Buffman

leonarde

I gather that you are saying that most humans need and desire a "leader." Do you suppose that is why they have ones for both the natural and supernatural worlds? (i.e.: King/Queen/Emperor/ Empress/Tsar/Tsarina/Chief/Boss Man/'Capo'/ Ruler/Potentate/Lord/Master/...God-Big Daddy/Goddess-Big Mommy.)

So what is the real difference between a monarchy, kingdom, empire, domain, dominion, principality, state, nation, or country?

Personally, I suspect the very best form of government would be one run by a brilliant, benevolent, dictator. Why else would Christians make up a so-called loving God to worship? He is their supposed brilliant, benevolent, dictator and they his willing slave/serf.

Unfortunately, in a pluralistic, democratic, federal republic, the leader, the President, is only a temporary hire and not worthy of Godhead status treatment...accept in his own mind...until re-election time.

Ronin

There was no change of mind. The prophesied death of the Messiah was part of God's plan to redeem fallen mankind from the beginning.

Think it through, Goriller ~

Years ago God plans to make laws so that he could change his laws in order to redeem that which, in his omnipotence, he already must have in his possession.

Since the most pristine humans, Adam and Eve, were to have direct contact with the supreme deity and still did not comply, just how is sending a Messiah to intervene and then savagely die going to correct this conflagration put into motion by him as a part of his own plan?

Even perfect Angels reject God in the fable purported to be written on his behalf.

Not a very impressive fairy King.

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]</p>

HelenM

But so does Christianity...

[Jesus said] "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "

{Matt 10:34-36)

Sabine Grant

BUFFMAN : I have already expressed my sentiments over the Harkis in the forum entitled " Muslims take French Author to Court over insults".

My comment on de Gaulle calling Henry to power was related to WWII not the War of Independence of Algeria. As to what I may know or not know about the war of independence and its consequences,I hold it directly from my mother and her family who are all Pied noir native of both Siddi Bel Abbes and Oran.

I still have the vivid memory as a young child being sheltered by my aunt from execution by a felagah who pointed a gun at us. She yelled out in arabic " long life to independent Algeria". He turned away from us.

The fact that Le Grand Charles is not popular among Pieds Noir is understandable. That does not diminish the greatness of the man. Or his monarchist convictions.

Of course I am aware of the inter relation between French and American history. We made the same mistakes in South East Asia. The French failure in Indochine was not enough to deter the US from intervention in Vietnam.

Both Americans and French like to celebrate the anniversary of US Independence by parading heroes such as the Admiral De Grasse and Lafayette. In 1976, French liberty ports were harboring multi US Navy ships for the celebration of the bi-centanial. Homes flew the Stars and Stripes. Little sailors were hosted by French families.

As we broke our nose in the Middle East with Lebanon and our pityful handling of what used to be Palestine, yet the US has to learn the same lesson.

But to relate all of those events to the election ( justified or not) of GWB is sort of a " tire par les cheveux" argument. ( pulled by the hair).

He has nothing in common with a monarch.The President whomever he is does not engender unity. He receives no prestige but rather the ongoing complains and blames for any failure.

As much as the British royal family is the object of scrutiny and feeds the malodorant smell of the gossiping press, BBC broadcast images of thousands of British citizens who came to farewell the Queen Mother. There was a sense of sadness in most British homes.

The heart of a nation rallies around a monarch in times of hardship whether it strikes the people or the monarch.

Buffman

Thank you. I think you missed the thrust of my original post about Bush. No sweat. Let's move on.

The Americans I know would not support a monarchy, whether constitutional or not. That's why the Kennedys and Bushs bother me.

Mr.Kitchen

Goriller your hatred of women appals me.
I can tell that no you care for has ever been raped, that you have never talked to a woman who was raped. Maybe she doesn't scream out because she is afraid, maybe she doesn't scream out because is afraid of what hateful people like you might think or do.

You and those of your ilk betray humanity in the vain hope that you won't have to die. But when you die there will be no heaven, no hell, only oblivion. You will have wasted your one and only life by filling it with hate and fear.

You hate humanity to love your fairy tale, and you are not alone. That would scare me but I have seen what kindness can do thus I have hope that someday man will be free of your myth.

galiel

Why?

Why not? And who is to judge which people belong to which category?

galiel

Who determines which is which?

galiel

Nice demonstration of your ability to parrot mindless cant. Of course, "secular humanism" is not a religion, has none of the trappings of a religion, including revelatory knowledge, holy books, an interpreting priesthood, proscribed rituals, invariable laws, claims to absolute truth, it has no concepts of spirit or the sacred, is not considered a religion by its "followers", is not legally defined as a religion, is not defined as a religion in the Bible, your source for all things.

Your statement has as much validity, and makes as much sense, as saying "All sports are hockey."
[/QB][/QUOTE]

galiel

Why not?

From whence these particular rights? Why these and no others? I don't recall the terms "due process" or "firearms" appearing in the Bible, which seems to be your justification for everything.

Why? From whence does he derive the authorities? Why these and not others? Why water but not air? Why water but not land? Why water but not geothermal?

Where is there discussion of radio frequencies in the Bible, which seems to be your authority for the law?

Why not? Where are welfare, socialism, communism and public education mentioned specifically, let alone prohibited, in the Bible?

Why 1 thousand times? Why not ten times? or a million times?

?? How do you define theocracy ??

I ask these questions not to harrass you. I ask these questions, and the others I have asked in previous posts, to point out that there are two fundamental contradictions in your proposal.

A) The legitimacy you claim for these laws supposedly derives from the Bible, which is the word of God. However, as these examples show, there is significant need for human interpretation of law and for law to be adopted to new situations and discoveries that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. That being the case, who decides what is or is not legitimate interpretation? Ultimately, this is just another rule of men, the difference being that it justifies oppressive authoritarianism under the guise of "God's Will" Despite what you say, it is a theocracy, one that would fit nicely with current dictatorships implementing Islamic Law. You could plop your Amerika right down in the Dark Ages and feel right at home.

The most important thing of all you have failed to do: provide any justification for why this system would be better than the one it replaces, how it would improve the human condition and grant the kind of collective advantages to the individual that would justify such a reduction in personal freedom. Society is only worthwhile as long as the advantages of cooperative organization outwiegh the disadvantages of losing personal freedom.