An Advocation of Government

[ok doser]

Just reading Catholic commentary on this incident and it seems the Catholics have decided the adulterous woman became Mary Magdalene and then to compound their foolishness they made her Saint Mary and sent her off to heaven!
The account is interesting in that the scribes and the Pharisees attempted to stone him in the temple despite the Roman rulers banning the Jews stoning anyone.
On looking up interpretations of John 8 I found a Jewish website which demanded the reference to the Bible be removed and the incident treated as myth!

Quote: 3@Yirmeyahu as I recall, the passage describes a mob, not a judicial hearing and execution. The scene described certainly doesn't comply with Masechet Sanhedrin. – Monica Cellio Jan 21 '14 at 0:08

• 1
  Mawia, I've removed the link to a Christian bible site. Please edit in a citation, but for the sensibilities of some here leave out a link to such a site. – Seth J Jan 21 '14 at 0:37
• 2
  @WadCheber the focus on Mi Yodeya is Judaism rather than debunking Christian myths, so the part about this not even being a credible account is something I would treat as a footnote. Answers should focus on the three questions called out at the end and treat the quoted passage as motivation for the question. If you've got something to add on those points please feel free to add an answer. Meanwhile, your comment points out the problem with the passage. – Monica Cellio Aug 26 '15 at 0:07
• 2
  It is perhaps worth noting that this passage was almost certainly not a part of the original text of John and was added to the text a couple centuries later (though the story itself goes back at least to the 2nd century). – Noah Snyder Aug 27 '15 at 0:07

Obviously, the passage from John which you have quoted above falls under the second category¹: no authorities, whether Roman or Jewish, are involved in this sequence of events. Rather, a mob is attempting to stone this woman of their own volition.

Not a mob

A group of pharisees and scribes

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you think that this is the standard that we need to accuse someone of a crime? That the accuser must be sinless?

No. Straight enough answer for you?

 

[ok doser]

oh dear

what's he done now?

 

[Trump Gurl]

His first sentence in Post #296 was: "Not only was your post stupid but so is the person who wrote it!"
That is what you call being rational?

Yes, and that was correct.
Yes, that is Clete being VERY rational.

What's the matter, you don't like Catholics who pull the covers off your Islam-Lite extremism of wanting to put sinners to death in the name of God? You're no Christian. Your desire to kill people and make yourself God, and your willingness to lie so easily proves that.
Now, go ahead and infract that too. That's what insecure boys do.

Infraction for Disrespect of TOL Staff.

If I had known that your petulant unwarranted ban had been immediately reversed I would have been back sooner to reiterate that your position on this subject is ridiculous and that you are more Muslim than Christian if you think you should be putting people to death as you see fit. It didn't work for Hitler.

We all hate the extremism of the socialist Democrats. Well you make them look like George Washington.

Your position in this thread is that of an extremist, and your behavior in this thread is that of a petulant child.

Take care before lashing out again.

I post my previous post again, which is the truth:

Here's my last offering since I am being trolled by socialists and tools:

I have no problem with establishing a God-based government. But here is the biggest problem: There are millions of Christians who disagree on what true Christian teaching is. So who gets to be in charge? I say that we already have such a government in Vatican City State. The Pope really is the successor of Saint Peter, who was appointed by Jesus. But that will not be accepted by Protestants. Likewise, running around putting everybody to death for sins like some sort of Christian Jihadists would never wash with most Christians and your government would be quickly demolished by a revolution.

So this whole academic exercise is pointless. God already has things set up the way he wants them. He has His Church on earth, and we are to live our lives as he wants us to, and along the way render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. If we sin, then we ask forgiveness and move forward, and we thank Him for His mercy for not striking us dead on the spot as you nutjobs would.

When we pass from this world to the next, then we will be judged. And here is my dire warning to you folks: Pray that he will not impose the same severity upon you that you would heap upon others.

 

[Trump Gurl]

If Trump Gurl comes back, I'd like to see her take a crack at this:

What do you think should be the punishment for adultery and why?

Also:

What do you think should be the punishment for murder and why?

What do you think should be the punishment for rape and why?

What do you think should be the punishment for child molestation and why?

What do you think should be the punishment for homosexuality and why?

Adultery and homosexuality, the punishment should be left to God not government.

Murder, either the death penalty or life in prison.

Rape and child molestation, many many many years in prison.

As for the why, it will have to wait until I have more spare time.

oh dear

what's he done now?

Irony. In this thread was one of the few times he was making some sense. (some)

 

[Trump Gurl]

Another thought: I will assume that everyone here believes in Free Will. God allows us to choose him or choose evil. And if we choose evil he still gives us a lifetime to repent and choose him.

This insane Muslim-lite government proposed by the "moderator" takes away that choice. His government imposes Christian sin, morals, and punishment, upon people with free will. That is NOT Godly.

The more I think about it, the US Constitution is about as Godly as it gets. It limits the power of government to those things necessary, and gives people the freedom and liberty to choose how to live, the same freedom and liberty that God created man with.

Yes, this whole thread is based on ignorance, and it is an attack on free will. e have a lifetime to repent as designed by God, and no government should impose anything different.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If I had known that your petulant unwarranted

It was warranted.

ban had been immediately reversed I would have been back sooner

The only reason you got off easy was because Jefferson let you off the hook mistakenly. I believe he sent you a message. You should read that.

to reiterate

Repeating yourself cannot and will not make your claim less invalid.

that your position on this subject is ridiculous

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to ridicule.

You should avoid making logical fallacies when engaging in a discussion.

and that you are more Muslim than Christian

Nope. I take a purely Biblical position when talking about how a government should function (among other topics).

if you think you should be putting people to death

I'm not the one who originally said to put people to death for capital crimes.

That would be God. If you have an issue with it, that's your own problem. You should humble yourself and seek out what God said on the issue in the Bible, and then believe that.

In other words, don't take my word for it that God said to put people to death for certain crimes, read it for yourself in Scripture.

as you see fit.

Now, see, that's the sort of straw man that you keep throwing out hoping it will stick.

Not once have I proposed (nor has Bob Enyart, for that matter) that the government should just kill people as I "see fit."

It's based on what God says should be the punishment for certain crimes.

It didn't work for Hitler.

What's Hitler got to do with this?

We all hate the extremism of the socialist Democrats. Well you make them look like George Washington.

Sorry, but I'm a right-winger, not a lefty.

I make GW look like a modern day Dumbocrat.

Your position in this thread is that of an extremist,

You're right. I'm an extremist.

But not left-wing.

If Bob Enyart is America's most popular, self-proclaimed, right-wing religious fanatic, homophobic, anti-choice talk show host ...

Then I'm a not so popular self-proclaimed, right-wing religious fanatic, homophobic, anti-choice truck driver.

:chuckle:

and your behavior in this thread is that of a petulant child.

Take care before lashing out again.

See, now, this is the thing you got in trouble for. Again, go read Jefferson's message to you.

The infraction you received was valid.

Don't force my hand and make me have to give you another one.

I post my previous post again, which is the truth:

Your post has been addressed already.

Repeating yourself doesn't advance your position at all.

Adultery and homosexuality, the punishment should be left to God not government.

Is it possible that God defined what the punishment should be already?

Murder, either the death penalty or life in prison.

So, either death or life?

Not "Life for life?"

Rape and child molestation, many many many years in prison.

How long do you think is long enough for someone who has committed one of those crimes?

10 years? 25? 50? 100?

Better question: Did God ever say what should be done with prisoners?

Did He ever determine when someone should be locked up?

As for the why, it will have to wait until I have more spare time.

Ok.

Irony. In this thread was one of the few times he was making some sense. (some)

Nah, Arty makes mostly emotional arguments, most of which are fallacious or miss the point entirely.

Another thought: I will assume that everyone here believes in Free Will. God allows us to choose him or choose evil. And if we choose evil he still gives us a lifetime to repent and choose him.

Agreed.

This insane Muslim-lite

You can stop with this straw man and appeal to ridicule fallacy.

The proposed government is NOT Muslim AT ALL.

government proposed by the "moderator"

Yes, I am a moderator.

However, when I made this thread, I was still a regular member like you.

I pinned this thread only recently, January, in fact, because Bob put up the proposed constitution again, perhaps for the final time, and he intends to leave it up.

You can see it at http://kgov.com/constitution

takes away that choice.

Um, no, it doesn't.

You seem to think that people don't have a chance to repent after committing a crime.

They have plenty of opportunity to do so.

And (regarding the proposed government) from the time of their sentencing, to the carrying out of their punishment, they even have up to 24 hours to do so.

How long does it take to repent and turn to God? A few seconds? Out of 24 hours? More than enough time.

His government imposes Christian sin,

"Christian sin"?

What's that?

morals, and punishment,

Yes, Biblical morals and punishments for criminals, implemented by God Himself.

And, barring the symbolic, ceremonial, and sacrificial ordinances intended only for Israel and which laws and punishments were mostly arbitrary, if God determines a punishment for a crime is just, who are you to say it is unjust, let alone have the gall to call it "Muslim-lite"?

upon people with free will.

And? So what?

That is NOT Godly.

God Himself said the following:

"And will you profane Me . . . killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live?”

The more I think about it, the US Constitution is about as Godly as it gets.

So having in your law (originally) that a black man is 3/5 of a person is Godly?

Not to mention that the US Constitution is itself unconstitutional...

Doesn't sound very Godly to me.

It limits the power of government to those things necessary,

And yet, today we have a bloated government that has its fingers in just about everything we do.

How's that "limiting government" going?

and gives people the freedom and liberty to choose how to live,

No it doesn't.

the same freedom and liberty that God created man with.

"Pursuit of happiness" is not something that God gave man the right to.

Yes, this whole thread is based on ignorance,

This coming from someone calling a Biblically based government "Muslim-lite".

:mock:

and it is an attack on free will.

Have you even read the proposed constitution yet?

If not, PLEASE DO!

It doesn't help you to argue against my position when you don't even know what it says.

[W]e have a lifetime to repent as designed by God,

Except you lose the right to life when you commit a capital crime, and that comes from God.

and no government should impose anything different.

Than what God says for a government to do? I agree.

Which is why I say that governments have the right to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes, such as murder, rape, adultery, homosexuality, and pedophilia.

 

[Clete]

Okay, first of all, I'm sorry that this is hideously long! You don't even have to read it all, never mind respond to it all. Just read it through and post something that responds to it in general terms. Our two major points of disagreement remain the same...

1. TOTALLY random selection of the first king.
2. Having no legal way of convicting the king of crimes and removing him from power, if not from this life like everyone else.

It would be rebellion against the natural flow of authority.

The king is over the whole nation, but not the law. The people, be it one person or a committee or the nation as a whole, do not have the authority over the king to remove him from leadership, nor is there any way to have a law in place that would allow them to remove him, because that would undermine his authority.

No it wouldn't.

Look, you can't have it both ways. The king is either under the law or he is isn't. If he is under it then he must obey it and if he doesn't then the law prescribes the means of both his trial and his punishment if convicted. If there is no way to put the king on trial or to convict him of a crime or to punish him then he is not under the law, by definition.

It's not the authority structure of the nation that I'm talking about, though. It's the natural structure of authority itself that flows downhill from God, through the law, to the leader of a nation, to his subjects, and from there, it's the leader of the household, which should be (but often isn't) the father, to the wife, to the children, to any pets.

That's the natural flow of authority that Bob talks about.

Any system that compromises that flow is inherently unnatural, if not unjust.

First of all this seems like a distinction without a difference, right? I mean, the authority structure of a nation is rightly defined by the natural structure of authority, is it not?

Also, as far it is goes, this all sounds terrific except that, in the proposed system, there seems to be no flow "through the law, to the leader of a nation". At what point can the law touch the king? What, other than a love for God, can motivate the king to obey a law that no one has any authority to enforce against him? Is the king under a sort of governmental grace or is he under the law of the land?

The only thing my argument presupposes is that the natural flow of authority being downhill comes from God, and that THAT should not be violated, and also that God likes it when individuals rule, and not multiple people.

I guess what I'm driving at is that you've not established that the flow of authority is valid at every point. Specifically, as I stated a moment ago, there seems to be no flow through the law to the king. At the very least there seems to be a strong eddy current in the flow in this area. The king's authority is defined by the law which he is then free to violate without fear of the law's prescribed punishment being applied to him or even that he would be convicted of the crime for that matter.

n other words, any government, so long as it keeps the natural flow of authority flowing downhill, and not try to compromise that flow, will, as a general rule of thumb, work better and be more successful than one that inherently does.

And as far as I'm aware, and I've asked you to see if you can think of any but, the only forms of government that do that naturally are monarchies and patriarchies, and perhaps dictatorships (would emperors be considered monarchs?) but other than that, I can't think of any others.

I don't think we disagree on this particular point. I have no problem with a monarchy, per se, nor with most of the rest of what Bob proposes. It just seems to me to need tweaking in a couple of areas. Namely the random choosing of the first king and also in the area of whether the king can get away with murdering his subjects (or whatever other law he wants to break.)

Actually, and I'm sure you've heard Bob say this before, but it was God through Moses who first wrote that the king is not above the law, but that he should keep a copy of it with him always, to guide him.

My position is the same. The king is not above the law. Being above every court in the land doesn't make him above the law, it just makes him above any human court, excepting an external government's intervention.

I understand that this is what you believe but it just seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways. On one hand you say that the king is not above the law but on the other hand acknowledge that there is no provision in the law that can be enforced against the king.

As above, from the proposed constitution:

Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God

"...his (the king's) decisions final on Earth even if unjust" is just another way of saying that the king is functionally above the law.

If a king can get away with unjust commands, what's to stop him from crushing the "non-violent civil disobedience" with the police force or even the military? Of course, there is nothing at all to stop him except perhaps if the police and the military both revolt against the king's command but then you're simply talking about either an outright civil war or at the very least some sort of coups d'état. Surely, there must be some civilized way to overcome an unjust king apart from the use of deadly force.

In other words, the law should deter him from changing the law, for one because it means every citizen in the nation would rebel against him, and two because any sane person would love to be exempt from taxes for up to two years by engraving the law and criminal code and placing it in their yard, which means that they are more likely to follow the law, and three because a single point of authority often rightly motivates.

In short what you're talking about is trying to set up the society in such a way as to making it politically impossible for the king to do something in opposition to the law by making the knowledge of the law so ubiquitous that it becomes socially stigmatic and therefore politically incorrect to violate the law.

In which direction is the flow of authority going in such a situation? From the top down or the bottom up?

On that third point, as an example, even though Pontius Pilate is probably the most wicked man in history for sentencing an innocent man to death, he still said Jesus was innocent. It was the "jury," the committee, that demanded he be put to death.

First of all the term "jury" and "committee" are not the perfect synonyms that this point wants to imply. They have similarities but they are not the same thing. The term "jury", as it is used today, implies a group of people who make potentially arbitrary decisions that the jury members are not held accountable for. There is almost no other sort of committee where this is the case.

Second, no one is advocating for a jury system anyway and most especially not one where jury members would not be held responsible for their decisions.

Again, my premise isn't that it would be unlawful, because then all it would take would be to incorporate it into the law, but that it would be WRONG to have a system that undermined the natural flow of authority.

As I said, you've not established that the proposed system meets this "natural flow of authority" criteria.

I hate to say it, Clete, but you're almost making the same argument a legalist makes when they defend the killing of innocent children or when they defend homosexuality. They're both legal, both accepted, but the actions themselves are still wrong.

This is completely backward!

You're the one here advocating for a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, where the king can ignore the constitution with effectively no legal consequence, or at least none that bears any resemblance to anything associated with justice. You just got through quoting Bob where he explicitly states that the king has the last word whether his word is just or not, right?

In other words, in the proposed system, the king's wrong behavior is not only morally wrong, it's legal!

In the same way, incorporating a system into the law to allow for the king to be removed is still wrong, even though it may be legal, because such a process inherently undermines his authority. It usurps his authority.

I disagree entirely. The law is the basis for his authority. The law came before the king just as God came before the law. And it was the law that prescribed the process by which the king was crowned and put in his place of authority. For that same law to prescribe a means by which a particular king could be removed only reinforces the notion that the nation is ruled by the law and not a man.

In other words, it makes the government circular, which, like the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, has no foundation.[/quote]
What? This is flatly wrong. The foundation of any human government is the law. The rule of law is the entire point of this entire discussion! The government is not based upon some nebulous, undefined notion of right vs. wrong but upon the law which clearly defines what is and is not permitted by those under it. Placing provisions in the law that permit a king to be held responsible for his actions does not usurp the king. On the contrary, if the king can ignore the law without legal consequence, it is the king who usurps the law.

It's in Colossians 1:16.

It's particularly in Romans 13:1-7.

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/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities."

That includes those within the government.

"whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God"

If you have a system that usurps the authority of the ruler, you're effectively disobeying God.

This is only true if that usurpation is unlawful. Again, the king gets his authority from the law, not the other way around. Even the proposed system explicitly advocates the refusal to pay taxes if those taxes were enacted unlawfully. If the refusal to pay taxes is not considered a usurpation of the king's authority based on the fact that it is lawful disobedience to the king, per the constitution, then on what basis would a lawful removal of a king who has been convicted of a major crime be considered not only a usurpation of the king's authority but a rebellion against God?

I think you missed the point there.

The point is that a singular ruler has the possibility of being a good ruler, even though the majority of the rulers overall will be wicked, whereas a group of people ruling by committee is wicked and guaranteed to become more and more wicked over time, and thus such a government will decay orders of magnitude quicker than will a government where only one man rules.

No, this is not the point of picking the first king by random lottery. This is the point of having a king, yes, but it isn't the reason why the first one it picked at random.

The point of doing it by lots is the idea that God is going to control which side the dice falls on. A terrific assumption to make if you're Israel and thus happen to be the particular nation that God is actively working with and intervening on behalf of. Not such a terrific assumption of you're not that nation.

I don't think there is anyone who could claim to be wise enough to be able to devise such a system, because such an effort is, at best, foolish.

How so?

I know a decent man when I see one. Are you going to tell me that you are unable to know whether Bob Enyart, just to give one obvious example, would likely be a better king than would just any old randomly picked average person? You would make a better king than the average Joe Smuck who likely doesn't spend ten minutes a month giving serious thought to matters of morality, law, government or anything else that might qualify someone to be the leader of a nation.

I'm reminded of a vignette that Ravi Zacharias gave in one of his books. I think it was "Can Man Live Without God" but I'm not sure about that. He has the reader imaging himself walking alone down a dark alley when suddenly a group of men come out of a doorway into the alley. He then asks whether it would make a difference in your reaction if there was a sign above the doorway that read something along the lines of "Nightly men's bible study here. All are welcome!"?

It would totally make all the difference in the world, right? That's because people are capable of making correct moral judgments and are in fact, quite good at doing so.

Is it then so unreasonable to, at the very least, pick someone to be the first king who has some qualifications to be the moral leader of the nation? Do we really have to have closeted homosexuals, fornicators, idolators and all other haters of God on equal footing in the random selection of the first king of what is an overtly Christian government?

Only God is wise enough, and even He can't see the future.

Well, that's true enough and if there were some means by which we could have God Himself choose the king, then I'd be all in but there is no biblical guarantee that God would do so for this or any other nation in the dispensation of grace.

And then the King, who is the highest judge in the land, would simply dismiss the case against himself.

Yeah, in the proposed system he would! That's just the whole entire point!

There aught to be some legal provision where such a criminal proceeding can take place where the king has no authority to undo the verdict. How that proceeding would be initiated and how it would proceed, I do not know. I'm not advocating a specific legal process but only that such a process is not only possible but aught to exist as a matter of principle and that if it does not, the king exists in a de facto position above the law.

If he's a good king, then why should his advisors not help guide him?

And if he's a bad king, then why would he listen to such proceedings anyways?

That's why his fate (to use a pagan term) rests in God's hands, so to speak, and not in a legal proceeding that wouldn't work anyways.

Why wouldn't it work?

Your argument presupposes that any king has the ability to ignore the law. If that were the case it would be a fatal argument against the entire notion that such a governmental system was just in the first place.

"The people" means whatever legal proceeding anyone could ever think up, popular vote, court hearing, you name it.

No it doesn't.

It can mean that but it doesn't have to mean that nor has it meant that throughout the history of this country. Quite the contrary, in fact. The framers spent a good deal of effort trying their best to greatly limit the influence of democracy in our government. It has increased it's influence but its still quite far from even being what the framer referred to as "mob rule" much less "whatever legal proceeding anyone could ever think up". The fact is that it's rather difficult to get a law passed in this country and even harder to get an existing law over turned, regardless of how unpopular it is.

Besides all that, I'm not suggesting any form of democratic means of removing the king where a king can be removed because he is unpopular.

Or what, do you think some computer program should oversee such a trial? It doesn't even know the difference between right and wrong, how is it going to determine if the king is either? I know that sounds silly, but I can't think of any alternatives that don't involve "people."

You're arguing against your own proposed system. Any court is run by people including the entire system of courts the proposed system would have at it's core. Every judge is a human judge and all of them would be held accountable for their decisions by other human judges. All of them, that is, except the king who sits above it all, untouchable by any law or legal proceeding.

No system is any more trustworthy than the people who are chosen to run it. That's just as true of your system as it would be if that same system was used with provisions added that held the king accountable for his actions.

Here's the difference though: The proposed government doesn't try to prevent tyranny. It acknowledges it as a possibility, but notes that such a ruler is accountable to THE Ultimate Authority, God Himself.

We are all accountable to God, JudgeRightly! All of us! Why then should regular people be subject to both God and the king? Why permit the king to ignore the law while he gets to crush his subjects under his boot? What makes the king any different than me in regards to criminal justice and the rule of law this side of the judgement of God?

All the other governments that have been proposed ever throughout the course of history (aside from God setting up Israel) have all tried in some way or another to prevent tyranny. Not one of them has ever succeeded. It's a utopia. It doesn't exist, nor can it, not until Christ Himself is ruling.

This is not relevant and does not help your argument in the slightest.

Further, I don't believe it's quite true. Governments have not attempted to prevent tyranny but to curtail it, to limit it. Some governments have succeeded in that effort more than others. I challenge you to find any government in the whole history of man that has afforded its citizens more freedom than you have right now on March 13, 2020 than does the United States of America. If you think this government is tyrannical, you need to reexamine you definition of tyranny. You and I both are "one percenters". We are more wealthy than 99% of all the human beings that have ever existed on the face of the Earth. We have the freedom to live were we like, worship as we like, and do whatever it is we decide we want to do for a living. We both have likely owned several homes and currently own more than one car, each of which is worth more money than most people alive today make in a year's time. We have instant access to any sort of food you can think virtually all of which is available in such quantity that it is all not only available on demand but quite affordable. You can go to the doctor any time you decide that it's warranted and again, it is, for the most part, quite easily affordable. All because we live in a capitalistic country (capitalism is the opposite of tyranny). In short, there has never been a better time as a human being to be alive on planet Earth and there has never been a better place to live than in the United States of America.

Now, that isn't because of our republican form of government, it's because of our capitalistic form of economy but nevertheless, we are not living under a tyrant yet, although the left is trying hard and making progress in that direction.

You know that isn't true, Clete. Our government is probably one of the MOST tyrannical governments.

Unbelievably false. Totally complete irrational nonsense.

If you think this country is more tyrannical than Mexico then explain to me why we are in the process of building barriers to keep people from leaving their home country, traveling all the way through the entire nation of Mexico on foot to get to here? Why do people risk their lives and the lives of their own children at every opportunity to cross an ocean to get from Cuba to the Florida coast?

By what possible metric could anyone suppose that the United States is anything remotely like truly tyrannical governments like that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein or the current Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad or communist China's Xi Jinping or North Korea's Kim Jong-un. And those are all countries that have (or had) kings (or the equivalent)!

Have you ever been to Europe? If you think we have laws here, don't ever bother even visiting Europe! They've got rules on top of rules on top of rules that govern every aspect of your life over there. You can't even throw away a piece of trash over there without think about the rules governing which bin that piece of trash has to go into. It's ridiculous!

We have probably one of the most extensive law systems in the world which is just a system, not a justice system (kgov.com/just-a-system, we have some of the highest tax rates in the world (https://kgov.com/taxes), the government has its fingers in just about everything we do in our daily lives, and it lets criminal perverts run rampant through the streets of our biggest cities, all while letting murderers continue to murder innocent children behind closed doors, and they even make money off of it.

If that's not tyrannical, I don't know what is.

Yeah, sorry but it's the latter.

I mean, I get your point but this is just flat out not a tyranny under any definition of the word. There is not one law, regulation or rule that could not be over turned if the population decided to do so. That doesn't mean it's just because it can over turn good laws just as quickly as it can over turn bad ones but that's not the point. The point is that this is not a tyranny.

Just a few years ago we just elected a man as President that has set about deleting a great deal of power from the government and massively decreasing the tax burden on virtually every citizen. That does not happen if the country is ruled by a tyrant.

All of us are completely free to leave the state we live it or even leave the country itself and never come back. We don't have to have permission from the government to leave, we don't even have to tell the government where we are going or why we are going there. We can travel to any nation in the world at virtually a moment's notice and most other nations would never force us to ever go back home. That is the absolute opposite of a tyrannical government.

Want to start a business? You can do it! In nearly all cases, you don't need anyone's permission whatsoever. So long as you pay your taxes and aren't doing something crazy like selling children or illicit drugs or some other criminal enterprise, you are completely free to start whatever business you desire. That is the opposite of a tyranny.

I could literally go on for hours. You do not live under a tyrannical government - period.

I'm trying to find it, but it's in either first or second Samuel that God defines a tyrannical government as one that takes more than 10% of one's goods as tax.

Here in the US, the government takes around 40-50%.

In one sense tyranny exists in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. It is also a matter of degrees where one government is "tyrannical" in comparison to another but I'm talking about an actual tyranny where the government rules by fiat command, where there is no rule of law and were people have to get permission from the government to do anything of any importance and aren't free to speak their mind, to assemble as they desire or to worship as the see fit, etc.

I'm gonna use your phrase here, Clete.

I reject that premise and so reject your argument, the premise being that America has done a really good job of preventing tyranny.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

That point DOES, at the very least, not favor a system by which to prevent tyranny, but certainly does not go against a system that does not try to prevent tyranny. (Sorry for all the double negatives, it's the only way I know how to say what I wanted to say.)

Regardless, it's your affirmative case to make and your making the unsupported claim that "human government cannot prevent tyranny; such a government would be an illusion, denying reality" does exactly zero to advance your case.

Further, even if it is impossible to eliminate tyranny outright, that does not imply that mitigating / minimizing it cannot be done with some success. Surely you don't wish to argue that because some degree of tyranny is unavoidable that we should just concede to it and make no effort to curtail it in any way.

If it is the contention that the proposed system is the best possible system, it seems your task then is to demonstrate that the proposed system would yield the least possible amount of tyranny. The proposed system, however, has as a core feature that the law cannot be applied to the king so good luck with that.

Which again, isn't my position.

The king would not be above the law, only above every court in the land, barring an external government's invasion, takeover, and subsequent intervention in his actions.

You cannot be above every court in the land without being above the law of the land.

If there is no way to enforce a law against someone then that person is not under that law.

You surely understand this principle. We are not under the law (i.e. the Mosaic Law) because we have been crucified with Christ. There is, therefore, nothing left for the law to say to us, no further provision in the law that can be legally applied to us. That doesn't mean that it's okay for us to harm our neighbors, right? We will still stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account for our lives just as you suggest would happen with the king if he decided to ignore the constitution and the rest of the law.

In other words, this idea that the king will answer to God for his disobedience to the law of the land conflates two separate issues. The law of the land, the criminal justice and other governmental rules and regulations, are not what we will give an account to God about, except to the extent that our obedience (or lack thereof) was moral in nature. This is because the human governmental laws have to do with governing our physical lives. Once we are physically dead, the laws of the United States, regardless of their nature, no longer apply. Thus God cannot apply the law of the land to a dead king. God cannot, for example, apply the death penalty to a king who murdered his subjects because the king is already physically dead!

This is what I was getting at before when I said in a previous post about how we are all going answer to God for the things we've done in this life right along with the king who was place in a de facto position above the law.

Well, no, it means that the type of government we have in the US is a circular government, which it is, and has, therefore, no foundation.

This point simply makes no sense. It has every bit as much of a foundation as any other government does, if not more. That foundation being the rule of law. The fact that our government has been corrupted doesn't remove or even change the Constitution itself nor can that corruption rightly be blamed on the law. On the contrary, it is the rule of law that makes it at least possible to fix the corruption, to remove unjust governmental rules and regulations and to improve, at least in part, the proper function of the government.

And you shouldn't skip this point too quickly. It's a critical point. The United States as currently constituted has a means by which it is at least theoretically possible to steer a wayward government back on course. There are legal procedures that could be followed that would restore the freedoms the citizens of this nation once enjoyed to the point of taking them for granted. In the proposed system however, the only recourse against tyranny is either to wait for the king to repent, for him to die and hope that his heir won't be as much of a tyrant, or simple outright rebellion, which, if successful, would very likely lead to entirely different form of government altogether.

Is not God the ultimate ruler over all?

Did God delegate authority to the rulers to govern?

It is wrong to usurp the authority of a government, because doing so violates God's will for governments to govern.

This argument begs the question. It is only valid from within your proposed system and only then if that system is valid, which is what is being debated.

It also tacitly concedes that the king, under the proposed system is, in fact, above the law because, by your own statement, it would be a usurpation of the king to enforce the law against him.

On the other hand, it would not be any form of usurpation to follow the law! If the law had provisions to permit the king to be held in the docket and to stand trial then there is no violation of the law and thus no usurpation of anyone's power. The only one guilty of usurping the power of the king would be the king himself. That is, if the king is under the law and therefore derives his authority from the law and then if he violates that law, he has usurped his own authority by breaking the law which grants him his authority.

Again:

I reject that premise and so reject your argument.

The monarch is not above the law.

I think I've established that he is.

What law can be enforced against the king under the proposed system?

The answer is, "None! There can be no violation of the law enforced against the king because he has the authority to overturn any decision made in any court."

By your own words, the king is above every court in the land.

I think I answered this above... But I want to add a verse that might bring this into perspective:

[JESUS]But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.[/JESUS] - Luke 12:48 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke12:48&version=NKJV

In other words, the punishment will be far greater for a ruler who disobeyed the law, than for one of his subjects who disobeyed the law, because the ruler is responsible and accountable for those he rules over.

This is true anyway! Regardless of the form of government.

In other words, this just does not do anything to argue in favor of having a king that the law cannot touch.

He's not permitted to do so. Yet he may do so anyways, simply because he has a will. He may choose to follow the law, or he may choose to not follow it.
He's not a robot, he's human. He's under the law like everyone else, yet he will be held to a much higher standard than others simply because he is over an entire nation.

The difference being that a king gets to not be punished for it by the criminal justice system. He is, therefore, above the criminal justice system, by definition.

Let me respond by asking you this question, and I'm pretty sure you know the answer, and so will know where I'm going with this hopefully:

Is it possible to prevent all crime? Or is man clever enough to work around any system put in place to prevent him from committing the crime he wants to commit?

This question answers itself and it is not relevant.

The relevant point is that absolute power corrupts absolutely and by your own admission, the king, even if he does not have the expression permission to do so, does have the power to ignore the law if he so wills to do so.

The result is going to be a nation with one tyrant after another with maybe a spattering of good kings every few generations or so, if the nation is lucky.

Let me just say, this is probably the most fun I've had on TOL in a while. I'm really enjoying this! I just wish I had more time to reply! I've been recovering from being sick since about Wednesday last week, so I wasn't able to reply over the weekend like I wanted to, but I have some free time right now that has given me the opportunity to reply. To God be the glory!

Ditto that! :jump:

 

[Trump Gurl]

See, now, this is the thing you got in trouble for. Again, go read Jefferson's message to you.

The infraction you received was valid.

In read Jefferson's message. All he did was ask me questions about my avatar, so as usual you are wrong.

I also got a message from Sherman. She is very nice and professional. As much as I'd like to reveal her message I won't because unlike you I have respect. But I will say this: Be careful not to place yourself on a pedestal so high that you get knocked off of it.

 

[WYRose]

If I had known that your petulant unwarranted ban had been immediately reversed I would have been back sooner to reiterate that your position on this subject is ridiculous and that you are more Muslim than Christian if you think you should be putting people to death as you see fit. It didn't work for Hitler.

We all hate the extremism of the socialist Democrats. Well you make them look like George Washington.

Your position in this thread is that of an extremist, and your behavior in this thread is that of a petulant child.

Take care before lashing out again.

I post my previous post again, which is the truth:

Vatican City is Pedophile Central.
Vatican City is Idolatry Terminus.
Vatican City is home to the Scarlet Woman who once lived at Babel.
Vatican City in centre of teh seven hills will turn into a smoking pyre and merchants in ships at sea will look on in astonishment..

 

[JudgeRightly]

Vatican City is Pedophile Central.
Vatican City is Idolatry Terminus.
Vatican City is home to the Scarlet Woman who once lived at Babel.
Vatican City in centre of teh seven hills will turn into a smoking pyre and merchants in ships at sea will look on in astonishment..

Start a new thread, please. This is not the thread to have that discussion.

 

[ok doser]

Start a new thread, please. This is not the thread to have that discussion.

Does she have enough of a posting history to start threads?

 

[Jefferson]

In read Jefferson's message. All he did was ask me questions about my avatar, so as usual you are wrong.

Wrong. I did not ask you a single question about your avatar. I never publicly post a private message I send to someone but since you are lying about me, here is the message I sent you:

"I just noticed your new avatar. Please observe TOL commandment #9 found here: https://theologyonline.com/forum/the...ents#post13956
You have until midnight Eastern time this Sunday night to change your avatar or you will be given another infraction by me. Another moderator might not give you that much time, so I wouldn't wait if I were you."

 

[Trump Gurl]

Wrong. I did not ask you a single question about your avatar

here is the message I sent you:
"I just noticed your new avatar

Helooooo?

since you are lying about me

I don't lie. Are you on medication?

But speaking of lies, I notice that yoiu didn't call out the real lie in this thread:

The only reason you got off easy was because Jefferson let you off the hook mistakenly. I believe he sent you a message. You should read that.

By your own admission and post, your message to me had nothing at all to do with my recent ban. Furthermore, Sherman messaged me and explain why the ban had been lifted. Finally, you acted unethically by posting personal messages (and it only proved me correct). A three-fer all in one post. Well done.

So to re-cap: You called me a liar yet I did not lie, and your buddy did lie but you turned a blind eye to it, and you unethically exposed private messages..

I think that covers it. Now, you guys go to sleep and dream sweet dreams about your Muslim governments in the name of Christianity.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Another thought: I will assume that everyone here believes in Free Will. God allows us to choose him or choose evil. And if we choose evil he still gives us a lifetime to repent and choose him.

This insane Muslim-lite government proposed by the "moderator" takes away that choice. His government imposes Christian sin, morals, and punishment, upon people with free will. That is NOT Godly.

The more I think about it, the US Constitution is about as Godly as it gets. It limits the power of government to those things necessary, and gives people the freedom and liberty to choose how to live, the same freedom and liberty that God created man with.

Yes, this whole thread is based on ignorance, and it is an attack on free will. e have a lifetime to repent as designed by God, and no government should impose anything different.

No attempts to refute? I guess I win. Again.

 

[Clete]

Another thought: I will assume that everyone here believes in Free Will. God allows us to choose him or choose evil. And if we choose evil he still gives us a lifetime to repent and choose him.

This insane Muslim-lite government proposed by the "moderator" takes away that choice. His government imposes Christian sin, morals, and punishment, upon people with free will. That is NOT Godly.

The more I think about it, the US Constitution is about as Godly as it gets. It limits the power of government to those things necessary, and gives people the freedom and liberty to choose how to live, the same freedom and liberty that God created man with.

Yes, this whole thread is based on ignorance, and it is an attack on free will. e have a lifetime to repent as designed by God, and no government should impose anything different.

Believe it or not, no one here sites around with bated breath waiting for you to post something so that they have something to refute. If the post you made that repeated the one above hadn't been the last post of the thread, probably no one would still be aware of it's existence. I know for sure that I wouldn't.

More importantly, there isn't anything here to refute. You haven't made any argument. There's nothing here but asinine claims that are obviously ridiculous and emotionally based. There's nothing here that is the least bit rational or even educated for that matter. You know nothing about God's ideas of justice as described and clearly laid out in scripture, you very clearly know next to nothing about the U.S. Constitution or else nothing about what it means to be "about as Godly as it gets" (probably both).

Let's just take that last sentence and think it through, since you clearly haven't done so...

Yes, this whole thread is based on ignorance,

Except that every single point of the proposed system has been directly supported by clear biblical arguments. Only two of which I've been able to knock any holes in and have spent more hours arguing than all the time you've spent on this whole website combined.

In other words, this debate is all about quite the opposite of ignorance. Just because you've never heard any of it before and didn't bother to read the arguments and consider the biblical support does mean that they don't exist. Or put another way, just because you're ignorant of the issues discussed in this thread doesn't mean that anyone else is.

and it is an attack on free will.

That might be the stupidest string of eight words in the whole thread!

No, I take that back, your public arguing with a moderator about what he sent you in a private message has to win that prize.

Regardless, how could any set of law be an attack on free will? Do you mean that the government must be based on anarchy for people to be free? Surely not because you claim that the U.S. Constitution is "about as Godly as it gets" and this country has hundreds of times more laws than the proposed system would ever have. But what else could you mean? There isn't anything else! You very clearly never thought this ridiculous statement through at all.

we have a lifetime to repent as designed by God, and no government should impose anything different.

"as designed by God"?

Did you really just say that in a post supposedly designed to "refute" a system that is, in fact, nothing more than THE system set up by God Himself for the nation of Israel? Really?

Further, how does this mindless sentiment not argue against any system that seeks to punish any sort of criminal for anything?

If the government seeks to imprison a violent man, does that not interfere with his free will since he would no longer be free to beat people up or worse?

Of course, your broken Catholic brain is thinking of the death penalty but that doesn't work either. Fully 50% of the people executed in the bible (that we have record of and not counting Jesus) repented before they died. There's very little, if anything, that will motivate a person to repent more effectively than for him to know that he's just about to meet his Maker.

More importantly, God very clearly and undeniably instituted the death penalty for various crimes. Your position not only implies that God is unjust but it tacitly undermines the entire gospel itself because the gospel is all about how the death penalty is justice and how Jesus suffered the death penalty for our sake so that the demands of justice could be satisfied while providing an opportunity for our reconciliation with God.

In short, you very simply don't have any idea what you're talking about. The proposed system comes straight out of the bible. It has exactly nothing to do with Islam, which is just as hideously unjust as is the current system in the United States and it has nothing to do with forcing anyone to be a Christian. It all about justice and nothing more.

In fact, let me end this by asking you to answer one direct question. This is not a trick question or any sort of trap. It's a real question that should serve to advance this discussion down a road of reason and intelligence, if you'll make an effort to be honest and actually try to answer it....

In a single sentence (maybe two), what is the biblical idea of justice?

If you just do not know the answer, that's fine, just say so and I'll tell you the answer and we can proceed from there if you like.

Clete

 

[Trump Gurl]

Believe it or not, no one here sites around with bated breath waiting for you to post something so that they have something to refute

Except for you apparently. And you failed miserably as usual I might add. Congrats on another lame uninformed post.

 

[ok doser]

:doh:

 

[Clete]

Except for you apparently. And you failed miserably as usual I might add. Congrats on another lame uninformed post.

Now who's not refuting anything! Hypocrite!

You're a complete waste of time. What in the world are you even doing here?

Good bye!

 

[Clete]

Since Trump Girl was clearly out of her class and has exactly zero idea of what the answer to my question is, I'll post the answer here in case someone might be interested to know.

I asked Trump Girl, who is so utterly ignorant of what it means to be godly that she thinks the current U.S. Constitution, in spite of the fact that it is written in such a way as to allow some large number of people to read it and think that murdering unborn babies doesn't violate it, is "about as godly as it gets", the following question...

In a single sentence (maybe two), what is the biblical idea of justice?

In a sentence, justice is the golden rule applied by force to the criminal.

The golden rule, taught to us by Jesus in Matthew 7, is simply that we aughtdo to others as we would have others do to us. Justice is simply the other side of that same coin where it is done unto the convicted criminal as he did (or saught to do) to his victim.

This is the concept that was being communicated whenever you heard the phrase "the punishment should fit the crime". Today, however, that phrase has lost virtually all of its meaning. Today, our society has totally lost sight of what justice looks like to the point that real justice rings in the ear of the average mindless idiot like uncivilized barbarism if not lunatic insanity. Trump Girl is not an exception in this regard, she is the norm. She and people like her don't give a damn about justice, they care about how laws make them feel. They don't care about being righteous, they care about being nice.

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - God

"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’" - Jesus