It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by prevenge

Been on for hours and just about to leave so I'm not doing searches right now. But, obviously that would include the motivational books by Donald Trump or Richard Branson, and the industries they have created around themselves with 15-minute bestsellers. Perhaps one could start with Vincent Norman Pearle and all that positive thinking stuff, or influencing people by being a general brown-noser. They all have a constant thread, don't hate rich, selfish people, idolize them and "The Secret" (lol) will magically make you rich too. The prosperity gospel in the US has stolen heavily from this and disguised it as good sounding, useless Biblelese. The Benny Hinn, Rod Parsely, John Hagee: they all say the same. You gotta visualize it before you can claim it. So claim it: "Yes, yes, yes"!

And once the excitement is over, and you've made your donation or paid for a useless course, you can go home...

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

There is danger of taking it to extremes. Any ideology when taken to an extreme will lead to negative things and no system is perfect (because we humans aren't capable of being perfect).

The thing is that war is generally fought for land or resources, when you remove religion as a justification tool it makes it more easy for the people to realize they are being tricked. It removes one of the biggest excuses for war, religion. There are other excuses that are used like the Iraq "Spread Democracy" and "WMDs" nonsense.

However I find it amazing that today people still vote based on someone's religion, Bush would have never been President if it wasn't for the fundamentalist beliefs he pretended to espouse. Its sad that in order to get elected in a country where Church and State are separate you almost HAVE to be a Christian.

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

A lot of truth again.
However, eventually you question if Obama or the Rev. Wright can't be Chrsitians, and if Christianity belonged to Bush personally.
It's like two different shores that shall never meet.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 17-4-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Actually I was saying that all Presidents have to pretend to be Christians whether they really are or not just to get elected. Most of these men might be Christians but they're not the hardcore men of faith they are made out to be, after all most of them live rich lives filled with luxury. My opinion is that they are only stage Christians, pretenders who must put on a show of faith in order to sway the religious into voting for them. Bush and Obama can pretend to be devout Christians but at the end of the day I really don't think they are, I think it's just a show to win the public. We accept Christians in this country (well, most of us do) because we're familiar with their faith, its been popular here since the Pilgrims arrived. It breaks my heart to know that we're so blind that we may never have a non-Christian in the White House. I think we'll have a woman President before have a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim President.

So I didn't mean that Bush was the only Christian, I actually meant that I question whether ANY of them, deep down on a personal level, were actually Christians. I don't think they should have to pretend, I don't think a person's religion or lack there of (how long will it take before we let an atheist in to the white house?) should figure into it unless they are planning to make policy decisions based on it.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

We have a Zulu traditionalist President who has 5 wives and 18 kids (now 20, actually).
I think Jacob Zuma's great so far, and how many countries can say that? He's also a Christian and often attends the Rhema church.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I just returned to say I heard you on US politics and the requirement of a "Christian" candidate for presidency. It led me further to other thoughts, but it is almost globally understood.
Maybe it's not so bad if there's a debate and changes along the way.
I'm not sure a Buddhist or Muslim will necessarily be better. They have good things in their culture too, but also shockingly bad things.
The thing is the leader may say he's Christian, but the populace might be wary...yeah you're right, it is a requirement, not only in the US.
It sometimes makes one wonder on the border between church and state.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:27 AM

Originally posted by halfoldman

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.

You "libs" don't have the corner on questioning the idiots at the "top". We independents and conservatives do a fair bit ourselves.

I've been questioning God since I was a kid. It probably feels like Its getting the third degree
. I have no use for a god that stand up to a question.

What answers have been returned?

Usually, man has foisted a BS belief on the Creator.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

it the king was ungodly, the entire nation was forced into the ungodliness, if they were good and godly, the whole nation was forced into being "good" and "godly" least in appearance... can put lipstick on the pig, but, it's still just a pig!!! the ungodly will still find ways to do the ungodly things, and well, if the king is just as ungodly, they will not even be challenged by the laws as they do them! all you are doing is stipping people of their power to protect themselves from the tyrants of the world!!!
it's like a buy one, get a million sale to saten, win the king, and take the entire kingdom also!

besides, read your bible, kings wasn't god's choice of leadership, it was the isrealis...he just gave into their desires and gave them their king! originally, it was judges....JUSTICE....that was to rule the people!

[edit on 17-4-2010 by dawnstar]

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

So it seems that some Christians and other religious peoples are highly critical of their governments, and even of the legitimate expressions of their faith. How the Third Estate still clings to the First and Second.
No wonder really because in medieval times the distinction between kings and popes was blurred.
But pacified and diverted by various church officials, and the King James Bible, we should all sing: "God save the Queen".

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in