theocracy? yes or no

[Kathianne]

agreed, plenty of non christians are disgusted by the modern crap.
as i said
---And here's the thing, Christianity, at it's best, will go along anyone to do good. They don't have to be Christians.
Many atheist and people who don't care about religion are NOT [I]necessarily PUT OFF by Christians standing up against a lot of this mess simply because they do it while wearing a Bible verse t-Shirt or wearing a collar. Pro-Life Atheist work with Religious pro-lifers. and we use all the same arguments PLUS religious reasons.
But if we don't show up and say so against all this other crap, what are we doing as Christians?---


I know non-christians who are open minded enough NOT to be put off by my beliefs, just as I'm not by theirs.
They are not so sensitive that they can't stand to work with someone whose "religious".
Not long ago some non-christian folks in city council actually started quietly requesting the churches to step up and help in the schools.
As long as we're not acting like -Westboro church-. I don't think we need to be as afraid of offending people as is being made out here.

Maybe I'm misunderstand what you want? It sounds like we are in agreement, while I believed you were advocating a 'cultural' agreement or something like based upon 'Christian beliefs'? That we share values isn't surprising to me, regardless of some other differences. We both seem to be in agreement that many agree with our values, whether or not they agree with our beliefs.

[revelarts]

Maybe I'm misunderstand what you want? It sounds like we are in agreement, while I believed you were advocating a 'cultural' agreement or something like based upon 'Christian beliefs'? That we share values isn't surprising to me, regardless of some other differences. We both seem to be in agreement that many agree with our values, whether or not they agree with our beliefs.

right
I'm not saying that EVERYONE has to believe what i believe. What i'm saying is that non-christians have no real historical or philosophical basis to resist any of the woke crazies ideas.
Decent non-Christians POVs are based in the same FEELINGS that the woke folk's are.

Decent folks believe in the same morals as you or I but they just don't have foundation for it. Just "gut feeling", traditional upbringing plus some common sense.

I'm saying we should not be afraid to say what we believe and work with anyone who aligns with those beliefs.
And that saying what we believe and talking about the history of culture will at times strengthen our case ...and sometime might weaken it in a civic arena.
But that AS Christians we are told to say it no matter what. because it's not just "our religion" it's THE TRUTH. Reality.
it doesn't matter if others don't believe it.
the sun and stars aren't real because we can see them.
they'd still be real even if everyone was blind.

God's not subject to our belief, people will find out eventually.

[Gunny]

"I repeatedly made the distinction that one cannot use "God" as a selling point to the segment of society that has all the same morals and rules but refuses to accept where they come from, and can wordsmith a logical argument without God. Why alienate or throw out otherwise good, productive people because they choose to follow their own religion or not? "

& I repeatedly made the distinction that you CAN NOT make/SELL most of the same morals without the God of the Bible.
I repeatedly asked you and FJ to do it but you never did.

What's the logical wordsmithed arguments against polygamy, homosexuality, and p0dos Gunny?
Why shouldn't someone steal or kill if it works for them, their family, neighborhood or city Gunny?

As you've pointed out, and we agree, not everyone has the same POV, religious or otherwise.

If you have (or can point to) the wordsmithed logical arguments to get society to align with what we both generally understand to be good morals for society, I'd be glad to embrace it with you.
But I'm not seeing that information coming from you. You just seem set on telling me NOT to be mention God or the Bible in a civil context, OR EVEN HISTORICAL context because "it wont work" or it alienates people, or worse it's "theocracy". (Theocracy when i say it, but not if a guy in a video says it somehow. )

Funny thing is those that don't share our religious or moral views don't have a problem alienating us.
And telling us our views are wrong, hateful, outdated, and in some cases should even be outlawed to the point of the criminalizing even talking about them.
whether or not they are wordsmithed in or out of a religious framework.

The discussions of where our morality comes from and what can we do to make current civilization better and dump the dead wood clinging to it are two, separate discussions. In the latter case, only that people agree on what is good/bad, right/wrong is necessary to move forward. Getting stuck at the gate arguing over why people believe in that morality gets nowhere but stuck at the gate.

The idea is move forward. We've already got a government that can't get anything done because of itself and quibbling over and keeping the people divided over contrived differences.

[Gunny]

link

It's stated several times in the original thread.

[revelarts]

....

Pedos-Honestly, if one doesn't understand the wrong, they should likely be castrated or shot.

....
-- look I agree 100%--
but there have been those ... since the 1930s who've been trying to push that line in Europe and the US
the lawywer Alan Dershowitz has even said he wanted to lower the age of consent.
--In 1997, Dershowitz argued against statutory rape laws, saying the age of consent should be 15, Bruck reports. “There must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group,” he wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.--
And that's just the outer edge. You've seen some to the ped0 books they've been putting into schools, picture books no less, and are saying they'll defend them to the end. taking children to sex shows and inviting convicted ped0s into schools to read to children in the libraries.

it's "freedom" Kath.
So Beyond your feelings what's the logical argument to keep them out?
Their feelings are just as passionate as yours. Why shouldn't every 1st grader understand any/every kind of sexual activity? "Experts say...."
In fact your boomer feelings are simply 'hateful' and 'phobic' in their minds.

[Black Diamond]

Guy belongs in a straight jacket.

[fj1200]

link

Back in the life, liberty, property, not legislating morality argument of yesteryear (as in last year).

[Gunny]

Guy belongs in a straight jacket.

You are being too kind. People like this should be shipped to Gaza immediately to fill in the need for reinforcements in Hamas' lines.

[revelarts]

Back in the life, liberty, property, not legislating morality argument of yesteryear (as in last year).

still don't see a link but ok,

"life, liberty, property,"
By whose definitions?

Life?
Slaves weren't "life".
Embryos aren't "life".
In Germany "imbeciles" weren't "life"....

Liberty?
liberty to teach preschoolers about sex?
Liberty with all drugs?
Liberty to marry brother, sisters & animals ? ...

Property?
Same issue about definitions.

You seem to ASSUME most people agree on the definitions and morals of yesteryear... farther back than last year.

[fj1200]

still don't see a link but ok,

"life, liberty, property,"
By whose definitions?

Life?
Slaves weren't "life".
Embryos aren't "life".
In Germany "imbeciles" weren't "life"....

Liberty?
liberty to teach preschoolers about sex?
Liberty with all drugs?
Liberty to marry brother, sisters & animals ? ...

Property?
Same issue about definitions.

You seem to ASSUME most people agree on the definitions and morals of yesteryear... farther back than last year.

We already had the discussion; you didn't like my answer. Just don't tell me I haven't answered. And to the bold... highlights the base problem; not even Christians will agree on all of those things let alone the non-Christians agreeing if the morality of the Bible is your premise.

[revelarts]

We already had the discussion; you didn't like my answer. Just don't tell me I haven't answered.

OK Seriously,
Is YOUR PERSONAL VERSION of Life, Liberty, Property ...from last year your answer?
If so, no problem. Got it.
Just know, it's not well defined. And has no foundation... outside of the post Christian culture it sprung from.

And to the bold... highlights the base problem; not even Christians will agree on all of those things let alone the non-Christians agreeing if the morality of the Bible is your premise.

Most Christians will come a lot closer to the same definitions than they would without Christianity.
...especially IF they're the types that actually follow though on their beliefs in all areas of life including politics.
You know, like conservative follow though on promoting & defending ALL of the constitution they love -cough-

& many Non-Christians already agree with many of the ideals and principals even if they don't necessarily want to live up to them themselves. they respect Jesus and the teachings of the Bible.
Many People who Cheat on their spouse will still say it's wrong, and have a natural disgust for some sexual practices.
Many Drinkers & Drug addict will agree that it's BETTER NOT to over drink/drug. and don't want their kids doing it.
Many people kinda get the idea that if everyone followed the 10 commandments & the the golden rule FROM THE BIBLE the world would be better off not worse. (even though they don't like the idea of "religion".
& As i posted elsewhere even many atheist now admit they'd RATHER live in a nation where the ideals of Human equality and freedoms promoted by the BIBLE/Christianity are codified in LAW rather than in Muslim or WOKE versions of secular gov't..


The problem is that it some people hear that last part and think I'm talking about Making and FORCING NEW religious laws on people. and can't think strait to understand that What I'm really talking about Using the Websters dictionary of 1828 for definitions and generally going back the U.S. laws of 1970-1980 and of course the constitution (to clean up those laws even farther).

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/liberty

[fj1200]

OK Seriously,
Is YOUR PERSONAL VERSION of Life, Liberty, Property ...from last year your answer?
If so, no problem. Got it.
Just know, it's not well defined. And has no foundation... outside of the post Christian culture it sprung from.

Except for a Constitutional foundation that is.

Most Christians will come a lot closer to the same definitions than they would without Christianity.
...especially IF they're the types that actually follow though on their beliefs in all areas of life including politics.
You know, like conservative follow though on promoting & defending ALL of the constitution they love -cough-

& many Non-Christians already agree with many of the ideals and principals even if they don't necessarily want to live up to them themselves. they respect Jesus and the teachings of the Bible.
Many People who Cheat on their spouse will still say it's wrong, and have a natural disgust for some sexual practices.
Many Drinkers & Drug addict will agree that it's BETTER NOT to over drink/drug. and don't want their kids doing it.
Many people kinda get the idea that if everyone followed the 10 commandments & the the golden rule FROM THE BIBLE the world would be better off not worse. (even though they don't like the idea of "religion".
& As i posted elsewhere even many atheist now admit they'd RATHER live in a nation where the ideals of Human equality and freedoms promoted by the BIBLE/Christianity are codified in LAW rather than in Muslim or WOKE versions of secular gov't..

The problem is that it some people hear that last part and think I'm talking about Making and FORCING NEW religious laws on people. and can't think strait to understand that What I'm really talking about Using the Websters dictionary of 1828 for definitions and generally going back the U.S. laws of 1970-1980 and of course the constitution (to clean up those laws even farther).

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/liberty

I'm going to parrot Gunny here, you're kind of all over the place. Do I want laws with a biblical foundation? Maybe. It it great that atheists would like ideals based on the Bible/Christianity? Yes. Do I wish we had a society with a higher set of morality? Yes. Do I want to live in a theocracy? No. Can you mandate morality via definitions from 1828 and laws from 1970? No.

And FYI; your IF wasn't quite big enough up above. By orders of magnitude.

[revelarts]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...tle-text-block

The True Cost Of The Churchgoing Bust
theatlantic.com
" As an agnostic, I have spent most of my life thinking about the decline of faith in America in mostly positive terms. Organized religion seemed, to me, beset by scandal and entangled in noxious politics. So, I thought, what is there really to mourn? Only in the past few years have I come around to a different view. Maybe religion, for all of its faults, works a bit like a retaining wall to hold back the destabilizing pressure of American hyper-individualism, which threatens to swell and spill over in its absence...."

(the rest is behind sign up page/paywall)
Aaaand also commented on in the video below

[revelarts]

Just FYI

A Quick answer to the question, was the U.S. set up as a "Christian Nation".

https://rumble.com/v5bm991-was-the-u...ugh-reply.html

One of the items mentioned:
the "prayer" at the end of the Declaration of Independence.

...WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor....

others millage may vary.

BTW?
Did they Create a theocracy? Or Assume a Theocracy?
Since they publically appealed to the JUDGE of the World for help? AS representatives of the people of the U.S..

Did it HURT the efforts to mention God?

.....

Seems the 1st part of course makes it clear that the founders felt subject to God's laws in some form or fashion.

...WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of man- kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....

theocracy?

[fj1200]

theocracy?

Which theocrat was established as the head of government? Which religious governing body is the final word? By which religious tenets are we to be governed? Where can I find a listing of the laws I need to follow? Please refer further to the founding documents for my reference.