Posted on 08/27/2007 6:08:20 AM PDT by goldstategop
But think about it. There are two components to Jesus' words. We are to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," but we are also to "render unto God the things that are God's." Well, everything ultimately belongs to God. But, most of all, this injunction by Jesus instructs us that government laws cannot trump God's laws – ever.
If government commands you to do evil, as a Christian you must resist. There is no alternative. Citing the "render unto Caesar" line is an apologetic for accountability to God – nothing more, nothing less.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Although true, the problem is with the interpretation of just exactly how this is carried through to fruition. There are 32,000 denominations who all wish to give God primary obedience........and the question is why is this the case.
But see the Book of Daniel. Christians are not required to take on the state when it promulgates evil laws that are contrary to God’s laws. That is an individual choice. We must simply stand straight when told to bow to an idol, or pray in our homes even if barred from doing so by the government. We are not required to announce that we are standing straight or praying, or draw the attention of the state to our actions, or politically challenge the state if doing so martyrs or harms us. My reading of Daniel is also that we do not lie when the state notices our actions, but we explain why, even if that does cause us to risk being martyred or punished.
However, in none of the biblical accounts of heroes obeying God rather than man is there any hint that they claimed to be immune from punishment by man for that reason.
The whole point of civil disobedience is that one willingly accepts the punishment for breaking the law.
The whole point of civil disobedience is that one willingly accepts the punishment for breaking the law.
____________________________________________________
Or overthrow the government. Cf. Esther, Israels wars to establish the nation, David’s war with Saul.
However, in none of the biblical accounts of heroes obeying God rather than man is there any hint that they claimed to be immune from punishment by man for that reason.
The whole point of civil disobedience is that one willingly accepts the prescribed punishment for breaking the law.
Sorry ‘bout the double post. Not sure how it happened.
I don’t think any of your examples really apply.
Esther involves a faction fight within the Persian administration, not an overthrow of the government.
The conquest of Canaan was a war of one nation against others, not a revolt to overthrow the established government within the Israelite nation.
David’s war with Saul, and the many other coups and civil wars detailed in the Bible, did not attempt to change the form of government, only to replace the head of that government. To some extent they were the equivalent of today’s elections. :)
That’s why I put “cf.” That said, I think David going to war, “civil war” or “revolt” is direct support that we can overthrow the civil authorities and that overthrow can be pleasing to God.
Similarly only a tyrannical government seeks to disarm its citizens. Under such a system a man has an obligation to NOT obey such laws and a free man will obey the natural law which says to arm himself against tyranny and the brutality of other men. Libs who say we should repeal the Second Amendment do not understand that it is not a right GIVEN by government, it is a natural right contradicted only by tyrannous government and not to be obeyed by men who by Divine Right are free.
I wonder how Americans would take to the occupation of their homeland.
Why doth treason never prosper?
“Why doth treason never prosper? If it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Exactly what happened here.
Canada and Australia, while not quite as prosperous as the US, didn’t do all that poorly as British colonies and dominions. Our prosperity is not entirely a consequence of the Revolution.
In a study of the founders of this nation, their deliberations and the general tenor of the early years, it seems quite clear that the nation was deliberately founded under the authority of God. And, it was many years later that this so called separation of church and state became a real issue, not withstanding the minor effect of Jefferson’s letter to the Connecticut Baptists in that day.
Is that a fair analysis?
Actually, Saul’s war with David. (IMO)
Actually, Saul’s war with David. (IMO)
______________________
You are right. David didn’t go to war with the house of Saul until after he had been appointed king of Judah after Saul’s death. He refused to kill Saul even when it was in his power to do so. David did maintain armed strength outside of Saul’s grasp and in defiance of Saul though for as long as he needed to. I guess it’s a “cf” too : )
What’s a cf?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.