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 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
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.
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
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."
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.
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...