Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Does your God approve of pedophilia? Part 5: God establishes all the secular laws

Perhaps the most devastating rebuttal against James Patrick Holding's belief that his Jewish god hates pedophilic marriage, is apostle Paul's unqualified language that the secular powers over Christians are put there by decree of God, 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.
 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (Rom. 13:1-5 NAU)
If there are no secular authorities except those which are established by God, then Who was ultimately responsible for the secular authorities of Delaware in the 1800's setting the minimum age of sexual consent for girls at 7 years old?

Holding may resort to his "that's just Greco-Roman rhetoric of exaggeration", but

a) he won't be giving any evidence that this is indeed exaggeration, since he is fearful that to provide the criteria is to create the risk that somebody could invalidate the criteria;
b) you will have great difficulty convincing the vast majority of inerrantist evangelicals that Paul's language here was exaggeration, proving that Holding's predictable comeback has less scholarly rigor than his sneering would suggest; and
c) if it was exaggeration, then Paul was using exaggeration when making an important theological point, and that's a can of worms Holding will never close again if he decides to open it:  How many other theologically important statements from Paul were similarly a case of exaggeration?  Is your criteria rigid enough for typical Christian doctrines to survive, or is it sufficiently vague that pretty much anything that looks like an extreme statement in the bible, can be dismissed as being less important than the language suggests on the surface?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...