I am disgusted!

[Caledvwlch]

First, can anyone name the Theocracies of history?

I can't. That's why I asked. I was just looking for some historical precedent to back up a claim that our nation would be better off under Christian rule.

 

[Granite]

Oy, you've really got a warped view of history and the bible.

Yorz, nothing I said is untrue. These things really happened. And if the people doing these atrocities weren't "real" Christians, where WERE the real Christians in the amidst of this Christ-preaching tyranny?

 

[Granite]

Can anyone name a theocracy that did not devolve into horrible torture, robbery, rape, and murder? The first settlers in America tried it, and that devolved into torture and murder. The Spanish tried it before that, and that devolved into torture, robbery, and murder. Then they exported their murderous theocratic practices to South America and wiped out an entire civilization through systematic rape, robbery, and murder. Before that, most of the countries in Europe were under a papal theocracy, and that resulted in hunderds of years of religious torture, rape, robbery, and murder in the form of the Crusades. In fact, when we look back over history, it seems the only civilizations that didn't devolve into mayhem were those devoted to various degrees of "enlightenment"; where religious superstitions and religious laws were placed on the back burner, and civil laws were based more on the promotion of freedom and commerce.

Theocracies have a terrible track record. And judging by many of the proposals I've heard here on TOL as to what a modern "theocracy" would look like, the track record of torture, rape, robbery, and murder would remain intact were we ever stupid enough to allow a theocrascy to occur. When people imagine themselves to be "God's policemen", they quickly devolve into monsters.

As C.S. Lewis said, better to have a robber baron than an inquisitor.

It's the same Bible through the ages and the same mentality. There is no reason to believe a modern theocracy would behave differently than other ones.

 

[Wamba]

Of course, but the liberal agenda is much more heinous and therefore I am much more upset with them. Dobson supports suicide?

He's said things about "written directives", just a fancy way of saying if you don't want to live you have the right to kill yourself.

 

[Granite]

Why not?

 

[Wamba]

Why not?

Why not what? Kill yourself? Give someone the rope to hang themselves?

 

[Granite]

Why not what? Kill yourself? Give someone the rope to hang themselves?

If someone's in pain, misery, old, and wishes to just wrap things up, it's pretty selfish and warped to string them along. Just my opinion.

 

[ChristisKing]

Any historical examples to back that up?

Yes, plenty!

The Hebrew Republic
The English Republic under Cromwell
The American Republic of the 1700's and 1800's

Just to name a few.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Yes, plenty!

The Hebrew Republic
The English Republic under Cromwell
The American Republic of the 1700's and 1800's

Just to name a few.

Ok, one at a time. When did this "Hebrew Republic" exist? Even in the Bible, they were ruled by tyrants, absolute monarchs and the like. I realize David is looked on historically as a good king, but he was still a king... this was no republic.

Cromwell's republic was held together by his army, plain and simple. As soon as he was gone, the monarchy came back.

And the American republic of the 1700's and 1800's was founded mainly by deists who intentionally did NOT make the Bible the basis of their constitution. They derived the authority of their government from the people. It's right in the preamble.

 

[Granite]

Yes, plenty!

The Hebrew Republic
The English Republic under Cromwell
The American Republic of the 1700's and 1800's

Just to name a few.

The Hebrew republic was barbaric and based on genocide. Moreover the ancient Hebrews were NOT monotheistic. Sorry, but Jehovah had a female consort. This practice was dropped post Babylonian captivity. By the way, read Deuteronomy 25:12 one of these days, then consider if you'd like to live in a society like that. (Your wife, if you have one, might have some ideas about it as well.)

The republic under Cromwell was a humorless, colorless, repressive regime that the English were glad to see go. They didn't call Charles II's reign the Restoration just because the monarchy was restored. Cromwell didn't let people have a life, as it were. Good and grim, the Lord Protector.

And America in the 1700-1800's was the furthest thing from a "theocracy" as you can get. Check out the Massachusetts Bay Colony or Tehran for a theocracy, chief. But at least do your homework before opening mouth and inserting foot.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorz, nothing I said is untrue. These things really happened. And if the people doing these atrocities weren't "real" Christians, where WERE the real Christians in the amidst of this Christ-preaching tyranny?

You were incorrect to imply that what you cited were not man-made laws.

The real Christians were being persecuted along with the rest of the man-made-up-law heretics.

If a country were to follow the laws God laid out in the bible, it would be neither a burden or tyranny. Not even to those folks that didn't want to follow God.

I can't. That's why I asked. I was just looking for some historical precedent to back up a claim that our nation would be better off under Christian rule.

There has been only one Theocracy. That was Israel. One of the requirements of a Theocracy is genuine communication with God concerning day-to-day operations of the government. God is silent now, so that is impossible.

What we can do, though, is follow the wise proscriptions of the bible that tell us about the roll of Government, the church, the family, and individuals. Using this wisdom a gov't can form a good justice system and know how to delegate its power properly to allow for a good economy.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Yes, you were incorrect to imply that what you cited were not man-made laws.

If a country were to follow the laws God laid out in the bible, it would be neither a burden or tyranny. Not even to those folks that didn't want to follow God.


There has been only one Theocracy. That was Israel. One of the requirements of a Theocracy is genuine communication with God concerning day-to-day operations of the government. God is silent now, so that is impossible.

What we can do, though, is follow the wise proscriptions of the bible that tell us about the roll of Government, the church, the family, and individuals. Using this wisdom a gov't can form a good justice system and know how to delegate its power properly to allow for a good economy.

Ok, so our definitions of theocracy are a bit confused. I was just using it as a shortened form of government that systematically applied the Law of God to the society. Also, I can't be convinced that Israel was a theocracy... especially from Saul forward. But that's beside the point.

What historical precedent is there for a consistent and total application of the Law of God as it appears in the Bible on a society, and to what affect was such an application?

 

[Granite]

Yes, you were incorrect to imply that what you cited were not man-made laws.

If a country were to follow the laws God laid out in the bible, it would be neither a burden or tyranny. Not even to those folks that didn't want to follow God.


There has been only one Theocracy. That was Israel. One of the requirements of a Theocracy is genuine communication with God concerning day-to-day operations of the government. God is silent now, so that is impossible.

What we can do, though, is follow the wise proscriptions of the bible that tell us about the roll of Government, the church, the family, and individuals. Using this wisdom a gov't can form a good justice system and know how to delegate its power properly to allow for a good economy.

I didn't cite "laws," I named societies. Are you actually reading my posts or giving them the Quick Skim?

If a country were to follow "God's law," women could have their hands cut off and entire families could be stoned. We having fun yet? At least we can't burn women alive anymore, as that only applied to the daughters of priests.

By the way, considering you guys pick and choose what laws are "symbolic" and "applicable," it's up for grabs which ones you'll apply and not...

 

[Yorzhik]

I didn't cite "laws," I named societies. Are you actually reading my posts or giving them the Quick Skim?

I read them completely. You implied laws. You should have realized that is what I was talking about.

By the way, considering you guys pick and choose what laws are "symbolic" and "applicable," it's up for grabs which ones you'll apply and not...

That is how you must view it because in your state of ignorance you have no foundation in what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Granite]

I read them completely. You implied laws. You should have realized that is what I was talking about.


That is how you must view it because in your state of ignorance you have no foundation in what is right and what is wrong.

Yorz, I was in the church for twenty odd years, last eight years as a Reconstructionist. When it comes to theonomy and The Law, I know a thing or two. Do not imply that I'm shooting in the dark here, savvy?

Every time, without exception, that Christians have seized political power...they've abused it. Why should we trust you people again?

 

[Yorzhik]

I was just using it as a shortened form of government that systematically applied the Law of God to the society.

How much of the law would have to be applied to be systematically enough to be a theocracy? Modern England is clearly post-Christian, and yet it still has a great number of the same laws that God lists in the bible.

The form you use is far too ambiguous. There is too much overlap to be clear - any gov't that is not clearly anti-God could be called a theocracy.

Originally posted by Caledvwlch
Also, I can't be convinced that Israel was a theocracy... especially from Saul forward

I would agree if you would say that Israel mostly ignored God even having direct access to Him. But Samuel was post-Saul, and so was Nathan, and God was talking directly with them, and they walked into the king's court and ordered him around as they were directed by God. Also the Urim and Thummim were still around providing direct answers from God.

Originally posted by Caledvwlch
What historical precedent is there for a consistent and total application of the Law of God as it appears in the Bible on a society, and to what affect was such an application?

Now that's a tougher question. Israel was constantly ignoring God and it was constantly making him angry. So, although Israel was set-up to be a theocracy, they disregarded it more often than not.

But the way to look at this in a nutshell is this: to whatever extent the law of God is applied, to that extent the citizens will experience freedom. I also might add that some of God's laws are more important than others.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I also might add that some of God's laws are more important than others.

And who gets to make that judgement?

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorz, I was in the church for twenty odd years, last eight years as a Reconstructionist. When it comes to theonomy and The Law, I know a thing or two. Do not imply that I'm shooting in the dark here, savvy?

I'm not implying you are ignorant. I'm saying it directly.

For someone who was in the church for 20 years you seem to have had about the same grasp of the nature of God (a pre-requisite to understanding what He said) as most Calvinists.

Every time, without exception, that Christians have seized political power...they've abused it. Why should we trust you people again?

Because we're your best hope. I know you don't see it, but your way leads to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot. I'd rather have the Puritans any day over that. And the Puritans were a bunch of confused Calvinists to boot!

 

[Zakath]

How much of the law would have to be applied to be systematically enough to be a theocracy? Modern England is clearly post-Christian, and yet it still has a great number of the same laws that God lists in the bible.

By traditional count, there are 613 laws (mitzvot) in the OT. How many of the OT laws do you think are still on the books in Britain?

 

[Granite]

I'm not implying you are ignorant. I'm saying it directly.

For someone who was in the church for 20 years you seem to have had about the same grasp of the nature of God (a pre-requisite to understanding what He said) as most Calvinists.


Because we're your best hope. I know you don't see it, but your way leads to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot. I'd rather have the Puritans any day over that. And the Puritans were a bunch of confused Calvinists to boot!

Uh, so what? Calvinism doesn't imply ignorance. I wouldn't say Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, or Spurgeon were stupid guys...on the other hand Arminians such as Paul Crouch and Hal Lindsey aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

If Christianity's our best hope I'll hit a ride elsewhere, thanks. Your religion has always abused power once it takes it. ALWAYS. If the best you can do is pick one lesser tyranny over another, that's not a choice; it's just resignation.