Skip to comments.
Rendering Unto Caesar (No - Christians Don't Have To Submit To Evil Alert)
Worldnetdaily.com ^
| 08/27/2007
| Joseph Farah
Posted on 08/27/2007 6:08:20 AM PDT by goldstategop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
No Christian owes the state primary obedience. The Christian owes God primary obedience. And when the two conflict, the Christian must always follow the divine law first. So the Bible has legitimized civil disobedience of unjust and oppressive laws. For those shallow and ignorant Christians who think one must submit to ALL laws, no one better than Martin Luther King. Jr set them straight in his famous "Letter From A Birmingham Jail." In it, he explained that Christians were NOT advocating anarchy or lawlessness. But they certainly did want to obey God's laws and the way to resolve their dilemma was to ensure man's laws are in harmony with the law of the Creator. One must always seek to do good and the line "Render Unto Caesar" must never be used to raise the state above God.
"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
To: goldstategop
Christian owes God primary obedience 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.
2
posted on
08/27/2007 6:21:18 AM PDT
by
badpacifist
("I don't think you understand these boys killed my dog" Bob Lee Swagger)
To: goldstategop
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.
3
posted on
08/27/2007 6:23:32 AM PDT
by
Greg F
(Ann Coulter is smarter than most of us and quicker witted than all of us.)
To: goldstategop
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.
4
posted on
08/27/2007 6:39:48 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: Sherman Logan
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.
5
posted on
08/27/2007 7:02:11 AM PDT
by
Greg F
(Ann Coulter is smarter than most of us and quicker witted than all of us.)
To: goldstategop
I have always believed that a Christian, or any man, is under no obligation to obey unjust laws.
But then again, I've been known to have problems with authority...
6
posted on
08/27/2007 7:03:52 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
(Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
To: goldstategop
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.
7
posted on
08/27/2007 7:10:02 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: Sherman Logan
Sorry ‘bout the double post. Not sure how it happened.
8
posted on
08/27/2007 7:10:39 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: Greg F
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. :)
9
posted on
08/27/2007 7:15:46 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: Sherman Logan
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.
10
posted on
08/27/2007 7:20:00 AM PDT
by
Greg F
(Ann Coulter is smarter than most of us and quicker witted than all of us.)
To: goldstategop
This fits in well with the concept of natural law and the natural rights of man. According to our founders concept of natural law we have freedom of conscience and it is not governments business to look into mens souls. Only a tyrannical government insists that all pray or not pray in the same way, and under such a system a man has an obligation to NOT obey laws that contradict natural law.
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.
11
posted on
08/27/2007 7:21:27 AM PDT
by
allmendream
(A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
To: Sherman Logan
No government rules but by the will of God. So if you rebel you had better hope that it culminates in a revolution not a revolt. If you succeed in revolution then YOUR party now rules by the will of God. If your rebellion is put down as a revolt, you disobeyed your government and God was NOT on your side. So if you fight against the established order, FIGHT HARD and may the devil take the hindmost!
12
posted on
08/27/2007 7:25:21 AM PDT
by
allmendream
(A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
To: goldstategop
"Render unto Caesar....I wonder how Americans would take to the occupation of their homeland.
13
posted on
08/27/2007 7:26:28 AM PDT
by
onedoug
To: allmendream
Why doth treason never prosper?
14
posted on
08/27/2007 7:28:26 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: Sherman Logan
Well obviously it did in the American colonies. We have prosperity beyond the dreams of most nations, and far more than we ever would being tied to English rule. Nothing like freedom, representative government, and free market capitalism for prosperity; and if a bit of treason is the path to freedom? Rebellion against tyranny is no vice, and acquiescence to tyranny is no virtue.
15
posted on
08/27/2007 7:42:21 AM PDT
by
allmendream
(A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
To: allmendream
“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.
16
posted on
08/27/2007 8:16:43 AM PDT
by
Sherman Logan
(Scratch a liberal, find a dhimmi)
To: allmendream
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?
17
posted on
08/27/2007 8:45:03 AM PDT
by
elpadre
To: Greg F
Actually, Saul’s war with David. (IMO)
18
posted on
08/27/2007 8:51:53 AM PDT
by
carton253
(And if that time does come, then draw your swords and throw away the scabbards.)
To: carton253
Actually, Sauls 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 : )
19
posted on
08/27/2007 9:33:59 AM PDT
by
Greg F
(Ann Coulter is smarter than most of us and quicker witted than all of us.)
To: Greg F
20
posted on
08/27/2007 9:42:57 AM PDT
by
carton253
(And if that time does come, then draw your swords and throw away the scabbards.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson