[moved]The American Revolution was a sin. Agree or not ?

[Wgw]

If you ramble, that's not my fault. If I quote the part that I intend to comment on, that's nothing special. Try to get over feeling slighted. BTW, you are WAY wrong if you think Hitler's regime was on the order of another Nero.

That said, we probably could convincingly liken Hitler to Diocletian, although doing so would I fear invoke Godwin's Law.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Paul instructed the church to obey civil authorities, but it wasn't the church that fomented the American revolution, it was the descendants of the tribe of Manasseh fulfilling God's promise to them. To do this they had to break from the grip of their younger brother Ephraim/England. See Genesis 48 (entire chapter).

 

[com7fy8]

Well, I think Jesus does not have us killing people in order to get what we want. But this world does this. And ones can use the label "Christian" or other labels to justify what they do. But I can analyze how others have been wrong > but >

"For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)

So, if we are God's children, "first" is how God is judging us; so I can see this is where our attention needs to be . . . more than to judging how this world's people are wrong and have been wrong.

 

[mindlight]

In case you've forgotten your own words--

So who is worse- Hitler or Nero?!

You realise that "no worse" in that context = "just as bad" in the English language.

 

[Armoured]

Agree. Treasonous oath breakers, the lot of 'em. Washington et al should be posthumously hung drawn and quartered.

 

[mindlight]

Agree. Treasonous oath breakers, the lot of 'em. Washington et al should be posthumously hung drawn and quartered.

And what about Mel Gibson and his treasonous films about Scottish and American rebellions and his Republican aspirations for Australia?

Same penalty?

 

[Armoured]

And what about Mel Gibson and his treasonous films about Scottish and American rebellions and his Republican aspirations for Australia?

Same penalty?

He's not engaging in armed insurrection, so seems a little extreme.

 

[EinsteinsGirl]

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matt 22:21) This was in a context where the Pharisee opponents of Jesus were trying to trick Him into making a statement in favor of rebellion against Rome. The response given by Jesus made it clear that he did not support rebellion. He was no Barabbas, no zealot.

But what were doing the founders of the United states in 1776 and after, if not rebelling against their sovereign, i.e. their "Caesar". Is there a way to justifiy rebellion on a biblical basis in this particular case? It doesn't seem to me. The King of England was not a particular bad ruler at that time. Indeed he was better than most and, in particular, he had become much more tolerant of religious plurality than any monarch in Europe.

In any case, Jesus did not say "Render render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, provided he is a decent guy", he just said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" full stop. That is why in the 2nd and 3d centuries, christians preferred to be martyred rather than revolt.

I believe that if you look at the American Revolution as the sin I think it is, many things start to make much more sense. In particular, it becomes far easier to understand why the US is becoming increasingly secular today. The US was created by secular people, "secular humanists", we might almost say. Benjamin Franklin was a friend of Voltaire and most of the other founders were either deists or Freemasons or both. No wonder Americans are becoming increasinly faithless. For every sin, there is a price.

Disagree.
America was not created or founded by secular people, it was founded by born again Christians.
For more education watch this:

 

[bbbbbbb]

Disagree.
America was not created or founded by secular people, it was founded by born again Christians.
For more education watch this:

Au contraire. America was founded by thirteen colonies, each with its own variant of religion. For example, Maryland was founded as a Roman Catholic colony. Unless you employ an extremely liberal definition of born-again, you cannot make a sound case for your assertion that America was founded by born-again Christians,

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Au contraire. America was founded by thirteen colonies, each with its own variant of religion. For example, Maryland was founded as a Roman Catholic colony. Unless you employ an extremely liberal definition of born-again, you cannot make a sound case for your assertion that America was founded by born-again Christians,

This, I think, is the reason for the establishment clause in First Amendment. Given the variation in the religious makeup of the different colonies from Catholic Maryland to Quaker Pennsylvania, a state church like Mother England had simply wouldn't have been worked if they were to remain united. There would be to little, doctrinally, for the churches could agree on.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This, I think, is the reason for the establishment clause in First Amendment. Given the variation in the religious makeup of the different colonies from Catholic Maryland to Quaker Pennsylvania, a state church like Mother England had simply wouldn't have been worked if they were to remain united. There would be to little, doctrinally, for the churches could agree on.

I agree entirely. Without the establishment clause in the First Amendment the union we know as the United States would have quickly dissolved in religious quarreling.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, I never have heard that each state could have a different religion. If this is so, I can see "why" there could not be religious items controlled by the government. They would be too divided to work that out! So . . . I can see how the union being formed was really an alliance for military purposes - - including so they wouldn't fight each other; and a union could help arrange for there to be trade without each state overly controlling and charging fees for the passage of trade goods over their borders.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, I never have heard that each state could have a different religion. If this is so, I can see "why" there could not be religious items controlled by the government. They would be too divided to work that out! So . . . I can see how the union being formed was really an alliance for military purposes - - including so they wouldn't fight each other; and a union could help arrange for there to be trade without each state overly controlling and charging fees for the passage of trade goods over their borders.

That is correct. One of the problems in Europe is that for centuries each principality had a state religion. For example, Hanover (a German principality) was Lutheran but Bavaria was Catholic. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that all the German principalities were able to unite without religious conflict.

 

[Jharrod84]

This is so pathetic and so predictable.

You can capitalise NO and NOT all you want but what the verse means is quite clear and no amount of "reputable" sophistry will change that.

Of course tyrants do not get a blank check from God, but it is not our place to take justice in our own hands: Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Would it not be possible or probable that GOD would utilize man to usurp freedom for his people from the injustice ruler in such a revolution?