Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] Billy Graham and the Presidents

["Jim Locke" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I share many of the feelings Mike has, including on the confusion with the Bible.
I am a frequent reader of this forum (and guess you could say sort of a news junkie), but haven't spent the time to really chip in yet.

The passage being discussed seems to me to definitely say rulers are good versus evil because they were put there by God.
I happen to study the Bible in a group, and both find it interesting, and challenge it a great deal.  Guess you could call me a bit of a heretic.

The bottom-line on the words within the Bible seems really to be:  it really must be read in its entirety.  I also truly wonder what purpose teachings of the Old Testament serve, other than for history purposes or for those people who want the additional challenge of trying to live within it's rules on top of those in the New Testament.  I do think those are purposes, however if people lived by the teachings of the Old Testament, they would pay dire consequences.
I know a Minister who preaches mainly from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Any single piece can be, and has countless times been taken out of the context it was written in.  And different translations create radically different messages.
I learned the other night the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" is really a faulty translation.  It's proper translation is "Thou shall not murder."  Both involve death of course, but killing is obviously a superset of murdering.

That's all for now, I wanted to pitch in those thoughts that popped off my head for now.
I have commented to friends, it seems to me like the Bible's teachings are a lot of common-sense.  There happen to be parts of it I do not understand nor agree with at this time.

One question to those out there who are avid Christians:  Do you feel all teachings should be followed today in the same way they were during the time such teachings were written?

On 9/3/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Vern Green wrote:

> In typical liberal fashion, Mike forgets that there are responsibilities
> fro Government as well.

Stephen said that all authority stems from God, even the authority of the
wicked, and the Bible clearly says that he is correct and that people
should submit to authority, always.  Stephen was the one that pointed out
that this submission to authority should include submission to evil
authorities, but I think the Bible (Romans 13:1) is pretty clear on this.
The command is not provisional on the nature of the government.


> Its like this, the bible has numerous areas in it that tells a
> Government official how they should act. In fact, the rulers of lands
> are supposed to walk the walk just like the people they are ruling.

Sure, but isn't the Bible saying that the people should follow the leader
even if the leader is not following the Bible?  It's hard to interpret it
otherwise given this paragraph and Stephen's statement about it.

    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.  --Romans 13:1


> In the book of Daniel we learn about citizens standing up against a
> Government that is not following God's commandments. Now I would not
> suggest anyone in these days walk into a furnace and expect to come out,
> but in this story that is exactly what they did and in the end
> Nebuchadnezzer became a believer.

Are you saying that you actually believe that was a true story?


> We are not meant to blindly follow a tyrant Government and there are
> many other such examples in the Book.

I believe you.  In other words, the Bible is self-contradictory.


> It's just like those that latch on to Ephesians 5:21-22, you know the
> part: "Wives must submit to their husbands" But almost always they leave
> off the following verses which puts it all into context; Husbands, love
> your wives like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her...
> Ephesians 5:25

So the missing thing there is this -- what is a wife to do when her
husband is not following his rule?  Should she follow her rule anyway?
Aparently the answer is 'yes' unless you can find a statement in the Bible
giving conditions under which a wife should rebel against her husband.
This is exactly like the issue in Romans 13:1.


> YOu cannot take one line from the book, latch on to that and say it is
> what everyone should do. In my opionion, if you read the WHOLE Book,
> then you would understand what I am talking about. Contrary to Stephen's
> suggestion that you read other books about it, you really don't need to,
> its all in the Bible. Sometimes though, you have to read other books in
> order to be able to put it into context.
>
> One wise pastor, now deceased, once told me, when you read a passage
> from the Bible, always look for the other supporting passages and read
> them BEFORE you make up your mind about the meaning.

In the end, you will find that you have been given contradictory
instructions on how to live your life.  You will then make choices and
cite the scriptures to back them up, ignoring the others.  This has been a
problem for centuries.  It is one of the reasons why there have been more
than 10,000 sects of Christianity -- the Bible does not give clear
guidance, not even to an avid Biblical scholar.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-- 
- Jim Locke.
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion