Democracy is Unbiblical

[StuartJ]

In the biblical folklore, some of the millions of folks in the mixed multitude wandering in the wilderness objected to the dictatorship of Moses and his sidekick Aaron:

They gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Yahweh is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of Yahweh?

The probably fictional Moses and the sidekick he would later defrock, were none too pleased.

But the definitely fictional Yahweh had it sorted:

And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.
And there came out a fire from Yahweh, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

So, there we have it ... Yahweh wants HIS chosen dictator to be running the show in HIS name ...

And he'll have the earth swallow those with notions of democracy.

(I can't see how you can possibly read philosophy, or poetry, or love into this nasty little tale either, BTW. It looks like more human politics to me.)

And for centuries, Christian popes were sure that THEY should be ruling the world in Jesus' mighty name ... but only until he comes back with more fire and hail mixed with blood.

So, should we set Pope Francis, or Benny Hinn, or Pat Robertson (a woman would NEVER do) or some other senior white male over us as Theocrat ... as the "Word of God" quite clearly intends ...?

[NervyGuy]

Armed forces: Most countries have an army to defend the interests of its citizens.

But who could possibly wage war against God? I don't think flamethrowers or RPGs would intimidate him much. It would be like someone going against a modern tank with spears.

Even more futile than that. Couldn't God just zap anyone He wanted to zap?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 61 by NervyGuy]

I've already addresses this point in post # 59 .

You might find it productive to read the above.


JW

[NervyGuy]

I've already addresses this point in post # 59 .

You might find it productive to read the above.

It's inadequate to answer my curiosity about it.

Are you talking about an army of humans, led by Jesus/God, against an army of demons led by Satan?

Even so, why can't God just zap them and be done with it?

Isn't God omnipotent in your theology?

[JehovahsWitness]

The post you read stated ...

God's "army" of angels under the command of Jesus,

And you ask ...

Are you talking about an army of humans, led by Jesus/God....?

So I can see why you didn't see the answer to your question.

What I can say to clarify who I'm talking about is to say ... "No, I'm not talking about an army humans, led by Jesus, I'm talking about

God's "army" of angels under the command of Jesus,

Hope that clarifies things,





JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Even so, why can't God just zap them and be done with it?

He can but evidently he has chsen not to. Why? Because the Edenic judgement of Gen 3:15 highlighted the focus in the central issue of integrity rather than brute force

The enmity that this pronouncement predicted was a reflection of the position of the effected participants ( namely "Jesusalem above" as per Pauls description). Despite accusations of despotism from certain commentators, YHWH has chosen to allow free expression of those concerned. The glimpse we get of the heavenly assembly when Satan extended the implications of that issue to humans (as well as the war in heaven preceding the birth of the Messianic kingdom depicted in Revelaton 12) indicates the wisdom of this move. The final outcome will then not only have settled the issue of universal sovereignty but also establish for all time the validity of theocratic rule, by the subjects.




JW

[Elijah John]

And for centuries, Christian popes were sure that THEY should be ruling the world in Jesus' mighty name ... but only until he comes back with more fire and hail mixed with blood.

So, should we set Pope Francis, or Benny Hinn, or Pat Robertson (a woman would NEVER do) or some other senior white male over us as Theocrat ... as the "Word of God" quite clearly intends ...?

I don't know about Robertson or Hinn, but I am pretty sure Pope Francis does not advocate for a Theocracy, and believes in the separation of Church and State. And how dare you mention him in the same breath as those prosperity preachers? Francis, unlike Hinn or Robertson, has no personal wealth. Nor does he persue material wealth.

I have theological issues with the RCC, but I believe Francis is a far better witness of the Christian ethic than are the other two you mentioned.

Also, you make the observation that they are "senior white males". What does their race have to do with any of this, how is that relevant? Do you point this out as a benign (but irrelevant) observation, or as some kind of perjorative? Should people apologize for being "white males"? It seems very fashionable to siip the term into conversation nowadays in order to trumpet one's virtue, but isn't that swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction?

[NervyGuy]

[Replying to post 64 by JehovahsWitness]

So you envision an army of angels, led by Jesus, against an army of demons led by Satan?

I've gotta say that just doesn't seem right to me. It reminds me of the space alien invasions where humans are running around with guns or lasers and aliens are blasting away at them.

Any alien who could make it to earth could surely just end all life on the planet with the push of a button.

Likewise, I would think that God could just hit Satan's OFF switch and end all that war on the ground.

Isn't your God omnipotent?

[NervyGuy]

Sorry. I should have read this one before posting my #66.

The enmity that this pronouncement predicted was a reflection of the position of the effected participants ( namely "Jesusalem above" as per Pauls description). Despite accusations of despotism from certain commentators, YHWH has chosen to allow free expression of those concerned.

Yeah, I'm entirely lost... and I grew up on the Bible.

Anyway, I hope you're content with your theology, but I don't even see the Bible as the Word of God, much less do I accept anyone with more authority tham me to interpret it for me.

But thanks for the dialogue.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 64 by JehovahsWitness]

So you envision an army of angels, led by Jesus, against an army of demons led by Satan?

I've gotta say that just doesn't seem right to me.

Well I cannot debate your feelings; they are what they are. Are you suggesting there is something unscriptural about this idea? I say this because I am just refering to what the bible says (PLEASE NOTE I am not suggesting anyone in this forum must accept the bible as TRUE only that that is where I got the information)

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 66 by NervyGuy]

So you envision an army of angels, led by Jesus, against an army of demons led by Satan?

I've gotta say that just doesn't seem right to me. It reminds me of the space alien invasions

And they will knock on your door and give you pamphlets telling you that they have been reading the latest signs (again) ...

And this is about to happen at any moment (again)