All rights derive from property. In other words, I receive my rightsthrough the ownership of property. One must own property in order tohave rights. This is true with life, liberty, and private property.
Now understand, as a believer in God, I believe God is the originatorof all rights. But I just said property is how rights are made manifest. Is that a contradiction? We'll get into that.
The Father does not manifest as a physical entity, meaning God the Father isnot a man with a body and physical form. God is spirit and as such,cannot interact with sinful man.
Also understand, I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Unlike the Father, the Son does have physical attributes. That mayseem like a contradiction if you don't understand the Trinity. Buteven the most well studied Christians have trouble understanding theTrinity. I'll get into that in another article.
I believe God transmits our individual rights through ownership of individual property. God originates rights and makes them physically manifest through property.
That means we have a right to life because we own our own life. Thephysical evidence of our right to life is that our heart is beating. That's pretty much all it takes to make this claim.
Here's the shocking part. One need not believe in God to believe all rights derive from property. I believe Christians, Atheists, New Age Believers, etc. can stipulate that all rights derive from property without having to stipulate to the nature of God.
There are those who regard God as an analogy like "Mother Nature." If someone believes God is an analogy, does that mean they believe their rights are also an analogy? If rights derive from property and property is real, rights are real. Someone who believes God is an analogy may have trouble convincing themselves that there is an originator of rights, but we can at least all agree the rights exist because we can all see the property.
So there's no excuse to deprive someone of their life, liberty, and private property if we all stipulate that rights derive from property. Christians have no right to treat an Atheist poorly just because the Atheist lacks certain beliefs. The Atheist has a right to life regardless of their belief in God because they have a beating heart.
It just so happens that the Christian belief can explain the origination of rights from God through property. I believe the Atheist has a philosophical liability to account for. But I don't think laws need to account for this philosophical liability. And the New Age Believer thinks he/she is God and his/her property is God, but it doesn't impact the actual existence of rights.
So if believers and non-believers can agree to stipulate to property rights, both should be satisfied with the laws and governance upon them. If we agree that it's against the law to beat people up and steal their stuff because it violates property rights, we are able to agree to a civil society.
Atheists don't forfeit their rights just because they can't explain the ontological origin of their rights. There are many things that people take as given that they can't readily explain.
On the other hand, one might say that Christians forfeit their own right to life by becoming a follower of Jesus.
Now understand, as a believer in God, I believe God is the originatorof all rights. But I just said property is how rights are made manifest. Is that a contradiction? We'll get into that.
The Father does not manifest as a physical entity, meaning God the Father isnot a man with a body and physical form. God is spirit and as such,cannot interact with sinful man.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
See: John 4:24
Also understand, I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Unlike the Father, the Son does have physical attributes. That mayseem like a contradiction if you don't understand the Trinity. Buteven the most well studied Christians have trouble understanding theTrinity. I'll get into that in another article.
I believe God transmits our individual rights through ownership of individual property. God originates rights and makes them physically manifest through property.
That means we have a right to life because we own our own life. Thephysical evidence of our right to life is that our heart is beating. That's pretty much all it takes to make this claim.
Here's the shocking part. One need not believe in God to believe all rights derive from property. I believe Christians, Atheists, New Age Believers, etc. can stipulate that all rights derive from property without having to stipulate to the nature of God.
There are those who regard God as an analogy like "Mother Nature." If someone believes God is an analogy, does that mean they believe their rights are also an analogy? If rights derive from property and property is real, rights are real. Someone who believes God is an analogy may have trouble convincing themselves that there is an originator of rights, but we can at least all agree the rights exist because we can all see the property.
So there's no excuse to deprive someone of their life, liberty, and private property if we all stipulate that rights derive from property. Christians have no right to treat an Atheist poorly just because the Atheist lacks certain beliefs. The Atheist has a right to life regardless of their belief in God because they have a beating heart.
It just so happens that the Christian belief can explain the origination of rights from God through property. I believe the Atheist has a philosophical liability to account for. But I don't think laws need to account for this philosophical liability. And the New Age Believer thinks he/she is God and his/her property is God, but it doesn't impact the actual existence of rights.
So if believers and non-believers can agree to stipulate to property rights, both should be satisfied with the laws and governance upon them. If we agree that it's against the law to beat people up and steal their stuff because it violates property rights, we are able to agree to a civil society.
Atheists don't forfeit their rights just because they can't explain the ontological origin of their rights. There are many things that people take as given that they can't readily explain.
On the other hand, one might say that Christians forfeit their own right to life by becoming a follower of Jesus.
What?know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is inyou, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are boughtwith a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit,which are God's.
See: I Corinthians 6:19-20
The arrangement defined in I Corinthians 6:19-20 does not extend toanyone else. It is only between the believer and God. It is true that many believers hold to this, but it does not mean the believers are owned in joint with one another. I reflects therealization that the individual believer comes from God and belongs to God. Onecannot aggress against person merely because either or both partiesvoluntarily submit to God.
In that regard, it is a personal journey. Personal journeys appeal toindividualism. But individualism can lead to the "Lone Ranger"effect which is a common result of Christianity in America. Real spiritual growth happens in the called out assembly, where believersinteract with other believers.
Believers can impress their understanding of scripture on one another. But one believer cannot forcefully impress aparticular view on another believer's heart. And since believers cannot, they have no standingwith non-believers either.
It doesn't mean that the understanding of scripture is subjective. It just means one person's belief cannot be inferred upon others by force. It is this use of force that contributes to the totalitarian society, even when they're based on Christian values.
There is an excellent video about this subject. But it tends to offend Christians. It does this because it doesn't start with God. We should approach this video knowing that all truth is God's truth. This video happens to start with "property rights" even though the Christian philosophy starts at an earlier point. Don't let that distract you from the truth.
The arrangement defined in I Corinthians 6:19-20 does not extend toanyone else. It is only between the believer and God. It is true that many believers hold to this, but it does not mean the believers are owned in joint with one another. I reflects therealization that the individual believer comes from God and belongs to God. Onecannot aggress against person merely because either or both partiesvoluntarily submit to God.
In that regard, it is a personal journey. Personal journeys appeal toindividualism. But individualism can lead to the "Lone Ranger"effect which is a common result of Christianity in America. Real spiritual growth happens in the called out assembly, where believersinteract with other believers.
Believers can impress their understanding of scripture on one another. But one believer cannot forcefully impress aparticular view on another believer's heart. And since believers cannot, they have no standingwith non-believers either.
It doesn't mean that the understanding of scripture is subjective. It just means one person's belief cannot be inferred upon others by force. It is this use of force that contributes to the totalitarian society, even when they're based on Christian values.
There is an excellent video about this subject. But it tends to offend Christians. It does this because it doesn't start with God. We should approach this video knowing that all truth is God's truth. This video happens to start with "property rights" even though the Christian philosophy starts at an earlier point. Don't let that distract you from the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment