Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Then quote some democracy bits from the bible.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

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

Promonent examples of democracy in the Torah include the tower of bable, the golden calf worship and the rebellion against Moses.

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.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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

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.

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.

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? 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?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.)

 

[stevevw]

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.

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.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.)

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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)

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?

Quoting a verse from the bible that says 'we'll need some judges' is like saying 'we'll need some laws.' See if you can't flesh it out a touch..

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That's refers to a judiciary.

Nope, "officers", or "magistrates" in other translations are clearly included. The term "gates" therein refer to local city councils and committees.

So how do we appoint them? Who is to appoint them?

"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.

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?

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.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

That answered none of of the questions I asked. We're looking at the process. How does it work?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That answered none of of the questions I asked. We're looking at the process. How does it work?

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

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.

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)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not even sure why you went here. We were just discussing your claim for biblical democracy.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

If it doesn’t work, then it’s a mob rule, which often results in tyranny.

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.)

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.

 

[Bradskii]

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 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.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not even sure why you went here. We were just discussing your claim for biblical 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.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

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."

 

[Bradskii]

...that guy recommended the whole Federalist series in #305...

As I said, nobody is giving out 'recommended reading material (unless someone asks)'. And you asked for some source material:

'an example or two from your trusted sources'.

As I said, one can give a source to back up a position. But you need to give your position and then you can quote something or link to whatever you like to back it up. Nobody has suggested that you go read all the federalist papers. They're just examples of what people back then thought of in regard to a democratic system.

Now if you have a quote from the bible that suggests we should have judges and officials, then...fine. But flesh it out a little more if you could...

 

[Bradskii]

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.

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.