AngelRho wrote:
Wow...talking about ancient WP history! The OP was utterly clueless when it comes to knowing and understanding the Bible. Ruveyn’s response summed it up nicely.
Regarding God being a dictator, why not? Well, where does a dictator get his power? A dictator is ultimately at the mercy of his people, but usually dictators come to power through force supported by a powerful minority, such as military or other special interest.
Kings, on the other hand, are kings by inheritance, meaning they are thought to possess a genetic suitability to lead. Logically it makes sense to support a ruling family in which children are taught leadership from birth, though actual results vary.
Dictators must assume power, propped up by force rather than right or universal agreement. Often it is fear that keeps them in power. The problem with a dictator is if he can assume power, so can the next guy. Fear in the long term breeds resentment rather than respect, thus it is incumbent on the dictator to mitigate rule-by-fear to stay in power. And there are many examples of modern dictators plagued by paranoia—their own fear of people, the military, a power base, a political rival, a popular rising star in the Party, opposition, etc.
God doesn’t fear people, nor does He require permission or the will of the people to act. Kings are sovereign because it is assumed they are fit for rule by their nature and character, literally BORN to lead. Humans are fallible, of course, and not eternal, hence why regencies are necessary sometimes. But this model is closer to a working analogy for God’s sovereignty than a dictatorship. God’s suitability for rule depends on suitability inherent in divine nature. With God being eternal and perfect, there’s no need to assume the same kinds of problems inherent in mortal sovereigns or dictators.
An elected president in a republic is a sort of acknowledgment that earthly kings aren’t as effective as rule by God alone. Early Israelite government was free and open, ruled by popular warrior-judges with demonstrated effectiveness. It’s essentially an informal representative democracy, whereas we have a formal system. We really just have a number of “point men” that operate at executive levels in tandem with popular legislators. In ancient Israel, each clan would be represented by a chosen leader. The western model could work in the same way the ancient Israelite theocracy worked. The main difference is that the west represents a conscious rejection of God as head of state (in practice), whereas the Biblical system had a cyclical acceptance/rejection of God. The kingdom era did not change this. But I think what’s obvious is that God is certainly not an elected official. God allows apparent self-rule only because it’s the most conducive way to let people obey God out of their own free will. Wholesale rejection of God results in destruction, e.g. the flood, Sodom, Conquest of Canaan, the Jewish exile, of course, but it’s easier to ward off consequences when individuals are free to choose. The Old Testament never requires faith in God for one’s right to exist. It only requires that we obey His commandments. Self-rule makes that a lot easier, hence why I think America even as a secular society is in a strong global position (although the national debt is a great cause for concern).
I look at God’s sovereignty differently, though, as neither a king nor a dictator, but rather a supreme Ego, a creative individual. The opening chapters of Genesis clearly demonstrate that God created the universe. It and everything in it belongs to God. God is under no obligation to share His things. He can destroy His toys if it gives Him pleasure to do so. That may seem like a childish, selfish description of God. Selfish, yes. But whether you agree that’s a good thing, or you hate God for appearing childish, it ultimately doesn’t matter. God can do what God wants with His things. It’s understandable that someone might attribute despotism to a Creator who won’t share or bend to the whim of an inferior being.
But it’s also the petulant cry of an inferior being who envies that sovereignty without consideration for the responsibility that goes with it. If you had God’s power, had the ability to set man free, how would you respond to your creation rejecting you? Could you withstand the temptation to revoke man’s agency? And if you revoked human agency, could you exist for all eternity knowing you created an army of robots who HAD to obey you?
I like things the way they are. Let God be God. The fact that God allows me continued existence shows me that I remain a valuable part of His creation. That makes me feel pretty good about myself!
If God existed he would certainly have the right to "think of himself as God". Lol!
I agree that there are all kinds of problems with comparing a JudeoChristian type God to a human political leader, and trying to measure both the same moral yardstick. Peaches to pears.
God is like a dictator in that he doesn't have to answer to voters, but on the other hand he doesn't have to fear being overthrown by his subjects. A paranoid sociopath like a Stalin or a Hitler has to worry about being overthrown. So that is why they induldge in cruelty and so forth to instill fear. God, if he exists, wouldn have to worry about that (unless you literally believe that chapter in the old testament in which there was a moment when God DID get afraid that we humans were going to overthrow him so he "confounded the languages"- that whole Tower of Babel thing). An omnipotent creator diety would have no reason to either punish political prisoners NOR to cater to voters. So God cant be compared to either a dictator or to a POTUS/PM.
Nor really to a monarch either except that monarchs have a certain legitimacy -they legally inherit the role as a birthright- rather than steal the throne by force or chicanery like a typical dictator (though we are now on three generations of dictators in north korea). So like the ancients we still speak of god as being a "king" whose rule is legit. But even that's just an analogy. And like all analogies its imperfect.
03 Oct 2019, 2:08 pm
