Theocracy: Good v Bad

[The Hammer]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

 

[Lain]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

What if the Theocracy pit place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

I'm a Westminster General Equity* theonomist** (who also follows Catholic Social Doctrine) so I guess I'd say it's good. I could not imagine a theocracy with multiple religion involved going well, but perhaps it is possible. I think a government like that can be and do good, although I'd say that clergy do not necessarily need to be involved in running it, not all are qualified.

**"A theonomist is someone who believes in two related theses: the hermeneutical thesis and the substantive thesis. The hermeneutical thesis states that any given Old Testament standing law is binding in the New Testament age, only unless the law is explicitly (or by good and necessary consequence) rescinded in the New Testament. The substantive thesis states that, as a consequence of the hermeneutical thesis, all civil magistrates are morally obligated to obey and enforce the relevant laws of the Old Testament, including the penal sanctions."

*"Westminster general equity is one possible view on the meaning and application of the term, "general equity" (cf. WCF 19.4), in the theonomic camp. It is characterised by a loose and flexible understanding of the term, "general equity", contra strict general equity. According to the view, the Old Testament civil code is our political ideal, but magistrates today only need to follow the broadest principles: punish x, y, and z (although the mode of punishment may differ); criminalise a, b, and c (although additional crimes can be appended)."

 

[PureX]

To me, this is a supremely bad idea. There is nothing more dangerous and destructive in the world then a man who believes he is the stand-in for God, surrounded by men who are willing to support that insanity. There is no crime they will not commit 'in their God's name'.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."
theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts
Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?..........................

I find the modern-day definition of theocracy (God Rule) is rule by clergy or clergy class.
The 'biblical theocracy' is Not governmental rule by clergy class.
Biblical theocracy is divine guidance by Jesus, Jesus as king of God's theocratic kingdom government, as being head of the now Christian congregation and to bring guidance to earth's nations during his coming thousand-year reign over Earth.
Over Earth as a good thing because there will be healing for earth's nations - Revelation 22:2

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm a Westminster General Equity* theonomist** (who also follows Catholic Social Doctrine) so I guess I'd say it's good. I could not imagine a theocracy with multiple religion involved going well, but perhaps it is possible. I think a government like that can be and do good, although I'd say that clergy do not necessarily need to be involved in running it, not all are qualified......................"

I can agree that Not all are qualified. For example: That Theocracy of the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.
Government by priest or clergy, clergy class is Not the Theocracy of the Bible.
The modern-day definition of theocracy is Not the same as biblical theocracy as Jesus taught.
As Jesus is the 'head' (ruler / leader) of the Christian congregation today no matter where located on Earth.
So there is a difference between God Rule and Clergy Rule.
Jesus is the King (ruler) of God's theocratic kingdom government (Daniel 2:44) who will establish Peace on Earth.
Jesus has co-rulers called also as kings and priests according to Revelation 5:9-10.
As kings they will help take care of governmental responsibilities under Christ towards people living on Earth.
As priests they will help take care of spiritual duties towards people living on Earth.
Jesus will be King of God's theocratic government for a thousand years - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

To me, this is a supremely bad idea. There is nothing more dangerous and destructive in the world then a man who believes he is the stand-in for God, surrounded by men who are willing to support that insanity. There is no crime they will not commit 'in their God's name'.

I think God agrees with you because God has set (Not a man on Earth ) but Jesus as heavenly ruler.
In other words, Jesus is King of God's kingdom government (Daniel 2:44) who will govern over Earth from Heaven.
Notice however at 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 that Jesus only has that kingly position for a thousand years.
Then, Jesus will hand back God's kingdom to his God. At that time No other ruler will be needed for perfected humanity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

oh, my goodness! Within two years, it would dissolve…. There would be war!
IMO

 

[The Hammer]

There would be war!

Nothing new then.

 

[epronovost]

Putting a group of the most superstitious, irrational and self-convinced people in any nation is spelling for disaster. Clergy members and zealots make for terrible rulers. They have none of the skills required for leadership beside conviction and, for some, oratory skills and those in the hands of a fool are the deadliest weapons.

 

[Kooky]

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

I'm sure a few dictators in the past have thought themselves to be that kind of person.

I would strongly argue that the issues of dictatorship do not stem from the qualities of the person on top, but the authoritarian nature of their governance itself.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm sure a few dictators in the past have thought themselves to be that kind of person.

I would strongly argue that the issues of dictatorship do not stem from the qualities of the person on top, but the authoritarian nature of their governance itself.

Dictatorship isn't a bad thing in itself, and in some circumstances is necessary. Take Rome's authorizing a dictator to run at 6 month intervals during times of War or other emergency.

 

[England my lionheart]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

Has there ever been a good working model of a theocracy?,I think it’s a bad idea personally and would only lead to more division.

 

[The Hammer]

Has there ever been a good working model of a theocracy?,I think it’s a bad idea personally and would only lead to more division.

Even if it was done via a conglomerate of disparate religious voices so as to encompass all sides?

 

[The Hammer]

Has there ever been a good working model of a theocracy?,

Egypt?

 

[England my lionheart]

Even if it was done via a conglomerate of disparate religious voices so as to encompass all sides?

Not an easy task IMO,the abrahmics have fought one and other throughout history ,Islam has fought hindus,maybe a zen Buddhist as president would help but I could not see it working.

 

[England my lionheart]

Egypt?

Good call but I don’t think it worked on a voluntarily basis.

 

[sun rise]

Has there ever been a good working model of a theocracy?,I think it’s a bad idea personally and would only lead to more division.

There's too much myth and legend involved but Krishna is believed to have been ruler of Mathura in some sources.

If the legend is true and Krishna was God in human form, that would be a good working model.

 

[England my lionheart]

Just thinking about a judiciary made up of abrahmics (one god),Hindus (millions of gods),Buddhists (no god),would be interesting to see but I can’t see it end well.

 

[The Hammer]

Just thinking about a judiciary made up of abrahmics (one god),Hindus (millions of gods),Buddhists (no god),would be interesting to see but I can’t see it end well.

It wouldn't be easy, but if a consensus could be reached it would be formidable.

 

[England my lionheart]

It wouldn't be easy, but if a consensus could be reached it would be formidable.

Except it would be exclusive,non believers would not be represented.