|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 19, 2007 10:03:55 GMT -8
Sarahnn
Posts: 1,728
Registered: 10/21/04
Subscribe
Ignore Member A Bible quote recently posted here and my question.
Posted: Mar 18, 2007 7:56 PM
Reply to Topic Report
Paul said:
> Romans 13:1-7
> 2. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the
> ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will
> receive condemnation upon themselves.
Question. What would Pauls' reasoning be for deposing Sadam Hussein or would Paul be against it? Wouldn't Paul be teaching the Muslims poor Christian conduct? Or could we obey Bush's authority but ignore Saddam Husseins?
How does that work?
I would love to discuss this with someone who sees Paul as a governing figure of the Church and whom we are condemned to not obey. Or did that only apply to secular authorities?
--
......you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
What followed was a discussion of how Paul highjacked the Christian church, as a Roman toadie.
Of course, this is an old wive's tale, similar to the DaVinci code. It's mostly perpetuated by the idiots on THC and Bouncer's, who have dusted off the same old New Age/Christ conciousness/eastern religions/conspiracy theory/gnostic gospels crap that was rejected by learned theologians for a reason.
I will have to wait until I get home, but as near as I can remember, Paul was cautioning people not to make waves because screwing with the Romans at the time was not conducive to a long lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Mar 19, 2007 15:31:40 GMT -8
Paul was cautioning people not to make waves because screwing with the Romans at the time was not conducive to a long lifetime.
But then again so did Christ: "Whose image is upon the coin? Caesar's they replied. Then render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God's."
However, in a comparison of the two, Jesus and Paul, Paul was slow to use harsh name calling. Jesus must have been a explosive man for time and again his attitude would turn angry as he chastised the religious leaders. The weird thing is that we have no examples of Jesus opposing the Romans, just those pesky Pharisees and the Jewish leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 19, 2007 16:40:20 GMT -8
Here's the text of Romans 13 - it's obvious that Paul was talking about not pissing the government off, and about the whole authority thing:
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 20, 2007 5:35:38 GMT -8
Paul was cautioning people not to make waves because screwing with the Romans at the time was not conducive to a long lifetime. But then again so did Christ: "Whose image is upon the coin? Caesar's they replied. Then render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God's." However, in a comparison of the two, Jesus and Paul, Paul was slow to use harsh name calling. Jesus must have been a explosive man for time and again his attitude would turn angry as he chastised the religious leaders. The weird thing is that we have no examples of Jesus opposing the Romans, just those pesky Pharisees and the Jewish leadership. Some people use that as an excuse for not liking church people - they said that Jesus hung out with tax collectors and whores. But the truth is that the Pharisees and Saducees were always trying to pull a fast one on Him, and trying to trap him - similar to the way those assholes over at THC do us. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Mar 20, 2007 8:00:33 GMT -8
However, I must admit that Dr. Dobson and Dr. Kennedy ( the modern equivalent of slavery's William Wilberforce) do preach the truth.
The THC did a piece recently on the Christian faith and how it really should be the Paul Church because of his leadership. Your commenter on the THC blog must be one of those intellectuals who believe faith is nonsense. The sad thing is that they have faith things that they cannot explain.
I once heard that explaining faith in a living Christ is like trying to tell someone how to tie their shoes over the phone. Or a friend said, describing the taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten one.
Faith tastes like chicken. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 20, 2007 8:37:18 GMT -8
Your commenter on the THC blog must be one of those intellectuals who believe faith is nonsense. The sad thing is that they have faith things that they cannot explain. She's an idiot. She's your basic unchurched new age "create your own reality" type, who as you can tell by her post, knows nothing about exegesis and is not too hip with logic, either. In the first place, Paul was talking about submitting to your OWN government, the same as Jesus was. Saddam had no authority over us and still doesn't. Then this: "Wouldn't Paul be teaching the Muslims poor Christian conduct?"What does Paul have to do with Iraq or Islam, for that matter? Were the Iraqis supposed to convert to Christianity? Some of these people can never seem to remember that Paul's writings had a definite audience and is speaking directly to a situation that was going on in the church. They seem to think he was speaking into the air to no one in particular. "I would love to discuss this with someone who sees Paul as a governing figure of the Church and whom we are condemned to not obey."This smells a bit like the Feminazi/liberal school who hate Paul because he said that women should be silent in church. Of course, they don't really know why he said that, and he was giving specific instructions for a specific church at a specific time. I have always thought that it was to prevent heresies from spreading. All of this information is available for the asking, but being ignorant on THC is more hip than knowing what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Mar 20, 2007 17:32:11 GMT -8
"Jesus hung out with tax collectors and whores. "
Makes him kinda like regular folk, IMO.
"...being ignorant on THC is more hip than knowing what you're talking about. "
I don't know a bout hip but it's certainly more common.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 21, 2007 2:13:58 GMT -8
"Jesus hung out with tax collectors and whores. " Makes him kinda like regular folk, IMO. "...being ignorant on THC is more hip than knowing what you're talking about. " I don't know a bout hip but it's certainly more common. The point about who Jesus hung out with is often used by the THC crowd to mean that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, etc. TO THE EXCLUSION of church people. It wasn't true then (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who knew Jesus in life, both Parisees, saw to it that He got a decent burial) and it's not true now (Mother Theresa is known the world over for a life well lived.) |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Mar 21, 2007 14:57:41 GMT -8
Sarahnn Posts: 1,728 Registered: 10/21/04 Subscribe Ignore Member A Bible quote recently posted here and my question. Posted: Mar 18, 2007 7:56 PM Reply to Topic Report Paul said: > Romans 13:1-7 > 2. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the > ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will > receive condemnation upon themselves. Question. What would Pauls' reasoning be for deposing Sadam Hussein or would Paul be against it? Wouldn't Paul be teaching the Muslims poor Christian conduct? Or could we obey Bush's authority but ignore Saddam Husseins? How does that work? I would love to discuss this with someone who sees Paul as a governing figure of the Church and whom we are condemned to not obey. Or did that only apply to secular authorities? -- ......you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows What followed was a discussion of how Paul highjacked the Christian church, as a Roman toadie. Of course, this is an old wive's tale, similar to the DaVinci code. It's mostly perpetuated by the idiots on THC and Bouncer's, who have dusted off the same old New Age/Christ conciousness/eastern religions/conspiracy theory/gnostic gospels crap that was rejected by learned theologians for a reason. I will have to wait until I get home, but as near as I can remember, Paul was cautioning people not to make waves because screwing with the Romans at the time was not conducive to a long lifetime. Far Rider, Interesting points are coming up over Roman 13:1-7. Questions that should be asked are: 1) What is civil authority? 2) What is a Christian's responsibility to civil authority? 3) If the civil authority is evil, what is a Christian's perogatives? 1) All authority comes from God. Civil authority comes from divine authority. Be it good or bad, the civil authority comes from the people. Stalin came from the people of Russia. He existed and was able to go about his business because the people of Russia made it possible. This goes along with the idea that we get who we deserve to have as our leader. 2) Failure to obey the civil authority is a failure of the Fourth Commandment. Among the things owed to authority are honor, respect, reverential fear, and the payment of taxes to contribute to the support of services which allow citizens to live in peace and security, which protect them from violence and civil disorder and which guarantees them a more civilized life style. 3) From the very beginning Christians have striven to fulfill their social obligations even if they are the victims of persecution. Tertullian, quite vehemently criticized the pagan world, wrote that the faithful, in their assemblies, prayed for the emperor, his ministers and officials, and for temporal well being and peace. By acting in this way Christians are keeping our Lord's commandment to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. (Mt 22:21). I realize that this may go against the grain of a lot of people, but it is Scripture, and also interpreted in the writings of the early Church Fathers. So what are you going to do if you find out that this Scripture goes against what you may consider a natural desire for "justice". Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 22, 2007 1:51:59 GMT -8
Well, our Caesar happens to be George Bush. And you're right, we have the government we deserve, for the most part. So are you trying to say we should have left Iraq alone because of these scriptures you have given?
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 22, 2007 1:56:10 GMT -8
However, I must admit that Dr. Dobson and Dr. Kennedy ( the modern equivalent of slavery's William Wilberforce) do preach the truth. If you'd have said Ravi Zacharias I'd be more inclined to agree. |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Mar 22, 2007 17:46:16 GMT -8
Well, our Caesar happens to be George Bush. And you're right, we have the government we deserve, for the most part. So are you trying to say we should have left Iraq alone because of these scriptures you have given? I didn't say anything about Iraq. Pray for our leaders and don't rebell against them. |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Mar 22, 2007 17:47:44 GMT -8
However, I must admit that Dr. Dobson and Dr. Kennedy ( the modern equivalent of slavery's William Wilberforce) do preach the truth. If you'd have said Ravi Zacharias I'd be more inclined to agree. Who's Ravi? |
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Mar 23, 2007 4:53:19 GMT -8
A Christian apologist and philosopher from India. Very sharp guy. rzim.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Mar 26, 2007 16:33:55 GMT -8
Well, our Caesar happens to be George Bush. And you're right, we have the government we deserve, for the most part. So are you trying to say we should have left Iraq alone because of these scriptures you have given? Far Rider, It's a popular thing to knock George Bush. I agree with most of everyone that he is not perfect. So! George Bush sent troops to the Middle East to defend our country against what could have possibly happened in our country. If he didn't behave in this manner he would have been considered a weakling and left an open invitation to the radical Muslims to bomb us again. He did what he thought was the proper thing to do and we, as a country, have benefited by his actions. He acted thoughtfully, and with force. The conclusion, so far, is that the USA is safe. May God help us from the wishy-washy behavior of democrats. Cataracts |
|
