Theocracy

[keith99]

IMO the only true "theocracy" would be a government run directly by God Himself, i.e. when Jesus returns. This is the only kind of theocratic government I would support.

Humans who attempt to rule based on the authority of God are inevitably corrupted by power and exalt themselves and their personal beliefs about what God wants them to do over anyone else. As flawed humans the best we can do is democracy.

Bolding mine.

C.S. Lewis said something very like that, that Democracy was needed not because man was good, but because he is not.

Thinking of him reminded me that there are some Christians who I would trust to be in charge of a Theocracy... And all of them would refuse the position.

 

[Gadarene]

This is easy. They don't like theocracy because it means they maybe aren't in full control of their life. THere is something "Above them". We want control of our own lives, despite the fact that even if God wasn't real (for sake of conversation) it wouldn't change the fact you don't have total control of your life anyways.

Which you'd think would be enough to expose this argument as the inconsistent pile of wibble that it is, but you carry on.

Medical conditions pop up. A car could kill you early in life in an accident. You could get someone pregnant on accident...etc. Control is just something we tell ourselves we have so we don't have to deal with the fact we don't have much control.

Yes, we know. Where has anyone in this thread stated that their issue with theocracy is one of control?

Even if it weren't God it wouldn't matter who had alot of control in our lives. Such as if we were in the Matrix. If people told us, most wouldn't want to believe it. Denial is a big issue. Which overall confuses me because first alot of non-theists say life is pointless. We just "Exist" then die. Well wouldn't it be better to believe in God then and at least know life has an actual purpose? Knowing God is there to help you lead you down the path He has laid out for you (the best He can of course). Knowing you can go somewhere that is wonderful where you live forever?

What does what people want have to do with reality?

Yes I realize the reply is going to be about theres no proof of any of that and some will bring up why does God let kids die so why should I worship Him....etc (normal responses that lead no where despite being corrected that God doesn't let kids die).

"Corrected" is not really the right term to use.

"Denial" might be more accurate.

 

[Skavau]

1) In the human aspect of a theocracy (God has no direct involvement) state what do you hate/fear about it, and please expound on which denomination you feel would be the mostly likely to incite this response.

Human rights abuses, erosion of personal liberty and annulment of democracy, free speech, the implementation of victimless crimes (adultery, fornication, masturbation, homosexuality et al). I do not seriously believe that any Christian denomination has any real power in the Western world to implement any of this.

It would be the ultimate subjugation of the individual into a kind of institutionalised state where the primary goal for everyone is to adulate God and those who want no part be told to sit down and shut up (or worse).

2) In the Divine aspect of a theocracy (God is directly involved) state what do you hate/fear about it, and expound on it.

The abolishment of consent. I do not choose to live under God and do not accept the idea of permanent suffering in hell as being a valid way out. I would be by proxy born into a society I did not consent to by any means and have no real way of avoiding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQwlvUxqfbU

This explains more on it.

 

[Skavau]

This is easy. They don't like theocracy because it means they maybe aren't in full control of their life.

You speak as if having full control or wanting full control of your life is somehow a bad thing.

THere is something "Above them". We want control of our own lives, despite the fact that even if God wasn't real (for sake of conversation) it wouldn't change the fact you don't have total control of your life anyways.

I think you are being selective in how you use "full control". We don't, of course have literal "full control" because we are not omniscient. We are subject to the consequences of our decisions and affected positively or negatively by external factors in our lives. However these are just aspects of co-habitation or of the natural world. They are unfortunate or we are lucky depending on what happens. With God, control is merely an imposition. It is arbitrary and demanded without consent. God is equivalent in this analogy to someone attempting to force their standards and their values on your life.

Even if it weren't God it wouldn't matter who had alot of control in our lives. Such as if we were in the Matrix. If people told us, most wouldn't want to believe it. Denial is a big issue.

Are you suggesting that people who do not believe we are in a generated cyber-world are in denial?

Which overall confuses me because first alot of non-theists say life is pointless.

Do they?

When?

We just "Exist" then die.

That's life, as far as we know. So? This does not make living pointless.

Well wouldn't it be better to believe in God then and at least know life has an actual purpose?

You talk about denial and I will refer to something rather similar: self-delusion. You're effectively encouraging people to delude themselves because it feels good. That it might feel comforting to think that a supernatural entity has a cosmic destination for us all does not make it true and moreover, belief does not even function that way. We can only believe in a proposition sincerely and on its merits if we are actually convinced. Atheists generally do not and are not prone to believing in things because they feel good.

Knowing God is there to help you lead you down the path He has laid out for you (the best He can of course). Knowing you can go somewhere that is wonderful where you live forever?

You use the word "knowing". I am not sure you are using it correctly.

You do not "know" through belief that God is real.

Yes I realize the reply is going to be about theres no proof of any of that and some will bring up why does God let kids die so why should I worship Him....etc (normal responses that lead no where despite being corrected that God doesn't let kids die).

There's far more that can be bought up if one is to refer to the depravity of a deity (should they exist).

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes I realize the reply is going to be about theres no proof of any of that and some will bring up why does God let kids die so why should I worship Him....etc (normal responses that lead no where despite being corrected that God doesn't let kids die).

Huh? Do you think that atheists are just people who believe that God exists but don't want to worship him because we don't like what he supposedly does or does not do? We would agree with you that God doesn't let kids die because we don't think he exists.

 

[Shemjaza]

1) In the human aspect of a theocracy (God has no direct involvement) state what do you hate/fear about it, and please expound on which denomination you feel would be the mostly likely to incite this response.

I fear dictatorships, and a theocracy is a dictatorship with a religious backing for its authority.

If the government is backed by what the creator wants then the only avenue for questioning it is to demonstrate a different interpretation of the dominant religion.

As an atheist, i don't believe in any religion so no matter how benign, I would be very upset to have my life ordered by what i believe to be fiction.

2) In the Divine aspect of a theocracy (God is directly involved) state what do you hate/fear about it, and expound on it.

This gets more complex. Now if we have a real creator god in control of our society then just because it created me doesn't mean I accept it's authority.

I'd owe it some respect, but a child shouldn't just accept "Because I say so." from a parent, so I wouldn't accept it from a god either.

An unjust god should be opposed just like an abusive parent.

 

[Strathos]

This gets more complex. Now if we have a real creator god in control of our society then just because it created me doesn't mean I accept it's authority.

I'd owe it some respect, but a child shouldn't just accept "Because I say so." from a parent, so I wouldn't accept it from a god either.

An unjust god should be opposed just like an abusive parent.

When I was a little kid I thought my parents were being abusive by making me eat my vegetables. Turns out I just didn't know any better.

 

[Eudaimonist]

When I was a little kid I thought my parents were being abusive by making me eat my vegetables. Turns out I just didn't know any better.

That's fine for little children, who can barely reason or take care of themselves, and who live in a naturally dependent stage of life.

However, this would be terrible for adults who can understand why eating vegetables is good, and who are capable of the maturity and prudence to make that decision for themselves.

It would be a sad society indeed where adults are treated like perpetual children. In this case, it would be abusive, even if it might not be for little children.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strathos]

Well even the smartest person's level of understanding is less compared to God's than a child's is to an adult.

 

[Freodin]

Well even the smartest person's level of understanding is less compared to God's than a child's is to an adult.

That could be debated if God existed, or at least would be willing to take the leadership personally. And even then it would be problematic to demonstrate a superiour level of understanding.

But of such a system we don't have any example nor any evidence for its reality.

All the theocratic systems that we have ever experienced are lead by humans... and the level of understanding of theocratic leaders is at least questionable.

 

[Nithavela]

Well even the smartest person's level of understanding is less compared to God's than a child's is to an adult.

His behaviour in the old testament speaks a different language.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well even the smartest person's level of understanding is less compared to God's than a child's is to an adult.

The level of intelligence is not the point.

Rather, it is that adulthood is a distinct stage of human development. Adulthood involves taking responsibility for one's choices and their consequences. It involves taking initiative, making decisions for oneself, and developing one's own character. It means living a rationally self-directed life -- the life that is one's own to live.

If intelligence were the sole issue, totalitarianism would be the inevitable result even in a purely human society. We would have the high IQ technocrats make all of the decisions for everyone else. Nearly everyone would be treated as little children, or as some kind of slave. It would be like some extreme form of communism or fascism.

So, this isn't about comparing IQs and letting the winners rule other people's lives. Instead, it means treating adults like adults. If you think that adults should eat more vegetables, make your case and let them decide. They are capable of making that decision and accepting the consequences. Forcing them to do things your way only makes you a tyrant, even if you happen to have wise advice on that issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[yasic]

Well even the smartest person's level of understanding is less compared to God's than a child's is to an adult.

The same thing was said in the soviet union about the government: They know a lot more than any person, so you should trust them to know best.

How do we know if God genuinely understands better, or if he is just as fallible as us and masquerading as having wisdom.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just to make my point crystal clear, it wouldn't matter if someone was a benevolent dictator (or Platonic "Philosopher King") who also had all of the best advice. The problem is that forcing people to live a certain way is dehumanizing and oppressive where adults are concerned.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Skavau]

Just to make my point crystal clear, it wouldn't matter if someone was a benevolent dictator (or Platonic "Philosopher King") who also had all of the best advice. The problem is that forcing people to live a certain way is dehumanizing and oppressive where adults are concerned.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I've argued with a self-titled fascist and admirer of Mussolini who derived his entire wisdom from Plato before.

His world-view was truly disgusting. I must have exhausted every word in the thesaurus to tell him how little I thought of him.

 

[Strathos]

That could be debated if God existed, or at least would be willing to take the leadership personally. And even then it would be problematic to demonstrate a superiour level of understanding.

But of such a system we don't have any example nor any evidence for its reality.

All the theocratic systems that we have ever experienced are lead by humans... and the level of understanding of theocratic leaders is at least questionable.

That is true.

His behaviour in the old testament speaks a different language.

I would be just as much against people legislating OT law nowadays as you would.

The level of intelligence is not the point.

Rather, it is that adulthood is a distinct stage of human development. Adulthood involves taking responsibility for one's choices and their consequences. It involves taking initiative, making decisions for oneself, and developing one's own character. It means living a rationally self-directed life -- the life that is one's own to live.

If intelligence were the sole issue, totalitarianism would be the inevitable result even in a purely human society. We would have the high IQ technocrats make all of the decisions for everyone else. Nearly everyone would be treated as little children, or as some kind of slave. It would be like some extreme form of communism or fascism.

So, this isn't about comparing IQs and letting the winners rule other people's lives. Instead, it means treating adults like adults. If you think that adults should eat more vegetables, make your case and let them decide. They are capable of making that decision and accepting the consequences. Forcing them to do things your way only makes you a tyrant, even if you happen to have wise advice on that issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Letting humans run the world has not done all that well, has it? Turn on any news channel for examples of why. Still I support democracy as the best human-run system of government, but it's really just the least of many evils.

The same thing was said in the soviet union about the government: They know a lot more than any person, so you should trust them to know best.

How do we know if God genuinely understands better, or if he is just as fallible as us and masquerading as having wisdom.

Because the Soviets were just humans like anyone else, not the all-knowing creator of the universe.

Just to make my point crystal clear, it wouldn't matter if someone was a benevolent dictator (or Platonic "Philosopher King") who also had all of the best advice. The problem is that forcing people to live a certain way is dehumanizing and oppressive where adults are concerned.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Again, not seeing the difference between a little kid throwing a tantrum because they're not allowed to eat ice cream for breakfast and dinner every day. You can declare yourself an adult but that is only meaningful in relation to other humans.

Of course everything I said about human imperfections here applies equally to those humans who would attempt to dictate the will of God to others. So I am against human-run theocracies as much as you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Letting humans run the world has not done all that well, has it? Turn on any news channel for examples of why. Still I support democracy as the best human-run system of government, but it's really just the least of many evils.

I'm not suggesting that human beings will ever create a utopia. However, no theocratic form of government can ever be better, or even as good as, a free society whatever its imperfections.

Again, not seeing the difference between a little kid throwing a tantrum because they're not allowed to eat ice cream for breakfast and dinner every day.

Little kids are not by nature equivalent to adults. Adults by nature have a need to make their own plans, to act on their own decisions, to take responsibility for their own actions, and to create their own characters. To foil this process is to stunt the process of maturation, and to create people who are physically adults, but are still dependent little children inside. This is an evil. It's like growing plants, but deliberately giving them less sunlight or water than they need for optimal growth. Such plants cannot thrive as the plants they are.

You can declare yourself an adult but that is only meaningful in relation to other humans.

This isn't about "declaring" oneself an adult, but about being one by nature and having needs that arise from that nature.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[keith99]

Just to make my point crystal clear, it wouldn't matter if someone was a benevolent dictator (or Platonic "Philosopher King") who also had all of the best advice. The problem is that forcing people to live a certain way is dehumanizing and oppressive where adults are concerned.


eudaimonia,

Mark

There is an important difference between a benevolent dictator and a theocracy.

A benevolent dictator is inclined to leave the people alone except for important matters. Think of the captain of a ship, ultimate power, but off watch quite a bit of freedom. Most theocracies are quite different, caring more about controlling morality than insuring basics of life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A benevolent dictator is inclined to leave the people alone except for important matters. Think of the captain of a ship, ultimate power, but off watch quite a bit of freedom.

Sure, the term can be used that way. I didn't mean that kind of dictator.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cearbhall]

Because the Soviets were just humans like anyone else, not the all-knowing creator of the universe.

What makes him all-knowing? Because he said so?