Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from the Abrahamic Relgions forum:

Comments please.

I started a similar thread at the Abrahamic Religions forum.

ApostateAbe

The word, "theocracy," was invented to describe societies governed by religious authorities, such as 17th century New England, and that is the way the word is used today. If it means a society ruled by God, then the word is all but useless. archaeologist may be thinking in terms of etymology, where theo = God and cracy = government. But, of course, definitions that are commonly accepted do not always follow what you may expect from root words.

Toto

I gather this is your AR thread:

http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=284642

I am not sure what the purpose of this thread is. The quote in the OP is taken from another thread and, frankly, does not make a lot of sense. I don't know if it did make sense in context.

A theocracy is generally defined not as rule by god, but as rule by god's claimed representatives on earth, the clerics. A theocracy is a dictatorship, but it has a particular ideological basis, as opposed to the dictator's personal power. But this is not the forum for discussing theocracy.

Johnny Skeptic

My interest in this thread, and in the other thread at the Abrahamic Religions forum, is to discuss with archaeologist why the Bible must be considered literally true except in cases where it is obviously not literally true. Archaeologist has stated that professing Christians who do not believe that the Bible is literally true are not Christians. A better title for this thread would have been "Only people who believe that the Bible is literally true are Christians."

avi

Well, perhaps so. However, we on this forum, both believers in one or another religion, and those who, like me, are non-believers in any religion, are NOT obliged to pass some sort of litmus test, prior to expressing an opinion.

How childish, in my opinion, to demand that someone professing faith in the irrational, should be obliged to hesitate, prior to acknowledging their ignorance about science and history. On the contrary, in my opinion, those who are baffled by the discoveries of science, and the scientific method, should be the FIRST ones to challenge, to argue, to prod, to demand answers, for those issues which represent, in their eyes, an affront to their particular religious convictions.

Such people, including archaeologist himself, (obviously someone who has selected a nickname capriciously), ought to be demanding answers from those who claim to understand science, and the scientific method, rather than insisting upon FIRST consulting with religious authority to verify the legitimacy of the particular question.

"...the truth..." Hmm. How does one establish "the truth", absent a scientific modus operandi? Can "the truth" exist within a selected series of documents, all of which claim, as basis for validity, the approval of those who have not the slightest comprehension of any aspect of science--e.g. Quran, Bible, Bhagavad-Gita, etc, etc?

Can archeologist provide even ONE illustration, where ANY religious book, has demonstrated "the truth", disproving some aspect of life, as it has been defined by "science"? Any example at all, will suffice, whether it be in the field of aerodynamics, or mechanics, or medicine, or education, or economics, or mathematics, or music, or any other human endeavor?

Just ONE example. I have an idea: how about this: "archaeologist" explain to us, the rationale for prohibiting consumption of pork meat? I will be particularly interested to learn which religious tract, remonstrating against consumption of pork meat, nevertheless urges followers of that particular religion, to consume GOAT meat. Then, one will ask archaeologist to explain the differences between porcine and goat muscle mitochondria, or sarcomere density, or incidence of pathogenic bacteria in one species or another....We will of course also challenge the notion that consumption of ANY meat, which represents the KILLING of innocent animals, should be tolerated.

avi

archaeologist

It is so interesting to see how atheists and other unbelievers twist the meanings of words to fit their own ideology. here is the real meaningof the word 'theocracy':

You people <edit> make posts in attempts to attack others while still trying to stay within the rules of this forum. Be grateful that I am not a person who runs to the moderators and rats.

archaeologist

itisn't a matter of 'presenting', it is a matter if you accept it or not. You do not accept anything except what your fellow unbelievers state so it is useless to do anything but make a comment or two.

Johnny Skeptic

But a global flood did not occur, and the earth is not young. In addition, there is not any credible historical or scientific evidence at all that King Nebuchadnezzar ate grass with cows.

If the Bible clearly said that the flood was regional, you would believe that, but you now believe that the flood was global. That means that you do not care about checking things out, but rational people have no choice except to check things out.

What justifies what God does? In your opinion, does might make right? If that is your position, please make a post in my thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=284525 at the Abrahamic Religions forum. The title of the thread is "Does might make right."

avi

What is "it", archaeologist?

Here is an "it". Galileo was persecuted, imprisoned, and threatened with death as a heretic, for DEMONSTRATING the invalidity of the judeo-christian-islamic FALSE notion of geocentrism, which had been derived from Plato and Aristotle.

"The" bible of course, follows the long since refuted, (by Aristarchus 2300 years ago) obsolete, Greek notion of geocentrism, which had gained the majority opinion, among scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals 2500 years ago (repudiating, or ignoring Aristarchus' brilliant demonstration of heliocentrism.) So, Galileo was viewed by orthodox christians as a heretic, for challenging the veracity of the biblical geocentric model.

Can you, archaeologist, provide even ONE example, where the Bible, or any other religious tract, offers humans clarity on ANY issue affecting mankind or even just the planet earth? By "clarity", here, I refer to "the truth", in contrast, to the mere "scientific" opinion of modern thinkers, which is based upon REPRODUCIBLE evidence, (not proclamations, like those from "the" bible, originating with jews who refuse to eat pork, because of a superstitious notion of pork's supposed uncleanliness.)

I normally do not eat meat, because I think it is wrong to kill animals, but I make an exception with Pork. Roasted, boiled, fried. You name it, I have eaten it. If it is pork, I am going to eat it. I refuse to eat beef or goat, because those are great animals, too, like pigs, but, most humans kill those wonderful creatures in order to eat their flesh, an act that sickens me, so I eat, among animals, only pork, because the jews, and muslims refuse to consume it, not because it is wrong to kill animals, but because they believe the nonsense written in their respective "holy" books, as if it represented "the truth".

avi

Toto

That's one definition, but if you think that the god in question is imaginary, you won't think that the state is run by that god. Do you use the word theocracy for Iran? Most people do without believing that Allah is actually in control.

Theocracy