Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Monergist, Dec 3, 2004.
Complete Article Found HERE
Basing your point on a couple of pat phases isn't much of a support; democracy would seem to me to be quite removed from theocratic rule, as it puts decisionmaking in the hands of individual choice, which although possibly religious, is still a fragmented agency.
You're not a fan of Francis, are you?
He was useful to the Kingdom of God and was usually on-track in his thinking. I would call him one of the handful of great Christian thinkers of the past century.
If you;ll read the entire article I think you'll find mere than a couple pat phrases-- thats not to say that you will agree, of course.
Theocracy inescapable? I don't think so. I think our founding ideals were Christian in character but not theocratic. The idea of the sovereignty of the individual correlates to the priesthood of the believer. We each have rights, choices, and responsibilities. Our Founders removed government to the greatest degree they could from between man and his god/God.
Democracy is inherently theocratic- secular democracy even more so. Secular democracy assigns the attribute of divine wisdom to 50%+1 of the population.
How so? I found his 'God is just there' approach to be a non-approach to God's nature, and combined with his disdain for anything secular and any debate on the matter to be fairly disturbing.
It functions off of a couple of fallacies; first, it assumes that all other governments are theocracies, which is patently false (def: A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.) and second, it poses a 'two-wrongs' argument which brings up supposed problems with other so-called 'theocracies' without examining the issues with their own.