Constitutional Monarchy

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I do the best I can to explain the objections I find to some of what you post.

All you have done is present your opinions and disagreements, but never not once have you even made even an effort to try to refute what you find disagreeable.

I'm sorry if you find my responses unacceptable.

My opinion has nothing to do with it.

Your responses are unacceptable, period.

No, I don't know it.

Then why in the world did you even bother to bring up salvation in a thread that has nothing to do with it?

The ONLY reason someone brings up whether a person is saved or not in a discussion like this is to try to discredit or or disqualify one's opponents, and it's usually after only making statements that do nothing to refute what was said by that opponent.

Let's say you envision a king ruling America who is not an ungodly king. How would that king be appointed, by drawing straws?

By lottery.

By contacting God for His approval?

No. And this was answered in the OP in the original thread, and on https://kgov.com/constitution.

By asking the Catholic Church to appoint a king?

No. And this was answered in the OP in the original thread, and on https://kgov.com/constitution.

I see multiple problems with any proposal that would put Americans back under the dominion of a single sinner-appointed

Straw man. The king would NOT by appointed by a man, but by a lottery, as required by the constitution.

[sinner-appointed] sinful king.

How about the current dominion of literally thousands of sinner-appointed sinful rulers? How is that any better?

Christians suffered greatly under English kings who held their positions by what men called a "divine right."

And yet, those nations lasted several times as long as America has even been around for.

Currently, America is on the brink of collapse due to the form of government it has and the decisions that government has made.

America does not need to go back to such oppression by ungodly rulers claiming to have a divine right to oppress people.

Which, again, isn't what is being proposed, marke.

More evidence that you haven't even bothered to try to grasp what our position is.

I'm sorry if you fail to understand my objections to your biblical interpretations.

Again, we understand your objections just fine.

The problem is that they either have nothing to do with what our position is or they're just your opinions and nothing more. They're not substantive enough or even addressing what it is that we're saying for it to matter!

I don't just ask why

Asking WHY is fine. But you don't bother listening when we tell you.

or say it does not make sense.

Multiple times you have done just that, and nothing else.

I also offer my reasons.

You've certainly given your opinion on why you think they're wrong, but you have yet to make an actual argument, marke.

Have you not been reading or comprehending my responses?

We have. Have you?

You are correct to suggest that there is no godly way to guarantee any kingdom established in America would have God's blessing or that any king appointed by men would be blessed by God or that any method chosen by men to select a king would be approved by God.

[Addressed by Clete]

I see a problem with your opinions

It's not "our" opinions though, marke.

And it's not even opinions, at this point, it's the proposal of a thought out system that is based on Biblical principles.

of how a kingdom could be established, under what rules,

What problem, specifically, do you see, marke?

Spell it out for us.

and how Americans could insure that the appointed king would be blessed by God.

Any government that honors God will be blessed by Him, and any government that dishonors God will be cursed by Him.

But that's not saying that God is actively blessing or cursing governments. No, when the Bible talks about nations being blessed or cursed, it's simply the consequences of their actions, nations that honor God tend to prosper and their people live good lives (in terms of quality, not morality), and that is what being blessed is talking about, and nations that dishonor God tend to collapse and their people suffer as a result of their rebellion against Him. That is what is meant by blessings and curses in the Bible.

As such, there is, as mentioned, no guarantee that the king who is chosen to rule America would honor God, and thus be blessed by Him. Had you read the required materials beforehand, you would have known that already.

I see similarities between a monarchy with a king who answers to nobody and a dictatorship whose ruler answers to nobody.

The problem is that you're conflating the two.

A monarch is someone who is appointed, through no means of his own (barring usurpery).

A dictator is someone who obtains power through force, either by gaming the system in place, or by taking over the government by force and ignoring the system to establish his own rules.

The proposed system appoints a leader through lottery, which, as the Bible says:

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

Which, in the proposed system, means that whoever is chosen is, or at least should be without contention or dispute, the ruler of the nation.

No force, therefore no inherent dictatorship.

Now, could a king become a dictator AFTER he comes into power? Sure, and there's no guarantee that he won't, but there are other factors in play here that deter such behavior, and ultimately, at the very least, such a ruler will eventually die, and his oldest son, or if none, another man chosen by lottery, will take over.

I think King David was chosen by God.

He was. You don't need the "I think" in front of that sentence.

I do not believe any king chosen by Americans

Straw man.

The proposed system does not have the people choosing a king, but rather he is chosen by lottery.

could ever enjoy the privilege of being clearly chosen by God by God's direct intervention into the civil affairs of the nation like God was with Israel.

Thankfully, that's not what our position is, and you would have known that had you actually read what was asked of you.

Our system could be inferior to other systems

It IS inferior, for the reasons stated throughout this thread and the original thread, as well as the links posted in both threads.

but I am not convinced.

That's nice.

Europeans fled the tyranny of monarchs in Europe to establish a republic in America subject to a Constitution framed by the precepts of God.

I don't know who taught you history, but you need to go back to the classroom.

1. The goal of Columbus was to establish a trade route to India.
2. The Pilgrims came to America in search for religious freedom.
3. The goal of those who came to this continent was not to "establish a republic subject to a Constitution framed by the precepts of God."
4. As I stated before, America almost had a king, Prince Henry of Prussia, which shows that the people back then were NOT opposed to monarchy as a whole, but rather with the king of England who was taxing and burdening the colonies too much. The War for Independence wasn't because monarchies are bad, but because of the many reasons stated in the Delaration of Independence (some of which are, by today's standards, leftist complaints, by the way, and thus some of what is stated as reasons for independence are not unjust things, like "taxation without representation," for example).
5. And most importantly, the Constitution we have today is unconstitutional: https://kgov.com/the-us-constitution-is-itself-unconstitutional

God will not be coming down to America to put His stamp of approval on any king of His choice as He did in the nation of Israel.

No one said that He would or should, nor is that what is being proposed.

Assuming sinners can gain God's approval without God's divine intervention and luckily and successfully appoint a king to rule over America, how is a king answerable to the people different than a president answerable to the people?

Clete and I differ on this point, so I'm going to answer differently than him here.

My position, and the point of contention between myself and Clete, is that the king doesn't answer to the people, and that, as the proposed constitution sayd, while there is no earthly authority over him to hold him to account, he DOES answer to God, and his actions will be judged by those he rules over, and history will be the record by which he will be judged on Judgement day.

Even an evil king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s
actions.

I don't need to read past posts to know from this response that you cannot refute my arguments here.

In other words: "I'm right and your wrong, and there's no reason to for me to read your arguments."

Try again.

All I can say is that I see no way to try to establish a monarchy in the US without God's specific instructions as to go about to appoint a king

I either asked Bob about, or he said somewhere that I read about, how we would go about implementing the proposed constitution and government, without violating the principles taught in the Bible (such as Romans 13, where everyone is subject to the authorities already in power). Basically, outside of the collapse or disappearance of the current government, or an abolishing of the current government by itself, or by an outside power taking over and setting up the proposed government, there IS NOT a way to implement the proposed government. And no, a coup nor a revolution are not options.

I am not arguing anyone's position.

This one sentence tells us that you're not paying attention to what we're writing.

I asked you, "what have you been arguing AGAINST this entire time?" and told you to learn what your opponent's position is BEFORE you argue against it.

They can argue their own positions. I am responding to people's posts and directing my answers to specific things said in the specific posts I am responding to.

You're presenting your opinions, and nothing more.

We've said it before, I'll say it again:

WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR OPINIONS ARE UNLESS you can back them up with arguments.

I presented my arguments and my arguments were dismissed.

You haven't presented any arguments, marke. You've simply given your opinions.

And I've asked you before, and I'll ask again:

IF YOU HAVE made any arguments, please QUOTE them in your response to this post. Maybe we missed them, but you won't even repeat the supposed arguments you claim to have made!

I have come to expect that from debate sites.

:yawn:

If I ignore something that is evidenced by the fact that I do not offer my opinion in response to that subject. I think what I am being accused of here is allegedly ignoring posts on the basis of not convincing the person I am responding to that he is wrong and I am right.

You're being accused of (and rightly so) ignoring the arguments and materials presented.

That is not what could be called "ignoring posts."

Ignoring posts is part of what you've done so far in this thread, what little there is that you HAVE done...
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No, he does not.

Yes, you do.

I have no idea what rules you are talking about that Americans should follow to appoint a king

See https://kgov.com/constitution and the apologetic links contained on that page.

that is approved of God for America.

Straw man.

I do see rules that applied to Jewish kings

Which were written LONG before Israel had a king.

and I do see rules that apply to other kings that do not suggest kingdoms are the only type of government that is supposedly approved by God for Gentile nations.

Such as? Name one such rule.

You say "we" can eliminate non-Christian candidates, but you seem to miss the point that the "we Christians" is comparatively a very small number in America. Can "we" Christians impose our will on the rest of the nation?

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

And Paul says "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities."

If the system proposed were implemented, everyone would be subject to it, regardless of what they thought of it.

In government, a dictator is a ruler who has total control over a country, with no checks or balances to prevent abuse of power

You should have kept reading, because you missed the most important part:


a ruler who is unconstrained by law



A dictator is a ruler who is above the law and makes his own laws.

David was NOT above the law, and in fact, it was clearly stated IN the law that kings are subject to the law, LONG before Solon of Athens suggested that kings should be subject to the law.

The government we are proposing has the king constrained by the law. He may act outside of it of his own will, but he will be held accountable by God for it, and as I stated above, even an evil king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.

divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament.

Which has nothing to do with what we're proposing anyways.

If I base my answer on the given definitions I must say that for the most part, David did operate as a dictator with the divine right of kings.

And that's because you didn't read the source you quoted nor the materials presented in these two threads.

David was not a dictator, because he was constrained by the law, but he DID derive his authority from God.

You describe my failure to come to an agreement with you as a sin of laziness or unwillingness to think or reason.

Wrong.

It's not a "failure to come to an agreement" that we have a problem with, marke. It's that you won't make any arguments to back UP your disagreement, and THAT'S what we're calling laziness and unwillingness to think or reason, because it's exactly that!!!

I think that is a wrong assessment.

What you think has no bearing on this discussion.

I do not agree

Make the argument.

that replacing our current system of government with a king that is subject to Congress and the Constitution

More evidence that you didn't read or ignored what has been said in the threads so far.

THERE. IS. NO. CONGRESS. IN. THE. PROPOSED. GOVERNMENT!

[replacing our current system of government] will [not] improve anything

Why do you think that? MAKE THE ARGUMENT!

and I see no biblical mandate for such a change.

So what?

Why is that a consideration?

MAKE THE ARGUMENT!

If our current president is not subject to existing laws

He is, but due to the nature of the system we have, he isn't (or cannot be) held accountable, at least not to any meaningful extent, and IT'S BECAUSE of the form of government we have!

or the majority will of the people of the US

There is no inherent right that 51% of a population has over the other 49%. Our form of government is literally an appeal to majority in everything it does, and Christ said that the majority is wicked.

then why should we think a king would be?

Why a monarchy?

Because even an evil king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s
actions.

Because corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.

Because individuals often repent. Bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.

Because men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.

Because authority flows downhill, not uphill, so monarchy promotes healthy hierarchical relationships.

Because many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these
crimes. On the other hand, here in America, the government has legalized murder (abortion and euthenasia), adultery (including homosexuality), theft, and many other crimes, and has all but removed the punishments for other crimes.

Because a criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.

Because monarchy avoids the systemic failures of democracies and republics.

Now, more directly to what you asked:

Because while no authority may exist above a leader to correct him, those beneath him should resist his wickedness.

Because men should generally subject themselves to the government but refuse to follow a particularly evil leader.

Because America’s current judges take great offense at disobedience against injustice. Kings will likewise.

Because men have not only the right, but also the responsibility, to refuse to submit to unjust governmental coercion.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
No. And this was answered in the OP in the original thread, and on https://kgov.com/constitution.
A quote from your reference:
The Monarchy [B P]: As ruler and defender of America, the King is the supreme judge in the land. The armed forces serve at his command [B P], as do all subdivisions of government. The King will uphold this Constitution [B P] and protect America’s sovereignty.

My objection: Many of our current judges and government officials do not uphold the Constitution, have supported corruption in the military, and do not defend American rights against foreign interests. I see nothing yet proposed that will guarantee a king instead of a president and politicians would do that either.

 

marke

Well-known member
No. And this was answered in the OP in the original thread, and on https://kgov.com/constitution.


A quote from your source:

The Judiciary [B P]: Judges serve by the will of the King to enforce America’s Constitution, Criminal Code [B P] and her Code of Use. The Monarch appoints up to ten men as judges, who each appoint up to ten men as judges beneath them, and so on [B P] corresponding to America’s population until approximately every one hundred households has a judge presiding over their neighborhood. Each Judge of One Hundred appoints two judges under him each over fifty households. Each Judge of Fifty appoints judges under them each over ten households. Judges serve voluntarily and for no payment [B P]. Unlike convicts, a judge may appeal a case, and especially one that significantly affects other jurisdictions, to a higher court [B P]. Judges may be tried for Judicial Negligence [B P]. America prohibits juries [B P].

My concern: If we have a king like Merrick Garland who appoints ten judges like B. Obama to appoint thousands of other judges like Stacy Abrahams why should we think America would be better off?
 

marke

Well-known member
Straw man. The king would NOT by appointed by a man, but by a lottery, as required by the constitution.

A quote from your source:

The Proposed Constitution of America

[© 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 kgov.com. Rationale: Biblical, Political. Later we intend to update the B and P hyperlinks will to the Biblical Apologetic and to a Political Defense of this constitution.]

A constitutional monarchy [B P] governs America. This government shall perform only its three just functions [B P], protecting the God-given rights [B P] of every person within its jurisdiction, providing the public infrastructure [P] needed to exercise and uphold those rights [B P], and as achievable, protecting others.


How can a handful of Christians in America force the rest of Americans to accept such a revised Constitution specifically influenced by and crafted by fundamental Christian beliefs in America?
 

marke

Well-known member
The proposed system does not have the people choosing a king, but rather he is chosen by lottery.

How is a king to be appointed for the kingdom of America? By luck of the draw? Chances of getting an anti-American, anti-God, anti civilization moron are much better than are the chances of getting a God-feraring, honest, trustworthy, dependable, principled servant of Jesus Christ. What will we do if we are not lucky at the lottery and get a communist, fascist, atheist, seditionist, hedonist, anarchist ruler who answers to nobody?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I am not sure what the problem is. I'm not trying to cause a problem and I need help to understand what the problem is.

All you have to do is look at your posts #225 and #226 and the formatting problem should be obvious.

My objection:

But no argument to be found, just you giving your opinions again.

Many of our current judges and government officials do not uphold the Constitution, have supported corruption in the military, and do not defend American rights against foreign interests.

That's supposed to be a reason against the proposed government? Since when did presenting the problems of the system one is trying to defend become a valid attack on a system that may or may not even have those problems?

I see nothing yet proposed

Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy, marke.

that will guarantee a king instead of a president and politicians would do that either.

There are no guarantees made by the proposed system for a reason, marke! It's because no one can guarantee that the king will always follow the law, simply due to the nature of man! In fact, if there was ONE guarantee that could be made, it's that the king WILL violate the law at some point!

My concern:

More opinion. Great.... NOT!

If we have a king like Merrick Garland who appoints ten judges like B. Obama to appoint thousands of other judges like Stacy Abrahams why should we think America would be better off?

Answered in the very post of mine you're responding to.
 

marke

Well-known member
All you have to do is look at your posts #225 and #226 and the formatting problem should be obvious.

I think I see what the problem is but I am not sure I can master the skills needed to make the posts come out perfect. I admit I struggle to avoid the problems I still encounter.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
How can a handful of Christians in America force the rest of Americans to accept such a revised Constitution specifically influenced by and crafted by fundamental Christian beliefs in America?

Answered in the post you were responding to.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
How is a king to be appointed for the kingdom of America?

Answered in the post you were responding to.

By luck of the draw?

By lottery.

The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs16:33&version=NKJV

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

Or by inheritance to the firstborn son from his father.

As a model: Jesus is the King of Kings, and is Mary's Firstborn Son.
A hereditary monarchy minimizes the instances in which a leader must be selected, and maximizes historical stability.

Chances of getting an anti-American,

How many naturally born American citizeens, raised in America, are actually anti-American? In other words, how many of those who are "anti-American" would not be so without the current level of influence of the left?

Probably not very many, and so the likelihood of getting someone who is truly anti-American is, in reality, very slim.

And even if someone like that WERE to be selected, as I said before: All it takes is for those under an evil king to change one person's heart or mind, and barring that, he will eventually die, and his son, or someone else chosen by lottery, will take over.

anti-God,

Most of the presidents of the last 50 years or so in America's history have been anti-God. So what's new? The Proposed Constitution, and the responsibility of the people to refuse to submit to an unjust king, would deter most of the wickedness he could commit.

anti civilization

How many people do you know that are anti-civilization, and who do not rely on civilization to maintain that position?

I would hazard a guess of zero.


Jesus said the majority is evil. He didn't say they were stupid.

are much better than are the chances of getting a God-feraring, honest, trustworthy, dependable, principled servant of Jesus Christ.

There are two sides to that coin, so to speak.

Yes, there is the possibility of getting someone like you described, but there's also the possibility that we get someone who is NOT like you described, someone who, while he may not be a Christian or love God, would still be a good ruler, and of course there is also the possibility that we get a Christian to lead.

With our current system, we are GUARANTEED wicked leaders, because we live in a nation where the majority elects who they like to lead, and since the majority is wicked as per Jesus, thus the one they elect will also be wicked.

I'll take a system where there is a possibility of having a good leader, over a system where there will always be wicked leaders.

What will we do if we are not lucky at the lottery and get a communist, fascist, atheist, seditionist, hedonist, anarchist ruler who answers to nobody?

Nothing. There's nothing we CAN do, not without violating the very principles the proposed system is founded upon.

Like I said, even an evil king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions, along with the many other reasons I stated that you ignored (yet again) in the posts at the top of this page, that would deter an evil king from acting rashly.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If I ignore something that is evidenced by the fact that I do not offer my opinion in response to that subject. I think what I am being accused of here is allegedly ignoring posts on the basis of not convincing the person I am responding to that he is wrong and I am right. That is not what could be called "ignoring posts."
Okay, so the point is that you're being unresponsive. You make an objection and we respond to it and then it just is gone with the wind.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have no idea what rules you are talking about that Americans should follow to appoint a king that is approved of God for America. I do see rules that applied to Jewish kings and I do see rules that apply to other kings that do not suggest kingdoms are the only type of government that is supposedly approved by God for Gentile nations.
Well, I'm not going to spell it out for you when I've repeatedly linked to the information. I don't have the time to rewrite the material and you wouldn't read it here any more than you've read it there anyway.

You say "we" can eliminate non-Christian candidates, but you seem to miss the point that the "we Christians" is comparatively a very small number in America. Can "we" Christians impose our will on the rest of the nation?
It would actually be a far smaller number of people that you imagine. It would take an outright revolution to get to any point where implementing any of this would ever come to pass and so it would be the leaders of the winning side of the war that set up the new government and decide on how to select the king. This discussion is just about how those people would do so if they did it biblically. And, yes, as the leaders of the winning side of the war, they would indeed have the right to set up and impose a new government on the rest of the nation.

In government, a dictator is a ruler who has total control over a country, with no checks or balances to prevent abuse of power
divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament.

If I base my answer on the given definitions I must say that for the most part, David did operate as a dictator with the divine right of kings.
You need to read your bible more thoroughly. David had no power to alter the law of Moses, which was the law of the land and had he tried to do so, the Jews would have rebelled like you can't believe. David would have probably have had his head removed.

You describe my failure to come to an agreement with you as a sin of laziness or unwillingness to think or reason. I think that is a wrong assessment.
I've never suggested that it was your failure to agree with me that was laziness, it is your unwillingness to bring yourself up to speed on what it is we're talking about. You can't be bothered to read the material that would accomplish that task (at least to a large degree anyway). Instead, you want to accuse us of having not proven our case.

There is no requirement for you to agree with any of it. What I want is for you to DEBATE it rather than simply stating your disagreement with it as though that somehow refutes a syllable of it.

I do not agree that replacing our current system of government with a king that is subject to Congress and the Constitution will improve anything and I see no biblical mandate for such a change.
I've told you at least once already that there is no congress. There is the law and there are judges. The king is the chief judge as well as the commander of the military and he represents the nation in negociations with other countries. He has no power to make new laws that conflict with the laws that are clearly laid out by God in His word.

If our current president is not subject to existing laws or the majority will of the people of the US then why should we think a king would be?
If our current president is not subject to existing laws or the majority will of the people of the US then why do you consider our current system superior to the one used by God in scripture?

The point being that any objection of this sort that you can come up with applies equally well (or even more so) to democratic republics where evil representatives of evil people can make any arbitrary rule they want whenever they want to make it, no matter how unjust. In our current system, anything goes so long as it is legal.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No, he does not.
Yes, you do. I'm sure you read it but you neither allow it to persuade your mind nor respond to it at all, never mind offer any sort of rebuttal. You routinely ignore direct questions choosing instead to simply move on as though no question was asked and nothing was said in response to the things you say.

If that isn't ignoring people, what is it?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think I see what the problem is but I am not sure I can master the skills needed to make the posts come out perfect. I admit I struggle to avoid the problems I still encounter.
I think your formatting is okay, but it's really easier to do it right so it's worth working on to improve.

On to the topic at hand. You seem to be under the impression that a good king has to be guaranteed by the system that is being proposed. It isn't. Got that? The monarchical system being proposed will not guarantee a righteous king.

Now stay with me. If you need to take a break and understand what I wrote above and then come back to finish my post that's okay. But understand that what I just said above isn't the point of this post.

Are you back? Are you with me? Did you understand what I said above even if you disagreed? Okay. Here's the kicker: the differences between having a bad king or a bad republic is that a monarchy system can recover but a republic cannot. Got that? As or republic sinks into evil and oblivion, our rulers continue to get worse! Our judges continue to get worse! Our choices for president continue to get worse! There is no recovery for a republic, there is no "return to the constitution", Nancy, Schumer, the squad, Garland, the deep state, and every other evil ruler we have will not get punished. The Republicans, for the insignificant number of members that would even try, will never have the will to stop them, very much because even more members will join them! You think Younkin was a victory? He isn't, but even if he was, convincing one man in a republic means nothing. At best the good people of this country (and you are one of them so you need to get it right) can slow them down a bit, but the death of the Republic cannot be stopped.

Relax. It's okay. Good wins in the end. But God still wants us to do right - by implementing a good government for one thing.

If there is a king, one can actually change just a single mind, and it would change things! Nice! But let's say the king won't change his mind? At least he'll have the courtesy to die. That's so much better than the country dying like what is happening with the Republic.

I know you aren't Catholic, but you have to respect their ability to survive as an institution. Have the popes all been good? No way! But they survive it and every once in a while you get a pope that isn't so bad. A monarchy isn't identical to a pope system, but it's similar enough to understand how much more robust a monarchy is than a republic.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think your formatting is okay, but it's really easier to do it right so it's worth working on to improve.

On to the topic at hand. You seem to be under the impression that a good king has to be guaranteed by the system that is being proposed. It isn't. Got that? The monarchical system being proposed will not guarantee a righteous king.

Now stay with me. If you need to take a break and understand what I wrote above and then come back to finish my post that's okay. But understand that what I just said above isn't the point of this post.

Are you back? Are you with me? Did you understand what I said above even if you disagreed? Okay. Here's the kicker: the differences between having a bad king or a bad republic is that a monarchy system can recover but a republic cannot. Got that? As or republic sinks into evil and oblivion, our rulers continue to get worse! Our judges continue to get worse! Our choices for president continue to get worse! There is no recovery for a republic, there is no "return to the constitution", Nancy, Schumer, the squad, Garland, the deep state, and every other evil ruler we have will not get punished. The Republicans, for the insignificant number of members that would even try, will never have the will to stop them, very much because even more members will join them! You think Younkin was a victory? He isn't, but even if he was, convincing one man in a republic means nothing. At best the good people of this country (and you are one of them so you need to get it right) can slow them down a bit, but the death of the Republic cannot be stopped.

Relax. It's okay. Good wins in the end. But God still wants us to do right - by implementing a good government for one thing.

If there is a king, one can actually change just a single mind, and it would change things! Nice! But let's say the king won't change his mind? At least he'll have the courtesy to die. That's so much better than the country dying like what is happening with the Republic.

I know you aren't Catholic, but you have to respect their ability to survive as an institution. Have the popes all been good? No way! But they survive it and every once in a while you get a pope that isn't so bad. A monarchy isn't identical to a pope system, but it's similar enough to understand how much more robust a monarchy is than a republic.
Completely brilliant post!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I think your formatting is okay, but it's really easier to do it right so it's worth working on to improve.

Yeah, because I had to fix the formatting post #226 so that I could respond to it.

He needs to put more effort into things instead of just giving up right awway.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
I think your formatting is okay, but it's really easier to do it right so it's worth working on to improve.

On to the topic at hand. You seem to be under the impression that a good king has to be guaranteed by the system that is being proposed. It isn't. Got that? The monarchical system being proposed will not guarantee a righteous king.

Now stay with me. If you need to take a break and understand what I wrote above and then come back to finish my post that's okay. But understand that what I just said above isn't the point of this post.

Are you back? Are you with me? Did you understand what I said above even if you disagreed? Okay. Here's the kicker: the differences between having a bad king or a bad republic is that a monarchy system can recover but a republic cannot. Got that? As or republic sinks into evil and oblivion, our rulers continue to get worse! Our judges continue to get worse! Our choices for president continue to get worse! There is no recovery for a republic, there is no "return to the constitution", Nancy, Schumer, the squad, Garland, the deep state, and every other evil ruler we have will not get punished. The Republicans, for the insignificant number of members that would even try, will never have the will to stop them, very much because even more members will join them! You think Younkin was a victory? He isn't, but even if he was, convincing one man in a republic means nothing. At best the good people of this country (and you are one of them so you need to get it right) can slow them down a bit, but the death of the Republic cannot be stopped.

Relax. It's okay. Good wins in the end. But God still wants us to do right - by implementing a good government for one thing.

If there is a king, one can actually change just a single mind, and it would change things! Nice! But let's say the king won't change his mind? At least he'll have the courtesy to die. That's so much better than the country dying like what is happening with the Republic.

I know you aren't Catholic, but you have to respect their ability to survive as an institution. Have the popes all been good? No way! But they survive it and every once in a while you get a pope that isn't so bad. A monarchy isn't identical to a pope system, but it's similar enough to understand how much more robust a monarchy is than a republic.
I do not think any human government can survive as it moves away from God. Kingdoms have risen and fallen as corruption has taken them over. There is no monarchy on earth that is showing itself to be superior to the American Constitutional government, including or excluding flaws.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I do not think any human government can survive as it moves away from God. Kingdoms have risen and fallen as corruption has taken them over. There is no monarchy on earth that is showing itself to be superior to the American Constitutional government, including or excluding flaws.
Blind opinion.... repeated ad nauseam.
 
Top