Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes. But you have it backwards. Bible was based on a set of principles that helped society get to where it could assemble the bible. The bible was based on the success of past societies.
Wouldn't it depend upon whether the Christian government was imposed in a despotic manner, or embraced by the majority? If the former, then the society would be plagued by rebellion. If the latter, then the government could suppress descent with the full backing of the majority.
A theocracy can function, Iran is an example. That it is desirable is another question.
Wouldn't it depend upon whether the Christian government was imposed in a despotic manner, or embraced by the majority? If the former, then the society would be plagued by rebellion. If the latter, then the government could suppress descent with the full backing of the majority.
A theocracy can function, Iran is an example. That it is desirable is another question.
Theocracies have never been truly successful namely because they are locked into obeying a book that is both outdated and unchanging. A society that cannot change is doomed -- or at the very least will face an inevitable decline.
No offense to my British brothers and sisters (I am half Brit you know) but the British Empire declined and disappeared largely due to the inability of Britain to adapt and change in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Rome fell for many of the same reasons.
Iran is not a particularly successful nation and is plagued with rebelliousness, civil unrest, and riots. For instance, the election of Ahmadinejad was met with massive protests and street violence because people believed the election had been rigged (and many held signs saying, "Where is my vote?") Political corruption is rampant amid theocracies especially if there are elections since a theocratic society cannot allow anyone but a die-hard religious fanatic into office.
Plus, as I said many times on this forum, there has never been a peaceful, truly democratic, just, and free theocracy in all of human history. They have always been oppressive, usually misogynistic, and tyrannical. They invariably have legal systems that are unfair (especially against women) and the punishments for even minor crimes can be excessively harsh and cruel. I'm not talking just in the Middle East. Christian Europe was just as bad as any fundamentalist Islamic country. Fortunately we've outgrown that barbarism by adopting secular laws.
Finally, theocracies are often extremely aggressive and militaristic. They have a mandate, of course, to spread their faith and the influence of their god by force if needs be. America, with its high degree of religiosity, is a prime example. There hasn't been one single DAY in the last 15 years when America hasn't been at war, and before that, we were still engaged militarily somewhere in the world more often than not.
Granted, some will argue that America isn't trying to spread Christianity, but I'm not 100% convinced given that the missionaries and priests ALWAYS follow in the wake of the military to offer food and Bibles to those displaced and dispossessed by warfare. There are many accusations and many reports coming out of the U.S. military about unit commanders and corps commanders pushing hard for their men to believe in God even to the point of treating non-Christians unfairly and harshly. The reason for this that many suspect is because "they" are trying to build a Christian army to combat the armies of Islam. Just like in the good ol' days of the Crusades.
Even when religion itself doesn't fuel a religious nation's need for warfare, the aggression still remains. I think it has to do with the mentality of religious fundamentalism and that absolute belief that their God is on their side and because of the direct mandate to rule the world -- directly or indirectly. There's more ways to conquer than invading a nation with troops. America has all but conquered the world with its culture and corporatism.
At any rate, nations that are oppressive and tyrannical rarely last long. Dictators are overthrown, military juntas come and go. Coup d'etats are par for the course, and things rarely stabilize until the people begin gaining freedoms simply not possible under a theocracy -- such as freedom of religion. In almost every theocratic nation, persecution of minority religious groups is so commonplace that their stories no longer even make the news.
Iran is not a particularly successful nation and is plagued with rebelliousness, civil unrest, and riots. For instance, the election of Ahmadinejad was met with massive protests and street violence because people believed the election had been rigged (and many held signs saying, "Where is my vote?") Political corruption is rampant amid theocracies especially if there are elections since a theocratic society cannot allow anyone but a die-hard religious fanatic into office.
.
I noted that they can function, not that they function well or are desirable forms of government. Iran has managed to maintain its integrity as an independent nation for the last 36 years while being a theocracy. Saudi Arabia has been around even longer. The early New England colonial settlements operated as theocracies for the most part and they survived.
The Amish are still around. Not that I'd want to live in that world.
Great point. Of course, even the Amish have an outlet for wordly people to leave their society. There will always be those that don't want to follow the rules. In acient Israel there were those that didn't follow God's rules, and there were those in the early church that didn't, either.
No--a theocracy is not going to be the perfect society until we deal with the problem of sin.
You don't seem to realize that the major problem with a theocracy is that the government is concerning itself with sin.
That, and the fact that the hearts of the people in the government, as well as the citizenry are not devoted to God, but to selfish desires.
Someday, God will live in communion with his people in a theocracy and there will be no pain or sorrow. But that will be after God defeats Satan and sin once and for all. Until then, we can't hope to do a theocracy in a sinful world.
That, and the fact that the hearts of the people in the government, as well as the citizenry are not devoted to God, but to selfish desires.
Someday, God will live in communion with his people in a theocracy and there will be no pain or sorrow. But that will be after God defeats Satan and sin once and for all. Until then, we can't hope to do a theocracy in a sinful world.
To bad god is too limited to have kept sin out of the picture in the first place ... and too limited to necessitate two millennia (and counting) of human suffering with sin before he could "finally" defeat it "once and for all". Seems like quite a challenge for him.
This is against biblical principles as believed by evangelical fundies...If a society is ruled by biblical principles, it HAS TO BE RULED COMPLETELY--no exceptions can be allowed for keeping extremists in check without violating the basic biblical principles..
It would likely also be the conceit of the fundamentalist overlords that, as god's favorite sons, they have no need for checks and balances because the holy spirit would provide that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
