Democracy vs the Kingdom of God - Two opposing Systems

[Great Fiction]

A republic is a government that is based on equal representation. A democracy is basically mob rule. In it, the majority rules. In a republic, everyone has equal representation in government - which gives the minority a voice in government as well.

This is better especially when you have a diverse society - which is most societies. It protects the one's who otherwise would have no voice at all.

Mob rule is never a good thing - as we can see in history. A prime modern day example is actually Syria today. That is a country with many minorities there, and then there is a majority. The minorities wanted the freedom to practice their religion freely among other things, the majority wanted Islamic Shariah law. Right now, they are fighting one against the other for the minorities to keep a voice in government, and to have freedom of religion.

A republic is what is needed there as a result, yet groups like al-Qaeda and Daesh are fighting for mob rule - otherwise known as democracy. This will never work in Syria. Ever. If they win, every single minority would end up having to flee the country. This is why all the minority groups are siding with Assad in this fight, because under Assad they had a voice in government and freedom of religion.

Welcome Chris1, I am enjoying your postings immensely

I understand your position and can agree that a modern republic can be highly strategic. However China, South Sudan and Cuba are all republics where individual liberty is thrashed in variance. For technically a "republic res publica" provides us a vague descriptor that simply says that rule is of "public issue" or "of a public matter." If a republican or a democratic constitution is void of constitutional restraint, and appoints power to the central organ that is the "State" to manufacture what is "public rule" by method of controlled representation then we easily can see the manifested disturbances of liberty lost across the globe.

Is it possible that "governmental models" though highly strategic must be coupled with "constitutional restraint" for what government "cant do?" Also to our Christian interest that civil law is constitutionally restricted to conflict with Natural Law which not only protects our unalienable rights that precedes from our Saviors throne, but also prevents governments in assuming seats of violence.

Also may I be allowed to bring the comparisons to complexity? For republics and democracies can be highly complex not only with constitutional restraint but also with decentralized restraint. For without both kinds of restraint, I contend that wretched majoritariansim or an autocratic ruthless system will with enough time crush a nations liberty without mercy.

 

[Godspell]

I appreciate yours and Big Moose' replies. The difference is clearer to me now and it also helps explain why we use an electoral vote.

I'm glad I was able to help. Although I have to speak on the electoral college since you brought it up. It actually has very little to do with republicanism. In its original form it was primarily used as a means to protect slavery because it inflated southern states' voting power. In its present form it serves no meaningful purpose except an archaic relic of our history. Sometimes violently defended by constitutional purists.

Also most of the comments made about democracy with respect to republicanism are largely inaccurate. Political science in general is notoriously difficult to confirm, but the point that democracy = mob rule is entirely opinion and fails to appreciate the vast diversity of Democratic government and the influence of culture.

 

[Godspell]

Welcome Chris1, I am enjoying your postings immensely

I understand your position and can agree that a modern republic can be highly strategic. However China, South Sudan and Cuba are all republics where individual liberty is thrashed in variance. For technically a "republic res publica" provides us a vague descriptor that simply says that rule is of "public issue" or "of a public matter." If a republican or a democratic constitution is void of constitutional restraint, and appoints power to the central organ that is the "State" to manufacture what is "public rule" by method of controlled representation then we easily can see the manifested disturbances of liberty lost across the globe.

Is it possible that "governmental models" though highly strategic must be coupled with "constitutional restraint" for what government "cant do?" Also to our Christian interest that civil law is constitutionally restricted to conflict with Natural Law which not only protects our unalienable rights that precedes from our Saviors throne, but also prevents governments in assuming seats of violence.

Also may I be allowed to bring the comparisons to complexity? For republics and democracies can be highly complex not only with constitutional restraint but also with decentralized restraint. For without both kinds of restraint, I contend that wretched majoritariansim or an autocratic ruthless system will with enough time crush a nations liberty without mercy.

There is a lot being said in this thread that I think is not well founded. Republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive.

The only real distinction I can think of is what is known as fusion/separation of powers. Republics tend to emphasize checks and balanced to limit branches from becoming too powerful. However, even this is highly variable. What we think of as Democratic systems tend to prefer parliamentary rather than presidential governments.

 

[Chris1]

Welcome Chris1, I am enjoying your postings immensely

If a republican or a democratic constitution is void of constitutional restraint, and appoints power to the central organ that is the "State" to manufacture what is "public rule" by method of controlled representation then we easily can see the manifested disturbances of liberty lost across the globe.

First, nice to meet you as well. As to your statement above, I agree.

Is it possible that "governmental models" though highly strategic must be coupled with "constitutional restraint" for what government "cant do?" Also to our Christian interest that civil law is constitutionally restricted to conflict with Natural Law which not only protects our unalienable rights that precedes from our Saviors throne, but also prevents governments in assuming seats of violence.

Yes of course.

Also may I be allowed to bring the comparisons to complexity? For republics and democracies can be highly complex not only with constitutional restraint but also with decentralized restraint. For without both kinds of restraint, I contend that wretched majoritariansim or an autocratic ruthless system will with enough time crush a nations liberty without mercy.

I do agree also with the decentralization. I believe America is seeing her own problems with such a centralization right now. I see the problems lying today with the centralization rather than any majoritarianism, simply because, as the saying goes; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Centralization is leading to that corruptible (or corrupted) power which is growing outside of checks and balances.

However, I believe that what Thomas Jefferson said is true. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Tyrants will always try to rise up, and if people don't stand against them when they are young in their plots, then liberty will not stand. And yes, this usually requires our blood. Sadly. This is whether or not the problems arise from majoritarianism or centralization. Problems will always attempt to rear their ugly head, usually in the form of those individuals we call tyrants.

I do believe the framers of the Constitution of the United States did a beautiful job of how they framed everything. I can think of nothing better myself.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

This will get a little complex but bare with me

I would disagree but not by a direct positive charge from scripture but by deduction and an “indirect charge from scripture.” For scripture charges the Christian to “submit to ruling authorities, ” and ruling authorities are “political.” Thus we do have a “political charge” from scripture, that is "to submit to ruling authority.” However the charge is conditional, for we must always invoke as a prerequisite, and obey God more than human authority. Thus all that scripture commands us to do is “priority over our positive law from government,” yet to your credit almost all scripture is “non-political.”

Therefore “if” ruling authorities create “positive law or civil law” that “does not” contradict scripture, then we have an “indirect political charge.” Why? Because if the charge from government is not in contradiction with scripture then we are “scripturally charged to submit to political action.”

Example: If the government makes a law that says, “Stealing is against the law” then that law is then an “indirect positive political charge from scripture for Christians to follow, because that authoritative charge by ruling authority does not contradict what scripture also commands us to do.” Thus the church should be “political to support and obey that stealing is wrong.”

For more clarity:
Supporting a law that stealing is bad are three things:
1. A direct positive political charge from ruling authority
2. A direct positive eternal charge from our highest authority God
3. An indirect positive political charge from scripture because the positive political charge from government is not in conflict with scripture.

However a devious rebuttal could then say: what of baptism? If then ruling authority were to make a law that says; “Be baptised or die.” Should the church support such an egregious law? For baptism would be positive law and is also supported in scripture? Surely many would die resisting baptism and great violence would ensue?
The answer for this solve is . For God in His delegation to mankind from Genesis is that we are born with "God-given highest authority over our own bodies." For forced baptism would be despotic. Thus our Declaration of Independence in the U.S. puts its in perspective for "why" they rejected the ruling authority of a despotic king.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Whoa, Great Fiction! Your post brings up several points and I'm not sure I'm articulate enough to address them! I agree with some, not sure about others, and disagree with a couple...but I will try to write about them.

Am I gathering a wrong conclusion about your post when I read that you are against all political action by Christians? Your quote from the Declaration of Independence affirms our right to take action politically whether we are Christian or not. I do not see that the Scriptures say we cannot take political action; only that we make our priorities Christ-centered. It is agreed that we should submit to ruling authorities; however, only so far as we obey God rather than man.

Since my limited reasoning powers prevent me from understanding your conclusive point, I need clarification...

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I'm glad I was able to help. Although I have to speak on the electoral college since you brought it up. It actually has very little to do with republicanism. In its original form it was primarily used as a means to protect slavery because it inflated southern states' voting power. In its present form it serves no meaningful purpose except an archaic relic of our history. Sometimes violently defended by constitutional purists.

Also most of the comments made about democracy with respect to republicanism are largely inaccurate. Political science in general is notoriously difficult to confirm, but the point that democracy = mob rule is entirely opinion and fails to appreciate the vast diversity of Democratic government and the influence of culture.

I have received a lesson in history then. Had no idea that the electoral college was used that way. This conversation gives me a new perspective on how the voting process works. Thank you!

 

[Godspell]

First, nice to meet you as well. As to your statement above, I agree.



Yes of course.



I do agree also with the decentralization. I believe America is seeing her own problems with such a centralization right now. I see the problems lying today with the centralization rather than any majoritarianism, simply because, as the saying goes; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Centralization is leading to that corruptible (or corrupted) power which is growing outside of checks and balances.

However, I believe that what Thomas Jefferson said is true. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Tyrants will always try to rise up, and if people don't stand against them when they are young in their plots, then liberty will not stand. And yes, this usually requires our blood. Sadly. This is whether or not the problems arise from majoritarianism or centralization. Problems will always attempt to rear their ugly head, usually in the form of those individuals we call tyrants.

I do believe the framers of the Constitution of the United States did a beautiful job of how they framed everything. I can think of nothing better myself.

I've studied quite a bit on comparative politics, and I have to say, the US Constitution is good, but there are still a lot of flaws which I think are unfortunate and are often times ignored by those living here.

To be sure, the US invented the concept of a president, and such an idea had never been implemented before, and we did a good job of that. However, unfortunately, as it is currently, the constitution has no provisions regulating political parties, and this is one reason we have a deeply entrenched two-party system. The federal system is also an unfortunate kind of patchwork, and sadly we end up getting a government and legal system that is much more complicated than it needs to be.

I personally tend to favor pluralism and proportionality as opposed to majoritarianism (which is usually defined as a winner-take-all election cycle). Majoritarianism has a tendency to foster a two-party system, as political ideologies usually need to generalize their platform as much as possible. So, certain important causes like education or immigration, don't get advocated. In plural systems you could have a political party focused on one issue which could ultimately end up sharing power with a general party and getting those issues resolved.

 

[Great Fiction]

The only real distinction I can think of is what is known as fusion/separation of powers. Republics tend to emphasize checks and balanced to limit branches from becoming too powerful. However, even this is highly variable. What we think of as Democratic systems tend to prefer parliamentary rather than presidential governments.

I agree, for we have not really witnessed a highly decentralized democracy yet that is fortified with decentralization and separation of powers, yet the U.S as a republic also accompanied with many other partial reflections in republican strategy have been more strategic thus far.

Yet a decentralized democracy with separation of powers would be structured very differently since representation would be replaced with elected decentralized duty-bound officials/local agencies who would represent by operation and execution. Thus decentralized "execution" of services would replace decentralized "representation" that would "select" services or create agencies in a modern U.S styled republic.

However in our current situation congress has severely lost its power (authority and purse strings) to select/reject anything any-more, and our executive branch has now gone rogue to select and build agencies and services at will. Thus our separation of powers has now been eviscerated. All federal agencies are unconstitutional in spirit but not by interpretation since many amendments were added with perversion.

Yet I am with great anticipation that Christ and natural rights will be embraced again in our nation and be reflected with a vote. For the liberty of every individual and the church hangs in the balance.

 

[Great Fiction]

I do believe the framers of the Constitution of the United States did a beautiful job of how they framed everything. I can think of nothing better myself.

I agree

I find the U.S Constitution a monumental work of art with no other in history to surpass it, yet with my minuscule voice, I find it slightly flawed.

The greatest error is that it does not protect "property," yet life and liberty is protected with fortification. I fault Franklin the most, yet Jefferson’s pen, touched by Adams, Franklin and two other unknowns set the president for the two following ratifications to pursue happiness instead of protecting property.

If Locke were alive I predict he would say, "They almost got it right, for two out three are solidified from scripture to protect what God has put in place."

Will you agree that even Hobbs might raise his head from the dirt and say that happiness is individuals giving their servitude to a tyrannical king?"

 

[Great Fiction]

Since my limited reasoning powers prevent me from understanding your conclusive point, I need clarification...

Your most humble, and please know that I have already been a tremendous beneficiary from your contributions.

From your response I believe we may be in alignment

I have manufactured an analogy to convey clarity.

Imagine:

A teacher in a school carries the children out to the school-yard on the first day of school. The teacher then tells the class all the things “they must not do,” such as not crossing a boundary on the school yards edge, jumping off the top of the slide, or to refrain from fighting.

Then a principle comes out in the yard who not only has authority over the kids but also the teachers as well. He then says, “Children here is a list of things that I want you to do such as showing each other respect, being kind, and also respecting the authority of the teachers. However the principle then says “If” one of these teachers tells you to do something that is in “conflict” with what I have told you to do then do not obey that teacher and come give me notice so that I can be your ultimate advocate. Now also if one of these teachers become violent, do your best to escape the violence, and seek refuge in me. (and to those who believe in self-defence from scripture) Also the principle says,"If you cannot escape initiating violence then defend yourself as best you can and again find refuge in me."

Thus the children are accountable to “two levels of authority” just as we are from scripture, for we are to respect and obey lower ruling authorities but Christ is our highest authority. Now the principle “does not” tell the kids to overthrow the teachers but to instead “disobey them if they are in conflict” and then the Principle who is the King of Kings who has the power to put ruling authorities at bay, may admonish them or break them asunder.

I contend that ruling authorities are often like despotic teachers but sometimes also violent to life and upon violence initiated to life, I also believe that our Higher Power authorizes self defense. Thus as long as the teacher or ruling authorities are “good” then they are not in conflict with God's delegation of Natural Law. For it was Christ's exemplar demonstration of public civil disobedience of theocratic law that gives us a template for execution; yet bravery is required and sometime obedience to suffer persecution may also be the Lords individual requirement as we obey His calling.

Thus we have a positive charge to obey lower authority, also a positive charge that we ultimately obey a Higher Power, and then by deduction when we witness lower powers “conflicting with Natural Law – Natural Rights,” then we have an indirect charge from scripture to appeal to heaven, and disobey evil despotic men who thwart all liberty, and condemn a nation to poverty and death.

Thus we have no political directive, it is an “ethical one,” yet it does have “massive political implications for despotic forces.” For I contend that the church does not have a political duty to control a nation with force, but has an ethical duty to keep political despotism at bay. Then by chance if enough Christian are educated about Natural Law from scripture, then incredible constitutional strategy for individual protection can manifest. I contend that in part this has already happened in the U.S but it was not pure. For hideous slavery and monetary perversion was prevalent in every step that our country was formulated.

I pray that we the church come to our founders understanding and even more important to the understand of Natural Law in the spirit of Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, for there a hermeneutic from scripture stands with sound apologetics and fortification for our safety, liberty and prosperity.

 

[svdbyJesus]

I would disagree but not by a direct positive charge from scripture but by deduction and an “indirect charge from scripture.” For scripture charges the Christian to “submit to ruling authorities, Romans 13:1” and ruling authorities are “political.” Thus we do have a “political charge” from scripture, that is "to submit to ruling authority.” However the charge is conditional, for we must always invoke Acts 5:29 as a prerequisite, and obey God more than human authority. Thus all that scripture commands us to do is “priority over our positive law from government,” yet to your credit almost all scripture is “non-political.”

May I ask, what Bible are you using?

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Your most humble, and please know that I have already been a tremendous beneficiary from your contributions.

From your response I believe we may be in alignment

I have manufactured an analogy to convey clarity.

Imagine:

A teacher in a school carries the children out to the school-yard on the first day of school. The teacher then tells the class all the things “they must not do,” such as not crossing a boundary on the school yards edge, jumping off the top of the slide, or to refrain from fighting.

Then a principle comes out in the yard who not only has authority over the kids but also the teachers as well. He then says, “Children here is a list of things that I want you to do such as showing each other respect, being kind, and also respecting the authority of the teachers. However the principle then says “If” one of these teachers tells you to do something that is in “conflict” with what I have told you to do then do not obey that teacher and come give me notice so that I can be your ultimate advocate. Now also if one of these teachers become violent, do your best to escape the violence, and seek refuge in me. (and to those who believe in self-defence from scripture) Also the principle says,"If you cannot escape initiating violence then defend yourself as best you can and again find refuge in me."

Thus the children are accountable to “two levels of authority” just as we are from scripture, for we are to respect and obey lower ruling authorities but Christ is our highest authority. Now the principle “does not” tell the kids to overthrow the teachers but to instead “disobey them if they are in conflict” and then the Principle who is the King of Kings who has the power to put ruling authorities at bay, may admonish them or break them asunder.

I contend that ruling authorities are often like despotic teachers but sometimes also violent to life and upon violence initiated to life, I also believe that our Higher Power authorizes self defense. Thus as long as the teacher or ruling authorities are “good” then they are not in conflict with God's delegation of Natural Law. For it was Christ's exemplar demonstration of public civil disobedience of theocratic law that gives us a template for execution; yet bravery is required and sometime obedience to suffer persecution may also be the Lords individual requirement as we obey His calling.

Thus we have a positive charge to obey lower authority, also a positive charge that we ultimately obey a Higher Power, and then by deduction when we witness lower powers “conflicting with Natural Law – Natural Rights,” then we have an indirect charge from scripture to appeal to heaven, and disobey evil despotic men who thwart all liberty, and condemn a nation to poverty and death.

Thus we have no political directive, it is an “ethical one,” yet it does have “massive political implications for despotic forces.” For I contend that the church does not have a political duty to control a nation with force, but has an ethical duty to keep political despotism at bay. Then by chance if enough Christian are educated about Natural Law from scripture, then incredible constitutional strategy for individual protection can manifest. I contend that in part this has already happened in the U.S but it was not pure. For hideous slavery and monetary perversion was prevalent in every step that our country was formulated.

I pray that we the church come to our founders understanding and even more important to the understand of Natural Law in the spirit of Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, for there a hermeneutic from scripture stands with sound apologetics and fortification for our safety, liberty and prosperity.

You are right...we are very closely aligned. Thank you for the "layman's language" explanation! I agree with you that we are to obey ruling authorities unless they contradict Natural Law given by our Creator.

Question: Does this mean we are to obey ruling authorities completely up to the point of their contradiction of Natural Law; or do we take action BEFORE it gets to the point of contradiction, if we see the trend going that way? (By "action", I am talking politically. Peaceful demonstrations, civil disobedience, informed voting and actively informing/persuading the public are all ways I would include here.)

 

[Great Fiction]

May I ask, what Bible are you using?

Greetings svdbyJesus

Can you request again with more specificity?

I study with many translations

 

[Big Moose]

I have received a lesson in history then. Had no idea that the electoral college was used that way. This conversation gives me a new perspective on how the voting process works. Thank you!

The Electoral College was a way to protect the smaller populated states and give them more voice. Just imagine, where would all the attention go if the president were elected thru direct election? Highest population areas, of course. So all campaigns would concentrate on getting votes from the cities. This would change things immensely. Agricultural issues, out the window. We all know how liberal the politics are for residents of cities. Even in conservative states, the cities are far more liberal.
Residents of states like Wyoming or Montana would have a statistic relevance of 0%. There are 538 votes total in the electoral college. Wyoming has 3 votes. That is .56%. Wyoming's population is approximately 583,000. That is 0.18% of the 316.13 million people in the U.S.
California, on the other hand, would garner 12.12% of the vote directly. But in the electoral college, it represents 10.22% of the vote. Just that 1.9% difference equals more than Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware and Montana......combined. That is a lot of land mass controlled by states who would be ignored.
States like Ohio and Florida which play a big role now, would become irrelevant because their cities cancel out conservative rural areas and become a zero gain to win their populations.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

The Electoral College was a way to protect the smaller populated states and give them more voice. Just imagine, where would all the attention go if the president were elected thru direct election? Highest population areas, of course. So all campaigns would concentrate on getting votes from the cities. This would change things immensely. Agricultural issues, out the window. We all know how liberal the politics are for residents of cities. Even in conservative states, the cities are far more liberal.
Residents of states like Wyoming or Montana would have a statistic relevance of 0%. There are 538 votes total in the electoral college. Wyoming has 3 votes. That is .56%. Wyoming's population is approximately 583,000. That is 0.18% of the 316.13 million people in the U.S.
California, on the other hand, would garner 12.12% of the vote directly. But in the electoral college, it represents 10.22% of the vote. Just that 1.9% difference equals more than Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware and Montana......combined. That is a lot of land mass controlled by states who would be ignored.
States like Ohio and Florida which play a big role now, would become irrelevant because their cities cancel out conservative rural areas and become a zero gain to win their populations.

Now it is making even more sense. I've had several people tell me they think the electoral vote is unconstitutional or unfair, but maybe they didn't understand how it works either. I never really understood the concept, so I reserved my own opinion, but now I can support it.

 

[Great Fiction]

You are right...we are very closely aligned. Thank you for the "layman's language" explanation! I agree with you that we are to obey ruling authorities unless they contradict Natural Law given by our Creator.

Its my pleasure to contribute anyway I can

Question: Does this mean we are to obey ruling authorities completely up to the point of their contradiction of Natural Law; or do we take action BEFORE it gets to the point of contradiction, if we see the trend going that way? (By "action", I am talking politically. Peaceful demonstrations, civil disobedience, informed voting and actively informing/persuading the public are all ways I would include here.)

Speaking for me only, I find all of those strategies can be acceptable if they are strategic to demonstrate “ethics” and not organized political means; for if these methods are scriptural reflecting the example of Christ to always shun despotism and advocate for the innocent, then tangible change is possible. Can we agree that our every action should not be to support any kind of organized political means, but to support sound ethics in scripture. For an ethical political structure is void of “all” arbitrary violence, and organized political means must invoke legal violence to support arbitrary seats of power. Thus this is why I personally believe that only a “strictly classical liberal state” void of all socialistic violence is scripturally justified.

Can it be agreeable that protestant political aims is an old game of frustration, and unheard-petition which is nearly always delivered to obtuse ears in seats of power who most often have their own interests at heart for their own advancement. For the competition of politics is most certainly gamed in advance by those who will finance a loss to any upcoming political faction. For politics has no ethical shield, save some individuals who adhere within the movements themselves. Thus ethics demonstrated from the church is far more superior for change, as it will without parties and political factions simply call out for justice for those who suffer from despotism.

However, I do think the providential liberty of every American will require sobriety to take action “before” despotism mutates to poverty and death, thus I don't think it precipitous of you at all to reinforce yourself with vigilance seeking recourse for our countries restoration before calamity matures. You simply wish for action, to protect what is good, and if all of the body of Christ is to reside where you stand, also in one accord, I believe restoration would be attainable and even possibly expedient. For it would be reasonable in my opinion for us to embolden our care, that we resist despotism from causing its slaughters, or its impoverishing of the innocent, and make this a worthy Christian goal; yet its not by our might but by the Spirit of the Lord that moves our security into position.

May I suggest that a new strategy of ethics which are rarely used by the church today is in order, and that ethical strategy is the one our Lord and Savior used? For I would advocate that ethics from Christ are quite radical, but move to exceeding superior results regarding restoration of our country. Yet it would require the striking boldness of Christ, and repeating His exemplar display of courage to verbally stand up and be counted using harmless but bold ethics that advocate for the sinner who chose no aggressive trespass. Yet not with malice, contempt or with hostilities, but with calm and meek fortitude to simply display advocation for the innocent as Christ exampled.

Can a united voice stand up in courage and say to all those in proximity that will hear, that violence to the non-aggressor is immoral, save when God Himself will judge in His time. For the drunkard, the prostitute, the drug-user, the homosexual, the adulterer, the gluten, the sex addict, and the gambler are often in their fixes void of any aggression; yet afflicted by addiction that harms their own soul. For only God is worthy to judge the non-aggressor with violence and only He upon His glorious throne is able. For any man, woman, church, or government that would cut the non-aggressive sinner down, they shall reap an equal harm upon themselves. Thus let us remove ourselves from any political faction that will support the slightest amount of despotism.

We once in a large way were a nation of natural rights where the ambiguous sinner in wisdom would often straiten out his or her issues on a church alter, and now we are a nation that suffers them a quick incarceration, a financial attack, and even at times extreme violence to the body. Though Natural Law from the throne will not suffer any acts of aggression in society where some might steal, kill and destroy, it is however blind to the the drunkard passed out at the base of a tree. For Natural Law is blind to the non-aggressor, yet God is not blind to any soul and will move his church to find the drunk and administer the power of the Holy Spirit if the drunkard is willing. For the Spirit leads and knows the heart of both.

I would ask, when is the church ever guided, or charged in New Testament scripture to endorse legal violence to the non-aggressor? I should say never and I am most guilty in my political past to support every manor of politician that would incarcerate all that move about incorrectly. I am ashamed but forgiven and now am giving proper attention to warn the willing to adhere to ethical non-aggressive Christian principles. Yet C1oudwatch3r your spirit is humble and full of meekness with every post and I certainly do not accuse you or no other here directly of any evil thing. For I am in debt to many here including yourself, who contribute to my spiritual dexterity. Yet our country is burdened with arbitrary violence on every side.

For if our country and the church supports widely the evils of legal judgment that would financially and physically assault every kind of ambiguous sinner with legal violence, then it is my concern that this financed and supported assault by many in the church may fabricate our own demise. For the same despotic vipers that assaults the sinner assaults the church secondly. Thus Christ give warnings of pearls that may be trampled by swine. Can we agree that “we in the body” are the pearls and the sinner is a pearl-prospect? For all of us were sinners of the world first before our reconciliation, and if despotic legal assault replaces the restoration power of the Holy Spirit then hope for the churches survival in this place is most volatile.

Thus C1oudwatch3r I advocate that we the body come together in non-judgment, integrity, obedience and full of motivation to hear our Lords call to advocation in a spirit of love, forgiveness, and courage. Then as we move to integrity through obedience, we also equip ourselves with the fundamentals of Natural Law, spiritual intercession, and evangelism. Upon these success' our unalienable rights from the throne of God will manifest as our natural security. I will contend that all these things in most all denominations of Christ “can” be in one accord within our denominational autonomy.[/QUOTE]

 

[THALLON]

A two party system, be it US democrat/republican or Western democracy is a flawed system because it takes the focus away from decision making in the interest of society to decision making based on party.
Most educated humans who form a committee could argue the merits of an issue and reach a decision,
for example climate change.
When it becomes political then rational logical decision making is put aside, this is not in the interest of society.
We elect officials to explore an issue and make a decision based on that exploration...IF...that decision is compromised by politics...that is
CORRUPTION.
Society must never ever be subject to a decision that is Republican or Democrat or labor or liberal or conservative or Christian or religious,
government should be about law and order and a well run budget, not about moralising or interfering in personal lives.
And a two party system is only slightly better than a one party system or a four party system.
Society should be run by departments of randomly selected suitable individuals, like a jury system, for a fixed term.
And I think a randomly selected number of suitable individuals should be put forward every four years as
the chief spokesman for the nation state.
in my opinion.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Its my pleasure to contribute anyway I can


Speaking for me only, I find all of those strategies can be acceptable if they are strategic to demonstrate “ethics” and not organized political means; for if these methods are scriptural reflecting the example of Christ to always shun despotism and advocate for the innocent, then tangible change is possible. Can we agree that our every action should not be to support any kind of organized political means, but to support sound ethics in scripture. For an ethical political structure is void of “all” arbitrary violence, and organized political means must invoke legal violence to support arbitrary seats of power. Thus this is why I personally believe that only a “strictly classical liberal state” void of all socialistic violence is scripturally justified.

Can it be agreeable that protestant political aims is an old game of frustration, and unheard-petition which is nearly always delivered to obtuse ears in seats of power who most often have their own interests at heart for their own advancement. For the competition of politics is most certainly gamed in advance by those who will finance a loss to any upcoming political faction. For politics has no ethical shield, save some individuals who adhere within the movements themselves. Thus ethics demonstrated from the church is far more superior for change, as it will without parties and political factions simply call out for justice for those who suffer from despotism.

However, I do think the providential liberty of every American will require sobriety to take action “before” despotism mutates to poverty and death, thus I don't think it precipitous of you at all to reinforce yourself with vigilance seeking recourse for our countries restoration before calamity matures. You simply wish for action, to protect what is good, and if all of the body of Christ is to reside where you stand, also in one accord, I believe restoration would be attainable and even possibly expedient. For it would be reasonable in my opinion for us to embolden our care, that we resist despotism from causing its slaughters, or its impoverishing of the innocent, and make this a worthy Christian goal; yet its not by our might but by the Spirit of the Lord that moves our security into position.

May I suggest that a new strategy of ethics which are rarely used by the church today is in order, and that ethical strategy is the one our Lord and Savior used? For I would advocate that ethics from Christ are quite radical, but move to exceeding superior results regarding restoration of our country. Yet it would require the striking boldness of Christ, and repeating His exemplar display of courage to verbally stand up and be counted using harmless but bold ethics that advocate for the sinner who chose no aggressive trespass. Yet not with malice, contempt or with hostilities, but with calm and meek fortitude to simply display advocation for the innocent as Christ exampled.

Can a united voice stand up in courage and say to all those in proximity that will hear, that violence to the non-aggressor is immoral, save when God Himself will judge in His time. For the drunkard, the prostitute, the drug-user, the homosexual, the adulterer, the gluten, the sex addict, and the gambler are often in their fixes void of any aggression; yet afflicted by addiction that harms their own soul. For only God is worthy to judge the non-aggressor with violence and only He upon His glorious throne is able. For any man, woman, church, or government that would cut the non-aggressive sinner down, they shall reap an equal harm upon themselves. Thus let us remove ourselves from any political faction that will support the slightest amount of despotism.

We once in a large way were a nation of natural rights where the ambiguous sinner in wisdom would often straiten out his or her issues on a church alter, and now we are a nation that suffers them a quick incarceration, a financial attack, and even at times extreme violence to the body. Though Natural Law from the throne will not suffer any acts of aggression in society where some might steal, kill and destroy, it is however blind to the the drunkard passed out at the base of a tree. For Natural Law is blind to the non-aggressor, yet God is not blind to any soul and will move his church to find the drunk and administer the power of the Holy Spirit if the drunkard is willing. For the Spirit leads and knows the heart of both.

I would ask, when is the church ever guided, or charged in New Testament scripture to endorse legal violence to the non-aggressor? I should say never and I am most guilty in my political past to support every manor of politician that would incarcerate all that move about incorrectly. I am ashamed but forgiven and now am giving proper attention to warn the willing to adhere to ethical non-aggressive Christian principles. Yet C1oudwatch3r your spirit is humble and full of meekness with every post and I certainly do not accuse you or no other here directly of any evil thing. For I am in debt to many here including yourself, who contribute to my spiritual dexterity. Yet our country is burdened with arbitrary violence on every side.

For if our country and the church supports widely the evils of legal judgment that would financially and physically assault every kind of ambiguous sinner with legal violence, then it is my concern that this financed and supported assault by many in the church may fabricate our own demise. For the same despotic vipers that assaults the sinner assaults the church secondly. Thus Christ give warnings of pearls that may be trampled by swine. Can we agree that “we in the body” are the pearls and the sinner is a pearl-prospect? For all of us were sinners of the world first before our reconciliation, and if despotic legal assault replaces the restoration power of the Holy Spirit then hope for the churches survival in this place is most volatile.

Thus C1oudwatch3r I advocate that we the body come together in non-judgment, integrity, obedience and full of motivation to hear our Lords call to advocation in a spirit of love, forgiveness, and courage. Then as we move to integrity through obedience, we also equip ourselves with the fundamentals of Natural Law, spiritual intercession, and evangelism. Upon these success' our unalienable rights from the throne of God will manifest as our natural security. I will contend that all these things in most all denominations of Christ “can” be in one accord within our denominational autonomy.

[/QUOTE]

What a beautiful, intelligent and poetic essay! I take to heart 99% of what you say.! I believe in non-violence except for self-defense.

Again though, I have a question:
I did not fully understand the following sentence and ask you to elaborate a bit on it: "...that only a “strictly classical liberal state” void of all socialistic violence is scripturally justified."

Thank you very much for your time and effort in responding to me.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

A two party system, be it US democrat/republican or Western democracy is a flawed system because it takes the focus away from decision making in the interest of society to decision making based on party.
Most educated humans who form a committee could argue the merits of an issue and reach a decision,
for example climate change.
When it becomes political then rational logical decision making is put aside, this is not in the interest of society.
We elect officials to explore an issue and make a decision based on that exploration...IF...that decision is compromised by politics...that is
CORRUPTION.
Society must never ever be subject to a decision that is Republican or Democrat or labor or liberal or conservative or Christian or religious,
government should be about law and order and a well run budget, not about moralising or interfering in personal lives.
And a two party system is only slightly better than a one party system or a four party system.
Society should be run by departments of randomly selected suitable individuals, like a jury system, for a fixed term.
And I think a randomly selected number of suitable individuals should be put forward every four years as
the chief spokesman for the nation state.
in my opinion.

Thallon~ I am coming to the same conclusion...if I understand you correctly.
Our party system does limit the voice of the people and reduces it to voting for the "lesser of two evils". I for one have almost decided to refuse to vote for ANYONE rather than even choose a lesser evil...it is still evil. I wonder if our vote even counts these days....

 

[Big Moose]

A two party system, be it US democrat/republican or Western democracy is a flawed system because it takes the focus away from decision making in the interest of society to decision making based on party.
Most educated humans who form a committee could argue the merits of an issue and reach a decision,
for example climate change.
When it becomes political then rational logical decision making is put aside, this is not in the interest of society.
We elect officials to explore an issue and make a decision based on that exploration...IF...that decision is compromised by politics...that is
CORRUPTION.
Society must never ever be subject to a decision that is Republican or Democrat or labor or liberal or conservative or Christian or religious,
government should be about law and order and a well run budget, not about moralising or interfering in personal lives.
And a two party system is only slightly better than a one party system or a four party system.
Society should be run by departments of randomly selected suitable individuals, like a jury system, for a fixed term.
And I think a randomly selected number of suitable individuals should be put forward every four years as
the chief spokesman for the nation state.
in my opinion.

How about instead of random picks, we allow up to five parties to put forward a party platform, which is listed on the ballot, and voters vote for the platform they like best, and then randomly choose people from the winning platform's party to hold the office for fixed terms. This is a try to eliminate cult of personality voters.