An Advocation of Government

[Arthur Brain]

The term is "executed,"

No, killed is apt as I don't recognize your particular advocation of government as having any basis. It's just religious zealotry gone amok AFAIC.

Well, no, only if he decided to commit those crimes anyways.

He probably would never have done those things to begin with, though. He would have remained faithful to his wife while living here in America, never even thought of doing drugs on American soil, and so would have never been in any danger at all.

Remember, the premise to this hypothetical is that we would be under the proposed government, not the current one.

What, the one where a king drawn by lots doesn't actually have to do anything if he so chooses and can't be removed or replaced if he doesn't go along with such a system? He can even voice criticism and rail against it? It's totally untenable in reality just on that score alone. All you have is a hypothetical JR and one that would never come to fruition. We have freedom of religion in the West and your kind of extremism is one that's mired in fundamentalism of the worst sort.

 

[Trump Gurl]

With the recently elected President of the United States of America finally taking office, I think it's time we really looked at what kind of government God wants. When we look at the Bible, we see that the only form of government God authorized (in both the Old and New Testament) is a Constitutional Monarchy.

"What did he just say?"

Yes, you heard (read?) that right. A Constitutional Monarchy.

A Constitutional Monarchy is the only form of Government that God authorizes. (We find this in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.) Not anarchy, not democracy, or it's sister, republic, not an oligarchy, not a plutocracy, not a democratic republic, nor an aristocracy, nor a dictatorship.

Not a Constitutional Republic.

Constitutional Monarchy.


---


Our current form of government, which is at it's roots is democratic, is a Constitutional Republic. I say democratic because Americans vote on everything, laws, judges, representatives, senators, and even the leader of the country.

Yet God makes it very clear that majority rule is wicked, because the majority is wicked. Matthew 7:13-14 says,

"13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide*is*the gate and broad*is*the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 Because narrow*is*the gate and difficult*is*the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.""

Even our government, which was founded on Christian principles, has decayed beyond the point of no return in the 240+ years since it's inception. It's time for a change. You can't put new wine in old wineskins, meaning we need to get rid of the current government (and all of the bad laws) and implement a new form of government.

Here is a proposed Constitution for such a government:

http://kgov.com/constitution
http://kgov.com/criminal-code

https://theologyonline.com/forum/bob-enyart-live/bob-enyart-live-aa/2732134-the-proposed-constitution-of-america

https://theologyonline.com/forum/bob...-criminal-code

---

Questions? I will do my best to answer.

Vatican City State.

 

[Trump Gurl]

What, the one where a king drawn by lots doesn't actually have to do anything if he so chooses and can't be removed or replaced if he doesn't go along with such a system? He can even voice criticism and rail against it? It's totally untenable in reality just on that score alone.

"It's totally untenable in reality just on that score alone?" Try Vatican City State. The Pope is the last absolute ruling monarch, yet he is chosen by his peers and comes from any country and usually from poverty.

We have freedom of religion in the West

That means false religion mixed with true religion. It has to mean that, since not all religions can be true.

your kind of extremism is one that's mired in fundamentalism of the worst sort

So says the man whose post was totally wrong.

 

[ok doser]

"It's totally untenable in reality just on that score alone?" Try Vatican City State. The Pope is the last absolute ruling monarch, yet he is chosen by his peers and comes from any country and usually from poverty.



That means false religion mixed with true religion. It has to mean that, since not all religions can be true.



So says the man whose post was totally wrong.

most of artie's posts boil down to "Boooo - I don't like what you're saying!"

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, killed is apt

When you put someone to death for a crime, by definition it's called an "execution."

Under the proposed government, adultery alone warrants the death penalty, and thus, he would have been executed.

as I don't recognize your particular advocation of government

Good thing your opinion of things has no bearing on reality.

Putting someone to death for a crime is by definition "execution," justly killing someone worthy of death.

as having any basis.

It has plenty of basis. You just don't like it because it's based on Biblical principles.

It's just religious zealotry gone amok AFAIC.

Your opinion has no bearing on what defines reality.

What, the one where a king drawn by lots doesn't actually have to do anything if he so chooses and can't be removed or replaced if he doesn't go along with such a system? He can even voice criticism and rail against it? It's totally untenable in reality just on that score alone.

You do realize that whoever is chosen by lot does not have to accept the position, right?

They can refuse, and so the lots are cast again to find someone else.

Thinking about it for a moment, I believe that's why Bob included the bit about America being without a king for no more than 7 days... I'll have to ask him about that.

No one is going to force someone to do a job they have no interest in doing.

All you have is a hypothetical JR and one that would never come to fruition.

So what?

We have freedom of religion in the West

Which is quickly being eroded away by the very type of government you seem to promote.

and your kind of extremism is one that's mired in fundamentalism of the worst sort.

:allsmile:

When you reject the foundations of your beliefs, your beliefs start to crumble, and patchwork won't help save them.

A government founded on Biblical principles (regardless of how much you complain about it) is a better form of government than any other you could ever come up with.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Vatican City State.

In what way?

 

[Trump Gurl]

In what way?

Your first post says a Constitutional Monarchy. The pope is the last earthly "absolute" monarch, yet he his elected by his peers and comes from no royal bloodline. Spiritually he is the chosen one of the true King, Jesus.

I know you are not Catholic, but as a model, you must surely agree with the concept.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your first post says a Constitutional Monarchy. The pope is the last earthly "absolute" monarch,

He's not a monarch at all, just a really highly exalted priest who has been given the authority to run a small city-state.

yet he his elected by his peers and comes from no royal bloodline.

Again, he's not royalty, even though millions treat him as such.

Spiritually he is the chosen one of the true King, Jesus.

Rather, no, he's not, though that's a commonly misinterpreted verse that people have used to explain the office of the Pope.

I know you are not Catholic, but as a model, you must surely agree with the concept.

Nope.

 

[Trump Gurl]

He's not a monarch at all, just a really highly exalted priest who has been given the authority to run a small city-state.

No matter how small the state, you are wrong. I can assure you that he is the last absolute ruling monarch. What he says, goes, in that tiny state.

Again, he's not royalty, even though millions treat him as such.

Your post said nothing about having to be royalty. All you said is Constitutional Monarchy. Don't move the goal posts.

Rather, no, he's not

Yes, he is, but since you are not Catholic I don't expect you to believe that.

But he is. :chuckle:


Vatican City State fits the bill of what you said would be a Godly government. I fear your personal beliefs are clouding your objectivity. But that's okay too.

 

[Arthur Brain]

"It's totally untenable in reality just on that score alone?" Try Vatican City State. The Pope is the last absolute ruling monarch, yet he is chosen by his peers and comes from any country and usually from poverty.

So it's not the same then is it? He isn't elected by some random throw of the dice is he? Furthermore, I doubt the pope would support the type of system that JR advocates be enforced all over, you?

That means false religion mixed with true religion. It has to mean that, since not all religions can be true.

Yes. So? You're going to have a disparate mix of beliefs no matter what system is in place. There's a whole variety of beliefs just on this forum alone, even just within Christianity. Presumably you consider Catholicism to be the true faith? Plenty on here don't.

So says the man whose post was totally wrong.

You haven't even highlighted a single thing that was wrong with it and your opinion in itself is hardly a yardstick either.

 

[Trump Gurl]

You haven't even highlighted a single thing that was wrong with it and your opinion in itself is hardly a yardstick either.

I see your ban did not sweeten your disposition. Going for a longer one?

 

[Arthur Brain]

When you put someone to death for a crime, by definition it's called an "execution."

Under the proposed government, adultery alone warrants the death penalty, and thus, he would have been executed.

Oh, under your proposed system, there's a whole load of stuff that would be classified as "crimes" that aren't and shouldn't be. So, I'll stick with my former thanks.

Good thing your opinion of things has no bearing on reality.

Putting someone to death for a crime is by definition "execution," justly killing someone worthy of death.

It wasn't an opinion, it was a fact. I don't recognize your advocation of government as having any basis.

It has plenty of basis. You just don't like it because it's based on Biblical principles.

No, it's based on religious legalism/fundamentalism.

Your opinion has no bearing on what defines reality.

Neither does yours.

You do realize that whoever is chosen by lot does not have to accept the position, right?

They can refuse, and so the lots are cast again to find someone else.

Thinking about it for a moment, I believe that's why Bob included the bit about America being without a king for no more than 7 days... I'll have to ask him about that.

No one is going to force someone to do a job they have no interest in doing.

That still doesn't negate the fact that once chosen the king doesn't actually have to do anything does he? Or even purposely rail against the system from within? I'd accept and would slate the whole set up as an oppressive religious tyranny based on a misguided (at best) delusion that having such a nightmare regime is somehow "Godly". By your own admission I could do that and more and there's nothing that could be done about it. I can't be removed from office and it's not like it's only a few years in power either.

So what?

So out of curiosity, how would it be enforced?

Which is quickly being eroded away by the very type of government you seem to promote.

Um, no it isn't. Yours would do away with it altogether.

:allsmile:

When you reject the foundations of your beliefs, your beliefs start to crumble, and patchwork won't help save them.

A government founded on Biblical principles (regardless of how much you complain about it) is a better form of government than any other you could ever come up with.

Strange smiley to use...

Your system isn't. It's based on something devised by Bob Enyart that has more in common with the religionists and pharisees than it does on any "Biblical principles". Chock full of judgement, legalism, condemnation and punishment and precious little else, certainly not love.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see your ban did not sweeten your disposition. Going for a longer one?

Care to answer the post? Otherwise, there was nothing overtly rude for you to get riled up over. You didn't highlight anything wrong with it and your opinion in itself is hardly a yardstick for something being wrong either.

 

[ok doser]

... certainly not love.

how would a governmental system based on your idea of "love" deal with the child molester, the rapist, the adulterer, the homosexual, the pornographer, the abortionist?


how would your system deal with the rapist, for example, without being judgemental, legalistic, condemning and punishing?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No matter how small the state, you are wrong. I can assure you that he is the last absolute ruling monarch. What he says, goes, in that tiny state.

The tiny nation of Tonga more closely resembles the kind of government advocated here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Tonga

Your post said nothing about having to be royalty. All you said is Constitutional Monarchy. Don't move the goal posts.

Um, monarch = royalty.

No goalpost moving at all.

A monarchy is by definition ruled by royalty.

Yes, he is, but since you are not Catholic I don't expect you to believe that.

But he is. :chuckle:

Saying it doesn't make it so, and neither does repeating yourself make you any less incorrect than you were the first time you said it.

But the Pope being the head of the church is a topic for a different thread.

Vatican City State fits the bill of what you said would be a Godly government.

No, it does not fit it. See the Tonga link above.

And the Vatican is FAR from Godly at this point in time.

Also a discussion for another thread.

I fear your personal beliefs are clouding your objectivity. But that's okay too.

:yawn:

 

[Clete]

Is it not?



I think what I'm trying to get at is that, compared to all other forms of government, a monarchy best fits the natural flow of authority.

https://kgov.com/bel/20130221
https://kgov.com/bel/20130228



I think you're giving too much credit to the "democracy" aspect of it.

Yes, I agree, our nation is one of the most prosperous nations in history, but it's not because of democracy, it's because the founders (well, most of them at least) recognized that God exists and therefore founded this country with that in mind.

I'm not sure if you know this, but we were almost under a monarchy at the beginning, and would have been had Prince Henry not declined to rule us, because they didn't want mob rule, even though that's exactly what this nation ended up with.

https://kgov.com/against-democracy



Again, I think you're giving too much credit to the form of government we started with, seeing as it was pretty much changed soon after our founding.

I'd say is was the fact that our nation was founded on Christian principles (for the most part), and not because we had a republic.



Supra.



No, but I think that ignores the fact that most nations in history have not had access to the resources we have had, and that that access has come not because of democracy, but because some men recognized that God exists and that He created the universe.

Because I can think of a few monarchies just off the top of my head which have produced golden eras where their nation has prospered under their rule.



That I agree with.



Agreed.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with modeling a government after the one God established, especially if it's the kind of government God likes, do you?



And I completely agree that it was the rebellion against God, but I think saying ONLY that undermines a Biblical principle which Moses made clear in the law, and he did so in the law for kings. My argument (and I think Bob's, too) is that in addition[/I to that, it goes against the natural flow of authority, which is downhill.

“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes,that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. - Deuteronomy 17:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:18-20&version=NKJV

The principle is that the government is not above the law.

Which means that it has no authority to judge the law.

Which means that voting on the law is out of the question from a moral perspective.

Laws are discovered, not created nor litigated.

The fact that the king is under the law, and that such law is tied to the natural flow of authority, means or most likely means that having a single point of authority over a nation (under the law and ultimately God) flows from the nature of God Himself, and so any government that does not follow that model, because it is an act of rebellion against God, is not a valid form of government, though a form of government it may be.

A representative form of government (or a democracy, for that matter) inherently violates that law. and goes against the natural flow of authority that God defined in the law.

In other words, I don't think that the laws regarding kings were arbitrary, since having a single ruler over his nation resembles having a single Creator over His Creation, and so does having a single man have rule over his household, a captain over his ship, an admiral over his fleet of ships, etc., etc., etc.

Do you see what I'm saying? Or did I lose you?



Right, but even then, it was still a single man over the nation (even Aaron was under Moses), even if it was a temporary government while God was moving His people to the promised land, and ultimately, while God waited for the right time to give Israel a king.



I think it was one of the main reasons God sucked them down into Hell, for the reasons I stated above.



I think God would have been angry with them for not waiting for His timing, as He was before he appointed Saul as king, but I think it's likely outside the realm of possibility that He would have given them a king at that point, simply because they were not ready for it, and so God needed a government that would serve as the interim between God leading His nation out of Egypt and Him giving them a king.

As it was, God still had single points of authority even without Israel having a king.



See above RE: authority flowing downhill.

A representative form of government where the people elects those who rule directly violates that concept.



Clete, that's an appeal to incredulity. I know you can make better arguments than that!

​

​​

​

​​​

​

​​

​

​​​​



I think this ignores the fact that not all wickedness is equal.

Sure, kings throughout history have committed crimes, but I have yet to be informed of any king (Eider tried to make the case for one of them, but he has yet to provide citations, which I have specifically asked for, his claim) who has actually LEGALIZED the crimes they commit, and I think there's a difference between a king making it ok for just him to do it versus changing the law entirely so that everyone can do it. In other words, if the king did it, it's fine, but if one of his subjects tried to do the same, he would have been punished.

Here in America, we've legalized theft, we've legalized murder, we've legalized homosexuality, and we've all but legalized adultery and perjury.



That is something we agree upon.



No, it wasn't a monarchy, but as I tried to do my best to clarify above, but it WAS a single point of authority under the law, which naturally branched out via subordinates to cover the entire nation.

I think to be more precise, Israel overall didn't have a monarchy so much as it had several different theocratic forms of government that all followed the same principle; A single person governing with branching divisions of power/authority descending from their position, and this even applies to future Israel too, Christ, the Son of God ruling over twelve kings over the twelve tribes of israel.



Agreed.



Then democracy won't do, because it's theft of authority that the people don't have the right to.

The principle is that authority flows downhill, not uphill. Democracy places the people above the government, subverting it's authority.



This I agree with, but I want to point out that even if you have good laws, but the government is allowed to change the laws (not including the "Code of Use," which codifies Real Estate zoning and use of infrastructure) in any way, the government will change those laws.

This is inherent in democracy, and in republics.



:thumb:

​

​​

​

​​​

​

​​

​

​​​​

But I was hoping you could name a few specifics... Hmmm...



Right, but that doesn't mean that He just arbitrarily decided to use a monarchy. See my argument above on this.



:thumb:

​

​​

​

​​​

​

​​

​

​​​​



I think you could word this better.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, the judge has the right to temporarily suspend some of his rights (such as the right to purchase, own, and use personal defense weapons) until the truth can be determined, and in the case of the convicted, in some cases, permanently (for example the right to life).

All humans have God-given rights. Some of the rights of the accused are temporarily suspended while he awaits a verdict from the judge.



Hmm, I don't think I would inherently disagree with that, but I think that it needs to be tempered with the fact that any government that inherently violates any of God's principles of government will tend towards evil at a rate orders of magnitude faster than one that does not.

Compare the several centuries of Israel's monarchies that have very little decay in the government and its laws (even considering that God was actively (at times) participating in leading her), to America and her 243 years of existence and she's already collapsing under the weight of all the crime going on, most of which is the result of the government voting to legalize certain crimes.



There's no mention of one because one isn't needed.

As I said above, and I think you know this but, good laws aren't created or legislated, they're discovered. Since God has already revealed morality to us, that excludes them already. As for the "Code of Use," such as the one in the proposed constitution, you don't need a legislature for approving them.

For example, If a citizen or the king has an idea that would improve the use of infrastructure or the way real estate is zoned, the idea could be taken to the king, and He could decide if it should be implemented. Arguments and counter-arguments could be made about it, but in the end, the decision to implement it would lie with the king, not the people.

From the Amendment process section of the proposed constitution:

The Monarch alone can amend only America’s Code of Use, which amendments or revocations take effect one year from national public notice. Usage Amendments must be germane to the code and consistent with the principles of this Constitution and America’s Criminal Code.

https://kgov.com/constitution



Again, such a body is not needed, and in fact would be redundant, because only the king has the authority to change the "Code of Use."



Within the confines of the criminal code, a man has the right to do what he wants with his own things, and that includes the company he establishes and the money he makes.

Which, yet again, means that such a body would not be needed, because the laws which would govern how companies, corporations, businesses, etc, act would have already been defined in the Criminal Code and the Code of Use.



Fraud is a form of theft, so such would already be illegal.

As long as it doesn't involve the commission of a crime, the market should be for the most part, allowed to find it's own balance.

In other words, a truly free market economy. https://kgov.com/money



What rules are there to determine?

Evidence of a crime is brought to a judge, police look for, find, and catch the suspect/accused, who is then brought before the judge, the judge brings forth the evidence against him, the judge questions him directly, and based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, gives a verdict, and if the person is found guilty, punished within 24 hours of conviction.

Have you read Bob's short novel, The First Five Days?



Why complicate things? No need for a legislature.



As I said earlier, I don't think there's anything wrong with modeling (even if not everything is the same) a government on what God did with Israel.

In other words, if it works, why change it?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



Right, I agree, some things SHOULD NOT be brought over from Israel's government/laws.



I think, if anything, temporary treaties to allow for emergency actions, or military movement, and the like, where possible, would be fine, but anything lasting would be a bad idea.

God tells us to let our yes be yes and our no be no, and not to make oaths (as a general rule of thumb).

Treaties are oaths to follow arbitrary rules agreed upon by two or more governments. Those rules are binding, and again, God expects nations to honor their agreements with other nations, and men with other men.



A government does not have the authority to make a trade agreement. Trade is something that businesses do with other entities.

In the context of this thread, a government may use businesses and companies and manufacturers to build and maintain infrastructure, and military equipment, and things like that, but it does not have the authority to force another nation or corporations, businesses, etc, within that nation to comply with her demands.

This is something that is handled by the free market, which is allowed, within the bounds of the criminal code, to make it's own economic decisions.

If a corporation finds that the business proposition of a potential customer or business partner is unfavorable, then they have every right to refuse to serve that customer, or to refuse to work with that business partner, and the government does not have the right to force that company to do business with them, because that would violate what Jesus said about a man doing what he wants with his own things.



I think Bob addressed this problem the best way possible at https://kgov.com/money:

Here's What Makes the Economy Function: God commands men to "serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). If one man is alone for life on a desert island, there could be no "economy". (Even money itself would become meaningless, for money must be transferable.) If two or more people were shipwrecked on that island, and they refused to work with one another, and stayed isolated, they would not build an economy. On the other hand, as they attempted to survive, or even thrive, if they did begin providing goods and services to one another, then they would gradually build an economy. An economy grows as human beings increasingly serve one another. And an economy will grow most quickly if these men are free, for the Bible says that, "liberty" provides the "opportunity... [to] serve one another." However, if they began to keep to themselves, and stopped trading goods and services, their economy would sputter out and die. (And if all economic cooperation ceased permanently, any money that each had collected would lose its monetary value.) So an economy thrives when men serve one another.

I'm pretty sure this is addressed under "Treaties" in the proposed constitution.

The King has authority to conduct foreign affairs by a good neighbor policy, recognizing that America possesses the rights of the head of house in an emergent society.

:chuckle:

​

​​



:first:

​

​​

First of all I want to say that I somehow missed this post. I really wish they'd figure out how to get us back onto a forum that works properly.

I'm very short on time and can't respond to your post point by point. There wouldn't be much point in doing so anyway because our disagreement isn't that great to begin with.

I agree that the government aught not have the power to regulate morality or decide how crimes should be punished. For example, murder is murder and those convicted of murder should be executed, thieves should be made to pay restitution. etc, etc, etc. I also don't have a problem with the basic idea of a constitutional monarchy.

Where I disagree is, primarily, at one major point...

Random selection of the first king and then birthright succession of the monarch seems utterly foolish. We are not Israel and God is not working supernaturally to choose either our governmental system or our leaders. The average person is quite evil and if you pick by random selection you are all but guaranteed to start your country off with the equivalent of Joey Tribbiani as your king. A far less arbitrary/random selection method would seem to be called for. If we can get God to pick the king then I'm all in but until that happens, random selection seems like civil suicide. You have to at least start with someone that the nation would be willing to submit to and be led by.

Also, there aught to be a lawful mechanism for the peaceful removal of a king from power. A nation aught not have to go to bloody civil war to preserve its just government and the society it creates in opposition to a single man. You will say that any such mechanism has simply replaced the king with a higher authority and that you no longer have a monarchy but I don't buy that argument. A king can do nearly anything he wants at a moments notice whereas any such legal/peaceful/civil removal of a king would be a long and difficult process that couldn't be done at all except in extreme cases. In other words, any such process would be a legally predictable and therefore more peaceful and civilly preservative equivalent of the proposed civil disobedience which would likely only end with the evil king executing a bunch of good people and then going on about his evil business or else it would end in and all out civil war, the end of which is who knows what form of government.

In a sentence, there aught to be a far more rational way of determining who will be the king and there aught to be checks in place on his power as king.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Where I disagree is, primarily, at one major point...

Random selection of the first king and then birthright succession of the monarch seems utterly foolish. We are not Israel and God is not working supernaturally to choose either our governmental system or our leaders. The average person is quite evil and if you pick by random selection you are all but guaranteed to start your country off with the equivalent of Joey Tribbiani as your king. A far less arbitrary/random selection method would seem to be called for. If we can get God to pick the king then I'm all in but until that happens, random selection seems like civil suicide. You have to at least start with someone that the nation would be willing to submit to and be led by.

Well, not that it would ever come about but running with JR's hypothetical your posit certainly makes more sense than his. The chances of a king being chosen by some random throw of the dice who went along with such a form of government would be absolutely remote at best. It's a tiny fraction of Christendom alone that would support such a state. That the "chosen one" wouldn't necessarily have to accept such a position is kinda moot as plenty would and use such a position to usurp from within. However, if such a king enforced the kind of laws that JR advocates then the nation simply wouldn't be willing to submit and be led by him overall. America would no longer be "land of the free" but under strict religious rule and the vast majority of people simply don't want that. If laws were enacted whereby homosexuals are "executed" and punitive measures taken against people having sex out of wedlock/cohabiting such as forcing them to get married with no possibility of divorce etc then it just wouldn't fly. That pretty much leads into your next.

Also, there aught to be a lawful mechanism for the peaceful removal of a king from power. A nation aught not have to go to bloody civil war to preserve its just government and the society it creates in opposition to a single man. You will say that any such mechanism has simply replaced the king with a higher authority and that you no longer have a monarchy but I don't buy that argument. A king can do nearly anything he wants at a moments notice whereas any such legal/peaceful/civil removal of a king would be a long and difficult process that couldn't be done at all except in extreme cases. In other words, any such process would be a legally predictable and therefore more peaceful and civilly preservative equivalent of the proposed civil disobedience which would likely only end with the evil king executing a bunch of good people and then going on about his evil business or else it would end in and all out civil war, the end of which is who knows what form of government.

In a sentence, there aught to be a far more rational way of determining who will be the king and there aught to be checks in place on his power as king.

Realistically, a "rebellious" king would have far more support than one who went with the proposed status quo. Most of the armed forces wouldn't agree with such a zealous religious state for starters. That he can't be removed only underscores how flawed this whole proposition is also. If a king endorsed such measures then you'd inevitably have civil disruption because people's freedom and liberties have been effectively neutralized. There would also likely be military support for a takeover given how much personal liberty is valued in the West. Ultimately it's a hypothetical that simply wouldn't work and really, kinda crazy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

First of all I want to say that I somehow missed this post.

No worries!

I really wish they'd figure out how to get us back onto a forum that works properly.

I think a lot of it is on the vBulletin side of things, and not so much TOL's side.

I'm very short on time and can't respond to your post point by point. There wouldn't be much point in doing so anyway because our disagreement isn't that great to begin with.

Fair enough

​

​​

​

​​​

I agree that the government aught not have the power to regulate morality or decide how crimes should be punished. For example, murder is murder and those convicted of murder should be executed, thieves should be made to pay restitution. etc, etc, etc. I also don't have a problem with the basic idea of a constitutional monarchy.

:thumb:

​

​​

​

​​​

Where I disagree is, primarily, at one major point...

Random selection of the first king and then birthright succession of the monarch seems utterly foolish. We are not Israel and God is not working supernaturally to choose either our governmental system or our leaders. The average person is quite evil and if you pick by random selection you are all but guaranteed to start your country off with the equivalent of Joey Tribbiani as your king. A far less arbitrary/random selection method would seem to be called for. If we can get God to pick the king then I'm all in but until that happens, random selection seems like civil suicide. You have to at least start with someone that the nation would be willing to submit to and be led by.

Alright, let's deal with the choosing of a king first.

Random selection of the first king

I'll just quote the relevant portion of https://kgov.com/biblical-apologetic...ional-monarchy

* Lots avoid divisiveness: "Casting lots causes contentions to cease, and keeps the mighty apart" (Prov. 18:18) Thus selecting leadership by lottery avoids many of the terrible effects of democracies and republics. * To replace Judas, "they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26). * God led the prophet Samuel to select by lot kings Saul (1 Sam. 10:20‐24) and David (1 Sam. 16:7‐12). * The Feast of Purim, meaning lots, celebrates the salvation of the Jews from destruction by their enemies (Esther 3:7). * Lots could make hard governmental decisions, for they “cast lots to bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem...” (Neh. 11:1). * For 1,000 years, lots determined the order of the service of the 24 divisions of the Jewish priesthood (1 Chr. 24:5‐19). * Zacharias served "according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell... when he went into the temple," (Luke 1:9). * God commanded Israel to divide the Promised Land among their tribes by casting lots (Num. 26:52‐56; 33:54). * In matters of absolute right and wrong, you find God's will in the outcome; otherwise, you find it in the manner of conduct. The selection of a specific leader is not a matter of absolute right and wrong, but of conduct. As justice is blind, and impartial, so is the best process for selecting a monarch, which helps fight the raw ambition of politics. * The process of choosing a leader determines whether the selection is God's will or not; e.g. usurping a throne violates God's will. God authorized selection of leaders by lot, for "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Prov. 16:33). * Casting lots for a king does not ensure the best selection but promotes national humility before God in the selection process. [C P]

We are not Israel

Agreed, but let's not forget that we're talking about the principles involved here generally, not specifically how they relate to Israel.

God is not working supernaturally to choose either our governmental system or our leaders. . . . If we can get God to pick the king then I'm all in...

I think the second to last point above addresses this...

A far less arbitrary/random selection method would seem to be called for.

What would you propose?

You have to at least start with someone that the nation would be willing to submit to and be led by.

That's what Israel did with Saul, and God didn't like it one bit, but He went along with it. Could it have worked? It's possible, but Saul became so wicked, that God removed him because his wickedness would have gotten in the way of God's plan.

So God Himself picked a king, and I agree, not by lottery, but because David had the right qualities God was looking for.

And that ties in with the lottery, not that whoever is chosen has the right qualities, but that, in effect, they are being chosen by God because, as Proverbs 16 says (and as a figure of speech, of course, not as a woodenly literal explanation of how lotteries work):

The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

As for this:

birthright succession of the monarch

Authority naturally flows downhill, from God through government to the people, from parents to children, from King to Prince. God had a unique covenant relationship with national Israel, and occasionally explicitly intervened to select their kings. Today God's covenant is with the inter­national Body of Christ; and now He does not explicitly intervene in governments. As a model, Jesus the Son of God, said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Mat. 28:18). Jesus, the King of Kings, is the Mary's "firstborn Son" (Mat. 1:24­25; see also Mark 6:3; etc.). A hereditary monarchy minimizes the instances in which a leader must be selected, and maximizes historical stability.

Also, there ought to be a lawful mechanism for the peaceful removal of a king from power.

From above:

The process of choosing a leader determines whether the selection is God's will or not; e.g. usurping a throne violates God's will. God authorized selection of leaders by lot, for "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Prov. 16:33).

In other words, there is no way to do such without violating God's will. And because of that, Romans 3:8 also applies here, if I may paraphrase: Don't do evil that good may come of it.

In addition to that, allowing revolt (because that's what you're suggesting be allowed, though you probably don't think of it that way, but that's what it is, overthrowing the current government) inherently encourages it, making it far more likely that the people would undermine the government's authority, while prohibiting it would promote humility, so that they would not revolt, but instead plead with their king to "straighten up," so to speak, and not be evil, which ties in to what Bob pointed out, that a single point of accountability often rightly motivates, and while institutions virtually never repent, individuals often do, and even if they don't, a wicked king, barring his repentance, can die, whereas institutions can potentially carry on for multiple lifetimes. (Sorry for the run-on sentence, had train of thought pop up in my head and didn't want to lose it.)

A nation aught not have to go to bloody civil war to preserve its just government and the society it creates in opposition to a single man.

I recommend (when/if you have the time) that you listen to this show from 2003 on a very similar topic, America's War for Independence.

https://kgov.com/bel/20030501

You will say that any such mechanism has simply replaced the king with a higher authority

Has it not?

Such a mechanism inherently subverts the authority God gave to governments, even wicked ones.

Don't forget what Paul said:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV

Of course, if the government is telling you to do evil, you obey God rather than man, which is where the civil disobedience comes in.

and that you no longer have a monarchy but I don't buy that argument.

I wouldn't say that it would no longer be a monarchy, but it certainly would undermine the king's God-given authority.

A king can do nearly anything he wants at a moments notice whereas any such legal/peaceful/civil removal of a king would be a long and difficult process that couldn't be done at all except in extreme cases.

In other words, any such process would be a legally predictable and therefore more peaceful and civilly preservative equivalent of the proposed civil disobedience which would likely only end with the evil king executing a bunch of good people and then going on about his evil business or else it would end in and all out civil war, the end of which is who knows what form of government.

From https://kgov.com/the-us-constitution...onstitutional:

Right to Revolution: Thomas Jefferson, by his left-wing ideology, claimed a right to revolution which biblical principles disallow. Jefferson incorrectly claimed a "Right of the People to alter or to abolish" the government, whereas God does not authorize private individuals or groups to use force against governing authorities, which is fundamentally criminal and unavoidably destabilizing. Incorrectly referring to America's War of Independence as The Revolutionary War gives dangerous precedence to violent revolutionaries. King David's non-violent disobedience against his own murderous king (2 Sam. 24:1-22) gives a biblical example of a just response to a criminal government. Back ¡

Removing the ruling king to put in a new one, or to abolish the monarchy completely, amounts to revolt, which is criminal, and the government would have every right to punish those who revolt.

In a sentence, there aught to be a far more rational way of determining who will be the king

I don't think there's any way other than by lottery that does not in some way violate Biblical principles.

But I'm certainly not against hearing any ideas you might have...

and there aught to be checks in place on his power as king.

From Bob's Political Apologetic for the Proposed Constitution (which has not been posted yet on Kgov.com but that Bob sent me a couple of years ago):

King Prevails: Political Argument [Constitution Biblical] · Man cannot devise a system of checks and balances likely to produce just leadership. · That one man may rule justly is far more probable than that a committee of men will do so. · Impeachment committees will be corrupted by bad leaders, or eventually usurp authority from the good. · Giving “the people” charge over an impeachment committee guarantees nothing but growing corruption. · A human government cannot prevent tyranny; such a government would be an illusion, denying reality. · No practical authority can exist above the leader, or else that authority would be the leader. · Authority flows downhill, not uphill, and certainly not in a circle. There must be an ultimate ruler somewhere. · No constitution can devise a separation of powers that actually produces good government. · Thus as the supreme human authority in the land the king must have final say over all other men. · Good eventually wins. So America will see vengeance against a wicked king at least by Judgment Day. [C B]

-------------------

Let me know if I missed something.

 

[Clete]

Well, not that it would ever come about but running with JR's hypothetical your posit certainly makes more sense than his. The chances of a king being chosen by some random throw of the dice who went along with such a form of government would be absolutely remote at best. It's a tiny fraction of Christendom alone that would support such a state. That the "chosen one" wouldn't necessarily have to accept such a position is kinda moot as plenty would and use such a position to usurp from within. However, if such a king enforced the kind of laws that JR advocates then the nation simply wouldn't be willing to submit and be led by him overall. America would no longer be "land of the free" but under strict religious rule and the vast majority of people simply don't want that. If laws were enacted whereby homosexuals are "executed" and punitive measures taken against people having sex out of wedlock/cohabiting such as forcing them to get married with no possibility of divorce etc then it just wouldn't fly. That pretty much leads into your next.



Realistically, a "rebellious" king would have far more support than one who went with the proposed status quo. Most of the armed forces wouldn't agree with such a zealous religious state for starters. That he can't be removed only underscores how flawed this whole proposition is also. If a king endorsed such measures then you'd inevitably have civil disruption because people's freedom and liberties have been effectively neutralized. There would also likely be military support for a takeover given how much personal liberty is valued in the West. Ultimately it's a hypothetical that simply wouldn't work and really, kinda crazy.

There is exactly nothing here worth responding to! You flat out do not have a clue what you're talking about.

Do me favor and don't take my side.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Clete I updated my post, changed something I said in response to "You will say that any such mechanism has simply replaced the king with a higher authority"