The Right to Rule??

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Tsaphah, May 30, 2018.

  1. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lately, I have found that certain subjects tend to be repeated with different people I speak with. Several days ago, I posted information about the Greek words for those who rule others (archo). The other main word was gnome. Yesterday, I was speaking to an acquaintance about the political systems. He mentioned the Catholic social teaching autarky for the common good. Autarky is from the Greek word “autarkes” meaning “self-sufficient”, or content within oneself. It is a compound of autos (autos+arkeo) = self+to be enough. Or, self rule, also anarchy.

    Paul used this word in his letter to the Philippians. “Not that I am saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be self-sufficient regardless of my circumstances.” ( Phil 4:11 NWT )

    My acquaintance mentioned that on 16 October 2013, Fagor filed for bankruptcy under Spanish law in order to renegotiate a 1.2 billion debt during the Euro crisis. Fagor Electrodomésticos is a large domestic and commercial appliance manufacturer based in the Basque Country, Spain and run by the Mondragon Corporation.

    This was the first time I heard of this corporation, or Mondragon Federation of Worker Cooperatives. He stated: “If you’re in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you’re compelled to ignore harm inflected on others.” He connects this idea to the “Catholic social teaching autarky self-sufficiency.” Mondragon went from the Catholic social teaching autarky to imitation compliance, and debt left to the citizens of Spain.

    In the long run of the subject, he laid blame on what he called the “Jewish Cabal”, “Lucifer’s imitation replacement theology. They use the ‘Delphi method’”.

    “The Delphi method is a forecasting method based on the results of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts. Several rounds of questionnaires are sent out, and the anonymous responses are aggregated and shared with the group after each round. The experts are allowed to adjust their answers in subsequent rounds. Since multiple rounds of questions are asked and the panel is told what the group thinks as a whole, the Delphi method seeks to reach the correct response through consensus.”

    I guess some could say this is the “Christian Way”, according to the WTBTS governing body. Right?

    Benefits of the Delphi Method
    The Delphi method seeks to aggregate opinions from a diverse set of experts, and it can be done without having to bring everyone together for a physical meeting. Since the responses of the participants are anonymous, individual panelists don't have to worry about repercussions for their opinions. Consensus can be reached over time as opinions* are swayed.

    Disadvantages of the Delphi Method
    While the Delphi method allows for commentary from a diverse group of participants, it does not result in the same sort of interactions as a live discussion. Response times can be long ,which slows the rate of discussion. It is also possible that the information received back from the experts will provide no innate value.

    * 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
    2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
    3. the formal expression of a professional judgment

    ( 1 Co 7:25; 7:40; 2 Co 8:10 NASB & NWT )
     
  2. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a long post. It is worth reading because it should have an effect on your understanding of the "Right to Rule". I will follow this with an explanation from the Bible and the Hebrew language.

    The Republic of Plato: An Ideal Commonwealth
    By Plato​


    BOOK VII
    ON SHADOWS AND REALITIES IN EDUCATION
    (SOCRATES, GLAUCON.)​

    And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette-players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
    I see.
    And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
    You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
    Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
    True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
    And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
    Yes, he said.
    And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
    Very true.
    And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
    No question, he replied.
    To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
    That is certain.
    And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look toward the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned toward more real existence, he has a clearer vision—what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them—will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
    Far truer.
    And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
    True, he said.
    And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
    Not all in a moment, he said.
    He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day? Certainly.
    Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
    Certainly.
    He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
    Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
    And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity him?
    Certainly, he would.
    And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, “Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,”
    and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
    Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
    Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
    To be sure, he said.
    And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
    No question, he said.
    This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upward to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly, God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
    I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
    Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
    Yes, very natural.
    And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
    Anything but surprising, he replied.
    Anyone who has common-sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees anyone whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.
    That, he said, is a very just distinction.
    But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.
    They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
    Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or, in other words, of the good.
    Very true.
    And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth?
    Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
    And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue—how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness?
    Very true, he said.
    But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below—if, I say, they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to now.
    Very likely.
    Yes, I said; and there is another thing which is likely, or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of the State; not the former, because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blessed.
    Very true, he replied.
    Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all--they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.
    What do you mean?
    I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.
    But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse life, when they might have a better? You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole state, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.
    True, he said, I had forgotten.

    Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State, which is also yours, will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst. Quite true, he replied.
    And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light? Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State.
    Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas, if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
    Most true, he replied.
    And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?
    Indeed, I do not, he said.
    And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.
    No question.
    Who, then, are those whom we shall compel to be guardians?
    Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whom the State is best administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life than that of politics?
    They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied.
    And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced, and how they are to be brought from darkness to light—as some are said to have ascended from the world below to the gods?
    By all means, he replied.
    The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster shell, but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy?
    Quite so.
    And should we not inquire what sort of knowledge has the power of effecting such a change? Certainly.
    What sort of knowledge is there which would draw the soul from becoming to being? And another consideration has just occurred to me: You will remember that our young men are to be warrior athletes?
    Yes, that was said.
    Then this new kind of knowledge must have an additional quality?
    What quality?
    Usefulness in war.
    Yes, if possible.
    _______________________________
    The name - Glaucon is a form from Glaucoma, poor eyesight. Plato chose fanciful names for his characters.
     
  3. 4,087
    826
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I see the Delphi Method as having more benefit then a live discussion. Many times the most outspoken are those with the least amount of knowledge, and those with more insight will lose interest in arguing fact in such a situation.

    The Delphi method, (not unlike our forum) allows for contemplation, and an equal stage and tone for all. The imperfections of the world do not allow for live discourse in coming to conclusions, IMO...

    Conversely, does our Forum allow for consensus? Probably not, given the same reason, imperfection. At least however our conversations are recorded here for posterity.
     
    Tsaphah likes this.
  4. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope some have read this post of Plato’s “allegory of the cave”. It is important to understand the depth of thought that Greek philosophy borrowed from the Bible account of creation, and how mankind accepts truism = “self-evident truth”. The connection is tied to the “shadow of the reality” that Plato uses as a teaching tool.

    In the Bible account of the creation of man, there is a Hebrew word used that is translated as “image”, or “likeness”. That word is tselem (tseh-lem), pronounced like Salem, the city. It comes from the root word, tsel (tsale), meaning to shade, shadow. Hmmmm, do you get the idea? Man is a “shadow of the reality that exists in heaven. Satan has become the “puppet master” of mankind. But, only of those who let him. He doesn’t want anyone to cut the strings.

    Another thing I see in Plato’s method of teaching is, the possible use of fictional third persons, to provide a counterpoint narrative. In Plato’s Republic, there are several. One, Socrates, may never have really lived. Why? About Socrates: “An enigmatic figure, he made no writings, and is known chiefly through the accounts of classical writers writing after his lifetime, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon.”
    Plato’s dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, though it is unclear the degree to which Socrates himself is “hidden behind his 'best disciple’”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
    ;)
     
    SingleCell and Joshuastone7 like this.
  5. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To whom do Christians owe allegiance?

    Here, in the United States of America, there is the standard “pledge of allegiance” which is required for all citizens to “say in unison” at the beginning of all political and some social events. It was originally written in 1892, as:

    “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The flag is the recognized symbol which represents the government.

    In 1923, the words, “the Flag of the United States of America” were added. At this time it read:
    “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God,” creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy’s daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
    “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    Section 4 of the Flag Code states:

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.”

    The original Bellamy salute, first described in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who authored the original Pledge, began with a military salute, and after reciting the words “to the flag,” the arm was extended toward the flag.

    At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute — right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.
    The Youth’s Companion, 1892

    Shortly thereafter, the pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart, and after reciting “to the Flag,” the arm was extended toward the Flag, palm-down.

    In World War II, the salute too much resembled the Nazi salute, so it was changed to keep the right hand over the heart throughout.

    Today, the majority of citizens of the United States of America are ignorant of the term “republic”. They think that the government is a “democracy”. Obviously, the “Pledge” states it is a “republic”. The difference is the fact that a “republic” is a government of “representatives”. A democracy is a government “of the people”, meaning each person has a personal “say” in how the government is run. Greek demokratia “popular government,” from demos “common people,” originally “district”.

    The existing government of the “United States of America” is similar to the historic Roman Republic. It is also similar to the Grecian form of representative government. Another important point to the addition of “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance is: Which God are they offering “allegiance” to? And, just what does allegiance mean? (Luke 4:5-6)

    allegiance (n.)
    “ties or obligations of a citizen or subject to a government or sovereign,” late 14c., formed in English from Anglo-French legaunce “loyalty of a liege-man to his lord,” from Old French legeance, from liege (see liege (adj.)). Corrupted in spelling by confusion with the now-obsolete legal term allegeance “alleviation, mitigation” (for which see allay (v.)). General figurative sense of “recognition of claims to respect or duty, observance of obligation” is attested from 1732. French allégeance in this sense is said to be from English.

    liege (adj.)
    c. 1300, of lords, “entitled to feudal allegiance and service,” from Anglo-French lige (late 13c.), Old French lige “liege-lord,” noun use of an adjective meaning “free, giving or receiving fidelity” (corresponding to Medieval Latin ligius, legius), a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps from Late Latin laeticus “cultivated by serfs,” from laetus “serf, semi-free colonist,” which probably is from Proto-Germanic *lethigaz “freed” (source also of Old English læt “half-freedman, serf;” Old High German laz, Old Frisian lethar “freedman;” Middle Dutch ledich “idle, unemployed”), from extended form of PIE root *‌lē- “to let go, slacken.” Or the Middle English word might be directly from Old High German leidig “free,” on the notion of “free from obligation to service except as vassal to one lord,” but this reverses the notion contained in the word.

    From late 14c. of vassals, “bound to render feudal allegiance and service.” The dual sense of the adjective reflects the reciprocal relationship it describes: protection in exchange for service. Hence, liege-man “a vassal sworn to the service and support of a lord, who in turn is obliged to protect him” (mid-14c.).

    Today, the US Government stated that they were following what was written in the Bible, in arresting illegal aliens, and separating their children from the parents who came to the US illegally. They quoted Paul’s statement to the Romans. “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” ( Rom 13:1 NASB ) “Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” (Rom 13:5 NASB )

    Well then: How about the “governing authorities” being in subjection to God? Should they not show love to these poor people who are trying to flee a tyrannical government?
     
    SingleCell likes this.
  6. 2,764
    999
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Might Makes Right

    “Listen, then,” says the angry Sophist, “I proclaim that might is right, and justice is the interest of the stronger... The different forms of government make laws, democratic, aristocratic, or autocratic, with a view to their respective interests; and these laws, so made by them to serve their interests, they deliver to their subjects as ‘justice,’ and punish as ‘unjust’ anyone who transgresses them... I am speaking of injustice on a large scale; and my meaning will be most clearly seen in autocracy, which by fraud and force takes away the property of others, not retail but wholesale. Now when a man has taken away the money of the citizens and made slaves of them, then, instead of swindler and thief he is called happy and blessed by all. For injustice is censured because those who censure it are afraid of suffering, and not from any scruple they might have of doing injustice themselves” (338-44).

    Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (p. 18).
     

Share This Page