All you have done is present your opinions and disagreements, but never not once have you even made even an effort to try to refute what you find disagreeable.
My opinion has nothing to do with it.
Your responses are unacceptable, period.
Then why in the world did you even bother to bring up salvation in a thread that has nothing to do with it?
The ONLY reason someone brings up whether a person is saved or not in a discussion like this is to try to discredit or or disqualify one's opponents, and it's usually after only making statements that do nothing to refute what was said by that opponent.
By lottery.
No. And this was answered in the OP in the original thread, and on https://kgov.com/constitution.
No. And this was answered in the OP in the original thread, and on https://kgov.com/constitution.
Straw man. The king would NOT by appointed by a man, but by a lottery, as required by the constitution.
How about the current dominion of literally thousands of sinner-appointed sinful rulers? How is that any better?
And yet, those nations lasted several times as long as America has even been around for.
Currently, America is on the brink of collapse due to the form of government it has and the decisions that government has made.
Which, again, isn't what is being proposed, marke.
More evidence that you haven't even bothered to try to grasp what our position is.
Again, we understand your objections just fine.
The problem is that they either have nothing to do with what our position is or they're just your opinions and nothing more. They're not substantive enough or even addressing what it is that we're saying for it to matter!
Asking WHY is fine. But you don't bother listening when we tell you.
Multiple times you have done just that, and nothing else.
You've certainly given your opinion on why you think they're wrong, but you have yet to make an actual argument, marke.
We have. Have you?
[Addressed by Clete]
It's not "our" opinions though, marke.
And it's not even opinions, at this point, it's the proposal of a thought out system that is based on Biblical principles.
What problem, specifically, do you see, marke?
Spell it out for us.
Any government that honors God will be blessed by Him, and any government that dishonors God will be cursed by Him.
But that's not saying that God is actively blessing or cursing governments. No, when the Bible talks about nations being blessed or cursed, it's simply the consequences of their actions, nations that honor God tend to prosper and their people live good lives (in terms of quality, not morality), and that is what being blessed is talking about, and nations that dishonor God tend to collapse and their people suffer as a result of their rebellion against Him. That is what is meant by blessings and curses in the Bible.
As such, there is, as mentioned, no guarantee that the king who is chosen to rule America would honor God, and thus be blessed by Him. Had you read the required materials beforehand, you would have known that already.
The problem is that you're conflating the two.
A monarch is someone who is appointed, through no means of his own (barring usurpery).
A dictator is someone who obtains power through force, either by gaming the system in place, or by taking over the government by force and ignoring the system to establish his own rules.
The proposed system appoints a leader through lottery, which, as the Bible says:
Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV
Which, in the proposed system, means that whoever is chosen is, or at least should be without contention or dispute, the ruler of the nation.
No force, therefore no inherent dictatorship.
Now, could a king become a dictator AFTER he comes into power? Sure, and there's no guarantee that he won't, but there are other factors in play here that deter such behavior, and ultimately, at the very least, such a ruler will eventually die, and his oldest son, or if none, another man chosen by lottery, will take over.
He was. You don't need the "I think" in front of that sentence.
Straw man.
The proposed system does not have the people choosing a king, but rather he is chosen by lottery.
Thankfully, that's not what our position is, and you would have known that had you actually read what was asked of you.
It IS inferior, for the reasons stated throughout this thread and the original thread, as well as the links posted in both threads.
That's nice.
I don't know who taught you history, but you need to go back to the classroom.
1. The goal of Columbus was to establish a trade route to India.
2. The Pilgrims came to America in search for religious freedom.
3. The goal of those who came to this continent was not to "establish a republic subject to a Constitution framed by the precepts of God."
4. As I stated before, America almost had a king, Prince Henry of Prussia, which shows that the people back then were NOT opposed to monarchy as a whole, but rather with the king of England who was taxing and burdening the colonies too much. The War for Independence wasn't because monarchies are bad, but because of the many reasons stated in the Delaration of Independence (some of which are, by today's standards, leftist complaints, by the way, and thus some of what is stated as reasons for independence are not unjust things, like "taxation without representation," for example).
5. And most importantly, the Constitution we have today is unconstitutional: https://kgov.com/the-us-constitution-is-itself-unconstitutional
No one said that He would or should, nor is that what is being proposed.
Clete and I differ on this point, so I'm going to answer differently than him here.
My position, and the point of contention between myself and Clete, is that the king doesn't answer to the people, and that, as the proposed constitution sayd, while there is no earthly authority over him to hold him to account, he DOES answer to God, and his actions will be judged by those he rules over, and history will be the record by which he will be judged on Judgement day.
Even an evil king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s
actions.
In other words: "I'm right and your wrong, and there's no reason to for me to read your arguments."
Try again.
I either asked Bob about, or he said somewhere that I read about, how we would go about implementing the proposed constitution and government, without violating the principles taught in the Bible (such as Romans 13, where everyone is subject to the authorities already in power). Basically, outside of the collapse or disappearance of the current government, or an abolishing of the current government by itself, or by an outside power taking over and setting up the proposed government, there IS NOT a way to implement the proposed government. And no, a coup nor a revolution are not options.
This one sentence tells us that you're not paying attention to what we're writing.
I asked you, "what have you been arguing AGAINST this entire time?" and told you to learn what your opponent's position is BEFORE you argue against it.
You're presenting your opinions, and nothing more.
We've said it before, I'll say it again:
WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR OPINIONS ARE UNLESS you can back them up with arguments.
You haven't presented any arguments, marke. You've simply given your opinions.
And I've asked you before, and I'll ask again:
IF YOU HAVE made any arguments, please QUOTE them in your response to this post. Maybe we missed them, but you won't even repeat the supposed arguments you claim to have made!
:yawn:
You're being accused of (and rightly so) ignoring the arguments and materials presented.
Ignoring posts is part of what you've done so far in this thread, what little there is that you HAVE done...
