Thanks for the compliment and you are essentially right.  To be clear I don't wholly reject things in the Bible, Kuran or any other religious text. Some things are quite nice and helpful. What I reject is the existence of God, and the authority of religious texts over Human authority.

I will always place well reasoned human authority over claims that a god has authority. I believe a Secular government populated by a largely Secular population (in action, if not beliefs) has proven to be the best form of government. (For example, Norway, Japan, Sweden, Denmark).

You say "God says in the Kuran", isn't it more accurate to say that "some guy wrote said that God said.."?

I don't see God holding a pen.

More to the point, isn't it more true of all religious texts that men wrote them and they wrote what they believed God would have said, or they worte what they wanted people to believe?

First I should say that the word theocracy is used by seculars and atheists with bad way! I prefer say "morals authority"- how a christians who accepted salvation and the laws don't applicate bible orders?- i said that democracy can be managed to absorb "morals authority"!

I think When Bible refuses abortion, it's clear that allowing or banning this act, is in the hand of govt. same thing concerning polygamy or usure...all those Bible orders are the task of authorities, but all .

As a christian you shouldn't speculate on the "success or failure" of God's commands; it surely will be successful. Again you should remember that the amount of Bible or Kuran orders which concern public policy is just very limited; the rest of laws (majority) is the matter of parliament and legislatives.

I don't understand why a minority of christians are calling for applicating Bible orders in social and politic life; it didn't mean at all that the church should be the supremacist, i refuse that idea.

it intends and direct christians to keep up commandments and applicating it by any way!


Sorry, I don't understand your confusion here, can you give me an example?
- Islam is a pure monothestic Abrahamic religion.


again the word "theocracy" is an obtrusive concept which describe the church governing in Mid-ages- Iran is like all countries, it has just few kuranic-laws which are legalized, the rest is human laws discussed by parliament.

Muslims believe in old and new testaments, Jesus and Moses, Messiah and even celebrate them-it's the christianism which is totally inconsistent with Jewish scriptures of old (jesus divinity and Messiah nature).

Except for the annoying little problem that it predates Xianity...

Yeah, I suppose we could squabble, but certainly the idea was around.  I think, though, if Xianity was a force of democracy it would have happened long before the Age of Reason and Humanism.

WEll, then you have to take all that preceeded Xianity and the contemporary political thought during that time, and all the ideas that came after (including many religions and philosophies).

It is a bigger task than I can handle.  All I know is that Democracy , as we know it today, began as a Humanist movement.

Sure, you can make a case for almost anything but so could anyone.  But I think there is a large case to be made that a Xistocentric view of history has always tainted the waters and it makes it hard to determine Cause and Effect.

All of history can be judged against the backdrop of religion, economics, population, art, politics, etc.

The one you think is most important is usually depends on your proclivities, not actual truth of history.



After all, RF is making a case that Xinaity has no political aspect but a personal one.  To quote one phrase that says "render unto the dictator" doesn't sound like a foundation for democracy.  It seems to suggest you toe the political line, whatever it may be.

Why debate? Its fun and encourages discussion.

My point would be, regarding the quote, is that you have to consider it in the context.  To bring it into some discussion about Xianities influence for Democracy really takes the whole phrase out of context, do you think?  It says nothing about democracy and establishes the fact that Jesus did little to overturn the political and economic status quo (he was for slavery and encouraged slaves to obey their masters, for example - not very democratic)

You pick a phrase to try to make a larger point but I really don't think in all honesty it applies.

As I said, if anything it seems to support the status quo, which was a dictator at the time.

I might remind you that every attempt was to establish Jesus as King of the Jews, not President Elect.