“Then please explain why Jesus in not only a king”
Uhmmmm,,, because he wasn’t a king? There was no “king jesus”. Even he never claimed to be an earthly king.
“And here I thought it was “a tour de force on the topic of royalty AS IMPLEMENTED BY CORRUPT MAN.””
Proving you didnt read it ever,, because it specifically and masterfully proves that monarchies cannot possibly be divinely ordained. That the argument that they are ordained of god is silly. It further examines the complete history of monarchies and shows the absence of morality in them as a concept. Again,, read the book.
And you tried to use this “good king”, as an example of the good of monarchies,, but you neglect to tell us how he dies, and of the next several generations. You also forgot to tell us how his dynasty began.
And if you believe God ordained some monarchs back then,, what happened now? He just change his mind about government of earth, and not want us to have earthly kings now? LOL
For extra credit, explain why if the royals are there by divine right,,,appointed by God, that the Magna Carta was needed? It would seem tacky to try to limit the rights of God’s chosen ruler,,wouldn’t it?
You can’t have it both ways,,If God appointed his temporal leaders, they should clearly be unchecked by anyone but God himself. On the other hand, if they arent appointed by God, they are nothing but despots who have siezed power without the consent of the governed.
Face it,, tourism is the only reason for the British Royals to exist.
>>“Then please explain why Jesus in not only a king”
>Uhmmmm,,, because he wasn’t a king? There was no “king jesus”. Even he never claimed to be an earthly king.
You didn’t say “earthly king.” Just because His kingdom is non-earthly does not invalidate that he was/is royalty. He showed, by example, the perfect picture of a ‘servent-leader.’
>>“And here I thought it was “a tour de force on the topic of royalty AS IMPLEMENTED BY CORRUPT MAN.””
>
>Proving you didnt read it ever,, because it specifically and masterfully proves that monarchies cannot possibly be divinely ordained.
*sigh* that’s an argument against the “Divine-Right of kings”... not against the Right of Divine-Kings.
>That the argument that they are ordained of god is silly.
Not really. God chose both David & Saul through the Samuel; because Samuel was the last of the Judges AND the first of the Prophets you could say that David and Saul were both divinely ordained in two ways (through the Prophet-position, and through the Judge=position, which Samuel occupied). So they, at the least, WERE divinely ordained.
The ‘Right of Kings’ came about when Kings took that idea and superimposed it on themselves... probably much like some Christians superimpose the Abrahamic Covenant onto America because it “was founded on Christian Principles.”
So to say that the “divine right of kings” doesn’t exist, then as-such it is true; but if you were to say that the divine ordination of kings does not exist then that is not true.
>It further examines the complete history of monarchies and shows the absence of morality in them as a concept.
That is irrelevant, as an examination of the human race’s complete history would show that same absence of morality and corruption.
>Again,, read the book.
>And you tried to use this “good king”, as an example of the good of monarchies,, but you neglect to tell us how he dies, and of the next several generations.
And Jesus, the “goodest” King, died an even more horrible and unjust death.
The problem is that you are arguing first from the point of some system, and then on the point of human failings; you MUST start with the human failings first. This is what the Declaration of Independence did: it stated that man has natural rights, but that men were disposed “to suffer evils while evils were sufferable” rather than make a stand for righteousness. The [framers of the] Constitution did the same, by providing in itself a method for alteration they were implementationally-acknowledging that they were flawed/limited and [as a result] the document was not perfect.
>You also forgot to tell us how his dynasty began.
>
>And if you believe God ordained some monarchs back then,, what happened now?
I didn’t say that God ordained ALL monarch; just that some of them certainly could have been.
>He just change his mind about government of earth, and not want us to have earthly kings now? LOL
Actually the reason He gave Israel a king was... because “the people” wanted it. He warned them that things wouldn’t “be magically better” and a king would compel works and wars and taxes that [otherwise] wouldn’t happen.
I guess you could liken it to a parent whose child says: “I want to be a surgeon!” replies: “Are you sure? ...you’ll see a lot of blood [, and you’re kinda squeamish about blood].” and yet when the child persists/insists allows it to be so. Yet, despite the child going off into what may not be the BEST field for them, still hopes them to have a fulfilling/rewarding job.