Change, or resistance: where is the line drawn?

[theo_victis]

. In the absence of a government, where in the Bible is the authority to establish a "Christian Nation," without considering (or even against the will of) the non-Christians present in your population? (The basic scenario presented by "Day One.")

Well.... i have not come across any biblical implication, i do believe this wasnt a concern for paul or any gospel writers at that time period, no one was thinking of a governmental collapse!

However, i will point out a seemingly funny paradox to your question. Your question asks us is it acceptable for a Christian nation to be founded in light of the government that it has come forth from (or something along those lines).

Didnt that happen already with a familiar nation known as America? (yeah yeah, we could argue all day about how many of the constitution signers or forefathers were deists or christians, but the fact remains that America was founded on Christian principles by many Christians). I will concede though, america was a failed attempt in the pursuit of a "christian nation." Just look at us today.

 

[theo_victis]

Any country should be run on Christian principles.

I will respectfully disagree. A christian government is a far cry from a theocratic rule that Israel was supposed to have but lost in their pursuit for an anthropic king (look what happened to them!). All nations should be run by God as was meant by God (thats if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God).

Besides, governments that mandate religion (see North Korea) are nuts. I wouldnt want my government to tell me how to interpret scripture to the upmost extant (see holy roman empire) especially if there is no reasonable possibility to discuss interpretation differences (see holy roman empire again!). Establishing a Christian government would be a futile effort. What would the political parties be? Calvinists? Armininists? and the under ground party Open Theists? Fundies? lol You can hardly get these groups to decide on one topic unamiously. The theological differences alone would disrupt the nation since it could not agree on what biblical principles to be based upon.

Furthermore, i would rather have a government that is hardly seen and hardly heard, a Christian government would be the most legalistic commies ever. You wouldnt be able to play cards anymore because some ULTRA conservative fundies would pass some stupid law against that and dancing.

Sorry for being so pessismestic about "Christendom the Land of Fundies." Lets change americans hearts first before breaking off to our own cult like nation.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Whenever humanist governments have not (yet) overthrown a specific Bible based law that has existed in this country from the time of the puritans (complete with scripture verses encoded in the case laws) you can call those laws "humanist" if you want but that does not make them any less Biblical.

Jefferson, it's easy to point back to our Puritan forfathers and say "This country was founded on Biblical principles." The problem is while the Puritan governments in New England were part of our history, they were not the founding of our government: ours was founded on the Constitution 150+ years after the Pilgrims landed. Now, if you choose you can also point to the Constitution and say "This is where the rot started in," because the Constitution was the founding of our government not as a Christian government, but as a secular one. But it must also be mentioned that according to Rom 13, the Government established by the ratification of the Constitution was ordained by God.

And remember--I am not speaking solely of "introducing Christian law," which I've already acknowledged that one has the authority to do, provided one gets the votes and gets elected to Congress. I'm speaking of implementing Enyart's proposed government in "Day One."

But that's beside the point. Lets take another example. How about perjury. Biblical law states that someone who brings a false accusation in a court of law should receive the same punishment that the accused would have received if found guilty. This would drastically cut down on the number of frivolous cases brought to court these days. But this would also mean there would be a much lesser need for such a large number of attorneys in this country which would mean a lot of attorneys would have to find other jobs.

Are you against such a law being "imposed" on the U.S. just because attorneys would not receive the law with "joyful obedience?"

Reducio ad absurdum has its limits, and this exceeds them. My point is not that people will not "joyfully obey" laws imposed from above--my point is that such laws will not result in a "Christian nation."

 

[Truppenzwei]

I'm a firm believer that a country gets the government it deserves.......

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I'm a firm believer that a country gets the government it deserves.......

Well, depending on your interpretation of Rom 13, God ordained the election of George W Bush--but then again, that also means that God ordained the election of Bill Clinton. It's kind of hard to have the one without also accepting the other.

 

[Truppenzwei]

Well, depending on your interpretation of Rom 13, God ordained the election of George W Bush--but then again, that also means that God ordained the election of Bill Clinton. It's kind of hard to have the one without also accepting the other.

If you believe that GWB has been ordained by God to lead the colonies then I agree, you would have to believe that he also ordained Reagan, Clinton etc.

Although from our side of the pond Clinton seemed OK....dodgy mullet but other than that

:chuckle:

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Although from our side of the pond Clinton seemed OK....dodgy mullet but other than that

:chuckle:

:rotfl:

 

[docrob57]

If you believe that GWB has been ordained by God to lead the colonies then I agree, you would have to believe that he also ordained Reagan, Clinton etc.

Although from our side of the pond Clinton seemed OK....dodgy mullet but other than that

:chuckle:

Dodgy mullet, that's a new one!

 

[Jefferson]

But it must also be mentioned that according to Rom 13, the Government established by the ratification of the Constitution was ordained by God.

Untrue. God ordained the institution of marriage. This does not mean He ordaines and approves of abusive marriages. Likewise, God ordained the institution of human government. This does not mean that God ordaines and approves of every form of government on earth. I strongly doubt that God gave a :thumb: after reading in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution that black slaves were to be counted as three fifths of a person.

And remember--I am not speaking solely of "introducing Christian law," which I've already acknowledged that one has the authority to do, provided one gets the votes and gets elected to Congress. I'm speaking of implementing Enyart's proposed government in "Day One."

If a government collapses do you actually expect all the Christians to just voluntarily sit on the sidelines and let the people, some of whom would like nothing more than to see a Christian genocide, be the one's who form the next government? Of course we would get involved. This is just common sense Justin. We don't need a verse for everything. God gave us a brain. He expects us to use it.

Reducio ad absurdum has its limits, and this exceeds them. My point is not that people will not "joyfully obey" laws imposed from above--my point is that such laws will not result in a "Christian nation."

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you can call it a donkey if you want but that won't change what it is. Likewise, if a country has laws that agree with Biblical morality, go ahead and call it Wiccan if you want. I will gladly live there.

 

[Yorzhik]

The problem with that is historical examples--I don't think there has ever been an attempt to run a state by "Christian Standards" that didn't result in unnecessary death and injustice.

And every one of the unnecessary deaths or injustices can be traced back to ignoring what God said on a particular subject. In other words, what you mean is that "Christian Standards" in quotes isn't Christian Standards.

Perhaps that's because Christian Principles are much easier to implement on an individual level than on a state level.

Of things that can be implemented on both levels... which are easier at the state level?

I'm still persuaded that the kind of changes needed to live as a Christian need to come from within: they cannot be imposed from without by force of law. Well, let me clarify that--they can be imposed, but not successfully, and such an "imposition by force" results in a sullen compliance, rather than joyful obedience.

Hmmm... the bible says that when the righteous rule, the people rejoice. I'm going to have to disagree with you and go with God on this one.

Additionally, there's the problem of whose interpretation of "Christian Principles" should one use? Even on this forum, there are enough self-proclaimed Christians who cannot agree on what the Bible means to result in confusion and endless debate.

The right one, obviously. It isn't the endless opinions and nuances of opinion of each individual that matters. You have the bible, it's the standard, and you can judge Christians by their own book.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson had it right when he talked about that "wall of separation" in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Being that almost everything Jefferson touched he twisted just enough to destroy, I'm not so sure you should bet on that horse too much. And this is a great example. If there is a wall between the Christian influence, which is what this phrase has come to mean, and the gov't, then the gov't will soon loose it's way; then we get to choose among the various interpretations of humanist ideas that will range from benevolent dictator to something like the US Constitution (and the thing it's turned into) to Hitler's/Stalin's regime.

 

[Yorzhik]

I will respectfully disagree. A christian government is a far cry from a theocratic rule that Israel was supposed to have but lost in their pursuit for an anthropic king (look what happened to them!). All nations should be run by God as was meant by God (thats if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God).

Besides, governments that mandate religion (see North Korea) are nuts. I wouldnt want my government to tell me how to interpret scripture to the upmost extant (see holy roman empire) especially if there is no reasonable possibility to discuss interpretation differences (see holy roman empire again!). Establishing a Christian government would be a futile effort. What would the political parties be? Calvinists? Armininists? and the under ground party Open Theists? Fundies? lol You can hardly get these groups to decide on one topic unamiously. The theological differences alone would disrupt the nation since it could not agree on what biblical principles to be based upon.

Furthermore, i would rather have a government that is hardly seen and hardly heard, a Christian government would be the most legalistic commies ever. You wouldnt be able to play cards anymore because some ULTRA conservative fundies would pass some stupid law against that and dancing.

Sorry for being so pessismestic about "Christendom the Land of Fundies." Lets change americans hearts first before breaking off to our own cult like nation.

Wow, all that because you misunderstand what the difference is between "Christian principles" and "Christian government".

 

[Yorzhik]

Gad-zooks Jefferson, how much rep do I have to spread before I can give you more?

 

[Yorzhik]

Dodgy mullet... now that's funny

 

[theo_victis]

Wow, all that because you misunderstand what the difference is between "Christian principles" and "Christian government".

And the difference is....? If there is a government that is Christian wouldnt they have to have Christian principles? But my point is that Christians wouldnt agree on what Christian principles are and why wish for a Christian government instead of a theocratic rule set forth by God? .

Of things that can be implemented on both levels... which are easier at the state level?

This is a strange comment! Isnt change commenced in Christianity on an individual level? Was the purpose of evangelism to reach out to people with a sword and a judicial system? I dont think so.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Untrue. God ordained the institution of marriage. This does not mean He ordaines and approves of abusive marriages. Likewise, God ordained the institution of human government. This does not mean that God ordaines and approves of every form of government on earth. I strongly doubt that God gave a :thumb: after reading in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution that black slaves were to be counted as three fifths of a person.

Jefferson, to truly believe that is to deny the authority of your scriptures.

Rom 13:1-2
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

If a government collapses do you actually expect all the Christians to just voluntarily sit on the sidelines and let the people, some of whom would like nothing more than to see a Christian genocide, be the one's who form the next government? Of course we would get involved. This is just common sense Justin. We don't need a verse for everything. God gave us a brain. He expects us to use it.

At no point have I even suggested that if there was a Governmental collapse that Christians should not get involved. Please try not to distract the conversation with straw men, friend--that type of dialog is not conducive to constructive conversation.

My question is this: if the government did not collapse spontaneously, does "helping" the collapse violate Rom 13?

It's my contention that it does.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

And every one of the unnecessary deaths or injustices can be traced back to ignoring what God said on a particular subject. In other words, what you mean is that "Christian Standards" in quotes isn't Christian Standards.

Which is why I put the phrase in quotes.

Of things that can be implemented on both levels... which are easier at the state level?

I honestly cannot think of one. Come to think of it, I can think of no Christian principles that can be successfully implemented at the state level. One cannot legislate faith or hope, least of all love. One cannot legislate loving God with all one's heart, mind, and strength, nor loving one's neighbor as one's self.

Hmmm... the bible says that when the righteous rule, the people rejoice. I'm going to have to disagree with you and go with God on this one.

That may be the problem, Yorzhik--how could you be assured that the ruler would truly be "righteous?" What is to prevent the ruler from claiming the name Christian, yet falling under Rom 3:10?

The right one, obviously. It isn't the endless opinions and nuances of opinion of each individual that matters. You have the bible, it's the standard, and you can judge Christians by their own book.

Yorzhik, can you even consider the immensity of the task to get all of the Christians of the United States to agree on any single major doctrine? Christians cannot decide between themselves what the Bible means, or how it should be applied. How do you expect that they can get together to form a government?

But that certainly explains much about Washington DC.

Being that almost everything Jefferson touched he twisted just enough to destroy, I'm not so sure you should bet on that horse too much. And this is a great example. If there is a wall between the Christian influence, which is what this phrase has come to mean, and the gov't, then the gov't will soon loose it's way; then we get to choose among the various interpretations of humanist ideas that will range from benevolent dictator to something like the US Constitution (and the thing it's turned into) to Hitler's/Stalin's regime.

And if that happens, then we have the situation where the Government has collapsed, and the question of resisting the government becomes moot.

 

[Jefferson]

Jefferson, to truly believe that is to deny the authority of your scriptures.

Do you think God specifically ordains abusive marriages?

My question is this: if the government did not collapse spontaneously, does "helping" the collapse violate Rom 13?

It depends. If I were a Christian in Nazi Germany, I would "help" the collapse of the German government. Once war is declared, you can put yourself under the authority of your government's declared enemy. That way you will not be engaging in vigilanteeism. If a person does that, I do not think they would be violating Romans 13.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Do you think God specifically ordains abusive marriages?

Your scriptures do not say "the marriages that exist are ordained of God" ... come to think of it, the Bible never says that God ordains marriage. But it does say so for governments: "the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God."

It depends. If I were a Christian in Nazi Germany, I would "help" the collapse of the German government. Once war is declared, you can put yourself under the authority of your government's declared enemy. That way you will not be engaging in vigilanteeism. If a person does that, I do not think they would be violating Romans 13.

Hmm ... Jefferson, that's a hard call. Technically speaking, that's treason--and yes, it does violate Romans 13. However, if you were in that situation and did so I would be the last to blame you.

The problem there is that your evaluation (and my evaluation, come to think of it) is a subjective choice. Case in point: I've heard--more than once--America being compared to Nazi Germany because of the abortions performed here: Indeed, you've previously quoted Bob making that very same comparison. Yet even though Islam rejects abortion, I just don't see you and Bob running out to join Al Qaeda. :shocked:

 

[Jefferson]

Your scriptures do not say "the marriages that exist are ordained of God" ... come to think of it, the Bible never says that God ordains marriage. But it does say so for governments: "the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God."

We are to obey the government up to the point where the governement commands us to sin. At that point Acts 5:29 becomes applicable: "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'"

The problem there is that your evaluation (and my evaluation, come to think of it) is a subjective choice. Case in point: I've heard--more than once--America being compared to Nazi Germany because of the abortions performed here: Indeed, you've previously quoted Bob making that very same comparison. Yet even though Islam rejects abortion, I just don't see you and Bob running out to join Al Qaeda. :shocked:

Yes, Islam rejects abortion but they are also in favor of murdering a lot of other people, Christians just for being Christians for example. But let's say in the future Canada's army grew more powerful and they actually became a Godly country and decided to declare war on America for the express purpose of stopping our legalized abortion holocaust. Would I fight for Canada? Yep, sure would.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

We are to obey the government up to the point where the governement commands us to sin. At that point Acts 5:29 becomes applicable: "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'"

Yet even at that, the disciples did not attempt the overthrow of the Government. Indeed, according to your scriptures it was after this that Paul--who definitely heard Stephen's speech, and may very well have heard Peter's--said "Obey the powers."

And those powers that Paul advised Christians to obey was the empire of Rome--which not only tolerated abortion (nominally illegal, but widely practiced), but infanticide, ritualized murder in the forms of the gladiatorial games, and persecution of Christians.

But let's say in the future Canada's army grew more powerful and they actually became a Godly country and decided to declare war on America for the express purpose of stopping our legalized abortion holocaust. Would I fight for Canada? Yep, sure would.

Even though that is treason?

Jefferson, I propose to you that Rom 13 forbids even this kind of action, because you are still resisting the Government that was ordained by God. Treason is resistance, my friend. Further, I will remind you that when Peter decided to obey God rather than man, he cheerfully took the punishment for disobeying the decree of the Sanhedrin.

When Peter said "We must obey God,rather than men," he did not try to prevent the Sanhedrin from sinning. Instead, he only prevented himself from sinning. Yet you would resist evil people who sin--placing your own wisdom above even that of Jesus Christ, who was the One who said "Do not resist the evil man?"

Jefferson, I say that if you take action to implement an Enyartian monarchy, you are disobeying the words of Jesus Christ himself. I say that if you do this, you are resisting the ordinance of God by attempting to overthrow the Government--because that is the only way an Enyartian monarchy will ever be implemented in this country.

If you and Bob Enyart truly desire to see the monarchy that Day One proposes, then you desire damnation--because that, according to your scripture, will be your fate for "resisting the powers."