An Advocation of Government

[JudgeRightly]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Unless I'm missing something, your question has nothing to do with the role of civil government and (according to our Christian Founding Fathers) the right to over throw an unjust government.

Again, you're going into an area which has nothing to do with civil government and it's role as described in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2: 13-17.

Alright, since you brought it up, I have another question:

Does Paul or Peter say anywhere in Romans 13:1-7 or 1 Peter 2:13-17, respectively, to overthrow or depose your government when it becomes wicked?

Please share you train of thought, as I'm curious where you're attempting to go with it.

Is it ok to rebel against authority? or should we submit to authority (as the verses you referenced above say)? What about what God said in Exodus 20:12? Does that verse indicate that we should rebel or submit to those in authority above us?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Surely you're not saying that it would have been wrong for the people of Germany to overthrow Adolph Hitler before he brutally murdered 20 million people?

I highly doubt that Hitler would have been intimidated with sit-in protests outside of the death camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Probably not, but at least those who did would have stood for what is right, instead of going along with the crowd.

And here I thought that the right to defend one's freedom was a God-given right.

Never said it wasn't. Overthrowing one's government, however, does not fall in that category.

Would you rely on a another person to intervene if your freedom were at stake, or would you take it upon yourself to disable or even kill your attacker if it deemed necessary?

Defending oneself or others and attempting to depose or overthrow one's government are two completely different things. One is defence of the innocent, the other is attacking your own government. What was that Paul and Peter said? "Submit to those in authority"? (Notwithstanding if they ask you to do something that goes against God's righteous character.)

----

So my questions so far are these:

Was it wrong for Satan to try to overthrow God?

How many kings, as soon as they committed atrocities, were immediately taken out of power (either by the people or by God) in the Kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament.

How many wicked kings (and there were more wicked kings than good) were there, and how long were each of their reigns? How many good kings, and how long were each of their reigns?

Does Paul or Peter say anywhere in Romans 13:1-7 or 1 Peter 2:13-17, respectively, to overthrow or depose your government when it becomes wicked?

Is it ok to rebel against authority? or should we submit to authority (as the verses you referenced above say)? What about what God said in Exodus 20:12? Does that verse indicate that we should rebel or submit to those in authority above us?

They all need to be answered, ACW. And yes, they all have to do with the topic at hand, which is governmental authority. If nothing else, answer these questions.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, you're going into an area which has nothing to do with civil government and it's role as described in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2: 13-17.

Alright, since you brought it up, I have another question:

Does Paul or Peter say anywhere in Romans 13:1-7 or 1 Peter 2:13-17, respectively, to overthrow or depose your government when it becomes wicked?

Why would they? In both passages the standard for civil government is made: to punish evil doers and praise those to who do good in the eyes of God. I see where you were going with your question asking if Satan had a right to overthrow God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that evil has some kind of right to overthrow good, whether it deals with individuals, families or civil government.

The bible is full of stories where individuals either took on armies by themselves or with fellow tribesmen.
http://www.womeninthebible.net/bible-extras/10-warriors/

One doesn't have to be some sort of established government in order to overthrow evil.

Thank the Founding Fathers for having the courage to do so and establishing a nation where our rights come from God, not men, or you'd be a member of the Church of England today.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, you're going into an area which has nothing to do with civil government and it's role as described in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2: 13-17.



Why would they? In both passages the standard for civil government is made: to punish evil doers and praise those to who do good in the eyes of God. I see where you were going with your question asking if Satan had a right to overthrow God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that evil has some kind of right to overthrow good, whether it deals with individuals, families or civil government.

The bible is full of stories where individuals either took on armies by themselves or with fellow tribesmen.
http://www.womeninthebible.net/bible-extras/10-warriors/

One doesn't have to be some sort of established government in order to overthrow evil.

Thank the Founding Fathers for having the courage to do so and establishing a nation where our rights come from God, not men, or you'd be a member of the Church of England today.

Nope, not where I was going. Close though.

 

[drbrumley]

Hello again, [MENTION=1077]drbrumley[/MENTION]. Do you have a response for me yet?

Truthfully, I had forgotten...I will revisit this

 

[JudgeRightly]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, you're going into an area which has nothing to do with civil government and it's role as described in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2: 13-17.



Why would they? In both passages the standard for civil government is made: to punish evil doers and praise those to who do good in the eyes of God. I see where you were going with your question asking if Satan had a right to overthrow God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that evil has some kind of right to overthrow good, whether it deals with individuals, families or civil government.

The bible is full of stories where individuals either took on armies by themselves or with fellow tribesmen.
http://www.womeninthebible.net/bible-extras/10-warriors/

One doesn't have to be some sort of established government in order to overthrow evil.

Thank the Founding Fathers for having the courage to do so and establishing a nation where our rights come from God, not men, or you'd be a member of the Church of England today.

How many kings of Israel/Judah did God immediately remove from power when they committed wickedness?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

How many kings of Israel/Judah did God immediately remove from power when they committed wickedness?

Remove as in strike them dead with a bolt of lightning?

That's the job of the people he unjustly rules.

I see you have two avid Donald Trump supporters giving you accolades. Many believe that God appointed Donald Trump as President. Actually it was Godless Libertarians and democrats that crossed Party lines, along with a bunch of pseudo Christians that appointed him.


http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

 

[WizardofOz]

Basically, the first king upon the inauguration of the Constitution would be selected by lottery, overseen by the Queen, or if none, her eldest daughter, or if none, America's chief military leader. After the King's death, the throne would go to his oldest son.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

How would there be a queen to oversee the lottery if there isn't yet a king? How does one become the queen?

What if the 'winner' of the lottery has mental deficiencies or is a woman or is an atheist or is only 18 years old or is homosexual or just simply doesn't want to take on the role?

How is a bloodline alone an indicator of a competent ruler?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Remove as in strike them dead with a bolt of lightning?

Remove in any way, shape, or form.

That's the job of the people he unjustly rules.

It's the job of the people to remove an unjust king with a bolt of lighting? We would never have any rulers then, they'd be fried the moment they did something unjust.

I see you have two avid Donald Trump supporters giving you accolades. Many believe that God appointed Donald Trump as President. Actually it was Godless Libertarians and democrats that crossed Party lines, along with a bunch of pseudo Christians that appointed him.

:blabla:

How would there be a queen to oversee the lottery if there isn't yet a king?

This question was answered in the paragraph you quoted.

How does one become the queen?

By marrying the king. :duh:

What if the 'winner' of the lottery has mental deficiencies

Define "mental deficiency".

or is a woman

A non-issue.

From the document provided:

The Overseer publicly will draw lots to select one of the States of America, then a county, then a municipality, then a neighborhood, then a block, then a family, then within that family a man of any age, whom the Overseer crowns King.

or is an atheist

Then they would be king until they die. :duh:

or is only 18 years old

a man of any age

:think:

or is homosexual

Homosexuality is a capital offence. He, on the testimony of two or three witnesses, would be executed after a trial to establish guilt, and the Overseer would have lots cast again.

or just simply doesn't want to take on the role?

The desire to lord it over one's neighbor is typically a bad trait for a ruler to have.

He would still rule until the day he dies.

How is a bloodline alone an indicator of a competent ruler?

It's not, nor has such a claim been made.

 

[WizardofOz]

This question was answered in the paragraph you quoted.

I don't see it.

Kindly answer the question so we can advance the discussion.

By marrying the king. :duh:

This is a chicken/egg paradox. You said

Basically, the first king upon the inauguration of the Constitution would be selected by lottery, overseen by the Queen

The queen helps select the king via lottery but is then expected to marry the king? If the king is already married wouldn't his wife be the queen? How is there already a queen before a king is selected via royal lottery?

Define "mental deficiency".

The chosen one has downs syndrome, for example. Does that person still become king? What if the person selected through the lottery has a criminal history? There are so many holes in this lottery system.

A non-issue.

From the document provided:

The Overseer publicly will draw lots to select one of the States of America, then a county, then a municipality, then a neighborhood, then a block, then a family, then within that family a man of any age, whom the Overseer crowns King.

Ah, so only men can rule. Gotcha.

Do you feel women are incapable of ruling?

a man of any age

You really feel a randomly selected 18-year-old is mentally and emotionally fit to rule the United States?

I know I wouldn't be comfortable with that prospect.

just simply doesn't want to take on the role?

Lording it over one's neighbor is typically a bad trait for a ruler to have.

Lording it over? If the person selected says "thanks but no thanks" are they going to be forced to be king if they don't want to be?

How is a bloodline alone an indicator of a competent ruler?

It's not, nor has such a claim been made.

Then why pass it on to the oldest son without first confirming competency?

 

[Arthur Brain]

How would there be a queen to oversee the lottery if there isn't yet a king? How does one become the queen?

What if the 'winner' of the lottery has mental deficiencies or is a woman or is an atheist or is only 18 years old or is homosexual or just simply doesn't want to take on the role?

How is a bloodline alone an indicator of a competent ruler?

Let's be thankful that this sort of bonkers, legalistic nonsense doesn't have a snowballs chance of coming about...

:rain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, From Pastor Bob Enyart, Kgov.com.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Does Bob Enyart even go along with this anymore?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't see it.

Your link is broken.

Kindly answer the question so we can advance the discussion.

It's not my problem you only read part of the first sentence of the paragraph that you quoted...

This is a chicken/egg paradox. You said

The queen helps select the king via lottery but is then expected to marry the king?

Uh... no.

You asked how someone becomes a queen.

Someone becomes a queen by marrying the king.

It's as simple as that.

If the king is already married wouldn't his wife be the queen?

:duh:

How is there already a queen before a king is selected via royal lottery?

Ah, I see where your confusion is. What I said is accurate, but poorly worded.

Here is how it should be read:

Basically, the first king upon the inauguration of the Constitution would be selected by lottery, overseen by America's chief military leader (as there is no queen and therefore no queen's daughter at this point). After the King's death, the throne would go to his oldest son. If the king had no sons, another lottery would be held by the Queen, or if none, her eldest daughter, or if none, America's chief military leader.

Does that resolve the issue you're having? The queen of the previous king would be the overseer, or if no queen, then her daughter, or if none, the military leader. If there is no previous king, then the military leader would be the overseer by default.

The chosen one has downs syndrome, for example.

Are you saying people with Downs syndrome are incapable of being leaders?

Does that person still become king?

That would be dependent on the person's ability to lead.

What if the person selected through the lottery has a criminal history?

Assuming this would be the first king chosen by lottery upon implementation of this constitution (including the criminal code)...

He would still rule, but would not be crowned king (if he is not guilty of crimes worthy of death) until after being tried, found guilty on the testimony of two or three witnesses, and then punished. If he is found guilty of a capital crime, then he would be executed, and another lottery would be held.

Assuming that this is after at least one king has ruled...

If he was a criminal, he would have already been punished for his crime, and hopefully is no longer interested in committing crimes. He would be crowned king.

There are so many holes in this lottery system.

Not really.

Ah, so only men can rule. Gotcha.

:thumb:

Do you feel women are incapable of ruling?

Incapable? No.

Just that men, generally speaking, are better suited to lead a country than women are.

And in addition to that, seeing as the king would be the head of the military, he would need to be able to lead not just the nation, but the military, and to be able to defend his country. Healthy males insist on protecting, not and defending, being protected or defended by , their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters, and other women.

You really feel a randomly selected 18-year-old is mentally and emotionally fit to rule the United States?

I think he would be a better option than someone who desires to rule, such as the politicians who govern us today.

Josiah became king at 8, and he was one of the most righteous kings in Israel's history.

And on top of that, someone who is crowned king at an early age would have more of an opportunity to grow with his country, and is much more likely to rule for a long period of time, gaining more and more experience as he gets older.

I know I wouldn't be comfortable with that prospect.

I'm not surprised.

Lording it over? If the person selected says "thanks but no thanks" are they going to be forced to be king if they don't want to be?

I'm sure he could be convinced. :think:

As I said (and I reworded this part of my previous comment, btw), a desire to lord it over one's neighbor is an undesirable trait for a leader to have, and if I'm not mistaken, usually the one's who are thrust into leadership are typically the best ones to lead.

Then why pass it on to the oldest son without first confirming competency?

That's how hereditary monarchies work. :think:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let's be thankful that this sort of bonkers, legalistic nonsense doesn't have a snowballs chance of coming about...

:rain:

Wow, a twofer!

Both an appeal to ridicule AND an appeal to the stone.

Get out of my thread if you're not here to discuss.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Does Bob Enyart even go along with this anymore?

With what?

 

[Arthur Brain]

This whole thing is ridiculous. If you think it's okay for an atheist to be randomly selected to be king then what on earth makes you think he would enact the laws that you want to see? He's hardly likely to uphold things like homosexuality being a capital crime based on religious reasons for a start.

 

[Arthur Brain]

With what?

This proposed "constitution". Is it even on his site?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Wow, a twofer!

Both an appeal to ridicule AND an appeal to the stone.

Get out of my thread if you're not here to discuss.

Your advocation is absolutely open to ridicule. It simply wouldn't work. You propose some random male to be elected via a lottery and whether he has the capability or willingness to lead doesn't matter. He's "king" until he dies. He may well not believe in what you consider should be righteous laws so what then? How much power does he have? Say he refuses to enact laws that make homosexuality and adultery a crime or ones that force teenagers to get married for life if they're caught having sex?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This whole thing is ridiculous.

More appeal to ridicule.

:troll:

If you think it's okay for an atheist to be randomly selected to be king then what on earth makes you think he would enact the laws that you want to see?

Considering that changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code would not be permitted, only changes to the Code of Use, and those only implemented one year after proposal, I don't see any problem with it.

He's hardly likely to uphold things like homosexuality being a capital crime based on religious reasons for a start.

See above.

This proposed "constitution". Is it even on his site?

It's available every five years, as it always has been. It should be available again in 2020, and perhaps permanently, should we be able to get everything completed.

 

[Arthur Brain]

More appeal to ridicule.

:troll:



Considering that changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code would not be permitted, only changes to the Code of Use, and those only implemented one year after proposal, I don't see any problem with it.



See above.



It's available every five years, as it always has been. It should be available again in 2020, and perhaps permanently, should we be able to get everything completed.

So, this "king" hasn't really got much power at all then. "King" in name only pretty much...

EDIT: Why is it only available every five years?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your advocation is absolutely open to ridicule.

Open to ridicule is one thing.

Using ridicule as your argument against my position is another, and is what you were doing.

It simply wouldn't work.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You propose some random male to be elected via a lottery

Yup.

and whether he has the capability or willingness to lead doesn't matter.

Straw man.

If he is capable of leading, he should lead.

If he is not capable, he should not.

He's "king" until he dies.

Why the quotations?

He may well not believe in what you consider should be righteous laws so what then?

So what?

Changes to the Constitution and the Criminal Code would not be allowed.

How much power does he have?

God.
Constitution (plus Criminal Code)
The king.

In that order. Does that help?

Say he refuses to enact laws that make homosexuality and adultery a crime or ones that force teenagers to get married for life if they're caught having sex?

He doesn't get to choose, as he has no power to change the constitution or criminal code.

:dunce: