(January 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Nope Wrote: Drich has made some statements that made me curious about how some of you think about certain issues.

The only two questions Drich has ever made me ask:

WTF?

and

Is he really that fucking stupid, or is he pulling my leg?

(January 9, 2015 at 2:25 am)Godschild Wrote:

(January 8, 2015 at 10:28 am)Nope Wrote:

---

The slavery threads made me curious about how the religious guests on this forum feel about Christian theocracy. I have a lot of questions. Atheists can answer of course but I would really like to hear from some of the religious people who visit this site

---

Until you mentioned it in the other thread I hadn't look at this one and I still need to answer your post in the other thread.

Quote:If you are a Christian, do you think that a theocracy that used your bible to create its laws would be a good place to live?

No, ancient Israel couldn't manage it, that was the whole purpose of the Law of Moses, God wanted to show through Israel that man was corrupt and needed a savior to redeem him unto the only perfect law, the law of love. Man is a feeble creature when it comes to right and wrong, what I'm saying is we can't ever agree on what is best for us as a whole. This is why there are so many different governments around the world, it's why there are so many Christian denominations. The Catholic Church is the closest thing to a theocracy today (in the western world) and we see how badly that has turned out. Please do not misunderstand I'm not speaking of the Catholic people as a whole, I'm speaking of the governing church itself. Some Middle Eastern countries have tried it and they have failed as well, we can see that in today's revolts in many of these countries. Most Islamic people do not want a religious government either they've seen the terrible results of such attempts. Man is to over religious to try and govern through laws which would hold all people to one belief, God gives us free will to choose our destiny and only a supreme being could make this work and yes it does even though Adam and Eve failed. Actually that failure set man on a path of many choices, we couldn't manage one choice, so why would anyone expect man to manage the many for his own welfare. It's always failed and will always fail until all are united under the government run by God himself, that is all those who choose to live with Him.

Quote:What about slavery? Can you offer a biblical defense as to why slavery would or would not be allowed in this imaginary theocracy? If slavery would be allowed, under what conditions could one person make another person their property?

Yes there would be slavery, there hasn't been a time in which there wasn't slavery, why would man change now, especially since slavery today is greater than any time in the past.

Quote: Would there be freedom of speech in a theocracy?

This is a difficult thing to answer for those of us who have always had this right but, in my best guess I would say it would be extremely limited, there would be no criticism of the government itself nor those in charge of the government.

Quote: Would a theocracy allow capital punishment and if so how would it be carried out?

I would say so, has there ever been one that didn't allow for it. If it was a Christian theocracy I would say yes for certain. Christian theocracy that's not even possible, God never called for a Christian theocracy.

Quote:Would businesses be able to charge interest on loans?

Here you are trying to use an OT law that Israel broke very quickly, greed is a part of the fallen man, a powerful force that most people have trouble resisting, that's why in this country lotteries are the drawing card they are, and in the end they represent a breaking of the very law you sited. They are a guise for fun that robs the poor to benefit the rich.

Quote:Would you personally want to live in a theocracy if your own religion was in charge?

No, for all the reasons I've sited.

Quote:Do you think that women would be treated fairly or have the rights that they have now?

If the government was in the western world I would say yes.

Quote: What version of Christianity would be considered Christian?

Loaded question, there is only one version of Christianity, man has taken it where it was never to go, but hey man will use anything to gain an advantage if he can. Not necessarily for power or wealth (if you can separate the two), but for ones own comfort whatever that might entail.
Not sure if this is what you wanted but it is my two cents worth.

GC

Thank you so much for answering the questions without taking offense or looking for any hidden agenda on my part.

---

(January 9, 2015 at 3:07 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Nope Wrote: Drich has made some statements that made me curious about how some of you think about certain issues.

The only two questions Drich has ever made me ask:

WTF?

and

Is he really that fucking stupid, or is he pulling my leg?

Thankfully, I have spent my entire life around Christians so I know that Drich is not an accurate representative of most Christians. If my first impression of Christians came from Drich, I would think that Christianity was the last religion any sane person should follow.

---

(January 8, 2015 at 9:32 pm)professor Wrote: A real theocracy would be God running things.
Not someone who merely claims to dictate what God wants.
The latter give you a dictator.

I don't think that god running things would be a theocracy. To be honest, I don't know what a government led by an actual god would be called. Godocracy? It would be something new.

What vexes you so?

Is it when I say that no Christian has it right, and the same forgiveness offered to is when we sin is also there to protect us from our various versions of Christianity?
(In contrast 'most christians' believe there is only one right version of Christianity)

Or is it what I believe about sin forgiveness (more specifically gay sin and forgiveness. Most christians believe that being gay is the unforgivable sin) the freedom christians have from the law, tradition, religion, yet the freedom to also embrace these things as an expression of love. (Most Christians can only hold to one side of the arguement or the other.) is it my ability to reconcile the old and new testaments with out holding to one and ignoring the other?

Or is this whole thing about slavery, and your in ability to see past your specific closed minded view of it?

I would tend to agree if you believed the modern lie that all slavery is bad and a person living in modern soceity should not benfit from it in any way shape or form, then one would be insane to believe otherwise.. However what I do not understand is how one could believe the lie that modern life was not built and currently sustained on slavery. One has to be well past burning their head in the sand to believe that. I have given several different examples and dozens of links that show western civilization thrives not only on sweatshop slavery, but in central and South America good ole fashion plantation slavery as well. (Who do you think provides you with your "organic" out of season fruits and veggies?)

The only difference? Corporations own people in most cases and not indivisuals, but I guess that in your book is enough to reclassify slavery... That and the slaves were not shipped in from Africa.

It would be called "Everyone's Dead Dave". You can't trust a toddler with that much power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shs7VQhVvxA

(January 8, 2015 at 8:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theocracies.. I'm dead against them.

Good, so far I am with you. Christians tended to kill each other off in the past when they were in charge. Weird that a religion whose founder advised his followers to turn the cheek would have adherents that wanted to kill one another off for not agreeing on biblical interpretation.

Quote:Christians/ Christ like actions were instrumental in dismantling slavery. Biblical accounts promote humanitarian ethics over the current practices.

The bible was used both to justify slavery and to fight against it. There is nothing in the bible that forbids slavery and Paul even sent a slave back to his master. Most of the humanitarian values that the bible does promote-like caring for the poor- gets ignored by the bible's followers

Quote:Freedom of speech??? You seem to have derailed. Without freedom there cannot be love. Without love there cannot be freedom. Your proposed theocracy is anti faith.

Where have I written what a theocracy would look like? I haven't. You said earlier in this same post that a theocracy would be a bad thing. Okay. I respect that opinion. Your statement here confuses me in light of your previous assertion that a theocracy would be a bad thing. Why are you talking about love and freedom in a theocracy when you just wrote that such a system of government would be bad?

Quote:Capital punishment? Such a thing is barbaric and the produce of the irreligious. Laws rooted in Christian theology are in danger of being revoked because secular morals cannot justify them. In secular law, retaliation is the only justice.

Europe is more secular then the United States but our country is the one with capital punishment. Are you saying that in a theocracy, there wouldn't be capital punishment? It sounds as if you think that a religious government would not be a bad thing?

Quote:Business should be fair and serve the community and ecology. The god of capitalism needs slaying.

You seem to be misunderstanding my questions. I am not trying to be rude so hopefully I don't come off that way as I try to clear this up. It isn't your personal opinion on matters like slavery or capitalism that I want. What I am asking if you think that a theocracy-even a Christian one- would allow these things.

Quote:Your OP is stuffed full of straw. It's insulting, and you let yourself down.

(First time I saw this thread whoever bumped it)

I am not certain what questions full of straw means or why these type of questions should be insulting. As far as letting myself down....my response is a very decided, Meh. I can live with that.

(January 9, 2015 at 9:05 am)Drich Wrote: What vexes you so?

Nothing vexes me, my sunflowery friend.

Quote:I would tend to agree if you believed the modern lie that all slavery is bad and a person living in modern soceity should not benfit from it in any way shape or form, then one would be insane to believe otherwise.. However what I do not understand is how one could believe the lie that modern life was not built and currently sustained on slavery. One has to be well past burning their head in the sand to believe that. I have given several different examples and dozens of links that show western civilization thrives not only on sweatshop slavery, but in central and South America good ole fashion plantation slavery as well. (Who do you think provides you with your "organic" out of season fruits and veggies?

Please keep talking Drich. If I was at all an evangelical atheist, I would invite you everywhere that I wanted to deconvert people.

(January 9, 2015 at 9:05 am)Drich Wrote: (Who do you think provides you with your "organic" out of season fruits and veggies?)

I buy local and seasonal, and without regard for organic labeling.

But it's good to see you defending slavery again.

Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing putting Drich on ignore. Then I read that filth. "the modern lie that all slavery is bad and a person living in modern soceity should not benfit from it in any way shape or form,"

Any person who could post this is vile. People are not property. Ever.

@ Nope, your welcome, it was for me, an interesting thought process that I might not given much thought to, if you hadn't brought it up. I actually enjoyed it, you see this is one of the things I've gotten from this site that I would have never considered otherwise.

GC

(January 9, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Natachan Wrote: Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing putting Drich on ignore. Then I read that filth. "the modern lie that all slavery is bad and a person living in modern soceity should not benfit from it in any way shape or form,"

Any person who could post this is vile. People are not property. Ever.

Instead of criticizing him why not ask what he meant, I understand and if you wanted to understand you could have actually asked, even a PM would have worked.

Here's one thing he was speaking to, there was a young boy who wanted to become a chair builder, not any chair builder but one of the best producing then one at a time. He talked to the man who was the best at that time and agreed to work for him, free. The boy sleep in the loft of the shop and fixed meals on a wood burning stove in the shop. He did this for several years and now is one of the best in the world. Both parties benefited from this agreement, it use to be called indentured servitude. Some would call it slavery, Brian Boggs calls it the opportunity of a life time. I actually considered this not long ago, but being disabled it wouldn't have worked.

GC

(January 9, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Godschild Wrote: it use to be called indentured servitude. Some would call it slavery, Brian Boggs calls it the opportunity of a life time.

The boy had a choice. It was not slavery or indentured servitude. Those terms are positions forced upon an individual without any choice given, i.e. compulsory. Night and day difference. No comparison whatsoever.