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.
See more
See less

Cliven Bundy puts gun in mouth, pulls trigger

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Does Bundy profess to be a Christian? (I don't know the answer to that)
    I have no idea.
    "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


    • #32
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        I 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.
        In 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          In 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?
          Too remote for effective demonstrations.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            In 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'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.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              I'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.
              With the fact that the same fathers who violated Romans 13 and refused to pay taxes and rebelled against an imperial state also wrote the Declaration of Independence aside, it looks likes an obvious double standard to me.

              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                I'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.
                You 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.
                Last edited by Zymologist; 04-26-2014, 09:18 PM.
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  I'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.
                  On the other hand, the repeated use of force (and it's much more popular cousin in peacetime, Fraud) is often a sign of a government's illegitimacy:

                  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.
                  On paper, Harry Reid is merely the Senator from Nevada. In reality, he may not be the tyrant of the whole country, but he certainly used his official powers to tyrannize in his home state, playing Ahab to Naboth, and the fact that the media isn't reporting on this means that they are to at least some degree complicit in hiding this fact. It is, in any case, idle to talk about the rule of law until you've cleaned the corruption out of your public offices. Bundy didn't break the law, the law was used to break him, and I see no reason to whine about the fact that it was unsuccessful, given the enforcers.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                    You 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.
                    I do wonder: what on earth is a "legitimate" government?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      I do wonder: what on earth is a "legitimate" government?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        I do wonder: what on earth is a "legitimate" government?
                        There is only one, and it ain't on the earth yet.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          The 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.
                          The Romans didn't have a squeaky-clean political history, yet to the Christians in Rome Paul wrote Romans 13.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            There 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.”
                            Pilate's authority was given from above.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              The Romans didn't have a squeaky-clean political history, yet to the Christians in Rome Paul wrote Romans 13.
                              I'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 against a government 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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                I'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.
                                I think there's another point here -- that we are subject to our governments, and to the penalties of the laws we break. Even Christians in the Soviet Union knew that smuggling Bibles was against the law, but also understood that they would "pay the price" if caught.
                                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 One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                301 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X