In a Bible centered Theocracy

[jokerman93]

Would all wars be holy wars?

And as a member of the secular minority, would I have the right to claim C.O. status since I have always lived in a manner consistent with my beliefs in liberalism, science and reason?

:silly:

[karlschneider]

1. Which bible? Which theology?

Shit, the bibliolaters fight among themselves as much as they do against the 'heathens'!.......

[jmowreader]

As a member of a secular minority in a Biblical theocracy...

You'd have the right to attend a re-education centre where good upstanding Christian values would be implanted in your brain whether you wanted them there or not.

Our good friend Mr. Ashcroft would ensure that you took advantage of this right by joyfully attending the re-education centre.

And the chocolate ration would be increased from 22 grammes to 18.

[fishguy]

2. Is your point just to bash religions?

If it is, just do so.
You make yourself sound just like Jerry Falwell, someone who bashes other beliefs to make your own sound better.

[jokerman93]

6. Bash? -- Absolutely Not

Someone paraphrased my staunch point of view nicely in another thread. I believe that religion's place is in the private sphere -- in the home where children are taught how to make choices according to their values.

Once it goes beyond the private sphere it becomes coercive and too easily used as a weapon against less aggressive or minority ideologies, invoking God in the name of an agenda.

IMO, separation of religion and state is the only way to remove religion from the arsenal of those who seek cultural and international war.

Been concerned about the direction my country is choosing lately and musing about it. That's all.

[fishguy]

9. Then you should have made that point

Most wars throughout history have been fought for economic reasons, by the way.
Iraq, oil, the latest example.

To say that all wars would be holy wars is ludicrous and an attempt to bash religion.

Musing and subliminal bashing are two different things.

[jokerman93]

14. Yep you're right

I guess I sometimes forget that people don't always know the facts that you point out. I suppose I could have been one of those guys!

No, just ironizing.

Jokerman

[0rganism]

33. "subliminal bashing"? LOL!

Sorry, that's the first I've read of such a concept, especially applied to a post on a forum. Would that be something like...

Because he has a strong sense of justice,
Under his leadership, moral people have prospered.
So it may be time to elect this great leader,
His second term could be even more effective than the first.

Some are focused only on his mistakes,
Unwilling to recognize his greatness.
Continue to support him,
Knowing that he will do his very best to
Secure the freedoms we cherish in this mighty nation.

;-)

[PurityOfEssence]

3. In that kind of world, being a non-believer makes one an enemy

The creed of religious intolerance isn't "us" versus "them"; it's "us" versus "all others". To not subscribe to the endorsed belief makes one not only an enemy, but a traitor involved in espionage and sabotage.

The fiery path of intolerance that's premised on the unprovable given is no friend to anyone.

[jokerman93]

7. fiery path of intolerance -- wow

"The fiery path of intolerance that's premised on the unprovable given is no friend to anyone."

Who wrote that? Where does it come from? So evocative!

[salinen]

8. Righteous man!

Christian dogma forces sameness to crush the individual into a living god worshipping unit. * & Ashcroft will never listen to reason other than the one they've committed to. Born agains have only one authority, all others are evil.

[Blue_Chill]

29. It's happened before.

The hammer of witches for example targetted any woman that dared to be more then a support structure for a man. The inquisitions weren't just torture and killing, they also meant to find religious documents that challenged the accepted structure and of course destroy them.

Religions are wonderful and horrible, depending on who is leading. If the poor fool is insecure in his faith he will seek to reaffirm his belief by attacking all others beliefs. You can see this occuring all over the arab world where religious leaders are facing cultural change and they tremble at the very notion of it. How do they respond? With violence glorified, hatred taught in schools, and demonizing of all things western. They are not the only religion that has fought progress, and I am confident that they too will lose the fight and be forced to change like all others.

My point is that it isn't "us" vs "all others". That is just the surface. In reality it's "old world" vs "new world".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. We had a theocracy in North America

it was called the Massachusettes Bay Colony. If you were someone who didn't agree with the preachers, you were exiled (Roger Williams lit out to the south and founded Rhode Island). When the colony was 'purified' it started turning on itself with witch scares which culminated in the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692.

(I'm a direct descendant of Ann Foster, who was condemned as a witch and a member of the jury who condemed Rebecca Nurse to death, and in doing genealogical research I learned a bit about how this theocracy worked.)

[fishguy]

5. Most women who were burned as witches

were women who got into disputes with other women, but did not have enough or any male protection.

If a woman came from a large family with strong males, she probably would have never been condemned.
Condemning witches was a more social rather than religious phenomenon.
basically a cat fight taken to the extreme

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. No witches in Salem were burned

They were hung. One man was pressed to death because he wouldn't admit his 'crime'. Ann Foster died in the Salem jail before they could hang her. You were right about the strong male protecting people. Ann's husband, Andrew, had died about five years before. Ann was suspected of witchcraft because she had stopped attending church, due to the fact that one of her daughters had been murdered by her husband, who was drunk at the time. She was senile, and was so terrified that her other daughter and granddaughter would be condemned as witches she agreed with whatever the preachers told her to say (and they used various methods of torture to get the 'witches' to talk). The only thing she wouldn't say was that her daughter and granddaughter were witches, which is why she was condemned as a witch. Some of the people she did say had gone over to the Devil included ministers that other ministers didn't like. It's been a while since I've done this research, but I could dig out my notes and name names. But far from being a 'cat fight', a lot of what happened in Salem had to do with the religious power structure. The whole thing stopped once women whose husbands were in positions of power (like the Royal Governor)werer accused. The confession of Thomas Fiske, foreman of the jury in the Rebecca Nurse trial, points out (this is years later) that the jurors felt Rebecca was innocent, but that the preachers 'explained' things to them in such a way that they had to find her guilty. This is why I feel the Salem Witchcraft experience is one that gives us a warning about mixing religion and political power. The television preachers today remind me of these Salem ministers, and it scares me a lot.

[fishguy]

21. I was talking about the burning of witches in general

Salem is just one example.
Burning was a common punishment, but not the only one, for witches and heresy.

[Mrs. Overall]

24. As a descendent of two women arrested in 1692,

I would like to completely agree with you about the extreme role that both religion and power played in the Trials. My ancestors were arrested in Andover in Sept. of 1692 after the initial hangings in Salem. Mary Lovett Tyler and Martha Tyler Geer were a mother and daughter (Martha was 11) and although they were jailed and went to trial, the trials were disbanded before they received punishment. They had strong males in the household, but the family was targeted because of their land-holdings. In this case, it was a male struggle.
I find the idea of calling these trials a "cat fight" very offensive. It was much more than that--the ugly mingling of religion and power for profit. It sounds familiar today.
Also, "fishguy" seems very defensive about Christianity. Does your username reflect the symbolism of Christ as the fish? I think we can critique the misuse of Christianity (and other religions) without feeling like we are breaking some sacred law. This reminds me of the backlash when one attempts to critique bush and US policy.

[jokerman93]

12. That's a deep perspective you have to offer ayeshahaqqiqa

Has your research led you to notice any parallels with our current situation? Something tells me the Salem experience might be instructive in understanding the mindset of intolerance and it runs amok.

Seems pertinent particularly for people these days who are BGLT or non-Christians or just people who are unconventional, disenfranchised or different?

(As Fishguy points out below)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Yes.

the thing that struck me as I did my research was the power the ministers had over the lay people. One of the factors at Salem was that the ministers used the hysteria to do things to other ministers they didn't like. They kept up the fears of the people, and it was only when the ministers tried taking on the Royal Governor that their power was broken. Anyone who reads the town minutes of the towns of Massachusettes at this time can see that the ministers weilded a lot of power. It was a brave person who would try and buck the prejudice and hysteria (for example, accusations of witchcraft started decades before 1692, and were in many different towns in MA).

[Malva Zebrina]

10. well I must say

that the bible centered is indeed centered in a society that lived thousands of years ago and was mainly concerned with securing a land for it's own particular tribe. So they invented a different god that was definately skewed toward their own survival-- and this god gave them some land! wow! the god was in the real estate business, had a license, and decided, according to the very human beings that recorded his "messages" in some sort of a mystical vision, gave them the land they wanted! Halleluyah! They invented a god that gave them what they wanted! and people ever since have bought into this god who gives them what THEY want, actually. And that is, they want a certain amount of territory in the whole of the thing, and also they want life after death! No matter whether or not there is any evidence that there is indeed, a life after death--the fact that they will embrace anything that guarantees them a life after death, in spite of all it's barbaric inititiatives over time upon other human beings, is enough for them to latch on to it. A god they invented, has promised them they will live beyond their very human, animal existence, in spite of no evidence to assure that that is truth. So

people kill each other because they perhaps cannot accept the fact that all they know about death is that they die--period as in any death they observe in the nature around them. The invented religion that assures them they can live after they die, is the one that they will kill other human beings for, in order to preserve the interprettation that they are invinceable and above death. We shall NOT die--and we shall embrace a religion that tells us so, provided we kill other human beings to be included in that religious belief.

well, I say, believe on and keep killing others in order to secure your own belief in life after death as is promised to you by your religion which tells you that killing your enemies, the infidels, is the way to ensure your place in a heaven--next to a god, where forever you will be playing harps, becuase nothing else has been promised except complete and total happiness, while you look down upon others burning in some lake of fire--those who are being so burnt might indeed be your own loved children--but nevertheless, you will be so priviledged as to watch them being burnt to a crisp as you pluck away at your harp at the right hand of the god you adored.

That over time, enabled them to kill other human beings who were in their way. And so it continued for thousands of years.

Oh the humanity!

[fishguy]

22. Instead of rambling on about your hatred of religion

just say it in fewer words next time.

[jokerman93]

32. Fishguy -- I normally avoid ad homonym posts but

>Instead of rambling on about your hatred of religion
>just say it in fewer words next time.

reply:
Fishguy,

What IS your point here? Are you here in order to confront people whom you determine are bashing religion?

Have you decided it's time to take up the sword and shield? Time to take a stand against some entirely invented rise of religious persecution in America against Christians?

Your posts indicate that you don't have much experience with reading for meaning, discourse, and critical analysis. It's a skill I'm learning too. But my guess would be you habitually don't waste much time checking and studying the facts before you challenge people about the points they're making.

No one is persecuting Christians in this country my friend. No one is getting lynched, or turned down for jobs because they are Christian of any stripe. No one is being forced to ride in the back of the bus. Christians are not denied the right to vote, or equal protection under the law.

What many politicized Christians are doing now is attempting to turn the rhetorical tables on those who oppose the "Christianization" of the American political ethos. They are inventing a crisis of persecution against certain sects of regimented, politicized Christians.

In fact there is no persecution against Christians in this country -- what you are encountering is the political objections of thoughtful supporters of the current constitution of the U.S. who, because they follow the issues and do research, understand the encroachment of religious rhetoric into the political sphere in this country -- is a sign of danger.

We should all be alarmed -- including you. Unless your rich and are above the law.

Stick around Fishguy. You seem to have allot to learn about how politics works historically. Bashing? Dude. If you did even the slightest amount of your own thinking before you started challenging people, you might see that those who are "bashing" political religion -- are actually trying to do you a favor in the long run.

[zeemike]

11. I assume you mean a Christian theocracy

One based on the teachings of Jesus.
There would be no wars at all except if we were invaded by another country. Jesus said “Resist not evil”
And there would be no praying in school or at football games or even in the Senate or House of Representatives. All prayer would be done in private as Jesus taught.
We would have to obey all of the Ten Commandments. And that would mean that every fifty years all debt would be forgiven, and every seven years the land would have to rest…no logging of the forest, no mining of minerals, hunting and so forth.
It would be a much different world for sure, but not as bad as you think, that is, if the teachings of Jesus were followed.

[fishguy]

13. Good points, this post mistakes the faithful with zealots

Like any form of government, a theocracy would not necessarily be dangerous.
Like anything else, it depends on the humans in charge of the government.

[jokerman93]

16. mistakes the faithful with zealots

Or may I suggest, the post fails to point out the obvious differences between the faithful and zealots.

[TankLV]

31. "a theocracy would not necessarily be dangerous"

Oh my god - you are already lost.

Folks - it's a waste of time to "argue" with someone who holds such views. Utterly hopeless.

I suppose you assume YOUR "brand" of "religion" will be the "theocracy".

Just to give you some of your own medicine - I will now want to make my "theocracy" outlaw your "theocracy" - how about that?

I will fight to YOUR death if you ever forced your religion on ME - that you can be assured.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. the so called ten commandents are not unique

these precepts were taught well before Moses claimed to receive them from a god while he claimed he was secluded and meditated on the top of a mountain.

He came down from that mountain and needed something in order to continue his leadership to this tribe who had, at that time, no particular claim to any land in that area and, to convince these people to stay together for the coherence of the tribe so that they may indeed someday have a "land" for the propagation of their tribe.

so he invented the ten commandements which were, actually, already in existence and he pulled it off. Much is in evidence that the precepts of Judaism is merely the continuance of the pagan precepts in that area. They, these precepts for living, are older than Moses. He just reinvented them. Much like Bush reinvents history.

Many of these were taugnt by wise men way before the god of the Jews and way before Moses. There is, btw, no evidence whatsoever of the exodus as described in the bible--nothing at all has ever been uncovered by archaologists that would confirm this ever took -place---there is nothing uncovered--no artifacts at all in spite of intense pursuit, that this ever really did occur. And, we have have had a LOT of people trying to confirm this biblical event--none have produced any evidence of this--none.

Wise sayings were extant before Judaism and were extant far more before Christianity. Some preceded Judaism.
\
These commandments are not unique and were not something new.

[zeemike]

19. So what?

Does it matter that much to you where they came form?
Their can never be enough proof to satisfy all concerns and never will be.
So the only question should be: does it make sense. Is it logical? Does it promote peace and harmony and is it just. Nothing else is actually important.

[karlschneider]

20. It doesn't matter to -anyone- where they "came from", it only matters

whether those who wave them in the breeze and exhort others to accept them are willing to do so themselves.

The so-called 'golden rule' doesn't belong to anybody, which might explain why so few adhere to it.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. oh yeah it does and it might promote peace and harmony

but we should also be aware of where it came from and it is not, historically Christian or even Judao-Christian. That is all I wanted to say--these items existed long before Judaism or Christianity . That's all. This is indeed, subject to research and I think you will find that these items were not unique to Judaism or Christianity. So?

[zeemike]

27. My point was

That if we are talking about accepting something in a secular way, it matters little where they came from (devised by a holy man or an atheist or by the trial and error made over many millennia) What really matters is whether they seem fair and just to all.
I for one can accept the Ten just as they are; I see no problem basing our law on the principles stated in them. And that includes the keeping of the Sabbath, the seven days, seven years, and jubilee.

[Snow]

25. Would you consider post-Rome and medieval Europe a theocracy?

I think that would probably be a fair characterization, and you could probably get an idea of what your status would be like. Mind you, literacy was very limited, tended to be monopolized by the church, and tended to be limited to 'the book' ie, the bible. DOn't remember, when did the greek philosophers get rediscovered - was that a result of or a cause of the renaissance?

[zeemike]

28. No it was not

It was ruled by kingdoms, but they had a cozy relationship with clergy to legitimize their rule (The divine right of kings)
Kings routinely violated the principles of religion and had nothing to fear from the corrupt church. Much like it is with the fundies and Bush

[Silverhair]

26. The church would quickly become corrupt. History shows that.

I am a born-again Christian. Yet, I frequently remind my fellow Christians that we must NEVER reach for the power of the gov't to do that which we should do one by one. When the church gains political power, it then attracts to itself those who have no interest whatsoever in the Gospel, but have every interest in the political power the church has, and will say and act as needed to gain that power. (Wolves in sheep's clothing.) Jesus Himself, in Luke 4, as one of the temptations, was offered all the kingdoms of the earth (Complete political power.) if he would worship Satan. (By that phrase it means doing things Satan's way - the coercive power of gov't.) He rejected reaching for personal political power.

Throughout history, every time the church has gained political power, it has quickly become corrupt.

[haele]

30. When seeking to control economic benefits

and political benefits over others within a sphere of influence (say, a community or country), the easiest path that those who feel they have the greatest right to those benefits will use is to control through social means - such as freedom of travel, freedom of association and any form of "religion", be it a economical/political(such as a centralized economic structure or government) or faith/spiritual-based (such as a monotheistic belief).

Note that such a leadership that seeks such control, be it theocratic, fascist or monarchical is both hierarchical and authoritarian in nature; in a words, for anyone to enjoy the benefits of such a community, they must "punch the ticket" and follow the social rules that is dictated by those in the position of power.
The greatest benefits will be enjoyed by those who meet all the requirements to be able to advance to the top social classes, while there will be little to no benefit to be enjoyed by those who do not meet any of the requirements.

The fact is, when in a community that is "theocratic" in nature, should any person not agree with, profess to believe in, or follow every single rule that the human leadership sets down as law according to their interpretation of faith, they will soon find themselves - and their families - pariah, or outcast, for no other reason than their personal belief. No matter what the potential good (or ill) they may be able to give to their community, simply because of a belief system, they are no longer considered a valid asset.

Yes, eventually, as another poster indicated, it comes down to who controls the economies of living in a community. The use of Power, any power, over others always corrupts, when it's not restrained by checks and balances that give others equal opportunities within a social grouping.

Haele