The American Revolution/Rebellion

No Deceit,

Thank you for your response.

Wrong. If you will look in the very sentence you quoted, you will see a colon after it. And you responded to the very examples you said I didn't give.


All things are of God.

Is abortion of God?

Is pornography of God?

Were Saddam's rape cells of God?

Were Hitler (since you said God put him there)'s gas chambers of God?

Is the Ku Klux Klan of God?

If this is your God, then there isn't much left for Satan to do, is there? Are these things of a holy God? I just gotta know, who teaches such a warped theology?

Your viewpoint implies that there are no rights. Is that what you are saying?


Parliment agreed to tax the colonies. There was nothing against the law being done.

With whom did Parliament agree? Itself?


What tyranny are you refering to? Taxation without representation? That's not tryany.

That was part of it. You might go back and look at the list of "abuses and usurpations" cited in the DoI as Major B quoted.


I believe what our forefathers had done was evil. I also believe one can be thankful for their present country regardless of how it came into being. I am thankful for the country I live in. Being critiical of ones country or leaders past or present actions should not be viewed as a hatred for ones country.

One can only conclude from the arguments with which you started this that ours is an illegitimate nation as it was founded in rebellion. Your argument more than implies that our founders or their descendants should have repented of the Revolution, surrendered to the mother country, and paid reparations for the cost of the war.

 

Let's talk about that British government, ND. In 1625, King Charles I succeeded his father James. The Stuart kings believed in the Divine Right of Kings, and did not like parliaments except as rubber stamps. The long and short of it is that the Parliament and King Charles ended up in a Civil War, and Charles ended up headless. Samuel Rutherford wrote a genius political tome called "Lex Rex, or the Law and the Prince," which posited that even the king is subject to the law.

King Charles II was invited back after it became apparent the English were not ready for a republic, and he behaved. His brother James II took over when he died without a legal heir, and his catholicism led to another revolution, the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights.

Our founders were merely doing what the Brits had themselves done, which is, to oppose executive tyranny and increase the cause of popular sovereignty.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Though we disagree on matters of interpretation, the Constitution works quite well as supreme law of the land. I don't think that was ever the issue. In general, persons in that day considered themselves loyal to their state first, then to their country. One would identify himself as a Virginian or Californian ahead of referring to oneself as an American, regardless of whether one sided with the South or North. Today, if I voiced the opinion that California should secede, I'd be told by most board members here that if I didn't love the US, I should leave it. I think the shift towards considering onself an American, then a statesman, was the result of the Civil War, not a cause of it. Just my $.02.

 

Johnv,

I think the shift towards considering onself an American

It was also an attitude that worked well enough for George Washington. I think I'm in pretty good company.

 

No Deceit,

Paine argued that because we founded our nation on rebellion that it is illegitimate, the same Paine who helped to stir the rebellion? Do I misunderstand your point, or misunderstand Paine?

It is clearly an inference from your argument, however, that because our nation was founded on rebellion that the nation is therefore illegitimate. Or, is political power, once usurped, legitimate? If so, your argument is a contradition in terms.

 

I heard somewhere that even God's people, the Jews, under Moses rebelled against their human authorities (the land of Egypt) and went out to form their own nation.

What a bunch of disobedient rebels THEY were.

 

Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution?

 

Georgia's (and we're talking former Soviet republic not US state here ) 'Rose Revolution' of November 2003?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

No Deceit,

I reread the Declaration and there is nothing in it whatsoever that legitimizes rebellion against the authority.

The DoI's list of abuses was a list of where England/the King/Parliament violated the rights of Englishmen as granted in various charters and recognized since Magna Charta. The Revolution was in opposition to such violation and in vindication of those rights, many of which were recognized by some in Parliament such as William Pitt. The colonists were fighting evils perpetrated against them in violation of long-established rights. Were all of them Christians? Of course not. There are few things on this earth in which one will find perfection.

Tom Paine, failed to see (or kept hidden) that monarchy produced David, a man after God's own heart, and in that line of kings is our own king, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, who will set up monarchy once more.


OK, No Deceit, yes or no, is monarchy of itself a holy form of government? Is a republic or democratic system of government therefore evil?


our forefathers desire not to be taxed was evil

Our forefathers' desire was not simply opposition to taxes but opposition to illegitimate taxation in contravention of long-established custom and law.


Let me clarify. What the colonists did was evil, rebellious, and sin. Those who teach otherwise are calling God a liar and risk bringing judgement upon themselves.

No, I'm simply calling you a liar, though I prefer to be charitable in seeing you as simply mistaken and deluded.


I'll assume you concede the point Paul.

Paul doesn't respond for two days and you call this a concession? How arrogant. Especially given your own apparent refusal to address several points raised by others, including Major B and myself and that you had a four day and then a seven day delay between posts. Waiting to post is not a concession; it is a prerogative. We need not justify our silence or delays to you, nor is either a concession.

 

No Deceit,

Before I respond I would like to know how it is I lie or how I am deluded.

In teaching that what our Founding Fathers did was evil.


So it is clear to everyone, are you teaching that what our forefathers did was right and just before God?

Absolutely.