King of Kings
Even though the people of Israel were under the leadership of the almighty God, they were not pleased. They wanted a human king, someone fallible and imperfect to lead them. Even then, God was forgiving and appointed a human king over them. As I intend to prove, kingship was not a good thing for the nation of Israel because kings were corrupt and sinful. They imposed harsh labors and laws on the people who followed them. But most importantly, by having a king, they were turning their backs on God. There were a few benefits that came from having a king, but these proved to be an illusion.
Many will argue that a king was good for Israel. Proponents for a king argue that kings brought political stability to the country. By imposing taxes and labors, they argue that the economic stability of the country was established. A king would unite all the tribes of Israel into a single country under his leadership. A human king was someone whom all the people could approach and talk to, whereas God only appeared to a select few people.
While David was king over Israel, the kingdom reached its peak in territory and conquests. He captured the strongholds of Zion and Jerusalem; 2 cities which held great importance to the people of Israel. Solomon, with the knowledge God gave him, was perhaps the wisest man of his time. He was a great arbiter of justice and the depths of his knowledge amazed all who came to seek his counsel. A king was also the leader of the army and would lead his troops into battle. Even though these were beneficial aspects of having a king, they did not overcome the negative aspects of kingship.
I will argue that having a king was bad for the nation of Israel. I will refute the arguments that supporters of a king. Even though the Israelites made many territorial conquests under the leadership of King David, these gains would only be temporary. They would later lose much of the lands they gained. David, though he was a good king, also sinned against God. He coveted another’s wife and indirectly had her husband killed. Even though Solomon was wise, all his wisdom could not prevent him from sinning against God. A king and his reign are not permanent. A good king may sit on the throne, but he will die, and the king who follows him may not be a good king at all.
...rule of Amenemhet. He was responsible for rebuilding democracy, staff of scribes and administrations. He used propaganda literature to reinforce his position as king. The Egyptians pictured him as a good shepherd opposed to inaccessible god. Ammon was given prominise over other gods. His kingdom became extremely powerful. He established trades with foreign land and formed a standing Army and built forts on the southern frontier.
From the beginning of his life as a warrior to the end as a king, he gains and develops glory, responsibility and courage, all vital to his reign as a successful king.
In Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech” and Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg address,” the two men employ rhetorical strategies in order to show the public the need for a better world. Two men from different backgrounds and different times both advocate for equality. Although Abraham wrote the Gettysburg Address way before Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech, the two speeches are connected through semantics and rhetoric. King and Lincoln both use the same strategies in the making of their speeches. A hundred years and about three wars fall between the two speeches and yet they still are advocating for the same thing in a similar way.
Self-preservation is the most fundamental desire in humans. Without laws or governance no one would be able to tell how or how not to try to stay alive. Hobbes argues that all humans are by nature equal in body and mind; therefore, everyone is naturally willing to fight each other if needed to. Every person has a natural right to do anything that they think is necessary for preserving their own life. For example: If in order for you to stay alive means you must shoot your friends who have become sick by a contagious plague, then that is the means necessary for your own self-preservation. Shooting your friends to protect your own life is not seen an unjust act. According to Hobbes, there is no room for morality because in a state of nature there is no space for the unjust. Everything is somehow justifiable. Hobbes calls this the Natural Right of Liberty. Furthermore, anything can be seen as a necessity in order to preserve one’s life. For example: If one doesn’t eat, then they won’t have enough sustenance which could then lead to death due to starvation. Eating is seen as a necessity needed to take in order to preserve ...
Thomas Hobbes derived his theories by concluding that man in and of itself was evil. In addition, he felt that if left without a government authority, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short". In a direct result of the evilness of man comes the theory that self-preservation is the most imperative component of life. At all costs, one must uphold this right and do whatever is necessary to preserve it. Because every man in a state of nature can be based on one theory, it creates a state of equal mentality. If one man basis life around self-preservation, so will the next. With a society being in this perpetual condition, it creates a state of war. One man against all others—all equal in ability regardless of size or intelligence due to circumstances and willpower that can always level the playing field.
Overall Hobbes believes that a state without government is a state fueled with distrust and war, where people will fight for power, gain, safety and reputation. In the state of nature life is a self-propelling war powered by fear. ThSe only way to reach a state of peace, according to Hobbes is to work in unity under a sovereign who will punish those who stray from the Laws of Nature.
artistic vision can account for King's journey out of the Mississippi Delta, through the roadhouse joints of
As king, the pharaoh had many duties that were civic and religious. The people saw him as the living Horus and the son of Ra. They believed only pharaoh could sacrifice to the gods and only the pharaoh could appoint the priests to serve the gods in his place. The people believed that he became Osiris after death and would continue to help his people in the afterlife. Pharaoh was the commander-in-chief of the army and the highest judge in the land. The people saw the pharaoh as essential for keeping their lives in balance and keeping harmony in Egypt. His rule was absolute.
King James I was best known for keeping peace between Scotland and England. He was a well liked King because he made sure there were no wars. King James did not tax the people in his country as much as
noble birth and he had a lot of responsibility in his kingdom. He is looked up to by most for leadership and guidance.
Chinese people might find naming their religion challenging as it is a mixture of “traditional religion, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism” (Corduan, 2012, p.388). The Chinese Popular Religion continues to evolve and change as the world around it changes and outside influences enter the Chinese culture (Corduan, 2012). Investigation of the Chinese Popular Religion includes its key features, practices, and influences, along with tis role in contemporary China, and how Christians can enhance their interactions.
He was obedient, wise and just (1 Kings 4:29-34). He is credited with building the great temple of worship to God (1 Kings 6:2). Finally Israel had a permanent place to offer sacrifice, worship and receive atonement. In 1 Kings 3:13-14, God promised Solomon wealth and honor, he would have no equal. And if he kept God’s decrees and commands as his father David, God promised long life. King Solomon is known as the wisest and wealthiest king in ancient times (1 Kings 4:31). Nevertheless, he did not walk as his father David or God walked. His sin not only caused his downfall but led to the divided kingdom, the kingdom that David had unified only decades ago. Solomon sinned against God by having foreign wives. In his video lesson Hindson points out that, out of Solomon’s allegiance and love for his foreign wives he allowed foreign gods to be worshiped in his kingdom. The worship of the false gods led to materialism which eventually devoured the heart and soul of the people. Solomon’s sin was more grievous that David’s because Solomon did not repent, out of his abundance he failed to give the glory to
From Hobbes’ ideas of human nature and the laws of nature, he is able to theoretically develop a political regime that is formed though the covenants of the people, people who choose to relinquish their rights to a leader or assembly of leaders and assume that their authority will benefit them on their behalf. Due to humans’ violent nature Hobbes feels that a king can best keep the peace. The majority of his argument holds true, but does not take into account human weakness.
Law of nature is a general rule that is discovered through reason. According to Hobbes, humans’ basic instict is survive and protect his life so they should seek peace. Due to that, first law of nature is the most important one is, to seek peace and follow it. The second, giving up some rights, reciprocity to defend. By all means we can defend ourselves. This mutual transferring of rights is called social contract and its basis of the notion of moral obligation. F...
His role in the future was leadership. He was destined to save a nation that had been oppressed by the leadership of Pharoah (Hebrew Bible) / Firaun (Quran). For this reason, God protected him from all the many challenges that came his way in order for him to become a great prophet and leader he turned out to be (Exodus 2).