It is quite interesting how the Christian faith (notably for this purpose the Protestant denominations) has been transformed over the centuries in order to justify various economic and political systems. By this, I don't mean simply a group of people forcing their own religious views on others or working to assimilate them into a particular cultural ideal, but rather the systematic inculcation of an idea into a society to the point that when one is being referred to, the other is automatically seen as synonymous or inherently related.

In regards to Western tradition, Christianity has become both an end and a means. It is used as a means in order to morally justify the workings of a capitalist society, while at the same time being used to represent the ideal version of humanity which capitalism helps to foster in each individual.

It is apparent why this connection had to be made during the early stages of industrial development. Medieval Catholic doctrine had taught a complacent lesson in regards to social mobility. Essentially that kings were kings because they were ordained by God, and that peasants were peasants because they too were 'ordained' by God to be such. As we all know, capitalism is a system which emphasizes the individual and his right to social mobility. Rather early capitalist theorists sought to prove that the ability to be socially mobile is present in each individual by virtue of God, rather than their social position by virtue of God.

It also became apparent during the early stages of industrial development that one's drive to "truck, barter and trade" needed a more concrete philosophical foundation rather than simply an empirical observation. The vast inequities which would inevitably occur needed a moral justification. Smith tried to tackle this problem by equating morality to an inherent human ability to sympathize with his fellow men and their plights. Although obviously oversimplified above, this notion basically placed trust in God that he who had would see to it that those who didn't survived. And that is essentially it, survived. Although much more euphemistically described in Theory of Moral Sentiments, the moral philosophy backing up capitalism still treated humans as resources of production, sustained only to further perpetuate the system.

All of this eventually became inculcated into the capitalist culture of the 19th and early 20th century in both Europe and the uS under the titles of "Protestant Ethic" or "rugged individualism," etc. In both Europe and America, the imperialist expansion present during these times further romanticized the idea of 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps' or the 'self-made man,' and cemented these ideas in the Western psyche. In terms of colonialism, not only was the economic duty of a Christian man being exercised through industry, but also his Christian duty through the conversion of natives and what not.

Essentially, the Christian faith was interpreted in such a way that placed material success on par with spiritual virtue. By accumulating, even at the expense of others, one was fulfilling his God-given drive to 'truck barter and trade' while at the same time allowing others the ability to do so through the exchange of his labor for sustinence. Robber barons and industry tycoons, with little or no respect for human life, were viewed as the epitomy of Christian virtue. Ironically, those with the least scruples and moral convictions were usually the most likely to rise to the top. It would seem that the self-centeredness of capitalism would inherently conflict with the selflessness of Christianity. Smith attempted to reconcile this but failed, in my opinion.

Yet why does it still continue? Why is capitalism and material gain, or even mere individualism still so closely linked to Christian virtue? Anyone have any input?

Christians are the economic equivilent of the bubonic plauge

quote:Originally posted by Aircow MK II:

Christians are the economic equivilent of the bubonic plauge

Australians are the intellectual equivalent to retarded pom criminals.

As for the original question(as drawn out and verbose as it may be), I think it's fairly obvious as to the answer. People(regular people) need two things. They need a goal and they need justification(a reason). Religion just happens to provide both.

Religion basically boils down to a lifestyle, so it really isn't that hard of a question to answer.

I'd also like to seem something that suggests that Industry Barons were considered the "epitomy of Christian virtue".

Lost, this is a bit outside my area of expertise so i'll refrain from commenting over much.

i think your basic premise is correct though.

btw

excellent thread ...we could use more of this calibre!

One of the best questions I've seen raised here. The answer is not easy and requires study of both sociology and the Bible. In my opinion though, this connection between capitalism and christianity was feasible because Peter and Paul had managed early on to contradict their teacher and provide a lot of elements in the new-formed religion that were attractive to authority. For example, while Jesus clearly separates God from a human authority like Ceasar's, Peter and Paul suggest the opposite and even submission to it (Peter A' 2.18-2.19, Tim. A' 6.1, Romans 13.1). You can find similar contradictions between Jesus and his disciples in subjects like charity or wealth as well.

In effect, christianity never functioned in the way its supposed founder taught. Jesus's teachings are largely inactive or misunderstood. Ideas like selflessness are thought as good but unreachable. This is apparent when noone wonders at a motto like "God bless America".

It never ceases to amaze me how many different groups of people are defined by a single holy text, whether it is the Bible or the Koran. Conflicts between these groups will not cease until we are finally allowed to lift the critical-eye-ban off those texts and to be able to discard the beliefs that are hurting humanity as a whole.

ELFSTONE:

This supposed contradiction doesn't even make sense, by your own understanding of it.

Here is how it is flawed...

You said that, "Jesus clearly separates God from a human authority like Ceasar's..." and then you turn around and use verses like:

1 Peter 2:18-19 - "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God."

You said that God was not under human authority, and the contradiction you pose is that Peter and Paul say that God IS under human authority, when this verse is actually telling US HUMANS to submit to human authority. Where is the contradiction ?

Furthermore, if you read just before that in 1 Peter 2:13-17, we can not only see the complete irrelevance that scripture has in supporting your assertion, but WHY we should submit ourselves to our government:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."

We are to remain blameless (if we can) in the eyes of man, so that our humanity will not be an issue when we present the truth of Christ to unbelievers.

This verse is completely unrelated to your supposed "contradiction".

Now, on to your next examples...

1 Timothy 6:1 - "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Yup...still supports what I have said. Has nothing to do with God. Just US.

Romans 13:1 - "1 Everyone 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."

Mmmhmm.

So ? How does this contradict the teaching that God is not under man's authority ?

The truth of the matter is, there ARE no contradictions in the Bible. Just misunderstandings, which are perfectly normal.

That doesn't mean we should try and preach our misunderstandings as facts.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

ELFSTONE:

This supposed contradiction doesn't even make sense, by your own understanding of it.

Here is how it is flawed...

You said that, "Jesus clearly separates God from a human authority like Ceasar's..." and then you turn around and use verses like:

1 Peter 2:18-19 - "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God."

You said that God was not under human authority, and the contradiction you pose is that Peter and Paul say that God IS under human authority, when this verse is actually telling US HUMANS to submit to human authority. Where is the contradiction ?

I am afraid it is you who misunderstands things DS. God not only isn't under human authority, but His authority totally negates human one. The contradiction lies in that human authorities mean nothing to Jesus, yet Peter promotes submission to them as holy virtue.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Furthermore, if you read just before that in 1 Peter 2:13-17, we can not only see the complete irrelevance that scripture has in supporting your assertion, but WHY we should submit ourselves to our government:

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."

We are to remain blameless (if we can) in the eyes of man, so that our humanity will not be an issue when we present the truth of Christ to unbelievers.

This verse is completely unrelated to your supposed "contradiction".



By whose authority and inspiration does Peter say these horrible things? Did Jesus seek to remain blameless in the eyes of man or did he instead brought blame unto Himself by pursuing His mission? Why are the "eyes of man" so important, when Jesus teaches not to judge one another?

Peter in the above verse outrageously equates human authority to Godly authority. Submission to them is for "Lord's sake" and "God's will". "The eyes of man" is not an excuse for these teachings that are so out of the spirit of what Jesus taught.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Now, on to your next examples...

1 Timothy 6:1 - "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Yup...still supports what I have said. Has nothing to do with God. Just US.

What are you talking about "just US"? How we lead our life has nothing to do with God? How can you not CRINGE when you read the above verse? How on earth is God's name and Jesus's teaching slandered when one doesn't respect his master? Respect is earned. The jewish priests supposedly had spiritual authority over Jesus and I don't see Him respecting them one bit.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Romans 13:1 - "1 Everyone 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."

Mmmhmm.

So ? How does this contradict the teaching that God is not under man's authority ?

As I said, this is not the contradiction. And what Paul says here is completely his own personal bullcrap which you take for granted. Do you see Jesus say that Ceasar's authority is established by God, so ok, let's pay the tax? Read this specific passage carefully. Jesus asks Peter if authorities collect tax from their children or strangers. Peter foolishly replies "strangers" and Jesus says "So the children can go free. But let's pay so as not to scandalize them". Jesus pays only to avoid trouble, not because it is right.

If we were to follow Peter and Paul's teachings to the letter we would still be in the dark ages.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The truth of the matter is, there ARE no contradictions in the Bible. Just misunderstandings, which are perfectly normal.

That doesn't mean we should try and preach our misunderstandings as facts.



Whatever helps you sleep at nights.

....

edit: I also noticed that you conveniently reformulated what I said in a false way ("You said that God was not under human authority, and the contradiction you pose is that Peter and Paul say that God IS under human authority,") - I just said that God and human authority are separate/unrelated, which clearly is not what Peter and Paul promote.

[This message has been edited by elfstone (edited 07-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by LostEquation:

It is quite interesting how the Christian faith (notably for this purpose the Protestant denominations) has been transformed over the centuries in order to justify various economic and political systems. By this, I don't mean simply a group of people forcing their own religious views on others or working to assimilate them into a particular cultural ideal, but rather the systematic inculcation of an idea into a society to the point that when one is being referred to, the other is automatically seen as synonymous or inherently related.

In regards to Western tradition, Christianity has become both an end and a means. It is used as a means in order to morally justify the workings of a capitalist society, while at the same time being used to represent the ideal version of humanity which capitalism helps to foster in each individual.

It is apparent why this connection had to be made during the early stages of industrial development. Medieval Catholic doctrine had taught a complacent lesson in regards to social mobility. Essentially that kings were kings because they were ordained by God, and that peasants were peasants because they too were 'ordained' by God to be such. As we all know, capitalism is a system which emphasizes the individual and his right to social mobility. Rather early capitalist theorists sought to prove that the ability to be socially mobile is present in each individual by virtue of God, rather than their social position by virtue of God.

It also became apparent during the early stages of industrial development that one's drive to "truck, barter and trade" needed a more concrete philosophical foundation rather than simply an empirical observation. The vast inequities which would inevitably occur needed a moral justification. Smith tried to tackle this problem by equating morality to an inherent human ability to sympathize with his fellow men and their plights. Although obviously oversimplified above, this notion basically placed trust in God that he who had would see to it that those who didn't survived. And that is essentially it, survived. Although much more euphemistically described in Theory of Moral Sentiments, the moral philosophy backing up capitalism still treated humans as resources of production, sustained only to further perpetuate the system.

All of this eventually became inculcated into the capitalist culture of the 19th and early 20th century in both Europe and the uS under the titles of "Protestant Ethic" or "rugged individualism," etc. In both Europe and America, the imperialist expansion present during these times further romanticized the idea of 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps' or the 'self-made man,' and cemented these ideas in the Western psyche. In terms of colonialism, not only was the economic duty of a Christian man being exercised through industry, but also his Christian duty through the conversion of natives and what not.

Essentially, the Christian faith was interpreted in such a way that placed material success on par with spiritual virtue. By accumulating, even at the expense of others, one was fulfilling his God-given drive to 'truck barter and trade' while at the same time allowing others the ability to do so through the exchange of his labor for sustinence. Robber barons and industry tycoons, with little or no respect for human life, were viewed as the epitomy of Christian virtue. Ironically, those with the least scruples and moral convictions were usually the most likely to rise to the top. It would seem that the self-centeredness of capitalism would inherently conflict with the selflessness of Christianity. Smith attempted to reconcile this but failed, in my opinion.

Yet why does it still continue? Why is capitalism and material gain, or even mere individualism still so closely linked to Christian virtue? Anyone have any input?

Not meaning to stalk your threads or anything... but economics and xianity are two subjects that use up a lot of my head space.

Id certainly agree that many articulations of protestant christianity serve to refinforce western capitalism. However, I think there is also a case of "which came first". Most times that its come up, Ive seen the emergence of the protestant work ethic being one of a group of social, economic and political factors that kicked off western european capitalism. i.e. that the Protestant work ethic was extant as a precussor- and not a more reactionary religious/philosophical response. I could be wrong though.

Also, whilst this work ethic is most commonly linked with protestant christianity thanks to Mr Weber, it fails to explain the emergence and reproduction of capitalism in firstly european nations, and then later others that were predominately non-protestant e.g. France, Spain, Italy etc, Catholic countries in which capitalism and mercantilism all had strong footholds. Nor is it particularly unique for prosperity to be associated with divine favour by various protestant traditions (in contradistinction to the explicit statements by Jesus on these issues)- many religious movements have done similar. I think that in this situation protestant xianity happened to be standing there, and some thrust the baby of western capitalism in to its arms.

IMO the protestant work ethic is just one expression of the attitudes that came with the enlightenment and modernity, and I reckon that its the various utopian visions of modernity that drives capitalism.

*bump*

I noticed your request in another thread to respond to this, elfstone...

I am far too exhausted at this moment to, but I will tomorrow (hopefully).

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Of Religion

Religions have for the most part served the purpose of keeping as group of people bound together. It serves a manifold of purposes. This is centered mainly around Christianity. Also, I consider patriotism to be a pseudo religion.

The first of these purposes is to give the person emotional satisfaction. Preachers spout words in an attempt to make people think of a certain experience that is pleasurable. This creates an atmosphere in which people can become hooked on religion, it can work to replace other addictions in a persons life. Hence it gets a reputation for 'saving' someone's life, because the person of that religion is expected to abide by the values of religion that hold the group together.

Another comfort commonly provided by religions in the belief in a higher being controlling the world. The level of control the being[s] has depends on the religion.

Generally, members of the religious group can take comfort in the fact that their God is looking out for them, ensuring there survival. They take comfort that they no longer have to worry about the negative outcomes of events because there fate is ensured. Providing that they follow the religion and whoever is the earthly representative of it [preacher/pope/bishop/president/whatever].

Of course some people will have feelings of guilt for certain actions because their God is watching them at all times. This provides gives the people a reason to act according to the values of religion at all times.

Religions tend to be focused around keeping a group together, so it will want to establish a good reputation in order to recruit new members.

The good done by religions is done by aligning self interest. If the 'good' person wants to receive his/her reward, then they must practice what the religion tells them to. It is in the persons best interest to do what is being done. So, what is done is good for group, and not always the whole of the society. But, a state will generally accept a religion, even if it does not openly support it. In the case of democracy, whoever is the largest can be considered the states religion. Generally, things that go against the norm may be punished by the law, but persons trying to enforce the norm on there on behalf are rarely punished.

What does this do? Well, it helps bind the group together. Members of a religion can find common ground with one another, and therefore are more apt to work together. When a group works together it increases it's chances for survival.



[This message has been edited by Gen. Patton (edited 07-25-2005).]

Digital_Savior, if I make an assumption of your arguments [that you quoted], you are saying that it is the duty of the slaves to submit before their masters?

Also, we should submit ourselves before our government, and the men chosen by god are the ones who create/run the government, in order to be rewarded?

[This message has been edited by Gen. Patton (edited 07-25-2005).]

quote:I am afraid it is you who misunderstands things DS. God not only isn't under human authority, but His authority totally negates human one. The contradiction lies in that human authorities mean nothing to Jesus, yet Peter promotes submission to them as holy virtue.

Jesus is was not a human in the sense that he was no longer God when he took on a fleshly form. God is not under man's authority, so we agree on that point.

But WE, as FLESH and not God, ARE under the authority of the laws instituted by the leaders of our lands. The Bible is clear on this point.

Human authority meant nothing to Jesus, because he was God. Paul was speaking from the standpoint of a human being. There is still no contradiction here.

quote:By whose authority and inspiration does Peter say these horrible things? Did Jesus seek to remain blameless in the eyes of man or did he instead brought blame unto Himself by pursuing His mission? Why are the "eyes of man" so important, when Jesus teaches not to judge one another?

First, Jesus assumed what blame ? He could be blamed for what, exactly ?

"The eyes of man" is in reference to UNBELIEVERS. Christians can't go around living in the flesh, doing as they wish, and expect to have a profound effect on humanity as God's disciples. If we are to make a difference, we have to be the example, and that means being law abiding citizens, unless the law contradicts God somehow.

We are not judged [eternally] by the eyes of man. We are the representatives of Christ, and we must act like it.

We (as Christians) are not to judge others. You are taking two separate groups of people, and applying the same tenets. Unrelated.

As for Peter, it is unlikely that he wrote 1 Peter: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html

And no matter WHO wrote the book, it is the divinely inspired word of God, so it is by HIS authority alone that it is written.

quote:Peter in the above verse outrageously equates human authority to Godly authority. Submission to them is for "Lord's sake" and "God's will". "The eyes of man" is not an excuse for these teachings that are so out of the spirit of what Jesus taught.

That is not what he is doing at all. There IS no equation...Peter understood the profound power of our Lord God, and he would be a bumbling idiot if he were to assume that human authority could come even remotely close in comparison to God's authority. I can't even really understand how you can come to such a conclusion, other than purposely trying to for the sake of attempting to invalidate it.

The phraseology "for the Lord's sake" and "God's will" is accurate, and falls in direct alignment with what I said earlier.

WE ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF GOD. If we are lawless and anarchist, how effective will we be ? And will we really represent the benevolence, mercy, and justice of God, if we do everything in our power to thwart our government ? The answer is obvious.

We are not commanded to obey the laws of our land to benefit God. We are commanded to do these things so that we can remain an accurate representation of Him, and give unbelievers NO reason to persecute us unecessarily. It is for OUR benefit as believers.

quote:What are you talking about "just US"? How we lead our life has nothing to do with God? How can you not CRINGE when you read the above verse? How on earth is God's name and Jesus's teaching slandered when one doesn't respect his master? Respect is earned. The jewish priests supposedly had spiritual authority over Jesus and I don't see Him respecting them one bit.

No amount of manipulating my words is going to change the meaning.

By "just US", I was referring to your assertion that Peter is telling us that God is under human authority. He's not, and this verse in Timothy makes that clear. WE (as humans) are to submit to our masters, and obey our leaders. Period.

You have to understand the timeframe that this was written in...when someone was a slave, they were coveted property. They were loved by their masters (for the most part...there will always be an exception), and they would have died for their masters.

In contrast, in modern America, such a thing doesn't really exist. So, now this verse applies only to our employers, and the leaders in our government. I don't see why it should make us cringe to resolve ourselves to follow the laws instituted by our leaders, and respect the authority of our employers.

If you are a Christian, and people know you as such, you cannot be breaking laws and disrespecting authority. That doesn't mean we are not to CHALLENGE it, however. If you see someone as a Christian, and they think raping women is ok, what will you think of Christianity, and by extension, God ? If Christians didn't pay their taxes, how would that look ?

We cannot do whatever we wish. Again, we are representatives of Christ. It slanders his name to be lawless.

Who gave the Pharisees and the teachers of the law "spiritual authority" over Jesus ? JESUS WAS GOD. How can ANY human being have spiritual authority over God ?

The Pharisees were self-professed spiritual leaders. They were, in reality, hypocrites and manipulators of the law, with the intention of feeding their pride, and lining their pockets. They were no less a sinner than ANYONE else, since even ONE sin makes us sinners. We are all in need of salvation, not just those of us that are deemed "spiritually inferior" by those who seek to gain from their "godliness".

I think you don't believe Jesus was God, so it is understandble why you would mistake Jesus as being "spiritually inferior". Spirituality is not earned by works...it is developed by faith, and the Pharisees, Saducees, and teachers of the law certainly had no faith.

Jesus didn't need to respect them..they were HUMAN.

quote:As I said, this is not the contradiction. And what Paul says here is completely his own personal bullcrap which you take for granted. Do you see Jesus say that Ceasar's authority is established by God, so ok, let's pay the tax? Read this specific passage carefully. Jesus asks Peter if authorities collect tax from their children or strangers. Peter foolishly replies "strangers" and Jesus says "So the children can go free. But let's pay so as not to scandalize them". Jesus pays only to avoid trouble, not because it is right.

If we were to follow Peter and Paul's teachings to the letter we would still be in the dark ages.

What you call "bullcrap", we call divine inspiration. If God didn't want Paul to teach these things, He could have easily taken Paul out. AND made sure that none of his writings were published for public consumption. Let's not forget who is in charge here.

I would like you to provide the scripture reference for the verse you gave. I don't know where you are getting that from, so I cannot comment. Please don't patronize me by asking me to read the scriptures carefully. I always do, and I do not derive from them whatever I please. What they say is what they mean, and they are ALL the literal word of God.

You say that Jesus did something to avoid trouble, and you are right. This is exactly why we are told to follow the laws of our leaders...to remain blameless so that we don't get into trouble ! That is not the point of our existence. Breaking the law should not be an issue for us. Jesus didn't say what he said because he was afraid of the consequences. He is God. He was setting an example for US [humans], who have cause to be afraid of our fellow man.

Jesus didn't need to follow Paul's teaching, BECAUSE HE IS GOD !



quote:Whatever helps you sleep at nights.

edit: I also noticed that you conveniently reformulated what I said in a false way ("You said that God was not under human authority, and the contradiction you pose is that Peter and Paul say that God IS under human authority,") - I just said that God and human authority are separate/unrelated, which clearly is not what Peter and Paul promote.

Umm...are you accusing me of purposely changing the formulation of your statements in order to make what I am saying true ?

I am not like most of the people here on Totse. I actually believe what I am saying, and have a reason for believing it. I am also not a liar, a manipulator, or a politician. I have no reason to try and twist your words to help my case. I truly believe God and the Bible, and if I misunderstood you, I apologize. But that is all it amounts to...a misunderstanding. I have nothing to gain from manipulating your words.

Peter and Paul certainly DO promote God's authority being supreme over man's authority. You are simply not understanding the verses. I have explained it as best I can, but you will derive from them whatever you want, based on your own bias against the Bible and the Christian faith.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-29-2005).]

Sigh there's no arguing with fundies...

What's the matter ? Can't stand a Christian that actually knows their Bible ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Jesus is was not a human in the sense that he was no longer God when he took on a fleshly form. God is not under man's authority, so we agree on that point.

But WE, as FLESH and not God, ARE under the authority of the laws instituted by the leaders of our lands. The Bible is clear on this point.

Human authority meant nothing to Jesus, because he was God. Paul was speaking from the standpoint of a human being. There is still no contradiction here.

This is how you see it but I am not convinced. Jesus has a mission and everything He does has a meaning and gives an example. It's one thing to walk on water and turn water to wine and another to defy authority. The first clearly demonstrates Godly nature, the second sets an example.

Let me ask you, just to which is point are we to submit to human authority. If Osama Bin Laden took over USA and forced you to become muslim by law, would you submit then? I'm not saying that Jesus promoted anarchy, but He certainly didn't give Godly support to human authorities.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, Jesus assumed what blame ? He could be blamed for what, exactly ?

"The eyes of man" is in reference to UNBELIEVERS. Christians can't go around living in the flesh, doing as they wish, and expect to have a profound effect on humanity as God's disciples. If we are to make a difference, we have to be the example, and that means being law abiding citizens, unless the law contradicts God somehow.

Ah...got you there. Peter and Paul say nothing of the sort. And they shouldn't even mention human authorities if that was the case. Good christians would know what contradicts God from Jesus's teachings alone. Why is there a need to preach submission to authorities? How are these authorities established by God when there's every chance that they can contradict God, be unfair, harsh? Whatever the case, Peter and Paul promote submission to human law, whatever it is, and no matter how wretched its followers are.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



And no matter WHO wrote the book, it is the divinely inspired word of God, so it is by HIS authority alone that it is written.

You can't bring yourself to criticise the Bible...why? Because the book says so? God is not offended if you seek the truth. Sure, God allowed the Bible to be written as it is. But the only person whose words and actions in it can actually represent Him is Jesus. The rest have to be put to serious criticism before being accepted.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



WE ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF GOD. If we are lawless and anarchist, how effective will we be ? And will we really represent the benevolence, mercy, and justice of God, if we do everything in our power to thwart our government ? The answer is obvious.

Again, you got the wrong idea. I am not supporting lawlessness and anarchy. But I am against blind obeying which is what Peter and Paul promote. They suggest we submit even to HARSH authorities because that is "God's will". If you find nothing wrong with that, think about living under Saddam's regime.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



No amount of manipulating my words is going to change the meaning.

By "just US", I was referring to your assertion that Peter is telling us that God is under human authority. He's not, and this verse in Timothy makes that clear. WE (as humans) are to submit to our masters, and obey our leaders. Period.

I never made that assertion and that's why I accused you of manipulating. I'm not manipulating anything you said, I am plainly telling you that you are wrong in this interpretation because you accept Peter's word without comparing them with Jesus's example.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



In contrast, in modern America, such a thing doesn't really exist. So, now this verse applies only to our employers, and the leaders in our government. I don't see why it should make us cringe to resolve ourselves to follow the laws instituted by our leaders, and respect the authority of our employers.

Please stop doing that...Paul talks about respecting the masters themselves, not the authority. It's a huge difference. What should make you cringe is the attempt to preach blind obeying to harsh authorities.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If you are a Christian, and people know you as such, you cannot be breaking laws and disrespecting authority. That doesn't mean we are not to CHALLENGE it, however. If you see someone as a Christian, and they think raping women is ok, what will you think of Christianity, and by extension, God ? If Christians didn't pay their taxes, how would that look ?

I'm sorry, but Peter and Paul say that you are not to challenge human authority. It is established by God. And you have to respect it even if it is harsh. That's what they say.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



think you don't believe Jesus was God, so it is understandble why you would mistake Jesus as being "spiritually inferior". Spirituality is not earned by works...it is developed by faith, and the Pharisees, Saducees, and teachers of the law certainly had no faith.

Jesus didn't need to respect them..they were HUMAN.

About the stuff you said about the pharisees, I agree. You chose to ignore the word "supposedly" in my post though. I can't see how you managed to mistake what I said to mean that Jesus was "spiritually inferior" to the pharisees. But they were the spiritual leaders of the jews and thus they had authority in matters of the faith over Jesus. This last sentence you wrote there is weird. So we humans are unworthy of God's respect? Jesus didn't seem to put his respect under such criteria.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



What you call "bullcrap", we call divine inspiration. If God didn't want Paul to teach these things, He could have easily taken Paul out. AND made sure that none of his writings were published for public consumption. Let's not forget who is in charge here.

I would like you to provide the scripture reference for the verse you gave. I don't know where you are getting that from, so I cannot comment. Please don't patronize me by asking me to read the scriptures carefully. I always do, and I do not derive from them whatever I please. What they say is what they mean, and they are ALL the literal word of God.

You say that Jesus did something to avoid trouble, and you are right. This is exactly why we are told to follow the laws of our leaders...to remain blameless so that we don't get into trouble ! That is not the point of our existence. Breaking the law should not be an issue for us. Jesus didn't say what he said because he was afraid of the consequences. He is God. He was setting an example for US [humans], who have cause to be afraid of our fellow man.

Jesus didn't need to follow Paul's teaching, BECAUSE HE IS GOD !

The verse is Matthew 17.24-27. You will notice that Jesus even goes to conjure up the money for the tax instead of having his disciples pay for it. I am not trying to patronize you, just trying to move you one inch from your position so you can see there are alternative interpretations of the book. You still use double standards to defend Peter and Paul here. Does Jesus act as an example or does He not care a bit to set an example because He is God and human rules just don't apply to Him? You can't use both attitudes as it fits your argument.

Of course God is in charge. You forget though about free will. If Paul, a former roman terrorist, decides to preach his own personal opinions and present them as God-inspired who is to stop him? Why should I believe it is God-inspired when I see it contradicts with Jesus?

It is one thing to avoid trouble, and Jesus did suggest that we should in more than one occasion, but another thing completely to be a submissive robot who should be respectful to his oppressors. Jesus didn't seek to stay out of trouble when met with the hypocrisy of the pharisees or the desecration of the temple by the merchants.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Umm...are you accusing me of purposely changing the formulation of your statements in order to make what I am saying true ?

I am not like most of the people here on Totse. I actually believe what I am saying, and have a reason for believing it. I am also not a liar, a manipulator, or a politician. I have no reason to try and twist your words to help my case. I truly believe God and the Bible, and if I misunderstood you, I apologize. But that is all it amounts to...a misunderstanding. I have nothing to gain from manipulating your words.

Peter and Paul certainly DO promote God's authority being supreme over man's authority. You are simply not understanding the verses. I have explained it as best I can, but you will derive from them whatever you want, based on your own bias against the Bible and the Christian faith.



You frustrate me by almost willfully not understanding what I'm saying. I say white and you say that I said black. It's hard to not accuse you if I am to give you some intellectual credit.

Once more, it's not about God's authority being supreme over man's. This is a given. It's about man's authority having no innate Godly support or connection whatsoever. Peter and Paul suggest otherwise in contradiction to Jesus's examples and despite the length of your post you managed to actually reinforce my opinion instead of countering it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What's the matter ? Can't stand a Christian that actually knows their Bible ?

Nope I can't stand someone who claims to be christian and apparently reads the Bible all the time yet is completely oblivious to the word of Christ. I'm an atheist and I understand better then you.

I've seen your posts on this board and they are characterized by gross misinterpertations of the Bible to suit your agenda. You quote the Bible chapter and verse yet display no comprehension whatsoever. You twist the words of the Bible to suit your preconcieved notions. In the thread "Women and the bible" you say this...

quote:

a large portion of the seemingly "negative" verses in the Bible about women are a reflection of the Jewish tradition and customs, and nothing more.



Now in this thread your saying this...

quote:

What you call "bullcrap", we call divine inspiration. If God didn't want Paul to teach these things, He could have easily taken Paul out. AND made sure that none of his writings were published for public consumption. Let's not forget who is in charge here.



So which is it? is the Bible a reflection of local tradition and custom with parts that can be written off as the words of man and not god or is it the directly inspired word of God in which every part of it is directly sanctioned by god? It can't be both no matter how much you want it to.



[This message has been edited by FunkyZombie (edited 07-29-2005).]

And you claim that I am twisting things to suit my own agenda ? *LAUGHS* !!

First, you are trying to mix apples and oranges.

I never said THE WHOLE BIBLE was composed of Jewish tradition.

What I did say is that women are not inferior, merely meant to be submissive, and I gave the reasons why. That's not twisting, that's UNDERSTANDING.

Second, the two paragraphs you list have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other.

One illustrates the necessity to understand the difference between which scriptures deal with Jewish custom, and which are commandments from God, and the other illustrates God's divine control over the infallability of what we call the "Bible".

Nothing is in it that God doesn't want, and nothing can be added that God doesn't approve (which has been nothing, since it was canonized).

You seem to have a detrimental inability to comprehend what you are reading. Because of this, it is painfully obvious that arguing with you is pointless.

Take your bias, your word twisting, and your blatant disgregard for the TRUTH somewhere else. You can't project your inadequacies onto me.

So surrendering our will to authority eh? Christianity seems like slavery under the guise of gods plan. I don't need to make a quote as many have already been posted. Does god support the killing of innocent Iraqies by the US army too?

Well guess what, damn near everything I do is against those ideas and it's likely i'll hold a high position of politics at sometime in my life. Jesus would never support a system of based on greed, and kept in motion by envy. It goes against Jesus' teachings, who I respect over his apostles. Did you also notice that bibles are printed by men, written by man, and manipulate man into a submissive fool for a reward of bliss.

You sir are an idiot, and there isn't anything you can say to alter that. Did you know that Hitler used Christianity to make people support the killing of 7 million jews who were supposedly gods chosen ones?

Christians are fucking robots.

quote:This is how you see it but I am not convinced. Jesus has a mission and everything He does has a meaning and gives an example. It's one thing to walk on water and turn water to wine and another to defy authority. The first clearly demonstrates Godly nature, the second sets an example.

Let me ask you, just to which is point are we to submit to human authority. If Osama Bin Laden took over USA and forced you to become muslim by law, would you submit then? I'm not saying that Jesus promoted anarchy, but He certainly didn't give Godly support to human authorities.

Jesus never gave a commandment that we should disobey our leaders. He challenged their authority over the people from a spiritual standpoint.

The Pharisees, Saducees, and the teachers of the law were using the law to frighten people into submission - saying the people's sacrificial animals were unclean, therefore forcing them to buy one of the temples "approved" sacrifices (at 300% markup, no less) so that they could properly atone for their sin, for example.

They manipulated and dishonored the word of God every chance they got, for their own selfish gain (power and wealth). Jesus had every right to challenge their authority...HE USED THEIR OWN (God's) LAW TO DO IT ! No one could understand the oral law better than Jesus did, and he illustrated God's will by using the oral law to subdue the Pharisees and their ilk.

This was not anarchy...it was not revolution. God has been clear - we are to follow the laws of the land, set forth by our leaders, UNLESS they force us to compromise God's law/will.

Jesus was acting in accordance with God's will when he challenged the methodology and authority of the Pharisees. There is STILL no contradiction between what Jesus taught, and what Paul taught.

God DOESN'T support human authority. He commands US to, so that we can avoid blame, and unecessary scrutiny and punishment.

If Osama Bin Laden took over this country, we would either have to submit to his authority, or move somewhere else.

quote:Ah...got you there. Peter and Paul say nothing of the sort. And they shouldn't even mention human authorities if that was the case. Good christians would know what contradicts God from Jesus's teachings alone. Why is there a need to preach submission to authorities? How are these authorities established by God when there's every chance that they can contradict God, be unfair, harsh? Whatever the case, Peter and Paul promote submission to human law, whatever it is, and no matter how wretched its followers are.

"Got me" ? What exactly are you trying to accomplish ? I'm not a liar, and I am not careless with the word of God. You trying to "catch me" doing something indicates an ulterior motive.

Peter and Paul say what "no such thing" ?

Jesus NEVER contradicts God. If you could please give me some examples of why you think this, I would be happy to try and explain why they aren't contradictions.

It does not matter if our leaders are harsh or cruel...that is not the point. Christians cannot be lawbreakers...it looks bad for the Kingdom. That's the point.

You keep evading this very obvious, simple purpose for the command to obey our leaders.

No man comes to a position of authority without God's knowledge, and therefore "permission". Everything works toward the greater good, whether it is perceived as harsh, evil, or whatever by human observation.

quote:You can't bring yourself to criticise the Bible...why? Because the book says so? God is not offended if you seek the truth. Sure, God allowed the Bible to be written as it is. But the only person whose words and actions in it can actually represent Him is Jesus. The rest have to be put to serious criticism before being accepted.

I don't criticize the word of God. I have studied the history of how it came to be and why...that is the only kind of scrutiny I should have for it. I am critical only in the sense that I seek to understand it's meaning...and not be mistaken.

If something is not understood in the scripture, it is my own ineptitude that prevents me from understanding, not God's word. One must be a SCHOLAR of the word in order to truly understand it, and this takes a lifetime of study, prayer, and guidance. I don't claim to know everything about the Bible yet, and dare not say that I ever will.

I am certainly not afraid of understanding what God is REALLY saying in each scripture. There is a LOT of it I don't like, because it does not appeal to my fleshly understanding of humanity.

However, I have submitted myself to His omnipotence, and trust that the truths of His word will be revealed to me in His perfect time...as ALWAYS.

Why do you think I am not critical of what I read ? Just because I believe it doesn't mean I haven't researched and questions the scriptures.

quote:Again, you got the wrong idea. I am not supporting lawlessness and anarchy. But I am against blind obeying which is what Peter and Paul promote. They suggest we submit even to HARSH authorities because that is "God's will". If you find nothing wrong with that, think about living under Saddam's regime.

This debate wasn't over whether YOU believe we should be anarchist or not...this was about Paul's uspposed contradiction of God's law, and Jesus' teachings.

Peter and Paul certainly did NOT promote blind following of government entities. They understood Jesus' teachings better than you and I ever could, I would venture to say, and they understood that submission to one's government is paramount to the health and success of our faith.

IF A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES LAWS THAT BEAR A DIRECT FORCE OF ABANDONMENT FOR OUR BELIEFS AS ORDAINED BY GOD, WE ARE NOT TO OBEY THEM.

Nowehere do Peter and Paul make provisions for the continuance of obedience under a government that forces us to go against the will/law of God. NOWHERE.

Having a harsh master does not make us go against God in ANY way. Therefore, we are still required to submit.

If the government instituted a law that said, "You can't read your Bible, pray, or worship your God without fear of punishment.", then we would have every right to disobey.

In China, Christians are persecuted for their faith. They are arrested, without due justice, and imprisoned for sometimes up to a life sentence, without ever receiving a hearing, or being formally charged. They are beaten, and murdered...their homes are ransacked...the Chinese government has made it CLEAR that Christianity is NOT allowed.

Since this forces people to choose between their God and their government, they are well within their God-given right to follow their faith, no matter the consequence. This is a violation of Chinese law, but it is blessed by God.

The two most important commandments (from whence all other commandments stem) are: Love your God before all else, and love your neighbor as you would yourself.

Take the "Love your God" part into consideration when thinking about our rights to disobey our government when it challenges God's will.

quote:I never made that assertion and that's why I accused you of manipulating. I'm not manipulating anything you said, I am plainly telling you that you are wrong in this interpretation because you accept Peter's word without comparing them with Jesus's example.

I have plainly illustrated a comparison of Jesus' teaching, and Peter's teachings.

I accept NO word unless it is compared with God's will. Jesus taught God's will, and nothing Peter says in contradiction of it.

To call me blind is to lack knowledge of how I study the Bible, and how I come to the opinions that I do.

quote:Please stop doing that...Paul talks about respecting the masters themselves, not the authority. It's a huge difference. What should make you cringe is the attempt to preach blind obeying to harsh authorities.

Stop doing what ? AMERICA DOESN'T HAVE A SLAVERY PROBLEM. How else would these scriptures apply to us, if not in consideration of employers or government officials ?

There is no blind obeyance involved. Paul doesn't teach that, and Peter didn't teach that, because JESUS didn't teach that.

We must utilize extreme, righteous (God inspired) discernment when considering the actions of our leaders.

Paul's reference to submitting to master's wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if said "master" didn't have AUTHORITY over their slaves. For you to say that the AUTHORITY is not the issue is simply ridiculous. The AUTHORITY is what makes the "master".

quote:I'm sorry, but Peter and Paul say that you are not to challenge human authority. It is established by God. And you have to respect it even if it is harsh. That's what they say.

Then you need to start posting some scripture, and stop giving your opinion of it as fact.

What scripture shows Paul and Peter SAYING that we are not to challenge authority that forces us to disobey God ?

Authority being harsh has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Authority being UNFAIR is not an issue. Authority being ABUSIVE is not an issue. The ONLY ISSUE is whether or not authority causes us to disobey God. If it does, we are NOT TO FOLLOW IT !!

Peter and Paul are clear on this, as was Jesus.

You have completely misunderstood the scripture.

quote:About the stuff you said about the pharisees, I agree. You chose to ignore the word "supposedly" in my post though. I can't see how you managed to mistake what I said to mean that Jesus was "spiritually inferior" to the pharisees. But they were the spiritual leaders of the jews and thus they had authority in matters of the faith over Jesus. This last sentence you wrote there is weird. So we humans are unworthy of God's respect? Jesus didn't seem to put his respect under such criteria.

I don't "choose" to ignore things. If I miss something, it is an honest mistake.

"The jewish priests supposedly had spiritual authority over Jesus and I don't see Him respecting them one bit."

Please explain to me why I was mistaken in interpretting this to mean that the Pharisees had spiritual authority over Jesus ? I didn't misunderstand you one little bit. You did use the word "supposedly", but that doesn't negate the point you were trying to make...that Jesus didn't submit to their spiritual superiority.

THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER JESUS ! Jesus is God ! How can ANY man claim to have spiritual authority over him ? That makes NO sense.

Neither Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit (all God) have any reason to respect humans or their puny authority. God is the creator of the universe, and by extension, HUMANITY. Why should He respect anything we do ? Since Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh, he was no more required to respect human authority (especially when flawed, and in direct contradiction to God's will) than God the Father is.

That isn't weird.

quote:The verse is Matthew 17.24-27. You will notice that Jesus even goes to conjure up the money for the tax instead of having his disciples pay for it. I am not trying to patronize you, just trying to move you one inch from your position so you can see there are alternative interpretations of the book. You still use double standards to defend Peter and Paul here. Does Jesus act as an example or does He not care a bit to set an example because He is God and human rules just don't apply to Him? You can't use both attitudes as it fits your argument.

Thank you for providing the scripture location.

Matthew 17:24-27 - "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax ?"



25 "Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own sons or from others ?"

26 "From others," Peter answered. "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

This is nothing more than a reminder to us that we do live in an earthly world with earthly obligations and earthly influences. While our values and our Messiah's glory may not be displayed in ways the world understands, our responsibility to be good citizens and to keep from offending people in our participation in society is essential.We can't influence people to Christ if they don't respect our desire to be people of integrity as we reflect the character of our Savior.

I was clear on this in my first post, and it is clear here again. If you don't understand this, or still disagree with me, then that is where it will have to lie. There is nothing else to be derived from that scripture, and I cannot explain it any further than I already have.

Jesus certainly sets an example for us. I never said he didn't. Again, his direct disobeyance of the Jewish authorities was well within his God-given right, since they were twisting God's will and law to suit their own selfish desires. This is an example to us of how we should handle authority, which neither Peter nor Paul contradict.

quote:Of course God is in charge. You forget though about free will. If Paul, a former roman terrorist, decides to preach his own personal opinions and present them as God-inspired who is to stop him? Why should I believe it is God-inspired when I see it contradicts with Jesus?

GOD !

As I said, let us not forget who is in charge here. God allowed Paul the spiritual necessary to teach His word. He could have stopped Paul, AND prevented his teachings from spreading, if He so chose. He didn't. You also have to consider the MANY other disciples of Christ that not only agreed with the teaching of Paul, but didn't try to stop it, either. Were they ALL mistaken ? Not a single one of them got word from God that Paul was a liar, and a manipulator ?

Bringing up Paul's past as though it were a detriment to his ability to have a successful Messianic Ministry just shows your human limitation for unforgiveness. God doesn't operate like that...He forgives those that ask for it. Jesus was the walking personification of this. Paul was forgiven by God for his trespasses against the Jews. It is ALL THE MORE AMAZING that God chose to use HIM to spread His gospel...a testament to His awesome power.

Paul doesn't contradict Jesus...ever.

If he did, you would have a valid point. but we'd also have to assume that God can't control His own word, in order for that to be true.

quote:It is one thing to avoid trouble, and Jesus did suggest that we should in more than one occasion, but another thing completely to be a submissive robot who should be respectful to his oppressors. Jesus didn't seek to stay out of trouble when met with the hypocrisy of the pharisees or the desecration of the temple by the merchants.

Why is being obedient seen as a weakness ? By calling those that submit to their leaders "robots", you show that you fail to see the significance of this command.

Back in that time, to be someone's slave was not necessarily to be under oppression. Being obedient to the laws of the US is not to be oppressed.

Besides, oppressed or no, following God's will is the MOST important thing. If our "masters", "political leaders", or any other form of authority does not prevent us from following God's will, WE ARE TO SUBMIT !

quote:You frustrate me by almost willfully not understanding what I'm saying. I say white and you say that I said black. It's hard to not accuse you if I am to give you some intellectual credit.

Once more, it's not about God's authority being supreme over man's. This is a given. It's about man's authority having no innate Godly support or connection whatsoever. Peter and Paul suggest otherwise in contradiction to Jesus's examples and despite the length of your post you managed to actually reinforce my opinion instead of countering it.

I am not trying to frustrate you. I am trying to accurately portray God's word.

There is nothing willful about it. I disagree, because you are wrong. If I were willfully doing so, it would mean there was a thread of truth in what you say.

Man's authority is God ordained. Therefore, we ought to respect it. We should also respect it, so that it cannot be said we are not good stewards.

It's just that simple.

Thanks for the debate...I know this will continue, but it is intelligent, and you have been as non-insulting as you can be. I appreciate that.

quote:Originally posted by BaKeD_gOoDs:

So surrendering our will to authority eh? Christianity seems like slavery under the guise of gods plan. I don't need to make a quote as many have already been posted. Does god support the killing of innocent Iraqies by the US army too?

NO !

Who said Christianity condoned the deaths in Iraq ?!

quote:Well guess what, damn near everything I do is against those ideas and it's likely i'll hold a high position of politics at sometime in my life.

Not if your writing and conceptualization skills don't improve dramatically.

quote:Jesus would never support a system of based on greed, and kept in motion by envy. It goes against Jesus' teachings, who I respect over his apostles. Did you also notice that bibles are printed by men, written by man, and manipulate man into a submissive fool for a reward of bliss.

Jesus doesn't need to support the tenets of American culture and government. As a matter of fact, Jesus is anti-EVERYTHING that has to do with the world, since the world is enveloped in sin right now (post garden of eden up to post tribulation).

Ok, while most of that paragraph didn't make any sense, I think I know what you are getting at, and that is that the Bible can't possibly be infallible, since man can manipulate it.

You limit God with that flawed opinion, and there is no debating you away from that. God has COMPLETE CONTROL over what happens to His word, period.

quote:You sir are an idiot, and there isn't anything you can say to alter that. Did you know that Hitler used Christianity to make people support the killing of 7 million jews who were supposedly gods chosen ones?

Christians are fucking robots.

I'm an idiot ?! *ROTFLMAO*

I know all about Hitler, and it is obvious from your statement that you don't.

"Christians are robots..." - exerpt from the Atheist's Handbook on Debating Christians.

Oh, and I am a ma'am...not a "sir".

*laughs some more*

I never said you said the bible was composed entirely of Jewish tradition. Once again

your completely missing the point just as you've been doing throughout this thread.

One one hand your saying parts of the Bible do not apply because they are Jewish custom on the other your saying the Bible is the Divine word of God and that nothing can be in it that is not approved by God. So if nothing can be in the Bible that isnt approved by God then why are the anti-woman Jewish customs in the bible? Wouldnt the fact that they are in there mean that they are the word of God and that they represent what God approves of?

How can you believe that certain parts of the Bible shouldnt be taken seriously because they are the result of mans meddling in the word of God for his own cultural end but still believe the the whole thing is the Word of God? Are you suggesting we should only obey the Word of God when we fell like it?

I don't intend on going anywhere at least not as long as your here. The only person coming off as inadequate here is you.

I don't think you understood what I meant.

"NO !

Who said Christianity condoned the deaths in Iraq ?!"

I didn't, you did? And no to what? I asked two questions and the only answer I got didn't make sense as an answer to either of them. I was merely getting at the fact that the apostles were saying that we should become someone's slave, by submitting ourselves. And if we are to not go against authority and authority puts you in Iraq with a gun, is it your god given duty to kill Iraqies? Either way your going against god right?

How are my conceptualization skills?

"Jesus doesn't need to support the tenets of American culture and government. As a matter of fact, Jesus is anti-EVERYTHING that has to do with the world, since the world is enveloped in sin right now (post garden of eden up to post tribulation)."

Really, anti-everything. HMMMM. life too. Is he anti christianity too? I meant that by telling you to submit yourself to an authority, Christianity is supporting America, and America's foreign policy.

"Ok, while most of that paragraph didn't make any sense, I think I know what you are getting at, and that is that the Bible can't possibly be infallible, since man can manipulate it."

No, your completely off. I was pointing out how chistianity puts you in a submissive role and makes you a slave to an authority that is evil. And then i'm hinting at the entire bible being written by men to enslave other men and that it seems inherently evil rather than good.

"You limit God with that flawed opinion, and there is no debating you away from that. God has COMPLETE CONTROL over what happens to His word, period."

So gods will is for you to be a slave?

"I'm an idiot ?! *ROTFLMAO*

I know all about Hitler, and it is obvious from your statement that you don't."

What was Hitlers religion? What was the majourity religion of Germany? What was the religion of the nazi's? Except it, Christianity helped play a majour role in those people submitting to an evil man that did very bad things. I'm merely citing an instance in history where Christianity was side by side with mass murder. I bet the Germans thought that they were being good Christians too.

""Christians are robots..." - exerpt from the Atheist's Handbook on Debating Christians."

No, that phrase is quite correct and if it truly was a exerpt from a book it was pure coincidence. I actually thought it myself since Chistians fit the description.

Your programmed to follow rules. Your told to submit to other commands. You don't have original thought as it conflicts with commands. And your a tool for people to make money from, or exploit, if you will. That's a robot.

"Oh, and I am a ma'am...not a "sir"."

Makes no difference.

DS, it's tiresome to reply to every point and maybe pointless as well, so I'll be brief.

1. You have not answered why human authorities are supposed to be established by God as Paul suggests. How can chinese authorities for example that persecute christianity are established by God? If that is allowed by God, using the same logic, it's also possible that people like Paul presented their words as God-inspired falsely. In other words, if God's plan includes the existence of evil in the world, what makes the bible free of it?

2. When it comes to the verse, I think you don't give it the attention you should. The question Jesus asks is very very important. He clearly implies that we are "sons" to the authorities and we should be treated as such, we should be "exempt" from "taxes". The fact that he performs "magic" to get the money underlines this as well. Under this light, do you think that harsh authorities are to be respected even if they allow you your faith? Remember that in the dark ages the word "harsh" could mean that the master could rape your daughter and you should still honor him because he allows you to pray to Jesus.

3. So, from what I got from your reply, the only reason we can challenge the authorities is when we are forced to stop following God. You realize how irresponsible this is and also how convenient for the authorities. For example, president Bush may call upon God but do you really think that God is pleased with the wars he caused? Should you submit and not challenge him because you are free to be christian and go to church? Please don't try to separate earthly matters from God here, the question is simple and so should be the answer for a true christian.

4."If Osama Bin Laden took over this country, we would either have to submit to his authority, or move somewhere else."

Are you serious? I don't see how it would offend God to fight for the land of your ancestors. Isn't this blind submition?

5. Finally, yes I do have an ulterior motive for "gettin you"...and that's to win the debate :P Don't be paranoid!

It sure is some coincidence that right as modern monarchs started to form, and brand new religion telling you to become their slaves just happens to pop out of the woodworks. My family name stems back to Cull the conquerer, who was once king of England, the supposedly god chosen to lead had little faith. It's a family tradition to not believe. In history books you'd never find this out because they kept up appearences for the people in return for power. However, just cause one goes to church, doesn't mean they believe. I know quite a few people that don't believe a damn word, but they go for the valuable business contacts. The brainwashing is very effective, we are pointing out that it's telling Christians to be a slave to authority, with proof, and nobody will except that maybe that were right? Maybe your brainwashed, or convinced of the truth, as someone else put it in another thread.

*wonders whether now is a bad time to mention all the historical and biblical precedents for Christians not being submissive door mats to those in power*

*forgets about methodists and the early trade union movement*

*forgets about MLK Jr.*

*forgets about the confessing church in Nazi Germany*

*forgets about Christians in the Naxilite province in India*

*forgets about all 4 canonical gospels, the Torah and the rest of the epistles, with the exception of two breif passages*

I thought the main tenet of Christianity regarding behavior (our works) was to imitate Christ. Submitting to human authority was something that Jesus NEVER did. Oft-times, he happened to not be breaking a law, but it certainly was not a submission to human law. There is only one account in the entire Bible of Jesus submitting to a human law, and it was for the sake of his disciple's physical well-being. (I'm pretty fucking sure a temple tax goes against the tenets of God's Will)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What's the matter ? Can't stand a Christian that actually knows their Bible ?Y'know, pride is a sin too....

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You seem to have a detrimental inability to comprehend what you are reading. Because of this, it is painfully obvious that arguing with you is pointless.

Take your bias, your word twisting, and your blatant disgregard for the TRUTH somewhere else. You can't project your inadequacies onto me.

^^^DS, you really need to take your own advice. ^^^ If I interpreted what you have posted in this thread correctly, Christians obey the law because they represent God in the society in which they live. I assume you are a Christian, therefore a representative of God, and as such you want God to be seen in a positive fashion. Unfortunately, you are coming off as a snobbish, know-it-all, holier-than-thou and proud person. I'm sure that is not how your god wants to be represented.

I'm pretty sure the bible said something about incest but if adam and eve made all the humans then their children would have to have sex with each other to continue the human race. How do you explain that one?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

*wonders whether now is a bad time to mention all the historical and biblical precedents for Christians not being submissive door mats to those in power*

*forgets about methodists and the early trade union movement*

*forgets about MLK Jr.*

*forgets about the confessing church in Nazi Germany*

*forgets about Christians in the Naxilite province in India*

*forgets about all 4 canonical gospels, the Torah and the rest of the epistles, with the exception of two breif passages*

And also forgets to read the above posts and forgets that the world of wars, injustice and inequality we live in is run by christians.

This is a very interesting thread. I would think that certain aspects of christianity (sacrifice, submission and humility), would clash with capitalism. However, you're totally right that the two have become associated.

It is sad but true that material possesions started taking on more importance in comparison to spirituality. I'd imagine any faith would see such an affect when fully emersed in a blossoming capitalist country, or in the rise of decedance of any sort.

Great post.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

I'm pretty sure the bible said something about incest but if adam and eve made all the humans then their children would have to have sex with each other to continue the human race. How do you explain that one?

Yeah.

God created Adam and Eve, and they were genetically superior to the "humans" you see today.

The progeny of Adam and Eve DID in fact procreate with each other. Adam lived to be 930 years old, so it is not farfetched to assume that he had MANY children.

Cain most likely married and procreated with the progeny of Seth, his younger brother (or any other from Adam and Eve). Who knows ? The Bible doesn't get into great detail about this subject..probably because it isn't all that important.

A provision against incest was not given until much later by God. Adam and Eve and all their children were not breaking any of God's laws or commandments by procreating with each other.

The law was finally given, we can safely assume, once genetic imperfection presented itself, making it an acceptable practice no longer.

I love the things unbeliever's focus on. Instead of the message of love and grace, they nitpick the unimportant, to justify unbelief.

If you can't believe in the awesome power of God, how can you expect to understand even the smallest detail, such as how humanity "filled the earth" ?

quote:And also forgets to read the above posts and forgets that the world of wars, injustice and inequality we live in is run by christians.

Excuse me ? I believe the sin in the world is committed by MEN.

That was the most ridiculously biased, sweeping statement I think I have ever seen you make.

If "Christians" lived as Christians should (like Christ), nothing could be blamed on them. They are not being Christian when/if they cause things like war.

And you should be careful to place blame where it is deserved...are you talking Catholics here ?

None of the non-denom churches I know of have started any wars, participate in injustice, and promote inequality.

quote:^^^DS, you really need to take your own advice. ^^^ If I interpreted what you have posted in this thread correctly, Christians obey the law because they represent God in the society in which they live. I assume you are a Christian, therefore a representative of God, and as such you want God to be seen in a positive fashion. Unfortunately, you are coming off as a snobbish, know-it-all, holier-than-thou and proud person. I'm sure that is not how your god wants to be represented.

Smelly, I was already told that I am biased and word twisting, with a penchant for ignoring the truth. What advice is there to take, based on my response to him ?

I hate to break it to ya, but I will never be seen in a positive fashion here on Totse. Since I have never seen you before, I am going to have to assume that you have missed the past year of my posting here. As such, you have no right to an opinion about the way I approach others on this board.

My being a representative of Christ doesn't automatically mean I am going to be perfect. Why can't people get that through their thick skull ?

I am not asking people to follow ME. I would expect them to follow GOD. In order to do that, they need to understand His word, but they don't want to debate His word. They are afraid of it. Instead, they focus on my personal inadequacies as a SINFUL, FLAWED human being...which accomplishes what ? It certainly doesn't show that God doesn't exist, or that Christianity is flawed. In fact, it best illustrates the human condition, and our necessity to be redeemed from ourselves.

I come off whatever way the beholder determines. How I actually intend to come off is never regarded, however.

I used to be sweet and demure on here...I used to be patient, kind, and ever-suffering. But it doesn't accomplish anything. I am ruthlessly attacked DAILY. Why aren't you chastising them, too ?

Everyone on here is arrogant. Everyone here is a "know-it-all". It's the debate format that causes this, so don't try and pin this idealogy on the Christian.

You have an issue with Christianity, not me. If you didn't, you would be wagging your finger in disapproval at Snoopy's treatment of me. You would be scolding others here for calling me a stupid piece of shit.

But, you're not doing that are you ?

Don't worry about my representation of God. He is in control of my life, and through all of this, I will grow.

I never claimed to be the Christian I ought to be.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yeah.

God created Adam and Eve, and they were genetically superior to the "humans" you see today.

The progeny of Adam and Eve DID in fact procreate with each other. Adam lived to be 930 years old, so it is not farfetched to assume that he had MANY children.

Yes, none of those fairytales seem farfetched at all. You must be really insecure in your faith if you think the above to be true. It's paranoid to shut off your mind like that in order to maintain the infallibility of the bible. If you are to be "saved" by any text in it, this is definitely not "Genesis" (or anything else from the old testament for that matter...).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I love the things unbeliever's focus on. Instead of the message of love and grace, they nitpick the unimportant, to justify unbelief.

If you can't believe in the awesome power of God, how can you expect to understand even the smallest detail, such as how humanity "filled the earth" ?

It is you DS, that focuses on the unimportant and in the process you repel people from the message of Jesus. How can anyone even consider to read Jesus's teachings when those who represent them focus on thousand of years old tales for creation and even argue scientifically about them? God's greatness is not to be found in nature, at least for now, but in the Word. When you support creationism you actually hurt christianity.

And yes, Smelly...pride is a sin.

It is not prideful to state the obvious, which is that I know my Bible pretty well.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And yes, Smelly...pride is a sin.

It is not prideful to state the obvious, which is that I know my Bible pretty well.



No offense, but you are excellent at mincing words. The above statement comes off to me, anyway, as being smug and proud of the fact of your Biblical knowledge. Also, there are multiple interpretations of the Bible. You seem to have come up with your own(or adopted the stance of your particular sect) and are unwilling to listen to anyone else.

I don't want you to think I am singling you out. Your posts stood out to me because it seems like you were trying to manipulate yours and other people's words for the sake of winning the debate.

Also, I've been around this site since early '03. I've found it's best to ignore Snoopy, he just likes to bust people's balls and call people out. Trolling if you will...

*Phew* (Onward to the original post...) Christianity and Capitalism have been intertwined since the inception of capitalism. I believe it started with the Calvinist and there belief that material wealth equated to favoritism from God. If Marx was correct, when we build up enough surplus capital, Society will adopt socialism and then true communism(not that USSR stuff...) and atheism.

Basically, it all about growing pains and evolution.

quote:Originally posted by smellyneohippy:

[*Phew* (Onward to the original post...) Christianity and Capitalism have been intertwined since the inception of capitalism. I believe it started with the Calvinist and there belief that material wealth equated to favoritism from God. If Marx was correct, when we build up enough surplus capital, Society will adopt socialism and then true communism(not that USSR stuff...) and atheism.

Basically, it all about growing pains and evolution. [/B]



Thank you.

Here's the scoop. The original doctrine of Judaism prohibits usury, which in essence strangles speculative economic pursuits. This prohibition also prevents banking from papering the way for capitalists. The Protestant reformation opened the door for new interpretations of Christian doctrine, which resulted in the idea of Stewardship being a key sociol ethos. "Tend God's garden on Earth, increase His holdings." This came at a time when mercantilism had peeked, and the bourgious could once again see the potential of capitalism (Rome died due to trade deficiet; capital is not a new idea by any stretch).

The two married each other, and our own monopoly capitalism is their great-grand wurm.

If a Capitalist could make a few small fish and 7 loaves of bread feed 5000 people, he'd NEVER give it away for free.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

And also forgets to read the above posts and forgets that the world of wars, injustice and inequality we live in is run by christians.

...that show very few qualities of their supposed Lord.

"By their fruits you shall know them"

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yeah.

God created Adam and Eve, and they were genetically superior to the "humans" you see today.

The progeny of Adam and Eve DID in fact procreate with each other. Adam lived to be 930 years old, so it is not farfetched to assume that he had MANY children.

Cain most likely married and procreated with the progeny of Seth, his younger brother (or any other from Adam and Eve). Who knows ? The Bible doesn't get into great detail about this subject..probably because it isn't all that important.

A provision against incest was not given until much later by God. Adam and Eve and all their children were not breaking any of God's laws or commandments by procreating with each other.

The law was finally given, we can safely assume, once genetic imperfection presented itself, making it an acceptable practice no longer.

I love the things unbeliever's focus on. Instead of the message of love and grace, they nitpick the unimportant, to justify unbelief.

If you can't believe in the awesome power of God, how can you expect to understand even the smallest detail, such as how humanity "filled the earth" ?



Oh come on GOD IS A FUCKING OMINSCIENT BEING THEREBY HE WOULD HAVE UNDERSTODD THE LAWS OF GENETIC IMPERFECTION BEFORE HE SENT HUMANITY DOWN TO EARTH.

Now as time progresses people's life span increases. 930 years is bullshit. Only High elves live that long. Somehow I can't really see the master of creation saying something like "Oh shit humanity stop having sex with your cousins it's creating horrible genetic creatures Prehaps I should have said this in the beginning when man hadn't invented science yet oh and don't kill,steal ,adulter, Disrespect your parents either because that is now a bad thing.

You call me an unbeliever huh!?!??!? Well somehow I don't think haha pharoh you're now dying of AIDS and MEASLES because god told you not to believe in him MUAHAHAHAHAHA.

I think you all forget that Christianity doesn't concern itself with what happens here, but rather what happens hereafter. That's why you submit to authority, suffer, face tribulation, because after it all if you still believe, you'll be blessed even more in heaven. The world we live in truly doesn't mean anything to us, but we're here so we might as well make the best of it and live the best we can.

God has a plan. You can make the claim that "wars, suffering, and evil couldn't be part of the plan." God even said Christians will face persecution by those who don't believe, and that us, God, and those already in heaven will be mocked until the end and they will attempt to silence us.

Ever consider the reason Constantine converted to Christianity? It may be possible (we'll never know) that Christianity may have been killed by Romans, and wiped out over the Dark Ages had we not been institutionalized by the state of Rome.

You wrongly view us in thinking that we want something here on Earth, which is false. Christians who do otherwise are hypocrites. We submit to government because we shouldn't be concerned if the government doesn't tell us what to believe, or tell us to do things that go against the Bible (war for your government is allowed by the Bible).

The simple reality of Christianity is that we do what we have to do on Earth so long as we can believe. What we believe is reflected in how we act. How we act is how the Bible says we should. You may say this makes us robots, that's fine, I don't really care. I believe in my God and I love Him, and I know I'm going to be in a great place when I die.

I believe in Christianity using its core verse: John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Ah... you must have one of those "special" apolitical bibles.