Lets vote for the Bible to be our form of government- #vote for God

[createdtoworship]

My sentiments exactly. I was going to post something similar to convey that I would oppose, rebel against, and aggressively fight any form of Christian theocracy until my dying breath, but you have accurately expressed what I wanted to say. I would never submit to a Christian dictatorship.

I don't think Christ is a dictator, and we are to be like Christ in all ways the Bible says, pointing to the Glory of God in the process.

 

[createdtoworship]

The flesh is too flawed

God could do everything Himself, yet He chooses to use us, think about that for a second, yes the flesh is weak but the spirit is willing.

Would I like to see the Ten Commandments put back? Yes
Would I like to see prayer being a choice again in the schools? Yes
Would I like to see other morals placed back that were once taken? Yes

this would solve that problem.

But, to have mankind as fleshly and flawed as it is, take God's Word and try and control a whole population with it and basically turn it into a mockery? Absolutely not!

again since pentacost, we literally have the same power that resurrected Christ living in us, do I think it will be hard. You doubt. Do I think christians will fight for power, money, greed....in the process of becoming a theocracy....probably. But God can do things that are impossible through His Holy spirit. I just read a tweet the other day I want to post it....

"U must know God’s voice 2 deliver PROPHETICLY! I was in the store today & God told me 2 go up to this lady & tell her “KEEP on TRUCKIN!” The lady started cryin, she said she just lost her husband & was at a crossroads at whether 2 sale her husband’s TRUCKIN Business!"

posted by a twitter user.

 

[createdtoworship]

Better metafor would probably be that there is a reason gladiator fights to the death are no longer practiced in these more civilized times.

I would love to talk about this more, but I feel you are being sarcastic and not being entirely serious about this topic. I realize that it seems undoable, but God literally does the miraculous every single day in millions of peoples lives. He can do it with this.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Just me. myself. hypothetically, or someone I trust to take the helm.

And what is to prevent this dictator going nuts, power hungry or interpreting the Bible in a way that is inhumane ?

 

[createdtoworship]

And what is to prevent this dictator going nuts, power hungry or interpreting the Bible in a way that is inhumane ?

You think the Bible's author is a dictator, mentally insane, and is power hungry? sheesh.

 

[createdtoworship]

Instead of the government literally using it's credit cards in every recession, lets try cutting back and saving. See what the Bible talks about saving.... ( all these principles would be employed from the scripture, if a theocracy was established)

The honor of hard work.

1. (Pro 6:6-8) The example of the ant.

Go to the ant, you sluggard!
Consider her ways and be wise,
Which, having no captain,
Overseer or ruler,
Provides her supplies in the summer,
And gathers her food in the harvest.


above commentary from David Guzik on proverbs six, hosted by blue letter bible:
Study Guide for Proverbs 6 by David Guzik

Not only does the ant always work during day light hours and rarely rests, it saves it's resources while it's warm, and saves an emergency fund for winter.

This is what our government needs to do, instead of spending all it has, it needs to save and invest.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

You think the Bible's author is a dictator, mentally insane, and is power hungry? sheesh.

No, but the same can hardly be said for people that supposedly rule in His name.

Medieval Popes come to mind and they were hardly the folks you would want to have absolute power over you.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, but the same can hardly be said for people that supposedly rule in His name.

Medieval Popes come to mind and they were hardly the folks you would want to have absolute power over you.

like I have said, popes were corrupted by rome in the fourth century and it went down hill from there cultivating in a reformation back to doctrine of the scriptures. IF you simply legislate the scripture, not papal bulls, or catechisms or dogma, BUT SCRIPTURE....you avoid all that.

 

[createdtoworship]

another law i would undo as God allowed us (Lord willing) to set up a theocracy in america is the lemon test....

Since 1971 – for almost half a century – courts have used the “Lemon,” or “endorsement” test, to determine whether the government has endorsed or established a religion by allowing public displays that may have some religious imagery. And that test is precisely what’s put many of our nation’s war memorials in the cross-hairs and under impending threat of desecration or destruction.

Why exactly is this test so bad?

For one, it leaves it up to a so-called “reasonable observer” to decide if the state is endorsing a religion. And almost routinely, this “reasonable observer” is offended by anything religious that shows up on public property.

In short, the Lemon test essentially gives the upper hand to feelings, rather than solid legal argument.

That kind of legal doctrine is what prompts people to flood the system with lawsuits simply because a monument or display personally offends someone’s “feelings.” Of course, what’s not taken into consideration is the heartbreak of the people who built the memorials in the first place – like the Gold Star Mothers and The American Legion, who built the Bladensburg Memorial in honor of their fallen sons and brethren.

Beyond that, the Lemon test has also caused so much confusion that government officials – especially local officials – are left unsure about what the law is when it comes to displays with religious imagery. So by default, the government ends up shutting down displays with religious imagery altogether – the kind of thing that the Founders would be appalled by.

Right now, however, we have a prime opportunity to oust the Lemon test and return to the original interpretation of the Constitution.

The Test That Keeps on Failing

If you still need more evidence that the Lemon test is bad judicial doctrine, take just a minute to ponder what the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1993.

In his formal legal opinion, Justice Scalia expressed the following in regards to the inadequacy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v Kurtzman:

“Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys.”

Now that’s a rather colorful criticism, wouldn’t you say?

But this isn’t just an impulsive or capricious criticism. On the contrary, it is based on a sound, textual understanding of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was designed to stop the government from interfering with your God-given right to practice your faith.

It was never meant to exclude religion from the public eye.

Today, fickle and subjective legal precedents like the Lemon test have allowed anti-religion interest groups to basically use the First Amendment as a weapon to sanitize the public square of all traces of religion.

That’s precisely why the Lemon test is no longer viable – and why we’re arguing in the Bladensburg Memorial case that this outdated legal standard has got to go.

above quote from :Why It’s Time to End “The Lemon Test” | News | First Liberty

 

[createdtoworship]

In getting rid of major portions of the constitution we would go back to some of the previous laws....

In the fundamental Constitutions of 1769, prepared for the Carolinas, by the celebrated John Locke, Article 96 reads: "As the country comes to be sufficiently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the Church of England, which being the only true and orthodox and the national religion of all the king's dominions, is so also of Carolina, and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of parliament."

In Maryland, by the Constitution of 1776, it was provided that "the legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for 'the support of the Christian religion."

 

[createdtoworship]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's. It's also folly to try and bring through human means, the world into the kingdom of Christ. In God's time we'll have the Kingdom of Christ, and He will implement it perfectly.
That is not to say we shouldn't elect God fearing men into power if we find them running.
But I am saying that trying to make a coordinated effort to turn the US, or anywhere else, into a Theocracy is folly.

Then I demand a return to God's government, an Eastern Orthodox emperor! And the only Bible permitted is in Greek.

It is perfect, and it clearly shows the Hebrew nation coming to utter ruin because it could not keep the law. And neither would we be able to. The law is the tutor that leads us to Christ, and His covenant is not of the letter, but of the spirit. Christians can live and work under any type of government, and should work for righteousness therein. But to expect the legislators to show up with the Bible as their textbook - have you spent any time around these forums?

SO what happens to the millions upon millions people who refuse to live under your benevolent rule? Death Camps? Secret police? Torture? Mutilation? Mass graves?

He's being sarcastic, dude. There's no such thing as a Biblically prescribed government. There are certainly godly principles by which governments should rule, but no specified form of government. And none of it will end sin.

And now the question becomes: Which version of Christianity would be the dominant influence behind this Christian Theocracy? Catholic? Anglicanism? Eastern Orthodox? Protestant? And if the answer is Protestant, then which Protestant denomination would be accepted as the guideline? Church of Christ? Southern Baptist? Baptist? Methodist? Nazarene? Presbyterian? Lutheran? Pentecostal? Assemblies of God? Mennonite? I could go on and list quite a few more Christian denominations, but it would take me several hours to find the names of every church in the United States and include them in this post.

Based on my 30+ years of experience with the Christian faith, I'm not naïve enough to think that the Christians from all these various Christian denominations will unanimously agree on which version of Protestantism to endorse as the right version of Christianity to be enforced by the government. What about Catholics and every other Christian sect that isn't Protestant? What about them and their rights?

God will indeed establish his kingdom. God. God will do this, not you.

Or do you think you've been given a special calling to establish God's kingdom for him in the here and now - before he comes?

It’s easy to want a theocracy when you think your faith will be the one that is represented. It becomes less exciting when you find that to not be the case anymore. Several thousand years of human history shows that nothing unites people of all backgrounds faster and more efficiently than a united desire to bring down a common enemy.

Oooo...them's fightin' words there!

*Calls you out in Coptic, with about 70% Greek vocabulary*

My sentiments exactly. I was going to post something similar to convey that I would oppose, rebel against, and aggressively fight any form of Christian theocracy until my dying breath, but you have accurately expressed what I wanted to say. I would never submit to a Christian dictatorship.

While it is good to have believers in the political system, I don't agree with taking God's Word and turning it into man-made law. That just appears as mankind trying to play God and that's not what it's about or what it's for.
The flesh is too flawed which sometimes gets in the way of views and the way they're perceived. I can guarantee that there will be someone who will differ on a point of view. (more than one actually) So then starts the arguing on who's right and who's wrong.
Everyone on this earth has free will that was bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. It's already there for the taking, all we have to do is make the choice of whether or not we want to accept it.
It don't have to be force-fed and no one has to be beat over the head with it. Living our lives in a way that glorifies God is what gets people curious about who God is and what He's about, not shoving everything down their throats. To do so will only push people further into rebellion.
As a Christian, I answer to God and do His will, on His time, not the will of men and their perception on how they think I should be, do, live and when.

Would I like to see the Ten Commandments put back? Yes
Would I like to see prayer being a choice again in the schools? Yes
Would I like to see other morals placed back that were once taken? Yes

But, to have mankind as fleshly and flawed as it is, take God's Word and try and control a whole population with it and basically turn it into a mockery? Absolutely not!

Better metafor would probably be that there is a reason gladiator fights to the death are no longer practiced in these more civilized times.

Sorry here is another post (please read last seven to catch up), sorry for flooding you with posts, reply when you have time, take a few days...

THE CHRISTIAN/BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE FOUNDATION OF OUR COUNTRY

Were our Founding Fathers Christian with a fervent love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Or were they primarily Deists, who only acknowledged the existence of a distant, impersonal god?

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

George Washington: His personal prayer book, written in his own handwriting, declares continual fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ: "O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day."

John Marshall: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court described Washington: "Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."

The Continental Congress, on September 11, 1777, recommended and approved that the Committee of Commerce "import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere," because of the great need of the American people and the great shortage caused by the interruption of trade with England by the Revolutionary War.

John Adams: On March 6, 1789, President Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer so that the nation might "call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . ."

John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." (July 4, 1821)

John Jay: First Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: "Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son."

Patrick Henry: In a letter to his sister Anne: "My heart is full. Perhaps I may never see you in this world. O may we meet in heaven, to which the merits of Jesus will carry those who love and serve Him."

George Mason: "Father" of the Bill of Rights; "My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins".

James Madison: "Chief Architect" of the U. S. Constitution, wrote in the margin of his Bible, "Christ's Divinity appears by St. John chapter XX, 2; 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts IV, 33."

The First Act of Congress following their agreement of the precise wording of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...) was to ask President Washington to declare a national day of fasting and prayer!

Constitution of the State of Delaware: Art. XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

United States Supreme Court: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892, 143 US 457, "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." (p.471) [This U. S. Supreme Court opinion includes a lengthy and detailed record of the historic evidences of America's Christian heritage.]

The Constitution And Separation Of Church And State

Organizations like the A.C.L.U., Americans United For Separation Of Church And State, and our modern Supreme Court, have so distorted our Constitution's First Amendment, that it is time to simply tell the truth! This is the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FIRST, notice the very first word, CONGRESS. The First Amendment places the restrictions on the Congress, not individual citizens. It says that Government cannot restrict the free exercise of its citizens religious beliefs! The words "separation of church and state" are not found in the First Amendment, and yet modern judges have made radical decisions against the religious rights of its citizens, stating the "Separation" clause as its defense. In other words, our Government has purposely lied to its people about their Constitution! Since this principle is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, let's investigate. The First Amendment was debated in the first Congressional session of 1789, at which time Thomas Jefferson was out of the country in France as a U.S. Minister. Thirteen years later, on January 1, 1802, he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, calming their fears that Congress was NOT in the process of choosing any single Christian denomination as the national religion. Thus his written statement, "Building a wall of separation between Church and State", reassured the Baptists that the Government's hands were tied from interfering with, or in any way controlling, the affairs or decisions of the churches in America! To prove that Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of removing religion from Government, let us consider some of his official mandates: (1) as the Governor of Virginia, he decreed a day of "Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God", (2) in 1798 he wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution; "No power over the freedom of religion...[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution", (3) while President, he chaired the school board for the District of Columbia, where he used the Bible and Isaac Watts' Hymnal as the books to teach reading to students, (4) as President, he not only signed bills which appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and in the armed services, but he also signed the Articles of War in which he "Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divine services", (5) there are countless other examples of his intermingling religion and government, but he was also aware of how his statement to the Danbury Baptists was already being twisted from his true intent. Several months after the Danbury letter, on April 21, 1802, he wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush; "My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attatched to His doctrines in preference to all others."

SECONDLY, another way of proving that the First Amendment was written with the intent of preventing the United States from "establishing" a national religion, is to study the three months of Congressional debate. Consider these few examples: (1) the initial draft, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established...", (2) another proposal, "No religion shall be established by law", (3) another draft, "That Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal worship of it by law", (4) and, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another."

So clearly, the First Amendment was written to give American citizens total religious freedom without the fear of being forced to show devotion to any particular national religion! The First Amendment's "free exercise", means that Americans can profess their beliefs in any way, any place, and any time, without the prohibition of such, by laws from the government and the courts!

but having said that we would probably have to remove the first ammendment due to the fact it says the "establishment" clause. But I thought I would mention that their intent was not what was actually said in the document.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

IF you simply legislate the scripture

Simple as that. Of course scripture does not directly answer to much of the laws we need for today so someone would have to interpret those.

What is to prevent those people to be swayed by money and power ? Like today. How would it be different to corrupt a clergy official as opposed to buying senators today ?

 

[Jamdoc]

no sir, no theocracies have existed since after the king saul became the first king. Before that one can make some sense of God ruling, but again there was no direct law, other than the ten commandments, and maybe a few books of the bible at that time. So that was a primative theocracy before saul. But the catholic church was romanized in like the fourth century, I tend to agree with the views of the imperial catholic church over the romanized catholic church. But again no denomination or sect will be ruling the government, Just me. myself. hypothetically, or someone I trust to take the helm. But I will have again two groups of advisors, one group of 12 apologists, and another group of 12 seminary leaders, or christian leaders.

Yeah of course you trust yourself, but you know what? I don't trust you. I don't trust any man to implement the law of the Lord as the law of the land until Jesus returns.
The only thing I trust you, or anyone else to do, including myself, is to somehow mess it all up and cause a lot of wanton death and destruction.

 

[lsume]

Participate?

I'm not going to sit quietly while the tyrannical government you are proposing lays waste to this country. I understand that the proper response to tyranny is to oppose it with every resource at your command. And I won't stop. So what will you do with me and the millions of people just like me?

There is no possibility for any government to work for long once sin inflates the constituency. However, when God’s Kingdom comes, it will never fail. People in general don’t want to be governed. If that is the case as stated, why the seemingly intense push by some for socialism?

I can share something that for me is very precious. I’ve been Blessed to taste of Heaven and it’s Truly wonderful. The world is where the elect are tried and grown. God’s perfect plan must succeed because God has infinite power.

 

[createdtoworship]

Simple as that. Of course scripture does not directly answer to much of the laws we need for today so someone would have to interpret those.

What is to prevent those people to be swayed by money and power ? Like today. How would it be different to corrupt a clergy official as opposed to buying senators today ?

like I said pride and corruption occurs at all levels. But that does not mean the the rich man, need not attempt to follow Christ simply because the verse that says "it's harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle." Yes money and power corrupt. That is why I could fire any advisor for any reason, sort of like how the president has that ability. As for myself I would have a secret accountability program, that no one knew about. I have methods installed to avoid pride and other issues, such as being bought, bribes, or sexually advanced as a person of power.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

That is why I could fire any advisor for any reason, sort of like how the president has that ability. As for myself I would have a secret accountability program, that no one knew about. I have methods installed to avoid pride and other issues, such as being bought, bribes, or sexually advanced as a person of power.

Right, even allowing for your hypothetical saint like rule that nobody would believe anyway what would happen when you retired, had stroke , were deposed or whatever ?

Enlightened dicatorships are all fine and dandy until they are not that enlightened any more and become just simple or not so simple tyrannies.

 

[createdtoworship]

Right, even allowing for your hypothetical saint like rule that nobody would believe anyway what would happen when you retired, had stroke , were deposed or whatever ?

Enlightened dicatorships are all fine and dandy until they are not that enlightened any more and become just simple or not so simple tyrannies.

you forget the power of prayer, and the sustaining work of the Holy Spirit. The whole point of the theocracy is to allow God's rules to reign supreme, and not our rules. I would always be looking for replacements as soon as it started, and people better equipped to replace me should I need a vice president to turn president. I am not sure I have met another person who fully agrees with a theocracy. Most agree with bringing the commandment plaques back into court rooms, and prayer back in school but this is a little too much for them. But should it happen you would have more people on board. And in a day and age where the government is using the credit card to make corporations rich and the stock market at all time highs, instead of saving for the future, this would be a great opportunity to legislate some of God's time tested rules into public policy.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Sure. But fundamentalism is what will be represented, not one denomination or another. That is the misconception people often see, that one sect will run the government. No, the government will literally codify the Bible as law, the Bible will define what is Christian. And the Bible will be interpreted by those from the top seminaries of the country. I will vet them, because again I am the one running for president. And I will have two groups one group of apologists to sort doctrinal submissions, for instance mormonism, or jehovah's witness will be classified as not othodox by the group, but many think they are christian and that is fine. I just don't look at them as orthodox christian. And that is what the government will work off of. But no, one denomination will not be in charge.

So essentially, adopting the same government structure as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, only instead of fundamentalist Islam, it would be fundamentalist Christian. Goodness knows, it works so well in the Middle East, it should work equally as well here. Americans have long held that region up as a beacon for the ideal social and governmental structure for the last 50 years, they should be thrilled to pieces over a Christian-based Middle East government model.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah of course you trust yourself, but you know what? I don't trust you. I don't trust any man to implement the law of the Lord as the law of the land until Jesus returns.
The only thing I trust you, or anyone else to do, including myself, is to somehow mess it all up and cause a lot of wanton death and destruction.

that does not matter to me as much as if I find favor in God's eyes. If a theocracy is His will, and I am a vessel that He chooses to do it, then who is going to stop Him, you?

 

[createdtoworship]

There is no possibility for any government to work for long once sin inflates the constituency. However, when God’s Kingdom comes, it will never fail. People in general don’t want to be governed. If that is the case as stated, why the seemingly intense push by some for socialism?

I can share something that for me is very precious. I’ve been Blessed to taste of Heaven and it’s Truly wonderful. The world is where the elect are tried and grown. God’s perfect plan must succeed because God has infinite power.

YES I have actually had a vision of heaven myself. And I didn't want to wake up. I pray very often to have another vision like that. I am fairly sure it was only a faint glimpse as well. I didn't see anything, but I felt it. Every cell of my being was shouting in praise, and it was wonderful.

but as far as sin affecting a theocracy, that is true of any government. Yet we still have them don't we?