Doesn't matter which religion or god you believe in.

On a scale of 1-10, how much are you in favor or opposition to theocratic governments in principle and why? 1 being vehemently opposed, 10 being strongly in favor.

Do you mean theocracy or ecclesiocracy?

wiki:

Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy.[4]

In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with God. For example, a prophet like Moses led the Israelites, and the prophet Muhammad ruled the early Muslims. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. An Ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he is a prophet who receives revelation from God, but merely the (in rare cases infallible) interpreter of already-received revelation. Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

The example which Flavious gave for theocracy, the rule of the Temple of Jerusalem's High Priest, would under the present definition be an Ecclesiocracy, since these (often worldly) priests did not claim to have any revelation or direct connection with God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Sure, the later one is fine for discussion too.

1

The worst possible thing for the development of relationship between humans and God is theocracy, IMO. Or what Spledour said, whatever.

I'm starting to think a form of theocracy occurred in the U.S. but it got labeled as a democracy. God does like a mystery and imho he prefers people to freely choose him.

In actual operation we act just like a democracy. But our inalienable rights our given to us through the Creator. If you don't believe me then checkout the excerpts printed on the walls at the Jefferson Memorial in Wash. D.C.

I also think the American revolutionaries reversed what the Israelites did in the bible. In the OT the Israelites rejected God's rule for a king's rule. God says so to Samuel.

In the U.S. (gogo U.S.A.) we kicked the king out in favor of a Creator. So we could be a theocracy disguised as a democracy and it just goes to show that being under God is the best. We're the freest big country in the world imo.

I think I approve of the current setup: revolving heads of state with limited terms of office work nicely in a democracy.

I think there should be no problem if a country bases its ideology on a Holy Book, but I think it is pretty obvious (look at the past with the Vatican in Europe) that church and state should be seperated in a way that the Church does not have any power or any influences on government policies.

I would say 2/3.

What are the chances that anyone will agree with this? I think you have simply stated to them the obvious facts of our country and how it was designed to be set up, of course the atheist here will always take the far left and say that the US was not established by believers.

They wanted to escape where they had no religious freedom. The Catholic Church rules with a iron hand and kept the truth of the word from the people.

I think that the only way this country could be rules by a Christian is if that Christian was meant to rule this country, in other words God help them get to that position.

Ruling our country can be done by anyone I believe who operates with a certain set of principles which are in our contituition, unfortunatley that constitution is being torn to pieces slowly over time with all the admendments added to it, either way its the law of the land and there is a clause in it that if the goverment gets to heavy handed the people can rise up and overthrow that goverment. This is why its such a bad idea to pass laws to take away guns from people, because no one can rise against a well armed goverment without firepower. So its just stupid to do what they are doing with the laws, they are basically pissing our freedoms away that many people gave their lives for us to have.


This country was meant to be free, and is only free because the people here are free in their minds to worship the true God. They have and hold in their minds and hearts, ideas, beliefs and morals that lend towards freedom. That is why this country is free. Other countries have freedom also like Norway for instance with a very low population of believers. At least according to some.

Either way the point of bringing that up is that the devil is not stupid, he will let some countries who do not put the true God first flourish, because if He let his true nature and will be known, meaning destroy these countries and people whom he has teh right and the power over, then no one in their right mind would ever want to not put God first. He has got to do the bait and switch which can last a long time.

He is the main cause of all the famine and destuction directly and indirectly. It all boils down to the people and who they worship, its a wide and comple web that has the whole world fooled.

He tricks people who are easy to trick, mainly unbelievers, or those Christians who have no accruate knowledge of the bible.

He gets them to blame the true God for all of his evil doing and influences on the world. He gets people to make up some crazy corny idea of him, like red with horns and a tail so people will think its a joke. I mean would believe in a cartoon like character like that? Thats his whole mode of operation. Stealth and behind the scenes.

You cannot win a battle if you do not admit you have an enemy, which he has the whole world fooled that he does not exist and under that guise he methodically targets and plans his attacks on unbelievers and Christians who do not know how to fight back, which he has a legal right to do since he owns them, except fo the Christians, he just oversteps his legal rights with those who do not know their rights and power as sons of God.

All of these is very craftely designed and set up to pull off the greatest light of hand trick in the world.

Do all the evil and get everyone to blame the true God for it.

Most of the early settlers of the US came from England/Scotland. These were more likely fleeing from the Church of England, and in particular Archbishop Laud who was a notorious oppressor of Puritans. A smaller number of people came to the US from France, and some of these would have been Huguenots fleeing from Catholicism as a result of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

Of course, these religious migrations occurred well before the foundation of the United States. I do not think that founding fathers themselves suffered any particular form of oppression from the Catholic Church? They were all born in the US except Hamilton.

England seemed to seesaw between Catholicism and Anglicanism for a couple of hundred years after Henry VIII. There was tension between Mary Queen of Scots (a Catholic) and Elizabeth I (an Anglican) for a while. Plus the Cromwellian persecution of Catholics in Ireland.

The Puritans thought the Reformation hadn't gone far enough so many emigrated to the Colonies. The Amish were persecuted so seriously in Europe they emigrated to the U.S. and stopped proselytizing and lived in isolated communities.

Maryland was settled by Catholics.

There was a group known as the Christian English Dissenters that lasted through the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_dissenters

There's a lot of other groups and history in this period: the Quakers, the French Hugenots, etc. etc. A very long list and history.

What agreat read.........

The Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

lots of people signed this......

Knowing full well what it meant.

Another cool thing.....

That would be more significant if your reply had anything at all to do with the quoted post.

I mean, I can't even IMAGINE how you could think that this was related to what I wrote, and I can't imagine how you thought I was saying that the declaration of independence didn't mention the creator when my post had nothing at all to do with that.

Do you even read what you are replying to, or just hit quote and respond with the first thing that comes into your head?

I am 100% sure that there was not a single signer of the Declaration of Independence who would be considered a "Christian" under Pletho's standards.

+1

whoa there,

First, the founding fathers did not set up a theocracy. They set up a government and in order to give the rights they were describing legitimacy, they attributed them to being imbued by God. A theocracy would assume these rights, and then it would look to "God" to rule it where the us looks to it's own people to rule itself.

The only perfect government would be the direct rule by an all knowing, all powerful and all benevolent God. This has never existed in history.

If this were possibly, it would clearly be the best choice.

given a belief that there is no God the answer would clearly be no as it would consolidate power and be very open to manipulation by people. It would be a very volatile government.

So basically, the question purely comes down to do you believe in the existence of a good God or not.

"their creator"

yes that is perfectly clear that they are referring to the christian god of the bible. it's not ambiguous at all

I think by context "the Creator" can only mean God.

The context is that the colonies are sovereignly ruled by Great Britain who's kings have been ruling for centuries through the "divine right of kings".

Only a government with the blessings of God himself can legitimately challenge the divine right of a king and its easily deduced by reading the bible that while God says to submit to authority he doesn't endorse tyranny.

which god?

The God of the people.

Jefferson being the author, he is obviously referring to his own interpretation of God. So should our state be recognizing his view of God as our founding belief structure?

Jefferson didn't write it on behalf of himself. Governmental power resides in the people. The document even states the people (not Jefferson) reserve the right to throw off despotic government.

If I understood the first posts correctly... I think I'd vote for 2 on the theocracy, and perhaps 5 on the ecclesiocracy. But I'm not all that confident I understand the politics of it.

I'd have voted "1" on the theocracy but on the off chance that the presumed leaders of this theocracy were actually orthodox Christians, perhaps it would work (smile).

The main problem with our government (which is still the best in the world) is that it has lost its Biblical moorings. As a secular institution, politicians as a group should probably not come from any singular tradition, but need to represent (an educated!?) people, and individually can come from and be rooted in, say, orthodox Christian tradition.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said.

Jefferson obviously did not support a state religion. The Declaration is also not the foundational document of our state. That should just about be the end of it.