The argument is for the same exact thing. I have not gone off topic. If you take the time to read what I wrote I literally tore apart your reasoning piece by piece. Again The Roman etymology of the word dictator is not relevant only the definition of the word is relevant. Ask anyone who speaks English.

Now reading your response you seem to be saying rather then the “majority” of Christians believing that god is a dictator, instead a good number of Christians believe it and a good number of Christians don’t believe it. This makes your initial statement of me being ignorant quite disingenuous as a good number of Christians agree with my statement. You could’ve just stated that the issue was controversial rather then call ignorance on me and basically all Christians who share that viewpoint.

> I'm sorry, but again, this is a complex theological question that many Christian thinkers have weighed in on over the years. It's really not the kind of issue one can solve in a HN comment and your constant "if you don't prove it now, you're wrong" is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. It isn't that simple.

Why are you apologizing all the time? What are you sorry for? A complex theological issue doesn’t exclude it from being discussed on HN. There’s no rule excluding complex subjects from being discussed, in fact I would argue the theme of HN is complex technical topics.

Also you just brought up “ignorance” and associated with the words “if you don’t prove it now, you’re wrong.” This is ironic because it displays ignorance and shows you didn’t read my previous reply where I literally say it doesn’t mean you’re wrong it just means you failed to prove that you’re not wrong. The possibility of being right remains but you have just failed to show anything at this point in time.

Now to address your Wikipedia links (which is another dubious source along the lines of “googling things” by your own misguided reasoning). “Render unto Caesar” and “Divine right of kings” are just referring to human kings it does not elucidate the meaning of the word “king” or “lord” when applied to god. The “Names of God in Christianity” article is actually referring to the name of “god” not his “title,” similar to how “Mr. President” is not Biden’s name. The main point here is “what is God’s title?” in the context of “god is king,” and therefore since none of these links are referring to that topic, all these links are off topic.

Overall you haven’t found any references to an opposing meaning to the word “king” in “god is king” you have stated the issue is complex meaning that people have opposing views on the matter. Either way, It’s a safe bet that in the context of the proverb, the colloquial definition is the most likely definition given the absence of other interpretations.

I think your use of the word “complex” hides some systemic issues here. The complexity of an issue doesn’t preclude a yes or no answer. If god existed and if we asked him whether or not he was a dictator he would give us a yes or no answer because the query was a yes or no question. In essence the argument boils down to what “people” think gods answer to this question will be, this is where obscurity, conflict and lack of information creates artificial complexity, so we have to deal with fuzzy probabilities.

I have shown you plenty of sources of Christians who do think the words “king” imply “dictator” you have failed to even show me one Christian who has an opposing view point. The probabilities lean in favor of me, but the complexity still remains. You still have opportunity show me a single Christian who defines the word “king” in “god is king” as something other then “dictator.” You can even show me an interpretation of that word where the viewer calls it controversial. As long as no other viewpoint exists the colloquial definition of the word “king” is the most likely and reasonable meaning at this point in time.

This does not make you wrong. Under the scientific method anything is subject to disproof at anytime and nothing can be proven in actuality. The “complexities” you describe are an intrinsic part of reality and every topic in existence is subject to differing interpretations. Therefore a “winner” in any debate is the only the person that produces the most probable answer because definitive answers don’t exist in reality.

In this case the most probabl answer is the answer with the most evidence or sources.

Again, given your lack of evidence the colloquial definition of the word “king” in “god is king” is the most likely the answer god would give himself. I acknowledge the possibility of controversy but such evidence has not been presented yet.

Complexity is a well used debate tactic and much of it has been used in defense of cigarettes and global warming to make the core issues less evident. You may have a feeling that I’m wrong but until you can cut through the complexity and delve into core issues here I feel you are just unconsciously using complexity as a defense tactic because you yourself are unable to fully decode and categorize the branches within this topic. There’s an easy way to identify if this in fact what you are unconsciously doing.

There is a finite set of viewpoints on a topic and if you can’t label the total amount of viewpoints with an actual number it means that you yourself have a fuzzy view of the topic. Try it... what are all the possible academic viewpoints on what it means for god to be king? In your lifetime the amount of opinions you’ve encountered should be countable, ballpark 10 at most and 3 on average.