/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

In my opinion a monarchy would be the best form of government if men were not so easily corrupted.

I look forward to when Jesus rules the earth as King*.

But in the absence of a perfect, and divine King, I prefer democracy.

Even though I admit, it too is run by corruptible men, and clearly has issues all its own.

I just see a monarchy as giving too much power to one person.

If that person becomes corrupt, then what?

Assassination or war seem to be the likely outcome.

Whereas in a democracy, if one person becomes corrupt, it is much easier to remove the one corrupt person, while still maintaining order. (and no one has to die)

I might go and defend this view, but don't expect me anytime soon.

Would it be alright to do this in the apologetics thread?

http://8ch.net/monarchy/res/116.html

*There may be other kings ruling along with Him.

It depends on how you want to interpret it.

I don't take issue with either view, and I couldn't say for sure which is correct.

http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-5.htm

Revelation 22:5 Aramaic Bible in Plain English

And there shall be no night there and neither will they need lights, lamps, or the light of the Sun, because THE LORD JEHOVAH God gives them light, and he is their King for the eternity of eternities.

> and he is their King for the eternity of eternities

VS

Revelation 22:5 GOD'S WORD® Translation

There will be no more night, and they will not need any light from lamps or the sun because the Lord God will shine on them. They will rule as kings forever and ever.

>They will rule as kings forever and ever.

Clearly this is the same "they" that God is shining on in the previous line.

It also says elsewhere that Jesus is King of Kings, but that could be in reference to kings that ruled before He comes back.

What do you guys think?

Will Jesus rule one Kingdom?

Or will there be a Kingdom of kingdoms where Jesus is King over kings?

If you think that there will be multiple kingdoms, who would it be ruling as kings?

Would it be everyone who is saved, or perhaps people who did outstanding work for Jesus?

I would say Jesus will rule one Kingdom, but as pointed out above, I don't really have a strong case for that view.

To have a system shaped around one person's will is the surest way to get things done, but those things may not be to your taste.

I don't see this happening any time soon. A king, to truly be king, must have power, so unless the army backs it up and those who have the most money do the same, it won't happen.

Most countries don't really have an army worthy of the name and most wealthy people (I mean really wealthy) aren't interested in funding a monarchy. You'd also have to find a reason to make someone king now.

Look at China's leaders: scientists, engineers.

Look at the West's leaders: lawyers, businessmen.

You won't get a king or a queen in there, not unless the world changes a lot.

>that feel when Christ used to appear to Kings and Queens of old

>nowadays Mary only appears to kids

>>2256

>But in the absence of a perfect, and divine King, I prefer democracy.

Democrazy is literally the worst form of government you can imagine. It inevitably leads to decadence.

Also States like the US have no democracy, it is highly disputable what it even means.

>Whereas in a democracy, if one person becomes corrupt, it is much easier to remove the one corrupt person, while still maintaining order. (and no one has to die)

Democracy as a system is corrupt.

>Will Jesus rule one Kingdom?

Yes.

>Or will there be a Kingdom of kingdoms where Jesus is King over kings?

A matter of administration, I don't know.

>If you think that there will be multiple kingdoms, who would it be ruling as kings?

The worthiest Saints I assume.

>Would it be everyone who is saved, or perhaps people who did outstanding work for Jesus?

hm… the saints will rule/judge over angels and are above them in the end hierarchy, maybe they will be leaders of some kind, yes.

>>2277

double dubs confirm.

If you only hadn't driven out the Habsburgs….

—————-

In general I think the best form of government is a mix between a regionalist aristocracy, a uniting king and a supervising plebiscit element.

So like a mix of the Republican Roman system and the chamber system of 19th century Monarchies.

I do not see this happen though.

Also the old nobles have lost all authority.

Also you should check out Liechtenstein, it is the last country left with a righteous monarch.

bump

final bump

How exciting that there's a monarchist board! I didn't realize it. I'll give it a visit.

>>2256

I used to think as you do, but in fact, monarchy is much less likely to be corrupt than democracy. Since democracy cares more about what the public thinks (and subsequently who they'll vote for), a democracy is much more likely to create "thoughtcrime" than a monarchy. A monarch only cares that his subjects pay their taxes and will not revolt.

Democracies are also inherently shortsighted because the politicians want to be reelected. Thus, consequences are pushed far down the road to hopefully land in the lap of a future administration. Because the king sees the land as his own, he is more likely to think long-term because his own flesh and blood will be ruling it.

>>2322

My preferred system is a sort of feudal system with free exit between the lords. A House of Lords, but no House of Commons, that still holds a constitution protecting noble autonomy and the Monarch's final sovereignty.

honestly, whats the point of christian monarchism?

what for

>>7617

yea

but one perfect king, not some dude that can, and most likely, will go nuts of power

>>7621

>go nuts for power

I do not really see a problem here. What is the problem with people being powerful?

Is there no power in a republic? And even if it is a democratic one, or an oligarchic one, even then there is the same power. The only difference is that these systems produce a certain kind of mediocre leaders so all of it will go unused and wasted.

>>7625

how does the phrase goes

>power corrupts and unlimited power corrupts unlimited

It is divided to avoid a madman to go full madman, I disagree that a representational or democratic system creates medicrity. I would argue for the oposite.

Its in the blood related monarchys, that the stupid, even when everybody knows they are stupid, is still crowned.

>>7630

Power does not corrupt you. But if you are corrupt no one will ever realise it when you are powerless.

Power does not change, it just puts emphasis on that what already is.

>It is divided to avoid a madman to go full madman

And the can't go mad man? A group is more easily manipulated than a suited man. They are more susceptible to the tricks of the enemy.

What it does prevent, however, is excellence. There may be good and caring monarchs, but there never was and never will be an assembly that is anything but the sum of the evils of all their members.

>Its in the blood related monarchys, that the stupid, even when everybody knows they are stupid, is still crowned.

There are different forms of hereditary laws, there is more than just primogenitur :^)

smart /= good leader btw

>>7632

Im sorry, but imo giving all power to one person is way way way worse than to give it to some assembly or group.

and you hvae this idea that your monarch will be all mighty and perfect, not even biblical monarchs were, nor even ´God appointed ones:popes´

a man going mad is in some parlament of 300 is less of a worry, than one man going mad with all the power and might.

that an assembly could be corrupted? of course, but you would have to convert 300 or more man. cant 1 be corrupted too?

btw, is 8ch crapping itself for anybody else? the threads do not update automatically.

>>7646

>He simply took it

even worse.

Because this would make that the king is only the most violent one.

>his heirs would inherit it of course.

And that causes what I said before: the stupid would still be crowned even tho theyre stupid.

Do you want more 8 yo kings?

>It is more likely that the assembly as a whole goes nuts

No its not. There are countless of examples of one king that goes bananas against everyone and everything.

>Do you believe that someone with a real interest in the country

Do you really think that some 300 man with real interest for their country would allow anything bad to happen?

>>7664

>even worse.

Why is it bad to take things now?

A farmer takes the crops, a man takes a woman, a leader takes a leader role etc

I see nothing wrong with that, that's like the most inherent thing to nature there is.

>Because this would make that the king is only the most violent one.

There is more to being a successful leader than being violent.

Willing to do what is necessary is a plus though, I'll admitt.

>And that causes what I said before: the stupid would still be crowned even tho theyre stupid.

So what? Stupid kings can still be good kings.

>Do you want more 8 yo kings?

Why not? Before grown up a regency has to take place. There have been lots of infant monarchs without the realm breaking apart or anything else bad happening.

>No its not. There are countless of examples of one king that goes bananas against everyone and everything.

Tell me a few. Out of your head, what comes first to your mind?

I know there are some, but it is not a lot.

>Do you really think that some 300 man with real interest for their country would allow anything bad to happen?

An elected assembly has no interest at all in the country. They just think in terms of their respective legal periods.

byzantine bump

>>7664

Different anon here. When it comes to monarchy, consider the following quote:

>As a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this: instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés’ advantage. He owns its current use – usufruct– but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted.

HOTWHEELS FIX YOUR SHIT

>>8089

>exploitation

Is nothing bad btw, properly exploiting the world is the most natural thing there is. I have never heard of a system where the owner is not allowed the "ususfructus" of his property, unless he has given the right away or it was taken from him.

So if we pose the question how we can administrate the world, and you answer "administration is bad", then you are part of the problem.

>>8080

>tfw no turk-crushing faith-defending qt3.14 basileus

>>8095

> qt3.14 basileus

>basileus

>us

Begone Sodomite.

>>8104

How does it feel to be this retarded?

>>8107

I don't know, but being retarded is still preferable to being attracted to men.

>>8108

>he doesn't want to be ruled by glorious Alexios Komnenos because he's an eeeebil mansogyrapist

>>7792

>Why is it bad to take things now?

do we like thugs and thieves now

>Stupid kings can still be good kings.

only when they dont make the decisions, and since they dont, then why have them at all?

>An elected assembly has no interest at all in the country*

source needed*

>>8089

what quote is that

thining that monopolistic exploitations is in any way shape or form less propence to be bad is preposterous. ie what was the 19th century

>>8092

theres difference between use and exploitation.

>>8124

I'm the guy from before, just on laptop rather than mobile. It's from Hoppe, an an-cap of all things. Even he recognizes that between democracy and monarchy, there's really no contest. As for the exploitation, of course there's exploitation no matter what. A government is exploitation of the land and populace by default. What do you think taxes are?

>>8124

>do we like thugs and thieves now

I did not imply that, my examples also suggest otherwise:

> farmer takes the crops, a man takes a woman, a leader takes a leader role etc

It is not like there will be no government if the suitable one denies to fulfil his fate and take charge, but if he does deny this call of fate I'd consider it a crime.

>only when they dont make the decisions, and since they dont, then why have them at all?

I do not think that being smart and making good decisions is linked that much.

A kind but stupid king is better than a cruel AND cunning king;

>source needed*

Why would they have interest? The future of the country they are governing is not related to them or to their heirs, they are just clerks.

IE when the liberals got elected out of office recently the leader just proclaimed he will leave the country and live abroad.

What will the average Polack think of that? Exactly, when things get serious we are just left alone by this globalist international elite ("European") while we cannot do so, we lack the ability and wealth to do so.

>theres difference between use and exploitation.

hmh… maybe but not really. If you are interested to profit in the long run it is the same. There is no word in the English language for that how suspicious but it is common knowledge and a principle here, for example among hunters and fishermen.

Nothing worse than monarchy.

Republicanism is the best system.

Also how do I use a flag?

>>8149

>Nothing worse than monarchy.

>

>Republicanism is the best system.

Conspicious lack of arguments.

>Also how do I use a flag?

Reply -show post options and limits - flag - Zionist ;^)