US Russian Hoax

[Athanasius]

When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given. Or, do you think there have been no sincere, practicing Christian kings in Europe?

You know that song by Tourniquet, 'White knucklin' the rosary'?

Why are we assuming that prayer is indeed proper, Godly prayer?

So, are you using Charlemagne as an example, or did you have someone else in mind, perhaps the obvious single example?

[IMINXTC]

And spirituality without Christ and His salvation simply doesn't exist. It's not only about managing sin or establishing a moral code in the world. And to assume that an unsaved individual is involved in a mutual prayer relationship with God in order to effect the world's moral order is, well, a false assumption.

This entire discussion, where it concerns so-called theocracies and moral order appears to be concentrated on establishing God's will on Earth in the sense of political realms.

God's will is that men come to salvation in Christ. There is no Christian society or order without that salvation, and that is the domain and mission of His church, not human rulers or rule.

If a ruler so happens to be a Godly, born-again man that would certainly be his message to men - that they must be born again.

These human based, extra biblical ruminations actually lead people away from Christ, suggesting spiritual hope outside of the Gospel.

[RandyPNW]

To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"

Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

This is not the same as a democracy.

That is only one definition, or one that is pretty ambiguous--too general. When priests rule, the thought is that God rules by revelation to His leadership. Political leaders can also lead by divine revelation, eg King David. Therefore, any political system, including monarchies and democracies, can in effect be theocracies.

Anyway, that's how I'm using the term "theocracy." When God's Law becomes the basis of political rule, the nation is in my judgment a "theocracy."

Obviously, theocracies can be false theocracies or bad theocracies. For example, Islam is a false theocracy because it is based on a false religion, a false concept of God, and a false Law of God, though some of tat Law may be true.

And a bad theocracy would be like some corrupt Catholic nations in the past who led by using God's Law, rather than, ruling by divine revelation. The Law of God, then, became a tool of abuse, to retain political power, rather than to administer God's justice.

If the basis of political rule is "God's law" (whatever that means), then no, it's not a theocracy, even if those laws form the foundational values of said country. Theocracy and democracy are antithetical, and this 'false' or 'bad' theocracy is to engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

We disagree on the definition of "theocracy" as *I'm using the term.* Terms are flexible, and the user has to set the limits of his own definition. I've done that, and your argument seems to be that this is invalid.

[RandyPNW]

Why are we assuming that prayer is indeed proper, Godly prayer?

So, are you using Charlemagne as an example, or did you have someone else in mind, perhaps the obvious single example?

I resist naming names, lest we find ourselves debating "how good a Christian" someone in authority is. When people are at that altitude, they are sitting ducks for those who *aren't* in that position.

I'm assuming prayer is godly when practiced by kings and queens who take James seriously.

[RandyPNW]

And spirituality without Christ and His salvation simply doesn't exist. It's not only about managing sin or establishing a moral code in the world. And to assume that an unsaved individual is involved in a mutual prayer relationship with God in order to effect the world's moral order is, well, a false assumption.

This entire discussion, where it concerns so-called theocracies and moral order appears to be concentrated on establishing God's will on Earth in the sense of political realms.

God's will is that men come to salvation in Christ. There is no Christian society or order without that salvation, and that is the domain and mission of His church, not human rulers or rule.

If a ruler so happens to be a Godly, born-again man that would certainly be his message to men - that they must be born again.

These human based, extra biblical ruminations actually lead people away from Christ, suggesting spiritual hope outside of the Gospel.

You seem to set at odds the Church and the Political Realm. They are intertwined. In older Christian States they were termed secular rulers and ecclesiastical rulers. However, the secular rulers were still regarded as Christian rulers--secularism was not then what it is now.

The idea that God is interested in individual salvation but not in the State is contradicted by the Scriptures, particularly in the OT Scriptures. God obviously is concerned with social justice, along with individual personal relationships with men and women.

If God is not interested in society, then He cares nothing for social justice. But if He does care about social justice, then He is obviously concerned about political leadership, or the State.

The fact the NT Scriptures were written in a time of Israel's national decline, and in a time when the Gospel reached out to a pagan Empire, says nothing about God's supposed disinterest in a Christian State. He plans to eventually bring Israel back into relationship with Himself, by turning it into a Christian State. And we already know that the Roman Empire at some point was Christianized, even if in modern times Roman Christianity has become secularized and more pagan.

The fact religious states apostacize does not mean Salvation is apolitical or disinterested in a return to a Christian State. The Gospel and its Grace is able to withstand religious decline and apostasy, until God brings judgment and restores the Christian State.

Biblically, the theocracy, or the state led by Divine Law, is called "the Kingdom of God." Today this is, I believe, the Christian State, whether now, as temporal forms of the Kingdom, or in the eschatological future in its eternal form.

[Athanasius]

We disagree on the definition of "theocracy" as *I'm using the term.* Terms are flexible, and the user has to set the limits of his own definition. I've done that, and your argument seems to be that this is invalid.

The problem doesn't regard validity or invalidity (this is a question younger people cast towards their identity, it's exhausting, and I imagine devastating). The problem is whether your definition of theocracy is in fact theocracy and not something else. It's something else

I resist naming names, lest we find ourselves debating "how good a Christian" someone in authority is. When people are at that altitude, they are sitting ducks for those who *aren't* in that position.

You made a claim, so to who are you appealing in support of that claim?

[Fenris]

When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given.

And no single example can be provided. Perhaps because you can't name any?

[Fenris]

Every Christian king with real faith has prayed.

So you should have no problem naming one.

Prophecy is most often not prognostication about the future, although it certainly can be that. Most prophecy has to do with present instruction about how to proceed in a given situation. Christian kings did not write down their "prophecies" normally, since it was a revelation of wisdom as to how to act.

So...you can't name on of these, either.

I'm not sure I've defined God as anything short of omnipotent? The things He cannot do is contradict His own stated intentions, once they are confirmed as irrevocable.

And yet you still place restrictions on His behavior. How peculiar.

[RandyPNW]

We disagree on the definition of "theocracy" as *I'm using the term.* Terms are flexible, and the user has to set the limits of his own definition. I've done that, and your argument seems to be that this is invalid.

The problem doesn't regard validity or invalidity (this is a question younger people cast towards their identity, it's exhausting, and I imagine devastating). The problem is whether your definition of theocracy is in fact theocracy and not something else. It's something else

The Kingdom of God conveys the idea of a political state ruled by God. I would reference both the Scriptures and modern theological works concerning the Kingdom of God, such as works written by George E. Ladd.

With respect to Ladd and to his reflections about the Kingdom of God, it is a very arguable subject. There is no discernible effort at identifying the eschatological Kingdom with temporal kingdoms in history.

And so, I'm arguing not for eschatological ideas about the Kingdom, but about temporal examples of God's Kingdom.

With respect to the Scriptures, I've referenced  the following:

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.


Since we live in a time of Christian Apostacy in Europe and around the world any sense of a Christian Theocracy is being lost. It is now treated as if the idea is radical. Instead, a Theocracy is now viewed as in the sense of an Islamic Caliphate led by an Ayatollah. This is not what I mean.

A Christian State is now viewed as intolerant, akin to the time of the Catholic Crusades and Inquisitions. And Enlightenment Philosophy has now been enthroned as the only proper "reasoned approach" towards political peace and stability.

Tolerance has replaced Grace, which is in effect a code word for "anything goes." In the end, "anything goes" will lead to anarchy, and to eventual dictatorship of various kinds within the State, just to keep the order.

[RandyPNW]

When prayer is *everywhere* no single example needs to be given.

And no single example can be provided. Perhaps because you can't name any?

Sure I could. But as I said elsewhere, that would just begin an "inquisatorial" style examination of how "Christian" such a king or queen would be. I suggested Charlemagne--add to that Theodosius. How far do I need to go before you begin your "inquisition?"

[RandyPNW]

Every Christian king with real faith has prayed.

So you should have no problem naming one.

I don't.

Prophecy is most often not prognostication about the future, although it certainly can be that. Most prophecy has to do with present instruction about how to proceed in a given situation. Christian kings did not write down their "prophecies" normally, since it was a revelation of wisdom as to how to act.

So...you can't name on of these, either.

As I said, prophetic material is most often not written down. It is displayed in behavior responding, by conscience, to God's internal word. "My word is near you." (Deut 30.14)

The evidence of God's word is often seen in the results of Man's obedience to God's internal word. For example, Charlemagne spread the idea of Christian states in Europe, in response to God's word to honor God in the state. Theodosius spread the idea of the Christian state in response to God's word concerning His Law governing the State, as viewed in the Law of Moses.

You acknowledge the reality of a Divine Theocracy in ancient Israel. It is therefore a contradiction when you wish to dismiss the same  idea upon another religion in modern times. Would you deny that King David followed a prophetic word to his own conscience when establishing his policies in the Kingdom?

[Fenris]

Sure I could. But as I said elsewhere, that would just begin an "inquisatorial" style examination of how "Christian" such a king or queen would be.

Of course it would. If you're holding some king up as an idea Christian king, we are free to examine their behavior.

I suggested Charlemagne

"Let no Jew presume to have a money-changer's table in his house, nor shall he presume to sell wine, grain, or other commodities there. But if it be discovered that he has done so all his goods shall be taken away from him, and he shall be imprisoned until he is brought into our presence."

[RabbiKnife]

Ok Fenris… you heard  the man…
Fork it over…

Where is my double face palm emoji?

🤦‍♂️🙈

[RandyPNW]

Sure I could. But as I said elsewhere, that would just begin an "inquisatorial" style examination of how "Christian" such a king or queen would be.

Of course it would. If you're holding some king up as an idea Christian king, we are free to examine their behavior.

I suggested Charlemagne

"Let no Jew presume to have a money-changer's table in his house, nor shall he presume to sell wine, grain, or other commodities there. But if it be discovered that he has done so all his goods shall be taken away from him, and he shall be imprisoned until he is brought into our presence."

It is one thing to hate the Jew, and another to allow Judaism in a Christian theocracy. You are judging the standards of a Christian theocracy by the standards of Enlightenment ideals of religious pluralism.

I have no idea how threatening Judaism may have been in Charlemagne's time? I can't even begin to judge to what degree the practice of Judaism in that time might constitute "sedition?"

But it is clear that in either a Jewish Theocracy or a Christian Theocracy, the religion is allied with the state such that at some point another religion would constitute a threat to the unity of the State. In that case, other religions would be disallowed to the extent that they present a real threat.

For example, some leaders in Israel would consider it a threat to the Jewish State to allow back in all of the Palestinians who have fled Israel during times of Arab attack. The notion that all of these Palestinians could enter back into the Jewish State could upend a democracy that could be over-ruled by a predominance of Arab Muslims who are hostile to Jewish beliefs and wish to end any notion of a "Jewish State" altogether. They might wish to make Israel just another Islamic State?

If these Jewish threats were not real in a Christian state in Charlemagne's time, but just a peaceful practice of private religion, I doubt that there would be a real effort to exterminate Judaism.

But it's a good question. Again, identifying particular names just gives you opportunity to question Christianity itself, as if human flaws can invalidate other aspects of a religion that are positive.

Would you invalidate Judaism because it crucified Jesus or murdered Christians in the 1st century? Or would you invalidate King David's prophetic prowess because he slept with Bathsheba and occasionally made serious errors in his life?

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

The standards Charlemagne set forth, as you indicated, would be acceptable to Jewish ethics and would not constitute a threat to Judaism in compliance with God's Law. The Law of God as represented in the OT Scriptures is what NT Christianity claims is fulfilled. Greed would be prohibited under the Law. Thus, observant Jews should not be concerned about being punished for usury.

[IMINXTC]

Keep in mind that to Christians who believe the Bible, Jews were exiled into foreign countries not to experience freedom and blessing, but rather, to learn service to God under harsh conditions, to experience the wages of sinful living. Living in a Christian country should bring accommodation to a non-Jewish State.

In all seriousness? Sir, you have compiled your own religion here, and it ain't pretty.