1. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    11 Oct '11 20:19
    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?


    🙄
  2. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102823
    11 Oct '11 20:31
    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😛
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Oct '11 21:163 edits
    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.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Oct '11 21:18
    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.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    11 Oct '11 22:16
    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.
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '11 07:051 edit
    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.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Oct '11 18:141 edit
    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.
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '11 18:501 edit
    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.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Oct '11 19:11
    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.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '11 19:14
    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.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Oct '11 19:56
    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.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '11 20:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I think the American Revolution was in accord with the will of God.
    whatever. . . .
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    12 Oct '11 20:592 edits
    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.
  14. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    12 Oct '11 21:05
    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?
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '11 23:201 edit
    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.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree