Romans 13

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 11, 2021

RDKirk said:
That's rather like the question of, "If God's will is sovereign, why bother praying?"

The answer: Because He still wants our participation.

Yes it is indeed.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 11, 2021

mindlight said:
By way of example take the Jewish Zealot response to Roman authority. Their first attempt leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second to the annihilation of many Jews across the empire. The Christians were respectful of authority in the same time period and the church grew even through major persecutions.

Ok, I thought you were talking about current day.

The experience of the Orthodox church in Russia/USSR might be an example. A slightly false liaison between church and state was destroyed by the emergence of communism and defeat in war. For 70 years the church was forced underground and suffered serious losses. But ultimately God's Kingdom triumphed, the Evil Empire of atheistic Communism fell, and the majority of Russians today declare themselves Orthodox. The falsity and incompetence of Tsarist Christianity and its contempt for poor serfs has been eliminated by the experience of atheistic communism but the church is now stronger and has better perspective in the country having been tested by 70 years of atheistic oppression. The church is now better equipped to be the conscience of the Russian nation than it was before.

It was not atheistic oppression it was communist oppression. Atheism has no ideology, it is just a non belief in any gods. You can be an atheist and be a communist, capitalist, socialist, anarchist, etc.

Ed1wolf · Jun 11, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
No, it usually comes down to "those words actually don't mean what they mean" etc.

Well then you obviously have not talked to any qualified biblical scholars or even fairly biblically literate laypeople.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 15, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Well then you obviously have not talked to any qualified biblical scholars or even fairly biblically literate laypeople.

No, it is the scholars that claim words mean something else.

Ed1wolf · Jun 16, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
No, it is the scholars that claim words mean something else.

Name one.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 16, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Name one.

Paul Copan.

Ed1wolf · Jun 18, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Paul Copan.

I have a read a book where he was a co-author. He is more of a philosopher than biblical scholar, but name some words where he said that they meant something else that they could not mean. You do know that hebrew especially has much broader meanings than english right?

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 21, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
I have a read a book where he was a co-author. He is more of a philosopher than biblical scholar, but name some words where he said that they meant something else that they could not mean.

Look up the definition of a scholar. He fits the definition.

He refers to slaves as servants by saying that since it was not the same as US 19th century slavery that they are not salves but servants. This is not what the text says and it does not matter, people owned as property is immoral. 19 century US slavery has nothing to do with it. People that are owned as property are slaves.

You do know that hebrew especially has much broader meanings than english right?

What are your qualifications for teaching about ancient Hebrew?

Ed1wolf · Jun 21, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Look up the definition of a scholar. He fits the definition.

He refers to slaves as servants by saying that since it was not the same as US 19th century slavery that they are not salves but servants. This is not what the text says and it does not matter, people owned as property is immoral. 19 century US slavery has nothing to do with it. People that are owned as property are slaves.

Irrespective of the semantics, the bible does not condone American style slavery. The Bible only condones voluntary slavery except for POWs and criminals as I demonstrated on another thread a week or two ago that I believe you were involved in for a short time.

cw: What are your qualifications for teaching about ancient Hebrew?

I dont claim to be an expert on hebrew but I have read books by experts on hebrew and that is one of the basic facts of hebrew.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 22, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Irrespective of the semantics, the bible does not condone American style slavery. The Bible only condones voluntary slavery except for POWs and criminals as I demonstrated on another thread a week or two ago that I believe you were involved in for a short time.

I don't care if it condones American type slavery or not. That is not my argument. It supports owning others as property forever.

I dont claim to be an expert on hebrew but I have read books by experts on hebrew and that is one of the basic facts of hebrew.

No matter what you call them they are owned as property for life and can be inherited as property. This is immoral.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Lev 25:44-46.

Almost all translations use the word slave in verse 46. But either way all translations say they are property for life and can be inherited as property. No mention of POW's or criminals etc.

RDKirk · Jun 22, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
I don't care if it condones American type slavery or not. That is not my argument. It supports owning others as property forever.

No matter what you call them they are owned as property for life and can be inherited as property. This is immoral.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Lev 25:44-46.

Almost all translations use the word slave in verse 46. But either way all translations say they are property for life and can be inherited as property. No mention of POW's or criminals etc.

There's been a whole other testament since then.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 22, 2021

RDKirk said:
There's been a whole other testament since then.

So what? God still thought owning others as property for life was moral. Has He changed His mind? I hope He has.

RDKirk · Jun 22, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
So what? God still thought owning others as property for life was moral. Has He changed His mind? I hope He has.

A problem here is one that, unfortunately, bible fundamentalists perpetuate, that God does not change therefore everything He has required of man (or not required of man) has also not changed over the years.

Jesus Himself refutes that:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. -- Matthew 19

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder’ and ‘Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
....

Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.
....

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.-- Matthew 5

In all these cases, Jesus is directly addressing what the Mosiac Law did indeed say to those old Bronze Age Israelites, and He is directly refuting it, placing what God really wants of man into the modern context of Christianity.

And He explains why: Because the hearts of those Bronze Age men were too hard to meet the performance level that God really intends.

It's not different from what I have expected of my own children over the years. When they were babies, I tolerated them not being able to use the toilet themselves. I tolerated them making a mess at mealtimes. I tolerated them crying when they were unhappy...or even bored.

I would not tolerate that behavior from my adult children today. I haven't changed...but my expectations of my children have changed.

ChetSinger · Jun 22, 2021

RDKirk said:
A problem here is one that, unfortunately, bible fundamentalists perpetuate, that God does not change therefore everything He has required of man (or not required of man) has also not changed over the years.

Jesus Himself refutes that:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. -- Matthew 19

I've long thought that Jesus' words there were poignant. God never wanted those men to divorce their wives, but they were going to do it whether He forbade it or not. That doesn't say much about human nature.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 22, 2021

RDKirk said:
A problem here is one that, unfortunately, bible fundamentalists perpetuate, that God does not change therefore everything He has required of man (or not required of man) has also not changed over the years.

Jesus Himself refutes that:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. -- Matthew 19

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder’ and ‘Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
....

Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.
....

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.-- Matthew 5

In all these cases, Jesus is directly addressing what the Mosiac Law did indeed say to those old Bronze Age Israelites, and He is directly refuting it, placing what God really wants of man into the modern context of Christianity.

And He explains why: Because the hearts of those Bronze Age men were too hard to meet the performance level that God really intends.

It's not different from what I have expected of my own children over the years. When they were babies, I tolerated them not being able to use the toilet themselves. I tolerated them making a mess at mealtimes. I tolerated them crying when they were unhappy...or even bored.

I would not tolerate that behavior from my adult children today. I haven't changed...but my expectations of my children have changed.

Then why did not God write laws telling people how best to murder or how best to covet or how best to dishonor their parents?

The problem is God instructed them to do immoral acts. Why did God not teach and show them that it was wrong instead of just giving up and regulating slavery? These people were adults not children and could have learned that owning other people as property was bad if they were told it was and why. A baby cannot learn this. Nowhere in the bible does it say not to own other people as property, at least they would have known it was immoral but God never said that it was so how were they supposed to know?

RDKirk · Jun 22, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Then why did not God write laws telling people how best to murder or how best to covet or how best to dishonor their parents?

The problem is God instructed them to do immoral acts. Why did God not teach and show them that it was wrong instead of just giving up and regulating slavery? These people were adults not children and could have learned that owning other people as property was bad if they were told it was and why. A baby cannot learn this. Nowhere in the bible does it say not to own other people as property, at least they would have known it was immoral but God never said that it was so how were they supposed to know?

You want to assert that the bible is a "manifesto" document, but it's not. You want God to demand that infants be instantly potty-trained, but it doesn't.

It's instructions to people who believe in God to behave more righteously than they have behaved in the past. God instructed them to be more moral than they had been before, knowing that true perfection was beyond them.

The Mosaic Law, if it had been followed perfectly, even as imperfect as it was (and, yes, it was imperfect, as the epistle to the Hebrews explicitly states) slavery would have been impractical if not impracticable.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 23, 2021

RDKirk said:
You want to assert that the bible is a "manifesto" document, but it's not. You want God to demand that infants be instantly potty-trained, but it doesn't.

No, your child analogy does not work. These were grown humans that could understand that slavery was wrong and why it is wrong. God said for them not to do many things why leave owning other people as property out? How was it not possible to teach them that owning others as property was wrong? You teach people what is moral not what is less immoral. How were they to know God thought it was wrong if God never told them it was wrong?

It's instructions to people who believe in God to behave more righteously than they have behaved in the past. God instructed them to be more moral than they had been before, knowing that true perfection was beyond them.

Not owning people as property is far from perfection. It seems like the minimum moral standard someone should have. It is not advanced morality. Since you brought up children. What if my son beat up and took another kids lunch money and instead of teaching him that it is wrong and why, I tell him to steal his lunch money instead because this was a little more moral? You don't tell someone to do a different immoral act to get them do stop doing an immoral act.

The Mosaic Law, if it had been followed perfectly, even as imperfect as it was (and, yes, it was imperfect, as the epistle to the Hebrews explicitly states) slavery would have been impractical if not impracticable.

How so? It says the Israelites could own non Hebrews as property forever and pass them down to their children.

RDKirk · Jun 23, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
No, your child analogy does not work. These were grown humans that could understand that slavery was wrong and why it is wrong. God said for them not to do many things why leave owning other people as property out? How was it not possible to teach them that owning others as property was wrong? You teach people what is moral not what is less immoral. How were they to know God thought it was wrong if God never told them it was wrong?

The morality of the times was that slavery was not wrong. Greek morality a thousand years later insisted through dense moral argument that the gods themselves deemed slavery to be proper. Heck, right up to 160 years ago, a great many Americans believed that slavery was right and proper, and were willing to die for it even if they had no slaves themselves. People don't fight and die for what they believe is wrong.

There is nothing in objective natural law that makes slavery "immoral." The arguments against slavery have all been religious, and primarily Christian. Even John Locke begins from a Christian social foundation.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 23, 2021

RDKirk said:
The morality of the times was that slavery was not wrong. Greek morality a thousand years later insisted through dense moral argument that the gods themselves deemed slavery to be proper. Heck, right up to 160 years ago, a great many Americans believed that slavery was right and proper, and were willing to die for it even if they had no slaves themselves. People don't fight and die for what they believe is wrong.

There is nothing in objective natural law that makes slavery "immoral." The arguments against slavery have all been religious, and primarily Christian. Even John Locke begins from a Christian social foundation.

So why did God not tell them it was wrong? Do you think that God determines morality or societies/people do?

Do you believe God wrote the instructions in the bible or that man wrote them?

RDKirk · Jun 23, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
So why did God not tell them it was wrong? Do you think that God determines morality or societies/people do?

Because the bible is not the manifesto you want it to be.

Do you believe God wrote the instructions in the bible or that man wrote them?

I believe that men had real experiences with God and documented their experiences as they understood them.

Romans 13

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads