Does God regularly reward rebellion?

[Greatest I am]

Does God regularly reward rebellion?

 

God, in the beginning, rebelled against the status quo that he had lived in for millennia.

 

He rejected what was and created what we have today and gained a reward, pleasure. He was pleased and named it all good. To insure that the trend of rebellion continued, he brought Satan to earth and ordered him to tempt Adam and Eve. The only way Adam and Eve could know that they were autonomous entities was to go against God’s command.

 

 

 

Satan is said to be the first autonomous entity, other than God, to rebel. He was rewarded by being named the King of this world. God’s jewel and greatest achievement till that time. This truth is exemplified by his tempting Jesus by offering him the world. If it was not his world to give, there would not have been a temptation for Jesus to face and master. Mark 1: 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan.

 

Adam and Eve were next to rebel. Their reward as we know was to be elevated to God like status. Genesis : 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. They were also given dominion of the earth, as is plain to see.

 

Moses, rebelled against Pharaoh and was also rewarded with a kingdom. Israel. Noah, rebelled against the rest of mankind and was rewarded with a new earth.

 

Jesus rebelled against the status quo of the written laws and was rewarded by being said to have saved the whole of mankind. Even as believers think only their pitiful little numbers are saved. A hold over from old tribal thinking.

 

There can only be one conclusion to what is written. God regularly rewards rebellion.

 

In heaven as on earth.

 

Mankind does the same. In these times in the middle east, we see much rebellion against authority, while we in the west are applauding their efforts and indeed, helping them to the best of our present capabilities.

 

We also have our own examples of the benefits of rebellion.

 

The U S rebellion against England. Canada’s rebellion against our own European masters. Our own rebellious hero’s such as Rosa Parks and Louis Riel. In these cases, not only personal fame was gained but also a betterment for all of us.

 

There can only be one conclusion here as well. Man regularly rewards rebellion.

 

Now the ancient Jews and Hebrew interpreted their scriptures of Eden as the elevation of mankind. To know good and evil, the root of our moral sense, and be as knowledgeable as God, was seen as a great benefit. Somehow, Christianity turned that view, which was consistent with the above precedent, to one of a fall for mankind.

 

This Gnostic Christian disagrees with the Christian view because, first of all, I would not want to live like a dumb animal, without a moral sense or being able to recognize good and evil at a level higher than instincts. Further, we all know that almost any topic or issue you can think of has good and evil implications and conditions and without knowledge of good and evil, we would not even be able to discuss much of anything and society would stagnate.

 

Rebellion, from the Christian viewpoint, is a sin and evil and Eden was our fall.

 

If we go with this view, we must see reality somehow going against Gods wishes and must see him as a loser.

 

If we go with Gnostic Christian, Hebrew and Jewish interpretations, we end with a God who is a winner.

 

God and mankind thus seem to benefit to a huge extent thanks to rebellion and sin.

 

Would our secular laws be as good as they are if people had not rebelled against the older religious laws and amended them to the degree we have?

 

Should Christianity and other non progressive religions, notably Islam, rebel against their more draconian laws and continue the trend of benefiting from rebellion?

 

Does God and man regularly reward rebellion?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[lemur]

This is a really interesting interpretation of theology. I think there is some validity in it, though I would say that the defining factor is not so much rebellion as it is expression of (creative) power. Rebellion is a specific case of the exercise of creative power, because it implies power AGAINST something else, a 'status quo." This is where I think rebellion differs slightly from truly original creative power in that it's a reaction against something else. Since everything is attributed to God's original creation of creative power itself, all reactions against anything else are really a form of opposition against God, and thus satanic in the sense that "satan" means "opposer." You might wonder how it could be bad to oppose satan if satan opposes God, but I think this has to do with the basic philosophical/psychological logic of constructive vs. destructive orientation. I.e. an oppositional approach to doing good puts you in a negative orientation toward something else. Another way to look at it is that tempting good into fighting evil to destroy it is one way that evil can expand its territory. This is why wars seem to be growing fires of destructive reactions, imo, where each reaction to a provocation works to provoke new reactions.

 

So rebellion is divine in a way, because it involves a liberation of creative/formative power from submission to authority. But it can also promote oppositional reactionism, which always ultimately has a deleterious/destructive effect, I think. When it leads to the opening of new possibilities for democratic discourse, it is good - but when it leads to an oppressive compulsion to side against whatever is defined as status-quo, it stifles democracy. You could see the same distinction between satan and Jesus. Satan rebells against God to compete with Him, which basically means that satan is trying to replace light with darkness, creation with destruction, goodness/love with beauty/pride, etc. Jesus, on the other hand, rebels against secular and religious authority because he sees them as having become corrupted and perverted away from God's will. But you may note that Jesus didn't go around raising an army to destroy Rome and Judaism. Instead he went around teaching the good word and ended up forgiving his persecutors in his last moments. Basically, Jesus only preached faith in Holy Spirit, which can involve rebellion against a status quo, so to speak, but it really just means divine inspiration to do good whether that involves deference to worldly authority or transcendence of it. In a way I think you could say that Holy Spirit transcends the whole dichotomy between obedience and rebellion because a person truly inspired by Holy Spirit acts independently in the interest of pure goodness regardless of what any authority has to say about it. So a truly inspired "rebel" would not get caught up in going against authority but instead be focussed on what they want to achieve and how to achieve it, whether that involves rebellion, reform, or collusion with authorities.

 

I think too many rebels get seduced by the image of being revolutionary. They want to see their face on a T-shirt with Che Guevara or see their name in a history book. This is basically the ego-temptation that marks lucifer's shift from being top angel to opposer of God, i.e. he "fell" in love with his own beauty and desired to rule to be worshipped as God instead of wanting to use his power to achieve goodness for all (i.e. do God's will). So I think rebellion is a slight overstep of the liberation of creative power that is divinity, because it brings power down to the level of ego and opposition instead of it remained focussed on the achievement of goodness.

[Marat]

It really has to depend on the specific circumstances. If there were a God, he would probably not have been on the side of the Communist rebellion against the bourgeois Kerensky government in 1917, or of the Nazi revolt against the Weimar Republic in 1933 (though Nazi legal theorists themselves debated whether it was actually a rebellion rather than a technically legal transition). Luther and other early Protestant theorists took the view that it was part of the duty of the good Christian to support the local monarch (e.g., in opposition to the Bundschuh rebellion), and Christianity often endorsed the myth that monarchs had a divine right to rule.

[Greatest I am]

Lemur

 

Good points.

 

I guess it all depends on what label you wish to place on God and Satan.

 

If God is a tyrant, then any dissent is likely to be seen as evil.

 

I, for the sake of having a winner God instead of a God who somehow screwed up heaven by creating a soon to be evil Satan, see Satan as more of a loyal opposition in a democratic system. That plays more of the roles I see them playing in the Job myth, where God is firmly in charge of Satan. If God is King, then all others must be servants.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

It really has to depend on the specific circumstances. If there were a God, he would probably not have been on the side of the Communist rebellion against the bourgeois Kerensky government in 1917, or of the Nazi revolt against the Weimar Republic in 1933 (though Nazi legal theorists themselves debated whether it was actually a rebellion rather than a technically legal transition). Luther and other early Protestant theorists took the view that it was part of the duty of the good Christian to support the local monarch (e.g., in opposition to the Bundschuh rebellion), and Christianity often endorsed the myth that monarchs had a divine right to rule.

 

 

Your knowledge of history just killed any input I might have. Damn, now I don’t feel near as bright.

 

I do agree that religions by and large recognized the rights of Kings.

 

The only bit that comes to mind is what little I know of the, I think it was French situation where, eventually, to gain back the country, the French monarch annexed much of the churches land because the church owned something like 90 % of the country. Or was it England? Absent minded mumble mumble memory.

 

I bow to your knowledge in this though because that history is not my forte.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[A Tripolation]

God, in the beginning, rebelled against the status quo that he had lived in for millennia.

 

Creation [math]\ne[/math] rebellion.

 

To insure that the trend of rebellion continued, he brought Satan to earth and ordered him to tempt Adam and Eve. The only way Adam and Eve could know that they were autonomous entities was to go against God’s command.

 

Satan was created previously. He was not created for the express purpose of tempting Adam and Eve. He was an Archangel, and he had free will. He chose to go into Eden to try to get Adam and Eve on his side, as it were.

 

Adam and Eve knew they existed. They knew God had given them free will, otherwise a forbidden fruit would not have much meaning, would it? They already knew they were sovereign over themselves.

 

Satan is said to be the first autonomous entity, other than God, to rebel. He was rewarded by being named the King of this world. God’s jewel and greatest achievement till that time. This truth is exemplified by his tempting Jesus by offering him the world. If it was not his world to give, there would not have been a temptation for Jesus to face and master. Mark 1: 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan.

 

Satan is not King of this world. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. He was cast from heaven, along with a third of the angels. I REALLY don't see how being shunned from heaven and put into a finite world populated with humans is reward. The temptation of Christ has nothing to do with this.

 

[/b]Adam and Eve were next to rebel. Their reward as we know was to be elevated to God like status. Genesis : 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. They were also given dominion of the earth, as is plain to see.

 

They became like God in that they knew right from wrong. They were able to see the full consequences of their actions, much like a god would. Man has always had dominion over Earth. They did not suddenly gain this when they were cast out of Eden.

 

Moses, rebelled against Pharaoh and was also rewarded with a kingdom. Israel.

 

Moses followed God's orders, and freed His people. That was not a rebellion.

 

Noah, rebelled against the rest of mankind and was rewarded with a new earth.

 

Again, Noah followed God's words. God rewarded that. Not rebelling against humans.

 

Jesus rebelled against the status quo of the written laws and was rewarded by being said to have saved the whole of mankind. Even as believers think only their pitiful little numbers are saved. A hold over from old tribal thinking.

 

I will continue to neg-rep you so long as you speak of Christians in this degenerative manner. It's not conducive to a good discussion. Jesus did not rebel. He was God himself, in human form. He was perfect, and rebelled against no one. He simply established a new law. And seeing as how He is God, I find it hard to believe that it's classified as a "rebellion".

 

There can only be one conclusion to what is written. God regularly rewards rebellion.

 

Yes, you frequently get conclusions you agree with when your entire argument is based on a false premise. Must be nice.

Edited April 13, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Edtharan]

Jesus did not rebel. He was God himself, in human form. He was perfect, and rebelled against no one. He simply established a new law. And seeing as how He is God, I find it hard to believe that it's classified as a "rebellion".

Actually the definiton of rebelion is: "An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention" (from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rebellion ).

 

So as Jesus, as you state: "established a new law" then it constitutes a rebellion, maybe not against God, but it was a rebellion none the less. In fact, using the dictionary definition of rebellion, all the examples that reatest I am presented are rebellions and the arguments stand.

 

Yes, you frequently get conclusions you agree with when your entire argument is based on a false premise. Must be nice.

Or of you re-define a waord to suit your own meanings...

[A Tripolation]

Actually the definiton of rebelion is: "An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention" (from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rebellion ).

 

I agree. And as is constantly stated in the Bible, the highest, and often-times only, moral authority that exists is God. So any rebellion that is of any consequence would be one against Him. The OP provided no such argument that showed that God rewarded rebellion against him.

 

Or of you re-define a waord to suit your own meanings...

 

I was actually applying the term in the only contextual way that made sense. The Bible oft speaks of rebellions against God. They never end with a reward. The "unforgivable sin" is blaspheming God, which is a rebellion against Him. However, God does encourage rebelling against man, and for Christians to hold themselves to a higher standing of morality than the rest of the world. In other words, to rebel against all the sins of the material world. If this is what the OP was talking about, then the only response is, "Yes. And your point is?".

Edited April 14, 2011 by A Tripolation

[lemur]

I will continue to neg-rep you so long as you speak of Christians in this degenerative manner. It's not conducive to a good discussion. Jesus did not rebel. He was God himself, in human form. He was perfect, and rebelled against no one. He simply established a new law. And seeing as how He is God, I find it hard to believe that it's classified as a "rebellion".

What about when he destroyed the church?

[A Tripolation]

What about when he destroyed the church?

 

The one that people had disgraced by turning into a flea market? That church?

[Greatest I am]

Creation [math]\ne[/math] rebellion.

 

 

A dissatisfaction with what is and changing it to a new system is close enough to rebellion or overthrowing it for moi.

 

Satan was created previously. He was not created for the express purpose of tempting Adam and Eve.

 

I did not say he was. I said God used him to do so.

 

Why else would God allow him free access to his new children?

 

 

He was an Archangel, and he had free will.

 

I have never read such. If you have, let's see it.

The myth of Job says otherwise.

 

He chose to go into Eden to try to get Adam and Eve on his side, as it were.

 

 

His side or God's side? I say God's side.

Without him, A & E may not have become as Gods.

All fathers want their children to emulate them right?

Scripture urges us to do the same as well. Satan made sure they developed the moral sense that comes with the knowledge of good and evil.

 

Adam and Eve knew they existed. They knew God had given them free will, otherwise a forbidden fruit would not have much meaning, would it?

 

Can it be free will when God says do anything you want, except bla bla?

Except says do it my way which is not free will.

 

They already knew they were sovereign over themselves.

 

 

If all they ever do is what is told, can they have known that they could do otherwise and know they were autonomous?

No they could not.

 

Satan is not King of this world. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. He was cast from heaven, along with a third of the angels. I REALLY don't see how being shunned from heaven and put into a finite world populated with humans is reward. The temptation of Christ has nothing to do with this.

 

It most definitely does.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071228075024AAZExcJ

 

They became like God in that they knew right from wrong. They were able to see the full consequences of their actions, much like a god would. Man has always had dominion over Earth.

 

Man has exercised dominion I agree.

Scripture says it is not theirs though.

 

They did not suddenly gain this when they were cast out of Eden.

 

 

 

Moses followed God's orders, and freed His people. That was not a rebellion.

 

 

Pharaoh certainly thought it was.

 

He did not care who ordered it and neither do I.

 

Again, Noah followed God's words. God rewarded that. Not rebelling against humans.

 

 

If Noah believed in the sanctity of human life, and lived by Jesus’ command to do to your neighbor as yourself....he would refuse to build the ark. It is a moral issue, Had Noah done that, God would have had to kill everyone, or no one. This sort of moral position is upheld occasionally when a person refuses to back down, even at the cost of his life. We revere a person like this, call them heroes. This is NOT the cloth Noah was cut from.

 

fact is, he rebelled agains the teachings of Jesus and became a traitor to humanity for an alien God. Traitors rebelle aginst their own and that is exactly what he did.

 

I will continue to neg-rep you so long as you speak of Christians in this degenerative manner.

 

Like I care.

 

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

 

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

 

They also do much harm to their own.

 

African witches and Jesus

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

 

Jesus Camp 1of 9

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

 

Promoting death to Gays.

 

 

Note what your ilk are up to.

 

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

 

 

The least you could do is stop promotig magical thinking.

 

It's not conducive to a good discussion. Jesus did not rebel. He was God himself, in human form. He was perfect, and rebelled against no one. He simply established a new law. And seeing as how He is God, I find it hard to believe that it's classified as a "rebellion".

 

 

Someone else spoke to this B S so I will keep it brief.

 

First, scripture says he had to learn obedience. That is not quite perfect.

 

Perfect what. A human born of bestiality is hardly perfect. A half breed chimera is hardly perfect. In fact, God had to break his commandment of coveting and did so in coveting another man’s woman.

 

Yes, you frequently get conclusions you agree with when your entire argument is based on a false premise. Must be nice.

 

LOL.

Would you expect it not to?

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

He rejected what was and created what we have today and gained a reward, pleasure. He was pleased and named it all good. To insure that the trend of rebellion continued, he brought Satan to earth and ordered him to tempt Adam and Eve.

On what basis do you make this claim? Nowhere in Genesis is it claimed that the serpent of the Garden of Eden is in any way related to Satan.

Jesus rebelled against the status quo of the written laws and was rewarded by being said to have saved the whole of mankind. Even as believers think only their pitiful little numbers are saved. A hold over from old tribal thinking.

Jesus specifically told his followers to follow Roman laws, such as taxation, and to pay their temple tax. The laws he most commonly fought against in the Gospels are the unwritten laws of the Pharisees, who interpreted the Torah to create complex systems of rules to allow ordinary people to stay "pure" in regular life.

[A Tripolation]

You just wish to rant. You do not want a discussion. It's common knowledge that Satan was the Archangel known as Lucifer. The Book of Job describes God allowing Satan to destroy all that Job has. Satan is confident that Job will curse God if God stops blessing him. How does this have ANYTHING to do with what you're saying? Who are you trying to impress by being so hateful?

 

The only rebellion that matters at all is one against God. Never has He rewarded such a thing. That's a fact you can't deny. Of course he rewarded "rebellions" that He himself advocated.

Edited April 14, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

What is a "religionist"?

 

Perfect what. A human born of bestiality is hardly perfect. A half breed chimera is hardly perfect. In fact, God had to break his commandment of coveting and did so in coveting another man's woman.

Presumably God is capable of impregnating a woman to give birth to a child who is fully divine, if He so chooses. That's the thing about omnipotence, you know...

 

Regardless, Jesus did not rebel. Do you have examples to prove otherwise?

[lemur]

Although I'm not sure about the directness of interpretation behind it, I understand what he means when he says that satan rules over this world. There is a Jehovah's witness pamphlet that expresses that idea, for one. I also find it logical since there's a quote somewhere in the bible (revelations?) where it talks about the kings of the Earth as all being servants of satan or evil or something like that. This is logical considering that worldly kings and other authorities are in competition with divine authority when they claim their authority to be absolute. So, likewise, if "ruler" is interpreted to mean one who dominates others in an absolute way, then God would never be described as a "rule" because God recognizes the freedom to choose between evil and good. This, in turn, makes it logically evil to suggest that people do not have a choice because they must obey the rule of worldly authority. This is also evil, logically, in that it involves denial of the creativity presumed to be given by God "in His image." This is also presumably symbolized in God's anger at Adam and Eve when they cover up their naked bodies in the garden, i.e. because they were hiding what was given to them by God to be (pro)creative. So things like sexuality, free will, creativity, etc. are sinful to be ashamed of or otherwise deny, I think, according to the biblical logic.

Edited April 15, 2011 by lemur

[Greatest I am]

On what basis do you make this claim? Nowhere in Genesis is it claimed that the serpent of the Garden of Eden is in any way related to Satan.

 

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

If not Satan, what supernatural force was acting on the talking snake?

Or do you think snakes talk naturally?

 

Jesus specifically told his followers to follow Roman laws, such as taxation, and to pay their temple tax. The laws he most commonly fought against in the Gospels are the unwritten laws of the Pharisees, who interpreted the Torah to create complex systems of rules to allow ordinary people to stay "pure" in regular life.

 

 

Luke 12:53

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

If that is not fermenting rebellion, then what is it?

 

If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15

 

Is this not preaching rebellion against all but him?

 

Regards

DL

 

You just wish to rant. You do not want a discussion. It's common knowledge that Satan was the Archangel known as Lucifer. The Book of Job describes God allowing Satan to destroy all that Job has. Satan is confident that Job will curse God if God stops blessing him. How does this have ANYTHING to do with what you're saying? Who are you trying to impress by being so hateful?

 

The only rebellion that matters at all is one against God. Never has He rewarded such a thing. That's a fact you can't deny. Of course he rewarded "rebellions" that He himself advocated.

 

 

And if God is in control, all rebellion is part of his plan and is clearly rewarded in some form or other as shown in the O P.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

What is a "religionist"?

 

Religionist is just designating those of religious or spiritual inclination. Believers of some king of God.

Basically everyone who is not an atheist.

 

Presumably God is capable of impregnating a woman to give birth to a child who is fully divine, if He so chooses. That's the thing about omnipotence, you know...

 

Yet he chose instead to use bestiality and sin by coveting another man's woman.

Hmm. Does not sound too omnipotent to me.

 

Regardless, Jesus did not rebel. Do you have examples to prove otherwise?

 

 

Just read above please.

 

Regards

DL

Edited April 15, 2011 by Greatest I am

[lemur]

Luke 12:53

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

If that is not fermenting rebellion, then what is it?

Practically all of Matthew 10 is like this too. E.g.

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

³⁶ a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’^[c]

 

³⁷ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ³⁸ Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

 

But it's not so much that he's advocating rebellion, I think, as it is he's saying that people who deny truth in favor of keeping the peace with deniers of truth are themselves doomed. This is sort of a general concept that's upheld in science as the idea that bias and social-political interests cause people to seek results that favor their interests instead of "inconvenient truths."

 

Is the pursuit of truth, even when it is inconvenient to some social-political interest(s) the same thing as rebellion?

 

 

 

 

 

[Greatest I am]

Although I'm not sure about the directness of interpretation behind it, I understand what he means when he says that satan rules over this world. There is a Jehovah's witness pamphlet that expresses that idea, for one. I also find it logical since there's a quote somewhere in the bible (revelations?) where it talks about the kings of the Earth as all being servants of satan or evil or something like that. This is logical considering that worldly kings and other authorities are in competition with divine authority when they claim their authority to be absolute. So, likewise, if "ruler" is interpreted to mean one who dominates others in an absolute way, then God would never be described as a "rule" because God recognizes the freedom to choose between evil and good. This, in turn, makes it logically evil to suggest that people do not have a choice because they must obey the rule of worldly authority. This is also evil, logically, in that it involves denial of the creativity presumed to be given by God "in His image." This is also presumably symbolized in God's anger at Adam and Eve when they cover up their naked bodies in the garden, i.e. because they were hiding what was given to them by God to be (pro)creative. So things like sexuality, free will, creativity, etc. are sinful to be ashamed of or otherwise deny, I think, according to the biblical logic.

 

 

You must be a Gnostic.

No wonder the ancient Christians hated us, killed us and burnt our scriptures the moment Constantine gave them power when he bought the Church.

 

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

Martin Luther

 

 

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.

Martin Luther

 

 

Faith without facts is for fools.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

Practically all of Matthew 10 is like this too. E.g.

 

 

But it's not so much that he's advocating rebellion, I think, as it is he's saying that people who deny truth in favor of keeping the peace with deniers of truth are themselves doomed. This is sort of a general concept that's upheld in science as the idea that bias and social-political interests cause people to seek results that favor their interests instead of "inconvenient truths."

 

Is the pursuit of truth, even when it is inconvenient to some social-political interest(s) the same thing as rebellion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way I understand the word, yes.

 

It is rebelling against what is seen as lies.

 

Here again I would point to Rosa Parks. She thought that the whites were wrong in saying that blacks were inferior and rebelled against that lie. She was right in doing so.

 

Adam and Eve rebelled against the notion that they should not have knowledge of good and evil. They too were right.

 

What would man be without this knowledge?

 

Just another dumb animal who only eats, sleeps and screws.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[A Tripolation]

Practically all of Matthew 10 is like this too. E.g.

 

 

But it's not so much that he's advocating rebellion, I think, as it is he's saying that people who deny truth in favor of keeping the peace with deniers of truth are themselves doomed.

 

Well-said, lemur.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

If not Satan, what supernatural force was acting on the talking snake?

Or do you think snakes talk naturally?

Why should there be a supernatural force? After all, "the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made." Gen 3:1.

 

Genesis 3:14:

"The LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals, and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.'"

 

The snake is an animal. Associating the snake with the Devil is a later phenomenon -- the concept of an all-powerful Satan did not exist when the Old Testament was written. (And no, the Satan in Job is not an all-powerful devil figure. "Satan" means "adversary." Satan was an angel in God's court which was an adversarial figure, like a prosecutor.)

 

Luke 12:53

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

If that is not fermenting rebellion, then what is it?

 

If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15

 

Is this not preaching rebellion against all but him?

You said that Jesus "rebelled against the status quo of the written laws". What you quote does not support it -- largely because it cannot be supported:

 

¹⁷ "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. ¹⁸ I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. ¹⁹ So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. ²⁰ "But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

 

http://www.biblegate...-20&version=NLT

 

Jesus does not advocate rebellion against the laws of the Pharisees -- he advocates following the law even better. Read the rest of Matthew 5; you'll see he says it's not enough to, say, obey the commandment against murder -- one must not even get angry at anyone. Not committing adultery is not enough; looking at a woman with lust is bad enough.

 

These are not the words of someone rebelling against the law.

 

Yet he chose instead to use bestiality and sin by coveting another man's woman.

Hmm. Does not sound too omnipotent to me.

"Coveting" does not mean "having sex with," by the way. In fact, adultery in the Old Testament and in the Commandments is specifically a rule that can only be broken by women. Jewish men cannot commit adultery because adultery is the crime of a woman having extramarital relations. From the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

 

In the Old Testament adultery had a precise and limited definition: sexual relations between a married (or betrothed) woman and any man other than her husband. Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never against a wife.

 

God did not sin in causing the birth of Jesus, according to his own rules.

[Greatest I am]

Cap'n Refsmmat

 

So you think snakes have ears to hear with and can speak human. Smooth.

 

As to craftiness, many animals seem brighter. Dogs, dolphins and chimps to name a few.

 

Have you ever seem snakes used to entertain? No. they are not bright enough.

 

Is it not written in the old law to not work on the Sabbath? Yet Jesus did.

 

This supports the claim I made.

 

“he says it's not enough to, say, obey the commandment against murder -- one must not even get angry at anyone. Not committing adultery is not enough; looking at a woman with lust is bad enough.

 

These are not the words of someone rebelling against the law.”

 

They are the words of someone adding to a law and in that way rebelling against the old.

 

“In fact, adultery in the Old Testament and in the Commandments is specifically a rule that can only be broken by women. Jewish men cannot commit adultery because adultery is the crime of a woman having extramarital relations.”

 

LOL. How sweet for men. Give your head a shake. Women cannot do that particular sin alone.

 

 

“God did not sin in causing the birth of Jesus, according to his own rules.”

 

A rule that says do as I say and not as I do should be rebelled against.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So you think snakes have ears to hear with and can speak human. Smooth.

You think demons can possess an animal with no vocal chords and make it speak. I don't see how you have the high ground.

 

As to craftiness, many animals seem brighter. Dogs, dolphins and chimps to name a few.

So you're going to alternately quote the Bible for support and deny its validity? Is the Bible reliable or not?

 

Is it not written in the old law to not work on the Sabbath? Yet Jesus did.

Not quite. You have failed to understand Jesus' point. Here's the passage in question:

 

¹ One Sabbath day as Jesus was walking through some grainfields, his disciples broke off heads of grain, rubbed off the husks in their hands, and ate the grain. ² But some Pharisees said, "Why are you breaking the law by harvesting grain on the Sabbath?" ³ Jesus replied, "Haven't you read in the Scriptures what David did when he and his companions were hungry? ⁴ He went into the house of God and broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests can eat. He also gave some to his companions." ⁵ And Jesus added, "The Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath."

 

⁶ On another Sabbath day, a man with a deformed right hand was in the synagogue while Jesus was teaching. ⁷ The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees watched Jesus closely. If he healed the man's hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath. ⁸ But Jesus knew their thoughts. He said to the man with the deformed hand, "Come and stand in front of everyone." So the man came forward. ⁹ Then Jesus said to his critics, "I have a question for you. Does the law permit good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?"

 

¹⁰ He looked around at them one by one and then said to the man, "Hold out your hand." So the man held out his hand, and it was restored! ¹¹ At this, the enemies of Jesus were wild with rage and began to discuss what to do with him.

Context is important here. The Pharisees are a sect who interpreted Biblical laws, such as the Sabbath, in practical terms for everyday people. They had to decide questions like, "What exactly does it mean to 'work'? What activities are not allowed on the Sabbath? How far may we travel? May we prepare food?"

 

In this case, the Pharisees clearly came to the conclusion that not even picking grain to eat was acceptable on the Sabbath. Food preparation was forbidden. Jesus, however, rejects their legalistic interpretation; he says the rules were intended for the benefit of man, and hence allow people to eat when they are starving.

 

Jesus is essentially saying "no, you don't know what the rules really mean, or why they exist." He is not saying "I want to violate all the rules!"

 

"he says it's not enough to, say, obey the commandment against murder -- one must not even get angry at anyone. Not committing adultery is not enough; looking at a woman with lust is bad enough.

 

These are not the words of someone rebelling against the law."

 

They are the words of someone adding to a law and in that way rebelling against the old.

If I support a law so strongly I wish for it to be extended, am I rebelling against it? No.

 

"In fact, adultery in the Old Testament and in the Commandments is specifically a rule that can only be broken by women. Jewish men cannot commit adultery because adultery is the crime of a woman having extramarital relations."

 

LOL. How sweet for men. Give your head a shake. Women cannot do that particular sin alone.

The rule against adultery existed for the purpose of maintaining family succession. If a woman committed adultery, her real husband could not be certain his sons were indeed his own sons, the family name would be corrupted, and inheritance ruined. If a man was unfaithful, his family name would get along just fine, so long as he had a few legitimate kids as well.

 

The crime of adultery in the Jewish scriptures refers specifically to women. Take it up with the scholars if you disagree.

[Greatest I am]

You think demons can possess an animal with no vocal chords and make it speak. I don't see how you have the high ground.

 

I do not believe in demons so no, I do not believe they can do anything.

I was indicating the resons why I see an imaginary Satan in the mythical Eden.

 

So you're going to alternately quote the Bible for support and deny its validity? Is the Bible reliable or not?

 

Of course not. It is for goofs only.

 

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

 

Not quite. You have failed to understand Jesus' point. Here's the passage in question:

 

 

The point is that he was rebelling againt the interpretation of the law and demanding change.

 

 

Context is important here. The Pharisees are a sect who interpreted Biblical laws, such as the Sabbath, in practical terms for everyday people. They had to decide questions like, "What exactly does it mean to 'work'? What activities are not allowed on the Sabbath? How far may we travel? May we prepare food?"

 

In this case, the Pharisees clearly came to the conclusion that not even picking grain to eat was acceptable on the Sabbath. Food preparation was forbidden. Jesus, however, rejects their legalistic interpretation; he says the rules were intended for the benefit of man, and hence allow people to eat when they are starving.

 

Jesus is essentially saying "no, you don't know what the rules really mean, or why they exist." He is not saying "I want to violate all the rules!"

 

Again, he rebelled against the interpretation.

 

If I support a law so strongly I wish for it to be extended, am I rebelling against it? No.

 

Yes you are. You wish it overthrown and replaced with an amended law.

 

The rule against adultery existed for the purpose of maintaining family succession. If a woman committed adultery, her real husband could not be certain his sons were indeed his own sons, the family name would be corrupted, and inheritance ruined. If a man was unfaithful, his family name would get along just fine, so long as he had a few legitimate kids as well.

 

The crime of adultery in the Jewish scriptures refers specifically to women. Take it up with the scholars if you disagree.

 

 

I have and they say that scriptures, as the link above indicates, should not be read literally.

 

Have you ever known a Jew who reads the Bible literally. I have spoken to many and not one of them did.

I hope I have not given you the impression that I believe any of the scriptures. I use the literal words for debate only to show how foolish it is to try to do so.

 

I do not believe in fantasy, miracles or magic.

 

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Ringer]

So you give a hypothetical to be discussed and then refuse your own premise on the basis that it is not real?

[lemur]

Here again I would point to Rosa Parks. She thought that the whites were wrong in saying that blacks were inferior and rebelled against that lie. She was right in doing so.

Supposedly, she was just tired and didn't feel like walking all the way to the back of the bus. When you call doing the right thing rebellion against corruption, it construes your action as using fire against fire. Evil feeds on itself this way. The only way out of the "burning ring of fire" (to use Johnny Cash's words) is to choose good actions and do them pro-actively without getting seduced into fighting against provocation, imo. Provoking people into fighting against evil is an evil tactic to bring people down to your level; didn't you see the Empire Strikes Back?

 

Well-said, lemur.

Thanks, I'll have to keep notes on what we agree on since we usually disagree a lot on religious matters.

 

 

 

[A Tripolation]

So you think snakes have ears to hear with and can speak human. Smooth.

 

...all the supernatural things that happen in the Bible, and you have a problem with talking snakes? Really?

 

Is it not written in the old law to not work on the Sabbath? Yet Jesus did.

 

Jesus did not work on Sundays. He fellowshipped. And taught. and healed.

 

This supports the claim I made.

 

No. It doesn't.

 

They are the words of someone adding to a law and in that way rebelling against the old.

 

No. It really isn't.

 

Thanks, I'll have to keep notes on what we agree on since we usually disagree a lot on religious matters.

 

It's because you're stupid.