BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: RandyPNW on March 26, 2022, 01:00:30 AM
-
I do believe that in the Millennium, Christian states will be restored. And we should declare a Gospel of what "should be," and not what we think cannot be.
If you are speaking of the thousand years that Jesus will reign on earth, I seriously doubt that there will be such a thing as "Christian states". There will be nothing but Christians on earth during that period. At least, that's how I understand it.
I speak of a Christian Theocracy, using the term "theocracy" in a guarded way, knowing that today the sense of theocracies is often autocratic and abusive. But I believe Israel was God's original theocratic state, and meant to pass on the sense of theocracy to many nations, to Christian nations.
A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.
The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy. A Christian Theocracy can take many forms, from autocratic to very tolerant, from highly theological to largely moral. The US allowed for a high level of theological tolerance, but adhered mostly to the idea of a Christian public with a pretty well established morality.
This morality, however, has changed, and deteriorated, due to the allowance of theological and religious freedom. The country is much less a Christian State now than it was at first.
We can't really reestablish a more strictly-Christian State again, since we already let the cat out of the bag. We may experience Christian revivals, but I doubt we can go back to doctrinaire Christianity, since it would lead to civil war, or to social disorder to the extreme.
I happen to be in favor of the Christian State, regardless of how possible it is to go back there now. It is part of the Gospel of God's Kingdom. God does not play games with theological liberty, and He doesn't make room for counterfeit Gods. He states the truth and gives us enough liberty to hang ourselves, if that's what we want to do.
I recommend you read "The Light and the Glory," by Peter Marshall and David Manuel. Or, I suggest you read my link here: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1754/6613/files/03-28_Justice_David_Josiah_Brewer_7d79e4ab-187d-4d7b-8268-4a06999f0c5d.pdf?v=1634887890
I do understand that the common notion today of a theocracy involves authority vested in a religious ruler that is autocratic by nature. However, I'm using a nuanced view of a Christian Theocracy, the equivalent of "Christian State."
I do this to point out the common lines between Christian theology and Christian morality, between Christian politics and religion. These really are one and the same, the politics and the religion, even though there are distinct classes of rule in the State government and in the Church government.
There is a difference between Secularism and Secular Rule. When the States of Europe were more Christian, the secular rulers were simply Christian politicians. Ecclesiastical rulers ruled over their sphere of influence, which was in the churches. But the Christian religion permeated the whole State, the secular rulers ruling with Christian morals and theological underpinnings in mind.
-
A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.
The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy.
No, it wasn't.
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Constitution, Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."
-
A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.
The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy.
No, it wasn't.
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Constitution, Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."
Doesn't address the issue within the parameters that I defined a Christian Theocracy as. The U.S., as the link shows you, indicates it was a *Christian country.* This is, I think, beyond dispute, even though clearly there were non-Christians who were tolerated and equally accepted as US citizens.
A Christian Theocracy can tolerate non-Christian minorities, as long as they embrace the accepted morality. Jews who believe in the Law of God should have had no problem with that, and apparently did not. After all, Christianity is based on the Law of God.
This form of Christian Theocracy did not want to establish a particular Church denomination, nor even a particular Religion. Not establishing the Christian State legally was, I think, a mistake. As I showed you, some US leaders acknowledged the US was a Christian State nonetheless.
But a Christian country was expected to elect Christian leaders by free choice, since it was acknowledged that the vast majority of the population was Christian. And as such, the political leaders were largely Christian, and reinforced Christian law by applying Christian morality as the inspiration for their legislation.
Both Democrats and Republican leaders still do that today. Democrats tend to draw upon the Bible for their laws of compassion towards minorities and workers. And Republicans tend to draw upon the Bible for their sense of distrust for political leaders and less government.
The vast majority of them would not draw upon the Koran for their inspiration. Even agnostics would likely acknowledge that Christian cultural values inspired Western laws, though their interest primarily has been in liberalizing them even further.
-
Many, including myself, scoff at the merest notion that this particularly horrible bastion of institutionally based slavery ownership was rooted in Christianity.
-
Doesn't address the issue within the parameters that I defined a Christian Theocracy as. The U.S., as the link shows you, indicates it was a *Christian country.* This is, I think, beyond dispute
Actually, it's not beyond dispute. We're disputing it right now. I present evidence that the founders did not want the state to be a theocracy and you say "read my link". Yes, not very compelling.
A Christian Theocracy can tolerate non-Christian minorities, as long as they embrace the accepted morality.
Accept the morality, or accept the laws? Those are two different things. In any case there is no idea of "tolerance of non-Christian minorities so long as they do such and such". There's tolerance for religious minorities. Period. Any non-Christian minorities have no special responsibilities that separate them from any other citizen.
This form of Christian Theocracy did not want to establish a particular Church denomination, nor even a particular Religion.
So we're a "Christian theocracy" that isn't even Christian. :o
Not establishing the Christian State legally was, I think, a mistake.
Ah. A shame, I suppose if you were one of the founders things might be different. Or perhaps not.
But a Christian country was expected to elect Christian leaders by free choice, since it was acknowledged that the vast majority of the population was Christian.
I think most Christians actually vote for the candidate who they think will best represent them. And again, there's that pesky line in Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."
Both Democrats and Republican leaders still do that today. Democrats tend to draw upon the Bible for their laws of compassion towards minorities and workers.
Yeah, not that I've noticed. They draw on their own inner feelings of guilt and God only knows what else, and it's a mess.
And Republicans tend to draw upon the Bible for their sense of distrust for political leaders and less government.
Not in the bible, sorry.
The vast majority of them would not draw upon the Koran for their inspiration. Even agnostics would likely acknowledge that Christian cultural values inspired Western laws, though their interest primarily has been in liberalizing them even further.
Actually the west is properly described as "Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman".
-
Many, including myself, scoff at the merest notion that this particularly horrible bastion of institutionally based slavery ownership was rooted in Christianity.
People need to know their place in a theocracy.
-
Doesn't address the issue within the parameters that I defined a Christian Theocracy as. The U.S., as the link shows you, indicates it was a *Christian country.* This is, I think, beyond dispute
Actually, it's not beyond dispute. We're disputing it right now. I present evidence that the founders did not want the state to be a theocracy and you say "read my link". Yes, not very compelling.
Again, I'm using "Christian Theocracy" as synonymous with "Christian country." Although I know this creates confusion I intentionally use the term "theocracy" because of the importance, I feel, for establishing the Christian State on the model of the old Hebrew State under the Law.
This is in contradistinction to an Islamic Theocracy, which I do not feel was inspired by God. Israel under the ancient Law, and Christian Nations are what I feel are legitimate "theocracies," inasmuch as the vast proportion of the country holds to the same religious standards and morality. And they are entirely justified in selecting leaders who are uncompromisingly in support of laws that sustain that common religion and its values.
A Christian Theocracy can tolerate non-Christian minorities, as long as they embrace the accepted morality.
Accept the morality, or accept the laws? Those are two different things. In any case there is no idea of "tolerance of non-Christian minorities so long as they do such and such". There's tolerance for religious minorities. Period. Any non-Christian minorities have no special responsibilities that separate them from any other citizen.
I disagree with you. Christianity assumes that people are in transition from God's original blueprint through spiritual contamination to sanctification, among those who are willing to make this change. To allow for the "contamination" stage, Christianity accepts that people have to be confronted with facts based on their own particular circumstances. One size does not fit all.
And so, Christianity can tolerate minorities who are not Christian but who do not threaten moral stability in the nation. I know what I'm talking about. I married my wife and her 2 kids. My step children were completely pagan, and I inherited them while they were already in their teens.
I had to let them choose their religion or not for themselves without allowing them to disrupt our home with all kinds of pagan practices. I could give you details, but why--they're better people today, and claim to be Christians.
The point is, for long periods of time, one or the other could live with us while they were young men without bringing their pagan practices into our home. When they could not resist indulging themselves they would have to move out.
I would not compare this to the Jewish experience in Christian countries because I believe that many times the Christian population was no better than pagans in their treatment of the Jewish People. They expelled them sometimes with false malicious accusations and without any sense of Christian love and compassion. These examples, however, do not mean this is Christianity. This just indicates how far a Christian State can fall with people who go the wrong way.
This form of Christian Theocracy did not want to establish a particular Church denomination, nor even a particular Religion.
So we're a "Christian theocracy" that isn't even Christian. :o
Yes, this is just like the Chosen People of Israel who did not always act like "God's People." See Hosea
I think most Christians actually vote for the candidate who they think will best represent them. And again, there's that pesky line in Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."
True.
Both Democrats and Republican leaders still do that today. Democrats tend to draw upon the Bible for their laws of compassion towards minorities and workers.
Yeah, not that I've noticed. They draw on their own inner feelings of guilt and God only knows what else, and it's a mess.
I have a hard time listening to Nancy Pelosi quote from the Bible.
And Republicans tend to draw upon the Bible for their sense of distrust for political leaders and less government.
Not in the bible, sorry.
I find it in the Bible in God's words to Samuel and to the Hebrews of his time, when He decried their wish for a more oppressive government less like God and more like the corrupt people. That, for me, is in essence the Republican argument against Big Government.
It's inherently flawed. The bigger it is, the more corrupt it gets. The bigger it grows, the more partisan it becomes, the more taxes it charges, the more people become dependent, etc. etc.
The only protection against an excessively-big and corrupt government is the Constitution with its limitations on Big Government. Separation of the Government into several branches helps (ie checks and balances). But critically important in this are people who are willing to maintain an attitude of reform at all times, a watchfulness against the tyranny of corruption.
An oppressive Christian government can be as bad as any other form of oppressive government. But if an effort is made by many to maintain true godly standards and moral practices, such a government can be both tolerant and true to ideals that please God.
The vast majority of them would not draw upon the Koran for their inspiration. Even agnostics would likely acknowledge that Christian cultural values inspired Western laws, though their interest primarily has been in liberalizing them even further.
Actually the west is properly described as "Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman".
I can go with that. European Civilization is a mix of pre-Christian paganism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism.
-
Again, I'm using "Christian Theocracy" as synonymous with "Christian country." Although I know this creates confusion I intentionally use the term "theocracy" because of the importance, I feel, for establishing the Christian State on the model of the old Hebrew State under the Law.
But Christians are not "under the law". Paul is very clear on this. Christianity is a matter of faith and not deed. So a true "Christian Theocracy" has all the features of making sure that people are "believing the right thing" instead of "doing the right thing". The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.
This is in contradistinction to an Islamic Theocracy, which I do not feel was inspired by God.
That's because you are not a believer in Islam. Those who are do believe in their own theocratic states. And since you believe in theocracies, you are not one to tell them that they are wrong.
I disagree with you. Christianity assumes that people are in transition from God's original blueprint through spiritual contamination to sanctification, among those who are willing to make this change. To allow for the "contamination" stage, Christianity accepts that people have to be confronted with facts based on their own particular circumstances. One size does not fit all.
And so, Christianity can tolerate minorities who are not Christian but who do not threaten moral stability in the nation.
What you are describing is a state that has the ability to treat its citizens differently based on what their beliefs are. I don't know what country that is, but it isn't America.
I had to let them choose their religion or not for themselves without allowing them to disrupt our home with all kinds of pagan practices. I could give you details, but why--they're better people today, and claim to be Christians.
Yes, and your home is not a democracy with protections for people who think differently. But this country is. And thank God for that.
I would not compare this to the Jewish experience in Christian countries because I believe that many times the Christian population was no better than pagans in their treatment of the Jewish People. They expelled them sometimes with false malicious accusations and without any sense of Christian love and compassion. These examples, however, do not mean this is Christianity. This just indicates how far a Christian State can fall with people who go the wrong way.
Oh yeah no kidding. That's what happens when you have a state that doesn't protect religious minorities. You know, like the one you want to create here.
Yes, this is just like the Chosen People of Israel who did not always act like "God's People."
Nobody is making a case for a Jewish theocracy over other religions. On the other hand, you are making the case for a Christian theocracy. So yes, Christian behavior matters. A lot. And I don't think that Christians generally (no matter how much I like you guys personally) have made the case that they deserve to tell others how to live their religious lives.
I find it in the Bible in God's words to Samuel and to the Hebrews of his time, when He decried their wish for a more oppressive government less like God and more like the corrupt people. That, for me, is in essence the Republican argument against Big Government.
The Republican ideas against big government are utilitarian, not biblical. Samuel tells the Jews not to wish for a king because they already have one: God. Not because he's a small government conservative (which is a complete anachronism).
It's inherently flawed. The bigger it is, the more corrupt it gets. The bigger it grows, the more partisan it becomes, the more taxes it charges, the more people become dependent, etc. etc.
Agree but as I said, this is a utilitarian idea and not a religious one.
An oppressive Christian government can be as bad as any other form of oppressive government. But if an effort is made by many to maintain true godly standards and moral practices, such a government can be both tolerant and true to ideals that please God.
Men are fallen, and so this is impossible. Power corrupts. Just look at the Catholic church. A big part of Luther's issues were the church's corruption. But somehow you think that if only "the right people" were running your theocratic state, everything would be fine.
I can go with that. European Civilization is a mix of pre-Christian paganism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism.
European Civilization is also Greek and Roman. Not their religious ideas, but their ideas on art and culture and science. Democracy is a Greek invention, not a Judeo Christian one. Same for freedom of speech. Same for harnessing the forces of nature to man's benefit. You do them a disservice by pretending that the only ideas in the world that matter come from the bible.
-
Again, I'm using "Christian Theocracy" as synonymous with "Christian country." Although I know this creates confusion I intentionally use the term "theocracy" because of the importance, I feel, for establishing the Christian State on the model of the old Hebrew State under the Law.
But Christians are not "under the law". Paul is very clear on this. Christianity is a matter of faith and not deed. So a true "Christian Theocracy" has all the features of making sure that people are "believing the right thing" instead of "doing the right thing". The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.
A few minutes ago you thanked me for instructing you in Jewish Law. And now you're instructing me in Christian Law? ;)
Christians have had a long debate over the role of law in the Christian life. I don't know that Catholics or the Orthodox have ever denied the role of "law," generically, in following the example of Christ. For one, to follow Christ itself is a kind of "law." And two, to be like Christ is to follow a "lawful lifestyle," not engaging in vices, crimes, and sins.
So when Paul argues that we are not, as Christians, under the Law, he is arguing that we are not under the covenant of Moses' Law. The same principles of righteousness remain, albeit in a more fulfilled form. What was temporarily maintained by inferior sacrifices is now perfected by trust in Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, so that we may live by virtue of his gracious gift.
Every political State requires law. Christians would acknowledge that as much as any citizen who would want there to be rules in society.
This is in contradistinction to an Islamic Theocracy, which I do not feel was inspired by God.
That's because you are not a believer in Islam. Those who are do believe in their own theocratic states. And since you believe in theocracies, you are not one to tell them that they are wrong.
What, because I believe in a Christian State I have no right to disbelieve there are false theocracies? If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view. But that doesn't validate their theocracy as just or legitimate.
Nobody is making a case for a Jewish theocracy over other religions.
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. Claiming to have the one true God, while all other religions are false, is exactly what God's covenant with Israel entailed. It was applied only within the nation of Israel, but it excluded all other religions within that nation.
That is the model which provides the blueprint for a Christian State, or a Christian Theocracy. I think the word "theocracy" is the stumbling block, but I intend to use the word to emphasize the importance of an established moral system, even if personal belief remains in a transitional phase.
The Early Church argued for the creeds not just to establish minimal belief, but also to safeguard that the morality accompanying those beliefs remain intact. God determines our theological accountability, and the degree of tolerance we need to exercise in society. He did that at Sinai--He is still doing it today.
The Republican ideas against big government are utilitarian, not biblical.
So now you're going to tell me what Christian Republicans believe and why they believe it? ;) I converted to Republican in the early 70s, when the 700 Club reached the state of WA. Pat Robertson convinced me of the importance of fighting for biblical values in politics. And he found this best accomplished in the Republican Party, although at that time there were many Democrats who were moderate and Christian.
I can go with that. European Civilization is a mix of pre-Christian paganism and Judeo-Christian Monotheism.
European Civilization is also Greek and Roman. Not their religious ideas, but their ideas on art and culture and science. Democracy is a Greek invention, not a Judeo Christian one. Same for freedom of speech. Same for harnessing the forces of nature to man's benefit. You do them a disservice by pretending that the only ideas in the world that matter come from the bible.
I don't agree, but this would be a long conversation more about politics. Pagan philosophy is, by nature, religious, even if expressed as an agnostic bias--a bias against revealed truth. Democratic processes are inherent to human nature, regardless of the history of its development.
-
I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.
-
I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.
JWs aren't being driven out of the country, just recognized for what they are. My idea of a Christian Theocracy is actually very well known, if you have any knowledge at all of Western History. Christian states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.
-
I'm fond of fried spotted owl, California condor, and whooping crane, or "chicken alternatives" as I like to use the term.
-
I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.
JWs aren't being driven out of the country, just recognized for what they are. My idea of a Christian Theocracy is actually very well known, if you have any knowledge at all of Western History. Christians states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.
Let's try to imagine that everyone participating has an understanding of what they're talking about, and even, might know something the others don't. You know, until proven otherwise. The old Christian states were anything but.
-
I think the issue is that Randy isn't just talking about a non-standard idea of "theocracy", but a form of Christianity that is foreign to his listeners. But we still remember when councils were used to drive away the JW, then dismissed when they became inconvenient.
JWs aren't being driven out of the country, just recognized for what they are. My idea of a Christian Theocracy is actually very well known, if you have any knowledge at all of Western History. Christians states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.
Let's try to imagine that everyone participating has an understanding of what they're talking about, and even, might know something the others don't. You know, until proven otherwise. The old Christian states were anything but.
The old Christian states were not "non-Christian states." They were not Muslim states. They were a mixed crowd of nominal Christians, practicing Christians, and failing Christians, along with minorities with different religious convictions, yet willing to abide in a common moral conviction about how society should live.
-
The old Christian states were not "non-Christian states." They were not Muslim states. They were a mixed crowd of nominal Christians, practicing Christians, and failing Christians, along with minorities with different religious convictions, yet willing to abide in a common moral conviction about how society should live.
Alright then, let's do the dance again. Name one example and we'll discuss how terribly Christian it was in reality.
-
A few minutes ago you thanked me for instructing you in Jewish Law. And now you're instructing me in Christian Law? ;)
Oh, I'm not instructing you in Christian law. It's Christian history I'm bringing up. And you refuse to address it.
In your ideal "Christian theocratic state", what prevents the Inquisition from happening again? You're already laying the groundwork for it by removing free speech that offends Christians, mind.
Christians have had a long debate over the role of law in the Christian life. I don't know that Catholics or the Orthodox have ever denied the role of "law," generically, in following the example of Christ. For one, to follow Christ itself is a kind of "law." And two, to be like Christ is to follow a "lawful lifestyle," not engaging in vices, crimes, and sins.
Yes. But that's a personal obligation and not a national one.
So when Paul argues that we are not, as Christians, under the Law, he is arguing that we are not under the covenant of Moses' Law. The same principles of righteousness remain, albeit in a more fulfilled form. What was temporarily maintained by inferior sacrifices is now perfected by trust in Christ's perfect sacrifice of himself, so that we may live by virtue of his gracious gift.
In other words, salvation is via faith. So why all this talk about the law? It isn't in effect any longer. This is basic Christian theology. Why do I have to explain this to you?
"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day"
Recognize this? It's Martin Luther. You are a Protestant, right?
Every political State requires law. Christians would acknowledge that as much as any citizen who would want there to be rules in society.
Yes. But this has nothing to do with a theocracy.
What, because I believe in a Christian State I have no right to disbelieve there are false theocracies?
No, what I'm saying is that other people of other faiths might call your theocracy false also. (Me, for example). What makes your theocracy any more valid or legitimate? Because you, personally, believe it to be correct?
If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view.
And in your ideal theocracy, *I* wouldn't be able to express my view! Bravo!
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. Claiming to have the one true God, while all other religions are false, is exactly what God's covenant with Israel entailed.
Allow me to rephrase what I said. Nobody is making a case for a Jewish theocracy over other religions today.
It was applied only within the nation of Israel, but it excluded all other religions within that nation.
Yes, in 3000BC. And it even permitted genocide against idolators. Nobody sane wants this today.
That is the model which provides the blueprint for a Christian State, or a Christian Theocracy. I think the word "theocracy" is the stumbling block, but I intend to use the word to emphasize the importance of an established moral system, even if personal belief remains in a transitional phase.
It's not a moral system. You've already established that. You believe that people's rights, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, are up for grabs and should be removed because individuals might say or do things that you, personally, find uncomfortable.
The Early Church argued for the creeds not just to establish minimal belief, but also to safeguard that the morality accompanying those beliefs remain intact.
And they became the corrupt and wicked Catholic Church. Because man is fallen. So let's do the same thing all over again.
God determines our theological accountability, and the degree of tolerance we need to exercise in society. He did that at Sinai--He is still doing it today.
Actually theology isn't really a factor in Jewish law. But I guess you know that better than I.
So now you're going to tell me what Christian Republicans believe and why they believe it? ;) I converted to Republican in the early 70s, when the 700 Club reached the state of WA. Pat Robertson convinced me of the importance of fighting for biblical values in politics. And he found this best accomplished in the Republican Party, although at that time there were many Democrats who were moderate and Christian.
Values. Small government is not a religious or biblical value. It's a utilitarian argument. Like low tax rates or a strong national defense.
I don't agree, but this would be a long conversation more about politics. Pagan philosophy is, by nature, religious, even if expressed as an agnostic bias--a bias against revealed truth. Democratic processes are inherent to human nature, regardless of the history of its development.
So now you have your own interpretation on the origins of Western Civ as well. Lovely.
-
Christian states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.
Spain under king Ferdinand comes to mind. The perfect theocratic hell-hole that you'd like to reproduce. Forced conversions? Check. Torture of Christians whose beliefs were deemed heretical? Check. Expulsion of religious minorities? Check.
This isn't even a serious discussion anymore. It's a bad guy movie trope.
-
But… but … but
JESUS
Talk about taking the Lord’s name in vain….
God gets blamed for so much of our crap…
-
But… but … but
JESUS
Talk about taking the Lord’s name in vain….
God gets blamed for so much of our crap…
Exactly. The Hebrew actually says "Don't carry the Lord's name in vain". Which seems to be a prohibition of doing something wicked and claiming that it was God's will. God had nothing to do with the Inquisition. That was wicked men. Don't involve Him, that only compounds the sin.
Still a great example of a "theocratic Christian state" that some seem eager to reproduce.
-
But… but … but
JESUS
Talk about taking the Lord’s name in vain….
God gets blamed for so much of our crap…
Exactly. The Hebrew actually says "Don't carry the Lord's name in vain". Which seems to be a prohibition of doing something wicked and claiming that it was God's will. God had nothing to do with the Inquisition. That was wicked men. Don't involve Him, that only compounds the sin.
Still a great example of a "theocratic Christian state" that some seem eager to reproduce.
I've said this numerous times, but it seems to go by you like the wind. Israel in ancient times are recorded as having done horrible things. Did that stop them from being the Chosen People, from being a Theocracy? No.
Failed Theocracies were still theocracies! Whether they operate as they should is another question.
You may infer that the structure of a theocracy encourages abuse. I won't make that argument because God Himself wanted to be King over Israel. And I believe His plan was to make Himself King over all nations on earth.
So blame God for theocracies, friend. He initiated the idea.
-
But… but … but
JESUS
Talk about taking the Lord’s name in vain….
God gets blamed for so much of our crap…
Exactly. The Hebrew actually says "Don't carry the Lord's name in vain". Which seems to be a prohibition of doing something wicked and claiming that it was God's will. God had nothing to do with the Inquisition. That was wicked men. Don't involve Him, that only compounds the sin.
Still a great example of a "theocratic Christian state" that some seem eager to reproduce.
I've said this numerous times, but it seems to go by you like the wind. Israel in ancient times are recorded as having done horrible things. Did that stop them from being the Chosen People, from being a Theocracy? No.
Failed Theocracies were still theocracies! Whether they operate as they should is another question.
You may infer that the structure of a theocracy encourages abuse. I won't make that argument because God Himself wanted to be King over Israel. And I believe His plan was to make Himself King over all nations on earth.
So blame God for theocracies, friend. He initiated the idea.
We would hold God responsible for the idea of theocracy, but we would blame humanity for abusive instantiations of theocracy. This is the responsibility and blameworthiness distinction. Not everyone who is responsible is blameworthy, and not everyone who is blameworthy is responsible.
As it is, are you appealing now to ancient Israel with the argument that a failed theocracy is still a theocracy, so we should pursue more theocracy? Isn't this the argument all those tankies make? Communism just wasn't done properly those first few times, and given enough chances only a few tens of millions more will die before someone gets it right, so let's try again!
-
So blame God for theocracies, friend. He initiated the idea.
We would hold God responsible for the idea of theocracy, but we would blame humanity for abusive instantiations of theocracy. This is the responsibility and blameworthiness distinction. Not everyone who is responsible is blameworthy, and not everyone who is blameworthy is responsible.
As it is, are you appealing now to ancient Israel with the argument that a failed theocracy is still a theocracy, so we should pursue more theocracy? Isn't this the argument all those tankies make? Communism just wasn't done properly those first few times, and given enough chances only a few tens of millions more will die before someone gets it right, so let's try again!
Yes, I do appeal to Israel's God-inspired Theocracy as the model for Christian States. The fact Israel failed time and time again did not make their Theocracy worth any less than it was in its original formulation.
A State under a single, true God is a good idea--not a bad one. The fact people fail at times does not diminish the need for a State being under a single, true God.
Israel's regular failures should not overshadow and erase from our memory the good times that existed when Israel was more observant. The Scriptures indicate that the nation was "blessed" during times of obedience.
The fact biblical history focuses more on the failures than on the good times is just what happens when things don't need to be fixed and when they need to be fixed. Good times are acceptable, and don't have to be mentioned so much. Bad times need to be mentioned, so that they can be fixed.
Some Christians assume that failures in Israel were mentioned frequently to prove that the systems of Law and Theocracy do not work, and must be replaced by some ambiguous sense of Christianity lost within the State--a neutral or non-Christian State. The absurdity of this should need no response.
We would all agree, as Christians, that the Law was designed to prove that even the best of men sin and fall short of Heaven. But it was never designed, I feel, to prove that the Law was bad as a system, and incapable of pleasing God.
The reasonable answer would be to continue with righteousness, based on the model of the Law, in the event of Israel's complete collapse in the time of Jesus. You can continue with a Christian form of the Law, without abandoning all of the principles included in the Law, along with the Theocracy.
Israel, as a nation, rejected a Christian Theocracy, and now is the time of non-Jewish Christian Theocracies. But I believe Israel will eventually end up accepting place in the family of Christian Theocracies as well, once Rabbinic Judaism has lost its hold of the Jewish conscience.
And though Christian nations have gone the same way as the original Jewish Theocracy, I think they will all return to the ultimate Christian Theocracy, the Kingdom of Christ, at his Coming. To think the Kingdom of God cannot be applied presently in Christian States is like saying that Israel was never able to apply the Law of Moses in their nation.
The Law of Moses never intended to indicate that obedience in the nation had to be perfect in order for it to enjoy blessing. The curses happened when the entire nation went off the rails--not just when some made a mistake, or when a good number got temporarily carried away. There were fixes for the exceptions. The curses were for complete apostasy and failure by the whole nation.
So the fix was to restore the nation to righteousness--not to try unrighteousness, paganism, or agnosticism as a more workable option. It was not tolerance of all religions, or democracy, if you know what I mean? Humanism and Enlightenment Philosophy, with its tolerance of all religions equally, is not the answer to a lack of peace in Christian societies. Repentance and spiritual revival has always been the answer.
-
In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?
-
And though Christian nations have gone the same way as the original Jewish Theocracy, I think they will all return to the ultimate Christian Theocracy, the Kingdom of Christ, at his Coming. To think the Kingdom of God cannot be applied presently in Christian States is like saying that Israel was never able to apply the Law of Moses in their nation.
What you're saying is:
- Jewish theocracy failed
- Christian theocracy failed
- But they needn't fail necessarily!
You're playing the 'necessarily' game. Christian theocracy needn't fail necessarily, you claim, so surely it ought to be possible to apply the 'Kingdom of God' at present. But then, Jewish theocracy needn't fail necessarily either, and they were also in direct contact with God. What's the common element between them? Sinful, fallen people, imperfect people. Just think of corruption within even the freest modern state (of what necessity does capitalism descend into cronyism?). Christian theocracy will be subject to the same corruption, as it has always been.
Saying this is not to say that ancient Israel could never apply the Law of Moses. Sure they could, but then, I don't know, what would an ANE historical sociologist might say about how effectively that law was applied, or if it was applied in the right way. Jesus didn't think so in His day, and when you pair corruption with entropy it's not looking good.
So the fix was to restore the nation to righteousness--not to try unrighteousness, paganism, or agnosticism as a more workable option. It was not tolerance of all religions, or democracy, if you know what I mean? Humanism and Enlightenment Philosophy, with its tolerance of all religions equally, is not the answer to a lack of peace in Christian societies. Repentance and spiritual revival has always been the answer.
I know what you mean, that's why I'm wholly against your idea of Christian theocracy. Tell me, would I have killed myself in such a theocracy before the religious guard executed me, or would they have gotten to me first? Would they have given me the choice between stoning or getting tossed off the top of a building? Or maybe lashings? Maybe mere depersoning in the name of Jesus? Or forced feminisation? You set a target against paganism, religious tolerance, democracy, Humanism, Enlightenment philosophy, but do you know what the reality of Christian theocracy is? Lots of imprisoned, exiled, dead Christians who couldn't or wouldn't ideologically conform. If you thought the 4th century was bad...
Reminds me of a song (well, it's about cults)
If you listen through to the end they do a bit of the 'Battle Hymn of the Republic'.
Christians who look at Christian theocracy as an ideal in a world where God allows His creation unimaginable freedom. I'll wait until Jesus returns for such a thing. Humans aren't capable of what you're asking of them.
-
Yes, I do appeal to Israel's God-inspired Theocracy as the model for Christian States.
The key phrase here is: God-inspired Theocracy. Nowhere is the Church instructed to aspire or work toward or establish a political rule. All such attempts to reign in an imperial sense have been historical embarrassments for the professing church. The coming millennium era will be a true Theocracy, the only one the Bible speaks of.
A State under a single, true God is a good idea--not a bad one. The fact people fail at times does not diminish the need for a State being under a single, true God.
And that day is approaching, in God's time and by His hand, alone,
-
You may infer that the structure of a theocracy encourages abuse.
I'm not "inferring" it. It is a historical truth. Why give a government the power to abuse it's citizens when you know they will end up abusing its citizens?
-
As it is, are you appealing now to ancient Israel with the argument that a failed theocracy is still a theocracy, so we should pursue more theocracy? Isn't this the argument all those tankies make? Communism just wasn't done properly those first few times, and given enough chances only a few tens of millions more will die before someone gets it right, so let's try again!
Mwa! Chef's kiss.
-
Israel, as a nation, rejected a Christian Theocracy,
You mean when Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world"?
But I believe Israel will eventually end up accepting place in the family of Christian Theocracies as well, once Rabbinic Judaism has lost its hold of the Jewish conscience.
Rabbinic Judaism is Judaism, my friend. It's not going anywhere simply because you wish it to.
-
In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?
And cross dressers, apparently.
-
In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?
And cross dressers, apparently.
And Dim-o-crats.
And Catholics.
Or Protestants.
Depending on your flavor or Irishness.
Or Englishness.
Or Calvinism.
Or Arminianism.
But the Joooooooos, well, you no. Equal opportunity, you know?
Their only protection these days are those darned Space Lasers (TM).
-
But the Joooooooos, well, you no. Equal opportunity, you know?
Their only protection these days are those darned Space Lasers (TM).
The biggest irony is that he won't live under a Muslim theocracy because they'll deprive him of freedom of speech. But he's fine setting up a Christian theocracy that deprives other people of freedom of speech.
"Tyranny is ok when I get to make the rules".
-
In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?
It's difficult for you and for those of us raised up in modern times to grasp what a Christian State even is. It seems that 100% of the responses I've gotten on a number of Christian forums have denied Christian States even exist!! And this reality, that Christian States have existed in history, is known by every history professor that you could ever meet!
So it's really a matter of twisting the facts to align with a cause, or to avoid abuses that are commonly associated with the modern sense of theocracies. And I want to avoid that kind of prejudice, by viewing things as God originally envisioned a theocracy for Israel.
I don't believe the Hebrews were quick to apply death sentences to those who broke the Law. We read of God's quick judgments under the Law, but don't always recognize that He was quick to judge largely in matters of severe rebellion.
After all, God knows our hearts. A rebel may be someone we identify with in moments of weakness, but we don't always see, as God does, that some rebel with deep passion, and acrimony, and deserve death.
The world's legal systems recognize this difference between sins of weakness and sins of deep rebellion. And punishments are given out accordingly. Some crimes merit capital punishment according to many legal systems in the world.
For example, someone may riot in the streets over deep passion that Black Lives have been violated in some way. But they would not be punished with death because their purpose was not really to destroy property out of pure malice--it was an emotional thing.
Someone may attack a capital building, thinking an election was being stolen by a particular political party. But this doesn't merit the death penalty as if this was an act of treason or sedition. It is an emotional reaction, though the actions were wrong, and damage was done to our Constitutional system.
In a genuine Theocracy, it is understood that the vast majority of the population understand God and His laws. The people understand what is wrong, and they understand how inner emotions need to be controlled.
And so, someone guilty of the most radical rebellion against God were sometimes punished with death. They knew not just that the actions were wrong, but they also freely gave vent to malice.
This is not a casual judgment, but a revealed judgment, carried out in a society more aware of what constitutes greater penalties. It is a society that largely knows not just that criminal acts should not be done, but they also know that God can be called upon to resolve these problems by faith.
Giving vent to emotions out of frustration can happen, but should be more controlled in a real Theocracy. To choose to ignore this is actually to rebel, intentionally, against God and His laws. The worst cases of this rebellion were what fell under the death penalty.
-
It's difficult for you and for those of us raised up in modern times to grasp what a Christian State even is. It seems that 100% of the responses I've gotten on a number of Christian forums have denied Christian States even exist!! And this reality, that Christian States have existed in history, is known by every history professor that you could ever meet!
No one here has denied that Christian states have existed throughout history. After all, we've been raising specific examples. What we're arguing is that they're so-called Christian states, and not states reflective of some theocratic ideal of pure Christian theology/belief. They are states that disguise ideology as faith and rule by diktat necessarily. You yourself recite rules of law that would cause even the CCP joy.
This isn't a difficult concept for us poor Moderns. We need to think only of the Vatican or any number of African or Middle Eastern countries. You seem to want to think that the Christian theocracies of the past are different from the theocracies of today, but they weren't. You seem to want to think that Humanism and Enlightenment philosophy are these great degenerators of society, but surely you have some idea of what the political and social power the church wielded historically (and even some places today)? By and large, people don't reject Christianity because they think it's dumb and stupid and foolish. They're never given the opportunity. They reject something resembling Christianity, something that has extended itself to such extremes that it's twisted itself into something else entirely.
Examples are easy to come by. Gay men were sterilised, forced to take estrogen, jailed, abused, and tortured to be cured. But no, when society reacts against the abuses of religion in the guise of morality, it's that reaction that's blamed for the downfall of society. Meanwhile, a majority of Christians in the West get to engage in their persecution porn, lacking any awareness of themselves or the world.
And that's the Christian state going back to when it was the original Christian empire of the 3rd and 4th centuries and following. There is no Christian state in history that exemplifies the teachings of Christ. At a minimum, they all engage in ideological tyranny.
by viewing things as God originally envisioned a theocracy for Israel.
The problem with this view is that the modern world isn't ancient Israel.
After all, God knows our hearts. A rebel may be someone we identify with in moments of weakness, but we don't always see, as God does, that some rebel with deep passion, and acrimony, and deserve death.
And thus, theocracy doesn't see as God sees but acts like it does anyway.
In a genuine Theocracy, it is understood that the vast majority of the population understand God and His laws. The people understand what is wrong, and they understand how inner emotions need to be controlled.
And so, someone guilty of the most radical rebellion against God were sometimes punished with death. They knew not just that the actions were wrong, but they also freely gave vent to malice.
This is not a casual judgment, but a revealed judgment, carried out in a society more aware of what constitutes greater penalties. It is a society that largely knows not just that criminal acts should not be done, but they also know that God can be called upon to resolve these problems by faith.
Giving vent to emotions out of frustration can happen, but should be more controlled in a real Theocracy. To choose to ignore this is actually to rebel, intentionally, against God and His laws. The worst cases of this rebellion were what fell under the death penalty.
You'd be amazed at how many of the religious state's enemies are revealed by God as rebels deserving death due to their deep sin. Like literally, all of them.
You need to think much harder about the blood that would flow through the streets of such a theocracy. Maybe the heretics of old would tell you about it, but they had their tongues cut out. I'm referring to Maximus of course. The heretic that wasn't. The one they called The Theologian.
Theocracy looks good on paper. Even Communism looks good on paper. But we can think of worlds more glorious than our own with ease. The minute we try to create them they become this extensions of this world, because what else could they be?
-
No one here has denied that Christian states have existed throughout history. After all, we've been raising specific examples. What we're arguing is that they're so-called Christian states, and not states reflective of some theocratic ideal of pure Christian theology/belief. They are states that disguise ideology as faith and rule by diktat necessarily.
Thank you for the acknowledgment that Christian states have existed in history! It's not that the many I referred to don't believe that, but that the *only ones* who responded to me were those who denied they exist. Those who would recognize what I speak of refuse to publicly acknowledge it in the thought they would have to agree with me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "pure Christian theology?" Nobody should harbor the illusion that I refer to *perfect* Christian doctrine being imposed upon all by the State. Fundamental beliefs existing in the creeds have sufficed to maintain a lawful order, avoiding certain definitions that tend to divide the Christian public.
It was found early in Christian history that too much tolerance in the Christian State for Gnosticism or for Pelagianism, and the religion itself that determines the morality is lost. However, Jews and Muslims could coexist together with Christians in Christian States despite their theological differences, assuming they don't try to confuse their own religion as a form of doctrinally-orthodox Christianity.
The important matter for the Christian public was in maintaining a standard religion assuring that the appropriate morality remained in practice throughout the State. Non-Christians can obviously be moral too! This does allow for a limited measure of religious pluralism, which seems to be your biggest concern. Freedom of thought and conscience I would agree are important Constitutional rights, even in a Christian State.
You seem to want to think that Humanism and Enlightenment philosophy are these great degenerators of society...
I do. When Voltaire called Religion a "cursed thing," it sowed seeds of cynicism in Christian States. Even if it was deserved, I would again state that the answer is repentance and spiritual revival--not a turn to meaningless "Reason," whatever the philosophes thought that was?
...They reject something resembling Christianity, something that has extended itself to such extremes that it's twisted itself into something else entirely.
I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy. God foreknew it by giving the world Israel as a model. But the answer, again, is renewal and revival--not a dilution of religious values.
There is no Christian state in history that exemplifies the teachings of Christ. At a minimum, they all engage in ideological tyranny.
That's almost as bad as saying there has never been a Christian State. I think what you're saying is that there's never been a *perfect* Christian State? Of course we agree.
But are you saying that the failures of Christians States means we must choose an alternative kind of State in order to enjoy more success than Christian States had? Or, are you saying that modern "checks and balances" somehow safeguard against the excesses that were integral with Christian States of the past?
If so, that may or may not be true. For one, to remove the power of Christ from a society would lessen chances of perpetuating justice in a society. But secondly, Christian States can remain, essentially, "Christian States" and adopt these added safeguards against tyranny! Adopting Constitutional checks and balances does not de facto make Christian States "non-Christian States!"
by viewing things as God originally envisioned a theocracy for Israel.
The problem with this view is that the modern world isn't ancient Israel.
That should not be a problem according to Paul, who stated quite matter of fact that ancient Israel, under the Law, and existing in the form of a Theocracy, is a model for the Church throughout history.
1 Cor 10.11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.
You see, we have to decide which things should change in a society from a Christian pov, and which things should *not* change!
After all, God knows our hearts. A rebel may be someone we identify with in moments of weakness, but we don't always see, as God does, that some rebel with deep passion, and acrimony, and deserve death.
And thus, theocracy doesn't see as God sees but acts like it does anyway.
The opposite of what I said. Christians should be able to discern beyond the visible acts and determine motives, to some degree. God keeps some things private, but in important matters of society, divine revelation can be drawn upon. After all, spiritual discernment is one of the spiritual gifts.
Nobody, however, would say that there isn't a false gift of "spiritual discernment!" Judgmentalism is as prevalent in Christian societies as in any other society. But you won't find Christian discernment in non-Christian societies--only examples of careful scrutiny and educated guesses.
You'd be amazed at how many of the religious state's enemies are revealed by God as rebels deserving death due to their deep sin. Like literally, all of them.
No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--perhaps even matters of personal disappointment and abuse.
You need to think much harder about the blood that would flow through the streets of such a theocracy. Maybe the heretics of old would tell you about it, but they had their tongues cut out. I'm referring to Maximus of course. The heretic that wasn't. The one they called The Theologian.
I would've thought you'd mention Michael Servetus? However, in the Early Church, the emperors themselves were not always doctrinally-orthodox.
For a time Arianism reigned in the ancient Roman Empire. Constantine was not a theologian, but pursued religious order in his Empire. Eastern emperors, under the influence of the Orthodox Church, would have the same problems, particularly when pure doctrine was being initially formulated.
Again, a "pure" theology doesn't always exist in a Christian State. There are constant fluctuations, as each generation has its own leaders and populations.
Theocracy looks good on paper. Even Communism looks good on paper. But we can think of worlds more glorious than our own with ease. The minute we try to create them they become this extensions of this world, because what else could they be?
Yes, but we need order for our societies this side of the Millennium. The Kingdom of God is not yet, but it is among us through the observant Church. We shouldn't be discourage just because sin continues to exist in the Church! If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!
-
No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--
Yes, the "enemies" of the state are always "not Christians". Even if they are Christians, just the "wrong kind" or with the "wrong beliefs". Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other over just this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!
I have a great idea. How about fixing "the Church" before giving it the power over entire countries?
-
I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.
Well then, let it be a lesson.
Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.
We however are a different nation -
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
No geology.
No politics.
Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
-
I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.
Well then, let it be a lesson.
Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.
We however are a different nation -
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
No geology.
No politics.
Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
No politics in Christian States??
-
Thank you for the acknowledgment that Christian states have existed in history! It's not that the many I referred to don't believe that, but that the *only ones* who responded to me were those who denied they exist. Those who would recognize what I speak of refuse to publicly acknowledge it in the thought they would have to agree with me.
So-called Christian states*.
I'm not sure what you mean by "pure Christian theology?" Nobody should harbor the illusion that I refer to *perfect* Christian doctrine being imposed upon all by the State. Fundamental beliefs existing in the creeds have sufficed to maintain a lawful order, avoiding certain definitions that tend to divide the Christian public.
In order to maintain a consistency of social order, beliefs will need to be codified into law. Changing those laws is especially difficult as there's a theological dimension to them, and this implies, in a theocracy, if a law is changed, that the law was codified in error on the basis of misunderstanding. This is a problem for the state, which claims to be led directly by God, even if by proxy, i.e., a religious class speaking on behalf of God. Of course, such a state would simply start talking about abrogation. Hence, from this reality flows a concept of pure Christian theology, which would just so happen to be the theological position of the state.
Creeds aren't the basis of lawful order. They're declarations of faith around which faith communities are built. Also, none of them makes absurd comparisons between things like clothing choices and same-sex orientations.
It was found early in Christian history that too much tolerance in the Christian State for Gnosticism or for Pelagianism, and the religion itself that determines the morality is lost. However, Jews and Muslims could coexist together with Christians in Christian States despite their theological differences, assuming they don't try to confuse their own religion as a form of doctrinally-orthodox Christianity.
What you mean to say is that Christian empire was not able to tolerate beliefs it believed were antithetical to empire, and which threatened the seat of (political) power. It wasn't just Gnosticism, or Pelagianism, or Arianism, or whatever it was. And even then, by the time we come around to someone like Maximus the political state has already been corrupted, with the Church in tow.
As it is, Christians killed and subjugated Jews, and Muslims killed and subjugated Christians and Jews, and Christians went to war with Muslim nation-states. I don't know if you've shifted to this dimension from another, but in this reality, history is not an example of the Abrahamic religions playing nice with each other. Of course, a Christian theocracy wouldn't be able to tolerate Judaism or Islam any more than it would tolerate Gnosticism or Peleganism. There's no consistency in the view you're presenting.
The important matter for the Christian public was in maintaining a standard religion assuring that the appropriate morality remained in practice throughout the State. Non-Christians can obviously be moral too! This does allow for a limited measure of religious pluralism, which seems to be your biggest concern. Freedom of thought and conscience I would agree are important Constitutional rights, even in a Christian State.
If a Christian state enforces a standard (civic) religion, then any practice of religion outside of that standard is by default paganism, heretical, etc. Quaint affirmations of the morality of non-Christians don't get you anywhere in a theocracy proper. There would be no constitutional rights for non-Christians insofar as 'freedom of thought and conscience' are concerned, because these require freedom of speech and act, which the state would firmly deny to anyone who didn't affirm state beliefs. In fact, the very concept of 'freedom of thought' is Orwellian, as if the state controls the thoughts of those unfortunate enough to find themselves within it.
These are fancy ideals you have, but the reality of the state you're describing is authoritarian. You're thinking about theocracy as if it would be window-dressing on Western ideals, but this is to fail to properly consider theocracy to its proper end.
I do. When Voltaire called Religion a "cursed thing," it sowed seeds of cynicism in Christian States. Even if it was deserved, I would again state that the answer is repentance and spiritual revival--not a turn to meaningless "Reason," whatever the philosophes thought that was?
And you would have been jailed or executed for suggesting the church was in need of repentance or spiritual revival, even if it did. Voltaire wasn't acting in a vacuum when he rigged the lottery, or wrote against French religion. These are the kinds of thinkers a so-called Christian state produces -- inevitably. This is because the state isn't so much Christian, as it is a state.
That's almost as bad as saying there has never been a Christian State. I think what you're saying is that there's never been a *perfect* Christian State? Of course we agree.
I'm saying there have only been so-called Christian states.
But are you saying that the failures of Christians States means we must choose an alternative kind of State in order to enjoy more success than Christian States had? Or, are you saying that modern "checks and balances" somehow safeguard against the excesses that were integral with Christian States of the past?
I'm saying that Christians need to quit with the political ambition, as if the Christianising of a country is going to make it better. History shows us that it won't.
If so, that may or may not be true. For one, to remove the power of Christ from a society would lessen chances of perpetuating justice in a society. But secondly, Christian States can remain, essentially, "Christian States" and adopt these added safeguards against tyranny! Adopting Constitutional checks and balances does not de facto make Christian States "non-Christian States!"
This is nice and all, but 'the power of Christ' has never ensured a just society, and usually the exact opposite for anyone who wasn't part of the religious in-crowd. I don't know why you're talking about constitutional checks, as these wouldn't exist in a theocracy, or at least, they wouldn't exist in a form analogous to what the US has today. The state wouldn't be safeguarding against tyranny as the great evil, but evil corruptive beliefs.
That should not be a problem according to Paul, who stated quite matter of fact that ancient Israel, under the Law, and existing in the form of a Theocracy, is a model for the Church throughout history.
1 Cor 10.11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.
You see, we have to decide which things should change in a society from a Christian pov, and which things should *not* change!
So it's not a problem, but then we also need to decide what to keep and what to toss out? Mhmm.
The opposite of what I said. Christians should be able to discern beyond the visible acts and determine motives, to some degree. God keeps some things private, but in important matters of society, divine revelation can be drawn upon. After all, spiritual discernment is one of the spiritual gifts.
Nobody, however, would say that there isn't a false gift of "spiritual discernment!" Judgmentalism is as prevalent in Christian societies as in any other society. But you won't find Christian discernment in non-Christian societies--only examples of careful scrutiny and educated guesses.
'Christians should' and 'Christians do' are two entirely different epistemic propositions. I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling, or if you're writing things without having thought them through.
No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--perhaps even matters of personal disappointment and abuse.
Unreal.
I would've thought you'd mention Michael Servetus? However, in the Early Church, the emperors themselves were not always doctrinally-orthodox.
Maximus is a better example.
Yes, but we need order for our societies this side of the Millennium. The Kingdom of God is not yet, but it is among us through the observant Church. We shouldn't be discourage just because sin continues to exist in the Church! If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!
Do you remember that time Jesus said He came to set up a political empire? Me neither. Do you remember when He sent out the apostles to lay the foundation for empire? Me neither. Christians love Jesus, and bad things happen when they lay claim to political power. As already mentioned, who believes the right thing in the right way, and who gets to decide, and what happens with those Christians who don't? Well, you already said they weren't Christian, which is just... unreal.
-
I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.
Well then, let it be a lesson.
Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.
We however are a different nation -
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
No geology.
No politics.
Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
No politics in Christian States??
Name one verse in the NT where we (Jesus followers) are called to create a Theocracy.
-
The ultimate motive and eventual purpose behind this Theocracy push, for many, not necessarily among us, imo, is to reign in and warn any believers who refuse to vote or otherwise act politically according to the dictates of what amounts to what would be touted as a Christian mandate or party platform and it's designated leaders.
Many are already buying into the idea that overthrowing the constitution in favor of a Theocratic political platform is preferable to a democratic system and "God help" those believers who will not wear that hat.
Yeah, I know. It's already here.
God's party(?).
-
But the Joooooooos, well, you no. Equal opportunity, you know?
Their only protection these days are those darned Space Lasers (TM).
The biggest irony is that he won't live under a Muslim theocracy because they'll deprive him of freedom of speech. But he's fine setting up a Christian theocracy that deprives other people of freedom of speech.
"Tyranny is ok when I get to make the rules".
Coughs
-
Christian states were everywhere in Europe, as imperialism gave way to nation-states. Most all of them in Europe were Christian, and so they can legitimately be defined as "Christian States," or "Christian Theocracies," as I like to use the term.
Spain under king Ferdinand comes to mind. The perfect theocratic hell-hole that you'd like to reproduce. Forced conversions? Check. Torture of Christians whose beliefs were deemed heretical? Check. Expulsion of religious minorities? Check.
This isn't even a serious discussion anymore. It's a bad guy movie trope.
More coughing
-
If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view.
And in your ideal theocracy, *I* wouldn't be able to express my view! Bravo!
I need a cough drop
-
If I lived in their abusive, corrupted theocracy, they may not give me any right to express my view.
And in your ideal theocracy, *I* wouldn't be able to express my view! Bravo!
I need a cough drop
Reeeeecccooooollllaaaaaaa…
-
Reeeeecccooooollllaaaaaaa…
More of a "Halls" man myself.
-
Halls cherry and a slug of heated Dr Pepper!
Good for what ails you!
-
As another forum bites the dust. All good things...
-
Nah….
-
Maybe he knows something that we don't.
-
Gnocchisticism surely
-
Gnocchisticism surely
Marinara, beef, Alfredo, brown butter, or clam sauce?
I think you are right about the special secret dumpling knowledge, though…
Those cowboys and their wheat pasta alternative lifestyles…
-
Gnocchisticism surely
We call them "Shlishkes".
-
No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--
Yes, the "enemies" of the state are always "not Christians". Even if they are Christians, just the "wrong kind" or with the "wrong beliefs". Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other over just this.
There never was a true Israel, the Chosen Nation, because they fell into idolatry and sin. The Jewish Bible records that Hebrews fought against each other, and slaughtered each other. Obviously, their stated "beliefs" under the Law were of no consequence, because they followed whatever religion they wanted to follow at the time.
All of the nations outside of Israel were "pagans." How convenient! They must've thought that only their God was the true God, and everybody else's God was false?
If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!
I have a great idea. How about fixing "the Church" before giving it the power over entire countries?
David didn't wait to fix the mess King Saul made before him. Hezekiah and Josiah didn't wait to clean up the idolatry in the land, and set right in to disestablish paganism and idolatry in an evident theocratic government.
-
In order to maintain a consistency of social order, beliefs will need to be codified into law. Changing those laws is especially difficult as there's a theological dimension to them, and this implies, in a theocracy, if a law is changed, that the law was codified in error on the basis of misunderstanding. This is a problem for the state, which claims to be led directly by God, even if by proxy, i.e., a religious class speaking on behalf of God. Of course, such a state would simply start talking about abrogation. Hence, from this reality flows a concept of pure Christian theology, which would just so happen to be the theological position of the state.
Being "led by God" is not an exact science. We "see thru a glass darkly," ie we stumble our way along, being hampered by the contamination of our physical and spiritual being. We must follow righteousness with dim eyesight, but were mercifully given some distinct guidelines to keep us on track.
Creeds do us well, in keeping both government and society in alignment with God's Spirit, so that we can frame our laws well enough to keep society moral and spiritually active.
Creeds aren't the basis of lawful order. They're declarations of faith around which faith communities are built.
I believe political authorities utilized their own religious understanding as well as professional clerics to aid them in pursuing the right goals for society. The creeds were the foundation for Christian education, whether for the king, the priest, or the people.
What you mean to say is that Christian empire was not able to tolerate beliefs it believed were antithetical to empire, and which threatened the seat of (political) power.
Right, certain religious corruptions robbed Christianity of its spiritual power. And thus, the very energy driving moral living could be lost if certain theological distinctions were lost.
For example, if Christians were led to believe the one true God was the God of Islam then the fruit of Christian love would be lost, and the Church would become just another ethnic ambition to rule the world. It was important to God that society serve Him alone as God, lest His blessing be lost upon a people who choose to follow the wrong Spirit.
I believe there is only one God, though there are many claims to Godhood. The important matter is that the true God takes us into a true spirituality that enables us to overcome our selfish ambitions. Without true religion, the Church itself would indeed be just another empire waging war for wealth and vanity.
If a Christian state enforces a standard (civic) religion, then any practice of religion outside of that standard is by default paganism, heretical, etc.
I don't believe so, no. A monarchy can be Christian. A democracy can be Christian. Even a social democracy can be Christian. However, a communist state cannot be Christian since by definition it is atheistic.
So a Christian State may learn, along the way, that as it corrupts, and it inevitably does, that it is helped by adopting checks and balances, republics, several branches of government--nothing wrong with this. Christian States rise and fall, and we have to deal with it at whatever state of maturity it exits, whether in ascendancy or in decline.
Quaint affirmations of the morality of non-Christians don't get you anywhere in a theocracy proper.
I'm not throwing "tidbits to the pagans." I'm stating, as a matter of necessity, that Christians must deal with a myriad of different times and circumstances, whether in good times or bad times, whether due to the need for immigrants to find a home, or out of the need to aid minorities who preexist in Christian lands. People of other religions can be moral. That is a fact, and one that I very much believe in, quite sincerely.
There would be no constitutional rights for non-Christians insofar as 'freedom of thought and conscience' are concerned, because these require freedom of speech and act, which the state would firmly deny to anyone who didn't affirm state beliefs. In fact, the very concept of 'freedom of thought' is Orwellian, as if the state controls the thoughts of those unfortunate enough to find themselves within it.
On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them.
The failure of Christian States does not imply they were "failed systems." If that was true, then there would be no system left to try in world history, since all religious and political systems have failed regularly.
Times of prejudice and oppression of minorities who lived within acceptable moral limits do not mean that Christian States cannot repent, reform, and return to tolerance of other religions and peoples.
These are fancy ideals you have, but the reality of the state you're describing is authoritarian.
No, even the US and the UK have been examples of "Christian States," and perhaps a much lower level of "theocracy." They ruled with Constitutional governments, guided by various checks and balances, had tolerance for minorities, and yet favored Christian theology and morality. None of this was "authoritarian," although pagans have entered our countries and claimed that our Christian laws are in their eyes "authoritarian," simply because they want to be gay, abort their children, or follow Satan.
And you would have been jailed or executed for suggesting the church was in need of repentance or spiritual revival, even if it did.
That is patently absurd, unless you're referring to times when the Church was in decline, or when Christian States had fallen on hard times. Whenever a State falls into corruption, calling for its reform puts one in danger.
I'm saying there have only been so-called Christian states.
So we're back up to 100% denial that there were "Christian States?" ;)
I'm saying that Christians need to quit with the political ambition, as if the Christianising of a country is going to make it better. History shows us that it won't.
History shows us that no political system has 100% success all the time. It shows that all political systems, and all religious political systems, regularly fail. It shows that short of God's Kingdom, *every political system,* no matter how good, will always fail. But that shouldn't stop us from pursuing the best political system available.
And if my favored system isn't available, then we'll just have to make do. After all, the Church was born into the pagan Roman Empire, and that didn't stop them from pursuing a Christian State. Did they pursue a Christian State? Obviously, that is what resulted.
This is nice and all, but 'the power of Christ' has never ensured a just society, and usually the exact opposite for anyone who wasn't part of the religious in-crowd.
The power of Christ is here not to save all, but to save some. We pursue the best system possible, and wish for the salvation of all. But we know that won't happen.
'Christians should' and 'Christians do' are two entirely different epistemic propositions. I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling, or if you're writing things without having thought them through.
If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake! ;)
-
I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.
Well then, let it be a lesson.
Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.
We however are a different nation -
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
No geology.
No politics.
Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
No politics in Christian States??
Name one verse in the NT where we (Jesus followers) are called to create a Theocracy.
I'll give you three.
Matt 6.33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
1 Tim 2. I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
-
Name one verse in the NT where we (Jesus followers) are called to create a Theocracy.
I'll give you three.
Matt 6.33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
1 Tim 2. I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
No politics mentioned, just individual Christian life.
-
And I highly expect the discussion to merge with that of US politics as elections draw near. Voting one's conscience is one thing but allowing one's self to be cajoled into a "Theocratic" mindset is quite another.
-
There never was a true Israel, the Chosen Nation, because they fell into idolatry and sin.
There's no such thing as "true Israel". It's an invented term. There is only Israel, sometimes good and sometimes bad. You have this warped view of Israel being the worst nation in the world, and it isn't true. Israel's neighbors in the times of the bible, or even the Roman era, behaved far worse. It's just that God has higher expectations of Israel because we should know better. See Amos 3:2.
The Jewish Bible records that Hebrews fought against each other, and slaughtered each other. Obviously, their stated "beliefs" under the Law were of no consequence, because they followed whatever religion they wanted to follow at the time.
And yet you have this fantasy of a true "Christian theology". Do you know how badly Christians have treated one another? Let alone religious minorities.
All of the nations outside of Israel were "pagans." How convenient! They must've thought that only their God was the true God, and everybody else's God was false?
Um yeah, this is what the bible says actually. So I don't know what you point is.
David didn't wait to fix the mess King Saul made before him. Hezekiah and Josiah didn't wait to clean up the idolatry in the land, and set right in to disestablish paganism and idolatry in an evident theocratic government.
You're not David or Hezekiah. Quite the opinion of yourself you have here.
-
I'll give you three.
Matt 6.33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
1 Tim 2. I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Sorry bro. I know your own bible better than you do.
John
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world".
and also
Luke
When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
-
On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them.
So then you're writing things without having thought your ideas through?
You keep talking about your 70 years as if they're a guarantee of anything, so okay, what are your examples? Let's move beyond this mile wide inch deep target you've been hitting.
-
On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them.
It's not clear to me why you're bringing this up.
Aside from the Jewish experience in this country, when were Jews "admired"?
When were they "not judged" for not converting to Christianity?
And why are Christians "paranoid" about Jews? Does this strike you as normal and healthy behavior? Whole Jewish communities in the middle ages were burned at the stake for "poisoning wells" and "torturing holy wafers".
I do not come away with the feeling that you know the history of Jews in Christian lands. Perhaps that's why you're so eager to recreate the experience.
Or maybe you just don't care.
-
As another forum bites the dust. All good things...
Actually, huh?
-
If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake! ;)
Nevertheless, your rambling conjectures rarely represent the contextual scriptures and, on a "Bible" forum, should be regarded as "extra" biblical and perhaps considered questionable doctrine because they insist upon the total disregard of the great commission and clear, "biblical" instructions for the Church. Your call to a Theocracy, however you wish to define it, is alien to the scriptures, and your vague recitations of historical events do nothing but prove the point that God is not involved in men's Theocratic ambitions, but is infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ, who actually gets very little air-time in your imaginary scheme.
"But we preach Christ crucified..." 1Co 1:23
-
On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them.
It's not clear to me why you're bringing this up.
Aside from the Jewish experience in this country, when were Jews "admired"?
When were they "not judged" for not converting to Christianity?
And why are Christians "paranoid" about Jews? Does this strike you as normal and healthy behavior? Whole Jewish communities in the middle ages were burned at the stake for "poisoning wells" and "torturing holy wafers".
I do not come away with the feeling that you know the history of Jews in Christian lands. Perhaps that's why you're so eager to recreate the experience.
Or maybe you just don't care.
I'm always challenged, and I always try to answer, whether I get credit for it or not. I've read about Martin Luther, how he initially admired the Jews before getting paranoid that they were "stabbing the Christian State in the back," and turned on them with "Against the Jews and their Lies." We all know about that, of course, if you know anything about Christiani-Jewish relations.
And then there is the matter of Replacement Theology and its origins in the Early Church. Some of the earliest Church Fathers admired the Jews and spoke well of them. Ultimately, the Christians in the new Christian Empire grew impatient with Jewish intransigence and unwillingness to convert, en masse, to the Gospel.
The end result was a new theology called Amillennialism, with Replacement Theology at its core. If you care for greater detail, I'm sure I can find it?
I initially was intrigued with the Jewish People because of my interest in biblical prophecy. Some authors, like Gordon Lindsay spent a lot of time discussing Israel's place in prophecy. There were some good books on the subject. A more in-depth book I read was "The Fall and Rise of Israel," which spares nothing. It was disturbing to read this.
Of course I care about the plight of the Jews. As I said before, I went to Israel on my own and volunteered to work for free on a Kibbutz, within range of Lebanese terrorists. I was rejected due to concerns about my health at that time, but it remains that I made an honest effort to do my part to support the Jewish People and the State of Israel.
I believe Israel is still called of God, even though the centuries that have passed have had a purpose of some kind. The end for Israel will, think, be a great joy to the Jewish People.
-
If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake! ;)
Nevertheless, your rambling conjectures rarely represent the contextual scriptures and, on a "Bible" forum, should be regarded as "extra" biblical and perhaps considered questionable doctrine because they insist upon the total disregard of the great commission and clear, "biblical" instructions for the Church. Your call to a Theocracy, however you wish to define it, is alien to the scriptures, and your vague recitations of historical events do nothing but prove the point that God is not involved in men's Theocratic ambitions, but is infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ, who actually gets very little air-time in your imaginary scheme.
"But we preach Christ crucified..." 1Co 1:23
On the contrary, the Gospel is not to be separated from our worldly lives, as I understand it. It is to take top place in everything we do, politically, socially, religiously.
To create a theology of division between politics and religion is to fall into the hands of those who wish to "divide and conquer." Those who hate religion in a subtle way sing the praises of its poetic, moral value, while in their personal lives it's the last thing they want to disturb their own ambitions.
I find you a real Christian. But I think your Dem-leaning political viewpoint, if I remember correctly our arguments on the previous forum, may have biased you against my "theocratic views," which are really a belief in the Christian State as it has existed, for real, throughout the centuries. Saying I believe in real history that was "Christian," nominally or not, is certainly not non-Christian. And it most definitely has a place on any forum that allows free discussions.
I'm happy to see new subjects arise, taking us in directions that interest you. For lack of subjects I gravitate towards my own pet interests, and raise those issues, such as prophecy, doctrine, and politics. I'm sorry political differences are allowed to become a wedge between real Christians. The value of forums like this is in the opportunity to work out some of these logjams in Christian relations, and help us in dealing with the world in the best way possible.
Unfortunately, when we fall into paranoia, and begin to accuse one another of evil motives, the battle is lost. But the war is not lost for those who put Christ first in everything, in serving, and in honesty, speaking out of a pure conscience, inspired by the Scriptures and by the love of Christ.
-
On the contrary, the Gospel is not to be separated from our worldly lives, as I understand it. It is to take top place in everything we do, politically, socially, religiously.
This "on the contrary" is an invention of your own mind. IMINXTC has not argued for a separation between Gospel and "our worldly lives". This is clear in what he wrote: "God is ... infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ". It's easier to respond to a caricature, though, isn't it? To argue against the idea of separation, and not what was presented, which is that there's no necessarily development between the Gospel and theocracy.
To create a theology of division between politics and religion is to fall into the hands of those who wish to "divide and conquer." Those who hate religion in a subtle way sing the praises of its poetic, moral value, while in their personal lives it's the last thing they want to disturb their own ambitions.
IMINXTC has not suggested a 'theology of division between politics and religion'. This is another invention of your mind. Worse, you passive-aggressively suggest that in making such a suggestion, he - and anyone else of a similar view - have fallen "into the hands of those who wish to 'divide and conquer'". Absolute intellectual dishonesty, to build up this caricature then speak against it with the ferver of religious grandeur.
I find you a real Christian.
Patronising.
But I think your Dem-leaning political viewpoint, if I remember correctly our arguments on the previous forum, may have biased you against my "theocratic views," which are really a belief in the Christian State as it has existed, for real, throughout the centuries.
Insulting, as if IMINXTC cannot engage with your views without being at the mercy of his biases. This is your attempt to hand-wave away the view presented. You fail to argue against the argument, and now you dismiss the intellectual position as being the product of mere bias.
Saying I believe in real history that was "Christian," nominally or not, is certainly not non-Christian. And it most definitely has a place on any forum that allows free discussions.
Another invention. The claim is that you appeal to history at a surface level, without a deeper understanding of what's under discussion. Evidentally you have no retort other than "free discussion".
I'm happy to see new subjects arise, taking us in directions that interest you. For lack of subjects I gravitate towards my own pet interests, and raise those issues, such as prophecy, doctrine, and politics. I'm sorry political differences are allowed to become a wedge between real Christians. The value of forums like this is in the opportunity to work out some of these logjams in Christian relations, and help us in dealing with the world in the best way possible.
Patronising. And this is a theological discussion as well, not just a political one.
Unfortunately, when we fall into paranoia, and begin to accuse one another of evil motives, the battle is lost. But the war is not lost for those who put Christ first in everything, in serving, and in honesty, speaking out of a pure conscience, inspired by the Scriptures and by the love of Christ.
So IMINXTC has asked to be removed. You, Randy, have consistently:
1. Ignored or dismissed the argument presented.
2. Invented caricatures to argue against instead.
3. Have helped drive off at least two members while appealing against cancel culture.
4. Have been passive-aggressive.
5. Have been patronising.
6. Have displayed with other members a less than Christlike attitude.
7. Have suggested I'm acting ungodly and have refused to substantiate the claim when pushed.
8. Have consistently argued with a double-standard, especially concerning appeals to the historical church (against the JWs), while citing concerns for that same historical church ("they're only human!") when used as a counter-example against your own positions.
9. Have presented a false sense of community by appealing to "working out" differences of view, which is impossible given 1) and 2) above.
Instead of using IMINXTC's post to demonstrate the Scriptural consistency of your argument, namely, that your view of theocracy is in line with clear biblical instruction for the Church, you caricatured the man and the argument instead.
I told you I was giving you leeway. I warned you not to push it. This being contro doesn't excuse the above. See you Monday.
-
I'm always challenged, and I always try to answer, whether I get credit for it or not. I've read about Martin Luther, how he initially admired the Jews before getting paranoid that they were "stabbing the Christian State in the back," and turned on them with "Against the Jews and their Lies." We all know about that, of course, if you know anything about Christiani-Jewish relations.
And then there is the matter of Replacement Theology and its origins in the Early Church. Some of the earliest Church Fathers admired the Jews and spoke well of them. Ultimately, the Christians in the new Christian Empire grew impatient with Jewish intransigence and unwillingness to convert, en masse, to the Gospel.
The end result was a new theology called Amillennialism, with Replacement Theology at its core. If you care for greater detail, I'm sure I can find it?
I initially was intrigued with the Jewish People because of my interest in biblical prophecy. Some authors, like Gordon Lindsay spent a lot of time discussing Israel's place in prophecy. There were some good books on the subject. A more in-depth book I read was "The Fall and Rise of Israel," which spares nothing. It was disturbing to read this.
Of course I care about the plight of the Jews. As I said before, I went to Israel on my own and volunteered to work for free on a Kibbutz, within range of Lebanese terrorists. I was rejected due to concerns about my health at that time, but it remains that I made an honest effort to do my part to support the Jewish People and the State of Israel.
I believe Israel is still called of God, even though the centuries that have passed have had a purpose of some kind. The end for Israel will, think, be a great joy to the Jewish People.
So, you know, again, you've posted a great deal without actually addressing my point. During the middle ages and later, when religion and politics were mixed in what you choose to call "Christian states", Jews fared poorly. This is history. And you don't deny that it happened, you simply ignore it. I've mentioned the Inquisition, Jews being burned at the stake, Jews being expelled from countries, and you go on about "prophecy" and your personal experiences. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic.
And allow me to clarify. This isn't a "Christian" problem. It's a "man is fallen" problem. Any state that allows religious doctrine to interfere with people's rights is going to have the same problem. And you rightly call it out for Islamic states but somehow feel that Christian leaders will be immune to the corruption that power introduces. You wouldn't live under an Islamic state that curtails your freedom of speech but you're fine setting up a Christian state that would curtail mine.
-
Wow... I've read this thread through 3 times now...and my head is still spinning...
Since I'm having problems finding the quote button let me say that Fenris hit the nail on the head when he said that it's a fallen man problem.
I sure don't want to live under a theocracy... because the men who rule in the name of God (no matter how well intentioned) would still be flawed, sinful, biased... well, men... How many atrocities have committed in the name of God throughout history?
All we have to do is take the merest glance at our own Christian Church history as pertains to the interaction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches to see that a theocracy would never work...
-
Wow... I've read this thread through 3 times now...and my head is still spinning...
Since I'm having problems finding the quote button let me say that Fenris hit the nail on the head when he said that it's a fallen man problem.
I sure don't want to live under a theocracy... because the men who rule in the name of God (no matter how well intentioned) would still be flawed, sinful, biased... well, men... How many atrocities have committed in the name of God throughout history?
All we have to do is take the merest glance at our own Christian Church history as pertains to the interaction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches to see that a theocracy would never work...
(Quote is to the top right of every post. There's no multiquote, but you can 'Insert Quote' from the edit screen to add quotes from multiple posts.)
-
Thanks, much appreciated!
-
A Christian State, or theocracy, is one whose people predominantly adhere to a single religion, to a single morality. The theology is often pretty set in stone, at times, and at other times, fairly liberally interpreted.
The US was founded as a kind of Christian State, or theocracy.
No, it wasn't.
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Constitution, Article IV "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..."
Following Christian moral traditions is nothing like a Theocracy.
As to those morals, none of them were coded into the constitution. For instance, if I - a man - want to have 2 husbands, and adopt a child that will have 3 fathers, I can. (It was done in California). I can do this because this is not a Theocracy whatsoever.
The country is founded on the principle of no law (no tax) without representation. A theocracy is based not at all on representation. The self evident truths of a Theocracy are laws as they are expressly revealed by God, and cannot be changed by man. Iran is more of a theocracy. America is a true and true democracy with a flavor of meritocracy. Its laws are decided by the whims of the masses, its rules are the "most fit/most deserving". A theocracy works nothing like this.
A theocracy is based on making God happy. America is based on the "self evident" truth of man's pursuit of happiness.
-
America is based on the "self evident" truth of man's pursuit of happiness.
I'd say that America is built on the concept of the consent of the governed, and personal freedoms.