Theocracy VS Democracy

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In Iraq the insurgents are determined to see that democracy fails not only there but in as many places around the world that they can impact. They believe that theocracy as specified by the Koran should rule the populace.

Well in comparison we in America, being over 70% Christian based are willing to allow the rule of man (democracy) over the rule of God (theocracy). Why would we as a Christian base relinquish the rule of God and almost unanimously give this "rule" to the rule of man? Why do we as a base of Christian worshipers not give God the place of rule? Well no one has proven that Christians are really simple minded.

The main reason that Christians allow the rule of man over the rule of God is because the Bible says that is the way it is. The Bible calls the period that we live in now, "man's day"... It refers to a time in the future called "The Lord's Day" (often confused by theologians as the weekly Sabbath). It is the insurgents that have superimposed "The Lord's Day" upon our period of time.

In man's day, man does the ruling but in, The Lord's Day, the Lord will have "returned" and set up rule again. No one will nail him to a cross on that day... no one will spit in his face and make false accusations...

On "The Lords Day", (a day in the future) the Lord will do the judging. But in man's day (the period we live in now), man does the judging. Now supposing we were to relinquish our judging ability to God alone? Who exactly would it be who would interpret God's will? Be it the Koran or the Bible there needs to be an interpreter of the law.

The Christain Bible says our personal spirit teaches our minds as God teaches our spirit. We as Christians believe that each person is by choice endowed with power to be guided directly by God himself via the spirit born within the believer. We do not need (in general) a priest or an interpreter to carry on a discourse with God. Even tongs are to be interpreted by the person who spoke them.

The Bible throughout points out that who is to judge a person who lives their lives righteously without professing God or a person who professes God and lives their life wickedly. The issue comes down to the nature of people in general and the ability of God to teach and reach enough people to shift the overall nature of the population toward the light of God's charity and grace.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,833 • Replies: 28

No top replies

Interesting post, Rex. In other words, if I understand you correctly, in a nutshell you're saying that only massive conversion of the populace would achieve a shift in the overall social/political decay that we've been experiencing for the past 40 years?

0 Replies

Thankfully many of the Founding Fathers were deists rather than fundamentalist Christians so we have nominal separation of church and state. Unfortunately there were enough Good Christians in America to impose Biblically-sanctioned practices such as slavery, genocide, denial of equal rights to women, and teaching religious myths in public schools.

Hopefully the percentage of narrow-minded Christians will someday decline to the point that we can free our country of their judgments and superstitions.

0 Replies

Typical RR incoherence--he does no better with religious dogma than he does when babbling about what he purports to be science.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Thankfully many of the Founding Fathers were deists rather than fundamentalist Christians so we have nominal separation of church and state. Unfortunately there were enough Good Christians in America to impose Biblically-sanctioned practices such as slavery, genocide, denial of equal rights to women, and teaching religious myths in public schools.

Hopefully the percentage of narrow-minded Christians will someday decline to the point that we can free our country of their judgments and superstitions.

Maybe then you can free yourself of Christian virtues too... Or maybe you have already done that...

0 Replies

What virtues are exclusively Christian?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

....many of the Founding Fathers were deists....

A common misconception.

A few perhaps, perhaps not.

But "many"? How "many"?

Are you trying to imply "most" ?

How 'bout documenting your assertion ?

Helpful Hint A: Useful quotations would be those by Founding Fathers that deny their belief in prayer, for instance, since that would be God intervening in the affairs of men. A Deist would probably NOT believe in a God who answers prayer.

Helpful Hint B: Also helpful would be quotations by Founding Fathers that deny their belief in the Bible since that would be God intervening to reveal Himself to man and show to man His character, teach His ways, etc. A strict Deist would probably NOT believe in God intervening in this fashion, either.

Helpful Hint C: Very helpful would be quotations by Founding Fathers that deny that Jesus Christ was in ANY fashion a message, a messenger , an example or representative of God in ANY way. Good Deists would NOT be very consistent if they believed in God intervening in human history in this fashion (think: Star Trek and violating the Prime Directive)

Since Jesus Christ's life has arguably substantially altered human history (some believe for the good, others not) then if God intervened to "send" Jesus in any way, this would really put His credentials as the "hands off watchmaker" at risk.

Well, how 'bout it? Please quote in the words of the Founding Fathers only, not in the interpretive biographical sketches that others have written to redefine them.

Let THEM say that THEY hold to Deistic beliefs.

Ready. Go.

0 Replies

TOUCHE, RL! :wink:

0 Replies

Thomas Jefferson was a deist. It was the time of the enlightenment.

0 Replies

Theocracy VS Democracy is like oil VS water. They do not mix. Theocracy is the mortal enemy of democracy. And also the mortal enemy of everything this nation represents and the first amendment of the constitution.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Thomas Jefferson was a deist. It was the time of the enlightenment.

Jefferson's beliefs are certainly unique. He termed himself a sect "by myself, as far as I know."

Yet a few of his statements regarding prayer might disqualify him from being considered a strict Deist.

So we have one "Maybe".

Any others?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Theocracy VS Democracy is like oil VS water. They do not mix. Theocracy is the mortal enemy of democracy. And also the mortal enemy of everything this nation represents and the first amendment of the constitution.

America is neither a democracy, nor a theocracy.

Read some of the Founder's views on the nature of a democracy and why they didn't want one.

So what's your point?

0 Replies

real life
My point is that theocracy is the mortal enemy of democracy and freedom as well as one of the basic premises this nation was founded upon.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

real life
My point is that theocracy is the mortal enemy of democracy and freedom as well as one of the basic premises this nation was founded upon.

Did you really mean to say that theocracy is also one of the basic premises this nation was founded on? That is what your post would suggest.

I think you probably wanted to say that freedom is one of the basic premises this nation was founded on. Is this correct?

If so, I would agree. However freedom and democracy are not the same thing.

The Founders did not want a democracy and they did not establish one.

0 Replies

I might have with a little puncuation been a little clearer. However what i was attempting to convey is that theocracy is the mortal enemy of
one of the basic premises this nation was founded upon.
I think you knew that .

The US whether it is a pure democracy or not is not relavant. It passes for a democracy according to todays standards.
Not sure but the last pure democracy was in ancient Athens.
Would you agree that the US is a democratic republic

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I might have with a little puncuation been a little clearer. However what i was attempting to convey is that theocracy is the mortal enemy of
one of the basic premises this nation was founded upon.
I think you knew that .

The US whether it is a pure democracy or not is not relavant. It passes for a democracy according to todays standards.
Not sure but the last pure democracy was in ancient Athens.
Would you agree that the US is a democratic republic

The Founders termed the US a republic. That's good enough for me.

Now as for your fear of a theocracy: the attempts to establish Islamic theocracies in the Middle East are indeed a grave danger to the US and to the rest of the world. No doubt about that.

But if you are trying to say that religious people of all persuasions should not have a voice in US government nor propose solutions to current problems if the solution can in any way be linked to an idea that has a moral philosophy found in any religion-- then your idea would have been totally foreign to the Founders of the US.

Every law is based on someone's conception of what is right and what is wrong. To exclude religious people on this basis is not what the Founders did or intended to do.

You will search the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights in vain for justification in doing so.

The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. How much plainer can it be?

0 Replies

real life
It also implies freedom from religion in our national government. The religious right or Christian coalition or however you paint it is as much a danger to our freedom as the Taliban's was in Afghanistan. Anytime religion rears it ugly head in government it should be cut off. That is how you kill a snake. I would add that Bush and his cohorts on the right are trying to jam their religious beliefs through legislation down out throats. The present leadership is against theocracies in the middle east. I wonder whether that would be so if they were Christian in makeup?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

real life
It also implies freedom from religion in our national government. The religious right or Christian coalition or however you paint it is as much a danger to our freedom as the Taliban's was in Afghanistan. Anytime religion rears it ugly head in government it should be cut off. That is how you kill a snake. I would add that Bush and his cohorts on the right are trying to jam their religious beliefs through legislation down out throats. The present leadership is against theocracies in the middle east. I wonder whether that would be so if they were Christian in makeup?

So when, for instance, the previous president held campaign rallies in churches and passed the plate to gather political donations and their preachers endorsed him from the pulpit did you oppose him?

And when, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr held civil rights rallies in churches and preached on the topic did you oppose him?

And when Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson each ran for President did you oppose the idea that a minister could be President?

And when ministers during the Vietnam War stated their opposition to the war from the pulpit did you oppose them?

Or is it all pretty much one sided with you?

0 Replies

Real Life

When a president opposes fetal stem cell research based upon his religious beliefs I call that religious interference in government. When he blatantly proclaims that he has a religious agenda and does his best to impose it I call that injecting religion into government. Those Rae direct violations of the first amendment and in direct contravention of what the founding father stood for. They understood the danger of infecting our new republic with religious doctrine.

Saying a little religion in government is OK is like saying a little pregnant will not lead to a full term child.

Saying a little religion in government is OK is like say a little pregnant will not lead to a full term child.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Real Life

When a president opposes fetal stem cell research based upon his religious beliefs I call that religious interference in government. When he blatantly proclaims that he has a religious agenda and does his best to impose it I call that injecting religion into government. Those Rae direct violations of the first amendment and in direct contravention of what the founding father stood for. They understood the danger of infecting our new republic with religious doctrine.

Saying a little religion in government is OK is like saying a little pregnant will not lead to a full term child.

Saying a little religion in government is OK is like say a little pregnant will not lead to a full term child.

When the Founders passed laws against murder based on "Thou shalt not kill" was that ok?

When the Founders passed laws against theft based on "Thou shalt not steal" was that ok?

What you should acknowledge is that ALL laws are the expression of SOMEONE's morality.

BTW , Bush did not pass a law forbidding fetal stem cell research. Did you know that?

0 Replies

Theocracy VS Democracy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know