What would life be like in a modern day Christian theocracy?

Stinky indeed!

 

Eugenics was not only popular in the US, and Canada for that matter, it was all the rage. A quick google search pulls up all kinds of info on the topic.

After the war everyone jumped off the eugenics bandwagon. While many the ideas of Eugenics are fundamentally flawed ideas about social engineering are not all bad. Unfortunately the good was thrown out with the bad after Hitler and anything related to direct social engineering is now demonized by both the left and the right.

Instead we have adopted an insidious method of social control which can be labeled fallacious Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is where laws are made on the basis of what is deemed good for the collective (or increased happiness) without any regard for individual rights and freedoms. I reject utilitarianism in general as a philosophy of law on the basis that how can happiness be increased by ignoring individual rights and freedoms. Second, who is to be the one that determines "what is good for the collective". One mans poison is another mans pleasure.

When it comes to fallacious Utilitarianism, this is an abomination. Let me give an example. We often hear phrases such as "If it saves one life" offered up as rational for making some law which restricts freedoms. The raging masses eat this stuff up because it sounds good on the surface but, really now ... is this a sound basis for making laws ?

Lets dig a bit deeper. "if it saves one life" justifies making a law. Hmmmm Well, we better ban skiing because that would save many lives. Boating ... out of the question. Driving a car is the biggest killer ... cant have those. In fact it would be best if one did not get out of bed in the morning as one might fall down stairs and break neck.

This is a Retarded argument but folks eat it up on a daily basis.

Another example. Quoting Obama here "If we want increased security we have to give a little". Referring to the NSA spying. Now the average Joe does not know better but with 100% certainty I can tell you that Obama, a Harvard Constitutional Lawyer does. He knows is argument is nonsense but, he says it anyway because he is smart enough to know that the raging masses are ignorant.

What increased security ? The odds of someone being harmed by a terrorist attack in the US are orders of magnitude lower than the probability of being harmed driving to work in the morning. Hardly a significant enough threat to impose martial law. No one is saying that the powers at be can not spy on the terrorists ... how is spying on every US citizen going to increase security to begin with and is this insignificant increase worth us giving up our rights and freedoms ?

History warns against these arguments. Stalin did not invent the tactic of using a foreign threat to take away rights and freedoms but pretty much wrote the book ... "Security for the Motherland"

Hitler used the same tactic "Fatherland Security" Bush used the same tactic "Homeland Security" and Obama has followed suit.

The head of the NSA lied to congress and still kept his Job. Whistleblowers wanting to report on illegal Gov't activities are persecuted and made examples of as a warning to those who would think to out the Gov'ts dirty little secrets. (And I am not talking Snowden here, I am talking about folks prior to Snowden that tried to raise red flags though legitimate channels)

So, would theocracy be better ? I have given a brief outline of how civil liberties are trampled under food via fallacious utilitarianism. Under theocracy the Government does not even have to try to come up with reasons (good, bad, fallacious or otherwise) to trample individual rights and freedom's under foot.

Under Theocracy the only justification required to hang someone from a post and burn them to death is for some religious leader to claim "God wills it".

So while we have some serious issues, it is a far better alternative to Theocracy.

 

True, for the mot part.
But the one singular universal Christianity did exist and for most of its time, acted as a theocracy, before the 1054AD Greek Orthodoxy split that church into two.

 

No different than what the other six kinds of governments do, though.

Kings, Dictators, Emperors, and even Democracies to a lesser degree do these same things.

 

But Islam is very popular in your "neighborhood," isn't it?

 

Sexual promiscuity is taught by the culture and adult behaviors.
Safe Sex has been shown in the last 50 years, (since the 1972 Roe Vs Wade), to have had zero effect on the regular 1.2 million abortions and the now constant growth in Welfare by 2 million illegitimate babies among the 2 million legitimate babies.

Unless the society teaches sexual prudence, the hormones will send us Child Abuse.

 

What was the Irish skirmish about back in the 1960s/70s?

 

Society does teach sexual prudence, but it is ignored by many people including many Christians. So once Christians gets their own house in order perhaps then Christianity will have a solid platform from which to lecture others from.

Sexual prudence is subjective. What authority are these teachings based upon? God? I reject your God... so now what? The lecture on how I am going to hell... a place that does not even exist? I tremble in feign fear. Most of us know the social norms on sexual prudence but as these social norms carry no real authority or penalty there is little reason to follow them if one has a different take on what constitutes sexual prudence. I am from Idaho, one of the reddest States in the Union, and I am here to tell you that conservative Christians are part of the problem and not its solution based upon the behavior I have witnessed in conservatives that I have known throughout my life.

People like me do not take people like you seriously. The reason is that many other people give your cause a bad name by acting in contrary to their professed beliefs. Go clean your own house, target Christians who act in contrary to Biblical doctrine... then and only then will people like me take you all seriously.

 

Yeah,...
Christians have 2/3rds of all Abortions today.

Their kids are turned against christian prudence by the media, Hollywood, TV, movies, and all forms of dress codes and observable things, like Gays preaching its OK.

That was why the Hebrew patriarchs killed whole nations of peoples, to eliminate the whole things as if a disease.
But Jesus said we can use Truth as the weapon and it will change peoples' minds.



Statistics on Fatherlessness
CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS
(*)
It’s a Fact
Here’s why:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
(Source: Center for Disease Control).

80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source:
Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on the State of High Schools).

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*:
(*)
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
• 24.3 times more likely to run away
• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
• 10.8 times more likely to commit rape
• 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
• 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes
•(*) 6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions
(*)

Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce**

 

Truth is the virtue here.

Sexual Promiscuity FACTUALLY supports the harm you do by promoting sex openly so kids can think that is what adults do asap.
So, YOU need be sexually prudent as a good example to other peoples kids.

 

Is your God so feeble that He cannot compete with "the media, Hollywood, TV, movies, and all forms of dress codes and observable things, like Gays preaching its OK."? Is your God so feeble that He cannot enter a school because schools are His kryptonite? You place blame everywhere other than where it actually lies... in the failure of religion to move its own people to follow its dogma and doctrine. Christians pointing the finger outward insures that the status quo will continue.

Seems to be an impotent weapon.

It is funny that you seem to think that we disagree here... because we don't. But tell that to my large Christian conservative family where me and all of my cousins come from broken homes. Again Christians need to pull that log out of their own eye before they try to help secularists remove the speck of dust from their eye.

 

Wiki as a source? Really? When did you make it up?

- - - Updated - - -

Not all Christian groups are anti-abortion.

 

Ethnic divisions. Northern Ireland was pretty much inhabited by people from the UK (from centuries ago). The real issue is that most of the Protestants wanted to stay part of the UK, while the northern Catholics wanted to be part of Ireland. For simplicity, everybody just viewed it as Catholics vs. Protestants.

 

Nor did I claim all were.

 

Wiki is not always the best source but in this case the facts presented are well known. Your demonization of the source rather than addressing the information is fallacy.

In any case. The sources for the information presented you were referenced so you are not even demonizing the right source


You can live in denial of reality of you wish. Such denial is common for extremists when their tulip patch beliefs are challenged similar to deniers of the Holocaust.

 

Right.
The Religious people are against promiscuity,... not sex.

Religious people believe that silence on the subject while the kids are unmarried is the best way to prevent the bastard kids being raised on Welfare now.

 

Yes.
It seems the Conscience does not exist until someone gets killed because he opposes the Politically Right environment.
Its the old "Emperor's New Clothes" story,... like with Rev Martin Luther King:


22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

I only mention Revelation to show that the Bible writers understood Christianity would at some point become depraved and sexual promiscuity.
Sins would rise up inside, as it did when the Renaissance began again, after a 1000 year reign of one singular Church, universal in all Rome.

But the persecutions during the Theocracy of the one church in all the Roman World is very much the same thing any of the seven different types of Governments will do against treason.

They all use different names, but the King's disloyal enemies are the same as the idea of Rebels in a Dictatorship, or Heretics in a Theology, or Treason in a Democracy, etc.

 

Truth always hurts people who have been not seeing it clearly.

Lies, packaged as if they are Truths, are hurting even more in spite people persist in them socially.
Our History as a humans is about the rise of truth and the advantages it has slowly brought with it.

Slavery in America is a good example of the truth prevailing.

 

Not sure what your deal about sexual promiscuity is but Jesus and the Bible have little to say on the issue. Back in the "good ol days" of the OT prostitution was accepted and common.

You seem to not understand that the commandment against adultery = Married woman could not have sex outside of marriage. This did not apply to men unless the man was doing it with a married woman in which case they both were guilty of adultery.

A man having sex with a prostitute or an unmarried woman was not adultery. A man and a woman having sex outside of marriage was not adultery.

A married woman was considered the property the husband (and his daughters to some degree). Having sex with another mans wife was then similar to stealing his property or rather using his property without permission.

There are numerous examples of the patriarchs having concubines and never once is there any condemnation for this.

The whole "sex is bad" thing did not arise until centuries after Christ. Pauline nonsense was used as justification for this but there was also a bit of a celibacy movement.

The 1000 year reign as you call it was a 1000 year reign of ignorance, brutality, and killing in the name of God. This was a movement conducted by power hungry evil people to subjugate and stupidify the masses.

The Renaissance was a return to the idea that thinking for oneself was not a bad thing.

 

Sexual promiscuity in a society creates single mothers who raise bastards which later commit 70% of all violent crime.

But these kids also suffer tremendous child Abuse as kids.

Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

The 1000 year reign of Jesus was "democratic" in its nature, because the people all wanted that form of life:


Zech. 13:2 And it shall come to pass in that day, (380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordering others to be called heretics), saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and (Paganism) shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets, (especially of Astrology), and the unclean spirit (of Libidinal sexual excesses) to pass out of the land.

Zech. 13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD, (Jesus Christ): and his (Catholic) father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

Zech. 13:4 And it shall come to pass in that day, (throughout the whole of the thousand years of the Dark Age of the Church), that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:

Zech. 13:5 But he shall say (to the Catholic priests), I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.

Zech. 13:6 And one (of the Inquisitioners) shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands, (Stigmata)?
Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

 

This is a good question.

A so-called Christian theocracy would be a disaster because it would be
controlled by men and women. Depending upon who was elected as
"fearless leader" a theocracy could end up being very similar to how the
Catholic church was during the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
Remember how the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades had nothing
to do with Christianity? The "Church", not Christianity was in control.

That's exactly why Christians aren't called to set up a theocracy.

 

What? Seriously? The 1,000 year reign of Christ hasn't taken place.
When it does it will not be democratic by any stretch of the imagination.
Jesus will be in total control otherwise it will be a total disaster just as
everything else man tries to do on his own.

 

You would have to keep the buckle on your hat done up tight to help you not think.