Gog's endtime construction?

[RandyPNW]

Gotcha. Yes, I'm referring to God's *ideal* theocracies. He gave His Law to Israel--that was the ideal setup--no Inquistions.

Did God have non-ideal theocracies? I'm not sure I know what this means.

It's clear what I mean--God wanted people to live up to the ideal. In reality, Israel did not always live up to that ideal--they apostacized. The fact they apostacized does not indicate that the ideal theocracy was bad, nor should theocracies be characterized by their failure.

I wouldn't say that monarchies don't work because they didn't work during the French Revolution, nor would I say that democracies don't work because they are sometimes democracies in name only.

I feel the same about theocracies. I would define them with the understanding that people always show their imperfections in them.

People show their imperfections in every political system. The question is, what system works best when it is functioning properly?

I would argue that God proposed the Christian Theocracy as the best system. And I believe it can assume different political forms and still be viewed as a kind of "theocracy," even though it may not be how we typically define a theocracy.

I have this problem all the time, and it is basically an argument over definitions. I would argue that theocracy in its most basic form is the choice, of a society, to be ruled by God. We can still choose or elect political leaders and choose, at the same time, to be ruled by God. We simply choose Christian leaders.

If one wishes to distinguish between "the Way" and my definition of Christianity, there has to be standards by which to objectively distinguish between them. In this case, RK doesn't provide any such objective standards--only assumes that there is a difference between them, and that when one suffers the other is not being given equal justice.

In reality, my view of Christianity, as a theocracy, is synonymous with "the Way," although RK has left his definition of "the Way" wide open. So it's a matter of how he is defining "the Way," and how he wishes to distinguish between his "Way" and my "Christianity?"

If his only objective is that I don't wish to discuss Judaism with a Jew who is angry with me, he's blowing up a very small issue into a much larger one. You yourself know that I'm trying to comply with your rules by ending my previous argument with him!

If his issue is that Jews have a right to judge their religion as right and I do not have the right to judge their religion as wrong, because it is "their religion," then I'd have to disagree. That Jew can more properly explain what it is Jews do and believe. But I also have a right to judge whether those beliefs and practices are proper. I don't have to be a Jew to do that. I don't have to be an expert in Judaism to make that judgment. The needed information is in the NT Scriptures themselves!

The problem isn't what liberals have tried to do, it's what people try to do with the w/Word of God. If the liberals try to paint as evil, then the conservative temptation is to apply without love. There's no left and right division, or red and blue, or Republican or Democrat. This group politik doesn't help anyone. Liberals aren't your enemy.

Some liberals are my enemy. The leaders of the Enlightenment in the 18th century were indeed my Enemy. But many who were raised with a liberal education have certain presuppositions built into them, such as "Western democracies are the best political system in history."

I don't at all believe that to be true. A Christian government is much to be preferred, in whatever political form, to secularistic democracies that place Christianity as just one of many gods.

As long as a secular democracy begins with a Christian public, it maintains a Christian memory and may function for quite some time. But eventually, liberty for pagans will overwhelm the Christian consensus, and Christianity will be marginalized and depreciated. The society will, I believe, suffer.

If it were possible I'd say there were some rose-tinted glasses lying around. Judaism at the time wasn't without its issues, and I don't know about you, but the Law seems pretty harsh to me. But that's just coming from would-have-been-stoned-4,000-years-ago-little-old-me.

I believe you're sincere in your beliefs and more than willing to argue them. That separates you from stone cold ideologues who would kill to have their political system established no matter what.

I don't know how open-minded you are to other ideas, but so far I respect what you say even though I disagree with some of it. I'll have to deal with some of your other points later. Thanks for your thoughts.

[RabbiKnife]

God never wanted a theocracy. 
First he wanted free humans
Then in order to facilitate the necessary redeemer, He wanted a kingdom of priests.
Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.
As a poor second best to get the Messiah, God instituted a prophet/priest led theocracy
When Israel rejected that for an earthly monarch, all bets were off .

God only approved governmental system at this point is a future Jesus monarchy

There is no such animal as a Christian government

[RandyPNW]

God never wanted a theocracy. 
First he wanted free humans
Then in order to facilitate the necessary redeemer, He wanted a kingdom of priests.
Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.
As a poor second best to get the Messiah, God instituted a prophet/priest led theocracy
When Israel rejected that for an earthly monarch, all bets were off .

God only approved governmental system at this point is a future Jesus monarchy

There is no such animal as a Christian government

Well that's just plain wrong--I get this all the time. No Christian government? Just do a search on the internet for "Christian government" and tell me there is no such thing?

You're playing word games. The Byzantine Empire was a Christian government that lasted a thousand years. You may want to banter around the word "theocracy" in association with various kinds of governments. But as I said elsewhere, I define a "theocracy" as rule by God, or a nation's majority choice to be ruled by God's Law.

In the OT that was Israel choosing to be ruled by the Law of Moses. In NT times, it is any government whose people choose to be guided by Christian leaders.

Part of the confusion is, I think, due to the modern association with abusive forms of theocracy, such as rule by the ayatollahs. Some of it has to do with the protest, by liberals, of any attempt at establishing Christianity in the government.

[Athanasius]

Well that's just plain wrong--I get this all the time. No Christian government? Just do a search on the internet for "Christian government" and tell me there is no such thing?

I'm sure you could also do a search for people who justify pederasty in ancient Greece, but just because the argument exists doesn't mean the argument is valid, compelling, and so forth. Maybe though you'd like to live in Vatican city?

As we've discussed before, you can try to point out 'Christian governments' and then we can point out all the nasty ways they acted very not Christlike.

You're playing word games. The Byzantine Empire was a Christian government that lasted a thousand years. You may want to banter around the word "theocracy" in association with various kinds of governments. But as I said elsewhere, I define a "theocracy" as rule by God, or a nation's majority choice to be ruled by God's Law.

Yes, you have a lot of special definitions.

The Byzantine Empire was a purportedly Christian empire. Now tell me: in recent threads you've decried liberals, those who allow Jewish people to participate in biblical discussions, those who risk abusing the truth of Christianity, and on, and on, and on. And those are just the people on this forum. These examples would be qualified as 'Christian', not Christian, so why would you appeal to an entire empire and say 'look, Christian!'? It'll take the whole of 1 second of applying the same standard to see that the Byzantine was only really a so-called purportedly 'Christian' empire that was in no way reflective of the 'ideal' Christian state you espouse.

Oh gosh darn it, there go the Byzantines again waging a Christian massacre.

Part of the confusion is, I think, due to the modern association with abusive forms of theocracy, such as rule by the ayatollahs. Some of it has to do with the protest, by liberals, of any attempt at establishing Christianity in the government.

Do you think the Ayatollahs are especially evil people? They are just people, and the temptation is always to go in their direction in any theocracy. These 'abusive forms of theocracy' is just a fancy way of saying 'theocracy'. As someone who is a committed Christian, the last thing I want is a 'Christian government', because I understand that 'Christian government' means the particular conception of Christianity held by those in power, who then force this on everyone else, and who can't live to their own standard. You're not going to get your academic ideal, you're going to get Ayatollahs.

But just look at Solomon who was so wise he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
But just look at David who slept with a man's wife then conspiratorially killed him.
But just look at Saul who went insane.

Even the best of us screw up, and that's the problem. You're never going to get the ideal you want, and people like me are the one's who get to suffer under the banner of Christian principles. It has nothing to do with the protestation of nasty liberals. The only reason we're in a circumstance today where 'Christian principles' are being pushed back against is because the Christians of the past were utterly imbecilic in the civic application of their faith. Yeah, it was real good idea, and now people my age either aren't in the church or have to spend years convincing people that Christians don't actually hate X, Y, Z person. Wow, consequences.

'Christian goverment', as if. I'll wait for the new creation, personally.

[RabbiKnife]

The fundamental issue is the false and scripturally unsupportable assertion that God’s plan for human government has always been a theocracy, now somehow transferred from the Nation of Israel to a “Christian theocracy.”

God NEVER wanted a theocracy.  He warned against it but allowed it because of the hardness of the nation of Israel’s heart and their national desire for a king.

God desires— and has always desired— a people of kings and priests to serve him face to face without mediator or governmental representative.  Some day that will occur

To assume that God wants to impose a so called “Christian theocracy” now in the affairs of men absent the physical presence of Jesus simply is speculative and has zero scriptural basis

For Pete’s sake, Paul wrote about governing authorities in Romans 13 in regard to Nero…

And Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world, yet we would impose our will on Him

Where is my “shakes head” emoji???

[RabbiKnife]

Unless I get to be King and Potentate For Life of the Christian theocracy, in which case if nominated I will serve

[Fenris]

The objective observer will understand that teaching someone about what some thing ought to teach, is to make a judgment on what that some thing does teach, such that knowledge of both teachings (in this case, beliefs) is assumed if one is going to say, "don't teach X, instead, teach Y". If there is no such knowledge, or the knowledge is lacking, then there is a problem.

And in this particular place, such knowledge is lacking.

I don't appreciate being lectured to on what Judaism should teach by someone who can't even read the texts in their original language and so is forced to use problematic translations; who knows nothing of the commentaries or oral knowledge that accompany said holy books; whose sole knowledge of the faith - absent any books written over 2,500 years ago- are books of another faith that are "only" 2,000 years old and whose sole purpose is to replace that faith; and who claims, at the end, to be arguing in good faith.

There's a good name for such people. We call them "Christians" because that is their religion. And it's not their place to expound upon what Judaism is "supposed to be", because they already have their own idealized form of what Judaism is "supposed to be". And it's called "Christianity".

[Fenris]

Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.

I beg to differ. 

Exodus 24: Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

[RandyPNW]

Well that's just plain wrong--I get this all the time. No Christian government? Just do a search on the internet for "Christian government" and tell me there is no such thing?

I'm sure you could also do a search for people who justify pederasty in ancient Greece, but just because the argument exists doesn't mean the argument is valid, compelling, and so forth. Maybe though you'd like to live in Vatican city?

As we've discussed before, you can try to point out 'Christian governments' and then we can point out all the nasty ways they acted very not Christlike.

As I said, theocracies are not invalidated by those who fail to live properly by them, anymore than democracies are invalidated by those who fail to live properly by them.

The purest form of a democracy, for me, would be a Christian Democracy, rendering that, in my definition, one kind of "theocracy." It is the exclusivity of the Christian religion that renders a political system "theocratic."

Inviting "religious pluralism" can be confusing because it can mean freedom for many kinds of Christianity, or it can mean freedom for all religions. A Christian theocracy can be democratic and invite Christian pluralism, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox,  separatist, etc.

Yes, you have a lot of special definitions.

For a very good reason I have special definitions. I wish to maintain the general exclusivity of Christianity in government. At the same time I wish to preserve freedom from religious tyranny.

The Byzantine Empire was a purportedly Christian empire. Now tell me: in recent threads you've decried liberals, those who allow Jewish people to participate in biblical discussions...

Now wait just a minute. It was *you* who told me to cease and desist my discussion with a particular Jewish person because it was getting a little "testy," right? I was just complying with your rule, and trying to speak to an issue while meeting your concerns. None of that had anything to do with my political or religious philosophy.

To be honest, I was a bit concerned you were going to ban me, perhaps misreading my intentions. I tried and tried and tried to explain to Fenris that I was not trying to define in detail what Judaism is for him. I was judging his religion using a moderately enlightened view of Judaism from a Christian viewpoint, which is exactly what our NT Bible teaches us.

...It'll take the whole of 1 second of applying the same standard to see that the Byzantine was only really a so-called purportedly 'Christian' empire that was in no way reflective of the 'ideal' Christian state you espouse.

At what point in the thousand year history of the Empire would you say that the society or government stopped being "Christian?" As imperfect as Christian governments are at times, I prefer, in theory, Christian government, which is imperfect, but tolerant of Christian practice and employs justice along Christian lines. I don't believe Islamic government would be as good, nor as blessed.

[Fenris]

But I also have a right to judge whether those beliefs and practices are proper. I don't have to be a Jew to do that. I don't have to be an expert in Judaism to make that judgment. The needed information is in the NT Scriptures themselves!

Only in religious spaces will a person say that they don't need to be an expert in a subject to critique it.

[RandyPNW]

But I also have a right to judge whether those beliefs and practices are proper. I don't have to be a Jew to do that. I don't have to be an expert in Judaism to make that judgment. The needed information is in the NT Scriptures themselves!

Only in religious spaces will a person say that they don't need to be an expert in a subject to critique it.

I would love to talk with you about this, but I've been warned not to. So I've specifically tried to avoid discussing anything more on the subject with you. Sorry.

[RandyPNW]

The fundamental issue is the false and scripturally unsupportable assertion that God’s plan for human government has always been a theocracy, now somehow transferred from the Nation of Israel to a “Christian theocracy.”

God NEVER wanted a theocracy.  He warned against it but allowed it because of the hardness of the nation of Israel’s heart and their national desire for a king.

God didn't want Israel to have a monarchy. But nowhere does He state He was opposed to what I'm calling a "theocracy."

Clearly, we have different definitions of a "theocracy," which may be some of our problem. But you also seem opposed to Christian government.

So I'm supposing you fall in line with your liberal education, informing you that you *must* accept liberty for all religions in government?

Why would that be?

God desires— and has always desired— a people of kings and priests to serve him face to face without mediator or governmental representative.  Some day that will occur

I don't believe in rejecting a monarchy initially God was rejecting representative government.

[RabbiKnife]

Israel rejected that offer at Sinai.

I beg to differ. 

Exodus 24: Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

I could explain it to you but you would have to be a Christian to understand it, nu?


(Ducking and hiding now as Fenris unleashes the mighty Jewish Space Laser)

I was thinking of the immediacy of the people's fear of God speaking directly to them in Exodus 20 and their desire for Moses to be the intermediary as compared with God's desire for "you will be a nation of priests and kings before me"

And then that whole magic golden calf debacle thereafter

Not suggesting in any way that the covenant at Sinai was invalid

[Fenris]

I could explain it to you but you would have to be a Christian to understand it, nu?


(Ducking and hiding now as Fenris unleashes the mighty Jewish Space Laser)

I was thinking of the immediacy of the peoples fear of God speaking directly to them in Exodus 20 and their desire for Moses to be the intermediary

Ah but the rendition of the event in Deuteronomy 5 makes it sound like they were justified. To wit-

... as soon as you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. And you said, ‘Behold, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire. This day we have seen God speak with man, and man still live. Now therefore why should we die? For this great fire will consume us. If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, we shall die.  For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of fire as we have, and has still lived? Go near and hear all that the Lord our God will say, and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it.’

“And the Lord heard your words, when you spoke to me. And the Lord said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken.

Not to minimize the episode of the golden calf in any way.

[Fenris]

I would love to talk with you about this, but I've been warned not to. So I've specifically tried to avoid discussing anything more on the subject with you. Sorry.

That's ok, I can still call you out for outlandish statements like this one.