XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

For months, Serbian citizens have been protesting against the
repressive regime of Aleksandar Vucic and the entire corrupt,
clientelist system developed or escalated under his rule. The protests
were initiated by the students of Serbian Universities, but they have
since evolved into a nationwide popular movement that refuses to align
with any of the established political parties —for good reason.

The Serbian Orthodox Church, the largest religious community in the
country, has been divided over these protests from the very beginning.
While the overwhelming majority of its bishops have chosen to remain
silent, there have been isolated voices within the episcopate both for
and against the protests. Students of the Faculty of Theology in
Belgrade have joined the protests, and individual theologians have
expressed their support as well. Patriarch Porfirije, the head of the
Church, has remained ambiguous. He has avoided openly supporting the
protests, under the pretext that the Church needs to remain above
societal divisions. However, through internal and informal channels of communication, one gets an impression that he supports the students,
even if he may be too weak to publicly oppose the regime.

One of the few clerics who have openly spoken against the protests is
Bishop David of Kruševac, a city in central Serbia. In a text dated
February 9, 2025, using mostly complicated (and empty) phraseology and quasi-theological arguments, he linked the protests and “neo-Orthodox” theologians, accusing them of promoting “a different Orthodoxy” that distorts and corrupts tradition. Before him, Irinej, Bishop of Novi
Sad (northern Serbia), criticized what he called the “Orthodox
Trilateral” — an alliance of (unnamed but hinted-at) theological institutions from the US and Europe — as a “neo-Orthodox theological international” (and nothing good was meant by this).

Despite these and other pressures, the priests of the Kruševac
Cathedral demonstrated both initiative and courage, both freedom and
their Christian and human dignity. On February 27, they stepped out of
the church and, in front of the cathedral, greeted the protesters as
they marched through the streets of Kruševac. They gave them their
blessings and arranged for food and drinks to be placed along the
sidewalks for all participants.


To fully appreciate this act, one must understand how church
structures function in countries where Orthodoxy has been the dominant
and traditional faith. The Orthodox Church is organized as an “episcopocentric” institution, meaning that local bishops wield
enormous power over priests in their diocese, with little to no
external oversight except in extreme cases. In other words, priests
are often at the mercy of their local bishop: if the bishop is a
reasonable and good person, priests are in a solid position, but if
the bishop is authoritarian, egotistical, or even psychotic,
effectively only God can help them. There are, although very few,
extraordinary bishops, who are competent, dedicated to the Church, but
also kind-hearted and hard-working people. These dioceses are known
among the priests and the laity as “paradise on earth.”

The decision of the priests to support the protesters comes against
such backdrop. They organized spontaneously, they say “naturally”,
with initially only a few of them, later joined by others. Although
they would probably object to the term “self-management” or “anarcho-syndicalist” (given that these terms come primarily from the political vocabulary, and are mostly linked to atheistic and even anti-religious contexts), their spontaneous organization, at their own initiative, and against the backdrop of authoritarian ecclesiastical
context, resembles the self-managerial, or anarcho-syndicalist
organization (that the students themselves have implemented in their
own organization from the beginning of the protests).

This anarcho-syndicalist mode of organization is not a novelty in the
Balkans. One should keep in mind the tradition of Yugoslav socialist self-management, but also the even earlier tradition of traditional
Serbian village cooperatives.

In the context of the Orthodox Church, there are historical reports of anarcho-syndicalist organization of monks and priests in Russia, in
the aftermath of the February Revolution (1917), as a means of
reclaiming freedom from authoritarian church structures.
The decision of these priests to express their position—both as
Orthodox Christians and as citizens—in the situation when the
political views of their bishop, and his arrogant rhetoric, were
clearly expressed and known, is a brave act, a demonstration of
freedom, and a commitment to justice and basic human dignity. This act
can serve as an example for other priests to stand up in the name of
human freedom and dignity, to reject repression, hypocrisy and
corruption, and to challenge, non-violently, the despotic rule of both
the local political leaders and individual bishops. Practicing such
Orthodox Christian “anarchism” not only affirms their status as free citizens but also upholds their identity as Orthodox Christians—people
of dignity, committed to freedom, justice, and, above all – love.

Source:
<https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 2, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>):

For months, Serbian citizens have been protesting against the
repressive regime of Aleksandar Vucic and the entire corrupt,
clientelist system developed or escalated under his rule. The protests
were initiated by the students of Serbian Universities, but they have
since evolved into a nationwide popular movement that refuses to align
with any of the established political parties —for good reason.

The Serbian Orthodox Church, the largest religious community in the
country, has been divided over these protests from the very beginning.
While the overwhelming majority of its bishops have chosen to remain
silent, there have been isolated voices within the episcopate both for
and against the protests. Students of the Faculty of Theology in
Belgrade have joined the protests, and individual theologians have
expressed their support as well. Patriarch Porfirije, the head of the
Church, has remained ambiguous. He has avoided openly supporting the protests, under the pretext that the Church needs to remain above
societal divisions. However, through internal and informal channels of communication, one gets an impression that he supports the students,
even if he may be too weak to publicly oppose the regime.

One of the few clerics who have openly spoken against the protests is
Bishop David of Kruševac, a city in central Serbia. In a text dated
February 9, 2025, using mostly complicated (and empty) phraseology and quasi-theological arguments, he linked the protests and “neo-Orthodox” theologians, accusing them of promoting “a different Orthodoxy” that distorts and corrupts tradition. Before him, Irinej, Bishop of Novi
Sad (northern Serbia), criticized what he called the “Orthodox Trilateral” — an alliance of (unnamed but hinted-at) theological institutions from the US and Europe — as a “neo-Orthodox theological international” (and nothing good was meant by this).

Despite these and other pressures, the priests of the Kruševac
Cathedral demonstrated both initiative and courage, both freedom and
their Christian and human dignity. On February 27, they stepped out of
the church and, in front of the cathedral, greeted the protesters as
they marched through the streets of Kruševac. They gave them their
blessings and arranged for food and drinks to be placed along the
sidewalks for all participants.

To fully appreciate this act, one must understand how church
structures function in countries where Orthodoxy has been the dominant
and traditional faith. The Orthodox Church is organized as an “episcopocentric” institution, meaning that local bishops wield
enormous power over priests in their diocese, with little to no
external oversight except in extreme cases. In other words, priests
are often at the mercy of their local bishop: if the bishop is a
reasonable and good person, priests are in a solid position, but if
the bishop is authoritarian, egotistical, or even psychotic,
effectively only God can help them. There are, although very few, extraordinary bishops, who are competent, dedicated to the Church, but
also kind-hearted and hard-working people. These dioceses are known
among the priests and the laity as “paradise on earth.”

The decision of the priests to support the protesters comes against
such backdrop. They organized spontaneously, they say “naturally”,
with initially only a few of them, later joined by others. Although
they would probably object to the term “self-management” or “anarcho-syndicalist” (given that these terms come primarily from the political vocabulary, and are mostly linked to atheistic and even anti-religious contexts), their spontaneous organization, at their own initiative, and against the backdrop of authoritarian ecclesiastical
context, resembles the self-managerial, or anarcho-syndicalist
organization (that the students themselves have implemented in their
own organization from the beginning of the protests).

This anarcho-syndicalist mode of organization is not a novelty in the Balkans. One should keep in mind the tradition of Yugoslav socialist self-management, but also the even earlier tradition of traditional
Serbian village cooperatives.

In the context of the Orthodox Church, there are historical reports of anarcho-syndicalist organization of monks and priests in Russia, in
the aftermath of the February Revolution (1917), as a means of
reclaiming freedom from authoritarian church structures.
The decision of these priests to express their position—both as
Orthodox Christians and as citizens—in the situation when the
political views of their bishop, and his arrogant rhetoric, were
clearly expressed and known, is a brave act, a demonstration of
freedom, and a commitment to justice and basic human dignity. This act
can serve as an example for other priests to stand up in the name of
human freedom and dignity, to reject repression, hypocrisy and
corruption, and to challenge, non-violently, the despotic rule of both
the local political leaders and individual bishops. Practicing such
Orthodox Christian “anarchism” not only affirms their status as free citizens but also upholds their identity as Orthodox Christians—people
of dignity, committed to freedom, justice, and, above all – love.

Source:
<https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on freedom from sin?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:46:23 -0800, Dr.Who <dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 2, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote >(Message-ID:<8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>):

For months, Serbian citizens have been protesting against the
repressive regime of Aleksandar Vucic and the entire corrupt,
clientelist system developed or escalated under his rule. The protests
were initiated by the students of Serbian Universities, but they have
since evolved into a nationwide popular movement that refuses to align
with any of the established political parties —for good reason.

Source:
<https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on freedom from sin?

Isn't corruption sinful?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:46:23 -0800, Dr.Who wrote:

Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on freedom from sin?

“Sin” is a religious, not a moral, concept.

Conflation of religion with morality is one of the biggest factors
contributing to human suffering through the ages.

Priests who choose to be freedom fighters do so in spite of, not because
of, their religion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 3, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<3bucsjp6fmv8ua3p1u55r3lgtje4nojisd@4ax.com>):

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:46:23 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 2, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>):

For months, Serbian citizens have been protesting against the
repressive regime of Aleksandar Vucic and the entire corrupt,
clientelist system developed or escalated under his rule. The protests were initiated by the students of Serbian Universities, but they have since evolved into a nationwide popular movement that refuses to align with any of the established political parties —for good reason.

Source:
<https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on freedom from sin?

Isn't corruption sinful?

Of course, but who is doing the convicting, Jesus Christ in their hearts or people via the mind?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

Steve Hayes, <news:8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>

The Serbian Orthodox Church, the largest religious community in the
country, has been divided over these protests from the very beginning.
While the overwhelming majority of its bishops have chosen to remain
silent, there have been isolated voices within the episcopate both for
and against the protests. Students of the Faculty of Theology in
Belgrade have joined the protests, and individual theologians have
expressed their support as well.

| 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.

Source:
<https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

Those "priests as freedom fighters" are heretics.

You say that like it’s a bad thing ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes, <news:8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>

The Serbian Orthodox Church, the largest religious community in the
country, has been divided over these protests from the very beginning.
While the overwhelming majority of its bishops have chosen to remain
silent, there have been isolated voices within the episcopate both for
and against the protests. Students of the Faculty of Theology in
Belgrade have joined the protests, and individual theologians have
expressed their support as well.

| 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.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 23:04:10 -0800, Dr.Who <dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 3, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote >(Message-ID:<3bucsjp6fmv8ua3p1u55r3lgtje4nojisd@4ax.com>):

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:46:23 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 2, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(Message-ID:<8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>):

For months, Serbian citizens have been protesting against the
repressive regime of Aleksandar Vucic and the entire corrupt,
clientelist system developed or escalated under his rule. The protests >> > > were initiated by the students of Serbian Universities, but they have
since evolved into a nationwide popular movement that refuses to align >> > > with any of the established political parties —for good reason.

Source:
<https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on freedom from sin?

Isn't corruption sinful?

Of course, but who is doing the convicting, Jesus Christ in their hearts or >people via the mind?

So the Prophet Nathan should not have spoken to King David about his
sin via his mind, but left it to Jesus to speak in his heart?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 4, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<bolfsjl1jhm53h3t6pc2vk0udafc4q2jh8@4ax.com>):

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 23:04:10 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 3, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<3bucsjp6fmv8ua3p1u55r3lgtje4nojisd@4ax.com>):

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 17:46:23 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 2, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>):

For months, Serbian citizens have been protesting against the repressive regime of Aleksandar Vucic and the entire corrupt, clientelist system developed or escalated under his rule. The protests
were initiated by the students of Serbian Universities, but they have since evolved into a nationwide popular movement that refuses to align
with any of the established political parties —for good reason.

Source: <https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/priests-as-freedom-fighters/>

Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on freedom from sin?

Isn't corruption sinful?

Of course, but who is doing the convicting, Jesus Christ in their hearts or people via the mind?

So the Prophet Nathan should not have spoken to King David about his
sin via his mind, but left it to Jesus to speak in his heart?

Were they not under a different covenant and dispensation? However, it is interesting to note that King David did, on occasion did adorn himself with
the priests ephod to speak with God directly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 06:52:07 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

God is like management: quick to take credit for the good things, just as
quick to run away from blame for the bad things.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

Steve Hayes, <news:u0mfsjps4r81lnqs5s0fd1inqv1kjmv83d@4ax.com>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

| 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.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

| Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
| rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who
| do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, <news:vq8ecl$24r6k$1@dont-email.me>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

Those "priests as freedom fighters" are heretics.

You say that like it's a bad thing ...

For Christians, the only way of relation with an authority is
to obey it (which, in turn, means any authority is certainly
non-Christian (although it may well pretend to be Christian)).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 5, 2025, Oleg Smirnov wrote
(Message-ID: <vq92a9$2bdfk$1@os.motzarella.org>):

Steve Hayes,<news:u0mfsjps4r81lnqs5s0fd1inqv1kjmv83d@4ax.com>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

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.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who
do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13)

Amen,

2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through
God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to
the obedience of Christ; 2Co 10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

2Co 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust
to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ’s.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Pro 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Pro 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Pro 3:8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

Doing so in the walk of faith believing gives one rest to the soul and peace
of mind.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:32:11 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, <news:vq8ecl$24r6k$1@dont-email.me>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

Those "priests as freedom fighters" are heretics.

You say that like it's a bad thing ...

For Christians, the only way of relation with an authority is
to obey it (which, in turn, means any authority is certainly
non-Christian (although it may well pretend to be Christian)).

Your religion tells you it’s a virtue to believe without evidence, doesn’t it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

An omnipotent being doesn’t need a “plan”. It can do whatever the hell it wants.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes, <news:u0mfsjps4r81lnqs5s0fd1inqv1kjmv83d@4ax.com>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

| 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.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

And also, though St Paul said this:

Rom 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

he also said this:

Eph 6:11-12 - Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh
and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places.

The word "powers" (Greek=exousias) is perhaps better rendered into
English as "authorities".




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 5, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>):

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:u0mfsjps4r81lnqs5s0fd1inqv1kjmv83d@4ax.com>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

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.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

They were speaking to the leader of Judaism, not the Roman government. Those leaders were ones who taught and held to the traditions of men, not just the scriptures.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Yes, and this is the continuance of the actions of the chapter just before.
The disciples were now members of the Kingdom of God, under the New Covenant, having been set free from the old. Their new high priest is Jesus/Yeshua, in Heaven.

They were also not fighting or warring against the old ways.

And also, though St Paul said this:

Rom 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Yes, he did, and because of that he followed the laws setup for Roman
citizens. Went to prison, unjustly, and trusted in the Lord through it all maintaining his witness before men, and was able to speak to them privately because of it, regarding the things of the Lord.
He was in prison because of the false witness of the same people he used to follow and adhere to until he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, who
delivered him from being part of those that attacked Peter and John that you spoke of before.

he also said this:

Eph 6:11-12 - Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh
and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places.

Yes, he did, and to that end I quoted scripture given to him in my previous reply to you in regards to who we ware against, an that through the
confidence received because of Faith in Christ we can stand against the wiles of the enemy. The results of the dramatic shift in the government is a result of the prayers of the people against the unjust, ungodly actions of the previous rulers. Those who tried to shut down the churches, bible study
groups and the freedom of religion in America, amongst many other previous
acts of corruption which opposed the very constitution long established as
the rule of law.

The word "powers" (Greek=exousias) is perhaps better rendered into
English as "authorities".

Yet that does not designate religious rulers as among our authorities as only Jesus is the head of the Body of Christ, the ekklesia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity, nz.politics

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, <news:vqaf3i$2jbji$2@dont-email.me>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:32:11 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

Those "priests as freedom fighters" are heretics.

You say that like it's a bad thing ...

For Christians, the only way of relation with an authority is
to obey it (which, in turn, means any authority is certainly
non-Christian (although it may well pretend to be Christian)).

God arranged life so that there's no lack of powers seeking
to be an authority, so that a formation of an authority always
means disobedience to some competing authorities.

Your religion tells you it's a virtue to believe without evidence, doesn't it?

Mind reading and vulgar atheism are both not good, I think.

Underlying topic here is on how social competition should be
seen through Christian ethics, since any political activism is
linked to competition among men, groups, parties etc

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

Steve Hayes, <news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

And also, though St Paul said this:

Rom 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

he also said this:

Eph 6:11-12 - Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh
and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places.

From Eph 6:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear ..."

"... the sword of the Spirit ...", not a fight for freedom.

The word "powers" (Greek=exousias) is perhaps better rendered into
English as "authorities".

Also, fights "for freedom" and "against corruption" aren't equal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.religion, nz.politics

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:55:25 +0300, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

God arranged life so that there's no lack of powers seeking to be an authority, so that a formation of an authority always means disobedience
to some competing authorities.

Each religion says their sky fairy is the one true sky fairy, all other
sky fairies are false.

They can’t all be right on the first point, they can all be right on the second.

Underlying topic here is on how social competition should be seen
through Christian ethics, since any political activism is linked to competition among men, groups, parties etc

“The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the hijacking of morality by religion.”
-- Arthur C Clarke

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes, <news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order.
Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby
wrongly disobeying what God had established?



--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order.
Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby
wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban worshipping gods.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:39:46 -0800, Dr.Who <dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote >(Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order.
Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby
wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban >worshipping gods.

Enver Hoxha banned *talking* about gods, just as those mentioned in
the book of Acts of the Apostles did to St Peter and St John. Freedom
of thought, yes. Freedom of speech, no.

Teachers used to ask children at school what they had been eating at
home during Lent and Ramadan, and passed this information on to the
enforcement authorities.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 7, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<28rmsj1rmth8p7p02nq6d9msl77cuo6lld@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:39:46 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order.
Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban worshipping gods.

Enver Hoxha banned *talking* about gods, just as those mentioned in
the book of Acts of the Apostles did to St Peter and St John. Freedom
of thought, yes. Freedom of speech, no.

In the Book of Acts it was the religious leaders that ‘banned’ Peter and John. In what way was that similar to Enver? After all, false prophets are false prophets.

Enver Hoxha desired to ban thought as well as freedom of speech. Declaring
that the religion of atheism was the theme of the day. Although he may not
have put it in those terms, yet atheism is a belief system.

Teachers used to ask children at school what they had been eating at
home during Lent and Ramadan, and passed this information on to the enforcement authorities.

I was unaware of that. He obviously failed at accomplishing his goals as the country allowed religion after his death. He aspired to be a leader like Marx

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:59:52 -0800, Dr.Who <dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote >(Message-ID:<28rmsj1rmth8p7p02nq6d9msl77cuo6lld@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:39:46 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God. >> > > > > >

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto >> > > > > God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen >> > > > > and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should >> > > > > not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with >> > > > > your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God >> > > > > rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order.
Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby
wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban >> > worshipping gods.

Enver Hoxha banned *talking* about gods, just as those mentioned in
the book of Acts of the Apostles did to St Peter and St John. Freedom
of thought, yes. Freedom of speech, no.

In the Book of Acts it was the religious leaders that ‘banned’ Peter and >John. In what way was that similar to Enver? After all, false prophets are >false prophets.

And your point is?

Enver Hoxha desired to ban thought as well as freedom of speech. Declaring >that the religion of atheism was the theme of the day. Although he may not >have put it in those terms, yet atheism is a belief system.

So he, like the Jewish leaders at the time of the Apostles, was a
relgious leader.

Teachers used to ask children at school what they had been eating at
home during Lent and Ramadan, and passed this information on to the
enforcement authorities.

I was unaware of that. He obviously failed at accomplishing his goals as the >country allowed religion after his death. He aspired to be a leader like Marx

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 8, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<an4osjhc9jg4i394jh601g4cgfrd57nvkm@4ax.com>):

On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:59:52 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<28rmsj1rmth8p7p02nq6d9msl77cuo6lld@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:39:46 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu> wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order. Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban
worshipping gods.

Enver Hoxha banned *talking* about gods, just as those mentioned in
the book of Acts of the Apostles did to St Peter and St John. Freedom
of thought, yes. Freedom of speech, no.

In the Book of Acts it was the religious leaders that ‘banned’ Peter and
John. In what way was that similar to Enver? After all, false prophets are false prophets.

And your point is?

At that time Rome was the ruler of that nation, not the High Priest and his crowd.
The disciples were no longer under the Old Covenant of Law, and they, like
the Born Again Believer of today, have Jesus the Messiah as their High
Priest.

You know, perhaps better than I, the governmental rule of that day and the reasons why the Romans allowed the High priests to lead the Jew according to their religious covenants. Even Jesus, before he wa sacrificed spoke out against the religious leaders for their following the traditions of men and placing them as equal to or above the law Covenant.

According to the scriptures God sets up and or allows governing ruler
befitting to the needs of the people, and in the case of the Israelites,
every time they wandered away from God and would not repent, they were taken over by others. When they returned to Him as their God and repented, he restored them.

The Romans ended up destroying that religious system as it was the source of rebellion against Rome, instead of following the God they laid claim to. Like some of the ‘churches’ of today, their religion turned into the
worshipping of rites and rotes, as their hearts were not focused on God and establishing a relationship with Him.

Christians should have learned that lesson as the Israelites were an example
of what happens when we follow God, and or turn away to fulfill the desires
of the flesh, and even trying to mix the two lifestyles as one, as did the
Jew in the days of Jesus.

As Oleg pointed out from scriptures, we need to fight the real enemy not the fleshly perceived enemy.

Enver Hoxha desired to ban thought as well as freedom of speech. Declaring that the religion of atheism was the theme of the day. Although he may not have put it in those terms, yet atheism is a belief system.

So he, like the Jewish leaders at the time of the Apostles, was a
relgious leader.

It might seem like that to you, but my point of him following a different belief system is something that he while fighting against one, he did so without realizing he had chosen just another belief system. Not that he was purposely advocating a religion.

He had a particular problem with the RCC, and as a result condemned all forms of religion, possibly thinking he was a do-gooder when he started out.
However, this is just one of many situations where the root problem is spiritual. A lesson many do not understand especially in the ‘christian’ realm. The real warfare is spiritual, hence the scriptures speaking to,... “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:” (2Co 10:3) “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” (Rom 8:5)

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done
all, to stand.” (Eph 6:12-13)

One must pay attention to the suit of armor and the weapons used in this battle.

And for these reasons the Wars going on with Israel, is solely because of the evil one, and the war in the USA likewise. Which is why the believer is to pray, seeking the Lord and standing in the power of His might.

I apologize that my thoughts are not fluid here and may seem disjointed in a way, yet it does all tie together if there is understanding.

Teachers used to ask children at school what they had been eating at
home during Lent and Ramadan, and passed this information on to the enforcement authorities.

I was unaware of that. He obviously failed at accomplishing his goals as the
country allowed religion after his death. He aspired to be a leader like Marx

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

YOu don't like it when right wingers hijack religion, but it's ok for left wingers? YOu are a hypocrite.

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:14:22 -0800, Dr.Who <dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote >(Message-ID:<an4osjhc9jg4i394jh601g4cgfrd57nvkm@4ax.com>):

On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:59:52 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(Message-ID:<28rmsj1rmth8p7p02nq6d9msl77cuo6lld@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:39:46 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God. >> > > > > > > > >

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by
God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities
rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific,
and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God
implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order. >> > > > > Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby >> > > > > wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban
worshipping gods.

Enver Hoxha banned *talking* about gods, just as those mentioned in
the book of Acts of the Apostles did to St Peter and St John. Freedom
of thought, yes. Freedom of speech, no.

In the Book of Acts it was the religious leaders that ‘banned’ Peter and
John. In what way was that similar to Enver? After all, false prophets are >> > false prophets.

And your point is?

At that time Rome was the ruler of that nation, not the High Priest and his >crowd.
The disciples were no longer under the Old Covenant of Law, and they, like >the Born Again Believer of today, have Jesus the Messiah as their High >Priest.

You know, perhaps better than I, the governmental rule of that day and the >reasons why the Romans allowed the High priests to lead the Jew according to >their religious covenants. Even Jesus, before he wa sacrificed spoke out >against the religious leaders for their following the traditions of men and >placing them as equal to or above the law Covenant.

According to the scriptures God sets up and or allows governing ruler >befitting to the needs of the people, and in the case of the Israelites, >every time they wandered away from God and would not repent, they were taken >over by others. When they returned to Him as their God and repented, he >restored them.

The Romans ended up destroying that religious system as it was the source of >rebellion against Rome, instead of following the God they laid claim to. Like >some of the ‘churches’ of today, their religion turned into the >worshipping of rites and rotes, as their hearts were not focused on God and >establishing a relationship with Him.

Christians should have learned that lesson as the Israelites were an example >of what happens when we follow God, and or turn away to fulfill the desires >of the flesh, and even trying to mix the two lifestyles as one, as did the >Jew in the days of Jesus.

As Oleg pointed out from scriptures, we need to fight the real enemy not the >fleshly perceived enemy.

Enver Hoxha desired to ban thought as well as freedom of speech. Declaring >> > that the religion of atheism was the theme of the day. Although he may not >> > have put it in those terms, yet atheism is a belief system.

So he, like the Jewish leaders at the time of the Apostles, was a
relgious leader.

It might seem like that to you, but my point of him following a different >belief system is something that he while fighting against one, he did so >without realizing he had chosen just another belief system. Not that he was >purposely advocating a religion.

I mat return to this later, but for now just this:

You and Oleg Smirnoff appear to be arguing that because all authority
is ultimately from God, we therefore ought to obey every command of
every authority because authority (exousia in Greek) is from God and
therefore good. So we must obey every authority in everything, no
exceptions.

But then there are exeptions, you don't have to obey Jewish
authorities because of the new covenant. But the new covenant affects
the Roman authorities too - Col 2:14-15.

Then read the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

<https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/polycarp/>

Note his attitude to the Roman governor.

Romnas 13 says we should be subject to the authoerities, not that we
should *obey* theior every command.

Polycarp is clearly subject to the Roman governor, and respects his
authority, but he does not obey his every command.

And that is exactly in line with the attitude of Peter and John, not
obeying those who told them to stop speaking of Jesus.








--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com

For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Mar 8, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<dd8qsjt13n60f7ss3h20hj18ouk36leih9@4ax.com>):

On Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:14:22 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 8, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<an4osjhc9jg4i394jh601g4cgfrd57nvkm@4ax.com>):

On Fri, 07 Mar 2025 18:59:52 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<28rmsj1rmth8p7p02nq6d9msl77cuo6lld@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:39:46 -0800, Dr.Who<dr.who@nunur.biz> wrote:

On Mar 6, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote (Message-ID:<5boksj1imumpcjtdj7c703oficashcd5ub@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"<os333@netc.eu> wrote:

Steve Hayes,<news:ev6isjdk8el2fmpi2pvhhlo9eupsrpq3sj@4ax.com>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:31:12 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

Any authority is a good from God, it's established by God.

Indeed, but when it is corrupt, its corruption is not from God.

It's sinful to think one can know God's will/plan in full.

Holy Scripture says clearly any authority is established by God, whereas a Christian's duty is to submit to authorities rather than "fight" against what he or she may dislike.

St Peter and St John seem to disagree with you:

Act 4:19-29 - But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto
God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard.

Act 5:28-29 - Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with
your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.

Here "men" is generic, while "authorities" is more specific, and since an authority is a gift from God, obendience to God implies obendience to what is established by God.

When Enver Hoxha was the ruler of Albania he gave a similar order.
Some did not obey it and continued to worship God. Were they thereby
wrongly disobeying what God had established?

He banned places of worship such as mosques and churches. He did not ban
worshipping gods.

Enver Hoxha banned *talking* about gods, just as those mentioned in the book of Acts of the Apostles did to St Peter and St John. Freedom of thought, yes. Freedom of speech, no.

In the Book of Acts it was the religious leaders that ‘banned’ Peter
and
John. In what way was that similar to Enver? After all, false prophets are
false prophets.

And your point is?

At that time Rome was the ruler of that nation, not the High Priest and his crowd.
The disciples were no longer under the Old Covenant of Law, and they, like the Born Again Believer of today, have Jesus the Messiah as their High Priest.

You know, perhaps better than I, the governmental rule of that day and the reasons why the Romans allowed the High priests to lead the Jew according to
their religious covenants. Even Jesus, before he wa sacrificed spoke out against the religious leaders for their following the traditions of men and placing them as equal to or above the law Covenant.

According to the scriptures God sets up and or allows governing ruler befitting to the needs of the people, and in the case of the Israelites, every time they wandered away from God and would not repent, they were taken
over by others. When they returned to Him as their God and repented, he restored them.

The Romans ended up destroying that religious system as it was the source of
rebellion against Rome, instead of following the God they laid claim to. Like
some of the ‘churches’ of today, their religion turned into the worshipping of rites and rotes, as their hearts were not focused on God and establishing a relationship with Him.

Christians should have learned that lesson as the Israelites were an example
of what happens when we follow God, and or turn away to fulfill the desires of the flesh, and even trying to mix the two lifestyles as one, as did the Jew in the days of Jesus.

As Oleg pointed out from scriptures, we need to fight the real enemy not the
fleshly perceived enemy.

Enver Hoxha desired to ban thought as well as freedom of speech. Declaring
that the religion of atheism was the theme of the day. Although he may not
have put it in those terms, yet atheism is a belief system.

So he, like the Jewish leaders at the time of the Apostles, was a relgious leader.

It might seem like that to you, but my point of him following a different belief system is something that he while fighting against one, he did so without realizing he had chosen just another belief system. Not that he was purposely advocating a religion.

I mat return to this later, but for now just this:

You and Oleg Smirnoff appear to be arguing that because all authority
is ultimately from God, we therefore ought to obey every command of
every authority because authority (exousia in Greek) is from God and therefore good. So we must obey every authority in everything, no
exceptions.

But then there are exeptions, you don't have to obey Jewish
authorities because of the new covenant. But the new covenant affects
the Roman authorities too - Col 2:14-15.

Where in those verses do you see that it affected the Roman authorities? As I understand it, in the context in which it was written, it is speaking of spiritual things. Of which the Old Covenant is based, as well as the evil spiritual powers that be. IOW’s the word of God, stands, as it always has. While he delegated certain dominions to men, he did not relinquish His Authority on all everything else.

Jesus taught, render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.

As to there being no exceptions to the rule, Man has no authority over things spiritual other than that delegated by God. For the Born Again Believer they cannot deny allegiance to God or relinquish what they have given to God, to man, without turning their backs on God. There is much scripture on that
topic.

Originally it seemed that you were in support of priests rebelling, or
fighting a fleshly battle against rulers, even though the scriptures speak
that our weapons are not carnal. For we war not against the things carnal,
but spiritual. 2Cor 10:3

Here in the USA we have been warring, the believers, a spiritual battle over this country and its rulers. We were mildly aware of the ‘deep state’
that has been growing for years, and even affected the country when Ore Trump was in his first term. As yet we still do not know the full truth of that matter, even though much has been brought to the light. Even more is yet to come out, the full extent of it yet unknown. As it was it would have seemed
as if only another American Revolutionary War would root it out, but the prayers of many in regards to this have resulted in the freedom of God to operate here, but the battle is not over, as that deep tap root has yet to be unearthed and we must remain vigilant.

Part, a full part of the freedom are spiritual. We are in the days of the latter rain that Joel prophesied about, and the freedom is necessary to
spread the Gospel as well as the Glory of God around the world. There are revivals popping up even at this time, around the world with signs, wonders, healings, and many giving their lives to the Lord. Many also being killed/martyred for their belief in Jesus the Messiah. God is raining a standard against the influx of evil and all its attendants. In American
Cowboy speech, this is the last roundup before the return of the Lord in the clouds for the purpose of the raising up of the ekklesia, the body of Christ both dead and alive, as it is the end of the "church age”. And when that happens, immediately suddenly, all hell will break out on earth and the time
of the Great Tribulation will occur.

This I say, because we are in a great spiritual battle and Satan is intensifying his battle an trying his best to destroy Israel as his only
chance of destroying and causing the failure of the Word of God, He is the forever loser. There is so much to say on this topic, and how his battle also has the USA in his sights as he tries to destroy America from within. Yes, America will be destroyed as a world power, but not while the ekklesia of God is alive here.

Anyhow, we are, bottom line, in a spiritual war, and have been. Which is why Paul and others relayed the word of God to us, to put on the full armor of
God, to recognize our source is God, the same God who feeds the sparrows, and if so, how much more does he care for us who were created in His image?

Then read the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

<https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/polycarp/>

Note his attitude to the Roman governor.

Romnas 13 says we should be subject to the authoerities, not that we
should *obey* theior every command.

Polycarp is clearly subject to the Roman governor, and respects his authority, but he does not obey his every command.

And that is exactly in line with the attitude of Peter and John, not
obeying those who told them to stop speaking of Jesus.

Peter and John, as was stated at the fore, were responding to the spiritual leaders of Israel, not to the Roman Government. Surely you must be aware of
the reasons for the deal under which the religious government of the Jews
were allowed to operate as if it were under the Old Covenant? While the Jew tithed of their earnings and sacrificed, they still paid taxes to Ceasar.

In regards to Romans 13 there is nothing there that speaks about limitations regarding governmental rule, nor are there any inferences of it.

Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's
ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

A believer is to walk in the spirit. With the law of God written upon their heart. Not their mind. Their minds are to be renewed that we might have the mind of Christ Jesus. It is a ‘new way of life’, one that few teach on or about. Which is why the ekklesia has been so weak over the centuries as a whole.

When we recognize ourselves as children of the Most High, regardless of our age, we should as children put our hand in the hands of God as we walk life's journey. Put our hands In the hands of the one who stills the waters. Putting our full faith and confidence in our Heavenly Father, as a small child who believes their Dad can do anything for them.

It is too bad that we are not taught that, or that our faith is weakened by teachers who are carnal, immature, who themselves were taught no better. It deeply saddens me to know of all the years I wasted in the wallows.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes, <news:8keasjp7ej3mur7lcdaiu34apln61ubhrn@4ax.com>

The Serbian Orthodox Church, the largest religious community in the
country, has been divided over these protests from the very beginning.
While the overwhelming majority of its bishops have chosen to remain
silent, there have been isolated voices within the episcopate both for
and against the protests. Students of the Faculty of Theology in
Belgrade have joined the protests, and individual theologians have
expressed their support as well.

| 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:

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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.

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:10:17 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>
wrote:

Steve Hayes, <news:7n7itjtaiq8gmgka27kliu082g2fcb2b3a@4ax.com>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

| 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:

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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.

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

Steve Hayes, <news:7n7itjtaiq8gmgka27kliu082g2fcb2b3a@4ax.com>

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:51:00 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

| 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:

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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.

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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.

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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.christnet.ethics
XPost: alt.religion.christianity

Steve Hayes, <news:i27ltjt7sfrb7877334qcp1ijs6ama0o88@4ax.com>

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 13:10:17 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os333@netc.eu>

| 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:

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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.

<https://skeireins.substack.com/p/on-being-subject-to-authority>

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.

It may be God's will to make people endure certain policies.
The contraposition "flesh of rulers" vs "their policies" is
a sophistry, as obedience to an authority includes compliance
with its policies. I think it's hardly possible to solve the
controversy this way.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.politics.religion, alt.peace XPost: alt.christnet.ethics, alt.religion.christianity

Madison felt corruption prevented tyranny. Every so often CHina executes someone out of favor on grounds of supposed corruption. Mussolini abolished the mafia but Patton brought it back. Fanatics tend to think anyone who disagrees with them has ulterior, corrupt motives. THe believe only their way is right and anyone who disagrees is evil. Just like the heathen
missiologists who feel entitled to push left wing muck into our religion but scream to bloody petunias over anyone on the right.

--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)