Romans 13, Dumbest Passage in the New Testament?

[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.

[Danmark]

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.

As the OP says, "... there are many candidates for 'Dumbest Passage in the New Testament....'
The oddest thing to me about those who take everything in the Bible literally, and from God and therefore eternally true in all places, times, and cultures is how they can ignore the obvious fact such passages are personal opinions or speak to a certain time of a certain culture. Who seriously contends, for example that the command "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard" is some eternal absolute for all people, cultures and times?

[Purple Knight]

I must be the only one who voted no.

It's because I see no moral problem with double standards.

In adopting the double standard onesself, one assumes the path of leadership - they decide when a thing is right and wrong - making one automatically good by that very quote.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 22 by Purple Knight]

Why would being the one deciding when a thing is right and wrong automatically making one good?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 22 by Purple Knight]

Why would being the one deciding when a thing is right and wrong automatically making one good?

I did say by the quote. The quote says leaders are good.

So if one takes the path of leadership, one becomes good. (By the quote.)

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 22 by Purple Knight]

Why would being the one deciding when a thing is right and wrong automatically making one good?

I did say by the quote. The quote says leaders are good.

So if one takes the path of leadership, one becomes good. (By the quote.)

So leaders are good by definition. Got it.
Are all leaders equally good? Or is it that 'goodness' is determined by victory?
In your valuation of good and evil, is there anything besides 'taking leadership' that has a higher value?

[Purple Knight]

So leaders are good by definition. Got it.

This is not what I say; it's what the quote says.

Are all leaders equally good? Or is it that 'goodness' is determined by victory?
In your valuation of good and evil, is there anything besides 'taking leadership' that has a higher value?

I can't interpret what a quote wants beyond what it says.

I do personally believe there are different standards for different people, but I don't claim to know who is bound by which one other than if I catch flak for something, and it's more or less universal, I know I am bound by morality not to do or say that thing, so I know some aspects of the standard that binds me.

When others are rewarded or exalted for the same act, I can only deduce that they are not bound by that standard. If I am, this means there are different standards.

I don't think all leaders are good, no. Trump is probably bound by a similar standard I'm bound by, because he takes heat for everything he does, he just (wrongly) ignores it and refuses to change his behaviour. The social consensus is one thing and Trump does another. This indicates to me that he should not lead and that he is not good.

I can't interpret for a quote, however.

[Danmark]

So leaders are good by definition. Got it.

This is not what I say; it's what the quote says.

Are all leaders equally good? Or is it that 'goodness' is determined by victory?
In your valuation of good and evil, is there anything besides 'taking leadership' that has a higher value?

I can't interpret what a quote wants beyond what it says.

So why do you bring this quote up? I think the sentiment is both absurd and immoral. Essentially it is 'might makes right.' So do you offer this quote tho' you agree it is wrong? Do you stand by the quote? Do you disavow it?

[2ndRateMind]

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.

So I don't see this passage as 'dumb', simply as an early attempt in good faith to grapple with what we would now call PPE: politics, philosophy and economics. I think a sympathetic reading, (with which, given human intellectual progress since we might well now disagree), is in order.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[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.

So I don't see this passage as 'dumb', simply as an early attempt in good faith to grapple with what we would now call PPE: politics, philosophy and economics. I think a sympathetic reading, (with which, given human intellectual progress since we might well now disagree), is in order.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree. It may very well have made sense at the time and place it was uttered. However, there is a large swath of believers to take verses like this and insist:
1. This is a directive from 'GOD'
2. This command is true for all people for all time.

It is the combination of Romans 13 WITH the interpretation given above that is 'DUMB.'

[Purple Knight]

So why do you bring this quote up?

It's the subject of the topic.

I think the sentiment is both absurd and immoral. Essentially it is 'might makes right.' So do you offer this quote tho' you agree it is wrong? Do you stand by the quote? Do you disavow it?

Neither. I can't say. It may shock you to hear someone admit this, but I do not know right from wrong. I'm not really qualified to agree or disagree with a purely moral statement.

Logic is what I know. I can tell you some things about what follows from the statement. I just can't comment on whether it's right or wrong, in and of itself.

I do distrust the quote because it both comes from the Christian cosmology and seems to be saying that nobody would ever get elected unless God willed it so. Yet we know from the Christian cosmology that people have free will and may vote for whosoever they like.

The quote seems to be contradictory to its own mythos but that doesn't mean that the statement "we should bow to authority" is incorrect. It simply means it's stronger when baseless; when the because is removed. If it simply says "you should do X" then it can't be refuted with logic alone because nobody can refute a should.