Venezuela 2025

[Szdfan]

This begs the question of what "morality" is. Without Jesus, "morality" is often defined by whoever is strongest / most powerful ultimately being viewed as the one who gets to decide what "right and wrong" is.

Jesus instead came and told us the meek will inherit the earth - but he also taught us what right and wrong are, and there is a Law higher than man's laws. He also taught us that there is a Judge. You could call it an "international criminal court", if you wish, where all will be tested according to their works.

If we believe Jesus is the source of a higher moral law, then Christians should resist and constrain earthly power rather than justify atrocities and abuses of power.

No, because Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world. He said that if His Kingdom were of this world, then His servants would fight against the unjust treatment He was receiving.

If we believe Jesus is the source of a higher moral law, then we obey Him and do what He says to do, rather than what seems most logical to us.

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

[Soloist]

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I would qualify that with "supports"

Simply stating it is not taking a side but a view of what reality is.

Might makes right is historical. The winner often writes history, the winner punishes the loser, these things happen the majority of the time.

Those in power are generally only accountable to someone of equivalent power or body (of people) of equivalent power.

[JohnH]

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I assume you're referring to me when you say "someone says that 'might makes right'."

I am simply observing the way the world works. Might does indeed make "right", since history is written by the victors. The people who control politics write the laws, and then enforce them. For example, the forces that want abortion to be legal are politically powerful. They write the laws and spend millions of dollars trying to get laws passed to make abortion legal. Thus, we have a scourge on our land of abortion being legal in many places and openly practiced.

Conversely, there are laws that say it is morally wrong to try to rescue a baby from being brutally murdered. If you try to rescue a baby, you will be stopped by men with guns who will threaten to shoot you if you don't comply. They will then haul you off to prison and you will be deprived of life, liberty, and property.

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don't understand how you think the world works.

Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force. We can also feel grieved that both parties didn't decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

[ken_sylvania]

If we believe Jesus is the source of a higher moral law, then Christians should resist and constrain earthly power rather than justify atrocities and abuses of power.

No, because Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world. He said that if His Kingdom were of this world, then His servants would fight against the unjust treatment He was receiving.

If we believe Jesus is the source of a higher moral law, then we obey Him and do what He says to do, rather than what seems most logical to us.

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I understood that to be a statement of how things actually do work in the real world, not a statement of how things should be. Basically, cutting through the veneer of moral hypocrisy that is so prevalent.

[JohnH]

If I believed we should use force for good (in violation of what Jesus teaches, perhaps because I have adopted a theology that says force is OK), then I would have to tackle the problem of how to "ethically" use force. We would be confronted with a long list of people who need to be restrained or even killed:

- People who are busy murdering babies would obviously be at the top of the list.
- People who are going around finding ways to get children addicted to harmful substances with a goal of oppressing them once they are adults
- People who are going around trying to oppress the poor by convincing them to gamble
- People who are trying to seek wealth so they invest money in the above schemes.
- "Bad" dictators running countries in bad ways who are going around killing and hurting people.

Of course, perhaps another person who thinks they are also a Christian and doing the right thing disagrees with some of my list. Then he thinks I'm a bad person. So the two of us end up at war with each other.

Or we could just follow what the Bible says.

[Bootstrap]

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.”

That so, huh? Mebbe they use a rifle instead of a rope nowadays.

OK, that's fair.

But if someone wants to kill me, I have no Secret Service, I won't get anything like the level of protection Caesar gets. The last president who was successfully assassinated was John F. Kennedy, in 1963. 62 years ago. Before that, it was William McKinley, in 1901. And presidents are a lot better protected today.

Everyday citizens are much more at risk if there are lynch mobs.

And what if a lynch mob has command of the U.S. Military and the U.S. Justice System? Killing people without any valid grounds? They don't have much of a chance. That's why due process is essential.

[Bootstrap]

I understand that perspective. I do think there’s a real difference between not getting involved — which can itself be a form of resistance — and actively arguing in defense of abuses of power and violence. When someone says that “might makes right,” or that those in power have no accountability or constraint, that’s not neutral. That’s not non-involvement. That’s taking a position.

I would qualify that with "supports"

Simply stating it is not taking a side but a view of what reality is.

Might makes right is historical. The winner often writes history, the winner punishes the loser, these things happen the majority of the time.

I think we may be talking past each other here. And some of that involves the word "reality". Today, I heard someone share a true event from a war zone. The soldiers broke into a home, tied up the father, the mother, the children, and the grandmother. They raped the father in full sight of everyone, then the other, then each child, and then the grandmother. After that, they shot the father, then the mother, then each child.

They left the grandmother as a witness.

They probably believed that "might makes right". But there is absolutely nothing right about any of this, and in reality, they will be judged for it. There's a big difference between saying (1) "there is no God" versus (2) “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

I think the more biblical approach is to say something like this:

Psalm 10:11–13

“He says in his heart, ‘God has forgotten;
he has hidden his face; he will never see.’”
… Why does the wicked renounce God and say in his heart,
‘You will not call to account’?”

Psalm 36:1–2

“Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart;
there is no fear of God before his eyes.
For he flatters himself in his own eyes
that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.”

Psalm 2:1–4

“The kings of the earth set themselves…
‘Let us break their bonds and cast away their cords from us.’
He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.”

Isaiah 10:12–15 (Assyria boasting)

“By the strength of my hand I have done it,
and by my wisdom, for I have understanding.”

God responds:
“Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it?”

Habakkuk 1:11

“They sweep by like the wind and go on,
guilty men, whose own might is their god!”

Daniel 4:30–31 (Nebuchadnezzar)

“Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power?”

While the words were still in the king’s mouth,
a voice from heaven said, ‘The kingdom has departed from you.’”

When rulers say that kind of thing, I think the biblical answer is something like this:

Isaiah 5:20–23

“Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil…
who justify the wicked for a bribe.”

Proverbs 11:21

“Be sure of this: the wicked will not go unpunished.”

Ecclesiastes 8:11–13

“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily,
the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.”

But it will not be well with the wicked…”

The Revelation talks about this "might makes right" attitude:

Revelation 13:5–6 — The Beast’s Arrogant Boasting

“The beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words,
and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.
It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God…”

And people seem to buy into that:

Revelation 13:4 — People Assume Might is Right

“They worshiped the beast, saying,
‘Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?’”

The beast looks invincible. It looks like reality is on his side, but it is not.

Those in power are generally only accountable to someone of equivalent power or body (of people) of equivalent power.

In the secular realm, that's why we have checks and balances.

Ultimately, God has more power than any of us. And he defines reality.

[JohnH]

But if someone wants to kill me, I have no Secret Service, I won't get anything like the level of protection Caesar gets.

Who this "Caesar" you are speaking of?

Did you mean the "President"? U.S. Presidents are not "Caesars". Are you using "Caesar" to refer to the government / the state as a whole?

And what if a lynch mob has command of the U.S. Military and the U.S. Justice System? Killing people without any valid grounds? They don't have much of a chance. That's why due process is essential.

Can you describe the process by which a "lynch mob" would somehow take control of both the military and the "justice system" (presumably, the courts)? And of so, "due process" seems meaningless if Congress, the courts, and the military are all in the hands of this hypothetical "lynch mob".

[Bootstrap]

But if someone wants to kill me, I have no Secret Service, I won't get anything like the level of protection Caesar gets.

Who this "Caesar" you are speaking of?

Did you mean the "President"? U.S. Presidents are not "Caesars". Are you using "Caesar" to refer to the government / the state as a whole?

Yes, I am referring to Romans 13.

quote]And what if a lynch mob has command of the U.S. Military and the U.S. Justice System? Killing people without any valid grounds? They don't have much of a chance. That's why due process is essential.

Can you describe the process by which a "lynch mob" would somehow take control of both the military and the "justice system" (presumably, the courts)? And of so, "due process" seems meaningless if Congress, the courts, and the military are all in the hands of this hypothetical "lynch mob".[/quote]

Oh, that goes way beyond this thread.

[JohnH]

But if someone wants to kill me, I have no Secret Service, I won't get anything like the level of protection Caesar gets.

Who this "Caesar" you are speaking of?

Did you mean the "President"? U.S. Presidents are not "Caesars". Are you using "Caesar" to refer to the government / the state as a whole?

Yes, I am referring to Romans 13.

Okay, but what on earth does Secret Service protection have to do with that?

Caesars apparently didn't have much in the way of protection since many Caesars were assassinated.

Oh, that goes way beyond this thread.

Okay, then what on earth are you even bringing up?

Overall, I don't think Christians are responsible to try to make the government be moral, ethical, and operate by godly principles - particularly in matters involving the use of force.