Would anyone here really want to live under a theocracy?

[Estro Felino]

The probably are if they have to watch the video...

View attachment 85252

Sorry, wrong video.
The right video was this:
Italian troops entering Rome and taking it.

I meant that Romans were so happy to get rid of the Pope...and they didn't miss the Catholic theocracy at all.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

For those who answered that the would not want to live under theocratic rule and are citizens of voting age in the U.S. ……
Here is perhaps something to consider:

From about 2:35 onwards

 

[ppp]

I think a man made theocracy is one run by clergy and priests which is as good as Hitler running the show. Definitely would not want to live under that rule much like the oppressive Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban of Afghanistan. Very, very cruel and abusive of all human rights.

But the Kingdom of God on Earth is not man made and not run by priests or clergy so I think that would be a nice place to live in peace with all humanity and without wars and oppression but respect for all human rights everywhere.

You are confused about what makes theocracies despicable. It is not where they come from or who makes them.

What percentage of the population has to be unhappy with one element of the God ordained rules to change that single element of that single rule? 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...... However I live in the present where governments are run by people (mostly men), and I would definitely not prefer not to live under the rule of men who believe they are carrying out the will of a deity they have no rational reason to believe in.

I'll try to show a difference because Jesus' teachings are recorded in Scripture, thus we are Not speaking about government run by men.
The Christian congregation has Jesus as Head (President /Ruler) running the congregation and genuine Christians follow his teachings.
Yes, there are MANY who call Jesus as Lord but prove false just as Jesus forewarned us at Matthew 7:21-23.
That does Not make the teaching standards of Jesus as wrong, but those Not obeying Jesus as wrong.
If everyone on Earth lived by the Golden Rule and Jesus' New Commandment found at John 13:34-35 they would be carrying out Jesus' will and have rational reason to believe in.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

For those who answered that the would not want to live under theocratic rule and are citizens of voting age in the U.S. ……
Here is perhaps something to consider:.............

Consider that the false Nativity stories are false, but that does Not make the biblical account as wrong, but the stories as wrong.
Seems as if these stories have become so deeply embedded in people's minds they are now very hard to erase.
Liking the so-called holiday they try to keep the mirage of it alive either in a secular or religious way.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

If everyone on Earth lived by the Golden Rule and Jesus' New Commandment found at John 13:34-35 they would be carrying out Jesus' will and have rational reason to believe in.

This is hypothetical, typically represented in logical syllogism as: if P, then Q .
In other words the validity of Q is dependent on the validity of P.

Since I was answering the question in the present modern day during my lifetime;
Again I live in the present where governments are run by people (mostly men), and I would definitely not prefer not to live under the rule of men who believe they are carrying out the will of a deity they have no rational reason to believe in.

Since in the present modern day and in the foreseeable future during my lifetime,
not “everyone on Earth” is living “by the Golden Rule and Jesus' New Commandment found at John 13:34-35 they” are not “carrying out Jesus' will”, and therefore have no “rational reason to believe in.”
P is not valid in the present day…..
Therefore Q is is not valid in the present day.

Again the present day being the stipulated time period in question, and the governments of men are what I am talking about.

What you are doing is what’s known as proselytizing.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Consider that the false Nativity stories are false, but that does Not make the biblical account as wrong, but the stories as wrong.
Seems as if these stories have become so deeply embedded in people's minds they are now very hard to erase.
Liking the so-called holiday they try to keep the mirage of it alive either in a secular or religious way.

From about 2:35 onwards

By this I thought it plain I stipulated the part I was offering for consideration was from the
approximately 2 minute and 35 second mark and
onwards.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

By this I thought it plain I stipulated the part I was offering for consideration was from the
approximately 2 minute and 35 second mark and onwards.

Yes, but since X-mass was showing what is taught is false. The truth about it is ignored.
As far as 'separation of church and state' that is: Scriptural as taught at - 2nd Chronicles 26:16-21
- The king (political) was Not to interfere with the duties of the priest (religious) and vice versa.
Even if men don't want separation, it has nothing to do with what teaching is found in the Bible.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

As far as 'separation of church and state' that is: Scriptural as taught at - 2nd Chronicles 26:16-21

As you saw in the video, several elected representatives and the speaker of the house
(who is 3 in succession to the presidency and the most powerful member in the House of Representatives) along with over 50% of republicans are either adherent or sympathetic to Christian Nationalism.
So, apparently the “teaching found in the Bible” to which you allude doesn’t seem to be a factor in their reasoning.
Again, in the present time.

The very reason I submitted it for consideration for those that have expressed an unwillingness to live under a theocracy.
The title of this thread being:
“Would anyone here really want to live under a theocracy?”

For those living in the U.S. I thought it might be insightful.

 

[paarsurrey]

My answer to this is an emphatic 'No.'
My idea for this thread came from a recent conversation I had with a gentleman who said he wants the United States to become a Christian theocracy. Personally I like our current model of a secular government that allows people to worship, or not worship, how they see fit.
Thoughts?

I will prefer to live in a secular form of Government .

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

Remember: the Modern-Day definition of theocracy is: government by clergy or clergy class.
That is Not the theocracy found in the Bible with Jesus as King of God's Kingdom government for a thousand years

Actually it is theocracy with any kind of religious leader in control in my view. It doesn't matter if your priest is a prophet or a group of people to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will prefer to live in a secular form of Government .

Regards

I must confess that I am surprised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It would depend in the ethical imperatives that the state religion seeks to impose. All human societal imperatives need to be imposed upon the individuals within it, and those imperatives have to be determined, somehow. Religions can be very good at doing this, or very bad at doing it. So whether or not I would want to live under a religiously driven set of ethical imperatives would depend on the ethical imperatives the religion imposed. And on the value of the results of it's doing so.

The problem with that is that morality and ethics is a dynamic thing that develops over time.
The ethics and morals claimed by a religion tends to be absolute and very much opposed to shifts over time.
Whenever it does occur, it usually does so while kicking and screaming through pressure from the outside.

Next to that, the "morality" imposed by religion is only one part of it. It would also impose all of its rituals and stuff also.

Theocracies are big no-no, as history has shown time and again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would you recognise a theocracy (or the lack of one) if you were living in one but it was called a democracy? You could vote for different leaders but the leaders were bound to follow religious traditions that were part of the constitution.

It would be apparant by the stuff written in said constitution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It depends on what it means.

The word "theocracy" is pretty well defined.

 

[sayak83]

My answer to this is an emphatic 'No.'
My idea for this thread came from a recent conversation I had with a gentleman who said he wants the United States to become a Christian theocracy. Personally I like our current model of a secular government that allows people to worship, or not worship, how they see fit.
Thoughts?

I wonder which part of "my kingdom is not of this world" did this gentleman miss.
Reading comprehension...that is what we lack apparently in the general populace.

 

[sayak83]

How would you recognise a theocracy (or the lack of one) if you were living in one but it was called a democracy? You could vote for different leaders but the leaders were bound to follow religious traditions that were part of the constitution.

That is simple. Do people have the freedom to follow other religious and philosophical traditions in that nation ( as long it is not harming a non member?). Are people allowed to move freely into and out of any tradition, even the dominant one? If these are true then it's not a theocracy.

 

[Ebionite]

It would be apparant by the stuff written in said constitution.

In the case of the U.S. it's implied the Declaration of Independence, which is essentially the preamble to the Constitution.

"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."

The Declaration of Indpendence describes the severance of political bands, and these are distinct from the English common law that the settlers brought to North America.

English common law describes the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. English common law goes back to King Alfred the Great and his legal code which was drawn from the ten commandments of Exodus 20 but with some alterations to support Christianity. Christianity goes back to the official religion of Rome, which is where the union of state and church originated under Constantine.

 

[Ebionite]

That is simple. Do people have the freedom to follow other religious and philosophical traditions in that nation ( as long it is not harming a non member?). Are people allowed to move freely into and out of any tradition, even the dominant one? If these are true then it's not a theocracy.

Are you free to observe the religious and philosophical tradition of identifying as a man and not a person when you interact with the state? This identification has implications for the recognition of the rights inferred by the Declaration of Independence, since persons do not have the natural rights that were retained by the English settlers.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ninth Amendment

 

[sayak83]

Are you free to observe the religious and philosophical tradition of identifying as a man and not a person when you interact with the state? This identification has implications for the recognition of the rights inferred by the Declaration of Independence, since persons do not have the natural rights that were retained by the English settlers.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ninth Amendment

I have no clue what you said here.