Obey the authorities or you will be punished!

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by pthena

 

The thing is, Paul says rebelling against the authority is rebelling against god, because god puts in place all governing systems. It's a catch-22.

No it doesn't. It says "2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God", not God Himself. In other words, you are resisting the approved powers God has put into play. "and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." Not God's judgment, but the judgement from the ruler's whom God allowed to be in power. IMO, Paul is telling us to play it safe, because some rulers won't be fooling around.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I agree the "concept" is sound, but what I do not agree with is that the Roman government at the time of Paul writing this letter was a "do-good" group of people.

They were corrupt, plain and simple, so Paul saying the authorities (which includes the Roman ones) were for the good of the people is really strange. Roman politics was nowhere near being for the people. By using the words "is" and "are", Paul was saying that this "concept" was already in effect, though it clearly wasn't.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

No it doesn't. It says "2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God", not God Himself. In other words, you are resisting the approved powers God has put into play. "and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." Not God's judgment, but the judgement from the ruler's whom God allowed to be in power. IMO, Paul is telling us to play it safe, because some rulers won't be fooling around.

1) "Whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God", not God Himself. In other words, you are resisting the approved powers God has put into play.. That is exactly what Enlightened1 just freaking said.

Paul says rebelling against the authority is rebelling against god, because god puts in place all governing systems. It's a catch-22.

I would advise that you brush up on your reading skills, or at least reading comprehension.

2) I didn't know God allowed political leaders to judge his children. Unless these leaders are passing judgment according to his edicts? In which case, the point you are attempting to refute remains a very good one: resistance of the government is resistance of "God", for his edicts are the basis of authority in the mortal world.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


Come on... if god put them in place, wouldn't that mean they were doing his will? Why would he put people in power who he knew would abuse it? And why would he refer to people who abuse their god given power as his servants?

I feel like I'm just running in circles here. I think ill give this thread a rest for a while, the point obviously isn't getting through.

The fact is, whatever Paul said in this passage is clearly wrong because the governing authorities do NOT do things for our good, not even close. Whether he was speaking literally or figuratively doesn't matter because either way he was dead wrong.

Unless by "good" he meant "bad", he was wrong. 100% wrong.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Nevertheless, murderers, rapists, thieves, and arsonists were still getting punished.
There were laws, which can be found in the legal collections.
There were courts and legal officers.

The fact that government was not being chosen by the people is not relevant.
What matters is whetther justice is being done.
There were many imperfections, but a lot of justice was being done at the same time.

It is all being done by the will of God and the one that resists what is, is divided from God and will always suffer. The resistance is suffering.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Except for the ones in power. They were the worst of them all, but they were put in place by god, so it's all good right?

That's kind of my whole point. Paul says those in power did things for the people's good, yet they were the worst criminals of all and clearly didn't do things for the greater good, only theirs.

Were the Christian persecutions by the governing authorities for the good of Christians? Was throwing them to the lions and burning them at the stake for their good? I don't think so. All of this was happening as Paul wrote this letter. His audience was aimed at believers, a.k.a. Christians, so it's weird that he implied their persecutions were for their good don't you think?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

1) "Whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God". That is exactly what Enlightened1 just freaking said.

Paul says rebelling against the authority is rebelling against god, because god puts in place all governing systems. It's a catch-22.

Silly you, I was giving commentary on what he said, or did you not see that.

I would advise that you brush up on your reading skills, or at least reading comprehension.

I recommend you do the same. Bet yet, you should pray that the Holy Spirit give understanding when it comes to the scriptures.

2) I didn't know God allowed political leaders to judge his children. Unless these leaders are passing judgment according to his edicts? In which case, the point you are attempting to refute remains a very good one: resistance of the government is resistance of "God", for his edicts are the basis of authority in the mortal world.

Of course you didn't. It's not that hard to understand. Run a red light, get a ticket. You guys are still missing the whole point in these verses. Obey man's laws unless they go against God's law. God gave them the power to rule, but that doesn't mean He agree's with the laws they make while in power. Once again, it's simply saying it's better to not resist those whom God has allowed to be in power. Your not strong enough to defeat them.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

It is all being done by the will of God and the one that resists what is, is divided from God and will always suffer. The resistance is suffering.

But here's the thing, see...I don't believe love or peace can be monopolized. And any entity who attempts to monopolize love and peace, is not interested in love and peace, but interested in the business opportunities that such a monopoly would offer. Which, I daresay, is rather at odds with love and peace. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that such an entity is more interested in owning us than sharing with us.

I think that's the whole point of this thread.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker




It doesn't say anything about "except if they go against god's law". Where did you get that idea? Because I don't see that written anywhere in that passage, all I see is Paul saying the governing authorities were god's servants and agents who did things for the good of the people.

Talk about taking things out of context and creating your own.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

It is all being done by the will of God and the one that resists what is, is divided from God and will always suffer. The resistance is suffering.

But here's the thing, see...I don't believe love or peace can be monopolized. And any entity who attempts to monopolize love and peace, is not interested in love and peace, but interested in the business opportunities that such a monopoly would offer. Which, I daresay, is rather at odds with love and peace.

edit on 23-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

No entity is attempting to monopolize love and peace. It is just how it is. Suffering happens when one goes against what is happening - existence is like going to the movies - it is what it is, the show is happening. If one wants the movie to be different than it is then one will suffer. If one just sits back and sees the movie and experiences all the different scenes and does not get angry with the way it shows up then one will enjoy the ride.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

Silly you, I was giving commentary on what he said, or did you not see that.

That's not ALL you were doing. You attempted to correct him, and in doing so, you fed him a paraphrased version of what he gave you. You disagreed and then made his point for him after disagreeing with it.

I recommend you do the same. Bet yet, you should pray that the Holy Spirit give understanding when it comes to the scriptures.

I might consider it, if I hadn't burned the Bible last night. We had a cookout and needed tinder.

...I regret nothing.

Of course you didn't. It's not that hard to understand. Run a red light, get a ticket. You guys are still missing the whole point in these verses. Obey man's laws unless they go against God's law. God gave them the power to rule, but that doesn't mean He agree's with the laws they make while in power. Once again, it's simply saying it's better to not resist those whom God has allowed to be in power. Your not strong enough to defeat them.

Really? Because as far as I'm aware, the fact that churches are no longer allowed to influence legislative decisions is a pure and simple sign that the church is swiftly losing the power it used to enjoy so much. And I honestly don't see that changing direction.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

No entity is attempting to monopolize love and peace.

Actually, you are right. It is a large group of people attempting to monopolize love and peace in the name of their invisible best friend in the sky. The entity itself does not exist, but their belief in it does...and that's all that matters to them.

Suffering happens when one goes against what is happening

I guess suffering is a necessary evil sometimes, huh? Sometimes, we have to resist. There is no choice. It's resist or lose everything that makes us human.

If one just sits back and sees the movie and experiences all the different scenes and does not get angry with the way it shows up then one will enjoy the ride.

I'm not even close to even wanting to consider agreeing with that. That is a repulsive sentiment that smacks of cowardice and laziness.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


So what happens when you are being chased by radical jihadists who want to cut your head off? Should you not resist them and just sit back and enjoy them cutting your head off?

Doesn't sound like a very good game plan to me. Sometimes resistance is necessary.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

If one just sits back and sees the movie and experiences all the different scenes and does not get angry with the way it shows up then one will enjoy the ride.

I'm not even close to even wanting to consider agreeing with that. That is a repulsive sentiment that smacks of cowardice and laziness.

Have you known peace? Would you like a little?
Or is conflict and drama more your thing? Is that what you want? Does life feel good or bad?
The bible does not offer peace and love for the world - it offers you the chance to experience what those words point to. A loving and peaceful existence.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

Silly you, I was giving commentary on what he said, or did you not see that.

That's not ALL you were doing. You attempted to correct him, and in doing so, you fed him a paraphrased version of what he gave you. You disagreed and then made his point for him after disagreeing with it.

I recommend you do the same. Bet yet, you should pray that the Holy Spirit give understanding when it comes to the scriptures.

I might consider it, if I hadn't burned the Bible last night. We had a cookout and needed tinder.

...I regret nothing.

Of course you didn't. It's not that hard to understand. Run a red light, get a ticket. You guys are still missing the whole point in these verses. Obey man's laws unless they go against God's law. God gave them the power to rule, but that doesn't mean He agree's with the laws they make while in power. Once again, it's simply saying it's better to not resist those whom God has allowed to be in power. Your not strong enough to defeat them.

Really? Because as far as I'm aware, the fact that churches are no longer allowed to influence legislative decisions is a pure and simple sign that the church is swiftly losing the power it used to enjoy so much. And I honestly don't see that changing direction.

edit on 23-7-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I gave him an answer to his question based on the way I understand it. It's not my fault you both have blinders on. The scripture is sound in what it's saying. The rulers of the world are free to pass whatever laws they want. If those laws violate the laws of God then naturally one is to resist. I don't recall Paul saying anywhere in there that God is the one making the laws which the rulers have put in place.

And how do you know the churches aren't influencing anything?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul is talking about the whole structure of authority- and incidentally the persecutions by Roman authority had not really started at this stage.

We can compare what Paul says with 1 Peter ch4 v15, where Peter instructs his readers to make sure that "none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer"- which is indirect evidence that murderers, wrongdoers, and thieves were suffering punishment, which is what Paul was talking about.

Taking the New Testament as a whole, the advice on relating to government can be summed up in two points;
a) Under normal circumstances, it is better to support government than to give help to anarchy.
Because, at the very least, government is the lesser of the two evils.
b) But there will be times when government wants Christians to do what is against God's will, and specifically to worship other gods.
That is when Christians must disobey.

Paul is focussing on the first point.
Revelation is focussed upon the second.
1 Peter brings in both.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

So what happens when you are being chased by radical jihadists who want to cut your head off? Should you not resist them and just sit back and enjoy them cutting your head off?

Doesn't sound like a very good game plan to me. Sometimes resistance is necessary.

edit on 23-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

The advise is so you can experience a peaceful life. Defending yourself in that type of situation might happen but it is a bit extreme. I took the thread to be meaning systems that are actually around us.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Where does Paul say to disobey the authorities under any circumstance? He says not to resist/rebel/disobey the authorities and says nothing about a situation which calls for it at all.

I don't know where you guys are getting this information because it's clearly not in the passage I cited. Nowhere does it say "except if it goes against god's law" or "disobey under such and such circumstances". It clearly says the governing authorities are god's "agents" and "servants" doing things for the good of the people.

It would really help if you read the passage in context instead of pulling things out of thin air.

ETA: Paul helped Rome in persecuting Christians before his "conversion", so you saying persecutions weren't happening is historically false. Were the Christians thieves, murderers, and wrongdoers? Because they were being punished too.

reply to post by windword

That being said, there was a strong belief that the coming messiah would liberate the Jewish nation from the Romans, and reinstall the Jewish throne. There may have been a faction of Paul's church "hell bent" on pushing that agenda, that he was trying to quell.

It was written before the rebellion against Rome. So it's reasonable to assume that Paul would not have been in favor of the rebellion.

History seems to indicate (AD 70) that violent rebellion fueled by Messianic expectation leads only to destruction, not "the Kingdom of God."