$1M Alligator Shoes Please

[Yorzhik]

quote:
Originally posted by Gerald
Problem is, that one wolf has a million wolves at his beck and call...

And again, we come straight to the same argument: what if the king turns out to be bad (i.e. he's a wolf and he creates a wolf pack that eats his subjects)?

1) Normally the king doesn't tolerate his subjects being bad. He reserves that right to himself. This is proved out in history and is obvious to anyone who understands human nature.

2) At least he has the courtesy to die.

In a democracy/republic, the electorate never dies.

quote:
Originally posted by Zimfan
And, although enough food may satisfy a wolf, most humans can never have enough money and power to satiate them.

Ahhhh, Zim, you need to re-read the analogy and try this sentence again. I'll give you some help: what is meant by "the wolves eat the sheep"?

Would you rather have a monarch that steals all of your money for him/herself and his/her minions or a democratic government that steals your money and attempts to distribute it equitably?

When you say "attempts" do you mean sometimes they fail? Is that possible?

Besides, when the Israelites demanded a king God said that they "have rejected Me from being king over them"(1 Samuel 8:7). Do you really think that He would be any more fond of the idea now?

So the U.S. is "the kingdom of God"? Or, if I can help you with my point: did God switch from the idea of a republic/democracy to granting Israel a king?

 

[Granite]

How would the end results of a theocracy ala CR or Enyart be different than the end results of a humanistic state?

The fruits of Christianity imposing its will through the state don't have a terribly good track record...

Constantine's influence over the church completely changed the face of Christianity, some would say for the worse.

Prohibition was a bang-up success fueled by the Christian temperance movement. We're facing a similar situation today through the war on drugs.

I don't think we even need to get into witch burnings and inquisitions...

Bottomline: with this kind of record, what makes anyone think a fusion between Christianity and the state will provide results any different from the abuses we've seen in the past?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by granite1010
The fruits of Christianity imposing its will through the state don't have a terribly good track record...

<snip>

Bottomline: with this kind of record, what makes anyone think a fusion between Christianity and the state will provide results any different from the abuses we've seen in the past?

[fundy]

Well, um, see, all those other folks weren't Real Christians™...

[/fundy]

:chuckle:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Greywolf
You seem to think that we are disgruntled with our neighbors all the time for the same reason. We get throught that also, so why change anything?

Why favor a system where the people are disgrunted with both the government and their neighbor over a sysem where the people are only disgruntled with the government but not their neighbor?

I don't think that people get mad at each other over who they voted for, but what they think.

Oh, please. I've got employees who think they should be the ones who make the rules. I don't hate them for their childish attitudes. Rather, I enjoy the opportunity to teach them that if they want to make the rules, they need to start their own business. BUT if those same employees actually petitioned the government and succeeded in creating a law that mandated that employees be allowed to make the rules and the managers and the owners had to obey the employees, THEN I'd be severely ticked off at those same employees. I'd be so ticked off, I would only run a business as a sole proprietorship with no employees.

What determines what is a "symbolic law"?

Symbolic laws in the Old Testament pointed to the life and work of Jesus Christ. For example, the commandments to make blood sacrifices from animals pointed to the blood sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross. After Christ's crucifixion, that symbolic law was no longer necessary. However, moral laws such as "Do not murder" are timeless.

I was more concerned about the "neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God" part.

A bibliocracy under this current dispensation of the Body of Christ would allow people the freedom to commit crimes against God but not crimes against their fellow man.

I never said that bringing them back was radical. I am opposed to making a civil law based solely on one's religious beliefs.

So you think laws against murder should be taken off the books since it originally came from the 10 commandments?

And for those of us who don't think that God exists...

There would be open borders. You would be free to leave if you so choose.

I'm not too inclined to follow the orders of someone who I don't think exists.

That's why there would be open borders. You would be free to leave.

"the·oc·ra·cy
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed."

In your case, your "religious authority" is the Judeo/Christian God.
The Bible (if I recall correctly) is supposed to be the word of God.

It seems to me that in a Christian theocracy that the Bible would have to determine the laws of the country.

Correct, but I think you are actually thinking of an "ecclessiocracy" which is government ruled by the church. That's not what we are in favor of.

OK, then how would decide what laws the country should have?

From both general principles as well as specific examples found in the Bible.

Do you see any similarity between that and saying that you would be fine with Joe Blow being the head of the country's government?

If Joe Blow decided he no longer wanted to be monarch then he could turn it over to his eldest son or if he had no son, perhaps a new lottery could be drawn.

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Why favor a system where the people are disgrunted with both the government and their neighbor over a sysem where the people are only disgruntled with the government but not their neighbor?

The first one. History is pretty clear on what happens when you focus a lot of peoples' anger like that.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Oh, please. I've got employees who think they should be the ones who make the rules. I don't hate them for their childish attitudes. Rather, I enjoy the opportunity to teach them that if they want to make the rules, they need to start their own business.

So why do you think that we should change this country, rather than you going off and starting your own country?

Originally posted by Jefferson
BUT if those same employees actually petitioned the government and succeeded in creating a law that mandated that employees be allowed to make the rules and the managers and the owners had to obey the employees, THEN I'd be severely ticked off at those same employees. I'd be so ticked off, I would only run a business as a sole proprietorship with no employees.

Why would you be ticked off about it?

Originally posted by Jefferson
Symbolic laws in the Old Testament pointed to the life and work of Jesus Christ. For example, the commandments to make blood sacrifices from animals pointed to the blood sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross. After Christ's crucifixion, that symbolic law was no longer necessary. However, moral laws such as "Do not murder" are timeless.

What does not eating animals that "cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof" or "have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters" have to do with the life and works of Jesus?

Originally posted by Jefferson
A bibliocracy under this current dispensation of the Body of Christ would allow people the freedom to commit crimes against God but not crimes against their fellow man.

What do you mean by "this current despensation"?

Originally posted by Jefferson
So you think laws against murder should be taken off the books since it originally came from the 10 commandments?

Laws against murder didn't come from the Ten Commandments. One can find laws against murder in the legal system of just about every civilization.

Originally posted by Jefferson
There would be open borders. You would be free to leave if you so choose.

Why isn't this a solution for you right now?

Originally posted by Jefferson
Correct, but I think you are actually thinking of an "ecclessiocracy" which is government ruled by the church. That's not what we are in favor of.

In an ecclessiocracy, where would the church get its laws from?

Originally posted by Jefferson
From both general principles as well as specific examples found in the Bible.

How do you determine what the "general principles" are?

Originally posted by Jefferson
If Joe Blow decided he no longer wanted to be monarch then he could turn it over to his eldest son or if he had no son, perhaps a new lottery could be drawn.

Methinks that you missed the point of the Sword of Damocles story. Try reading it again.


Also, what happens if the monarch happens to go insane or starts acting immorally?

 

[Granite]

Bueller?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Greywolf
Also, what happens if the monarch happens to go insane or starts acting immorally?

He would probably be assassinated, most likely by one or more of his advisors.

Such would likely be the fate of any monarch who deviated from the "party line"...

As there is no provision for removing the monarch from the throne, this is something the monarchists prefer not to talk about...:chuckle:

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Greywolf
So why do you think that we should change this country, rather than you going off and starting your own country?

For your benefit. You would live in a country with a very low percentage of murder and violent crime and you would also be taxed less than 10 percent of your income just to name 2 examples. I would like to help provide you with these Biblical blessings.

Why would you be ticked off about it?

Imagine a company where the employees decide they only have to show up for work whenever they feel like it and only work as many hours as they feel like and only produce as much as they feel like when they are at "work." Then imagine those same employees deciding they deserve 99% of the money that comes into the business.

What does not eating animals that "cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof" or "have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters" have to do with the life and works of Jesus?

God commanded men to eat the sacrifice. And centuries later Jesus said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (John 6:53-55)

What do you mean by "this current despensation"?

Dispensation mean "house rules." God changes the rules he wants us to live by during different eras. Man was allowed to marry his sister, then he was not. He was forbidden to eat meat, then not. We are commanded to circumcise then we are not, etc.
Different rules for different eras. Those are dispensations.

Laws against murder didn't come from the Ten Commandments. One can find laws against murder in the legal system of just about every civilization.

I'm not talking about other civilizations. I'm talking about the U.S. The reason why the U.S. has the death penalty for murder is because Christians read the bible and then vote for pro-death penalty candidates. And we have succeeded in imposing that Biblical law upon the lives of nonchristians. Many nonchristians don't like living under that Biblical law. Too bad. We won.

Why isn't this a solution for you right now?

I love this country enough to see it improved.

In an ecclessiocracy, where would the church get its laws from?

From the Bible just like in a Biblical monarchy. The difference is who has the authority to enforce the law.

How do you determine what the "general principles" are?

Common sense mostly. For example, the Old Testament commanded that fences be put on roof tops. The reason was because roof tops were flat and people used them for patios. Children could easily fall off the roofs so fences were commanded. The general principle applied today would require fences around swimming pools to prevent toddlers who have not yet learned how to swim from falling in and drowning.

Methinks that you missed the point of the Sword of Damocles story. Try reading it again.

No thanks. How 'bout you just tell me how you think the story applies to our discussion.

Also, what happens if the monarch happens to go insane or starts acting immorally?

There will be wicked monarchs from time to time. But which is more likely; one monarch repenting or an entire nation of voters repenting?

 

[Granite]

"There will be wicked monarchs from time to time. But which is more likely; one monarch repenting or an entire nation of voters repenting?"

Another question: which is more likely to cause more harm...a nation full of beer-swilling Joe Blows, or a nation led by a ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant?

Dictatorship--whether you call it a monarchy or what have you--will breed far more abuse than the strange, democratic republic/corporate state hybrid we have in America today. And it breeds far greater instability, because the stakes are raised considerably and there's more on the line. The abuses of monarchies almost always lead to greater repression once the people rebel and replace them with their own tyrannies: look at what happened to the French crown and the Russian czar--and remember who took their place.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010
Dictatorship--whether you call it a monarchy or what have you--will breed far more abuse than the strange, democratic republic/corporate state hybrid we have in America today. And it breeds far greater instability, because the stakes are raised considerably and there's more on the line. The abuses of monarchies almost always lead to greater repression once the people rebel and replace them with their own tyrannies: look at what happened to the French crown and the Russian czar--and remember who took their place.

The people were very happy under King David's and King Solomon's monarchy because those were Biblical monarchy's unlike the others you mentioned.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Jefferson

The people were very happy under King David's and King Solomon's monarchy because those were Biblical monarchy's unlike the others you mentioned.

Happy until David performed his infamous census, or until Solomon violated God's warning against creating a standing army.

I guess any system will have its flaws, but to tout a monarchy as an ideal system overlooks the dangers inherent to any dictatorship.

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Jefferson
For your benefit. You would live in a country with a very low percentage of murder and violent crime and you would also be taxed less than 10 percent of your income just to name 2 examples. I would like to help provide you with these Biblical blessings.

Right now I don't pay any tax on my income. How would you be able to guarantee a low percentage of murder and violent crime?

Originally posted by Jefferson
Imagine a company where the employees decide they only have to show up for work whenever they feel like it and only work as many hours as they feel like and only produce as much as they feel like when they are at "work." Then imagine those same employees deciding they deserve 99% of the money that comes into the business.

Then the company goes under and the employees haven't gained themselves anything. So?

Originally posted by Jefferson
God commanded men to eat the sacrifice. And centuries later Jesus said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (John 6:53-55)

How does that relate to a law that commands people to not eat something?

Originally posted by Jefferson
Dispensation mean "house rules." God changes the rules he wants us to live by during different eras. Man was allowed to marry his sister, then he was not. He was forbidden to eat meat, then not. We are commanded to circumcise then we are not, etc.
Different rules for different eras. Those are dispensations.

How do you know which laws are applicable in this dispensation?

Originally posted by Jefferson
I'm not talking about other civilizations. I'm talking about the U.S. The reason why the U.S. has the death penalty for murder is because Christians read the bible and then vote for pro-death penalty candidates. And we have succeeded in imposing that Biblical law upon the lives of nonchristians. Many nonchristians don't like living under that Biblical law. Too bad. We won.

My bad. I thought you were talking about laws making murder illegal.

Originally posted by Jefferson
From the Bible just like in a Biblical monarchy. The difference is who has the authority to enforce the law.

Who would have the authority to enforce the law in your proposed system?

Originally posted by Jefferson
Common sense mostly. For example, the Old Testament commanded that fences be put on roof tops. The reason was because roof tops were flat and people used them for patios. Children could easily fall off the roofs so fences were commanded. The general principle applied today would require fences around swimming pools to prevent toddlers who have not yet learned how to swim from falling in and drowning.

Bad way to decide laws. Common sense is not a good reason to do something, and greatly differs from person to person. I'd say that the fence example is more an example of logic than common sense.

Originally posted by Jefferson
No thanks. How 'bout you just tell me how you think the story applies to our discussion.

Basically Damocles (Joe Blow of ancient Greece) decides that he can do the ruler's job as well as the ruler can. The ruler lets him be the ruler for a day and Damocles freezes under pressure (and a sword).

Originally posted by Jefferson
There will be wicked monarchs from time to time. But which is more likely; one monarch repenting or an entire nation of voters repenting?

A monarch, but who would make him? And what would happen if he went crazy?


Also, what do you think the purpose of a government is?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by granite1010

Happy until David performed his infamous census, or until Solomon violated God's warning against creating a standing army.

I guess any system will have its flaws, but to tout a monarchy as an ideal system overlooks the dangers inherent to any dictatorship.

No system this side of the millenial reign of Jesus Christ will be ideal.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

The people were very happy under King David's and King Solomon's monarchy because those were Biblical monarchy's unlike the others you mentioned.

Except for the time that David allowed his people to be slaughtered for his little sin of pride... I bet the people were really pleased with him then...

 

[Yorzhik]

Another question: which is more likely to cause more harm...a nation full of beer-swilling Joe Blows, or a nation led by a ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant?

I don't get the juxtaposition. Did you mean "a nation led by beer-swilling Joe Blows"? There will probably be a great many Joe Blows who like beer in a Monarchy as well. But a nation led by beer-swilling Joe Blows will be worse than a ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant. The reason is two-fold:

1) Normally the king/ruthless-bloodthirsty-tyrant doesn't tolerate his subjects being bad. He reserves that right to himself. This is proved out in history and is obvious to anyone who understands human nature.

2) At least he has the courtesy to die.

Dictatorship--whether you call it a monarchy or what have you--will breed far more abuse than the strange, democratic republic/corporate state hybrid we have in America today.

Not true. Having the majority, a bunch of beer-swilling Joe Blows, being easily lead by no-one-you-can-put-your-finger-on, will lead to more abuse because there is no accountability. The most ruthless tyrant is still accountable to the law of death and identification. In other words, he cannot escape the fact that he is responsible, and he will die someday (and it doesn't matter if he doesn't care about these two things - they apply wether he likes it or not).

And it breeds far greater instability, because the stakes are raised considerably and there's more on the line.

Why?

The abuses of monarchies almost always lead to greater repression once the people rebel and replace them with their own tyrannies: look at what happened to the French crown and the Russian czar--and remember who took their place.

Thus, the constitution is important. Without it you end up with somelike what was in Japan before WWII. BTW, as you know, things ended up worse after the thrones of France or Russia were usurped by non-monarchys, so I don't see how that helps your point.

 

[Zakath]

What is to prevent the ACM monarch from amending the Constitution to suit his whim?

 

[Yorzhik]

What is to prevent the ACM monarch from amending the Constitution to suit his whim?

Not much. But there will be a number of copies available before it starts, so everyone will know what was changed and who changed it, and changing it back will be difficult but not impossible.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Not much. But there will be a number of copies available before it starts, so everyone will know what was changed and who changed it, and changing it back will be difficult but not impossible.

If the ACM Constitution will not present any significant check on the monarch, then why bother with one in the first place?

Is it only a sop to appease the populace so they will go along with a monarchy?

 

[Granite]

I asked this before and supporters of dictatorship ignored it: given the church's disastrous track record when mingled with the state--the Inquisition, Puritan hangings and pressings unto death, the complete failure of Prohibition, the mixture of paganism and Christianity thanks to Constantine--what makes us think a "constitutional monarchy" wrapped in a flag and a Bible will have better results?

I mean, what really makes us think we're ready to run society? We can't even run our churches.

I can't think of one instance of the church and state working hand in hand that resulted in anything less than tyranny. It is simply not a good combination. Let Christians work in government. Fine. But prevent the church as an institution from getting in bed with Uncle Sam.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by granite1010

I asked this before and supporters of dictatorship ignored it: given the church's disastrous track record when mingled with the state--the Inquisition, Puritan hangings and pressings unto death, the complete failure of Prohibition, the mixture of paganism and Christianity thanks to Constantine--what makes us think a "constitutional monarchy" wrapped in a flag and a Bible will have better results?

I mean, what really makes us think we're ready to run society? We can't even run our churches.

I can't think of one instance of the church and state working hand in hand that resulted in anything less than tyranny. It is simply not a good combination. Let Christians work in government. Fine. But prevent the church as an institution from getting in bed with Uncle Sam.

This is the best thing you have ever written, granite!

I agree completely!