What's better? To rule with an iron fist or with mercy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My opinion is that it’s better to rule with mercy, that way you get the respect and devotion of your constituency. Which makes the iron fist less necessary.

God is merciful. It’s our actions that invite “the fist” as you so eloquently say. 😉
 
I suppose it depends on whether the OP is referring to God’s rule or the rule of men.

God rules both with mercy and with an iron fist.

Mercy - Hebrews 4:15 (ASV) -
Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need.
Click to expand...
God has granted us mercy through the death of His Son.

The Iron Fist - Matthew 5:18 NIV -
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Click to expand...
Not one ounce of the moral law will be rescinded before the end of all things. We might think we can break them, but we’re only kidding ourselves. We’ll answer for “every useless word” according to Christ.

In the case of rule by men, we can’t be trusted as dictators. The Magna Carta, which underpins much of our democratic way of life, after centuries of slow and painful development, didn’t come about because the nobles were good men. It came about because King John was such a bad one.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magna Carta (Latin for “the Great Charter”), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Latin for “the Great Charter of the Liberties”), is a charter agreed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.[a] First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons’ War. After John’s death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes; his son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England’s statute law.
Click to expand...
If the above paragraph is correct, it took a further 81 years to be regarded as part of England’s statue law, after both sides disregarded their commitments, and it took a war to get it back on the table.

All part of being in a fallen world.

We don’t have democracy because we’re all so good and wise that we deserve a say in the government of the country. We have a democratic set of checks and balances - parliament, police / military and judiciary - because we can’t be trusted.
 
Why 2 extremes?

Mercy without justice is weakness. Justice without mercy is tyranny. The way God is described in the Bible tells us that He is neither. He is neither a grumpy old hard-hearted tyrant sitting on a cloud with a handful of lightning bolts waiting to strike you dead, nor is He a squishy moral relativist in a tie-dyed shirt with a blunt telling you to do whatever you want because it’s all just like your opinion, man.

If you are asking which method of rule is better for humans to take, I say take God’s approach, while understanding that we aren’t Him and cannot be trusted with absolute power.
 
Right now we are in the Age of Mercy, because God “is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:7). However, the time of the iron fist (well, more accurately, iron rod) is coming (Rev. 12:5, 19:15).
 
Bill_Martin said:
Why 2 extremes?

Mercy without justice is weakness. Justice without mercy is tyranny. The way God is described in the Bible tells us that He is neither. He is neither a grumpy old hard-hearted tyrant sitting on a cloud with a handful of lightning bolts waiting to strike you dead, nor is He a squishy moral relativist in a tie-dyed shirt with a blunt telling you to do whatever you want because it’s all just like your opinion, man.
Click to expand...
I just got an image of Tommy Chong in a halo saying to sinners, “Duuude, you are *so *harshing my Divine Mellow…”
 
souldiver said:
Ruling a country or a small group. Why? Because the subject is a leader.
Click to expand...
Are you elected, a hereditary ruler, or have you seized power by force?

What are your goals for your “constituency?”

What are your goals for yourself as elected/hereditary/revolutionary leader??
 
triumphguy said:
Are you elected, a hereditary ruler, or have you seized power by force?

What are your goals for your “constituency?”

What are your goals for yourself as elected/hereditary/revolutionary leader??
Click to expand...
Just a leader in general of a country or a smaller group.
 
souldiver said:
What’s your opinion? How does it go with Christianity?
Click to expand...
He should rule with both. With an Iron Fist when it is best for the good of his country, and mercy when it is best. Whatever is more loving should be used, charity preferable, and by strength when needed…hard love.
 
fred_conty said:
He should rule with both. With an Iron Fist when it is best for the good of his country, and mercy when it is best. Whatever is more loving should be used, charity preferable, and by strength when needed…hard love.
Click to expand...
You actually believe this?

So should Obama rule with an iron fist for the good of the country?

I think what people mean when they say a ruler should rule “With an Iron Fist when it is best for the good of his country” is actually “When the ruler agrees with my opinion he should rule with an Iron Fist when it is best for the good of his country”
 
souldiver said:
What’s your opinion? How does it go with Christianity?
Click to expand...
The one who rules with an iron fist still has the “Child with the rod of iron” to contend with. Basically, the Lord, this child, rules with All-mercy. There is none that can stand before Jesus with an iron fist. Like Jesus says, He who hath in hand, more shall be given. And he who hath not, the little he has shall be taken away from him.
 
triumphguy said:
You actually believe this?

So should Obama rule with an iron fist for the good of the country?

I think what people mean when they say a ruler should rule “With an Iron Fist when it is best for the good of his country” is actually “When the ruler agrees with my opinion he should rule with an Iron Fist when it is best for the good of his country”
Click to expand...
It was assumed the discussion was about some decent person not a Hitler. In that case mercy would not even arise and there wouldn’t be a discussion.

May the Lord be good to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top