Jump to content

For those who beleive in the Bible! (about Romans 13)


Recommended Posts

If we take that statement on its surface, it appears to be saying that we are subject to all governments. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.”


Why didn’t Apostle Paul just say, “Let every soul be subject unto the powers”? But he didn’t say that. He said, “Be subject unto the higher powers.” That verse recognizes that there is a chain of command.


Now the question we have to ask is, “Who wrote Romans 13? When was it written? And why was it written?” We know the writer is Apostle Paul and that he wrote it after he was converted. He used to be a Pharisee. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. But then he was struck by light and blinded. When he regained his sight, he was a new creature, born of God. He had a new allegiance. He wrote Romans 13, not to promote Rome, but to promote his new government, the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. He is a champion for God, not Caesar.


Romans 13:1 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God.” Now that sounds like a definition to me, “The powers that be are ordained of God.” The higher powers are the ones that God has established or ordained. In the context of Romans 13, Apostle Paul is a “higher power.”


Not every power has been set in place by God. Take a look at what God spoke through His prophet Hosea at 8:4, “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.”


If we check out Romans, Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, there is no statement in the English or in the Greek that gives us even a clue that Paul is talking about submitting to Rome. Why didn’t he just say outright, “Let every soul be subject unto Caesar, since he is God?” That would be clear and concise.


Let’s say Romans 13:1-7 is saying we are to obey Rome and the power of Rome. Why then would Paul go on at verse 8 and say, “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law”? And then, check out verse 9: “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”


Now, are these the laws that Rome made up or did we hear this from some other source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with all the vitrol of Obama before the election, should Obama be considered a direct enemy? And if so, is it a Christians responsibility to do everything in their power to undermind his presidency?


Explain. Where was the vitriol? Are you saying it came from Obama against Christians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not saying undermind Obama at this juncture!


Im saying that their is a very obviouse crossroads where one must choose between what is leagally right and what is right by God.


In the context that you used Romans 13 Hitler was put into power by God... sorry but I disagree.


I think that it is unfortunate that this verse is taken this way because it is not what i beleive Paul intended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, from the right directed AT Obama.


You know, the he was a muslim baby eating vampire who drank the blood of saints.


Ahh, I see...thanks for clarifying. icon_e_smile.gif


The problem I see here is, when hatred runs as deep as it does for Obama from those you're speaking of (I mean, making up those lies/believing them etc.), it'll be very difficult to turn around and support something you spoke and feel so darn negatively about. Both psychologically, and saving face-wise.


I mean, can you see a guy like cal changing his tune? I think it gets worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, from the right directed AT Obama.


You know, the he was a muslim baby eating vampire who drank the blood of saints.


Ahh, I see...thanks for clarifying. icon_e_smile.gif


The problem I see here is, when hatred runs as deep as it does for Obama from those you're speaking of (I mean, making up those lies/believing them etc.), it'll be very difficult to turn around and support something you spoke and feel so darn negatively about. Both psychologically, and saving face-wise.


I mean, can you see a guy like cal changing his tune? I think it gets worse...



This has nothing to do with the thread tard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought that people would post here if they had something to contribute to the disscusion.


I had no idea that someone would twist something we said into anti obama. HAHA


mz the pussy... take the anti Obama chip of your shoulder. this thread is about governments past and present in GENERAL terms!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think God allows things to happen, either directly or indirectly. And I definitely have a very clear boundry as to how far you should follow your government. Whenever there is a law that opposes one of God's laws then obviously you go with God, every single time. No question.



Tthis contradicts your original argument inspecta!


I know what your saying... but this is where you lost T and Bunker!


You sounded off like you believe that we should submit to the government!


We should not go around breaking laws just to cause trouble... But when the laws of man try to trump Gods laws (some are listed above) then i dont recognize mans laws!


That in mind... we are not governed in america by Gods appointed officials. Free will is letting us stray and it goes deeper than the puppet figure head Obama!


Be careful how you interpret things in the Bible and who you listen to B/C im sure those verses can and will be used against Christians to undermind God!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, I'm the last guy that is all about nicey nicey obedience, however if we're going to get anything done in the next 4 years I think now that he is president, we gotta give him a fair shake. Hell, Bush Jr. sounded like a blithering idiot through the primaries and election debates, and even then we gave him every shot in the world, even though the writing was on the wall that much like DA this guy just doesn't have "it".



Firt off... we agree in this. But,, i am probably one of the few here that beleive that their are higher powers at work in the plans for the USA than the president. This election was the illusion of choice given to the people of america. But i Digress!


Never once did I say mans laws/governent trumps Gods laws. Not once. So lets throw that argument right out the window. Not going to fly here.


Never said you did Chief! That was my stance! another thing we agree on!


They fought the good fight leading up to the election, but now is a time to find more constructive things with our time.


Again ladys and gentelmen... Im taking the context of Romans 13 past president... all the way to government as a whole!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many who voted and support Obama, that feel as if he is the new Messiah, and some media outlets such as Oprah, will continue to spread such nonsense to the world.


Just look around and watch how people in general are celebrating and crying with joy, they feel emotionaly attached to the election of Obama. well say 51% do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are under world government.





that is a good find.


if you havn't opened the link this may sound familiar.


Osiris was proclaimed to be the "World Teacher," a great, traveling teacher-god who "civilized the world." Barack Obama's recent travels to Israel and to Europe were, indeed, remarkable. In Berlin, he declared, "This is our moment...This is our time." We have it in our power, he assured the masses watching on television around the globe, to "remake the world."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Coming Warfare


Upon the Churches






Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) has come across an article that poses a likely scenario that faces the future of the Churches here in America. This article bears out the continued message of J.A.I.L. that the People of this country shall find themselves at war with the judiciary; i.e., the Judiciary v. the People, and the People v. the Judiciary.




J.A.I.L., when passed, presents an opportunity to challenge the authority of courts, all courts, to “legislate laws.” Indeed, if laws need to be passed, such power lies jurisdictionally within the legislature, not the judiciary. It is entirely wrong for the Churches to accept as established truth that courts now have the power to pass laws, and to set absolute forbidden precedence on gay issues. Christ said, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18. Christ's words here are pro-active (aggressive), not re-active (defensive).




-Ron Branson






http://viewsfromthecrowsnest.blogspot.c ... eedom.html






By William Clayton | JD/MBA Candidate

Stanford Graduate School of Business

Yale Law School


For most Americans, freedom is the paramount value. Preferring to live and let live, Americans naturally tend to oppose Proposition 8 believing that it restricts freedom. But a careful study of what has happened to freedom in countries and states where gay marriage has been legalized strongly supports exactly the opposite conclusion.


Laws frequently have unforeseen consequences. Such is the case with gay marriage. A study of the effects of the judicial imposition of gay marriage on the people of Canada and Massachusetts provides a clear picture of how it is destroying freedom of speech and threatens our very democratic way of life. ….



A study of the world wide consequences of legalization of gay marriage, with particular attention to Canada and Massachusetts, clearly demonstrates that the agenda of the activist Gay Lobby is not granting homosexuals the legal rights associated with marriage but harnessing the power of the state to transform society into their image and suppressing all opposing views. The legal record shows that, given the opportunity they will force their views upon everyone else, including and especially young children. Their objective, as clearly seen in the legal actions taken and the instructional materials being used in the elementary schools, is not tolerance but celebration of homosexuality and “gay pride” while teaching that opposing views are mean spirited and hateful bigotry. And their attack extents beyond government supported institutions to private and home schools as they seek to deny parents the right to control the moral teaching of their children. …. the Gay Lobby seeks to use the courts to force the teaching of a new religion in the schools, the “religion” of gay activism. It is a religion of intolerance that has subjected those who voiced differing beliefs to ridicule, termination of employment, and even civil and criminal action for “hate” speech. To the Gay Lobby, separation of church and state means keeping the views of religions that disagree with their life style out of schools and government, while demanding that those same schools and government use tax payer dollars to teach their “religion” to young children and deny religious adoption agencies the right to direct children into homes with both a mother and a father. If left unchecked, their attack on freedom of speech will lead to the destruction of democracy in the name of tolerance. ….


A review of the consequences of the judicial imposition of “gay marriage” on the citizens of Massachusetts and the track record of government action in Canada show that, although the argument in favor of gay marriage is couched in terms of tolerance and freedom, the consequence of permitting gay marriage has been the exact opposite.




In Canada, the granting gays the right to marry is being used as an excuse for an all out assault on free speech and religious freedom, attacking any with opposing views as bigots engaged in “hate” speech. The shocking depth of this attack is chronicled by Hans C. Clausen, former Editor in Chief of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, in his 66 page report published March 1, 2005 : (highlights added)


The "privilege of speech" in a "pleasantly authoritarian country": how Canada 's judiciary allowed laws proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech and religious liberty.


http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 559580_ITM


In this scholarly report, the Author examines Canada 's extensive legal regime prohibiting speech critical of homosexuality, illustrating how the Canadian judiciary's zeal for promoting the social acceptance of homosexuality has greatly diminished fundamental legal protections for open discourse and religious liberty. The introduction begins,


Giving credence to Alexis de Tocqueville's argument that in democratic societies the love of equality is greater than the love of freedom is a recently emerging trend among Western nations to legally proscribe speech critical of homosexuality. Such laws, in various forms, now exist in a large and growing minority of countries in Europe and North America . The goal of these laws is much grander than preventing discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles. These laws provide for civil remedies and in some instances even criminal sanctions for speech considered offensive or degrading to homosexuals, and constitutional-rights objections to them--on the basis of speech and religious liberty guarantees--have been largely unavailing. Thus, achieving the social equality of homosexuals--conceived in sweeping terms--has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections for speech and religious freedoms.


Among other examples, Mr. Clausen describes the discipline of a Canadian teacher, Chris Kempling, who acted privately to address legitimate concerns about material he was being forced to distribute to his students.


Kempling, a public high school teacher and counselor, was initially suspended from his job for five months without pay (15) by the province's educational accreditation board for writing letters to the editor (16)--printed in the local newspaper, (17) but never introduced into any public school or classroom (18)--that argued, on the basis of scientific and scholarly research, (19) that homosexual relationships are unstable and gay sex risky. (20) He also criticized what he viewed as the pro-gay stance of the public education system. (21)


Kempling started writing his letters after being asked by presenters at a government-sponsored workshop to distribute copies of a gay-and-lesbian newspaper--which included advertisements for gay bathhouses, pornographic personal ads, and information about joining casual-sex and masturbation clubs--to students at his school. (22) He initially complained directly to his union and to the Minister of Education, but his complaints were ignored. (23) "When I realized that no one in authority was prepared to take any action, I decided to educate myself, and start writing directly to the public, to make parents aware of what was being proposed for their children," Kempling said. (24)


When the accreditation board learned of Kempling's letters, it launched a full inquiry: a government investigator was dispatched to Kempling's small town and was soon speaking with community leaders and Kempling's supervisors and colleagues. (25) Not long thereafter, Kempling--a thirteen-year employee of the public school system with an exemplary record (26)--found himself suspended and lacking support from his peers, his bosses, his union, (27) and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Union. (28) Although no evidence existed that Kempling's letters caused any disturbance or controversy at his school (29)--nor did any students or parents complain of Kempling's letters or job performance (30)--the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the accreditation board's decision to suspend Kempling for writing his letters, stating that "the appellant's discriminatory expression is of low value ... [and] is incompatible with the search for truth." (31)


After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions several other countries that have criminalized remarks critical of homosexuality: New Zealand , South Africa , Netherlands and Denmark . In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation" to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law. Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own publications." In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also listed "self-fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays. Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it favors the speech rights of one group over another. The court also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of gays.


Clausen ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."


Anyone who truly wants to understand where we will be headed in California if Proposition 8 fails should spend some time reviewing this careful analysis that traces the development of the legal prohibition of free speech in Canada .


Attack on Private and Home Schools


In March 7, 2007 - Gay activist groups in Ontario urged the Provincial Ministry of Education to exert more control over private and home schools to fight against the alleged effects of homophobia, objecting to religious schools teaching “only their own values.” An article in Ottawa 's Capital Xtra written by Tony Lovink, who describes himself as a gay Christian school teacher, claimed that "All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobia.”


The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario says it is concerned that the provincial ministry of education was failing to exert "more control" over the curriculum used by private religious schools. The coalition also objects to private schools hiring teachers based upon the school's own qualification requirements.


In October 2006, the Quebec government ordered private Christian schools to begin teaching sex education in compliance with the provincial curriculum. Schools failing to implement these materials were threatened with closure.


In British Columbia , gay activists Murray Corren and Peter Corren were granted power over the provincial school curriculum as part of a lawsuit settlement. The settlement also introduced a policy prohibiting parents from removing their children from the classroom when gay-affirmative materials were being taught.


Seek to Shut Down Pro-Family Websites


Gay activists have demanded that the Federal Human Rights Commissions shut down three pro-family web sites run by Craig Chandler, a Canadian conservative and talk-radio host.




You might want to believe that things will be different in the United States , where we are supposedly protected by freedom of religion, but nothing could be further from the truth. The experience in Massachusetts since the courts granted gays the right to marry has been an unrelenting attack on freedom of speech and religion that appears to be accelerating, taking lessons from Canada about how to use the courts to destroy any opposition to the teaching of their “life style” to young children.


Training Video – Teaching Gay Pride in Schools


A primary objective of the Gay Lobby’s agenda is the indoctrination of young children, starting in kindergarten with the idea that being gay is wonderful and free. You may say this is just reactionary fear mongering but unfortunately it is true. The following training video for teachers shows what you can expect in our California elementary schools if gay marriage is allowed to stand and possibly even if it isn’t. It was created by Women's Educational Media, which states that, "Waiting to teach children to accept differences of all kinds until middle school or high school is too late…." In one segment, teachers discuss teaching homosexuality to children even if parent's have moral objections to it, concluding that it had to be taught regardless of parental objections. If you do nothing else to educate yourself about this issue, by all means view this training video and ask yourself if this is what you want happening in the earliest grades in our schools. In particular, notice the attitudes being instilled in young minds that any opposition to gay marriage or homosexuality is “mean” and “hateful” and the use of peer pressure to enforce that prejudice. Excerpts of this training video can be found at:


http://www.massresistance.org/media/vid ... shing.html


Legal Actions Against Parents


The Massachusetts courts have also held that the schools have no requirement to notify parents when teaching about homosexuality even in Kindergarten.


In April 2008, David Parker, father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School, in Lexington, Mass. spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with offcials at the school unless they provided parental notice of such lessons and gave him the option of pulling his child out of those classes.


The legal rights of parents to opt their children out of “gay pride” education has been smashed by the Massachusetts courts. U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable; indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality. Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"


Attack on Religious Adoption Agencies


Not satisfied with using the power of the state to force the teaching of their views and the ridiculing of opposing views in the schools, gay activists efforts have forced the Catholic Charities of Boston, begun in 1903, to cease its adoption services rather then comply with state law requiring placement of children with homosexual couples.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... adoptions/







No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 10:04 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read the articles at bottom of web site about romans 13

its interesting


http://www.calltodecision.com/_vti_bin/ ... index.html



I went to that site, dude, there is info all over the place.


Didn't see any Romans 13 article. Got a direct link?


But besides the point, how bout you summarize that article for me, you know have a more than one fragment sentence interaction....



i looked also but there is a lot of good information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...