XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion,   
   soc.rights.human   
   XPost: alt.christnet.ethics   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:10:17 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"    
   wrote:   
      
   >Steve Hayes,    
   >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"    
   >   
   >>> | 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. (Romans 13)   
   >>>   
   >>> Those "priests as freedom fighters" are heretics.   
   >>>   
   >>> Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.   
   >>   
   >> See here:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> Saint Paul, in his letter to the Romans, famously writes:   
   >>   
   >> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is   
   >> no authority except from God, and those that exist have been   
   >> instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists   
   >> what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Rom   
   >> 13:1-2)   
   >>   
   >> Seems straightforward, no? St Paul wants the Romans in his communities   
   >> to obey the state, because states get their authority from God.   
   >>   
   >> The only problem is, because Saint Paul did not speak English, this is   
   >> not what he actually wrote. This is a translation-specifically, the   
   >> Revised Standard Version. Although I prefer the RSV to any other   
   >> translation as a matter of course, it is still a translation, and   
   >> therefore-like all translations into English!-an act of theft, a   
   >> necessarily partial and selective transmission of the author's actual   
   >> words.   
   >>   
   >> Read it here, because some of the characters do not reproduce on   
   >> Usenet.   
   >>   
   >>    
   >   
   >Speculations on "translation-specifically" may be relevant, but   
   >also it can lead to a dead-end trap similar to that Islam fell into   
   >("meanings of the Koran can be grasped in original Arabic only").   
   >   
   >Saint Paul gave the guidelines at the time and at the place when   
   >monarchy was the dominant form of governance. And for monarchy it's   
   >natural to consider someone's social status/role as something that   
   >is given by God and cannot be disputed. So that, "slaves, obey your   
   >earthly masters ..."   
   >   
   >The New Testament doesn't teach "to fight for freedom". Moreover,   
   >the basic setting is to leave the topic of secular authority simply   
   >without interpretation, except it's someting which God has   
   >established. Some accents / narratives in some sections of the New   
   >Testament may seem mutually at odds, but the very basic setting is   
   >clear that the Spirit is primary while the earthly life - including   
   >its probable sufferings, injustices - is of secondary importance.   
      
   The word "secular" does not, however, appear in the New Testament, and   
   the distinction was not made by people back then. The authorities   
   referred to in Romans 13, like those referred to inEphesians 6, could   
   refer to both Caesar and the genius of Caesar, which contemporary   
   Christians died rather than worship, which makes them "freedom   
   fighters" or a sort.   
      
   >So when Christian priests take part in a secular political activism   
   >then it's err.. controversial, at least. On the other hand, it's   
   >impossible for any person to be completely aloof from any political   
   >activism. That's a controversy within the Christian ethics, and it   
   >remains unsolved.   
      
   I don't think priest's should hold secular political offices, but part   
   of their teaching ministry is to guide  people into making Christiqan   
   ethical decisions which may involve political policies.   
      
   >Besides, the fact that "freedom fighters" has now become a meme-like   
   >term, manifests a widespread implication that a pursuit of freedom   
   >should [always] be carried out by "a fight", but if a thinker thinks   
   >better on what freedom really means then this implication also may   
   >seem somewhat controversial.   
      
   Well yes, fighting is a metaphor, but as St Paul says elsewhere, the   
   weapons of our warfare are not carnal. Our battle is not against the   
   flesh and blood of the rulers, but against demonic and evil policies.   
      
      
      
   --   
   A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.   
   Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?   
   A: Top-posting.   
   Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)