To Christians...Theocracy?

[rexbeccarox]

Uhhh... pretty sure you just described an apprenticeship. Not even close.

No pay and no support with lodging and food, an apprenticeship has all three.

GC

Not necessarily.

[abaris]

No pay and no support with lodging and food, an apprenticeship has all three.

GC

What you're describing is the medieval concept of apprenticeship. Food and lodging, not good by todays standards, but it at least offered the chance of being eligable for guild membership once you were done.

Still a far cry from what every concept of slavery has been. I foten hear it mention, that the hebrews didn't do slavery but indentured servitude. As always when it comes to apologetics, there's no evidence for that claim.

[Drich]

(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.

Where did you see me define slavery?

Are you so dishonest that you can admit that I was giving modern examples?

Also what magical land provides you with all the seasonal fruit and veggies you need?

[The Grand Nudger]

Also what magical land provides you with all the seasonal fruit and veggies you need?

Most of the US, actually. All you want, probably nowhere in the US (save maybe Florida and California)...but I guess that depends on what you want -just a quick little aside.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Where did you see me define slavery?

I wrote "defend", not "define".

you so dishonest that you can admit that I was giving modern examples?

Modern or prehistoric, slavery is wrong. You're simply insulting my integrity in order to deflect attention from the fact that you think it is proper to own another human being.

what magical land provides you with all the seasonal fruit and veggies you need?

"Eating seasonally" means eating what is in season at the time, but since you ask, I live in Central Texas, which is reasonably close to the Rio Grande valley ... which means that most common produce is available most of the year.

Oh, and our farmworkers are paid, and pretty well, too. They can leave when they want, and the farm owner cannot beat them, or sell them, or brand them, i.e. they are not slaves.

[Tonus]

A real theocracy would be God running things.

Then I agree with your statement that there has never been a real theocracy. I suspect that you'll grow very, very old waiting for the really cool one that you're sure is just around the corner.

[Godscreated]

No pay and no support with lodging and food, an apprenticeship has all three.

Room and board can easily be considered pay. Support? Elaborate please.

I should have worded that better, he received no room and board, he worked for the experience only. He started by cleaning the shop every day, bring in materials and other such labor, he went a long time before he made the smallest of chair parts.

GC

---

No pay and no support with his lodging and food, an apprenticeship has all three.

GC

Not necessarily.

That describes a person receiving pay, room and board. you can't stop reading at the first sentence. The bold in my statement above was added to clear up my poor wording. Sorry guys.

GC

[robvalue]

Here is more about indentured servitude and slavery:

http://youtu.be/2MFmC6BD1B4

---

Wait... A real theocracy would be God running things? That sounds like an admission that he currently isn't.

[Grasshopper]

Bump. Good topic.

Sadly, none of the theists on this site are answering. I'm not certain why they are avoiding this thread.

That's because it's an Atheist forum. But I'll try

---

So yeah . . . First you'd need to decide what theocracy we're talking about. Theocracy based on the bible or theocracy based on what Jesus taught. Personally I find religious theocracy to be un-workable. The reason being no priest, or religious figure or any non democratically elected person really has no business being in power. Power corrupts, but corrupts less when elected.

Now for arguments sake lets say a religious person was elected and changed the laws to become all Christians. First off this wouldn't work because jesus said his kingdom was not of this world and forcing people to follow ridiculous laws restricts freedom.

Secondly, jesus is often mistaken to support slavery. He was simply acknowledging that this institution existed in his time and would continue for a few years. Now the hebrew slaves were usually people who had some debt or something they had to repay with labor on the farm or in the house. ROMAN slaves who were caught and sold were called something else. There's a different word in hebrew for those kind of slaves which I can't recollect now. But the two types are miles apart.
And by the way, slavery was practiced world over. There was the slave trade in Rome, in the arab world where they'd cut off their tongues for punishment. Then there was the slave trade in the Indian Ocean which spanned from Africa to india. Then there were chinese eunuchs for the emperor. Even christians were taken as slaves by barbary pirates and ottomans. In fact so many slavic people were captured that the word slave refers to them (unconfirmed source but still)
It should actually be said that Christian countries were the first to abolish slavery. France abolished it just before the revolution, when it was still religious. The Atlantic slave trade was nothing more than an imperialist practice to get more labour and to dominate others and get rich fast both of which jesus preached against.

Sorry this isn't the answer to your theocracy question. Ill answer later. I'm just baffled that people think Christianity is the root of all evils like slavery.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Theocracy based on the bible or theocracy based on what Jesus taught.

You have learnt what Jesus is alleged to have taught from the Bible.

This is a distinction without a difference. All theocracies suck.

Disagree? Show me one, just one, that is a modern, viable society as we discuss this.

Just one.