Would you support a theocracy if...

[sun rise]

I voted yes based on the OP's qualification that I KNEW beyond any doubt. I'm thinking of Rama and Krishna in India here who were the incarnation of the Avatar in their respective times.

The odds I would know beyond doubt are so completely tiny that my vote was utterly theoretical with zero practical significance.

 

[Yazata]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?

I don't believe in anything like the "Abrahamic" God, so that would present a problem right there.

Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.

I don't know how I could distinguish between a super-space-alien with powers beyond my comprehension, and God with powers beyond my comprehension. Just because something stands in the same relation to me that I stand in relation to my dog, wouldn't necessarily make that thing divine and a suitable object of religious worship.

So not only do I not believe in that sort of God, I don't think that I even have the ability to recognize a deity if one suddenly appeared. It would just be some kind of alien to me.

Would you support this king?

Probably not. I would see it as the imposition of a dictatorship. I value human freedom and liberty too much for that.

So I would remain wild and untamed in that kind of scenario. If the super-being was so powerful as to be invincible, I would probably try to survive like a mouse in the walls of its brave-new-Earth.

But I can imagine a day in which most surviving humans were tamed and domesticated, perceiving their own self-interest to be to live according to the wishes of the super-being.

As for me, I have no wish to be anything's pet.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No God, no God appointed king or queen. India did away with them in 1971 (26th Amendment to the Indian Constitution).

 

[syo]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

This scenario makes people who want to govern history. Or not?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I guess that would depend on the ruler. I'd be pretty suspicious, given that a God who is supposedly omnipotent couldn't simply just do it himself by munipulating his own creation into governing ourselves accordingly, which would be far more efficient for an omnipotent creator being.

 

[an anarchist]

This scenario makes people who want to govern history. Or not?

Can you elaborate a bit further? I don’t understand

 

[syo]

Can you elaborate a bit further? I don’t understand

What happens to politicians and other royals?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?

The Messengers of God are always appointed King, by God. Hands down, they are the real Kings.

None of the Messengers of God, and as such God want rule of the earth. Rend unto Caesar what is Caesars.

They claim rule over the hearts that embrace God and are given servitued freely.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

I would not.

 

[Sheldon]

You don’t suppose you would be fearful enough to, given that God has proven Himself? For me, the fear of not listening to this new king and God would be my number one motivating factor in my obedience.

So much for free will, my support is earned by actions, it cannot be offered prima facie, based on naught but arbitrary authority.

 

[Sheldon]

I have found that the fear of God and His wrath has been the number one motivating factor in attempting me to lead a moral life.

Really, do you not care about, or have empathy for, those that suffer? I have never needed fear of consequence or divine diktat to tell me that deliberately causing unnecessary suffering is immoral. Given the Abrahamic deity's penchant for delighting in such suffering, I find it's moral authority dubious even as a hypothetical.

When I sin, it is the fear of God which makes me attempt change, before it is the want to be moral. One day it will be the want to be moral that will be my main driving factor, but I have not reached that point yet.

Can you not use reason and empathy?

 

[InChrist]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

No. I will only support a theocracy when the King of Kong’s and the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ Personally returns to Jerusalem to establish His millennial kingdom.

 

[Sheldon]

Not unless I was the one appointed King, but then I would betray god Highlander style, slaying him and taking his powers for myself.

I wanna change my vote,,,,

 

[Secret Chief]

King of Kong’s

That made me

 

[robocop (actually)]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

And atheists complain that God doesn't simply reveal Himself!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself.

I'm having a hard time following you, though at the moment, it might be that I am not very focused.. I need to meditate in a few minutes.

Anarchism seems like it would be something that I would be quicker to associate with a 'theological' system that is based on more idiosyncrasy. True individual power in life doesn't seem to be stressed all that much in the bible, for example. (though arguably it is a system where you spend time slowly building individual power in the afterlife state)

There are 'theological systems' that I would define as being more 'anarchist,' namely variations of paganism and witchcraft. In such systems, one might eventually overcome the need for obedience to the metaphysical, and graduate to become a worker in the metaphysical, in bodily life. And in doing so, I think that only the 'just' should become those who gain these qualities, and that there would be metaphysical qualities in place to prevent the lower looking individuals from truly gaining what I describe.

Christianity is interesting because Christ also is technically doing this, in some sense, in his own way. But I think that a substantial amount of obedience seems to be woven into Christian religions, and just how obedient you should be has obviously been debated to this day.

So I guess I understand why you would call yourself a 'Christian Anarchist,' because there are plenty of passages that support individual power. But I also understand those Christians that claim to follow a sort of meek, docile role. I think the main problem I have, is that the church cut off too many texts dealing with ascension using mysticism.

'Feed them on milk till they can eat greater things..' leads logically to the more emboldened texts of the gospel of Thomas, or the Pistis Sophia, where intimations of individual empowerment start to make themselves present. Christianity seems to have wanted, strongly, to evolve in that direction in the early stages.

 

[Brickjectivity]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

If I knew for a fact that God Himself appointed a king it would be enough to know that God was not God. It goes against everything I understand about God.

• "If baal be a god let him defend himself." -- no need for a defender of the faith
• "God is no respecter of persons." -- appointing someone to be king is not consistent with this
• "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." -- therefore they have no need of a king.

Also the scriptures on the kings of Israel do not clearly describe God appointing kings except if the LORD does it, but 'God' is a term coined after the Jewish scriptures have been written. God and LORD are not the same word. They imply different things, just as Holy Spirit and Jesus do.

 

[an anarchist]

So much for free will, my support is earned by actions, it cannot be offered prima facie, based on naught but arbitrary authority.

It is of my own free will that I fear God. I can choose to sin and disregard my fear for Him, and at times I do.

 

[Polymath257]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

No. Any entity that rules based on fear doesn't deserve to rule. Anyone appointed on that basis is undeserving.

I do not support monarchies (essentially the same as dictatorships).

 

[blü 2]

... you knew for a fact that God Himself appointed the King?
Think back to the biblical book of Judges. The Israelites had God prove His literal existence for them, so they knew for a fact their Abrahamic God was real and they would listen to the Judge He would appoint (sometimes).
Suppose we were in a similar situation like that. Hypothetical; One day, a big booming voice comes out of the sky for everyone to hear, saying “I have decided that it would be best if so-and-so was king of everyone, so everyone listen to him now.” Then God shoots a bunch of fire out of the sky or something scary to make everyone believe that it was God.
Would you support this king? In this hypothetical, we would all have the free will to follow this king or not. As an anarchist, I think the only kind of government I could get behind is a theocracy, but only if the government was to be literally appointed by God Himself. So in this hypothetical I would follow the new king. Would you?

This scenario is not really different from an invasion by an alien species.

When big booming voices come out of the sky and threaten to impose an autarchy on the world ─ Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, unbelievers, everyone ─ then the first thing you do is consult your defense forces.

And in case that doesn't work well enough, you also begin organizing and coordinating resistance movements.