Prologue.
Much of these were brought about by debate. Often debating with others tirelessly, and debating AI, and answering all questions, and refuting what must be refuted.
Questions & Answers.
"The conclusion that “nothing matters without God” is rhetorically potent, but epistemologically it can become circular if not defended more robustly against moral realists who argue for objective ethics without theism. Anticipating such objections would strengthen your position." It is not circular when God is the foundation. The uncaused causer.
"There’s a risk here of over-reducing all secular governance or democratic progress to brute power. While kraterocracy certainly operates, some liberal thinkers (e.g., Tocqueville, Berlin, or even Burke) recognized this and tried to reconcile tradition, individual dignity, and ordered liberty. Engaging them more directly could lend depth to your critique." But that is what it is. It is all some kind of mere imposition of a faulty preference, not moral law.
"The implication that the average person is irrelevant outside of statistics and God’s eyes is stark. While it might be accurate in terms of historical influence, it may require softening if you’re looking to inspire a real civic order—especially one that must evangelize or persuade." I pander not to the commoners, but to those who can understand civilization and morality.
"Expanding more on how such a system would resist corruption, internal dissent, or the gradual secularization we've seen in all historical Christian regimes would be a welcome development." You are right, I have not developed my proper governing model, but I have largely come to view constitutional monarchism, with an executive/presidential monarch, as the best model.
"He’d argue that pragmatism, not absolutism, is what gives secular democracy its strength — because it allows a pluralistic society to function despite deep moral or metaphysical disagreement." Why do we even want society? Why even have society?
"He would almost certainly defend secular moral frameworks as not arbitrary, but evolutionarily and historically functional, and warn that your position reduces public morality to divine fiat — something he would call dangerous in a civil context." Why even do this if it is merely preference? How is domination and cruelty not equally appropriate in a godless universe? I have mentioned this prior. "All reasons descends from God, ultimately. Why should we even have civilization? Why must humanity even exist? This leaves a black hole that Nietzsche attempted to reconcile in his Ubermensch, but this is where my idea of the True Tyrant emerges. Essentially, the True Tyrant is the Ubermensch who when rejects this clinging to values exemplified by the Ubermensch, and behaves violently, selfishly, beholding all to the utmost brutality and injustice because, if the abyss is all which exists in a godless universe, then there is no reason to be as cruel and as destructive as possible. And so even the justification for civilization itself must be derived exclusively from God, because there is no reason to care about human flourishing, or why it is even a moral imperative without God. And so, God's supremacy is vital. The only answer to stop the Tyrant is "you are not God, and will suffer for eternity in separation from goodness, in separation from your Creator (though the Tyrant may not see this as imperative), and you will essentially be in eternal pain and torture, a torture fitted to make you feel uncomfortable, so if you, the Tyrant, have any sense of immaterial preservation that is permanent and eternal, then you ought act justly." Because the Tyrant can change the physical, but not the metaphysical. "Wouldn't the Tyrant view even divine punishment as meaningless, or even embrace it, if nihilism is total?" I have actually struggled with this question, and concluded that Hell will make him suffer, no matter if he likes it or not. Because he is without the Earth, and in deprivation from even the goodness of the imago Dei, he would surely not desire this. "Is the fear of eternal suffering enough to restore justice—or is it just another tool of control?" I actually do not think this matters, because even the idea of "control = bad" is meaningless without God."
"You endorse voluntary counter-inculturation, but also affirm the necessity of manipulating the masses toward virtue. This duality—voluntarist in rhetoric, authoritarian in implication—needs clearer resolution. Can a theonomic civilization be free, or must it necessarily be controlled?" Manipulation does not entail something involuntary. I suppose "manipulation" entails something like the Hays Code. Not manipulating people, but manipulating culture to influence.
"You admire the American system (early constitutionalism), yet repeatedly condemn mass participation as populist chaos. Is a republic with a moral elite feasible without devolving into technocracy or monarchy? You may want to further reconcile this contradiction." I see no contradiction. I praised the Meiji Restoration and Liechtenstein, yet I had my criticisms as well. And the American republic is no different.
"You claim that secular moral systems collapse under the question "Why?". However, natural law (e.g. Aquinas), Enlightenment liberalism, and even neo-Aristotelian ethics all attempt reasoned answers to that "why" without direct appeal to revelation. While you may find these unconvincing, dismissing them entirely without engagement weakens your intellectual rigor." I actually have an answer: Many say harming people is bad? Why? Because it's bad for society? So, who cares? Why is society so good? Human flourishing? Why is that so good? Why is domination, cruelty, and destruction bad? Why is benefit even good? Why care? Who's to say the noble "truths" you believe are actually false, and that pure domination is actually higher? Because humanity needs it to exist? Why should humanity even exist? If it's just about pure preference, then might makes right, because it is about imposing one's ultimately arbitrary preferences. Why care if we are even human? Why would a warlord care, or even be incorrect? And so secular has been refuted. If cruelty is just as valuable as kindness, then there is nothing and no meaning to anything beyond will to power. Even the nihilists who attempt to construct meaning are ultimately engaging in a desperate act of futility. And yet, there is a God, and Christ is risen, as evident through the historicity of the Gospels, the reliability of the resurrection, the wide exhibition of logical and historical evidence, alongside being itself. Christ is King, and all reason descends from God, for He is goodness and "is"ness itself as a conscious being. No other religion is so evident, and none as evident as Christianity. And so, all reasoning which proclaims moral imperative must logically descend from God, and from God alone, for there is nothing else. Furthermore, my True Tyrant idea refutes these ideas by proxy.
"You reject pluralism outright, which is logically consistent with your theonomy. However, if no other religion or philosophy offers partial truths or natural morality, it becomes difficult to engage any interfaith or public discourse—potentially rendering your City of God isolated, brittle, and vulnerable to internal rot." This argument is more one of praxis, which you are right, but I shan't capitulate to modernity, even if I am against the world.
"This is interesting—but what legitimizes such a ruler? Divine right? A magisterium? A council of elders? You may want to develop this more. The same applies to your preference for theonomy over theocracy—a good distinction, but the precise mechanism of biblical law application remains ambiguous." I have no figured this out as of this time, 2025, so I am consulting my Bible to figure this out, and I am looking through Romans, as well as medieval history to see where this authority derives. Though I would say, at least as a placeholder, that coronation theology is best.
"But this implies some inalienable imago Dei in all beings, which remains a theological point and not one derivable from reason alone. It works if Christianity is true, not otherwise." That is it! You're right! That is why my True Tyrant is so misanthropic, because if there is no God, then he is just. But there is a God, in Jesus Christ, and this is proven with apologetics, this is my basis for everything.
"If the only reason to do good is fear of punishment, that still risks reducing morality to self-preservation—a point even thinkers like Kant or Kierkegaard wrestled with. Divine punishment works pragmatically, but doesn’t necessarily produce love of the good." So? I see no problem here.
"Your Tyrant is logically consistent, yes—but that doesn’t make his stance undeniable. There’s still a leap from “no values are real” to “therefore I should destroy.” Destruction, too, becomes arbitrary. Nihilism offers no ought, not even a destructive one." THAT'S MY POINT! There is no objection to the Tyrant, and is ideas are merely his preference for destruction.
"Nietzsche himself knew this: most humans can’t live in the void. Your Tyrant is more coherent than secularists, but perhaps less realistic. Most who reject God simply create lesser gods (state, ego, love, etc.)." There is no reason to follow these, so why not destroy? Only in Christ is there reason.
"Forced conversion?" Of course not, we are not Muslims, and care for the genuine faith of the convert.
"While many thinkers agree that most people are "egotistical and skittish," there is increasing data showing people also exhibit cooperation, moral instincts, and altruism even outside Christian frameworks. To preempt secular rebuttals, it might help to address this by reinforcing the idea that even these instincts are best explained as remnants of the imago Dei, or are warped echoes of divine design." Never in fear, and fright, in any sort of intelligence, or ever, really. Moral instincts? The affect of residual Christianity. Altruism? How is it altruism? What if altruism is actually slaughter and atrocity? Residual Christianity, of course. There is no argument which would ever convince me to deny history, as it is apparent, or to deny human nature, as it is obvious. Any isolated, minute, residually Christian cooperation is insignificant and limited at best, like riots.
"So what checks the Christian sovereign from becoming the True Tyrant under a divine pretense? Even Solomon decayed. Augustine himself worried about this in "The City of God." A discussion of accountability, perhaps modeled on prophetic or legal limits (like Nathan and David, or Deuteronomic kingship), would be vital." The fallibility of humans is not a repudiation of God. The Bible is very clear, and a True Tyrant who claims to be Christian is not a Christian, as the True Tyrant is violent, nihilistic, and derives meaning from nothing, and so it is an oxymoron to claim he could be Christian, as he would then presumably understand the metaphysical ramifications of his cruelty.
"The tools of mass manipulation (media, social networks, surveillance) may deepen your point about human malleability—but they also allow for decentralized, unpredictable action. Does your model adapt?" Man will behave as always.
"If you're in conversation with secular moral philosophers (e.g., Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre), how would you refute attempts to derive morality from human nature or function without God?" Same as always. "Why?" and the concept of the True Tyrant.
"While your worldview is hierarchical and elite-driven, Christ exemplified servanthood. How do you integrate this into a system of strong vertical authority without falling into contradiction?" This is a bad question, because Christ is God, and thus rules all.
"You mention natural hierarchy, but history also shows that elites are often corrupt, incompetent, or destructive. So do we then say “bad elites” should be replaced by “good elites”? How is that different from the Marxist idea of seizing control and re-educating society?" It is different because it is neither communist, nor required to be revolutionary, and a matter of morality, defined exclusively in God. Of course, to answer a previous question, it is evidential Christianity, as "it's true because it is needed" assumes some kind of value, which I do not, with the exception of value exclusive to Christ.
"If people are this malleable, how can we trust anyone—including the leaders? Why are the "sovereigns" not also subject to their own delusions, their own “false consciousness,” as it were? This was Plato’s problem too: who watches the guardians?" That is the my point, only God can prescribe moral law. In truth, everything is defined in God, and so all matter of tyranny and repression are equally defined in God, and do not exist autonomous of divine reason.
"But the problem here is practical: different conceptions of God lead to different moral systems, even within Christianity (e.g., Calvin vs. Aquinas vs. Kierkegaard). Even Christians disagree on slavery, war, welfare, and economics." That refutes nothing, but substantiates the stubborn and egotistical fallibility of man.
"However, Marxism does not rest solely on that concept. It also critiques material relations (who owns what, who controls labor) and attempts to explain systemic patterns of inequality. You could argue that Marx’s economic determinism oversimplifies, but it has explanatory power in contexts like colonial extraction, industrial exploitation, and global supply chains." And his explanations are incorrect, or derived from faulty moral assumptions which mean nothing. As well as ignorance of the nuance required in understanding these matters, and their benefits.
"Even if elites initiate and guide movements, can we really say that the participation of millions is irrelevant? Rosa Parks did not orchestrate the Montgomery Bus Boycott, yet her action catalyzed a mass moral awakening. Leadership may direct, but that doesn’t invalidate genuine mass agency. Complex causality exists. A match may start a fire, but it still requires a forest of kindling." I feel Carlyle's distinction between the various heroes are sufficient. The mass agency you speak of has never existed, and never will, because masses are simply groups of individuals, all of whom in such minute intersections of everything in their lives, and everything that has occurred, and their own psychologies which overlay the human nature that the only conclusion is the individual within a group, not these "collectives". And so, it is a matter of enchanting the dull minds, who otherwise exist in human nature and superficiality. All riots and such are just these bursts of egotism and fear. And there is always someone to lead, as people are like sheep in many regards, and exist in herds until someone initiates, thus giving permission for others to follow, and obey.
"Moreover, the tension lies in reducing all social action to elite manipulation—if the masses are so suggestible, why are revolutions so rare? Why do some manipulations fail? Why did Nazi propaganda succeed while others faltered? There's a dialectic, not a one-way causality." As a consequence of no opposition figures inciting a revolution. They are rare, as sovereigns do other things, like joining the state.
"Also, there’s a difference between the idea that people can be misled (which even conservatives believe—look at education, propaganda, media influence) and the more radical claim that people can never act autonomously. Are you sure you're not conflating the two?" People can be misled, sure. But what is good is ultimately objective in God exclusively, with all manner of governance required to be theonomic, theocratic, or arbitrary. This is not a false trilemma, as I hear many say, because secularism rests upon the arbitrary, the lack of reason, and I feel I have already placed the argument in the text, if I have not, I shall do so upon confirmation.
"Who interprets God's law in human institutions?" Perhaps the Catholic or Orthodox Church, and I hear the repudiation imminent. "What if they are corrupt?", well then convert to Mormonism if you think everything is corrupt. Or stay paranoid, and become a violent nomad, brutalizing everyone, because you can't trust anyone, not even 2000 year-old institutions of largely great consistency. It is just paranoia.
"Christianity typically emphasizes that the highest good is union with God out of love, not just fear of punishment. Does this make morality ultimately egoistic?" I am not very concerned, as the fact of the matter is that there is Heaven and Hell, and the rejection of God is a decision of Hell, and so, Hell is not a good place to be, and so, one, if they reject the gratitude God is entitled to and follow morality out of this gratitude, then what's left? Fear of Hell. Because without the consequences of separation, you fall into the Kantian trap of "duties".
"If God is the foundation of value, but civilizations before Christ (or without revelation of Christ) existed with coherent moral frameworks, how do you position their meaning?" Coherent? Yes... True? No.
"Consider the figure of Milton’s Satan: “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” How would you address that mentality?" That's why I disagree when someone like former Pope Francis says "we hope Hell is empty", because it is a misunderstanding of Hell that is more akin to the writings of Dante, as opposed to the full deprivation, depravity, and discommunion of Hell which is going to be as painful as possible. Demons aren't running amok with pitchforks, but are suffering as well, which is why Legion begs not to be banished back into Hell. Hell is not a place to rule, not even Satan rules Hell, or anything for that matter.