Replacing God with government

[Revoltingest]

I see a problem when humans reject God as the ultimate authority and the One from Whom human rights are endowed. Statism or human government as the ultimate authority steps in and often demands absolute power becoming a controlling tyrannical entity.

What do you think?

Even for believers, there's a question of which interpretation
of which of the many gods who should have authority over
them, & over non-believers. Nothing is verifiable.
And as we can observe around the globe, tyranny often
reigns in theocracies based upon some flavor of religion.

 

[Madsaac]

What separation? The Act of Settlement is endorsed by the coronation oaths of Charles III.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law. Are you willing to take the Oath?

King Charles: I am willing. [He places his hand on the Bible.]

Means nothing though, it's there just keep a old thinking dinosaurs happy

 

[Ebionite]

Means nothing though

It means that the oath of allegiance implies recognition of the doctrine of the Church of England. This is evident from Article 9 of the Anglican Articles of Religion and the fact that the state treats people as persons, not men.

 

[Madsaac]

It means that the oath of allegiance implies recognition of the doctrine of the Church of England. This is evident from Article 9 of the Anglican Articles of Religion and the fact that the state treats people as persons, not men.

Okay but in practical terms, in relation to making laws and decisions etc.

I thinks its mainly just a ceremonial tradition, meaningless, like lots of religious stuff

 

[InChrist]

Even for believers, there's a question of which interpretation
of which of the many gods who should have authority over
them, & over non-believers. Nothing is verifiable.
And as we can observe around the globe, tyranny often
reigns in theocracies based upon some flavor of religion.

I’m not advocating theocracy. I think I said that in a previous post. I’m glad we have a system with separation of church and state, because I do think theocracies usually become tyrannical. I am just saying that when the majority of people reject acknowledgment of God as the ultimate authority… then this opens the door to government stepping in a to take the place of God and people look to such a government to provide all answers and needs. I see this as a danger and a position I don’t believe government should have because it really can lead to excessive control and tyranny.

 

[F1fan]

I see a problem when humans reject God as the ultimate authority and the One from Whom human rights are endowed. Statism or human government as the ultimate authority steps in and often demands absolute power becoming a controlling tyrannical entity.

What do you think?

No God ever comes forth to take authority. All we have are flawed humans who claim to speak for the absent God. This includes Catholics who protestatnts do not recognize as an authority. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, do not recognize any authority in the claims about God/gods from the others.

So all we have left is humans who actually exist, and actually are accountable. And it has always been humans who form ways to govern our social groups, even if they claim to speak for absent Gods.

If a God exists and wanst a part is a secular government, it had better show up and make itself known. Until then, Gods are irrelevant.

 

[InChrist]

I'd take the rule of a well run government devoid of religion, compared to rule based on a religion 100% of the time.

A well run governmental system is the best way we can live, and if this exists there is no need for religions.

People can have there personal religions but when their archaic rules and thoughts become involved in government, then we have a problem and religion has a lot to answer for.

There are endless examples throughout history of when religion sticks it's nose into government business with bad results.

And if look at places in the world where Religion stays out of government with the lowest religious uptake like Europe, Australia, North America, Japan compared to the Middle East, Asia and Africa, you can see the clear trouble with religion. China and Russia are another kettle of fish but the evidence is clear.

And these places can only get better with the reduction in religious beliefs.

I’m not arguing in favor of religion, certainly not a religiously controlled government or theocracy. Just saying that I think when people reject the acknowledgment of a Creator God who holds ultimate authority over humanity and the universe… then it’s easier for government to step in a play God.

 

[InChrist]

No God ever comes forth to take authority. All we have are flawed humans who claim to speak for the absent God. This includes Catholics who protestatnts do not recognize as an authority. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, do not recognize any authority in the claims about God/gods from the others.

So all we have left is humans who actually exist, and actually are accountable. And it has always been humans who form ways to govern our social groups, even if they claim to speak for absent Gods.

If a God exists and wanst a part is a secular government, it had better show up and make itself known. Until then, Gods are irrelevant.

I actually think God has made Himself known in a variety of ways… but that’s another topic.

 

[Ebionite]

Okay but in practical terms, in relation to making laws and decisions etc.

In practical terms it is systemic, a tradition which affects the interpretation of laws due to religious prejudice. The prejudice against pre-existent law was illustrated when Paul was put to the test in the temple by James over his observance of the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m not advocating theocracy. I think I said that in a previous post. I’m glad we have a system with separation of church and state, because I do think theocracies usually become tyrannical. I am just saying that when the majority of people reject acknowledgment of God as the ultimate authority… then this opens the door to government stepping in a to take the place of God and people look to such a government to provide all answers and needs. I see this as a danger and a position I don’t believe government should have because it really can lead to excessive control and tyranny.

This all assumes that God exists,
& is to rule all humans.
Big unverified assumption there.

 

[F1fan]

I actually think God has made Himself known in a variety of ways… but that’s another topic.

It's very much the topic of this thread since the title questions replacing something not known to exist with government. It's an odd thing to say.

Theocracies don't exist because there is an actual God using humans to govern societies, they exist because humans use religion as an excuse to weild unlimited power and authority. The reason the Founding Fathers designed a secular government is because they knew the history of criminal abuses by those who use religion as a basis for political authority.

 

[InChrist]

This all assumes that God exists,
& is to rule all humans.
Big unverified assumption there.

Yes, you are correct. It does assume that God exists.

 

[InChrist]

It's very much the topic of this thread since the title questions replacing something not known to exist with government. It's an odd thing to say.

Theocracies don't exist because there is an actual God using humans to govern societies, they exist because humans use religion as an excuse to weild unlimited power and authority. The reason the Founding Fathers designed a secular government is because they knew the history of criminal abuses by those who use religion as a basis for political authority.

I agree, that’s the reason they designed a government with separation of church and state to prevent religious/political governmental abuses. Nevertheless, a large portion of the Founding Fathers acknowledged the ultimate authority of a Creator God and therefore wanted to keep the government within limitations.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

This all assumes that God exists,
& is to rule all humans.
Big unverified assumption there.

Hi Revoltingest. Good evening.

This universe is governed by laws which mankind has set about trying to discover to better understand the system to which we operate. Science includes many principles thought to be laws of nature: Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws etc. These laws had to be created, otherwise they would be complete disharmony, disorganization and confusion in this Universe. Laws are created by a law-giver, or have you become darkened in heart in not understanding this unmistakable fact?

1 Corinthians 14:33
"for Yahweh is not a Elohim of confusion, but of peace..."

Romans 1:20-21

"20 For since the creation of the world Yahweh’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and heavenly nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew Elohim, they neither glorified him as Elohim nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."

The Bible contains the factual information about Yahweh, and His Son, the history of His people, and just some of the plans he has for this earth and in those plans are contained the fact that Yahweh will rule through Yahshua the Messiah over this world at the end of the age of man. It's not simply an unverified assumption to believe in Yahweh. Yahweh's majestic power has been revealed through His works, the beauty and immense love that He put in creation and most of all, His most precious works of His majestic creative power, Him sending His only begotten Son for our sakes so we could receive forgiveness for our sins and walk in newness of life worthy of saints so we can attain to a level of perfection pleasing to the Father and rule and be with Yahshua in the Kingdom.

Assuming that Yahweh does not exist is indeed in my opinion the most incredibly nonsensical thing a person can do.

 

[F1fan]

I agree, that’s the reason they designed a government with separation of church and state to prevent religious/political governmental abuses.

Yet republicans have found a way by imposing religious extremists in judicial positions.

Nevertheless, a large portion of the Founding Fathers acknowledged the ultimate authority of a Creator God and therefore wanted to keep the government within limitations.

False. There's no mention of an ultimate authority of a God. The only reference of a God was in the Declaraton of Independence which made reference to all men being created equal by our Creator. This reference was a direct response to the divine right of the King of England. What better way to neutralize a divine right by the king than with your own divine right as ordinary men? It was brilliant.

And let's not forget that this was 1776 when the Enlightenment promoted natural philosophy which assumed a creator. This was well before science was able to explain how humans and the universe came about without any gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see a problem when humans reject God as the ultimate authority and the One from Whom human rights are endowed. Statism or human government as the ultimate authority steps in and often demands absolute power becoming a controlling tyrannical entity.

The problem is more a problem when Christians and Muslims claim absolute authority steps in and often demanding absolute power becoming a controlling tyrannical entity byy claims of Christian or Islamic Manifest Destiny and Dominian over all. This was true in European Christian Theocracies in the past and many Islamic countries it is no question who is in control. In the USA the goal of Christian Republicans is Christian Nationalism to control the government and implement their version of a Christian Nation and laws. A modern version of Christian Theonomy. advocates of this today are Mike Johnson and Marjorie Green. No more separation of Religion and State.

What do you think?

“According to philosopher Harry Binswanger (an associate of the late Ayn Rand’s) fascism and communism (which the world has suffered immeasurably under) are two of the more well-known variants of statism. He is quoted as saying: “Fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class.” However, as we have experienced in the modern day, some leftist democracies should also be considered a form of statism, particularly where the state plays a significant role in regulating the economy, introducing and regulating social welfare programs and engaging in social engineering.

It is odd that you cite Harry Binswanger and Ayn Rand to support your agenda. They may share your view of Stalin and Hitler, but they ar eObjectivists, and likely would share your beliefs.

You see, even though our lives are full of freely made choices, we are also constrained by the rules and regulations of the State which rules over us. Therefore, in this age, the human experience is an uneasy duality of autonomy and regulation. I say “uneasy” becomes it is becoming apparent that as time goes on, those who see statism as a worthy replacement of democracy are really advocating for less autonomy and more regulation.”

There are two very oppressive violent extremes here. Nationalist dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, and religious oppressive Theocracies like the Czars and European Monarchies. My hope is to avoid both. Today Putin claims both oppressive Nationalist dictatorship, and appeals to the traditional claims of the Czars and the Russian Orthodox Church for Russian Dominion Manifest Destiny over Eastern Europe and Russian Asia.

Setting Out To Dethrone God: The Slippery Slope Of 'Statism'

As we have seen with other political and social ideologies in the past and present, the purveyors of this reality then set out to dethrone God. That is why all forms of statism must be rejected by Christians. We should not entertain the acceptance of any ideology which seeks to usurp God.

harbingersdaily.com

The road to Oppressive Tyranny has two roads. on the Manifest Destiny of Religions based on their scripture, and Nationalist tyrannies with the desire to control traditional dominion over their territory and the people. Both desire control and dominion with the same oppressive violent results.

 

[Madsaac]

I’m not arguing in favor of religion, certainly not a religiously controlled government or theocracy. Just saying that I think when people reject the acknowledgment of a Creator God who holds ultimate authority over humanity and the universe… then it’s easier for government to step in a play God.

Yeah fair enough, maybe that's true but it would very rare compared to religious backed groups to play God and very often, not that well

 

[sayak83]

I’m not arguing in favor of religion, certainly not a religiously controlled government or theocracy. Just saying that I think when people reject the acknowledgment of a Creator God who holds ultimate authority over humanity and the universe… then it’s easier for government to step in a play God.

No that is not true at all. You can see that tyrannical governments were the norm when almost everyone believed in some God or the other...because the government can easily say that their authority comes from God. Non belief in God actually makes it harder for governments to justify their absolute authority over people.,

 

[Augustus]

You can see that tyrannical governments were the norm when almost everyone believed in some God or the other...because the government can easily say that their authority comes from God.

Obviously this no longer applies to the modern world where people can select their own leaders, but historically there is a decent argument that a sense of sacred kingship was better than the alternative that was raw power.

If you look at the later Roman Empire, once the taboo against killing the ruler disappeared completely, it just became a free for all.

People feeling the ruler had some kind of divine sanction for their role was better for stability than everyone just thinking the guy with the biggest stick gets to rule.

It is one of these things that are irrational in isolation, but that have a kind of loose functionality in practice.

 

[Revoltingest]

These laws had to be created, otherwise they would be complete disharmony, disorganization and confusion in this Universe. Laws are created by a law-giver, or have you become darkened in heart in not understanding this unmistakable fact?

There is evidence for the laws' existence.
But none for whether they were created
or simply always are.
Consider that it's typical for believers to
say their gods weren't created, but rather
always existed. Both claims are unverified.

1 Corinthians 14:33
"for Yahweh is not a Elohim of confusion, but of peace..."

Romans 1:20-21

"20 For since the creation of the world Yahweh’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and heavenly nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew Elohim, they neither glorified him as Elohim nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."

The Bible contains the factual information about Yahweh, and His Son, the history of His people, and just some of the plans he has for this earth and in those plans are contained the fact that Yahweh will rule through Yahshua the Messiah over this world at the end of the age of man. It's not simply an unverified assumption to believe in Yahweh. Yahweh's majestic power has been revealed through His works, the beauty and immense love that He put in creation and most of all, His most precious works of His majestic creative power, Him sending His only begotten Son for our sakes so we could receive forgiveness for our sins and walk in newness of life worthy of saints so we can attain to a level of perfection pleasing to the Father and rule and be with Yahshua in the Kingdom.

Assuming that Yahweh does not exist is indeed in my opinion the most incredibly nonsensical thing a person can do.

The word "factual" should apply to claims
that can be independently & objectively
verified. The Bible is a book from just 1 of
many different religions. There's no objective
basis to say that it is true or singularly true.