Inauguration thoughts we should all be able to agree on

[Jeemie]

I sense you missed the bible study when Romans 13:1-7
was discussed.

Really?

You sensed that Toq wasn't going to submit herself to the authority of the Obama Administration?

I missed the part where she was talking about rebellion.

clearly you are unable to understand the 11 words I used.
clearly your argument is with some bigstrawman
clearly tocq can speak for herself
clearly you like to make up stuff
clearly you didnt read the entire verse.

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

[peacock2121]

Really?

You sensed that Toq wasn't going to submit herself to the authority of the Obama Administration?

I missed the part where she was talking about rebellion.

clearly you are unable to understand the 11 words I used.
clearly your argument is with some bigstrawman
clearly tocq can speak for herself
clearly you like to make up stuff
clearly you didnt read the entire verse.

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

[Jeemie]

clearly you are unable to understand the 11 words I used.
clearly your argument is with some bigstrawman
clearly tocq can speak for herself
clearly you like to make up stuff
clearly you didnt read the entire verse.

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

It doesn't even say to submit to authority so much as it says to not cause trouble for no good reason.

Indeed, Paul, who wrote those words, got in trouble with authority on more than one occasion.

[BackInTex]

gratuitous post because I should be a part of any 10+ page political discussion.

I thin I might have posted on page 1 or 2. I don't remember.

[peacock2121]

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

It doesn't even say to submit to authority so much as it says to not cause trouble for no good reason.

Indeed, Paul, who wrote those words, got in trouble with authority on more than one occasion.

Now I am confused - are you saying that what you said before is not true?

[Jeemie]

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

It doesn't even say to submit to authority so much as it says to not cause trouble for no good reason.

Indeed, Paul, who wrote those words, got in trouble with authority on more than one occasion.

Now I am confused - are you saying that what you said before is not true?

I made an error- the wrong choice of words.

Reading up on it more, it's an even more grevious choice of word, because non-Christians used this verse to hammer Christians for years- using the exact words I did.

[peacock2121]

It doesn't even say to submit to authority so much as it says to not cause trouble for no good reason.

Indeed, Paul, who wrote those words, got in trouble with authority on more than one occasion.

Now I am confused - are you saying that what you said before is not true?

I made an error- the wrong choice of words.

Reading up on it more, it's an even more grevious choice of word, because non-Christians used this verse to hammer Christians for years- using the exact words I did.

okay. Thanks.

[BigDrawMan]

Really?

You sensed that Toq wasn't going to submit herself to the authority of the Obama Administration?

I missed the part where she was talking about rebellion.

clearly you are unable to understand the 11 words I used.
clearly your argument is with some bigstrawman
clearly tocq can speak for herself
clearly you like to make up stuff
clearly you didnt read the entire verse.

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

you dont understand what i meant, and I value your opinion so little that I wont make things clearer.

again, this is meant for tocq and not you.

[TheCalvinator24]

clearly you are unable to understand the 11 words I used.
clearly your argument is with some bigstrawman
clearly tocq can speak for herself
clearly you like to make up stuff
clearly you didnt read the entire verse.

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

Not to sound Clintonian, but that would defend on the definition of "support."

[Jeemie]

you dont understand what i meant, and I value your opinion so little that I wont make things clearer.

again, this is meant for tocq and not you.

Ah yes! Once again, those on these boards who think "being cryptic" equates to "being intelligent" assert themselves.

But then again, these threads wouldn't go on half as long if they weren't filled up with posters trying to sound smart instead of just saying what they meant...

[peacock2121]

I understand perfectly.

Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority and nothing more.

It does not tell us we have to believe that our authorities will amount to anything.

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

Not to sound Clintonian, but that would defend on the definition of "support."

That was suppose to be depend, not defend, right?

I love linguistic conversations. I do think one needs to know how the speaker defines his/her word(s). Too many want to fight about the definition - that is a waste of time. Finding out what the speaker means when saying the word(s) is important and informative.

[TheCalvinator24]

In order to submit to authority, does one have to support said authority?

Not to sound Clintonian, but that would defend on the definition of "support."

That was suppose to be depend, not defend, right?

I love linguistic conversations. I do think one needs to know how the speaker defines his/her word(s). Too many want to fight about the definition - that is a waste of time. Finding out what the speaker means when saying the word(s) is important and informative.

Yes, it should have read "depend."

Based on what I have in my mind as the meaning of "support," no, one does not necessarily have to support one's government in order to properly submit to it.

[peacock2121]

Not to sound Clintonian, but that would defend on the definition of "support."

That was suppose to be depend, not defend, right?

I love linguistic conversations. I do think one needs to know how the speaker defines his/her word(s). Too many want to fight about the definition - that is a waste of time. Finding out what the speaker means when saying the word(s) is important and informative.

Yes, it should have read "depend."

Based on what I have in my mind as the meaning of "support," no, one does not necessarily have to support one's government in order to properly submit to it.

What is your definition of support and of submit?

Does the word properly mean something important in this case?

Do you think submitting to the government is the same as a wife submitting to her husband? Does a wife have to support her husband in order to submit to him?

[earendel]

That was suppose to be depend, not defend, right?

I love linguistic conversations. I do think one needs to know how the speaker defines his/her word(s). Too many want to fight about the definition - that is a waste of time. Finding out what the speaker means when saying the word(s) is important and informative.

Yes, it should have read "depend."

Based on what I have in my mind as the meaning of "support," no, one does not necessarily have to support one's government in order to properly submit to it.

What is your definition of support and of submit?

Does the word properly mean something important in this case?

Do you think submitting to the government is the same as a wife submitting to her husband? Does a wife have to support her husband in order to submit to him?

OK, since we've moved into a Biblical discussion I feel a bit more qualified to add a word or two.

With regard to "support" vs. "submit", the latter, it seems to me, only means that one should obey the laws that government enacts, while "support" means to actively work for the government's benefit. The Bible (particularly the New Testament) has a fair amount of ambiguity regarding this issue. Paul in Romans 13 spoke about "submitting" to authority, but he (as someone pointed out) managed to have more than one run-in with authorities. The apostles were cautioned not to preach in the name of Jesus but Peter said that they "must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29). Moreover the book of Revelation, particularly chapter 13, speaks about human government being under the control of Satan (in the "end times") and obedience or submission to the government would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

[WheresFanny]

What is your definition of support and of submit?

Does the word properly mean something important in this case?

Do you think submitting to the government is the same as a wife submitting to her husband? Does a wife have to support her husband in order to submit to him?

My question would be does a wife have to submit to her husband to support him? Many would say yes.

As to the original question, my first thought was a parent/child. Just because you abide by their homework before tv rule doesn't mean you agree with it or even think it's a good idea. In some cases (maybe depending on where the tv is located), you do it because it's easier to just follow the rules and, in others, because you have no choice.

[minimetoo26]

If everyone has to agree, that makes us all NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nitrah55]

Yes, it should have read "depend."

Based on what I have in my mind as the meaning of "support," no, one does not necessarily have to support one's government in order to properly submit to it.

What is your definition of support and of submit?

Does the word properly mean something important in this case?

Do you think submitting to the government is the same as a wife submitting to her husband? Does a wife have to support her husband in order to submit to him?

OK, since we've moved into a Biblical discussion I feel a bit more qualified to add a word or two.

With regard to "support" vs. "submit", the latter, it seems to me, only means that one should obey the laws that government enacts, while "support" means to actively work for the government's benefit. The Bible (particularly the New Testament) has a fair amount of ambiguity regarding this issue. Paul in Romans 13 spoke about "submitting" to authority, but he (as someone pointed out) managed to have more than one run-in with authorities. The apostles were cautioned not to preach in the name of Jesus but Peter said that they "must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29). Moreover the book of Revelation, particularly chapter 13, speaks about human government being under the control of Satan (in the "end times") and obedience or submission to the government would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

One way of looking at Paul's remarks is to remember that the early Christian church was an outlaw organization- both the religious authorities and the Roman government of the time saw the church as upstarts at best and seditionists at worst. I would suggest that Paul wanted the rank and file church to keep as low a profile as possible for its own survival- and, as has been pointed out, he didn't succeed in this, in his own case.

Another verse worth recalling is Jesus himself saying that we should render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render to God what is God's- without giving a detailed explanation of what he meant (he did that a lot).

Down through history, plenty of people have had plenty of disagreements about how to obey this instruction.

[a1mamacat]

If everyone has to agree, that makes us all NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good try Mini, but I don't think that will work.


However, I support your efforts

[Raid]

If everyone has to agree, that makes us all NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good try Mini, but I don't think that will work.


However, I support your efforts

Maybe this will help...

PSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT!

That oughta do it.

[MinisterOfPropaganda]

If everyone has to agree, that makes us all NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As Minister of Propaganda, I hereby declare your efforts to end this thread to be futile and useless. And I am appalled that they will let just anyone be a Nazi nowadays. At least I bought the swastika boxers....

[Jeemie]

If everyone has to agree, that makes us all NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd simply be content if certain worldviews/viewpoints weren't treated as "second-class" worldviews/viewpoints.

When it comes to issues like these, there's a fair bit of intellectual snobbery that exists on this forum that I, personally, react very badly to.

[minimetoo26]

If everyone has to agree, that makes us all NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd simply be content if certain worldviews/viewpoints weren't treated as "second-class" worldviews/viewpoints.

When it comes to issues like these, there's a fair bit of intellectual snobbery that exists on this forum that I, personally, react very badly to.

I react badly to the viewpoints that insult the other viewpoints. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them wrong, especially if they are factually correct and it's just the perspectives that differ.

[lv42day]

If this point has already been made on the 9 pages of this thread that I didn't read please forgive me. But Paul doesn't just merely say, In Romans 13, submit to governing authorities. Of course there are 13 other verses in that chapter. He then goes on to say that rulers hold no terror for those who do right. He goes on to say that (a ruler) is God's servant to do you good. Paul says, do what it is right and he (the ruler) will commend you. The question is what do you do, when a ruler does hold terror for those who do right. What do you do when a ruler does not commend you for doing right, but punishes you. (As in the case of Nazi Germany)