toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a ro

[Arthur Brain]

That a monarch can do greater damage, something else you people never admit. Or that the country that gave you the privilege to spout this ridiculous childish rhetoric was founded on the rejection of this divine right of kings nonsense.

:think:

I'm reminded of that old adage:

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"....

Though I'm not sure it's entirely fair...

 

[Thunder's Muse]

I am actually looking forward to it....I will probably watch it on TV.

I was about 10 when Charles married Diana...I was enthralled (I even had a scrapbook dedicated to Diana :chuckle: ). Over time, I followed Diana's story ... like many, she was one of my faves.... I remember being in shock for a few days when she died and wept when I watched her funeral.

As William is her son, I feel a certain affection for him.... and Kate is just lovely.

I am all for a Royal Family. The history is facinating, it's helped shape the great country I live in and I'm a bit of an odd romantic.

 

[Quincy]

I doubt if Lewis, a Christian theologian, would have advocated idolatry of any kind. What he said was not 'idolize', but 'honor'. And if you don't think that people who don't honor kings are going to honor celebrities and prostitutes, well, just look around. That's pretty much whom American culture does honor.

Well perception is everything. We all see things differently on a mental level. Myself, being a non-christian, I don't have a very favorable view of the guy because of some of the things he has wrote. A lot of what he wrote seemed like just preaching to the choir and some of it, like what you quoted, shows he had a very negative view of people who didn't believe what he does. He just wrapped it up in some nice poeticism.

With respect, I simply don't think that's the case. Some men are smart, some men are stupid. Some women are pretty, some women are plain. Some people are rich, some people are poor. Some people are honest, some people are crooks. The list goes on. I can think of very few respects in which 'all humans are equal'.

Do you think a person can intrinsically be better than a criminal or do you think the criminal just made a bad choice and that you just have better behaviour than he/she? I'm talking about on a basic nature level, not superficial stuff. I believe image creates the disparity but on a basic natural level, we are all the same.

If they're all equal, how can they also be exceptional? I am reminded of the movie 'The Incredibles', where Helen is taking her son Dash home from school.

Everybody is exceptional at being who they are. We all have things we are exceptional at. I can play several brass instruments well, first chair with trombone but I can barely pass a high school physics class. We all have our flaws which means no one is perfect. We are all on equal grounds, but have things we are exceptional at that makes us individuals.

I'm not sure what you mean. In what sense might a person be 'lesser than someone else'?

They can't be and no one can be better than someone else, on a basic core level.

1) Where do you draw the line between honor and idolization?

If you want to honor someone, make a statue of him or name a bridge after him. If you want to idolize him, put him on a throne, give him riches and your undying loyalty.

2) Why do you think most kings seek the latter?

History. Has an enlightened king ever existed? I think the norm tends more towards the Caligula "syndrome" . They start out benevolent, but they end in failure.

Probably not, but if anyone can be, it's a king. A king did nothing to earn his position and he knows it. This leaves some room for humility which is lacking with a merely rich person who won his own station in life, and completely absent with politicians, who are incredibly egotistical people, as a rule.

I have a much different view of how a king comes into power, so maybe I'm wrong there. I've been under the impression that they're usually crowned leader by a populace (much like our presidents only you CAN"T vote them out of power. Why some Americans seem to want to jump at the chance to give this right up :idunno: ) for being the best warrior or the richest landowner or he killed the prior king. How does a king come to be that didn't earn it?

I certainly wouldn't want to put any man on God's level, except of course the Man Who is God.

So, seriously, what it is you believe a king does or should do? Do you think that the way people treat a king and what they look to the king for is different than what Christians look to Christ for?

I think a king, on account of not having earned his position and being raised all his life to believe in his sacred duty to his country and take it very seriously, is probably the least likely of any leader to think he is a god. Compare with politicians(arrogant, egotistical types who seek power over others, the lot of them).

So how do you choose this king if he doesn't earn it? On what ground can he be considered royal? A monarch must be preeminent. So what has he done in that case to prove he is superior to everyone else in the kingdom and above falling to tyrannical egoity?

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

I think we care too much about it. I almost feel bad for them - everyone else wants to peep in on one of the most important, personal days of your life. And by everyone - the world.
I wish Kate and William all the best and hope they will live happy, fulfilled lives with each other.

 

[Tambora]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 26th, 2011 09:37 AM

toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a royal family in general?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Nah.
Seen one, you've seen them all.

 

[steko]

Not much interest, here. I note the event as I observe the news. It might prove to be something of significance in the future, but maybe not. I'm not interested in any of the details.

 

[Samstarrett]

Well perception is everything. We all see things differently on a mental level. Myself, being a non-christian, I don't have a very favorable view of the guy because of some of the things he has wrote. A lot of what he wrote seemed like just preaching to the choir

Which works of his did you feel did that?

and some of it, like what you quoted, shows he had a very negative view of people who didn't believe what he does. He just wrapped it up in some nice poeticism.

I suppose you could see it that way. I won't argue with you. I guess that that's not nearly so strong a point against him for me as for you, though, maybe because I think what he said was true. I really have no use for equality and if a man does value equality that highly, I do think he's missing 'the dance', as Lewis put it. :idunno:

Do you think a person can intrinsically be better than a criminal or do you think the criminal just made a bad choice and that you just have better behaviour than he/she?

Well, I think that a person can intrinsically be more honest, more loving, or less malicious than a criminal; whatever the bad quality was to which the criminal succumbed to commit his crime, another person can lack or have to a lesser degree. I'm not sure if that's quite what you mean when you speak of a person being 'better', though. If by a 'better man', you mean a more moral one, then yes, I think some men are undoubtedly better than others.

I'm talking about on a basic nature level, not superficial stuff. I believe image creates the disparity but on a basic natural level, we are all the same.

Supra.

Everybody is exceptional at being who they are.

Sounds a little psychobabbly for my taste.

We all have things we are exceptional at. I can play several brass instruments well, first chair with trombone but I can barely pass a high school physics class. We all have our flaws which means no one is perfect.

Well, if we're talking about talent, wouldn't you say that there are people who are both more and less talented than you are, overall?

They can't be and no one can be better than someone else, on a basic core level.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by 'better'. If you mean more moral, then I sharply disagree.

If you want to honor someone, make a statue of him or name a bridge after him. If you want to idolize him, put him on a throne, give him riches and your undying loyalty.

OK. Then from that angle I can see why you'd think a subject idolizes his king. My dictionary says that to idolize means 'to admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively.'

In the first definition, admire, revere, or love greatly, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that to a person. There are many people whom I love greatly, and I suspect that's true of all of us.

However, to admire or revere someone excessively is certainly bad, though I'm not sure we can ever love someone excessively. Of course, what excessively means depends on how much admiration or reverence someone is owed. I don't think the honor traditionally given to monarchs in Western society is excessive.

History. Has an enlightened king ever existed? I think the norm tends more towards the Caligula "syndrome" . They start out benevolent, but they end in failure.

Oh sure. I think Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, for instance, is an excellent monarch. I also admire Constantine II of Greece greatly, though I disagree with his democratizing policy. I can search out more examples of monarchs I think ruled well if you like, though by their nature, I think that monarchs who ruled well will not be as famous as those who ruled poorly, because the better kings will be more conservative and innovate less.

I have a much different view of how a king comes into power, so maybe I'm wrong there. I've been under the impression that they're usually crowned leader by a populace (much like our presidents only you CAN"T vote them out of power. Why some Americans seem to want to jump at the chance to give this right up :idunno: ) for being the best warrior or the richest landowner or he killed the prior king. How does a king come to be that didn't earn it?

Your view of how a monarch comes to power may apply to the first monarch of a dynasty, but after that, it typically becomes hereditary. I'll grant that with the first king, many of the advantages of monarchy are absent, but I'm willing to deal with that so that I can get the hereditary kings later.

So, seriously, what it is you believe a king does or should do? Do you think that the way people treat a king and what they look to the king for is different than what Christians look to Christ for?

Absolutely. The king ought to be the head of state and the head of government. The king ought to have the power of pardon as a last resort for the innocent and he ought to have veto power over any legislation. These are the key things the king should do politically; protect the innocent, stand for good laws even when they may not be popular, and protect tradition against unnecessary innovation. The king should also have the right to be informed by, to encourage, and to warn the officials of his government on every significant action. There are other powers I would give the king(and did, in the Constitution I drafted), but those are the basic ones.

The king as head of state also ought to receive foreign diplomats, give honors such as knighthoods, preside over state occasions and events, and generally embody the spirit and values of the nation.

That is different from what we look to Christ for, which is first and foremost salvation, though there is undoubtedly overlap, which is to be expected as Christ is the King of Kings.

So how do you choose this king if he doesn't earn it? On what ground can he be considered royal?

Birth.

A monarch must be preeminent. So what has he done in that case to prove he is superior to everyone else in the kingdom

Nothing. Rather, having been born into the right family, he is then trained all of his life for his role. It's less a matter of being born with the necessary skills as being born with the expectation of the duty, and thus having the necessary skills taught to him from the beginning.

and above falling to tyrannical egoity?

There is no guarantee of this. However, I hope we can agree that the worst people to give power to are those who seek it. In a monarchy, the king at least can be a person who would not voluntarily seek power and doesn't want to run other people's lives; the chances of getting a president like that are practically none.

 

[Samstarrett]

:think:

I'm reminded of that old adage:

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"....

Though I'm not sure it's entirely fair...

Sure, but it's nothing more than a myth to say that all, or even most, monarchists, promote giving anyone absolute power. I certainly don't.

 

[Granite]

Well, I'm looking at the state of the democratic republics of the world compared with the old monarchies and the surviving real monarchies and not seeing that to be the case.

Because the surviving monarchies are largely toothless--that might have something to do with it. And if you're unable to see the despotism and elitism inherent to monarchy, then you're being deliberately obtuse.

Are you suggesting that in a monarchy I would not be allowed to promote monarchy?

No. Go back and read what I said.

 

[Granite]

Let's see:

A bunch of in-bred elites vastly out of touch with the masses who rule for life sequestered in their court from the people they lord it over is somehow a superior system to a form of government that demands transparency and accountability and can reject and oust a corrupt ruler in a civil and organized fashion.

Uh-huh.

 

[Beatrice]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 26th, 2011 09:37 AM

toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a royal family in general?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Not interested in the wedding.

I do not approve of monarchies.

 

[nicholsmom]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 26th, 2011 09:37 AM

toldailytopic: The Royal wedding are you interested in it? How about the idea of a royal family in general?

Not particularly interested, though I do love weddings in general. I don't know these people, so I can't seem to care much about the wedding. I hope they have a successful marriage especially since, like it or not, their lives are in the public eye.

I frankly don't comprehend why the people of the UK continue to pay through the nose for such useless royalty.

 

[nicholsmom]

Concerning:

"Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach–men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honor a king, they honor millionaires, athletes or film stars instead–even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food, and it will gobble poison." --C.S. Lewis

A prime example of the man's fluff at its worst.

If you are defining "fluff" as having a poor a priori assumption going in, then I'd agree. It assumes that there are no men of virtue other than kings and that kings are all honorable. A strange assumption considering history.

This is an example of one of C.S. Lewis' blind spots. He wasn't perfect, and this quote is proof enough of that.

 

[Samstarrett]

Because the surviving monarchies are largely toothless--that might have something to do with it.

I was speaking specifically of those few that aren't; in the civilized world, that's only Monaco and Liechtenstein, but even Arab and African monarchies, while generally not free, are no more despotic and totalitarian than their republican counterparts, and often somewhat less so.

And if you're unable to see the despotism and elitism inherent to monarchy, then you're being deliberately obtuse.

I don't see the despotism. As far as elitism goes, I don't think that's inherently bad.

No. Go back and read what I said.

Sorry, free speech is not mutually exclusive with monarchy.

 

[Granite]

I was speaking specifically of those few that aren't; in the civilized world, that's only Monaco and Liechtenstein, but even Arab and African monarchies, while generally not free, are no more despotic and totalitarian than their republican counterparts, and often somewhat less so.

How could there be a "republican counterpart" to a monarchy, Sam? And how on earth could you take the Sauds, for example, as anything to emulate?:hammer:

Tell you what, you wanna see real, modern monarchism up close? Go to North Korea. That family there knows exactly what to do, and how to do it.

I don't see the despotism. As far as elitism goes, I don't think that's inherently bad.

Then you're ignorant. Sorry, that's the way it is. Anyone who examines the history of monarchial government can't help but see the consistent abuses of the system. So, either you really haven't, or you're being deliberately obtuse. You're starry-eyed but don't seem to have really given this issue a lot of thought.

Sorry, free speech is not mutually exclusive with monarchy.

Again, you're missing the point of what I said. While you're well within your rights to indulge in this inane daydreaming it's pretty insulting for an American of all people to be extolling the virtues of a king.

 

[rexlunae]

It seems that I am "odd man out". The royal weddings intrigue me. I watched when Charles and Diana got married, I will watch when William and Kate get hitched. It is history - monumental history in the making.

I don't see how it can be called monumental history. It mostly impacts the royal family itself, while even British civic life continues mostly as it would have otherwise. It might eventually determine who, decades from now, will give Parliament the royal assent, assuming the monarchy continues to function for that long, but that seems so trivial compared to the actual meaningful history playing out in other places, and even in the UK itself.

I guess I am a bit surprised that people find it so boring.

It's not boring. It's revolting. It's the entanglement of a state with the personal lives of some of its supposed leaders and vice versa, such that anything that happens in their mundane personal lives that's at all irregular becomes literally an affair of state.

It's not really much different than all the news coverage on the election or swearing in of the new pres in the USA or any of a number of spectacular events that people are interested in.

The nice thing about politicians in this country is that their personal lives remain personal for the most part, and if they don't, we can throw the bums out. No one is entitled or obligated to office.

Look at how people go insane when a celebrity like Michael Jackson died or Elvis? eeeeeee gads !!!!

Well, my objections are political, not personal, but I'm not really much a fan of following celebrities either. But there's still a key difference here. These celebrities are well-known and followed because they did something with their lives that got them noticed. Royal families are supposed to be important by birth.

I think the wedding appeals to the positive in the face of the wars and natural disasters. A kind of "reprieve" from the ugliness of the world right now.

Even if you can find the positive in the wedding, it seems like we have plenty of better options for distracting ourselves from the world if we want them.

It's a real life fairy tale for the moment and I totally understand England's/UK's infatuation with the new princess to be.

Maybe fairy tales appeal to you. :idunno:

In the last 30 years they have gone through so much tragedy and now a high point. According to the reports there will be a billion people on the outside tuned in, so I guess I am one of tons who are stupid enough to be "bored" :chuckle:

I really kinda wonder how they know that. But anyway, I guess I'm in the larger camp who think the Brits would be better off if they jettisoned all this nonsense in favor of a republican form of government like a modern state.

 

[rexlunae]

Sure, but it's nothing more than a myth to say that all, or even most, monarchists, promote giving anyone absolute power. I certainly don't.

Monarchs usually lose absolute powers in the face of republican movements, often giving up powers to appease the people calling for their complete removal.

 

[rexlunae]

I'd like to see the dress.each:

I've heard quite a few women say that, and I really especially don't understand it. But maybe that's just me being a dude.

 

[red cardinal]

I don't see how it can be called monumental history. It mostly impacts the royal family itself, while even British civic life continues mostly as it would have otherwise. It might eventually determine who, decades from now, will give Parliament the royal assent, assuming the monarchy continues to function for that long, but that seems so trivial compared to the actual meaningful history playing out in other places, and even in the UK itself.

I think you have to understand the culture. Many countries have royalty presiding over the people. And obviously England/UK loves their sovereignty which has been proved by the millions who turn out to get a glimpse of the new princess. Historically, I think it is important to the English and to the world, as its queen or king have always been viewed as newsworthy. Here in America, it's not a big deal to most, but to others around the world it is.

It's not boring. It's revolting. It's the entanglement of a state with the personal lives of some of its supposed leaders and vice versa, such that anything that happens in their mundane personal lives that's at all irregular becomes literally an affair of state.

And you think it's any different in this country? With the news media and paparazzi chasing after every political figure and celebrity in every nuance of their lives???

The nice thing about politicians in this country is that their personal lives remain personal for the most part, and if they don't, we can throw the bums out. No one is entitled or obligated to office.

I just know you are just being sarcastic now - you need to get out more :crackup:

Well, my objections are political, not personal, but I'm not really much a fan of following celebrities either. But there's still a key difference here. These celebrities are well-known and followed because they did something with their lives that got them noticed. Royal families are supposed to be important by birth.

And you don't think that children of celebs are not important "by birth" and hounded by the media? How about Michael Jackson's kids, just for a hint!!! :thinkude, you really need to get out more!!!

Even if you can find the positive in the wedding, it seems like we have plenty of better options for distracting ourselves from the world if we want them.

It is what it is. And it is the central news story for this week, so you are gonna have to deal with it :rain: I think it's a nice escape from all the worldwide crud at the moment. In Steven Tyler's [on Idol] favorite words - it's just beautiful, man, just beautiful :first:

Maybe fairy tales appeal to you. :idunno:

There are tons of romantics out there and "happy forever after" aficionados. Give them some space :cloud9:

I really kinda wonder how they know that. But anyway, I guess I'm in the larger camp who think the Brits would be better off if they jettisoned all this nonsense in favor of a republican form of government like a modern state.

Oh pahlease ..... Are you not aware of how the ratings work in "TVland"? Have you never heard of the Nielson rating calculations?

If the Brits "jettisoned all this nonsense" then we wouldn't have weeks of news coverage highlighting the spectacular and magnificent royal weddings for all us "common folk" who rather enjoy the festivities ... :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

What's so monumental about seeing some inbred transplanted Germans who don't work get hitched?