Can revolution (like the American rev. war) be justified (if) Romans 13?

[Black_Jaque]

I would nix #4 straightaway. Frodo, Strider, and Gandalf spoke of “no real hope of success” but resisted Sauron nonetheless.

JRR Tolkien was a good Catholic author, but his books are not canon. They’re fantasy.

Besides, as it turned out there really was a hope of success tho Frodo, Strider, and Gandalf just couldn’t see it from their perspective. Such it was in the colonies, many, perhaps the majority saw no real hope of success. But a few did, and they managed to convince enough others that eventually they succeeded.

If these channels that you speak of fail lets say, like with the president spying on who ever he wants without going through the channels, what then if no one wants to stand up?

Exactly! This is precisely why this sort of misbehavior scares so many and should be taken seriously. People should be reading up on this stuff - instead we are distracted with the Superbowl.

 

[Angainor]

BryPGuy89:

So lets go and have California become independent. Oh, that is right we don’t beleive that in this country that can happen. A group that electively chose independence like the southern states pre- civil war, we couldn’t do that so your theory is flawed in this country.

You asked if the president had the right to put down rebellion. If a modern state became independant, the President might just “put down that rebellion”. That does not mean he has the right to do so.

BryPGuy89:

3)The president has authority in everything my friend, regardless.

Whew. Has it really come to that?

 

[marcadam]

KBarn:

Whatever may or may not be true about the justness of the American War of Secession, the men who led it had the most to lose if they were not successful.

I recall a “Rest of the Story” from Paul Harvey about the fates of several signers of the Declaration of Independence… and lo, I do so love the internet!

Note that the publisher of the page admits to several inaccuracies in Harvey’s account, but the link he gives to a response is broken. Pity.

 

[Angainor]

Black Jaque:

JRR Tolkien was a good Catholic author, but his books are not canon.

I consider the books part of Christian tradition. I’m not in with Sola Scriptura.

 

[marcadam]

Black Jaque:

Yes there were some good orators at the time, with wealthy supporters. But you have to ask yourself, were they merely duping the people? Or were they using their oratory gifts to present the truth in a convincing way?

They didn’t necessarily use their oratory gifts. One of the biggest factors uniting the various New England communities and factions against the British? Anti-Catholicism, spurred mainly by the Quebec Act granting religious freedom to Canadian-French Catholics (1774). This was after the French and Indian War (for which Britain footed the bill which in turn led to the, er, representation-free taxation).

Of course, this itself isn’t the whole story, since in the wake of the Revolutionary War, the colonies almost immediately became more tolerant of other faiths, including Catholicism.

Besides, look at the fruits. Do the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers seem like the product of a conspiracy of self-interested wealthy men? NOT!

Good points. Those “self-interested, wealthy men” also had the most to lose if the war wasn’t successful. Perhaps not so self-interested after all.

 

[wcknight]

Black Jaque:

There’s a difference between then and now. Then the colonists had *no elected representative *in their government. What’s more is the colonies were used as pawns for the betterment of England. So not only did the colonists have to put up with taxes forced down their throats, but also the colonists had to put up with other stupid laws that did not allow them to trade directly with other nations. This of course kept the cash flow through England.

No, the offenses were not enough to start a war over, however they were too much to passively tolerate. So the colonists attempted to do something about it. It was from there that the situation degenerated into war. They didn’t just wake up one day and decide to go to war.

We always compare George Washington to Ghandi. Yet Ghandi didn’t have to cope with King George III. That makes all the difference in the world. How far do you think Ghandi’s tactics gone had Ghandi tried to employ them in Nazi Germany, or under Stalins Russia? Ghandi made progress mainly because the British government had a shred of a Christian conscience. That’s the beauty of Christianity - we claim to believe this stuff - so then people can always hold our feet to the fire. It’s frustrating to be held to a Christian standard, perhaps that’s why Stalin liberated himself from that.

There were other British colonies (Canada and Australia come to mind) back then as well, they too eventually gained independance from England. They had to put up with the same King and basically the same rules. BUT they did not have to start a war to do it (gain independance).

Back then most countries were monarchies, representative government was a revolutionary idea. Any war is a pretty messy deal. We are taught that the ends never justify the means. Violence should always be the last resort. King George was not Hitler or Stalin. He may not have been a great king, but as far as history shows, he was not a homocidal maniac either.

We had no representation but neither did any of the other colonies, and for the most part, representation back then was more of a formality rather than a true governing body anyway. The King pretty much controlled parliment and he could desolve it whenever it suited him.

More than likely the American colonies would have become independant down the road just like most of England’s other colonies. Whether getting independance much earlier was worth the price of a bloody war is debatable. At worst maybe we would still be taking with a british accent.

Sure England was treating the colonists as second class citizens, and yes they were funneling trade through England. Was it worth having thousands die over it ???

A lot of folks automatically say yes freedom is always worth the price. But after you count up the bodies , the lost sons and daughthers that every war brings, you have to question the sanity of the choice. IF freedom is coming down the road anyway, why not have the patience to let it come on its own ?

 

[AndyF]

Filius:

I’m not sure if I can address your question, but I take the passage interesting.

Yes, a good selection for this thread which causes food for thought. All the same it is significant to today’s problems of political and nationalist patriotism. One can weigh the obligations of the enemy to his country, against obligations to the opponent and his country. Here we find the terrorism definition gets cloudy.

Some questions for consideration in the first 3 lines:

My NAB reads somewhat different than your Bible. A section from the foonote explains the passage is referring to…

“…and the legitimate civil authority”

This assumes no authority can change to the worse or better while it exists,and, individuals are not obliged to allegiance to it if this is the case. However, no provision is provided for nations that turn bad, or, nations that by decree define what a legitimate government is, even to suite it’s own evil purpose. It lacks specificity and definition.

1, And all authority that exists is established by God.

It can only say that the nation is deserving of an authority.
What is the significance of a nation who’s authority is from God.? In terms of good or bad for this fallible entity, does this imply it has sanction to do both? If it has, the individual has no option but to compound good and bad works.

1. “The man who opposes authority rebels against the rules of God.”

This is unconditional and unambiguous, and leaves no room for examination of conscience by the individual. This is a carte blanche statement that it is OK to go ahead with assistance with those who sin, and to contradict rule 1Cor 15,33.

3: “Rulers cause no fear when a man does what is right, but only when his conduct is evil.”

As stated, that means “right” from the ruler’s point of view.
So if a person does what the ruler thinks is right, he has no fear of him, …makes sense. If he does what the ruler says is right, but is wrong by God’s laws, he has no fear of him, …Ok here too, but can expect to fear God?. …Oh,Oh!

As stated, conduct by who’s definition of evil, God or the ruler.?
If the law permits evil, and God doesn’t, and God passed authority to the nation, which is he to follow?

I can go on, but I think you see my point, and that the passage is too vague to assist any individual in any serious decision making in this complex age.

good post!

Andy

 

[wabrams]

BryPGuy89:

3)The president has authority in everything my friend, regardless.

If that was the case, we wouldn’t be calling him the President; we would call him Der Fuhrer.

 

[Angainor]

wcknight:

Back then most countries were monarchies, representative government was a revolutionary idea. Any war is a pretty messy deal. We are taught that the ends never justify the means. Violence should always be the last resort.

So why point the finger at the colonies? It was the king that used volence to impose his will on the colonies. If the king didn’t fight there would be no war.

For the colonies it was a war of self-defense. The king attacked an independant nation.

 

[wcknight]

There are always at least 2 sides to every conflict. To the king, he was just there to protect what he thought was his. The rabble rousing colonest were just some mob gone astray.It is almost the same situation in the civil war, the south declared succession. Were they an independant nation ? Lincoln didn’t think so.

 

[Angainor]

wcknight:

There are always at least 2 sides to every conflict. To the king, he was just there to protect what he thought was his.The rabble rousing colonest were just some mob gone astray.

A modern day Tory. Do you own any land? If you think it belongs to the Brittish Crown, perhaps you should return it.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Angainor:

You asked if the president had the right to put down rebellion. If a modern state became independant, the President might just “put down that rebellion”. That does not mean he has the right to do so.Whew. Has it really come to that?

Ok, what do you think is the leader of a country right is in a case of a rebellion or what not?

Authority, in political issues of anything the president does have authority. (Political!)

 

[BryPGuy89]

wabrams:

If that was the case, we wouldn’t be calling him the President; we would call him Der Fuhrer.

That is my nickname for the president as is.

 

[wabrams]

BryPGuy89:

That is my nickname for the president as is.

That’s not what I was getting at.

 

[BryPGuy89]

wabrams:

That’s not what I was getting at.

What then. He is already trying to pry into our personal lives under the name of security, bipassing the legal paths, and disobeying laws determined by the national government.

 

[wcknight]

Angainor:

A modern day Tory. Do you own any land? If you think it belongs to the Brittish Crown, perhaps you should return it.

Prior to the revolution, we were a colony stolen from the Indians fair and square. Other British colonies, gained their independance also, BUT they did not have to start a war to do so.

Maybe if I had lived back in those days, I may think differently. But with 20-20 hindsight, it looks like the founding fathers may have had more peaceful alternatives.