Father kills gay son

[Syriusly]

Are you speaking of your own attempts to ignore Romans 13?

Quite the contrary, I'm aware of its full context.

If you are any expert with the Bible, you'll think of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. In Daniel 3.

In it, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered them to bow down before a statue of gold made in his likeness. Up until that point they had been law abiding citizens in Nebuchadnezzar's realm, nor did they directly challenge his authority. But in this instance, the Ten Commandments applied. Thou shalt not make for thee any graven image. They refused, even knowing that doing so would be at the pain of death, they knew obeying the king's order would have been direct disobedience to God's command.

They were thrown into a fiery furnace for their disobedience, but God, knowing they had stayed true to his command, protected them from certain doom. This is an example where it is God's will not to heed the governing authorities.

Also, you would have also considered Acts 4. In it, the Sanhedrin demanded that Peter and John stop preaching the name of Jesus. But obeying such a command would have constituted disobedience before God. Though they did not openly challenged the authority of the Sanhedrin, they made it clear they could not stop preaching the gospel.

"And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them,"Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard."

-Acts 4:19-20

So, they went on preaching the gospel despite the order, and were arrested again by the Jewish authorities for disobedience. And in another of your oversights, Acts 5:28-32, when the Sanhedrin asked why they did not obey:

"Did not we strictly command you that you should not teach in this name? And, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree. He is who God has exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey him."

When the Sanhedrin heard their reply, in Acts 5:33-42 they conspired to kill them. However, one of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel convinced the council not to execute them. They were instead beaten and once again commanded not to preach in Jesus' name. They rejoiced, being happy to be counted as worthy to endure suffering for the Lord's sake. However, once again, they disobeyed, going into every house and temple preaching the name of Jesus:

"When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, You, men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest haply you be found even to fight against God. And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ."

You failed to consider Exodus 1, in which the Egyptian Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill all the baby boys; for he feared the Hebrews would grow strong enough to resist him. But the midwives did not obey, and God blessed them with families. This is another example for which not submitting to the governing authorities was the will of God, not of your idol, Paul.

This example would be another of the more recognizable ones in the Bible. In the book of Daniel, chapter 6, King Darius decreed that for 30 days, no man could petition to any god, with exception to Darius himself. Daniel, being one of Darius' three chief presidents, in verse 10:

"When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously."

When he was caught, Darius had Daniel thrown into a pit of lions to be devoured. However, God sent an angel to cull the wrath of the lions, thereby saving him from his demise. This is yet one more example of God approving of Daniel's resistance to the governing authorities, just as God saved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace.

Perhaps you forgot to read 1 Corinthians 2:8, where Paul himself knew full well that leaders of governments were not keen to the wisdom of God, or else they would have not crucified Jesus on the cross:

"None of the rulers of this age understood the wisdom of God; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Another, final example you failed to consider was 1 Peter 2:11, an instruction from Peter:

"Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul."

Should I rob Peter to pay Paul?

In sum, this is why Romans 13 is not the end-all-be-all. There are times when it becomes necessary to obey God rather than men. There are limits to our obedience, and you, of all people, who make a hobby of reading the Bible, should understand the dilemma this places Christians in. These are all examples of God allowing his followers to disobey the governing authorities. God, not Paul, is the ultimate authority.

Perhaps you don't know the Bible as well as you think you do.

1) Daniel is the Old Testament- which as Christians are often want to tell me when we discuss other books of the Old Testament was the Old Testament- while the New Testament- is duh- the teachings of Jesus.
2) Same with Acts of course- in particular since Jesus challenged the Jewish priests.
3) Same with Exodus- which of course was the story of God's commandment to Jews- while Paul spoke to all Christians, including gentiles.
4) Finally- you get to Paul- which is fascinating because Paul in Romans 13 said that authority- leaders- are appointed by God- and act according to the will of God. Congratulations you have found an apparent contradiction in the Bible.
5) And Peter- another NT example- great. Here is the quote from the translation- note the quote in red below:
11 Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.


13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, 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 people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Of course Peter was also telling Slaves to submit themselves to their masters....I don't think Peter supports you quite the way you thought he did.


18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

So to recap:
Paul in Romans 13 tells Christians to obey authority because they are appointed by God.
Peter in Peter 2 tells Christians to submit yourselves to every human authority.
The New Testament clearly tells Christians to obey the law.

Where in the Bible does it say "Ignore the law- and don't bake a wedding cake for Gays"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where in the Bible does it say "Ignore the law- and don't bake a wedding cake for Gays"?

I just quoted it.

It is your mistake for ignoring it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Bible is largely a moral Rorschach test. With Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Teresa using the exact same book to justify their beliefs.....by emphasizing one passage over another.

So, I gather that you're saying we're all guilty of it, correct?

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Daniel is the Old Testament- which as Christians are often want to tell me when we discuss other books of the Old Testament was the Old Testament- while the New Testament- is duh- the teachings of Jesus.

Oops.

Don't bash me with the Bible unless you're willing to obey it yourself. It doesn't matter if it's in the middle testament, God's will is made clear. There are times when it is necessary to disobey the governing authorities.

2) Same with Acts of course- in particular since Jesus challenged the Jewish priests.

Acts is in the New Testament, genius. If you can't properly place a book of the Bible in the proper Testament, you have no business lecturing me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course Peter was also telling Slaves to submit themselves to their masters....I don't think Peter supports you quite the way you thought he did.

Slavery among the Israelites isn't the same thing as slavery in the Jim Crow south. In Jesus' day, those who kept slaves were required to treat them fairly and with respect. Poor Jews who were indebted to others became slaves to pay off the debts. They were allowed to go home but were required to come back and work for their masters. They were allowed to celebrate Jewish holidays like everyone else. Israelites didn't practice forceful servitude. Paul requires that slaves repay the kindness of their masters with obedience.

Once again you've misinterpreted the Bible.

 

[Skylar]

The Bible is largely a moral Rorschach test. With Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Teresa using the exact same book to justify their beliefs.....by emphasizing one passage over another.

So, I gather that you're saying we're all guilty of it, correct?

You'd agree that Kim Davis certainly was, yes? The Bible is rather clear on the concept of divorce. With even Jesus explicitly denouncing it. Yet Kim Davis ignored all of it and happily allows marriage licenses to be issued to those remarrying after a divorce. As she did 3 times.

But when gays want to marry, something that isn't even mentioned in the Bible, something that Jesus never denounces....she balks. Insisting that her 'religion' won't allow it. The Bible is little more than an opportunity to cherry pick for the likes of Davis.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course Peter was also telling Slaves to submit themselves to their masters....I don't think Peter supports you quite the way you thought he did.

Slavery among the Israelites isn't the same thing as slavery in the Jim Crow south. In Jesus' day, those who kept slaves were required to treat them fairly and with respect.\
Once again you've misinterpreted the Bible.

a) you ignored everything else Peter said and
b) Peter was not speaking to Israelites.
c) Slavery in the Roman Empire was not the same as the chattel slavery of American history(Jim Crow comes later)- but it is still slavery- and that quote by the way was used by Christian slave holders- and ministers to justify slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

1) Daniel is the Old Testament- which as Christians are often want to tell me when we discuss other books of the Old Testament was the Old Testament- while the New Testament- is duh- the teachings of Jesus.

Oops.

Don't bash me with the Bible unless you're willing to obey it yourself. It doesn't matter if it's in the middle testament, God's will is made clear. There are times when it is necessary to disobey the governing authorities.
.

Not according to Paul.

See here is the difference between you and myself- I don't pretend I am supposed to follow some rules of some fairy tale- but I can respect the wisdom that is to be found in the Bible.

You choose to cherry pick the parts of the Bible you find personally appealing.

Paul and Peter both said to obey authority.

Paul is particular said explicitly that all authority acts according to God's will- you choose to ignore that part of the Bible because it doesn't fit with your particular mindset.

Me- I don't claim to follow the Bible- so I am no hypocrite when don't follow the instructions of the New Testament.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Acts is in the New Testament, genius. If you can't properly place a book of the Bible in the proper Testament, you have no business lecturing me.

Since you both didn't realize that Romans 13 was quoting Paul and also think that Peter was speaking to Israelites- you have no business lecturing me.

Oops I got Acts wrong.

But again- Acts doesn't contradict Paul at all.

Peter and John were confronting the Sanhedrin- the Jewish religious court- Peter and John were expressing the conflict between Jesus' teachings and those of the Jewish orthodoxy- not civil authorities- the civil authorities were Roman.

To recap once again:
Paul says to obey authority
Peter says to obey authority

What part of the New Testament says "don't bake a cake for a gay wedding"?

Because I have shown you where the New Testament specifically tells Christians to obey the law that they broke.

Peter and John Before the Sanhedrin
4 The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.


5 The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”


8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’a]">[a]


12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”


13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”


18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”


21 After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course Peter was also telling Slaves to submit themselves to their masters....I don't think Peter supports you quite the way you thought he did.

Paul requires that slaves repay the kindness of their masters with obedience.

Once again you've misinterpreted the Bible.

Sigh.

Wow- you really do cherry pick from the Bible....to the point of ignoring Peter's exact words.

That quote is nothing about the" kindness of masters".

18Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21

 

[Syriusly]

The Bible is largely a moral Rorschach test. With Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Teresa using the exact same book to justify their beliefs.....by emphasizing one passage over another.

So, I gather that you're saying we're all guilty of it, correct?

Not those of us who do not use the Bible to justify our actions or beliefs.

Kim Davis is indeed a good example- married multiple times- in defiance of Jesus's instructions- indeed according to Jesus she is an adulteress.

But she believes that her Christian faith tells her she shouldn't do her job and issue marriage licenses?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'd agree that Kim Davis certainly was, yes?

I would agree. I'm not absolving myself or anyone else of this infraction.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not those of us who do not use the Bible to justify our actions or beliefs.

But here you are, trying to do just that. For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure do quote the Bible a lot, in order to validate your own opinions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

18Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21

Read Ephesians 6:5-9.

Would you care to try again?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What part of the New Testament says "don't bake a cake for a gay wedding"?

What part says "you must bake a cake for a gay wedding?" Romans 13 doesn't count, because I have shown why. We can play this childish little game if you wish.

I have given you examples from BOTH TESTAMENTS and yet you insist that Paul's words are sacrosanct. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To recap once again:
Paul says to obey authority
Peter says to obey authority

With exceptions, which I listed earlier. You are willfully ignoring the exceptions to the rule, which God plainly condoned! I am convinced you cannot be helped!

 

[TemplarKormac]

But when gays want to marry, something that isn't even mentioned in the Bible

Ahh I was hoping not to go here, but alas we are here.

1) Each and every time the Bible mentions marriage, it is between one man, and one woman, through instruction or example. Man and woman, man and woman. If it allowed for same sex marriage, don't you think it would have issued instructions for them as well on how to be gay and how not to be gay, or what not to do if you are gay? It would be contradictory to issue instructions on traditional marriage, and then give instructions on something that it would find adulterous and sexually immoral.

There's a big reason why it doesn't mention homosexual marriage. It specifically addresses the interactions between men and women in the proper way to maintain a heterosexual marriage. Genesis 2:24 mentions marriage as a man leaving home and family to unite with his wife. Right there, from the very beginning. Man and woman. And the coup de grace is 1 Corinthians 7:2 "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Note the usage of the nouns "his" and "her." What is meant by "sexual immorality?" See my second point.

2) Excluding the "you will be put to death" part in Leviticus 18:22, God made his will and position on homosexuality clear. They commit an abomination. He does not condone it. In Malachi 3:6, God says, "I the LORD do not change", therefore his position on same sex marriage never changed either, even in the New Testament, even after he renewed the covenant with Israel. God's will is eternal, and it doesn't cease to be in that blank space in the Bible between Old Testament and New. As a Christian, I consider these points non debatable. I have gone over it many times before. I have debated it plenty of times before, I have also tried looking at it from your vantage point. But I find such a vantage point to be incompatible with what the Bible, and therefore God, do say about marriage. You can debate my position all you wish, but it will not change.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because I have shown you where the New Testament specifically tells Christians to obey the law that they broke.

And I have shown you where God makes exceptions. Stubborn aren't we? I can go on till sunrise debating the point, but my responses will be the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

See here is the difference between you and myself- I don't pretend I am supposed to follow some rules of some fairy tale- but I can respect the wisdom that is to be found in the Bible.

You don't respect the wisdom found in the Bible, you openly contradict it. Your definition of the "wisdom" the Bible imparts are parts of it you are willing to agree with, with parts that allow you to make the case you are making now. Surprise! There are wide swaths of the Bible that directly contradict your beliefs.

I demonstrated that. It's high time to face the music Syrius. You're wrong.

 

[ScienceRocks]

See here is the difference between you and myself- I don't pretend I am supposed to follow some rules of some fairy tale- but I can respect the wisdom that is to be found in the Bible.

You don't respect the wisdom found in the Bible, you openly contradict it. Your definition of the "wisdom" the Bible imparts are parts of it you are willing to agree with, with parts that allow you to make the case you are making now. Surprise! There are wide swaths of the Bible that directly contradict your beliefs.

I demonstrated that. It's high time to face the music Syrius. You're wrong.

When did we become Iran? Religion is based on myth.