Do theocracies violate gods will?

[mwm1331]

Heres what believe to be an interesting ethical question.
Are theocracies in violation of the tenets of Christianity?

I believe they are.

The reason believe they are s that by making the law of god also the law of the naton, it forces people to follow gods law. By doing so it takes away thier abillity to choose not to follow gods law , thus making it impossible actually choose to do so. In other words without the abillity to choose sin, can you ever actually choose righteousness?

[Sir Sirius]

Since god punishes people for sin quite harsly (see deuteronomy and the whole eternall banishment thing), forcing people to follow his law far more efficiently then any goverment ever good, would he not be in violation of his own law according to that logic?

[mwm1331]

He may punisih them afterwards, but allows them to sin while they are on earth, a theocracy however does not wait for thier death, nor does it allow them to engage in sn while on earth.
I personally feel that if he had intended for theocracies to rule he would not have allowed adam and eve to eat drom the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Basically by setting a precedent allowing them to sin he determined that none may be punished for sin while in this mortal coil.

[Lord Zentei]

The reason believe they are s that by making the law of god also the law of the naton, it forces people to follow gods law. By doing so it takes away thier abillity to choose not to follow gods law , thus making it impossible actually choose to do so. In other words without the abillity to choose sin, can you ever actually choose righteousness?

You can still refuse to follow the laws of the nation. So your argument is a non sequitur.

Furthermore, doing what is morally right does not neccesarily require the ability to do what is wrong. Righteousness is based on principles, not as the absence of a negative. Not that Christianity provides a good guide to what is right in any case, mind you.

Determining what is right is another matter, and requires fredom of opinion and expression, this is redundant if holy texts provide an absolute morality. The freedom of choice business is not quite as integral to religion as you seem to beleive.

[Sir Sirius]

He may punisih them afterwards, but allows them to sin while they are on earth, a theocracy however does not wait for thier death, nor does it allow them to engage in sn while on earth.
I personally feel that if he had intended for theocracies to rule he would not have allowed adam and eve to eat drom the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Basically by setting a precedent allowing them to sin he determined that none may be punished for sin while in this mortal coil.

Ah, but god does punish people for sins they commit even before their death, both directly (see deuteronomy on hemorroids and such and remember Sodom and Gomorrah and several other instances of god killing people because they displease him) and indirectly by passing laws forbidding sinning.

Besides how would god refraining from punishing people for their sins until after death even change anything? He still punishes people for sin, very very harsly at that.

[mwm1331]

Good points however keep in mind I am not talking about morality but rather the laws of a particular religon.
And yes God has punished as per the examples you site but on the whole I always got the impression that he reserved judgement untill after death.
However another reason I believe thoecracies are against gods will is that by attempting to sentance someone for crimes against god theocracies are in fact attempting to supplant god or at the least take his rght of judgement.
However I maintain that by making the penalty for comitting a sin an earthly rather than heavenly judgement it robs the person of the abillity to choose t follow gods laws out of faith.
There are even passages in the Bible that state following gods law due to fear of punishment alone is not acceptable.

[Cairber]

A practicing catholic and a firm believer in free will, I have to say yes it would be in violation. However, given the actions of many religions within the blanket of christianity, Im not sure how many would accept that humans even have free will anymore. So, when you boil it all down, my belief in God plus a gift of free will is more of an opinion these days.

[RedImperator]

A practicing catholic and a firm believer in free will, I have to say yes it would be in violation. However, given the actions of many religions within the blanket of christianity, Im not sure how many would accept that humans even have free will anymore. So, when you boil it all down, my belief in God plus a gift of free will is more of an opinion these days.

The problem with the free will argument--which is an interesting one--is that as others have pointed out here, God Himself has threatened horrible punishments for those who don't follow His law. It's like me putting a gun to the back of your head and then saying, "You're free to disobey my orders." Given that, I don't think a theocratic government doesn't violate God's law.

[mwm1331]

Yet at the same time the new testament promises forgiveness for true repentance, and there are passages staing that followng gods law for the sole purpose of avoiding his judgement is not true faith.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Leviticus seems to indicate that theocracies are exactly what God had in mind, what with all the 'he whosever doeth (such and such) must surely be put to death, for it is an abomination in the sight of the lord' (not meant to be a direct quote, but that's the sort of thing it says).

[mwm1331]

For most christians the new testament versus the old testament is much like star wars cannon, the Old testament is cannon except where it conflcts with the new tesatament.

[RedImperator]

Yet at the same time the new testament promises forgiveness for true repentance, and there are passages staing that followng gods law for the sole purpose of avoiding his judgement is not true faith.

So what? You have to have true faith AND follow God's law. There certainly aren't any passages that say, "Oh, God's law is pretty much optional."

The NT is in no way incompatible with a theocracy. From a fundamentalist standpoint, you could even argue that it's the state's moral duty to enforce God's law, for the sake of its citizens' salvation. Strict adherence to the law enforces faith as strong faith strengthens adherence to the law.

[Shroom Man 777]

...OT Israel, when it didn't get its ass conquered, WAS a theocracy, as per God's will.

[Durandal]

Heres what believe to be an interesting ethical question.
Are theocracies in violation of the tenets of Christianity?

I believe they are.

Obviously you have never read the Old Testament.

The reason believe they are s that by making the law of god also the law of the naton, it forces people to follow gods law. By doing so it takes away thier abillity to choose not to follow gods law , thus making it impossible actually choose to do so. In other words without the abillity to choose sin, can you ever actually choose righteousness?

Oh give me a break. Do you seriously argue that our laws against murder take away a person's free will to commit murder? Of course they don't. They simply institute punishments for those who commit crimes. If you truly take away someone's ability to choose whether or not to do something, then he will not do that thing under any circumstances, ever.

There are even passages in the Bible that state following gods law due to fear of punishment alone is not acceptable.

The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men [must be] just, ruling in the fear of God.

[Jew]

A theocracy is not biblical according to 1 Corinthians 5:12.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

(FYI, this is in the context of sexual sin. A man in the church was sleeping with his father's wife.) Paul's intent here is clear: the church should concern itself with the conduct of its own members, not with the behavior of unbelievers. Thus the church has no authority to rule as a government over unbelievers.

[General Zod]

A theocracy is not biblical according to 1 Corinthians 5:12.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

(FYI, this is in the context of sexual sin. A man in the church was sleeping with his father's wife.) Paul's intent here is clear: the church should concern itself with the conduct of its own members, not with the behavior of unbelievers. Thus the church has no authority to rule as a government over unbelievers.

that doesn't necessarily say it's wrong to have a theocratic government. only that having a theocratic government is bad unless everyone subscribes to the same belief system.

[Jew]

that doesn't necessarily say it's wrong to have a theocratic government. only that having a theocratic government is bad unless everyone subscribes to the same belief system.

Egads, a loophole! I shall be seceding from the United States to establish the Christian Theocracy of Jewlandia. Only true Christians are permitted to become citizens, and I will rule as God's anointed Theocrat.

[Nick Lancaster]

Why is it necessary to have a theocracy to thwart God's Will? Have you been paying attention to the news at all? Between idiots like Tom DeLay claiming the courts are 'thwarting Congress' clear intent' and the mindless parroting of 'liberal judges legislating from the bench,' we've got no shortage of folks who think we're defying God's Will just by breathing*.

I could argue that Terry Schiavo's present state was God's Will, and that all the superstitious chicken dancing going on is that which is contrary to God's Will. We're not a Theocracy, despite an ongoing effort to make us such.

Furthermore, why are you presuming that a theocracy is corrupt? Does the fact that it is comprised of men (albeit priests) automatically confer this upon them? Have you been consulting with George W. Bush on The Real Reason We Forgot About Osama And Went To Spank Saddam?

*Note that the judge who ruled Jose Padilla had to be charged or released was a conservative Republican. So is the judge who has been ruling on Terri Schiavo. The latter judge is getting death threats (ostensibly from Good Christian Folk). Oh, and Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own father, who wasn't in a persistent vegetative state and could have lived happily ever after on a respirator.

[Pick]

I have no idea, but the Jehova's Witnesses seem to think it's Jesus' destiny to come down to earth and to rule. Yippee.

[Lord Zentei]

I have no idea, but the Jehova's Witnesses seem to think it's Jesus' destiny to come down to earth and to rule. Yippee.

No. They beleive he arrived invisibly in 1914. I kid you not.

[Jew]

Why is it necessary to have a theocracy to thwart God's Will?

It isn't. You're right, anybody who says you can't thwart God's perfect will without a theocracy is a liar. The question at hand in this thread is whether a theocracy is inherently against God's will.

Furthermore, why are you presuming that a theocracy is corrupt?

Well that depends on what you mean by corrupt. Inherent in the definition of theocracy is the notion that religious laws trump civil laws. Thus any religious law regulating moral behavior is the ultimate law. In this sense a theocracy is a corruption of democracy and it is a violation of God's will as revealed in 1 Corinthians 5:12.

On the other hand, if you mean a theocracy in which religious leaders are also the leaders of the government but do not impose their moral code onto the entire population, then that sort of theocracy wouldn't necessarily be in opposition to God's will. But that wouldn't strictly be a theocracy in the generally understood sense of the word.

[Durandal]

A theocracy is not biblical according to 1 Corinthians 5:12.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

(FYI, this is in the context of sexual sin. A man in the church was sleeping with his father's wife.) Paul's intent here is clear: the church should concern itself with the conduct of its own members, not with the behavior of unbelievers. Thus the church has no authority to rule as a government over unbelievers.

How the Hell could Paul have "intended" to outlaw a form of government that wasn't even conceived of until over a thousands years later?

[Shroom Man 777]

How the Hell could Paul have "intended" to outlaw a form of government that wasn't even conceived of until over a thousands years later?

Wha? Weren't there already theocracies by the time of ancient OT Israel?

[Jew]

How the Hell could Paul have "intended" to outlaw a form of government that wasn't even conceived of until over a thousands years later?

Wha? Weren't there already theocracies by the time of ancient OT Israel?

Yes, yes there were. At the time of Jesus (a few years before Paul's writings), many of the Jews as the time believed that Jesus had come back to drive out the Romans and set himself up as the King of Israel. That would be a real theocracy, wouldn't it? The Son of God ruling as King over Israel. Theocracies were alive and well in ancient times.

[Shroom Man 777]

So Paul couldn't "intend" to outlaw a form of government that wasn't even concieved of until over a thousand years later. Because that form of government was existing already, for a very long time.

And these theocracies were sanctioned by God himself, God wanted them. So you can't say theocracies are sinful.