Dear Christian Teabaggers: Read Romans 13 & STFU!

[K8-EEE]

I mean is the Leviticus part the ONLY thing in the bible they take literally (minus the ban on BLTs of course.) What about the part where God put Obama in charge and you should pay your taxes without whining?


1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

[daleanime]

1. But that makes sense....

:sarcasm:

[Cass]

2. Hahaha! That's a good find.

I'd enjoy watching them try to argue against the bible commanding them to pay taxes and STFU about it.

:evilgrin:

[K8-EEE]

4. Even Jesus said render to Caesar etc....

And he wasn't talkin' bout salad! So what's with all the un-Christian "Zero Taxes" rhetoric?

[BuyingThyme]

3. That's the crux of the thing, isn't it?

But I'm assuming the church was the authority back then. Hmm...

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. That passage directly speaks to the civilian authorities

and distinguishes between the church and the state. It is also advocative of separation of church and state.

Why people ignore its core meaning is beyond me.

[BuyingThyme]

12. I guess nobody's ever really read it.

Too much sex and violence for the family types.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. That, or too much inconvenience?

[immoderate]

13. Funny, I get just the opposite.

The way I read it, it's telling citizens to obey civilian authorities, and that they are in charge because god says so (not because of things which are self evident.)

--imm

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. How is that the opposite of separation of church and state?

The passage says that people are to obey civilian authorities. If the directive was (i) to establish theocracies or (ii) defy the secular government based on theocratic policies, it would have stated that.

It states the opposite.

[immoderate]

17. It says the state is established by god.

And that the authorities are servants of god. And implies that you can't change the government because that's how god wants it.

How convenient that Christianity, a portable version of Jewish ethics and monotheism, was adaptable to any government system.

That doesn't sound like separation to me.

--imm

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. That is not what it says

Not servant-tude but authorized. Please understand the core meaning - for those who believe in God, this is saying to separate civil authority from belief and that people are to set up governments NOT based on theocracy and also distingushes the difference.

Do you not believe in separation of church/religion and state?

[immoderate]

23. Let's not get silly.

My position is pretty well documented here. So your question is moot.

The notion that the government is an agency of god, as the passage states, is not my idea of separation. And since it actually isn't, it's a step backward.

--imm

[Barack_America]

5. Does that mean our Revolution was against God?

[jgraz]

7. Yes. It also made the unicorns really really sad.

[liberal N proud]

6. They are cherry picking Christians

They pick and choose parts of the bible that applies to their warped sense of reality.

[Igel]

9. I've heard that.

But I've largely ignored it. I pay my taxes, so that's fine.

If I were in Nazi Germany I'd probably do what it says a bit more faithfully. Or in a feudal country. But I'm not.

I'm in a country that claims that I have the right to protest and that the government doesn't have the authority to shut me up. So if I protest, and do it legally, I'm not challenging the government. In fact, the government invites me to participate--as opposed, for instance, to Hitler, most kings, or even places like Iran. I'm not challenging the government's authority--I'm challenging the president's authority, esp. in areas where the Constitutional doesn't say he's a dictator. I suspect that in this debate Obama would be on my side. I suppose that makes me a freeper, although how you'd work that logic is a mystery.

I can't imagine your post directed to Xian DUers, by and large, but the point holds equally well. If the teapartiers have no Xian business protesting, then Xian DUers have no right complaining about, oh, repubs. I'd argue both have the right to protest; you'd be stuck arguing either neither does, or that, well, only certain Xians are to be faithful--i.e., that the root of proper Xianity is hypocrisy. Or that you firmly believe that in a dispute, God sides with you because you're special.


Eh.

[K8-EEE]

10. Well, I think the Bible is full of total nonsense

And this passage is one of the most transparent looks at Christianity as people-controlling-other-people. I don't know when that exact passage came into it but you can bet it was agenda-driven by the rulers!

As did Thomas Jefferson -- who famously attempted to edit all the "miraculous" and supernatural stuff out of it and ended up with a MUCH slimmer Bible!

I'm just sayin' all the Christian signage held by the "literalists" at these events, they seem to have a very poor knowledge of what their "perfect" book is saying.

Also remember that most of the Christians in Nazi Germany were into Hitler's professed "Christian values." I mean even the ones that didn't know what was going on -- if they're really "talking" to an all-knowing being, wouldn't he have clued them in?

[K8-EEE]

11. Remember too that not all Christians take the Bible as "perfect"

There are a lot of Christians who take historical context etc. into account, although the RWer Christians like the FR ones go out of their way to take it LITERALLY!

But, they only take the parts literally that don't impact THEIR rights. Once it impacts stuff THEY want to do, they will add all the "nuance" it takes to twist it to fit what they want!

[Joanne98]

14. Gawd voted for Obama! If they don't submit they're heretics!

[intheflow]

19. Ugh, this is some crappy biblical interpretation you have going on.

This passage was used to condone slavery and women's subjugation to men. This is exactly the kind of bible quote teabaggers pulled out to say STFU to those of us who protested Bush's administration/policies/war crimes/crimes against humanity. You can act like a teabagger, pull out your Bible and tell your fellow citizens to STFU and take it, but I have no stomach for becoming like my oppressors.








Edited to add I don't think you're a teabagger, but I do think the left loses it's ethical high ground when we we get in power and then use out power to "get back" or punish at those who used their power against us. We lose our humanity--which is what is supposed to set us apart from them; we're supposed to be the ones who recognize all people are people, we share a collective humanity. Once you tell someone to STFU, you're relaying to them that you believe them to be inferior, apart from your own humanity. That's how genocides start, and lynching of census workers, and bombing of African American churches.

[K8-EEE]

21. I understand, I don't believe in the Bible THEY DO!!!

I realize other people believe the Bible is important but as far as pushing that it's PERFECT AND TO BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY.....that's RW X-tians.

[K8-EEE]

24. It's a crappy Bible passage all on its own!

What has "interpretation" got to do with it, at least it's straightforward -- it's instructing people to always bow to authority. Screw that!

[intheflow]

27. Ah, I see we're in agreement.

I misunderstood the spirit of your OP. My bad! :)

[K8-EEE]

29. OMG I was looking for a freeper-ized "anal-uh-sis" of this, classic!

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

Includes a childish scrawl of a drawing of....somebody Bible-ish! Head-spinning double-speak:

"If apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.

The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

[K8-EEE]

30. First of all Caesar did not behead Paul

It's not at all certain if Paul was beheaded but if he was it was by Nero, and something to do with a fire? Why does his beheading (if it even happened) HAVE to tie in with this passage? They just pull this stuff out of their butts!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. They can refute you easily with other biblical passages

That's the problem with using the bible in an argument. It's contradictory in so many places, and is interpreted in so many different ways that it's useless as anything more than a rudimentary rhetorical tool.

[K8-EEE]

22. Right? But then they say: "there are no contradictions in the Bible!"

YEAH RIGHT!

[DailyGrind51]

25. Do Evangelicals ever read the New Testament?

[madamesilverspurs]

26. No.

They tear out the pages, roll them up into little balls, load them into heavily amplified pulpits and shoot them out in a scatter pattern. It's much more efficient time-wise than the old fashioned one-on-one thumping. Scripture used to be a source of inspiration; it is now utilized as ammunition. And they can't understand that people just don't appreciate being 'scripturized' targets.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. They read and quote the letters of Paul,

but they seem to want to skip the Gospels.

[Statistical]

28. Far simpler quote. "Render unto Caeasar which is Ceasar"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” - Mathew 22:21


The context, a man asked Jesus if it is legal/lawful for a Jew (one who believes in God) to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus asked for a coin, and turned it around showing the face of Caesar on it. He asked who created the coin. When the crowd answered Caesar he said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

Taxes are of this world and a Christian is duty bound to obey the government in lawful authority of men.

Now most freepers wouldn't know Christianity if it fell out of the sky an hit them in the head but even the Bible indicates a lawful acceptance of government of man.

[K8-EEE]

31. I like the Romans one better because it's general

If you have a teeny tiny Freeper brain you just go, "WELL IT SAYS CAESAR, NOT OBAMA" but if it says "governing authrorities," that covers everybody.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. That's actually one of their favorite scriptures...

as long as the person in authority is a Republican, that is.