An Advocation of Government

Status
Not open for further replies.

eider

Well-known member
I mean, when one doesn't not have the Holy Spirit, how can he understand that which is spiritually related?
Do you have the Holy Spirit?

You may notice in this post I'm not going into very much detail on things like this. That is intentional. Matthew 7:6.
Oh yeah? Which do you think I am, a pig or a dog?

You think Christ ruling as King is oppression? Or are you talking about something else?
I'm thinking of what Jesus said and did. And he mentioned nothing like this.

The Millennial Kingdom isn't Heaven.
I'm sure that you are right about that.

So what? Love cannot be compelled. Putting it into law wouldn't work.
Now read what you wrote:-

That's literally what Paul says, though...

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” - Galatians 5:14
Jesus promoted 'Love' first and above all. But you don't think it could work....?

Well, I can't say whether or not he was Christian, but the man is certainly condemned by the Bible, and to use him as an example for this discussion, had he done such a thing under the proposed government, he would have been put on trial, convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses, and then executed, instead of being locked up in a prison to this very day, being a drain on taxpayer money.
So in Pastor Enyart's proposed America 'loss of reason of the mind' wouldn't make any difference to a Court's verdict and judgement? Interesting.

And since guilt is infinitely dilutable, I'm sure Mr. Composer would have also been charged with a few things as well which would have straightened him out LONG before it ever got to the point where someone got mad at him and decided to kill him.
But you can't think of any offences yourself..... that John Lennon could have been charged with and convicted? No?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
button_speaker_174x40_1x1.png

“Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” ~ Robert LeFevre — Notes: Financial Sense
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
With the recently elected President of the United States of America finally taking office, I think it's time we really looked at what kind of government God wants. When we look at the Bible, we see that the only form of government God authorized (in both the Old and New Testament) is a Constitutional Monarchy.

"What did he just say?"

Yes, you heard (read?) that right. A Constitutional Monarchy.

A Constitutional Monarchy is the only form of Government that God authorizes. (We find this in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.) Not anarchy, not democracy, or it's sister, republic, not an oligarchy, not a plutocracy, not a democratic republic, nor an aristocracy, nor a dictatorship.

Not a Constitutional Republic.

Constitutional Monarchy.


---


Our current form of government, which is at it's roots is democratic, is a Constitutional Republic. I say democratic because Americans vote on everything, laws, judges, representatives, senators, and even the leader of the country.

Yet God makes it very clear that majority rule is wicked, because the majority is wicked. Matthew 7:13-14 says,

"13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide*is*the gate and broad*is*the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 Because narrow*is*the gate and difficult*is*the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.""

Even our government, which was founded on Christian principles, has decayed beyond the point of no return in the 240+ years since it's inception. It's time for a change. You can't put new wine in old wineskins, meaning we need to get rid of the current government (and all of the bad laws) and implement a new form of government.

Here is a proposed Constitution for such a government:

http://kgov.com/constitution
http://kgov.com/criminal-code

https://theologyonline.com/forum/bob-enyart-live/bob-enyart-live-aa/2732134-the-proposed-constitution-of-america


https://theologyonline.com/forum/bob-enyart-live/bob-enyart-live-aa/2732223-america’s-criminal-code

---

Questions? I will do my best to answer.

So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?

From the Proposed Constitution, under "Amendment Process."


Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God [B P].

 

drbrumley

Well-known member
So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?

If it was like what Bob proposes, then I can only assume one would be hoping Russia or China would come over here and invade, being they are the only other two superpowers. Just a guess though.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Do you have the Holy Spirit?

I do. But more importantly, you don't.

That's easy to remedy though. All you have to do is follow Romans 10:9-10.

Oh yeah? Which do you think I am, a pig or a dog?

A dog.

Gentiles are called dogs by Jesus.

I'm thinking of what Jesus said and did. And he mentioned nothing like this.

Go read Revelation.

I'm sure that you are right about that.

Now read what you wrote:-


Jesus promoted 'Love' first and above all. But you don't think it could work....?

Again, context is important.

Jesus was speaking about life in the Millennial Kingdom, where He Himself would be ruling with a rod of iron.

It would be foolish to apply something meant for a kingdom ruled by God Himself to a government run by man.

So in Pastor Enyart's proposed America 'loss of reason of the mind' wouldn't make any difference to a Court's verdict and judgement? Interesting.

:confused:

What are you even talking about?

Quit renaming things just to make a dig at my position. It's childish.

But you can't think of any offences yourself..... that John Lennon could have been charged with and convicted? No?

You're the one who brought up John Lennon. I simply made a comment about one of his songs in relation to the band.

But yes, I could think of some, that he could have been charged with, and if convicted, he would have been executed under the proposed Criminal Code.
 

eider

Well-known member
I do. But more importantly, you don't.

That's easy to remedy though. All you have to do is follow Romans 10:9-10.
I think I prefer Matthew 7-7.
But that's just me.....


A dog.

Gentiles are called dogs by Jesus.
Of course they were!
Just like the Baptist, Jesus's whole focus was upon his own, the Jewish people who were let down so badly by the Temple and Priesthood.



Go read Revelation.

Again, context is important.

Jesus was speaking about life in the Millennial Kingdom, where He Himself would be ruling with a rod of iron.

It would be foolish to apply something meant for a kingdom ruled by God Himself to a government run by man.
I never quite did see Jesus as the hard hearted oppressive flogger, whipper, stoner and executor of any people, but if you do, then fair enough.

:confused:

What are you even talking about?

Quit renaming things just to make a dig at my position. It's childish.
Hang on for one moment, please.
Pastor Enyart's proposition does rely upon Judges and Courts, evidence and verdicts, sentences and findings.
It has long been a tenet in most Western Courts that certain people are not responsible for their actions.
The very young.
The very old if they have become senile.
The slow witted with an IQ below a certain level.
Those with Neural illnesses which incapacitate their ability to reason.
The mentally ill.
People who are terrified 'out of their wits'.

A few of the above are classed as being 'beyond reason of the mind'. If a person cannot reason then they did not do anything with wicked intent.

So my question was reasonable, and I wished to discover whether Pastor Enyart's system of American Government took these conditions in to account.


You're the one who brought up John Lennon. I simply made a comment about one of his songs in relation to the band.

But yes, I could think of some, that he could have been charged with, and if convicted, he would have been executed under the proposed Criminal Code.
I asked you about this because I didn't see any particular crime in Pastor Enyart's proposition which Mr Lennon might have breached, is all.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
From the Proposed Constitution, under "Amendment Process."


Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God [B P].


Yeah, you know, of all the things Bob has taught through the years, this is the one that I've never really been convinced of.

"Nonviolent civil disobedience" is usually (and easily) overcome by violent men in uniform and the refusal to pay taxes ends with someone else owning everything you've got.

The argument that a constitutional monarchy is the only form of government that God endorses in the bible isn't really convincing because Israel is the only nation that He was working through to achieve His purposes. If you wanted to make the argument that a constitutional monarchy was the form of government that God wanted for Israel then I'd accept that but the point is that we aren't Israel and what God wanted for Israel doesn't necessarily translate to God despising all other forms of government. A point that is born out by the fact that Israel went centuries without a king, not to mention the entire time before there even was a nation of Israel. If God wanted to say that a constitutional monarchy was the only acceptable form of human government then it seems He would have told Noah that when He began the dispensation of human government after the flood.

Having said that, it is clear that there are forms of government that are morally superior to others. Any form of government that is based on theft like socialism, fascism, communism, et al, is obviously an evil form of government and while that might take most other forms of government off the table, it doesn't take them all. The proper role of government is to provide for the common defense (which includes the formation and maintenance of agreements with other nations(i.e. military alliances, trade agreements, etc), to protect civil rights and to settle disputes between parties. Any form of government that achieves these while having in place provisions to prevent it doing much of anything else is a form of government that I could certainly live with and that I think God could get behind as well. As least, I see no biblical reason to think otherwise.

Clete

P.S. I have to say that it feels weird debating across the table from Bob Enyart. I'm almost certainly wrong!
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
From the Proposed Constitution, under "Amendment Process."


Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God [B P].


So, if the king doesn't go along with this proposed system after his rule on the throw of a dice, there's not much of anything you can do about his defiance is there? All you've really got is his "awaiting the judgement of God" which he probably wouldn't agree with what you imagine it to be either. Considering that the likelihood of a king being drawn that would agree with your advocation of government is remote at best, how would your system be realistically tenable?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Well, I can't say whether or not he was Christian, but the man is certainly condemned by the Bible, and to use him as an example for this discussion, had he done such a thing under the proposed government, he would have been put on trial, convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses, and then executed, instead of being locked up in a prison to this very day, being a drain on taxpayer money.

And since guilt is infinitely dilutable, I'm sure Mr. Composer would have also been charged with a few things as well which would have straightened him out LONG before it ever got to the point where someone got mad at him and decided to kill him.

In fact, the entire ordeal would have never even been considered a possibility under the proposed government, because such criminal acts would be so few and far in between.

How would Lennon have been "straightened out" exactly? What would he have been charged with?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Yeah, you know, of all the things Bob has taught through the years, this is the one that I've never really been convinced of.

"Nonviolent civil disobedience" is usually (and easily) overcome by violent men in uniform and the refusal to pay taxes ends with someone else owning everything you've got.

Which would (and should) lead to more of the nonviolent civil disobedience, by neighbors, friends, the community, and the nation as a whole.

The idea though, is that it's not impossible to convince one person that they're wrong and shouldn't disobey the law, and, as Bob puts it in the political defence of the constitution:


· Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.
· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.
· Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.
· Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.
· Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.
· Many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these crimes.
· A criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.



The argument that a constitutional monarchy is the only form of government that God endorses in the bible isn't really convincing because Israel is the only nation that He was working through to achieve His purposes.

Actually, I think I may have originally overstated my position, and agree that God is ok with other forms of government, so long as those do not violate His principles.

To rephrase my position, "A constitutional monarchy is the only government which is actively endorsed (perhaps a better word could be used here) by God," seeing as it's the only form of government that He codified in the Mosaic Law for Israel...

Suffice it to say that, as far as I'm aware, God did not actively approve any other government or form of government besides monarchy. He tells us (through Paul) that we are to obey whatever government we are under, but doesn't specify any particular government, and even says to obey God rather than men, and since God is the King of Kings (a title He took upon Himself), I think it's ok (as a general statement) to say that God only endorsed a monarchy.

The above, opposed to "A representative form of government chosen by the people is the only form of government which God actively opposed."

But I do think that any government that upholds God's principles of government is one God can get behind, though, I'm not entirely sure there are any other than monarchies and patriarchies...

If you wanted to make the argument that a constitutional monarchy was the form of government that God wanted for Israel then I'd accept that but the point is that we aren't Israel and what God wanted for Israel doesn't necessarily translate to God despising all other forms of government. A point that is born out by the fact that Israel went centuries without a king,

If anything, to defend my position a bit, the Judges of Israel could still be considered part of the system proposed by Jethro, which if I'm not mistaken, God (and Bob in his proposed constitution) incorporated into the kingdom...

not to mention the entire time before there even was a nation of Israel.

I'm reminded of Abraham rescuing Lot from a neighboring city-state, how Abraham was effectively the head of his "nation" (if it could be called that). God seemed to like that idea of one person being the head of the household (with nations being like households), and I guess it could be argued that that's where God decided to use a monarchy for His nation.

If God wanted to say that a constitutional monarchy was the only acceptable form of human government then it seems He would have told Noah that when He began the dispensation of human government after the flood.

Having said that, it is clear that there are forms of government that are morally superior to others. Any form of government that is based on theft like socialism, fascism, communism, et al, is obviously an evil form of government and while that might take most other forms of government off the table, it doesn't take them all.

I'm curious as to which other types of government there are that would follow the Biblical principles of government as outlined by Bob...

Do you know of any? As I said above, the only ones I can think of are monarchies and patriarchies...

The proper role of government is to provide for the common defense (which includes the formation [of agreements]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.

This is something Bob points out as being a bad idea (and which God explicitly prohibited Israel from doing).

Bob explains why in his Biblical apologetic for the constitution:


• Treaties: Biblical Apologetic [Constitution Political]

America shall not enter into a foreign treaty. Why not?
God prohibited Israel from making "a covenant with the inhabitants of the land... lest it be a snare." Ex. 34

Israel's treaty prohibition applied explicitly only to nations to be displaced within the Promised Land. Israel's incidental treaty ban, by extension, can become a wise, general prohibition on treaties.

External agreements supersede internal agreements, whether within ourselves, a family, a group, or a nation.
By definition, treaties supersede national law, putting the entire nation under prevailing external agreements.
God expected Israel to abide by their treaties even though He had commanded them not to enter into such!
The current U.S. Constitution reflects the biblical principle of the precedence of international agreement.
"all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." ­U.S. Constitution Article VI

Biblical arguments against making new laws validate a treaty ban because treaties actually create new law. [C]



and maintenance of agreements with other nations(i.e. military alliances, trade agreements, etc)), to protect civil rights and to settle disputes between parties.

I think Bob states it better in the Opening of the Constitution.

Any form of government that achieves these while having in place provisions to prevent it doing much of anything else is a form of government that I could certainly live with and that I think God could get behind as well. As least, I see no biblical reason to think otherwise.

Clete

P.S. I have to say that it feels weird debating across the table from Bob Enyart. I'm almost certainly wrong!

I'm not Bob, so don't feel too weird. Haha :)
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Which would (and should) lead to more of the nonviolent civil disobedience, by neighbors, friends, the community, and the nation as a whole.

The idea though, is that it's not impossible to convince one person that they're wrong and shouldn't disobey the law, and, as Bob puts it in the political defense of the constitution:


· Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.
· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.
· Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.
· Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.
· Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.
· Many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these crimes.
· A criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.


Now you're arguing that a monarchy is better than a democracy. That's a different argument than whether a monarchy is the only form of government God approves of.

Further, the democracy that you currently live in has produced the greatest nation the world has ever seen by almost any metric you want to name apart from criminal justice. The form of government this nation started with produced the most freedom, the most prosperity, the highest standard of living and the longest life span mankind has ever experienced in the history of history. There are billions of people all over the world who have never stepped foot in this country but nevertheless no longer live in slavery, poverty, famine and squalor as a direct result of the United States of America.

No matter where you live in this world, if you have ever used electricity, used a telephone, heard recorded music, listened to a radio, watched a television, own anything made of plastic, visited a modern medical facility, driven a motor vehicle, have air conditioning, taken a vitamin pill or pain killer (or a million other beneficial drugs of all types), if you're a woman and own more than one dress, if you own more than one pair of shoes or if you own any shoes at all that actually fit your feet, if you have a watch on your wrist or an ink pen in your pocket, if you've eaten nearly any grain at all other than rice, if you've ever eaten a banana, orange, grapefruit, almond or cauliflower (or any of another several dozen foods that you could name) etc, etc, etc you almost certainly have the United States of America to thank for it and more specifically the first 100 years of this countries history in particular (i.e. the government and society given to this nation by it's founders).

There is no example of a single monarchy of any sort, type or description that has produced anything remotely like the United States of America. Indeed, there isn't any example of any form of government anywhere that has ever even come close to what this nation has been in the past nor is there any that compare even to this very day.

Actually, I think I may have originally overstated my position, and agree that God is ok with other forms of government, so long as those do not violate His principles.
Precisely.

To rephrase my position, "A constitutional monarchy is the only government which is actively endorsed (perhaps a better word could be used here) by God," seeing as it's the only form of government that He codified in the Mosaic Law for Israel...

Suffice it to say that, as far as I'm aware, God did not actively approve any other government or form of government besides monarchy. He tells us (through Paul) that we are to obey whatever government we are under, but doesn't specify any particular government, and even says to obey God rather than men, and since God is the King of Kings (a title He took upon Himself), I think it's ok (as a general statement) to say that God only endorsed a monarchy.
He only endorsed a monarchy for Israel.

To extrapolate further is to say more than the text of scripture can support, in my view.

The above, opposed to "A representative form of government chosen by the people is the only form of government which God actively opposed."
I think that this is over stated as well. It wasn't the form of government that God hated, it was the rebellion that He hated. God put Moses in charge and when the representatives of the people came to complain against Moses, God opened the Earth and sucked them all alive down into Hell. But that wasn't because of their representative form of government. Do you suppose that God would have been alright with it if the people had appointed themselves a king to go before Moses and voice the same objections? Certainly not. It was their failure to follow God's appointed man that got them sucked down into Hell, not the fact that they had elected representatives to do the talking for them.

But I do think that any government that upholds God's principles of government is one God can get behind, though, I'm not entirely sure there are any other than monarchies and patriarchies...
Well, I doubt that any form of government could do a lot better than we have done, really. Sure there's a list a mile long of terrible things this country has done but no more so and, in fact, likely far less, than most any other government you can name in the whole history of the world and I likewise doubt than any government will ever do as well until Jesus Himself is ruling as King over the world.

If anything, to defend my position a bit, the Judges of Israel could still be considered part of the system proposed by Jethro, which if I'm not mistaken, God (and Bob in his proposed constitution) incorporated into the kingdom...
Well, that's sort of beside the point, right? The point is that it wasn't a monarchy and it was, at the very least, endorsed by God, if not outright ordained by Him.

I'm reminded of Abraham rescuing Lot from a neighboring city-state, how Abraham was effectively the head of his "nation" (if it could be called that). God seemed to like that idea of one person being the head of the household (with nations being like households), and I guess it could be argued that that's where God decided to use a monarchy for His nation.
Perhaps but I rather think that God had a monarchy in mind long before that. Perhaps before creation itself even. It is clear that God has always had it in mind for His Son to be THE King.

I'm curious as to which other types of government there are that would follow the Biblical principles of government as outlined by Bob...

Do you know of any? As I said above, the only ones I can think of are monarchies and patriarchies...
Well, nearly any type that isn't predicated on theft. It isn't the form of government that is the issue, per se, so much as it is the laws that government institutes and enforces.

Any form of socialism, fascism, communism, crony capitalism, etc are all predicated on the Robin Hood principle where the government steals from the producers (i.e. the rich) and gives to the consumers (i.e. the poor). They steal the life blood from the dog and feed it to the flea and despise, ridicule, castigate and deride the dog for scratching. All such governments, which the United States has largely been turned into, are fundamentally unjust because taking by force that which you did not produce is theft, regardless of the motive.

As I said in my previous post, we get our rights from God and government was instituted by God to protect those rights. As such, the proper roles of government are all aimed at that goal. Providing for the common defense protects the rights of citizens from foreign attack whether militarily, financially or otherwise. Criminal and civil law enforcement protects the rights of citizens from another citizen or group of citizens and the courts protect the rights of the accused and settles disputes between parties. These are the three basic roles that government is intended to fulfill and any government that does so is a good government, whether they have a king or not.

Now, if you notice, there is no overt mention of a legislative branch of government there, just an executive and judicial but that doesn't mean that there can't be a legislative branch necessarily. There could be one that was responsible for regulatory type laws that defined the rules by which society worked. By that I don't mean a body that could legislate things like the legalization of left or murder but a branch of government that was in charge of things like the rules of commerce where they might make it illegal for a company to arbitrarily print as many shares of stock as they wanted to so as to artificially manipulate the price of their stock (or a gazillion other types of fraud) or define the specific rules that determine how court rooms must run their cases or a million other variables. Of course such details would get defined with or without a legislature. If nothing else, the executive branch could issue such regulations and the judicial branch would handle such things via case law. The point is that the specific form of government isn't the primary issue but rather the laws that the government institutes and enforces.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.

This is something Bob points out as being a bad idea (and which God explicitly prohibited Israel from doing).

Bob explains why in his Biblical apologetic for the constitution:


• Treaties: Biblical Apologetic [Constitution Political]

America shall not enter into a foreign treaty. Why not?
God prohibited Israel from making "a covenant with the inhabitants of the land... lest it be a snare." Ex. 34

Israel's treaty prohibition applied explicitly only to nations to be displaced within the Promised Land. Israel's incidental treaty ban, by extension, can become a wise, general prohibition on treaties.

External agreements supersede internal agreements, whether within ourselves, a family, a group, or a nation.
By definition, treaties supersede national law, putting the entire nation under prevailing external agreements.
God expected Israel to abide by their treaties even though He had commanded them not to enter into such!
The current U.S. Constitution reflects the biblical principle of the precedence of international agreement.
"all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." ­U.S. Constitution Article VI

Biblical arguments against making new laws validate a treaty ban because treaties actually create new law. [C]

Well, once again, we are not Israel.

That may sound like a pat answer but I think it's important. God was doing something very specific and unique with Israel and put in place various laws that were specifically intended to keep Israel quite separated from the nations around her.

As for the point about making new law, I would say that the government does not have carte blanch to create any treaty it might desire to make. Remember that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and any treaty the government makes must achieve that goal or it is not valid. A country that cannot make trade agreement and who does not have the supernatural protection of God Himself, (i.e. any nation other than ancient Israel) would be left at the mercy of any rogue power that either wanted to manipulate its currency or sponsor piracy (or other forms of terrorism) and charge confiscatory tariffs or any number of other things that one nation might do to another in order to gain an unfair advantage. There simply must be some provision that allows a government to respond to and if possible prevent various forms of foreign hostility other than just shear military force. That is, of course, unless you have God supernaturally intervening on your behalf, as was the case for ancient Israel.

I think Bob states it better in the Opening of the Constitution.
There is no doubt that pretty nearly anything Bob states is stated better than most anything I could state, no matter the topic.

I'm not Bob, so don't feel too weird. Haha :)
How refreshing and fun is it to find a topic where the two people involved have a disagreement but neither of them are stupid, conceded, condescending, self-stultifying or otherwise a waste of the other's time.

I'm totally loving this! Even if I am probably totally wrong! :)
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
With the recently elected President of the United States of America finally taking office, I think it's time we really looked at what kind of government God wants. When we look at the Bible, we see that the only form of government God authorized (in both the Old and New Testament) is a Constitutional Monarchy.

"What did he just say?"

Yes, you heard (read?) that right. A Constitutional Monarchy.

:think: Romans 13:1 I'd argue that "theocracy" is the only government set up by God. Sin requires interim steps between us and holiness. In Him -Lon
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So he'd have prob been killed

The term is "executed,"

before he got shot anyway then...

Well, no, only if he decided to commit those crimes anyways.

He probably would never have done those things to begin with, though. He would have remained faithful to his wife while living here in America, never even thought of doing drugs on American soil, and so would have never been in any danger at all.

Remember, the premise to this hypothetical is that we would be under the proposed government, not the current one.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
:think: Romans 13:1 I'd argue that "theocracy" is the only government set up by God. Sin requires interim steps between us and holiness. In Him -Lon

But instead of arguing it, you simply make the bald claim without any evidence or argument whatsoever.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Now you're arguing that a monarchy is better than a democracy.

Is it not?

That's a different argument than whether a monarchy is the only form of government God approves of.

I think what I'm trying to get at is that, compared to all other forms of government, a monarchy best fits the natural flow of authority.

https://kgov.com/bel/20130221
https://kgov.com/bel/20130228

Further, the democracy that you currently live in has produced the greatest nation the world has ever seen by almost any metric you want to name apart from criminal justice.

I think you're giving too much credit to the "democracy" aspect of it.

Yes, I agree, our nation is one of the most prosperous nations in history, but it's not because of democracy, it's because the founders (well, most of them at least) recognized that God exists and therefore founded this country with that in mind.

I'm not sure if you know this, but we were almost under a monarchy at the beginning, and would have been had Prince Henry not declined to rule us, because they didn't want mob rule, even though that's exactly what this nation ended up with.

https://kgov.com/against-democracy

The form of government this nation started with produced the most freedom, the most prosperity, the highest standard of living and the longest life span mankind has ever experienced in the history of history.

Again, I think you're giving too much credit to the form of government we started with, seeing as it was pretty much changed soon after our founding.

I'd say is was the fact that our nation was founded on Christian principles (for the most part), and not because we had a republic.

There are billions of people all over the world who have never stepped foot in this country but nevertheless no longer live in slavery, poverty, famine and squalor as a direct result of the United States of America.

No matter where you live in this world, if you have ever used electricity, used a telephone, heard recorded music, listened to a radio, watched a television, own anything made of plastic, visited a modern medical facility, driven a motor vehicle, have air conditioning, taken a vitamin pill or pain killer (or a million other beneficial drugs of all types), if you're a woman and own more than one dress, if you own more than one pair of shoes or if you own any shoes at all that actually fit your feet, if you have a watch on your wrist or an ink pen in your pocket, if you've eaten nearly any grain at all other than rice, if you've ever eaten a banana, orange, grapefruit, almond or cauliflower (or any of another several dozen foods that you could name) etc, etc, etc you almost certainly have the United States of America to thank for it and more specifically the first 100 years of this countries history in particular (i.e. the government and society given to this nation by it's founders).

Supra.

There is no example of a single monarchy of any sort, type or description that has produced anything remotely like the United States of America.

No, but I think that ignores the fact that most nations in history have not had access to the resources we have had, and that that access has come not because of democracy, but because some men recognized that God exists and that He created the universe.

Because I can think of a few monarchies just off the top of my head which have produced golden eras where their nation has prospered under their rule.

Indeed, there isn't any example of any form of government anywhere that has ever even come close to what this nation has been in the past nor is there any that compare even to this very day.


Precisely.


He only endorsed a monarchy for Israel.

That I agree with.

To extrapolate further is to say more than the text of scripture can support, in my view.

Agreed.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with modeling a government after the one God established, especially if it's the kind of government God likes, do you?

I think that this is over stated as well. It wasn't the form of government that God hated, it was the rebellion that He hated.

And I completely agree that it was the rebellion against God, but I think saying ONLY that undermines a Biblical principle which Moses made clear in the law, and he did so in the law for kings. My argument (and I think Bob's, too) is that in addition[/I to that, it goes against the natural flow of authority, which is downhill.

“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes,that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. - Deuteronomy 17:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:18-20&version=NKJV

The principle is that the government is not above the law.

Which means that it has no authority to judge the law.

Which means that voting on the law is out of the question from a moral perspective.

Laws are discovered, not created nor litigated.

The fact that the king is under the law, and that such law is tied to the natural flow of authority, means or most likely means that having a single point of authority over a nation (under the law and ultimately God) flows from the nature of God Himself, and so any government that does not follow that model, because it is an act of rebellion against God, is not a valid form of government, though a form of government it may be.

A representative form of government (or a democracy, for that matter) inherently violates that law. and goes against the natural flow of authority that God defined in the law.

In other words, I don't think that the laws regarding kings were arbitrary, since having a single ruler over his nation resembles having a single Creator over His Creation, and so does having a single man have rule over his household, a captain over his ship, an admiral over his fleet of ships, etc., etc., etc.

Do you see what I'm saying? Or did I lose you?

God put Moses in charge

Right, but even then, it was still a single man over the nation (even Aaron was under Moses), even if it was a temporary government while God was moving His people to the promised land, and ultimately, while God waited for the right time to give Israel a king.

and when the representatives of the people came to complain against Moses, God opened the Earth and sucked them all alive down into Hell. But that wasn't because of their representative form of government.

I think it was one of the main reasons God sucked them down into Hell, for the reasons I stated above.

Do you suppose that God would have been alright with it if the people had appointed themselves a king to go before Moses and voice the same objections?

I think God would have been angry with them for not waiting for His timing, as He was before he appointed Saul as king, but I think it's likely outside the realm of possibility that He would have given them a king at that point, simply because they were not ready for it, and so God needed a government that would serve as the interim between God leading His nation out of Egypt and Him giving them a king.

As it was, God still had single points of authority even without Israel having a king.

Certainly not. It was their failure to follow God's appointed man that got them sucked down into Hell, not the fact that they had elected representatives to do the talking for them.

See above RE: authority flowing downhill.

A representative form of government where the people elects those who rule directly violates that concept.

Well, I doubt that any form of government could do a lot better than we have done, really.

Clete, that's an appeal to incredulity. I know you can make better arguments than that! :)
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​​​

Sure there's a list a mile long of terrible things this country has done but no more so and, in fact, likely far less, than most any other government you can name in the whole history of the world

I think this ignores the fact that not all wickedness is equal.

Sure, kings throughout history have committed crimes, but I have yet to be informed of any king (Eider tried to make the case for one of them, but he has yet to provide citations, which I have specifically asked for, his claim) who has actually LEGALIZED the crimes they commit, and I think there's a difference between a king making it ok for just him to do it versus changing the law entirely so that everyone can do it. In other words, if the king did it, it's fine, but if one of his subjects tried to do the same, he would have been punished.

Here in America, we've legalized theft, we've legalized murder, we've legalized homosexuality, and we've all but legalized adultery and perjury.

and I likewise doubt than any government will ever do as well until Jesus Himself is ruling as King over the world.

That is something we agree upon.

Well, that's sort of beside the point, right? The point is that it wasn't a monarchy and it was, at the very least, endorsed by God, if not outright ordained by Him.

No, it wasn't a monarchy, but as I tried to do my best to clarify above, but it WAS a single point of authority under the law, which naturally branched out via subordinates to cover the entire nation.

I think to be more precise, Israel overall didn't have a monarchy so much as it had several different theocratic forms of government that all followed the same principle; A single person governing with branching divisions of power/authority descending from their position, and this even applies to future Israel too, Christ, the Son of God ruling over twelve kings over the twelve tribes of israel.

Perhaps but I rather think that God had a monarchy in mind long before that. Perhaps before creation itself even. It is clear that God has always had it in mind for His Son to be THE King.

Agreed.

Well, nearly any type that isn't predicated on theft.

Then democracy won't do, because it's theft of authority that the people don't have the right to.

The principle is that authority flows downhill, not uphill. Democracy places the people above the government, subverting it's authority.

It isn't the form of government that is the issue, per se, so much as it is the laws that government institutes and enforces.

This I agree with, but I want to point out that even if you have good laws, but the government is allowed to change the laws (not including the "Code of Use," which codifies Real Estate zoning and use of infrastructure) in any way, the government will change those laws.

This is inherent in democracy, and in republics.

Any form of socialism, fascism, communism, crony capitalism, etc are all predicated on the Robin Hood principle where the government steals from the producers (i.e. the rich) and gives to the consumers (i.e. the poor). They steal the life blood from the dog and feed it to the flea and despise, ridicule, castigate and deride the dog for scratching. All such governments, which the United States has largely been turned into, are fundamentally unjust because taking by force that which you did not produce is theft, regardless of the motive.

:thumb:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​​​

But I was hoping you could name a few specifics... Hmmm...

As I said in my previous post, we get our rights from God and government was instituted by God to protect those rights.

Right, but that doesn't mean that He just arbitrarily decided to use a monarchy. See my argument above on this.

As such, the proper roles of government are all aimed at that goal. Providing for the common defense protects the rights of citizens from foreign attack whether militarily, financially or otherwise. Criminal and civil law enforcement protects the rights of citizens from another citizen or group of citizens

:thumb:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​​​

and the courts protect the rights of the accused

I think you could word this better.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, the judge has the right to temporarily suspend some of his rights (such as the right to purchase, own, and use personal defense weapons) until the truth can be determined, and in the case of the convicted, in some cases, permanently (for example the right to life).

All humans have God-given rights. Some of the rights of the accused are temporarily suspended while he awaits a verdict from the judge.

and settles disputes between parties. These are the three basic roles that government is intended to fulfill and any government that does so is a good government, whether they have a king or not.

Hmm, I don't think I would inherently disagree with that, but I think that it needs to be tempered with the fact that any government that inherently violates any of God's principles of government will tend towards evil at a rate orders of magnitude faster than one that does not.

Compare the several centuries of Israel's monarchies that have very little decay in the government and its laws (even considering that God was actively (at times) participating in leading her), to America and her 243 years of existence and she's already collapsing under the weight of all the crime going on, most of which is the result of the government voting to legalize certain crimes.

Now, if you notice, there is no overt mention of a legislative branch of government there, just an executive and judicial but that doesn't mean that there can't be a legislative branch necessarily.

There's no mention of one because one isn't needed.

As I said above, and I think you know this but, good laws aren't created or legislated, they're discovered. Since God has already revealed morality to us, that excludes them already. As for the "Code of Use," such as the one in the proposed constitution, you don't need a legislature for approving them.

For example, If a citizen or the king has an idea that would improve the use of infrastructure or the way real estate is zoned, the idea could be taken to the king, and He could decide if it should be implemented. Arguments and counter-arguments could be made about it, but in the end, the decision to implement it would lie with the king, not the people.

From the Amendment process section of the proposed constitution:

The Monarch alone can amend only America’s Code of Use, which amendments or revocations take effect one year from national public notice. Usage Amendments must be germane to the code and consistent with the principles of this Constitution and America’s Criminal Code.


https://kgov.com/constitution

There could be one that was responsible for regulatory type laws that defined the rules by which society worked.

Again, such a body is not needed, and in fact would be redundant, because only the king has the authority to change the "Code of Use."

By that I don't mean a body that could legislate things like the legalization of left or murder but a branch of government that was in charge of things like the rules of commerce

Within the confines of the criminal code, a man has the right to do what he wants with his own things, and that includes the company he establishes and the money he makes.

Which, yet again, means that such a body would not be needed, because the laws which would govern how companies, corporations, businesses, etc, act would have already been defined in the Criminal Code and the Code of Use.

where they might make it illegal for a company to arbitrarily print as many shares of stock as they wanted to so as to artificially manipulate the price of their stock (or a gazillion other types of fraud)

Fraud is a form of theft, so such would already be illegal.

As long as it doesn't involve the commission of a crime, the market should be for the most part, allowed to find it's own balance.

In other words, a truly free market economy. https://kgov.com/money

or define the specific rules that determine how court rooms must run their cases

What rules are there to determine?

Evidence of a crime is brought to a judge, police look for, find, and catch the suspect/accused, who is then brought before the judge, the judge brings forth the evidence against him, the judge questions him directly, and based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, gives a verdict, and if the person is found guilty, punished within 24 hours of conviction.

Have you read Bob's short novel, The First Five Days?

or a million other variables. Of course such details would get defined with or without a legislature.

Why complicate things? No need for a legislature.

If nothing else, the executive branch could issue such regulations and the judicial branch would handle such things via case law. The point is that the specific form of government isn't the primary issue but rather the laws that the government institutes and enforces.



Well, once again, we are not Israel.

As I said earlier, I don't think there's anything wrong with modeling (even if not everything is the same) a government on what God did with Israel.

In other words, if it works, why change it?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That may sound like a pat answer but I think it's important. God was doing something very specific and unique with Israel and put in place various laws that were specifically intended to keep Israel quite separated from the nations around her.

Right, I agree, some things SHOULD NOT be brought over from Israel's government/laws.

As for the point about making new law, I would say that the government does not have carte blanch to create any treaty it might desire to make. Remember that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and any treaty the government makes must achieve that goal or it is not valid.

I think, if anything, temporary treaties to allow for emergency actions, or military movement, and the like, where possible, would be fine, but anything lasting would be a bad idea.

God tells us to let our yes be yes and our no be no, and not to make oaths (as a general rule of thumb).

Treaties are oaths to follow arbitrary rules agreed upon by two or more governments. Those rules are binding, and again, God expects nations to honor their agreements with other nations, and men with other men.

A country that cannot make trade agreement

A government does not have the authority to make a trade agreement. Trade is something that businesses do with other entities.

In the context of this thread, a government may use businesses and companies and manufacturers to build and maintain infrastructure, and military equipment, and things like that, but it does not have the authority to force another nation or corporations, businesses, etc, within that nation to comply with her demands.

This is something that is handled by the free market, which is allowed, within the bounds of the criminal code, to make it's own economic decisions.

If a corporation finds that the business proposition of a potential customer or business partner is unfavorable, then they have every right to refuse to serve that customer, or to refuse to work with that business partner, and the government does not have the right to force that company to do business with them, because that would violate what Jesus said about a man doing what he wants with his own things.

and who does not have the supernatural protection of God Himself, (i.e. any nation other than ancient Israel) would be left at the mercy of any rogue power that either wanted to manipulate its currency or sponsor piracy (or other forms of terrorism) and charge confiscatory tariffs or any number of other things that one nation might do to another in order to gain an unfair advantage.

I think Bob addressed this problem the best way possible at https://kgov.com/money:


Here's What Makes the Economy Function: God commands men to "serve one another" (Galatians 5:13). If one man is alone for life on a desert island, there could be no "economy". (Even money itself would become meaningless, for money must be transferable.) If two or more people were shipwrecked on that island, and they refused to work with one another, and stayed isolated, they would not build an economy. On the other hand, as they attempted to survive, or even thrive, if they did begin providing goods and services to one another, then they would gradually build an economy. An economy grows as human beings increasingly serve one another. And an economy will grow most quickly if these men are free, for the Bible says that, "liberty" provides the "opportunity... [to] serve one another." However, if they began to keep to themselves, and stopped trading goods and services, their economy would sputter out and die. (And if all economic cooperation ceased permanently, any money that each had collected would lose its monetary value.) So an economy thrives when men serve one another.



There simply must be some provision that allows a government to respond to and if possible prevent various forms of foreign hostility other than just shear military force.

I'm pretty sure this is addressed under "Treaties" in the proposed constitution.


The King has authority to conduct foreign affairs by a good neighbor policy, recognizing that America possesses the rights of the head of house in an emergent society.



That is, of course, unless you have God supernaturally intervening on your behalf, as was the case for ancient Israel.


There is no doubt that pretty nearly anything Bob states is stated better than most anything I could state, no matter the topic.

:chuckle:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​

How refreshing and fun is it to find a topic where the two people involved have a disagreement but neither of them are stupid, conceded, condescending, self-stultifying or otherwise a waste of the other's time.

I'm totally loving this! Even if I am probably totally wrong! :)

:first:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top