[Epaphras]

Romans 13
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

This is something I've been struggling with for some time: was the American Revolution biblical?

Like it or not, the Revolution was based more on economic freedom than religious freedom. God says to pay taxes where taxes is due, and to be subject to governing authorities. I don't think the Boston Tea Party was obeying these commands. Neither was the killing of British troops by American snipers/marksmen.

By the way, the Roman government, which the early church, and the audience of Paul's letters, was under, was a lot crueler and harsher than the British government. Yet Paul says to obey, pay taxes, do good, and be subject to His ministers in government. If it applied then in those horrible conditions, I'm sure it applied in the 1770s in economically inconvenient conditions. It was not life-and-death, IMO.

What do you guys think? Was our American Revolution biblical?

This could apply to any government today: even under a cruel government(i.e. China, Somalia, etc.), are Christians to pay taxes that fund evil, respect those who kill them, etc? I'd venture a yes, but I'm interested in hearing everyone's responses...

-Sean

[Qingu]

What do you guys think? Was our American Revolution biblical?

It obviously wasn't, evidenced by the fact that mostof the founders didn't even believe in the Bible literally.

This could apply to any government today: even under a cruel government(i.e. China, Somalia, etc.), are Christians to pay taxes that fund evil, respect those who kill them, etc? I'd venture a yes, but I'm interested in hearing everyone's responses...

Yet another wonderful reason why Christianity and politics should never mix.

[+Donny]

The issue wsa not the cruelty of the government, but the fairness of the taxation. The question was whether they were being inappropriately and illegitimately taxed. I haven't studied it much, but the issue went much deeper than just, "The British were meanies."

[JerryLove]

The issue wsa not the cruelty of the government, but the fairness of the taxation. The question was whether they were being inappropriately and illegitimately taxed.

Biblically there is no such thing as inappropriate tax... that's exactly the state the Jews were in under Rome when Jesus told them to "give unto Ceasar"

[Epaphras]

Yeah Donny for once I agree with Jerry and Qingu...

[+Donny]

Inappropriate according to British law, I mean. The question was whether Parliament had any right to tax them in that way. In our country, it (supposedly) would have been like a legislature trying to tax income before the ammendment had been passed. They would have had no authority to do so, so there would be no requirement to obey them. Or, for a more extreme example, if a president attempted to just get rid of the two other branches of government and form a dictatorship, Christians would be under no obligation to obey him.

[JerryLove]

Inappropriate according to British law, I mean. The question was whether Parliament had any right to tax them in that way. In our country, it (supposedly) would have been like a legislature trying to tax income before the ammendment had been passed.

I believe their acutal complaint was "no taxation without representation"... so it would be analogous to Congress taxing people too young to vote.

They would have had no authority to do so, so there would be no requirement to obey them.

Biblically they do, and opposing them is opposing God.

If you are arguing wheather England was acting in violation of its own law, one would look to what redress the law allows. I'm pretty positive "terrorism and rebellion" were not allowed responses.

Or, for a more extreme example, if a president attempted to just get rid of the two other branches of government and form a dictatorship, Christians would be under no obligation to obey him.

That is "a person" not "the government". If the US government told you to vacate your house, it would be unbiblical to not submit.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Inappropriate according to British law, I mean. The question was whether Parliament had any right to tax them in that way. In our country, it (supposedly) would have been like a legislature trying to tax income before the ammendment had been passed. They would have had no authority to do so, so there would be no requirement to obey them. Or, for a more extreme example, if a president attempted to just get rid of the two other branches of government and form a dictatorship, Christians would be under no obligation to obey him.

Maybe your right, but does that justify war?

[Qingu]

Do you think the world would be better off if there wasn't an American revolution?

I'm torn. On one hand, England abolished slavery several decades before us. Also, our revolution set a bad precedent which led to the almost perpetual French Revolution of the next 60 or 70 years, which could have been done with much less bloodshed if there wasn't such a lust for rebellion. Also, most of the ideas that supported the idea of democracy came from England and were being implemented there progressively (but stagnantly).

On the other hand, monarchy and divine might not have died out in Europe if we didn't rebel (although from what I've studied it looks like it was on its way out in England). And the American government, set up as it was by natural philosopher savants, was the best of its time, easily.

It's tough to decide. If I had a time machine, I don't know what I'd do. I'd actually just go back to medieval China and tell them to discover America before the Europeans.

[+Donny]

I believe their acutal complaint was "no taxation without representation"... so it would be analogous to Congress taxing people too young to vote.

Yes, but I believe their argument was that Congress, according to British law, had no right to tax them without representation, which would be analogous to Congress taxing people too young to vote if the Constitution said such was not allowed.

Biblically they do, and opposing them is opposing God.

That is quite a loose definition of "civil government".

If you are arguing wheather England was acting in violation of its own law, one would look to what redress the law allows. I'm pretty positive "terrorism and rebellion" were not allowed responses.

Their claim, I'm sure, would have been that the British were invading.
I'm not defending the American Revolution necessarily, I'm just pointing out that the issue is more complicated than it seems.

That is "a person" not "the government". If the US government told you to vacate your house, it would be unbiblical to not submit.

No, because they have no authority to do so. If they had authority within the existing laws and jurisdictions, then yes, I would have to submit.

Maybe your right, but does that justify war?

They declared Independence. Under their argument, in response to this, Britain invaded, and thus, self defense.

Do you think the world would be better off if there wasn't an American revolution?

I'm torn. On one hand, England abolished slavery several decades before us. Also, our revolution set a bad precedent which led to the almost perpetual French Revolution of the next 60 or 70 years, which could have been done with much less bloodshed if there wasn't such a lust for rebellion. Also, most of the ideas that supported the idea of democracy came from England and were being implemented there progressively (but stagnantly).

On the other hand, monarchy and divine might not have died out in Europe if we didn't rebel (although from what I've studied it looks like it was on its way out in England). And the American government, set up as it was by natural philosopher savants, was the best of its time, easily.

It's tough to decide. If I had a time machine, I don't know what I'd do. I'd actually just go back to medieval China and tell them to discover America before the Europeans.

Ha, interesting theory. Chinese discovering america...

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Yes, but I believe their argument was that Congress, according to British law, had no right to tax them without representation, which would be analogous to Congress taxing people too young to vote if the Constitution said such was not allowed.

Sure, but again, is that worth fighting a war over?

[JerryLove]

Yes, but I believe their argument was that Congress, according to British law, had no right to tax them without representation, which would be analogous to Congress taxing people too young to vote if the Constitution said such was not allowed.

Which is not justification for terrrism.

That is quite a loose definition of "civil government".

Really? What's your definition?

Their claim, I'm sure, would have been that the British were invading.

Invading whom? The only people who god invaded were the Indians. I suppose cities like Mobile, AL and NewOrleans could argue that they were properly French, but that's really an aside.

If they were to argue that they had been invaded (an argument without merit in my opinion), they would have asserted that. They didn't say "oust the invaders", nor declare war. They declared succession, admitting that they were part of Britian, and withdrawing from it by force of arms.

No, because they have no authority to do so. If they had authority within the existing laws and jurisdictions, then yes, I would have to submit.

Depends on how you define "submit". I don't believe the Bible prevents you from persuing legal redress (suing to keep your house), but it is the authority telling you. You can't (with honesty) pick-and-choose which authoiry to follow, as you have not been given authority to doso.

They declared Independence. Under their argument, in response to this, Britain invaded, and thus, self defense.

Then terrorists in Iraq are just repelling invaders.

Ha, interesting theory. Chinese discovering america...

They may have travelled here before the Europeans. Certainly, one emperor had a fleet of several hundred ships poised to sail east, but it got mired up in politics.

[+Donny]

Which is not justification for terrrism.

How were they being terrorists?

Really? What's your definition?

In this context, when civil leaders act within their jurisdiction. To use my extreme example, a president trying to do things he has no constitutional power to do is not acting within his office, and is therefore not to be obeyed.

Invading whom? The only people who god invaded were the Indians. I suppose cities like Mobile, AL and NewOrleans could argue that they were properly French, but that's really an aside.

Invading the newly established American states.

If they were to argue that they had been invaded (an argument without merit in my opinion), they would have asserted that. They didn't say "oust the invaders", nor declare war. They declared succession, admitting that they were part of Britian, and withdrawing from it by force of arms.

By force of arms, I'm sure, because they were claiming they had been illegitimately occupied and were prepared to defend themselves.

Depends on how you define "submit". I don't believe the Bible prevents you from persuing legal redress (suing to keep your house), but it is the authority telling you. You can't (with honesty) pick-and-choose which authoiry to follow, as you have not been given authority to doso.

I agree, but an authority just doesn't appear because one says there is an authority. They have to be actualy authorities.

Then terrorists in Iraq are just repelling invaders.

It would be hard to argue otherwise, actually.

They may have travelled here before the Europeans. Certainly, one emperor had a fleet of several hundred ships poised to sail east, but it got mired up in politics.

Hmm, I had no idea. Interesting.

[JerryLove]

How were they being terrorists?

They dumped a bunch of other-people's tea in the harbor. This seems pretty analogist to "terrorists blew up a section of the pipeline".

In this context, when civil leaders act within their jurisdiction.

By whose standard? How is it your juristiction to enforce theirs?

To use my extreme example, a president trying to do things he has no constitutional power to do is not acting within his office, and is therefore not to be obeyed.

So you think we should not obey the Patriot act because it will turn out unconstitutional?

Invading the newly established American states.

So I can just declare my house a country and suddenly the US is invaading me?

By force of arms, I'm sure, because they were claiming they had been illegitimately occupied and were prepared to defend themselves.

Sounds like Iraq.

[+Donny]

They dumped a bunch of other-people's tea in the harbor. This seems pretty analogist to "terrorists blew up a section of the pipeline".

Oh, that I agree with. That was wrong.

By whose standard? How is it your juristiction to enforce theirs?

The jurisdiction set by the state which they are members of.

So you think we should not obey the Patriot act because it will turn out unconstitutional?

That would really depend if it were established by proper authorities.

So I can just declare my house a country and suddenly the US is invaading me?

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Sounds like Iraq.

That could be a possible comparison. I don't know enough about either situation to say and haven't really taken a stance on either issue either.