Romans 13, Dumbest Passage in the New Testament?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Is it intellectually dishonest to quote this passage only when YOUR leader is in office?

Yes
9
90%
No
1
10%
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Romans 13, Dumbest Passage in the New Testament?

Post #1

Post by Danmark »

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

Yes, there are many candidates for 'Dumbest Passage in the New Testament,' but this is my nominee. Worse than the passage is the intellectual dishonesty of those who only trot it out when their political favorite is in office and making a jackass out of him or herself.

Like dross rising to the surface of molten metal, this impurity emerges only when YOUR guy gets elected. I've seen this bit of rubbish frequently published by 'Christians,' since Trump got elected. I don't recall anyone reminding us of Romans 13 when Obama was President.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Romans 13, Dumbest Passage in the New Testament?

Post #11

Post by JehovahsWitness »



There are no dumb passages in the bible, only dumb interpretations.
JehovahsWitness wrote:What would be dumb is if someone (a person) did not know the difference between "relative submission" and "subservience".
Danmark wrote: "What would be dumb is if someone (a person)" [redundantly] did not know some 'differences' are almost meaningless.
"almost meaningless" means there is some meaning in the difference. In this case the difference meaning between "relative submission" and "subservience" is crucial to making a practical application of the verses. No differences are "meaningless", if they were they would not be differences, they would be the same.


JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Romans 13, Dumbest Passage in the New Testament?

Post #12

Post by Danmark »

Danmark wrote: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

Yes, there are many candidates for 'Dumbest Passage in the New Testament,' but this is my nominee. Worse than the passage is the intellectual dishonesty of those who only trot it out when their political favorite is in office and making a jackass out of him or herself.

Like dross rising to the surface of molten metal, this impurity emerges only when YOUR guy gets elected. I've seen this bit of rubbish frequently published by 'Christians,' since Trump got elected. I don't recall anyone reminding us of Romans 13 when Obama was President.
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

I think I've been looking at this from the wrong side. What the verse really means is that there is no God; if there is, Paul, if not the entire Bible is no guide to its existence. If there WERE a good all powerful God, it certainly would not 'institute' evil men like Hitler, Stalin, Pot, dozens of murderous kings from ancient times, or Putin and his Puppet.

Avoice
Guru
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:41 am
Location: USA / ISRAEL
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Romans 13, Dumbest Passage in the New Testament?

Post #13

Post by Avoice »

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

And I suppose Paul thinks he is one with authority. I bet he wished he got the role of the false Messiah. I cant say what i think of him here on this forum. But he sure destroyed many lives with his theology. What a godless jew. Not easy to say that about a fellow jew. But he was. He turned his back on the God of Israel and went after his own glory. Paul - he was a piece of work he was. Student of Gamliel! Not much he was. What jew would use a Greek translation of the holy scriptures? Who uses a translation when they can read the original? Apparently Paul.

Smythe
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:26 pm

Post #14

Post by Smythe »

Not a welcome statement to 21st century ears, no doubt, but it was made in the first century, the same century in which Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" and "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Defiance of authority in those days invariably ended poorly, be it Spartacus, Boudicca, or Jewish rebels ca. 70 A.D.

Undeniably regretable in that it seems to endorse government rather than, as Jesus, simply saying to let it be. But hardly horrifically reactionary given the age (or, later ages where successful revolutions, as in 1649 or 1917 or 1979, failed to lift the burden of tyranny and only shifted it to other shoulders).

As with much of scripture the real horror comes where later generations fail to view it in context, and so we end up with things like the medieval divine right of kings (or, Rick Perry in 2019).

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #15

Post by Danmark »

Smythe wrote: Not a welcome statement to 21st century ears, no doubt, but it was made in the first century, the same century in which Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" and "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Defiance of authority in those days invariably ended poorly, be it Spartacus, Boudicca, or Jewish rebels ca. 70 A.D.

Undeniably regretable in that it seems to endorse government rather than, as Jesus, simply saying to let it be. But hardly horrifically reactionary given the age (or, later ages where successful revolutions, as in 1649 or 1917 or 1979, failed to lift the burden of tyranny and only shifted it to other shoulders).

As with much of scripture the real horror comes where later generations fail to view it in context, and so we end up with things like the medieval divine right of kings (or, Rick Perry in 2019).
I think you've got it just about right. :)
Yes, it made more sense at the time Paul wrote it. That's the problem (and you mentioned it). Evangelicals tend to think everything in the Bible is right out of God's mouth and is true eternally in every situation. Paul's sentiment is correct in the sense that almost anything is better than anarchy and for a tiny band to defy the Roman Empire would have been suicide and snuffed out Paul's budding cult. But of course Paul had to overstate his case, a habit of his. Like advising people to marry only in desperation. What a putz! Paul is proof a genius can be downright stupid on occasion. For once I agree with Avoice.

BTW, I appreciate the general Rabbinic approach much more than the typical Christian interpretation. My impression is that Jews have a far greater tolerance for appreciating different views of scripture. Admittedly this is a gross generalization, but...
They ask questions rather than provide pat answers.

[note to self: "Maybe you should work on that yourself."]

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Post #16

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Danmark wrote:

Yes, it made more sense at the time Paul wrote it.

So you are admitting it makes sense now, just not as much sense as when Paul wrote it?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #17

Post by Danmark »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Danmark wrote:

Yes, it made more sense at the time Paul wrote it.

So you are admitting it makes sense now, just not as much sense as when Paul wrote it?
No. Do you understand the use of a comparative? It 'made sense' only from Paul's point of view. He didn't want his little cult massacred, so he advised his followers to lie low.

The only 'sense' to make of this disreputable and false passage, may be that anarchy can be even worse than tyranny.

The worst thing about this ungodly passage is that it is rarely quoted except when the one who quotes it is excusing HIS party's leader. When the opposition is in power, Paul's ridiculous claim is forgotten.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #18

Post by Gracchus »

It is not the "dumbest" passage. It could be quoted along with Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Peter 2:18 by the clergy to quiet the slaves and peasants whenever they began to grumble at their subjugation by their "betters" who were appointed by God. If the lord's anointed drags off your son to be a soldier in his piratical army or your daughter to warm his bed or when he takes from you the fruits of your labor, leaving you with only enough to survive (maybe!), be nice and obedient and polite, and there will be pie in the sky by and by when you die.


:)

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Post #19

Post by Clownboat »

Gracchus wrote: It is not the "dumbest" passage. It could be quoted along with Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Peter 2:18 by the clergy to quiet the slaves and peasants whenever they began to grumble at their subjugation by their "betters" who were appointed by God. If the lord's anointed drags off your son to be a soldier in his piratical army or your daughter to warm his bed or when he takes from you the fruits of your labor, leaving you with only enough to survive (maybe!), be nice and obedient and polite, and there will be pie in the sky by and by when you die.


:)
What you say make sense and makes me think of this quote:

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Is thought to have said)
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #20

Post by Gracchus »

We should remember that Paul was a Roman and proud of it. By exhorting obedience to authority and the subservience of slaves the early Christians were trying to differentiate themselves from the rebellious Jews. And after the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, the church became the champion of the elite over the masses, to whom they preached this divine right of kings.

:study:

Post Reply