Comment: huh?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And you will note, your line (see in situ)

huh?

Re:"Your quotation of Romans 13 is definitively not in line with the rest of scripture, nor even our own government - which was never given the powers it currently is imposing."

Do you pick and choose what you consider to be scripture? How do you reconcile your view with the unanimity of the church through history on the canon of Paul's writings?

The bible teaches that 'all' scripture is inspired by God: 2Ti_3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

And Peter taught that all of Paul's writings are scripture:

2Pe 3:15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

And the Bible teaches that you are not supposed to take away from God's word:

Deu 12:32 " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. "

Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

It is a dangerous game to edit scripture in order to justify sin, and more so to spread those sorts of teachings. The rejection of Romans 13 is certainly not a Christian view.

Re: "And it is not only bad Christian witnessing to say something is wrong because man's government says it is wrong, but it's bad American patriotism, which was founded exactly because they followed God not king George."

Government laws don't make something moral or immoral in and of themselves, just as a parent's command to their children doesn't make what they command moral. The morality in obeying the higher powers is not in the higher powers themselves, but in God who commands obedience to them, just as God commands children to obey and honor their parents. The moral obligation is found in God's prohibition of rebellion. Do you think that children are not biblically obligated to obey their parents when the commands of the parents are not in conflict with God's law? To value American patriotism (or anything, even good things) more than God is idolatry. The greatest commandment is to love God above all, even if it means sacrificing rebellion and sinful desires of drunkenness.

Re:"And you will note, your line of reasoning also says that pot smoking will become moral if the government mandates it -"

Nonsense, God forbids drunkenness, so if the government commands drunkenness it is in direct conflict with God's commands and Christians should then behave like Daniel and honor the government in everything that doesn't conflict with God's law, but disobey the government only on those points that conflict with God's law.

Re:"What the government mandates as morality is a rejection of God."

How is 'not abusing a substance to get high' a rejection of God? The bible forbids drunkenness, so it seems to be the other way around.

Re:"Samuel's Warning About Kings"

That was in the context of the Jewish theocracy where God was their leader. They were bringing bondage upon a people free of human rulers, but what you are talking about has no comparison to that, but rather is merely rebellion against an established authority. Read the rest of Samuel and you will find that Romans 13 continues to agree with all of scripture:

1st Samuel 15:23 "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."