Constitutional Monarchy

[Right Divider]

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?

That is one of the fundamental questions.

It seems to me that if the ONLY government that God instituted on earth (as documented in the Bible) was a constitutional monarchy, then perhaps that is the BEST form of government.

This is something that marke seems to have avoided at all costs.

 

[Right Divider]

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]

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.

You are correct to suggest that there is no godly way to guarantee any kingdom established in America would have God's blessing or that any king appointed by men would be blessed by God or that any method chosen by men to select a king would be approved by God.

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.

I see a problem with your opinions of how a kingdom could be established, under what rules, and how Americans could insure that the appointed king would be blessed by God.

Did you even read my previous post?

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

I see similarities between a monarchy with a king who answers to nobody and a dictatorship whose ruler answers to nobody.

Of course not!
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?

I think King David was chosen by God. I do not believe any king chosen by Americans could ever enjoy the privilege of being clearly chosen by God by God's direct intervention into the civil affairs of the nation like God was with Israel.

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?

Our system could be inferior to other systems but I am not convinced. Europeans fled the tyranny of monarchs in Europe to establish a republic in America subject to a Constitution framed by the precepts of God. God will not be coming down to America to put His stamp of approval on any king of His choice as He did in the nation of Israel.

 

[Right Divider]

I see similarities between a monarchy with a king who answers to nobody and a dictatorship whose ruler answers to nobody.

Your extreme BIAS causes you to FALSELY equate a king with a dictator.

The system which Clete prefers has a king BUT NOT A DICTATOR. Clete's king ANSWERS to the people.

Your continued use of a STRAW-MAN is dishonest.

 

[marke]

Your extreme BIAS causes you to FALSELY equate a king with a dictator.

The system which Clete prefers has a king BUT NOT A DICTATOR. Clete's king ANSWERS to the people.

Your continued use of a STRAW-MAN is dishonest.

Assuming sinners can gain God's approval without God's divine intervention and luckily and successfully appoint a king to rule over America, how is a king answerable to the people different than a president answerable to the people?

 

[Right Divider]

Assuming sinners can gain God's approval without God's divine intervention and luckily and successfully appoint a king to rule over America, how is a king answerable to the people different than a president answerable to the people?

These things are explained in the pages that Clete and JR have given you.
Perhaps if you would read them you would understand that position instead of ignorantly arguing against your straw-man.

 

[marke]

These things are explained in the pages that Clete and JR have given you.
Perhaps if you would read them you would understand that position instead of ignorantly arguing against your straw-man.

I don't need to read past posts to know from this response that you cannot refute my arguments here.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't need to read past posts to know from this response that you cannot refute my arguments here.

You are truly retarded.

I did not create that position and am under no obligation to defend it or explain it to you. It's there for you to learn about since it is obvious to all that you are completely ignorant as to what that position says.

I can tell you that YOU have LIED about what that position is. You have created a STRAW-MAN, which you proudly beat up time and time again.

 

[marke]

You are truly retarded.

I did not create that position and am under no obligation to defend it or explain it to you. It's there for you to learn about since it is obvious to all that you are completely ignorant as to what that position says.

I can tell you that YOU have LIED about what that position is. You have created a STRAW-MAN, which you proudly beat up time and time again.

All I can say is that I see no way to try to establish a monarchy in the US without God's specific instructions as to go about to appoint a king

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have no idea what your position is

Then what, exactly, have you been arguing against this entire time?

I suggest that next time you delve into a discussion mid-conversation you actually learn what your opponent's position is BEFORE you argue against it.

because, as I have said before, what you seem to be suggesting does not make sense

How would you know? You don't even know what my position is.

and is not supported by direct revelations from God.

Again, how would you know, since you don't know what my position is.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

Disagreeing with our position means nothing if you cannot show our position to be wrong.

You have not done so.

However, if you did not understand my objections

We completely understand your objections.

We have also pointed out that your objections are against straw men.

or do not remember them then I will just skip it.

You're the one who came into OUR discussion, marke.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

It's a point I've made repeatedly in this thread to him, that he has repeatedly ignored.

 

[marke]

Then what, exactly, have you been arguing against this entire time?

I suggest that next time you delve into a discussion mid-conversation you actually learn what your opponent's position is BEFORE you argue against it.



How would you know? You don't even know what my position is.



Again, how would you know, since you don't know what my position is.

I am not arguing anyone's position. They can argue their own positions. I am responding to people's posts and directing my answers to specific things said in the specific posts I am responding to.

 

[marke]

Disagreeing with our position means nothing if you cannot show our position to be wrong.

You have not done so.



We completely understand your objections.

We have also pointed out that your objections are against straw men.



You're the one who came into OUR discussion, marke.

I presented my arguments and my arguments were dismissed. I have come to expect that from debate sites.

 

[marke]

It's a point I've made repeatedly in this thread to him, that he has repeatedly ignored.

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.

If I ignore something that is evidenced by the fact that I do not offer my opinion in response to that subject. I think what I am being accused of here is allegedly ignoring posts on the basis of not convincing the person I am responding to that he is wrong and I am right. That is not what could be called "ignoring posts."

 

[Clete]

That is one of the fundamental questions.

It seems to me that if the ONLY government that God instituted on earth (as documented in the Bible) was a constitutional monarchy, then perhaps that is the BEST form of government.

This is something that marke seems to have avoided at all costs.

Yes, I've asked him this question more than once, with no answer. But then I've asked him all sorts of direct question that he hasn't answered. He seems to intentionally avoid answering direct questions or direct responses to anything for that matter.

 

[Clete]

You are correct to suggest that there is no godly way to guarantee any kingdom established in America would have God's blessing or that any king appointed by men would be blessed by God or that any method chosen by men to select a king would be approved by God.

Yes, of course I am. And, incidentally, it isn't my opinion either. Most of what we are discussing aren't matters of opinion.

I see a problem with your opinions of how a kingdom could be established, under what rules, and how Americans could insure that the appointed king would be blessed by God.

The rules are laid out in the bible and no one has suggested that "the appointed king would be blessed by God".

The point I am making, however, is that the likelihood of getting a righteous king goes way up if we illiminate as candidates for the position all those who do not profess Christ and have no understanding of the scriptures.

I see similarities between a monarchy with a king who answers to nobody and a dictatorship whose ruler answers to nobody.

Same can be said of a republic with a bloated bureaucracy and corrupted "representatives" who make the rules to suit themselves.

In the proposed system, the king would have no authority to enact new law (nor would anyone else, by the way.)

I think King David was chosen by God. I do not believe any king chosen by Americans could ever enjoy the privilege of being clearly chosen by God by God's direct intervention into the civil affairs of the nation like God was with Israel.

That wasn't the question!

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT KING DAVID WAS A DICTATOR WITH THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS?

Answer the question, Mark

Our system could be inferior to other systems but I am not convinced.

You've made no effort to even understand what it is we are proposing.

Europeans fled the tyranny of monarchs in Europe to establish a republic in America subject to a Constitution framed by the precepts of God.

Yeah, so what? We aren't talking about reestablishing a European style monarchy but rather a monarchy where the king is subject o a constitution framed by the precepts of God.

God will not be coming down to America to put His stamp of approval on any king of His choice as He did in the nation of Israel.

God didn't come down to America and put His stamp of approval on any President or set of representatives either, Marke. No one is suggesting that He would do such a thing.

How much time are we wasting debating issues that aren't even being proposed all because you can't be bothered to read the material that explains in detail that which we are proposing and why we are proposing it?

Clete

 

[Clete]

It's a point I've made repeatedly in this thread to him, that he has repeatedly ignored.

He ignores most everything anyone says.

 

[marke]

Yes, of course I am. And, incidentally, it isn't my opinion either. Most of what we are discussing aren't matters of opinion.

The rules are laid out in the bible and no one has suggested that "the appointed king would be blessed by God".

I have no idea what rules you are talking about that Americans should follow to appoint a king that is approved of God for America. I do see rules that applied to Jewish kings and I do see rules that apply to other kings that do not suggest kingdoms are the only type of government that is supposedly approved by God for Gentile nations.

The point I am making, however, is that the likelihood of getting a righteous king goes way up if we illiminate as candidates for the position all those who do not profess Christ and have no understanding of the scriptures.

You say "we" can eliminate non-Christian candidates, but you seem to miss the point that the "we Christians" is comparatively a very small number in America. Can "we" Christians impose our will on the rest of the nation?

Same can be said of a republic with a bloated bureaucracy and corrupted "representatives" who make the rules to suit themselves.

In the proposed system, the king would have no authority to enact new law (nor would anyone else, by the way.)

That wasn't the question!

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT KING DAVID WAS A DICTATOR WITH THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS?

Answer the question, Mark

Dictator - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

A dictator is someone who has absolute power — or who at least behaves as if they do by bossing others around.

www.vocabulary.com

In government, a dictator is a ruler who has total control over a country, with no checks or balances to prevent abuse of power

Divine right of kings | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament.

www.britannica.com

divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament.

If I base my answer on the given definitions I must say that for the most part, David did operate as a dictator with the divine right of kings.

You've made no effort to even understand what it is we are proposing.

You describe my failure to come to an agreement with you as a sin of laziness or unwillingness to think or reason. I think that is a wrong assessment.

Yeah, so what? We aren't talking about reestablishing a European style monarchy but rather a monarchy where the king is subject o a constitution framed by the precepts of God.


God didn't come down to America and put His stamp of approval on any President or set of representatives either, Marke. No one is suggesting that He would do such a thing.

How much time are we wasting debating issues that aren't even being proposed all because you can't be bothered to read the material that explains in detail that which we are proposing and why we are proposing it?

Clete

I do not agree that replacing our current system of government with a king that is subject to Congress and the Constitution will improve anything and I see no biblical mandate for such a change. If our current president is not subject to existing laws or the majority will of the people of the US then why should we think a king would be?

 

[marke]

He ignores most everything anyone says.

No, he does not.