Does following Christ mean regressing human societal progres

[rikuoamero]

Okay first off, I tried to think of the best way to title this post and ended up leaving off an s at the end of progress. So please, don't try and correct me on my spelling! It's intentional since I couldn't fit it in.

Okay, in the other topic I created today, tam said the following

If perhaps you want to know the difference between someone who is in Him and someone who is not ... those who belong to Him rule with Him as kings and priests in His Kingdom.

That got me thinking. Today, (in the Western world at least), we have moved beyond the concepts of kingdoms, priests and kings. There is of course the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has the monarch as being both the head of the Church of England and as a ceremonial head of government, not just for the UK but for the Commonwealth. But governments today are democracies. We do not have priests in official government roles, at least officially not exercising their government office while at the same time wearing their priest hat.
This is the system we have now because we've learned (at least I hope we have) that having a system of government where there is a king (or kings plural as tam says for some reason) and priests is not a good idea. I will not go into the reasons why.
My question is - does the quote from tam indicate that in the afterlife, what we as humans have achieved here on Earth will be regressed, back to a monarchical theocracy? Does this mean that such a person is really against human societal progress?
Why this concept of a Kingdom of Heaven? Why is there no talk of a Republic of Heaven? (I strongly recommend to readers to read Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, one of my favourite trilogies ever). Why this imagining of what sounds to me to be an authoritative/tyrannical system of government, in an eternal after-life that is supposed to be pleasant? Why would such a system be needed?
In fact...why would the after-life even need a government at all, now that I think about it?

[Paprika]

My question is - does the quote from tam indicate that in the afterlife, what we as humans have achieved here on Earth will be regressed, back to a monarchical theocracy?

Progress, you mean.

Does this mean that such a person is really against human societal progress?

No, it means that the person sees through the modern Lies, which include the Theocracy Bogeyman.

Why this concept of a Kingdom of Heaven? Why is there no talk of a Republic of Heaven?

Because God is not elected.

Why this imagining of what sounds to me to be an authoritative/tyrannical system of government, in an eternal after-life that is supposed to be pleasant? Why would such a system be needed?

Because order, authority and hierarchy is not intrinsically bad.

In fact...why would the after-life even need a government at all, now that I think about it?

'...have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth...'

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Paprika]

Progress, you mean.

This ought to be a startling admission but it's not. That there are Christians who long for a monarchical theocracy and view moves to make it happen to be progress.
I'm not the biggest fan of democracy, but I view it as being a whole lot better than a monarchical theocracy.

No, it means that the person sees through the modern Lies, which includes the Theocracy Bogeyman.

How can it be a bogeyman when we have learned from history that every nation that was a theocracy was not a great time for human rights and societal progress? That whenever rights and progress happened, it happened in spite of the theocracy, and not as a benefit from it?
In my eyes, a theocracy is anti-thetical to human rights. They cannot mix.

Because God is not elected.

Replace God with any other noun, and you have just described a tyranny. To say God is to invite special pleading.

Because order, authority and hierarchy is not intrinsically bad.

You have just equated order/authority/hierarchy with monarchical theocracy, as if to say O/A/H cannot be had in a democracy. They can. They are. This is a fact that is evident in the real world. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than what happened in virtually every other theocracy.

'...have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth...'

Yes, respond to the atheist by simply giving a Bible quote, with no follow up. That'll work

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

When I look at the trends in politics it is heading back to autocratic rule. Democracy seems more than ever an 'opium for the masses'. It is a great big weird social experiment where the fantasy seems to be that people can simply vote to be wealthy.

I wouldn't put any hope in government, which is another 'opium for the masses'. Fortunately nothing has changed. We will be judged by our individual actions and those that have many will be judged more and we will be saved by grace.

Democracy might even be viewed as a historical anachronism in the future and a failed experiment of a regressive society.

[Paprika]

This ought to be a startling admission but it's not. That there are Christians who long for a monarchical theocracy and view moves to make it happen to be progress.
I'm not the biggest fan of democracy, but I view it as being a whole lot better than a monarchical theocracy.

How can it be a bogeyman when we have learned from history that every nation that was a theocracy was not a great time for human rights and societal progress? That whenever rights and progress happened, it happened in spite of the theocracy, and not as a benefit from it?
In my eyes, a theocracy is anti-thetical to human rights. They cannot mix.

Given the fruits of "progress" which includes millions of children killed by their mothers and the demographic suicide of Western societies, this is risible.

Because God is not elected.

Replace God with any other noun, and you have just described a tyranny. To say God is to invite special pleading.

Such a view, typical of liberal adolescent rebellion against legitimate authority, got just a little tired some centuries ago when the guillotines fell.

Because order, authority and hierarchy is not intrinsically bad.

You have just equated order/authority/hierarchy with monarchical theocracy, as if to say O/A/H cannot be had in a democracy. They can. They are. This is a fact that is evident in the real world. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than what happened in virtually every other theocracy.

I made no such equation. You decried what sounded like an "authoritative/tyrannical system of government'; I merely pointed out that such an authoritative system isn't necessarily bad but actually would establish necessary order.

'...have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth...'

Yes, respond to the atheist by simply giving a Bible quote, with no follow up. That'll work

You were asking how the Christian view that there will be government in the afterlife makes sense, so I point you to the obvious answer which is naturally found within the Christian Scriptures.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by Paprika]

Given the fruits of "progress" which includes millions of children killed by their mothers

If you mean abortion, this happened too under a monarchical theocracy. Need I remind you about the Trial of Bitter Waters in the Old Testament?

and the demographic suicide of Western societies, this is risible.

I am aware that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion and at it's current rate, will become the majority religion in traditionally Christian nations such as France, Germany and the UK.
I did point out how I'm not the biggest fan of democracy. I am well aware of their short-comings. I am pointing out though that democracy is the best system of government we have now, but that there are people here who honestly believe that the after life will have a monarchical theocracy, a regression of human society.

Such a view, typical of liberal adolescent rebellion against legitimate authority, got just a little tired some centuries ago when the guillotines fell.

That would be a reference to the French Revolution, yes? When the oppressed peasantry of France rose up against their unelected king and his cohorts, the religious authority of the Catholic Church?

I made no such equation.

Yes you did. In my OP, I never once mentioned the words order, authority or hierarchy, or alluded to their concepts. (okay, just double checked, I said authoritative once). You responded by saying that these three concepts O/A/H are not intrinsically bad, as if I had said that they were. This would only make sense if you in your mind equate O/A/H with monarchical theocracy.

You were asking how the Christian view that there will be government in the afterlife makes sense, so I point you to the obvious answer which is naturally found within the Christian Scriptures.

I ask a question. You responded with a Bible quote and nothing more. I was pointing out the ludicrousness of this type of answer, because by default, as I am an atheist and most especially because I am a former Christian, it is extremely unlikely that I will give that response any weight whatsoever, because it is a Bible verse and nothing more. I'm not going to go 'Ah ha! I understand now, now that Paprika has quoted the Bible to me!"
Did you ever watch V for Vendetta? If you did, remember that scene at the start where V saves Evey from the fingerman, where Evey asks "Who are you?" and V responds by pointing out that he's a man in a mask; of course he's not going to reveal who he is, otherwise what would be the point of wearing a mask?

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 4 by Paprika]

Given the fruits of "progress" which includes millions of children killed by their mothers

If you mean abortion, this happened too under a monarchical theocracy. Need I remind you about the Trial of Bitter Waters in the Old Testament?

Precisely: abortion wasn't celebrated and demanded as it is now.

I did point out how I'm not the biggest fan of democracy. I am well aware of their short-comings. I am pointing out though that democracy is the best system of government we have now

Yes, we all have heard of that tired cliche. But mere repetition doesn't make it true.

Such a view, typical of liberal adolescent rebellion against legitimate authority, got just a little tired some centuries ago when the guillotines fell.

That would be a reference to the French Revolution, yes? When the oppressed peasantry of France rose up against their unelected king and his cohorts, the religious authority of the Catholic Church?

Indeed.

I made no such equation.

Yes you did. In my OP, I never once mentioned the words order, authority or hierarchy, or alluded to their concepts. (okay, just double checked, I said authoritative once). You responded by saying that these three concepts O/A/H are not intrinsically bad, as if I had said that they were. This would only make sense if you in your mind equate O/A/H with monarchical theocracy.

Sigh. I'll try to explain again: the monarchical theocracy in the eschaton which you decry provides order and authority, which is good, which undermines your attempt to criticise it.

You were asking how the Christian view that there will be government in the afterlife makes sense, so I point you to the obvious answer which is naturally found within the Christian Scriptures.

I ask a question. You responded with a Bible quote and nothing more. I was pointing out the ludicrousness of this type of answer, because by default, as I am an atheist and most especially because I am a former Christian, it is extremely unlikely that I will give that response any weight whatsoever, because it is a Bible verse and nothing more. I'm not going to go 'Ah ha! I understand now, now that Paprika has quoted the Bible to me!"

*facepalm*

When you ask how this part of belief system X makes sense, it is entirely all right to point out other parts of X so that collectively the parts make sense. You don't have to agree with any part of X to appreciate this.

Now, you asked why there is government in the Christian afterlife and the obvious answer (which naturally is based on Scripture) under the Christian understanding there is something to be governed, so some form of government is entirely appropriate.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by Paprika]

*facepalm*

When you ask how this part of belief system X makes sense, it is entirely all right to point out other parts of X so that collectively the parts make sense. You don't have to agree with any part of X to appreciate this.

Let me see if I'm following the chain of events here.
You know me to be an atheist and a former Christian. It says so to the left <--- . You know me to be a vocal critic of Christianity, and to be someone who has read the Bible in its entirety. I am disagreeing with pretty much all of belief system X (in this case, Christianity). So you, in order to correct me and teach me something about Christianity, decided to...quote from the Bible and leave it at that.
Why would you think that giving me of all people a Bible quote would make me think 'collectively, the parts make sense now'? Especially with no follow up, no explanation of any kind?
I'm not seeing any logic in this decision.

[Elijah John]

A little off track maybe, but perhaps in keeping with the intent of the OP? The way I read it the values and moral Law of the Kingdom of Heaven are the Beattitudes, and the Ten Commandments.

If followed, I am pretty sure that would result in continued human progress, not regression.

[bluethread]

A few significant facts. The governments in these United States are not democracies, but representative republics, Also, one of the three branches of government is not elected. That unelected branch has the authority of determining what is and is not acceptable based on a written covenant. HaTorah does not authorize kings and kingdoms but permits them as an accommodation to the democratic demands of the people. HaTorah authorizes direct theocracy and local governance, for Adonai's people. It does not dictate the politics of other societies. Any details regarding the form of government in the afterlife and/or criticisms of it are nothing more than unsupported speculation, IMO.