You begin and end your offering with the notion that "democracy", in and of itself, lay at the root of our inability to self govern.
Democracy is bad for a nation.
Just look at what happened to Korah and his posse...
You then get, in my estimation, much closer to the truth when you point out man as the weakness that results in the failure of this form of self government.
Any form of government that includes man is weakened simply due to man being part of it.
Thus, the goal should not be, "What is the perfect form of government?" but instead, "What is the form of government that is the most resistant to decay?"
I would take it a step further and point to 1 Sam 8. Being ruled over by the Lord was not sufficient and so began the experiment in self governance by God's chosen people. It's been down hill ever since and I think there is a lesson to be learned there.
As Clete pointed out already, God's intention was ALWAYS going to be that Israel would be ruled by a king.
The problem wasn't the kind of government they chose, but rather their impatience with God's timing.
I point to the fact that God, 400 years before Israel demanded God give them a king, wrote in the law He gave to Moses rules for the king to follow.
You then suggest that man (and woman) are inherently evil.
History teaches, through man's inhumanity towards man, that men are not basically good, but inherently evil.
Your opinion has been noted, and the note discarded.
I would suggest that we are capable of both good and evil and across the course of a lifetime we learn to eschew the latter and embrace the former.
Of course man is capable of both good and evil..
But that doesn't change the fact that man is inherently evil.
You then go on to lay the blame for our march toward "collectivism" at the feet of women being given the right to vote. While I would agree that they are "the weaker vessel" we are charged with their care and at some point we are going to have to quit playing Adam and blaming them for our own shortcomings.
Women are emotional creatures (as opposed to men, who are more logical/rational creatures).
If you hurt someone's feelings today, you're likely to go to jail.
Do I need to make the connection more explicit?
"People (both male and female) are evil, and once you get past a handful of trusted advisors, the more people involved in making a decision, the more likely that decision will be evil."
The Bible says this:
Prov 15: 22Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.
As Clete pointed out, but I'd like to reiterate:
A singular point of accountability often rightly motivates.
We're not saying that people shouldn't seek advice from their peers.
We're saying that decisions made by committees instead of a single person are more likely to be evil, due to the inherent evilness of men, and the fact that the majority is evil.
To put it another way: A single person has the opportunity to make good decisions. A committee full of evil people will never make good decisions.
The bigger the committee, the fewer those who control it.
You then go on to argue for an Old Testament justice system as if Jesus never showed up and said what He said.
Jesus taught the Mosaic law.
Any time you see Him correcting something that the Jews considered the law, go look up what the original law was in the Old Testament, and compare it to what Jesus said.
I guarantee you that the two will be identical, and that what the Jews thought was the law was, in fact, not what was originally said.
I know "an eye for an eye" sounds fair
That's because it IS fair.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Or the literal application of that, ie, the application of the law, "you will have done to you what you do unto others."
You intentionally destroy someone's eye? You will have your eye removed.
but it leaves us all blind eventually.
No, it doesn't, and to say it does makes God out to be unjust.
If we enforced just one law, and it was that if you harm someone so that they lose an eye, you will have your eye removed, and then swiftly, and painfully enforced it on the first person who broke that law, overnight, the number of crimes where someone's eye was irreparably damaged would plummet to almost ZERO!
It's called a deterrent effect.
Even better if it were capital punishment for crimes worthy of death. If we put one person, JUST ONE, to death, within 24-48 hours of conviction in a capital crime case, the number of capital crimes being commmitted would INSTANTLY drop to zero, thereby eliminating that crime from society.
Criminals are cowards, generally speaking, and will do anything they can to preserve themselves, even moreso when their very lives are at stake. Even the dumbest criminals would think twice about committing a crime they may lose their life over if they get caught.
Not only am I "not nicer than God" I'm not smarter than Him either.
You're certainly acting like you are.
I tend to just accept what He has said at face value and I find no need to rationalize what He has said to fit my preferences as I have none as it regards His pronouncements.
God said put the murderer to death, flog those guilty of assault, and force those who steal to pay back their victims.
If we can agree that said king was Jesus then I concur.
Nope. The children of Israel wanted a king just one generation earlier than God had planned.
Family history USED to be extremely important, and still is especially for royalty.
God reluctantly established Saul's throne, and was going to use him for the lineage of Christ (because He is omni-competent, and can adapt His plans), but then Saul rebelled, and became wicked, and so God had to remove him and his lineage from the throne. God had David anointed to become the next king, and the rest is history.
Jesus not only is King, but he has the lineage to back it up.
How many times in the Bible is Jesus referred to as Son of David in the New Testament? Every single time He is, it's a reference to his royal heritage. Christ is king of Israel not just in name, but he is the actual blood descendant (through Mary) of David!
Had Saul not rebelled, it would have been Saul's name there, and not David's.
Jesus was not and is not "a human".
Jesus became a man. If you deny that, then you are a heretic, and you need to repent.
He was not, then became, and remains to this day, a man.
He took on a human nature, thus making Him the Perfect Mediator between God and man.
A rather dreary outlook but I tend to agree. Myself personally, I have no interest in crowds much less following them but I am an outlier. We do tend to be a herd animal and that makes us susceptible to being led astray but, at the end of the day, that is still a choice that we must make and account for.
Then why support having a government based on what the crowd wants?
Rather counterproductive, if your goal is to have a just government...
If what you're suggesting here is that we have a clique of the enlightened run things ... they are working on that as we speak but I don't think that arrangement is going to end up the way you envision.
No, what we're advocating is a constitutional monarchy, with ONE person in authority over the nation, who himself rules from a position under the law.
I would respectfully suggest that you missed the entire point and purpose of Jesus.
And I would respectfully suggest that you need to look in a mirror.
Supra.
Do you not recall that little incident with the woman taken in adultery?
What about it?
And while we're at it, lets address King David the adulterer too.
Make the argument.
No, they didn't know it was wrong, they were told it was wrong ... there's a difference.
God told them not to eat of the tree.
Disobeying Him was and is wrong.
They knew it was wrong simply by being told that they shouldn't do it.
This isn't hard, FZ.
Satan told Eve something else
Not quite.
God told Adam that eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden.
Eve was not told this by God.
Instead, most likely, she was told by Adam to not eat of it nor to touch it. She, and likely Adam, put a law around the law, so that they would not break the law given by God. (This is a common theme throughout the Bible, by the way, putting a law around the law, for example, the Jews implemented a law that only up to 39 lashes should be given, so that they would never even accidentally violate God's command to give up to 40 lashes in punishment.) Satan used this to deceive Eve (and thus fell himself) by telling her that she wouldn't die... but left out the part he was referring to, that being "touching the fruit."
God said: "If you eat of the fruit, dying you shall die."
Eve said: "
God has said If one eats the fruit
or touches it, he will die."
Satan said: "You shall not surely die"... but left out "if you touch the fruit."
A very clever deception, if you ask me, one based on a falsehood AND a truth.
God did not say "nor shall you touch it." Eve attributed to God what God did not say, likely because it's what Adam told her.
and not knowing good from evil she went with it and so did Adam.
She knew only what Adam told her, because she was not told by God directly.
