Why do US Christian fundamentalists want a theocracy?

[Hockeycowboy]

Nice post, I enjoyed reading it, very astute....

And no religion dreams of A theocracy. They dream of THEIR theocracy.

Question: when Jesus taught his followers to pray for “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth,” you think most Christians don’t take this literally?

I know one group that does....and ties it in with Daniel 2:44.

 

[Kenny]

Indeed, associating "crazies" to Christianity is a fallacy of composition, but so is denying that there are crazies amongst the Christians.



Note that most criminals, like most people, are religious. That's simply factual.

True, there are crazies among Christians.

But statistically, if the majority are religious, then obviously then most criminals would be religious. But it is coincidental and one isn't really the factor of the other. Additionally, you might find that most found out they were religious but had no encounter... like "I was born a Catholic and thus I am a Catholic" - religiously hold to that position but still not really being religious. Just in name only,.

But where are we going with all of this?

 

[epronovost]

But where are we going with all of this?

Nowhere I believe... we should return to the subject of the OP.

 

[PureX]

Why is it that American Christian fundamentalists are always demanding that people live under a Christian theocracy? This seems to be an idea that's largely confined to the US, as despite being literally ruled by churches and Christian monarchs for over thousand years, the idea of a Christian theocracy doesn't seem to have much traction among modern Europeans.

Why is this idea of a Christian state - rather than a secular state with a Christian majority - so alluring, specifically to Americans?

I think it has to do with excessive fear, and ego, and the resultant desire to be in control of everything and everyone as the 'cure' for it. But why they (American Christian fundamentalists) are so frightened, and feeling so inconsequential is a mystery to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do US fundies actually say they want a theocracy?

I'm not sure I've ever come across that. The most I have seen is them wanting some laws to reflect their particular religion's views on certain aspects of morality, e.g. on abortion and homosexuality.

The Dominionists. I think their movement is a toxic disease, and their speakers spout misinformation about political issues. For example they oppose social distancing requirements and play down the danger of the pandemic. Sound familiar? Mike Pence is our VP. Yeah, he's a member.

I think these are preachers that have developed into a culture separate from the rest of us, like a club aimed at controlling information. Its got a cult style where the preachers teach parishioners not to make any decisin without hearing God's voice, first -- like in their ears. Week after week these preachers pretend like they can hear God all the time, and its to keep other people dependent I think. It helps with church membership retention, which is getting pretty nasty I think. People feel very reticent to look outside of their own church, and its a cult like feeling. God doesn't talk to people constantly like these preachers insist, so its weird. They also attempt to defend their jobs from ideas which might imperil them such as scientific ideas. They participate in fingerpointing warning their parishioners constantly about the dangers out there of ministries with some technical scriptural misunderstanding. Again, this seems like creepy member retention in an immoral fashion. Finally they scarecrow further. These things characterize dominionist affiliations.

So why the politics? Various reasons, but part of it is again membership retention. The dominionists have been feeling the threat of scientific ideas, because they have a track record of insisting the bible is a science book. Science looms like a threat. They oppose it politically, because they can't do so logically. Also they need to legitimize their political activism, so they push to illegalize sin.

Go into one of these church services. You'll immediately know something weird is going on. its weird, unhealthy in my opinion; and these guys should not be preachers if you ask me.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think so. No more than any other law that is enacted. Every law curtails something.

What about opposition toward LGBT rights (just one of many examples)? There is no rational, real world justification to oppose such outside religion reasons. Why should your personal beliefs impede upon the lives of others?

 

[blü 2]

Nice post, I enjoyed reading it, very astute....

Question: when Jesus taught his followers to pray for “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth,” you think most Christians don’t take this literally?

It's a vague idea with very few specifics, except that it will be an autarchy. Christianity constantly speaks of kingship, a single ruler,so no point in asking how often the Kingdom will hold elections ─ the question is whether you believe such a regime could be wise and just and efficient and benevolent and stay that way across centuries, or not.

The sheer lack of detail invites skepticism.

Exactly the same is true of heaven, of course.

I know one group that does....and ties it in with Daniel 2:44.

Ouch! Daniel 2:44 is a declaration that BWAHAHAHAHA ─ MY TEAM will rule and YOUR TEAM will be toast and if you don't like it, TOUGH.

The sort of thing that might make a thoughtful person want a set of inalienable rights including freedom of belief regarding religion ...

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's a vague idea with very few specifics, except that it will be an autarchy. Christianity constantly speaks of kingship, a single ruler,so no point in asking how often the Kingdom will hold elections ─ the question is whether you believe such a regime could be wise and just and efficient and benevolent and stay that way across centuries, or not.

The sheer lack of detail invites skepticism.

Exactly the same is true of heaven, of course.
Ouch! Daniel 2:44 is a declaration that BWAHAHAHAHA ─ MY TEAM will rule and YOUR TEAM will be toast and if you don't like it, TOUGH.

The sort of thing that might make a thoughtful person want a set of inalienable rights including freedom of belief regarding religion ...

OUCH, huh? I had to laugh.... You are really enjoyable to dialogue with! I wish I could speak with you in person.

Really, (if you had all-wise, kind, mild tempered parents,) would not having an all-wise, kind and mild-tempered King provide the best environment, wherein we could reach our full potential?

I see no problem.

Just think of the benefits of having ‘all wisdom’ in a world ruler (you know I’m talking about Jesus):

No one would begin experiments with dangerous materials, like asbestos. (Any such experiments would be halted.) We’d learn ways to generate clean energy, with no harmful side-effects.

There’d be no food wasted uselessly.

Etc. etc., etc.

But WE WOULD LEARN, at no one’s detriment.

 

[blü 2]

Really, (if you had all-wise, kind, mild tempered parents,) would not having an all-wise, kind and mild-tempered King provide the best environment, wherein we could reach our full potential?

Read me the part where I can cancel the contract at any time without penalty.

Sure, it's great to contemplate Utopias and Philosopher Kings and communism (an idea that gets some backing from the NT) and to look back with some awe at the Marshall Plan ...

But as Churchill said someone said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for the others. I'm in no rush to sign up for an autocracy, no matter how glossy the brochure, no matter how big the discount if I Sign Today! There are quite a few places where I don't particularly want to live, and they include China and the Vatican.

And what would stop a real Jesus running for POTUS, and being UN Secretary-General, and leading the International Court of Justice, and making himself generally useful using the tools already to hand?

The idea that he could be voted out ought to keep him on his toes too.

And remember that line from Psalm something-or-other about not putting your trust in princes.

 

[Tambourine]

who is demanding it? I don't see that in any of that type of directive in Christian churches.

I see tons of Christian on here who are positively indignant that there are people in their country who choose not to follow the rules of their favorite version of the Bible, and who are demanding that their government stick to religiously tradited rules, such as abortion bans, inequality for LGBT people, etc.

They may not be representative of the churches you personally frequent, but I couldn't help but notice a certain trend among the arguments that are being presented over and over.

Perhaps they just want their Man in the Oval office.

Every single President of the US has been a Christian, as far as I can tell.

Do US fundies actually say they want a theocracy?

I'm not sure I've ever come across that. The most I have seen is them wanting some laws to reflect their particular religion's views on certain aspects of morality, e.g. on abortion and homosexuality.

That you for being one of the few on these boards who are being open about what they actually want of their government. I would definitely say that a government that allows its laws to be dictated by religious leaders is effectively a theocracy in all but name.

 

[exchemist]

The Dominionists. I think their movement is a toxic disease, and their speakers spout misinformation about political issues. For example they oppose social distancing requirements and play down the danger of the pandemic. Sound familiar? Mike Pence is our VP. Yeah, he's a member.

I think these are preachers that have developed into a culture separate from the rest of us, like a club aimed at controlling information. Its got a cult style where the preachers teach parishioners not to make any decisin without hearing God's voice, first -- like in their ears. Week after week these preachers pretend like they can hear God all the time, and its to keep other people dependent I think. It helps with church membership retention, which is getting pretty nasty I think. People feel very reticent to look outside of their own church, and its a cult like feeling. God doesn't talk to people constantly like these preachers insist, so its weird. They also attempt to defend their jobs from ideas which might imperil them such as scientific ideas. They participate in fingerpointing warning their parishioners constantly about the dangers out there of ministries with some technical scriptural misunderstanding. Again, this seems like creepy member retention in an immoral fashion. Finally they scarecrow further. These things characterize dominionist affiliations.

So why the politics? Various reasons, but part of it is again membership retention. The dominionists have been feeling the threat of scientific ideas, because they have a track record of insisting the bible is a science book. Science looms like a threat. They oppose it politically, because they can't do so logically. Also they need to legitimize their political activism, so they push to illegalize sin.

Go into one of these church services. You'll immediately know something weird is going on. its weird, unhealthy in my opinion; and these guys should not be preachers if you ask me.

Yes but I notice your characterisation of these people concerns their methods within their churches. My question is whether they are calling for a theocracy, as the OP assumes.

I had not noticed that. Are they agitating for a change in government? What form would it take? Who would be the leader? Do they have a political party? I mean, if their idea of a "theocracy" is a Republican government led by Trump, that's not what I would call a theocracy . Iran would be nearer the mark - or Vatican City.

 

[Kenny]

What about opposition toward LGBT rights (just one of many examples)? There is no rational, real world justification to oppose such outside religion reasons. Why should your personal beliefs impede upon the lives of others?

It isn't the LGBTQ that creates a problem. It's when it is taught in schools as a lifestyle to those who don't agree that it becomes a problem. It's the very thing you are talking about but in reverse

 

[Tambourine]

Yes but I notice your characterisation of these people concerns their methods within their churches. My question is whether they are calling for a theocracy, as the OP assumes.

I had not noticed that. Are they agitating for a change in government? What form would it take? Who would be the leader? Do they have a political party? I mean, if their idea of a "theocracy" is a Republican government led by Trump, that's not what I would call a theocracy . Iran would be nearer the mark - or Vatican City.

Most of these people seem to advocate that laws of the land follow their religious tenets and practices, rather than the other way round as would be typical under a secular system of government. A government that follows religious tenets in its legislation could probably be characterised as theocratic in nature, don't you think?

 

[Tambourine]

It isn't the LGBTQ that creates a problem. It's when it is taught in schools as a lifestyle to those who don't agree that it becomes a problem. It's the very thing you are talking about but in reverse

If this actually happened (which it doesn't, but let's just assume it would) then why would that be a problem for Christians?
As far as I know, there is nothing in Christian doctrine or the Christian Bible that demands of Christians that they live in a country with purely Christian laws and ruled only by Christian principles. In fact, all I have read of the Christian Bible suggests the exact opposite.

 

[Kenny]

I see tons of Christian on here who are positively indignant that there are people in their country who choose not to follow the rules of their favorite version of the Bible, and who are demanding that their government stick to religiously tradited rules, such as abortion bans, inequality for LGBT people, etc.

They may not be representative of the churches you personally frequent, but I couldn't help but notice a certain trend among the arguments that are being presented over and over.

Abortion bans isn't a religious issue, it is a life issue. Having a voice in the government is everybody's right for whatever position you hold. Why should you have the right to voice opposition but another cannot?

 

[Tambourine]

Abortion bans isn't a religious issue, it is a life issue. Having a voice in the government is everybody's right for whatever position you hold. Why should you have the right to voice opposition but another cannot?

Did you read my first post in this thread, and understand the question?

 

[Kenny]

If this actually happened (which it doesn't, but let's just assume it would) then why would that be a problem for Christians?
As far as I know, there is nothing in Christian doctrine or the Christian Bible that demands of Christians that they live in a country with purely Christian laws and ruled only by Christian principles. In fact, all I have read of the Christian Bible suggests the exact opposite.

I'm not sure what point you are talking about here. Christians live in every country, secular, Islamic or whatever.

 

[Kenny]

Did you read my first post in this thread, and understand the question?

probably not... we get a thousand posts and it is hard to stay up with who said what and for what reason.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm not sure what point you are talking about here. Christians live in every country, secular, Islamic or whatever.

Exactly. It is not contrary to Christian principles to live in a country that is not dominated by Christian religion.

So why are American Christian fundamentalists so extraordinarily bothered by that?

 

[Tambourine]

probably not... we get a thousand posts and it is hard to stay up with who said what and for what reason.

Then I humbly request you go back and read the post with which I opened this thread, including the questions I posed there, before you are tempted to go on about issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.