A Handmaids Tale
 

of course "A Handmaid's Tale" is liberal propaganda, but, what if there is a collapse of society and the right takes over?

There was a "Theonomy" during the inquisition.

There was a right wing government during the Third Reich with a government run "church"

There will be an antichrist who will rise from within the church
2 Thessalonians 2


Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead. She may leave the home of the Commander and his wife once a day to walk to food markets whose signs are now pictures instead of words because women are no longer allowed to read. She must lie on her back once a month and pray that the Commander makes her pregnant, because in an age of declining births, Offred and the other Handmaids are valued only if their ovaries are viable.

Offred can remember the days before, when she lived and made love with her husband Luke; when she played with and protected her daughter; when she had a job, money of her own, and access to knowledge. But all of that is gone now….

Funny, unexpected, horrifying, and altogether convincing, The Handmaid's Tale is at once scathing satire, dire warning, and literary tour de force.

https://www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tal...40_&dpSrc=srch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36TR0ESbhTE

will the antichrist arise from the Right?

will homosexuals and adulterers be executed?

will women be striped of all rights and be solely conscripted for reproduction?

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Don’t y’all expect the AC to be a gay? Executing homosexuals would be like the ultimate display of self loathing.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

If he rises from the right, from within the church, he likely wont be gay.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

sounds like any Muslim through history

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

The spirit of antichrist could very well arise from anywhere he's allowed to flourish.

Yes, if Theonomists/Christian Reconstructionists were to take over society, homosexuals and adulterers will face execution. In fact, the following sins would become punishable by death:

•Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
•Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
•Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
•Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
•Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
•Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
•Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)
•Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
•Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
•Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
•Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
•Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
•Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
•Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
•False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
•Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
•Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)
•False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
•Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

As it relates to women being conscripted for reproduction, I don't think it would be that overt. It stands to reason that women would return to being socially classified as they were under the Law of Moses. This could mean that women/wives could become a man's legal property, just as it was in biblical times. Limitations on legal rights such as voting, owning property, etc. could once more find their way back into our society.

For example...

Once the rank and file Theonomists that we know here take over, they might not desire to take away a woman's right to vote or own property. They're good guys, right? They just want "God's law" to govern society. But common social and psychological dynamics will begin...and other men will seek power (as they always do). We'd likely see an even more conservative group of Theonomists arise to challenge the first for political gain, and to "advance righteousness". This second group will see themselves as purifying the errors of the first. And if they appear more "godly", and can sway the simple minded, they will gain power. Just look at how the political parties are shifting further and further to the right and left. It's a common social dynamic. "I'm more conservative than you!", is essentially the spirit that will bring this about. And this second group could very well support prohibiting women from voting, owning property, having the right to divorce, etc.

In the end, the only thing expected of women socially will be to marry, serve their husbands, and yes... reproduce. It's only been roughly 300 years since that was rather common. And yes, unless we defend human liberty...those days could return.

This is why going down this path is so dangerous. But they just don't seem to want to see it. Personally, I see Theonomy as a threat to human liberty and a blight on the church.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

it would be *Christian Sharia law*

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

I think this might be the case if we followed the OT instead of the NT

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Most Theonomists rely heavily on the works of, Rousas John Rushdoony, a Calvinist philosopher who championed the reinstitution of OT law, namely as described in his book, Institutes of Biblical Law.

The NT alone doesn't propose a theonomist approach to the Kingdom. In the NT, the Kingdom is spiritual and permeates all earthly nations, being comprised of every ethnicity, kindred, people, and tongue until Christ returns.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

The Nazi's were not right-wing.
Does the phrase National Socialists German Workers Party sound right wing to you?
Insofar as a church the long term goal of the Nazi's was to turn Germany back to the old gods, prior to Christianity.
The Handmaid is just anti-Christian propaganda, nothing more.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Like Nero who had a young male slave castrated. Then he married the slave?
Who hated women because of his mother?

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

:highfive

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

I agree that it is anti Christian propaganda, but the question is could the antichrist arise from the right. It certainly did during the Inquisition.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

So, who was the antichrist during the Inquistion?

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

the reformation saints argued that it was of office of the papacy. some would still argue that today.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Too simplistic.

The Nazis were right-wing in that they were racist nationalists. They were economically left-wing in that the consolidated the means of production under the authority of the state. Authority itself was right-wing in that they favored centralized authoritarian power over a means of governmental checks and balances.

The racist nationalist authoritarianism tends to get the Nazis listed as right-wing, in spite of their leftist economics.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

The NAZIs are considered far right in political terms


“the left” is concerned with two core themes - equality and inclusion, most other concerns of the left are footnotes to these core themes. The two great ideologies of the Enlightenment (classical liberalism and socialism) both heavily focused on these themes. For socialists, equality meant social and economic equality - redistribution of wealth, equal education opportunities etc. For classical liberalism, equality meant equality of rights - property, equal treatment under law and so on.

The Nazis vehemently rejected these ideas.

While it may be true that the Nazis were economically left-wing, they were economic left-wing domestically, and to a select group of people. They rejected the core tenets of equality and inclusion.

Equality

They were not concerned with equality in either a socialist, or classical liberal sense. The Nazis favoured a society built upon a rigid hierarchical structure, where some were treated more favourably than others. It is this preference for hierarchy that places them on the right.

Inclusion

I need not go into too much detail here, but the left has traditionally been concerned with the worse off, the oppressed, the poor, minorities, the victimized etc. The left sought to bring these groups of people into the fold, and afford them the same treatment as everybody else. The Nazis were unquestionably opposed to such measures.

To summarize, the Nazis are considered far-right because they aggressively and invariably opposed the very foundation of left-wing politics - treating people equally in a minimally hierarchical society, and seeking to include those that would otherwise be discriminated against.



https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Nazism-...olitical-terms

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

by the way, I'm not really trying to prove an idea, just wanting to explore an idea.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

So only right-wingers can be racist nationalists.
Got it.
Then you want to change it from a simple left-wing/right-wing narrative to one where "well they are a right-wing in all the bad parts", but "the parts I like are left-wing".
Got it.
Was Abraham Lincoln right or left wing...

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

You are confusing "the left" with classical liberalism. Which it does not represent, anymore.
Communists are more left than anyone, but no one would say they are worried about equality or inclusion.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

No problem.
I do have to agree somewhat with Aquila, that there are far more nuances than just right or left.
For example the students during the Evergreen college fiasco were far left, but they did not believe in equality or inclusion.
And I do not believe you could term the Inquisition as either left or right wing.
Was Hugo Chavez left or right wing?

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

I didn't say that. I only said that the Nazis are commonly considered right-wing on account of their racist nationalist authoritarianism. I also never said that I like any part of their system. I only acknowledged that they were leftists when it came to economics.

You're going personal. If you don't believe that racist nationalism and authoritarianism is distinctly right-wing, that's a fair statement of opinion. However, leftists typically favor equality, worker solidarity, and democracy within a system of checks and balances that tends to reduce authoritarianism and dictatorship. This isn't a denial that many leftists have gained power and threw equality, solidarity, democracy, and checks & balances out the window. But those who do betray the platform on which they claim to stand and had typically campaigned on.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Venezuela is both racist nationalists and authoritarian and it is left wing.
Pol Pot was a racist nationalist and authoritarian and left wing.
Mao was a racist nationalist and authoritarian and left wing.
I could go on and on...

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Yes, you could go on and on.

However, even if you choose to go on and on, the Nazis are typically regarded as being right-wing on account of their racist nationalist authoritarianism...whether you believe that is a true assessment of the reality within the regime or not.

Hitler vehemently denounced the leftist Marxists within Germany and had them arrested and often murdered. Most Jews in Germany were noted Marxists or accused of Marxism, this was one justification for Hitler's police action against the Jews. And while I had said that the Nazis tended to be leftist economically, their economics leaned more towards fascism in that the social prosperity promised to the people didn't materialize as promised. The redistributed wealth was redistributed to the military-industrial complex of Nazi Germany and civil reconstruction, the wealthy few helping to fund the war, and those in authority. Not to mention the corporatism that began to flourish under Italy and Germany. This corporatism had syndicates such as the “National Fascist Confederation of Commerce,” the “National Fascist Confederation of Credit and Insurance,” and so on. All of these “fascist confederations” were “coordinated” by a network of government planning agencies called “corporations,” one for each industry. One large “National Council of Corporations” served as a national overseer of the individual “corporations” and had the power to issue regulations of a compulsory character. All these factors make the Nazis right-wing according to many sources.

I'm not saying if these assessments are true or false. I'm only saying that this is why they are considered right-wing.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

:highfive

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

wouldn't the Catholic Church have been considered right wing? authoritarian and Nationalist?

Chavez was a nationalist with a socialist economy, so he could have been branded either way.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

All of these factors is why the notion of left vs. right is rather naïve and is more of a tool to keep the population divided and arguing among ourselves instead of focusing in on what either "side" is actually doing or not doing.

But, to stay on topic.... a Christian Reconstructionist government would be a form of right-wing theocracy.

The ironic thing is that these right-wing Theonomists advocate libertarian economics, yet the Scriptures depict ancient Israel's economic system as one that is better compared to "agrarian socialism" or in the minds of some, "distributism". The only caveat is that land and the means of production aren't viewed as belonging to the state in biblical economics. They are viewed as being owned by God who has ordained the ruler to administer justice among human beings who are but stewards of God's land and means of production (for example, millstones).

For one to say, "This is my land.", or, "This is my millstone.", in the sense of absolute ownership is thought of as theft against God and a failure to be a steward over what God has entrusted to man. And so the landowner has no right to his land, God can order what is to be done with it. For example, corners and edges of crops were to be left for the poor, dropped gleanings for the poor, and the required poor tithe (agrarian tax for the poor).

The ultimate manifestation of this reality is seen in God's ordained, Year of Jubilee. Every 50 years all land and significant means of production were to be given back to the family line of the original owners. So imagine, one could have purchased land a week before the Year of Jubilee and have to surrender it back to the original family line that owned it. The result of this prevented the nation's aggregated land and wealth from falling into the hands of a wealthy small percent of the population, leaving the rest wage slaves or turning to indefinite indentured servitude to pay off debt, or just to survive. In fact, in the Jubilee, all debts were also cleared and wiped clean. Every generation was given a fresh start to make wealth to be passed down to the next with the land that was essentially borrowed from God and returned to the original family lines, regardless of how many times it changed hands.

It was like resetting a Monopoly game every 15 to 20 rounds, without asking the players to return their game money to the bank. So capitalism (with obligatory provision for the needy of the nation) would be practice for 50 years, and bam!, the economy would reset. This could cause immediate loss for some, and immediate gain for others. But long term, it served for the benefit of all. It sure isn't libertarian capitalism.

What many on the so called "right" fail to see is that this kind of socio-economic structure is a form of agrarian socialism. And... it was God's vision of a nation.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Amanah, Chavez could have been branded either way????
Seriously?
Is that why Bernie Sanders, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Danny Glover and Jesse Jackson supported him?
Chavez was a total leftist.

I am really puzzled about your entire point in this thread.
Antichrist right wing or left wing?

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

you are right about Chavez.

But my question was could the man of sin arise from a Christian right wing government similar to the story line of a handmaid's tale.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Oh, another thing about "biblical economics", it tended to prevent inflation and leaned more towards causing deflation. The longer property remained in the hands of a given owner (steward), the less value it maintained on the market, seeing that in fewer and fewer years, it would have to be returned to the original family line. The Year of Jubilee, had it been obeyed as written, would have not only ensured that there would be no truly poor family in Israel, it would have caused some crazy market forces that encouraged families to maintain land, or sell it after the Jubilee for greater profit. Of course, such forces would tend to cause those who could buy such land to try to hold off buying it until the price dropped to something more desirable, thereby slowing the process of the ultra wealthy acquiring too much land or means of production too fast at the expense of the people.

Biblical economics is truly fascinating. Because if a society truly abided by it... there would be no truly poor for more than a portion of a single generation.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

But this would only be feasible in an agrarian patriarchal society right? I'm more interested in how the early church functioned as a society. They seemed to function more as a family then I think the typical church does today.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

:highfive

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

You're right. However, there are principles that can be gleaned from the Jubilee and agrarian laws of the OT.

First - Nothing is truly ours, all things belong to God.
Second - We are only stewards of all that we have, and God's desire is that we properly distribute our wealth to ensure that none are lacking in the basics as it relates to living in our society.
Third - Interest (usury) is a sin in that it tends to only increase the burden on those who were already burdened to need a loan.
Fourth - Extended indebtedness isn't God's will. God would favor releasing all debts, servitudes, and contracts every 7 years.

I'm sure more principles could be considered, but those are the first to come to mind. Biblically speaking, one does business and acquires wealth not to serve self, but to provide for others. And so rather it be the poor tithe or a tax to fund food stamps, the government isn't taking what belongs to an individual and giving it to another. The government (God's ordained agent of both civil and social justice) is managing steward ship of God's provision to ensure that none are destitute. Of course, if one believes this, it is the one who is saying, "Wait, this is mine, all mine, no one else's.", who is a thief, not the one collecting the poor tithe or the welfare tax, for it is their sacred duty to do so. This might explain some of the statements made by church fathers down through the centuries. For example,

"The rich man argues, Whom am I wronging so long as I keep what is my own? Tell me, just what things are your own? Where did you get them to make them an inseparable feature of your life? If every one were to take for himself simply what sufficed for his use, and left what was over and above to the man in want, there would be no distinction of rich and poor. Were you not born naked? Shall you not return naked to the earth? Whence, then, the goods you now possess? If you ascribe them to fate, you are godless, neither recognizing the Creator nor being grateful to the giver. But you acknowledge they are from God. Tell us then the reason why you received them. Is God unfair in the unequal distribution of the good things of life? Why is it that you are rich and that another is in need? Isn't it wholly that you may win the reward of kindness and of faithful stewardship, and that he may be honored with the great prize of patience? Now after seizing all things in your insatiable greed, and thus shutting out others, do you really think you are wronging no man? Who is the man of greed? He that is not content with a sufficiency. Who is the thief? He who seized everybody's goods. What are you but a greedy miser? What are you but a thief? The things you received to dispense to others, these you make your own. The man who steals a coat from another is called a thief. Is he who can clothe a naked man and will not, worthy of any other name? The bread, which you keep in the store, is the hungry man's bread. The cloak, which you guard in the chest, belongs to the naked man. The sandals rotting in your house belong to him who goes barefoot. The silver you hide away belongs to the needy. Thus it is that you are wronging as many men as you might help if you chose." ~ St. Basil

I won't bore you with many tedious quotes like this. But, I will say, imagine if men who thought like this were making social policy in the United States. I don't think they'd be warmly greeted by many on the right end of the spectrum today. Or, just imagine if we cultivated this perspective in churches today. Christianity would be an entirely different animal as it relates to it's sense of social advocacy.

I would have to agree with you. :nod

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Whoops

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Don't worry, America won't be following the Bible any time soon. The "Christians" will make sure of that.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Shhh

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

Post of the month. :highfive

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

I'm over here wondering when the church will start following the Bible. :heeheehee

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

I want to follow NT Christianity, not the OT laws is the only thing. In the Handmaid's tale they were following OT law.

I thought it would be interesting to consider how a 2 Thess 2 man of sin could arise.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

There you go again.
Just can't help yourself.
Many, many studies show that the LEFT gives very little to the poor.
It is the "evil" conservative right-wingers who open up their pocket books to the poor.

Re: A Handmaids Tale
 

You sure they were actually following Biblical law?

And let's assume they actually were. What does the NT say about slaves, handmaids, servants, etc?