Why Theonomy?

[Granite]

This childish insistence on scriptural interpretation is one more thing convincing me you people should be the last ones in a position to tell us how to live...

 

[Caledvwlch]

The question was posed in the context of what the Bible recommends so my introduction of a monarchy is on topic. If you do not want to discuss it that's fine but then you won't be discussing what the Bible has to say but what you have to say. Sort of borring if you ask me. And I have not been insulting to you or anyone else on this thread unless they have been intentionally dishonest and unresposive, in which case they deserve to be insulted.



Now who's being insulting? Why ask me this question as though I'm too stupid to have realized that Jesus is God? Don't be a hypocrite and we'll get along just fine okay?

What you failed to notice is that I said that Jesus is going to come and sit on DAVID'S thrown. David was not God and Christ sitting on that thrown in a direct endorsement of both David as a king and the monarchy which he ruled.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Justin

Even so, how does any of this convince an atheist that a monarchy is a good form of government?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

The question was posed in the context of what the Bible recommends so my introduction of a monarchy is on topic. If you do not want to discuss it that's fine but then you won't be discussing what the Bible has to say but what you have to say. Sort of borring if you ask me.

Well, a simple course in reading comprehension will tell you that I never said that I do not want to discuss it.

And I have not been insulting to you or anyone else on this thread unless they have been intentionally dishonest and unresposive, in which case they deserve to be insulted.

References such as "silly" and "preposterous," with little or no indication as to why you chose such derisive terms, are pretty insulting.

Now who's being insulting? Why ask me this question as though I'm too stupid to have realized that Jesus is God?

Why say that my citation of 1 Sam is "silly" and "preposterous?" Answer that question, and you've answered your own.

Don't be a hypocrite and we'll get along just fine okay?

I return as I have been given. Now, I'm more than ready to dispense with the derision--indeed, I would rather have not had any in the thread to begin with. I would hope that you are as well, because this is a serious issue that requires serious consideration.

What you failed to notice is that I said that Jesus is going to come and sit on DAVID'S thrown. David was not God and Christ sitting on that thrown in a direct endorsement of both David as a king and the monarchy which he ruled.

No, I didn't fail to notice that. Indeed, it's quite in sequence, according to the text:
* God sets up the Mosaic Law, that requires no king but Himself.
* The people don't like it, so they whine about having a king. God appoints judges.
* The people don't like the judges, so they whine about having a king. God appoints a king (Saul).

It is only after the advent of the Kingship in Israel--the human monarchy that God never wanted for His people--that God promises the Messiah will sit on the throne.

Clete, 1 Sam 8 is a direct indightment of any human monarchy.If you assert that your Bible is true, then you must acknowledge that having a human king was, at best, a "lesser evil," and at worst a total screw-up on the part of the people that God allowed them to do, for the hardness of their hearts. According to your text, God knew it was a mistake before Saul was anointed.

Justin

 

[Granite]

Even so, how does any of this convince an atheist that a monarchy is a good form of government?

I don't think they're interested in convincing. Coercion, yes, but not convincing...

 

[Lighthouse]

Why a monarchy then?

Because, in a system that is ruled by a static law there has to be hierarchy, and one ultimate head. As long as that head of government is ruled by that law, and does not take matters into his own hands. Of course, that did happen a few times in Israel, and whenever it did, everything went to pot.

If the monarch does not rule by his word, then why not a representative republic?

Because a representative republic means that laws are made, and changed, based on what people think they want. If we were to use a standard law, nothing wold be changed by the whims of the people. It would be constant.

Why not a dictator?

Because, as Clete said, it should not be run by fiat of the ruler.

 

[Granite]

"The law" is exceedingly disposable if one man's the only guy bound by it.

 

[Clete]

Even so, how does any of this convince an atheist that a monarchy is a good form of government?

Why would I care to convince an atheist?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Why would I care to convince an atheist?

Because we are a large portion of the population that you wish to enslave under a Biblical despotism.

 

[Granite]

Of course dissenting voices don't matter if you find a way to shut them up...

 

[Clete]

Well, a simple course in reading comprehension will tell you that I never said that I do not want to discuss it.

I admit that the sentence structure was confusing. I wasn't sure what you were saying. I am a recovering public school student though. I will assume the screw up was on my part and leave it at that.

References such as "silly" and "preposterous," with little or no indication as to why you chose such derisive terms, are pretty insulting.

I explained why it was silly and preposterous.

Why say that my citation of 1 Sam is "silly" and "preposterous?" Answer that question, and you've answered your own.

Because Jesus is going to be sitting on a thrown of an earthly kingdom which He calls "David's Thrown". You cannot take one isolated section of Scripture and pretend like the rest of the Bible doesn't exist.

I return as I have been given. Now, I'm more than ready to dispense with the derision--indeed, I would rather have not had any in the thread to begin with. I would hope that you are as well, because this is a serious issue that requires serious consideration.

This is a lie. I caught you in your hypocrisy and you're simply trying to wiggle out of it. You were intentionally insulting to me (which I was never to you) immediately after having criticized me for being insulting. That's the textbook definition of being a hypocrite. Had you not flagrantly denied it I would have been happy to let it go, now you will apologize or I will not let it go.

No, I didn't fail to notice that. Indeed,...

Of course you did fail to notice it or else your insult would have had no meaning.

...it's quite in sequence, according to the text:
* God sets up the Mosaic Law, that requires no king but Himself.
* The people don't like it, so they whine about having a king. God appoints judges.
* The people don't like the judges, so they whine about having a king. God appoints a king (Saul).

It is only after the advent of the Kingship in Israel--the human monarchy that God never wanted for His people--that God promises the Messiah will sit on the throne.

You simply cannot establish that God never wanted a monarchy for Israel. 1 Sam. not withstanding.

Clete, 1 Sam 8 is a direct indightment of any human monarchy.

No it is not. You are taking this passage beyond its intended context. Notice that when Saul failed miserably that God didn't say, "See, I told you so!" and insist that Israel repent of their desire for a king. On the contrary, He appointed a new king, only this time it was not upon Israel's insistence but by His own will.

If you assert that your Bible is true, then you must acknowledge that having a human king was, at best, a "lesser evil," and at worst a total screw-up on the part of the people that God allowed them to do, for the hardness of their hearts. According to your text, God knew it was a mistake before Saul was anointed.

At that time, yes it was not the best but as you say, God permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts. This however, does not speak to God's intent to grant a king to Israel in His own time. And no I do not believe that God knew that Saul would be a screw up, if that is what you are getting at with your comment here. Saul was promised the he and his lineage would sit on the thrown forever. God does not make such promises lightly and so I suspect that God intended Saul to be a good king and that He (God) would bring the messiah through the line of Saul. But because of Saul rebellion, God changed His mind and removed the thrown from him and gave it instead to David. The same thing could have happened to David as well but fortunately it did not.
All of this has important lessons to teach through the history of it all and these lessons of history are the basic reason why God did not want to give Israel a king at the time they insisted upon one. A discussion of this would take us directly into a discussion about dispensationalism and I'm just frankly not willing to go into all that with someone who is openly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them. In short I have no intention of establishing this further. If you want you can attempt to establish that God never wanted for Israel to have a king but I can assure you that you would be wasting your time. If that were the case, everything that comes after Samuel would read quite differently.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Gerald]

Of course dissenting voices don't matter if you find a way to shut them up...

One thing's for sure: Clete ain't got the the chops to shut anybody up... :chuckle:

 

[Caledvwlch]

...This is a lie. I cought you in your hypocracy and you're simply trying to wiggle out of it. You were intentionally insulting to me (which I was never to you) imediately after having critisized me for being insulting. That's the textbook definition of being a hypocrite. Had you not flagrantly denied it I would have been happy to let it go, now you will apologize or I will not let it go...

caught
hypocrisy

 

[Clete]

Because we are a large portion of the population that you wish to enslave under a Biblical despotism.

What? I wish to enslave no one! Have you lost your mind? What do you think is going to happen when Christ returns? Do you suppose He's going to take an opinion poll and find out that He's convinced a majority of the atheists that He's the right Man for the job before He sits on the thrown? Is that how you think it should go? If so, you’re really are seriously delusional.

I really don't understand this paranoia. Are you guys thinking that a Biblical government would attempt to force everyone to be a Christian or something? If so, you're wrong. People would be free to believe whatever they want and to do whatever they want. But they would be held responsible for their actions. If they cause the injury of another because of their stupidity or negligence then the offending party would be made to pay restitution. That is the entire justice system in a nutshell. There's no thought police, no inquisition, or anything else like that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

caught
hypocrisy

As I said, I'm a recovering public school student and therefore not the best speller. You should see what I come up with without a spell checker!

 

[Caledvwlch]

What? I wish to enslave no one! Have you lost your mind? What do you think is going to happen when Christ returns? Do you suppose He's going to take an opinion poll and find out that He's convinced a majority of the atheists that He's the right Man for the job before He sits on the thrown? Is that how you think it should go? If so, you’re really are seriously delusional.

I really don't understand this paranoia. Are you guys thinking that a Biblical government would attempt to force everyone to be a Christian or something? If so, you're wrong. People would be free to believe whatever they want and to do whatever they want. But they would be held responsible for their actions. If they cause the injury of another because of their stupidity or negligence then the offending party would be made to pay restitution. That is the entire justice system in a nutshell. There's no thought police, no inquisition, or anything else like that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ok, fine. Would Muslims be allowed to worship? How about Jews? I mean in their temples/mosques, not their homes.

And if people would simply be responsible for their actions, what need is their for a monarchy? Again, why not, say, a libertarian form of government?

Finally. No atheist believes that Christ is coming back to sit on a literal throne. So your first paragraph sounds delusional to us.

 

[Granite]

What? I wish to enslave no one! Have you lost your mind? What do you think is going to happen when Christ returns? Do you suppose He's going to take an opinion poll and find out that He's convinced a majority of the atheists that He's the right Man for the job before He sits on the thrown? Is that how you think it should go? If so, you’re really are seriously delusional.

I really don't understand this paranoia. Are you guys thinking that a Biblical government would attempt to force everyone to be a Christian or something? If so, you're wrong. People would be free to believe whatever they want and to do whatever they want. But they would be held responsible for their actions. If they cause the injury of another because of their stupidity or negligence then the offending party would be made to pay restitution. That is the entire justice system in a nutshell. There's no thought police, no inquisition, or anything else like that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So you're willing to wait until Christ returns, yet you want to champion a monarchy in the here and now...

Clete, if you honestly think a modern Christian monarchy wouldn't resort to abuse, murder, and torture, you don't have a clue about the track record of your own religion.

 

[Caledvwlch]

As I said, I'm a recovering public school student and therefore not the best speller. You should see what I come up with without a spell checker!

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to pick on you. My whole family are terrible spellers. I don't think it has as much to do with the school as it does with a genetic pre-disposition.

 

[Granite]

Comes from upbringing. Parents are probably idiots too. Loraine, you ever have a kid who spells that way, I'll disown ya.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I admit that the sentence structure was confusing. I wasn't sure what you were saying. I am a recovering public school student though. I will assume the screw up was on my part and leave it at that.

On re-reading, I see what you mean, and apologize for the lack of clarity.

I explained why it was silly and preposterous.

Clete, you explained in terms that were obvious to you, but you did so in such an abbreviated manner that the logic of the statement could not be followed.

It was not God's desire AT THAT TIME for Israel to have a king and there was good reason for that which I will not go into here but it is so obvious that God intended to give them a king that it's just prepostrous to think otherwise.

"There was good reason?" What reason?

"It is so obvious?" Clete, it is anything but obvious to me.

"...It's just prepostrous to think otherwise." Preposterous to you, perhaps, but not to me.

Because Jesus is going to be sitting on a thrown of an earthly kingdom which He calls "David's Thrown". You cannot take one isolated section of Scripture and pretend like the rest of the Bible doesn't exist.

Answered in the chronology.

This is a lie. I cought you in your hypocracy and you're simply trying to wiggle out of it. You were intentionally insulting to me (which I was never to you) imediately after having critisized me for being insulting. That's the textbook definition of being a hypocrite.

So is denying that the use of the words "preposterous" and "silly" were insulting.

Had you not flagrantly denied it I would have been happy to let it go, now you will apologize or I will not let it go.

I stand by my statement.

You simply cannot establish that God never wanted a monarchy for Israel. 1 Sam. not withstanding.

"Never?" No ... He had, according to the text, made allowance for an eventual King back in Deuteronomy. Is it something He wanted?

1 Sam 12
16 "Now therefore, stand and see this great thing which the LORD will do before your eyes:

17 Is today not the wheat harvest? I will call to the LORD, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking a king for yourselves."

18 So Samuel called to the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.

19 And all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves."

Did Samuel lie?

No it is not. You are taking this passage beyond its intended context. Notice that when Saul failed misurably that God didn't say, "See, I told you so!" and insist that Israel repent of their desire for a king. On the contrary, He appointed a new king, only this time it was not upon Israel's insistence but by His own will.

And note David's actions. And Solomon's. And their descendants.

Justin

 

[Granite]

Too much can potentially go wrong in a dictatorship (whatever you call it) for any freedom lover to ever be too enamored with it.