Hans Blaster
Raised by bees
- Mar 11, 2017
- 22,006
- 16,563
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Again, ignorance is not strength as you think it is. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And there's no such thing as "my bible", I don't own it, only God's bible for all mankind.
The word "democracy" means ruling by the people, I've given you ample examples which you have dismissed altogether as "Jewish folklore", your word, not mine. Whatever I reply, you will dismiss it too as "Jewish folklore." In your mind the bible is an antiquated book of myths with no credibility or relevance, so why do you even bother to ask?Then quote some democracy bits from the bible.
The word "democracy" means ruling by the people, I've given you ample examples which you have dismissed altogether as "Jewish folklore", your word, not mine. Whatever I reply, you will dismiss it too as "Jewish folklore." In your mind the bible is an antiquated book of myths with no credibility or relevance, so why do you even bother to ask?
Promonent examples of democracy in the Torah include the tower of bable, the golden calf worship and the rebellion against Moses.
Indeed they are from the Jewish scripture, Gen. 11:1-9 and Ex. 32:1-6. I didn't "claim" anything or make up anything. You're the one whp dismissed them as "Jewish folklore" with clear implication of them being mythical and antiquated, I called you out on that, and you just denied.You're putting words in my mouth and you should stop that.
I referred to "Jewish lore" as in the "stories of the Jewish people" after you claimed these stories from the Jewish scripture
I have given you examples. In both examples, no monarch ordered the people to build the tower of Babel or the golden calf, the people demanded these project, decisions made by the people with their consent, that fits the definition of democracy, and you're just denying it because you believe those are merely ancient stories.were examples of democracy. They are not examples of democracy, now are they? (No they are not.) I never used the word "antiquated" nor referred to the bible as a "book of myths".
It doesn't have any relevance to a discussion of democracy except to provide counter examples (kingdoms, empires, the rule of judges, theocracies) of things that *aren't* democracies. I don't even recall any discussions of foreign democracies of which some of the authors should have had knowledge.
So if you have some examples of the bible talking about "the consent of the governed" or voting or any of the kinds of freedoms people in democracies enjoy feel free to post them. I don't know of any and don't think there are any, but I haven't read the whole thing.
So you've got a mob (golden calf) and a whatever (does it really say how the tower was planned?). Neither of these are on their face democratic governments.I have given you examples. In both examples, no monarch ordered the people to build the tower of Babel or the golden calf, the people demanded these project, decisions made by the people with their consent, that fits the definition of democracy, and you're just denying it because you believe those are merely ancient stories.
Also, since you don't feel the bible has any relevance to the discussion of democracy, I'll ask you again, why do you insist quotes and examples from the bible?
You could start by reading "The Federalist" (the collection NY newspaper essays from 1787-88, not that dreadful web `zine) or Madison's notes on the Constitutional convention or any of hundreds of writings from Enlightenment writers on democracy and free government. (And that's just from one narrow period of history.)How about quotes and examples from other sources which have some relevance by your criteria? Why don't you give an example or two from your trusted sources?
Yes I think its government overreach. I have noticed that institutions and corporations which use to be neutral or at least not buy into politics have become agents for the reining government. Especially in the case of the Left. I think this may be the result of the long slow march through the Institutions and many academics with left leanings have infiltrated positions of influence within education, health and in executive positions.I don't know about Australia, but a big problem in America's system is the numerous government agencies, commonly known as the "shadow government" or "deep state". Politicians come and go as the political pendulum sways and the political wind blows, but these people stay in Washington forever and become a permanent political class. In theory they are the hands and feet of the executive branch under the command of the president, they can be easily fired and replaced, but that's just wishful thinking. Since the Obama administration, many of these agencies are weaponized to persecute the conservatives, formal liberals and anybody with a dissenting voice, and the federal government has greatly expanded and overreached its authority, many local affairs are taken over by these federal agencies.
That's right. Democracy is just a kind of ruling system, what makes the difference is the ones who run this system, the system doesn't run the operators. If you've got a "moral and religious people", in John Adam's words, you get a democracy; if you've got a lawless, entitled mob, you get a mob rule.So you've got a mob (golden calf) and a whatever (does it really say how the tower was planned?). Neither of these are on their face democratic governments.
Good, then the bible did instruct on this matter:I don't need any, but I don't think they exist. If *you* think there are bits in the bible that instruct the faithful how to construct a government of people then *you* should quote them if you want anyone to believe your claim because without those quotes your claim is empty.
The original design in the federalist is one thing, what the federal government has become of is another. If you believe that's the best system, then the quest is to restore the old one, not to build a new one. Those who want to build a new one are the globalist elites, they see nationality religions and autonomy as the enemy of their "progress", they want to build a global government which is neither democratic nor republic. Mock me as a conspiracy theorist as you want, friend, but that's their answer to the OP's question.You could start by reading "The Federalist" (the collection NY newspaper essays from 1787-88, not that dreadful web `zine) or Madison's notes on the Constitutional convention or any of hundreds of writings from Enlightenment writers on democracy and free government. (And that's just from one narrow period of history.)
That's refers to a judiciary. So how do we appoint them? Who is to appoint them? Who oversees them? What terms do they serve? How many are selected? And what about the executive and the legislative? How are they selected? By whom? How can they be removed? How long can they remain in power? Can everyone vote? Is it direct or proportional?Good, then the bible did instruct on this matter:
You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the Lord your God is giving you. (Deut. 16:18-20)
Nope, "officers", or "magistrates" in other translations are clearly included. The term "gates" therein refer to local city councils and committees.That's refers to a judiciary.
"which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes." "Them" don't drop from the sky, they rise from the "tribes", aka the people. There will always be ambitious candidates running for office, every tribe - or region, or community has such persons, you don't worry about that, leave it to God. Nature abhors a power vacuum as much as a physical vacuum, the question is not how it's gonna be filled, but what's gonna fill it.So how do we appoint them? Who is to appoint them?
Those specifics vary from "tribe" to "tribe". Our job is to scrutinize the candidates' qualification, and determine if they're just, impartial and incorruptible, that is the "input" you asked before. If you've got the wrong candidate who has no respect for these rules, then none of these rules matter, they'll violate them as soon as they get in and stay in power as long as they can like Xi and Putin.Who oversees them? What terms do they serve? How many are selected? And what about the executive and the legislative? How are they selected? By whom? How can they be removed? How long can they remain in power? Can everyone vote? Is it direct or proportional?
The global Antichrist system is rising, the p(l)andemic was a great leap toward this one world government you're talking about. Our only hope is Jesus Christ, salvation is not in any form of government, but in Christ alone.Yes I think its government overreach. I have noticed that institutions and corporations which use to be neutral or at least not buy into politics have become agents for the reining government. Especially in the case of the Left. I think this may be the result of the long slow march through the Institutions and many academics with left leanings have infiltrated positions of influence within education, health and in executive positions.
We see executives coming out now and campaigning for the government on issues which I don't think is right. They should stay out as this brings undue pressure of their employees who may have differing views. But also many public servants who should be neutral are bringing politics into the classroom especially at Universities which are educating our future leaders. Social media also has an impact where the media platforms seem to side with the Left and restrict narratives thuse favouring one side of politics.
All this shows that the State is encroaching on peoples freedoms more and more into our homes, our families, how we bring up kids, what we can and can't say and our work. Even our private beliefs and views are not safe to hold if they are in conflict with the State and its agents position.
Its a sneaky way to do this by absorbing more and more control in the name of protections, safety and security. Using a nobel cause to justify taking our freedoms. This is also happening within World Organisations like the UN, World Health organisation and the International Monetary Fund to name a few.
I can see that we are headed for a one world type government which will justify the denial of our freedeoms in the name of a better world.
That answered none of of the questions I asked. We're looking at the process. How does it work?Those specifics vary from "tribe" to "tribe". Our job is to scrutinize the candidates' qualification, and determine if they're just, impartial and incorruptible, that is the "input" you asked before.
If I just propose any other system, any xxx-cracy in general terms, how does that answer any of your questions? This short passage only provides a guideline, that leaders are called by God and arise from the "tribes", aka the people, those specifics depend on each "tribe's" specific situations and demands. There're no one-size-fits-all term limits and election procedures. The only thing that's crystal clear is God's disapproval of any top-down political structure. Any leader must be locally elected, no central government or committee gets to appoint governors to govern different regions where nobody in these regions know who the governors are.That answered none of of the questions I asked. We're looking at the process. How does it work?
Thanks for your input.If I just propose any other system, any xxx-cracy in general terms, how does that answer any of your questions? This short passage only provides a guideline, that leaders are called by God and arise from the "tribes", aka the people, those specifics depend on each "tribe's" specific situations and demands. There're no one-size-fits-all term limits and election procedures. The only thing that's crystal clear is God's disapproval of any top-down political structure. Any leader must be locally elected, no central government or committee gets to appoint governors to govern different regions where nobody in these regions know who the governors are.
Adams was claiming that "a moral and religious people" were *required* for democracy to work. He did not claim that the mere presence of "moral and religious people" would result in democracy.That's right. Democracy is just a kind of ruling system, what makes the difference is the ones who run this system, the system doesn't run the operators. If you've got a "moral and religious people", in John Adam's words, you get a democracy; if you've got a lawless, entitled mob, you get a mob rule.
Good, then the bible did instruct on this matter:
You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the Lord your God is giving you. (Deut. 16:18-20)
If they aren't elected (chosen by the people) it's not really an example of democracy, now is it.In summary, autonomous governments run by competent local leaders, no injustice, no partiality, no bribery. If you rejects that as "theocracy" and prefer injustice, partiality and bribery, then go enjoy the system you like.
I listed those works because you wanted some source from me on democracy. I gave you one and suggested similar places to look. I wasn't making any claim for or against any form of democracy.The original design in the federalist is one thing, what the federal government has become of is another. If you believe that's the best system, then the quest is to restore the old one, not to build a new one.
Not even sure why you went here. We were just discussing your claim for biblical democracy.Those who want to build a new one are the globalist elites, they see nationality religions and autonomy as the enemy of their "progress", they want to build a global government which is neither democratic nor republic. Mock me as a conspiracy theorist as you want, friend, but that's their answer to the OP's question.
If it doesn’t work, then it’s a mob rule, which often results in tyranny.Adams was claiming that "a moral and religious people" were *required* for democracy to work. He did not claim that the mere presence of "moral and religious people" would result in democracy.
You asked for a quote, I gave you one. You don’t look like the type with any patience to dive in for further study.As is the case in bible fragment quoting, it gives no indication who is ordering the appointment and who is doing the appointment. Are these just judicial officers or do they have other powers. (`Cause a judge is just a judge unless they have other powers.)
This isn't a study session. We aren't giving out recommended reading material (unless someone asks). This is meant to be an exercise where you give your ideas on how you think the process should work. You can give quotes to illustrate what you mean but 'hey, go study it yourself' is not what a forum is mean to be.You asked for a quote, I gave you one. You don’t look like the type with any patience to dive in for further study.
This verse says, "which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes", that's enough of a nod for democracy. In any non-democratic system, the central government will give judges and officers according to the central government's will, with or without the consent of the governed.If they aren't elected (chosen by the people) it's not really an example of democracy, now is it.
No, I don't "prefer injustice, partiality and bribery" because I reject theocracy. Quit putting words in my mouth.
I listed my source too, and I've also made it crystal clear that "democracy" is an umbrella term that can come in all shapes and forms. By its definition only without any further details and specifications, it's just "ruling by the people", that ruling can be any kind, including decapitating anybody laballed "enemy of the people" on a guillotine; and that people can be any kind, including a mob that enjoys watching "enemy of people" being decapitated on a guillotine.I listed those works because you wanted some source from me on democracy. I gave you one and suggested similar places to look. I wasn't making any claim for or against any form of democracy.
No, sir, this thread is open for discussion on "how we choose our political leaders". If you don't respect me or the bible, please respect the OP, thanks.Not even sure why you went here. We were just discussing your claim for biblical democracy.
Oh boy, you really think I'll diverge into a "study session" and expect that guy to follow me? And to be fair, all I did is just quoting a few bible verses, that guy recommended the whole Federalist series in #305, I'm not the one who tells anybody to "go study it yourself."This isn't a study session. We aren't giving out recommended reading material (unless someone asks). This is meant to be an exercise where you give your ideas on how you think the process should work. You can give quotes to illustrate what you mean but 'hey, go study it yourself' is not what a forum is mean to be.
I've no idea why you're so combative. Just chill out and join in the conversation.
As I said, nobody is giving out 'recommended reading material (unless someone asks)'. And you asked for some source material:...that guy recommended the whole Federalist series in #305...
Then tie it down to a 'shape or form' that you'd like to see. Not what you wouldn't like. But what you would.This verse says, "which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes", that's enough of a nod for democracy...and I've also made it crystal clear that "democracy" is an umbrella term that can come in all shapes and forms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?