5 ms·
There is a difference here. One was to maintain the power of a theocracy while the other is to protect the lives of individuals. Is it the right course of actio
by bergenty 4y ago
There is a difference here. One was to maintain the power of a theocracy while the other is to protect the lives of individuals. Is it the right course of action? I don’t know but the motivations are definitely not analogous.
- lr4444lr 4y agoSalvation of every last immortal human soul was a deep and abiding concern of the church. A lot more so than the "woke" of today who would happily brand newborn babies of the wrong color into oppression hierarchies.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoThe stated, overt goal of that theocracy was to save the souls of individuals. I’m not sure this distinction is as real as you state.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoA theocracy is nothing more then a "protect the rights of individuals" for contract safety (marriage), primitive justice and against more then absolute ruler overreach, going heywire and corrupt. This whole machine will reincarnate again and again though. With fairytale or without, the part of society not trusting the judical system to uphold contracts and social safety, will make there voices heard in pseudo religion after pseudo religion. Let me venture into the testable area. I venture the guess, that the more reliable and longer existing a states social safety net is, the more religion will be absent from its society. It should also corellate with reliability of the justice system.