They are sheep.  And they always remind me of this quote by Sallustius.

Quote:Namque pauci libertatem, pars magna iustos dominos volunt.


Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters.

Xtianity is a slave's religion.  They like being slaves.

I'm having more than a little bit of trouble believing that there are still people in the world who really think that the problem with the sales pitch of any king, was that the guy just wasn't nice enough.  Like, maybe if there was a super nice king..the whole world would go 

"Hey, yeah, gotta go get me somma that dictatorship, mm---mmm---mmm."

.............lol?

(January 30, 2018 at 5:01 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 4:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So,if I may ask... if you could have a King who knew more, was wiser, and better than you;  why would you not follow them?  This seems foolish to me.

A benevolent dictator is still a dictator and thereby not to be obeyed.

Who says? 

This seems very much just like a rule you are presenting without reason, rather than a thought out principle

Sure...sure RR.  There's no reason whatsoever to denounce dictatorship in any form.  It's not as if the entirety of written history stands testament to that simple fact, or that the struggle of people since beginning of that written word to squeeze themselves out from under such an arrangement should be taken as a lesson on the nature of authority.

Just a floating rule, asserted in a vacuum, no reason at all to pay attention. Let's all get back to the good and godly business of praying for the return of the king.

.

Yahweh was such a cantankerous cunt in the Old Testament, hard to imagine any theist not wanting to roll the dice on Jesus . . . . .

Thread Title: Because they have a thick rind.

(January 30, 2018 at 4:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 4:46 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I'd want this entity to:

1. Prove it exists
2. Demonstrate that its claim to authority is legitimate

As a starting point.  From there, I'd attempt to convince it to be part of a greater collective body rather than simply the ruler.

Of course, your god hasn't even gotten #1 down, so....

While I would disagree;   that wasn't the question.  I'm trying to understand what you issue is.

I find absolute rule abhorrent because it eliminates individual agency. People/souls should have a say in how they live their lives, or, in this case, spend eternity. For me, there's really no such thing as a beneficial dictatorship, as the state of dictatorship is itself undesirable. And, I believe, should be undesirable to anyone.

I also have a problem with a god who supposedly values free will, but demands we abandon it as the only path to salvation. It's incoherent at best.

---

(January 30, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Sure...sure RR.  There's no reason whatsoever to denounce dictatorship in any form.  It's not as if the entirety of written history stands testament to that simple fact, or that the struggle of people since beginning of that written word to squeeze themselves out from under such an arrangement should be taken as a lesson on the nature of authority.

Just a floating rule, asserted in a vacuum, no reason at all to pay attention.  Let's all get back to the good and godly business of praying for the return of the king.

.

Well, the Christian answer is that their god isn't like other dictators because of their perfect morality/goodness. Thus, they're not susceptible to absolute power corrupting absolutely.

But that, of course, doesn't address the removal of agency from the individual, which is what my main objection is. I cannot fathom why surrender - not cooperation, but surrender - is held in such high esteem by Christians. In all other contexts, the surrendering of self is considered unhealthy, if not outright dangerous, for many obvious reasons. That it's not in this context is utterly baffling to me.

The concept has been addressed before.

(January 30, 2018 at 5:59 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 4:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: While I would disagree;   that wasn't the question.  I'm trying to understand what you issue is.

I find absolute rule abhorrent because it eliminates individual agency.  People/souls should have a say in how they live their lives, or, in this case, spend eternity.  For me, there's really no such thing as a beneficial dictatorship, as the state of dictatorship is itself undesirable.  And, I believe, should be undesirable to anyone.

I also have a problem with a god who supposedly values free will, but demands we abandon it as the only path to salvation.  It's incoherent at best.

I don't think that I understand what you mean by individual agency here. How is this different between you and I? How about someone under an earthly kingdom or dictatorship? I am understanding "individual agency" as independent, and capable of choice. However I can't make sense of this in regards to how a dictatorship eliminates this (at least no more than any other form of government). I'm unsure if this part is related, but I don't believe that I have given up my free will either; I do know people who I believe to be saved, and all of them have free will. And I don't have any reason to believe that we will not have free will after sanctification. I think you may be misunderstanding something here.

...you don't see how a dictatorship restricts individual autonomy? I'm not talking about God right now. Even Democratic republics restrict autonomy in many ways (ex: regulating what people are allowed to put in their own bodies)