Divine Right

[Charles]

What is obvious is that you don't know the subject matter but want to pretend you do.

Then attack what I am saying and not an error in my language. That would make a lot more sense.

[Sparko]

Then attack what I am saying and not an error in my language. That would make a lot more sense.

well if you would say something other than just "but what if you are wrong!" then perhaps I would. But so far all you have done is try to question the verses and go "but what if you are reading it wrong!" or trying to take things overly literal like "everyone"

But still the Romans does not mention any exception at all. It may be that you think that inventing one is adding "nuance" to the text. But it seems it is rather the case that your pointing to the context contradicts what the text actually says. If that is "nuance" I think there is something about textual analysis that you have completely missed.

see? basically, "but maybe you are wrong!"

If you think MM is wrong, then show it.

[Charles]

well if you would say something other than just "but what if you are wrong!" then perhaps I would. But so far all you have done is try to question the verses and go "but what if you are reading it wrong!" or trying to take things overly literal like "everyone"



see? basically, "but maybe you are wrong!"

If you think MM is wrong, then show it.

I would think the part you quoted would make it rather clear why I think MM is wrong.

I have said far more than that which I assume you know. If not look here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post465614

And here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post465622

MM is unable to give a specific answer. He talks about context and high-context culture but cannot show how it applies in this context. Neither can he show that it does not apply in contexts in which it would destroy the traditional interpretation of what Christianity is. At least he has not done so. There is far more to this than "could be wrong". It is basically that he has not even come close to start to give specific answer to questions that follow logically from the statements he made.

[Sparko]

I would think the part you quoted would make it rather clear why I think MM is wrong.

I have said far more than that which I assume you know. If not look here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post465614

And here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post465622

MM is unable to give a specific answer. He talks about context and high-context culture but cannot show how it applies in this context. Neither can he show that it does not apply in contexts in which it would destroy the traditional interpretation of what Christianity is. At least he has not done so. There is far more to this than "could be wrong". It is basically that he has not even come close to start to give specific answer to questions that follow logically from the statements he made.

actually he explained it quite well. It seems like you are the one having a hard time understanding it. He even gave examples.

[Charles]

actually he explained it quite well. It seems like you are the one having a hard time understanding it. He even gave examples.

Examples of why the words would say the opposite of what he wants them to say in this specific context and pointing to a point with that? And of how this does not apply to the parts about salvation and so? Sounds interesting but I never saw it anywhere. Happy if you can share a link with these.

[Sparko]

Examples of why the words would say the opposite of what he wants them to say in this specific context and pointing to a point with that? And of how this does not apply to the parts about salvation and so? Sounds interesting but I never saw it anywhere. Happy if you can share a link with these.

see? this is why I didn't bother with anything more than pointing out your ignorance on the topic. You have a very selective memory and are very good at "missing" things that prove you wrong. Go back and reread the thread - the first two pages answer everything. Tabibito also explained things to you and you ignored him too.

[Charles]

see? this is why I didn't bother with anything more than pointing out your ignorance on the topic. You have a very selective memory and are very good at "missing" things that prove you wrong. Go back and reread the thread - the first two pages answer everything. Tabibito also explained things to you and you ignored him too.

So you did not have the specifics i asked for but then pointed to the first two pages that would answer "everything". As regards "missing" things that would prove me wrong, you seem to suffer from that too. If you did not note the first two pages contain a lot of objections to the points made. Some of them even by me (it was good to read it again ).

Anyway, try to go through your own posts directed against me. First you attack my knowledge based on an error in my language. Then you go on to claim (wrongly) that all I have done is to say to MM that he could be wrong. When made aware it is more complex than that, you claim the answer is already given. When asking for the specific answers, you do not give them but go on to claim it is all answered. And you seem to ignore the objections. So, basically, Sparko, perhaps you should try to give something of substance instead of this rather stupid game? It would appear a lot more convincing.

[Sparko]

So you did not have the specifics i asked for but then pointed to the first two pages that would answer "everything". As regards "missing" things that would prove me wrong, you seem to suffer from that too. If you did not note the first two pages contain a lot of objections to the points made. Some of them even by me (it was good to read it again ).

Anyway, try to go through your own posts directed against me. First you attack my knowledge based on an error in my language. Then you go on to claim (wrongly) that all I have done is to say to MM that he could be wrong. When made aware it is more complex than that, you claim the answer is already given. When asking for the specific answers, you do not give them but go on to claim it is all answered. And you seem to ignore the objections. So, basically, Sparko, perhaps you should try to give something of substance instead of this rather stupid game? It would appear a lot more convincing.

I would, but you have shown that you are not worth the effort Charles.

[Charles]

I would, but you have shown that you are not worth the effort Charles.

"But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

[Sparko]

"But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

??

[One Bad Pig]

The Bible seems to suggest that earthly rulers have been appointed by God and it is wrong to disobey them. See Romans 13:1-6


This all seems to suggest that God has given authority to national leaders today and in the past, and even if they do things we think is wrong, it is right to obey them. So did God appoint people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, King George III, King Leopold, etc. to rule over the people's they did, and would those people have been wrong to protest and rise up against them? As a deist, I think the notion of divine right is bunk because I don't believe God intervenes directly in human affairs, but it seems to me that the Christian position would support it. In which case things like the American Revolution go against Christian teaching. But somehow I never hear the religious right saying anything about that. What are your thoughts on divine right?

Yes, Paul would have disagreed with the American Revolution. That said, Paul is not saying that we should always obey the authorities, or that the authorities will always do what is right. It should be obvious that, being human, the authorities will not always do the right thing (Rom. 3:23); also, Paul says we should avoid sinning (Rom. 6:1-2). Is Paul contradicting himself, or should we perhaps not read every statement as an absolute devoid of context?

[Mountain Man]

Double post

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps the fault lies with your unsatisfactory answers.

Not that you or anybody else had bothered to show in what way they're unsatisfactory. Crying about "You could be wrong!" is not a valid rebuttal.

[Mountain Man]

I asked for a qualified answer and you could not give one.

I don't think you know what a qualified answer is. I gave very specific reasons for my answer.

You also forgot to answer as to how this applies to other parts of the Bible.

I did answer. I told you that I use a contextualised approach when interpreting all scripture, and I will continue to do so until someone demonstrates to me how this is improper, which you certainly have not done, and likely never will do.

I'm done, Chuck. The Bible warns us about the perils of arguing with a fool.

[Tassman]

Not that you or anybody else had bothered to show in what way they're unsatisfactory. Crying about "You could be wrong!" is not a valid rebuttal.

When so many people (i.e. outside of your salvation club) keep telling you you're wrong, including your own children, perhaps you should get the message.