Fan of theocracy?

[Timsup2nothin]

many gods > many gods but none better than mine > only my god exists

Technically, in that intermediate step they are generally still all "mine." Perhaps...

Many Gods > One God in charge > only that one is really God

...would be a better description.

 

[uppi]

As I said in my post above, it's a specific older and more archaic way of saying "leader" in a specific context and usage in the Dark Ages environment it grew from, before the modern German language had even evolved to it's current form. I believe the word "leiter," is Modern German for just a generic "leader," and was even so when the Nazi Party was, itself, forming, and for quite a while previously. I'm pretty sure the "classical, old form," nature of the word "Fuhrer" is one of the big reasons that Goebbels suggested it for Hitler's use.

I am not sure where you get your information from, but it is wrong. Führer is not an archaic form in any way (Herzog would be the archaic word that would fit your description). Führer and Leiter both can mean leader, but they are not equivalent words. Führer can also mean guide (which Leiter can't), so calling someone a Führer instead of a Leiter has the connotation that he is guiding his subordinates on their path.

Since WW2, Führer in the leader meaning is usually avoided, especially when talking about political organisations - for obvious reasons. This means that Leiter has somewhat replaced Führer, but that is something that happened after WW2.

 

[Patine]

many gods > many gods but none better than mine > only my god exists

Actually, this is one point I concede by omission in the Torah (it's translations at the front of the Christian Bible) that a lay priest of the Reorganized Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, a retired bus driver I lived across the street from me in my adolescence, pointed out to me at the time. The Commandment "Thou shalt have no other god above Me," indeed does NOT also say "no other god below Me, beside Me, or in general co-existence around Me" - the latter part was filled in by generations of Jewish and Christian theologians and scholars, but is not explicitly stated - a good example of organized religion arbitrarily filling in the blanks of their own scripture.

 

[Cheetah]

I am not sure where you get your information from, but it is wrong. Führer is not an archaic form in any way (Herzog would be the archaic word that would fit your description). Führer and Leiter both can mean leader, but they are not equivalent words. Führer can also mean guide (which Leiter can't), so calling someone a Führer instead of a Leiter has the connotation that he is guiding his subordinates on their path.

Since WW2, Führer in the leader meaning is usually avoided, especially when talking about political organisations - for obvious reasons. This means that Leiter has somewhat replaced Führer, but that is something that happened after WW2.

Speaking of which, can one use «Führer» as «driver»/«chauffeur» in (modern) German, like we do in Norwegian?

Actually, this is one point I concede by omission in the Torah (it's translations at the front of the Christian Bible) that a lay priest of the Reorganized Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, a retired bus driver I lived across the street from me in my adolescence, pointed out to me at the time. The Commandment "Thou shalt have no other god above Me," indeed does NOT also say "no other god below Me, beside Me, or in general co-existence around Me" - the latter part was filled in by generations of Jewish and Christian theologians and scholars, but is not explicitly stated - a good example of organized religion arbitrarily filling in the blanks of their own scripture.

What?

Firstly, there are several versions of bibles as used by Christian (the most well known being the differences between the Catholic and Lutheran versions), so speaking of «the Christian Bible» doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, and more on point, which English translation is that? Or which version of the commandments (there are several in Exodus)? I'll concede to not being able to read ancient Greek nor Aramaic, but the most correct English translation I have read of Exodus 20:3, the NRSV version, puts the commandment as: «you shall have no other gods before me» or «you shall have no other gods besides me». It doesn't say «above».

Where and when exactly that commandment comes from I can't be bothered to look up now, but I'm pretty sure it was created after the Captivity in Babylon, by people who were monotheists and fighting against the henotheists and polytheists in Canaan.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

'Above' and 'before' in that context seem very much the same, and neither seems to specifically preclude "lesser gods." It seems to fit that stage of development when a "chief god" has emerged but is not yet entrenched as the "one true god."

 

[Patine]

Speaking of which, can one use «Führer» as «driver»/«chauffeur» in (modern) German, like we do in Norwegian?

What?

Firstly, there are several versions of bibles as used by Christian (the most well known being the differences between the Catholic and Lutheran versions), so speaking of «the Christian Bible» doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, and more on point, which English translation is that? Or which version of the commandments (there are several in Exodus)? I'll concede to not being able to read ancient Greek nor Aramaic, but the most correct English translation I have read of Exodus 20:3, the NRSV version, puts the commandment as: «you shall have no other gods before me» or «you shall have no other gods besides me». It doesn't say «above».

Where and when exactly that commandment comes from I can't be bothered to look up now, but I'm pretty sure it was created after the Captivity in Babylon, by people who were monotheists and fighting against the henotheists and polytheists in Canaan.

No, the Commandments were in the period (or attributed to the period) when the Twelve Tribes were wandering aimlessly in the Sinai Desert, led by Moses and Aaron, after leaving bondage in Egypt, but before setting foot in, or seeing Canaan, and LONG before the Babylonians were an issue at all for them. Although some say the actual writing of the text dates to, or shortly before, the Babylonian Captivity, other evidence suggests authors who lived during the existence of Kingdom of Judah and the existence of the First Temple, notably before Judah's conquest by Babylon and the captivity in the first place. In other words, your timeline's probably way off.

 

[Cheetah]

'Above' and 'before' in that context seem very much the same, and neither seems to specifically preclude "lesser gods." It seems to fit that stage of development when a "chief god" has emerged but is not yet entrenched as the "one true god."

«Above» is much the same as «before» when one uses «before» as «in front of; ahead of; in advance of», but considering that the translators also added «besides» there, meaning «moreover; furthermore; also; in addition» it would seem that the original meaning at least somewhat is closer to excluding other gods?

Regardless, thinking more about it, I might be jumping the gun here. I retract my contention with the translation and the point made through it.

 

[Patine]

«Above» is much the same as «before» when one uses «before» as «in front of; ahead of; in advance of», but considering that the translators also added «besides» there, meaning «moreover; furthermore; also; in addition» it would seem that the original meaning at least somewhat is closer to excluding other gods?

Regardless, thinking more about it, I might be jumping the gun here. I retract my contention with the translation and the point made through it.

The Bibles used in Norway are almost certainly directly derived from Luther and/or Calvin's translations, largely as an unavoidable result of 17th Century politics, and both wrote addendums and additions to "officialize" in their viewpoints, what had only been "filling in the blanks by practice" in earlier (or other later) Christian and Jewish rites, without formally editing the text. The Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions, or the King James English Bible (the New World English Bible is based on Calvin's works), and almost any other translation not run through Luther, Calvin, or Wesley's auspices, do not include the phrase "and no other gods besides" as an addendum to "no other gods above or before."

 

[uppi]

Speaking of which, can one use «Führer» as «driver»/«chauffeur» in (modern) German, like we do in Norwegian?

Yes, at least in theory. In practice, using "Führer" without any qualifications for anything else than a guide is not really done anymore, because of you know what. But you could use "Fahrzeugführer" (literally: vehicle leader) for the driver, but you would do so only in something like a legal text. A drivers licence is actually called "Führerschein" (Schein = certificate/licence).

 

[Traitorfish]

many gods > many gods but none better than mine > only my god exists

seemed appropraite, like.

 

[Live trash can]

There was a military, expansionist nation called the Tibetan EMPIRE, ruled effectively by warlord-emperors from about the 3rd to 9th Centuries. Also, the Dalai Lama's theocracy was not the land of milk and honey it was made out to be. When someone says that Tibet has never had freedom, liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights since China annexed the country in 1959, that phrase must be altered - Tibet has NEVER had freedom, liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights, period, full stop!

I read something quickly about this Tibetan empire years back, but I wasn't sure if I believed it. Because of the limited access of historians to the Tibetan region and the Tibetan culture, and because I don't believe all that the PRC says either.

What is my most important source is the 14th Dalai Lama. His philosophy is one of love and compassion. He received the Peace Prize, and those guys (in the NPP committee) are generally respected!

Running an empire might mean being tough though. Times change and today there maybe is more room for compassion! But the Dalai Lamas could have possessed it back then too.

I think Human Rights and liberties of different kinds are a quite new invention. They are still not the norm. HR came only after the second world war...

 

[sophie]

What gives you the impression that the 14th Dalai Lama is typical of the 13 other Dalai Lamas?

 

[Live trash can]

What gives you the impression that the 14th Dalai Lama is typical of the 13 other Dalai Lamas?

He is supposed to be the reincarnation of the Boddhisatva (godlike being) of compassion. He reincarnates over and over but is the same being.

He is educated mostly by the Panchen Lama, which is another Boddhisatva I think. The Panchen Lama is then educated by the next Dalai Lama, and it goes on and on and on.

 

[Patine]

I read something quickly about this Tibetan empire years back, but I wasn't sure if I believed it. Because of the limited access of historians to the Tibetan region and the Tibetan culture, and because I don't believe all that the PRC says either.

What is my most important source is the 14th Dalai Lama. His philosophy is one of love and compassion. He received the Peace Prize, and those guys (in the NPP committee) are generally respected!

Running an empire might mean being tough though. Times change and today there maybe is more room for compassion! But the Dalai Lamas could have possessed it back then too.

I think Human Rights and liberties of different kinds are a quite new invention. They are still not the norm. HR came only after the second world war...

The thing is, the 14th Dalai Lama's rhetoric comes very easy to him like that of most heads-of-state-in-exile do - they don't actually have to GOVERN their country, and just do a lot of talking. They're rhetoric can be as idealistic or incendiary (whichever path such an exiled head-of-state takes - the 14th Dalai Lama has taken the former)) as they wish, because there isn't an active, effective, functioning government affected either way by the expectations and consequences of what's being said.

 

[timtofly]

many gods > many gods but none better than mine > only my god exists

Except for the fact that even early Mesopotamian cosmology, and every religion thereafter, from the Babylonian captivity on, claim the universe started as a single entity. I doubt one can prove that the majority of religious thought of all eastern religions started any sooner than the Babylonian influence in the Indus valley. The concept of becoming single in form with the universe is the state of singularity. It does not matter if the universe consist of an infinite number of processes with independent thought. There is still the concept of singularity within every religion. So stating that some human on a speck of a planet thinks there are many gods, does not make polytheism the first concept. Polytheism grows out of the process of naming and defining what humans experience in the universe around them.

However the core of every religion holds the universe as a single entity with many parts.

So if monotheism gains a foothold in a culture it is just clearing out the outdated naming and defining of accepted gods, for a more simpler realization that the universe is singular in scope. Polytheism creeps in when humans start explaining new and interesting phenomenon previously not experienced or forgotten. Even if you do not accept any ancient writings and only accepted evolution, it seems foolish that humans came up with any original ideas. All thought already exists in the framework of the universe, and allegedly humans are some of the latest beings with the ability to think and reason in the so called evolutionary path. To state that humans came up with any original thought does not make sense. Humans can only define what they experience in their own limited way. Even that the universe is a singular physical unit is assumed without proof. It is just the definition of what we can experience physically until there is proof otherwise.

Claiming that humans made up their own experiences just to have something to define and pass down in written form does not make sense, especially if it is the reason for their whole culture. Does monotheism happen after accepted polytheism? Of course it does, but not as an evolutionary process. It is a decisive choice to forgo what is accepted and form new acceptable ideas. There is archeological proof that the Hebrews had a temple economy hundreds of years before the Babylonian exile. There is proof of pre-temple economy with a more temporary physical structure existing prior to a physical temple. Are humans capable of writing a totally different history than what they actually experienced? Sure. Can we thousands of years later do any better at putting the pieces together and get things right without any bias? We are talking about a tribe of people who claimed to refrain from being immersed in the society and culture around them, for something that is nigh impossible to explain. That is neither proof that it happened nor can we reduce it down to the simple point, it could not have happened. We do accept to a certain point that the information, left behind from all ancient nations, was written to reflect what did happen, unless stated otherwise. Either the Hebrews actually experienced something that would differentiate them from those around them, or they just thought they did. There is more proof it actually happened than they just made it up because they dreamed of a better existence when finding themselves once again under the authority of a foreign entity.

We have what is called the Abrahamic religions, because they allegedly go back to a human named Abraham. It is clear to see that if Abraham actually existed, his descendants went back and forth in acepting monotheism and polytheism many times in their history. I doubt we can really claim that even the Hebrews ever settled fully into monotheism or polytheism. That is natural human behavior that we can see even today, except it is between the issue is there a God or not. And there is not a lack of "gods" around even today that clutter our daily existence. Perhaps most secular people are free from the excesses of these "gods" spiritual connections.

 

[Berzerker]

I cant agree with that, the 'universe' was not the focus of creation myth... Heaven and Earth and their creator was the foundation of ancient cosmology as in Genesis. In Babylonian myth Heaven and Earth were born from Marduk's dismemberment of Tiamat, in Norse myth it was Odin and the Frost giant Ymir. In Mesopotamian myth the olden gods preceded Heaven and Earth, they were: Apsu, Mummu, Lahamu, Lahma, Tiamat, Kishar, Anshar, Anu and Nudimmud.

 

[Live trash can]

So, one piece of theocracy in Civ 4 is that soldiers get better.

It is good to have something to fight for!

Edit:
quote from a book by Steve Bruce, on military service:
"What the modern state regards as burdens properly laid against all citizens, the Ottoman regime constructed in religious terms. The faithful were expected to serve the Caliph or his subordinate lords as part of their holy obligation to jihad or the active promotion of Islam."

He does also say that military service "was one of the main routes to political advancement and booty."

 

[Phrossack]

Rule by an actual omniscient and omnibenevolent God might be the best for of government, but the rule of fallible mortals who claim that their dominance hierarchy is justified by the will of God is perhaps the worst.

"Group together people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity."

Cassiel wasn't wrong

 

[Hrothbern]

The world does not have many Theocracies now that I look.

How odd
Thought there would be more.

There are hybrids
From articles below:

In India it is difficult to be an atheist. Your religion is noted on your birth certificate to start with, and for example laws for marriage, divorce, inheritage are not secular, but depend on the religion you have. How that goes with interfaith marriage IDK.
In Indonesia that interfaith marriage is simply forbidden. When you are raised, you have to follow the education of one of six religions and are locked in.
When you look at the development of post WW2 of more and more people in the West practicing less up to becoming atheists, hybrid marriages are assumed playing a role (is this process BTW still going on everywhere ?). These countries are build on religion building blocks.
The western approach of a secular state with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as platform for individual choices, is handled in these countries in another way. Blasphemy is a severe violation of the law. That christian governor two years ago had no chance for his re-election when (fake) accused of blasphemy. No need for a theocracy, with a divinely inspired government, if you are in control. Freedom of speech is a corner stone of the secular state (whereby I think it improves with some limits, but each of those limits can be very tricky, depending on the country culture in general)
There are at this time in history no such hybrid examples for christian state hybrids AFAIK. But you could see Greece as a pious democracy. Clergy are paid by the state, education (lower level) is done by the church, even building permits need clergy approval.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-12-10/why-its-not-easy-be-atheist-india
https://theconversation.com/is-indonesias-pious-democracy-safe-from-islamic-extremism-79239

 

[Patine]

There are hybrids
From articles below:

In India it is difficult to be an atheist. Your religion is noted on your birth certificate to start with, and for example laws for marriage, divorce, inheritage are not secular, but depend on the religion you have. How that goes with interfaith marriage IDK.
In Indonesia that interfaith marriage is simply forbidden. When you are raised, you have to follow the education of one of six religions and are locked in.
When you look at the development of post WW2 of more and more people in the West practicing less up to becoming atheists, hybrid marriages are assumed playing a role (is this process BTW still going on everywhere ?). These countries are build on religion building blocks.
The western approach of a secular state with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as platform for individual choices, is handled in these countries in another way. Blasphemy is a severe violation of the law. That christian governor two years ago had no chance for his re-election when (fake) accused of blasphemy. No need for a theocracy, with a divinely inspired government, if you are in control. Freedom of speech is a corner stone of the secular state (whereby I think it improves with some limits, but each of those limits can be very tricky, depending on the country culture in general)
There are at this time in history no such hybrid examples for christian state hybrids AFAIK. But you could see Greece as a pious democracy. Clergy are paid by the state, education (lower level) is done by the church, even building permits need clergy approval.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-12-10/why-its-not-easy-be-atheist-india
https://theconversation.com/is-indonesias-pious-democracy-safe-from-islamic-extremism-79239

Are you referring to the modern Hellenic Republic or the Ancient Athenian Democracy founded by Pericles with that last reference, there?