judge

The statement might be a strong one but so what?

You have not demonstrated that in ibn Taymiyyah's view the rulers can do no wrong. Ibn Taymiyyah admits the ruler is unjust. The ruler does unjust (wrong) things.
He seems to be saying better to put up with an unjust ruler doing wromg things than have a day of civil disobedience.

He craves the security of an unjust ruler rather than the unknowns of civil disobedience.

As for Paul, Romans 13 seems prescriptive rather than descriptive, to me.

Solo

Ibn Taymiyyah did not 'crave security'; you are pulling marbles out of of your ass. He was a prominent Islamic scholar and jurist. He was just as prescriptive as Paul.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Since Paul was imprisoned by the Roman authorities he presumably saw them as capable of acting unjustly and mistakenly. Their actions according to Paul served to promote the Gospel but were still presumably unjust.

ibn Taymiyyah seems to be sying that even very bad rulers are better than anarchy. Paul may well have agreed, I'm not sure, but this position does not deny the reality of injustice by the authorities, it encourages submission to such injustice.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Where does Paul battle against 'archons' and other powers ? (Apart from Ephesians which is probably post-Pauline and doesn't count.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Even in the 3rd century Origen completely disagrees with "Paul".

Examine "Against Celsus" by Origen.

"Against Celsus" 1.1 The Laws of the Romans were Scythian Laws and were of the Devil where there was LAWS for people of Rome to worship images, multiple Gods and the Deified Emperors.

Based on Origen, in the 3rd century, Christians should form SECRET associations to REVOLT against such a Despotic Government for the sake of TRUTH.

judge

You don't know that, but at least that view is in line with the quote you gave, whilst your idea is not (meaning you have done nothing to support a notion that he thought the ruler could do no wrong).

Never heard that saying. Clearly Im hanging in the wrong company...or may you are?

So..how does that illustrate that he thought the ruler could do no wrong?

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

On reflection I think we may be saying something similar in different language.

I entirely agree that when Paul clains that the powers-that-be are appointed by God, his positive valuation comes from the role of the authorities in providing predictabiliity and consistency in society. His point does not require the authorities to be just and righteous in any stronger sense than merely being consistent.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

Thanks Andrew,
I think that's it: my reading of Paul is that he had a conservative disposition to begin with, prior to his conversion experience. He continued to be outraged by the excesses and lapses in judgment among the messianist ecstatics, and insisted on the highest moral standard for his own followers: they naturally would have nothing to fear from the authorities. Paul's belief that the end was near, likely also coloured his view of the temporal powers. Whatever they were, they were doomed. It made no sense for a believer in Christ's imminent parousia to provoke or engage them (positively or negatively).

Best,
Jiri

Solo

You tell me what I don't know, judge. Sure, you are the first one I met who thought he knew everything !

Like you ever heard the name ibn Taymiyyah before. Who do you think you are kidding ? Toto, spin, Earl, myself ? Why don't you do some digging and find out who the guy who said "The Sultan is the shadow of God on earth" was, and what he really thought, before you open up the yawner ?

Jiri

jgoodguy

A good example predictability and consistency is the fall of Saddam Hussein. He caused about 800,000 deaths over 24 years but the social fabric of the country remained intact. With his fall, came civil war, loss of infrastructure, lost of antiquity relics etc. and about 1 million deaths over 10 years. It is difficult to find a civil war that is less deadly than the regime to be overthrown.