(I made a somewhat separate, more religious, and what I believe to be better and more concise argument at the bottom (in contrast with my original argument which is intended as more of a logical and historical argument). If my admittedly overly dense reply is too off-putting, feel free to just read that. Or just read nothing and leave if you don't think it's worth the time anymore; you do you man.)
Government defines crime. If government is itself coercion, then coercion can't be a crime. Truly, there is only one law: God's law. And He tells us to obey the government. Any other concept of "natural law", at least when not rooted in God's law, is the subjective opinion of the person philosophizing on it.
Now, knowingly injecting yourself with poison would be defiling the body. This is a sin. The only government laws that can be justly ignored are ones which require the individual to personally sin. It couldn't be any other way, because if it were, we'd be ignoring superior commands of God to not sin. But in lieu of a certain law requiring us to sin, the commandment to obey the government applies.
The Gospels take great care to consistently blame the Jews for demanding the Romans to kill Christ. The Romans aren't really blamed all that much, and Jesus shows more respect for a Roman soldier than for the Pharisees. They didn't really want to kill Him, and simply didn't care, for the most part. In this case, ironically enough, the government was coerced into killing Christ since if they didn't, they'd have a Jewish revolt on their hands. It was wrong and corrupt, but it was easier to appease the people by killing who they thought was just some man than to risk unrest.
And this extreme anti-government view is not based in reality, from my perspective at least. There have absolutely been good governments that lead to good societies. We live in extremely immoral times, things were invariably better through most of human history. The only problem is just that these good governments don't last. The thing is, they will never last. It's not about finding a good system that lasts forever, it's about finding the system that has the best trade off between how long it stays good and how bad the fallout is before recovery to a good system.
A system that produces a golden age for 1000 years but kills 3 billion people out of 8 billion when it falls is far worse than a system that produces a golden age for 300 years but only kills 12 people out of 8 billion when it collapses, for example. Still 12 people too many, but not nearly as heinous, and works much better in the long run.
Further, there's a reason you don't see societies with no or minimal government. They either don't last or don't work, though to be honest there isn't really a difference. It's the same reason we don't see any longstanding societies that tolerate homosexuality: it just doesn't work. They both inevitably lead to the same kind of moral degeneracy that collapsed the Roman Empire.
And where am I being unclear? The government can not compel us to sin. That is it. All other laws are to be followed. Get the hell out of here with this "murder children" shit.
Now, this doesn't mean we can't try to change laws, as in our system we have the ability to do so by voting in different people, but disobeying laws we don't like as an act of civil disobedience is not Christian. Disobeying laws that compel us to sin, and accepting the worldly punishment for doing so, certainly is Christian, however.
Ultimately, it's not hard. It's not subjective. It just requires the question of "would it be a sin for me to do this".
And please, since you glossed over my point on this, explain to me how a good society can run on the "peace and love" hippie crap when we have homeless people shitting in the streets and shooting up heroin in democrat run cities. These people aren't victims of government, everyone else are victims of a lack of competent government in these cities.
Again, these people aren't doing anything directly to anyone else, other than being disgusting in public. So unless you think that should be tolerated, we already have an example where government is necessary to impose decency through the legislation of morality.
-------------------Addendum-------------------
I'd also add that the extreme anti-government sentiment is wholly unchristian. Where is this in the Bible? Where does God tell us this is what He wants from us? He doesn't. It's just people imposing their will and their views onto God so that they can keep their beliefs compatible instead of choosing one.
Instead, we are told things like in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
And then there is 1 Peter 2:18-25
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if a man for conscience toward God endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when you be buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? but if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is commendable with God. For even to this were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously: Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
We are consistently called to suffer for God, just as He suffered for us. Christ was our perfect model to live by, and He didn't revolt against an unjust government, He ceded to their authority. He allowed Himself to be killed, though not until the appointed time, for a greater purpose.
And to be clear, this obviously has to be reconciled with the commands to not sin. The only real good way to view this is that we're being told primarily to not sin, and secondarily to obey government. The Bible does this frequently. Commands are made as absolute, but there's nuance that has to be deduced to know what is actually being said.
I suppose it's just the difference in perspective, then. The way I see it, if we are to obey the government, that makes government, or at the very least obeying it, an inherent good.
I guess I just felt like commenting since I know that a lot of people on here are Christian, though they then turn around and subscribe to what seems like a vehemently anti-government position. And fair enough, our government sucks so bad that it's not unreasonable to start to just hate the mere concept of anyone telling you what to do. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, which is certainly valid.
And really, this isn't like some imperfect Christian led government trying to do their best. Why should we listen to people who literally worship Satan? So on the one hand, I agree with a lot of what people say, but on the other hand, I also want to adhere to God's will which seems pretty unwavering on the subject of authority.
I'd also add that the extreme anti-government sentiment is wholly unchristian. Where is this in the Bible? Where does God tell us this is what He wants from us? He doesn't. It's just people imposing their will and their views onto God so that they can keep their beliefs compatible instead of choosing one.
We've pretty much come to terms with our different interpretations already, but I came across this verse today and it directly addresses your question, so I'm sending it along:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
That NIV version is more direct regarding "rulers" and "authorities" than the King James version, which uses "principalities" and "powers" but I think the meaning is identical.
I see the Bible coming down in favor of healthy, earned Authority that doesn't possess a mandate for INITIATING coercion, and opposing artificial "Authority" that perpetrates Evil by USE OF initiated coercion. (Coercion in defense against assault and other genuine crime is another matter, of course).
For naturally emerging leaders who have their people's best interest at heart and against tyranny; opposing Power as Tolkien described it.
(I made a somewhat separate, more religious, and what I believe to be better and more concise argument at the bottom (in contrast with my original argument which is intended as more of a logical and historical argument). If my admittedly overly dense reply is too off-putting, feel free to just read that. Or just read nothing and leave if you don't think it's worth the time anymore; you do you man.)
Government defines crime. If government is itself coercion, then coercion can't be a crime. Truly, there is only one law: God's law. And He tells us to obey the government. Any other concept of "natural law", at least when not rooted in God's law, is the subjective opinion of the person philosophizing on it.
Now, knowingly injecting yourself with poison would be defiling the body. This is a sin. The only government laws that can be justly ignored are ones which require the individual to personally sin. It couldn't be any other way, because if it were, we'd be ignoring superior commands of God to not sin. But in lieu of a certain law requiring us to sin, the commandment to obey the government applies.
The Gospels take great care to consistently blame the Jews for demanding the Romans to kill Christ. The Romans aren't really blamed all that much, and Jesus shows more respect for a Roman soldier than for the Pharisees. They didn't really want to kill Him, and simply didn't care, for the most part. In this case, ironically enough, the government was coerced into killing Christ since if they didn't, they'd have a Jewish revolt on their hands. It was wrong and corrupt, but it was easier to appease the people by killing who they thought was just some man than to risk unrest.
And this extreme anti-government view is not based in reality, from my perspective at least. There have absolutely been good governments that lead to good societies. We live in extremely immoral times, things were invariably better through most of human history. The only problem is just that these good governments don't last. The thing is, they will never last. It's not about finding a good system that lasts forever, it's about finding the system that has the best trade off between how long it stays good and how bad the fallout is before recovery to a good system.
A system that produces a golden age for 1000 years but kills 3 billion people out of 8 billion when it falls is far worse than a system that produces a golden age for 300 years but only kills 12 people out of 8 billion when it collapses, for example. Still 12 people too many, but not nearly as heinous, and works much better in the long run.
Further, there's a reason you don't see societies with no or minimal government. They either don't last or don't work, though to be honest there isn't really a difference. It's the same reason we don't see any longstanding societies that tolerate homosexuality: it just doesn't work. They both inevitably lead to the same kind of moral degeneracy that collapsed the Roman Empire.
And where am I being unclear? The government can not compel us to sin. That is it. All other laws are to be followed. Get the hell out of here with this "murder children" shit.
Now, this doesn't mean we can't try to change laws, as in our system we have the ability to do so by voting in different people, but disobeying laws we don't like as an act of civil disobedience is not Christian. Disobeying laws that compel us to sin, and accepting the worldly punishment for doing so, certainly is Christian, however.
Ultimately, it's not hard. It's not subjective. It just requires the question of "would it be a sin for me to do this".
And please, since you glossed over my point on this, explain to me how a good society can run on the "peace and love" hippie crap when we have homeless people shitting in the streets and shooting up heroin in democrat run cities. These people aren't victims of government, everyone else are victims of a lack of competent government in these cities.
Again, these people aren't doing anything directly to anyone else, other than being disgusting in public. So unless you think that should be tolerated, we already have an example where government is necessary to impose decency through the legislation of morality.
-------------------Addendum-------------------
I'd also add that the extreme anti-government sentiment is wholly unchristian. Where is this in the Bible? Where does God tell us this is what He wants from us? He doesn't. It's just people imposing their will and their views onto God so that they can keep their beliefs compatible instead of choosing one.
Instead, we are told things like in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
And then there is 1 Peter 2:18-25
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if a man for conscience toward God endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when you be buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? but if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is commendable with God. For even to this were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously: Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
We are consistently called to suffer for God, just as He suffered for us. Christ was our perfect model to live by, and He didn't revolt against an unjust government, He ceded to their authority. He allowed Himself to be killed, though not until the appointed time, for a greater purpose.
And to be clear, this obviously has to be reconciled with the commands to not sin. The only real good way to view this is that we're being told primarily to not sin, and secondarily to obey government. The Bible does this frequently. Commands are made as absolute, but there's nuance that has to be deduced to know what is actually being said.
That's my entire point in a nutshell.
I suppose it's just the difference in perspective, then. The way I see it, if we are to obey the government, that makes government, or at the very least obeying it, an inherent good.
I guess I just felt like commenting since I know that a lot of people on here are Christian, though they then turn around and subscribe to what seems like a vehemently anti-government position. And fair enough, our government sucks so bad that it's not unreasonable to start to just hate the mere concept of anyone telling you what to do. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, which is certainly valid.
And really, this isn't like some imperfect Christian led government trying to do their best. Why should we listen to people who literally worship Satan? So on the one hand, I agree with a lot of what people say, but on the other hand, I also want to adhere to God's will which seems pretty unwavering on the subject of authority.
We've pretty much come to terms with our different interpretations already, but I came across this verse today and it directly addresses your question, so I'm sending it along:
That NIV version is more direct regarding "rulers" and "authorities" than the King James version, which uses "principalities" and "powers" but I think the meaning is identical.
I see the Bible coming down in favor of healthy, earned Authority that doesn't possess a mandate for INITIATING coercion, and opposing artificial "Authority" that perpetrates Evil by USE OF initiated coercion. (Coercion in defense against assault and other genuine crime is another matter, of course).
For naturally emerging leaders who have their people's best interest at heart and against tyranny; opposing Power as Tolkien described it.
As always, just my opinion.