Hedshaker

The question is, how many of you regular Christians out there agree with rhutchin on this?

Please think it through before you answer.

Thanks.

Orbit

Stumpjumper

First off. No.

This would be directed at Rhutchin. Which laws of the Bible would we use? There are many and some contradict each other. A static book as the basis of all morality causes all sorts of problems. Just look at the huge debate over same-sex marraige and to a lesser extent stem-cell research.

seebs

Absolutely positively not. No way, no how.

With one exception: If God physically shows up and wants to run the place, I won't argue.

But I absolutely and unconditionally oppose human theocracies, on multiple grounds. Each of those grounds is sufficient for me to assert that a theocracy is not merely not mandated by Christian teaching, but contradictory to it.

The Bible may serve as a basis for moral decisions, but laws are not moral decisions, and shouldn't be. If you conflate laws with morality, you preach that what you can get away with is morally acceptable. This is absolutely wrong.

The moral standard Christians are called to -- universal and unconditional love -- is simply infeasable as a system of laws.

Furthermore, the Biblical standard of morality is a question of the state of the soul, not of specific actions! You cannot have a law which says "you must honor the Sabbath if it is special to you, but if you see all days as being alike, you must treat them equally". I mean, you could, but it would be a stupid law.

No, I do not want a theocracy. Not even one which agrees with my beliefs in every respect; indeed, especially not such a system, because such a system would serve as a grave temptation to me to stop learning more about my place in the world and my relationship with others.

Thank you, though, for asking.

If I may venture further into what I would like: I would like a society which gives us the freedom and safety to try to answer the foundational moral questions for ourselves without too much external pressure.

themuzicman

Well, "theocratic" implies a governmental system based upon (God, technically) religion.

I think world history teaches us that religious governments are a poor choice. I believe the function of a Christian church and the function of a government are simply incompatible.

Now, I'm not sure what's what rhutchin meant. You'll have to ask him.

I DO believe that my Christian worldview informs my expectations of society, and that having a society that embraces a Christian worldview will generally be a successful one, especially in the atmosphere of a government that reflects the morals of the society it rules.

You'll notice that I avoid referring to biblical law, mainly because I believe that Old Testament Law was for forming the Nation of Israel, and is not the basis for all governments.

I also do not believe that ALL morals should be legislated. I'm quite libertarian in the idea that if society isn't engaging in a certain immoral activity to the point that it is harming itself, it shouldn't make a law. But I'm also realistic enough to know that societies decay, and governments have to act.

Is that answer enough?

Michael

BadBadBad

Wouldn't we need to determine which holy scriptures we would need to base this theocracy on? That might be a bit of a problem. For example, look what happened in Philadelphia in the mid-1800s. This was just over which Bible to read in school. Imagine if we not only got past determining which Bible but actually which interpretation of moral standards we would base legislation for our new theocracy?

From here:

The Philadelphia Nativist Riots were a series of (A public act of violence by an unruly mob) riots that took place May 3 and July 4, 1844. The riots involved conflicts between (A philosopher who subscribes to nativism) nativists and recent Irish (A member of a Catholic church) Catholic immigrants. Principally these arguments were over religion in schooling. The (An adherent of Protestantism) Protestant majority had control of the school system, and taught Protestant concepts that were in direct conflict with Roman Catholic teachings. After several go-arounds, the Catholics got non-denominational schooling institutionalized. A vocal Protestant faction objected, and took their concerns to the streets. The rioting spread from Irish areas of (The largest city in Pennsylvania; located in the southeastern part of the state on the Delaware river; site of Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed; site of the University of Pennsylvania) Philadelphia to more central areas and led to significant property destruction, particularly of churches, and numerous injuries, including a handful of documented fatalities. Catholics withdrew from the public school system at that point, and started the private Catholic school system in order to have education that didn't denigrate their religion. Ironically, private Catholic schooling would be later be used as a precedent for (Click link for more info and facts about homeschooling) homeschooling and private Protestant schools.

Rational BAC

The idea of a theocracy is abhorrent to me.

Christianity is a personal religion. Directly between man and his God.

The State cannot have anything to do with it.

In any way.

Hedshaker

Thanks for the replies to the OP inspired by rhutchin's comments in this thread: "Homosexuality (Now readers, please be polite)".


Your comments pretty well confirm what I strongly suspected anyway, that regular Christians reject the notion altogether.

Lol, I don't think anyone would be able to argue in those circumstances. But don't worry, my guess is it ain't gonna happen, :Cheeky:

Well said. I don't think you'll get much opposition to that here :thumbs:

Well the thread is open to all posters. If rhutchin wishes to develop his meaning and answer singletrack1's questions then this would be the place to do it..... rhutchin?

Yes, thanks

That would be the major problem, wouldn't it? In fact, that's always been the problem I think, how to setttle arguments that deal with differing Truth[tm] claims, where no compromise is possible. And what of those who refused to believe?

In the words of Wayne Delia: "shudder"

Me too. Isn't it nice when a Christian and a strong atheist are in total agreement :thumbs:


Thanks all

Orbit

Spaam

Wow this thread is a positive surprise... yeah we tried the whole theocracy thing before, now referred to as the dark ages. Seriously bad track record...

rhutchin

I don't know that I would classify those who reponded as "regular" Christians (with the exception of themuzicman whom I know through the discussions I have had with him).

I also don't think people necessarily see (or understand) what they read.

My first statement was "I can go with a religious society." There is nothing here about gov'ts and theocracies. The alternative to a "religious society" is a "non-religious society." If people had read this accurately, their comments would have targeted the kind of religious society - Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu - one would have. My response is that a society that was even a mixture of all religions (which would exclude atheists) would be better than a society of atheists.

My second comment was, "I choose the Bible as the basis for our laws." Again, in a pluralistic "religious" society, only those laws taken from the Bible that the majority of "religions" agreed to submit to would be enacted. I suspect that you might get agreement on the obvious laws (re: murder, theft, adultery). If society was constrained to accept only those laws identified in the Bible and were only ruled by that subset of laws on which the majority agreed, you would have a better society than that not constrained to be ruled by the laws of the Bible.

If people could read, and only regular "Christians" (implying that one is actually a Christian) then responded, maybe you would get responses that actually address the issue you seem to have wanted to raise (although I am not sure that you even understand the issues you raise, or if you do, perhaps my statements have nothing to do with them).

TomboyMom

rhutchin:
I don't know if you are thinking unclearly or speaking unclearly, but your position as stated does not hold together or make sense.

The alternative to a religious society is not an atheist society, that is, a society where atheism is mandated. The alternative to a religious society in which each individual is free to choose and exercise their own religion or no religion, in other words, a free society, such as The United States of America. A relgious society is a theocracy--one in which a single religion is mandated and forms the basis of the laws. If you do not advocate this, then the bible can not serve as the basis for laws. [to go back to the original thread, in that event, under your logic, there would be no basis for criminalizing any homosexual behavior, including holding hands in public.] This is internally contradictory. I suspect what you are trying to do is impose a theocracy without having to admit it. In a pluralistic religious society, (whatever that is) all religious texts would be equally valid as a source of laws, including the bible, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, etc. There is no reason on earth why the bible is a more appropriate source of legal rules than any other religious text. Why should we be restrained to those laws contained in the bible? For example, the bible is silent regarding heroin, should that mean we cannot have any laws about it? rhutchin: the majority of religions do not agree on the bible at all. The majority of human beings do not subscribe to the bible. You are trying to marry theocracy and democracy in an illogical way.
btw, the majority of Christians do not agree that the bible states that homosexuality is immoral. Therefore, using your criteria, you would still end up permitting homosexuals to express appropriate physical affection in public, which is what you are trying to justify prohibiting.
rhutchin, what you really want is for rhutchin to impose his or her personal beliefs and tastes on the rest of us. That is, you don't want to see homosexuals holding hands, so you want to prohibit it, even though they are not harming you in any way. Do you have a significant other? Would you like me to prohibit you from holding his or her hand, just because I don't like it? Your way is fascism. My way is freedom and democracy.
Try again.