Defying authorities

[Ngakunui]

I wrote this earlier in so many words, but figured I shouldn't have posted it, and should simply rewrite it.

I read Romans 13. Paul said that the authorities at the time were not to be defied.

But I have a very rational question: what about the Christians who escaped and fled for their lives? They were obviously evading and breaking the laws, as Christianity was outlawed, Christians were being crucified and forced into killing each other in Colosseum deathmatches, and if they didn't defy the law, there really wouldn't be any Christians today. And to make things worse, probably no Jews either, as the Romans would have been able to divert more of their resources to committing genocide against them with the Christians happily dying.

And a lot of people where I live think the rebellion (which if you didn't guess, rebellion is the most illegal thing you can do in any country or territory) that started the United States is the best thing to ever happen. They don't seem to understand that this was part of a very elaborate plot with the aim of making the country a much better place to the point that even some government officials got in on it. The whole thing, whether or not you think it was moral, still involved a whole lot or defying authorities, killing people, and inciting rebellion. For those that also live in America, or a country that has similar roots, or at least know a good deal about this, would you try to justify this, and if so, how? Whether or not it helped the country, the current government is one founded by sedition and rebellion.

Also, what if someone is breaking the law through Christian practices, like Communion, going to Church, helping people in need, hiding Jews from genocidal political parties, praying, and so on? Are they so wrong for defying authority then?

And then there are other things, like someone's right to his own body. Down here in Georgia, some crazy people tried making it mandatory for people to have radio-powered transponders implanted into their being which would keep "medical information" that could be accessed at any time, for editing or reading, by anyone with the proper equipment, without consent of the implanted person-which would have been everyone. This caused the authorities in fifteen other states to outlaw mandatory "chipping" of any kind, or "chipping" anyone without his consent. This begs the question; if it were mandatory for me to have a transponder implanted into me, would it be right for me to resist? I don't want some stalker or creep, especially not one that managed to get a government position tracking down my position within a three foot radius and snatching/editing some publicly accessible radio I was cursed with by the "authorities".

There also comes a dilemma at times: Does the law have priority, or the men who make them? What if, say, the police follow a mandate of a newly elected politician that is illegal? Is it better to follow the law, or authorities which are breaking the law?



Things like this really do bother me, and scarcely do I have a sound mind until I have a good answer.

So let me very explicitly state the nature of this topic: When is it proper to defy the authorities?

And no, I'm not saying any of you should start riots and mass uprisings. Please calm down and put your guns back.

[Canuckster1127]

The apostles in Acts established a pretty clear standard when they were arrested and charged to stop preaching Jesus publically.

Acts 4:19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

We're to obey authorities set over us until obeying them causes us to disobey God.