Obeying Authority? (Part 2)

I've been taught in the church, pretty unequivocally that we are to obey the government, for in doing so we are obeying God. I've been told that if we break the "law" that we are disobeying God. So, if we go out and get in our car and go 1 mile per hour over the speed limit we are disobeying God. After all look at Romans 13:2 -

1. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Are you then bringing judgement upon yourself every time you speed? I mean isn't that what Paul is trying to convey and get you to understand? That if you resist the government then you are resisting God? Isn't Paul saying that if you resist the government or the state, that you are bringing judgement upon yourself?

What about wearing your seat-belt? Have you ever driven your car without wearing it? Weren't you in sin? And was it a sin before men passed the law, or only after the seat-belt law was enacted?

This is pretty serious! If that's what Paul is saying, then I believe 99.9% of the church is in danger of God's wrath and judgement.

I would like to further pursue this train of thought by looking again to Romans 13:1 -

1. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Doesn't it say that all authority or power comes from God? And that if a power or authority exists it is because God appointed it? So on face value it appears that:

1. Governments exist because God appointed and ordained them to have power and/or authority.
2. Governments are to be obeyed by men.
3. Resisting Government is resisting God Himself.
4. Resisting Government (and God) brings the judgement of God.

Seems pretty simple - RIGHT?

But no one has been able to satisfactorily answer the following questions using this simple logic:

1. If Paul was saying that we should obey the government, why didn't he just say obey Rome (the state)?
2. If Paul was saying that we should obey Rome or the state, then why would Rome have put Paul to death?
3. Wouldn't Paul have been a great asset to Rome by getting the submission of the church by his writing of Romans 13?
4. Why did so many Roman Christians not heed Paul's advice to be subject to Rome, and go willingly to their death for what they deemed the cause of Christ? Didn't they get the memo?
5. Why did Rome have ought against Christians, if one of their main leaders was advocating submission to the state?
6. Why were Roman Christians martyred? Was it for being a Christian, or for being a traitor to the emperor? Was it for failing to acknowledge that Caesar was Lord?
7. If God has appointed or ordained all governments, and to resist them is to resist God, then wasn't it wrong to resist Rome? After all, Rome was power. Rome had authority.
8. If God appointed and ordained Roman Government, then wasn't He putting His approval on the murder of countless Christians?
9. Wouldn't the martyrdom of the Roman Christians be considered God's judgement for resisting the governing authority that God Himself had established?
10. If God has appointed or ordained all governments, and to resist them is to resist God, then wasn't it wrong to resist Hitler? After all, he was in power. He had authority.
11. If God appointed or ordained Hitler, then what was wrong with the Holocaust?
12. If God has appointed or ordained all governments, and to resist them is to resist God, then wasn't it wrong to resist King George? After all he was the King, appointed by God.
13. If resisting King George was rebellion and resisting God's chosen, then wasn't this country founded in sin?
14. If this country was founded in sin, then why does the church cling so tightly to American Patriotism? Aren't they embracing rebellion and resisting God by doing so?
15. If God has appointed or ordained all governments, and to resist them is to resist God, then wasn't it wrong to resist Al Qaeda or the Taliban?
16. If God has appointed or ordained all governments, and to resist them is to resist God, then wasn't it wrong to resist Saddam Hussein?