Rebellion

Rebellion against God is as the sin of witchcraft as it says in the Bible

JUst how serious does God see rebellion? How is it different from any of other sin?

My thoughts....Rebellion is not simply going against God but deliberately disobeying Gods instructions. In the Old testment, it was Saul who showed this characteristic. Another was Lucifer. In the new testament, Jesus told a parable of two sons, both being given instructions by their Father, one didnt want to at first but then changed his mind and worked the other said he would go but didnt. It is the latter son who was rebellious.

Ive observed that some people think rebellion is a good thing, even encourage it amongst their own children. Because they were rebels themselves. Theres biographies with titles like 'goodnight, rebel girls' and sports stores called Rebel sport. How did rebellion get to be a good thing? Whats so great about disobeying? Or when is disobedience called for? Should we only disobey if the authority is Satanic? Or is it we should always obey God, rather than please men, because sometimes thats diametrically opposed.

It appears to me that rebellion has become popular because successive generations have been indoctrinated into a rebel culture by the academic world and reinforced by corporate media. They are taught that America has been bad from the beginning and needs to change. They loathe the founding fathers and revere only those who sparked cultural and legislative change. This is weaponized revolutionary ideology forced upon a captive audience during their most impressionable years. It is war against the United States of America by subversive domestic enemies.

Don't trust anyone under 30.

Werent those american Founding fathers rebelling from England when they didnt want to pay tax or be part of the church of England? So they changed the legislation? Also they kept slaves? So they could build up USA? Wasnt the economy of the southern part of the states founded on cotton which need a huge workforce so the white people got slaves from africa as they didnt want to do the hard work and pick it themselves? Thats what I heard.....

Werent those american Founding fathers rebelling from England when they didnt want to pay tax or be part of the church of England? So they changed the legislation? Also they kept slaves? So they could build up USA? Wasnt the economy of the southern part of the states founded on cotton which need a huge workforce so the white people got slaves from africa as they didnt want to do the hard work and pick it themselves? Thats what I heard.....

Rebellion against righteous authority is always wrong. Rebellion against a cultural norm is not always wrong. In the latter case, the reason for the rebellion must be considered, beyond the "rebellion" itself (if it can truly be called such). A blanket condemnation against every form of "rebellion" is not helpful, considering that the term is used in a wide variety of contexts.

Yea how can you rebel against satan anyway. Satans already a rebel. You just resist him.

So why does a shop call itself 'rebel sport' I wondered. Is playing sport some kind of rebellion?

Yes, rebels are used to identify those who have no faith that alone comes by hearing the tongue of God. . . prophecy. That must seek after the things seen as a false way of confirming an unseen work of the words of God's prophecy. There rebellion becomes as sign against them according to the law found in 1 Corinthian 14:22-23 . Yet they still refuse to believe prophecy alone as it is written . (sola scriptura)
Exodus gives us a few examples of those kind of rebels that require as sign rather than walking by faith as it is written. The tongue of God.

It is merely to appeal to the rebel inside; only effective when it strikes a sympathetic chord.

You heard a twisted and biased fairy-tale that ignores the exculpatory evidence and makes false assertions from a distorted perspective. For example: Many young people claim the the Constitution considered black people less than human and counted them as 3/5 of a person.

No one who knows the truth could even think that way. Abolitionists were strong in number in the north, but not so in the south, where a few men owned a lot of black slaves. In order to rid the continents of slavery, they would need to be able to have the authority to do so over every nation formed thereon. To get the south to join, they devised a compromise that would get them to accept that authority. The three-fifths compromise did not address race, but legal status, and the corruptible influence of subordination. Those who were subservient to others, including white indentured servants who sold years of labor to pay the transatlantic passage, were not allowed to vote but they still needed to be counted for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives. By fractional representation, the abolitionists were able to make it economically infeasible for the south to inflate their representation by buying more slaves. If it was about race at all, it was for the greater good... to eliminate subjugation by race.