When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

«‹›33 »

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

Ephemeron posted:

Direct theocracy (i.e., a society ruled by an actual god or godlike entity) is a different matter. The closest implementation I can think of would be a society governed by a benevolent self-programming super-AI. However, at that point, I would expect humanity to evolve into a new posthuman species that would have no need for rulership or gods anyway.

We don't talk about the regrettable Deus Ex sequel, dude.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 20:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 09:30

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Captain_Maclaine posted:

We don't talk about the regrettable Deus Ex sequel, dude.

I think he's actually referencing the adventure game imagining of 'I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream' that came out in 1995 for PCs.

# ? Jul 21, 2014 20:59

buttcoin smuggler: Jun 25, 2011

buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Dec 29, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 04:50

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

The Catholic Church must be getting really desperate for fresh young children to ~~molest~~ convert.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 05:53

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Whatever happened to B-chan?

# ? Jul 22, 2014 12:56

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Ephemeron posted:

Direct theocracy (i.e., a society ruled by an actual god or godlike entity) is a different matter.

This got covered earlier, but more on it is probably good. That's what the roman cult of emperor was. Actual godlike entity as head of state of the entire world. Christianity inverts this, especially in Luke. That's why there is a birth narrative in Luke, because the Roman emperors had divine birth narrative, so the author would have wanted one for Jesus to make the comparison to emperor. One can find early Christian writings (clearest example Justin Martyr) talking about Jesus being born in a cave (strongly suggesting that Luke's birth narrative is constructed.) So there is evidence that it's fabricated and a reason to fabricate it.

Basically one of the gospels (Luke) is straight up constructed to subvert this idea of direct theocracy (Roman emperor as God) and even implies that the idea put Jesus on the cross. It's actually kind-of amazing how Christianity gets get used to justify the exact same empire later, given this.

# ? Jul 22, 2014 14:19

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

BrandorKP posted:

This got covered earlier, but more on it is probably good. That's what the roman cult of emperor was. Actual godlike entity as head of state of the entire world. Christianity inverts this, especially in Luke. That's why there is a birth narrative in Luke, because the Roman emperors had divine birth narrative, so the author would have wanted one for Jesus to make the comparison to emperor. One can find early Christian writings (clearest example Justin Martyr) talking about Jesus being born in a cave (strongly suggesting that Luke's birth narrative is constructed.) So there is evidence that it's fabricated and a reason to fabricate it.

Basically one of the gospels (Luke) is straight up constructed to subvert this idea of direct theocracy (Roman emperor as God) and even implies that the idea put Jesus on the cross. It's actually kind-of amazing how Christianity gets get used to justify the exact same empire later, given this.

What evidence? Luke doesn't say where Jesus was born. It's entirely possible he was born in a cave. Origen also said so. The Basilica of the Nativity was built over a cave.

Maybe the story of Jesus's birth came from his mother, who was an instrumental member of the early church?

# ? Jul 22, 2014 14:39

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Kyrie eleison posted:

What evidence? Luke doesn't say where Jesus was born. It's entirely possible he was born in a cave. Origen also said so. The Basilica of the Nativity was built over a cave.

Maybe the story of Jesus's birth came from his mother, who was an instrumental member of the early church?

Meh, I'm going from something I read by Crossan. There are two takes on Luke that I see that see right now. One is that Luke/Acts is intended to subvert and invert Roman archetypes for a Roman audience ( I'm biased towards that interpretation.) The other is that Luke/Acts is pro-Roman, the Kingdom is for good Roman Christians, it's a step towards Christianity being subverted into supporting empire that finishes with Constantine. In either case Romans are the audience and that's why there is a birth narrative in Luke and not in Mark or Matthew. And that actually (that there is no birth narrative in Mark or Matthew) is pretty good evidence for the birth narrative as a construction. Assuming one buys the methodology of the historical Jesus scholars (which I don't always). But I think they're right on this one.

And a manger from that time is pretty cave like from what I understand, it's sort of like a stone basement, on top of which was a building. In either case it's not the pastoral image most people have. It's a cold damp dark stone place.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 15:24

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Reminder that Jesus was a fictional character invented by the Romans to defuse Jewish revolts haha

# ? Jul 22, 2014 16:59

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Actually, you know what did happen after the Romans put down the Jewish revolts? They appropriated the whole Jewish Messiah myth. Vespasian is a claimant of the Jewish messiah myth according to Josephus. Well "according to" might not be accurate enough, "because of and facilitated" by Josephus would probably be better.

Edit: But seriously how do you read what I wrote and come to that conclusion?
Edit: and you do realize the Jewish revolts and Roman response are before (causative of) the gospels getting written right?

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 22, 2014

# ? Jul 22, 2014 17:15

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

buttcoin smuggler posted:

Catholicism rules.

On the other hand, ISIS radical Islam sucks.

# ? Jul 26, 2014 02:09

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

BrandorKP posted:

Edit: But seriously how do you read what I wrote and come to that conclusion?

By an intricate process known as "trolling yoooouuuu".

# ? Jul 26, 2014 02:55

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

The liberals here complain about China occupying Tibet and oppressing its people but Tibet was a Theocracy before it was annexed. Riddle me that.

# ? Jul 29, 2014 03:54

buttcoin smuggler: Jun 25, 2011

buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Dec 29, 2014

# ? Jul 29, 2014 08:46

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

How mysterious that liberals who claim to oppose rapacious imperialistic conquest are still opposed to rapacious imperialistic conquest even when they disagree with the conquered peoples' form of government. Explain that, liberals :smugdog:

Now let me tell you how a Christian Theocracy would be a pacific government with war as a last resort, and also how George Bush's invasion of Iraq was awesome...

# ? Jul 29, 2014 14:17

Vaall: Sep 17, 2014

Kyrie eleison posted:

I apologize in advance for this post.

I should just be honest, I am a homosexual. At least in part. I have known since I was young. And I suspect most men are, to some extent, even if they aren't fully aware of it, or don't want to admit it to themselves or to others. I think science such as Kinsey supports this. (This isn't meant to be a challenge to anyone, I just want to establish that I believe it to be a common temptation, despite the popular belief it is something only a small subset of men experience.)

I think homosexuality comes partly out of love, but partly out of sin. It is love that attracts us to someone's heart. It is love that breaks through the fear of betrayal. But my rational mind, which is in tune with truth, which is God, tells me that I should prefer a wife, and to try to have children. If I choose not to procreate, and universalize that principle, then I spell the separation of the sexes and the death of the species. If there is a cultural shift in which good people evade procreation, I believe the results will be nothing less than catastrophic. I can't endorse that. In short, I view it as an obligation to humanity itself, to the future, to harmony with the female sex, and to my family, to keep it going. It is a responsibility. My misgivings with women, born out of experience, will have to be worked through and laid aside in a spirit of humility, honesty, truth, and love, in the hopes of lasting union between the sexes. I know I can fall in love with women, I have done so many times before, I'm just afraid to try because I don't want to be hurt. My preference for men, who share so many of my interests, who are usually much kinder to my heart, must be kept at the boundary of sex. I must work hard and dutifully to achieve a sex life that does not make me feel unholy, and I should resist sex otherwise. I am grateful that my sin is not punishable by the state, or by the church, although I have to admit that would probably make it easier to avoid, but only out of fear, which corrupts the soul. It may be hard to face, but it is the truth, and I trust in God to get me through, and to never fear the truth, but to be humbled by it!

The words and actions of Christ tell us that the only moral alternative to marriage and (attempted) procreation is celibate devotion to God, which is actually held to be an even higher and more spiritual choice than marriage, because romance and sex are sacrificed. In practice, sexual activity is common amongst many supposedly celibate people, to the extent celibacy seems sometimes like a lie, an outer shield used to protect people from criticism rather than a true dedication. I cannot endorse a hypocritical and dishonest "celibacy" that is actually filled with sex, but I greatly respect the discipline of sincere spiritual abstinence, including from pornography and masturbation, in the same sense I respect fasting.

Of course, in these times, I interact with many openly homosexual people and find them to generally be very kind and fun. I am, in a sense, one of them. Some are members of my church community, and everyone gets along great there and supports one another. I support them against those who condemn them, I enjoy their company, and again, this is because of love. I think homosexual monogamy is less sinful than heterosexual promiscuity. So I believe it is a sin, a sin I myself commit, a sin I truly wish I did not, a sin I confess now and in the confessional, and a sin I pray to God to help me with. And I admire those who either commit to true celibacy, or achieve healthy marriages.

Sorry again for talking about myself so much, but homosexuality comes up a lot in relation to Christianity and it seemed appropriate and even necessary that I finally share my experience and thoughts on the issue. I hope my words do not inspire any sadness, that is not my intention. To address the point of your post a bit, I think Paul sometimes got angry with the church community's decadence and tried to keep it in line so it would leave a positive impression on the surrounding community. At times, he could be rough, it is true. My advice is to simply understand how he feels, know he is speaking from his heart, and realize that Paul himself, as I believe most men do, likely struggled with the issue.

Basically all I got out of this is that you're somewhat sympathetic towards homosexuals and gay sex because you're absolutely miserable around women and too afraid to initiate a relationship with one due to fear of rejection.

Jesus isn't the solution to this, growing balls is.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 09:30

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Vaall posted:

Basically all I got out of this is that you're somewhat sympathetic towards homosexuals and gay sex because you're absolutely miserable around women and too afraid to initiate a relationship with one due to fear of rejection.

Jesus isn't the solution to this, growing balls is.

Not really, it's really far back so I don't remember exactly what he said but he thinks gays having kids is wrong and bad.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 18:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

«‹›33 »