dfnj
Well-Known Member
I find it rather suspiciously coincidental and self-serving that what is considered to be the one true divine form of government happens to be the very same favorite type of government as the person who's name appears on the Bible. There is no doubt where King James stood with regards to the nature of kings in the World. In his book "The True Law of Free Monarchies" he argues for the "divine rights of kings".
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
"The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is
often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch."
The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The 17th Century: Topic 3: Texts and Contexts
"The True Law of Free Monarchies sets forth James's philosophy of royal absolutism and its divine sanction, setting the terms for new disputes about sovereignty, divine right, and the role of parliaments and subjects."
"THE NATURAL NECESSITY OF ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE"
Full text: https://www.raleighcharterhs.org/faculty/bnewmark/EURO/James I Speech on Divine Right.pdf
Here is my problem with this way of thinking.
My children do not exist for the sole purpose of making me "the father" in charge. My children do not exist for the sole purpose of giving me power. I do not see myself as lord. I do not want my children to think that they are my subjects. I do not expect my friends and family to bend a knee to me in a sign of "absolute obedience".
Although at times with my children it is necessary to discipline them on what is proper behavior I have no desire to have them be my subjects to my authority. Sometimes with my friends I have to set boundaries which I hope they respect. But I do not believe my friends and family exist in my life to serve me at my pleasure.
I see myself as my children's steward and NOT as a king desiring to be worshiped with absolute obedience. I am NOT looking for my friends and children to "serve" me. What I am looking for is for my friends and children to freely give their love to me in fellowship and NOT out of fear or coercion.
I think the Golden Rule is not just some meaningless platitude but a way of being. The way I see it the way to get respect is to give respect. It seems to me before you can become a leader you first have to learn what it means to be a follower. Being a leader, or someone who is deserving of being respected as someone in authority, you have to be able to be grounded in being able to give absolute respect to others.
Consider the most expensive masterpiece of art, say some famous painting, that exists in the World. When you carry a famous painting across the room you do it with an absolute reference for the painting's well-being. I think this is the way we need to treat the people we encounter in our lives. We need to treat people as if the person we meet is a priceless piece of art. We should treat the people in our lives with an absolute reference the same way we would carry a priceless painting across the room. This idea of reverence is like the Golden Rule on steroids.
As I said I see myself as my children's steward and not as their king. I want my children not to worship me out of fear and coercion. I want my children to grow up stronger, more powerful, and with a stronger self-esteem than myself. I see self-esteem as meaning not worshiping someone else in authority for all life's answers but as having confidence in trusting one's own inner authority coming from within. I don't want my children to look to me for every answer in their lives by coming to me for a blessing. I want my children to have the ability to be able to define for themselves what a correct moral compass should be.
So as I see it, I exist so my children can live happier, stronger, and more successful lives than my own. My goal is NOT to experience my children as my subjects and myself as their lord. I don't have any need for my children to acknowledge or exalt me as someone in a position of authority over their lives. My goal is to give my children as much abundance and happiness as I can enable them to have. Based on this way of thinking, and based on my relationship to my friends and family, it seems to me an omnipotent God of unconditional love would be slightly more egalitarian than a God of judgment who is seeking to be worshiped.
I do not accept Loki's assertion that our natural state is to bend a knee in subservience to a god out of fear. We were not "made to be ruled." The Universe came into being as an expression of God's abundance. The Universe did not come into existence because of God's desire to be worshiped or because God is lacking something. An omnipotent God lacks nothing and needs absolutely nothing from us.
Here's my problem with authoritarianism. Here's my problem with monarchy. Here's my problem with being ruled. Do the people exist to serve the government or does the government exist to serve the people? If government's purpose is the accumulation of power, in other words, government exists to serve itself, then whoever is in power will never be satisfied. Whoever is in power will never feel safe because they will never have the love of the people. Whoever is in power will never experience true happiness and joy because they will always want "more" power than they already have. There's a very common idea in Eastern religion in order to get what you want, that is happiness and joy, you have to be fully grounded in wanting what you already have. But people drunk with the desire to accumulate more power will never be satisfied, and therefore, will never be happy in their own lives.
People possessed by the accumulation of power are full of fear an anxiety over losing what power they have already accumulated. We seem to have gotten past the point where speaking out against the king will get you executed with the creation of the First Amendment. Now we have to evolve spiritually and get past the point where we no longer feel the necessity for loyalty pledges and proof of loyalty. The problem with people possessed by the accumulation of power if they are incapable of truly being able to trust anyone because they are full of fear and anxiety their power is only moments from being taken away. So people with trust issues often ask for loyalty pledges.
I do not think an omnipotent God of unconditional love is looking for loyalty pledges. The true nature of God is to love every aspect of His creation equally without any conditions. The true nature of God, or to be aligned with God, is to share our abundance so everyone gets to experience the glory of God as God intended. If the people are treated well then the people in power will feel safer and experience happiness and joy in their lives by sharing in the happiness and appreciations of their people.
The Bible is full of writings supporting authoritarianism. How can the Bible be so wrong on the topic of slavery? My suspicion is the King James "Authorized Version" of the Bible is based on revisionist history of an oral tradition. The text the Bible was translated from what was modified in order to support monarchy as the preferred form of divine government. The translations were also colored by interpretations supporting authoritarianism as desired by the king. An omnipotent God of unconditional love needs absolutely nothing from us. It seems to me the Bible would be translated differently if the people doing the translating believed in a more egalitarian form of government.
People see the world through a lens of perception based on the words and ideas they hold dear. For example, authoritarianism has no room for sharing the Abundance or having compassion for other people's desires to experience God's Greatness by its design. I find this passage in the Bible to be absolutely stunning as a testament of something truly wrong in the content of the Bible:
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
The silent implication with this verse is "slavery is okay and divinely ethical." I simply cannot accept this idea as being morally "good". I can't be the only person who thinks this way since we have the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. There must be something to what I am saying. I imagine there are some Constitutionalists who think the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional.
Regardless of the 13th Amendment, what seems more true in your heart. A God who wants us to be His subjects. Or, a God who loves us unconditionally just the way we are, wants nothing from us, and is more interesting in simply sharing His abundance?
Even further it seems to me an omnipotent God of unconditional love would be more interested in sharing His overflowing abundance with us than any other consideration. Gods sharing His abundance is an expression of God's infinite greatness.
Where as Satan, who was created having limitations, is the one who would be seeking to have one central authority over all of God's creation. In other words, the authoritarianism in the Bible, the idea of the divine right of a king, is evil and is a Satan like philosophy. And evil is always where you least expect it.
It seems to me essentially King James ideas and way of thinking about monarchy being divine is pure evil in my opinion. And therefore, so is Dominionism. The Dominionist just believe a group of people and not a single monarch are chosen by God to rule with power and privilege. God doesn't choose kings. The idea people are chosen by God and have divine rights is the way Satan would think. God, on the other hand, shares His Greatness as proof of His divine Glory.
In my opinion, to be God-like means to share some form of abundance with others.
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
"The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is
often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch."
The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The 17th Century: Topic 3: Texts and Contexts
"The True Law of Free Monarchies sets forth James's philosophy of royal absolutism and its divine sanction, setting the terms for new disputes about sovereignty, divine right, and the role of parliaments and subjects."
"THE NATURAL NECESSITY OF ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE"
Full text: https://www.raleighcharterhs.org/faculty/bnewmark/EURO/James I Speech on Divine Right.pdf
Here is my problem with this way of thinking.
My children do not exist for the sole purpose of making me "the father" in charge. My children do not exist for the sole purpose of giving me power. I do not see myself as lord. I do not want my children to think that they are my subjects. I do not expect my friends and family to bend a knee to me in a sign of "absolute obedience".
Although at times with my children it is necessary to discipline them on what is proper behavior I have no desire to have them be my subjects to my authority. Sometimes with my friends I have to set boundaries which I hope they respect. But I do not believe my friends and family exist in my life to serve me at my pleasure.
I see myself as my children's steward and NOT as a king desiring to be worshiped with absolute obedience. I am NOT looking for my friends and children to "serve" me. What I am looking for is for my friends and children to freely give their love to me in fellowship and NOT out of fear or coercion.
I think the Golden Rule is not just some meaningless platitude but a way of being. The way I see it the way to get respect is to give respect. It seems to me before you can become a leader you first have to learn what it means to be a follower. Being a leader, or someone who is deserving of being respected as someone in authority, you have to be able to be grounded in being able to give absolute respect to others.
Consider the most expensive masterpiece of art, say some famous painting, that exists in the World. When you carry a famous painting across the room you do it with an absolute reference for the painting's well-being. I think this is the way we need to treat the people we encounter in our lives. We need to treat people as if the person we meet is a priceless piece of art. We should treat the people in our lives with an absolute reference the same way we would carry a priceless painting across the room. This idea of reverence is like the Golden Rule on steroids.
As I said I see myself as my children's steward and not as their king. I want my children not to worship me out of fear and coercion. I want my children to grow up stronger, more powerful, and with a stronger self-esteem than myself. I see self-esteem as meaning not worshiping someone else in authority for all life's answers but as having confidence in trusting one's own inner authority coming from within. I don't want my children to look to me for every answer in their lives by coming to me for a blessing. I want my children to have the ability to be able to define for themselves what a correct moral compass should be.
So as I see it, I exist so my children can live happier, stronger, and more successful lives than my own. My goal is NOT to experience my children as my subjects and myself as their lord. I don't have any need for my children to acknowledge or exalt me as someone in a position of authority over their lives. My goal is to give my children as much abundance and happiness as I can enable them to have. Based on this way of thinking, and based on my relationship to my friends and family, it seems to me an omnipotent God of unconditional love would be slightly more egalitarian than a God of judgment who is seeking to be worshiped.
I do not accept Loki's assertion that our natural state is to bend a knee in subservience to a god out of fear. We were not "made to be ruled." The Universe came into being as an expression of God's abundance. The Universe did not come into existence because of God's desire to be worshiped or because God is lacking something. An omnipotent God lacks nothing and needs absolutely nothing from us.
Here's my problem with authoritarianism. Here's my problem with monarchy. Here's my problem with being ruled. Do the people exist to serve the government or does the government exist to serve the people? If government's purpose is the accumulation of power, in other words, government exists to serve itself, then whoever is in power will never be satisfied. Whoever is in power will never feel safe because they will never have the love of the people. Whoever is in power will never experience true happiness and joy because they will always want "more" power than they already have. There's a very common idea in Eastern religion in order to get what you want, that is happiness and joy, you have to be fully grounded in wanting what you already have. But people drunk with the desire to accumulate more power will never be satisfied, and therefore, will never be happy in their own lives.
People possessed by the accumulation of power are full of fear an anxiety over losing what power they have already accumulated. We seem to have gotten past the point where speaking out against the king will get you executed with the creation of the First Amendment. Now we have to evolve spiritually and get past the point where we no longer feel the necessity for loyalty pledges and proof of loyalty. The problem with people possessed by the accumulation of power if they are incapable of truly being able to trust anyone because they are full of fear and anxiety their power is only moments from being taken away. So people with trust issues often ask for loyalty pledges.
I do not think an omnipotent God of unconditional love is looking for loyalty pledges. The true nature of God is to love every aspect of His creation equally without any conditions. The true nature of God, or to be aligned with God, is to share our abundance so everyone gets to experience the glory of God as God intended. If the people are treated well then the people in power will feel safer and experience happiness and joy in their lives by sharing in the happiness and appreciations of their people.
The Bible is full of writings supporting authoritarianism. How can the Bible be so wrong on the topic of slavery? My suspicion is the King James "Authorized Version" of the Bible is based on revisionist history of an oral tradition. The text the Bible was translated from what was modified in order to support monarchy as the preferred form of divine government. The translations were also colored by interpretations supporting authoritarianism as desired by the king. An omnipotent God of unconditional love needs absolutely nothing from us. It seems to me the Bible would be translated differently if the people doing the translating believed in a more egalitarian form of government.
People see the world through a lens of perception based on the words and ideas they hold dear. For example, authoritarianism has no room for sharing the Abundance or having compassion for other people's desires to experience God's Greatness by its design. I find this passage in the Bible to be absolutely stunning as a testament of something truly wrong in the content of the Bible:
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
The silent implication with this verse is "slavery is okay and divinely ethical." I simply cannot accept this idea as being morally "good". I can't be the only person who thinks this way since we have the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. There must be something to what I am saying. I imagine there are some Constitutionalists who think the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional.
Regardless of the 13th Amendment, what seems more true in your heart. A God who wants us to be His subjects. Or, a God who loves us unconditionally just the way we are, wants nothing from us, and is more interesting in simply sharing His abundance?
Even further it seems to me an omnipotent God of unconditional love would be more interested in sharing His overflowing abundance with us than any other consideration. Gods sharing His abundance is an expression of God's infinite greatness.
Where as Satan, who was created having limitations, is the one who would be seeking to have one central authority over all of God's creation. In other words, the authoritarianism in the Bible, the idea of the divine right of a king, is evil and is a Satan like philosophy. And evil is always where you least expect it.
It seems to me essentially King James ideas and way of thinking about monarchy being divine is pure evil in my opinion. And therefore, so is Dominionism. The Dominionist just believe a group of people and not a single monarch are chosen by God to rule with power and privilege. God doesn't choose kings. The idea people are chosen by God and have divine rights is the way Satan would think. God, on the other hand, shares His Greatness as proof of His divine Glory.
In my opinion, to be God-like means to share some form of abundance with others.
Last edited: