Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Jonathan_Gale]

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...

I definitely could, but you wouldn't care, because the God's instructions primarily focus on the qualifications of leaders instead of the system, in other words, "who gets in" instead of "how they get in", so I'd better not annoy you with more of that.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

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.

I've told you that there's no one-size-fits-all formula, the specific "shape" and "form" depend on the specific needs of the given population. There's not even a one-size-fits-all diet or medicine for a group of individuals with similar condition, let alone form of government exerted on a population.

In fact, it is written in the bible, "Let my people go, so they can worship me."(Ex. 8:1) This verse teaches the principle of democracy, that liberty is tied to law and order. The "demos" in democracy is a competent people who are able to organize and govern themselves under the rule of law. A lawless democracy is a mob rule, and it's doomed to result in tyranny, look no further from the French Revolution.

 

[Bradskii]

I definitely could, but you wouldn't care..

I'm interested. I really am. I'd like to know.

because the God's instructions primarily focus on the qualifications of leaders...

I don't want to know what you think God's instructions on qualification are. I want to know what you think is the best process.

 

[Bradskii]

I've told you that there's no one-size-fits-all formula, the specific "shape" and "form" depend on the specific needs of the given population.

Then use Taiwan as an example.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I'm interested. I really am. I'd like to know.

I don't want to know what you think God's instructions on qualification are. I want to know what you think is the best process.

Then you're clearly not interested.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

That's devine command, not derived from the people. The exact opposite of democracy. (And it doesn't matter if the divine commander is real and imposing its will on the people, or some religious leader is claiming that they speak for a non-existent deity -- it is still not a democratic form.)

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.

That is a bizzarro-world definition of democracy. Never heard anyone use anything like it before.

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.

You really do keep reading unstated, and non-existent intent into my replies and inquiries. I just don't think your thoughts about democracy are particularly cogent or realistic, nor have you given me any reason to think your scripture is in anyway supportive of democratic principles. (It's not about you, I've got 40+ years of not hearing democratic ideas from the bible and the religions derived from it, and lots of hearing it used to reference and back non-democratic forms of governance.)

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Then use Taiwan as an example.

All I can tell you is that this island is a peppet state of Uncle Sam, and a war with mainland China is imminent, no form or shape of democracy really matters, it's all just for show.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That's devine command, not derived from the people. The exact opposite of democracy. (And it doesn't matter if the divine commander is real and imposing its will on the people, or some religious leader is claiming that they speak for a non-existent deity -- it is still not a democratic form.)

Then I respectfully ask you once again, why do you care to ask for any biblical reference since your mind is set with this attitude? God also instructed to "judge justly", no injustice, partiality or bribery, are you gonna reject those as "divine command" and "theocracy" as well? We can discuss your claim based on your atheist sources if you want, I have no intention to impose my view of "divine command" on anybody.

That is a bizzarro-world definition of democracy. Never heard anyone use anything like it before.

It's only "bizzarro-world" in your own twisted mind. Don't take my word, do your own research, go look up at merriam-webster.com or other dictionaries. The last time I checked, it says exactly "government by the people" or "ruling by the people" without any specifics of what kind of ruling or what kind of people, and I just gave you an example of what kind it could be based on solid history.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

You really do keep reading unstated, and non-existent intent into my replies and inquiries. I just don't think your thoughts about democracy are particularly cogent or realistic, nor have you given me any reason to think your scripture is in anyway supportive of democratic principles. (It's not about you, I've got 40+ years of not hearing democratic ideas from the bible and the religions derived from it, and lots of hearing it used to reference and back non-democratic forms of governance.)

What you did in all your "replies" and "inquiries" is mocking and denying the almighty God and his holy word on a Christian forum, you have yet contributed nothing to the OP's discussion except a vague reference of the "Federalist paper", to which the OP said NO, for "This isn't a study session." So again, I politely ask you to at least respect OP, all right? If you think you're so smart, you know what democratic principle really is and how it's supposed to be practiced, then enlighten me, let's hear it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then I respectfully ask you once again, why do you care to ask for any biblical reference since your mind is set with this attitude? God also instructed to "judge justly", no injustice, partiality or bribery, are you gonna reject those as "divine command" and "theocracy" as well? We can discuss your claim based on your atheist sources if you want, I have no intention to impose my view of "divine command" on anybody.

You have responded with the reference text which is appreciated by me. I could not have found it in the bible as I don't know the text very well (mostly not much at all). As to why, I did not find your claim that democracy could be found in the bible credible, so I as you to back your claim with reference text. The text you provided does not in my estimation back your claim. (That shall be all of your last two posts I shall reply to.)

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

You have responded with the reference text which is appreciated by me. I could not have found it in the bible as I don't know the text very well (mostly not much at all). As to why, I did not find your claim that democracy could be found in the bible credible, so I as you to back your claim with reference text. The text you provided does not in my estimation back your claim. (That shall be all of your last two posts I shall reply to.)

My claim is autonomy, the bible has given instruction on that - competent leaders are elected from each local community, every small matter they deal by themselves, every great matter is submitted to the next higher level. The word "select" indicate a form of election process, Moses didn't get to appoint his relatives and cronies as rulers, such rulers come from the people.

"Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”

So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves." (Ex. 18:19-26)

 

[stevevw]

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 its an interesting turn of events. The Pandemic was an opportunity to put in place what has already been devised and building for a long time. In some ways it makes sense in the context of todays world of global terrorism, refugee crisis, climate change, food security and destablizing economic systems.

It solves all this issues by allowing the State to control the coming and goings of people and resources. If theres a food shortage or energy shortage then the State can justify rationing resources and create a system around that.

We know current economic systems are failing and its only going to get worse as older people begin to outnumber the young and we fall below replacement levels and governments are paying out more on welfare with less taxes. Along with the the increasing costs of energy and the need to address climate change as well as depleting resources. Something has to give and I am sure it won't be those in power.

I think people have been softened up for this change and they have become more willing to allow the State to take control. It seems a natural progression once people began to give up the long held freedoms that the West was built on.

They say Totalitarianism doesn't happen over night. Its a slow and incrimental process that chips away at freedoms where people don't see those small changes as bad. The narrative pushed that these denials of freedoms are necessary for our own good in the name of nobel reasons hides the truth of the agenda to take control over our lives.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes its an interesting turn of events. The Pandemic was an opportunity to put in place what has already been devised and building for a long time. In some ways it makes sense in the context of todays world of global terrorism, refugee crisis, climate change, food security and destablizing economic systems.

It solves all this issues by allowing the State to control the coming and goings of people and resources. If theres a food shortage or energy shortage then the State can justify rationing resources and create a system around that.

We know current economic systems are failing and its only going to get worse as older people begin to outnumber the young and we fall below replacement levels and governments are paying out more on welfare with less taxes. Along with the the increasing costs of energy and the need to address climate change as well as depleting resources. Something has to give and I am sure it won't be those in power.

I think people have been softened up for this change and they have become more willing to allow the State to take control. It seems a natural progression once people began to give up the long held freedoms that the West was built on.

They say Totalitarianism doesn't happen over night. Its a slow and incrimental process that chips away at freedoms where people don't see those small changes as bad. The narrative pushed that these denials of freedoms are necessary for our own good in the name of nobel reasons hides the truth of the agenda to take control over our lives.

Guys, take it to the conspiracy section, please.

 

[stevevw]

Guys, take it to the conspiracy section, please.

Its true, its true I tell you their coming to get me.

Democracy under Siege

As a lethal pandemic, economic and physical insecurity, and violent conflict ravaged the world, democracy’s defenders sustained heavy new losses in their struggle against authoritarian foes, shifting the international balance in favor of tyranny.

freedomhouse.org

Authoritarianism, Populism, and the Global Retreat of Democracy: A Curated Discussion
Authoritarianism has made a comeback, and liberal democracy has been on the retreat for at least the last 15 years.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10564926221119395

 

[DragonFox91]

Not reading 17 pages so in regards to OP:
There is no good form of government due to human sin. Even 'good' politicians are ultimately useless b/c you can't control everyone nor everything & the good things you do will just upset the other sides of the ailes.. We can try to change our systems, but we will fail in acheviing our utopia dream every time. Utopia is not possible
I agree democracy has its specific flaws. Mob rule. (popularity not being an indication of wisdom) But you can't tell the mob that.
Trust God, things on that magnitude are in his hands, not the power & wisdom of individuals.

 

[stevevw]

I once read that even though the founding fathers of America included freedom of belief in the Constitution some believed that only Christianity should be the only religion that applied. When the US was dealing with other nations especially Middle Eastern ones who were attacking their ships they specified that they were a Christian nation unlike that of Islam and that both nations should respect each others beliefs.

Even though they had a different belief that they did not use belief as a way to persecute other nations and that Muslims should do the same. This was because Muslims believed that attacking Christians was their duty.

So though the Consitution mentions freedom of religion Christian values were still influenced social norms and government.

 

[Bradskii]

Not reading 17 pages so in regards to OP:
There is no good form of government due to human sin.

Well perhaps you can come up with the least worse form of government. How about that.

 

[Whyayeman]

Well perhaps you can come up with the least worse form of government. How about that.

Well, that would still be some kind of representative government.

Anything else is in essence tyranny. It may be benign as in early nineteenth century Prussia. Or it may begin that way (think Prussia again when Bismarck got ideas). Even democratic governments can become tyrannies (think Trump seeking a democratic mandate to assume more powers for the Presidency).

You claim that aristocracies are hereditary, but I don't see that anywhere in the article or in the quote you give.

Just to nail this one: I have lived my entire life with hereditary peers with guaranteed seats in Parliament. There may be aristocracies that are not hereditary but they of no significance too this discussion; the real aristocrats are born to it and have a seat denied to the rest of us Brits in the halls of power.

 

[DragonFox91]

I once read that even though the founding fathers of America included freedom of belief in the Constitution some believed that only Christianity should be the only religion that applied. When the US was dealing with other nations especially Middle Eastern ones who were attacking their ships they specified that they were a Christian nation unlike that of Islam and that both nations should respect each others beliefs.

Even though they had a different belief that they did not use belief as a way to persecute other nations and that Muslims should do the same. This was because Muslims believed that attacking Christians was their duty.

So though the Consitution mentions freedom of religion Christian values were still influenced social norms and government.

I had never heard that. Interesting.

I learned 'Freedom of religion' was grounded on the Reformation, when Protestants said churches should be free to worship how they think. Freedom of religion was meant to protect against, say for example, the Lutheran denomination from taking over. All denominations could co-exist & the State couldn't tell you which were true & false teachings in your church.

But the phrasing was flexible enough to allow paganism to flourish. I don't believe it was written w/ them in mind tho, either for or against, the concern was their church.

Well perhaps you can come up with the least worse form of government. How about that.

I'm not the one complaining

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not the one complaining

Again, to paraphrase Churchill's comment in the OP - Democracy is the worst form of government...apart from all the others that have been tried.

If you think they're all bad, what's your least worse?