Obey ALL laws of the land?

[Thomas]

Well, I just read Romans 13, and I guess it did say that.

I must confess something. The computer software I'm using is a pirated copy. But before you all call me a thief, I must tell you that this is pretty common in my country. I've heard that 70% of the software (or was it operational systems?) used in Brazil are pirated copies. Ok, just because everyone does it, doesn't meant it's right. Fine.

Another example: college books. Many people can't afford them, so they make xerox copies. That's not right according to the constitution, but it isn't really seen as bad or anything. No reason to fear the authority, like something bad you do (Romans 13). I mean, the GOVERNMENT school teacher actually advise their poorer students to do it! And if you think about it, they would be able to help lots of people or something if they graduated. Even if they used xerox copies.

So....

If something is technically against the law, but:

- the government doesn't really mind it

- it is not something that makes you fear the authorities for doing it

- it is a crime simply because the constitution is bad and old

- it is necessary due to your socioeconomic condition

- it is not seen as bad by society

...is it still a sin?

Well, probably yes. Oh well. Do reply to the thread though. I'm using the internet because of my struggle with the "forgiveness" thing(see other thread).... I do feel guilty about it.

My mother said that it's fine, for it's my father's responsability, not mine. That didn't convince me actually. I told my dad about Romans 13 and piracy being wrong, and asked him to get an original Windows. He said he's seriously considering it. It's quite expensive.

I'm not going to be banned for this right? Or am I sinning and should be excommunicated?

Anyway, that's it.

[Brandan Kraft]

Ten Persuasive Arguments for Stealing Candy Bars

1. Everybody does it.
I even know some Christians who steal candy bars.

2. You probably won't get caught.
Because the practice is so widespread, and there is so little enforcement, the chances of being caught are slim.

3. Even if caught, prosecution is doubtful.
You probably wouldn't be taken to court or tried anyway.

4. It doesn't involve much money.
Stealing a car, or a boat, or something like that -- well, that's different. But candy bars cost so little; taking them is certainly not serious.

5. The owners will never miss it.
There are millions of candy bars circulating about our world. Who's going to miss one or two?

6. It will save you money.
Stealing candy bars on a regular basis can add up to a substantial savings. After all, we are to be good stewards of our money -- and that means cutting expenses everywhere we can.

7. It will save you time.
Stealing candy bars saves time in the checkout line. Better yet, if you can steal them at work it will save a trip to the local candy store, or worse, a long wait for a mail order supplier to send your bars.

8. The law is confusing.
I'm not a lawyer and you know how confusing legal matters are. Some say it is OK, others say don't. Hey, go ahead and take a few until they straighten out this mess and make it clear to all of us?

9. The owners are Christians anyway.
If the owners are Christians, we Christians should have a right to steal a few candy bars. After all, they shouldn't be trying to make money off other Christians.

10. It's for a good cause.
Now I might be persuaded that stealing for personal benefit is questionable, but certainly stealing for the congregation, choir, or Sunday school class wouldn't be wrong, would it?

(Now, for 10 persuasive arguments for photocopying copyrighted books, songs, and sheet music, and copying tapes, computer software, see above.)

Thomas, you know what is right and what is wrong. The Holy Spirit will guide you and lead you into all truth.

[Thomas]

You know what, Brandan?

You're absolutely right.

Oh well, shame on me then, or whatever...

I've asked my father more than once to get an original windows. I guess I'll have to stay away from the computer until he does it. As for college, I'll try to obey the constitution as much as possible.
Of course, what else should a christian do?

Thank you for the great reply.

[paulschafer]

The law that the US government sets that I have a hard time with is keeping the speed limit. It's easy doing 5,10 or 15 MPH over the limit. Luckily I haven't received a ticket. I remembered a former pastor said, "Your secret sins will find you out!" Oh how true. I got caught 4 years ago, but just received a warning.

Does anybody else struggle with this law?

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by paulschafer
The law that the US government sets that I have a hard time with is keeping the speed limit. It's easy doing 5,10 or 15 MPH over the limit. Luckily I haven't received a ticket. I remembered a former pastor said, "Your secret sins will find you out!" Oh how true. I got caught 4 years ago, but just received a warning.

Does anybody else struggle with this law?

http://www.predestinarian.net/showth...p?threadid=652

[Don_Guyus]

According to Romans 13, the American Revolution was contrary to the will of God.

[wildboar]

It's hard to get people to admit, but the American Revoltion was a sinful war. God used it to bless His church in many ways, the same way He uses many of the actions of sinful men to bless His church, but it was a sinful war.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by wildboar
It's hard to get people to admit, but the American Revoltion was a sinful war. God used it to bless His church in many ways, the same way He uses many of the actions of sinful men to bless His church, but it was a sinful war.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

yes indeed. the first person who proposed this idea to me was Traveler on these forums. while it was a shocking proposal, i had to admit that he was right. as another person on this forum always says (stauron), "thankfully, God uses foolishness all of the time."

[paulschafer]

Why was this war sinful?

[disciple]

Originally posted by paulschafer
Why was this war sinful?

well it was unjustified biblically. but to be fair, those involved were not all Christians and i don't believe the war was primarily for religious freedom as many claim. that was involved to be sure, but i think the main impetus was the political bondage and tyranny from England (which was sort of mixed with religious bondage and tyranny, the state and church not being separate entities then). anyway, from a biblical standpoint, if we were to pretend that all the participants were believers, the rebellion was unjustified according to Romans 13:

Ro 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

so much for taxation without representation

[paulschafer]

Discipleman,
How does Roy Moore fit in with Romans 13?

[disciple]

Originally posted by paulschafer
Discipleman,
How does Roy Moore fit in with Romans 13?

i think he's technically violating it as well. it's not as if they're asking him to stop preaching the gospel and threatening his life or something (Acts 5:27ff). the interesting thing about it all is that he's making all of this fuss over the old covenant law of Israel which has passed away as a binding covenant. i don't want to spurn the ten commandments as if they are no longer applicable as principles, but i don't know why someone would make such a big deal out of their presence or absence in a secular courtroom.

one of my biggest pet peaves is Christian who think that we need to change the world by imposing Christian laws upon them, thereby christianizing and sanctifying the world. this is not our method. this is energy that could be better spent proclaiming the clear gospel of God.

people will not be rescued from this lost world by being whitewashed tombs which are still full off dead bones, but need the resurrecting power of the gospel. trying to impact the world through political activism and erecting of the shadows of the old covenant in public places is futile. all the while, the live giving message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is being left in the back shed. silly nonsense! ok, i will now step off of my soap-box...

[paulschafer]

A couple of years ago, the Liberty Counsel ( christian legal service) reported that in Baraboo, WI, a street preacher was witnessing on a city block in a park accross from a movie theater. The police arrested him for some stupid laws on solictitation on the books that was unconstitutional, or it was made unconstitutional by the Liberty Counsel. Before LC intervened, was he breaking Romans 13?

[disciple]

Originally posted by paulschafer
A couple of years ago, the Liberty Counsel ( christian legal service) reported that in Baraboo, WI, a street preacher was witnessing on a city block in a park accross from a movie theater. The police arrested him for some stupid laws on solictitation on the books that was unconstitutional, or it was made unconstitutional by the Liberty Counsel. Before LC intervened, was he breaking Romans 13?

if he was witnessing by preaching the gospel (not the 10 commandments), then that would fall within Acts 5:27ff:

Acts 5:27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. 30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."...40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

[paulschafer]

What would fall under Romans 13 and what would fall under Acts 5:27? How does a christian seperate what is lawfull under God but not under man versus what is lawfull under God and man?
What types of activities would fall under each one?

[disciple]

Originally posted by paulschafer
What would fall under Romans 13 and what would fall under Acts 5:27? How does a christian seperate what is lawfull under God but not under man versus what is lawfull under God and man?
What types of activities would fall under each one?

i would say based on the explicit, you obey the government unless the government specifically asks you to disobey our mandate to preach the gospel or more generally asks you to sin. i don't think the Judge Moore is being asked to sin by obeying the mandate to take down the ten commandments and he is especially not being forbidden to preach the gospel (unless of course he equates the ten commandments with the gospel).

that may not be the cut and dry answer one is looking for but the Scripture doesn't lay it out in tabular form. i think though at a minimum, based on the explicit of acts 5:27, we only disobey the governing authorities when they try to prohibit our mandate to preach the gospel.

[Truthseeker]

I believe Judge Roy Moore and a growing sector of Christians in America today, myself included, see the Ten Commandments as integrally connected to preaching the gospel. Galatians 3:24 says that "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Further, what Judge Moore did by purchasing and displaying the Commandments is simply freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, and yet his and our freedom is now being overriden by judicial tyrants.

I think we have to be careful not to be found in their camp.

[Brandan Kraft]

I think what Judge Moore did was right. The federal government had NO AUTHORITY to intervene in this state matter, and it is my opinion that he should not be held accountable for his "crime" because there was no offense committed!

[Truthseeker]

I'm with Dr. Gill.

This is clearly a case of an overbearing federal judiciary, ignoring Alabama's state's rights, which allow for such public expression of religion in support of the Constitution.

So as to our subject:

If this is truly a gospel issue, how should Judge Moore and the greater body of Christ respond to the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public square and his removal from public office in light of Acts verse 5:29?

[paulschafer]

The ironic twist is that the ten-commandment monument in Austin, TX stays on capitol grounds.

This is from http://www.freemarket.org

Major Victory For Ten Commandments In Texas

Last week, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (covers TX, LA, and MS) ruled to allow the Ten Commandments monument to remain on the Capitol grounds in Austin. The court rejected the claim that the presence of the Ten Commandments unconstitutionally establishes religion. A federal district court upheld the monument at an earlier date.

The six foot high and three and one-half feet wide monument was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961. It is displayed between the Capitol Building and the Supreme Court Building in Austin and is part of a display of seventeen monuments. The legal division of Free Market Foundation filed a brief prior to the case going before the Court of Appeals and worked with the Attorney General's office on this case to ensure the Ten Commandments were not censored. Most likely this case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So if Judge Roy Moore is wrong, how can that be, if Texas gets to keep their monument with federal law backing?