Thought on the Fact that We All, Always Live in Some Kind of Theocracy

The modern aversion to the concept of theocracy is, on a fundamental level, absurd and ridiculous, for what people do not understand is that not only are we already living in a theocracy, but, when analyzed philosophically, we will arguably always be living in a theocracy of one kind or another, for the fact is that if we admit that there are existent moral laws that are higher than man’s laws–moral laws which point us to a personal Moral Law-Giver, just as the existence of traffic laws point us to a personal creator/giver of those traffic laws–and if we model human society to match those transcendent moral laws, then we are essentially living in a theocracy for we are following God’s laws, but if, by contrast, we claim that there are no such transcendent moral laws, and thus if we give the power to make such moral laws to men, then certain men become the Moral Law-Givers with the power of life-and-death over other men, and so such men of power take on the moral role of a god, and thus we live in a theocracy where one man, or some men, or a majority of men assume the role and power of a god, for they hold the godly power of defining that which is good and evil, that which is permitted or not permitted, and they wield the power of judgement and punishment over other men; and thus, in light of this, to say that such men are not gods–albeit petty and pathetic gods–is to ignore the fact that they have taken into themselves the role of god, and all this means that to claim that we, at present, do not live in some kind of theocracy is a false claim, for we do, and so the only real question that remains is not whether or not we should live in a theocracry, but rather it is the question of what type of theocracry do we wish to live in:  a theocracy of god-men or a theocracy of God?


8 thoughts on “Thought on the Fact that We All, Always Live in Some Kind of Theocracy

    • Walking,

      Indeed, but I suggest that a theocracy of man is at must greater risk of totalitarianism than one of God is…at least one based on the Christian God. And I think that history bears this out given what we have seen from the secular regimes of the last few centuries.


      • The ‘theocracy’ of the bible is as totalitarian as it gets! (I can expand on this if necessary) Just to give you an example in the form of a question: what is the punishment for apostasy according to the bible?

        Also it is a misconception that secularism leads to totalitarianism, perhaps bad thinking leads to totalitarianism, but everyone is capable of that. Most societies operate best under a secular framework, where everyone is free to believe what they want, but it stays out of the political architecture. The USA, France, Germany, etc. These are all examples of this in practice, and they are far from being totalitarian regimes. On the other side of the coin I can mention many states which are led by religious standards, and based on the promotion and enforcement of one religion, and they are all totalitarian.

        You make the misconception to think that you can ever escape the theocracy of man, if there was only one ‘theocracy of god’ there would be no disagreement over what the christian god wants people to do, yet there is plenty of disagreement there.

        I prefer to be pragmatic, reflective, empathetic and loving when it comes to making decisions, moral choices and new knowledge.

        Walking Around Human


      • Walking,

        As a Christian, we take Christ as our focal point and our example, and when I read the way Christ acted and behaved, I see…

        1) A man who allowed people to talk back to him even though, as God, he could have alienated them (free speech).

        2) A man who forced no one to join him and let many of his disciples fall away (freedom of religion).

        3) A man who did not, in his Earthly life, force people to live moral lives as he say it (freedom of choice).

        And so on.

        In a very real way, a theocracy followed on the example of Christ would very likely consist of rigid and unwavering moral discipline and rules for the in-group, but it would actually be almost “libertarian” in terms of its interaction with society as a whole given the fact that Christ acted in a very “libertarian” manner while with us.


  1. Well I would ask again, what is the punishment for apostasy according to the Christian bible? Or what are the teachings on slavery?

    I would wager that you do not take the bible literally when it comes to these issues.

    So what do we interpret word for word and what do make metafor? Well its upto your own pragmatic reflective thought. Not your belief in God.

    Another point is why not just have the things you have in parenthesis as values?

    I agree that free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice are good values. In fact they are values held by all the mainstream secular governments of today, so why exactly do we need your religion?

    And finnaly I can think of a system where the Christian values and moral laws where implemented, and that was the inquisition.

    I have no problen by saying that some moral teachings can be found in the bible that give way to reflection and inspection, but these can also be found in the Odesy or any for of literature.


  2. Walking, you’re intellectually dishonest; you post pseudo-conundrums (*), based on intentional misrepresentaion, and for which you emphatically do not wish to learn and correct their false nature.

    Why should anyone waste any of their time on you?

    (*) “Well I would ask again, what is the punishment for apostasy according to the Christian bible? Or what are the teachings on slavery?”


    • I made no assumptions about the interpretation about either of these two things, instead I used their contention inside christian thinking to highlight the use of pragmatic thinking when choosing what is literal and what needs ‘interpretation’.

      What exactly have I misrepresented about the teachings of apostasy or slavery in the bible? Just stating I’m being ‘intellectually dishonest’ just sounds frivolous to me.

      If by ‘pseudo-conundrums’ you mean they do not exist, I can give you examples of these, but then again I suspect you know about the contention inside christian dogma and interpretation.

      If you are not interested in having an ‘intellectual’ conversation about the essence of epistemology, questions about society (that affect us all) or ideas of theocracy and totalitarianism then just say so, no need for your passive aggressive attitude, we are all adults here.



  3. If morality is your definition of a religion, morality is identical to moral laws, and religion is synonymous with “Theos”, then perhaps all politics all always be theocratic (or anarchistic).

    But, I disagree with literally every step required. Morality is not simply a list of laws. Morality is not the same as religion. Theos is not necessarily the same as religion.

    We can have secular ethics, discovered by secular discussion, informed by the principles of nonviolent revolution and fallibilism and rational discussion, and there would not be a single thing ‘theocratic’ about it.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s