Evil?

Originally posted by @apathist
Well that explains the flood. Everything everywhere (except for the fishes) said yes god please kill us all.

We obviously have no say in when we are born and when we die unless we decide to jump off a building in which case God normally does not intervene.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I believe what the Bible says not your twisted version of it.

If whatever convoluted beliefs you happen to have keep you from doing morally unsound things, and if those beliefs make you feel like your life has meaning, then you go for it. It really matters not one whit to me ~ aside from your behaviour being intriguing ~ if the stuff you say you believe, when you explain it, sounds like nonsense. If it floats your boat, good for you.

Originally posted by @fmf
If whatever convoluted beliefs you happen to have keep you from doing morally unsound things, and if those beliefs make you feel like your life has meaning, then you go for it. It really matters not one whit to me ~ aside from your behaviour being intriguing ~ if the stuff you say you believe, when you explain it, sounds like nonsense. If it floats your boat, good for you.

How do you know that what sounds like nonsense to you really is nonsense?

Originally posted by @fmf
This is a question for Christians to answer. I am asking you what you think Romans 13:1 means. If you do not want to answer, I will leave it be.

Romans 13 is a chapter about a Christian's proper attitude for human government.

In some examples seen in the Bible we do not always see unqualified obedience though we may see a respectful and submissive attitude.

The Hebrew mid-wives disobeyed Pharoah to participate in genocide in Exodus.
Daniel and his companion Hebrew young men disobeyed the king of Babylon.
Daniel prayed anyway when it was decreed to stop doing so.
The three Hebrew young men refused to worship the idol.

Their attitudes though contained nothing of insubordination of disrespect.
The same could be said of Peter and John when they refused to be silent about preaching the gospel in Jerusalem.

Romans 13:4 says the government official is a "servant of God ... for good".

"For he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, fear; he does not bear the sword in vain. for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who practices evil."

We have to be sober minded and not yank Romans 13 out of all context and proportion. The government is a servant of God for good. He is not to be a servant of God for evil. But is ordained to punish evil.

This has to put some parameters upon how much the government can act contrary to God and to human conscience. If the official becomes "an avenger for wrath to him who practices [GOOD]" , then something is wrong.

The deputy authority still deserves respect because of the position.
But the people of God may feel that they must obey the higher authority of God, to which the government is "a servant of God to you for good".

Originally posted by @sonship
[b]Romans 13:4 says the government official is a "servant of God ... for good".

"For he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, fear; he does not bear the sword in vain. for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who practices evil."

We have to be sober minded and not yank ...[text shortened]... e higher authority of God, to which the government is [b]"a servant of God to you for good".[/b]

I don't see how this affects or changes Romans 13:1-3.

At the time Romans was written, which governments do you believe your god figure had established, put in place and ordained? Can you mention a few?

Originally posted by @fmf

I don't see how this affects or changes Romans 13:1-3.

Your objective figure arbitrarily stops at verse 3 when verse 4 flows quite smoothly to convey Paul's more complete thought.

Your objective figure artificially takes only up to verse 3 to require no more discussion in the chapter.

Your objective figure also discount the examples given throughout Scripture which assist in the understanding of the teaching of the chapter.

Your objective figure only wants context so far as it proves the point you want to make.

At the time Romans was written, ...

At that time Caesar Nero was emperor of Rome which makes Paul's instructions all the more striking. Nero had Paul beheaded, according to traditional history.

which governments do you believe your god figure had established, put in place and ordained? Can you mention a few?

There is little need for your objective figure to press me about this. The verses themselves say God ordained the authorities whatever they may be.

"Let every person be subject to the authorities over him, for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are ordained by God." (v1)

Your answer is really in the very passage you want to emphasize.

" ... those which exist are ordained by God."

As Paul was writing he and his audience knew that Nero was emperor of Rome.

The reason Nero had Christians killed was because were not submitting to the idolatry of emperor worship or worshipping the gods of the Roman pantheon, Paul (author of Romans ), included.

I think God will vindicate them all.
Perhaps your objective figure thinks they deserved to die for not obeying Romans 13:1-3.

We'll just have to wait and see with whom God was more pleased - the martyred disciples of Jesus or the murderous government official gone wild - Nero the emperor or Rome.

Based on promises like this below, I think your objective figure will be disappointed.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast nor his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand, and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." (Rev. 20:4)

By this indication I expect God to vindicate His saints rather than vindicate Nero or other God opposing despots, even though their human government was ordained by God.

Originally posted by @sonship
The verses themselves say God ordained the authorities whatever they may be.

So go ahead and list a few: some governments which you believe your god figure had established, put in place and ordained at the time Romans was written?

Originally posted by @sonship
Your objective figure arbitrarily stops at verse 3 when verse 4 flows quite smoothly to convey Paul's more complete thought.

I am not arbitrarily stopping anything. I am saying I don't see how verse 4 affects or changes what Romans 13:1-3 unequivocally says.

Originally posted by @sonship
By this indication I expect God to vindicate His saints rather than vindicate Nero or other God opposing despots, even though their human government was ordained by God.

I am not asking you about who might be "vindicated" or who was "pleased". I am asking if you believe your god figure established, put in place, and ordained the murderous, despotic Roman government and its leader Nero.

Originally posted by @sonship
Your objective figure arbitrarily stops at verse 3 when verse 4 flows quite smoothly to convey Paul's more complete thought.

Indeed, why stop at 4? I think Romans 13:5-7 can be included too if you want. It doesn't change the angle of my question.

Originally posted by @fmf
So go ahead and list a few: some governments which you believe your god figure had established, put in place and ordained at the time Romans was written?

What objection would you have if God were to place people in positions of power? Would it be God's fault if those people abused that power with their free will?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
We obviously have no say in when we are born and when we die unless we decide to jump off a building in which case God normally does not intervene.

You said " It is sheer sophistry to suggest God would force people to do things against their will."

I pointed out that the myth of the great flood proves you wrong. You respond with song and dance.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not asking you about who might be "vindicated" or who was "pleased". I am asking if you believe your god figure established, put in place, and ordained the murderous, despotic Roman government and its leader Nero.

ie.

Sonship, please just say God ordained the murdering unrighteous Nero and say no more. THAT serves my purpose. Do not add anything about God vindicating the suffering Christians under his reign. I didn't ask about that.

Just say "Nero is God's man." That's what I need.

No, I don't think I'll just stop there. I think I'll go on to complete the picture.
The faithful martyrs of Christ are vindicated in the end not the murderous Nero who God ordained to be the government official at that time.

Your fictitious objective figure just wants to stop at slander against God.
I am interested in the completed view that the Bible presents.

Originally posted by @fmf
So, what does it mean?

It means you don't know what you're talking about.