What are the most dangerous misquotes of the Bible, in your opinion?
#11

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies  In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Thou to counteract such an abuse of Romans 13 I like to turn to Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. This passage reflects a true interpretation of Romans 13 but will rarely be  quoted by anyone who takes a liking to Romans 13. Thomas Jefferson writes that all forms of government are not Divinely Ordained and therefore it is permissible to abolish the form of government if it becomes destructive toward the well being and happiness of the people. From a Roman Catholic perspective one can say that if a form of government imposes bad laws and bad customs, then men are obligated to abolish that form of government. This is the view of William of Ockham on Romans 13, he uses the example of the Old Testament Fathers who overthrew kings and kingdoms when these governments imposed bad laws and bad customs on them. The Blessed Trinity never took offense at the action of the Old Testament Jews when they engaged in overthrowing these Kings and Kingdoms. So hey, according to Thomas Jefferson & the Declaration of Independence, William of Ockham and the lives of the Old Testament Fathers it is permissible to abolish those forms of government that impose bad laws and bad customs on its citizens. Now the protestants and assorted lovers of modern democracy (including some trads) would never think of such a thing as to resist the modern forms of democracy, and this is why these types always abuse Romans 13, it is in their best interest to keep the hope alive in the one world order based on the foundation of democracy.

Reply
#12
ggreg Wrote:Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Most people take this to mean that it is wrong to criticise immoral behaviour, since none of us are sinless ourselves.  They conveniently forget that Christ told the woman to "go an sin no more" and that he saved her from being stoned to death, rather than criticised for the sin of adultery.

The line is commonly used by liberals who think anything goes and we should just "be nice" and smile at each other more and tolerate everything except the sin of intolerance.


Besides, it should be

"Let him who is without sin..." ;)

(Sorry, being pedantic!)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)