Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.
Ken

Ken, countries under sharia are not true theocracies, because they are not under God's rule. If you really want to know why Allah isn't God, we can start a new thread.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

I'd rather live in a country like the U.S. has been. Free to worship as we choose. Did we actually find something we agree on?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Your argument doesn't follow here, leaves me confused.
I'd like to see your argument in syllogistic form if you don't mind?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Your argument doesn't follow here, leaves me confused.
I'd like to see your argument in syllogistic form if you don't mind?

You bully! You know Kenny can't do that!

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Your argument doesn't follow here, leaves me confused.
I'd like to see your argument in syllogistic form if you don't mind?

I don't find it too tricky - he's just equating Christianity with all other religions (i.e. how is the Bible God's law any more than the Koran?)

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.
Ken

RickD wrote:Ken, countries under sharia are not true theocracies, because they are not under God's rule. If you really want to know why Allah isn't God, we can start a new thread.

I’m not interested in starting such a thread. Theocracies by definition can be applied to any religion/God; not just yours. But assuming we are referring to your God, do you really want the man in power to dictate how you worship, interpret the Bible, etc?

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

RickD wrote:I'd rather live in a country like the U.S. has been. Free to worship as we choose. Did we actually find something we agree on?

[/quote]
Wow! Are you actually agreeing with me? With as much back and forth we’ve been doing It was liable to happen eventually. Like they say in America; even a blind man with enough bullets will eventually hit something. (LOL) Just joking my friend; just joking

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Your argument doesn't follow here, leaves me confused.
I'd like to see your argument in syllogistic form if you don't mind?

How about this:
*A theocracy is when the men in power claim to rule according to God’s law.
*Under Sharia law, the men in power claim to rule according to God’s law
*Sharia law is a theocracy.

Ken

Ken,

This is how the term "theocracy" came about. And it tells what a true theocracy is. So, even though the term has been bastardized over the centuries, it does have a real meaning:

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule." Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).

The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century A.D. to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. The government of the Jews, however, was unique. Josephus offered the term "theocracy" to describe this polity, ordained by Moses, in which God is sovereign and his word is law.[6]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Your argument doesn't follow here, leaves me confused.
I'd like to see your argument in syllogistic form if you don't mind?

How about this:
*A theocracy is when the men in power claim to rule according to God’s law.
*Under Sharia law, the men in power claim to rule according to God’s law
*Sharia law is a theocracy.

Ken

So, then, what purpose is there in defining a theocracy?
I'm still not sure about what you are arguing for/against.

I'll assume Sharia law is a theocracy. What then?

RickD wrote:Ken,

This is how the term "theocracy" came about. And it tells what a true theocracy is. So, even though the term has been bastardized over the centuries, it does have a real meaning:

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule." Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).

The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century A.D. to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. The government of the Jews, however, was unique. Josephus offered the term "theocracy" to describe this polity, ordained by Moses, in which God is sovereign and his word is law.[6]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Even then, God didn't speak from the clouds providing rules for people to follow, you had a man in power using the holy book claiming God says this and God says that; right?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.

Of course they are. Sharia law is an example of men in power interpreting God’s laws and imposing them on their subjects. Because God doesn’t speak from the sky, men in a position of power speak for him; men you may disagree with. You can call it a false theocracy all you want and it will do no good because they will call it a true and your ideas false, so who will win out? The one with most power.

Would you want to live in a society where the bible is interpreted by men in power? Or would you rather live in a society where the men in power don’t interpret the Bible; they allow you to do it in the privacy of your own home or church?

Ken

Your argument doesn't follow here, leaves me confused.
I'd like to see your argument in syllogistic form if you don't mind?

How about this:
*A theocracy is when the men in power claim to rule according to God’s law.
*Under Sharia law, the men in power claim to rule according to God’s law
*Sharia law is a theocracy.

Ken

So, then, what purpose is there in defining a theocracy?
I'm still not sure about what you are arguing for/against.

I'll assume Sharia law is a theocracy. What then?

I made the claim the theocracies of today and those of history didn't work very well. He is offering his objections.

Ken

Well the argument I kind of detected being made was at its base:

• If God is used only as a tool to rule and increase power, then such is a pile of dog poo and should be rejected.
  People have used "God beliefs" for power and ruling. Therefore, no religion should never be allowed to rule.

The issue is that, no religion has ever ruled. Rather men have.
Has mankind ever got it right secular or non-secular?

Seems power, greed and whatever tool is available gets in the way.
Interestingly the first part of the Christian message seems to ring try that all have sinned, are sinners...
Sorry to quote Scripture here, but a passage came to mind:

• “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
  
  11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
  THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
  
  12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
  THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
  THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
  
  13“THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
  WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
  “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
  
  14“WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
  
  15“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
  
  16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
  
  17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
  
  18“THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”

AND, if you'd like to debate of what kind of government with certain ideals is the worst
-- those who have appears to have some beliefs in God (i.e,. "theocracies") or those that have been largely secular --
just Google "biggest mass murderers".

Governments have seemed much more cruel and cold when "God" is blocked out.

What I'd support is a Christocracy.
And I welcome the day it comes.

Men and women will never get it right.
So who are you going to trust as far as governing is concerned?
I don't trust any one.

Kurieuo wrote:Well the argument I kind of detected being made was at its base:

• If God is used only as a tool to rule and increase power, then such is a pile of dog poo and should be rejected.
  People have used "God beliefs" for power and ruling. Therefore, no religion should never be allowed to rule.

The issue is that, no religion has ever ruled. Rather men have.
Has mankind ever got it right secular or non-secular?

Seems power, greed and whatever tool is available gets in the way.
Interestingly the first part of the Christian message seems to ring try that all have sinned, are sinners...
Sorry to quote Scripture here, but a passage came to mind:

• “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
  
  11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
  THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
  
  12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
  THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
  THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
  
  13“THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
  WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
  “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
  
  14“WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
  
  15“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
  
  16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
  
  17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
  
  18“THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”

AND, if you'd like to debate of what kind of government with certain ideals is the worst
-- those who have appears to have some beliefs in God (i.e,. "theocracies") or those that have been largely secular --
just Google "biggest mass murderers".

Governments have seemed much more cruel and cold when "God" is blocked out.

What I'd support is a Christocracy.
And I welcome the day it comes.

Men and women will never get it right.
So who are you going to trust as far as governing is concerned?
I don't trust any one.

Not sure how you are defining "Christocracy" but judging from human track record; do you that is a realistic option? Seems to me the only options allowed by mankind are theocracies as implemented in the past and present, and secular as implemented in the past and present.

Ken

Yes, but I think you misunderstand.
The Christocracy will come when all is said and done, right?
Things will be setup correctly and God's kingdom will be revealed to all.
At least, if I'm right and my hope isn't in vain.

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, but I think you misunderstand.
The Christocracy will come when all is said and done, right?
Things will be setup correctly and God's kingdom will be revealed to all.
At least, if I'm right and my hope isn't in vain.

Okay; I get cha! But that's a different discussion though.

K