If people had access to what they needed for surviving and living a decent life. Then that would be a good solution against crime. There wouldn't be anything such as poverty, because those which didn't have any, could just get it if the wanted. There could still be nations as there would still be laws and ruling, it would most likely be a different type than what we had today.
I guess we could agree on that to a greater extent.
This is what is on the books of the theocratic rule I am referring to.
Isaiah 65:17-25
According to this mandate every person will have equal access to land, and share its resources. Even the animals will be sharing.
Revelation 21:1-4
Included in the program, is the promise that all the wicked or evil will be remove, and no one would see them. Psalms 37:9-11
How do you see this happening with your system of disunited governments, and nations?
I think for the most part, greed is something that is taught to us due to the way society works. Everything is given a value and compared to everything else. Whether its a physical product or even humans themselves, so education would be a lot different than it is today, as you probably wouldn't work simply to pay your bills, but rather to better society. I would think that we would become more scientific, spiritual, artistic and caring towards each other. Such as we would see in some tribal communities, where they work in collaboration for the greater good of the village rather than trying to get an edge over others.
Assuming that humans by default is greedy, I think is false. But that this in much higher degree is taught to us, true constantly having to be compared towards something or someone else.
Okay. So you don't think humans are greedy by nature, and needs to be.
I would agree that even though we may be inclined to greed, it is not inherently an impulsive nature.
I'm not sure what you are saying that the way we are taught by society has to do with how people are, but if the majority of people are greedy, how do you propose that they will change?
If by education, what form of education, and what institute, or by whom?
You should know my answer by now, since I repeatedly mentioned the form of education that eradicates greed from the hearts of men.
Actually the divine law book says what is needed to remove greed. Galatians 5:22, 23
This also can be tested, and has been, since persons submitting to theocratic order, has benefited in this way, from its educational program.
Because its about approaching reality based on facts rather than superstition. And teaching people how to live or behave based on something which can't be verified is going to interfere with such process. People are obviously free to believe in a God, if they like. But if such believe starts to influence how a person think others ought to live, then that is an issue.
You speak of this as though everything you believe is verified.
People, including you yourself, believe and teach things that have not been verified, and yet that has not change the crime rate for the better. It has not improved people's relationships... lowered domestic abuses.... improved respect for law enforcement or authority... and many other things. See a list
here.
Yet the things you call unverified and superstitious are only that way to a biased and subjective opinion, because something that is verified just needs to be demonstrated that it is true, accurate, or justified. It doesn't need to be accepted by all.
That's why I and billions of people don't have to accept your belief in an unverified common ancestor... even though you put it outside of superstition.
The more important thing is, what does the evidence show, as to the results of the particular teachings?
Is that why you ignored the part of my post with information you said you were interested in considering?
Why did you not consider it. I'll post it again, just in case you overlooked it by accident.
Whether you consider it a superstition or not...
I think the question is answered by the evidence.
So for example, if teachers found that 99.9% of all the students who lived by the standards of a particular law code, proved to be well behaved, and not problematic, compared to the other students, that would give evidence that the law code carries a high moral code.
If the same is true in cases of STDs, teen pregnancies, drunkenness, etc., then that would be evidence again.
When all the evidence is added up, it makes a strong case for questions raised about God.
If I believe in God A and you in God B as being the only true God, then we will clash at some point, because we can't both be right. If I then believe that my God teaches us to live in a certain way, which you disagree with, then how do we solve such issue? We would simply be debating what is best based on our own personal superstitions rather than facts and what is the best solution.
We have the same situation with government - party A and party B.
We have the same situation with governmental laws, bills, etc. and we have People vs State, etc.
How do you deal with that issue.
I mentioned how the issue will be dealt with. Did you miss it? Here it is again.
The theocratic rule I refer to, provides the opportunity for removing the ills of religious domination, and other crimes against humanity.
However, regarding opposers and dissenters, who really might be considered protesters, that is where the law of the particular rule would be of consideration.
Recall, I mentioned that the educational program is just one element, but other elements would need to be utilized.
Not exactly sure what you mean, so might misunderstand you.
But as I wrote above, these rules are not there because they make sense or are the best solution. They have been put in place, because these people believe that women in this case, based on their religious beliefs, should not have these rights. Which is a result of a highly religious cultures, teaching people that these things are true because some unverified scriptures either say so, or have been interpreted to have such meaning.
This is clearly based on an irrational approach of how society ought to work. Rather than asking the question like: "Are women incapable of driving cars?" and obviously the answer is "No", we have absolutely nothing to back up, why such thing should not be allowed. The same goes with asking the question: "Are women incapable of working or doing a good job?" and again, nothing even remotely suggest that it is not the case. So making rules that they shouldn't be allowed to do this, is not based on a rationality or thoughtful ideas, but is completely driven by religious nonsense. Which in many cases is a result of societies which are highly dominated by religious rules. Because they are not always founded in logic or facts, as much as what people believe certain scriptures mean.
But clearly this is not all religious people that feel like this, because women are allowed to both work and drive in most countries. But even in these countries it have been a long battle. It's not really that many years ago, that women were considered to unintellectual to vote or that it was a waste given them an education. Because obviously the man should work and women should look after the house and kids. And some cultures still believe in that this should be the way, so obviously you will have clashes between these cultures. So your divine education would collide with theirs and again, there is not really any way to solve it. Because it is purely based on your interpretations versus theirs, without a shadow of rational thought process of why one thing makes sense over another.
I'm not sure why you don't understand, since I explained. Is that the part you didn't respond to? Perhaps you missed it, I don't know.
Those issues do not exist under the mandates of theocratic rule.
