The people as God isn’t the only “atheocratic” option… it is just on the menu.
Although it has been claimed by some (out host) that all government is by the consent of the governed.
Kevin Brendler
6 years ago
“Theocracy is necessary and inescapable.”
Are we to understand Theocracy here in the same way propounded by RJ Rushdoony and the Reconstructionists, as the crowning realization of the post-millenial hope? Is the civil polity of Israel in view here as the substance of the “necessary and inescapable” theocratic government?
Or is the point more general that the god of a nation will inevitably be manifest in the nation’s laws and civil government?
I’m curious what the General envisions as a Theocracy, beyond the vanilla conception of a state ruled by God.
Perhaps we could disagree about the crowning realization of the post-millenial hope, though I espouse that position, but the real issue is whether God’s Law reigns or something else. Either we use the revealed Law of a loving God, or the precepts of men who are neither loving nor authoritative.
randallmanntoo
6 years ago
Thank you for that distinction. Allahu akbar does have a certain ring to it…
Your secular theocracy is likely far worse than any Islamic one.
In fact, it has been tried a couple of times, USSR, North Korea, China. I think I would prefer just about anything else over those wonderful bastions of freedom.
Your tired trope of a tu quoque aside, being a bad actor who is lacking a belief in one particular supernatural being is quite different that one who acts because of a belief in a supernatural being. Sorry you are unable to parse the difference.
Also, I would be careful what you all wish for with regard to championing theocracy over the pluralistic protections of democracy you receive. After all, who knows? You might just finally realize your persecuted christian fetish after all.
No. No it wasn’t used correctly. Kilgore wasn’t saying you were wrong because you don’t act consistently with your own argument. He’s saying history has shown secularism is not a source of freedom or goodness. I suspect you just genuinely misunderstood his point. ” being a bad actor who is lacking a belief in one particular supernatural being is quite different that one who acts because of a belief in a supernatural being. Sorry you are unable to parse the difference.” He’s claiming that there is no significant difference. Simply restating that you believe otherwise is not an argument, and… Read more »
My reference was not about his response, but about the nature of the tired atheist atrocity fallacy itself which is riddled with other fallacies, tu quoque aside. Let’s start with the false analogy fallacy. Kilgore would have to show that atheism is a religion. It’s very definition stiff-arms that attempt as it is not a system of beliefs, but an absence of belief in a supernatural deity. Nothing more nothing less. Then there is the false cause fallacy hiding in plain sight there: Mao, Stalin and Kim Jong Il are all non- leprechaunists, so lack of belief in leprechauns causes… Read more »
I wasn’t trying to make an argument. I was trying to make fun of you.
Now, you must know that my intent was not malicious. I doubt you are willing to reflect on the weak argument you presented, but my goal was to hopefully cut through the sophistry and perhaps make you think.
“I maintain is that it is absurd to blame atheism for anything. ” A position taken by just about every Atheist on the planet, and a position virtually anyone else would be laughed out of public discourse for taking. “Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural being. I know you christians don’t like that. You seem to need ‘the absence of’ to be a ‘religion’ so you can hit it with a stick. Ironic.” This is a twist away from why I used it in context. I was merely expressing something I’m sure you agree with, that… Read more »
I have made many points.You have misrepresented many of them so let me recap: To call ‘lack of belief’ in something ‘belief’ is intellectually blinkered. But I guess in christian apologetics class it is de rigueur. Being an atheist is not incompatible with anything else except faith in a supernatural being. I have hashed over one’s christian duty to prove the negative of there not being a basis for me to have morality with katecho ad nauseam. Feel free to search for it. Again what an atheist will say (just like proof for god) is that no such proof has… Read more »
I maintain is that it is absurd to blame atheism for anything. It is confused to seek to ‘find atheism interesting enough to do anything’. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural being. I know you christians don’t like that. You seem to need ‘the absence of’ to be a ‘religion’ so you can hit it with a stick. Ironic. You mash up many things into a confusion stew here: You have a false equivalence problem. You complain that not believing in something because there is no evidence for it should be equivalent to claiming something exists.… Read more »
I maintain is that it is absurd to blame atheism for anything. This is why I didn’t make an argument. You have psychologically insulated your worldview from any criticism. In that view, you are being sophomoric. The only thing to do in a case like this is to highlight the intellectual emptiness of your thinking. You seem to need ‘the absence of’ to be a ‘religion’ so you can hit it with a stick. You are again trying to hide your worldview from critique. This is intellectual sophistry. Do you honestly suggest that atheists don’t have beliefs? You don’t sincerely… Read more »
So much assumption and misrepresentation here. I have never said that no other plane of existence doesn’t exist, merely there is not proof for one. Why should I deal with something for which there is absolutely zero proof?
What repercussions does a lack of creator have?
Show me where I have said that atheists don’t have beliefs.
How does not believing in a supernatural intercessory deity place one in a vacuum? What vacuum?
What is my worldview other than I don’t believe in supernatural beings?
You provide very little substance and your retreat to insults shows your lack of game.
That pluralistic democracy is eroding away our liberties, killed nearly 60 million babies since Roe, enslaving us in debt, and destroying the family at the pluralistic impulses of human desires. But other than that, yes, it’s superb and grand.
Abortion rates are roughly the same in countries whether legal or illegal. Making birth control widespread and easily accessible is actually the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate- you advocating for that in sunday school brother?
Guttmacher Institue study via World Health Organization . https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide “When countries are grouped according to the grounds under which the procedure is legal, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age where it is prohibited altogether or allowed only to save a woman’s life, compared with 34 per 1,000 where it is available on request, a nonsignificant difference.” Making birth control widespread and easily accessible is the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate. Combined with the actual statistics above, If you are not a birth control booster than you are actively supporting increased abortion rates.… Read more »
Our current government is no less a theocracy than anything else. It’s just a religion founded on relativism. Without an accurate concept of God, God’s role in morality is taken up by man. Since men now have no external arbiter of morality, majority rules. If you go against the commonly accepted orthodoxy of that year, and I do mean year literally, you’re cast out as a heretic and violating any right of yours is perfectly acceptable.
And an apple is no less an orange than anything else. As long as you open up the definition of orange to include just about any fruit at all. I am fairly certain that if islamists were the majority in the US, you would be singing a different tune, my point. It’s easy to play persecuted christian and pine for a biblical republic when you are the majority religion in a country. Adjacently, what moral act via your belief in your supernatural deity do you have access to that I do not with my lack of belief? I am glad… Read more »
You are one of the most relentless creators of straw men I’ve ever seen. A great feat indeed. “And an apple is no less an orange than anything else. As long as you open up the definition of orange to include just about any fruit at all.” This is not a rebuttal of my argument. This, as with many of your posts, is just contradiction. “I am fairly certain that if islamists were the majority in the US, you would be singing a different tune, my point. ” Different than what? Do you mean to say I would support secularism… Read more »
Of course it is not meant as a rebuttal. Just pointing out the absurdity in calling one thing another- as you do often.
Meaning Wilson boosts the idea of theocracy as long as the ‘right’ flunkies of god are calling the shots.
You would long for the concept of pluralism and freedom to practice your religion if you were living under Islamist government. Yes, that is what I am saying. Yet you whine about ‘secular religion’. Talk about a straw man.
Kilgore T. Durden
6 years ago
This is very well said. God’s Law reigns. But God’s church plays a distinct role from the state.
Charles Anthony
6 years ago
OK. So, those 2 words have 2 different meanings! There are infinite types of —cracy states and most of their actors pose as something other than what they truly are.
Does the book answer the following question:
How does an honorable Christian recognize a “theocracy” as distinct from an “ecclesiocracy” state?
?
Theocracy is necessary… the atheocracy version of this* is particularly appalling.
*The God is better known as Autos.
Or demos, it’s explicit…
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
I didn’t realty think Mao was Demos
The people as God isn’t the only “atheocratic” option… it is just on the menu.
Although it has been claimed by some (out host) that all government is by the consent of the governed.
“Theocracy is necessary and inescapable.”
Are we to understand Theocracy here in the same way propounded by RJ Rushdoony and the Reconstructionists, as the crowning realization of the post-millenial hope? Is the civil polity of Israel in view here as the substance of the “necessary and inescapable” theocratic government?
Or is the point more general that the god of a nation will inevitably be manifest in the nation’s laws and civil government?
I’m curious what the General envisions as a Theocracy, beyond the vanilla conception of a state ruled by God.
Yes and yes.
Perhaps we could disagree about the crowning realization of the post-millenial hope, though I espouse that position, but the real issue is whether God’s Law reigns or something else. Either we use the revealed Law of a loving God, or the precepts of men who are neither loving nor authoritative.
Thank you for that distinction. Allahu akbar does have a certain ring to it…
Your secular theocracy is likely far worse than any Islamic one.
In fact, it has been tried a couple of times, USSR, North Korea, China. I think I would prefer just about anything else over those wonderful bastions of freedom.
Your tired trope of a tu quoque aside, being a bad actor who is lacking a belief in one particular supernatural being is quite different that one who acts because of a belief in a supernatural being. Sorry you are unable to parse the difference.
Also, I would be careful what you all wish for with regard to championing theocracy over the pluralistic protections of democracy you receive. After all, who knows? You might just finally realize your persecuted christian fetish after all.
Lol!
You sound like a college sophomore who just learned a Latin phrase. You need to learn what that fallacy actually means.
Used quite correctly. So I guess a flaccid ad hom is all you can muster?
No. No it wasn’t used correctly. Kilgore wasn’t saying you were wrong because you don’t act consistently with your own argument. He’s saying history has shown secularism is not a source of freedom or goodness. I suspect you just genuinely misunderstood his point. ” being a bad actor who is lacking a belief in one particular supernatural being is quite different that one who acts because of a belief in a supernatural being. Sorry you are unable to parse the difference.” He’s claiming that there is no significant difference. Simply restating that you believe otherwise is not an argument, and… Read more »
My reference was not about his response, but about the nature of the tired atheist atrocity fallacy itself which is riddled with other fallacies, tu quoque aside. Let’s start with the false analogy fallacy. Kilgore would have to show that atheism is a religion. It’s very definition stiff-arms that attempt as it is not a system of beliefs, but an absence of belief in a supernatural deity. Nothing more nothing less. Then there is the false cause fallacy hiding in plain sight there: Mao, Stalin and Kim Jong Il are all non- leprechaunists, so lack of belief in leprechauns causes… Read more »
I wasn’t trying to make an argument. I was trying to make fun of you.
Now, you must know that my intent was not malicious. I doubt you are willing to reflect on the weak argument you presented, but my goal was to hopefully cut through the sophistry and perhaps make you think.
You only made me think that you have nothing to say. What is weak about my argument? I just laid out how empty yours is. Why not respond to that.
“I maintain is that it is absurd to blame atheism for anything. ” A position taken by just about every Atheist on the planet, and a position virtually anyone else would be laughed out of public discourse for taking. “Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural being. I know you christians don’t like that. You seem to need ‘the absence of’ to be a ‘religion’ so you can hit it with a stick. Ironic.” This is a twist away from why I used it in context. I was merely expressing something I’m sure you agree with, that… Read more »
I have made many points.You have misrepresented many of them so let me recap: To call ‘lack of belief’ in something ‘belief’ is intellectually blinkered. But I guess in christian apologetics class it is de rigueur. Being an atheist is not incompatible with anything else except faith in a supernatural being. I have hashed over one’s christian duty to prove the negative of there not being a basis for me to have morality with katecho ad nauseam. Feel free to search for it. Again what an atheist will say (just like proof for god) is that no such proof has… Read more »
I maintain is that it is absurd to blame atheism for anything. It is confused to seek to ‘find atheism interesting enough to do anything’. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural being. I know you christians don’t like that. You seem to need ‘the absence of’ to be a ‘religion’ so you can hit it with a stick. Ironic. You mash up many things into a confusion stew here: You have a false equivalence problem. You complain that not believing in something because there is no evidence for it should be equivalent to claiming something exists.… Read more »
I maintain is that it is absurd to blame atheism for anything. This is why I didn’t make an argument. You have psychologically insulated your worldview from any criticism. In that view, you are being sophomoric. The only thing to do in a case like this is to highlight the intellectual emptiness of your thinking. You seem to need ‘the absence of’ to be a ‘religion’ so you can hit it with a stick. You are again trying to hide your worldview from critique. This is intellectual sophistry. Do you honestly suggest that atheists don’t have beliefs? You don’t sincerely… Read more »
So much assumption and misrepresentation here. I have never said that no other plane of existence doesn’t exist, merely there is not proof for one. Why should I deal with something for which there is absolutely zero proof?
What repercussions does a lack of creator have?
Show me where I have said that atheists don’t have beliefs.
How does not believing in a supernatural intercessory deity place one in a vacuum? What vacuum?
What is my worldview other than I don’t believe in supernatural beings?
You provide very little substance and your retreat to insults shows your lack of game.
That pluralistic democracy is eroding away our liberties, killed nearly 60 million babies since Roe, enslaving us in debt, and destroying the family at the pluralistic impulses of human desires. But other than that, yes, it’s superb and grand.
Abortion rates are roughly the same in countries whether legal or illegal. Making birth control widespread and easily accessible is actually the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate- you advocating for that in sunday school brother?
Where do you get this (literally) incredible statistic about abortion? It seems very unlikely to me.
Guttmacher Institue study via World Health Organization . https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide “When countries are grouped according to the grounds under which the procedure is legal, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age where it is prohibited altogether or allowed only to save a woman’s life, compared with 34 per 1,000 where it is available on request, a nonsignificant difference.” Making birth control widespread and easily accessible is the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate. Combined with the actual statistics above, If you are not a birth control booster than you are actively supporting increased abortion rates.… Read more »
Our current government is no less a theocracy than anything else. It’s just a religion founded on relativism. Without an accurate concept of God, God’s role in morality is taken up by man. Since men now have no external arbiter of morality, majority rules. If you go against the commonly accepted orthodoxy of that year, and I do mean year literally, you’re cast out as a heretic and violating any right of yours is perfectly acceptable.
And an apple is no less an orange than anything else. As long as you open up the definition of orange to include just about any fruit at all. I am fairly certain that if islamists were the majority in the US, you would be singing a different tune, my point. It’s easy to play persecuted christian and pine for a biblical republic when you are the majority religion in a country. Adjacently, what moral act via your belief in your supernatural deity do you have access to that I do not with my lack of belief? I am glad… Read more »
You are one of the most relentless creators of straw men I’ve ever seen. A great feat indeed. “And an apple is no less an orange than anything else. As long as you open up the definition of orange to include just about any fruit at all.” This is not a rebuttal of my argument. This, as with many of your posts, is just contradiction. “I am fairly certain that if islamists were the majority in the US, you would be singing a different tune, my point. ” Different than what? Do you mean to say I would support secularism… Read more »
“Now you’re just making things up to argue against.”
There’s a word for that….begins with an F. It’ll come to me.
Of course it is not meant as a rebuttal. Just pointing out the absurdity in calling one thing another- as you do often.
Meaning Wilson boosts the idea of theocracy as long as the ‘right’ flunkies of god are calling the shots.
You would long for the concept of pluralism and freedom to practice your religion if you were living under Islamist government. Yes, that is what I am saying. Yet you whine about ‘secular religion’. Talk about a straw man.
This is very well said. God’s Law reigns. But God’s church plays a distinct role from the state.
OK. So, those 2 words have 2 different meanings! There are infinite types of —cracy states and most of their actors pose as something other than what they truly are.
Does the book answer the following question:
How does an honorable Christian recognize a “theocracy” as distinct from an “ecclesiocracy” state?
?
I recommend reading it. It’s a great book.