Constitutional Monarchy

[JudgeRightly]

what are you warning me about?

Our forum punishment system uses a warning system (what used to be "infractions") Misbehave, and you will receive a warning from the system.

What are you gonna do? Kill me and eat me? send me home? Or are you warning me about actually subscribing to TOL? Don't worry, I have no intention of sending you 1 Penney.

In case you missed it: I'm one of the staff here on TOL. I have the ability to punish users for misbehaving (according to TOL's rules) by assigning points to your account via a warning, which may or may not result in a ban, which is either temporary or permanent, depending on the type of warning given.

To be clear, I want nothing to do with TOLL anymore because of you, and your kind.

Not my problem.

This is my 4th account here. I left years ago

You weren't banned, were you?

and I must say this place is just a shell of what it was 6 or 7 years ago. Good luck with your desolation.
Ban me and delete my account, I'll just shake the dust off and move on.

kthxbai!

 

[marke]

Deuteronomy 17
1 Samuel 8
1 Samuel 16

1 Timothy 6:15
Revelation 17:14
Revelation 19:16



Over a representative form of government?

Numbers 16
Romans 13
Matthew 7:13-14
Titus 3:1

God > Government > men
NOT
God > Men > Government



We're literally quoting scripture, and you have the gall to say that it's "interpretation"?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you are interpreting scripture. In this post, you don't even spell out the scripture but list scriptural references only. How do those scripture references convince you that God would rather America be governed by a human monarch than by an elected representative of the people under subjection to the US Constitution?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you are interpreting scripture. In this post, you don't even spell out the scripture but list scriptural references only. How do those scripture references convince you that God would rather America be governed by a human monarch than by an elected representative of the people under subjection to the US Constitution?

How about you go and read them, marke. It should be pretty obvious once you do.

If you're not willing to go and read the verses I quote, what good would it do for me to quote them here? What guarantee would I have that you even would bother to read them if I quoted them here, rather than just citing them?

Stop being lazy, marke.

 

[marke]

How about you go and read them, marke. It should be pretty obvious once you do.

If you're not willing to go and read the verses I quote, what good would it do for me to quote them here? What guarantee would I have that you even would bother to read them if I quoted them here, rather than just citing them?

Stop being lazy, marke.

I read the Bible all the time. I have been reading the Bible for 50 years. Not one of the verses you posted gives the impression to Christians that God would rather America was ruled by an ungodly king appointed by ungodly men rather than being ruled by elected officials appointed by a majority vote.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I read the Bible all the time. I have been reading the Bible for 50 years. Not one of the verses you posted gives the impression to Christians that God would rather America was ruled by an ungodly king appointed by ungodly men rather than being ruled by elected officials appointed by a majority vote.

Still with that straw man?

Good grief, marke.

What, in your own words, is our argument, marke? Do you even know? Because you are CONSTANTLY beating up a straw man in your posts that has very little to do with what we're arguing for.

And yes, I expect you to try to put our argument into your own words in your next post.

 

[marke]

Still with that straw man?

Good grief, marke.

What, in your own words, is our argument, marke? Do you even know? Because you are CONSTANTLY beating up a straw man in your posts that has very little to do with what we're arguing for.

And yes, I expect you to try to put our argument into your own words in your next post.

Let me go back to the beginning of this thread and try to do a better job explaining my position, the position I believe the Bible teaches. Stay tuned.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let me go back to the beginning of this thread and try to do a better job explaining my position, the position I believe the Bible teaches. Stay tuned.

No, marke, I want you to explain, in your own words, what our position is. I don't want to hear your position yet again.

 

[Clete]

The word I am looking for is "love." If you do not love others you are likely not saved.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Interesting. It's facinating to me to notice which doctrines people are willing to actually make arguments for. Pastors in particular seem bent toward only ever defending the most superficial understanding of the bible and seem to instinctively gravitate toward single sentence proof texting.

I love people enough to tell them the truth whether it hurts their little baby girl feelings or not.

If you don't like being called stupid then engage your mind and start making arguments. I've told you and told you and told you that I am not the least bit interested in your personal opinions and yet until it comes to you telling me that I'm not even saved, you can't be bothered to make a single argument, biblical or otherwise.

I support the Constitutional Republic form of government because I oppose governments run by one or only a few men of dubious Christian character.

And a government run by hundreds of men with absolutely no Christian character is superior, how?

If I am wrong for submitting that opinion then make your case.

We have made that case and have presented it to you and you refuse to read it!

If I am wrong to offer my opinions on a debate site then make your case.

It isn't opinions that are wrong on a debate forum, its MERE opinions. If you have a contrary opinion then simply stating it doesn't mean anything to me. I do not know you and have no reason to believe that you know up from down when it comes to anything, much less a topic as complex as what a biblically Christian government would look like. If you'd present the WHY along with the WHAT of your opinion then I'd refute it, as I just did a few sentences ago.

Galatians 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Just as I do to you when you waste everyone's time with your babbling, disjointed, nonsensical, unsubstantiated personal opinions.

Galatians 2 is, by the way, one of the top five most important chapters in the entire bible. Do you have any idea what was going on there and what Paul was upset about and why?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

I love people enough to tell them the truth whether it hurts their little baby girl feelings or not.

Count me in!

 

[marke]

No, marke, I want you to explain, in your own words, what our position is. I don't want to hear your position yet again.

I have no idea what your position is because, as I have said before, what you seem to be suggesting does not make sense and is not supported by direct revelations from God.

 

[marke]

Interesting. It's facinating to me to notice which doctrines people are willing to actually make arguments for. Pastors in particular seem bent toward only ever defending the most superficial understanding of the bible and seem to instinctively gravitate toward single sentence proof texting.

I love people enough to tell them the truth whether it hurts their little baby girl feelings or not.

If you don't like being called stupid then engage your mind and start making arguments. I've told you and told you and told you that I am not the least bit interested in your personal opinions and yet until it comes to you telling me that I'm not even saved, you can't be bothered to make a single argument, biblical or otherwise.

I don't believe I have said you are not saved. Why would I? I don't know how God assesses your claims to righteousness.

And a government run by hundreds of men with absolutely no Christian character is superior, how?

A government run by men of good character subjected to a charter fashioned after God's principles of righteousness will always be better than a government run by a dicataor appointed by rebels against God who despises Christians and Christianity.

We have made that case and have presented it to you and you refuse to read it!

You have posted your opinions about that and I have posted my disagreements. There is no biblical support for you claiming your opinions are infallible and non-debatable truths from God.

It isn't opinions that are wrong on a debate forum, its MERE opinions. If you have a contrary opinion then simply stating it doesn't mean anything to me. I do not know you and have no reason to believe that you know up from down when it comes to anything, much less a topic as complex as what a biblically Christian government would look like. If you'd present the WHY along with the WHAT of your opinion then I'd refute it, as I just did a few sentences ago.


Just as I do to you when you waste everyone's time with your babbling, disjointed, nonsensical, unsubstantiated personal opinions.

Galatians 2 is, by the way, one of the top five most important chapters in the entire bible. Do you have any idea what was going on there and what Paul was upset about and why?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

I have no idea what your position is because, as I have said before, what you seem to be suggesting does not make sense and is not supported by direct revelations from God.

So you disagree with a position but you have NO IDEA what it is?

Come on man!

 

[marke]

So you disagree with a position but you have NO IDEA what it is?

Come on man!

Let me rephrase. I have disagreed with some of your points I found confusing, problematic, and lacking biblical support. However, if you did not understand my objections or do not remember them then I will just skip it.

 

[Right Divider]

Let me rephrase. I have disagreed with some of your points I found confusing, problematic, and lacking biblical support.

• They were not my points.
• SPELL IT OUT. Identify SPECIFIC issues that you have issue with and why.
• Make an ARGUMENT.

However, if you did not understand my objections or do not remember them then I will just skip it.

Make SPECIFIC points. You continue to use vague generalities based on nothing more than your opinion.

 

[Clete]

I don't believe I have said you are not saved. Why would I? I don't know how God assesses your claims to righteousness.

You implied it and you know it.

A government run by men of good character subjected to a charter fashioned after God's principles of righteousness will always be better than a government run by a dictator appointed by rebels against God who despises Christians and Christianity.

Well, since no one here is proposing "a government run by a dictator appointed by rebels against God who despises Christians and Christianity" then we have common ground upon which to build.

People seem to always equate the term "monarchy" with "dictatorship". This is a false idea. There is no "divine right of kings" as England's monarchy had for centuries, nor would the proposed government even give the king the authority to enact laws. That doesn't mean that the king couldn't be evil and corrupt but as I pointed out in the last post, there's no prevention of that problem in a government run by whole groups of wanta-be tyrants in any form of republic. The advantage that a monarchy affords in this area is that its much easier to get a single man to repent than it is to get a group to do so. A point, you'd have been exposed to before had you bothered to read the materials presented to you multiple times in this thread.

You have posted your opinions about that and I have posted my disagreements. There is no biblical support for you claiming your opinions are infallible and non-debatable truths from God.

The biblical support is in the materials presented to you. Once again, this thread was started as a discussion between people who are already familiar with this material. It is you who refuse to bring yourself up to speed. It isn't my fault that you're lazy.

Clete

 

[marke]

• They were not my points.
• SPELL IT OUT. Identify SPECIFIC issues that you have issue with and why.
• Make an ARGUMENT.

Make SPECIFIC points. You continue to use vague generalities based on nothing more than your opinion.

I do the best I can to explain the objections I find to some of what you post. I'm sorry if you find my responses unacceptable.

 

[marke]

You implied it and you know it.

No, I don't know it.

Well, since no one here is proposing "a government run by a dictator appointed by rebels against God who despises Christians and Christianity" then we have common ground upon which to build.

Let's say you envision a king ruling America who is not an ungodly king. How would that king be appointed, by drawing straws? By contacting God for His approval? By asking the Catholic Church to appoint a king? I see multiple problems with any proposal that would put Americans back under the dominion of a single sinner-appointed sinful king.

People seem to always equate the term "monarchy" with "dictatorship". This is a false idea. There is no "divine right of kings" as England's monarchy had for centuries, nor would the proposed government even give the king the authority to enact laws. That doesn't mean that the king couldn't be evil and corrupt but as I pointed out in the last post, there's no prevention of that problem in a government run by whole groups of wanta-be tyrants in any form of republic. The advantage that a monarchy affords in this area is that its much easier to get a single man to repent than it is to get a group to do so. A point, you'd have been exposed to before had you bothered to read the materials presented to you multiple times in this thread.

Christians suffered greatly under English kings who held their positions by what men called a "divine right." America does not need to go back to such oppression by ungodly rulers claiming to have a divine right to oppress people.

The biblical support is in the materials presented to you. Once again, this thread was started as a discussion between people who are already familiar with this material. It is you who refuse to bring yourself up to speed. It isn't my fault that you're lazy.

Clete

I'm sorry if you fail to understand my objections to your biblical interpretations.

 

[Clete]

I do the best I can to explain the objections I find to some of what you post. I'm sorry if you find my responses unacceptable.

What you do is merely state that you object.

It's the WHY we are after!

And stating that "it doesn't make sense." doesn't count because that's just another "WHAT" not a "WHY"?

WHY doesn't it make sense? What is it that doesn't follow? Where's the contradiction? What principle does it violate and why is that principle valid?"

Pretend we are all five year olds asking the question "Why?" after everything you say but instead of blowing it off as a childish game, actually try to answer the question!

That will be a fun discussion! That we be engaging and interesting and not a waste of everyone's time (including your own) and we'd all get along and like each other and get something worthwhile out our time that we spend here whether anyone ever gets convinced of anything or not.

 

[marke]

What you do is merely state that you object.

It's the WHY we are after!

And stating that "it doesn't make sense." doesn't count because that's just another "WHAT" not a "WHY"?

WHY doesn't it make sense? What is it that doesn't follow? Where's the contradiction? What principle does it violate and why is that principle valid?"

Pretend we are all five year olds asking the question "Why?" after everything you say but instead of blowing it off as a childish game, actually try to answer the question!

That will be a fun discussion! That we be engaging and interesting and not a waste of everyone's time (including your own) and we'd all get along and like each other and get something worthwhile out our time that we spend here whether anyone ever gets convinced of anything or not.

I don't just ask why or say it does not make sense. I also offer my reasons. Have you not been reading or comprehending my responses?

 

[Clete]

Let's say you envision a king ruling America who is not an ungodly king. How would that king be appointed, by drawing straws? By contacting God for His approval? By asking the Catholic Church to appoint a king? I see multiple problems with any proposal that would put Americans back under the dominion of a single sinner-appointed sinful king.

How the first king would be appointed is the exact question that is being debated here. Israel's king was chosen by the casting of lots and Bob's essay proposes the same method by my objection to that is that if such a government were to be instituted in America then the casting of lots wouldn't be wise because the reason that this method worked for Israel is because God was working super-naturally on their behalf and moving things in the direction He wanted them to go and that America has no such corporate relationship with God as Israel enjoyed.

I actually have no problem with the final selection being determined by random selection (casting lots) but it should not be done in a manner that puts godly men and unbelievers on equal footing. Just as in Acts chapter 1 when Mathias was chosen by lot AFTER the Apostles seperated out men who all would have been equally qualified and suited to the role.

Christians suffered greatly under English kings who held their positions by what men called a "divine right."

Did you even read my previous post?

"Monarchy" and "dictatorship" are not synonyms. No one is proposing a system where there is a dictator.

America does not need to go back to such oppression by ungodly rulers claiming to have a divine right to oppress people.

Of course not!

I'm sorry if you fail to understand my objections to your biblical interpretations.

Your objections don't have anything to do with my biblical interpretations if you think those interpretations include supporting the installation of a dictator with the divine right of kings to rule over America or any other nation for that matter.

Do you believe that King David was a dictator with the divine right of kings?

If a democratic republic is a superior form of government to monarchy then why do you suppose that God set up a monarchy for Israel? Why didn't He set them up with a system of representatives chosen by the people who could then vote on what laws would be put in place and be voted out of office if they did things like over stepped their bounds?

And just how well is that system working out for us, by the way?