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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by Paprika]

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

Strangely most of abortions occur from religious individuals, secondly religious doctrines on sexuality lead to increased abolition rates, in Texas abortion laws have seriously restricted access and as a result women are trying to self terminate in record numbers. The best and most proven solution to reducing abortions is sex education and ease of access to contraception.

In a strange twist it is actually religious doctrine that is largely responsible for the majority of abortions in western society.

[DanieltheDragon]

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.

Though shall not have any other gods before me seems to be a violation of freedom of religion. Wherever religious freedom is restricted human progress is stymied and unrest usually follows suit.

[Hamsaka]

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?

I've noticed this, and have come up with a personal conclusion; the Bible (as we know it today) was written when monarchies with their kings or emperors were the extant governments. The times and culture(s) are the source of the imagery and symbolism.

Societal progress is not anything close to a unified idea. What you call 'progress' won't be what someone else does. When I think of 'progress', I think about standards of living increasing via technology. There's a lot more to it than that, the social angle as you point out. What is social progress?

It's whatever a person's worldview will permit it to be, and from there, it's all about personal preferences.

[Paprika]

[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?

Because I assumed you can put two and two together.

I'm not sure how much more I can dumb down my explanation, so I'm afraid I won't bother trying to do so any more.

[Paprika]

Strangely most of abortions occur from religious individuals, secondly religious doctrines on sexuality lead to increased abolition rates, in Texas abortion laws have seriously restricted access and as a result women are trying to self terminate in record numbers. The best and most proven solution to reducing abortions is sex education and ease of access to contraception.

In a strange twist it is actually religious doctrine that is largely responsible for the majority of abortions in western society.

How completely asinine. The fact that most people in the USA still identify as religious more than explains why most of the abortions are performed by religious people.

Why abortions are so popular stems primarily from progressivism, and why Christians do it is not because Christianity tells them to; it is because they've been infected by progressivism.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 14 by Paprika]

Sorry to disappoint you but the facts and figures can speak for themselves. Abortion rates are trending downwards. They peaked when Reagan was president and stalled while Bush was president and dropped during the Obama presidency.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014 ... index.html

Abortions contrary to your personal opinion are not popular and their use is beginning to wane. Again sex education/contraception will reduce abortions. I don't like to point out when liberals win but it seems the Christian-right is something much more ineffective at policy making.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 14 by Paprika]

Sorry to disappoint you but the facts and figures can speak for themselves. Abortion rates are trending downwards. They peaked when Reagan was president and stalled while Bush was president and dropped during the Obama presidency.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014 ... index.html

Abortions contrary to your personal opinion are not popular and their use is beginning to wane. Again sex education/contraception will reduce abortions.

Sorry to disappoint you but since the topic isn't 'what is the best way to prevent abortions' your post is entirely irrelevant.

I don't like to point out when liberals win but it seems the Christian-right is something much more ineffective at policy making.

The liberals lost big-time when they promoted killing of children by their mothers because they become complicit in the killings, and the blood of the slaughtered innocents are on their hands.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by Paprika]

Sorry to disappoint you but since the topic isn't 'what is the best way to prevent abortions' your post is entirely irrelevant.

Then why bring up abortions? If abortion rates are a measure of what you think is progress meaning higher rates equals a regression of societal progress and Lower or no abortions as societal progress then how a society achieves said goals is relevant.
As to the OP religious doctrine by this standard contributes to a regression of societal progress.

The liberals lost big-time when they promoted killing of children by their mothers because they become complicit in the killings, and the blood of the slaughtered innocents are on their hands.

Again you say abortion is not relevant and then again you bring it up. Why must you chastise others for the very thing you are doing? If you don't want to argue abortions why bring it up?

[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.

Though shall not have any other gods before me seems to be a violation of freedom of religion. Wherever religious freedom is restricted human progress is stymied and unrest usually follows suit.

I agree that belief should not be mandated. But moral standards, similar if not identical to Commandments 5-9 are usually the basis of law, and that lawfulness, not lawlessness helps insure social stability and progress.

Didn't the Roman Empire fall eventually, because of decadence? And if there is any historical merit to Bible accounts, the nations of Israel and Judah were conquered and taken in exile when they abandoned THEIR standards.

[tfvespasianus]

Rather than mounting a defense for Democracy versus Monarchy in the abstract, what these types of questions raise in my mind are number of culturally specific anthropomorphisms present in scripture. On the one hand, things spiritual/religious are often thought of as ineffable. However, on the other, the terms used to describe many things are wholly tied to the technology and culture of the authors of the sacred text. That is, we have terms like gate, door, kingdom, lamp, sword that are culturally and chronologically specific (e.g. there was a time when there were no swords " they are an invention as are all these terms), yet we have very few ideas that are absent from the realm of understanding of the authors despite the claim that these are communications for the ineffable divine. Thus, things divine are idealized versions of the world the author lived in (i.e. Wouldnt it be great if we had a perfect king instead of our crumby king?) rather than some kind of wholly otherworldly paradigm.

Take care,
TFV