't think I can.

And as the parable of the workers suggests (Matthew 20: 1-16), it is also difficult to spot "real" Christians. All three groups of workers served God in a manner which God saw as sufficient. But the first and second group of workers were prone to say that the third group was undeserving of God's blessing.

I think the big takeaway from that parable is that it is not up to the first group of workers to judge the other workers. God will give them what God wants.

To me, the first group of workers represent doctrinal Christians, such as yourself. You guys are aware that you have an agreement with God, and you know that God will make good on that agreement. But you folks have an issue. You think your doctrine (ie. your agreement with God) is the only way to serve God and reap the rewards of serving God. But that isn't true.

God went out and got another batch of people after he got you working. And the agreement he made with them is that he would pay them what is right. This second group didn't need an explicit promise or doctrine in order to be convinced to serve God. All they needed was to receive "what is right". Therefore, everyone who strives to do the right thing counts as a servant of Christ. Even though they don't accept the doctrine, or have a firm agreement (like the first group of workers) they still do the work.

But it goes even farther than that.

There is a third group who serves Christ. This group does the least service to Christ compared to the other two. But this third group expects nothing in return for their work. They work simply because God came to them and asked. This third group does not only not accept Christian doctrine, they don't even expect to be fairly compensated for their labor. But still, they do the work.

As I'm sure you're well aware, all three parties are compensated equally at the end of the day. Much to the chagrin of those who did more work.

Concerning the third group of workers, I am reminded of a news story I saw like 5 years ago which concerned a woman in India who was a destitute prostitute on the streets. Presumably a Hindu, though her religion was not explicitly mentioned. This woman was a victim of human trafficking and was forced into prostitution on the streets. Anyway, one day, she saw that a young girl was being turned out. She took this young girl to a couple of tourists and explained the situation of the young girl and begged them to rescue her, which they did.

When her pimps found out what she had done, this woman was severely beaten. She expected this to happen. But she did what she did anyway.

As I said, I don't know what this woman's religion is or was. Perhaps she was a Hindu? But I would place her among group 3 of the workers in Christ's parable. She was commanded to do the righteous thing and she did it, expecting nothing but punishment. She had no doctrine or guarantee that she would be rewarded for the good that she had done. In fact, she was punished for her deed and probably expected as much. But let me ask you, even if this woman was a Hindu (or some other religion, or even an atheist).... could you not say that God commanded her and she obeyed. And yet she didn't need a doctrine or a reward system to motivate her to serve Christ. She was like the third group of workers. She had not yet found (righteous) work, but she was looking for it.

The story does have a happy ending. The couple not only rescued the young girl, but returned to India to free the woman from her bondage as well.

I suppose my primary thesis here is: sure, there are fake "professing Christians." But there may also be real Christians, who, while they genuinely serve Christ, do not profess Christianity.

What's your opinion concerning that?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the story about the woman in India. I really appreciate it.
My view is this…

“For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
Romans 2:12-16

I believe the scriptures are clear that God has given everyone a conscience with an awareness of right and wrong and a desire to seek truth. Clearly, whatever that woman’s religion, Hindu or otherwise, she was listening to her conscience and chose to do right for the sake of the child, despite the harsh consequences she knew she would face. So I would say that God led her by His Spirit and she obeyed. Certainly, God would also know if a woman like that would obey the call to place her faith in His Son Jesus Christ if she heard the good news about Him.

 

[Heyo]

It looks like several think a human/person only has rights because of the government gives them to them.

Or am I misunderstanding some posts?

If you refer to my post then you didn't misunderstand. E.g. my government grants me the right to life. I.e. I can be sure that no court will sentence me to death. If you live in Texas, you don't have an inalienable right to life, you can be sentenced to death.

 

[vulcanlogician]

So I would say that God led her by His Spirit and she obeyed. Certainly, God would also know if a woman like that would obey the call to place her faith in His Son Jesus Christ if she heard the good news about Him.

And if she didn't accept the good news? If she stuck to Hinduism (or whatever), even after having read the Gospels. Is it up to you, God, or the Bible whether she is redeemed?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn’t say anything about, nor was I referring to self-inflicted suffering here on earth in a tsunami or any other disaster.

Of course not, because "here on earth" is where all the evidence is that God does not exist at all. Therefore, best not look here, right?

 

[wellwisher]

For most of history, humans were ruled by some form of monarchy. This type of government gave all the power to an extended family at the top of the food chain. There were no elections and power was passed down families; blood lines. This top heavy power structure allowed for entitlements, which are not the same as rights. To maintain the entitlements of the monarchy; palaces, the rights of the citizens were not optimized. The citizens became a work force to serve the needs of the monarchy. I suppose this was useful in the violent times of old, to organize a chain of command, to defend against foreign invasion. But it was not set up for peacetime, when the chain of command is not needed, and people try to pursue their own happiness while being overly taxes to support entitlements.

The Declaration of Independence was a push toward human rights, which were basic rights, that are the same for all; peacetime mode of human expression. This could never happen under any monarchy form of government, since the monarchy would be building monuments to himself, at peacetime, and still need to control the work force.

In the early days of America, only property owners could vote. This tells me several things. Property owners pay taxes and have the most to lose or gain. Secondly, the ideal of humans rights, that the founders saw, involved self reliant people. The wife and children could not vote, since they were dependents.

If you look at the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the word pursuit means having an active role in finding your own idea of happiness. Pursuit is not about others doing it for you. Pursuit is about the quest. Others giving you happiness is more of a draw back to the monarchy, who is entitled to happiness, at any cost to everyone else. Entitlements are not the same as rights.

There is no right to be happy, only the right to pursue happiness, under your own steam. God given rights require adults who are self reliant, so one can control your environment, so these rights can become optimized. The old saying a man's home is his castle, makes you the monarch and the peasant who does the work; entitlement and rights merge. The America dream is about reaching the ideal of self sufficiency; house and business.

Freedom of speech, for example, which is a right, works best when everyone involved is educated. Education is. a pursuit of knowledge. Shouting slogans or slurs words is protected by free speech, but it does not help in terms of everyone coming to common conclusions. A slogan or slur is usually fed to you, as an intellectual dependent.

Where God given rights come in, is connected to the spiritual values needed to value other human beings who are not as self sufficient, so they can have right. However, this would need to be done, not with entitlements, but with charity. The spiritual goal was the proper state of mind, for the self sufficient, since giving, as charity, is connected to character building. While those who accept the charity, show appreciation. Entitlements often allow the giver to be detached, and the receiver to feel smug, which is not the ideal religious attitude for character.

The term women's right is deceptive, since there are only have human rights and not subset niche rights. This is more an entitlement, connected to a monarchy mentality, where the monarchy gives extras to his buddies. It takes a male and female to make a baby, yet the choice for abortion does not involve the males. This is not a right, but an entitlement, given by the Democrat Monarchy, to buy loyalty and votes. Entitlements causes rights to be taken away from others; males, and does allow people to develop character; humility. Instead you get militant women having a temper tantrum because they were entitled by the monarchy.

The problem that the US government create in terms of human rights, is political parties buy votes with entitlements. This does not require developing self reliance, therefore the foundation is too sandy to build a society that has human rights for all. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do fro your country; character building as a platform for self sufficiency for all.