Theocracy

[InChrist]

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

Actually, God let the people of Israel decide whether they wanted to live freely and peacefully under His rule or not. They knew that they would be safe and blessed if they followed His wisdom and laws. And warning that if they rebelled and chose wickedness they would be conquered by enemies.

 

[1213]

I was responding to what you said, "They are free to move into a country that is not a Christian theocracy" and pointing out that moving to another country is not a practical option for most people.

If the ten commandments were the law, it implies that they would be enforced. And a law that doesn't have punishment attached to it doesn't work. Oppression could apply in several ways, for example would the first commandment be enforced? How?

I'm just responding to your own words.

Ok, I can accept that it is not good to demand others to move. I would accept that I have right to move to an area that has the ten commandments as the only law. Unfortunately no such area exists, so it is not possible for me to have it. I have to settle to these tyrannical options which I think are utterly evil.

The ten commandments are just what they are. The first commandment means basically in the Bible that one keeps the other commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

I think it would be fine to not add anything else to the commandments. If people don't follow it, I would let God to deal with it.

And, I think I have been not accurate enough. I think the ten commandments are really good law, but even better is this:

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
Matt. 22:37-40

I think that is the perfect law.

 

[1213]

Rape in not mentioned in the Decalogue, so that must be quite OK with you, right? There are many other violations of basic Judeo-Christian morals not covered in the Ten.

Rape can be seen as violation of one or in some cases all of these:

“You shall not commit adultery. “You shall not steal... ...“You shall not covet ......anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Ex. 20:14-17

But, I can agree that ten commandments is not necessary the perfect law. I think it is just better than any secular law. In my opinion perfect law is this:

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
Matt. 22:37-40

Especially, if people also understands this:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

 

[Alien826]

Ok, I can accept that it is not good to demand others to move. I would accept that I have right to move to an area that has the ten commandments as the only law. Unfortunately no such area exists, so it is not possible for me to have it. I have to settle to these tyrannical options which I think are utterly evil.

OK.

The ten commandments are just what they are. The first commandment means basically in the Bible that one keeps the other commandments.

Well, it does specifically forbid the worship of other gods.

I think it would be fine to not add anything else to the commandments. If people don't follow it, I would let God to deal with it.

Looking at it from a Judeo/Christian point of view, the commandments can be seen as similar to a constitution. They set out basic principles upon which more specific laws are based.

And, I think I have been not accurate enough. I think the ten commandments are really good law, but even better is this:

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
Matt. 22:37-40

I think that is the perfect law.

I tend to agree, and that is one of my favorite sayings of Jesus. If everyone based their behavior on the that principle (well, the second part for non-believers) the world would be a better place. Also, given good will on the part of everyone (there's the problem!), laws could largely be replaced by guidelines.

 

[setarcos]

My ethics are the rational ethics of humanism based in a utilitarian vision for society.

Who decides what fits rational ethical humanism ? You? Everyone together in one voice? Who decides what is the best utilitarian vision for a society? Would what's best be bounded by culture, country, geography? Seems we're no closer to the utilitarian utopian society you envision in the "advanced" countries of the world where religion has become authoritatively impotent in the face of secular rule than humans were millennia ago when religion held authoritative sway over society .

You may not agree that those are superior ethics

Are you suggesting that my ethics are inferior to yours? If so, what ethics are you talking about that you have but I don't?

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.

What makes men speaking for themselves any more superior to men claiming to speak for God? Both systems have to enforce their claims with some form of authority and both systems have been subjected to outrageous behavior. Secular forms of governance have shown themselves to be no more superior to religious forms - depending on the religion of course - of governance. And in some cases far far worse.

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.

Which Christian ethics are you speaking of ? I suspect many of those bigotries and messages you speak of are representative of historically relevant and culturally necessary bias.

The ethics of sex in Christianity have been to promote fecundity,

The fecundity you speak of is historically encapsulated within the evolutional unfolding of the Christian narrative. That fecundity does not encapsulate the Christian message nor bespeak of its message to mankind.

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.

Yes and? You are describing history. Would you rather scripture ONLY describe a historically non existent society living in an idealistic paradise protected from all harm by their God forever and always? That's not the Christian narrative nor its message.

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.

Your framing the truth to promote your own hostile view of Christianity.
Christians aren't insisting, I hope, that women be forced to get pregnant in order that they have unwanted babies. Mother's in my opinion do not have abortions. Women do.
I'm not, and I don't think scripture is, against birth control prior to conception. I disagree with the interpretation of the Catholic Church in this regard and I believe last I checked, the magisterium is discussing the merits of the issue.
What Christianity does believe, I think, is in the sanctity of human life once began at conception. Christianity doesn't take lightly the sole conduit whereby humans produce a unique consciousness - along with the other various descriptors thereof - spirit, soul etc.
Except for obvious unavoidable exceptions, I don't think its in the best interests of society to not seriously consider the potential side effects of having sex. Producing easier and easier ways of eliminating the long term potential consequences of copulating in order to satisfy short term desires without consideration of those consequences is, in my opinion, unethical. Doing what one wants, when one wants, however one wants if it feels good is a good recipe for degeneracy and societal decay.

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.

I think your confusing your Christianity with the evolution of human culture.
You'll have to explain that humanistic input, I'm not sure what your referring to.

Any that people say come from a god and are to be received and obeyed uncritically.

Uncritically? That's not Christianity, that's "some" Christians. Just like you would find in any system of governance.

They're never as good as what reasonable, well-meaning people can come up with.

That is debatable.

but have been led astray by Abrahamic theology and its homophobic deity.

Led astray or enlightened?

We can do better than that, but we need to bring empathy and reason to the table to do that.

Christianity has its reasons and certainly empathy. The problem is getting this across to those with militant reactionary hostility to things which disagree with their lifestyle, understanding, or insistence on knowing better.
How does disagreeing with certain desires of the human condition translate into a phobia?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who decides what fits rational ethical humanism? Who decides what is the best utilitarian vision for a society?

Humanists. They begin with a moral intuition that the optimal society is the one that promotes the most opportunity for the most people to pursue and attain happiness as they understand it. Then, they choose the rules that they think will facilitate this vison, and test them. The rational part is everything that comes after the utilitarian intuition.

Seems we're no closer to the utilitarian utopian society you envision in the "advanced" countries of the world where religion has become authoritatively impotent in the face of secular rule than humans were millennia ago when religion held authoritative sway over society .

There is no expectation of utopia, just an optimal society. And I disagree with you. The countries that are the least religious have the happiest citizens. The Western democracies lead the world in generating opportunity with their guaranteed personal rights, public education, and strong middle classes with extensive social safety nets, and the more atheistic, the happier they are. Look at the greenest countries and where they are - the same places that humanism (and atheism) has the most sway:

Are you suggesting that my ethics are inferior to yours?

I don't know your ethics, but the typical Christian's ethics are flawed by humanist standards. Do you consider atheists or homosexuals abominations to a good god? Do you think that your religion's precepts should be enacted into law?

What makes men speaking for themselves any more superior to men claiming to speak for God?

Rational ethics is superior to received ethics because the latter is crystalized and inflexible, and often contain outdated ideas and bigotries that harm people.

Which Christian ethics are you speaking of ? I suspect many of those bigotries and messages you speak of are representative of historically relevant and culturally necessary bias.

Agreed. I gave you the example of the Christian sexual mores, and suggested that they are more appropriate to a time where too few people was a problem. Today, too many people is the problem, but Christianity has no mechanism for self-correction. To the extent that those mores have been relaxed as with the legalizing of divorce and contraception, those corrections came from humanistic rational ethics, not the pulpit or scripture.

Would you rather scripture ONLY describe a historically non existent society living in an idealistic paradise protected from all harm by their God forever and always?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I would prefer rational ethics to received ethics, and that where biblical ethics conflict, that the humanistic preference be the law.

Christians aren't insisting, I hope, that women be forced to get pregnant in order that they have unwanted babies.

Perhaps not explicitly or in those words, but that is what the church's preferences lead to, and the church appears indifferent to the consequences except to fetuses.

What Christianity does believe, I think, is in the sanctity of human life once began at conception.

It's a de facto Christian principle that this religion has little regard for life. What is written on paper but not rendered is irrelevant. Where was the pope or the Protestant church during the pandemic? What is it doing to mitigate climate change, which will become increasingly devastating for most life? What does it do for the fetuses once they are born? What research that can improve the human condition is it underwriting?

You'll have to explain that humanistic input, I'm not sure what your referring to.

I had written, "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."

The American Revolution was rebellion against God's chosen ruler, and is forbidden by scripture

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

Imagine the barrier this created for the Founders, who were advocating deposing God's king to a largely Christian populace. These were largely deists appealing to Abrahamic theists. Have you ever wondered why the only reference to a creator is the claim that rebellion is a right from the Creator? It's pretty clear why that appears in the Declaration - to mitigate against that scripture:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

That's the humanistic input coming from these deists forced to give lip service to a creator. They're doing exactly what the theists who came before them did - speaking for a god to give their own ideas its imprimatur. God gave us these rights, right?

Uncritically? That's not Christianity, that's "some" Christians.

I had written, "Any that people say come from a god and are to be received and obeyed uncritically" in response to, "And what laws and morals given by God are you referring to? The ten Commandments?" Yes, I mean received and assimilated uncritically. That's what received morals are. They're presented as the immutable, absolute, and timeless will of a good god. They're not up for debate. There a little wiggle room on blasphemy. The believer is not free to declare gays sinless because his critical thinking skills tell him that that an unjustified belief, or that sin isn't a real thing. Why? Heaven is not a democracy and God doesn't count hands.

Led astray or enlightened?

I had written, "have been led astray by Abrahamic theology and its homophobic deity." Humanist ethics dispatches of that debate rationally. Homophobia is irrational, hateful, and destructive, not enlightened. The opposite: benighted.

Do you accept the scriptures take on unbelievers? It's pure hate speech. Scripture depicts unbelievers as lying, corrupt, vile, abominable, wicked, godless vessels in the service of darkness and evil, not one of which does any good, and fit to be burned alive forever as the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and the declared enemy of a good god [Psalm 14:1, Revelation 21:8, 2 Corinthians 6:14, 1 John 2:22, and Luke 11:23]. Imagine your reaction to seeing Christian substituted for unbeliever in that. What if it were about Jews or blacks instead of atheists? Would that be enlightened?

How does disagreeing with certain desires of the human condition translate into a phobia?

Phobia in this context is not the psychiatric usage as with arachnophobia, claustrophobia, or agoraphobia, which means fear. In lay language, it means any aversion or dislike, and so we have the words homophobia, atheophobia, and islamophobia, none of which imply a neurosis.

 

[dybmh]

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?

Of course!

1. Women are divinely ordained superior to men. Women run the government, run corporations, men are subservient to them. Non-binary are neutral... naturally.
2. The unemployed are given jobs erecting monuments devoted to female power like ancient Egypt.
   
3. Lying is the greatest sin, and is a capital offense. Political discourse is forever changed.
4. Nature is deified. Climate change and polution finally become a priority. If someone's caught littering or throwing cigarette butts out the car window... burn'em at the stake.
5. Compulsion in religion is a sin, as it says in the Quran. ( not that I'm a muslim, nor do I agree with what's in the Quran, but this seems to be a good idea. )
6. All the uber-liberal Jesus-y ideals become divinely ordained. Health care for all, wealth is shared, care for the widow and orphan, and the homeless

Stuff like that. It would be the greatest theocracy ever!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..................If the ten commandments were the law, it implies that they would be enforced. And a law that doesn't have punishment attached to it doesn't work. Oppression could apply in several ways, for example would the first commandment be enforced? How?.....................

I think we need to keep in mind that the Constitution of the Mosaic Law was only ever for one country.
The country of ancient Israel, and besides the 'first ten laws' there were about 600 more laws for ancient Israel.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have been told many are for the Levite priests, not just any Hebrew. They are obviously held to a higher standard. I wasn't taught that, but I have heard this.

The Levites had No land inheritance, they were supported by the rest.
Under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law there was separation of 'church and state' - 2 Chronicles 26:16-21
In other words, the kings (political) did Not interfere with the priests (religious) duties and vice versa.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I sang the song “Jesus loves me/this I know “ as a kid, but eventually after reading the part where he calls a gentile woman a dog (imagine the modern equivalent), I realized he wouldn’t have loved me, though I consider all of earth my tribe.

Most people know the Bible was Not originally written in King James English - Matthew 15:24-28
First, to the Jews dogs were considered as unclean. Jesus was referring to the Jew's negative view of others.
Jesus' illustration was softer referring to the non-Jews more as little dogs/puppies.- Matthew 15:26 - pets.
Her reply at Matthew 15:27 showed her faith in Jesus.
Her reply showed Jesus just how great her faith was at Matthew 15:28.
Jesus reply showed just how much Jesus loved non-Jews because Jesus came to die for all of earth (the whole tribe)
Thus, Jesus healed that humble woman's daughter and Jesus is bringing ' healing ' to earth's nations - Revelation 22:2

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Rape in not mentioned in the Decalogue, so that must be quite OK with you, right? There are many other violations of basic Judeo-Christian morals not covered in the Ten.

Remember besides the first Ten (Decalogue) there are about 600+ additional laws under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law.

 

[metis]

Remember besides the first Ten (Decalogue) there are about 600+ additional laws under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law.

Yep, as there's 613 Commandments in total: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

 

[setarcos]

Humanists. They begin with a moral intuition that the optimal society is the one that promotes the most opportunity for the most people to pursue and attain happiness as they understand it.

Again, who is they? Which humanists? The majority? The minority? The individual? Are you suggesting that this moral intuition of recognizing what an optimal society would be is inherent within all members of that society?
Of course it would have to be universally recognized by all then the majority would have to accept the moral repugnance of the necessity of the minority’s misery in order to ensure their own happiness since human reality is a zero sum game. And the minority would have to accept their own role in ensuring that majorities happiness despite their own misery. Which humanists would wish to be the "sacrificial lambs for the greater good?"
I think you'd agree that someone would have to define what happiness is to begin with which is worth enforcing since individually, what may make one person happy might ensure another person’s misery.
So, how do you define happiness to ensure individual happiness does not decay majority cohesion in ensuring that happiness?
Seems we would need an elite that is most knowledgeable in such matters and that elite would have to convince the majority that they are most qualified to define what will make that majority most happy while at the same time convincing everyone that the minorities happiness is somehow worth less and thus sacrificial.
Of course the majority would be okay with this since they benefit the most and the minority, presumably not all saints, would be most discordant since they would benefit the least and all of society - excepting the elite - would lack certitude since they aren't the most knowledgeable elite. I think this might be where we que enforcement. Why does this seem familiar?

Then, they choose the rules that they think will facilitate this vison, and test them.

So now we have a most knowledgeable humanist elite "testing" their ideas out on society in order to quantify what sustainable happiness is for the most people? Is this supposed to be something new and not familiarly doomed to failure?
And how is this different from a religion?

The rational part is everything that comes after the utilitarian intuition.

I don't think it’s rational to assume that what's been tried in the past and the present and has been shown to be untenable is bound to be somehow successful in the future.

I disagree with you. The countries that are the least religious have the happiest citizens. The Western democracies lead the world in generating opportunity with their guaranteed personal rights, public education, and strong middle classes with extensive social safety nets, and the more atheistic, the happier they are. Look at the greenest countries and where they are - the same places that humanism (and atheism) has the most sway:

I did take the opportunity to look into the data you presented. I don't put a lot of credence in these types of polls. In my opinion there are simply too many unknowns, assumptions and differing criteria used to go much beyond tentative generalizations. Statistical analysis can be a fickle mistress. For instance in quality of life...Numbeo puts Switzerland at # 1 while U.S. News & World Reports puts Canada at # 1 in 2021 and the UN puts Norway at #1 in 2021. Of course these rankings reflect slightly differing criteria but they all deal with similar quality of life issues.
Be that as it may I put together a line graph with the top 20 happiest nations on a horizontal line and atheist/Christian percentages on a connecting vertical line to see if any kind of patterns stuck out. To this end, I further split this graph into 4 quadrants with 2 lines splitting the numbers and percentages in equal halves. I gathered my data from Numbeo, the one you used, the pew research center, worlddata.info, world population Review, and WIN/Gallup international.
I ignored direct comparisons of the percentages between atheists vs. Christians since with the exception of only 2 countries in the top 20 – Czech republic and Israel where there were more atheists in the population count than Christians in the respective country - the remaining 18 countries in the top 20 happiest are still overwhelmingly Christian though in decline.
I noticed no substantially notable increase in happiness of these countries from the previous years data with decreases in Christianity within the countries.
I was more interested in percentage increases within each group as countries quality of life increased.
Here is what I noticed – take note: this is by no means a comprehensive or “professionally” executed study and is merely preliminary to a full analysis –

1) Concerning Christianity, those countries above the 50th percentile of the population show a general increase in Christian percentage with an increase in happiness in the top ten happiest countries. Below those ten a slight increase in Christianity corresponded with decreases in happiness. With Ireland being the exception from that pattern – above 80th percentile and in the middle of happiest 20 countries. The graph percentages seemed to dip in the middle then increase as the countries became happier.

2) Those countries below the 50th Christian percentile – with the exception of Czech Republic and Israel – showed a fairly level percentage of Christians as countries became happier

3) As concerns atheists - with the exception of Norway and Sweden with high numbers of atheists in the top ten happiest countries - all other countries in the top 20 happiest showed steady levels of percentages of atheists in those countries as the countries became happier from lower 10 to upper 10. In other words the average percentage of atheists in the top ten happiest countries showed little difference from the average in the bottom ten in those 20 happiest countries. The graph was fairly flat with the top six happiest countries showing slight decreases in percentages of atheists as the countries became happier.

I think this shows, at least to me, that whatever the criteria used to determine a ranking of happiest countries to less happier countries has little to do with the percentages of Christians vs. Atheists within those countries.

Consider China, it is the country with the most “convinced” atheists in the world – upwards of 90% - but ranks 65 as concerns quality of life.

Also serious arguments can be made that - however imperfectly - social safety nets, public schooling, and “inalienable” individual rights all began their evolution within religion.

I have to leave off here, but more later as time permits. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[setarcos]

Of course!

1. Women are divinely ordained superior to men. Women run the government, run corporations, men are subservient to them. Non-binary are neutral... naturally.
2. The unemployed are given jobs erecting monuments devoted to female power like ancient Egypt.
   
3. Lying is the greatest sin, and is a capital offense. Political discourse is forever changed.
4. Nature is deified. Climate change and polution finally become a priority. If someone's caught littering or throwing cigarette butts out the car window... burn'em at the stake.
5. Compulsion in religion is a sin, as it says in the Quran. ( not that I'm a muslim, nor do I agree with what's in the Quran, but this seems to be a good idea. )
6. All the uber-liberal Jesus-y ideals become divinely ordained. Health care for all, wealth is shared, care for the widow and orphan, and the homeless

Stuff like that. It would be the greatest theocracy ever!

At first I thought, this guys serious.. but then I thought...

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And warning that if they rebelled and chose wickedness they would be conquered by enemies

We never have any proof that the people were bad, only the word of the authors.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you suggesting that this moral intuition of recognizing what an optimal society would be is inherent within all members of that society?

Humanists largely agree that society should be structured to enable the maximal number to achieve the most contentment as they understand it (utilitarianism).

the minority would have to accept their own role in ensuring that majorities happiness despite their own misery.

All members of society would be able to pursue their own paths limited by laws intended to prevent people from harming others. This is the model we see more or less in countries characterized by humanistic principles today. People go on pursuing their idea happiness while respecting one another's ability to do that as well. Tolerance is an esteemed value and intolerance that impacts others is not tolerated. Anybody who is miserable is not miserable because of societal laws and freedoms.

how do you define happiness to ensure individual happiness does not decay majority cohesion in ensuring that happiness?

I let the individual define happiness for himself. What I'm looking for is empowering him with the tools and opportunity to walk down that path - public education, public health, a strong middle class, a social safety net, etc..

I don't think it’s rational to assume that what's been tried in the past and the present and has been shown to be untenable is bound to be somehow successful in the future.

Agreed, although we might disagree on what has succeeded and what has failed.

however imperfectly - social safety nets, public schooling, and “inalienable” individual rights all began their evolution within religion.

Within religion? Are you suggesting that these ideas are the result of supernaturalistic worldviews? Keep in mind that it was the Enlightenment and its rejection of the established order of the Middle Ages that opened the door to the kind of liberal, democratic, secular state that characterizes the West today. Where were the social safety nets, public schooling, and “inalienable” individual rights then? Waiting for humanism to rise. Even now, the church exists for the church. Look around you at the need in the world and who is addressing it and who is not. Where I live in a village in Mexico is a nice little microcosm of the role of the church. It does virtually nothing for the community but hold mass and collect money, yet postures as a charitable organization. The actual charitable work being done is being done from outside the church. A local restauranteur run just had a local fundraiser for our local food bank ($30,000 is pesos, or about $1500 USD). The church doesn't do this here.

 

[setarcos]

We never have any proof that the people were bad, only the word of the authors.

Um...depending on your definition of "bad"...we do have evidence that ancient people committed atrocities just like some peoples in our own time. Archeological evidence.