Hmmm... Doesn't this leave us with 'every man doing what is right in his own eyes', and an individual with power for enforcing the law taking ungranted power to be the lawmaker himself on a case by case basis? To that end, we have selective prosecution favoring illegals or whichever demographic supports ones political preferences and disfavoring the opposition.
I tend to think the testimony of those who disobeyed the "unlawful" law is more powerful bc they took on the punishment. We each have the power over our own choices (to obey God rather than man in a competition between the two) and the power to endure hardship to the glory of God, through the Spirit. That has more power to convict others to change the law than selectively applying said "unlawful" law. Selective enforcement seems to me to be unjust. I think that may be the case with the midwives. All or none?
Idk, I'm going to have to think through this one some more. Thanks for the feedback :)
Though your point is worth studying, it is obviously wrong to always uphold every law, every time. For his case in particular, the COVID mandates were passed illegally, because they are in opposition to the Constitution of the United States. They are therefore not laws at all. In fact, most of what the federal government (and probably many state governments) does is illegal.
Laws are made by men. Men are corruptible. In trying to follow the example of an uncorrupted Man, it is impossible for us to always do good and also always be "legal". I bitterly hate law enforcement because I trust them to uphold evil and illegal laws. If I knew that most of them would usually look the other way when appropriate, they would be much easier to tolerate. I can shoot and kill looters, arsonists, kidnappers, and rapists. Shooting and killing police guarding CPS as they try to steal your children on an "anonymous" lie with a warrant gained without probable cause only leads to more police.
Hmmm... Doesn't this leave us with 'every man doing what is right in his own eyes', and an individual with power for enforcing the law taking ungranted power to be the lawmaker himself on a case by case basis? To that end, we have selective prosecution favoring illegals or whichever demographic supports ones political preferences and disfavoring the opposition.
I tend to think the testimony of those who disobeyed the "unlawful" law is more powerful bc they took on the punishment. We each have the power over our own choices (to obey God rather than man in a competition between the two) and the power to endure hardship to the glory of God, through the Spirit. That has more power to convict others to change the law than selectively applying said "unlawful" law. Selective enforcement seems to me to be unjust. I think that may be the case with the midwives. All or none?
Idk, I'm going to have to think through this one some more. Thanks for the feedback :)
Though your point is worth studying, it is obviously wrong to always uphold every law, every time. For his case in particular, the COVID mandates were passed illegally, because they are in opposition to the Constitution of the United States. They are therefore not laws at all. In fact, most of what the federal government (and probably many state governments) does is illegal.
Laws are made by men. Men are corruptible. In trying to follow the example of an uncorrupted Man, it is impossible for us to always do good and also always be "legal". I bitterly hate law enforcement because I trust them to uphold evil and illegal laws. If I knew that most of them would usually look the other way when appropriate, they would be much easier to tolerate. I can shoot and kill looters, arsonists, kidnappers, and rapists. Shooting and killing police guarding CPS as they try to steal your children on an "anonymous" lie with a warrant gained without probable cause only leads to more police.