Derf
Well-known member
Or even 1973.
I'm Starting To Like This Trump Fellow
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
Idolater
Popetard
Yes, agreed, but, Leftist jurists are going to be judged by Leftists as being right and just in their rulings. So we see the problem on the bench, but the cause of the problem is right down here in the mud with the rest of us, it's our countrymen, who are electing Leftist politicians, who ultimately nominate and then confirm (two separate offices) Leftist jurists. It's also don't forget that Leftist donors are greasing the skids so that Leftist prosecutors get into office as well, iow, due to Leftist activism in the DA's offices, even if criminals are arrested for crimes, if the crime isn't seen as a crime to Leftists, then the prosecutor doesn't even charge the criminal. Just catch-and-release.
Anyway, yeah. Agreed.
Idolater
Popetard
Kanye West in real time realized Kim was not actually his wife, on camera once. He said he didn't like how she dressed in public (re cf. the image search you mention) basically because she was showing off goods that belonged to him, to just any man who happened to be within sight. Kim replied something like, "I don't recall asking what you thought." Like right then and there, Kanye realized that Kim wasn't actually his wife, she was just a fraud. You could, like see it in his face, hear it in his voice. Like, what a devastating thing to come to see for the first time. Probably many people knew Kim was an imposter, well before Kanye did. Maybe even someone told him, "Bro, you know this cat's just using you, right?" Maybe not. But anyway in this footage that I watched, he was basically asking Kim, "Hey Babe can you stop cucking me publicly, in how you dress?" and she was like, "Sorry, not sorry." He was brokenhearted, it was sad.
So idk that she's "gross," there are lots of males who could be fruitful with her if they were married to her, so that's not true of "gross" females. Truly "gross" females couldn't be fruitful with any man as her husband, because he wouldn't be able to be fruitful with her. I think lots of males could be fruitful with Kardashian if they were married to her.
But, everybody's got a type. Your type just sorta delimits live candidates to be your spouse in a lawful marriage. I think Kardashian's type extends to many males, she'd have no problem finding a male who could be confident that he could be fruitful with her in marriage.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Oh look it's a Democrat politician blatantly lying.
Rubio should convince Trump to call Win-Ping every night at 2:00 in the morning just to check in with him
"Win Pinnnnnnng
Win Pinnnnnnng
Wake up! It's the president!"
Laughs hysterically and hangs up
Rubio should convince Trump to call Win-Ping every night at 2:00 in the morning just to check in with him
"Win Pinnnnnnng
Win Pinnnnnnng
Wake up! It's the president!"
Laughs hysterically and hangs up
Last edited:
commonsense
Active member
It was hilarious seeing clips of Dozy Don napping away like a little baby as one of the gladiators was laying a beating on someone right in front of him!
Idolater
Popetard
Dollars to donuts, they're projecting, in whatever complaint they're making, they're guilty themselves of it. They are guilty of animus, and arbitrariness. Whatever they're accusing the Right of, you can bet they are guilty of it instead. That's pretty consistent; you can expect that.
Sorry this took so long. I've been busy with work, but I’ve also been doing a bit of research on this topic, mostly going through material from BEL and DBC.
I’ve also been catching up on uploading the CDs/DVDs I have from the store, including one DVD I thought I had uploaded previously, "God's Principles of Government," where Bob goes through the entire proposed constitution in six full videos. It has now been uploaded to the Drive folder I sent you.
Then we have identified the structural disagreement. Generally speaking, the king occupies the highest earthly civil office and does not normally answer to anyone beneath him. That is precisely the point I have been pressing. The king’s office is not absolute in relation to God or God’s law; it is “absolute” only in the sense that there is no superior domestic civil office over him.
You do not think that structure has to be retained, and you do not think it should be retained. Fine. But that means you are proposing a structural change, and that change has to be judged by whether it preserves or undermines the principles the system is built on. If your proposed correction creates a domestic authority with final jurisdiction over the king’s office, then it has not merely added a safeguard to Bob’s system. It has changed where final earthly authority terminates. That may be the system you want, but it is a different structure than a constitutional monarchy built on the foundational biblical principle that authority flows downward from God through real heads.
And one that has far reaching consequences.
I reject your premise. The goal is not to emulate Israel’s kingdom. Israel was special. We both agree on that. But she was not just special, but unique. Israel had God’s direct covenantal participation in a way ordinary nations do not. She had prophets speaking God’s word to the king, a priesthood, a temple system, tribal allotments, land promises, and national covenants that do not belong to ordinary Gentile nations.
So if your argument is, “Israel had God as a fail-safe, therefore any system attempting to emulate Israel needs an earthly substitute for that fail-safe,” then my answer is simple: we are not attempting to emulate Israel in that manner. Israel gives us important data, but Israel is not the standard in the way your argument against my position requires. The more foundational biblical pattern is older than Israel’s monarchy: top-down, personal, patriarchal authority under God.
Adam was the head of humanity. Noah, as the head of his household and the ancestor of all post-Flood mankind, received from God the command that “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Abraham functioned as the head of a great household and later became the father of many nations; and when Lot was captured, Abraham armed the 318 trained men born in his house and led them into battle, giving an early biblical precedent for patriarchal headship including military command. Moses was not a king, but he stood as Israel’s chief earthly ruler, leading God’s people out of Egypt with Aaron’s help; and when Jethro advised him, Moses appointed judges over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, with the harder cases brought up to him. The later judges exercised rule over Israel, and David then gives the clearest royal example.
The common thread is not “copy Israel’s kingdom.” The common thread is personal headship and ordered authority. My position is built on that top-down structure: God delegates authority to real heads, and those heads delegate authority beneath them. God > king > lesser rulers > heads of households. That is the structure monarchy grows out of. It is rooted in patriarchy and extended upward into civil government.
So when you say Israel had God as a fail-safe and therefore we need to fabricate an earthly substitute in order to emulate Israel, I reject the premise. We should not try to recreate Israel’s unique covenant monarchy by treating a process designed by men as a substitute for God’s direct covenantal role. That cuts against the whole Plot of the Bible, which is that men cannot attain righteousness without God. We are trying to preserve the biblical principle Israel itself also reflects: ordered, personal, top-down authority under God. A domestic mechanism by which lesser offices can remove the chief civil ruler reverses that flow at the decisive point.
And a king does not “choose to subject himself” to a lower tribunal (or what have you) merely by committing a crime against his office. His wickedness may make him guilty before God. It may destroy his moral credibility. It may justify refusal, resistance, rebuke, and non-cooperation. But it does not, by itself, create jurisdiction in lesser domestic offices to remove him.
No one is extolling a wicked king acting above the law as a feature. That is a caricature. For Gentile nations, enduring wicked rulers has been the norm throughout history. That does not make wicked rule good, and it does not mean subjects must obey wicked commands. It simply recognizes that in a fallen world, evil rulers often exist without a lawful domestic mechanism to remove them.
And the reason such evil may be tolerated is not only that we live in a fallen world, but also that the alternative is worse. A wicked king is bad, but a lawful mechanism by which lesser domestic authorities can remove the chief civil ruler may be worse, because it creates a standing rival authority over the throne and gives ambitious men a lawful-looking path to seize or control final earthly authority.
I’ve also been catching up on uploading the CDs/DVDs I have from the store, including one DVD I thought I had uploaded previously, "God's Principles of Government," where Bob goes through the entire proposed constitution in six full videos. It has now been uploaded to the Drive folder I sent you.
Then we have identified the structural disagreement. Generally speaking, the king occupies the highest earthly civil office and does not normally answer to anyone beneath him. That is precisely the point I have been pressing. The king’s office is not absolute in relation to God or God’s law; it is “absolute” only in the sense that there is no superior domestic civil office over him.
You do not think that structure has to be retained, and you do not think it should be retained. Fine. But that means you are proposing a structural change, and that change has to be judged by whether it preserves or undermines the principles the system is built on. If your proposed correction creates a domestic authority with final jurisdiction over the king’s office, then it has not merely added a safeguard to Bob’s system. It has changed where final earthly authority terminates. That may be the system you want, but it is a different structure than a constitutional monarchy built on the foundational biblical principle that authority flows downward from God through real heads.
And one that has far reaching consequences.
I reject your premise. The goal is not to emulate Israel’s kingdom. Israel was special. We both agree on that. But she was not just special, but unique. Israel had God’s direct covenantal participation in a way ordinary nations do not. She had prophets speaking God’s word to the king, a priesthood, a temple system, tribal allotments, land promises, and national covenants that do not belong to ordinary Gentile nations.
So if your argument is, “Israel had God as a fail-safe, therefore any system attempting to emulate Israel needs an earthly substitute for that fail-safe,” then my answer is simple: we are not attempting to emulate Israel in that manner. Israel gives us important data, but Israel is not the standard in the way your argument against my position requires. The more foundational biblical pattern is older than Israel’s monarchy: top-down, personal, patriarchal authority under God.
Adam was the head of humanity. Noah, as the head of his household and the ancestor of all post-Flood mankind, received from God the command that “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Abraham functioned as the head of a great household and later became the father of many nations; and when Lot was captured, Abraham armed the 318 trained men born in his house and led them into battle, giving an early biblical precedent for patriarchal headship including military command. Moses was not a king, but he stood as Israel’s chief earthly ruler, leading God’s people out of Egypt with Aaron’s help; and when Jethro advised him, Moses appointed judges over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, with the harder cases brought up to him. The later judges exercised rule over Israel, and David then gives the clearest royal example.
The common thread is not “copy Israel’s kingdom.” The common thread is personal headship and ordered authority. My position is built on that top-down structure: God delegates authority to real heads, and those heads delegate authority beneath them. God > king > lesser rulers > heads of households. That is the structure monarchy grows out of. It is rooted in patriarchy and extended upward into civil government.
So when you say Israel had God as a fail-safe and therefore we need to fabricate an earthly substitute in order to emulate Israel, I reject the premise. We should not try to recreate Israel’s unique covenant monarchy by treating a process designed by men as a substitute for God’s direct covenantal role. That cuts against the whole Plot of the Bible, which is that men cannot attain righteousness without God. We are trying to preserve the biblical principle Israel itself also reflects: ordered, personal, top-down authority under God. A domestic mechanism by which lesser offices can remove the chief civil ruler reverses that flow at the decisive point.
And a king does not “choose to subject himself” to a lower tribunal (or what have you) merely by committing a crime against his office. His wickedness may make him guilty before God. It may destroy his moral credibility. It may justify refusal, resistance, rebuke, and non-cooperation. But it does not, by itself, create jurisdiction in lesser domestic offices to remove him.
No one is extolling a wicked king acting above the law as a feature. That is a caricature. For Gentile nations, enduring wicked rulers has been the norm throughout history. That does not make wicked rule good, and it does not mean subjects must obey wicked commands. It simply recognizes that in a fallen world, evil rulers often exist without a lawful domestic mechanism to remove them.
And the reason such evil may be tolerated is not only that we live in a fallen world, but also that the alternative is worse. A wicked king is bad, but a lawful mechanism by which lesser domestic authorities can remove the chief civil ruler may be worse, because it creates a standing rival authority over the throne and gives ambitious men a lawful-looking path to seize or control final earthly authority.
Derf
Well-known member
Is this in the wrong thread?
Two things here.
First, your premise seems to be more than just that authority flows downward from God. Your premise is that it is a unidirectional flow even after such authority reaches a human government; that there can be no such thing as shared authority and that any sort of check or balance usurps the proper flow of governmental authority.
The result is an all or nothing sort of mindset that says that any limitation imposed on the kings authority is usurpative by definition and that any other office given any sort of authority whatsoever over the king, no matter how well defined, limited and difficult to impose, makes the holder of that office the one and only true king.
Secondly, have you ever attempted to establish such a premise biblically? I very much doubt that it could be done given the fact that Israel is the biblical example and it is very clear that her king could be removed from power. Of course your focus is on the fact that God is the one doing the removing, while my focus is on not on who is doing it but why it is being done. I submit that a governmental system that attempts to imitate, not only Israel's portion of government by God's interaction with that government is still based on the same biblical principles.
Can you point to a biblical text that teaches not merely that authority originates with God, but that the ideal human government must consist of a single, uninterrupted chain of command with no overlapping jurisdictions or mutually limiting offices?
You cannot eat your cake and have it to, JR.
The biblical system Bob based this constitution on was Israel's system. There is one and only one biblical kingdom that God had anything to do with setting up the specifics of and that was Israel's kingdom. You can say that they aren't the model but the fact is that they were and are.
I don't think so! You are here telling me that any system that does not tolerate such a king and that has ANY system in place to deal with such an eventuality is fundamentally flawed, usurpative, and unbiblical!
You are arguing more than that they merely exist. You are arguing that any system put in place to deal with it is fundamentally unauthorized by scripture and therefore inferior to one without such a system.
See?!
Thus, a wicked king acting above the law as a feature!