The American Revolution

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Well why is that not a surprise RJH you can attempt to justify just about anything, were
the Romans just? perhaps they were righteous? not on your life, they were cruel and
licentious and extortioners. Yet the Christ himself stated that it belonged to Caesar
and should be given to him, regardless of whether it was right or just. Consider your
point, refuted.

What happens if the officials in a government aren't following the laws? Is that the arrangement of god?


🙄

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, there are not always exceptions for everything.
Somethings should never be choosen to happen, yet they are.
Somethings should always be choosen to happen, yet they are not.
Saying that does not mean that there are acceptable exceptions, only that
which should or shouldn't happen don't always by someone's choice.
Kelly

Yes Dad😛

Originally posted by tomtom232
What happens if the officials in a government aren't following the laws? Is that the arrangement of god?


🙄

the Romans Emperors were pagans, they did not follow the law, they were cruel and licentious,
incestuous with all sorts of excesses. The arrangement is Gods, whether the authorities uphold
its laws is neither here not there, for Christians are counseled , in the Bible to pay taxes
irrespective of what they may be used for.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, it seems clear to me, but your Watchtower society has come up
with some weird interpretation that can not possibly be right, because
it does not make sense and does not agree with all of scripture.

I have not mentioned the watchtower society, its you that is obsessed with it, all i did was quote two
verses from the Bible. Did we also write these verses, no, well shut up o yo face.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not mentioned the watchtower society, its you that is obsessed with it, all i did was quote two
verses from the Bible. Did we also write these verses, no, well shut up o yo face.

My point is that the Watchtower Society has become your god.
When they say jump. You say, "How high?" Since you are
taught to believe in a "theocracy" (a word not in the Holy Bible)
by the Watchtower, then what they say is like hearing from
your god.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My point is that the Watchtower Society has become your god.
When they say jump. You say, "How high?" Since you are
taught to believe in a "theocracy" (a word not in the Holy Bible)
by the Watchtower, then what they say is like hearing from
your god.

what has this got to do with anything other than your prejudices? this thread is about
the American revolution and whether the founding fathers acted in harmony with
Scripture. Your obsessed, with the watchtower, i think you secretly want to be a
witness but your too chicken to come out the closet.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what has this got to do with anything other than your prejudices? this thread is about
the American revolution and whether the founding fathers acted in harmony with
Scripture. Your obsessed, with the watchtower, i think you secretly want to be a
witness but your too chicken to come out the closet.

The point is that your worldview is tainted by the instructions you
receive from the Watchtower Society. You know very little about
what caused the American revolution against Britain, yet due to
what you have been taught to believe about the scriptures you
are quick to past judgment on those Americans who protested
against paying taxes without any representation in the British
parliament that determined the government and amount of taxes
that the colonist in America should pay to Britain. You should
not be so quick to judge without all the information. It is like
you are convicting those that took part in the revolution without
a jury trial. You would not be allowed on our jury because of your
bias. I was pointing out that the fighting was caused by the
British refusing to listen to any grievance of the American colonists
and attempting to enforce their will by force rather than by
negotiating a settlement.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The point is that your worldview is tainted by the instructions you
receive from the Watchtower Society. You know very little about
what caused the American revolution against Britain, yet due to
what you have been taught to believe about the scriptures you
are quick to past judgment on those Americans who protested
against paying taxes without any rep ...[text shortened]... lonists
and attempting to enforce their will by force rather than by
negotiating a settlement.

yada yada yada, what have i told you before, you dont know anything about what I
know or do not know. I am passing judgement upon no one, the scriptures speak for
themselves.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yada yada yada, what have i told you before, you dont know anything about what I
know or do not know. I am passing judgement upon no one, the scriptures speak for
themselves.

However, the scriptures do not speak the meaning that you have been
taught they mean. You must seek wisdom and understanding in these
matters. You have passed judgment by saying the Americans violated
the instructions given in the scriptures without complete understanding.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, the scriptures do not speak the meaning that you have been
taught they mean. You must seek wisdom and understanding in these
matters. You have passed judgment by saying the Americans violated
the instructions given in the scriptures without complete understanding.

However, the scriptures do not speak the meaning that you have been
taught they mean,

more mere opinion masquerading as truth. if that is the case then point it out,
otherwise, shut up a yo face.

Originally posted by whodey
So what say you? Was the Revolution "sinful"?

I think the American Revolution was in accord with the will of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think the American Revolution was in accord with the will of God.

whatever. . . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whatever. . . .

Here is a little backgroud that lead up to the American Revolution:

Being far moved from the English throne by the Atlantic Ocean, the colonists
couldn't depend upon regular guidance from London, and so out of necessity,
formed self-governing bodies to deal with their daily business affairs. As
many decades passed, American colonists set their own principles, quite
distinct from those of the Mother Country.

The growing French presence in "The Ohio Country" and Canada led to a war
between Great Britain and France beginning in 1754. At stake was the
dominance of northeastern North America. By 1763 the British had soundly
defeated their longtime rival, adding a huge chunk of territory to an
already rapidly expanding empire.

The British government looked to the American colonists to start shouldering
a heavier burden of the empire's finances, in the form of higher taxes.

The Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765 were some of the more
infamous attempts by the British to extract additional revenue from the
Americans, and were rigorously enforced.

Other laws, including the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quartering Act of
1765, were enacted to establish greater administrative control in the
colonies. These "reforms" were met with strong opposition from the colonists,
who seethed in resentment over the fact that all these new demands were being
imposed by a Parliament in which they were not represented.

Relenting to pressure, the Stamp Act was eventually repealed, but tensions
increased yet again with the passage of the Townshend Acts in 1767, which
assessed import duties on articles entering American harbors.
"Writs of Assistance" were codified by Parliament, authorizing British
government officials to search for smuggled goods anywhere and at anytime.
Colonists protested their rights as Englishmen were violated by the hated
Writs.

The Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770. Crispus Attucks, a runaway slave, is
believed to be the first man killed in the American quest for independence
from Great Britain. Five civilians were shot dead in the fracas, which
greatly escalated anti-British sentiment throughout the colonies.

In early March, 1770, an angry demonstration against British troops
quartered in Boston got out of hand. As the mob grew more fierce, the
Redcoats fired into the crowd, killing three and mortally wounding two
others.

As news of the "Boston Massacre" spread, the people of the city were filled
with rage. Some months later, the soldiers involved in the incident were
put on trial for murder.

In one of history's strangest ironies, the legal defense team for the
British included John Adams, who later became the second President of the
United States. It was Adams' belief that everyone deserved a fair trial,
even unpopular defendants. When the verdict was read, all but two of the
soldiers were acquitted, and these two ended up serving minimal time on
manslaughter convictions.

Following the Boston Massacre, earnest attempts were made to reconcile
differences between the American colonists and the British government.
For a few years, at least, bad feelings indeed subsided. However, when
Parliament enacted the Tea Act of 1773, a measure designed to promote the
interests of the privately owned British East India Company and in effect
monopolize the tea trade, the final chain reaction of events were set in
motion that would eventually result in an armed rebellion against the
British Crown.

The colonists viewed the Tea Act as a slap against American-based
enterprise. What industry would be the next to be monopolized?

On the evening of December 16, 1773, a group of colonists led by Samuel
Adams, dressed themselves as Native Americans and boarded three British
East India Ships in Boston Harbor. In what history has dubbed the
"Boston Tea Party", the men destroyed 342 chests of tea by tossing it
overboard, to dramatically protest the Tea Act of 1773.

When word of the incident reached London, British officials responded
furiously by passing four measures in 1774 to broaden government control
in America. The colonists defied the new demands by calling them
"The Intolerable Acts".

On September 5, 1774, delegates from all but one of the thirteen colonies
(Georgia did not participate) met in Philadelphia for the purpose of
deciding what could be done to appropriately respond to what they
perceived as increasing hostility heaped against them by the British
government.

The meeting, known as the First Continental Congress, ended seven weeks
later with the adoption of resolutions demanding the restoration of
British policies that existed prior to 1763. The colonists reasserted
their liberties as free Englishmen, but went further and claimed the
right to maintain self-governing legislative bodies.

Finally, the delegates declared their mutual support of one another,
and agreed to meet again in the spring of 1775 if London had not
addressed their list of grievances.

From the inception of the first American settlements onward, Great
Britain failed to seriously consider the coinage problems mounting
in her colonies across the Atlantic.

Since the British Parliament evidently was not going to provide more
coins for the hard-pressed colonists, some of the more industrious
Americans opted to take the matter into their own hands. By law, the
British Crown possessed sole authority over coinage. Without seeking
permission, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony contracted
John Hull to begin minting coins. Hull set up a mint in Boston and began
producing the well-known "NE" [New England] coins in 1652, the
denominations being three pence, six pence, and one shilling.

The design simplicity on the NE coins was an easy target for
counterfeiters, leading to the better known "Pine Tree" coinage, minted
from 1667-1682, though all bore the date 1652. This was to deceive the
British, who had raised objections about the "NE" coins of 1652, into
believing that colonial coins were discontinued beyond that year.

As the 17th century gave way to the 18th century, other coins and tokens
of various types were introduced and used by the colonists regularly, to
circulate alongside coinage originating in other nations, in what was
clearly a coin-starved America.

In the midst of the rapid fire round of new taxation in the 1760's,
Parliament also invoked the Currency Act of 1764, agitating the
colonists to a higher degree still. The regulation prohibited colonies
from printing paper money. Worse yet, all taxes were to be paid to the
King in gold or silver coins. With coinage already scarce, the Currency
Act made it even more difficult for American merchants to find money for
conducting their daily business transactions. The escalating tempers
resulting from the Currency Act provided yet another wedge to widen the
gap between Great Britain and her colonies.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am completely a-political, it would not matter to me, i we were living under the
Chinese emperors or some kind of secular liberal utopia, the Bible is clear on the
matter, to him who calls for the tribute, give the tribute.

Of course this is easy to say given that you do indeed live in a "kind of secular liberal utopia". What if you were living under a medieval Chinese emperor that was demanding that your wife and children be sold into slavery?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Of course this is easy to say given that you do indeed live in a "kind of secular liberal utopia". What if you were living under a medieval Chinese emperor that was demanding that your wife and children be sold into slavery?

Quite clearly the admonition given by Paul, to the Christians in Rome was relative.
We know this from other portions of scripture. Therefore when a secular authority
opposes a Biblical principle, as in the instance that you mention, then a Christian is
under duress to obey the higher Biblical principle. this is clearly indicated by Paul's
statement at

Romans 13: Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for
there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their
relative positions by God.

therefore clearly a Christian is under duress to oppose an authority when it
demands an actions which is contrary a Christians conscience. For the conscience
and the right to exercise is paramount.