Biblical and Political Arguments Against Democracy

[Jefferson]

Random number today = 5:

Biblical argument against democracy: "As in the modern vernacular, the Bible calls governing officials 'authorities': Titus 3"

Well, for the life of me, I don't see how this can be construed as a Biblical argument against democracy!

The line you quoted is explained by the lines underneath it:

· As in the modern vernacular, the Bible calls governing officials "authorities." Rom. 13 Titus 3 Luke 12 Acts 16
· Government authority does not imply majority rule, but rule over the majority. Rom. 13
· Democracy promotes arrogance, suggesting to people that the governing leaders should obey them.
· Democracy: people obey the gov't, which obeys the people, who obey the gov't, which obey the people, etc.
· Circular authority suffers from the same weakness as circular reasoning: both lack a valid foundation.

 

[aharvey]

Jesus was referring to government. He was referring to His comming kingdom - "So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" (Matthew 19:28)

So the answer to the relevance of Mark 9 to government comes not from Mark 9 but from Matthew 19? Oookaaayyy!

 

[aharvey]

The line you quoted is explained by the lines underneath it:

Gotcha. So these are not all separate arguments, though they are presented as such. And as I've already posted on the fallacy of the second line (that is, Rom 13 says nothing that suggests that 'government authority does not imply majority rule, but rule over the majority'), then the only, I repeat only, idea that has a Biblical connection (even if it is translation-specific) is the first one, namely that both the Bible and our modern democracy use the word "authorities" to mean "governing officials." That's enough to claim a "Biblical argument"? Wow.

 

[Jefferson]

So the answer to the relevance of Mark 9 to government comes not from Mark 9 but from Matthew 19? Oookaaayyy!

Mark and Matthew are synoptic gospels. It's called comparing scripture with scripture to get the entire context before interpreting.

 

[Granite]

The disgust and hatred some have for democracy here would only enable the same totalitarianism that's been practiced in the name of religion many times before. Some things never change.

 

[Morphy]

The disgust and hatred some have for democracy here would only enable the same totalitarianism that's been practiced in the name of religion many times before. Some things never change.

I bet you "hatred and disgust for democracy" here is much lesser than hatred and disgust the left has for capitalism and monarchy.

 

[Granite]

I bet you "hatred and disgust for democracy" here is much lesser than hatred and disgust the left has for capitalism and monarchy.

What does a silly comment like that have to do with anything?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The disgust and hatred some have for democracy here would only enable the same totalitarianism that's been practiced in the name of religion many times before. Some things never change.

Let's see, a supposition based on no facts ... then conclude that some things never change. How convinent that circular arguments work that way.

 

[aharvey]

Mark and Matthew are synoptic gospels. It's called comparing scripture with scripture to get the entire context before interpreting.

Yeah, I get that. These are not the same incidents. You are comparing apples with oranges. One could easily get support for a shockingly wide range of ideas supported by Jesus by carelessly or misleading comparing scriptures, but I see you already know this!