[quote=“running_coach, post:86, topic:946304”]
Romans 13:1 is the cornerstone of this debate, so based on whether or not you take the Bible as authoritative . . . . (I believe we have various points of view in this post.)
@Temporary_Name, your posts are uncommonly articulate and civilized. You are an asset to this community. 
Sounds like fun. I’ll put it in MPSIMS. It’s late so give me some time.
As already said, point them at Romans 13:
So Obama was there by God’s will too.
For added fun, tell them to keep going:
Yep, the Bible says “pay your taxes”.
It also says to provide for the poor and that the poor will always be with us. So It’s God’s will that some people are poor and not their fault.
Look how well that works.
If even god can’t guarantee there will never be a time without poor people, what fucking chance do we have?
This is all very confusing.
I’ve always gone for Matthew 22:15-22, the whole “give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is due God” thing. I expand that to “the bible says follow the law of the land.”
[Old joke] “I throw my money in the air. God can grab what he wants, I keep everything that hits the ground.” [/old joke]
ThelmaLou, I want to thank you for this very kind and encouraging comment; I will endeavor to live up to your high expectations. I am very happy to have a community with which to discuss issues and ideas, a community that is not afraid of knowledge- a community that has read a book or two!
Have to tell you though, I told a friend about your very well reasoned and accurate comment and he told me to check again because many people find me to be pedantic and condescending. (That means I talk down to people! [Rim-shot!] I just cannot resist relating that joke every time I get that comment.) I did assure him I got those types of comments also, but again thank you.
Great! I am so looking forward to this! When I lived in California I worked at a shop that built architectural details for Vegas Casinos (mostly Mandalay Bay). The shop contracted with a guy named (if I recall correctly) Terry McDougal who was a designer. We built columns and capitals and “base” (baseboard that was three to four feet tall with beads and other do-dads). Those contracts lead to building 2/3rd size lamps to go on a bridge in The Paris Hotel and Casino, and other stuff. I lathe turned this rigid pink foam into chess pieces that went from about two and a half feet tall to one just over five feet tall. They made molds of them (like all the things I have described above) then cast several duplicates of each model and painted them either black or white. I am told they were placed on the parapet walls of Caesar’s Palace complimentary High Roller’s lodging.
I never saw a celebrity or anything too exciting when I actually got to visit Sin City. I can remember activity trying to lose the last few quarters from a ten dollar roll I bought just so I could go back to the room and sleep. I see how people get addicted to gambling; every time I hit some small jackpot I cursed my bad luck. The more I won back the more upset I became - - but it never for even a second occurred to me to just go back to the room as long as I had one single coin on me. I tremble at the thought of playing anything with higher stakes, if I had played one hand of Blackjack it would not be hard to imagine me being broke and homeless shining shoes outside some dive casino for stake money.
I like that one too, but without looking it up (which is always a risk), I seem to recall that whole business was about the religious right, the Pharisees and the Sadducee’s (and the Trumpers) trying to catch Jesus in a scandal and how he outsmarted them at their own game. Seems like it was a loaded question with no right answer because the Romans didn’t “own” the government or the region- they were just occupying it so their claim to taxing those who were not citizens of Rome was not recognized as legitimate. What they were actually asking was: who do you bow down to? Because He infuriated them, whichever way he answered they would snitch him off to the other group. Hard to say what would have happened if when he (or He) asked for a coin they handed him a Shekel instead of a Roman coin.
Upon reflection, Dr. O’Boogie’s answer from Matthew would be better for MAGA’s who do not recognize the Biden administration as legitimate. (Not that it seems those loyal to the 45th president are very good at seeing points of view other than their preexisting ones as valid no matter who said so, for example see below.) But between Matthew chapter 22 and Romans chapter 13 it seems believers could maybe be a tad more agreeable and compliant toward the federal government. (And many are, this is not meant to paint all believers.)
Honest to reason, about two months ago I heard a pastor of a large and prosperous [but not mega] church say from the pulpit that if someone hits you on one cheek Do Not turn the other cheek!! Defend yourself and report him to the authorities and whatever punishment he is given will not be your fault. If you are not familiar with the saying it is in two of the Gospels- perhaps the most significant writings of the book he claims to hold as inerrant and infallible. It is from The Sermon on the Mount and the speaker is Jesus himself-- in other words, that pastor contradicts Jesus - the very words of Jesus to make his point!! (The Sermon on the Mount is told of in The Gospel of Saint Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7 and a shorter version is in The Gospel of Saint Luke the sixth chapter.) I took from this the lesson that modern day American Christians are so loyal and faithful to their LORD that they will contradict Him because they are THAT self actualized. They have thrown out that humility nonsense to become “warriors” for Christ, which is where we started this thread isn’t it? (Again, I am only speaking about those Trump supporting militant warriors for Christ believers in this comment.)
I love this joke, but you only told the punchline! Some may not know the set up (although it is an OLD joke and this place is pretty world wise). I will tell it in a religion neutral version if I can:
A Priest, a Minister, and a Rabbi are discussing how they apportion the offering each week after services. One of them offers that he draws a circle with a five foot radius, throws all the money in the air as high as he can and whatever lands in the circle (or in some versions, outside the circle) belongs to God and he keeps all the rest.
Another cleric declares that he draws a circle with a TEN (or in some versions a TWO) foot radius but otherwise follows the example of the first speaker.
The remaining man of God uses the method described by running_coach.
One can place any cleric in any position on the rotation; in wherever place in the order the Rabbi comes, God would be spelled Gee, dash, dee (or G-d). Out of respect for the First Commandment (or in some traditions the second commandment) the chosen people do not speak or write the name of the deity.
Details on this matter, and for the Sermon on the Mount mentioned above, can be gained by a viewing of Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.
Ha! People sometimes feel that way about me, but I figure they’re full of shit. 
Okay, the following is me being pedantic and condescending on you:
Yes, I admit it- I am nearly illiterate. Without spellcheck I am incomprehensible (which to my great surprise did not appear with a wavy red line under it!) The thing is, the apostrophe DOES make the wavy red line disappear – and when enough of them disappear I can sleep though the nights.
Two things: I thought it was very clever of me to place supporters of the former president in with first century Hebrew religious leaders because they HATE those guys (whom they resemble so strongly).
Second, at first I did not realize the graphic was part of your post. I was amazed there was such an appropriate pop-up ad right below your post!
I have no doubt that you are correct- they are full of shit.
Unfortunately, in my case they are often far too correct for comfort.
One somewhat-invisible elephant in the room, I’d say, would be that Christianity has never been really compatible with democracy to begin with. Democracy never formed any part of its core.
As the quote in the movie Chariots of Fire said, “The kingdom of God is not a democracy; it’s a dictatorship.” The whole religion is based off of powerful rule from above (in the OT; by righteous rulers; but overall in Scripture, by God), not to be contradicted, leaders to be obeyed and followers to do the following. Nowhere do believers get to vote to impeach God or cast any vote on God’s governance.
As such, the idea of imposing religion by force on a nation doesn’t strike many Christians as un-Christian at all. It’s how the righteous kings like Hezekiah, David and Josiah did it in Israel. Choice or consent of the governed was never part of the equation. In fact, the very essence of Christianity is that you have to obey God, or listen to righteous prophets, whether you like it or not - overruling yourself.
Furthermore, even though in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this earth (and so establishing a theocracy by force isn’t the idea,) the means that the ancient Christians used to cope with persecution by the Roman Empire or whatnot wasn’t a democratic defense either - nowhere did they say “let’s vote Nero out of office.” Rather, they just did their underground-catacombs church thing and continued to be Christian - democracy was, again, never part of the equation. So democracy isn’t a Christian thing in Scripture, whether one is in a position of power or out of it.
Well, but they couldn’t advocate voting Nero out of office if they wanted, could they, what with the Republic having fallen apart a century and a half before (and even that was not that great if you were not a patrician). OTOH Paul was quick to invoke civis Romanvs svm when his rights were about to be violated.
But, yeah, the eventual Kingdom of God is exactly that, the absolutest monarchy possible. Of course, the point is that when the Kingdom does arrive by God bringing it from above, those in it will also know and realize that life in it is absolutely truthful, right, and just – so it would be perversely absurd to oppose. “If we were angels we’d need no laws”… similarly, in a universe composed only of the saints, where there is no pain, want or death, there would be no need for a “government” in the sense of a state, would there?
But until God shows up and establishes that, you have governments of men, and those, even the ones who claim to be ruling in God’s name, you have to deal with as you would with men in this space and time, and watch out for false prophets. Some “believers” out there forget that.
IIRC, Jesus didn’t ask for just any old coin; he asked them to show him the coin with which the taxes were paid. So a Shekel wasn’t an option.
You are FAR from illiterate. 
The wavy line only tells you if the word is wrong globally, not whether it’s wrong in that context. I’m sure you’ll keep the puppies of the world in mind going forward. 
See? That is why Jesus was so much smarter than I am! That is probably why He was: the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Thank you for the correction, that was an important detail that makes the story much better and I missed it.
(I knew I should look up the Matthew quote but I just wanted to shoot from the hip on that one. I had a pretty good track record of remembering things more or less accurately in this particular thread. In addition to that error, in this response I had all the phrases except one from the Creed, but in the wrong order. Now I will be checking myself.)
I am constantly trying to save the puppies! But I am a very slow learner so please bear with me as I move toward proper grammatical practices. (And I am pretty sure that in this case I did not mean: bare with me – I have got there, their, and they’re down but have been known to hilariously appropriate the entirely wrong word before.)
I am going to pick a nit with you over this quote, and possibly go into a bigger debate on the entirety of your post. You know how I love to mount my soapbox and bloviate as if my opinions mattered!
Really I want to discuss one word, I believe compatible is the wrong choice for this sentence. I am not well enough informed to know if the Greeks had any form of Democracy operating during the time of Jesus, but I would say the writers of the New Testament were not greatly aware of the principals of democracy at the time of their writings. Rome had emperors at that time, but I don’t know if they had a Senate yet or what the role of a Senate would be to a place ruled by an emperor.
For the sake of this discussion, I will concede that the Israelites (who are BEGGING for an apostrophe here!) and the entire Old Testament do fall into your contention quite well. But as you say in this very post, the Kingdom of Jesus is not of this earth. It seems to me the very scripture from Matthew discussed above kind of said: “Earthly rulers are not important, give to Caesar” (be a good citizen) — if God is displeased with a ruler, He will take care of it himself. And that again was Jesus himself talking. There is no compatible or incompatible; there is temporal and (for Christians) real, or eternal. It reads to me like obey laws, even unjust ones-- don’t be a jerk, it will all be okay in the end. To obey is better than sacrifice (no idea where any scripture may be that addresses that, but pretty sure Keith Green didn’t pull it out of . . . nowhere.
To say democracy as a system is foreign to Christianity is a true and fair statement as far as I can tell, but to say it is not compatible is taking it too far. Less than ideally suited, foreign, or other comparisons work better than the word compatible to make your point. It sounds to me like someone saying: spark plugs are not compatible with the color orange- they are on two different planes of existence (and now I am worried- planes of existence, plains of existence- you know what I mean, right?)
I would say the framers of the US Constitution would take issue with this statement-- but not with the concept itself. In the Old Testament yes, that is pretty much how it went. But in this country, when they decided to plan out and launch an entirely new, fair, and lasting government, they decided that the power from above was distant and remote. (You caught me, those two words mean the exact same thing!) They believed, it seems to me, that whatever the origins and whatever forces have been placed on the universe and all it contains- that is already in motion. They believed life is fluid, dynamic, and limited neither by fates nor by whims of the divine. The divine has done His and/or Her part and given humankind dominion over creation. Interventionism was dismissed and discouraged. Now white, landowning men could create (being made in the image of the creator) whatever government he sees fit to make.
And the framers were astute enough to allow pluralism. People were free to live and decide and worship or not worship as they saw fit. And the only rule was that your freedom ended where it harmed someone else’s freedom. (Ironically, most of them were slave owners.) And for a good long while everyone respected everyone else’s freedoms because they knew if freedoms start being cancelled - - sooner or later my freedom may be in jeopardy.
Of course, there were always those who tried to leverage their freedoms at the expense of others. But enough of us respected the views of the “others”, the opposition, to keep things going along in the more or less correct direction. But then . . . .
I really believe that once Christians decided that they KNEW and also OWNED the one true morality in a corporate sense (I am fine with and encourage every believer of any faith to be true and faithful and loyal and obedient to their own faith) but once the religious right decided everyone would benefit from living by their rules, their morals, and no one else’s – well, things started to go to hell. If the apostles could be true to Jesus and their faith in Corinth where temple prostitutes (I was told) descended on the city each night, and where believers were literally fed to lions in Rome, how is it such an outrage when someone who has an entirely different faith system wants an abortion? Or some form of Sex Ed? Or responsible gun ownership? Immigration, collective bargaining, racial justice, and a hundred other issues? Martyrs do not seem to be filling the ranks of believers like they used to. Apparently decorating a cake for a gay wedding is worse than being martyred.
I find it amazing that the same people who were up in arms over Sharia Law a few years ago now want to make a Christian Theocracy in America. Do they not realize the similarity of their restrictions to the other guy’s restrictions? (Control of women’s bodies, militaristic stance, rejection of inconvenient science, enforcing modest clothing restrictions, control over education and fear of new information, etc.) I actually occasionally pity some of the (in my opinion) very misguided modern day believers. (Certainly not you Velocity, you and I have had way too many good exchanges to lump you in with those I am talking about now.) Just as often I am frustrated by them and wish they could be reasoned with, but it is seeming more and more that some are just beyond reach. They are living in a fabricated world of Democrats who put children into ovens or who turn into werewolves in order to consume those kids sexually then, actually. And the “Socialist Agenda” they are so very concerned about.
Well, I warned you about my soapbox. I also see JRDelirious has addressed many of the issues I have been going on and on about. (I didn’t get notifications so I found it when I read it, same with Velocity.)
A Sikh friend once pointed out that Christianity is a violent religion. Perhaps he is correct.
For sure it’s violent. Unbelievers burn in Hell, a Flood once wiped out the whole Earth population (save for eight people,) the angel of death once killed 185,000 Assyrian troops in one night, Joshua was commanded to commit genocide against the Canaanites, Saul was commanded to commit genocide against the Amalekites, the firstborns in all of Egypt were struck down in one night, fire from heaven came down and burned a hundred soldiers just because their captains treated Elijah disrespectfully, all sorts of plagues killed thousands of Israelites.
It doesn’t mean that Christians are commanded to do violence; on the contrary, Jesus told Peter to put the sword down. But the religion itself is as violent as imaginable.
This is my gripe with some liberal Christians, or non-Christians, who try to portray the “real” God, or the “real” Christianity, as a sugar-and-spice-and-everything-nice religion, often by denying, or glossing over, or ‘re-interpreting’ the unpleasant passages. It’s far, far, far from it.
That’s all old testament.
Nazi Germany was a Christian country and most Nazis were Christians. “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition” was a popular American theme during WW2. Organized Christianity is just a crutch for politicians and a funding source for the clergy.