Tarsonis wrote:Sure, but there isn't an inherent prohibition of it either. It's a complicated subject.
Fair, I will fully concede that my word choice has been on the prohibitive side.
If a believer earnestly prayed about whether to be involved in overthrowing an unjust authority and felt at peace to do so even if said authority was not necessarily harming the testimony of the church, then you're right, there's no explicit reason for them not to. However, my issue is that Trolls fallaciously implied that Christians have a mandate to oppose 'tyranny' in all forms. This is, strictly speaking, untrue. God tolerated and commanded that we do tolerate 'tyrannical' governments. I don't even see scriptural evidence that we should necessarily err towards fighting such tyranny (if anything, the inverse). But it's absolutely not prohibited, you're correct.
Tarsonis wrote:Okay, but it's not an overtly false one either.
as obeying God, which is not strictly the case. For example, as I mentioned earlier, the case of the children of Israel in Jeremiah 41. Furthermore, depending on your definition of 'tyrant,' it can be problematic. Does this imply that Christians should seek to overthrow any nation that isn't a civil democracy? I'd hesitate to say so.
As I've mentioned earlier, I do agree that there are definite cases in which it is right to defy an oppressive government, but this statement specifically attaches too much with too little (ergo no) spiritual backing, and was introduced by a man who had fairly inconsistent views about God his whole life.
If by not overtly false you mean it's sometimes true, fair, I'd agree.