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?

[JLB32168]

Again, I have to point out, the ONLY thing in this thread that I have quoted are the two lines from tam in my OP (and whatever it is I'm replying to in comments). In this thread, I have not quoted the Bible.

Okay " so you brought up a clearly Biblical concept but dont wish to discuss the source from which the concept came and which defines the concept in the context in which it was used.
Thats fair enough.
Its like discussing the phrase It is the easiest thing in the world for a man to look as if he had a great secret in him w/o mentioning Moby Dick but you can take a statement or concept out of its context and apply it in any fashion you want. Its not logical, but it is done.

So it is extremely disingenuous on your part to say I am citing the Bible.

We both know that the concept Kingdom of Heaven is explained in the Bible " the main source of Christian theology; furthermore, this board discusses just that " Christianity. For you to comment on my alleged disingenuousness is comical if you ask me.

How is it me who is changing the argument? It is yourself and people like yourself who describe your god as being all powerful, correct?

You asserted that the Kingdom of God would be akin to the human theocracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and how it claims the same for their god. The Kingdom of God doesnt have human representatives. It is ruled by God Himself who, having created the universe from nothing and who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (which me just accept for the sake of arguing an autocracy ruled by the Christian deity) could presumably eliminate all the problems of modern governance exists for the purpose of addressing finitude or scarcity of resources. From there you took it to an issue of omnipotence or the lack thereof. As a side issue, if were discussing the morality of the Valkyries, we dont get to leave out the part where they decide who falls or stands in battle. The same applies for the Kingdom of Heaven/God. That you didnt know about its context from the Bible (which seems quite untenable if you ask me) then you should have gotten your material straight before presuming to comment on it.

I dont think any believer thinks of such a state as having either finitude or scarcity as defining feature of that existence. I could've sworn this thread was about governmental systems.

Yes " and you specifically mentioned the Kingdom of Heaven, how it would be a societal regression since thats what Kingdoms are, but you compared it to a human run theocracy rather than a government ruled by a deity who is described as omni-everything.

Why should I allow these other attributes? What discussion can there be if I agree at the outset to EVERYTHING my debate opponents claim?

You dont get to tailor the deitys attributes to comport with your argument; just like I dont get to leave out the destruction of the citizens of Jericho when addressing supposed unjustified actions in the OT.

[Bust Nak]

I have to side with the Christians here. Theoretically I'll take a benevolent dictatorship over democracy any day. The practical problem is the distinct lack of benevolent dictators.

[rikuoamero]

I have to side with the Christians here. Theoretically I'll take a benevolent dictatorship over democracy any day. The practical problem is the distinct lack of benevolent dictators.

So would I. And as you say, the problem is indeed the lack of benevolent dictators, which the god figure described in the Bible most certainly is not. Given this problem, I have to set aside my desire and go with a democracy.