1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The True Law of Free Monarchies by King James and why Dominionism is evil

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by dfnj, Feb 10, 2019.

  1. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,964
    Ratings:
    +798
    Religion:
    My Own
    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.
     
    #1 dfnj, Feb 10, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
  2. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,964
    Ratings:
    +798
    Religion:
    My Own
    I fixed all the spelling errors. Added one or two more sentences so it reads better. It should be good now. These essays take a long time to do!
     
  3. Ellen Brown

    Ellen Brown Sorry, just trying to sort the NONSENSE
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2,345
    Ratings:
    +1,132
    Religion:
    I hope there is something out there that is smarter than me.
    Lots of civil and religious leaders think they are in charge. I snottily resist that by reminding them of the "Individual Priesthood of the Believer".
     
  4. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,481
    Ratings:
    +7,288
    Religion:
    none
    The Divine right of kings was originally conceived as a method of separating ecclesiastical and secular spheres of power in the Holy Roman Empire.

    The Pope had a Divine right to rule over the spiritual domain, and the king had a Divine right to rule over the temporal. This limited the king's ability to interfere with the Church, and the Church to interfere with the state. After the reformation, these 2 spheres could often become overlapping though.

    Divine right was also different from royal absolutism, the idea that the king had unlimited power. It was not inconsistent to argue that the king had a Divine right to rule, and that he was also limited by the law (either common law, or Natural Law). So James I was not freed from limitations on royal power that had evolved in English Law from Magna Carta onwards.

    So to exhort them, that as wee lived in a setled state of a Kingdome which was governed by his owne fundamentall Lawes and Orders, that according thereunto, they were now (being assembled for this purpose in Parliament) to consider how to helpe such a King as now they had; And that according to the ancient forme, and order established in this Kingdome: putting so, a difference between the generall power of a King in Divinity, and the setled and established State of this Crowne, and Kingdome. James I

    It can be argued that, more than being about a king's unlimited power, DR theory was really an idea that underpinned state sovereignty and created an obligation for subject to respect the authority of the king and thus the laws of the land (this was a time of threats to state authority from both Catholic and Presbyterian dissenters). By this same obligation, the king was required to rule within the constrains of the law, and in accordance with established rights.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,964
    Ratings:
    +798
    Religion:
    My Own
    It seems to me the political power of the King is intertwined with the religion so as to legitimize the King's authority as God's spokesman on Earth.

    Are you saying, ""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" this is not true?

    I see you are expressing some nuances on the topic but I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with what I was saying about the people's relationship to the king, the king's relationship to God, and monarchy as a form of divine government. In other words, the Bible was written as propaganda to promote a particular type of government.

    And then the rest of my post is why I do not accept this particular type of government. And my last bit of the post is why having people chosen by God in authority is evil. And the idea of centralizing power to single point is what someone created with limitations, like Satan, would desire.

    Where I was going with an Apothetical type definition of God where there is absolute nothing God wants or is lacking in God's infinite greatness. The Universe exists as a result of God's abundance and NOT to address some lack of something or the desire for something to make God complete. The idea God requires monarchy seems to me to imply God is lacking something or wanting something in order to be complete.
     
  6. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,481
    Ratings:
    +7,288
    Religion:
    none
    In its earlier form it was specifically to reject the idea that the King was God's spokesman, that honour belonged to the Pope.

    The king had temporary authority, the Pope spiritual and both of these were by Divine Providence so neither could claim authority over the other.

    The Protestant version could be described that way though.

    That is true, but it is often misunderstood as to what this means (although there were quite a range of views).

    A common assumption is that this places unlimited power in the hands of the monarch (royal absolutism) and that god has mandated they can do as they please.

    It was often expected that the king rule in accordance with the laws of the land though and in the interest of his subjects as with right comes responsibility. So, a king who did not rule justly in accordance with natural law could be considered a diabolical imposter, and his subjects could overthrow him.

    Also, anything that gave legitimacy to the ruler beyond brute force, has at least some positive function in contributing to social stability.

    I don't think the Bible was written as propaganda to support a type of government. It was subversive to Roman government as it prevented Christians from recognising the Roman Emperor as a god and participating in the rituals which outwardly acknowledged this (a form of divine right in itself, but different to the theory you are discussing).

    It fully centralised the legitimacy of power (The Crown), but not exercise of power.

    DR of the kind you are talking about developed out of religion + the social and political realities of medieval Europe, especially post-Reformation.

    It's probably not something many people will advocate for in the modern world, but in its historical context it's certainly not all bad especially when compared to other possibilities.
     
  7. dfnj

    dfnj Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,964
    Ratings:
    +798
    Religion:
    My Own
    So just out of curiosity, what type of government espoused in the Bible does God have?

    In terms of the Bible being propaganda, I have always been fascinated by this theory:



    Titus Flavious military campaign is time synchronous with what Jesus did.

    Of course, many people believe asking questions about the Bible on any aspect automatically means you are possessed by evil.

    I think the question remains, do people serve the Bible, or do people serve religion? Or does God, religion, the Bible, and church exist to serve the people? I still think it is a bias in translation to use the word "Lord" over the word "Steward". Since we have no idea what the Bible was translated from before it existed in Greek we really have no way to confirm if the Greek text contains any revisionism.
     
  8. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,481
    Ratings:
    +7,288
    Religion:
    none
    Seeing as early Christians probably thought the eschaton was imminent, it doesn't seem to have too much concern with trivialities like that.

    I find it very implausible.

    For one thing, spreading a religion in the pre-modern world has to be the most inefficient method of controlling a population I can think of, as in the very unlikely event of it catching on, it would still only really bear fruit decades if not centuries down the line.

    NT narratives likely evolved significantly over the 1st C.
     
Loading...