/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

If monarchies are so great then why are current monarchies so rubbish? (UK, Sweden, Netherlands etc.)

>but theyre limited in their powers!

So they once were strong and stable and slowly deteriorated into secular republics. Such a great quality to have

>>577393

This thread is for monarchists, friend.

>>577387

>And why does the book of Judges say "there was no king in Israel" as if that were a bad thing

It wasnt and it doesnt says so. I dont think there should be need of answer to next question about why was having a king was bad. God was the supreme ruler of Israel. On administrative level, it was tribal democracy, though on occasions Judges would appear. For one it would seem to be similar case as we have in Roman Republic with Dictator being Similar to Judges, however, unlike Roman Dictators, Judges didnt have supreme authority.

>Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God."

This would actually go down to why God allows sinful people to exist, due to "There is no righteous man" rule. Asides this there is a difference between what "God does" and what "God allows". Also remember, that even in m*narchies, kings were dependent on support of lower class, as nobles for example. And we have case such as "holy" "roman" "empire" where Emperor had to be elected amongst nobility. The point is, that election of rulers always depended on people, being it small class of nobles, even though faudal system was hereditary (Nobles could overthrow the leader or at least limit his power) or wider masses.

And no, m*narchism is not right in my personal opinion and never will be. Most justifiable regime would be elective aristocratic leadership with strong clerical influence (at least minimally resembling period of Judges, though it was even different than what I am saying.)

>>577397

And no, Byzantium was not m*narchy, it was more of an aristocratic stratocracy.

>>577397

But if they are elected, wouldn't that just leave decisions in the hands of a lot of unrighteous people?

I am personally not a monarchist. It seems like a good idea, but I don't care that much to live in one.

>>577401

And if they are not, it would live in hands of a small part of unrighteous people that would thy to gain profit by parasiting on the rest.

Hereditary succession is retarded as well and by far the prime problem of m*narchies. The ruler is not chosen by his merits or any other quality, but rather on his dynasty, creating instability. Asides from the fact, that all humans are made in image and likeness of God, are children of God and being superior from others due to your family name and the fact that your ancestors were good at murdering (or castrating and blinding them like in Byzantine styled nations such as Georgia) other pretenders is a bad theory as well.

Sure, Republics have their own problems and Im actually against the modern widespread system of "democracy" (that is more of an ochlocracy). I support the system, that Aristotle would may describe Aristocratian: Government chosen by limited quantity of people. All people get to vote, but their votes are measured by different weight, that would depend on various factors, such as education, work and so on. But this is lower echelons, or lower house. Upper house would be chosen by limited council that would be influenced by church. Church would also serve as sort of an shadow government, maintaining stability of the country from curtains. This is the short version of my theory and yes, it has many flaws, though I wanted it to sort of resemble governmental system at the time of judges mixed with newer political thought. But my opinion stays: m*narchy is the worst government form at hand.

>>577414

Including Spain (that allows pidarasts to get married) and, sorry for using this word, B_lgium as well? Asides from fact that nowadays there are more catholics in Nethernlands than protestants?

>>577416

Oh, sorry, I also forgot (not so) Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, whose first lady is a man.

>>577387

>Q1

The king was unnecessary because God was to rule directly with judges as proxies, having a king would be sub-optimal in that situation.

We do not have the option to be ruled directly by God though.

>Q2

St. Augustine states in City of God that hardships serve both as punishments and as tests for the faithful. It's quite likely he was using them for one of those purposes.

>>577393

That's the same logic as all food sucking because some food is unhealthy.

>>577387

A1, p1: It was particular case of Israel really, and even though it may sound harsh, compared to neighboring nations it was really light rule.

p2: King in Judges does not mean king per se, but any ruler. That's the first thing. Second is that under Saul people were more righteous perhaps because of fear which Samuel noticed and and but into Judges.

A2: Unlawful law is not law at all and thus have no power at all and thus we are not bound to follow them. Unnatural law like gay """"mariage"""" is unlawful by fact of being unnatural alone.

>>577387

Can I just say that you have great taste in guitar pedals? I have that pedal and love it.

>>577413

I wish Canada had a Monarch like him. He sounds like he was a righteous man.

>>577393

>If monarchies are so great then why are current monarchies so rubbish?

1) Protestant North-West

2) Protestant North-West ended our monarchies in WWI

>>577393

the Eternal Anglo strikes again

>>577405

Actually, Byzantium was politically unstable /because/ it didn't really have a strong hereditary principle of succession. It would have made the position of Imperator/Basileus too much like a king, and the population still held the old prejudice the Romans had against kings.

Basically, if you overthrew the old emperor, you could be emperor. Might made right, legitimacy didn't matter.

If monarchy is good why do we see even biblical heroes corrupted when they become monarchs, such as David?

>>582192

>>582192

David was more akin to a dictator though as he made all the decisions and gave the people little say outside of the leviticul priests and the prophets who spoke for God.

>>577397

>It wasnt and it doesnt says so.

No actual in judges it does say so read judges 17:6

>In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

It goes on to denounce those who did what was right in their own eyes by encouraging doing what is right in God's eyes in 1 kings 15:5

>Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD,and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite

>>582189

There is a reason matthew 11:12 is said.

>>577413

You are wrong, God clearly defines what the point of a christian king is in deutoronomy 18:19-20

>And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

>That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

God said before that what the poing of non-christian kings was in deutoronomy 18:14-17 tldr is usury of all things But now realise there can no longer be christian kings that have direct authority from God because of matthew 4:8-10 and 1 kings 24. That is until revelation 11:15 of course when Jesus and christians recieve back the kingdoms of the world. But until then romans 13 and 1 peter 2:17-25 apply to authority.

Monarchy is not right, anarchy is.

>>582758

>>582757

Is it right to serve man, or is it right to only serve God?

>>582773

>what is romans 13

>what is philipians 3:3

God of course. God says to obey those in authority. So do.

>>582773

>implying the Diving Right of Kings doesn't exist

read "Politics Drawn from Sacred Scripture" first

>>582775

Sure, but it would be better to not have any in authority, just the same as it would be better for North Korea to not be ruled by the totalitarian dictatorship it is being ruled by.

What does Philippians 3:3 have to do with this though? That verse is about circumcision being unneeded.

>>582779

One moment

>>582779

Or just read romans 13:1-12 first.

>>582782

Ok, cool, do what the government says. That doesn't mean I have to like it, or support the government in any way.

>>582780

Philipians 3:3 state Christians worship God in the spirit. Who owns your flesh? Who owns the kingdoms of the world as of right now? Read matthew 16:23 and matthew 4:8-10 and then realise what marriage is by reading deutoronomy 11:5 and 1 corinthians 6:15-17. He who has ears let him hear.

Are you trying to argue for or against what I'm saying? Because those verses are the perfect arguments in my favour. I genuinely am confused.

>>582789

I would advise you not to respond to the one who memorizes verses.

What does that even mean?

>>582789

I am simply quoting what God says, not argueing for you or against you.

If God is your authority then how is it anarchy? Wouldn't that be more like a dictatorship or kingship with God as the king? And not anarchy since you seek to do what God says? unless you are argueing we should ignore God in which case get out. And why are you here?

>>582794

Ok, so I suppose I'm not advocating for true anarchy in the sense of 'no gods no masters', rather in the sense of 'only God as master'. And I'm not sure saying 'dictator' is correct, as God doesn't do any dictating, rather has just 'published' a guidebook. A constitution, if you will. Kingship with God as the king? Yes.

>>582796

A constitution implies that it is of the people, us. And not of God. See its definition https://archive.fo/ytc2B

>the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it

>as God doesn't do any dictating, rather has just 'published' a guidebook

God does do dictating though. He dictates things to do by using His word the Bible. Some are guides some are dictated. All of it is literal though. There's nothing wrong with this though as He is God and He is. Therefore He has the authority to do such things.

>Kingship with God as the king? Yes.

If God called Himself a dictator, would that change if you obeyed Him or not? There's no difference between a king and a dictator for both require obeidience and have single rule over the country/nation they dictate or lord over.

>>582800

You're right, constitution isn't the right word. And yes, He did dictate things to do by using His word the Bible, but He isn't actively dictating anything right now. If God starts calling himself 'dictator', then he is actively intervening on Earth, making the word 'dictator' fit. On the other hand, he is dictating goings on in heaven, making God a dictator of sorts in Heaven. All of this doesn't really matter of course, because it's simply the English language, which was made by humans, not God. Sorry KJV-onlyists.

>>582807

>All of this doesn't really matter of course, because it's simply the English language, which was made by humans, not God.

You are correct. But is there a tongue that God says He prefers us to use in His word? Otherwise who cares? Let all things be done unto edifying 1 corinthians 14:26.

>Sorry KJV-onlyists.

I am not a KJV onlyist, I am open to other interpretations i.e 2 peter 1:20. But the KJV is the only Bible on earth that I am aware of that doesn't make God a liar titus 1:2 if it is true, which it is. Do you have a version that I could use besides such that doesn't make God a liar if it were true? I've gone over a great many versions and all make God a liar if they were true, so they couldn't be good fruit of God i.e matthew 7:15-20.

>>577393

>take away all the powers of a monarch

>replace it with a democracy

>everything goes to shit

>"See? Monarchy is the problem!"

>>582809

What do you mean by 'make God a liar'?

>>582836

He's talking about contradictions and on that point he has a good point. It's interesting how there haven't been any worthwhile translations since then, even though I've also tried to find them.

>>578541

Are you implying the T*rk was a legitimate monarch and not a tyrant? See the first difference between a dictator and a king is that the king is not a complete stranger.

Deuternomy 17:15

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.