The Bible

General Stuart wrote:

Alright. I don't know if God is speaking against all kings, or just the peoples' foolish choice upon an impulse to select their own king. Does anyone think that this is only because the people would be selecting their own king (or Samuel) and not God? Because, whether or not God warns of the powers a king holds, he doesn't seem too keen on allowing the people to make their own decisions either.

What do you mean?

He means that because there is a possible SECOND meaning to this, that saying God was talking about all kings cant be true

It is more likely that he is saying that it is possible that its not true. He didnt say it wasnt true.
Your friend General Lee

Lee, this entire line of discussion began in my questioning whether or not democracy was accepted by the Bible, since many sources from revolutionary-era Britain spoke of the Revolution as "irreligious." In this situation, God allows the people to commit their blunder, by letting them put a king over them. But this speaks in two ways:

1. that the will of the people cannot always be trusted to be for the best
2. that kings are never -in any situation or under any circumstances- to be trusted with such absolute power

I was only asking how you all would take this.


Now, Oppie, you obviously are really missing my point. I fully understand that when you read the Bible, it seems to have a clear-cut, definite message behind every passage.
However, if I sit down and talk with a Christian and a Catholic, they will freely agree that they do not wholly agree with each others' beliefs. How is this possible, being that they both read from the same Bible? And please, if all you can say is the same old garbage that Catholics can't read, I don't want to hear it.

This, I feel, fully justifies my claim that the Bible does offer some conflicting messages. Lee is 100% right in saying that if the Bible contradicted itself, it would be fallible. Remember, I am NOT saying that the Bible is fallible. But if Oppie sat down and read a certain passage that might contain some ambiguity, he would easily be able to clarify its meaning in his mind, according to his beliefs regarding the rest of the Bible. And if a Catholic read the same, semi-ambiguous passage, he would also immediately interpret it according to his prior beliefs regarding the Bible. Note, neither of these people would feel the passage to be ambiguous in the least. And yet, they would both disagree with each other entirely. This simple fact, that these two people, so similar really, who read the same passage of the same Bible, can so heatedly disagree on the meaning of it, proves that the Bible CAN be taken two ways. If you don't see this yet, Oppie, then I feel sorry for you.

My point in short: to any Christian strongly based in his/her religious beliefs, the Bible will not appear ambiguous in the least. However, the same is true for Catholics. And Protestants. And Baptists. And Lutherans. And Anglicans. And Calvanists. And Episcopalians. And the list goes on...

Each of these names represents a body of people who all read the same Bible, but interpret it in a different, special way. So, Oppie, I really don't see how you can seriously say that "there is no two ways to reading the Bible." Maybe you just got caught up in the heat of the debate. But hopefully, I've expressed my point simply enough so you get my point. If you do, you'll realize that I'm not called God two-minded.

General Stuart wrote:

1. that the will of the people cannot always be trusted to be for the best
2. that kings are never -in any situation or under any circumstances- to be trusted with such absolute power

I would agree with point one... But I would add that Government is never to be trusted with absolute power. Their law must be gotten from the Bible.

I understand your post and I agree with what you are saying. But I would add that instead of using our prior views to interpret the Bible we should use the Bible to interpret the Bible.
Your friend General Lee

Now, a rightous king would have been fine with him. But, he knew what kind of people they would choose to be kings. The only real examples they had were from the wicked countries near them.

He had no problem with their kings as long as they were doing the right thing. But, he had a problem when they started getting high and mighty. And, every single one of them did do bad things. Even Solomon.

I'm sorry I havent been able to respond. My internet was recently cut off and now we have to use the buisness line. All I can say right now is this. Stuart, I'll answer your questions, but in the meantime, listen to what these guys are saying.
And one more thing, you may not be saying that the Bible contradicts itself, but you are strongly inplying it by saying that it has conflicting messages. This isnt a game of polotics, you dont have to shroud what you're really thinking Stuart.

Oppie dont you get it?
He is saying that though the Bible does not have conflicting messages two different people could interpret the passage differentally. The flaw is with the humans thinking not the Bible.

Your friend General Lee

THANK YOU

Oppie, pay attention and get with the program.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

General Stuart wrote:

1. that the will of the people cannot always be trusted to be for the best
2. that kings are never -in any situation or under any circumstances- to be trusted with such absolute power

I would agree with point one... But I would add that Government is never to be trusted with absolute power. Their law must be gotten from the Bible.

I understand your post and I agree with what you are saying. But I would add that instead of using our prior views to interpret the Bible we should use the Bible to interpret the Bible.
Your friend General Lee

Yes, we should only interpret the Bible by how the Bible says... But obviously a Catholic and a Protestant aren't going to agree on the Bible's true meaning in the first place... and now we're back to square one.
And Lee, I like your point on how any government period shouldn't be given absolute power. Too true; I was only focusing on kings in general.


Now, I have to bring this up: What would be better in your opinion, a religious monarchy granted with absolute power that rules wholy by the Bible, or a democracy such as our own, that attempts to separate Church and State? And if you want to go into any depth on this, please post it in the Church and State topic.

General Stuart wrote:

Now, I have to bring this up: What would be better in your opinion, a religious monarchy granted with absolute power that rules wholy by the Bible, or a democracy such as our own, that attempts to separate Church and State? And if you want to go into any depth on this, please post it in the Church and State topic.

Absolutely a MONARCHY!
In my interpretation, the problem not King vs "Democracy" but the problem is with the people rejecting Gods rule. (see my earlier posts.) They had Judges, and they had the Law. They did not need a "King like the nations," and as God said, "they have rejected me." If they would have asked for Democracy they STILL would have been rejecting God.

I think Jeb and I basically agree.
Your friend General Lee

Agreed, the people were wrong in this situation, by rejecting God.

But if you agree that no government period should be allowed to rule with absolute power, what would be the difference if this government ruled by the Bible? Because since any such government would be made up of humans, and since any human is more than capable of error, should we hand anyone absolute power? I would say absolutely no.

But does the Bible accept or promote absolute government under any circumstances? I suppose there are several places in the Bible that could be taken to mean as much; thus the religious monarchies of Old Europe.

Our fore-fathers founded this nation with Christian principles, but placed a high priority upon religious freedom. That, and the belief that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights. And any monarchy infringes upon these natural rights of man, regardless of religious persuasion.

Wow... Where has everyone gone?

IDK.. I know I've been really busy lately, but we all can't be busy...

I can Plus my finger is swollen....so I cant type...gah.

Where is everyone? What are you guys doing, rolling over and calling it quits?

Excuse me? Dont even joke Frankly I'm tired of talking when you seem to have to desire to listen or even consider what I'm saying. And besides that, I am busy, I have a life beyond the computer you know

NO WAY!!! DUDE YOU NEVER TOLD ME.....


And I am considering what you're saying, Oppie. To the contrary, you seem very narrow-minded to discussion, here. I'm only doing a bit of 'thinking-out-loud' as it is, and you keep jumping down my throat. Just accept my posts for what they are, and we should have a great discussion. And I will in turn give an equal amount of respect to your own posts.

yeah yeah whatever. Lol jk.

So... what was the discussion here?

Mmmk. I"m gonna change the subject a little bit. what does everyone think about people speaking in tongues?

Parseltounge? Here's the strange thing about people who serve Mormon missions in foriegn lands, and I know this for a fact from my brother who served in Paraguay. They learn the language, get home after two years, and within a few months forget how to speak the language. However, when they really need to speak the language, they can say it within a snap of a finger. Strange how the Lord works.

Not exactly what I was talking about IBG

um... Could you be a little more specific?

Mmmk. So a lot of people believe that they have "The gift of tongues" meaning that they speak in tongues and no one can understand them. They claim that it is "inspired".

I personally don't think its inspired or that they have a gift. They're basically speaking in jiberish... something everyone can do

Yeah I don't know. Some people now days CAN probably TRULY speak in tongues but a lot of people are probably faking it... I don't know...