God is love. God is just.

[EricH]

God can't be a fascist, because God is not human. What makes fascism wrong is that one fallible, ignorant, sinful human being stands up and seeks to control the lives of other fallible, ignorant, sinful human beings--an authority he doesn't deserve. He is incapable of wielding this sort of social control justly and righteously. Every dictator is a tyrant. God, on the other hand, is perfect, omniscient, and righteous. The label "fascism" doesn't apply.

That is the point Copper Scroll. These are not my standards. I agree that we human beings don't know what is best, but God does. The laws governing Old Testament Israel were given by God, not man. That is why I think it is wise to set up a government based on similiar laws. Look at what the Bible says about God's laws and judgements. Deut. 4:5-8

5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, EVEN AS THE LORD MY GOD COMMANDED ME, that ye should go to possess it.

6 Keep therefore and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so night unto them, and the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?

8 AND WHAT NATION IS THERE SO GREAT, THAT HATH STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS SO RIGHTEOUS AS ALL THIS LAW, WHICH I SET BEFORE YOU THIS DAY?

What we call the law of Moses is really the law of God. You even alluded to that in you analogie about the Father and Child C. The Father God commanded Moses (v 5) to teach the people these statutes and judgments. Since you believe as I do that mankind is not capable of setting up their own standards of right and wrong and judging others by those laws, I do not understand why you don't accept that this law given by God is better than your ideas and what mine would be outside of it?

Even if we agreed that law came explicitly from God, it is human beings who must practice, enforce, and execute it. We are incapable of doing this correctly, justly, or righteously--because we are all sinners. Even the OT says that God didn't like most of the kings who ended up ruling Israel. The only person fit to be king truly is God. Anyone who would stand in God's place is a tyrant.

On one level this is a very good point. Namely that human beings on their own cannot be trusted with power. That is because of total depravity. But, the statement fails to take into account that God, as the writer of the law and creator of individuals understood the frailty of humanity, and built safegaurds into the law for that. Also, an individual would only be a Tyrant if they exceeded the authority God placed on them. A great example of this is the account of King Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 25:27-26:21.

Uzziah became king after the coup that over-trew his father Amaziah. Uzziah was 16 when he became king. The text tells us that He functioned within the Parameters laid out by God for a king.:

1. He placed his relationship with God first (2 Chronicles 26:5)

2. He built cities, towers, wells - He impoved the life of the people

3. He warred against Israel's enemies an prevailed

3. He increased national security

Then comes the BUT statement:

But when he became strong, his heart was so proud that he acted corruptly, and he was unfaithful to the LORD his God, for he entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.

2 Chronicles 26:16 NASB

Uzziah then began to exceed the limitations God placed on his authority. He entered the temple and began to burn incense (a function reserved by God for the priesthood). At this point Uzziah became a tyrant. The system of checks and balances God put in place kicked in and the priests came to warn Uzziah. Uzziah tried to resist this God placed mechanism and became angry and attempted to use the censure of incense to strike the priests. God Himself intervened at this point and struck Uzziah with leprosy.

So, we see that God put mechanisms in place to control tyranny. When the leader attempted to side-step those mechanisms, God stepped in. So, while it is true that people will mess up, God is bigger than our mess-ups

[Copper Scroll]

Even if we agreed that law came explicitly from God, it is human beings who must practice, enforce, and execute it. We are incapable of doing this correctly, justly, or righteously--because we are all sinners. Even the OT says that God didn't like most of the kings who ended up ruling Israel. The only person fit to be king truly is God. Anyone who would stand in God's place is a tyrant.

On one level this is a very good point. Namely that human beings on their own cannot be trusted with power. That is because of total depravity. But, the statement fails to take into account that God, as the writer of the law and creator of individuals understood the frailty of humanity, and built safegaurds into the law for that.

Can you point out where I can find these safeguards/checks/balances? The only safeguard I see in this example is being confronted by courageous priests and then being struck with leprosy.

So, we see that God put mechanisms in place to control tyranny. When the leader attempted to side-step those mechanisms, God stepped in. So, while it is true that people will mess up, God is bigger than our mess-ups

Our "mess-ups" are nearly inevitable, though. Some people in positions of power (by my judgement) make series of really big "mess-ups" without any apparent intervention from God. Should we set up a (fascistic) theocracy on the faith that God will strike the tyrants (and activist judges and corrupt cops) with leprosy whenever they step out of bounds?

[EricH]

Even if we agreed that law came explicitly from God, it is human beings who must practice, enforce, and execute it. We are incapable of doing this correctly, justly, or righteously--because we are all sinners. Even the OT says that God didn't like most of the kings who ended up ruling Israel. The only person fit to be king truly is God. Anyone who would stand in God's place is a tyrant.

On one level this is a very good point. Namely that human beings on their own cannot be trusted with power. That is because of total depravity. But, the statement fails to take into account that God, as the writer of the law and creator of individuals understood the frailty of humanity, and built safegaurds into the law for that.

Can you point out where I can find these safeguards/checks/balances? The only safeguard I see in this example is being confronted by courageous priests and then being struck with leprosy.

So, we see that God put mechanisms in place to control tyranny. When the leader attempted to side-step those mechanisms, God stepped in. So, while it is true that people will mess up, God is bigger than our mess-ups

Our "mess-ups" are nearly inevitable, though. Some people in positions of power (by my judgement) make series of really big "mess-ups" without any apparent intervention from God. Should we set up a (fascistic) theocracy on the faith that God will strike the tyrants (and activist judges and corrupt cops) with leprosy whenever they step out of bounds?

In the OT there was a clear division of labor between the Kings and the priests of the temple. Since ISrael was a Theocracy, this limited both to "playing in their own sandbox". Also, God HImslef promised to remove Kings that got out of line. In the NT we have elders who are appointed. There are clear instructions in the NT on how to deal with a "tyrannical" elder.

Only God can establish a theocracy. It may be true that there are secular leaders today, who "get by" with being a tyrant for a long time. But the story is not over, until it is over. God promises that all wrongs will be righted.

[Copper Scroll]

In the OT there was a clear division of labor between the Kings and the priests of the temple. Since ISrael was a Theocracy, this limited both to "playing in their own sandbox". Also, God HImslef promised to remove Kings that got out of line. In the NT we have elders who are appointed. There are clear instructions in the NT on how to deal with a "tyrannical" elder.

Can you point out the scriptures for this last part? (I do appreciate your answers, but...) What if those dealing with the tyrant are wrong? Everyone is fallible, so we all should have a say. I can't think of a better political system than a democracy in this situation. Is the church supposed to be democratic? (It's been a while since I last read the Bible in its entirety.)

Only God can establish a theocracy. It may be true that there are secular leaders today, who "get by" with being a tyrant for a long time. But the story is not over, until it is over. God promises that all wrongs will be righted.

So we should abide tyranny? We should support a social structure and political system that allows tyrants to rise to power just because we have faith that one day it will all be settled?

[EricH]

Can you point out the scriptures for this last part? (I do appreciate your answers, but...) What if those dealing with the tyrant are wrong? Everyone is fallible, so we all should have a say. I can't think of a better political system than a democracy in this situation. Is the church supposed to be democratic? (It's been a while since I last read the Bible in its entirety.)

Sure:

For guidelines for selecting elders:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 (see also Titus 1:5-9)

For how and why to remove an elder:

1 Timothy 5:17-22

The church is not a democracy. It is a theocracy with Christ as the Chief shepherd and undershepherds appointed by Him and removed by Him (through the secondary agency of the process described in the passages above). When men fail in carrying out these responsibilities, God is big enough to protect His church. At the end of the day it is more a matter if whether or not we believe God will do the right thing

[EricH]

So we should abide tyranny? We should support a social structure and political system that allows tyrants to rise to power just because we have faith that one day it will all be settled?

That is actually a different question that I have not completely answered to my own satisfaction. I believe that all governments are established by God, and that we are to be in submission to those ruling authorities. I also believe they are appointed by God to fulfill 2 main functions:

1. To reward those who do right

2. To punish those who do wrong

The problem comes when the government under which we live ceases to perform its core function. In a democracy that is less of an issue. We can simply vote them out. In an authoritarian state it is a different issue. There have been believers who fall into 2 different camps

1. We overthrow the government - Deitrich Bonhoeffer would be an example of this. We not only speak out, we take action to overthrow the government

2. We speak out, but take not action. We die if necessary speaking out - Martin Luther King would be an example of this. He believed in "non-violent" confrontation. Much like Ghandi he held that of you resist a tyrant passivly, good will triumph in the end

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Mar 1 2006, 02:19 PM)

You missed the point. God established a theocracy in the first five books of the Old Testament. The emergence of Kings in Israel, while anticipated by God in Deut 17, was a divergance, an abandonment of the system God established which YOU say is fascist. God, through Samuel tried to dissuade the people from wanting a king, but then conceded, to their demands.

Agreed. You brought the "king" issue up, though

No, I brought up the theocracy issue. The system that "Jewish Law" as you call it, is based upon is a system where God alone is King. It is not based upon a superman or authoritarian human entity. A theocracy, by nature, is not nationalistic. A theocracy is centered around God.

QUOTE

The individual must be absorbed into the whole. The Bible teaches no such thing.

Then why did everybody (including the little babies) in various places and nations found "wicked" in the OT all have to die? Someone on another thread once argued that God does judge nations as a whole (or at least did in the OT).

That has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism has to do with the individual's worth relative to the entire community. In many cases, the immorality of these city-states was so rampant, as was disease, that it spread from the people to the livestock. Incest, homosexuality, beastiality were not ucommon, and as a result, the people, their children, the animals, even the clothes they wore, were contaminated. That is why God told them to destory everything and not even take souveniers like gold, silver or garments. He did not want that disease in Israel's camp.

QUOTE

You cannot draw ANY parallels between the system you call "Jewish Law" which is really God's Torah and fascism.

Social control. Brutal punishment for disobedience. Nationalism. You have not demonstrated how it is not like fascism.

You cannot demonstrate social control from the system God established from Genesis to Deut. You might find it later on, AFTER the children of Israel abandoned God's system for their own, but you cannot find it in the system that God created.

QUOTE

Fascism is about the glorification of the state and the absolute submission of the the people to the state. No such concept exists in the Torah.

If the state says "Don't sleep with a member of the same sex, or we'll stone you to death," how is this not about submission to the state?

Because God is not "the state." Jewish Law was not based nationalism, or submission to "the state." A theocracy and fascism are completely different.

QUOTE

Fascism teaches social Darwinism. It treats peace as a weakness and those peaceful complacent nations are then more vulnerable to more aggressive nation. This is an underlying principle Islam.

If I lived on Israel's promised land when they came to take it, I would certainly consider them an aggressive nation.

The difference is that fascist nations see it as their right to overtake other nations they perceive as weaker than themselves, and then force these new subjects to assimilate into the fabric of their new masters.

Israel was used by God to judge other nations that would not repent, but Israel never went to war to prove their strength or overtake weaker nations less fit to exist. Israel did not practice social Darwinism under God's system.

QUOTE

Fascism is essentially imperialistic. No where does the Bible establish or glorify imperialism.

Israel's claim to the promised land.

Nonsense. The Land was given to Israel by God. Israel conquered what already belonged to them. Israel's claim to the Promised Land has never been "imperialistic" because Israel has never sought to conquer another nation.

Imperialism is when you seek to extend your rule over surrounding nations by overthrowing existing governments and establishing a political hegemony over them. It amounts to usurping the existing government and replacing it with a government of your own. That is something Israel has never done.

QUOTE

There is no command to make the world, "Israel." Compare Israel's history with modern fascist nations and the difference is apparent. Germany was a good example of fascism and how it runs contrary to every biblical principle in Scripture.

I'm not trying to say that the Bible as a whole is fascistic, to be clear. This discussion came from another poster's argument that we should adopt the OT law today. Do you agree with this poster?

I believe that we should accept the moral standards contained in the "OT Law" as you call it. The Bible is a book of progressive revelation. That means the moral standard established by God is built upon by the Scriptures that follow up through the OT. As far as stoning adulterers and so forth, that was limited to the boundaries of a Theocracy, and would not apply to governments existing today. The laws of most nations today would prohibit such actions, and we are called to obey these governments. I do believe that if the Bible calls it a sin, we should call it a sin as well, and that we should be government by the moral code that God established.

I would also point out one other thing. God was not establishing "law" when He commanded the children of Israel to wipe entire city states in Canaan such as Jericho, Ai, etc. It was not a case of "do as I do." God never said that it was OK for Israel to excersize their power over a weaker nation in an imperialistic land grab.

For anyone to say that God's system is "fascist" then they would need to provide better evidence than I have seen here. No one can point a single scripture that truly demonstrates fascism. All I have seen this far, is a attempt to paint certain commandments as fascist. In order to do that though, you must divorce it from its context and interpret it separate from the intent of the author. No serious scholarship can demonstrate that the OT system is fascist, by nature.

[Copper Scroll]

The church is not a democracy. It is a theocracy with Christ as the Chief shepherd and undershepherds appointed by Him and removed by Him (through the secondary agency of the process described in the passages above). When men fail in carrying out these responsibilities, God is big enough to protect His church. At the end of the day it is more a matter if whether or not we believe God will do the right thing

Does the chief shepherd approve of all the denominations? Does he have undershepherds in every denomination? If not, why didn't God stop the church from splitting up?

[Copper Scroll]

So we should abide tyranny? We should support a social structure and political system that allows tyrants to rise to power just because we have faith that one day it will all be settled?

That is actually a different question that I have not completely answered to my own satisfaction. I believe that all governments are established by God, and that we are to be in submission to those ruling authorities. I also believe they are appointed by God to fulfill 2 main functions:

1. To reward those who do right

2. To punish those who do wrong

I guess this brings us to Romans 13:1-7:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

The problem comes when the government under which we live ceases to perform its core function.

And who is to judge this? The Romans text says that if they are in power, then they are right and have God's sanction. (Might makes right.) If they are not performing their core function, I suppose God will remove them.

In a democracy that is less of an issue. We can simply vote them out.

Since the Romans text says that it is God who puts people in power, is voting really an illusion? or is God acting through us when we vote? Further, does God act through anyone who seeks to achieve power and authority? or does God only act through the ones who are eventually successful and do eventually attain power and authority? (This would be the ultimate in Victors write the History.) Was the American Revolution wrong or was it an act of God? How about World War II?

In an authoritarian state it is a different issue. There have been believers who fall into 2 different camps

1. We overthrow the government - Deitrich Bonhoeffer would be an example of this. We not only speak out, we take action to overthrow the government

2. We speak out, but take not action. We die if necessary speaking out - Martin Luther King would be an example of this. He believed in "non-violent" confrontation. Much like Ghandi he held that of you resist a tyrant passivly, good will triumph in the end

So its okay to overthrow and speak out against authorities God has put in place? Is rebellion always of God or always against God? The Romans text seems to say that rebellion is always evil--even, any action against an established authority is evil. This would mean that the American Revolution and World War II were both against God.

[Copper Scroll]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Mar 1 2006, 02:19 PM)

Agreed. You brought the "king" issue up, though

No, I brought up the theocracy issue.

It came up when you said something about God being king.

The system that "Jewish Law" as you call it, is based upon is a system where God alone is King. It is not based upon a superman or authoritarian human entity. A theocracy, by nature, is not nationalistic. A theocracy is centered around God.

...or around a religious institution. Now you can say that the religious institution (which actually runs the theocracy even if God "set it up") is centered around God, but then we might get in an argument over which religius institutions are valid and which are not.

A theocracy is not by nature nationalistic, but it can be in practice. Israel was nationalistic.

You cannot demonstrate social control from the system God established from Genesis to Deut. You might find it later on, AFTER the children of Israel abandoned God's system for their own, but you cannot find it in the system that God created.

Whether God created the system or not, the system was run by human beings whose job it was (according to the design of the system) to control other human beings--social control.

Because God is not "the state." Jewish Law was not based nationalism, or submission to "the state." A theocracy and fascism are completely different.

Theocracies are not fascist necessarily, but they can be in practice. I would not say they are completely different because they can certainly occupy the same space. The Law was nationalistic because it applied only to the nation of Israel.

Nonsense. The Land was given to Israel by God.

But they are the ones who had to get up and take it. This is called conquest, whether it was sanctioned by God or not. Omnipotent, God could have cleared the land himself and Israel could have walked in and settled. But no--Israel conquered that land.

Israel conquered what already belonged to them.

...but occupied by others.

Israel's claim to the Promised Land has never been "imperialistic" because Israel has never sought to conquer another nation.

Whether they sought to or not--it's what they did. You said so yourself.

You were really reaching in this reply--offering careful defintions that disqualify Israel as fascist. It wasn't convincing at all. If a country behaved that way today, the US military would move in and stop them. Can you deny this? People have always blamed all sorts of political violence on God. They do it to this day.

For anyone to say that God's system is "fascist" then they would need to provide better evidence than I have seen here.

So you weren't convinced by me either. I think you're biased though.