People should live by the word of God, for it is the only law that is valid.

Yes, we should live in a theocracy. Only stupid people who are pedophiles and rapists would not want to live in a theocracy, so you need to think twice before saying you dont want to live in a theocracy, because that would make you a pedophile and or rapist.

At 9/9/11 08:31 AM, serving7 wrote: Only stupid people who are pedophiles and rapists would not want to live in a theocracy, so you need to think twice before saying you dont want to live in a theocracy, because that would make you a pedophile and or rapist.

I'm sorry you were too subtle it went over my head

At 9/9/11 07:58 AM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote:

At 9/9/11 07:45 AM, DingoTheDog wrote: you have a choice over what religion you follow, a freedom that a theocracy would most certainly endavour to quash - after all they would be acting on behalf of god himself - God being a morally questionable entity who "sacrificed" his only son in order to allow him to forgive us for our sins in his eyes.

"Morally questionable?" Seems to me that the Being Who created all things, set the laws by which all things are governed and the property of every single thing from the inconceivably huge to the infinitesimally small with total omniscience would not be "morally questionable", because that would presume that morals apply to Him, that it would be possible to scrutinize such a Being, and/or the fact that this would be the Being Who would define what constitutes "moral" in the first place, would it not?

Well he did make me in his image, therefore i'm not really at fault as my actions are simply based on traits I inherited.

Hey if you're going to debate "whether God exists" or "whether God is like what they believe" that's a horse of a different color, but assuming the omnipotent omniscient creator-of-all-things God that most people refer to, the points above apply fully.

Yeah, lets not get into the does god exist thing, theres several billion of those threads already stagnating the place up.

And as for persecuting those whose ways of thinking differ, that's never been limited to religion. The Nazis did it, the Bolsheviks did it, the Khmer Rouge did it...hell, even my own country did it under McCarthy. To say that these things are inherent to religion because of faults in religion fails to note human voices as an existing common factor, and I have yet to see any case to be made that secular governments are somehow immune, even if their justifications are less metaphysical.

The fact that people have committed persecution with motives other than religous is a non argument . The only other "force" that has driven people to commit atrocities of any magnitude that come close to that of religion is Patriotism - the most notable examples of which typically involve some form of justification by god.

At 9/9/11 08:50 AM, DingoTheDog wrote: Well he did make me in his image, therefore i'm not really at fault as my actions are simply based on traits I inherited.

You're right, you're are clearly without fault for any of the things that you had when you were created.

After that, though, that was you.

At 9/9/11 08:50 AM, DingoTheDog wrote: The fact that people have committed persecution with motives other than religous is a non argument . The only other "force" that has driven people to commit atrocities of any magnitude that come close to that of religion is Patriotism - the most notable examples of which typically involve some form of justification by god.

Communism killed probably upwards of seventy million people and one of the fundamental teachings was that "Religion is the opiate of the masses" No religious organization in history has killed that many people. That's nearly as many people as were killed in the Black Death.

Even then, the fact that some people have "justified" it by invoking it...frankly, by that logic you're condemning morality, freedom, self-defense, civil rights, and everything else in history that has been invoked to lend justification to a violent act due to that thing's prominent virtuous characteristics. People don't tend to invoke shitty things everyone agrees are evil, they want to be associated with a good thing.

Association fallacies and broad generalizations are not really sufficient logic by which to condemn religion entirely, or even one religion or cause. If you apply your logic equally to secular examples, it becomes clear that it is flawed and contradictory to the core.

At 9/9/11 03:23 PM, Travis wrote: Theocracy has been proven in the past to turn corrupt...

Name a system of government that hasn't

At 9/9/11 08:31 AM, serving7 wrote: People should live by the word of God, for it is the only law that is valid.

Yes, we should live in a theocracy. Only stupid people who are pedophiles and rapists would not want to live in a theocracy, so you need to think twice before saying you dont want to live in a theocracy, because that would make you a pedophile and or rapist.

Only pedophiles and rapists? I call bullshit on that. What about all the Atheists, Agnostics, and people of other religions?

At 9/9/11 01:35 AM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote:

At 9/8/11 09:56 PM, Bolo wrote: As a matter of practicality, all make sense independent of Christian moral considerations.

Yeah sure is easy to say things like that in hindsight.

It is undoubtedly true, though, and I think the fact that other systems of law had already taken into account the truly integral items of the ten commandments (killing, stealing, the crimes that are not solely "moral" in classification, but involve a tangible attempt to destabilize order in the eyes of any reasonable person etc.) prior to the 10 commandments' enunciation, shows that these particular items were already established as practical measures to maintain control and stability amongst a society and thus ensure its continued survival. I do not begrudge the Ten Commandments in totality -- on the contrary, leveraging existing laws shows a healthy willingness to incorporate a working precedent into the legal system of the time. Yet they definitely weren't a clear innovation in terms of content, and frankly would have continued regardless of the Ten Commandments' enshrinement of them. In the Natural Selection of societal development, laws that work will continue to exist in the long term. Laws that do not work will fade.

At 9/9/11 04:50 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Name a system of government that hasn't

A true anarchy.

Lulz, is this a serious claim?

To my understanding it seems as if there's that there must be some kind of centralizing body in a society if shit is to get done (i.e. utilizing technological and/or scientific advancements for the good of humanity). I'll totally acknowledge that science and technology can cause ass-backwards things to take place (nuclear meltdowns, landfills of old ass electronic gadgetry, exploitation of workers...etc), however I'd say that's mostly a problem with human consciousness and the way we perceive ourselves in relation to other sentient beings. It would NOT be an intrinsic quality of science/technology.

Anarchist states would only work if

1) Nobody wanted to complete large scale projects
2) We reverted back to some form of nomadic agrarian society

I can't really see that happening anytime soon

At 9/9/11 04:50 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Name a system of government that hasn't

A true anarchy.

If true anarchy could not be corrupted government wouldn't have arisen in the first place.

A true anarchy is corrupted the minute a law is required in order to preserve basic human rights and decency. It's the easiest system to corrupt.

shwamp

somebody needs to animate this

It's my guess that these kids simply don't even know what a theocracy truly is, and they only approve of it because it sounds really cool or something like that, at least I hope so. About the only true theocratic government that exists {as far as I know of} would be Iran, and I don't exactly think that country is a shining example of progress in the world.

In a theocratic government, the holy book is the law, more or less. For example, in a Christian theocratic government, no one would be working on a Sunday, {that includes NFL players and pizza delivery men.} it would be okay to stone your kids to death for being disobiedent, {feel good about enforcing that one?} and sell your daughter if you want. {Not even in Nevada.} In short, a theocracy is a bullshit government, and anyone who believes in that type of government should either live in Iran or simply loves the dark ages.

Is it me or kids are just getting more stupider by the day?

At 9/9/11 10:45 PM, ExtraLife wrote: shwamp

Nice sig. Not too keen on how it kills the context.

At 9/9/11 09:06 AM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote:

At 9/9/11 08:50 AM, DingoTheDog wrote:

Communism killed probably upwards of seventy million people and one of the fundamental teachings was that "Religion is the opiate of the masses" No religious organization in history has killed that many people. That's nearly as many people as were killed in the Black Death.

This is a repetition of the same non-argument, the fact other things in history have resulted in mass murder doesnt in any way absolve the mass murder thats has occurred due to religous persecution and in no way promotes the idea that a theocracy is a good idea. Its also a worthy point in the case of communism (all be it your "opiates of the masses" would indicate that you are already completely aware of this that then begs the question of what is your actual stance?) is that most communist states justify there actions through association with god

- North Korea is a totalitarian communist state and a theocracy (also a democratic peoples republic...nahahahaha!) in the sense they have an eternal father; they have managed to associate the regime with having heavenly approval. Communist China is a catholic country that has cut off all formal ties with the vatican and now has State appointed Bishops who coincidentally are either communist party members or backers.

Association fallacies and broad generalizations are not really sufficient logic by which to condemn religion entirely, or even one religion or cause. If you apply your logic equally to secular examples, it becomes clear that it is flawed and contradictory to the core.

I dont think pointing out that the Bible is a contradictory, historically inaccurate and morally questionable text which is not a healthy basis for a government is a logic that can be equally applied to secular examples. Pointing out examples of secular government that has ended in disaster is a non-argument as it doesnt remove the major flaws of a theocracy - and I'm sure we could play a redundant game of back and forth on the matter.

At 9/8/11 06:15 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: Today in our Language Arts class, we were talking about the government, for some reason.
The topic of Theocracy came up.

Believe it or not, 90% of the people in my class would like to have a theocracy. NINETY PERCENT! In case you didn't know, a theocracy is a religion based government. The word of god is the law of man, and so on.

So fellow NGers. what would you think of a theocracy?

I would depend upon the religion. Under no circumstances would I accept a Christian government.

At 9/27/11 07:51 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: This is a repetition of the same non-argument, the fact other things in history have resulted in mass murder doesnt in any way absolve the mass murder

That's a straw man, buddy, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that your argument that it "caused" murder simply because it was invoked to justify it is flawed. If I were to kill someone and say it was in your name, that wouldn't mean you caused the murder.

Its also a worthy point in the case of communism (all be it your "opiates of the masses" would indicate that you are already completely aware of this that then begs the question of what is your actual stance?) is that most communist states justify there actions through association with god

Um, no they don't. You're flat out wrong.

The Soviet Union had atheism as state policy. It was politically and personally dangerous to be openly religious for a very long time. There was loads of state-sponsored atheist propaganda, even in schools.

Communist China is a catholic country

Hahahahaha what? Where did you hear this nonsense? They've never been a Catholic country, they were/are primarily Buddhist and Confucianist if anything, but the state itself is clearly and emphatically Atheist

In the People's Republic of China under Mao they flat-out told people to become atheist, and actually sought actively to stamp out religion in many cases. The Khmer Rouge outlawed all religions and killed loads and loads of people for being religious. Cuba nationalized all religious properties and declared itself an atheist state.

- North Korea is a totalitarian communist state and a theocracy (also a democratic peoples republic...nahahahaha!) in the sense they have an eternal father; they have managed to associate the regime with having heavenly approval.

Yeah but they don't believe in "God", they believe in the greatness of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in the Juche ideal. They're dogmatic atheists, but definitely atheists.

I dont think pointing out that the Bible is a contradictory, historically inaccurate and morally questionable text which is not a healthy basis for a government is a logic that can be equally applied to secular examples.

Um that's not what my argument was at all. I said "broad generalization and association fallacies."

Though I suppose this technically counts as those too because, as I said earlier, I'm not just talking about the Bible and never have been.

Pointing out examples of secular government that has ended in disaster is a non-argument as it doesnt remove the major flaws of a theocracy - and I'm sure we could play a redundant game of back and forth on the matter.

Yeah and that wasn't my argument either. I was saying your argument assumes an inherent flaw in one without considering or applying the logic of the other.

You are saying Theocracy is inherently flawed because of these examples you associate it with of injustice in the name of religion. I am saying that's as unfair as saying that all secular policy is inherently flawed because of its association with abuses by secular states.

You aren't really saying "Here are the flaws in the system and why" because you're not even really talking about one system, you're making a broad generalization of all theologically based institutions without due consideration of the relevant facts.

At 9/27/11 08:21 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote:

At 9/27/11 07:51 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: Communist China is a catholic country

heeheehee :P

- North Korea is a totalitarian communist state and a theocracy (also a democratic peoples republic...nahahahaha!) in the sense they have an eternal father; they have managed to associate the regime with having heavenly approval.

Yeah but they don't believe in "God", they believe in the greatness of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in the Juche ideal. They're dogmatic atheists, but definitely atheists.

The regime may be athiest but the people treat Kim Il Sung as their personal god, and are made to believe that the government actions are all made with heavenly approval and that they and their country is blessed by heavenly forces in the form of their eternal president. Not technically a theocracy but certainly not strictly secular.

You aren't really saying "Here are the flaws in the system and why" because you're not even really talking about one system, you're making a broad generalization of all theologically based institutions without due consideration of the relevant facts.

You aren't really saying "A theocracy is not a flawed system because...". In fact (and my infrequent alcohol fulled visits to the BBS might mean I have overlooked something) you dont really seem to be saying much of anything at all. All you seem to have done is point out shortcomings in secular systems. "A Theocracy must be good because secular systems have been bad".

Tomorrow isn't looking so good.