JWs consider God's Kingdom to be a Government

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe God's Kingdom for which many Christians have prayed throughout the ages to be a (heavenly) government (three words).

What, in three or four words if possible, do you believe it to be?

(Many Christians I have met have said its "A feeling" (in one's heart).

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

So you too, like Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is refering to a government? Interesting, that's rare, most people think its speaking about "a feeling in one's heart".

Thanks for your input, have an excellent weekend,

JW

Absolutely. The theology, doctrine and dogma of the Bible make it crystal clear that God's authority must be obeyed.

The Bible makes it clear that God makes the rules and if humans fail to obey them they will be servery punished. In fact, the whole fall-from-grace story of Adam and Eve is a case in point.

So where is there any theological, doctrine, or dogma support for the rambling random opinion that God's Kingdom is a feeling in ones heart?

Also does a totalitarian dictatorship truly qualify as a "Government"?

It would clearly be a Government of ONE whilst everyone else is a slave to the dictator who is the "Government".

What exactly do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about God's Government?

Do they also recognize it for the totalitarian dictatorship that it would necessarily be?

I don't question that the Biblical God demands to be the ultimate authoritarian. In fact, I think that's pretty obvious. Most Christians would agree with this. In fact, I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find any Christians who would allow that God is not the ultimate totalitarian authority.

So God's kingdom would necessarily be an Absolute Totalitarian Dictatorship. There's simply no other model that would work here in a theologically consistent manner.

Claiming that God's Kingdom is a "feeling" in one's heart cannot be anything more than a totally delusional romantic ideal that totally ignores Biblical Doctrines. Where could there be any theology, doctrine, or dogma support for that idea?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

So you too, like Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is refering to a government? Interesting, that's rare, most people think its speaking about "a feeling in one's heart".

Thanks for your input, have an excellent weekend,

JW

Absolutely.

Interesting. Did you come to this conclusion independently of Jehovah's witnesses? The reason I ask is I have never heard anybody say the word "government" when I have asked about the Kingdom of God except a Witness. (Not saying there are no other people, just that I have personally NEVER asked a non-Witness, "What is God's Kingdom?" and they simply reply "It's a GOVERNMENT"

JW

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

So you too, like Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is refering to a government? Interesting, that's rare, most people think its speaking about "a feeling in one's heart".

Thanks for your input, have an excellent weekend,

JW

Absolutely.

Interesting. Did you come to this conclusion independently of Jehovah's witnesses? The reason I ask is I have never heard anybody say the word "government" when I have asked about the Kingdom of God except a Witness. (Not saying there are no other people, just that I have personally NEVER asked a non-Witness, "What is God's Kingdom?" and they simply reply "It's a GOVERNMENT"

JW

Don't you think that's a pretty simple-minded view?

Like McCulloch points out, the "Kingdom" would also need to be "at hand". In other words, a government is nothing if there is no kingdom to govern over.

This would be like saying that the USA is a "Government". It's true that the USA is a governed nation, but it's hardly true that the USA is itself a "Government".

So apparently I'm not saying the same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not claiming that the Biblical God's Kingdom is solely a government, but this God's Kingdom would most definitely be governed by an Absolute Totalitarian Dictator which, in this case, would be the Biblical God.

Obviously the "Kingdom" itself would need to include all of the subjects that are being governed over as well.

So I'm probably not in harmony with the simplistic thinking of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Also, "believing" that this is what the Biblical theology is saying, is nowhere near the same as "believing" that its either true, or reasonable.

We could just as easily be discussing Greek Mythology and what it would mean to speak about Zeus' "Kingdom". Although in that theology Zeus never seemed to be obsessed with becoming a totalitarian dictator. Zeus appeared to allow people to be a bit more free in what they choose to do with their personal lives.

An important point to realize here is that Hebrew Mythology is indeed based upon the human idea of a Monarchy where a King is the ultimate ruler. Apparently they modeled their God after this ideal. Yahweh was the ultimate authority, and "King" of the universe. And of course when Christianity became an offshoot to this mythology Christ was then proclaimed to be the "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords".

It's all based on the mentality of a monarchy or dictatorship where a single ruling King is the ultimate authoritarian.

So, yes, the JW's do seem to have at least recognized that the Bible is indeed modeled after a monarchy. But that's hardly impressive. In fact, I can't imagine how anyone could not see that the Bible is clearly based on the idea of a totalitarian authority.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

So in a word, for you the kingdom is... not a government but a... ?*

* it's finishing this sentence I'm having difficulty gleaning from your post.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

So you think the kingdom is a "hand" ie a part of someone's body?

Why not a penis?
Like the Hindu do.

WE ARE just talking metaphorically, right?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 8 by McCulloch]

So you think the kingdom is a "hand" ie a part of someone's body?

What, in three or four words if possible, do you believe it to be?

At hand not a hand.
At hand is the expression Jesus used to describe the kingdom, according to whoever wrote Matthew's Gospel. At hand is idiomatic speech meaning nearby, either in time or space or both.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by McCulloch]

Ok, so what do you think the kingdom is?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

So in a word, for you the kingdom is... not a government but a... ?*

* it's finishing this sentence I'm having difficulty gleaning from your post.

Well a government would only be the way that a kingdom was governed. The government alone would not be the "kingdom".

In fact, the very term "Kingdom" is the idea of a social structure that is ruled by a King. (i.e. a monarchy or dictatorship) where the King is the ultimate dictator.

In our earthy world a King not only requires absolute obedience and devotion from his subjects, but he actually depends upon these things in order to keep his Kingdom going. A King's "power" arises specifically by how large and devoted his army and subjects are. This is why in a monarchy treason (or disobedience or disagreement) of the King is seen as such a high crime. To disagree with the King is to threaten the authority of the monarchy.

This is why these Abrahamic religions stress obedience to God and proclaim that anything less than 100% devotion to God is "blasphemy" against the Kingdom.

Moreover, once you realize why this is important in earthly monarchies it should become crystal clear to you why it would not be important for any actual omnipotent God. A truly omnipotent God would not be dependent upon your devotion and loyalty. In fact, an omnipotent God wouldn't be dependent upon you for anything at all.

This is why Zeus and Greek mythology actually make more sense in terms of how a God would behave. Zeus did not demand obedience or loyalty from anyone. It was never important to love and obey Zeus with all your heart, mind and soul. Why not? Because Zeus was not viewed as a King who depended upon the loyalty of his subjects to keep his Kingdom strong and maintain his power.

After all, a King who has no subjects has no power and no Kingdom. In fact, a King in this state would be nothing more than a self-deluded dreamer who simply wishes that he was a King.

Do you think that God is like a King? In need of the devotion and loyalty of his subjects in order to maintain his power and authority?

Personally I don't think this makes any sense.

Like I say, I can comment on the Biblical mythology and what it is based upon, but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense, or should be believe to represent any actual God.

I don't see why a God would lust to be King.

An omnipotent God should be more like Zeus and really not care much at all about what people think or do.

Why should he care about that? That's not going to threaten his omnipotence.

But clearly the Biblical God is extremely worried about what people think and do. So that's a red flag right there.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

I understand your extensive explanation for what it is NOT... I am asking you for what it *is... It is a...?*

... do you have any words to finish this sentence?

OP was as follows:

What, in three or four words if possible, do you believe it to be?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

So in a word, for you the kingdom is... not a government but a... ?*

* it's finishing this sentence I'm having difficulty gleaning from your post.

Delusion