Paul's hateful letter to the Romans

[Halfcentaur]

Well, I personally have learned that I am not strong enough to be good on my own. I need God to be strong; I rely on His strength more than my own.

It's only with this realization that I have found the humility to forgive the weaknesses of all other human beings, as well. How can I hold them to a standard that I know I, myself, can't meet?

And while I won't judge any individual, I can say as a general matter that no human being on the planet, atheist or not, lives a life free of evil. We all make bad, selfish, malicious choices. None of us lives up to our created potential.

But that's okay, because the transcendent act of Christ redeems us from our evil, and puts us in touch with His unique perfection.

Christianity is not a story of learning to be perfect; Christianity is about growing better and relying on our God's perfection.

I think you're equating not being perfect to evil.

I don't believe you're not strong enough to be good on you're own, I think you're a very reasonable person and you've had some things that were instilled into the very foundation and fabric of your outlook on life that make you ashamed of your imperfections, and I think you're unable to separate the importance you derive from this construct of your life from the shame unfortunately.

I think you know how you sound to me, and I think I know how I sound to you, I'm not going to be changing anyone's mind, but I respect your opinion on this forum on a great number of things.

I can no longer entertain the religion I was born into anymore than I could entertain any of the religions I was not born into at this point, and I've been trying to understand how you maintain such a belief. I don't want to challenge you on this, but I find your opinions on Christianity intriguing. But enough about me

 

[SonOfLaertes]

No, none of those things.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, as meaningful for us today as it was ages in the past.

The Bible is a message to all mankind.

Anyone can read the Bible and learn enough to live a good, Christian life, to have a positive relationship with God and with Man.

Like any source of truth, understanding deeper and loftier matters requires more discernment and study. If you want a thorough and accurate understanding of, for instance, God's motivation in creation, the relationship between soteriology and eschatology, or how free will intersects with a divine plan, you're not going to find these with a quick perusal. And since it wasn't written in English, perusing an English translation is even worse.

The Bible is just as vulnerable to quote-mining and intentional misinterpretation as any other substantial text.

I think the most important take-away is this -- none of these difficult matters are necessary for understanding how to be a Christian or how to treat other Christians. A straightforward approach to understanding the Bible yields a straightforward understanding of its core messages. Digging deeper into the Bible requires, not just deeper scrutiny, but deeper genuine study.

All well and good, until one is asked which parts of the Bible can be taken as simple guideposts to a moral life and which parts need to be explained by an "expert". Then all Hell breaks loose, because these "experts" will then proceed to vehemently disagree on the interpretation of said "loftier matters". Much more damning, though, is the way "experts" disagree on the basic interpretations as well.

In other words, many Christians will tell you that you are going to Hell, AvalonXQ, precisely because of your simple, basic interpretation of the Bible. So what else is then left? If you live your "moral" life, but some other Christian is right, then it will all be for naught as this brief flash-in-the-pan lifetime will be followed by an unending infinity of torment. All because you believed the Bible allowed for a simple framework of interpretation. You should have listened to all of the others, more wise than you or I in pulling deeper meaning from the scriptures.

And don't tell me that these Christians are not out there, in droves. They are as vehement in their conviction as you are in yours.

 

[dafydd]

No, none of those things.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, as meaningful for us today as it was ages in the past.

The Bible is a message to all mankind.

Anyone can read the Bible and learn enough to live a good, Christian life, to have a positive relationship with God and with Man.

Like any source of truth, understanding deeper and loftier matters requires more discernment and study. If you want a thorough and accurate understanding of, for instance, God's motivation in creation, the relationship between soteriology and eschatology, or how free will intersects with a divine plan, you're not going to find these with a quick perusal. And since it wasn't written in English, perusing an English translation is even worse.

The Bible is just as vulnerable to quote-mining and intentional misinterpretation as any other substantial text.

I think the most important take-away is this -- none of these difficult matters are necessary for understanding how to be a Christian or how to treat other Christians. A straightforward approach to understanding the Bible yields a straightforward understanding of its core messages. Digging deeper into the Bible requires, not just deeper scrutiny, but deeper genuine study.

So you believe in the death penalty for people who work on the Sabbath. Your holy book says that.

'Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.'
Not much chance of misinterpreting that.
If you don't agree with that then you are not a Christian.

 

[AvalonXQ]

All well and good, until one is asked which parts of the Bible can be taken as simple guideposts to a moral life and which parts need to be explained by an "expert". Then all Hell breaks loose, because these "experts" will then proceed to vehemently disagree on the interpretation of said "loftier matters". Much more damning, though, is the way "experts" disagree on the basic interpretations as well.

In other words, many Christians will tell you that you are going to Hell, AvalonXQ, precisely because of your simple, basic interpretation of the Bible. So what else is then left? If you live your "moral" life, but some other Christian is right, then it will all be for naught as this brief flash-in-the-pan lifetime will be followed by an unending infinity of torment. All because you believed the Bible allowed for a simple framework of interpretation. You should have listened to all of the others, more wise than you or I in pulling deeper meaning from the scriptures.

And don't tell me that these Christians are not out there, in droves. They are as vehement in their conviction as you are in yours.

Yes, but they're wrong.

Just because there are different interpretations, doesn't mean all interpretations are equally correct. And with respect to matters of life and godliness, there is a single, clear, right answer in the Bible. If you read it, you'll understand it.

Despite debating the Bible for a long time, I have never once run across a Christian who a) agreed that the Bible was God's inspired Word, its message the basis for understanding God and the Christian faith, but b) took the same passages that I use for understanding the basics of the faith and read them differently. It has always been the case, again in my experience, that anyone trying to put forward a different view of the basics balks at (a) -- either claiming the Bible to be imperfect and incomplete, basing their views on some additional authority or document (Catholics, Mormons), or acknowledging what it says and then nonetheless explaining why their own opinion is different, using their own feelings and experiences instead of the Bible (evangelicals and other mainstream American Christians).

Again, what I've not run into is someone who is willing to sit down and read what the Bible says, but doesn't come away with the same understanding of who Christ is and what God expects them to do about it. And those who want to try to do mental cartwheels around the basics... are wrong. They're welcome to their opinion, but it's not God's.

 

[Mudcat]

Why does the thing waste pages and pages on people's lineages?

It's a common literature tool to establish a personal connection between one character and another, the strongest connections are familial: David Marcus was the (illegitimate) son of Kirk, Sybock was the (half) brother of Spock, Lore and Dr Singh was the brother and father of Data (respectfully).

Suppose I offered you the chance to compose a 250 page book that would be send back in time to the year 1900. What would you put in it if you wanted to do the world a favor?

I'd send back in time a psychology text.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Lore and Dr Singh Soong was the brother and father of Data (respectfully).

FTFY. And Lore, at least, was not very respectful of Data.

Incidentally, I always wondered why Data didn't change his name to Data Soong. "Lt. Cmdr. Soong" doesn't have a bad ring to it, and it avoids one-name syndrome.

 

[Rasmus]

It's a common literature tool to establish a personal connection between one character and another, the strongest connections are familial: David Marcus was the (illegitimate) son of Kirk, Sybock was the (half) brother of Spock, Lore and Dr Singh was the brother and father of Data (respectfully).

Correct me if i am wrong, but as far as i recall these connections as laid out in the bible are not nearly as close, and most of the people mentioned do not play much of a role, do they?

Also, the examples you cite are fictional characters from made up stories, none of which seek to guide their readers through life, and none of which are written by allegedly omniscient authors.

And all of that ignores why there'd be a need for a *story* in the first place:

I'd send back in time a psychology text.

An interesting choice, and nowhere near what I had considered. Can I assume that your psychology text will not be delivered disguised as the vitae of various fictional characters who may or may not be related to each other?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Also, the examples you cite are fictional characters from made up stories, none of which seek to guide their readers through life, and none of which are written by allegedly omniscient authors.

If you're claiming that Star Trek is not a guide for life, and Gene Roddenberry is not omniscient, then I believe I shall have to ask you to step outside.

 

[HansMustermann]

Assuming it is true that Paul was executed during a persecution of Christians by Nero, he must have felt ambivalent about his fate, since Nero was instituted by God. Anyway, Nero was the Pontifex Maximus, as he inscribed on his coins. So a predecessor of the Pope really. And infallible too, if Paul's epistle is to be taken seriously. Which it isn't of course; it's the most obnoxious thing imaginable. I don't remember Chrisians evoking Romans when they were complaining about maltreatment of their churches in communist countries.

He wouldn't be the first or last, though. A lot of the early Christians believed that being martyred for one's faith is an instant ticket to heavens, and some even went the extra mile to troll the Romans to get themselves executed.

We don't know if Paul himself shared that belief, but considering that (A) he thought belief in Jesus by itself is an instant ticket to heavens, and indeed nothing else matters (Romans, Galatians, etc), and (B) he thought he's so special to Jesus, to the point where he even lectures an earlier apostle like Peter in what he should do and believe (see, Galatians 2), I think he was pretty sure where he's going after death. So it's not unbelievable that he wouldn't mind Nero's paying for his trip to heavens.

Also of interest is that Paul himself drops occasional bombs like that he's already been stoned (2 Corinthians 11:25), or literally "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" (Galatians 2:20.) Or, depending how you understand his being "in the deep", he may actually be saying that he's been shipwrecked and SPENT A NIGHT AND A DAY UNDERWATER (same 2 Corinthians 11:25). There is a good possibility that Paul actually had Cotard delusion, one of the fairly common symptoms of schizophrenia. (Note that belief to be figuratively dead, but still somehow special or immortal as a result, is still Cotard.) Maybe. Or maybe not. But if that's the case, and he actually believes that he's died at least 2-3 times and Jesus just pops him back, well, why sweat yet another execution, eh?

 

[Rasmus]

If you're claiming that Star Trek is not a guide for life, and Gene Roddenberry is not omniscient, then I believe I shall have to ask you to step outside.

Emphasis mine.

Phew, that was close.

 

[Mudcat]

Correct me if i am wrong, but as far as i recall these connections as laid out in the bible are not nearly as close, and most of the people mentioned do not play much of a role, do they?

Not wrong in the least. But it was to provide a point of comparison. Although the Bible goes overboard with the genealogies it's nothing compared to the ones that real life Jews supposedly keep (they might not, all I have to go on is my Mom who is a convert) and it's probably meant as a way to establish a sense of legitimacy. It all comes off as overly contrived though.

Also, the examples you cite are fictional characters from made up stories, none of which seek to guide their readers through life, and none of which are written by allegedly omniscient authors.

Most of the characters in the Bible can be demonstrated to be fictional anyhow, so I don't know how the comparison is invalid.

PS. Avalon thanks for the correction, I was halfway to work when I kicked myself after realizing that Singh was the madman from the 21st century and Soong was Data's father. And Lore was even worse than disrespectful, he was intentionally deceitful and homicidal.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Avalon thanks for the correction, I was halfway to work when I kicked myself after realizing that Singh was the madman from the 21st century and Soong was Data's father.

Don't feel bad -- it's likely that Noonien Soong was actually named after Khan Noonien Singh, since his ancester Arik Soong was a strong proponent of genetic engineering to create Singh-like supermen.

 

[TimCallahan]

No, he really doesn't. This passage, like much of the rest of Romans, uses Greek rather awkwardly and is pretty hard to translate into English, first off.
Second, there are tons of analogies and metaphors that have to be parsed very carefully and whose precise meanings are greatly disputed (and have been for hundreds of years).
Then people try to take the precise phrasing of whatever English translation they have, combine it with their own interpretation/extension of Paul's metaphors, and use it to make sweeping generalizations about God, free will, and salvation. But most of Romans is just not that crystal clear.
Basically, any doctrine that you try to base on these passages rather than other, more direct and clear parts of scripture, is likely not going to hold up very strongly under deeper analysis.

It's nowhere near as bad as what people do to Revelation, but it's the same sort of problem.

If you could give me some specific examples from Romans of Greek words that are difficult to translate or metaphors that have to be specifically parsed, then you and I could argue those points more effectively.

 

[Craig B]

He wouldn't be the first or last, though. A lot of the early Christians believed that being martyred for one's faith is an instant ticket to heavens, and some even went the extra mile to troll the Romans to get themselves executed.

We don't know if Paul himself shared that belief, but considering that (A) he thought belief in Jesus by itself is an instant ticket to heavens, and indeed nothing else matters (Romans, Galatians, etc)

You make good points, but what about 1 Thessalonians 4:17?

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

So in his last moments he must have realised he was going to croak before the Second Coming! That too must have induced ambivalence. Previously he had not thought he was going to die at all.

 

[HansMustermann]

Hmm, good observation. Though I don't necessarily see him changing his mind, to be honest. In the verses I've pointed out he doesn't really say he is going to die, but that he was already dead and yet somehow still walking.

The thing about Cotard, as I understand it, is that the two actually go hand in hand a lot of the time. It's not uncommon for someone believing that they had already died, to believe that as a result they can't die again. Because they're already dead, see? Or not until some other condition is fulfiled.

For Paul, well, we'll never know if he really was crazy or just used some sick metaphors. Neither precludes believing that Jesus will keep him around until doomsday, though.

Or maybe he knows why he's basically called that whole congregation stupid, and can just tell them some taller and taller miracles he's performed, to keep them impressed. (We know he did claim to perform miracles too.) So, sure, why not a coming back to life too?

 

[TimCallahan]

If you could give me some specific examples from Romans of Greek words that are difficult to translate or metaphors that have to be specifically parsed, then you and I could argue those points more effectively.

Avalon XQ: I'm still waiting for these specifics.

 

[Craig B]

Avalon XQ: I'm still waiting for these specifics.

Avalon doesn't do specifics. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7864023&postcount=56

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Despite debating the Bible for a long time, I have never once run across a Christian who a) agreed that the Bible was God's inspired Word, its message the basis for understanding God and the Christian faith, but b) took the same passages that I use for understanding the basics of the faith and read them differently. It has always been the case, again in my experience, that anyone trying to put forward a different view of the basics balks at (a) -- either claiming the Bible to be imperfect and incomplete, basing their views on some additional authority or document (Catholics, Mormons), or acknowledging what it says and then nonetheless explaining why their own opinion is different, using their own feelings and experiences instead of the Bible (evangelicals and other mainstream American Christians).

So they all agree with you, except when they disagree with you? What?

I see no evidence or argument that you have put forth that says that your particular, and from your own description fringe position, is the one and correct interpretation.

You are really saying that the Bible is unambiguous, and that your interpretation is the one and correct one, and then employing special pleading to explain why it is your interpretation that is correct as opposed to anyone else's, including those who apparently agree that the Bible is God's inspired word, sola scriptura, and so on.

If the Bible was as unambiguous as you say, people would not fight so much about differences in interpretations. But let's be clear - the Bible uses fallible human languages to describe a wide variety of things. It has been translated back and forth many times. There is no formal language (mathematical or otherwise) to describe things in the Bible. Thus we will have ambiguities. That is obvious.

 

[Craig B]

I see no evidence or argument that you have put forth that says that your particular, and from your own description fringe position, is the one and correct interpretation.

You never will see such evidence. As shown above, Avalon isn't into specifics.

 

[TimCallahan]

Avalon doesn't do specifics. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7864023&postcount=56

You mean like this specific? (Rom. 13:1, 2):

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist incur judgment.

Rev. John MacArthur is nothing if not consistent when he condemns the popular movements of the Arab spring for overthrowing dictators in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. IIRC, fundamentalist ministers have a special reason for exempting george Washington and the other founders of our country from condemnation: The British crown had instituted a tax to support the Church of England. This interfered with the freedom to worship God as one would. Thus, the overthrow of this power was a justified exception to the rule. However, this isn't what the epistle to the Romans says. Remember, Paul was writing about his own time and place, meaning the Roman Empire under the Julian line, specifically, Nero. The Roman state was surely harder on Christian believer than was George III of England.

Plainly and simply, The central assertion of Romans 13 is diametrically opposed to and incompatible with the Constitution of the United States and the very existence of this country. It is, of course, also incompatible with democracy in general. Consider the Hungarian uprising of 1848. The Hungarians were at the point of victory, IIRC besieging Vienna, when the Russians, under Czar Nicholas I, intervened militarily, crushed the revolt and restored the Hapsburgs to power. The reason for the intervention was that Nicholas I believed in the divine right of kings, a doctrine that surely owes its biblical validity to Romans 13.

It's nonsense to try to parse Rom. 13:1, 2 to make the verses say anytning other than what they do actually say.