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.

[Elijah John]

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.

Funny you should mention Obama. I was going to mention him as an example of a leader who should have been better resisted. At least many of his policies, actions and statements.

"Speaking truth to power", and "dissent is patriotic" applies to Obama and the current crop of Democrats as well. Though those who recently chanted those mantras intend them for someone else.

And as is often the case, I dissent from Paul on this. Not one of his better admonitions.

[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.

Funny you should mention Obama. I was going to mention him as an example of a leader who should have been better resisted. At least many of his policies, actions and statements.

"Speaking truth to power", and "dissent is patriotic" applies to Obama and the current crop of Democrats as well. Though those who recently chanted those mantras intend them for someone else.

And as is often the case, I dissent from Paul on this. Not one of his better admonitions.

Reasonable men can differ over policies, but contrast the personal life and apparent morality of Obama and Trump. If you can't see how truly immoral and dishonest Trump is, on a daily basis, no amount of evidence will convince you.
https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ants-fire/ 6 pages of false statements.

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ants-fire/
1 page of false statements:

But the comparison is much worse than 6:1 Trump is pathological and appears to care about no one but himself. I'm an independent. I was once a Republican and conservative who even supported Richard Nixon until the evidence of his guilt became overwhelming. But even Nixon genuinely cared about this country. Trump only cares about laying up treasure on earth. His perfidy goes WAY beyond the normal D vs. R squabbles.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

There are no dumb passages in the bible, only dumb interpretations.

Romans should no be taken in the absolute, Christians are here being urged to relative submission to world rulers or authority.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

There are no dumb passages in the bible, only dumb interpretations.

Romans should no be taken in the absolute, Christians are here being urged to relative submission to world rulers or authority.

THAT is the very point, that Christians should be subservient to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Paul Pot or any other murderous despot IS 'dumb.' It is not the interpretation that is 'dumb,' it is the passage itself. The passage is ridiculous and absurd and certainly the opposite of what we SHOULD do in the face of a vile dictator. Suppose such a dictator orders you to publicly renounce your faith. Will you follow Paul's admonition and 'submit to authority?'

Using the word 'relative' does not get Paul off the hook. Paul did not say, "Submit to authority when you can" or "Submit when you agree." That is not submission at all. Face it, the Bible has some absurd admonitions which any reasonable person should ignore.

[rondonmonson]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

These were Epistles {Letters} unto different Churches, they were never intended, IMHO, to be canonized as Holy Scripture. So if God showed Paul that the Romans at this time shouldn't try to rebel against Rome because it would only lead unto their death, and that would prevent them from spreading the Gospel, and thus he wrote that unto "THE ROMANS" then I see it for what it is.

Others over emphasize what these letters actually meant and try to make these into a broader edict by God. That's not always the case.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

These were Epistles {Letters} unto different Churches, they were never intended, IMHO, to be canonized as Holy Scripture. So if God showed Paul that the Romans at this time shouldn't try to rebel against Rome because it would only lead unto their death, and that would prevent them from spreading the Gospel, and thus he wrote that unto "THE ROMANS" then I see it for what it is.

Others over emphasize what these letters actually meant and try to make these into a broader edict by God. That's not always the case.

So, you consider some of the NEW TESTAMENT to be "Holy Scripture?" And apparently some of it not. How do you decide? How does the church decide? Do you have a criterion other than, 'it's inconvenient to believe today?'

How do you determine which epistles were only meant for one church, and yet irrelevant to the rest of Christendom? Using your example, is everything Paul wrote to the Romans meaningful only to those Romans of the 1st Century? Suppose you are correct, than why should anyone today, let alone whether they're from Rome, observe ANYTHING Paul wrote to a specific church or person?

Come to think of it ALL of Paul's letters were written to a specific church or person. None of them should be considered by Christians as a whole, if your analysis is correct.

[2Dbunk]

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.

I agree that this passage is dumb. The term 'intellectual' should not be used in the analysis of the Bible -- it would be more suitable to refer to it as room temperature, feel good body exfoliation.

My nominee for worst passage in the OT (if I may interject) is Psalm 14: NIV- They (atheists) are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

This does not sound representative of a responsible person let alone a God. It is an insult to most participating in these forums, which probably would be censored by a monitor.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

There are no dumb passages in the bible, only dumb interpretations.

Romans should no be taken in the absolute, Christians are here being urged to relative submission to world rulers or authority.

THAT is the very point, that Christians should be subservient to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Paul Pot or any other murderous despot IS 'dumb.'

Emphasis MINE


What would be dumb is if someone (a person) did not know the difference between "relative submission" and "subservience".

Would you not agree?







RELATED POSTS

Are women required to be "subservient" to their husbands?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 646#801646

How did Jesus use a Roman coin to explain the principle of "relative submission"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 701#905701

What did Jesus mean when he told his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 650#773650

Does "turning the other cheek"mean passively submitting to physical abuse?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 055#863055

Should Christians engage in politics?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 643#952643

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

There are no dumb passages in the bible, only dumb interpretations.

Romans should no be taken in the absolute, Christians are here being urged to relative submission to world rulers or authority.

THAT is the very point, that Christians should be subservient to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Paul Pot or any other murderous despot IS 'dumb.'

Emphasis MINE


What would be dumb is if someone (a person) did not know the difference between "relative submission" and "subservience".

Would you not agree?

"What would be dumb is if someone (a person)" [redundantly ] did not know some 'differences' are almost meaningless.
In this context you suggest a distinction without a significant difference. YOUR interpretation suggests Christians should be "relatively submissive" to Hitler and Stalin and other murderous despots as opposed to being 'subservient' to them. Perhaps you can give me a practical example of the difference.

Returning to the text:
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.

I suggest that the dumbest part of this passage is not the "be subject to" clause, but the ridiculous claim that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Do you believe that? Do you believe God put Hitler in power?

The text then goes on to claim if we resist evil (Hitler's and Stalin's regimes) we are resisting God because God supposedly "instituted" those regimes.

I suggest therefore that this passage is not just 'dumb,' but immoral. It is immoral to not resist evil. According to Paul Christians should not have hidden Jews from Nazis, or for that matter, Jehovahs Witnesses.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... -witnesses

The latter example is particularly noteworthy because the Nazi's persecuted the Witnesses because they resisted "the governing authorities."

Jehovah's Witnesses were subjected to intense persecution under the Nazi regime. Nazi leaders targeted Jehovah's Witnesses because they were unwilling to accept the authority of the state, because of their international connections, and because they were strongly opposed to both war on behalf of a temporal authority and organized government in matters of conscience.

ibid