Is this the problem? The difference between the laws of God and the laws of man


Article: “If Jesus had broken the law, then He would have been sinful.” The blogger is very liberal but raises some valid questions. When is obeying the law sinful? Which laws? How do you know? And is that what we’re really arguing about?

EDIT: the blogger added that in a free country, we the people ARE the government. Therefore, if we dislike a law, we have the power to change it. The blogger argues that some people misquote Romans 13: that they mean, “obey ME.” But if we the people are the government, then aren’t we all accountable to God for the government we elected?

(Caution: comments page is not moderated for profanity or for trolls.)


If the law requires us to sin, then it is not sinful to break it.


In a Democracy the law of man is the sins of the majority, rather than a few.


In a Democracy the law of man is the sins of the majority, rather than a few.

Interesting point. Both the positive and the negative can be enshrined (so to speak) by a majority vote. Sometimes they vote for a benefit to humankind, such as the Bill of Rights (called the Charter of Rights in some countries). Other times, the vote is distressing. Recent national referendums and elections come to mind.

(By coincidence a new TV series called The Orville is running an episode called “Majority Rule” on Friday, July 20th. It’s a huge oversimplification of the problem, but it shows a world in which there are no courts, only upvotes and downvotes. Honest, I didn’t know it would be rerunning when I posted this topic.)


I had some hope for Orville but as soon as they followed down the predictable line of religion being a primitive superstition replaced by science I took my cue to lose any further interest.


Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.


Christians have long been allowed to reasonably break the laws of an unjust government.
Dan 3:3-18, 6:6-12
Acts 5:29
This requires discernment though so there will be plenty of debate. Historical example, IIRC, England made it illegal for Catholics to perform Mass so priests did it covertly.
And it’s about time ‘progressive’ Christians realised this now when they’ve been beating orthodox Christians over our heads with Rom 13 on other issues.

The problem with twice divorced thrice married Paula White (how fitting) is she’s unfit to be a pastor and not just because she’s a woman (that’s another issue). The entire faith advisory board of Donald Trump are more political strategists than pastors. They defend Trump regardless of what he does. No wonder a few who were a bit naïve resigned.

The problem I’ve seen is this point on disobedience is applied selectively by both sides. They are slaves of partisan politics instead of slaves of Christ.


The wealthy are good at making laws that they benefit from. In 1066, William the Conqueror invaded Britain. He divided much of Britain between his generals, who took land by force, and taxed the people heavily.

Many of the people living in these stately homes today, can trace their ancestry back to 1066. The irony is now, that if anyone breaks into their home and steals from them today, their assets are protected by law.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit