I got a problem. Was reading Acts yesterday and ran into this part:
Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
It says that? Uh-oh. Maybe there’s some context I’m missing, like it only applies to Jewish high priests. But until I figure this out, just to be on the safe side I don’t want anyone saying anything bad about Obama (except for Harvey since he’s an atheist).
I think there’s a distinct difference between stating that President Obama has not been making anything close to a good decision on pretty much anything and saying “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!” (Acts 23:3) One is constructive criticism (or, it *can* be); the other is darn close to calling down God’s judgment on someone.
Plus calling Obama a “whitewashed wall” would undoubted ruffle some people’s feathers. Obviously Paul was a racist.
Undoubtedly, even. Apparently my bronchitis is affecting my usually immaculate spelling.
Seems to me that “ruler” implies a person that actually performs some sort of governing action (voting “present” doesn’t count) or a leadership role. I don’t think this applies to figureheads or used car salesmen so you should be OK. I’d still get a lawyer…or advice from ACORN.
More proof that you ought not to read the Bible literally. 🙂
Speaking the truth about an evil ruler is not evil.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=97
Here is a man who can “speak truth to power” and leave you in stitches while not speaking evil of the ruler.
That all falls in with the parts of the Bible that says to pray for those in authority over you. Also keep in mind that it’s very likely from the context of the passage that Paul was being at least a little sarcastic.
I’m confident that speaking the truth is not the same as “speaking evil”.
Keep in mind that the word “judge” to ancient Israelites could mean “ruler”, “king”, or “miltary leader” as well as “one who sits in judgment”.
I believe Paul was talking about obeying the law and recognizing the legitimacy of courts. Paul was called before a council of priests and during the course of his interrogation the High Priest ordered someone to slap Paul for speaking out of turn. Paul cursed him for it. What Paul had done was akin to bad-mouthing the judge when you are on trial. That is wrong because it is a refutation of the authority of the judge and the court and it is illegal to show such contempt. Even if the judge deserves it.
Jesus called the higher-ups a “brood of vipers.” But I’m sure he meant it in the nicest way possible.
Obama is a ………human being.
You’re not allowed to speak poorly about high priests. That applies to Emanuel and *maybe* Axelrod. Obama is The One so you’re probably OK. Unless it’s blasphemy, in which case you’re not.
The High Priest was set apart by God. Because of that, criticizing him is like criticizing God.
Obama was elected by the people and has no authority given to him by God. Instead, we the people are anointed by God to hold the power of governance over ourselves. The president is our servant, chosen by us for the purpose of fulfilling our ends. This means it is wrong for Obama (or any elected official) to criticize the people because doing so is criticizing God.
So you’re ruling out the possibility that he’s a sleestak?
You’re in the clear Frank, because he is not our ruler. He’s our employee, like all the rest, and as soon as I can find where congress hid the dang pink slips I’ll rectify this debacle…
The high priest had just ordered Paul to be smitten, by those in nearest proximity to him, for Paul having spoken the truth, which was offensive to the high priest. Paul’s me culpa in Acts 23:5 was followed by his inciting riot in the council between Pharisees and Saducees over doctrinal differences concerning the resurrection.
Paul was radical for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and would advance the furthering of the Gospel ‘By any means necessary'(within the boundary of Truth).
When it was beneficial to cause a Council riot, to further the Gospel, he did so. When it was beneficial to proclaim his Roman citizenship, to advance the Gospel,
he did so.
Concerning O-bah-muhh, Christians are to pray for those in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life. Wide latitude in the freedom that is in
Christ Jesus as to WHAT to pray. I do not advocate praying like liberation theologists of the Gamaliel Foundation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJgwPenhpY&feature=player_embedded
I admire Barack Hussein Obama’s ability to take his tenuous grasp of reality, his lack of real-world experience, and his communist upbringing and complete control of the Federal Government and yet fail completely to implement the destruction of the nation he despises.
I admire Barack Hussein Obama because he knows he is President of all the people, not just Muslims. If only for that reason, he has yet to choose a mosque to attend, though he has shown great diligence toward the improvement of his golf game.
What a man. What a leader.
Ernie, I’ll withhold any judgement as to whether Obama is any kind of reptile until Frank gets back to us…..
As the resident theologian at IMAO, I feel that we should also consult the Book of Armaments wherein it states that after we have feasted on carp, orangutans, breakfast cereals, etc, and counted to three (it’s rather specific on that point), we are commanded, “then, lobbest thou thine Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.”
From this passage of Sacred Scripture, we are reminded that there is a time to go ahead and explode our enemies against the cave wall. Since Barack Obama is not the real ruler of our country, it’s ok to speak ill of him and to explode his agenda.
Speaking evil of the Teleprompter, however, is punishable by stoning.
I’m gonna agree with pretty much everyone else that criticizing is not “speaking evil” – although I’m not so sure about some of the lolbamas.
Frank…turn to ACTS 15:19-20 “Hence, my decision is not to trouble those nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication…..”
Since That One has been placed as a false idol (we all know what God thinks of that), and his base his base is infatuated with fornication, idolatry, wizardry (should the list continue?), I think you are well in the clear.
In America, we have public servants, not rulers.
Silence is consent.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”~~Henry Louis Mencken
Yeah but even Satan can quote Scripture.
Awesome thread everyone
You didn’t finish quoting that passage from the Book of Leftists:
‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people…’
…unless said ruler is a Conservative.
Most atheists believe that morality is based on philosophy, not religion. For if it’s from religion alone, upon what foundation of thought do you analyze it – unless you claim that religion is born from philosophy?
/serious
well since Obama is the anti-christ and not a high priest and most likey not jewish it should be ok to speak evil of him. But since he is black you my be called a racist if you do.
So is it okay to call him a classless disgrace and a useless pos commie c**sucker with a saquatch for a wife and absolutly no brains and may be a homosexual kenyan with a name change, if I temporaily convert to athieism?
or is that racist?
excuse me? “My people” did not vote the fumbling meathead into office dems did (its bad enough i have to share the country with them…) that means He is Not a leader of my people. therefore i can criticize the crap out of the jerk.
When Moses wrote that commandment, the high priest, for all practical purposes, was the ruler of God’s people. The ruler of this people is the people; Barack Obama is merely a government employee.
Jimmy says:
October 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Most atheists believe that morality is based on philosophy, not religion. For if it’s from religion alone, upon what foundation of thought do you analyze it – unless you claim that religion is born from philosophy?
/serious
#27: Good question I’ve wondered that many times myself.
On the other side of the same coin though, if atheists base their morality on secular philosophy instead of religion, whose secular philosophy do you pick?
Or are we supposed to pick-and-choose which tenets of which philosophies — religious and/or secular — under which polite society will operate?
Kind of a Catch-22 isn’t it? Either we operate under only one philosophy (good luck finding one that everyone can agree on), or else we have a mish-mash Social Code of everything from Karl Marx to the 10 Commandments.
Which is why America is so divided and acrimonious now: those of us holdouts against the Socialism of the World are angry at those currently in power who wish to destroy the values and traditions with which WE hold dear.
How do we decide?
I look at it this way: I believe the personal property ethic is 100% Biblical. I also believe we are to follow God’s laws rather than man’s when the two are in conflict. So if any ruler is not respecting the private property ethic or any other principle that is Biblical, we are not supposed to just pretend said ruler is right about everything.
As far as context for that verse, I’m guessing a Jewish High Priest would be pretty down with following God’s law so insulting him would be a problem. I’d have to study the passage to give you an actual good answer.
Maybe Paul was talking to a black guy, since “Bretheren” could also be translated “brothers”. And “your people” meant black people. And this is followed today, since black people cannot speak evil of black rulers like Obama. If they do, it makes them not black.
Paul seemed like a cool guy, so he probably had some black friends. It makes sense.
Is that King James version of the bible? Figures.
…if atheists base their morality on secular philosophy instead of religion, whose secular philosophy do you pick?
Likewise, NunyaB, if morality is based on religion alone, whose religion do you pick?
In any case, we are left only with reasoning to evaluate and select a morality with which to live. Do you think my / your / their God would agree with that? Or does religion relieve us of the burden of reason?
I think the world has never permanently addressed this issue. But the United States Constitution is the closest thing yet.
C.S. Lewis examined the problem of morals (natural law) in his book The Abolition of Man.
He feared (or foresaw) that if people started cherry picking the bits of the natural law that they liked and ignoring the rest that a day would come when one group would create an artificial morality which they would use to completely control the rest. (shades of Orwell’s ‘1984’).
They, the controllers, would of course not be controlled by their own custom designed moral code; so what would their motivation be?
Having divorced themselves from all higher aspirations, the only thing left to drive them would be their lowest, primitive animal fears and desires – so that in the very generation when they gain complete mastery over Human nature, they fall to their own sub-human instincts and drag all of mankind down with them. (Hence the title, The Abolition of Man).
The moral code, natural law, or as he referred to it, the Tao (truth) is common to all mankind – that’s why people can argue about right and wrong rather than just fighting like animals.
They both hold up their actions and ideas to a yardstick of moral behavior which they find self evident and believe the other person knows just as well, and then measure themselves against it.
Some fellow may say that rules don’t count. Let him catch you cheating him at cards and see how quick he yells, “That’s not fair!”
Try to imagine a culture where people really admired cowardice, honored treason, or valued dishonesty. (besides DC).
Are morals good because God approves of them, or is God good because he has morals?
PS. #6 – El Zopilote,
thanks for the link. I bookmarked it.
I learn something new every day! 😉
Obama is not a ruler. He governs the people with their consent, he does not rule them.
Short answer. We are supposed to pray (not for him to die) for our leaders. In context Paul was referring to Nero. Burned Christians alive. Romans 13.1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Guess it’s not a short answer anymore. Dang I gave up cussing drinking and smoking for this job just can’t (won’t?) give up the whole slam Demon-crat bashing.
Forgive me Frank for I have sinned
Actually I believe that God implemented government for an orderly society and we are to therefore submit ourselves to our leaders since they are in their positions by his consent. Possibly the current spate of liberal leaders is A) what we deserve as a people B) God is pulling a funny on us C) an example to us from God of BAD government to be avoided in the future…kind of like a two by four over the head or D) a sign that the end is very near…
…or E) we’ve just become very, very stupid.
A ruler has a straight edge. Obama is crooked through and through. Ergo, Obama is not a ruler. QED.
When Paul (or any of the New Testament witnesses) quotes the Old Testament, it is useful to look at the quoted text. In this case, Paul is quoting Exodus 22:28, where it was commanded “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.”
I think that the term “curse” is important here. While newer, more paraphrased, translations use the more general terms like “speak ill of” and the King James version uses the word “revile,’ older versions use the term “curse.” For instance, the Wycliffe translation gives it as:
And they that stood nigh, said, Cursest thou the highest priest of God? [And they that stood nigh, said, Cursest thou the high priest of God?]
And Paul said, Brethren, I knew not, that he is [the] prince of priests; for it is written, Thou shalt not curse the prince of thy people.
(taken from Bible Gateway)
The term “curse” is more applicable here, since the problem was *not* that Paul criticized Ananias, but that he called for God to stike him. Remember that Paul said “Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall…”
The call for God to strike or harm is a curse of some power when made by an Apostle (consider the effect on the other Ananias and Saphira).
From my reading, the Hebrew word used in Exodus implies a formal invoking of evil or harm, as opposed to the more general criticism and execration.
Thus, Paul’s sin was not in the criticism, but in calling for Ananias’ harm. Similarly, I would suggest there is no sin in criticizing Obama, but it would be wrong to call for God to strike him dead.
billo
It’s been said a few times already, but yeah, in a democratically elected government, we are the rulers. Elected officials are our servants who govern with, by, and for our consent.
Speaking the truth about Obama is NOT speaking evil against him!