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

[Catholic_Lady]

Im not sure what you mean about dictatorship being necessary? I've never heard of it that way before in all my years being christian.

Because all the literature is about Jesus being Lord.

I also don't see much of a difference between a kingdom and dictatorship. Aside from the title, it's essentially the same - an individual ruler above all others.

Are you hung up on the fact thay we refer to Jesus as Lord? It's an acknowledgement that He is above us and so we look to Him for guidance in life. I mean, being God and all. I don't see the big deal with referring to Him as Lord.

I also don't see any sort of inherent problem with a Kingdom if the ruler is a completely good and perfect being, and when His laws are just. With humans this is a problem because humans are flawed, but we are talking about a perfect and good entity. Not only that, but the entity that created us and our world, and whom we were made to find ultimate fulfillment in.

[John V]

I think people aren't actually considering the "benevolent" part.

Maybe they read the Old Testament.

If so, they skipped over a lot, like a good bit of Psalms.

[KevinM1]

The OP gave reasons, Alpha.

OK, America. To which I reply - we experience many more power relationships than just the federal government. I gave an example of one that is working out great for me. Another, more common example of a benevolent dictatorship would be parenting. 

I think people aren't actually considering the "benevolent" part.

Children aren't adults, and have physiological reasons as to why they cannot make decisions for themselves.

Also, the best bosses aren't dictators, but consensus builders who work with their employees, and are open to change. They may have the final say, but collaboration is highly valued by them.

---

Because all the literature is about Jesus being Lord.

I also don't see much of a difference between a kingdom and dictatorship.  Aside from the title, it's essentially the same - an individual ruler above all others.

Are you hung up on the fact thay we refer to Jesus as Lord? It's an acknowledgement that He is above us and so we look to Him for guidance in life. I mean, being God and all. I don't see the big deal with referring to Him as Lord.

I also don't see any sort of inherent problem with a Kingdom if the ruler is a completely good and perfect being, and when His laws are just. With humans this is a problem because humans are flawed, but we are talking about a perfect and good entity. Not only that, but the entity that created us and our world, and whom we were made to find ultimate fulfillment in.

Well, like I said before, I have an aversion to being lorded over.

I freely admit that it likely stems from my disability, and almost always having a chaperone figure near me. It's a beneficial relationship, yet still chafes. The idea of eternity like that is not something I'd look forward to, and it's hard for me to believe that the people who are gung-ho about it really know what it feels like.

[Chad32]

The OP gave reasons, Alpha.

OK, America. To which I reply - we experience many more power relationships than just the federal government. I gave an example of one that is working out great for me. Another, more common example of a benevolent dictatorship would be parenting. 

I think people aren't actually considering the "benevolent" part.

A parent's job is to raise a child up to be more and more independent of them over time, to the point where they can be treated as practically equals. That's not comparable to your god's lordship. He wants you dependent for the rest of eternity. The "benevolent" part is very debatable.

[SaStrike]

Because all the literature is about Jesus being Lord.

I also don't see much of a difference between a kingdom and dictatorship. Aside from the title, it's essentially the same - an individual ruler above all others.

Are you hung up on the fact thay we refer to Jesus as Lord? It's an acknowledgement that He is above us and so we look to Him for guidance in life. I mean, being God and all. I don't see the big deal with referring to Him as Lord.

I also don't see any sort of inherent problem with a Kingdom if the ruler is a completely good and perfect being, and when His laws are just. With humans this is a problem because humans are flawed, but we are talking about a perfect and good entity. Not only that, but the entity that created us and our world, and whom we were made to find ultimate fulfillment in.

Who told you this and why did you believe them?

[KevinM1]

OK, America. To which I reply - we experience many more power relationships than just the federal government. I gave an example of one that is working out great for me. Another, more common example of a benevolent dictatorship would be parenting. 

I think people aren't actually considering the "benevolent" part.

A parent's job is to raise a child up to be more and more independent of them over time, to the point where they can be treated as practically equals. That's not comparable to your god's lordship. He wants you dependent for the rest of eternity.

This is also a very good point. The relationship with god/Jesus seems to be the inverse of what a parent's relationship with their child/children should be.

[John V]

Also, the best bosses aren't dictators, but consensus builders who work with their employees, and are open to change.  They may have the final say, but collaboration is highly valued by them.

Says the guy who's dictating terms to the Christians rather than working with us to build consensus.

[polymath257]

Because all the literature is about Jesus being Lord.

I also don't see much of a difference between a kingdom and dictatorship.  Aside from the title, it's essentially the same - an individual ruler above all others.

Are you hung up on the fact thay we refer to Jesus as Lord? It's an acknowledgement that He is above us and so we look to Him for guidance in life. I mean, being God and all. I don't see the big deal with referring to Him as Lord.

I also don't see any sort of inherent problem with a Kingdom if the ruler is a completely good and perfect being, and when His laws are just. With humans this is a problem because humans are flawed, but we are talking about a perfect and good entity. Not only that, but the entity that created us and our world, and whom we were made to find ultimate fulfillment in.

'Looking for guidance' isn't the same thing as submission to a Lord. Even a completely benevolent, 'perfect' dictator is still a dictator. A demand for submission is an inherently vile request, even if the being requesting it is 'perfect' (which the very request shows to be false).

And, as for finding 'ultimate fulfillment in' such a being...That just seems horrid to me. It is the tactic of sheep and not humans.

And do they ever tell you why a shepherd watches over his sheep? Because he wants to sell them for slaughter. Sort of changes the imagery of Jesus doens't it?

[John V]

A parent's job is to raise a child up to be more and more independent of them over time, to the point where they can be treated as practically equals. That's not comparable to your god's lordship. He wants you dependent for the rest of eternity.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, mmkay?

[RoadRunner79]

---

I would agree, that all forms of government have rules,  even the local authority here at AF have restrictions that need to be abided by, and not everything goes (just ask Zen Classic). 
I also agree, that the discussion/complaint  is not specific to talking about God.   If one is arguing about all government, then I don't see a reason to single out dictatorships or Monarchy, which the only real difference required is the structure or ultimate authority.  

Are you proposing anarchy?   I think that even in that you will that someone is going to impose what they want onto others (there's just no centralized body responsible).  I don't think that anarchy is good.


Personally, I would rather have a good monarchy over a bad democracy.   I think that a good government is always to be preferred to a bad one.  It seems kind of silly to make a case for the bad government over the good.  The main benefit in a democracy is when you have a bad government, not a good one.

---

I'm not arguing all government is bad. Definitely not. I figured I wouldn't have to explain the level of control a dictatorship or monarchy has over the individual in comparison to a democracy.  My point is the liberal democratic republic I live in restricts too heavily in my opinion, but the point was dumb because clearly you must understand how an individuals rights fare under a dictatorship or monarchy... 'm taken aback by how casually you accept the idea of those systems. And obviously you can't just throw around things like "good government" and "bad government" without a definition. Any system that so tightly controls or restricts the populous is bad IMO.

"The only real difference is the structure or ultimate suthority." What? That's like.... the biggest difference possible.

Perhaps the definitions that I am thinking of are simpler, but what I am seeing concerning a monarchy or a dictatorship doesn't dictate anything about a level of control which is required to fit that description. The definitions that I see mostly seem to require a single person at the top. I think that perhaps just the word "dictator" is creating more of an emotional response; which would explain, why I'm seeing more exasperation rather than mental perspiration in regards to expounding on what the issue is. I agree, it depends on what one means by "good" and "bad" governments. I would consider a good government to be one that protects and promotes the welfare of it's people, one that is both fair and just. A bad government is self serving, corrupt, one that doesn't care about the people. I'm sure that we could expand on this more, but it's a start.

You had said that "Any system that so tightly controls or restricts the populous is bad IMO". This is difficult, because it is quite subjective. What one person considers too tight of control, another may consider too loose. Because it is a vague and subjective statement, there's not really much for me to comment on. Although I don't really think that the definitions of monarchy or dictator require any particular level of control at all. You could have a lazy king, who doesn't usurp any real control, and is a bad governor because of that. On the other end, he could be so oppressive, that he is bad as well.