Read Robert Heinlein’s description of the nation as run by Nehemiah Scudder. That’s a pretty realistic - and thoroughly terrifying - picture of what would probably happen.
If you listen closely, you can hear the Pharisees applauding in the background.
Actually, I can. I believe the Mosaic Covenant was just as much a teaching of Jesus as the Sermon on the Mount (Jesus being the Angel of the LORD Who spoke from the Cloud). In giving the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wasn’t replacing the Older Covenants, but building upon them.
Historic C’nity, even most liberal C’nity these days, does not invalidate a proper use of governmental force. Complete pacifism exists on the fringes of Christian thought, where it properly belongs.
Btw, this is a reason that Jewish social commentator Dennis Prager holds that the American concept of a “Judeo-Christian” identity is morally superior than the old European notion of “Christendom” which upheld, to him, impossible ideals without the corrective of the Judaic Scriptures. I guess I should identify myself & my “social idea” as Judeo-Christian.
The Pharisees weren’t a totally bad lot. Jesus was in many ways a Pharisee, perhaps of the School of Hillel. There is a quite interesting proposal that the “Jesus vs. the Pharisees” concept is more accurately “Jesus the Pharisee of the School of Hillel vs. the Pharisees of the School of Shamai” (tho JC was stricter about divorce than Hillel). Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were Pharisees. Paul escaped the judgement of the Sanhedrin by pitting his homeboy Pharisees, who believed in the concepts of Messiah, Afterlife & Resurrection, against the Sadduccee Establishment, which did not.
Plus, the Pharisees reinterpreted & reorganized Judaism after the 70 AD disaster which made the priest-Temple-focused Sadducceeism obsolete. Modern rabbinic Judaism is heir to the Pharisee tradition.
Let’s take a look at how the first Christian communities lived which were founded by the apostles:
Acts 2:44-45
And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Acts 4:34-35
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid [them] down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Sounds like Communism to me.
Of course, the problem here is who gets to define what is or is not a “Christian” principle (“Judeo-Christian” is a theologically and philosophically meaningless term. It is at best an unnecessarily hyphenated way to say “Jewish AND Christian” and at worst, it’s just a disingenuous way to say “Christian.” All “Christian” beliefs are, by definition, “Judeo-Christian.” NO Jewish beliefs can honestly be called by that same appelation)
I would go for the most liberal and socialist interpretation possible. Massive redistribution of wealth, no death penalty (Jesus was opposed to it), no praying in public, and 100% income tax on churches. That’s just off the top of my head but I’m sure if I worked at it, I could devise a system which would make conservative Christians have aneurysms and I could support everything with Scripture.
On the other hand you have folks like “Christian Reconstructionists” who want to literally bring back stoning for adulterers and homosexuals.
Since there really is no way to decide what is “Christian,” Christopia is doomed from the start. Should women be allowed to have authority over men? Should slaves obey their masters? Who decides?
Wait, doesn’t the bible already contain a detailed list of laws and how the government and churches should act? You know, that whole “if a man digs a pit and his neighbor’s ox falls into it…” bit? Why wouldn’t you just make Deutronomy the new constitution?
Because certain aspects of Torah are for Jews only, and also don’t necessarily apply under a New Covenant social-political order (Deut 13 & 18, the execution of false prophets & occultists- that was only relevant when there were True prophets who could speak authoritatively for God). Torah would be a resource from which the Christopia (thanks, Diogenes!) could draw but it couldn’t be adopted in completely.
Crimes against society/humanity such as theft, vandalism, rape, battery & murder would bring down punishments. Crimes against the Covenants (adultery, apostasy & heresy) would not be punished by the state. (Adultery as a contract-violation could still be a reason for civil action by the wronged spouse, though.)
Why am I getting flashbacks to The Scarlet Letter?
Here is the problem; when the words of Jesus contradict Mosaic law, which prevails? How can you fashion a Christopia that simply ignores the pacifist, communist, antimaterialistic Jesus in favor of the strict “eye for an eye” retribution oriented Mosaic law? If you want a Mosaic republic, you should call it that; it certainly isn’t a Christopia that Jesus would recognize.
As long as you realize that this is your interpretation. There are several Christian sects that I am aware of (my stepsons’ bio-dad belongs to one) that holds to all of the old-testament laws, including dietary and holiday observances, in addition to their practice of NT stuff.
How do you fit that interpretation into a Christian state? If you want to discuss how FriarTed’s religious state would work, that’s fine…but there are people that are just as sincere in their faith as you that have a totally different take on scripture.
This is not meant to be snark…I just don’t think you see all of the complications in your premise.
Jesus was totally an anarchist. Sin taxes? Tax caps? Taxes at all? People being bound by marriage contracts instead of bound out of love for one another? An ARMY? What version of the Bible is this society based on? Certainly not the one I read.
Sounds to me like this is one specific person’s vision of the perfect neo-con state, not anything held up by the Bible. Politically speaking the Bible is one of the most dangerous books ever.
The only way this would work is if God himself ran things, and was actively involved in every judgement and ongoing legal decision, and was directly available to communcate to everyone at once in public on earth in a form we can all recognize and understand. No faith required. Otherwise you end up with humans “interpreting” the “word of God”, humans which are subject to a myriad of imperfections resulting in system failure.
Barring that, a system whereby the leadership has multiple levels of accountability is probably our best bet. Logically, a true democracy is our best chance at success.
In other words, who on earth do you trust with that sort of absloute power? Nobody unless you are crazy.
As Dio mentioned, we have Christian Reconstructionism, an idea rather popular among a few (too many) in my area.
As was noted, they support stoning for adulterers, blasphemers, and homosexuals. And want to apply the death penalty for quite a few other infractions.
We had a nice little conversation about this prospective Christian social order in this thread last November: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287919
I get nervous when people talk about wanting a “Christian social order”.
For a fictional take on this notion, I recommend Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and to a lesser extent the film on which it is based.
Err, the film based on the novel.
I was thinking Salem, myself.
Oh, if people want to adhere to Mosaic Law in their personal lives, I’m fine with that- eat kosher, keep the Sabbath, celebrate Passover, Pentecost & Tabernacles- but that wouldn’t be enforced politically. I think the enforced de-Judaizing of Christianity was the main flaw in the otherwise-commendable decisions at Nicea.
But what if a large segment wants to enforce some aspect of Mosaic law? For instance, what if a majority wants to ban the consumption of pork and shellfish? I think you’re looking at this backwards. It isn’t a question of what you would be willing to allow but who gets to decide what won’t be allowed.
Take the death penalty, for instance. Catholicism forbids it and the RCC is by far the largest denomination. Who decides whether Capital Punishment is permissable under Christian principles? Would you be comfortable with a system run solely by LDS principles? Jehova’s Witnesses? Reconstructionist? RCC? SBC? Liberal Episcopalians?
In short, which brand of Christianity are you proposing should be the controlling one?
Where my concept differs from C’tian Recon-
1.) No religious affiliation necessary for voting, citizenship, or office-holding.
2.) Criminal penalties only for crimes against persons or property, not for religious or consensual adult sexual offenses.
Where it coincides-
1.) An explicit Constitutional acknowledgement of God, with the Biblical prophets, Jesus & the apostles upheld as cultural founders.
2.) Use of the Bible as the as a guide of social-political wisdom.
Where my concept coincides with The Handmaids Tale, the Taliban, Puritan rule, & Heinlein’s REVOLT IN 2100 (?)-
???
Uh, we all mention “God”.