Is Christianity a theocracy?

[Aaron112]

im referring to theocracy and seeing what peoples opinions are on it.

What does the Bible say about God Ruling, vs satan ruling ?

 

[Aaron112]

To be clear on my position I don’t support theocracy. I think it’s evil.

Every good gift is from above.
When God Rules, there is nothing better, anywhere.

 

[Strivax]

What does the Bible say about God Ruling, vs satan ruling ?

Given that theocracies are never about rule by God, and always about rule by an elite who claim to know His thoughts and desires, I think theocracies are, in general, a 'very bad idea'. Present day Iran is another typical example.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Aaron112]

Given that theocracies are never about rule by God

I did not think about any theocracy except the one, or one that is ruled by The Creator. Any that is ruled by another god or whatever... not that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have a lot of company = most all the world rejects God, and many may already be condemned for their unbelief, as written.

That's considerably harsh. Rejecting theocracy is not the same as rejecting God. Not wanting theocracy for one's country is how America came to be. The first amendment prohibits it. It by no means implies rejecting God. The Pilgrims sought relief from religiously oppressive government, but they were not rejecting God.

Old Israel was set up as a theocracy, even after installing kings, but America was not. And I don't reject God as the ultimate authority, but I do reject any man or group of men or any organization as having authority to stand between me and God. Nor do I want someone who sees a different God, as many do in the modern church, to be political and behavioral authorities speaking for God.

One very ironic thing is that many who profess to believe, and many who do not at all believe, love government, because to them it represents behavioral authority. They would rather earn and give money to government to let government do what I call religion (looking after the helpless, the widows and orphans, etc) instead of doing it themselves. And many of those also want government to tell them what to do, INSTEAD OF GOD. Not many of those want government run by God. The fact I disagree with them, even violently if it comes to civil war over a perverse oppressive ungodly government, does not imply I want "Theocracy".

I do, however very much look forward to the day Christ is the political ruler. But that will happen without being ushered in by any one group or denomination, nor supposed other theocracy.

 

[Aaron112]

I do, however very much look forward to the day Christ is the political ruler.

I don't know if He Will be as if limited and reduced to political leader,
but
with Him Ruling, a Theocracy, right ?
and this is something you look forward to also? and hope for ?

 

[Aaron112]

That's considerably harsh. Rejecting theocracy is not the same as rejecting God.

I edited based on your post. However, I don't consider a theocracy that's not ruled by God the Creator to be a theocracy - never ever considered before that a so-called theocracy is a theocracy if not ruled by God the Creator. as if without THE CREATOR it would be true or even honest.
This being the case, rejecting a theocracy ruled by God is ipso facto the same as rejecting the rule of God Himself.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My question is about Christian theocracy and if we as Christians should try to force the secular world to submit to Christ by enforcing sin as crime. For example, let’s assume a same sex couple, a divorced couple and a unequally yoked couple all want to get married. Should we criminalize it to prevent it from happening or is that going beyond out duty as Christians?

That would be a first. Unlike polygamy, I don't recall any instance of those particular marriage arrangements being considered criminal offenses. I would suggest that what reasonable Christians as well as non-Christians should do is insist that the government has no place inside the family structure and should not have a role in marriage at all. If a couple or a group of individuals decide they want to be united as one that is not the purview of the government. Likewise, the government should not differentiate in its policies between married and single individuals but treat every citizen as equally valued part of the nation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know if He Will be as if limited and reduced to political leader,
but
with Him Ruling, a Theocracy, right ?
and this is something you look forward to also? and hope for ?

Amen that. But it won't happen until HE does it. It is not something we will bring about.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Given that theocracies are never about rule by God, and always about rule by an elite who claim to know His thoughts and desires, I think theocracies are, in general, a 'very bad idea'. Present day Iran is another typical example.

Best wishes, Strivax.

All societies are governed by elites and those elites will have beliefs and interests. There have been a few Christian theocracies in history, the Teotonic/Livonian Order, Knights of Malta and the Papal states come to mind. I would compare none of them to the fundamentally Islamic regime you mentioned in Iran.

If we don't have an elite which doesn't believe in God and that they should govern/rule according to Godly principles, the only alternative is to have an elite which denies God and rules according to their own principles. Absolute secularism, which sounds worse to me than any of the above mentioned regimes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I edited based on your post. However, I don't consider a theocracy that's not ruled by God the Creator to be a theocracy - never ever considered before that a so-called theocracy is a theocracy if not ruled by God the Creator. as if without THE CREATOR it would be true or even honest.
This being the case, rejecting a theocracy ruled by God is ipso facto the same as rejecting the rule of God Himself.

I get your point, and it is good, but would you not say that ancient Israel was a theocracy, regardless of who was King? In a way, God is always the ultimate ruler of all things, but that doesn't make any one kingdom or other government a theocracy. Where do you draw the line between one and the other, except by the establishment of God as ruler over his particular (chosen) people. And there you see the mindset of those who claim the thousand-year rule is a spiritual and not a physical one. I understand their thinking, but still hope to see it as physical, or more accurately, super-physical, after this temporal realm, and therefore spiritual —not merely spiritual during this temporal existence.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That would be a first. Unlike polygamy, I don't recall any instance of those particular marriage arrangements being considered criminal offenses. I would suggest that what reasonable Christians as well as non-Christians should do is insist that the government has no place inside the family structure and should not have a role in marriage at all. If a couple or a group of individuals decide they want to be united as one that is not the purview of the government. Likewise, the government should not differentiate in its policies between married and single individuals but treat every citizen as equally valued part of the nation.

This libertarian view seems to not understand why Polygamy was outlawed in the first place. Marriage has always been in the purview of the state because it was a matter which was required to be regulated. The Church regulated the marriage of noble Lords and forbade them to have mutliple spouses but on a macro level such a regulation makes sense given human nature.

I could easily imagine a society where your view is the accepted norm. The average man will simply be unable to compete with the higher status men and if the higher status men manage to attract 2 or 3 wives that lessens the pool of potential marriage partners. You would see a hypergamous culture develop and if the Incel problem is a problem now, then it would be even worse in said society. It is in the interest of states to regulate marriage, as much as it's in the interest of Christianity.

 

[Aaron112]

Amen that. But it won't happen until HE does it. It is not something we will bring about.

Who do you yourself want to rule over your life , if you know ?

As for me and my house, we will obey and serve Jesus in the Father's Kingdom as He Directs us Today.

 

[Aaron112]

I get your point, and it is good, but would you not say that ancient Israel was a theocracy, regardless of who was King?

I don't know, did not think about that, and wonder if the answer is simply found in the Hebrew Language in Scripture ?

Compare like the other somewhere thread : 'usa is a police state'.... not a democracy or whatever, no matter what it claims and has claimed...

Was Israel a Theocracy when they disobeyed, when they followed idols or something or someone other than Yahweh ?

The most beneficial government besides that was found to be only a couple times thru history, a benevolent dictator, and that of course ended wherever it was , when the benevolent dictator was no longer ruling and someone else not benevolent was ruling in his place.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This libertarian view seems to not understand why Polygamy was outlawed in the first place. Marriage has always been in the purview of the state because it was a matter which was required to be regulated. The Church regulated the marriage of noble Lords and forbade them to have mutliple spouses but on a macro level such a regulation makes sense given human nature.

I could easily imagine a society where your view is the accepted norm. The average man will simply be unable to compete with the higher status men and if the higher status men manage to attract 2 or 3 wives that lessens the pool of potential marriage partners. You would see a hypergamous culture develop and if the Incel problem is a problem now, then it would be even worse in said society. It is in the interest of states to regulate marriage, as much as it's in the interest of Christianity.

Your argument does not seem to hold water as far as I can tell. You argue that the state must be involved because marriage must be regulated but fail to make a reasonable case for why marriage needs to be regulated. The only rationale you give for asserting that marriage needs to be regulated by government is that you believe that many, if not most, women would be fine with being part of a harem for a higher status man and that this would be a problem for those considered lower status. How this status is determined you don't seem to have expounded upon in the post. Say, just for argument's sake, we grant that your assumptions about women's choices of men and men's status are correct, that women would have no problem sharing a high-status man and that low status men will then not marry and that high status men will want to marry multiple partners and deal with the inevitable problems that would arise in keeping more than one woman contented. Why is it in the interest of the government to keep this situation from happening and why should the government be allowed to constrain any woman from choosing to be married to the man she is most attracted to? I believe there have been quite a lot of women that have expressed the view that the government ought not interfere with the choices they make about their personal lives. over how many choices women are allowed to have. In reality though I find it hard to believe that women in general will suddenly be wanting to engage in polygamy on a large scale if the government doesn't force them not to. Nor that there are many high-status men that would want the entanglement and intrigue involved with having multiple wives. I can see them wanting multiple sexual partners perhaps but not the commitment to the wellbeing of the marriage partner that one associates with marriage.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your argument does not seem to hold water as far as I can tell. You argue that the state must be involved because marriage must be regulated but fail to make a reasonable case for why marriage needs to be regulated. The only rationale you give for asserting that marriage needs to be regulated by government is that you believe that many, if not most, women would be fine with being part of a harem for a higher status man and that this would be a problem for those considered lower status. How this status is determined you don't seem to have expounded upon in the post. Say, just for argument's sake, we grant that your assumptions about women's choices of men and men's status are correct, that women would have no problem sharing a high-status man and that low status men will then not marry and that high status men will want to marry multiple partners and deal with the inevitable problems that would arise in keeping more than one woman contented. Why is it in the interest of the government to keep this situation from happening and why should the government be allowed to constrain any woman from choosing to be married to the man she is most attracted to? I believe there have been quite a lot of women that have expressed the view that the government ought not interfere with the choices they make about their personal lives. over how many choices women are allowed to have. In reality though I find it hard to believe that women in general will suddenly be wanting to engage in polygamy on a large scale if the government doesn't force them not to. Nor that there are many high-status men that would want the entanglement and intrigue involved with having multiple wives. I can see them wanting multiple sexual partners perhaps but not the commitment to the wellbeing of the marriage partner that one associates with marriage.

Can you name me a society where a significant amount of unmarried men has resulted in stability and the good of society? Do you want to live in a society where a significant percentage of men will be unable to marry? Like even worse than it is now in the west?

You seem to think that the current attitudes of monogamy will prevail in a society which says polygamy and promiscuity are okay. We are already in the latter, there are no consequences for promiscuity within our modern liberal secular society. Women's choices, if we look at Tinder and other dating apps are towards the high status men and we already see the development of inceldom. You can pretend that cultural forces of monogamy and chastity will prevail, but they won't, they are already losing. And you, what, want to destroy the legal institutions holding those together? Libertarians really don't get this.

My point isn't that the state must be involved in marriage. The state doesn't have to be involved with anything. It's just that if we follow your laisse faire approach to marriage and essentially dissolve marriage as a legal institution, that will change society. As much as Christian marriage institutions and ideas changed European society over the centuries. Europeans did not naturally develop Christian marriage, it was forced on them by law and custom. This shaped the people who practiced it and it resulted in a different kind of society. Compare Islamic society to Christian society in the middle ages to see the stark differences.

Bottom-line is, if you want to maintain traditional marriage, your laisse faire approach is unsustainable. Human desire will get the better of men and women and they will use their freedom irresponsibly. Much like we all do now. This is why marriage matters in law, especially from a Christian perspective.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Can you name me a society where a significant amount of unmarried men has resulted in stability and the good of society? Do you want to live in a society where a significant percentage of me will be unable to marry?

You seem to think that the current attitudes of monogamy will prevail in a society which says polygamy and promiscuity are okay. We are already in the latter, there are no consequences for promiscuity within our modern liberal secular society. Women's choices, if we look at Tinder and other dating apps are towards the high status men and we already see the development of inceldom. You can pretend that cultural forces of monogamy and chastity will prevail, but they won't, they are already losing.

My point isn't that the state must be involved in marriage. The state doesn't have to be involved with anything. It's just that if we follow your laisse faire approach to marriage and essentially dissolve marriage as a legal institution, that will change society. As much as Christian marriage instititons and ideas changed European society over centuries. Europeans did not naturally develop Christian marriage, it was forced on them by law and custom. This shaped the people who practiced it and it resulted in a different kind of society. Compare Islamic society to Christian society in the middle ages to see the stark differences.

Bottom-line is, if you want to maintain traditional marriage, your laisse faire approach is unsustainable. Human desire will get the better of men and women and they will use their freedom irresponsibly. Much like we all do now.

I agree that people are prone to do things thy ought not do, but remember it is people, that we both agree are prone to do things they ought not do, that run the government. I think you need to make a case that in the absence of government regulation there would be a more significant number of unmarried men than there are now with government regulation of marriage. The only societies I am aware of, including Islamic society in the Middle Ages, are one's that have regulated marriage. The only society I am aware of in the modern world has an excess of unmarried males is China and that stems directly from government regulation which resulted in an unexpected by the government excess of males to females. Government is not God. It is not infallible, it is not all-knowing, it is not all loving, It does not know what is best for the individual citizen. In most cases it does not care. Government is at any moment a group of well positioned individuals that are interested in maintaining and expanding their control over the populace because that is what they have worked to obtain power for. Those in government will do exactly what they see as necessary to achieve that end. Government is a necessary evil because without it, chaos would be the result and the strong would prey on the weak with total impunity rather than the partial and regulated way this happens with government intervention. It is not a good just a necessity. It should be limited as much as possible especially when it comes to interfering in the personal lives of the citizens.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Who do you yourself want to rule over your life , if you know ?

As for me and my house, we will obey and serve Jesus in the Father's Kingdom as He Directs us Today.

I would like for government to stay out of my life as much as possible.

But I want Christ to rule over and in and through my life, and to be my very life. To be honest, your question feels rather insulting. "If you know?" Really???

 

[Mark Quayle]

Was Israel a Theocracy when they disobeyed, when they followed idols or something or someone other than Yahweh ?

Yes, it was still set up as a theocratic form of Government.

The most beneficial government besides that was found to be only a couple times thru history, a benevolent dictator, and that of course ended wherever it was , when the benevolent dictator was no longer ruling and someone else not benevolent was ruling in his place.

Yes, and there is the danger to supposed theocracy, where the leader(s), king, whatever, claim to be doing what is patently evil, for God, and by God's authority.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I agree that people are prone to do things thy ought not do, but remember it is people, that we both agree are prone to do things they ought not do, that run the government. I think you need to make a case that in the absence of government regulation there would be a more significant number of unmarried men than there are now with government regulation of marriage. The only societies I am aware of, including Islamic society in the Middle Ages, are one's that have regulated marriage. The only society I am aware of in the modern world has an excess of unmarried males is China and that stems directly from government regulation which resulted in an unexpected by the government excess of males to females. Government is not God. It is not infallible, it is not all-knowing, it is not all loving, It does not know what is best for the individual citizen. In most cases it does not care. Government is at any moment a group of well positioned individuals that are interested in maintaining and expanding their control over the populace because that is what they have worked to obtain power for. Those in government will do exactly what they see as necessary to achieve that end. Government is a necessary evil because without it, chaos would be the result and the strong would prey on the weak with total impunity rather than the partial and regulated way this happens with government intervention. It is not a good just a necessity. It should be limited as much as possible especially when it comes to interfering in the personal lives of the citizens.

I think modernity is making the case already. Monogamous marriage, if it were an entirely natural thing that people were drawn to do, would always be there and we wouldn't see the rise of singleness, inceldom, lack of children and when people do get married it's in their thirties. These things are not on the decrease as marriage looses it's meaning and authority in society. They are worse, men are addicted to pornography and we are seeing an increased atomization of society broadly. We can't say there are roadblocks preventing people from getting married, the state doesn't forbid marriage, so why are these things getting worse? Why is marriage collapsing in the West? Why, if we simply let people do what they want without the interference of power, do we not see the rise of marriage if your perspective is correct?

You bring up China, but China is a secular country. It's policy, rooted in communist thought and demonstrates how government can corrupt an institution and make things harder by only thinking of the short term and not the long term. By allowing abortion in a society which prefers men and limiting the amount of children one can have, they failed to plan long term. Yet we can look at other societies and compare. Compare secular communist China to Medieval Christian Europe. Did marriage fail in that latter context? Even peasants could get married and have families in medieval Christian Europe, what's more they weren't limited in the amount of children they could have except on account of the resources they had immediate access too. Marriage was even a restraint on nobility as they were subject to Church law. Was there a shortage of men despite the rules imposed on them by the Church? No, In fact, we probably see the consequences of Church law in marriage in the IQ levels of the European by forbidding cousin marriage. Long term, Christian marriage benefitted European society, allowed growth and prosperity. This despite there being various institutions which kept their thumb on marriage and limited in various ways.

I agree the Government is not God, but at the same time it is instituted to create order in society. Marriage matters in that regard because marriage is the fundamental institution which allows society thrive or die. This is why divorce law matters, this is why inheritance matters. Taking the state out of the equation will not magically make things better. Rather it will only unleash the passions of the average man and woman, who disconnected from any sense of law or custom will treat sex as a commodity. Kind of like how we do now, only worse. What is required to make marriage work is an order of things, understood and committed to even when it doesn't feel good. This means not accepting ideas like no-fault divorce. It means societal pressure to get married and not have the individual be totally free and autonomous in this regard. So marriage could work outside of government, in a context like a strict Church community. This is because it is conducive to a collective lifestyle, it forces different families together and creates bonds.

In modernity we don't have that authority of the Church anymore, mainly because the secular government took over marriage as an institution and has progressively destroyed it over the last 60 years. Yet what rules around marriage which remain do matter and a majority of people still desire to be married. If you terminate that status, terminate the official nature of the thing, I see no reason why it would prosper in a society such as ours, of atomized individuals who seek to live a part from collective society.