Constitutional Monarchy

Idolater

Well-known member
So then it makes no difference what form of government we have because "only God can fix it"! Might as well be fascist or communist or just a straight up dictatorship with a emperor king that rules by fiat.

What is the point of even discussing these issues if this is the depth you're capable of? How boring!
It makes a difference because it's the institutions of liberal democracy, or just liberalism, that define the liberal regime, of which most of the world's developed nations are right now, I'm not sure that there's any real exception.

The liberal institutions are guarded jealously in functioning, moral regimes, and their degradation typifies immoral regimes.

Basic agreement is required to preserve liberalism, we have to agree on what constitutes a mala in se crime,1 and that means also we agree on certain absolute rights, because absolute rights are always against mala in se crimes, that would be committed against us, examples include perjury or false testimony against us, and being raped, kidnapped or murdered.

Any regime that doesn't agree with us about what crimes we have rights against, is a dysfunctional and immoral regime, it's the definition of one. And morality is objective, not relative, so we don't just disagree, we are right and they are wrong.

An immoral regime is an illiberal regime. The form of government matters because the definition of a moral regime excludes all but liberalism, or liberal democracy, or in shorthand just democracy. It's important to note that when 'democracy' is used it frequently means liberalism, which as I said above, means the liberal institutions. When we wanted to "spread democracy" it wasn't absolute democracy, but limited, constitutional, liberal democracy.


1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
 

marke

Well-known member
So then it makes no difference what form of government we have because "only God can fix it"! Might as well be fascist or communist or just a straight up dictatorship with a emperor king that rules by fiat.

What is the point of even discussing these issues if this is the depth you're capable of? How boring!
Christians were persecuted under European monarchs so they came to America and established freedom of religion by law. Thank God. Modern democrats wickedly condemn religious convictions which contradict atheist hedonist liberal laws, but they are wrong with the Constitution and wrong with God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Christians were persecuted under European monarchs so they came to America and established freedom of religion by law. Thank God.
Yeah, which is why no one here is advocating a fiat monarchy where the king's word is law.

Thanks for contributing exactly nothing to the discussion!

Modern democrats wickedly condemn religious convictions which contradict atheist hedonist liberal laws, but they are wrong with the Constitution and wrong with God.
So what? They're in power aren't they? They were put in power by means of duly constituted popular vote and those who voted for them like their policies and think you and are the one's that are hedonistic and wrong with both God and the constitution. Whether you like it or not, it is the Constitution of the United States of America that gave us Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Cortez.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
It makes a difference because it's the institutions of liberal democracy, or just liberalism, that define the liberal regime, of which most of the world's developed nations are right now, I'm not sure that there's any real exception.

The liberal institutions are guarded jealously in functioning, moral regimes, and their degradation typifies immoral regimes.

Basic agreement is required to preserve liberalism, we have to agree on what constitutes a mala in se crime,1 and that means also we agree on certain absolute rights, because absolute rights are always against mala in se crimes, that would be committed against us, examples include perjury or false testimony against us, and being raped, kidnapped or murdered.

Any regime that doesn't agree with us about what crimes we have rights against, is a dysfunctional and immoral regime, it's the definition of one. And morality is objective, not relative, so we don't just disagree, we are right and they are wrong.

An immoral regime is an illiberal regime. The form of government matters because the definition of a moral regime excludes all but liberalism, or liberal democracy, or in shorthand just democracy. It's important to note that when 'democracy' is used it frequently means liberalism, which as I said above, means the liberal institutions. When we wanted to "spread democracy" it wasn't absolute democracy, but limited, constitutional, liberal democracy.


1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
I fully understand why such discussions make a difference but no such discussion is possible when people aren't willing or capable of getting more than an inch deep into the subject and blow anything and everything anyone says off with flippant stupidity like "only God can fix it".

Incidentally, do you hold the belief that morality is subjective as an absolute?

Clete
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
Yeah, which is why no one here is advocating a fiat monarchy where the king's word is law.

Thanks for contributing exactly nothing to the discussion!


So what? They're in power aren't they? They were put in power by means of duly constituted popular vote and those who voted for them like their policies and think you and are the one's that are hedonistic and wrong with both God and the constitution. Whether you like it or not, it is the Constitution of the United States of America that gave us Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Cortez.
Wrong. Democrats are not in power because they do good and received the support of the majority voters. They are in power because they do wickedly and have seized illegitimate control of political power by voter fraud and corruption.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Wrong. Democrats are not in power because they do good and received the support of the majority voters. They are in power because they do wickedly and have seized illegitimate control of political power by voter fraud and corruption.
You're so full of stupidity that it's a waste of time to even talk to you.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
...do you hold the belief that morality is subjective as an absolute?
No, I hold that morality is objective as an absolute. I don't hold that morality is subjective at all.

It's important for me to clarify, that I mean by morality and morals, not "the moral of the story" or even when we talk about someone having either good or loose morals. I mean by immorality, crimes. Murder, rape, false testimony /perjury, and other things that cause objective harm to other parties, and /or that violate our universal absolute rights, and without justification.

Laws objectively authorize the government /police /regime to seriously interfere in your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if you go and break the law.

So unless the law protects morality, and morality is objective, then it would be immoral for your life to be invaded by the government for breaking it, because it's necessarily then subjective, and relativistic, which means there isn't any true immorality. Basically either nihilism is true, or morality is objective. And if and only if the latter is true, are any laws moral.

And I take that to be both objective and absolute.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No, I hold that morality is objective as an absolute. I don't hold that morality is subjective at all.

It's important for me to clarify, that I mean by morality and morals, not "the moral of the story" or even when we talk about someone having either good or loose morals. I mean by immorality, crimes. Murder, rape, false testimony /perjury, and other things that cause objective harm to other parties, and /or that violate our universal absolute rights, and without justification.

Laws objectively authorize the government /police /regime to seriously interfere in your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, if you go and break the law.

So unless the law protects morality, and morality is objective, then it would be immoral for your life to be invaded by the government for breaking it, because it's necessarily then subjective, and relativistic, which means there isn't any true immorality. Basically either nihilism is true, or morality is objective. And if and only if the latter is true, are any laws moral.

And I take that to be both objective and absolute.
I wish we had the old smilies back! I need the :doh: smiley because I totally read your post wrong! Somehow I read it opposite and thought you had said that morality was subjective. I stand corrected.

I think we are in near total agreement!
 

marke

Well-known member
You're claiming to be a teacher?
Someone has to do it. What do you think qualifies a person to be a teacher, a sheepskin? Is my sheepskin good here also?

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
My wife works with learning disabled kids. Believe me, it is never a waste of time to try to help the blind and ignorant.

"Instructing the Ignorant" is actually one of the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy.

 

marke

Well-known member
So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?
Christians are to respectfully resist evil leaders inasmuch as is possible, refusing to compromise on biblical convictions even to the point of being put to death by wicked powers for such faithfulness to God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Christians are to respectfully resist evil leaders inasmuch as is possible, refusing to compromise on biblical convictions even to the point of being put to death by wicked powers for such faithfulness to God.
That much is not in dispute but that isn't really what I asked. The question was rhetorical.

We are talking about how to set up a government system in the most ideal way possible and the dispute is primarily about how to select the first king. My contention is that the biblical system of casting lots worked great for a nation that had a special relationship with God where God not only had a specific plan in place for that nation but acted supernaturally to select both of the first two people who were anointed as king. We have no such special corporate relationship with God as Israel enjoyed and, in the age of grace, there is no reason to believe that God would make any effort to see to it that any king selected by a purely random process would not end up being the average looking Joe down the street from you who is secretly selling teenage girls on the black market as sex slaves.

It seems to me to be prudent to limit the random selection to people who are determined to be reasonably qualified to be the leader of such an overtly Christian government. That way its far less likely that we'd end up with some one like Adam Levine or worse as the first king of America. Why include people who hate God as candidates for such a position? How does it makes sense to have cultists like Tom Cruise on equal footing with brilliant Christians like Will Duffy?

Clete
 

marke

Well-known member
That much is not in dispute but that isn't really what I asked. The question was rhetorical.

We are talking about how to set up a government system in the most ideal way possible and the dispute is primarily about how to select the first king. My contention is that the biblical system of casting lots worked great for a nation that had a special relationship with God where God not only had a specific plan in place for that nation but acted supernaturally to select both of the first two people who were anointed as king. We have no such special corporate relationship with God as Israel enjoyed and, in the age of grace, there is no reason to believe that God would make any effort to see to it that any king selected by a purely random process would not end up being the average looking Joe down the street from you who is secretly selling teenage girls on the black market as sex slaves.

It seems to me to be prudent to limit the random selection to people who are determined to be reasonably qualified to be the leader of such an overtly Christian government. That way its far less likely that we'd end up with some one like Adam Levine or worse as the first king of America. Why include people who hate God as candidates for such a position? How does it makes sense to have cultists like Tom Cruise on equal footing with brilliant Christians like Will Duffy?

Clete
If people trusted God they would not need an earthly king.


1 Samuel 8:6-8

King James Version

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.​

 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If people trusted God they would not need an earthly king.

1 Samuel 8:6-8

King James Version

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

I strongly recommend that, before you continue in this thread, that you listen to/watch Bob Enyart's "God's Criminal Justice System" seminar or even just read through his syllabus.

In both of those, Bob responds to the very argument you just tried to make.
 
Top