[jt8d]

"So, the colonists' rebellion was thoroughly justified? It seems to me, your second treatise railed against the colonists and their "Revolution" against the monarchy."

The point of whether the "American" revolution was "justified" is a side issue, for reason only that, in the main, the colonialists were Protestant, and thus inebriated with their own inflated sense of self-worth, which is typical to Protestants by political temper, and reinforced through their materialistic and situational-ethic minded theology.

The central theme of my "treatise" is that throughout history man has endeavored to, ever so shrewdly, build himself up--to lord it over God: by his intellectual, self-centered pompous arrogance; and always under the pretext of "enlightenment." Hence: the "Rights" of the individual increasingly undermine, dominate, and finally dispose with, the Rights of God. Protestants have a keenly honed skill for applying this tactic by their ingenious method of rationalization.

The irony is that, for all their juridical cunning, the Protestants' "bulwark" of republican government begot only the inevitable downward slide into the muck, as Man increasingly unbridles his insatiable desire for rebllion against God. So, therefore in the end, Man is not uplifted by the "blessings" of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; but rather, Man is further debased into his self-indulgent deception of individual freedom--a misery that he has so shrewdly created for the stated purpose of increasing Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We forge heavy chains, for ourselves and our posterity, in the name of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

"If not you, then I've read that from your fellow throne-sniffers, who think any rebellion against a king violates some kind of dictum from Jesus."

Uncomfortable and unbearable although a monarch may be at divers times throughout history, the fact remains that such leaders hold power only at God's pleasure--not by the edicts of "the people." That arrangement may "suck" eggs for the pride of men, but that is the way scripture judges the issue--NOT I."

[sinkspur]

The point of whether the "American" revolution was "justified" is a side issue, for reason only that, in the main, the colonialists were Protestant, and thus inebriated with their own inflated sense of self-worth, which is typical to Protestants by political temper, and reinforced through their materialistic and situational-ethic minded theology.

The more you rant, the more you reveal your religious bigotry.

Man is not uplifted by the "blessings" of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; but rather, Man is further debased into his self-indulgent deception of individual freedom--a misery that he has so shrewdly created for the stated purpose of increasing Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yep. You're certifiable. You wouldn't be permitted to write these words, or even be on a forum like this, in the regime you envision.

Uncomfortable and unbearable although a monarch may be at divers times throughout history, the fact remains that such leaders hold power only at God's pleasure--not by the edicts of "the people."

Thing is, your "monarch" gets to determine what God's pleasure is, doesn't he?

I'll trust the will of the electorate over the "enlightenment" of an individual in matters political, no matter how "enlightened" he, or you, think he is.

[St.Chuck]

The point of whether the "American" revolution was "justified" is a side issue, for reason only that, in the main, the colonialists were Protestant, and thus inebriated with their own inflated sense of self-worth, which is typical to Protestants by political temper, and reinforced through their materialistic and situational-ethic minded theology.

I am not convinced that Protestant principles as much as enlightenment values were behind the American Revolution and America's Constitution, as some Calvinists would like to believe. But if we do want to give the Protestant's the credit (or in your case the blame), they certainly were convinced of man's natural inclination toward the abuse of power and created a wonderful system of checks and balances, i.e. the federal system, the electoral college, the separate branches of government, a bicameral legislature, and a republic as opposed to a direct democracy. If the Protestants were in possession of the "political temper" you suggest, then they were very much cognizant of it and took pains to avoid it's negative consequences. If you would attribute the revolution to Protestantism, then you would have to appreciate Protestantism's recognition of the very real affects of original sin and the institutions they established that would accomodate that reality.

Why on earth would you believe a king would act as a Catholic, when the Pope cannot be trusted to remain Catholic?