Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to THE USA NOT FOUNDED BY CHRISTIAN IDEAS, FOR GOD DOES NOT GO FOR DEMOCRACY
actually kid
i understand what you are talking about even if it doesn't seem so.
you are questioning Christians who uphold Democracy when they will tell you that there is no Democracy in the Bible. Many even go so far as to propose a theocracy -- because that is God's government.
Hidden (actually not hidden -- not emphasized) in the pages of the Old TEstament and the New TEstament are scattered items (as I outlined below) demonstrating a solid preference for Democracy.
I forgot to mention that the proto-Israelites were Semitic peoples, and it is common knowledge that Democracy was extant among Semitic peoples about that time. The city-state of Ebla (ruins found in Syria) was one of those Democracies. A huge library of cuneiform tablets was found in the tel that outline this.
One other thing is the word for church in the New TEstament: EKKLESIA. This means, basically, people called out of the populace for a certain purpose. Ekklesia in the First Century was (outside of the first century believers) assemblages of Freemen (not slaves and not woman) gathered for the purpose of voting on an issue. Personally I don't see why this word was used for the believers if they also did not have a similar democratic form. In Acts, ekklesia is also translated as "assembly" to describe a pretty disorganized meeting of the people in a colosseum in Antioch, I believe, where the people considered Paul's preaching.
even the words Episcopos and Presbyterios have a more or less democratic origin, these words used for the English titles of Bishop, etc. These were people that rose through the ranks, having been recognized by their peers as having more spiritual insight than others.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 8, 2004 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Another post of intelligent Reason
Kooka. In America, we take for granted the freedoms our founding fathers gave us--and because we brought the ideas of Christianity with us from Europe. But they tried to separate the governance of man from the dictates of theocracy by puting the first amendment in the Constitution. Christian Americans don't understand the pickle they are in. They embrace our way of life and liberty but go to church and sing hymns to a King of King and the glory of following his commands. From my post Foundation of Fear you can read:
Under Christian doctrine, the Declaration of Independence could not have been written, to the contrary, the colonial subjects would have obeyed the words of Jesus, in Matthew 22:21, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which is Caesar's" or, render unto King George, that which is King George's, or as Paul writes in Colossians 3:22, "Servants, obey in all things your masters." Had the American colonists looked to the Christian Bible for guidance in dealing with the monarchy of England there would have been no Independence Day, for they would have read instructions compelling them to obey their God- ordained Sovereign, King George, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme. . ."(1 Peter 2:13) and as found in additional scripture of the New Testament, Romans 13:1-7:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation . . . Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Likewise, the Constitution would have had more language of religion, Christianity, to solidify the power of a deity over the affairs of man--but the Founding Fathers saw and knew the history of such government having come from England where the Protestants and Catholics regularly killed each other in order to prove the supremacy of their faith. American Christians don't want to examin this for what it is. So, we let the Catholics come, we let the revival cults spring up and prosper, we let eastern philosophy take root and even welcome Muslims to live here. This is because we have "religious freedom" and this is what the Christian Right want to bring to an end. The marriage amendment is simply a means to codify a Christian Ideal into the Constitution so that later they can add other restrictions on personal liberty. Like outlawing divorce, for example. (I know this is a side comment, about the marriage amendment, but it is the proof that the Christian Right is trying to bring thier beliefs as the law of the land).
Thanks again for a great post
Freerain
posted by
freerain
on November 7, 2004 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
kooka
I meant that our legal system is based on moral law, that we should treat each other as we should be treated, and that it comes from the natural order that to survive we must support our family or social unit.
posted by
pappy
on November 6, 2004 at 11:26 AM
| link to this | reply
But my husband knows me better than most people at this point in my life.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 6, 2004 at 10:03 AM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
Are we not all present?
In some ways Bush is not present in my life. He is far away. Yet he is in charge. I think just being present is a poor reason as to why you let someone be in charge.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 6, 2004 at 9:28 AM
| link to this | reply
OK, rather than decide who should be in charge according to who is the smartest, I decided the person who is in charge should be... present.
I guess I don't know how to answer your delimma though. Best of luck.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 6, 2004 at 9:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
Are you therefore saying husband should rule? Is that the only needed qualification? Should I be able to walk down the street and rule over all those who are not husbands? Among us husbands, how should we decide who rules?
I'll make sure my wife knows that you think I should rule. Now to get my boys to believe that as well.
I really do not see how any of that works with the posts though.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 6, 2004 at 9:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, kooka, you were talking about who should be in charge of things, and after living in the world for so many years, I simply decided that my husband should be in charge of everything because he's actually here. :)
posted by
TARZANA
on November 6, 2004 at 8:37 AM
| link to this | reply
pappy
Okay.
I know of many very foolish people who have lived long lives.
Although I am a little unclear as to what your comment has to do with my post.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 6, 2004 at 8:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-F
That made aboslutly no sense. Was there a point to what you were saying?
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 6, 2004 at 8:28 AM
| link to this | reply
laws vs. rules
You seem to overlook the distinction between the natural laws and the rules that surround them. The law of gravity is morally neutral, but handrails on stairways are legally required for our safety and well-being. Death comes to the wise and foolish alike, but long life is within the grasp of all who would pursue it.
posted by
pappy
on November 6, 2004 at 7:05 AM
| link to this | reply
That's right. You don't even have that option.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 8:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Y-L-A
I have no husband.
I am a heterosexual man.
So I really can not do such a thing.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 8:11 AM
| link to this | reply
(Bows respectfully in Japanese fashion) Yes, you are intelligent and should be free to be happy. I too am amongst the top 10 percent in intelligence, yet I have gained an advantage over you - I've elected my husband as King of All of Everything. He's permanent and he cares about me too. Can you, Kooka, do the same now? Tee hee.
posted by
TARZANA
on November 5, 2004 at 7:48 AM
| link to this | reply
ok
deuteronomy 1:12-14 -- Moses tells the people to choose (vs 13) -- outlines attributes.
similar language is used later in reference to choosing judges (as in the book of Judges)
I Samuel 8:11-18 and Deuteronomy 17:14-17 give a not so pretty description of what a king will do.
Acts 6:3 -- the people chose their own deacons.
Revelaton 2:17 -- that "white stone" is recognized as a stone of voting --
but otherwise you are right
autocracy does rule in the pages of the Bible -- those who prevailed describe an autocratic government and god.
and there are those who do feel that theocracy is the right form of government, with God (Trinity) at the top and a human representative at the top of the human government who is most in contact with god. this is from perceptions of the Bible and does certainly go against Democracy.
of course this raises questions and a hornets nest -- so I will do neither.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 5, 2004 at 7:32 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree with you on this
Church and state should be seperate. I also think that our freedom will decline in the future if things stay the way they are.
posted by
Sherri_G
on November 5, 2004 at 6:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Justsouno
No, democracy is about the rights of the people. Right now we are told that 85% of the USA is Christians. Does that mean that if those 85% want to turn us into a Christian theocracy (Which it is clear they really do desire this right now) that they can? No, because that would violate the rights of the other 15%. Majority only has say on issues that do not violate the rights of the individual. That is why laws can be over ruled by the Supreme Court if they are found to be unconstitutional. We elect leaders and pass laws through majority rules, but are not allowed to deny even the smallest of our population their freedoms and rights.
The Bible defends the idea of ruling through one person who is in contact with God (Which I think is one reason so many fundamentalist liked Bush, since Bush was claiming to be doing his actions because it was the will of God. I they fell for that line of BS and did not see it for the
manipulation that it was) and so it goes against the idea of man ruling for himself, but rather man ruling by God's word. In that kind of system, there is no need for democracy. When God says that a person should rule, you do not ask questions but let that person rule. The people do not get a say in that. God does not care about the individuals rights or say, but instead continually tells man who it is who should rule over him.
I have read all of Genesis. And no point does God allow for man to rule himself and make his own rules. God is constantly there to tell man what he should do and show that he does not get to decided things for himself. You see actions speak louder than words. Very often God is very full of hot air in the Bible. He says stuff that everyone would like to believe, but rarely acts on it all.
God, the Bible and all the teachings there-in go against the ideas of democracy and against the idea of individuals rights and freedoms.
I want in place laws that follow the ideas of our country. It matters not how many want them, but that they follow the concepts of freedom and rights for every person to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It seems fairly obvious to me that a large amount of our population does not understand this concept and are opposed to giving such rights to those they disagree with. That is not the ideas our of country, unless you wish to do away with the concept of freedom and such, in place of your theocracy.
I had already planned on writing a post that does somewhat deal with this issue today when I find the time.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 5, 2004 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
Considering that you were as smart as you propose to be, and having read the Bible as much as you would have us believe than you would know that God gave total rule to man. You obviously did not read Genesis 3:26. Also you did not get it. You can not get it. It is kept apart for those who have what is called the second blessing, or Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and dwells in those who are in relationship with Jesus. Democracy does not allow the right to do any vulgar thing you want to anyone you want. Is there a possibility you are confusing Democracy with Socialism? In a Democracy (Republic) the majority rules. You want in place things and laws that only a small portion want. You appear to want it both ways. That cannot happen.
posted by
Justi
on November 4, 2004 at 11:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Jefferson the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence
was an atheist. tg
posted by
tbgroucho
on November 4, 2004 at 10:42 PM
| link to this | reply
eumaeus
I've read a fair amount of the Bible. That is how I know it does not follow the ideas of democracy one bit. I am very curious as to where you think it does. Please feel free to post what parts you seem to think go against what I have said in this post.
posted by
kooka_lives
on November 4, 2004 at 8:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Read This
http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp
posted by
eumaeus
on November 4, 2004 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
What, you don't want to live under a king?
Come to think of it, I wouldn't either. Especially if he weighed a lot.
posted by
roofpig
on November 4, 2004 at 5:40 PM
| link to this | reply