Theocracy

[loverofhumanity]

How do we know that a "divinely guided" government is even possible, given that all theocracies were man made in the past?

Good question. So far in human history all so called ‘theocracies’ were never based on scripture. For example the papacy and the Islamic Republic are not founded on any system of governance from their Holy Books.

But it is promised in scriptures that one day the ‘Kingdom of God’ will come to this world. That is, a divine system of governance designed by God. Now this has never happened until Baha’u’llah appeared Who brought a Divine System of governance (the Kingdom of God) which is being gradually rolled out as the old order is being rolled up.

The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new Order in its stead. (Baha’u’llah)

This system is to be the nucleus of a world civilisation and bring about a golden age. So far in 60 years it has founded a world community living in peace and prosperity under world governance but until it becomes a state religion we won’t know how a really divinely guided system really works that is not man made because it has never happened before.

 

[setarcos]

Who impresses this will though? So we don't have free will?

It is presumed by Christians to be God. By impressed, I mean each individual will immediately know Gods will without the need for any intermediate tools of communication such as scriptures or prophets etc.
It is a central tenet of Christianity that mankind has free will and may exercise that will in subjugation or objection to the will of God.
I question our understanding of what that free will actually is and means but for reasons of the depth of inquiry and explanation of why, this is not the thread for that.

 

[setarcos]

4 commandments are making sycophants for Yahweh.

Ironically, since God in his infinite wisdom has hidden certain knowledge in faith, the commandments, rather than making sycophants, weed out the sycophantically minded. If you believe he exists then you follow or attempt to follow the commandments, not because your primary concern is in being rewarded but because of the love God has instilled within you. You don't think about breathing so you can be rewarded with staying alive. You breath without thinking and in the process live.
A sycophantically minded person puts faith in the reward not in God. And in so doing loses both.

Almost half when there are so many better commandments to add.

What critical commandments should be added to make things better?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Ironically, since God in his infinite wisdom has hidden certain knowledge in faith, the commandments, rather than making sycophants, weed out the sycophantically minded. If you believe he exists then you follow or attempt to follow the commandments, not because your primary concern is in being rewarded but because of the love God has instilled within you. You don't think about breathing so you can be rewarded with staying alive. You breath without thinking and in the process live.
A sycophantically minded person puts faith in the reward not in God. And in so doing loses both.

What critical commandments should be added to make things better?

Women are not property, don't enslave humans, don't be a dictator and let your people starve.

 

[Kenny]

I'm just curious how people here feel about theocracies. Would you prefer that your country had a state sponsored religion who's laws are structured around that religion?

Absolutely NOT! Not that religious people shouldn't have a say so on laws but absolutely no State Sponsored Religions. Freedom OF religion is what there needs to be.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It is presumed by Christians to be God. By impressed, I mean each individual will immediately know Gods will without the need for any intermediate tools of communication such as scriptures or prophets etc.
It is a central tenet of Christianity that mankind has free will and may exercise that will in subjugation or objection to the will of God.
I question our understanding of what that free will actually is and means but for reasons of the depth of inquiry and explanation of why, this is not the thread for that.

I figure that is what our conscience is.

 

[metis]

Not that religious people should have a say so on laws but absolutely no State Sponsored Religions. Freedom OF religion is what there needs to be.

So, can I assume from this that you are opposed to "Christian Nationalism"? Just asken for a friend.

 

[1213]

So much for freedom of religion.

If I would choose that, it does not mean you should also. On my behalf you could choose something else.

 

[1213]

Ok. So what will the punishment be for people in the country who aren't Christian and worship other gods besides Yahweh, like Hindus?

That's the first, and potentially second, commandment broken right there

They are free to move into a country that is not a Christian theocracy. I think the question was about would I like to live in theocracy. I would, if it would mean that the only law is the ten commandments. This doesn't mean I would want to force everyone else to live in it.

 

[1213]

...In my humanist world, you could live according to those laws and I could do otherwise. In your world, I'm a criminal. I'm assuming from your comment that you're OK with that...

That I could live in such theocracy doesn't mean you should live in it.

 

[Alien826]

Why "unfortunately"? Yes, a true theocracy would eliminate the middle men...and faith.

"Unfortunately" because that doesn't seem likely to happen, as dealing through human intermediaries seems to be god's MO. If god was going to step in directly, he has had so many opportunities where "enough already" would seem to be a reasonable response.

This I can see as unfortunate. But then again, I am not God -I don't think?- and can't say I know the reasoning behind such necessities in the unfolding of history if such a being exists and has an agenda for mankind.

I see the history of religious thought as a long series of explanations for why god doesn't do what would seem reasonable in the face of events on Earth.

In no instance would human based rule trump a theocracy. What your really saying is that we have no other options since a true theocracy hasn't been established yet, if ever it could be.
Human misery doesn't sprout from religion. Religion sprouts from human misery. Because of this humanity is apt to produce religions that enforce human misery instead of attempting to alleviate it.

Yes. What we do springs from us, not "god", if we label it "religious" or not.

And history hasn't shown us that secular rule is just as insistent on their presumption of the best path to take?

Oh you're right, we can be attached to all kinds of ideas, some based on a religious belief, some not. My thought was that religion tends to support a higher level of attachment, as the "truth" is claimed to come from a higher power that cannot be wrong.

How do you mean "profit from their mistakes"? Change their doctrine?
Often the mistakes made in religion come from the failure of its adherents not the failure of the religion.
What secular system of governance is not subject to the same?

Change their actions, at least. Secular systems at least attempt to base their conclusions on material evidence, however poorly interpreted. Religious systems not so much. I refer you to your earlier statement where you state that you can't understand god, but allow that he might have some higher motives (not your exact words). This is where a secular system would not have the luxury of such an excuse. It was based on observable facts and can be criticized on the same basis.

It is a belief in Christianity that God gave humans the capacity for rational and moral contemplation to supplement the faith we all have in taking action according to what we believe is correct.
This is no different than believing your political system is the best one, or your party is the right one. In all cases, whether religious or secular, rationality and faith play a part. It is a mistake to believe faith cannot be rational in my opinion. Though there can be irrational beliefs.

I've covered most of this. As for a rational faith, would it be faith (serious question)? If faith is defined as believing without evidence, can that ever be rational? There are various definitions of faith so I'll try not to be too dogmatic. I think some religious beliefs can be considered to be feasible, given the supporting premises. I'll let you explain.

 

[metis]

If I would choose that, it does not mean you should also. On my behalf you could choose something else.

What if another religion took over here, would you still choose that?

 

[Alien826]

They are free to move into a country that is not a Christian theocracy. I think the question was about would I like to live in theocracy. I would, if it would mean that the only law is the ten commandments. This doesn't mean I would want to force everyone else to live in it.

I have to make a correction here. The statement "They are free to move into a country that is not a Christian theocracy" and so many like it that have the general form "if you don't like it then leave" is typically false. It is far from easy under any circumstances to leave and work in another country, for whatever reason. Note the people trying to get into the USA at the southern border. If it's a job you don't like, there has to be a better job available and you have to be qualified for it.

No, when you design something like theocracy (or communism, or even democracy) you have to allow for dissenters or you will unavoidably be oppressing someone.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

can you elaborate on this statement for me? How do many already do better?

My ethics are the rational ethics of humanism based in a utilitarian vision for society. You may not agree that those are superior ethics, but if so, you probably believe that people speaking for a god are in a better position to tell us right and wrong based in the belief that those ideas come from gods. Christian ethics are the ones I know best from among the religions, and they're full of bigotries and messages for a world we no longer live in.

The ethics of sex in Christianity have been to promote fecundity, and come from a time when life was shorter, men died more often and younger in war and women in childbirth, infant mortality was higher, and infection and food poisoning took so many lives that every fertile womb was needed to generate more soldiers and mothers, and larger, safer communities. Toward this end, maidens were encouraged to marry at puberty, to never refuse their husbands sex, and to never divorce, masturbate, engage in homosexuality, or use contraception or abortion.

Today's world is overpopulated, and those ideas become immoral, since they work against human well-being now. And so you have things like the Christians capturing the American Supreme Court and trying to force mothers to deliver unwanted babies. They'll take gay marriage and contraceptives away as well if they can. This is because they are still marching to an ancient and now counterproductive drumbeat. When they update their ethics as when American Christians accepted the overthrowing of God's divinely appointed king and to accept divorce, it was because of the input of rational humanistic influences.

And what laws and morals given by God are you referring to? The ten Commandments?

Any that people say come from a god and are to be received and obeyed uncritically. They're never as good as what reasonable, well-meaning people can come up with. Look at the poor Baha'i, who are basically a kind, gentle people, but have been led astray by Abrahamic theology and its homophobic deity. We can do better than that, but we need to bring empathy and reason to the table to do that.

Yes men cone to think they know better and shut God out.

Men who bring empiricism and empathy to the process do know better than any of the holy books, especially those of the Abrahamic religions, where people begin speaking for gods who happen to share their own bigotries. These books have failed mankind for millennia. How long has yours had to bring unity to the world, and how much have the Baha'i accomplished? I had never heard of your religion before coming to RF. It sounded like an island in Hawaii or Indonesia. It's begins to pall after a while when people say that if man would just follow the book, he'd be happy. It would be as ineffectual as a humanist saying be kind and wise, and then blaming others because the message was so ineffective.

That is the quandary of God given choice. I can only offer what I have found.

Or, you could offer what was requested - a reply that addresses what was said to you. I'm assuming as always when you don't rebut it's because you are wrong and therefore can't. Here's that comment for you to ignore a third time. Let's try to guess why. We can only guess, since you refuse to participate in a discussion. You only want to post vapid comments like that one that reads like a fortune cookie fortune or a Hallmark card:

• "This doesn't address my comment, which was, "We can do better than that. Many already do" in response to, "the laws and morals given by God." A rebuttal is a counterargument that attempts to falsify a claim. Furthermore, now you're claiming humanist moral values for your god as well ("all possible virtues and morals"). Isn't one of your god's moral values that homosexuality is a sin? That god's love doesn't extend to that group of honest, hard-working, decent, community-minded people because they sleep with one another. You can call that love, but I don't. That's what I mean by we can do better than going to religions for moral guidance. Apparently, telling people to love another for a few millennia accomplishes nothing, especially when your model of loves include bigotry (atheophobia, homophobia, misogyny) and blood sacrifice. But none that have led to that outcome. It's time to look elsewhere for answers."

They are free to move into a country that is not a Christian theocracy. I think the question was about would I like to live in theocracy. I would, if it would mean that the only law is the ten commandments. This doesn't mean I would want to force everyone else to live in it.

I have a better idea. Why don't you leave and go form your religious society somewhere else and leave democracy-loving and personal freedom-loving people to their own devices. I believe that Jonestown is still available.

 

[setarcos]

Women are not property,

Was that a commandment of God? There's a difference between willingly subjugating oneself to an authority and being property. While forced subjugation is culturally historic, I don't think it is the will of God. I think scripture tells us that God acted to dictate how an existent class of people should be treated properly.

don't enslave humans

I don't think it is the will of God that anyone be enslaved. However God has acted within the unfolding of human history which at times, of necessity, has included the enslavement of people. For instance, a nation or budding nation at war necessarily must enslave the defeated or be enslaved as the defeated to some degree.
Ask yourself what it is you mean by enslave.
We are all enslaved to one degree or another by the forced subjugation to one law or another which may do nothing to benefit us directly and occasionally even does more harm to us than others.

don't be a dictator and let your people starve.

There is nothing wrong with a "dictatorship" so long as that dictator has the capability of making THE best decisions for the welfare of the people without forcing them to be in his kingdom. "You don't like it, your free to go elsewhere" kinda thing. Human beings are incapable of being benevolent dictators and that's what your used to. We haven't the moral stamina, the intellectual acumen, or the individual power to enforce the best of the best decisions that can be made.

let your people starve.

Again I ask...Was this a commandment of Gods?

 

[setarcos]

I figure that is what our conscience is.

Our conscience is informed by emotional feeling. It is not directed by certain knowledge. For instance we may feel heat but not know its source. In a theocracy one would not only feel the heat but be certain of its source. As it is now, "we see through a glass darkly".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

These books have failed mankind for millennia.

The failure is of those that have neglected the advice contained within, both believers and non-beleivers. The task given to us in those books is to live loving, moral and virtue filled lives, in the service of all humanity above the preferences of self.

There is nothing I can rebuke when that is the aim, as that is our higher purpose.

People that work outside those clear guidelines, come up with their own ideas as to what Love, morals and virtues are, which eventually lead humanity back into its animal tendencies, thinking the love, virtues and morals they have embraced are progressive, not realising the destruction they are causing.

Regards Tony

 

[Kenny]

So, can I assume from this that you are opposed to "Christian Nationalism"? Just asken for a friend.

With today's definition, yes, opposed. But you know how modern people change meanings of words. I just don't know what definition a word has in today's lingo. "You are dripping" now means "you look good".

Of course, we both know that the reason you don't have your picture in your avatar is not because you look good".

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I pretty much agree with your thoughts and perspective, except I think originally the nation of Israel was a theocracy in which God Himself was not silent.

And too incompetent to keep the country from splitting up and getting conquered.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God is very good at giving us virtues, morals and laws that build peace and unity.

When did this ever happen in the Bible? I would rather trust Athena or some other deity who doesn’t lose entire governments. Jesus couldn’t wrangle 12 guys, much less rule a country.