Doctrine & Theology Orthodox view of history

[get2choppaaa]

There are many American presidents and founders that were blessed in many ways, at least with some virtues that are definitely worth noting. I find the mason conspiracies of America to go a bit too far. Everyone wanted to come to America with all the freedom and blessings of prosperity for centuries, away from communism and utter squalor otherwise, to a land of demons? It seems like a disjointed hypothesis, and remarkably so.

EXACTLY!

Skimming some of the earliest posts in this thread leave me scratching my head.

I am not into apologizing for the founders of America. I think those men were admirable. All the privilege's we get to enjoy, rightly or wrongly, exist because of their intense desire to ensure the rights guaranteed to subjects via the Magna Carta were upheld.

We have plenty of people in America who lived a sordid life, some of them were founding fathers. Yet there are plenty of saints whom also had their own struggles. There are also members who are Orthodox according to this board that have even gone so far as to say that there were multiple Saints (Justinian and Theodora in particular) that were possessed by demons (which I vehemently disagree with) and were evil. Far be it for me to castigate Saints... but I suppose if one has the arrogance to do that, we can look at any other regular person in history and pass judgement free of context or situational depth and blame the issues we face now on them. Makes sense.

I understand the Free Mason connection to certain founding fathers. I believe Free-Masonry to be a Judaizing social club that lures member's into a false sense of brotherhood only to corrupt them.....THAT BEING SAID.... I think Washington, Jefferson, and many other founding fathers did a noble thing in rebelling against the colonies and establishing a Constitution that provided free men more rights than anything ever seen in history.

I reject this notion that the America we have now is representative of the intent of the founding fathers.

 

[josemiguel]

I think Washington, Jefferson, and many other founding fathers did a noble thing in rebelling

Like Satan before them?

establishing a Constitution that provided free men more rights than anything ever seen in history.

Rights are a grabble. Americans are fighting to keep their guns, whereas Medieval Spain and Medieval Britain, every peasant was expected to be trained and own a weapon of war. In England, they had to possess, maintain and train in at least 2. Democracy ended this ancient tradition. Men are stewards of the Earth. We have duties, to our Master the King and each other, based on where we are in God's ordained hierarchy.

Plus the Founding Fathers charged double what King George did in taxes. Americans should be grateful, the "Libertadores" of HispanoAmerica jacked up taxes 10x in some regions.

I reject this notion that the America we have now is representative of the intent of the founding fathers.

Jefferson was a huge acolyte of Adam Weishaupt, whose ideal form of government was the Soviet Union. Marx was inspired by the same man.
The deeper you dig, the darker things get. I'm not even referring to the children's bodies underneath Benjamin Franklin's house.
I stopped researching both Anglo and Hispano American Founders because it was affecting my spiritual life negatively. Wise as serpents, innocent as doves and all that. I know enough and don't need to know the full extent of that evil.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Rights are a grabble. Americans are fighting to keep their guns, whereas Medieval Spain and Medieval Britain, every peasant was expected to be trained and own a weapon of war. In England, they had to possess, maintain and train in at least 2. Democracy ended this ancient tradition. Men are stewards of the Earth. We have duties, to our Master the King and each other, based on where we are in God's ordained hierarchy.

Rights may be a grabble to you, but not to me. I am thinking you are not an American based off of that.

So when you have an unjust king you are called to sit by and allow it to happen? By that logic... what is the difference between a King and a dictator who's seized power? Looking at ALL of history, kings are based off the might/armies that backed them and the monopoly of force. We have been lucky that there WERE indeed Christian monarchs who took their duties as a righteously ordained leader by God's rule seriously. BUT.... by that logic of your earlier statement... Henry VIII is good to go.... I mean he was a king and all and we do have to subjugate ourselves to that right?

We aren't talking about judges like Gideon or King's like David here... though while you're pointing out issues with people in history, I'd remind you of the particular fallen nature of Kings and rulers in Christendom, many of whom are now Saints.

 

[Stoyan]

Again, on May 20 / June 2, 1905 he wrote: “Russia is not a naval power. God gave her land covering one sixth of the world and stretching without interruption across the continent, without any islands. And she could have taken possession of it peacefully, exploiting its wealth and converting it to the good of her people; she could have taken care of the material and spiritual well-being of her citizens. But all this was not enough for the Russian government; it is expanding its possessions more and more; and by what means! Is it really a good thing to attempt to conquer Manchuria and take it from China?

I've always thought that the Russian-Japanese war was very unnecessary, and it actually indirectly led to the collapse of the Russian Empire, and the Communist coup. In my opinion, no event in modern history changed the world more than the revolution of 1917. And yet it was caused by the Russian-Japanese war. The Communist coup actually should have occurred earlier in history. In 1905 was the first Russian Revolution, but it was suppressed by the Tsarist government. However they could not stop 1917 from happening.

Before Nikolai II Romanov became the Tsar, he took a trip to Japan with his cousin, George the Prince of Greece. While there, he visited some Buddhist monastery. One of the priests there gave him a prophecy: if you will go to war with Japan, your country will be destroyed and you will be killed together with your family. I don't know if he heeded the prophecy or not, but apparently God decided that the heir to the Russian throne didn't learn what he needed to learn, so another event occurred. While Nikolai was walking with George through the streets of Tokyo, a samurai had crept behind him, and tried to hit Nikolai onto the head with his katana. However George had a quick reaction, and he deflected the sword with his cane. It seems obvious to anyone that these two signs give you a very serious and obvious message: Do not go to war with Japan! Also there is evidence that Russian Orthodox priests gave Nikolai a similar prophecy.

I agree with St. Nicholas of Japan, the Russian-Japanese war was completely unnecessary. Before the war, Russia had everything that it needed to build a prosperous empire. At that time, the quantity of territory was established, now the time was to increate the quality. I mean exactly taking care of material and spiritual well-being of the citizens of the Russian Empire. Imagine, one sixth of the world, from Poland (was part of the Russian Empire) to Kamchatka! A territory so rich with natural resources as forest products (wood, pine nuts, tar, sap, mushrooms), animals in the forests, rivers overstuffed with fish, natural gas, oil, gold, silver, nickel, iron, copper, rare earth minerals, etc. Almost only a very small percentage of the territory in Siberia was used. It was basically like untouched land since the Ice Age. Very few people living there, mostly along the rivers and in isolated places. It was such a pure land, and a vast land, the development of which could have been done wisely and ecologically, without harming the environment or depleting resources. However this land was unused during the Tsarist regime. And even Kamchatka, which is much closer to Tokyo than to Moscow, was under control of the Russian Empire. It is understandable that Japanese would be envious, living on such overpopulated crowded islands, when there is an entire open continent right next door.

And on the other hand in the western parts of the Russian Empire, in Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland, overpopulated territories with many landless peasants, unhappy and angry peasants. The Russian Prime Mister, Piotr Stolypin, had a plan to move all these people into the eastern part of the Russian Empire, Kazakhstan, Siberia, and the Pacific coast, both settling these territories, and deflating the tensions in the western parts of the Empire. However he was killed under mysterious circumstances, which could have easily been prevented by the Tsar, and his plan wasn't implemented. As a result these angry peasants foolishly supported the Communist coup, and it was all over for the Tsarist regime.

I think that the Russian Empire was the aggressor in this war, and it was all caused by the pride and stupidity of the Russian government. You would think that with all this practicaly undeveloped territory they would have to devote lots of time and efforts, and resources for developing these territories. But no, they chose to go to war instead. Why? To gain more territories. Well, what are you going to do with these new territories if you haven't even developed those territories that you already have?

Some wars and military operations can be justified. For Japan, it is understandable, they needed more territories to take pressure off their overpopulated islands, and they needed the natural resources of Korea and Manchuria to help their industries. But for the Russian Empire there was no good reason, no wise reason, why they should have fought in that war. Especially it was even counterproductive because then the Russian Empire would have turned against itself the Japanese Empire, but also the United States and Great Britain, who were supporting Japan. And also the Russian Empire also would have turned the Chinese against itself! Even if the Qing Dynasty was too weak to defeat the Russian army, there would have been Chinese guerilla fighters such as the Society of Righteous Fists and other ones, which would have been a nasty occupation period for the Russian army in Manchuria, even if they would have been successful in the Russian-Japanese war.

It is my philosophical theory that there are certain paths of development for certain societies, that are written by God. And if a society goes off the script, to do not what is in it's mission or it's destiny by God, then that society gets punished, not by supernatural means though, but by logical ones. If you attempt to walk on the ceiling, you will learn what is gravity the hard way. Similar principles also are applied to individuals, if we walk on our own correct path, we get some kind of benefits, or if we attempt to stray from it, we eventually get into trouble. Unfortunately if the monarch does not understand such fundamental principles, and does not want to listen to others, then it is bad news for everyone.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

Rights may be a grabble to you, but not to me. I am thinking you are not an American based off of that.

So when you have an unjust king you are called to sit by and allow it to happen? By that logic... what is the difference between a King and a dictator who's seized power? Looking at ALL of history, kings are based off the might/armies that backed them and the monopoly of force. We have been lucky that there WERE indeed Christian monarchs who took their duties as a righteously ordained leader by God's rule seriously. BUT.... by that logic of your earlier statement... Henry VIII is good to go.... I mean he was a king and all and we do have to subjugate ourselves to that right?

We aren't talking about judges like Gideon or King's like David here... though while you're pointing out issues with people in history, I'd remind you of the particular fallen nature of Kings and rulers in Christendom, many of whom are now Saints.

The standard by which we should resist authority is simple: if the ruler commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands.

However, violence is always sinful even when done for a just cause. Orthodox soldiers had to do penance when returning from war. Murder is always a sin.

King Henry VIII was a Catholic king who became Protestant. As Orthodox Christians he isn’t relevant with respect to this question.

When in doubt, ask a spiritual father. My personal view is that there was no good or godly reason for the American Revolution.

The question of bad kings is important. God often gives us bad rulers to chastise us and for our repentance. If we return to God then He is more likely to give us good rulers.

 

[get2choppaaa]

The standard by which we should resist authority is simple: if the ruler commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands.

However, violence is always sinful even when done for a just cause. Orthodox soldiers had to do penance when returning from war. Murder is always a sin.

King Henry VIII was a Catholic king who became Protestant. As Orthodox Christians he isn’t relevant with respect to this question.

When in doubt, ask a spiritual father. My personal view is that there was no good or godly reason for the American Revolution.

The question of bad kings is important. God often gives us bad rulers to chastise us and for our repentance. If we return to God then He is more likely to give us good rulers.

I don't speak AS an authority here, but I do have some experience with the bolded comments. I've had a few conversations about violence in war with my priest after having participated in it. My understanding is that its not as cut an dry interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" compared to "thou shalt not take an innocent life" ... at least that was how it was explained to me I think it's nice to say "murder is always a sin" but in circumstances when it is self defense or war conflicts with willing participants, it turns into a little bit more nuanced area. Not to say "murder" isnt a sin... but there's been priests who've blessed troops and weapons knowing they weren't going off to play patty-cake.....

Do you have some experience or knowledge otherwise?

There's absolutely a robust debate to be had about Britain/colonies and being ruled by a king.... but specifically to the notion of the American Revolution and Divine Right of Kings... it is relevant because we are talking about a "sacred monarch" (even if self appointed via the Anglican Church) and the people who rebelled against it. If we throw the baby out with the bath water (since they were not Orthodox) then it is easily mooted based off of the political(and also then religious) reality that since there was not ANY legitimate religious conjecture (as they were heretics) it was a purely political rebellion .... SO.... its really a matter of PERSONAL opinion. Or it isnt?

I agree about returning to God... but history is full of heretics. Only a fool would attempt to discredit that.

 

[Blade Runner]

I also find the "be obedient to the authorities because G-d put them there" to be lacking in many ways, and in others just plain silly. Most pols in America, at this point and in multiple ways, are openly demonic. I guess I don't actively do anything but talk about this to a chosen few, since that's all I can do. But my intuition tells me that the transactional nature of "repent" and G-d will restore something good to you I'm skeptical of, since many examples exist that show this to be quite clearly inaccurate. I think it's the same reason why the USA hasn't collapsed and when year after year it doesn't (big picture, yes of course it is degrading before our eyes), the predictors of America being "under judgment" keep saying "It's coming, it's coming" ... sorta like the Fed skeptics and detractors that have been calling for a market crash for the better part of 14 years (Schiff, Rickards, Dent, Kiyosaki, etc), which is amusing to say the least.

 

[Blade Runner]

They came to worship Mammon

Which America, and Britain, funded. Once I learned that GE owned all of the Soviet Union's electric grid, the Orthodox view of history started to make a whole lot more sense.

Yes, this is the interplay of the world and why it is so difficult for us to understand. It's quite clear, for example, that our original state of survival is the most "natural" in terms of being one with the world and having appropriate intersex dynamics. But that's also a brutal world of harsh conditions, suffering, killing, and death. Tech over time led to an increasing standard of living, which provided for a more harmonious collective, but that was eventually taken advantage of by the overlords, and is now bad in a totally different fashion. Is it bad to desire greater accommodations for yourself and your subsequent generations? No. But it can get out of hand, and it seemingly did. Yet, this was all God's plan, and I don't think we can understand it very easily otherwise. I guess all we can do is be grateful, however this must work itself out, because blessings in this world come and go, are fleeting, but God does participate in them - even knowing that good things of this world are mostly a foil for us.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

I don't speak AS an authority here, but I do have some experience with the bolded comments. I've had a few conversations about violence in war with my priest after having participated in it. My understanding is that its not as cut an dry interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" compared to "thou shalt not take an innocent life" ... at least that was how it was explained to me I think it's nice to say "murder is always a sin" but in circumstances when it is self defense or war conflicts with willing participants, it turns into a little bit more nuanced area. Not to say "murder" isnt a sin... but there's been priests who've blessed troops and weapons knowing they weren't going off to play patty-cake.....

Do you have some experience or knowledge otherwise?

There's absolutely a robust debate to be had about Britain/colonies and being ruled by a king.... but specifically to the notion of the American Revolution and Divine Right of Kings... it is relevant because we are talking about a "sacred monarch" (even if self appointed via the Anglican Church) and the people who rebelled against it. If we throw the baby out with the bath water (since they were not Orthodox) then it is easily mooted based off of the political(and also then religious) reality that since there was not ANY legitimate religious conjecture (as they were heretics) it was a purely political rebellion .... SO.... its really a matter of PERSONAL opinion. Or it isnt?

I agree about returning to God... but history is full of heretics. Only a fool would attempt to discredit that.

I don’t mean to dishonour or discredit your military service, and I apologize for offending you. I do not mean to suggest that soldiers are condemned: we have examples of soldiers-martyrs like Holy Theodore the Tyro after all. (I also think there is an aspect here of “laying down one’s life for a friend.”)

My purpose is simply to put forth the Orthodox position on this. If violence is to be undertaken, it should be as a last resort, and is never condoned as good. It is a well known tradition that Orthodox soldiers returning from war had to do penance. My experience in these matters has no bearing on these facts.

From these premises I fail to see how the American Revolution was good. Soldiers fought and died… for what? For freedom from unjust taxation and quartering? These problems are worse now that the United States is ‘independent.’

Forgive me if I speak out of turn.

 

[Aboulia]

I don't speak AS an authority here, but I do have some experience with the bolded comments. I've had a few conversations about violence in war with my priest after having participated in it. My understanding is that its not as cut an dry interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" compared to "thou shalt not take an innocent life" ... at least that was how it was explained to me I think it's nice to say "murder is always a sin" but in circumstances when it is self defense or war conflicts with willing participants, it turns into a little bit more nuanced area. Not to say "murder" isnt a sin... but there's been priests who've blessed troops and weapons knowing they weren't going off to play patty-cake.....

Do you have some experience or knowledge otherwise?

There's absolutely a robust debate to be had about Britain/colonies and being ruled by a king.... but specifically to the notion of the American Revolution and Divine Right of Kings... it is relevant because we are talking about a "sacred monarch" (even if self appointed via the Anglican Church) and the people who rebelled against it. If we throw the baby out with the bath water (since they were not Orthodox) then it is easily mooted based off of the political(and also then religious) reality that since there was not ANY legitimate religious conjecture (as they were heretics) it was a purely political rebellion .... SO.... its really a matter of PERSONAL opinion. Or it isnt?

I agree about returning to God... but history is full of heretics. Only a fool would attempt to discredit that.

I would tend to agree, murder is a sin, but murder is applied inside society, you're transgressing the bounds of acceptable relations to each person within your society, killing isn't the same outwards as it is in war, as war is competition between groups whether just or unjust, those more conscientious Christians may opt for doing support roles during war, but since you're reaping the benefits of society, you must also have some sense of duty to fight for it, as flawed as it may be. To be ungrateful, is unchristian.

The danger that I see, and it is quite right for the Americans to get up in arms over this, is the denigrating of history, yes, men were flawed, as all men are, even saints are generally canonized long after their death for this reason, it lets those with personal issues die out. But to undermine the history of a nation and expose those flaws has a danger of destroying the unity of a nation, This is why Ham is cursed after exposing his father's nakedness. Keep in mind your own sins while criticizing others. If the Founding Fathers fell into the ideological currents of the times, who among you has refrained from legitimizing the propaganda pandemic in one way or another, whether it be in wearing a mask,

I understand the Free Mason connection to certain founding fathers. I believe Free-Masonry to be a Judaizing social club that lures member's into a false sense of brotherhood only to corrupt them.....THAT BEING SAID.... I think Washington, Jefferson, and many other founding fathers did a noble thing in rebelling against the colonies and establishing a Constitution that provided free men more rights than anything ever seen in history.

Yes, a constitution is good in a sense, but it's also bad in a sense, it's good when tyrants oppress you, you have something to fall back on, but it's bad in a sense that if you have to write down the laws of unspoken conduct between people, then you've already lost the understanding of how people in society should act towards one another.

Now whether it provided people more rights or not is up for debate, for it's until you disagree with the other side, as the South did at one point.

However, violence is always sinful even when done for a just cause. Orthodox soldiers had to do penance when returning from war. Murder is always a sin.

As always, the reasons for things are more important than the action. Reason being, that after a war, soldiers must be rehabilitated into society, so that they aren't treating fellow citizens as they would combatants, as you can't turn from a quick thinking/acting combat mentality to a slow to anger, gentle mentality by flipping a lightswitch.

 

[get2choppaaa]

I don’t mean to dishonour or discredit your military service, and I apologize for offending you. I do not mean to suggest that soldiers are condemned: we have examples of soldiers-martyrs like Holy Theodore the Tyro after all. (I also think there is an aspect here of “laying down one’s life for a friend.”)

My purpose is simply to put forth the Orthodox position on this. If violence is to be undertaken, it should be as a last resort, and is never condoned as good. It is a well known tradition that Orthodox soldiers returning from war had to do penance. My experience in these matters has no bearing on these facts.

From these premises I fail to see how the American Revolution was good. Soldiers fought and died… for what? For freedom from unjust taxation and quartering? These problems are worse now that the United States is ‘independent.’

Forgive me if I speak out of turn.

No worries. In principal I agree violence is bad. However there are people that recognize no other form of communication other than that, so we must have soldiers. There is evil in the world, and there are men that need to be killed in order to stop it. (Look at what's going on in Donbass) I would say that one might feel bad for having to be the one to have to take those lives, speaking for myself only, there is guilt around the innocents that suffered that were caught in the crossfire. I don't think anyone is saying that war is good... That why many vets are so anti-war... Because theyve seen it. (Also my personal hero is Smedley Butler ... Look him up if you're not familiar)

Regarding the US Revolution....It is misguided to apply the issues of today and apply our understanding now to that of a person living in the times of being a British subject. Masonry or not, it doesn't negate the legitimate reasons to rebell against the government of Brittain.

Again, the Brits absurd the laws against their subjects, whose details have been so enumerated by multiple acts and papers from our foundered to include quartering, taxation abuses, forced constipation and imprisonment with out trial ect ect ect.

I think we established that there was no legitimate divine right of kings since the king here was not Orthodox... So really we are again talking about purely a political view.

How would you not say that it is ok to accept those premises as legitimate reasons to rebell after multiple attempts to get redress of grievances from The Crown? So war being the manifestation of political disagreements (to paraphrase Clausewitz) is exactly what happens.

 

[Cavalier]

EXACTLY!

Skimming some of the earliest posts in this thread leave me scratching my head.

I am not into apologizing for the founders of America. I think those men were admirable. All the privilege's we get to enjoy, rightly or wrongly, exist because of their intense desire to ensure the rights guaranteed to subjects via the Magna Carta were upheld.

We have plenty of people in America who lived a sordid life, some of them were founding fathers. Yet there are plenty of saints whom also had their own struggles. There are also members who are Orthodox according to this board that have even gone so far as to say that there were multiple Saints (Justinian and Theodora in particular) that were possessed by demons (which I vehemently disagree with) and were evil. Far be it for me to castigate Saints... but I suppose if one has the arrogance to do that, we can look at any other regular person in history and pass judgement free of context or situational depth and blame the issues we face now on them. Makes sense.

I understand the Free Mason connection to certain founding fathers. I believe Free-Masonry to be a Judaizing social club that lures member's into a false sense of brotherhood only to corrupt them.....THAT BEING SAID.... I think Washington, Jefferson, and many other founding fathers did a noble thing in rebelling against the colonies and establishing a Constitution that provided free men more rights than anything ever seen in history.

I reject this notion that the America we have now is representative of the intent of the founding fathers.

The subject is difficult for many to grasp. While few people if any can see the future to know what will be, it is very possible to look at past events to discern their effects from then to the present. While it may be that some or even most of the Founding Fathers believed they were doing good, it doesn’t negate the influence of Satan on their decisions. I would say the Beast system was founded at that time and has grown powerful since then. Did they really rebel though? Has America ever really opposed or thwarted British interests? Didn’t the United States ally itself to Britain in two World Wars it had no business being involved with in the first place. Note also that since Cromwell the Jews have been very very influential in Britain.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

Again, the Brits absurd the laws against their subjects, whose details have been so enumerated by multiple acts and papers from our foundered to include quartering, taxation abuses, forced constipation and imprisonment with out trial ect ect ect.

The cure for that is lentils.

I agree that the British tax laws were bad for the times, but the United States just levied even more taxes on their subjects. I'm not sure how this justifies the Revolution, which largely has a mythic aspect around it.

 

[get2choppaaa]

The cure for that is lentils.

I agree that the British tax laws were bad for the times, but the United States just levied even more taxes on their subjects. I'm not sure how this justifies the Revolution, which largely has a mythic aspect around it.

Haha yes lentils do work for that...
my phone's autocorrect seems to prefer constipation to conscription...

Let me then take your supposition and ask what conditions are justified for a revolution?

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

Haha yes lentils do work for that...
my phone's autocorrect seems to prefer constipation to conscription...

Let me then take your supposition and ask what conditions are justified for a revolution?

If Revolution were justified, then it would need the blessing of God, as communicated through His saints.

I can’t think of a single Revolution that the Church has sanctioned. I could be wrong, but Revolution tends towards disorder and pride.

 

[get2choppaaa]

If Revolution were justified, then it would need the blessing of God, as communicated through His saints.

I can’t think of a single Revolution that the Church has sanctioned. I could be wrong, but Revolution tends towards disorder and pride.

The first Orthodox Chruch in America was in Alaska in the 1790s. That would be outside of this event timeline.

I haven't seen anything that indicates a statement by The Chruch at that time about America.

In fact... To my knowledge all Orthodox Saints in America we're born well after the revolution had occured....

So as far as i can tell we are just applying our understanding now, hundreds of years after the fact then supposing that we have a distilled knowledge of the rectitude of such events... All while taking for granted that these events were part of God's Divine Providence and plan for us now.

 

[Eusebius Erasmus]

The first Orthodox Chruch in America was in Alaska in the 1790s. That would be outside of this event timeline.

I haven't seen anything that indicates a statement by The Chruch at that time about America.

In fact... To my knowledge all Orthodox Saints in America we're born well after the revolution had occured....

So as far as i can tell we are just applying our understanding now, hundreds of years after the fact then supposing that we have a distilled knowledge of the rectitude of such events... All while taking for granted that these events were part of God's Divine Providence and plan for us now.

Revolution by nature is subversive, with the intent of toppling authority. God permits all of the world’s governments — even bad or corrupt rulers!

The only reasons to resist rulers are twofold: if they command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands. And even then, violence only makes sense when God sanctions it.

The only godly revolt I can think of is that of the Maccabees.

This happened at a time when the Seleucid conquerors (Greeks) made it impossible to worship the true God. They would massacre pious Jews and destroy temples. They also forced the Jews to worship idols. This left violence as the only option.

Furthermore, the Revolt was led by God-bearing priests (Mattatthias and his son).

The Maccabean Revolt was therefore godly. The American Revolution was not.

P.S. I’d ask a spiritual elder about this too. I know the Church commemorates the 7 Maccabee martyrs. I’m not sure if we honour Mattathias and his son Judas as well.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Revolution by nature is subversive, carried out with the intent of toppling authority. All governments in the world are permitted by God, and receive their sanction from Him — even bad or corrupt rulers!

The only reasons to resist rulers are twofold: if they command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands. And even then, violence only makes sense when God sanctions it.

With this in mind, the only godly revolt I can think of is that of the Maccabees.

This happened at a time when the Seleucid conquerors (Greeks) had made it impossible to worship the true God. They would massacre pious Jews and destroy temples. They also forced the Jews to worship idols. This left violence as the only option.

Furthermore, the Revolt was led by God-bearing priests (Mattatthias and his son).

The Maccabean Revolt was therefore godly. The American Revolution was not.

Can you remind me how kings go about becoming king? Isn't there something about a monopoly of force. What happens when one king over throws another? For us lay persons... I suppose it's irrelevant. The King is Dead! Long Live the King! and all that. Life goes on.... But what happens when one force is over thrown because of the political will of the people at the time, and you have someone like Washington, who chooses NOT to become a king.

The subjects in question at time are being discussed 300 years after the fact.

There were many times that God appointed figures in the old testament to rebel against people whom were ruling them... legitimately or by slavery.

Its great to be Orthodox and have an Orthodox world view as you process the world around you... However, I find it's a bit prideful that because we are orthodox, we can assume that one can just castigate events in history as immoral/unGodly as though we have some knowledge. I've heard many priest talk about the good things about the American rule of law and constitution.... even while pointing out the bad that inevitably occurs here.

With all that I am going to bow out. I don't see me sticking in this one will be productive. Cheers everyone.

 

[josemiguel]

what is the difference between a King and a dictator who's seized power?

The King is anointed and is a father to his people.

Looking at ALL of history, kings are based off the might/armies that backed them and the monopoly of force.

Definitley false. Monopoly of Force is an Enlightenment concept. Kings didn't even have police forces. Look at St King Alfred the Great's Tithing system.

Monarchy is fractal, every man a king and priest of his nuclear family, a patriarch a king of his clan, and the king a father to his nation.

God often gives us bad rulers to chastise us and for our repentance. If we return to God then He is more likely to give us good rulers.

Bingo!!!

Most pols in America, at this point and in multiple ways, are openly demonic.

Such is the fuit of the rule of hell, also called democracy according to St John of Kronstadt.

St John Maximovitch of San Francisco literally instructed hisbflock to pray for the return of kings.

Soldiers fought and died… for what? For freedom from unjust taxation and quartering? These problems are worse now that the United States is ‘independent.’

Bingi again, all were wirse right after the Revolution.

Masonry or not, it doesn't negate the legitimate reasons to rebell against the government of Brittain

No legitimate reason to rebel there was. The conists were free of parliaments' tyranny. The English thought the Americans were mad for wanting a seat in Parliament, because then Parliament could tax them directly.

quartering, taxation abuses, forced constipation and imprisonment with out trial

All committed by America's constitutional republic.

I think we established that there was no legitimate divine right of kings since the king here was not Orthodox

Definitley false according to St Paul. Even St Tsar Nicholas II and his wife saw the Kaiser as the Lord's anointed over Germany, and didn't want to weaken the German monarchy out of fear the West would install a satanic democracy.

Can you remind me how kings go about becoming king?

Sacramentally, you get anointed. Politically, people select your family like the Rurikovich and Romanov dynasty. The latter literally drew the short straw.

Isn't there something about a monopoly of force.

Nope, oligarchic forms of gov't like to have a monopoly on force to ease plundering. A king wants the men under him to be able to fight to keep out invaders. See medieval Spain and Britain.

But what happens when one force is over thrown because of the political will of the people at the time, and you have someone like Washington, who chooses NOT to become a king.

The revolutionaries were 3% of the population. Even if a majority that dies not change the fact that Heaven is a monarchy, and Hell a democracy. Since Kings were eliminated, the spirit of AntiChrist had been moving more freely than it ever has before.

 

[Blade Runner]

@josemiguel makes good points, but the real mindcluster is that this is part of God's plan, whether we like it or not. This world isn't meant to be a babel, so in a certain sense the kings could never have taken hold, but for a time. I think that's why we have cycles. Bad times give us the opportunity to die to ourselves, and ultimately die the beautiful death, which we will likely be mocked for. It's hard to understand given our broken condition but after a while most of us who seek truth do see this world as it is and after a while, come to the realization, "What's the point"?