Are Royal Families really chosen by GOD?

Originally posted by Logarock
This question is all messed up. The bible said that some houses would remain. This doesnt mean they are "chosen" to do us ill or that they can do whatever.....but the house will remain.

Thanks, but which part of the question, and according to which source?

(again, I stress the intention was to discuss whether the royal families themselves believe this, or basically go along with the notion because it suits them)

I ask which source, because there is a royal family in Saudi Arabia, Japan, Cambodia and India for example... some of which would not consider the bible as being the source of absolute truth.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by dawnstar
God didn't intend for their to be kings and queens....
He appointed judges to rule over Isreal first.

You are right but need to keep reading. He did grant the house of david to stand.

reply to post by Billmeister



I was addressing the way the question was worded. Chosen to rule do you mean?

reply to post by Billmeister

you'd think that if they actually did believe that their was a higher power that gave them their power, they'd be living a little more godlike???
ya know, it's kind of like the american preachers,who are preaching to you the ways of god all through those years, just to find out later, that hey, they weren't living by their own standards....and have a few girlfriends on the side. did they believe the pitch that they were selling? obviously not, or they would have known what was waiting for them for doing the crap that they did!

I don't know if they do or not, but I know that the concept is absurd in my opinion. It was a good tool to keep the common man at bay and the social order upheld, but the time for it has long past.

reply to post by Logarock

but, only after the people chose to have a king, with the "divine power" that is associated with all kings....
so, well, who chose the king? the people.

I was born and grew up in the USA. Before reading the OP's words I never before heard of the God/Monarchy belief. As another poster wrote, it makes sense that way back in the day there were those who's belief system were of this ilk. As the OP mentioned: when you are raised this way, with this belief.
From what we learn from documentaries about Rome's varied leaders, many of them declared themselves to be gods.
It makes sense those raised in the Monarchy would believe the values, lessons and what-not they were taught by their elders. That's pretty much what the bulk of us go through. Later in life is when you find out you've been lied to.

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by Billmeister

 

Well throughout history there have been a few main ways to be part of a royal family.

One was by warfare / conquest. Someone rallied a bunch of people around him, formed a loyal fighting force, went to war and won / conquered as needed and declared himself royalty.

Second way was by treason. Pretty simple, an inside job to kill or cast out the current royalty with minimal bloodshed and proclaim yourself new royalty and get enough backers to agree.

Third was being born in to the right parents, at the right time after one of the above has happened.

Sometimes royalty is declared by religious leaders - but its usually as a result of one of the above. Really more of a business partnership than anything.

So.. I would say that throughout history its mostly been #2. But, there are always the few that believe their own hype and really have considered themselves a mix of God and King.

Yes indeed, royal family history is a colorful one indeed filled with assassination plots and incest aplenty.

Now that inter-royal warfare and murder is somewhat frowned upon, that leaves only the bloodline as a means of succession to the throne. So their only argument for validity is that somehow, they are of a special breed.

It certainly is interesting to note that, if our fathers or grandfathers committed murder to gain a promotion, they would likely be in jail, and it would most probably have been quite a setback for our chances at success. But, in the case of royalty, the exact opposite is true.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Billmeister

 

I was addressing the way the question was worded. Chosen to rule do you mean?

Yes, chosen to rule and to be given special consideration as to wealth and privilege... perhaps I should have been more specific, I took it for granted that, by definition, a royal family is:

members of any family which reigns by hereditary right

source
So, by definition a royal family "reigns" and therefor "rules" over someone or something.

And the question deals specifically with the views of the royal family members themselves, and not our own opinions as to the validity of said views.

the Billmeister

I am sitting here asking myself, what would the difference between being ruled by judges, as opposed to be ruled by kings, is??
I kind of think that well, the judges would only be called upon when one person did something to harm another, that the judges would mostly be left to rule themselves, while the king is left with unending power, and well, seems to have the ability and desire to meddle in all areas of the people's lives.
so, well, maybe part of that question would be is it better to leave the people to rule themselves, and just step in if they start running over each other's rights, or are the people just too stupid to rule themselves, and need someone to run everything for them....
in this case, I think the royal families, including those who are in public office here in america, believe we are just too dumb to accept the idea of self rulership and they therefore should have as much power as necessary to make sure society is ruled well.....
are their corrupted rulers, are there corrupted judges, yes, and there always will be... but well, a corrupted king has the ability to pull the whole danged country into the corruption, while a corrupted judge is restrained by how far that corruption and spread.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Logarock

 

but, only after the people chose to have a king, with the "divine power" that is associated with all kings....
so, well, who chose the king? the people.

Around here it is! The people well sort of. lol

Anyway we have to establish things first to get into a thing like this. First what is divine power? The people cant give "divine power" they apparently have never made a good choice. lol Around here we say the people have 'divine power".

Are you aware of what you are wading into here?

Originally posted by dawnstar
I am sitting here asking myself, what would the difference between being ruled by judges, as opposed to be ruled by kings, is??

Great question. Blood line comes to mind as one difference. Plus a judge is always closer to a man or woman in some cases of the people.

We see several types of ruling forces in the bible.

prophets, judges, kings, priests sometimes

I'll go with #3 in lieu of the real answer, which is absent from your choices. The bloodlines are from demonic origins. Google "The Curse of Canaan" by Mullins. Full text is free on the web.

"G-o-d" was a new English word made up in 1610.

The deity ordered everyone to call him YHWH. Was the new English word based upon scripture? Nope. Did it sound like what we were calling our deity in 1600? Nope. Somebody just out of the blue in 1610 said let's call our deity "G-o-d".

Royal blood or not, he won't be happy if you try and get into heaven and call him "G-o-d"....he ordered everyone to call him YHWH. So no, there is no royal blood ordained by YHWH to rule. Only 10% of Christianity today even calls their deity the correct name.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Logarock

 

but, only after the people chose to have a king, with the "divine power" that is associated with all kings....
so, well, who chose the king? the people.

Around here it is!

The people well sort of. lol

Anyway we have to establish things first to get into a thing like this. First what is divine power? The people cant give "divine power" they apparently have never made a good choice. lol Around here we say the people have 'divine power".

Are you aware of what you are wading into here?

This is the whole point of my thread... I should have (and will add it now) included the definition of "Divine Right".

Because that is what we are told the royal families have, that all of us commoners do not.

The divine right of kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God.

source

the Billmeister

Originally posted by GirlGenius
I'll go with #3 in lieu of the real answer, which is absent from your choices. The bloodlines are from demonic origins. Google "The Curse of Canaan" by Mullins. Full text is free on the web.

That may or may not be but in the House of Davids case for one no they are not from demonic origins as a blood line. And do you mean set up by demons or actualy having demon blood?

reply to post by Billmeister



Here is an important point to remember here.....the kings were never above direction from Gods moderating force....the prophet. The prophet was pushed further and further out of the picture as the king line became more corrupt.

Just thank God that He set up the judges first.

Kings and politicians are in place by the will of God. The will of God is the will of the People. So long as mankind is unwilling to rule themselves, granting freedom and compassion for all, they will be ruled by others by their combined will and consent.

As for me, I am my own King.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Pervius
"G-o-d" was a new English word made up in 1610.

The deity ordered everyone to call him YHWH. Was the new English word based upon scripture? Nope. Did it sound like what we were calling our deity in 1600? Nope. Somebody just out of the blue in 1610 said let's call our deity "G-o-d".

Royal blood or not, he won't be happy if you try and get into heaven and call him "G-o-d"....he ordered everyone to call him YHWH. So no, there is no royal blood ordained by YHWH to rule. Only 10% of Christianity today even calls their deity the correct name.

I'm not convinced an almighty, omniscient deity would quite care what title is given him, but point noted.

The thread is concerned with whether or not royal families (and not necessarily the British royal family alone) actually believe they are God's and/or YHWH's chosen people... because that is what is described in their "Divine Right" to rule.

The divine right of kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God.

source

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Billmeister

 

Here is an important point to remember here.....the kings were never above direction from Gods moderating force....the prophet. The prophet was pushed further and further out of the picture as the king line became more corrupt.

Just thank God that He set up the judges first.

I definitely do not disagree that this is spelled out in the Bible, however, I am curious as to what the actual monarchs believe. And again, let's consider that there are those who claim to rule by "divine right" in many non-Christian countries as well.

Thanks for the participation.

the Billmeister