So monarchy is God's choice. :think:
Against Democracy: The Biblical Argument
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
So monarchy is God's choice. :think:
drbrumley
Well-known member
For Himself. :think: 1 Sam is quite clear
For Himself? What does that mean?
A monarchy is God's choice, right?
In 1 Samuel 8, God did choose to give Israel a king, right?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Yes, for Himself. Meaning what this says perfectly!
7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
It is like I said. You want an earthly king, you have rejected God's wisdom on the matter.
Yes He did. But this is essentially how that happened..
“Give us a King!” the people demanded.
“You don’t want a King” God replied.
“Yes we do!” the people said.
“Look, if I give you a King, here’s what will happen: It will turn
your sons into cannon fodder, force your daughters to work in
sweatshops, steal your land, your homes, your animals, and your
paycheck, take away your kids, and generally make your lives miserable until you scream in agony.”
The people replied, “And your point is?”
God sighed. “Very well then, here’s your King. But don’t say
I didn’t warn you!”
Nothing in there says God gave the people a king "for Himself." :idunno:
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Not really. We have evil presidents and evil prime ministers. It is not the nature of the person that is in question; it is the nature of the system. With democracy, an evil leader is all but guaranteed. With a king, at least there is an even chance that a good man will land the job.
Then why did you say it was not God's choice?
It's pretty obvious Enyart's convinced he'd make a crackerjack monarch.
Ah yes, history is full of good kings. Who are only concerned with doing what god wants. Well unless you dont buy a particular god. Please review your English history.
Or is there some, as yet undiscovered good monarchial DNA?
No, it's not. They came few and far between.
Yip.
It is better than a democracy where there is almost zero chance that a good man will rise to the top and even if one does, he will only be there for a few years.
But with your proposal you might get an evil king for decades. good deal if you are the king.
There is no type of government listed, merely what is authority and what can be done with it.
Oatmeal, you have book obligation of course to listen to they program, but your comment suggests that you didn't. Our Republican form of government has become mostly democratic, and even initially, it was simply a delayed form of democracy.
Good. That is a great example of democracy. The jury is rule by voting for right and wrong.
So liberty should not end when people are hurt? Meaning liberty for the criminal. What you call a lifestyle, like shooting heroine for recreation, causes harm. Do you disagree?
No we don't. You want liberty to cause harm without justice. Unless you are going to admit it should be a crime to cause harm.
No, the jury determines if there is sufficient evidence to find someone guilty of a crime.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Clearly ruled by judges
Robert Adolph: You're a dork.
Spend your time somewhere else. TOL is that much better without your silly momentary little tidbits.::kiss:
Happy new year.
--G
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I agree with Enyart's basic point (just a note: I only read the OP and didn't go listen to the podcast) but here's the thing, if majorities are evil, what are the odds of actually getting a good king? I understand that its different in a hypothetical situation where God is directly telling prophets which kings to annoint, but in a secular nation like America? Even if we try to derive our ideas about morality from the Bible (which we should) most people still won't agree with that, and they won't abide a king who does long. Not to mention that most Christians would disagree with both Bob Enyart and myself on what a good government would look like (and Bob and I disagree as well.)
Democracy is a bad idea. But monarchy isn't really a good idea either.
A constitutional republic, where the constitution is actually followed, would be better, if the constitution was decent. At least then there's some type of consistent standard. But the problem is they are rarely followed, and even if they are, they always include unjust aspects.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only good form of government, if you want to call it that.
Democracy is a bad idea. But monarchy isn't really a good idea either.
A constitutional republic, where the constitution is actually followed, would be better, if the constitution was decent. At least then there's some type of consistent standard. But the problem is they are rarely followed, and even if they are, they always include unjust aspects.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only good form of government, if you want to call it that.
Last edited: