You have no rights...?

[TarkanAttila]

About a week ago, some friends and I were talking about the idea of rights. Long story short, we determined that Scripture really only speaks of one right: the right to do our duties to God. As it says in the Benedictus: “That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear. …” (Luke 1:74).

That doesn’t sound like much at first. But it entails that we are capable of doing our duties. That involves things like a right to life (a dead man can’t do anything), to religious freedom, and other things.

Does the bible speak about human rights at any point, or do we pretty much just have duties to God and gifts from God?

 

[JurisPrudens]

Natural ius is common to all nations. It has its origins in nature not in any constitution. Examples of natural law are the union of men and women, the procreation and raising of children, the common possessions of all persons, the equal liberty of all persons, the acquisition of things that are taken from the heavens, earth, or sea, the return of property or money that has been deposited or entrusted. This also includes the right to repel violence with force. These things and similar are never unjust but are natural and equitable.
St. Isidore of Seville († 636), Etymologiae Book 5.4

 

[tonyrey]

The teaching of Jesus that we all have the same Father in heaven is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. We have no rights if there is no reason why we exist and are related solely by an accident of birth.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The teaching of Jesus that we all have the same Father in heaven is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. We have no rights if there is no reason why we exist and are related solely by an accident of birth.

Where is it in Scripture?

It seems like Scripture never particularly mentions rights. If they are implicit, they seem to fall under a single umbrella: the right to do what we ought to do. “Be holy, for I am holy.”

Otherwise, what are rights? Are they something we own, that no one can take away? Why can 't they be taken away? And by whom can’t they be taken?

For example: the right to life. This right makes no sense in an atheistic context. If it is something I’m entitled to as a virtue of being a human being, Who entitles us to it? The government?

The real answer is, of course, God. But to what ends? Does God just let us do what we want? Or did he make us to accomplish certain things? Yes, he did. And those things are explicit in Scripture. But rights aren’t. So how do we know we have rights? We have rights because we have duties. And because God is good and just, He will not give us duties without giving us the wherewithall to accomplish them. Therefore we have rights. But these rights exist only so we might do the good. We abuse our rights when we use them to oppose the good, or to make it easier to do evil.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That doesn’t sound like much at first. But it entails that we are capable of doing our duties. That involves things like a right to life (a dead man can’t do anything), to religious freedom, and other things.

God doesn’t seem to see things that way:

Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet any thing that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

If indeed the only right we have is towards our duties, then it is perfectly reasonable for God to make one of our duties “dying.” This of course means that God was justified in ordering the slaughter of Amalec (or the firstborn of Egypt, etc) and so it does not follow that we have some right to life.

 

[oldcelt]

The teaching of Jesus that we all have the same Father in heaven is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. We have no rights if there is no reason why we exist and are related solely by an accident of birth.

You may be excluding human creativity.....the reason Omho is irrelevant.

John

 

[tonyrey]

The teaching of Jesus that we all have the same Father in heaven is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. We have no rights if there is no reason

Creativity implies the power to create which is derived from God (if - as you believe - God exists). Why detach the human from the divine as if they have nothing in common? To do so infringes the principle of economy.

 

[fhansen]

About a week ago, some friends and I were talking about the idea of rights. Long story short, we determined that Scripture really only speaks of one right: the right to do our duties to God. As it says in the Benedictus: “That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear. …” (Luke 1:74).

That doesn’t sound like much at first. But it entails that we are capable of doing our duties. That involves things like a right to life (a dead man can’t do anything), to religious freedom, and other things.

Does the bible speak about human rights at any point, or do we pretty much just have duties to God and gifts from God?

In the most basic sense, humans have the freedom to disobey God but not the right to do so. That right was expressly denied by God at the beginning, and all moral evil-or sin- flows from the failure to recognize and acknowledge our obligation for obedience.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’m not sure if obligations can entail rights. It’s a clever way to go, I think. But I don’t know if I think it works like that. For example, I think we all agree parents have obligations to care for their children. But parents don’t have a right to housing, food, and all the other things they need to take care of said child. (Or, at least it doesn’t seem to be the case that these rights are universally recognized)

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure if obligations can entail rights. It’s a clever way to go, I think. But I don’t know if I think it works like that. For example, I think we all agree parents have obligations to care for their children. But parents don’t have a right to housing, food, and all the other things they need to take care of said child. (Or, at least it doesn’t seem to be the case that these rights are universally recognized)

If parents don’t have a right to housing, food, and all the other things they need to take care of said child how can they have an obligation to care for their child? One doesn’t make sense without the other.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I’m not sure if obligations can entail rights. It’s a clever way to go, I think. But I don’t know if I think it works like that. For example, I think we all agree parents have obligations to care for their children. But parents don’t have a right to housing, food, and all the other things they need to take care of said child. (Or, at least it doesn’t seem to be the case that these rights are universally recognized)

Well, there are a lot of rights that at some time or another are not universally recognised.

I think we (the group that met after church) were going off the idea that, if God gives us certain moral obligations, He will, in conjunction, give us the means to fulfill those obligations.

Speaking of which…

God doesn’t seem to see things that way:
If indeed the only right we have is towards our duties, then it is perfectly reasonable for God to make one of our duties “dying.” This of course means that God was justified in ordering the slaughter of Amalec (or the firstborn of Egypt, etc) and so it does not follow that we have some right to life.

I don’t mean to be dismissive of this. But the relation of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant Jesus fulfilled - Abraham’s covenant - is a deep topic for another thread. It’s been addressed by many people before, such as Scott Hahn.

Suffice to say, for the moment, that if rights exist within the context of the ability to fulfill a duty, what if one refuses to do that duty? Or, what if someone is obstructing another person’s duties? Does one have a duty to defend oneself, or to defend his duties?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Well, there are a lot of rights that at some time or another are not universally recognised.

I think we (the group that met after church) were going off the idea that, if God gives us certain moral obligations, He will, in conjunction, give us the means to fulfill those obligations.

Speaking of which…

I don’t mean to be dismissive of this. But the relation of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant Jesus fulfilled - Abraham’s covenant - is a deep topic for another thread. It’s been addressed by many people before, such as Scott Hahn.

Suffice to say, for the moment, that if rights exist within the context of the ability to fulfill a duty, what if one refuses to do that duty? Or, what if someone is obstructing another person’s duties? Does one have a duty to defend oneself, or to defend his duties?

It appears we do not have a right to life.
It appears a privilege to live was given to us.
It’s an honor to live our lives and it’s an honor to fulfill our duties that follow from living of our lives.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I don’t mean to be dismissive of this. But the relation of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant Jesus fulfilled - Abraham’s covenant - is a deep topic for another thread. It’s been addressed by many people before, such as Scott Hahn.

Suffice to say, for the moment, that if rights exist within the context of the ability to fulfill a duty, what if one refuses to do that duty? Or, what if someone is obstructing another person’s duties? Does one have a duty to defend oneself, or to defend his duties?

Seems possible to me, so lets play a game. I will play the role of the “slave-woman at the mill” (Exodus 11:5) whose young son has just been struck dead by the wishes of your God. You will convince me that my son’s death was necessary, and that I should worship your kind and loving God.

 

[TK421]

“Human rights” developed in Western society from Natural Theology, which is where we can establish certain immovable truths about mankind as a result of a synthesis of human reason and divine revelation.

i.e. Man is in the image of God, therefore to abuse man is to abuse God, therefore it is just as absolute and immovable that one must not abuse man, as it is that one must not abuse God. These are inseparable.

The entire concept of human rights is pinned to a few verses in Genesis.

Needless to say, humans rights - like every other idea - has its fair share of corruption. People use the term ‘human rights’ as a euphemism to gain access to things they shouldn’t have, such as an at-will divorce, a fictitious marriage with a fellow man or woman, etc.

edit: Oh, and I don’t think it would be wholly correct to say that we have rights only as they pertain to our duties to God. For example, the Catholic Church has moved to be against capital punishment in modernized societies. The perpetrators of severe crimes are still treated - or should be treated - as a rational creature in the image of God, even if they are not even trying to live up to that. A woman that acts and dresses like a harlot should still be treated like an image of the eternal God, even if she is not even trying to live up to that image. Human rights exist whether the person is a moral creature or not. They exist whether the person even wants them or not. Being an image of God is not a sacrament that comes later in life. It’s endowed in every single person.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Seems possible to me, so lets play a game. I will play the role of the “slave-woman at the mill” (Exodus 11:5) whose young son has just been struck dead by the wishes of your God. You will convince me that my son’s death was necessary, and that I should worship your kind and loving God.

“Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. May the name of the Lord be blessed!” - Job 1:21

You might try reading N. W. Clerk’s “A Grief Observed” - that is, if you mean to ask a serious question, and actually try to find the answer, rather than simply chide God for doing something you don’t understand or like.

edit: Oh, and I don’t think it would be wholly correct to say that we have rights only as they pertain to our duties to God. For example, the Catholic Church has moved to be against capital punishment in modernized societies. The perpetrators of severe crimes are still treated - or should be treated - as a rational creature in the image of God, even if they are not even trying to live up to that.

That’s true. Although I’d say that’s more because we can do without the death penalty, and we can afford to be merciful even though we can be just. It’s an act of mercy to the murderer not to kill him and leave his fate to God.

A woman that acts and dresses like a harlot should still be treated like an image of the eternal God, even if she is not even trying to live up to that image. Human rights exist whether the person is a moral creature or not. They exist whether the person even wants them or not. Being an image of God is not a sacrament that comes later in life. It’s endowed in every single person.

OK. I suppose that makes sense. So, similar to the cry against contraception, human rights has its foundation in two places: “in the beginning”, and in the person of Jesus (who became a Man), and so therefore man is dignified and has rights as a result.

But what are those rights? Not only, what are they particularly, but what do all rights have in common with each other? God has no rights; He needs none. No one can touch Him. No one can injure Him. What is a right? That was our original question.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Or, rather, I should say, leveraging other people’s grief as an excuse to ignore what, overall, is undeniably the work of a good, generous Intellect and Heart.

But this is not the thread for atheist browbeating. I made it to ask where rights come from. Would you care to contribute to that question?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

“Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. May the name of the Lord be blessed!” - Job 1:21

You might try reading N. W. Clerk’s “A Grief Observed” - that is, if you mean to ask a serious question, and actually try to find the answer, rather than simply chide God for doing something you don’t understand or like.

It has always been my experience that Catholicism is outwardly warm (i.e. it preaches love and compassion) and inwardly cold (i.e. theologically uncompromising and academic.) You dislike the question I asked because it pits these two faces against each other. You recognize that telling this poor, suffering woman your uncompromising theological truth is tantamount to telling her that her son deserved to die because he was an obstacle to God. That is in conflict with the usual public message of love and compassion you would normally give when talking to a potential convert.

Or perhaps it is simpler. You’re deliberately missing the point because you can’t address it. This woman isn’t an amateur theologian suffering from a crisis of faith like C.S. Lewis, she is probably not even literate. She has no practice at philosophical detachment or logic. Using Catholicism’s cold theology to convince her would be fruitless. She has no allegiance to the God of the Israelites; her first exposure to God was when he took the life of her son. You’ve recognized that there is realistically nothing you could tell her that would overcome the emotion of such a direct blow. She may fear that God, but she will never love that God.

Unfortunately, that leads to the final and most important question. It is one thing for God to take the lives of the children of Egypt, but hasn’t he damned this woman’s soul? I do not believe that anyone could convince the mothers of Egypt to love the God of the Israelites, and so do they have any hope of salvation?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But this is not the thread for atheist browbeating. I made it to ask where rights come from. Would you care to contribute to that question?

I was pointing out that the assertion that we have some inherent right to life is not correct based on scripture. Indeed, I do not believe we have any rights in the eyes of God. We do not have a right to life or even a right to a chance at heaven:

Unfortunately, that leads to the final and most important question. It is one thing for God to take the lives of the children of Egypt, but hasn’t he damned this woman’s soul? I do not believe that anyone could convince the mothers of Egypt to love the God of the Israelites, and so do they have any hope of salvation?

Indeed it seems to me that God, through his actions, has demonstrated we have no rights.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I was pointing out that the assertion that we have some inherent right to life is not correct based on scripture. Indeed, I do not believe we have any rights in the eyes of God. We do not have a right to life or even a right to a chance at heaven:

Indeed it seems to me that God, through his actions, has demonstrated we have no rights.

Well, then, Kappa. Do you believe in human rights? And if so, where do they come from?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, then, Kappa. Do you believe in human rights? And if so, where do they come from?

I do, and they come from humans, of course. We decide what they are, they are not some property of the universe. We can’t stick a rights-o-meter in someones ear and find out what rights they have, but there are things that can be reasonably argued should be inalienable rights.