US Russian Hoax

[Athanasius]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

Neither priest nor king nor elected leader today claims to lead by divine revelation.

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

According to you. I'm certain that your idea of a modern theocracy would also be a "false theocracy" according to most people, and that includes most Christians.

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.

What Catholic nations claimed divine revelation? What Catholic nations claimed to rule by God's law? This is bad history. 

[RandyPNW]

Neither priest nor king nor elected leader today claims to lead by divine revelation.

Those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings believed they were "anointed by God," and in effect leading by "divine revelation." It was being revealed by God, even if the full picture wasn't being revealed to the king. Their self-guidance, by means of their own mind and conscience, was in effect justified by their position as a king.

I'm certain that your idea of a modern theocracy would also be a "false theocracy" according to most people, and that includes most Christians.

I'm not going to resolve for you which is the "true Theocracy." Leave it to the notion we both agree there is such a thing as a true Kingdom of God? This would be the "true Theocracy," regardless of the fact people have wrong ideas about what it is.

What Catholic nations claimed divine revelation? What Catholic nations claimed to rule by God's law? This is bad history.

It may be "bad history" to you because obviously, Catholic nations were led by Catholic kings influenced by Catholic popes who believed they were in their position by the will of God. But carrying out their policies under "divine revelation" was a matter of some obscurity because Christian people have different ideas about how that takes place.

Some Christians believe that just being in a place of leadership, sanctioned by God, gives them the right to make "inspired decisions.' Some Christians believe they need to actually hear a voice from God, or take their "inspired" decisions based on explicit Scriptural concepts.

But my point is that God's Kingdom does reside among men for Christians and for Jews. When Israel as a nation lived under the Law of God and were given kings appointed by God, they had a Theocracy, and ruled, in a sense, by "divine revelation."

We know that didn't always work out, as even God said. There would be blessings and curses, depending on the level of obedience or disobedience. But clearly, when Israel's leaders obeyed God, they often were viewed as following God's voice to some degree. And the results were clearly given.

The fact Israel is characterized, overall, as disobedient does not militate against the idea that Israel may have lived, silently, in peace for many years in relative obedience under a legitimate Theocracy. Clearly, when obedience to God's Law happened, and leadership was good, peace reigned and enemies were defeated. They led by the prophetic counsel of wise, inspired men.

Christians believe the same is true in Christian history, where Christian kings obeyed the Scriptures and listened to wise counsel, resulting in peace and victory over evil. It is also true that in bad times Christian kings were corrupt and claimed to be following the mandates of God and really were not doing that.

[Fenris]

Neither priest nor king nor elected leader today claims to lead by divine revelation.

Those who believe in the Divine Right of Kings believed they were "anointed by God," and in effect leading by "divine revelation."

That's not what "Divine Right" means. It simply means that God wanted such and such to be a king, not that God was revealing matters to them as though they were a prophet.

I'm not going to resolve for you which is the "true Theocracy." Leave it to the notion we both agree there is such a thing as a true Kingdom of God? This would be the "true Theocracy," regardless of the fact people have wrong ideas about what it is.

Not in today's world. Not in the pre-messianic era.

It may be "bad history" to you because obviously, Catholic nations were led by Catholic kings influenced by Catholic popes who believed they were in their position by the will of God.

Catholic kings didn't even listen to Catholic popes. So no, it's not bad history.

But my point is that God's Kingdom does reside among men for Christians and for Jews. When Israel as a nation lived under the Law of God and were given kings appointed by God, they had a Theocracy, and ruled, in a sense, by "divine revelation."

Using biblical era Israel as a model for any sort of modern governance is ridiculous. That theocracy had actual prophets who challenged everybody, including their kings, to lead more Godly lives. 

Christians believe the same is true in Christian history, where Christian kings obeyed the Scriptures and listened to wise counsel, resulting in peace and victory over evil. It is also true that in bad times Christian kings were corrupt and claimed to be following the mandates of God and really were not doing that.

There were no "Christian kings" on the order of David, Solomon, or Hezekiah. And none counseled by prophets.

[RandyPNW]

That's not what "Divine Right" means. It simply means that God wanted such and such to be a king, not that God was revealing matters to them as though they were a prophet.

The reality is that kings who claimed "Divine Rights" believed God either sanctioned their decisions or outright revealed them, whether by prophet or by conscience. What use would it be for a king to claim he ruled by "divine right" if none of his policies were meant to represent God and His revelations?

Using biblical era Israel as a model for any sort of modern governance is ridiculous. That theocracy had actual prophets who challenged everybody, including their kings, to lead more Godly lives. 

Separating the experience under God of ancient Israel from modern nations is absurd *to you,* but not to me. God is the same in all eras.

Modern trends wish to isolate religious phenomena in the ancient past, reducing religious experience today to "myth." True Christianity disregards all attempts by religious liberals to deny the supernatural element in religion, finding God's impact on today's society as relevant as in any age.

We don't just follow some ancient moral code, interpreting it to fit in the modern age. Rather, we see God as eternal and equally applicable in all times, ancient and modern. And we are all being judged on that basis.

We are not simply judged by how successfully we adapt to a legal code, but more, by how much we embrace the spirituality of God Himself as the means of personal reformation. So both God and His Law are essential in the modern world.

Making the applicability of God in effect only in the form of an outdated document is what's absurd to me. If theocracy, ie the application of theism to the whole society, was God's choice in the ancient world, it is still His choice in the modern world.

There were no "Christian kings" on the order of David, Solomon, or Hezekiah. And none counseled by prophets.

Since you are not a Christian and biased against Christianity, your opinion holds no weight with me in this regard. In my view, Christian political leaders were very much on the order of David, Solomon, and Hezekiah. Like these ancient leaders, Christian leaders also had their flaws. But also like them these Christian leaders pursued Christian reforms.

[RabbiKnife]

I am a Christian

There have never been kings that were Christian like Solomon or David

[IMINXTC]

This is a highly unusual topic to say the least, and involves an erronous, imaginary take on the revealed faith.

There has been only one true theocracy in human history, which is Israel.

Since the advent of the Church, of which Christ is the head, God abides in this body, which occupies all nations and is not a political entity.

No such thing as a Christian nation - never was, regardless of relative claims, and the world is headed for certain judgment. The Church is invisible, the domain of God's redeemed, and will be taken out.

No political body officiates over the righteousness of God, which is Christ, nor do they have a clue - pearls before swine.

[Fenris]

The reality is that kings who claimed "Divine Rights" believed God either sanctioned their decisions or outright revealed them, whether by prophet or by conscience. What use would it be for a king to claim he ruled by "divine right" if none of his policies were meant to represent God and His revelations?

By definition:

the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch receives the right to rule directly from God and not from the people.

"The right to rule". That's it. Not the other stuff you're adding.

Separating the experience under God of ancient Israel from modern nations is absurd *to you,* but not to me. God is the same in all eras.

But people are not.

The kings in the bible had prophets to challenge them and keep them in line. Post bible, no leaders have prophets to guide them because prophecy no longer exists. This is not a minor point and I don't see how you miss it.

Modern trends wish to isolate religious phenomena in the ancient past, reducing religious experience today to "myth." True Christianity disregards all attempts by religious liberals to deny the supernatural element in religion, finding God's impact on today's society as relevant as in any age.

Yes, because God acts in history. But we no longer have prophecy or divine revelation.

We don't just follow some ancient moral code, interpreting it to fit in the modern age. Rather, we see God as eternal and equally applicable in all times, ancient and modern. And we are all being judged on that basis.

Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We are not simply judged by how successfully we adapt to a legal code, but more, by how much we embrace the spirituality of God Himself as the means of personal reformation.

If you're Christian, maybe.

Making the applicability of God in effect only in the form of an outdated document is what's absurd to me. If theocracy, ie the application of theism to the whole society, was God's choice in the ancient world, it is still His choice in the modern world.

There are zero examples of any society post bible that adopted theocracy and became anything other than a hell hole. I'd not rush to such a thing, or even talk about it being preferential in any way.

Since you are not a Christian and biased against Christianity, your opinion holds no weight with me in this regard. In my view, Christian political leaders were very much on the order of David, Solomon, and Hezekiah.

Name a single one.

[RandyPNW]

"The right to rule". That's it. Not the other stuff you're adding.

Sorry, if you don't see the implications, fine. As I said, the king claiming to be appointed of God thinks He is ruling by divine authority, and does not think he is simply appointed to that authority without consulting the God who appointed him.

We are not dealing just with definitions here, but with realities. In reality, kings who thought they ruled by divine mandate also believed they were responsible to God, even if not to be judged by lessors. Those who believed in God, as leaders, also believed they were responsible to the laws of God, and thus, to divine guidance.

Separating the experience under God of ancient Israel from modern nations is absurd *to you,* but not to me. God is the same in all eras.

But people are not.

The kings in the bible had prophets to challenge them and keep them in line. Post bible, no leaders have prophets to guide them because prophecy no longer exists. This is not a minor point and I don't see how you miss it.

I "miss it" because I don't agree with it. As a Christian I believe prophecy still exists, whether simply in the form of truth or in the form of oracles. Truth has a powerful Divine element in it such that those who recognize the association between truth and Deity are able to be guided by divine revelation, whether kings or others.

Yes, because God acts in history. But we no longer have prophecy or divine revelation.

To me, that is a contradiction. To have God still acting in history is to continue to have prophecy and divine revelation. It requires *faith,* however, to connect truth to divine revelation.

Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sure it does. If you claim to live by divine revelation, you either do it by reference to past documents or by present perceptions of the conscience. My point is that kings ruling by divine revelation consider both to be important if they were Christian kings ruling by divine right. They were led both by the Bible and by their own conscience, which constitutes "rule by divine revelation."

If theocracy, ie the application of theism to the whole society, was God's choice in the ancient world, it is still His choice in the modern world.

There are zero examples of any society post bible that adopted theocracy and became anything other than a hell hole. I'd not rush to such a thing, or even talk about it being preferential in any way.

For me there is no "post Bible." Christian kings ruled by Bible and by conscience, and thus by divine revelation. Virtually all of the Christian kings who led in Christian theocracies, as I define them, believed their actions would commend themselves to the Christian public, who had the same Bible and the same conscience.

[Athanasius]

As Daniel Jackson taught us, some kings decided they were divine and accountable to no one.

[IMINXTC]

As Daniel Jackson taught us, some kings decided they were divine and accountable to no one.

Indeed!

[Fenris]

Sorry, if you don't see the implications, fine. As I said, the king claiming to be appointed of God thinks He is ruling by divine authority, and does not think he is simply appointed to that authority without consulting the God who appointed him.

Has any king after biblical times every even pretended to consult with God?

We are not dealing just with definitions here, but with realities. In reality, kings who thought they ruled by divine mandate also believed they were responsible to God, even if not to be judged by lessors. Those who believed in God, as leaders, also believed they were responsible to the laws of God, and thus, to divine guidance.

LOL. This is fiction.

I "miss it" because I don't agree with it. As a Christian I believe prophecy still exists

Name one.

To me, that is a contradiction. To have God still acting in history is to continue to have prophecy and divine revelation.

God can act in history without prophecy. Why must you place restrictions of what God can or can't do?

Sure it does. If you claim to live by divine revelation, you either do it by reference to past documents or by present perceptions of the conscience. My point is that kings ruling by divine revelation consider both to be important if they were Christian kings ruling by divine right. They were led both by the Bible and by their own conscience, which constitutes "rule by divine revelation."

Again fiction. Name one king who lived like this.

For me there is no "post Bible." Christian kings ruled by Bible and by conscience, and thus by divine revelation. Virtually all of the Christian kings who led in Christian theocracies, as I define them, believed their actions would commend themselves to the Christian public, who had the same Bible and the same conscience.

I can't think of a single one. Maybe you could helpfully provide an example?

[RandyPNW]

Has any king after biblical times every even pretended to consult with God?

Every Christian king with real faith has prayed. And the expectation with prayer is that God answers with wisdom.

James 1. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.

I "miss it" because I don't agree with it. As a Christian I believe prophecy still exists

Name 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.

Why must you place restrictions of what God can or can't do?

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.

[Athanasius]

I've noticed a distinct lack of a concrete example.

[RandyPNW]

I've noticed a distinct lack of a concrete example.

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?

History tends to record the short-comings of kings and political leaders. For example, in the book of Kings or Chronicles you will find rather good kings represented by a checkered history of some short-comings.

The same would be true of NT history where Christian Europe had relatively good kings, at times, eg Charlemagne, whose shortcomings would be listed, tainting their reputation, simply because that's how history is recorded. History records important sidesteps, mistakes, disasters, etc.--just like a modern newspaper.

From reading the papers you might think there isn't a single good politician in WA DC! But I'm sure there are a few good people on both sides of the aisle. That would be true in the UK and elsewhere.