Uncompromising pacifism a path to peril

Scott...please produce the quotes from these FREEPERS...it is true that Paul said to obey those who govern over you because government was appointed by God...BUT, the Apostles were ORDERED by official to stop preaching the Gospel and they said they would NOT obey, and did not..Paul did NOT mean, if you take all scripture in context, that we obey evil laws and orders...Paul was EXECUTED, spent much of his life in prison, so obviously the authorites felt he disobeyed laws... I think what rubs you the wrong way, is that many Christians do not share your "our government is the enemy...they are ALL socialist" broad brush generalized definition of our government.

"...on the grounds that violence begets violence? "

This phrase is a particular bit of idiocy that never seems to die. And it is especially sickening given that it actually works against itself when invoked a deterrent.

If one is urged not to "react violently" for a violence already suffered, and obliges, the very phrase becomes untrue. Violence has stopped, and the original violence has not "begotten more violence." What then, does the peacenik say to discourage the original perpetrator from behaving violently again? That "violence will only beget more violence?" No, that's been stopped. There is no longer that deterrent. So the violence can now continue, undeterred by the squandered truth of the original observation.

Violence must always beget more violence. Otherwise it has no cost. And methods with no cost are used in great frequency, and never reserved for last resort.

Gandhi actually believed that Britain should have surrendered to Germany during WWII, and that Jews should adopt "active nonviolence" that "would melt the stony hearts" of Nazis stuffing them into ovens. That about says it all.

Gandhi dropped all his "pacifist" BS the minute he obtained govt power. Violence is violence, whether it is an invading army or a tax collector. If you reject the very possiblity of legit violence, then you cannot have (or in Gandhi's case, lead) a govt, since a govt supposedly exists to hold a monopoly of legit violence, which a pacifist things is an oxymoron.

Every pacifist must be an anarchist to be consistent, and Gandhi was not. (The reverse isn't true - anarchists don't have to be pacifists, IMHO, since their problem isn't necessarily with violence - you can defend yourself - but with govt).

"When dealing with taxes, Jesus either said "if they want it that bad, go ahead and give it to them" and had Peter go get a fish to get the tax payments out of its mouth (a mocking response that I believe is the only miracle Jesus ever did that benefited Himself)."

Jesus said to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's," indicating that there is nothing inherently evil about government requiring taxes from its citizens. How else would you fund a military? Regarding unnecessary expenditures, you and I would probably agree.

"The term "tax collectors" hardly ever appears in the NT without "and sinners" nearby (anyone ever see a Biblical reference to "rug murchants and sinners" or "tent makers and sinners"?"

The term "tax collector" carried a less than complimentary reaction due to the Jewish men who were paid by the Roman government to collect the taxes for them. These Jews would oftentimes collect 4-5 times more than what the citizen was required by Rome, all of which went into their pockets.

Virtually every occupation can be corrupted to the extent that it loses respect with people. Being a "tax collector" is not necessarily a bad thing.

"Jesus refused to even speak to Pilate, the hightest ranking govt official He ever dealt with (although I'm doing this one from memory) except to say "If you say so" when Pilate demanded answers or some sort of defense from Him."

Jesus had to refuse to answer Pilate for the mere fact that Pilate was already inclined to release Him. Had Jesus revealed who He was to Pilate, He would have been immediately released, thus negating the purpose for Him coming to earth (i.e., to die for all sinners).

"The pivotal act in the Gospels is the govt murder of an innocent man."

Agreed, although there were "witnesses" that testified of the so-called "crimes" that Jesus committed. Because He chose not to defend Himself, He set the stage for His crucifixion.

Jesus said to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's," indicating that there is nothing inherently evil about government requiring taxes from its citizens.

The article above mentions Jesus's admonition in the Sermon on the Mount, "Do not resist one who is evil". Jesus said not to resist Caesar's tax collectors. That does not make them interently not evil in light of the Sermon on the Mount quote.

Agreed, although there were "witnesses" that testified of the so-called "crimes" that Jesus committed. Because He chose not to defend Himself, He set the stage for His crucifixion.

Jesus made it a point to deliberately commit a 'crime' during his first trial. He did not fail to defend Himself, he deliberately broke their blasphemy law right in front of them.

"Find one exception in a literal reading of anything Paul said about obeying the government. Just one."

"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; for it is a minister of God to you for good." (Romans 13:3-4 [in part])

I believe that Paul was clearly stating that in order for a government to recognize what is good, it must first have an understanding or foundation of "goodness;" in other words, a moral standard. If not, how can a government justifiably punish its citizenry for doing what itself does? In doing so, it loses all legitimacy, as it relates to the thrust of Romans 13.

Generally, government is the creation of its populace and a creation that reacts to the desires of its populace. For good or bad, government upholds a standard of behavior that is established by the populace that gives it its power to enforce that standard of "good," however subjective that definition may be.

Christians are not only commanded to obey government whose actions are based upon a clear understanding of the Word of God, but to disobey those actions that are not.

"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; for it is a minister of God to you for good." (Romans 13:3-4 [in part])

Bold-face highlighting the word "good" does not change the literal reading of this verse. Paul is making a bald-faced (and clearly false) claim that govt does only what is good. Take out the word "rulers" and put in something else and see if you buy it:

For Hillary Clinton is not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of Hillary? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for she is a minister of God to you for good."

He is not saying to only obey a govt that does good or only obey when it does good. Nobody wants to read it the way it is written because a literal reading is so clearly false. Its like when the gun-grabbers take the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd to mean that RKBA only applies to the National Guard.

The Jews in Nazi Germany had plenty of reason to fear authority, regardless of whether they did good or not.

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.