Christian Morality Thread

[NSOE]

Saying you should follow the law and avoid active disobedience is not the same as saying that every revolution is inherently wrong.

Yet again, this is what Blade Runner has always pointed out, without analyzing and taking the historical, (geo)political, social, or economic, context in which a letter was written into account, we won't be able to make much sense of the epistle.

Romans 13: while Paul's religious teachings are universal, here the letter is addressed directly to the Christian community of the imperial capital. We know Rome tolerated foreign cults, at that time Jews were the ones persecuting early Christians who were an insignificant Jewish sect in the government's view. The government maintained order and facilitated commerce, Rome let its subject be as long as they did not rebel and were paying their taxes, a reasonable arrangement to be protected from possible, truly predatory rule of rival powers lying in wait on the outside:

Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
- R 13: 7

Rome was the heart of the beast, the title of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest, was held by the emperor who with his College of Pontiffs headed the state religion. Rebelling against this authority in that place at that moment in history would have been reckless and very detrimental to the developing community of faith. He calls for obedience so that they may have peace by avoiding any unnecessary conflict with the authorities. Maybe St.Paul is trying to cool some nascent rebellious sentiment. Rejecting the pagan god-emperor's rule, passive or even active resistance which would have endangered Christians in the whole empire, and made them targets of the government too (which they would not have become until growing to much greater noticeable proportions in the following decades)- besides those in the city itself who could start the trouble:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

-R 13: 1- 2

Paul made it clear he was talking about just, tolerant, benevolent and righteous rulers, not depraved, unethical, immoral, corrupt, decadent, vicious, and perverted tyrants. Many prominent members mentioned and have pointed this out, and it bears repeating for any new lurkers to see. Paul calls kings ministers of God who aid in good works and oppose evil:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
- R 13: 3- 6

It took me all of the above to say what others have said over and over on the forum: It follows that a king who does not oppose evil, is no legitimate ruler. And what we have now is worse, governments enable it and are a terror to good works. God's laws are clearly defined so it's easy to see.

 

[Iakobos]

Yet again, this is what Blade Runner has always pointed out, without analyzing and taking the historical, (geo)political, social, or economic, context in which a letter was written into account, we won't be able to make much sense of the epistle.

Romans 13: while Paul's religious teachings are universal, here the letter is addressed directly to the Christian community of the imperial capital. We know Rome tolerated foreign cults, at that time Jews were the ones persecuting early Christians who were an insignificant Jewish sect in the government's view. The government maintained order and facilitated commerce, Rome let its subject be as long as they did not rebel and were paying their taxes, a reasonable arrangement to be protected from possible, truly predatory rule of rival powers lying in wait on the outside:

Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
- R 13: 7

Rome was the heart of the beast, the title of Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest, was held by the emperor who with his College of Pontiffs headed the state religion. Rebelling against this authority in that place at that moment in history would have been reckless and very detrimental to the developing community of faith. He calls for obedience so that they may have peace by avoiding any unnecessary conflict with the authorities. Maybe St.Paul is trying to cool some nascent rebellious sentiment. Rejecting the pagan god-emperor's rule, passive or even active resistance which would have endangered Christians everywhere and made them targets of the government too, which they would not have become until growing to much greater noticeable proportions in the following decades:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

-R 13: 1- 2

Paul made it clear he was talking about just, tolerant, benevolent and righteous rulers, not depraved, unethical, immoral, corrupt, decadent, vicious, and perverted tyrants. Many prominent members mentioned and not, have pointed this out and it bears repeating for any new lurkers to see. He calls them ministers of God who aid in good works and oppose evil:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
- R 13: 3- 6

It took me all of the above to say what others have said over and over on the forum: It follows a king who does not oppose evil, is no legitimate ruler. And what we have now is worse, governments enable it and are a terror to good works. God's laws are clearly defined so it's easy to see.

This plus the interesting question about whether the American Revolution was justified got my noggin joggin', so I'm going to think aloud here.

My instinct is to interpret this Scripture as saying, so long as the authorities do not use their authority to cause or command you to break the law of God, then obey them, respect their authority, pay taxes and follow their customs; in Christ's words, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

I think that this is a bit different from the position you are stating in that there could be rulers who are not righteous, benevolent or Godly, yet who are not ordering you to break the commandments of God. Your interpretation says that they are not legitimate rulers but I think there may be something to the interpretation that lousy rulers should still be obeyed (taxes, due honor, rules and so forth) so long as they do not cause or command the people to break God's law.

Some Patristic commentary below.

St. Basil the Great:

It is right to submit to higher authority whenever a command of God is not violated thereby.

St. Augustine:

it is fitting that, as far as this life is concerned, we be subject to the authorities, i.e., to the people who with some recognition administer human affairs. But as far as the spiritual side is concerned, in which we believe in God and are called into his kingdom, it is not right for us to be subject to any man who seeks to overturn in us the very thing which God has been pleased to grant us so that we might obtain eternal life. So if anyone thinks that because he is a Christian he does not have to pay taxes or tribute nor show the proper respect to the authorities who take care of these things, he is in very great error. Likewise, if anyone thinks that he ought to submit to the point where he accepts that someone who is his superior in temporal affairs should have authority even over his faith, he falls into an even greater error. But the balance which the Lord himself prescribed is to be maintained: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s but unto God the things which are God’s.” For although we are called into that kingdom where there will be no power of this world, nevertheless, while we are on the way there and until we have reached that state where every principality and power will be destroyed, let us put up with our condition for the sake of human affairs, doing nothing falsely and in this very thing obeying God, who commands us to do it, rather than men.

...

This is helpful for understanding that because of this life we must be subject and not offer resistance if anyone wants to take something from us, if it is in his power to do so, because authority has been given to him over temporal things, which will pass away. We are not to be subject in those good things which remain forever but only in the needs of this age. But when he says “one must be subject,” lest anyone submit to the authorities halfheartedly and not from pure love, Paul adds: “not only to avoid … wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” That is to say, you should not submit simply to avoid the authority’s anger, which can be done by pretense, but so that you might be assured in your conscience that you are doing this out of love for him. For you submit at your Lord’s command.
...

This can upset some people, when they think that Christians have often suffered persecution by these authorities. They say: “Were these Christians not doing good, since not only did the authorities not praise them, they punished and killed them!” The apostle’s words must be carefully considered. He does not say: “Do what is good and the authorities will praise you,” but: “Do what is good and you will have praise from him.” Whether someone in authority approves what you do or persecutes you, “you will have praise from him,” either when you win it by your obedience to God or when you earn your crown by persecution.

Augustine make a strong connection to Christ's teaching on what to render to Caesar and God, and also seems to teach that even ungodly authorities are "from God" in that they give you an opportunity for martyrdom in the name of Christ.

St. John Chrysostom:

Paul has a good deal to say on this matter in his other epistles also, placing subjects under their rulers in the same way that household servants are under their masters. He does this to show that Christ did not introduce his laws for the purpose of undermining the state but rather so that it should be better governed. He does not speak about individual rulers but about the principle of authority itself. For that there should be rulers and ruled and that things should not just lapse into anarchy, with the people swaying like waves from one extreme to the other, is the work of God’s wisdom.

Most of Chrysostom's commentary is regarding the function of the state in establishing order as opposed to anarchy.

---

Those better versed than I on the American Revolution can chime in but as far as I remember, the King was not commanding or causing any violation of God's commandments but rather the dispute was centered on taxes and political self-determination. From that perspective it seems like they may have been disobedient to St. Paul's teaching here.

Then again I guess it's not shocking that the following group of men might not be paragons of Christian morals and ethics:

George Washington - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name and avoided communion
Benjamin Franklin - Freemasonic Deist who rejected Divine Revelation and the Incarnation
Thomas Jefferson - Deist who desecrated Scripture by cutting out everything other than moral teachings, denied Christ's divinity and Divine Revelation
John Adams - Unitarian Theist, Denied the Trinity, the Incarnation and Divine Revelation
John Hancock - Freemasonic Deist
Thomas Paine - Anti-Christian Deist worshipper of reason
Paul Revere - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name

 

[NSOE]

This plus the interesting question about whether the American Revolution was justified got my noggin joggin', so I'm going to think aloud here.

I was thinking aloud too, I haven't yet read any Patristic writings I'm afraid to admit. I know the Colonists had some grievances but I'd have to look more into that, the crown levied taxes were lower than what they got afterwards. I ought to follow the Church's teachings instead of trying to find my own explanations.

In Romans 13, St. Paul has defined the king as a minister of God/good works, and a terror to evil. I'd say if a ruler isn't that, or forces you to do evil, or both- then he's illegitimate.

Does this mean I have the right to overthrow him, or should I just weasel out, or disobey the laws which cause me to sin and accept his authority in all the other cases? A government that promotes abortion- I don't have to participate, a government murders somebody which does not affect me directly- do I stand by in silence? I don't want to get between God and his child/servant, both of us will face his judgment individually, and I shouldn't worry about anybody's conscience but my own. We're required to admonish our brothers nevertheless, but kings are beyond our reach, and who is the real authority in the system we have today we can go to with our worries.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

This plus the interesting question about whether the American Revolution was justified got my noggin joggin', so I'm going to think aloud here.

My instinct is to interpret this Scripture as saying, so long as the authorities do not use their authority to cause or command you to break the law of God, then obey them, respect their authority, pay taxes and follow their customs; in Christ's words, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

I think that this is a bit different from the position you are stating in that there could be rulers who are not righteous, benevolent or Godly, yet who are not ordering you to break the commandments of God. Your interpretation says that they are not legitimate rulers but I think there may be something to the interpretation that lousy rulers should still be obeyed (taxes, due honor, rules and so forth) so long as they do not cause or command the people to break God's law.

Some Patristic commentary below.

St. Basil the Great:



St. Augustine:



Augustine make a strong connection to Christ's teaching on what to render to Caesar and God, and also seems to teach that even ungodly authorities are "from God" in that they give you an opportunity for martyrdom in the name of Christ.

St. John Chrysostom:



Most of Chrysostom's commentary is regarding the function of the state in establishing order as opposed to anarchy.

---

Those better versed than I on the American Revolution can chime in but as far as I remember, the King was not commanding or causing any violation of God's commandments but rather the dispute was centered on taxes and political self-determination. From that perspective it seems like they may have been disobedient to St. Paul's teaching here.

Then again I guess it's not shocking that the following group of men might not be paragons of Christian morals and ethics:

George Washington - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name and avoided communion
Benjamin Franklin - Freemasonic Deist who rejected Divine Revelation and the Incarnation
Thomas Jefferson - Deist who desecrated Scripture by cutting out everything other than moral teachings, denied Christ's divinity and Divine Revelation
John Adams - Unitarian Theist, Denied the Trinity, the Incarnation and Divine Revelation
John Hancock - Freemasonic Deist
Thomas Paine - Anti-Christian Deist worshipper of reason
Paul Revere - Freemasonic Deist who never used Christ's name

I was thinking aloud too, I haven't yet read any Patristic writings I'm afraid to admit. I know the Colonists had some grievances but I'd have to look more into that, the crown levied taxes were lower than what they got afterwards. I ought to follow the Church's teachings instead of trying to find my own explanations.

In Romans 13, St. Paul has defined the king as a minister of God/good works, and a terror to evil. I'd say if a ruler isn't that, or forces you to do evil, or both- then he's illegitimate.

Does this mean I have the right to overthrow him, or should I just weasel out, or disobey the laws which cause me to sin and accept his authority in all the other cases? A government that promotes abortion- I don't have to participate, a government murders somebody which does not affect me directly- do I stand by in silence? I don't want to get between God and his child/servant, both of us will face his judgment individually, and I shouldn't worry about anybody's conscience but my own. We're required to admonish our brothers nevertheless, but kings are beyond our reach, and who is the real authority in the system we have today we can go to with our worries.

If the government decides to do gun grabs, can we shoot back? I’ve heard some claim that the constitution is the ruling authority of the land, even more so than the politicians. In the US it’s believed our rights come from God.

 

[NSOE]

If the government decides to do gun grabs, can we shoot back? I’ve heard some claim that the constitution is the ruling authority of the land, even more so than the politicians. In the US it’s believed our rights come from God.

There are many considerations. The goddamned piece of paper is what some of those in charge of interpreting and enforcing it called this ruling authority. So in my view it always comes down to men. Politicians are trusted and relied upon to uphold it, so the document is always at risk of becoming a dead law. They choose the immediate guardians of the constitution- the supreme court, a partially reliable tribunal which sometimes graciously and mercifully grants Americans their attention.

as far as I remember, the King was not commanding or causing any violation of God's commandments but rather the dispute was centered on taxes and political self-determination. From that perspective it seems like they may have been disobedient

I'm not a history expert either, what I find disturbing is the usurpation of spiritual authority, the king became the head of his own Anglican state church, and persecuted other denominations from what I understand (like the Quakers?). He would have enforced this in the colonies, if he had had the resources. The constitution affirms the freedom to openly practice one's faith in peace- it's always possible in secret as nobody has access to what we believe in, really, and religious/conscience freedom can always exist inside us- Pope John Paul II said a man can remain free under the conditions of the worst oppression, and become enslaved while enjoying a life of the greatest freedom.

Before immigrating I've known that bellicose period as the War of Independence of the United States, hardly ever was the word revolution used when referencing those times (also, the other conflict's been called the Secession War, not a civil war)- it is seen more as a restoration of order than as turning things upside down, at least linguistically. Catholics believe countries have guardian angels too.

Economic success doesn't always equal civilizational success, like a person doesn't need to be Christian to do good things or to prosper. Is the present sorry state of affairs the fruit of that rebellion? Other formerly Christian countries are not doing better, but they're even more godless
The Old Testament Israel had to put up with the yoke several times, and respect that conquering authority otoh.

As a newly free country, off to a flying start, the US had a great last 100 years (and a good 150 yrs before that despite the economic depressions)- but this is also relative, as many countries were sabotaging themselves the way the US is destroying itself now. Had those God forsaken places been Christian and truly progressively oriented, their standing would have looked different back then already. Was Europe less Christian than America, with worse church attendance after WWI?

You've brought up many good points to ponder on. To me it's the general population and its character, that matters, I didn't know but the founders seem to have disliked Christianity.

It looks to me like Paul talks about a government already in place, does it matter what Paul's target audience is- all Christians in general, ordinary everyday people? Sounds like he gives the Romans practical advice not to make life harder for themselves by taking unnecessary risks- don't question the divinity of the emperor publicly for now in unfamiliar settings, give honor to whom it's due, and don't worry- Jesus' kingdom to which you belong isn't from this world. There were converts in high positions in the administration and the military, some of the taxes paid for their salaries. What would he have to say to political rabble-rousers and activists if he were writing the letter in the midst of a rebellion, where would his sympathy lie? Nothing will ever happen if God won't allow it, he permitted the angels to rebel without destroying them, it was against his will but he brings good out of bad events.

St.Paul doesn't say what to do if the government turns against the good ones and protects the evil individuals, I suppose he would approve of our throwing the shackles off if we then treated the new authority like he has prescribed in Romans 13.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

There are many considerations. The goddamned piece of paper is what some of those in charge of interpreting and enforcing it called this ruling authority. So in my view it always comes down to men. Politicians are trusted and relied upon to uphold it, so the document is always at risk of becoming a dead law. They choose the immediate guardians of the constitution- the supreme court, a partially reliable tribunal which sometimes graciously and mercifully grants Americans their attention.

The second amendment is clear: “shall not be infringed.” This isn’t vague like abortion, it’s obvious. If the view is that some corrupt court has the power to order a gun grab and Christians should just give them up, then Christian values aren’t 100% compatible with what it takes for American to maintain their liberties.

 

[Blade Runner]

My instinct is to interpret this Scripture as saying, so long as the authorities do not use their authority to cause or command you to break the law of God, then obey them, respect their authority, pay taxes and follow their customs; in Christ's words, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.

That's what I think. I asked some of these questions in the "morality of piracy" thread, which included the thought experiment of 98% taxes. Is that ok? For an American, or for someone who might have seen tithing as a good practice, how could someone even state with a straight face that the government getting more than 50% of what you earn is somehow good or not causing the country to be a "god" in itself?

I also state there that the "render to Caesar" again, is an interesting thing because he points out that the face and inscription denotes Caesar, a man, who himself also belongs to God. So in reality it's a double meaning that answers their question (confusingly) and also suggests that ALL is God's.

Augustine make a strong connection to Christ's teaching on what to render to Caesar and God, and also seems to teach that even ungodly authorities are "from God" in that they give you an opportunity for martyrdom in the name of Christ.

You can go really far and really masochistic with this discernment, though, as it suggests that you should welcome evil when it presents itself. If you don't understand how things work, any sin can therefore be looked at as good. I don't think most have that kind of Saintly discernment, even though it is ideal to be OK with insults or praise, and not be changed by either.

Sounds like he gives the Romans practical advice not to make life harder for themselves by taking unnecessary risks- don't question the divinity of the emperor publicly for now in unfamiliar settings, give honor to whom it's due, and don't worry- Jesus' kingdom to which you belong isn't from this world.

Yes. It's like when people read "take care of the widows and orphans" when nowadays the state gives these free money from the coffers and transfers money to them from their husbands companies and retirement plans. At some point you have to look at things in a different capacity.

We in the west are being ruled by the godless, but know what? Our people are all scattered and confused, not constantly persecuted like back then so we all stick together. In that sense, they have us all chasing distractions and on the run, since we don't think we are being attacked. No wonder our people aren't all that interested in keeping to ourselves and our women do whatever they want, marry whomever, etc. If people don't feel there is a survival threat, they won't employ survival behaviors.

 

[NSOE]

The second amendment is clear: “shall not be infringed.” This isn’t vague like abortion, it’s obvious. If the view is that some corrupt court has the power to order a gun grab and Christians should just give them up, then Christian values aren’t 100% compatible with what it takes for American to maintain their liberties.

The constitution is the supreme law but politicians have failed to protect it, and it can't defend itself, so a gun grab's been happening gradually through the enactment of unconstitutional laws, without much objection.

It's moral to try to restore that right, they have no legit authority and in the final stage if they're stopping and searching people on the streets or going from door to door it would be moral to defend your rights and shoot back, but it would be a sin if it was suicide by government agent, or unethical if you died and left your wife and kids without support. If it's come down to that and the govt has accumulated that much power, probably many other basic rights don't exist either, if organized resistance looks promising after analyzing the costs and benefits you can go forth with your plans, just don't destroy yourself. The question is how has this happened that people are backed into a corner, is it worth dying for now.

The last anti communist Polish partisan from WWII was surrounded and killed in 1963, the view is it was moral to carry on fighting, but he had no choice, would have gotten the death penalty if caught and was wanted by the govt.

 

[Iakobos]

I think there's not always a clear black and white answer to these questions and that we're ultimately going to have to pray, listen to our heart and do our best to follow God's will, whether that be a modern form of nonresistant martyrdom, or laying down our life while using force to protect others. Certainly Christians are duty-bound to work against abortion and to protect innocents, and if a man isn't afraid to die by the sword and answer to God for his actions, then I don't see how one could condemn such a Christian for resisting evil by force. I haven't been tested but my patron saint is a martyr of the Church and I would hope that I could meet with courage a violent end in God's name if that's what is ultimately required of me.

At the same time when I think about these things I can't help but reflect on how the Church was founded on 300 years of martyrdom and nonviolence. And how Jews thought they'd have a conquering Messiah to lead a worldly revolt and thus passed over Christ. So though in my heart I feel that it is morally permissible for Christians to resist evil by force, and intellectually it makes sense, sometimes I feel like the rich young man, who faithfully followed 99% of the commandments but couldn't swallow what Christ told him it would take to be perfect in God's eyes.

 

[NSOE]

From a different angle, in a majority pagan society, they were not deliberately seeking martyrdom I think, being alive and evangelizing was the goal, but it was a real possibility due to circumstances beyond their control, pagans had the upper hand, so Christians had no choice but to face their violence often. I think they knew there was no running away and no use making a last stand as the outcome would have been the same.

They happened to be living in such peculiar times that they had to courageously bear witness to Christ when called upon. You had to keep the faith which was worth more than life. That bravery gave a reassuring example to others, to never surrender their religion- their real life Jesus had given all of you. Like a soldier who can be captured by the enemies but is expected not to give up his brothers in arms by spilling the secrets under duress or abandon the cause or switch sides.

What I wanted to say, it was about staying true to Jesus in the first place, knowing martyrdom was a real risk.

 

[Blade Runner]

At the same time when I think about these things I can't help but reflect on how the Church was founded on 300 years of martyrdom and nonviolence.

I'm enjoying the back and forth. I think this is a very interesting and important thread, even though we won't come to concrete conclusions - a mystery of life that many truths and meaning overall is inside paradox.

Still, God found it fit to have warrior Saints and even St. Constantine who "conquered" in this sign (Chi Ro) so sometimes the world just goes as is. We like to look back and find reasons why X or Y was OK, but really it's just the current of the age and whether holy or sinful, in some fashion was part of God's plan. One can look at all the errors of the Church that also had to be corrected, and looking back now we accept all the councils but clearly during those first 800 years they went back and forth, and we have this "luxury" of calling some of them heretics. In no way, by the way, do I have a problem with this.

I think they knew there was no running away and no use making a last stand as the outcome would have been the same.

I think at one point Sam Shamoun made a convincing argument from the scriptures that seems practical as well, which is that one should try to escape persecution when possible (Paul let down in a basket, etc) but when there is nowhere to run and they have you dead to rights (no pun intended) you are obviously not to deny your faith, and accept your fate.

In most of my recommendations for life and for those on the forum regarding the question of staying or leaving the country, for example, I've said the same. Be practical and be wise. If the people don't accept you or your values, dust off those sandals, and go to another place. Of course, each person has to live in accordance with his conscience, family, and values.

You had to keep the faith which has been worth more than life.

As is coming or already the case for many, people might not have that much to lose. If life isn't all that great, which may have been the case especially if you had the faith of the Apostles and all those adversaries, you might have more conviction in the sense that you don't mind that you depart. What's more is that (this isn't always a negative), if you already had kids/a family, a lot of people think that makes it hard but in many ways it makes it easier.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

I think there's not always a clear black and white answer to these questions and that we're ultimately going to have to pray, listen to our heart and do our best to follow God's will, whether that be a modern form of nonresistant martyrdom, or laying down our life while using force to protect others. Certainly Christians are duty-bound to work against abortion and to protect innocents, and if a man isn't afraid to die by the sword and answer to God for his actions, then I don't see how one could condemn such a Christian for resisting evil by force. I haven't been tested but my patron saint is a martyr of the Church and I would hope that I could meet with courage a violent end in God's name if that's what is ultimately required of me.

At the same time when I think about these things I can't help but reflect on how the Church was founded on 300 years of martyrdom and nonviolence. And how Jews thought they'd have a conquering Messiah to lead a worldly revolt and thus passed over Christ. So though in my heart I feel that it is morally permissible for Christians to resist evil by force, and intellectually it makes sense, sometimes I feel like the rich young man, who faithfully followed 99% of the commandments but couldn't swallow what Christ told him it would take to be perfect in God's eyes.

It’s simple.

People can choose to please God or be a freedom fighter.

The important thing is that Christians stop telling these freedom fighters that “submitting to the governmening authorities” will cause positive change, because it won’t.

Let them make FREE INFORMED DECISIONS. God gave us free will for a reason.

And remember the first amendment.

 

[analyst_green]

I think the most important thing to keep in mind when moral considerations arise is that God seeks above all to draw us closer to Him. Whether or not we make the objectively correct decision in a particular moral judgment is of secondary concern. Reading the Bible and the Church fathers certainly helps us to understand God's will. But without a prayerful disposition, without acquisition of the Holy Spirit, without the counsel of the Saints and our spiritual father, we will never fully understand how to apply these writings.

In other words, we pray, we seek to acquire humility, and we seek to rely on Him at all times above all. To those who are humble, God grants the discernment needed to act morally. St. John of the Ladder says that we cannot acquire discernment until we have learned humility and obedience to our Lord. Without that, we will never make the right decisions:

Those who desire to discover the will of the Lord must first of all put to death their own will. Then, after having entreated God with faith and sincere purity, and having requested from the fathers or perhaps the brothers with a humble heart and without doubting, they should receive their counsel as if it came from the very mouth of God, even if it be opposed to their own opinion, and even if those who are asked are not particularly spiritual.

Above all we need to have love:

When we are faced by evils, we should select the least. For example, many times it happens that we are present at prayer, and a brother approaches us. So we have to either cease praying, or upset the brother by ignoring him with no reply. Love is more important than prayer, because prayer is a specific virtue but love covers all the virtues.

St. Paisios also put love as the crown of the virtues. In this day and age, he said discernment is second because of how critical it is.

And once you have arrived at a decision, St. John advises us to dispel all doubt:

To doubt one's decisions and to stay in doubt for a long time without confidence is a sign of an unenlightened and ambitious soul.

Yet God allows us to make the wrong choice sometimes so that we learn from it. Think of how many questionable things the ancient patriarchs have done, such as Noah, David or Solomon. And yet they fell so they could rise up again. Even stronger in faith.

 

[Iakobos]

It’s simple.

People can choose to please God or be a freedom fighter.

I am sympathetic to this dichotomy, but shouldn't we as Christians in all cases then seek to please God? Yet again to refuse to fight can be a martyrdom or it can be professed to disguise a vein of cowardice, masked as pacifism, to refuse to fight to defend innocents and Godliness.

Sometimes I feel that the monks are the only ones truly committed to the attempt to be perfect in the eyes of God and that those of us living in the world are doomed to make compromises and be forced to choose the lesser of evils. After all, monasticism was founded after Christianity was legalized to preserve that spiritual strength that caused the Church and faith to endure for hundreds of years of persecution. Perhaps I am seeking to apply monastic standards to laypeople and that is the source of the tension in these teachings. May God have mercy on our imperfection and look kindly on our desire to do what is righteous in this fallen world.

 

[Blade Runner]

Sometimes I feel that the monks are the only ones truly committed to the attempt to be perfect in the eyes of God and that those of us living in the world are doomed to make compromises and be forced to choose the lesser of evils.

Not to keep stating this, but the forum in a sense has always been about finding one's purpose and calling in life, and largely for us as young, healthy men it was trying to figure out the sex/wife/family thing vs. becoming a monk.

That's why that topic keeps resurfacing. Those who want to be faithful but are pinballed in this world between proper ways of living (marriage being essentially sanctioned sex or a proper outlet for it) have this difficult trajectory now due to women, family or life overall being so confused or suboptimal in that realm. The logical conclusion is thus to become a type of monk or solitary person. But that has its own problems, difficulties, and practical considerations.

I thank all of those that weigh in on the issue and help others on the forum understand where they should perhaps go next, take the next step towards, or frankly deal with the issue with humility and repentance, however much we may "miss the mark."

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]