Why do US Christian fundamentalists want a theocracy?

[blü 2]

Sorry, I missed this.
I’d like to address it....a son wouldn’t be “thrown in jail” for crimes his father committed, but offspring still suffer from the choices their parents make....like poverty, or moving to another area, or (especially from the womb) addiction to drugs....even developing mental illness from abuse.

Indeed, but that's not the usual claim. Baptism of infants is to wash off their sin of just being human at all, an idea I associate with that aspect of Christianity that sells guilt, which in my view one should never do, and least of all with kids.

We suffer from A&E’ s bad choice.
And we did inherit imperfection from them....

As you know, I find that evolution explains humankind far more satisfactorily than theology ever did. We're an evolved species, and highly successful, even to the point of damaging our own environment by our numbers. (Have you ever seen a mouse plague, by the way? Both very alarming and very creepy.)

The prohibition was easy to follow, there was so much other food...it wasn’t the only tree.

They didn't know the difference between good and evil ─ that's to say, God deliberately left them with no concept of right and wrong. They were thus incapable of intending to do wrong, and intention is a sine qua non of guilt / sin.

And if they hadn’t stolen from it, they never would’ve died!

That's Paul, not Genesis. Genesis says God mentions immediate death to them and they know what he's talking about, so the idea of death is plainly present. And then [he] expels them from the Garden NOT because they've done anything wrong BUT because [he] wants to stop them becoming immortal like [he] is. And neither of those things makes sense UNLESS DEATH ALREADY EXISTED for them.

And further, there is NO statement in the Garden story that death then entered the world.

Remember that Scripture I posted, Revelation 21:3-4? Says “tent of God is with mankind”? It also says “death will be no more”!
That must mean everlasting life!

Would I sound too sarcastic if I said once you're dead, death can be no more?

Medical researchers have found that as humans age, the ends of our chromosomes- our telomeres - get shorter, and our bodies lose their ability to rejuvenate.
What if that is the key? But it’s only something Jehovah can adjust?

That lust for immortality ─ I don't get it. Death, however unattractive, however appalling to the individual, is essential for the group.

Someday maybe we’ll find out.

And it'll be like those scenes at the start of Blade Runner.

Science fiction is full of the idea of Man, Conqueror / Colonizer of the Galaxies. We tend to forget how precisely we've evolved in tune with this unique planet's gravity, air composition and disposition of elements in the environment, and with our personal microbiota that comfortably outnumber the human cells in our bodies. If you live on Mars, you'll live in one-sixth of Earth's gravity, so by the time you're born there (if indeed gestation works successfully in 1/6th gravity) you have an enormous physical task in front of you before you can return to Earth, not to mention a colossal number of immunization shots.

So until there's some radical improvement to that outlook, Earth is the only place humans can colonize (as distinct from running Earth-dependent outposts there).

And until then, death is doing a most important job.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nothing bad was expected.

Jehovah does not act as the “thought police.” He respects the privacy of all His intelligent creatures.

I mean, why would anyone rebel, when everything they needed for enjoying life, was given to them? And helpful guidance provided, to discover and learn new things? That’s what loving fathers do, right?

But one spirit creature started thinking arrogantly, thinking about receiving more recognition than he deserved, becoming discontented.

We don’t learn much about him until the books of Job, Ezekiel, the Gospels, and Revelation are completed. And others.

Satan — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Take care.

No bad expected is different than no bad present.

I do not share your view of Satan as a physical being.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nothing bad was expected.

Jehovah does not act as the “thought police.” He respects the privacy of all His intelligent creatures.

I mean, why would anyone rebel, when everything they needed for enjoying life, was given to them? And helpful guidance provided, to discover and learn new things? That’s what loving fathers do, right?

But one spirit creature started thinking arrogantly, thinking about receiving more recognition than he deserved, becoming discontented.

We don’t learn much about him until the books of Job, Ezekiel, the Gospels, and Revelation are completed. And others.

Satan — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Take care.

A 7X great grandfather of mine was Daniel Boone and a 6x great grandfather was John Hart, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Jersey. I am also related to Thomas Jefferson Jackson See, an astrophysicist and opponent of Einstein. He had issues.

 

[Augustus]

Most of these people seem to advocate that laws of the land follow their religious tenets and practices, rather than the other way round as would be typical under a secular system of government. A government that follows religious tenets in its legislation could probably be characterised as theocratic in nature, don't you think?

In a democracy, people of all persuasions tend to want governance to reflect their values. This is the nature of democracy.

The sources of these values are largely irrelevant; religious values should carry no more, or no less weight than any other forms of values. It doesn't become a theocracy just because some people are influenced by religion, it's still a democracy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, in the story, the Snake tells no fibs. If anyone misspeaks, it's God, with [his] statement that if you eat the fruit you'll die the same day.
You'll find that it's expressed as a warning, not a threat ─ DON'T eat the fruit BECAUSE you'll die the same day. And not DON'T eat the fruit BECAUSE I ******* said so.

And of course Adam and Eve were always going to die ─ God expressly pitches them out of the Garden to keep them mortal, to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal like [he] is.
Paul didn't get that from the Garden story. If I remember correctly, that idea is first found among Alexandrian Jews towards the end of the 2nd century BCE. And / or it may be the product of midrash, a Jewish practice from that era of taking of any verse of scripture to use as a springboard for flights of fancy.
I respectfully demur ─ 3:15 says nothing of the kind.

And if it did, it would be referring to God as redeemer.
But as we saw, since they were denied knowledge of good and evil, the warning that was given was meaningless anyway ─ until afterwards.
But the Snake spoke only the truth. And as I said before, it's a thoroughly excellent thing that Eve did, bringing humans the knowledge of good and evil, so whichever way you look at it, she deserves tremendous approval.

And as Ezekiel 18 makes perfectly clear, you can't inherit the blame for sin anyway.

No, A & E died. The snake lied.

The fact that they weren’t created to die, is seen in the long life spans of their immediate generations of offspring, gradually diminishing. Once they pulled away from their Source of life, A&E began to die. They certainly died spiritually! Ephesians 2:1

Referring to Genesis 3:15...Jehovah provided the Seed (John 3:16); he wouldn’t have to be the seed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A 7X great grandfather of mine was Daniel Boone and a 6x great grandfather was John Hart, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Jersey. I am also related to Thomas Jefferson Jackson See, an astrophysicist and opponent of Einstein. He had issues.

Wow, that’s pretty cool!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No bad expected is different than no bad present.

You’re right; I said it wrong. (I wrote in error....Sounds better.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Indeed, but that's not the usual claim. Baptism of infants is to wash off their sin of just being human at all, an idea I associate with that aspect of Christianity that sells guilt, which in my view one should never do, and least of all with kids.
As you know, I find that evolution explains humankind far more satisfactorily than theology ever did. We're an evolved species, and highly successful, even to the point of damaging our own environment by our numbers. (Have you ever seen a mouse plague, by the way? Both very alarming and very creepy.)
They didn't know the difference between good and evil ─ that's to say, God deliberately left them with no concept of right and wrong. They were thus incapable of intending to do wrong, and intention is a sine qua non of guilt / sin.
That's Paul, not Genesis. Genesis says God mentions immediate death to them and they know what he's talking about, so the idea of death is plainly present. And then [he] expels them from the Garden NOT because they've done anything wrong BUT because [he] wants to stop them becoming immortal like [he] is. And neither of those things makes sense UNLESS DEATH ALREADY EXISTED for them.

And further, there is NO statement in the Garden story that death then entered the world.
Would I sound too sarcastic if I said once you're dead, death can be no more?
That lust for immortality ─ I don't get it. Death, however unattractive, however appalling to the individual, is essential for the group.
And it'll be like those scenes at the start of Blade Runner.

Science fiction is full of the idea of Man, Conqueror / Colonizer of the Galaxies. We tend to forget how precisely we've evolved in tune with this unique planet's gravity, air composition and disposition of elements in the environment, and with our personal microbiota that comfortably outnumber the human cells in our bodies. If you live on Mars, you'll live in one-sixth of Earth's gravity, so by the time you're born there (if indeed gestation works successfully in 1/6th gravity) you have an enormous physical task in front of you before you can return to Earth, not to mention a colossal number of immunization shots.

So until there's some radical improvement to that outlook, Earth is the only place humans can colonize (as distinct from running Earth-dependent outposts there).

And until then, death is doing a most important job.

You know, I’ve often wondered about Earth population, with regard to humans never dying...and I can’t picture society w/o kids, so I don’t think Jehovah would stop conception. The Bible doesn’t have much to say about this, really.
Though it does say that ‘the deserts will blossom as the saffron’, and ‘on the tops of mountains there will be an overflow (of food)’. More land could rise from the oceans. Or we could even learn to build underwater habitats!

I do believe it’s possible that Mars, and/or those plants discovered in other systems, will eventually be for our habitation.

All of this means huge increases in our technology....maybe. Jehovah could just transport us.

 

[blü 2]

No, A & E died. The snake lied.

No, the Snake didn't lie. He said, 'You will not die' in the context of God's statement that to eat the fruit was to die the same day. Which certainly didn't happen. As I said before, if anyone misspoke, it was God.

The fact that they weren’t created to die, is seen in the long life spans of their immediate generations of offspring, gradually diminishing.

Of course they were created to die. How many times must I draw your attention to God's only reason for expelling them from the Garden? Once again, it was to stop them from becoming immortal and thus being on a par with God. Genesis 3:22-23.

Once they pulled away from their Source of life, A&E began to die.

Genesis says nothing of the kind. What you claim is simply not there.

It seems to be a back-formation, a retrofit, to try to put something other than air under Paul's claim.

They certainly died spiritually! Ephesians 2:1

Ephesians is the work of anon, and Genesis gives no support to his view. There is no concept of 'spiritual death' in the Garden story. In fact there's no concept of 'spiritual death' in the Tanakh that I can recall ─ it's a very Greek notion, and Alexander didn't get to that part of the world till 300 BCE, when the Tanakh had been written.

Referring to Genesis 3:15...Jehovah provided the Seed (John 3:16); he wouldn’t have to be the seed.

But that's a purely Christian notion. Genesis is written in a Hebrew tradition. If you want the inside tip on the Tanakh, you ask someone Jewish. Christianity, right from Paul and the gospel authors, suffers a severe loss of cred each time it tries to turn a passage of the Tanakh into a prediction of Jesus ─ Jesus simply doesn't fit the job description of a Jewish messiah, being neither a military nor civil nor religious leader, nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood.

Some Christian denominations are accustomed to accuse the Jews of recognizing Jesus and then deliberately rejecting him. But since nothing about him qualifies him as a messiah in their eyes, there was never anything there for them to recognize, hence never anything there for them to reject.

I accept that Christians are entitled to define a messiah however they wish. They're simply not entitled to require Jewish folk, whose idea it originally was, to agree.

 

[blü 2]

You know, I’ve often wondered about Earth population, with regard to humans never dying...and I can’t picture society w/o kids, so I don’t think Jehovah would stop conception. The Bible doesn’t have much to say about this, really.
Though it does say that ‘the deserts will blossom as the saffron’, and ‘on the tops of mountains there will be an overflow (of food)’. More land could rise from the oceans. Or we could even learn to build underwater habitats!

I do believe the planets in our Solar System, and/or those discovered in other systems, will eventually be for our habitation.

All of this means huge increases in our technology....maybe. Jehovah could just transport us.

Ah, mon brave, good luck with that!

My ashes will have been indistinguishable from their environment for a lo-o-o-ong time before then.

 

[Hildeburh]

Why is it that American Christian fundamentalists are always demanding that people live under a Christian theocracy? This seems to be an idea that's largely confined to the US, as despite being literally ruled by churches and Christian monarchs for over thousand years, the idea of a Christian theocracy doesn't seem to have much traction among modern Europeans.

Why is this idea of a Christian state - rather than a secular state with a Christian majority - so alluring, specifically to Americans?

Easy. Power, control and fear; same reason Christians have always wanted control over the political process, society and human life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow, that’s pretty cool!

It is interesting. But their achievements (or faults) do not flow forward to be mine.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, the Snake didn't lie. He said, 'You will not die' in the context of God's statement that to eat the fruit was to die the same day. Which certainly didn't happen. As I said before, if anyone misspoke, it was God.
Of course they were created to die. How many times must I draw your attention to God's only reason for expelling them from the Garden? Once again, it was to stop them from becoming immortal and thus being on a par with God. Genesis 3:22-23.
Genesis says nothing of the kind. What you claim is simply not there.

It seems to be a back-formation, a retrofit, to try to put something other than air under Paul's claim.
Ephesians is the work of anon, and Genesis gives no support to his view. There is no concept of 'spiritual death' in the Garden story. In fact there's no concept of 'spiritual death' in the Tanakh that I can recall ─ it's a very Greek notion, and Alexander didn't get to that part of the world till 300 BCE, when the Tanakh had been written.
But that's a purely Christian notion. Genesis is written in a Hebrew tradition. If you want the inside tip on the Tanakh, you ask someone Jewish. Christianity, right from Paul and the gospel authors, suffers a severe loss of cred each time it tries to turn a passage of the Tanakh into a prediction of Jesus ─ Jesus simply doesn't fit the job description of a Jewish messiah, being neither a military nor civil nor religious leader, nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood.

Some Christian denominations are accustomed to accuse the Jews of recognizing Jesus and then deliberately rejecting him. But since nothing about him qualifies him as a messiah in their eyes, there was never anything there for them to recognize, hence never anything there for them to reject.

I accept that Christians are entitled to define a messiah however they wish. They're simply not entitled to require Jewish folk, whose idea it originally was, to agree.

Writing takes a lot out of me, and I don’t have the time to write and address every issue you raised.
Let me just deal w/ what I highlighted in the last paragraph.

Was the Messiah idea from the Jews, or was it from God?

The Jews at the time Jesus walked the Earth, were looking for a Savior to rid them of the Roman yoke of subjugation, and to re-establish the kingdom of Israel.
But Jehovah God’s purpose was far grander....to unify the entire Earth in His worship (Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 11:9), and to bring perfection, and therefore everlasting life (Psalms 37:29), back to all humankind. Fulfilling Genesis 22:18.

Take care, my friend.

 

[blü 2]

Writing takes a lot out of me, and I don’t have the time to write and address every issue you raised.

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you the very best with your health.

Was the Messiah idea from the Jews, or was it from God?

The version in the Tanakh is from Jewish tradition. The version in the NT is from Christian tradition. They overlap very little. Which rather compels the answer that the Jewish version is from the Jewish god, and the Christian version is from the Christian god, and that neither is correct in the eyes of the other.

The Jews at the time Jesus walked the Earth, were looking for a Savior to rid them of the Roman yoke of subjugation, and to re-establish the kingdom of Israel.

Yes, that fits with my understanding of the Jewish notion of 'messiah'.

But Jehovah God’s purpose was far grander....to unify the entire Earth in His worship (Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 11:9), and to bring perfection, and therefore everlasting life (Psalms 37:29), back to all humankind. Fulfilling Genesis 22:18.

But none of that foresees the end of the Covenant. It's a Jewish vision, not a Christian one eg

Psalm 37:29 ... The righteous shall be preserved forever, / but the children of the wicked will be cut off.​

Paul, not Jesus, declared the covenant irrelevant. Matthew 5:18 has Jesus saying the Jewish law was here for the long haul, and no other version of Jesus contradicts him. Jesus is a circumcised Jew, after all.

Take care, my friend.

And you, amigo.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the Snake didn't lie. He said, 'You will not die' in the context of God's statement that to eat the fruit was to die the same day. Which certainly didn't happen. As I said before, if anyone misspoke, it was God.
Of course they were created to die. How many times must I draw your attention to God's only reason for expelling them from the Garden? Once again, it was to stop them from becoming immortal and thus being on a par with God. Genesis 3:22-23...

Yes, the serpent lied. He was set to take Eve off the course of obedience to God. And yes, the "day" they ate from that tree, they would die. Just as when one is given the death penalty by a court. It doesn't mean they will die that very day; but the execution is set (determined to be set forth) that day. If, on the other hand, the decree is such that they will NOT die, then the decree set that day is that they will not die.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The version in the Tanakh is from Jewish tradition. The version in the NT is from Christian tradition. They overlap very little. Which rather compels the answer that the Jewish version is from the Jewish god, and the Christian version is from the Christian god, and that neither is correct in the eyes of the other.

^^ This is the inherent problem w/ mainstream Christianity^^.... they changed their god to a trinity — if not a trinity, then Jesus — and totally ignore (or at least, two-thirds ignore, lol) the real God Yahweh / Jehovah, the God of the Jews, the One who sent Jesus! Jesus himself stated that it was his Father (Yahweh) who gives accurate understanding of His word. Or hides it. — Luke 10:21

The god which a religion worships, that’s the most important part of their dogma! Christianity should be worshiping the same God that Jews worship! As JW’s, we do.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, the serpent lied.

Please quote me the lie the Snake told.

He was set to take Eve off the course of obedience to God.

That would be God's fault for withholding knowledge of good and evil from Eve and Adam, wouldn't it? [He] left them no way of knowing whether it was right or wrong, or even that there was such a question.

And yes, the "day" they ate from that tree, they would die. Just as when one is given the death penalty by a court.

It simply doesn't say that or anything like it. You're importing a whole lot of stuff and wishing it on the text. The discussion here is, instead, what the text actually says ─ not what some later view might want to retrofit onto it.

It doesn't mean they will die that very day

Yes, that's exactly what it means, because that's exactly what it says: in the day that you eat of it you shall die. NOT, you shall be sentenced.

but the execution is set (determined to be set forth) that day.

NOTHING of the kind is present in the text.


And incidentally, don't you agree that Eve did humankind a HUGE favor in allowing humans to know right from wrong? Doesn't she deserve our undying approval, applause and gratitude?

Don't God's motives, as stated in the Garden story, sound petty and morally indefensible to you? That [he] expelled them from the Garden because [he] was afraid they would become [his] rivals?

 

[blü 2]

^^ This is the inherent problem w/ mainstream Christianity^^.... they changed their god to a trinity — if not a trinity, then Jesus — and totally ignore (or at least, two-thirds ignore, lol) the real God Yahweh / Jehovah, the God of the Jews, the One who sent Jesus! Jesus himself stated that it was his Father (Yahweh) who gives accurate understanding of His word. Or hides it. — Luke 10:21

The god which a religion worships, that’s the most important part of their dogma! Christianity should be worshiping the same God that Jews worship! As JW’s, we do.

Looks like we're reading from the same page.

Wouldn't that mean you have a lot of trouble with Paul?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please quote me the lie the Snake told...

I answered you, but again I shall rephrase. Did the serpent tell Eve she would die?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please quote me the lie the Snake told.
That would be God's fault for withholding knowledge of good and evil from Eve and Adam, wouldn't it? [He] left them no way of knowing whether it was right or wrong, or even that there was such a question.
It simply doesn't say that or anything like it. You're importing a whole lot of stuff and wishing it on the text. The discussion here is, instead, what the text actually says ─ not what some later view might want to retrofit onto it.
Yes, that's exactly what it means, because that's exactly what it says: in the day that you eat of it you shall die. NOT, you shall be sentenced.
NOTHING of the kind is present in the text.


And incidentally, don't you agree that Eve did humankind a HUGE favor in allowing humans to know right from wrong? Doesn't she deserve our undying approval, applause and gratitude?

Don't God's motives, as stated in the Garden story, sound petty and morally indefensible to you? That [he] expelled them from the Garden because [he] was afraid they would become [his] rivals?

I also wonder if you believe the account in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve.