extramarital cohabitation

ChristianCynic, your version of looking at this would result in the following:
The abortion clinic bomber or the man who teaches a Bible class in China and gets everyone shot dead, did the right thing, and no sin was committed because they put God's law above man's law. You would also be supporting that they not have any price to pay the Authorities within your argument. Otherwise, you would have to admit that Peter should have turned himself in and be punished. The end result with their spirit following your argument would be that when they die they go to heaven.

My view says these idiots did sin and shouldn't have done these acts as there is no support in the Bible to instruct that one violate civil law. But if they chose to violate the law as their hearts lead them to do so, they should have the full force of the law placed against them and judgment to follow. This stand doesn't mean that the the Bible group shouldn't have done what he did if he felt he should violate that law. In the end, ehen they die, they all go to heaven because their hearts made their action a "no sin" situation.

It could have been the right thing to do or it could have been the wrong thing to do and only God can decide, but on earth we must back our Authorities otherwise, we would have anarchy with each "God" telling each "nut" where he can sin as long as the individual can make a case that he "thought" God wanted him to do this or that violation (God's law above Mans law). That is how out of context your argument takes this verse.

 

Johnv said:

In any event, if your assertion is correct, and it's a sin to go against the government, then the founding fathers sinned for going against England. To say nothing about John Brown, Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Gandhi.

And let's not forget all those early Christian martyrs who refused to bend the knee to Caesar. If we take post-it's idea seriously that the law of God is now the law of the state, then Christians who did not acknowledge Caesar's divinity (i.e. become idolators) were sinning against God.

Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?

 

If you are right, then Romans 13 is wrong where is says to submit to authorities. With my version, the early Church were right to refuse to worship Caesar, by committing a sin at the same time, it just happens that the greater sin is to worship a false God, the lesser sin is to disobey the Authorities. My way the Bible is not contridicting itself, your way has the Bible contridicting itself and giving the ok to abortion clinic bombings. Some types of sin are allowable and/or needed to be carried out by believers but a clear line is drawn between not worshipping false Gods and blowing up abortions clinics.

[ June 04, 2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Didn't we get off the track here a wee bit? So, with your kind permission this thread is no closed. If you may want to continue in the same theme, you may open a new thread but this one has ran its course - and now we have to burry the same.