Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[RoadRunner79]

---

To the OP, I must admit, I don't get why some have such a hard time understanding this...

If you confidently believed that something was really good and pure and would bring the ultimate fulfillment, wouldn't you want to follow it?

The method of delivery is also important, IMO.  A feudal system or dictatorship being necessary makes me question if the result will be as good as is being claimed.

---

---

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.

Someone living in an earthly dictatorship or kingdom typically has little to no individual agency.  I mean, you're aware North Korea exists, correct?  Saudi Arabia?

I'm still looking to what you mean by individual agency here?  To my understanding, even in N. Korea and Saudi Arabia, that the people still have individual agency.   I don't think that if we where to become a dictatorship this very minute, that all of the sudden we would become robots as a result.

Also, even if they are typical, I don't see why you would point to North Korea and Saudi Arabia as an example.   Are you saying that they are good?   If not, then even if atypical  you can't reference a good dictatorship/monarchy by hand waving to these countries.   Which still leaves us with the question on what is so bad.  I'm sorry, but as I recently alluded to, I don't think that your exasperation provides us with any detail or a case for what you are complaining about.

It's not an area I have studied greatly, but I'm sure that there have been good kings, who served their people well, and  who had a strong and good government.  Even if we are left without an example, then I'm sure that an abstract ruler could be thought of, which still fits the definition of dictator/monarch and not require such control.

It is also occurring to me, that there could be some equivocation going on here.  The term dictator may be used in regards to an oppressive rule.  I think that Zen Classin may have referred to the administration here as dictators in regards to his free speech.  Another meaning of the word is referring to the structure of a government, with a single ruler as the ultimate authority.  I have been referring to the latter, because of the reference to lords/ monarchies and there is only a slight difference (in how the gained power).  I think that it would be an error of equivocation, to take the meaning of one sense of the word, and impose it on the other.  Do you think that this is possibly where some of our conflict comes from?

---

I'm disagreeing with the assertion that god doesn't grant us any autonomy.

This is something I've noticed here. Some will complain about God having given us free will because it allows us to do bad things. Meanwhile there is complaint about God being a tyrant who won't let us do what we want lol.

I think that some do both, sometimes right after the other!