An Advocation of Government

[quip]

You're [TH] just beating a straw man.

You seem to have no idea....

 

[ok doser]

better to light 'em on fire

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know of people who live on the welfare system, and yet they are very capable persons.

There's plenty of capable persons who subsist on benefits so that's not a news story in itself. There are those who claim for disability and get caught for defrauding the system while playing golf or some such but that's an exception to the rule, not the main. To be eligible for unemployment support in the UK, then you have to show you're actively seeking work in order to qualify for it unless you're medically deemed incapable of holding down a job. So sure, there's plenty of capable people on benefits. Most of them want a job.

And yet your one anecdotal example does not represent the entire population of the US.

It doesn't represent the entirety of the UK either but as a general rule of thumb it holds up. You're a lot better off in work in the main than you are on standard benefits.

Says who? You're forgetting that if the government wasn't taxing everyone so much in order to fund such welfare programs that everyone would be able to make more money when they have a job. A 5% personal increase (income) tax is more than enough to fund the entire government when it performs only it's just functions.

Says common sense. Take away any aid for people out of jobs, both capable and incapable of work and you up the poverty rate. What exactly are these people supposed to live on apart from charitable whim?

Jesus Himself said that the poor will always be with us. We're not going to be able to change that. But did you know that the poor in America, because our standard of living is better than most of the rest of the world, live better than the middle class in Europe.

You would actually and willingly add to that number and your latter is just something you pulled out of a hat somewhere.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It doesn't represent the entirety of the UK either but as a general rule of thumb it holds up. You're a lot better off in work in the main than you are on standard benefits.

So why not encourage people to get jobs instead of sitting around doing nothing?

Says common sense. Take away any aid for people out of jobs, both capable and incapable of work and you up the poverty rate. What exactly are these people supposed to live on apart from charitable whim?

You make it seem like people are incapable of doing anything other than what they're already doing. I'm telling you that people are resourceful, that people can learn how to do different things. You see people as mouths to feed, I see them as workers who can provide for themselves and for others.

You would actually and willingly add to that number and your latter is just something you pulled out of a hat somewhere.

Again, people who, instead of being fed hand-to-mouth on the installment plan have very little to incentivize themselves to better themselves, whereas people who are hungry will do work to eat, to provide for themselves, and to increase their standard of living.

Also, as I've said many times, here and in other threads, it is not the government's role or responsibility to take care of it's citizens, only to protect them and provide infrastructure for them. Therefore, the government should not even attempt to take care of its citizens. The role of charity belongs to the individual, or at most, the church.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

So why not encourage people to get jobs instead of sitting around doing nothing?

Why on earth would you be so arrogant as to presume those on benefits aren't already being encouraged to find work or in turn that they're "sitting around doing nothing"? Many unemployed people make stringent efforts to find work and part of the 'jobseeker agreement' over here is to be able to prove you're making efforts to find work in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits. You should really educate yourself before making ignorant platitudes like this.

You make it seem like people are incapable of doing anything other than what they're already doing. I'm telling you that people are resourceful, that people can learn how to do different things. You see people as mouths to feed, I see them as workers who can provide for themselves and for others.

Not at all and I'm really not sure how you're seeing that from anything I've wrote. Some people are incapable of work through debilitation/illness etc and there's a different set of entitlements available for those whose condition renders them unfit for work in both the long and the short term. I've never once argued that people in general can't learn new things or improve/transfer already existing skills either. I see people as people, simple as that. There's no disconnect with supporting a system that provides for people while out of work along with programs that people can avail themselves of to improve their chances of gaining employment.

Again, people who, instead of being fed hand-to-mouth on the installment plan have very little to incentivize themselves to better themselves, whereas people who are hungry will do work to eat, to provide for themselves, and to increase their standard of living.

You've clearly never lived on any sort of benefits have you? Aside from the fact that many areas have a significant dearth of jobs it can be difficult enough for people to get by on the little they have. You seem to think that most people are just lazy or happy enough to exist on subsistence 'living' which says more about you than it does those you seem to so glibly judge.

Also, as I've said many times, here and in other threads, it is not the government's role or responsibility to take care of it's citizens, only to protect them and provide infrastructure for them. Therefore, the government should not even attempt to take care of its citizens. The role of charity belongs to the individual, or at most, the church.

You can say it as many times as you like, we don't live under a theocratic government and any government in an 'enlightened' day and age makes provision for the poor.

 

[Crucible]

What conservatives fail to realize about welfare is that it is not inherently an encouragement for people to be lazy. In fact, it is quite the opposite in ideal circumstances- the state isn't inclined to just freely give benefits with no effort on their part to provide for their selves.

The problem are the agendas at hand, in which women and blacks- and especially black women- are bullying the system with claims of prejudice and inequality to keep them afloat.

Ultimately, nobody is doing anything good about welfare because conservatives have a false perception of it and liberals are winging these agendas which make welfare an issue.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why on earth would you be so arrogant as to presume those on benefits aren't already being encouraged to find work or in turn that they're "sitting around doing nothing"? Many unemployed people make stringent efforts to find work and part of the 'jobseeker agreement' over here is to be able to prove you're making efforts to find work in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits. You should really educate yourself before making ignorant platitudes like this.

The families and the church should take care of those who cannot work. Not the government. By having the government take care of them, it enables the families to not take care of their own, because they think that the government can take care of them. It's just like with the lunch (and even breakfast programs in the government-run schools. Liberals say, "parents aren't feeding their children well enough for lunch, so let's institute a program where the schools will provide lunch," and guess what happens? The parents stop sending lunches with their kids, because they are aware that the school will feed them. Then the liberals say that "Oh, the children are coming to school hungry, so let's start a program where the schools will provide breakfast," and guess what happens. The parents stop feeding their kids breakfast, because they are aware that the school will give their children breakfast.

What makes you think that the welfare programs are any different? Because they're not. By instituting these programs, you've enabled the families of the people who are on such programs to stop caring about them, destroying what keeps the family together. You have made it far easier for a woman to live with a paycheck and children than for her to live with a man who can provide for her and her children. You have made it far easier for a family to put their parents in government-run assisted living homes, which are prisons for the elderly, instead of the families caring for the people who raised them. You have made it so that the parents don't even raise their own children anymore, they rely on the government to raise them for them.

The entire issue boils down to this:

People need each other. When you take away that need, you remove the glue that holds relationships together. For example, what typically happens when a married man or woman wins the lottery? The couple typically ends up separated over the money. Back in the Book of Genesis, God cursed the ground, why? Because He knew that in order to keep a man and woman together, they would need each other. The man would need a woman to help him as he worked, and in return, he would work to support her.

When the government steps in and takes people's money to support the ones who are poor, it removes that need, so that the person who is on the program no longer needs his family, he can rely on the government to take care of him. Welfare has especially destroyed the black community in America. Let me ask you something, Arthur, when you drive through a bad neighborhood, and you see all the run-down houses of a community that has a welfare program, which do you think came first? A run-down house? Or a welfare check?

Not at all and I'm really not sure how you're seeing that from anything I've wrote.

This is where I get that from. From your previous post:
"Says common sense. Take away any aid for people out of jobs, both capable and incapable of work and you up the poverty rate. What exactly are these people supposed to live on apart from charitable whim?"

Some people are incapable of work through debilitation/illness etc and there's a different set of entitlements available for those whose condition renders them unfit for work in both the long and the short term. I've never once argued that people in general can't learn new things or improve/transfer already existing skills either. I see people as people, simple as that. There's no disconnect with supporting a system that provides for people while out of work along with programs that people can avail themselves of to improve their chances of gaining employment.

As I explained above, the people who cannot work need their families to take care of them, not the government.

You've clearly never lived on any sort of benefits have you?

No, but I have had to rely on family to provide for me when I was unemployed for 3 months, and I daresay it was far better for me to be prompted day in and day out by family to find a job than for me to have lived alone, because I know that had I lived alone, I would probably still be unemployed.

Aside from the fact that many areas have a significant dearth of jobs it can be difficult enough for people to get by on the little they have.

That can be fixed by getting rid of minimum wage.

You seem to think that most people are just lazy or happy enough to exist on subsistence 'living' which says more about you than it does those you seem to so glibly judge.

When I see people at the corner of an intersection with a sign saying "need money, God bless" written on them, I don't think "Oh, that poor person." I think "That person, instead of standing there, holding up a sign so that gullible people will give him a dollar or two, could instead be out looking for a job." Yet the "beggars" (and I put that in quotes because of how many of them are just being deceitful) make more in one day than someone working an honest job for a week. And again, that could be fixed by getting rid of the "minimum wage."

You can say it as many times as you like, we don't live under a theocratic government and any government in an 'enlightened' day and age makes provision for the poor.

Once again, I do not advocate a "theocratic government," as that will be implemented when Christ returns. Any and all governments in an 'enlightened' day and age do not have the right nor the responsibility to make provisions for the poor.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

What conservatives fail to realize about welfare is that it is not inherently an encouragement for people to be lazy. In fact, it is quite the opposite in ideal circumstances- the state isn't inclined to just freely give benefits with no effort on their part to provide for their selves.

The problem are the agendas at hand, in which women and blacks- and especially black women- are bullying the system with claims of prejudice and inequality to keep them afloat.

Ultimately, nobody is doing anything good about welfare because conservatives have a false perception of it and liberals are winging these agendas which make welfare an issue.

See my above comment.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

The families and the church should take care of those who cannot work. Not the government. By having the government take care of them, it enables the families to not take care of their own, because they think that the government can take care of them. It's just like with the lunch (and even breakfast programs in the government-run schools. Liberals say, "parents aren't feeding their children well enough for lunch, so let's institute a program where the schools will provide lunch," and guess what happens? The parents stop sending lunches with their kids, because they are aware that the school will feed them. Then the liberals say that "Oh, the children are coming to school hungry, so let's start a program where the schools will provide breakfast," and guess what happens. The parents stop feeding their kids breakfast, because they are aware that the school will give their children breakfast.

What makes you think that the welfare programs are any different? Because they're not. By instituting these programs, you've enabled the families of the people who are on such programs to stop caring about them, destroying what keeps the family together. You have made it far easier for a woman to live with a paycheck and children than for her to live with a man who can provide for her and her children. You have made it far easier for a family to put their parents in government-run assisted living homes, which are prisons for the elderly, instead of the families caring for the people who raised them. You have made it so that the parents don't even raise their own children anymore, they rely on the government to raise them for them.

What makes you seemingly think that everyone has a family that cares? Or ones that could financially support anyone within it indefinitely without any support themselves? You're a master of the glib soundbite JR but you're not remotely in touch with the reality of a lot of people's lives. You'd far sooner judge people from afar through blinkers. You patently have no idea whatsoever as to what it's like to live on the bottom end of the scale and one can only hope that a few more years might reduce those a bit. Otherwise you're gonna sound like the main character out of 'A Christmas Carol' - prior to conversion so to speak...

The entire issue boils down to this:

People need each other. When you take away that need, you remove the glue that holds relationships together. For example, what typically happens when a married man or woman wins the lottery? The couple typically ends up separated over the money. Back in the Book of Genesis, God cursed the ground, why? Because He knew that in order to keep a man and woman together, they would need each other. The man would need a woman to help him as he worked, and in return, he would work to support her.

Oh please, you're using lottery analogies as to why couples stay together or separate? Seriously? This is just nothing more than yet another soundbite borne out of nothing but subjective opinion and religious bias.

When the government steps in and takes people's money to support the ones who are poor, it removes that need, so that the person who is on the program no longer needs his family, he can rely on the government to take care of him. Welfare has especially destroyed the black community in America. Let me ask you something, Arthur, when you drive through a bad neighborhood, and you see all the run-down houses of a community that has a welfare program, which do you think came first? A run-down house? Or a welfare check?

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

This is where I get that from. From your previous post:
"Says common sense. Take away any aid for people out of jobs, both capable and incapable of work and you up the poverty rate. What exactly are these people supposed to live on apart from charitable whim?"

Then you need to learn to read a bit better then as nothing about that suggests as you inferred and I've given you a detailed explanation as to why your 'thinking' there was off in my previous.

As I explained above, the people who cannot work need their families to take care of them, not the government.

See my above in turn.

No, but I have had to rely on family to provide for me when I was unemployed for 3 months, and I daresay it was far better for me to be prompted day in and day out by family to find a job than for me to have lived alone, because I know that had I lived alone, I would probably still be unemployed.

Well, nice for you that you had a family that cared and took care of your needs. Not everybody else does and your latter says more about you than anyone else you so easily judge in a similar position. Many people don't have family, live on their own and still make the effort to find work while subsisting on benefits. You need to start taking some of those judgmental blinkers off dude.

That can be fixed by getting rid of minimum wage.

Ridiculously simplistic.

When I see people at the corner of an intersection with a sign saying "need money, God bless" written on them, I don't think "Oh, that poor person." I think "That person, instead of standing there, holding up a sign so that gullible people will give him a dollar or two, could instead be out looking for a job." Yet the "beggars" (and I put that in quotes because of how many of them are just being deceitful) make more in one day than someone working an honest job for a week. And again, that could be fixed by getting rid of the "minimum wage."

Hey, according to some here, begging is a form of "work" anyway, so who are you to pompously sit in judgement of those who engage in it? Have you any idea what kind of abuse homeless people face a lot of the time for begging? Do you think these people do it for a laugh, especially in winter? Are you really so callously ignorant on these matters?

Once again, I do not advocate a "theocratic government," as that will be implemented when Christ returns. Any and all governments in an 'enlightened' day and age do not have the right nor the responsibility to make provisions for the poor.

Yes, they do, they have and they enact that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What makes you seemingly think that everyone has a family that cares? Or ones that could financially support anyone within it indefinitely without any support themselves? You're a master of the glib soundbite JR but you're not remotely in touch with the reality of a lot of people's lives. You'd far sooner judge people from afar through blinkers. You patently have no idea whatsoever as to what it's like to live on the bottom end of the scale and one can only hope that a few more years might reduce those a bit. Otherwise you're gonna sound like the main character out of 'A Christmas Carol' - prior to conversion so to speak...



Oh please, you're using lottery analogies as to why couples stay together or separate? Seriously? This is just nothing more than yet another soundbite borne out of nothing but subjective opinion and religious bias.



"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."



Then you need to learn to read a bit better then as nothing about that suggests as you inferred and I've given you a detailed explanation as to why your 'thinking' there was off in my previous.



See my above in turn.



Well, nice for you that you had a family that cared and took care of your needs. Not everybody else does and your latter says more about you than anyone else you so easily judge in a similar position. Many people don't have family, live on their own and still make the effort to find work while subsisting on benefits. You need to start taking some of those judgmental blinkers off dude.



Ridiculously simplistic.



Hey, according to some here, begging is a form of "work" anyway, so who are you to pompously sit in judgement of those who engage in it? Have you any idea what kind of abuse homeless people face a lot of the time for begging? Do you think these people do it for a laugh, especially in winter? Are you really so callously ignorant on these matters?



Yes, they do, they have and they enact that.

http://kgov.com/bel/20040108

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

http://kgov.com/bel/20040108

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Seriously, you're just gonna link to Bob Enyart as if that constitutes a "response"?

Right.

lain:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Seriously, you're just gonna link to Bob Enyart as if that constitutes a "response"?

Right.

lain:

Just listen to it. My response is contained within.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just listen to it. My response is contained within.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Um, no. Not interested in listening to a sixty minute podcast thanks. This is a discussion/debate forum, not 'links R Us'...If you think Enyart addressed all separate points from my last, or some at least then set out why and clarify, preferably in your own words.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yet American citizens "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As listed in the proposed constitution I posted.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This is where the Constitution went wrong. The government derives its just power from God, not the people.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

So, anarchy? Rebellion? Overthrowing the government? God never gave the authority to the people to overthrow their unjust government.

God does, however, give authority, even the responsibility, to the people to engage in civil disobedience against unjust or wrongful amendments to the law.

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

All authority flows downhill from God, to governments, to the church, to the family. It DOES NOT flow uphill from the people.

Who should we blame for not holding our politicians up to those founding principles and not protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In our current government, we blame the people, who God says that the majority are evil. However, it's not people that are the problem, it's bad government and bad law that bring about such wickedness. So we also blame the government.

In a Biblically based government, which is a Constitutional Monarchy, if the King were to enact law that went against God, we would blame the King for such acts. However, as the King is the supreme judge of the land, no court has the authority to try the King, he awaits the judgement of God.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet American citizens "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As listed in the proposed constitution I posted.

Borrowing off of an already great document are you? Where's your originality?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This is where the Constitution went wrong. The government derives its just power from God, not the people.

You're reading it wrong: Rights come from God, the governed appoint people to represent them so that those rights are enforced.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

So, anarchy? Rebellion? Overthrowing the government? God never gave the authority to the people to overthrow their unjust government.

You do realize that in your type of government barbarians like Adolf Hitler would stay in power?

God does, however, give authority, even the responsibility, to the people to engage in civil disobedience against unjust or wrongful amendments to the law.

I can see it now: Sit-ins outside the Ovens at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. BTW, how's that civil disobedience working when it comes to the death of 60 million unborn babies at the hands of abortionists?

There are plenty of passages and verses in the Bible showing the proper role of civil government as well as how people are supposed to deal with evil.


Quote; Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

All authority flows downhill from God, to governments, to the church, to the family. It DOES NOT flow uphill from the people.

Yet the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of men (which you named above) requires that those institutions take action, not sit back idly hoping that God will intervene.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarior
Who should we blame for not holding our politicians up to those founding principles and not protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In our current government, we blame the people, who God says that the majority are evil. However, it's not people that are the problem, it's bad government and bad law that bring about such wickedness. So we also blame the government.

Government consists of people, even in your monarchy. Good God-fearing people electing and then holding government officials accountable for their actions is what at one time made America great.

In a Biblically based government, which is a Constitutional Monarchy, if the King were to enact law that went against God, we would blame the King for such acts. However, as the King is the supreme judge of the land, no court has the authority to try the King, he awaits the judgement of God.

Everyone awaits the judgement of God. Yet you're willing to give someone who rules against the wishes of God a free pass?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet American citizens "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



Borrowing off of an already great document are you? Where's your originality?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.



You're reading it wrong: Rights come from God, the governed appoint people to represent them so that those rights are enforced.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,



You do realize that in your type of government barbarians like Adolf Hitler would stay in power?



I can see it now: Sit-ins outside the Ovens at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. BTW, how's that civil disobedience working when it comes to the death of 60 million unborn babies at the hands of abortionists?

There are plenty of passages and verses in the Bible showing the proper role of civil government as well as how people are supposed to deal with evil.


Quote; Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm



Yet the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of men (which you named above) requires that those institutions take action, not sit back idly hoping that God will intervene.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarior
Who should we blame for not holding our politicians up to those founding principles and not protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?



Government consists of people, even in your monarchy. Good God-fearing people electing and then holding government officials accountable for their actions is what at one time made America great.



Everyone awaits the judgement of God. Yet you're willing to give someone who rules against the wishes of God a free pass?

I had a huge reply to this, and then stupid ol' me hit cancel instead of reply (I blame inconsistent button layouts between sites! )... I will attempt to recreate my reply when I get home tonight.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

I just wanted to share this episode in which Bob touches on this topic. in the last 10-15 mins of the show

http://kgov.com/bel/20170308

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I had a huge reply to this, and then stupid ol' me hit cancel instead of reply (I blame inconsistent button layouts between sites! )... I will attempt to recreate my reply when I get home tonight.

Before you do that, read this article:

The Bible and Government
Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they formed a biblical based representative constitutional republic where mans' rights come from God.

An unidentified woman asked Benjamin Franklin the following question as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation of the 1787 Constitutional Convention:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

To which Franklin replied:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

It's the fault of God-fearing American citizens that we didn't keep it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

So, anarchy? Rebellion? Overthrowing the government? God never gave the authority to the people to overthrow their unjust government.

God does, however, give authority, even the responsibility, to the people to engage in civil disobedience against unjust or wrongful amendments to the law.

I turned to the experts on the Founding Fathers, Wallbuilders, to help answer your question.

The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?

On the basis of those numerous historic theological writings (which, significantly, had also been regularly preached from American pulpits for decades prior to the American Revolution 10 ), Americans embraced two specific theological positions that guided their thinking and conduct in the conflict with Great Britain.

The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness and wanted civil government in society. Therefore, a crucial determination in the colonists’ Biblical exegesis was whether opposition to authority was simply to resist the general institution of government (an institution ordained by God Himself), or whether it was instead to resist tyrannical leaders who had themselves rebelled against God. (The Scriptural model for this position was repeatedly validated when God Himself raised up leaders such as Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, and Deborah to throw off tyrannical governments – leaders subsequently praised in Hebrews 11:32 for those acts of faith.) That the Founders held the view that the institution of government is not to be opposed but that tyranny is, is a position clearly evident in their writings.

Read more: https://wallbuilders.com/american-revolution-act-biblical-rebellion/

 

[JudgeRightly]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

Except they don't have that right. They have the right (and responsibility) to obey God rather than man, and civil disobedience when the government commands it's citizens to do evil, but the people do not have the right to rebel against the authorities. This is rather explicitly stated in Romans:

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

You do realize that in your type of government barbarians like Adolf Hitler would stay in power?

Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany by a republic form of government, not a constitutional monarchy. By your system, people like Hitler, Hillary, and Trump, can all come into power, let alone stay in power.

aCW, question for you:

Let's say you and I are at a restaurant, having a good meal, debating the topics of the day, and the busboy comes to clean the table next to us.
My question is this: Who would lead the country better: Trump or the busboy?

I can see it now: Sit-ins outside the Ovens at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. BTW, how's that civil disobedience working when it comes to the death of 60 million unborn babies at the hands of abortionists?

Well, since the form of government we currently have has made it practically illegal to actively protest, not very well.

There are plenty of passages and verses in the Bible showing the proper role of civil government as well as how people are supposed to deal with evil.

Such as the one I quoted above?

Quote; Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

Yet the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of men (which you named above) requires that those institutions take action, not sit back idly hoping that God will intervene.

That's all well and good, but when the institution that has authority over the other two is trying (actively) to destroy the other two, as with our current government, then there's a problem, and it's caused by the form of government.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarior
Who should we blame for not holding our politicians up to those founding principles and not protecting our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The people, for electing them into office. But then again, the majority is evil, so it's not surprising that the majority of politicians elected (by the majority) are evil.

Government consists of people, even in your monarchy.

True. However, the King is the ultimate authority in the land, not the people under him.

Good God-fearing people electing and then holding government officials accountable for their actions is what at one time made America great.

And has slowly degraded that government into a wicked and corrupt one. Remember what good ol' Ben Franklin said when asked by a lady if we had a republic or monarchy?

He said, "A republic, if you can keep it."

If you can keep it. And clearly we haven't.

Everyone awaits the judgement of God.

I'm glad you agree.

Yet you're willing to give someone who rules against the wishes of God a free pass?

Free pass? Do you not remember what Jesus said?

And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has.But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk,the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.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." - Luke 12:42-48 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke12:42-48&version=NKJV