Obey the divine right of the Kings ... or, you're a heretic?

en.wikipedia.org...

Could it be that so much disorder, social upheaval and natural disaster is allowed by God because we no longer obey the divine rights of royalty and their bloodlines?
Maybe US Presidents like the Bush dynasty are really appointed by God, and they were predestined to rule since Adam in Eden?
When did this law change, that we can suddenly become "liberal" and question or mock them?
Most of the ultra-rich on this planet are descended from these noble bloodlines, and like much self-improvement literature argues, we should hail and look up to them.
Perhaps the divine right of "kings" should be taught and obeyed by all once again, and our petty-peasant society will be happier.

Even in the days of old when there were kings there was chaos. This planet was never a paradise and I doubtt it ever will be. I bow to no man unless directed to from above.

reply to post by Grossac

One argument of 2000 years was that earthly authority was instituted by God, and many still bow to it today on the same pretext.
As for chaos then and now, that's desputible, most religious beliefs claim the world is getting worse and more wicked towards our current "end time".

reply to post by halfoldman


So god put in power selfish arrogant evil people who lie constantly and violate your own religious laws by hiring gay prostitutes and murdering people? Well that is an interesting take. If god put them in power and they are losing it then the god you follow isn't as powerful as a few powerful human beings. Oh, and wasn't there some type of scandal in the vatican recently? Didn't god say "thou shalt not toucheth the children, at least in the house of the lord, its disgusting"? Good luck with your theory. The only way it would make sense was if you worshipped the bankers and nobility in the vatican and across Europe. Although you would have to be closer to satanic in nature.

reply to post by time91

Thanks for that response. Getting right into the juicy meat of the matter.
My thread should be taken with a degree of irony, because many people forget how close they still are to that "medieval" law.

Many Christians today quote "Give unto Ceasar..." or the Pauline take on obedience to authority. They even teach it to their children as the highlight of authority.

Now, many Christians claim the King James version of the Bible as their ultimate authority. The current British monarch owns the right to that material.
So it seems the monarchs still own the minds - or not?

And what about democracy? Two rich dudes appear and we get a "choice". We're bowing to them still in any case, so why not say it openly?

Religions are influenced by lots of factors, one of them - and very influential one - is politics. Rulers used religion as means of control, this is why you see what you see.
As for bowing for rich dudes - bowing to poor dudes is different?20-th century kind of disprove it. Good leaders can come from any background, and we socially need a leader. Democracy simply ensures that there are ways to control those leaders via counterbalances and limiting their "rule". Nobody promised fair game, and nobody can deliver one. Intriguing dishonest cruel individuals will always get to the top faster and easier then others.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

Arguably politics are created in the name of religion just as much as vice-versa. As for bowing to a poor dude - nooo, when did that ever happen since the New Testament? Depending on the interpretation they weren't poor in any case - they had "prosperity robes".
Great post though, because there is a non-religious argument for the quasi-hereditary power we see, and even non-religious individuals choose to bow.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites originally didn't have kings. But all their neighbors did. They wanted a king too. They kept asking God to let them have a king till God let them. (yes it's there in the Bible). So why would the lack of kings now be against the will of God?
It seems if anything it's just against the wishes of the ancient Israelites instead...

OT text

[edit on 16/4/2010 by Chamberf=6]

reply to post by halfoldman

As for bowing to a poor dude - nooo, when did that ever happen since the New Testament?

Stalin, Mao quickly come to mind as negative examples. Again, not all are negative - but same is with rich ones.

there is a non-religious argument for the quasi-hereditary power we see, and even non-religious individuals choose to bow.

Solitary person can choose to be alone , but once he/she are part of a society - any society ,even anarchistic one, - there will be always a leader. This is not a choice then, this is wired in our "design". Cats will not "bow" on the other hand. Good for them?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

Sure, Mao, Stalin, Hitler all had depraved childhoods.
But by the time people bowed to them they were rich and powerful.
They never had three kings bowing at their birth.
But yeah, most earthly rulers want to copy religious myth and present themselves as "self-made" men - the so-called "revolutionaries from the dungheap". But scratch the background and conspiracy and no multi-millionare (sorry Mr. Trump) was born into nothingness.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

One assumes the switch from a nomadic despotic patriarch like Abrahm to sedentary kings wasn't too much of a shock for them?
At a stage they demanded to go back to Egypt under Moses, so maybe that earthly authority later became corrupting, and their prophets would agitate against it.
Arguably, far from condoning state authority, Jesus rose against it when he freaked out in the temple that was used for Roman taxation.

reply to post by halfoldman


So then re-iterate what your OP is about then. I thought it was about it being "heretical" that the so-called "divine" order of kings weren't followed.......

reply to post by Chamberf=6

Well yeah, that's the way humanity is suppossed to see it, either directly or implicitly. We give certain groups of people all kinds of rights that we don't enjoy. It was ingrained in us for most of history that to disobey the ultimate athority is being "criminal", "unpatriotic", and indeed still "heretical".
However some people look at the scriptures (eg. in my culture The Bible) and they see a very anti-authoritarian, anti-state and anti-empire message. Scripture can be used and abused in both ways.
However in our traditional upbringing we are taught the "be obedient" face of those scriptures. I would question that.

To start discussion on this issue I first took the pro-monarchy stance, because I feel people should be reminded of how much denialism they practice about this every day. Also, there is a pro-power/monarchy argument, and there's nothing wrong with that paradigm.

Personally I could argue either position, so apologies for the confusion - I post threads when I'm conflicted and hope to be swayed either way.

So your post says something valuable - people demand their own rulers, and probably despise being ruled by an outside force, empire or colonialism.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]

www.cephas-library.com...

It wasn't God that made Kings. It was the Vatican; the masters of mind control of the ignorant masses thru fear. Because of a document they created the Vatican rules the world today. The article explains.

" Kings bowed to the great power of Rome not merely from awe and allegiance, but from fear. They knew what their fate would eventually be had they decided to contradict or obstruct the way of the Church. They knew they were open to excommunication for not persecuting the "heretics" (Pelagians, Donatists, Cathars, Manicheans, Fraticelli, etc,) that were reported to them. That man's fear of the Pope and of Rome was synonymous with fear of god, was just one more cunning and brilliant stroke in the artifice of this house of lies and corruption whose power extends to the minds of men as well as to their laws."

"...snip....The Donation of Constantine, therefore, was fraught with incalculable consequences, not only for Italy, France, Germany, England, Ireland and practically the whole of Europe, but also for the Americans and for the Near and Middle East - Avro Manhattan"

reply to post by OhZone

Did Luther, Knox or Calvin undermine or nihilate the "divine power of Kings"? Luther was kidnapped by royalty for his own safety on the second day of his trial (and kept in the Wartburg to translate the first none Latin/Greek Bible). Why did King James order his Bible? Because he felt the Geneva and Dutch versions undermined the role of Kings.
So you can start with Catholicism and how it supported royal power (so did paganism before it, when Caesars were worshipped as virgin-born gods), but the story doesn't end there, and Protestant sects continued the divine support.
The largest, most influential constitutional monarchy today? Anglican Britain! (Which split from Catholicsm under Henry VIII.)



[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


If you think religion supports royal power, I have just one thing to say to you;

Oliver Cromwell.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Oliver Cromwell?
Goodness gracious, you almost make it sound as if the poor man was an atheist!



[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

Oliver Cromwell?
Goodness gracious, you almost make it sound as if the poor man was an atheist!

[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]

Of course he wasn't. That was my point. Religion chopping a king's head off. A counter-example.

Just what do they teach in history these days,, this pathetic,, look up the Magna Carter, then maybe how THAT led to ,,,,,,,,,,?????? anybody????

reply to post by BobAthome


Well for one thing it is the Magna Carta -- not the magna CARTER as you said while acting like we were all stupid....