Originally posted by @rajk999I suppose you also believe in other Calvinist doctrines like predestination. You go on and on about "Church doctrine=bad" and yet here you are sounding like a gutless Calvinist.
There is no duty to rebel. A follow of Christ should submit, partly because Christian Saints should live apart from this world and submit to rulers and governments because God placed them there.
Everyone must obey state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God. Whoever o ...[text shortened]... God has ordered; and anyone who does so will bring judgment on himself. (Romans 13:1-3 GNB)
Originally posted by @vivifySo that's what it took to wake you up.
Whoa....you're kidding, right?
Drop the idea that slavery is tyranny? Slavery is the ultimate form of tyranny. You can't possibly be more oppressed than to be a slave, with no rights, treated like property.
"That's hardly the same as the tyranny of a people who should have been free and equal to begin with.
There's SO many things wrong ...[text shortened]... from you. You sound like every far-right conservative whose beliefs you claim to rail against.
Still think the Bible should defend tyranny?
3 edits
Originally posted by @suzianneWhat? Did you think I was defending the Bible? Have you never seen my posts on this forum?
So that's what it took to wake you up.
Still think the Bible should defend tyranny?
Don't for one second think that I was agreeing with the Bible's defense of tyranny. I was merely responding to your post where you said it was a Christian's Duty to fight repressive governments. The Bible says the exact opposite of what you claimed God wants. I was merely pointing that out.
And the reason I pointed out that the Bible defends tyranny, is so people are aware of just what a horrible book the Bible is, and the deity that book supports.
Originally posted by @vivifyThe federal government is extremely inefficient and wasteful with how it handles tax revenue earmarked to help the poor.
Calling taxation "tyranny" is an indirect way of saying people shouldn't pay taxes.
And why do you agree with Franklin's quote about taxing people a tenth of their income being a bad thing, but are fine with the bible commanding the same?
Private charities are much more efficient with donations, with some 80 percent to 90 percent going directly to programs.
Originally posted by @vivifyEverything is God’s, whether you like it or not. Or are you planning to take something with you when you die?
I didn't "misquote" anything.
The full meaning is "give to God what is God's, and give to the government what is the government's", which in this case, is taxes.
Originally posted by @suzianneSlavery in the Old Testament was much different than how most people think of slavery.
But, let's drop the idea that slavery is equal to tyranny, eh? When the Old Testament was written, slavery was common. That's hardly the same as the tyranny of a people who should have been free and equal to begin with.
In the Old Testament, slavery was basically indentured servitude - someone owed a debt he or she couldn’t pay and became an unpaid servant to satisfy the debt. It wasn’t at all like American slavery in the 1700s and 1800s.
Originally posted by @vivifyMaybe you should try reading the Bible instead of atheist websites that condemn it.
What? Did you think I was defending the Bible? Have you never seen my posts on this forum?
Don't for one second think that I was agreeing with the Bible's defense of tyranny. I was merely responding to your post where you said it was a Christian's Duty to fight repressive governments. The Bible says the exact opposite of what you claimed God wants. I ...[text shortened]... so people are aware of just what a horrible book the Bible is, and the deity that book supports.
2 edits
Originally posted by @vivify
The bible actually commands that people under oppression DON'T revolt, but "submit"; it says it's "commendable" to endure "unjust suffering". That's why bible verses like this are justified:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."[/b]
Allegedly, this treatment of the servant (the word slave is misleading) suggests to some that he's owned as a possession by another. This impression is reinforced by various translations that render the word loss as "property." Now, the word literally means "money"; so is this person a commodity to exchange rather than a person to value?
The Old Testament affirms the full personhood of these debt servants(e.g., Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deut. 15:1-18), and this passage is no exception. It affirms the servant's full personhood. If the master struck a servant so that he immediately died, the master would be tried for capital punishment: "he shall be avenged" (Exod.21:20 ESV). This verb naqam always involves the death penalty in the Old Testament-the implication is that judicial vengeance is the result. This theme is reinforced by the mention of taking "life for life" (Exod.21:23-24), which follows on the heels of the servant-beating passage. This confirms that the servant was to be treated as a human being with dignity not as property.
From "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan, [my bolding, spacing]
To be continued.