NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had to live in either a facist state where you could do private business and live your lives without interferance as long as you shut up about the government. Or a communist government where they took care of you at the price no personal freedoms the government owns your soul type of thing. Or a christian government or a muslim government.

Whichever one was easiest to overthrow.

Edit: And that doesn't describe fascism at all. Fascists regulate people to within an inch of their lives.

I'd live in the Christian Theocracy. I could be as selfish, intolerant and hedonistic as I wanted to be 6 days a week as long as I paid lip service to Santa-Jesus every Sunday.

If you had to live in either a facist state where you could do private business and live your lives without interferance as long as you shut up about the government. Or a communist government where they took care of you at the price no personal freedoms the government owns your soul type of thing. Or a christian government or a muslim government.

This is what happens when someone gets their knowledge of politics from NationStates xD

Whichever one was easiest to overthrow.

Edit: And that doesn't describe fascism at all. Fascists regulate people to within an inch of their lives.

Ditto. On both points.

Well a thread like this is an obvious indication of the overwhelmingly libertarian orientation of this forum, people like to whine about 'being oppressed' or whatever, but in reality it comes down to preferences and personal character traits. For example some people are more dynamic, entrepreneurial, exploitative and risk taking, while others like stability in the form of job and life security, they like the ideological security of material dialectics and 'actual existing socialism', they like to work hard for the benefit of others and for others to work hard for them and others.

They like the harmony, friendship and interdependence of what this forum would call 'oppression', and dislike the cynicism, institutional disrespect, apathy and relativity of capitalism. Some people (myself included), hate the entrenched disrespect of humanity and authority in liberalism and it's nihilistic cousins, greed and slothfulness. People like myself and others like moral certainty and absolutism in ideological mindset.

People calling my viewpoint 'totalitarian' are correct, I support the 'total' order of humanity over the individual. And those who say I support 'oppression' are just revealing their own libertarian bias and viewpoint, and are thus biased in that direction.

Whichever one was easiest to overthrow.

I wouldn't choose based on that. People are extremely lazy and apathetic, and will support any government that doesn't actively cause them physical harm or discomfort. If they are well-fed, then they probably won't fight.

That being said, I'd live in a facism. More business opportunities.

I wouldn't choose based on that. People are extremely lazy and apathetic, and will support any government that doesn't actively cause them physical harm or discomfort. If they are well-fed, then they probably won't fight.

That being said, I'd live in a facism. More business opportunities.

You seem to have a very quaint idea of what fascism is...
But then again, if I remember correctly, you were the guy who claimed the NSDAP was still the biggest party in Germany.

This is like choosing whether you get kicked in the left tisticle or the right testicle.

A Christian Government. It's my dream *_*

This is like choosing whether you get kicked in the left tisticle or the right testicle.

And with what type of boot...

Well a thread like this is an obvious indication of the overwhelmingly libertarian orientation of this forum, people like to whine about 'being oppressed' or whatever, but in reality it comes down to preferences and personal character traits. For example some people are more dynamic, entrepreneurial, exploitative and risk taking, while others like stability in the form of job and life security, they like the ideological security of material dialectics and 'actual existing socialism', they like to work hard for the benefit of others and for others to work hard for them and others.

They like the harmony, friendship and interdependence of what this forum would call 'oppression', and dislike the cynicism, institutional disrespect, apathy and relativity of capitalism. Some people (myself included), hate the entrenched disrespect of humanity and authority in liberalism and it's nihilistic cousins, greed and slothfulness. People like myself and others like moral certainty and absolutism in ideological mindset.

People calling my viewpoint 'totalitarian' are correct, I support the 'total' order of humanity over the individual. And those who say I support 'oppression' are just revealing their own libertarian bias and viewpoint, and are thus biased in that direction.

I have to ask: you seem to think that people exist for the sake of the government. Why is this? Government and country are abstract ideas, so in what sense does it make sense to purely serve them at the expense of the actual people-- people who can enjoy basic freedoms? Now, there are times when the interests of the government and the people coincide. But where there's conflict, why choose the abstract entity?


Anyway, I'll echo the "whichever is easiest to overthrow" sentiment. Viva la revolution!

EDIT: Between the two religions, that probably means the Christian theocracy: being more knowledgeable about the religion would make it easier to blend in for organizing the resistance.

These options make no sense. If one of them is "you can live in a government that grants large personal freedoms with the caveat you can't criticise the government" I'd probably take that one, for two reasons.

First, if it's a government that generally respects personal freedoms, allows for free choice, respects privacy and generally stays out of people's lives, I don't have much to criticize.

Secondly, I highly doubt that criticism of the government would be allowed in any of the other options either, and they have other qualities that make them far more repugnant.

This is like choosing whether you get kicked in the left tisticle or the right testicle.

left tisticle

Neither

*nods*

left tisticle

But....why?

I don't think living in a fascist state on the lines of Franco's Spain would be as bad as any of the world's communist states have ever been. Neither would be preferable, but I'd still definitely choose the fascist one. As for having to choose between the two theocracies I'd opt for the Christian one, but again, neither would be preferable.

But....why?
THERE IS NO LEFT TISTICLE

Fascist over communist. One, fascists have a better track record for their economies. Two, fascists often have a more tenuous grasp on power due to weaker ideology, and are easier to overthrow.

Muslim theocracy over Christian theocracy. Jews get better rights under Sharia than Christian theocracy.

As far as I can tell the only difference between a Christian theocracy and a Muslim theocracy is that you can get a beer and a bacon sandwich in the former; they're otherwise identical. Needless to say all forms of theocracy are fetid abominations against human rights and should be discouraged by the strongest peaceful means possible (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia and Iran, but if anybody wants to topple the Vatican and disestablish the Church of England then I'd be more than happy to help you :)).

But....why?

Thats where sperm with the ginger gene are kept.

As far as I can tell the only difference between a Christian theocracy and a Muslim theocracy is that you can get a beer and a bacon sandwich in the former; they're otherwise identical. Needless to say all forms of theocracy are fetid abominations against human rights and should be discouraged by the strongest peaceful means possible (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia and Iran, but if anybody wants to topple the Vatican and disestablish the Church of England then I'd be more than happy to help you :)).The Vatican is no theocracy.

I was refering to the only facist country that I could think of off the bat. I am aware that facism can be different. Anyway all communist countries I have seen are that way, except maybe china.

You seem to have a very quaint idea of what fascism is...

I quite agree, but for a very different reason: fascism tended to protect the industrial powers that supported it rather than launch new "businesses".

Oligarch of Altavilla

As far as I can tell the only difference between a Christian theocracy and a Muslim theocracy is that you can get a beer and a bacon sandwich in the former; they're otherwise identical. Needless to say all forms of theocracy are fetid abominations against human rights and should be discouraged by the strongest peaceful means possible (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia and Iran, but if anybody wants to topple the Vatican and disestablish the Church of England then I'd be more than happy to help you :)).

They still have the church of england? Wow.

Personally, I think thats like choosing between drowning or suffocating, but if I had to choose, I'd rather be ruled by muslims. My first reason is that I'm male, and islam is very sexist in my favor. Second, Muslims are predictable. There would ne no random purgings or insane Inquisitions, just Sharia. When compared, Sharia isn't all that bad.

They still have the church of england? Wow.
It doesn't really matter though. The Church of England is more of a quaint ceremonial thing, they hold any real sway over the government and its congregations have only been declining.

As far as I can tell the only difference between a Christian theocracy and a Muslim theocracy is that you can get a beer and a bacon sandwich in the former; they're otherwise identical. Needless to say all forms of theocracy are fetid abominations against human rights and should be discouraged by the strongest peaceful means possible (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia and Iran, but if anybody wants to topple the Vatican and disestablish the Church of England then I'd be more than happy to help you :)).

How can it be said that theocracies are "fetid abominations against human rights" when they have influenced our ideas as to what human rights are? May I just point out that most governments are changed into becoming "fetid abominations against human rights" but that does not mean the form of government is the cause of this. Some of the worst disrespectful attitudes towards human rights occur in democratic countries, yet I think we'd all agree that a democratic country should theoretically be the most respectful.

Oligarch of Altavilla

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215854']It doesn't really matter though. The Church of England is more of a quaint ceremonial thing, they hold any real sway over the government and its congregations have only been declining.
In any case, the idea of having an established Church was to give the government 'sway' over religion, not the other way round.

They still have the church of england? Wow.
Yeah. It totally dominates our lives at school, at work and at the home.

Not.

How can it be said that theocracies are "fetid abominations against human rights" when they have influenced our ideas as to what human rights are? May I just point out that most governments are changed into becoming "fetid abominations against human rights" but that does not mean the form of government is the cause of this. Some of the worst disrespectful attitudes towards human rights occur in democratic countries, yet I think we'd all agree that a democratic country should theoretically be the most respectful.

Oligarch of Altavilla

Yes, you can have an abuse of human rights without a theocracy, but you cannot have a theocracy without abusing human rights.

Personally, I think thats like choosing between drowning or suffocating, but if I had to choose, I'd rather be ruled by muslims. My first reason is that I'm male, and islam is very sexist in my favor. Second, Muslims are predictable. There would ne no random purgings or insane Inquisitions, just Sharia. When compared, Sharia isn't all that bad.

But do not forget you can't talk to unmarried women, so unless your married boo ho for you. Well YOU might like is the 4 wives deal.

In any case, the idea of having an established Church was to give the government 'sway' over religion, not the other way round.
Maybe, but it still doesn't matter a whole lot these days. People have mostly full freedom of religion (Sometimes too much) so if any C of E worshippers don't like the way their church is going they can leave. I think having an established church is silly, but it isn't really relevant to the lives of ordinary people these days.

Yes, you can have an abuse of human rights without a theocracy, but you cannot have a theocracy without abusing human rights.

I think you misunderstand me. Human rights as we see them are an integral part of our society and generally derive directly or indirectly from the prevailing religion of the time. Therefore the concept of a theocracy should show a complete and utter respect for human rights. I firmly believe there can be a theocracy without abusing human rights although modern examples aren't helping.

Human rights as we see them are an integral part of our society and generally derive directly or indirectly from the prevailing religion of the time.Do have any evidence that these rights originate from religion?

Definitely which ever is easiest to overthrow. In any case, I'm going to be wearing a Guy Fawkes mask and fighting for anarchism.

If you had to live in either a facist state where you could do private business and live your lives without interferance as long as you shut up about the government. Or a communist government where they took care of you at the price no personal freedoms the government owns your soul type of thing. Or a christian government or a muslim government.

Christian Socialist country would be pretty dang nice.

And I'm not living under a Muslim, Shari'a based government. Even though i'd be giving Dhimmi status, and technically supposed to be protected, there is no way that I would pay them for my right to worship the way I want.

Do have any evidence that these rights originate from religion?

Do you have any evidence that they do not? Don't take this as the other guys comeback, im just asking, Im really to lazy to research it right now.

If you had to live in either a facist state where you could do private business and live your lives without interferance as long as you shut up about the government. Or a communist government where they took care of you at the price no personal freedoms the government owns your soul type of thing. Or a christian government or a muslim government.

given the definition, a fascist state

Please explain the difference between a christian and muslim theocracy. 'Cuz I'm not seeing any difference from a practical standpoint. They both suck. If I have to live in a theocracy, I might find Jainist or wiccan barely livable.

But do not forget you can't talk to unmarried women, so unless your married boo ho for you. Well YOU might like is the 4 wives deal.
And 4 mothers-in-law... oh joy :p

I think you misunderstand me. Human rights as we see them are an integral part of our society and generally derive directly or indirectly from the prevailing religion of the time. Therefore the concept of a theocracy should show a complete and utter respect for human rights. I firmly believe there can be a theocracy without abusing human rights although modern examples aren't helping.
Well, I view freedom of religion as one of the most important of human rights. The right to believe--or not believe, in my case-- what you wish, even in the case of religion, is extremely important, and a theocracy specifically denies the right to believe or practice a religion other than that of the government. Ergo, a theocracy, by definition, does not respect human rights as a whole. There might be some rights it recognizes, but what it leaves out is important enough to declare it an abomination to human rights.

Anyway, a lot of our views of human rights don't come from religion. They come from Enlightenment Philosophy-- and the "mainstream" religion of philosophers of the Enlightenment was Deism-- which is pretty incompatible with theocracy, because Deism doesn't generally impose religious restrictions the way that Christianity or Islam does.

Christian Socialist country would be pretty dang nice.

And I'm not living under a Muslim, Shari'a based government. Even though i'd be giving Dhimmi status, and technically supposed to be protected, there is no way that I would pay them for my right to worship the way I want.

Nah, it really wouldn't. Any theocracy is inherently a restriction of freedom of practice. A government that is founded upon a certain religion, and acts upon that, is an abomination to human rights. I'd be equally persecuted under a Christian government as I would under a Muslim government-- as an atheist, pretty much every Abrahamic religion hates me.

Though, for purely selfish reasons, as stated above, I'd at least be able to blend in in a Christian theocracy, so I'd choose that over a Muslim theocracy.

If you had to live in either a facist state where you could do private business and live your lives without interferance as long as you shut up about the government. Or a communist government where they took care of you at the price no personal freedoms the government owns your soul type of thing. Or a christian government or a muslim government.

Must... resist...urge...to mock...ignorance....

Must... resist...urge...to mock...ignorance....
I hope you do, its never a good thing when someone makes fun of themselves.

Please explain the difference between a christian and muslim theocracy. 'Cuz I'm not seeing any difference from a practical standpoint. They both suck. If I have to live in a theocracy, I might find Jainist or wiccan barely livable.

...*blink*

You do realize that Jain are vegan pacifists, yes? I can't even begin to imagine how mellow a Jain theocracy would be, but I can't even begin to imagine Jain being able to establish one in the first place.

Please explain the difference between a christian and muslim theocracy. 'Cuz I'm not seeing any difference from a practical standpoint. They both suck. If I have to live in a theocracy, I might find Jainist or wiccan barely livable.

In the christian one, you get christmas presents and chocolate bunnies with your repression.

Nah, it really wouldn't. Any theocracy is inherently a restriction of freedom of practice. A government that is founded upon a certain religion, and acts upon that, is an abomination to human rights. I'd be equally persecuted under a Christian government as I would under a Muslim government-- as an atheist, pretty much every Abrahamic religion hates me.

Though, for purely selfish reasons, as stated above, I'd at least be able to blend in in a Christian theocracy, so I'd choose that over a Muslim theocracy.

Well, if you were to go by strict interpretation of how Jesus lived, and imposed that on a government, there would be no intolerance of people with no faith, or alternative faith. Unfortunately, many 'prominent' Christians want strict laws from the Old Testament, which would promote awful things. I think that a Christian government would be awesome, at least if I were in charge.

Do have any evidence that these rights originate from religion?

One of the first Empires to adopt some form of human rights was the Maurya empire, and it did this through a buddhist influence.
During the early caliphates, islamic rule brought to the population the first basics of their rights, and this under a 100% threocracy.
Locke, one of the greatest philosophers in this matter, and one of the most influential in our modern concept of rights, believed humans had natural rights because they are all sons of God.
In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.
So yes, I do believe that the rights originate from religion.

Please explain the difference between a christian and muslim theocracy. 'Cuz I'm not seeing any difference from a practical standpoint. They both suck. If I have to live in a theocracy, I might find Jainist or wiccan barely livable.

If you go by the examples of the leader of each religion as the role for the gov't, there is a clear difference.

Christ was a pacifist, helped the poor and sick freely(socialized health care and welfare?), and was against the type of "screw everyone else so I can get to the top" lifestyle that has ruined our world.

Mohammed was a pedophile. He married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. He was thought to have a mental disorder. He approved of slaying those that mocked him, and also pagans and atheists. That sounds like a GREAT leader. Not to mention in several hadith it has shown how he was in constant debt. Would you want a man that can't manage his finances, to be the leader of your country?

...*blink*

You do realize that Jain are vegan pacifists, yes? I can't even begin to imagine how mellow a Jain theocracy would be, but I can't even begin to imagine Jain being able to establish one in the first place.I'm quite aware of the basic Jain philosophy. And find it admirable. But I hate being told how to think and didtrust anyone who tells me I must think like they do. Which is what would happen in a theocracy.

Sure, it wouldn't suck as bad as one of the Abrahmic religions theocracy, but it'd still suck.

In the christian one, you get christmas presents and chocolate bunnies with your repression.Oh....well that's different.

Our friend Zilam indeed does make some good points on the characteristics of the respective founders. Though some of the prominent Christians he refers to are in fact extolling the virtues of implementing the Torah (which might lead one to ask if they are in fact Christians at all). Though that might not be as bad as implementing the Talmud, which seems to shares some of the same predilections of the M. guy whose name we shouldn't mention in case anyone gets offended.

I once a read a rather forceful reply to a post expressing distaste with the activities of the earlier referred to fellow. The respondent was a chap who was offended that someone had said the above referenced individual had relations with a 6 year old. With irony absent, his protest centred on her being in fact nine when the events took place.

If you go by the examples of the leader of each religion as the role for the gov't, there is a clear difference.

Christ was a pacifist, helped the poor and sick freely(socialized health care and welfare?), and was against the type of "screw everyone else so I can get to the top" lifestyle that has ruined our world.

Mohammed was a pedophile. He married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. He was thought to have a mental disorder. He approved of slaying those that mocked him, and also pagans and atheists. That sounds like a GREAT leader. Not to mention in several hadith it has shown how he was in constant debt. Would you want a man that can't manage his finances, to be the leader of your country?
Ya know, occassionally I think you're a reasonable guy. Then you post stupid crap like this.

You do realize even in the New Testament violence against unbelievers is just peachy? Maybe not celebrated as in the Old testament, but I don't see much condemnation of it. Of woman, yes. Of homosexuals, yes. Of unbelievers, yes. But slavery's cool, so I guess you've got that.

And BTW, if we're going the "Old testament doesn't count" bit, why do you guys keep that part? Makes you look like a bunch of bloody savages.

Muslim, because then I could worry less about terrorist attacks.

Facists if they have more money.

...*blink*

You do realize that Jain are vegan pacifists, yes? I can't even begin to imagine how mellow a Jain theocracy would be, but I can't even begin to imagine Jain being able to establish one in the first place.

Forced veganism? I rather like my meat thank you very much.

This is like choosing whether you get kicked in the left tisticle or the right testicle.

Not a hard coice for me. I'd choose getting kicked in the left testicle, since I lost it to cancer already.:D

Location: Well, my nation is called MAINEiacs, so draw your own conclusion
You're from New Hampshire aren't you? ;)

Do you have any evidence that they do not? Don't take this as the other guys comeback, im just asking, Im really to lazy to research it right now.I don't have to prove a negative. I see no hint that humanity comes out of religion. It comes out of life experience, which is diametrically opposed to religion.

Well, if you were to go by strict interpretation of how Jesus lived, and imposed that on a government, there would be no intolerance of people with no faith, or alternative faith. Unfortunately, many 'prominent' Christians want strict laws from the Old Testament, which would promote awful things. I think that a Christian government would be awesome, at least if I were in charge.

If they do not force Christian faith or beliefs about what is moral or immoral into law, then in what sense would that country be a Christian Theocracy, even if they claimed to be founded upon said religion? A rose by any other name, and such.

This is like choosing whether you get kicked in the left tisticle or the right testicle.

Or both.... for that matter.

If you go by the examples of the leader of each religion as the role for the gov't, there is a clear difference.

Christ was a pacifist, helped the poor and sick freely(socialized health care and welfare?), and was against the type of "screw everyone else so I can get to the top" lifestyle that has ruined our world.

Mohammed was a pedophile. He married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. He was thought to have a mental disorder. He approved of slaying those that mocked him, and also pagans and atheists. That sounds like a GREAT leader. Not to mention in several hadith it has shown how he was in constant debt. Would you want a man that can't manage his finances, to be the leader of your country?

If they do not force Christian faith or beliefs about what is moral or immoral into law, then in what sense would that country be a Christian Theocracy, even if they claimed to be founded upon said religion? A rose by any other name, and such.

You also have to consider what sect of Christianity, there are so many to choose from and they disagree on so many things

I think you misunderstand me. Human rights as we see them are an integral part of our society and generally derive directly or indirectly from the prevailing religion of the time. Therefore the concept of a theocracy should show a complete and utter respect for human rights. I firmly believe there can be a theocracy without abusing human rights although modern examples aren't helping.

That's total shit.
Take a look at the worlds oldest functioning parlament (which is still going strong today). It's founded before christianity spread in these parts and is not based on any religion, yet they had the concept of justice, and punished people for murder and theft just like we do today.
Ergo: Religion does not hold the patent for justice or human rights.

Ya know, occassionally I think you're a reasonable guy. Then you post stupid crap like this.

You do realize even in the New Testament violence against unbelievers is just peachy? Maybe not celebrated as in the Old testament, but I don't see much condemnation of it. Of woman, yes. Of homosexuals, yes. Of unbelievers, yes. But slavery's cool, so I guess you've got that. Please show me where it says to strike down the unbeliever? The homosexual? The woman?

You can't, because its not there. The only thing EVER referenced about women, was by Paul, and he isn't Jesus, now is he? Paul was a good guy, but he had his faults, and what he wrote was to be taken as advice at an attempt to live for Christ. Its not literal revelation from God. And if you were to read into the context of when and to whom he wrote those things about it makes sense. Keeping women quiet in church? Naw, he was only talking to the Corinthians, who had their share of troublesome women who spoke inaccuracies.

As for slavery, he said that it wasn't necessarily alright, but for those that were slaves, they shouldn't speak out, and you know what? It goes well with what Jesus said. Focus on things of the spirit, not of this world. But if you read on, you will see where it is said that Christians shouldn't own slaves, and if they do, they should take either release them, or take care of them, as they would their own families.



And BTW, if we're going the "Old testament doesn't count" bit, why do you guys keep that part? Makes you look like a bunch of bloody savages.

The only reason for the OT is to look at the history of the Jews, to see the praise of the Psalms and the wisdom of the proverbs, and to look at the prophecies of the prophets which foretell of a messiah. We are not forced to keep the law, or implement. But rather, as Christians with the Holy Spirit, we should have a sense about us to do the same thing which the law sought to do, which is have a life respecting and honoring God in every aspect of our lives.


If they do not force Christian faith or beliefs about what is moral or immoral into law, then in what sense would that country be a Christian Theocracy, even if they claimed to be founded upon said religion? A rose by any other name, and such. Law would be decided upon the best interest of all the people. We wouldn't force our beliefs upon people, but at the same time, we wouldn't hide them away in private, as it is now. We would let them know where we stand, but if they choose not to be Christians, then why would we persecute them? It goes against the nature of Christ.

You also have to consider what sect of Christianity, there are so many to choose from and they disagree on so many things

There should be no "sect" in christianity. Our only creed is Christ. Our life is only Christ. Our entire being is Christ. It doesn't matter about whether to use glass or plastic for communion cups, or if women should preach or not. Those are sill religious issues, and have no place in Christianity. There are two types of Christianity, religious and sensible.

The religious Christian is what you see dominate America today. They are stupid. Ignore them. Christ never intended for his words and teachings to be a religion. Rather, he intended us to be sensible. In some of the gnostic gospels, he talks a lot about wisdom and knowledge. In the book of James, his brother, there is a some about wisdom. This means that we seek to please God with everything in our life. We don't set aside days, times, or events to please Him, but rather, we please Him in all of our life, and not because we HAVE to, but because we desire to be in communion with him. This is what Christ taught, this would the ideal notion of Christian nation.

The only reason for the OT is to look at the history of the Jews, to see the praise of the Psalms and the wisdom of the proverbs, and to look at the prophecies of the prophets which foretell of a messiah. We are not forced to keep the law, or implement. But rather, as Christians with the Holy Spirit, we should have a sense about us to do the same thing which the law sought to do, which is have a life respecting and honoring God in every aspect of our lives.No. Since Jesus is supposed to be a son of, an incarnation of, and even identical to the Jewish god as depicted in the OT, the laws given by that god are binding for anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. Even more, in the transfiguration of Jesus the continuity with the OT laws, embodied by Moses and Elijah, is emphasized. If Jesus is a son of, an incarnation of, or even is the Jewish god as depicted in the OT, then he is a genocidal maniac who will burn in his own hell for his sins against humankind.

There should be no "sect" in christianity. Our only creed is Christ. Our life is only Christ. Our entire being is Christ. It doesn't matter about whether to use glass or plastic for communion cups, or if women should preach or not. Those are sill religious issues, and have no place in Christianity. There are two types of Christianity, religious and sensible.

The religious Christian is what you see dominate America today. They are stupid. Ignore them. Christ never intended for his words and teachings to be a religion. Rather, he intended us to be sensible. In some of the gnostic gospels, he talks a lot about wisdom and knowledge. In the book of James, his brother, there is a some about wisdom. This means that we seek to please God with everything in our life. We don't set aside days, times, or events to please Him, but rather, we please Him in all of our life, and not because we HAVE to, but because we desire to be in communion with him. This is what Christ taught, this would the ideal notion of Christian nation.
Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that there are many different sects of Christianity

Please show me where it says to strike down the unbeliever? The homosexual? The woman?

You can't, because its not there.


Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Right about there

I'd choose the one where everyone but me is blind and quadraplegic. >_>

Probably the Communist state seeing as the Muslim and Christian (like a version of Christian Saudi Arabia) Theocracy would probably discriminate against me since I'm Agnostic...A Fascist state( I'm equating that to Nazi Germany) would probably send me to a Concentration camp since I'm Indian / Brown...that basically leaves the Communist state which in theory should leave me alone as long as I keep my head down and don't question Communist ideology...my second choice would be whichever country is easiest to emigrate from...

Please show me where it says to strike down the unbeliever? The homosexual? The woman?

I think those references are only in the OT, Jesus took his ideas from people who were more reasonable, like Confucius and his ilk.

You can't, because its not there. The only thing EVER referenced about women, was by Paul, and he isn't Jesus, now is he? Paul was a good guy, but he had his faults, and what he wrote was to be taken as advice at an attempt to live for Christ. Its not literal revelation from God. And if you were to read into the context of when and to whom he wrote those things about it makes sense. Keeping women quiet in church? Naw, he was only talking to the Corinthians, who had their share of troublesome women who spoke inaccuracies.

As for slavery, he said that it wasn't necessarily alright, but for those that were slaves, they shouldn't speak out, and you know what? It goes well with what Jesus said. Focus on things of the spirit, not of this world. But if you read on, you will see where it is said that Christians shouldn't own slaves, and if they do, they should take either release them, or take care of them, as they would their own families.




The only reason for the OT is to look at the history of the Jews, to see the praise of the Psalms and the wisdom of the proverbs, and to look at the prophecies of the prophets which foretell of a messiah. We are not forced to keep the law, or implement. But rather, as Christians with the Holy Spirit, we should have a sense about us to do the same thing which the law sought to do, which is have a life respecting and honoring God in every aspect of our lives.


Law would be decided upon the best interest of all the people. We wouldn't force our beliefs upon people, but at the same time, we wouldn't hide them away in private, as it is now. We would let them know where we stand, but if they choose not to be Christians, then why would we persecute them? It goes against the nature of Christ.

Very reasonable, and while you bring up a good point you also twist what can or can't be done. I am not sure what part of the world you live in, so what I am about to say may not matter for you, but I know that in my part of the world as long as you don't insult other people's religious beliefs or try to limit their ability to practice, you can practice your religion freely. My point is this, in a decent portion of the world, you don't need to hide your religion.

Now for the good point you brought up: not forcing beliefs upon people. This would be difficult for any theocracy with a specific moral ruleset. Laws would need to be passed in such a way as to respect all different religions, or at least make exceptions where religious beliefs differ. This is the trickiest part of running a theocracy, since it requires more cultural relativism than most people are capable of.

There should be no "sect" in christianity. Our only creed is Christ. Our life is only Christ. Our entire being is Christ. It doesn't matter about whether to use glass or plastic for communion cups, or if women should preach or not. Those are sill religious issues, and have no place in Christianity. There are two types of Christianity, religious and sensible.

Great, now if only more people would agree with you, good luck with that by the way.

The religious Christian is what you see dominate America today. They are stupid. Ignore them. Christ never intended for his words and teachings to be a religion. Rather, he intended us to be sensible. In some of the gnostic gospels, he talks a lot about wisdom and knowledge. In the book of James, his brother, there is a some about wisdom. This means that we seek to please God with everything in our life. We don't set aside days, times, or events to please Him, but rather, we please Him in all of our life, and not because we HAVE to, but because we desire to be in communion with him. This is what Christ taught, this would the ideal notion of Christian nation.


You say quite a few things that are true *looks at the religious Christian comment*, but at the same time many that are false. Your views are so much in line with the morality of atheism, I don't see why you are Christian. To be fair though, it is in the nature of Christianity to convert. I know you personally don't follow that, but I daresay those in charge of a Christian theocracy would.

This is because, and correct me if I am wrong, but no where does Jesus condemn the OT. Also, if you support the Ten Commandmens then you are saying that at least some parts of the OT are perfectly valid (I know you haven't said that you support them yet, so if you don't then ignore this). Also, doesn't Jesus at one point refuse to heal a woman because she is a cannanite? A Christian theocracy (as much as I hate to say it, I used to be Christian) would likely be more war-happy than the current day US, since Jesus himself said that he came to bring war, not peace.

The above points bring me to this: a Christian theocracy would likely place a failure to worship God as the worst possible crime, right above working on the Sabath, where not killing would be fairly low on the top 10 laws. I know this is not how a Christian theocracy founded by moderates such as yourself would be, but the only people truly interested in creating a Christian theocracy are the crazy fundamentalists who miss being able to stone to death disobedient wives and children (they could do it according to the OT).

You're from New Hampshire aren't you? ;)

:p:D

Assuming that this is the bad (worse?) kind of communism (i.e. Stalinism) I'll take fascism, thanks.

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Right about thereHe asked for something out of the Gospels, not the OT. Something from Jesus himself, you know (as if the gospels were from jesus himself, you know).

I think a lot of these people choosing Fascism.... don't really understand what it is. I mean, wow. If you people are Americans, then you are living proof that the state education system is accomplishing just what the ruling elite want it to accomplish.


(PSST. That's to keep people ignorant on even the most basic ideas. Because good god man the American ruling elite need a docile hoi polloi to go with whatever it is they want.)

Seriously. Thanks for a good laugh.

If you had to live in either a facist state where you could do private business and live your lives without interferance as long as you shut up about the government. Or a communist government where they took care of you at the price no personal freedoms the government owns your soul type of thing. Or a christian government or a muslim government.

i think what some people seem to fail to realize, is that from an experiential perspective these are all very much the same thing, as is a political process usurped by corporate economic intrests. no idiology, government, economic theory or form of government, can create or even protect personal freedom, only by people not robbing each other of it, can such a thing exist.

when you have private land ownership, building codes, and closed borders, you don't have a free way of life. it's sort of the same thing the roman empire did when it decreed that people could not be allowed to grind their own grain. it defacto enslaved everybody. just the same way people are now being economicly coerced into indenturing themselves for a car and a house.

america is just as far from what it has always payed lip service to, as any of these other situations. the only redeaming feature is when it is inconspicuous about it and gives us some leeway. something it's current forign policies seem unwilling to allow for the rest of the planet.

also the descriptions of faschism and "communism" in the op are demonstrating a coercive and innaccurate bias.

of course my answer is as oversimplified as the op, and i'll not deny that it is.

the real details are far too complex for a simple reply.

=^^=
.../\...

communist government

Contradiction in terms.

I think a lot of these people choosing Fascism.... don't really understand what it is. I mean, wow. If you people are Americans, then you are living proof that the state education system is accomplishing just what the ruling elite want it to accomplish.


(PSST. That's to keep people ignorant on even the most basic ideas. Because good god man the American ruling elite need a docile hoi polloi to go with whatever it is they want.)

Seriously. Thanks for a good laugh.

lolz tose tupid amerzicans.......

Seriously, did you actually even read this thread before spewing verbal diarreah onto this forum? The choice is a Facist government, a communist government, or one of two theocracis. I don't know if your quite aware of what a theocracy is, take a look at Saudi Arabia.

Contradiction in terms.

Alright fine, socialist government:)

I think you misunderstand me. Human rights as we see them are an integral part of our society and generally derive directly or indirectly from the prevailing religion of the time. Therefore the concept of a theocracy should show a complete and utter respect for human rights. I firmly believe there can be a theocracy without abusing human rights although modern examples aren't helping.

Er, no.
Many human rights are in fact directly opposed to religious beliefs.
Don't go confusing religion with morality, many people tend to.