Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Cliven Bundy puts gun in mouth, pulls trigger
Collapse
X
-
"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
-
People use all sorts of rationalizations but force is the only thing that legitimizes a government."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI don't see any caveats about the legitimacy of how the government originally came into place. One could argue that almost any government had to originally come into place by force some way or the other.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIn light of everything currently happening in this country and all the unconstitutional policies being implemented (and I'm assuming you're privy to it all, though I could definitely be wrong there) and in light of what the Declaration of Independence declares about an abusive government... what distinguishes the British government from this government?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostIn light of everything currently happening in this country and all the unconstitutional policies being implemented (and I'm assuming you're privy to it all, though I could definitely be wrong there) and in light of what the Declaration of Independence declares about an abusive government... what distinguishes the British government from this government?"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI'm not claiming the American Revolution was biblically justified. I don't think it was. I'm just saying that by this point in time I think regardless of the original legitimacy, American Christians are to obey it unless it would cause them to otherwise sin. As DE said, force is ultimately what legitimizes a government.
Just to note, I don't agree with a rebellion or not paying taxes (mainly for theological reasons), but I don't see how you can justify using Romans 13 against it.Last edited by seanD; 04-26-2014, 09:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI'm not claiming the American Revolution was biblically justified. I don't think it was. I'm just saying that by this point in time I think regardless of the original legitimacy, American Christians are to obey it unless it would cause them to otherwise sin. As DE said, force is ultimately what legitimizes a government.
ETA: FWIW, I don't actually know what I think about the morality of rebelling against government; I just don't think it's quite as simple a question as a lot of Christians make it out to be.Last edited by Zymologist; 04-26-2014, 09:18 PM.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI'm not claiming the American Revolution was biblically justified. I don't think it was. I'm just saying that by this point in time I think regardless of the original legitimacy, American Christians are to obey it unless it would cause them to otherwise sin. As DE said, force is ultimately what legitimizes a government.
Stalin is not a dictator because (unlike Hitler) he is not legally a dictator. On paper, he is just what his title says he is: general secretary of the CPSU. A purely clerical position. As the title, of course, implies.
In real life, of course, Stalin was a dictator. Which made his position rather precarious! By the nominal collective, bottom-up, democratic structure of the Communist Party (completely absent, of course, in the Nazi Party), Stalin was a mere clerk. In the actual, unwritten reality, he was a Tsar.
Thus, the capacity of this system to revert from its informal Tsarism, to its formal "democratic centralism," was on every second of every day latent. Formally, officially, Stalinism is an ultra-democratic, left-wing, bottom-up form of government. Actually, unofficially, it is an ultra-despotic, right-wing, top-down form of government. The contradiction is quite great. Here is our chaos: black and white, sharing a single desk. Stalin has the power of the Tsars, but not the security of the Tsars.
No wonder Stalin killed so many old Communists. He had to. At least, once he started. He was riding the tiger. After Stalin died, Beria tried to take Stalin's place and hold this system together. A lot of bad things have been said about Beria and no doubt most of them are true, but no one to my knowledge has ever described him as a pussy.
So he lasted surprisingly long: almost four months. After that, of course, he was shot. The Soviet Union never had a true dictator again. It did not become a democracy, of course, but an oligarchy. Later general secretaries were strictly primus inter pares among the Politburo.
Thus we see the chaos implicit in tyranny. The tyrant is depraved, on account of he's deprived. Regardless of his personal mental stability, the instability of his regime compels him to tyrannize. Of course, if he's a paranoid sadist, this may compel him as well; and indeed, this tendency may aid him in getting the job. It certainly is not a qualification for monarchy.
Dictatorship, of course, can evolve into monarchy. Every historical monarchy has originated as, in some sense, a dictatorship. Caesar's is a good example. But if a dictatorship is to make this transition, if it is to achieve stability and permanence, it had better be designed to do so. 20th-century dictatorships were designed primarily to fit the needs of the processes that brought them to power. These were ugly processes, with no particular affection for stability and permanence. Hence, they bred tyrants. Only tyrants could harness the evil, chaotic power of these democracies gone wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostYou appear to be saying that an illegitimate government can legitimize itself by simply existing for a while.
ETA: FWIW, I don't actually know what I think about the morality of rebelling against government; I just don't think it's quite as simple a question as a lot of Christians make it out to be.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI do wonder: what on earth is a "legitimate" government?Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThe problem with citing Romans 13 is that the entire historical foundation of the United States and its founders (which were professed Christians) were in violation of that scripture. I don't know what that would mean though. It's sort of a double standard. How would God view a covenant between two Israelites if that covenant was in direct violation of God's law? It might mean that all the US laws are illegitimate in the eyes of God. I'm not saying that this excuses not paying taxes, but it can get spiritually complicated citing Romans 13 under the circumstances.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThere is only one, and it ain't on the earth yet.So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThe Romans didn't have a squeaky-clean political history, yet to the Christians in Rome Paul wrote Romans 13.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI'll admit, I've struggled to comprehend Paul's argument in Romans 13 because it makes no sense whatsoever. It makes sense that a Christian shouldn't advocate rebellion simply because, on a spiritual level, this isn't the objective of why a Christian is here. But the nuances of the argument that Paul uses was pretty asinine. I have the utmost respect for Paul, but he was human, and I think he hit a foul ball on that one.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
301 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment