What Religion the State Part II

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

But… but … but
JESUS

Talk about taking the Lord’s name in vain….

God gets blamed for so much of our crap…

[Fenris]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Athanasius]

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!

[RandyPNW]

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.

[ProDeo]

In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?

[Athanasius]

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.

[IMINXTC]

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,

[Fenris]

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?

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

In your Christian Theocracy, are we going to stone adulterous people?

And cross dressers, apparently.

[RabbiKnife]

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).