EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 But He approved of David and Solomon. God didn't want approve of the Israelites asking for a king (to be like the "other nations"), but later appointed his own. Not all Kings are bad. A non-organized religion is one where, in the words of Martin Luther: "there are as many beliefs as there are heads." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Let me requote verse 18: " And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day." The Lord made them live with their choices, and choose kings for them, even though he did not want them to have kings in the first place. They made their bed, they had to lie in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 The Israelites asked for a king to be like the other nations. God gave them a king like the other nations. Nobody disputes that God was upset about this request. However, God later chose righteous and humble kings for Israel. Not all kings are bad, and this has nothing to do with organized religion anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 God was displeased, yet they were his people. He choose them righteous kings because he took care of them. However, read through Kings. They caused his people nothing but grief. Also, I was showing how God doesn't like to depend on men to lead his institutions, he likes to take care of it himself. He organizes things, and he takes care of things. Whenever men take over, it screws up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeDee Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='hierochloe' date='Aug 18 2005, 02:50 PM']Would you also feel that organized government is a bad thing? And if so, is that not leading to a claim that the world would be better off living in anarchy? [right][snapback]689410[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The manner in which you reply leads me to believe that you are using the word "anarchy" to imply chaos. True anarchy is anything but chaos, but perfect order by responsible persons in union for a higher good. Of course, this is an ideal only, and will probably never be realized because people as nations are not all responsible. Look at the world today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 [quote name='DeeDee' date='Aug 23 2005, 12:17 PM']The manner in which you reply leads me to believe that you are using the word "anarchy" to imply chaos. True anarchy is anything but chaos, but perfect order by [b]responsible persons in union for a higher good[/b]. Of course, this is an ideal only, and will probably never be realized because people as nations are not all responsible. Look at the world today. [right][snapback]695571[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Wouldn't that consitute a government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now