Many Christians speak about the “joy of the Holy Spirit” as something deeper and more fulfilling than worldly pleasures. Some sermons and testimonies even suggest that a believer who is truly walking with God no longer needs entertainment in the ordinary sense (movies, games, sports, secular music, hobbies, etc.). At the same time, many Christians participate in recreational activities without believing this contradicts their faith. From a biblical and theological perspective, does the joy produced by the Holy Spirit imply that Christians should not need entertainment, or is wholesome entertainment considered compatible with Christian life? How have different Christian traditions understood the relationship between spiritual joy and recreational enjoyment? I am especially interested in answers grounded in Scripture and/or recognized theological traditions rather than personal opinion.

Reading the *Letters of Ignatius*, it seems there is some deviciveness among Protestants and Catholics over which letters are authentic and how they are interpreted. Please explain this.

In **Luke 6:12**, Jesus spends an entire night in solitary prayer before choosing his twelve apostles. This is not an isolated incident; the Synoptics and John describe a consistent pattern of Jesus withdrawing from both the crowds and his own disciples to pray in total solitude (**Matt 14:23, Mark 6:46, John 6:15, Luke 5:16**). For Trinitarians holding the **Chalcedonian** and **Thomistic** view—that Jesus, in his divinity, remained omniscient and possessed the "fullness of understanding of the eternal plans" (CCC 474)— it should be noted that this "fullness of understanding of the eternal plans" is not a "limited area." In Catholic theology, the "eternal plans" encompass the entire economy of salvation—past, present, and future. this frequency of solitary prayer presents a theological tension. CCC 473 says: > This human knowledge could not in itself be unlimited... But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God. While in trinitarian understanding, it is correct that Christ's human nature was finite and thus his human brain/soul had a "limited" capacity in itself, the "Orthodox" (Chalcedonian) view is that the Person of Christ is the eternal Word of God, and because the two natures are united "without change," the divine attribute of omniscience remains fully present in that one Person. To corroborate this, here are a few quotes: > "We say, therefore, that Christ knew all things, having all knowledge > in His divine nature... for the Word, being God, was not ignorant of > anything." > > **St. John of Damascus (c. 675–749 AD)** according to An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 21 > Now some of these [all things] are in the Divine power alone, and not all of these does the soul of Christ know in the Word... Therefore the soul of Christ knows all things that God knows in Himself by the knowledge of vision [i.e., all that is, was, or will be]. > > St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologiae, Part III, Question 10, Article 2 > …one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; **the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather *the property of each nature being preserved***, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ… > > Chalcedonian Creed - The Definition of Chalcedon (CCEL) If omniscience is a property of the divine nature, and that property is "preserved" without change, then the Person of the Word must be omniscient. If he were not, the divine nature would have changed (suffered a loss of attribute), which Chalcedon forbids. ##### 1. The Critique of the "Pedagogical Example" A common explanation is that Jesus prayed to "set an example" for his followers. However, the text frequently emphasizes his **solitude** and **secrecy**: * He "withdrew" to "desolate places" (Luke 5:16). * He dismissed the crowds and went up the mountain "by himself" (Matt 14:23). * He fled to the mountain "alone" to avoid being made king (John 6:15). If the primary purpose was pedagogy, the "lesson" is lost if no one is there to attend the class. While these events were later recorded, the immediate act was one of private communion. ##### 2. The Problem of Omniscient Deliberation If Jesus' divine nature provided him with the certain knowledge of who would be chosen (and who would betray him), what is the function of "all-night" prayer in the context of the **Hypostatic Union**? ### My Question: Within a Christology that affirms Christ’s omniscience during the Incarnation: * **What was the internal necessity of these sessions?** If there was no "information gap" to bridge between the Father and the Son, why the duration and frequency of the petition? * **How does this interact with Dyothelitism?** Does the human will of Christ need to "process" divine omniscience through the temporal act of prayer? * **Why the solitude?** If the act was intended as a "model for the Church," why did Jesus consistently ensure no one was there to see the model in action?

Only use evidence from the canon and historical writing from the father's of the faith in the first few centuries that also used scripture canon, not including the apocrypha. The evidence I've seen put forward does not provide substantial evidence that anyone but the Holy Spirit and Christ intercede on our behalf. I hope this question makes sense. I know I am ignorant in this regard and have read the Catholic arguments that appear very weak to me.

### Background Joseph Smith gave a public speech approximately a month before dying where he said the following: > What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. This speech was given after a newspaper called *The Nauvoo Expositor* wrote an article accusing him of being a polygamist and being married to 7 women. The “them all” in Smiths speech that he calls perjurers are reporters at this newspaper. ### Question At the time Joseph Smith gave this speech claiming that he was only married to one woman, how many wives did he have? Was Joseph Smith married to more than one woman at the time he gave this speech?

My question is primarily aimed at Catholic/Protestants, but any denomination who believes original sin can answer Using wikipedia's definition of original sin: >condition of **sinfulness that all humans share**, which they inherit from the Fall of Adam and Eve, involving the **loss of original righteousness** Council of Trent: Fifth session : >[Adam], being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only **transfused death**, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not **sin also, which is the death of the soul** God created Adam/man (Gen 1:26-27 , Gen 2:7-8 ) without sin My understanding of man's purpose on earth from a Catholic1/Protestant viewpoint is to glorify/worship God and eventually return to Him in heaven. It is also my understanding that both denominations believe in creation ex nihilo. If our purpose is to worship God, why doesn't mankind have the same opportunity as Adam? My understanding of beliefs 1. God creates out of nothing (can create anything) 2. God can/has create man without sin (Adam) 3. God wants man to worship/glorify Him and eventually return to Him (need to be sinless) 4. God creates mankind with sin (because of Adam) So my question is why for #4 does he create humanity with original sin by default (Wouldn't we still sin regardless, like Adam did)? Why don't we have the same opportunity as Adam to start fresh? Doesn't this contradict Eze 18:20 ? Related: - Inheritance of Original Sin (how transmitted-I'm asking why) - Does God punish people for their ancestors' sins or not? (reconcile with Ex 20:5 not about original sin) - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/5530/22319 (again I'm asking why aren't we created like Adam) - Why would God give us the ability to sin if he doesn’t want us to? - Not sure the answers are addressing my question, not trying to call them out just point out the difference between my question and the answers here (reference by user to clarify between answers) - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111203%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 1 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: we'd be robots (Adam wasn't, why can't we start like Adam) - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111227%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 2 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: we'd be animals without sin (Adam wasn't), Adam rebelled against 'servanthood'/creation (Adam might've (not 100% sure of the logic/explanation), why isn't the same opportunity extended to us) - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111365%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 3 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: points out some supposed fallacies of the argument, #3 is kind of my question if God does create ex nihilo and our purpose is to worship/glorify him, why have original sin OR #5 I don't think sin glories God so why are we created with original sin, also lists many scriptures that supposedly support sin serving His glory but I'm not seeing the connection, this explanation is getting too long-I don't see this as an answer - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111223%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 4 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: premise sounds like my question but mine is why do we start off lesser (with original sin) compared to Adam with same God, same purpose. 'cannot blame God for our sinful choices'-> but we inherit original sin because of Adam...why are we created with original sin; feel like the rest is a lot of subjective claims - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111364%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 5 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>/<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111368%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 6 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: not all convinced this answered the given question - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111381%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 7 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: we are not robots (but are created by God with original sin, why) - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111207%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 8 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>/<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F112775%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 9 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: answers why sin allowed by God (not why are we created with original sin by God) - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fa%2F111213%2F22319" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">answer 10 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>: starts with 'other answers feel incomplete' (I'm on the same page but does not address why created with original sin) 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84406/22319

Most people say that the serpent's reply to Eve was The First Lie. But consider this possibility: | Genesis | KJV | Speculation | | - | - | - | | 2:16 | And the LORD God **commanded the man**, saying, Of every tree of the garden **thou**[singular] mayest freely eat: | God tells Adam, but not Eve. | | 2:17 | But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, **thou shalt not eat of it**: for in the day that **thou** eatest thereof **thou** shalt surely die. | Don't eat it. | | 3:1 | Now **the serpent was more subtil** than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, **hath God said**, **Ye**[plural] shall not eat of every tree of the garden? | By changing "thou" to "ye", the serpent asks Eve a leading question, making it seem that God spoke directly to both Adam and Eve. | | 3:2 | And the woman said unto the serpent, **We**[plural] may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: | Eve falls for it, indirectly quoting what God told Adam. | | 3:3 | But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, **Ye**[plural] shall not eat of it, **neither shall **ye** touch it, lest **ye** die**. | Eve then goes on to add what she mistakenly thinks God had said, as if God had said it to both of them. (Perhaps because Adam warned her "God says '*don't eat it!*' Don't even touch it!".) | | 3:4 | And the serpent said unto the woman, **Ye shall not surely die** … | The serpent tells Eve she is wrong, but implies that "surely die" is the mistake, rather than explicitly saying that "touching it" is the mistake. | Do any denominations or scholars argue that the serpent was referring to Eve's "*neither shall ye touch it*", and therefore the serpent's "*Ye shall not surely die* [simply because you touched it]" was in fact true, that the serpent deceived and misled Eve without explicitly lying?

**What do the Catholic and Orthodox Churches say is the (or the main or highest) purpose of human life for the regenerate?** ### Background Recent efforts to discover what “Christianity” says is the purpose of life (for the saved if/when a distinction is required), led me to a variety of answers among Protestants, covered mostly by Which is the purpose of life: * Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself. * Glorify God and enjoy him forever. * Learn the will of the Lord and then do it. * Know and Love God. **What about the rest of Christendom?**

Revised question: From a Protestant perspective, how can a Creator have foreknowledge of sin, and yet not be responsible for it? Wouldn't He have to use something that was independent of Himself in His creating? For example, maybe He just randomly assign goodness or badness, say with dice (the thing that is independent of Himself), as a crude example. Because He does it randomly, does that make Him not guilty? This is what I think everybody is basically implying, when they say that God knows, but doesn't cause. The alternative is that God creates everything purposely, ie. not randomly. Therefore He IS responsible for everything. So: Creator uses independent sources in creation -> Righteous Creator. No independent sources -> Creator to be blamed for everything. However, I have difficulty in accepting the existence of such independent sources from God, i.e. sources that God cannot know and control the outcome of; not just that He does not want to know and control, but He cannot. Otherwise, if He could know, but chooses not to, He decided not to correct the situation, and, again, is guilty. So: Either "blame" God, but still regard HIM as all-knowing and all powerful; OR see Him as righteous, but regard Him as limited in knowledge and power. That is my dilemma. (I see Calvinists on the first side and the Arminians on the second.) Original question: In my attempt to understand how a Creator can know the outcome of His creation but not be responsible of the creation's eventual crooked doings, I have concluded that it is necessary that in the creation process He, The Creator, must have used something independent of Himself! Crude example: - Please allow the following comparison so I can explain what I mean: For instance, I have imagined that when God created a human, He used a "random number generator" for each person (I apologize again for the comparison). Say that based on this "number", the person ends up being good or bad. God uses this random number **generator** for each person. As soon as He gets the "number", He knows everything there is to be known about that person, because He creates it using that number. Furthermore, no one can blame God for anything. He is righteous because He creates all humans/things equally using that Random Number Generator. Q - This is what I immediately think, everybody is basically implying when they say that God knows but is not causing! The alternative is, of course, God creates **everything** with a purpose. He must then have engineered everything, so He must be responsible for everything. So, a Unique Creator of everything must imply unique cause of everything! So: > Creator independent sources in creation -> Righteous Creator! No independent sources -> Creator to be blamed for anything! However I have difficulties in accepting the existence of such independent sources from God! I.e. sources that **God cannot know and control the outcome of**! Like that random number generator (defining the human being) that God did not know the outcome of. Not just that He does not want to know&control, but He cannot: otherwise, if He could but did not, He basically decided not to correct etc. I see the necessity of having at least two **independent** "sources" involved in creation. Is this dilemma understandable? So > Either "blame" God, but still regard as all-knowing and all powerful, either see Righteous but regard as limited in knowledge and power! While about myself I cannnot decide on neither side, I see calvinists on the first side and the arminianists on the second. Edit - Another option is (the most plausible): God generates randomness and the Son creates ... Here God The Father is the independent source of mistery, while The Son is the One who creates. In order to keep both righteous there must be a deep independence between them: like (again apologize for the RNG example) the Son asks for a random number and The Father provides it, but the Father does not know what it shall be used for! (Otherwise He can be blamed ... )

In Genesis 5:24, it states that Enoch “was no more, because God took him,” and notably, the passage does not explicitly say that he died, unlike the repeated pattern “and he died” for others in the genealogy. Some Christian traditions hold that no human beings are in heaven prior to the resurrection, except for Jesus Christ. Given this, how do such Christians interpret the case of Enoch? - Do they understand “God took him” as implying a form of death that is simply not described in the usual terms? - Or do they interpret it as a unique exception that does not contradict their broader theological view? - Are there denominational differences in how this passage is understood? I am particularly interested in interpretations that remain consistent with the view that humans do not enter heaven before the final resurrection.

Recently I was reading some of the writings of a Christian writer named Steve Quayle, and was wondering if what he teaches is supported by the Bible. From what I understand he teaches that the Nephiliim mentioned in Genesis 6 were fallen angels, and that their offspring were literal giants. Then, as time progressed, these giants somehow ended up becoming the modern day bigfoots. Along with their large size he also teaches that they can use 'stargates' to travel around, and that they can move objects with their voices. My question I suppose, is whether or not any of this is biblical. (Here's the link to his website, he used to have another website called genesis6giants but I cant seem to find it. https://www.stevequayle.com/

The core message of the Bible is clear. Treat others with love and compassion. Help those in need. Why do so many insist on a Bible that is literal, inspired, inerrant, or infallible? The original texts have all been lost. We only have the end result of hundreds of generations of copies, with thousands variations. To claim our current bible comes from God requires a belief in a supernatural influence that goes beyond the original authors. It must also apply to the thousands of copiers over hundreds of years (and many of those copies disagree), the hundreds of clergy who disagreed and ultimately split the church over which books and versions made the cut, and the thousands of translators who have given us over 850 English versions of the Bible. How do the various denomination, in the thousands, defend their specific version as the "One and only word of God"?. Is there a denomination or group that simply says, "Let's just do unto others, and leave it at that?

According to the D-R, James 5:20: > He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins. QUESTION: Who does the second "his" refer to here (the converted sinner or the converter)? Is anyone familiar with the underlying Greek that may be able to answer this question? Thank you.

**According to Catholicism, who and what happened to the multitude that rose from the dead immediately after Jesus died on the Cross?** Are there any Catholic teachings or writings of any Catholic theologians or mystics concerning the events as to who and what happened to those who rose from their tombs after Christ's Crucifixion on Good Friday? > 50 And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. > > 51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. > > 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, > > 53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. - [Matthew 27:50-53](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027%3A50-53&version=DRA)

I have read in numerous commentaries on John 20 that Thomas first met the resurrected Christ on Sunday, the first day of the week. Here is one illustrative example, though others I've looked at are similar in substance: > Verses 26-31 We have here an account of another appearance of Christ > to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with > them. And concerning this we may observe,I. When it was that Christ > repeated his visit to his disciples: **After eight days, that day > seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the > first day of the week.** Matthew Henry's commentary on John 20 [emphasis is mine] Here are the relevant verses from the Bible: > John 20 (NKJV) > > 19 Then, **the same day at evening, being the first day > of the week**, when the doors were shut where the disciples were > assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, > and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 24 Now Thomas, called the > Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The > other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he > said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and > put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His > side, I will not believe.” 26 **And after eight days His disciples were > again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came,** the doors being shut, > and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Perhaps I'm being naïve, but starting from the Lord's day, Sunday, I count "and after eight days" (Greek: "καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ") to mean the Monday of the following week, that is, eight days after the first Sunday. It seems that the commentaries I've read interpret it to mean "on the eight day", which would indeed work out to the following Sunday. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how "after eight days" can be understood in this way. So, my question is: **On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? Was it on a Sunday, a Monday, or some other day of the week?** My main interest in this question is to understand if these verses in John 20 are indeed a valid support for the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday. I don't question the practice (there are many other verses in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Revelation that support it); I am simply trying to understand whether John 20 indeed displays the first case of Christians meeting as Christians on two consecutive Sundays. I'm having a hard time seeing this in this particular chapter.

**According to Catholicism, if Mary may be considered a priest! What kind of priesthood did she have?** We have a few questions on the priesthood of Mary. They can be seen here and here . But I am more interested in statements concerning the nature of the possibility of Mary’s priesthood as defined by the Church and her accepted theologians and not from random blog sources, especially those with an agenda to promote women priests within the Catholic Church?

I think the evidence is indisputable that the Genesis story is myth. But many disagree. For those faiths that take Genesis as a literal, historical, scientific document, how do you justify world suffering for the actions of two people. And what did the animals do to deserve the same punishments?

Some time ago, I attended a friend's baptism. After they had done the baptism, the vicar then moved on to do a christening, or 'CHRIST-en-ing' as they called it. I've never seen an adult being christened before. I just wondered if this was normal in the CofE?

Jesus commands us to forgive unconditionally. Does he do the same with us? Of does Jesus ask us to do something he is unwilling or unable to do himself? At his death, he said "forgive them" able his killers. Were they forgiven? Is God's love and forgiveness unconditional? Or must we earn God's love and forgiveness by believing the right list of beliefs? And why would God command us to do something he is unwilling or unable to do? I'm told God will only forgive me on the condition that I say a prayer and believe a list of beliefs (and Ive been told different lists of required beliefs). If God's love is conditional, than it seems to lead to an absurdity. That a person who loves and forgives others without condition, while Jesus refuses to do the same, makes that person more loving in forgiving than Jesus. The Bible says that every knee shall bow. Does God still refuse to forgive those people? Why would God place a condition, then set a top secrete deadline for us to meet that deadline (our death), then torture us for all of eternity for not meeting the condition? Why does God place greater value on his rules than on his compassion? Jesus forgave everyone. Jesus forgave the adulteress brought to him by the religious leaders, without condition. He forgave the paraplegic after being impressed by the faith of the guys friends. He forgave the blind man who specifically said he did not know ow who Jesus was. What changed? Why is there no end to God's eternal anger and retribution toward his children who do not earn his love and forgiveness by believing the right things.

In society, we obviously need leaders so that their peoples/ subjects/ voters can be governed and guided. I'm Not trying to be too cynical when it come to leaders(especially political leaders) just so that I can sound like someone who is too clever by half, lofty or sanctimonious however t I wanted to emphasize the dangerously complex relationship between leaders and their subjects / voters. (Important Side Note: This might be good topic for a different post but It is also important to Note the difference between: Leaders Directly appointed by God that generally occurred Prior and During the time of the Book of Judges Leaders Indirectly(i.e with God's reluctant acceptance) and/or Directly empowered by the peoples / subjects that generally occurred After and some During the time of the Book of Judges ) However, 1 & 2 Sam, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chron, Esther & Judges (even to a lesser extent Psalms & Proverbs) are some books in the bible that should be must-read for Christians who may be interested in being part of leadership (especially political leadership) because said books emphasize the difficulties & challenges that leaders face. Leaders are tempted to engage in and/or faced with such evils like backstabbing, lying, grandstanding, deceiving, pretending, volatility of voters & supporters, egotism, pride etc. One particular aspect of leadership that is interesting is the relationship that leaders have with their peoples / constituents / voters who they lead. Leaders & their subjects / voters have a Relationship that needs to be handled with care and attention because it can become dangerously harmful if it's mishandled. Again, I want to emphasize that I'm Not trying to be too cynical but we Christians should sort of approach leaders in a sympathetic & empathetic manner because all humanity is broken and in need to help due to sinfulness The following ( 1 Timothy 2:1-2) shows us a constructive approach with good intentions when it comes to praying for our leaders: > 1 Timothy 2:1-2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > First of all, then, I > urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made > on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in [a]authority, so > that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and > dignity. However, Here are some bible passages and scriptures that emphasize the dangerously complex relationship between leaders and their subjects / voters: Let's start off with bible verses that indicate the dangers that leaders themselves pose to their subjects / voters / people: -In the 1st Samuel 8 chapter, Prophet Samuel makes a speech of Warning to the Israelites. The aforementioned speech is about the powers and actions of Leaders Indirectly ( i.e with God's Reluctant acceptance) empowered by the peoples ( i.e the establishment of Israelite monarchy ). Prophet Samuel tells the Israelite peoples that the Israelite Kings would for the most part use the peoples as laborers & military personnel , and use the land of the nation for king's own farming, & take a percentage of their crops, flocks and cattle. Essentially, Samuel tells the Israelites that a king would view Israel as his own personal fiefdom. King Saul gave into the fleshly desires of the people in 1 Samuel 15 by allowing them to take the choicest of spoils of the Amalekites instead of obeying God's command that ordered Saul to utterly destroy all the Amalekites,and everything belonging to the Amalekites.(which is very similar to modern day elected politicians in democracies who might give into fleshly desires of the voters based on opinion polls for specific political issues even though their desires are wrong) -The Proverbs 23:1-3 bible verses suggest that we should Not be too dependent on sustenance of rulers probably because the rulers might find out that they have leverage over you, and therefore, can possibly bully/oppress you: > Proverbs 23:1-3 23 > > When you sit down to dine with a ruler, Consider > carefully what is before you, 2 And put a knife to your throat If you > are a man of great appetite. 3 Do not desire his delicacies, For it is > deceptive food. -Even a man after God's own heart, King David,takes advantage of his powers as king in 2 Samuel 11 by sinfully committing adultery with a married woman, and then goes on to kill her husband. Now, it's certainly Not one-sided because the bible also indicates the faults of the subjects / voters / people: -The Judges 9 chapter's narrative is a good example of the volatile nature of the peoples / subjects behaviour towards their leaders. Judges 9:2-4 show how Abimelech convinced the people of Shechem to follow him, but then as time goes by, it mentions in Judges 9:23 that Shechem's people later turned against Abimelech. -Absalom's handsome features are referenced in the 2 Samuel 14:25 bible verse, and with his charisma he (2 Samuel 15:6) "stole away the hearts of the men of Israel". The use of the word (2 Samuel 15:6) "stole" has a negative connotation that suggests how the people can mistakenly be so enamoured by the image of their leaders as opposed to the leader's actions and policies which is the actual substance. -Furthermore, 2 Samuel 15:10-11's recounts the events just before Absalom's attempted coup against King David which states that the followers of Absalom "went innocently, and they did not know anything." Essentially, 2 Samuel 15:10-11 is evidence that the people can easily be swayed to do the will of a leader who is handsome, charismatic and charming. Acts 12:21-23 is a great example in the New Testament that shows the dangerously complex relationship between leaders and people because the people mistakenly say that King Herod was a god, and King Herod Fails to give the Glory to God, and therefore, an angel of God killed King Herod. To conclude, as (1 Timothy 2:1-2) states, it is important for people to pray for their leaders but at the same time people should cautiously view their worldly leaders. (As a side Note, an interesting leader who showed some good leadership qualities was Queen Elizabeth II who worked behind the scenes to fight the South African government's apartheid which sugges that she did Not do it for the popularity or fame: ----------------( Credit Reference: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/crown-season-4-did-queen-elizabeth-ii-margaret-thatcher-get-n1247289 )----------------- > Nonetheless, Elizabeth has been credited with using her influence to > pressure the South African government over its institutionalized > racist segregation. Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, for > instance, has described her as a "behind-the-scenes force" in helping > to bring an end to South African apartheid."Did she work behind the > scenes in the case of South Africa to offer encouragement to Nelson > Mandela? Yes," Smith said. "But she did it by using her soft power. > She never was in a confrontational situation with Margaret Thatcher." ----------------( Credit Reference: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/crown-season-4-did-queen-elizabeth-ii-margaret-thatcher-get-n1247289 )----------------- To conclude, as (1 Timothy 2:1-2) states, it is important for people to pray for their leaders but at the same time people should cautiously view their worldly leaders. Would the aforementioned evaluation be correct?