Absolute Monarchism (Gunny v. Kaitsar)

['Gunny]

Unlike the previous monarchism debate, this one is actually involving absolute monarchism, rather than Constitutional Monarchism.

Topic: Is Absolute Monarchy by nature un-just and immoral?

Gunny- Absolutism is immoral
Kaitsar: Not so much

Kaitsar, I will allow you to have the floor, you may begin

[Prodigal]

Before I begin, is it safe to assume, as we are both Christian, that "morality" in this debate is based off of accepted Christian morality. Because both of our traditions practice similar reference to scripture and the church fathers, can I draw from them for debate, so long as they are venerated and respected in both churches? I think that should be fair game, yes?

['Gunny]

You may draw upon any interpretations of Christian morality i suppose, I do intend this to include debating on morality

[Prodigal]

First of all, I'd like to say thank you for challenging me to a debate. I love a good one, especially when it's with a person who actually knows what they're talking about and has a decent argument. I think I'll like the fight club better than other debate parts of the forum.

My argument begins first with the scripture, as well as some quotes from the fathers. God Himself is often referred to as King in the scriptures, ruler of all. Now, I'm sure we can both agree that monarchy in this sense is okay, seeing as God is perfect, He can do no wrong, and He knows all. A perfect ruler beyond doubt. Where things deviate is the corresponding existence of kings on earth. The holy fathers of the Church all agree that monarchy was the way to go, and was the most Christian form of government, even when the monarch himself was not Christian. Bishop Eusebius himself said:

“The example of monarchical rule there is a source of strength to him. This is something granted to man alone of the creatures of the earth by the universal King. The basic principle of kingly authority is the establishment of a single source of authority to which everything is subject. Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord. This is why there is one God, not two or three or even more. Polytheism is strictly atheism. There is one King, and His Word and royal law are one.”

What he points out is, as Christians, we must be obedient to someone on earth. There is the secular, and then there is the spiritual, but they are together, as the double-headed eagle represents. The bishops of the Church are certainly our sheperds, guiding us in Christ's "absence" (We know quite well that the Holy Spirit guides us) as human vicars. Can not a King take the place of Christ, as secular ruler of his people. Just as Christ is ruler of all, would not too a King be a ruler of his nation? Let the Church handle the Church, and the State handle the State, but may they be intertwined. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Of course, one could argue that a democratic institution could easily take the place of the "monarch" as being a sort of poly-christ, ruling in His place, but in a different matter. But is this not heresy? We are not a polytheistic religion. Our God is one God, and so our ruler is one ruler. He has many aides and helpers, the cherubim and the seraphim, who are six winged and many-eyed and soar with their wings, but He is an autocratic ruler with absolute power. If the bishops of the Church may guide in Christ's place, cannot a King rule in Christ's place?

I tell you now, there are three base forms of government, and they correspond with religion. I draw from St. Gregory the Theologian when I say that there is anarchy, polyarchy (that is, democracy, a republic, or any form of government where power is not absolute or is shared), and monarchy. Anarchy corresponds with atheism, a lack of God, with no moral or legal backbone, leaving the state and people to go every which way without a strong sense of God. Then there is polyarchy, an established form of rule, but, all the same, incorrect. God does not spread out His power, or limit Himself, or have the many beings of Heaven "vote" on decisions. It leads to division and arguing, certainly not Christian, instead of a united nation. There is the celestial and the terestrial, and they are made to mirror eachother. Humans are the connection between the two, as God became man so that we might become like God. If we are to become like God, our kingdoms and actions should mirror His. Monarchy alone imitates God's system of rule, His kingdom.

Humility is obedience, and we are taught to be the most humble. As we obey God, a monk obeys an abbot, and we are to obey a King. One bishop in a bishopric, one metropolitan in a metropolis, one patriarch in a patriarchate, one captain of a ship, one king in a kingdom. Obedience to our authorities is like obedience and humility before God, and breeds a good Christian spirit. This is why the monks must ask the blessing of their abbot for even menial actions. Just as we ask and pray to God, so too do we ask the judgement of our superiors, who are there to guide us and govern us.

All of that being said, there is a difference between monarchy and tyranny. The fundamental dividing line is that the tyrant works to his own benefit, whereas the good monarch works for the benefit of all of his people. If his laws are not contrary to God's, a people must kneel to their king. Just as the fathers did not bow before (and even prayed for the deposition of) Sapor, or Julian the Apostate, neither do we before tyrants who contradict God's teachings.

I argue not only that monarchy is moral, but that democracy at its root is evil. It encourages people to have thoughts of their own, outside of God's will. Actions outside of God's teachings are suddenly acceptable, and the moral fabric is undone, if not at first, then later, as we see in our very own United States. "Freedom" is touted as a necessity to be civilized in today's world? But what is freedom? Nothing more than a selfish longing for separation from God. Those who wish to institute it are not secure in their faith, for if they were, they would know their God is the God and that absolute obedience is required, not some demonic "freedom" where consumerism, immorality, and distance from God is the norm and even encouraged. Democracy itself declares that power is from the people, and not from God, and thus seperates itself from morality, making it the immoral one.

I apologize for any typos/mispellings, I'm not that amazing as far as that goes, haha.

['Gunny]

I think I have enough time tonight to formulate a reply

He is an autocratic ruler with absolute power. If the bishops of the Church may guide in Christ's place, cannot a King rule in Christ's place?

No. Heck, operating under christian morality wouldn't it be a sin to take Christ's place? The clergy is in the footsteps of disciples, rather than Christ himself. No man, however, should pretend to rule in Christ's stead.

I tell you now, there are three base forms of government, and they correspond with religion. I draw from St. Gregory the Theologian when I say that there is anarchy, polyarchy (that is, democracy, a republic, or any form of government where power is not absolute or is shared), and monarchy. Anarchy corresponds with atheism, a lack of God, with no moral or legal backbone, leaving the state and people to go every which way without a strong sense of God.

So just because the state does not force you to go in a certain way that we all shall be atheists? Why should you force people to be your religion may I ask? What good would come from it? Should they choose to spurn the 'path of righteousness' that is their perrogative, and should you wish, you may act as a 'city upon a hill' but it is utterly wrong to force someone to do something. God granted free will, so why go against God?

Then there is polyarchy, an established form of rule, but, all the same, incorrect. God does not spread out His power, or limit Himself, or have the many beings of Heaven "vote" on decisions. It leads to division and arguing, certainly not Christian, instead of a united nation. There is the celestial and the terestrial, and they are made to mirror eachother. Humans are the connection between the two, as God became man so that we might become like God. If we are to become like God, our kingdoms and actions should mirror His. Monarchy alone imitates God's system of rule, His kingdom.

Our Actions should mirror his, but again, WHY must we have kingdoms? Because you say that it's the only way people will believe in God? Because you think that belief in God is such a foolish thought that nobody would believe in it if they were not forced to have it? Forced to abide by what you think is the morally correct thing? Please, tell me, why are your morals superior?

Humility is obedience, and we are taught to be the most humble. As we obey God, a monk obeys an abbot, and we are to obey a King. One bishop in a bishopric, one metropolitan in a metropolis, one patriarch in a patriarchate, one captain of a ship, one king in a kingdom. Obedience to our authorities is like obedience and humility before God, and breeds a good Christian spirit. This is why the monks must ask the blessing of their abbot for even menial actions. Just as we ask and pray to God, so too do we ask the judgement of our superiors, who are there to guide us and govern us.

Who is the King to obey? Kings actually tend to not be all that humble, or really that Pious after a while. Why give absolute power to a man who will end up believing he is greater than God? I say to you that your ONLY superior is God, not some man who proclaims himself to be ruling in his stead (Must seem odd coming from a Catholic, but remember, the pope is a 'descendent' of Peter, not Jesus )

When man are brought up to a place of power over others, they use it to bend people to their will. This clearly seems to be your intention, by bending all people to follow your set of morals, but what if you and the King have a disagreement over what is morally right? According to you, you must obey unquestionable, for that is humility, we can't go thinking for ourselves now can we? We shouldn't read the bible, should we? I mean, that is better left to our superiors, for we humble little serfs are not worthy of reading such a great book, and actually being able to discern the word of God from what our 'kings' tell us.

All of that being said, there is a difference between monarchy and tyranny. The fundamental dividing line is that the tyrant works to his own benefit, whereas the good monarch works for the benefit of all of his people. If his laws are not contrary to God's, a people must kneel to their king. Just as the fathers did not bow before (and even prayed for the deposition of) Sapor, or Julian the Apostate, neither do we before tyrants who contradict God's teachings.

Ah I see, so the King must follow your morality, or he is not a King. What if someone follows the Islamic version of God's law? Would you support Shariah law? I mean, it is following what another Abrahamic religion calls Gods Laws.

Can a person elected by the people not also work for the benefit of the people? Must he be a king? Ah right, it must echo heaven, and since God demands that we must all follow.... wait? Where does God say that we must have Kings again You quote these saints, but are they still not men? Men telling Men that they must listen to better men, once agian, who declares one man a better man? How might one become a King may I ask?

I argue not only that monarchy is moral, but that democracy at its root is evil. It encourages people to have thoughts of their own, outside of God's will. Actions outside of God's teachings are suddenly acceptable, and the moral fabric is undone, if not at first, then later, as we see in our very own United States. "Freedom" is touted as a necessity to be civilized in today's world? But what is freedom? Nothing more than a selfish longing for separation from God. Those who wish to institute it are not secure in their faith, for if they were, they would know their God is the God and that absolute obedience is required, not some demonic "freedom" where consumerism, immorality, and distance from God is the norm and even encouraged. Democracy itself declares that power is from the people, and not from God, and thus seperates itself from morality, making it the immoral one.

What a horror, thoughts of our own? Being allowed to have the Free Will God Granted us?

I have stated it before and I will state it again: You have your free will. It is your choice to follow or spurn God, and it is immoral to force someone to follow God. Should someone spurn God, so be it, your only duty is to act as a guiding light, not an opressor.

[Prodigal]

No man, however, should pretend to rule in Christ's stead.

This amuses me, since your pope claims the title vicar of Christ.

Why should you force people to be your religion may I ask? What good would come from it? Should they choose to spurn the 'path of righteousness' that is their perrogative, and should you wish, you may act as a 'city upon a hill' but it is utterly wrong to force someone to do something. God granted free will, so why go against God?

Where did I say we should force the religion onto people?

Our Actions should mirror his, but again, WHY must we have kingdoms? Because you say that it's the only way people will believe in God? Because you think that belief in God is such a foolish thought that nobody would believe in it if they were not forced to have it? Forced to abide by what you think is the morally correct thing? Please, tell me, why are your morals superior?

Because we should mirror Him in all ways, and the government of Heaven is monarchy. No, I don't think that was the only way and never said that, I also never said belief in God was foolish. And what the Church finds to be correct is correct, as such its morals are superior to any other set. I thought you were Christian? Do you not think that your morals are correct?

Who is the King to obey? Kings actually tend to not be all that humble, or really that Pious after a while. Why give absolute power to a man who will end up believing he is greater than God? I say to you that your ONLY superior is God, not some man who proclaims himself to be ruling in his stead (Must seem odd coming from a Catholic, but remember, the pope is a 'descendent' of Peter, not Jesus )

The king obeys God. Your measurements of a king's humility and piety are personal opinion. I suggest you read the personal diary of some monarchs, (Nicholas II, for example) I think you would be surprised. I know of few Christian monarchs who have ever thought themselves greater than God, what are you basing that off of? And what is ONLY superior to God, I don't get your grammar.

When man are brought up to a place of power over others, they use it to bend people to their will. This clearly seems to be your intention, by bending all people to follow your set of morals, but what if you and the King have a disagreement over what is morally right? According to you, you must obey unquestionable, for that is humility, we can't go thinking for ourselves now can we? We shouldn't read the bible, should we? I mean, that is better left to our superiors, for we humble little serfs are not worthy of reading such a great book, and actually being able to discern the word of God from what our 'kings' tell us.

I know that is what you think, as that is the history of the west and western Christianity. Look to the east, where the Bible was written in the vernacular and people were informed. It does not matter, because the Church would know and guide the king, having power in the spiritual. As I said multiple times, all that is Christ cannot be summed into a person or multiple people or all of the people on the planet. The king does the secular, the clergy the religious, his opinion matters nothing. I recommend you look up the Orthodox opinions and titles for the iconoclast emperors of Byzantium. Heretics are not remembered fondly.

Ah I see, so the King must follow your morality, or he is not a King. What if someone follows the Islamic version of God's law? Would you support Shariah law? I mean, it is following what another Abrahamic religion calls Gods Laws.

You said in the response to my initial post that we could base this off of Christian morality, are you not Christian? Your entire post seems very "Christianity might not be true"ish. He doesn't have to follow my morality, he has to follow the morality of the Church, Christ. Shariah is not in Christian morality.

Can a person elected by the people not also work for the benefit of the people? Must he be a king? Ah right, it must echo heaven, and since God demands that we must all follow.... wait? Where does God say that we must have Kings again You quote these saints, but are they still not men? Men telling Men that they must listen to better men, once agian, who declares one man a better man? How might one become a King may I ask?

He can, but his power is not solid, it is tenuous. Morality is not tenuous, it is absolute, and morality cannot stay stable when the people do not have a guide in the Church. As for the rest of your post, I don't understand your grammar.

I have stated it before and I will state it again: You have your free will. It is your choice to follow or spurn God, and it is immoral to force someone to follow God. Should someone spurn God, so be it, your only duty is to act as a guiding light, not an opressor.

I have stated it multiple times before and I will state it again, I am not forcing people to follow God.

I am disappoint, Gunny, in your response.

['Gunny]

Well you've been rushing me, when I have proper time I'll get back to it