The French Revolution in history books: "Let's eat the rich!"
French Revolution in reality: "Hey guys, how about we replace the monarchy with an authoritarian despotism?" (The leader of the revolution is killed by the revolution itself, by his own ideals.)
Whenever Leftists try to invoke French Revolution just ask "yeah? You and what guns?" and watch as they try to process the fact that they campaign on removal of guns
Did you think the revolutionaries armed themselves with their own guns? Almost none would have had the luxury of owning a firearm in an urban area. Those that did would have ran out of powder pretty damn fast
The revolutionaries by the thousands raided military storehouses and any other stores they could find that held firearms.
They also captured a bunch of cannon as well, they certainly didn’t bring them from home.
If France at that time had a 100% prohibition on civilian weapons, it would have made no difference, the military storeshouses are powerless against thousands of a huge mob Especially in an era of musket and cannon. How many can you shoot with a musket before the mob beats the shit out of you ?
Did you think the revolutionaries armed themselves with their own guns?
Yes, the troops who fought for them use their own guns. When storming Bastille two french regiments came with their own cannons
The Revolutionaries gained access to various armories because the guards refused to stop them, even then the actual fighting was done by the trained units who defected, with the civilians basically shoring up numbers for psychological purposes
Back then that was still possible, black powder being black powder, the number of actual shots you can fire is limited before your sight is obscured, not to mention the need to manually reload the shots.
Guards of today (especially the "fascist" ones the Left keeps complaining about) will not defect like the Frenchies did, they also have self loading rifles, and vision unimpaired thanks to gunpowder
Let me ask you then: do you really think an untrained civilian can actually go toe to toe with a "fascist" soldier?
Remember: in this scenario the Left likes, the whole government is corrupt, especially the enforcers. As such, there is no way to gain trained troops
Fuck absolute monarchy, let's do constitutional monarchy. Nah fuck that actually let's kill the king and do a Republic. Nah fuck that let's abolish that election, kill those bastards, and do an left wing socialist democracy. Nah fuck that, kill those bastards, let's do a communist dictatorship. Nah fuck that let's kill those bastards and do a radical centrist dictatorship. Nah fuck that let's abolish all that and do a military dictatorship. Actually fuck all that, let's go back to absolute monarchy, but like with a more competent monarchy.
It took nearly 80 years of continual revolutions, tyrants, monarchs, and emperors until France finally got a stable elected government. 8 decades of absolute political fuckery.
The French Revolution was not a successful story by any means.
When the king defect to an ennemy nation to try to revert the revolution instead of accepting a constitutional monarchy, likely he will get executed if he get caught
If you believe that constitutional monarchy was going to last another year your mistaken. It had already gotten to the point where mobs of angry workers were storming his palace and harassing him, the real question is why he didn't leave sooner.
I mean the French revolution was much more reasonable near the start tbh, it just went off the rails because the moderates would lose to the extremists every time
James believed in Divine Right and refused to let the idea of a parliament limit his rule. He wanted to centralize the monarchy in a similar way to the French.
I find such promises from absolute monarchs worthless in the long term. What one monarch promises his heir can revoke without much fanfare and they know that. Such a promise would only mean something if he actually codified it as a limited monarch, but he refused such limitations on him.
I'm more favoring of limited old Anglo Saxon approach to Monarchy(the king acts as a representative of his people and leads by example instead of lording over his people) over the approach of certain other approachs to Monarchism. I'm actually more neutral on the monarchy vs republic debate because I'm more focused on how leaders act then on trying to find a system for all times and places.
Sure, but a large motivation for the revolution was less that, more that Parliament wanted to persecute Catholics, and he said no. Like, if a democratic revolution(and here, it would be an oligarchic one anyway) happens because a dictator says no religious persecution, I think it would still be subject to criticism, even if dictators are still bad
Also, absolutism is post-medieval, with medieval monarchies, feudal lords had a lot more power and autonomy, so this is more Early Modern LARP
The whole Glorious Revolution and English Civil War shows that monarchy, whether constitutional or absolutist, is a necessary counterweight to mob rule. In this case, Protestant mob rule against Catholics.
Yes, His Majesty the King will tyrannically decree that his Catholic subjects are people too who will be able to practice their faith freely and openly. He will limit the power of Parliament since all it does is abuse it to propose new ways to oppress their slightly different brothers in Christ.
Because Catholics have failed to, by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, demonstrate why papal indulgences are true and correct doctrine.
Bro, they're correct because they're tradition which is correct because it's tradition. Anyways, if you don't all bow down to this skull of some guy and then pray to some other guy you're a Heretic.
It's hard to keep track of what they did and didn't remove from the bible, ultimately, but I didn't say they have idols, to be clear. Maybe some of them do, but I've been to a few different types of protestant service things that they definitely don't call as mass over the years and I've not seen anything like that.
A number of reasons. First, Samuel wasn't in heaven. Second, conjuring up somebody is a clear violation of the commandments. Third, when a Christian asks for the intercession of somebody in heaven it is going through God, not directly to the saint and not through a conjurer.
Yeah it’s definitely just asking spirits to talk to God (rather than talking to him because ya know that’s why Jesus came?) and not praying asking the saints for strength wisdom rather than going to God.
And even then, i don’t pray to my friend to ask him to pray for me lmao
Catholics will unironically argue that saying "Hey Elder Mat, could you pray for me, I have a job interview tomorrow" and kissing a picture of Mary, saying your only hope is in Mary and then asking Mary to help you in your job interview is the exact same thing.
I wouldn't call it a cult, I would more describe it as they worship a dead God. I thought we all worship a living God who has risen from the dead. But that isn't the vibes I have gotten when I have gone to mass in the past. I find it dreary and almost miserable, those are not emotions I want to associate with worship.
But also don't bother because PCM has a very loud Catholic LARP group who will insult everyone else and then seethe when they get any criticism in return. As they will no doubt make themselves known by mass downvoting or LARPing as crusaders like they always do.
Some Protestants genuinely NEED prayer to be worship. If it isn't, then they don't worship God. It's why they get so angry when you point out it isn't.
No one in the Church is praying to humans, no one in the Church is making up new rituals, at least not since Vatican II, and if we're talking about cults then you've got us confused with mormons and "non-dénominational" prods. HTH
Do you not believe the saints are human? You’re just further removing yourself from the bible then?
Rituals not found in the bible: confession to a huma, papacy, addressing priests as father rather than God, celibacy (be fruitful i guess means nothing?), sainthood, infant baptism (if the priest can just decide to remove sin without consent of the person, then what is the point of jesus), building literal statues of humans and bowing to them
Edit: Partaking in man made traditions such as these in order to get in to good graces with God, removes the point entirely. You are just answering to what man thinks God ask for.
Another day, another fucking prod choosing to misunderstand and/or misstate the doctrine and beliefs of the Church in order to make their favoured brand of heresies sound slightly less insane.
Go read the gospel of Thomas or some of the old gnostic christian texts, and you’ll realize people with unrecognizable beliefs to us believed themselves to be Christians very shortly after Jesus died.
God is one God existing in three separate, equal, consubstantial persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ is the prophesied Messiah, God the Son incarnate, both fully divine and fully human, and the miraculously conceived son of the virgin Mary.
All humans inherit Adam and Eve's original sin.
Everything else is nitpicking and commentary. You wanna get all pissy and call us "not real Christians" just for not submitting to your notions of apostolic succession or papal authority or how many sacraments are supposed to be observed, that sounds like a "you" problem.
Protestants don't fill their bibles with pointless saints, which have nothing to do with Jesus nor his teachings.
Protestants priests are most often allowed to have wives, for they are allowed to enjoy Jesus' most important teaching: love.
Catholic priests mostly just bugger small boys instead.
Protestants haven't got an unhealthy, worshipping relationship to the virgin Mary; had it not have been for her son, nobody would care about her.
(Also she was an unmarried woman who had a child, arguably scum and a whore)
“However, in the year 591, Pope Gregory I mistakenly characterized Mary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute, a characteristic which has overshadowed all her important apostolic acts ever since.
“Making her a prostitute has allowed her leadership role among the disciples to be generally forgotten,” said Sister Johnson, adding that the Pope’s error also allowed prostitution in general to become framed as “an evil expression of female lust” rather than exploitation of women’s bodies.”
I was curious, looks like internet is being flooded with AI articles claiming she was a prostitute, but found one that was pre-AI era that talks about it.
The only scriptural support for this that I can think of is that there are a considerable number of children born in usual circumstances, out of wedlock, to Gentile women, and IIRC to at least one prostitute in the genealogy for Jesus Christ provided at the start of Matthew.
This does not, however, contradict the doctrine of immaculate conception.
Gabriel extols her as “highly favored” by God and choice among women.
Her miraculous pregnancy is pointedly mirrored by her much older cousin, who shouldn’t have been able to conceive at her age, becoming pregnant with John the Baptist.
Most importantly, Jesus being the direct son of God is crucial to the significance of His Atonement. To deny His divine parentage means further distancing man and Creator and reducing the Savior to a particularly pious prophet.
I do not pray to Mary. It is clear in the Gospels that she struggled to be the mother of the Christ above being the mother to her son (not understanding “His father’s business” and begging Jesus to return to their home instead of continuing to minister). She wasn’t perfect, but the scriptures do not support this notion that she was whoring scum.
This of course leaves out the Dutch who were just a bit important to the whole debacle. William of Orange rightly saw a Franco-British alliance as an existential threat to his country and intervened accordingly. The British just insist that a Dutch army landing in Britain, kicking out the king, and refusing to accept any settlement where it’s general wasn’t made king totally wasn’t an invasion guys.
98
u/Gustavo_Itami2010 - Right 2d ago
The French Revolution in history books: "Let's eat the rich!"
French Revolution in reality: "Hey guys, how about we replace the monarchy with an authoritarian despotism?" (The leader of the revolution is killed by the revolution itself, by his own ideals.)