When Is Rebellion/Revolution Justified?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

When is a rebellion or a revolution against a government justified. From what I can gather of Romans 13:1-7, I believe rebellion/revolution is only justified in order to protect human lives and then only because there is no other way to protect human lives other than by getting rid of the existing government-as in the Nazi regime in Germany with regard to the Holocaust or Stalin’s regime in the USSR with regard to the massacre of the Kulaks.

[XT]

Serious answer…when you win.

-XT

[SeldomSeen]

The Declaration of Independence is a good resource. Thomas Jefferson listed in detail the grievances against the crown and the justifications for the American revolution.

To Wit:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Full text here

[An_Gadai]

Similar question I asked a few months back.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

When is a rebellion or a revolution against a government justified. From what I can gather of Romans 13:1-7, I believe rebellion/revolution is only justified in order to protect human lives

How are you getting that from Romans 13:1-7, exactly?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

How are you getting that from Romans 13:1-7, exactly?

I’m not sure what you mean but…:

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

[China_Guy]

Romans sounds like it was plagarized from Confucious and the “Mandate of Heaven.” Interesting parallel…

OTOH, according to Mao, “to rebel is justified” (造反有理）

but I think xtisme nailed it.

[LouisB]

What does Romans 13:1-7 have to do with it? Is the bible fomenting revolution? If you were in charge, would you establish a government based on the bible? You might as well establish a government based on Sharia law.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@LouisB

What does Romans 13:1-7 have to do with it? Is the bible fomenting revolution? If you were in charge, would you establish a government based on the bible? You might as well establish a government based on Sharia law.

It offers guidance for personal morality and its general principles and spirit can be enshrined into law although it would be futility to encode Christian morality completely into law.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I’m not sure what you mean but…:

None of that says anything about a To Protect Human Lives exception. It says “submit to the authorities” and “pay taxes” and – well, that’s pretty much it; it doesn’t say “except after you turn sixty” or “except when you’re very hungry” or any exceptions at all, really. So why even mention it?

[TriPolar]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

It offers guidance for personal morality and its general principles and spirit can be enshrined into law although it would be futility to encode Christian morality completely into law.

WTF are you talking about? Rebellion and revolution according to rules? Do you know what those words mean?

[Little_Nemo]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

It offers guidance for personal morality and its general principles and spirit can be enshrined into law although it would be futility to encode Christian morality completely into law.

Same question others have asked. Those passages tell people to obey authority. There’s nothing in there that provides an exception if lives are at stake. Your OP is pretty much a statement of defiance against Romans 13.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

None of that says anything about a To Protect Human Lives exception. It says “submit to the authorities” and “pay taxes” and – well, that’s pretty much it; it doesn’t say “except after you turn sixty” or “except when you’re very hungry” or any exceptions at all, really. So why even mention it?

@Little_Nemo

Same question others have asked. Those passages tell people to obey authority. There’s nothing in there that provides an exception if lives are at stake. Your OP is pretty much a statement of defiance against Romans 13.

There are certain cases where we must obey God rather than men. Not to mention there is biblical precedent (ie Moses).

[TriPolar]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

There are certain cases where we must obey God rather than men. Not to mention there is biblical precedent (ie Moses).

The basis of your OP is that God tells us to obey men. You really don’t have anything like a coherent argument here.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

So then the Founding Fathers were acting against God’s will and biblical injunction?

Excellent. I hope this doesn’t send Qin into a Star Trek style logical fallacy shutdown loop.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

There are certain cases where we must obey God rather than men. Not to mention there is biblical precedent (ie Moses).

So why bring up Romans in the first place? You’re treating it as if it’s completely irrelevant.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@TriPolar

The basis of your OP is that God tells us to obey men. You really don’t have anything like a coherent argument here.

The Bible tells us to obey men when it doesn’t contradict the Bible.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

So then the Founding Fathers were acting against God’s will and biblical injunction?

Excellent. I hope this doesn’t send Qin into a Star Trek style logical fallacy shutdown loop.

I do think a more peaceful solution was possible had cooler heads prevailed. Possibly a British Empire with the resources of North America could have achieved a untied and peaceful world by now.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

So why bring up Romans in the first place? You’re treating it as if it’s completely irrelevant.

Its not, its is relevant as I’ve noted above.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

The Bible tells us to obey men when it doesn’t contradict the Bible.

The passage you for some reason referenced tells us to obey the men in question period. If you wish to swap out that passage for one that actually makes the point you’re now on about, then, by all means, cite a better one instead.

[Miller]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

The Bible tells us to obey men when it doesn’t contradict the Bible.

So, the only time revolution is justified is when the rulers are acting in ways that the Bible doesn’t approve? Isn’t this an argument in favor of a Christian theocracy?