Where does the 'Divine right of kings' come from?
I must have missed that part of the bible.
>>1363151
Schizophrenia
Well it's pretty explicit in the old testament in several places, but it's most overtly laid out in Romans 13
>>1363173
No tripfriends please.
>>1363173
>The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
I am now convinced that Christianity is a slave religion.
>>1363151
ROMANS
>13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Not fedora, just your garden variety chill Catholic.
So, what does this mean in relation to let's say, North Korea, which actively persecuted Christians? Is it wrong for a Korean Christian to be against them?
>>1363213
wtf i hate jesus now
>>1363211
>I am now convinced that Christianity is a slave religion.
I think you mean democracy
>>1363216
North Korea isn't the legitimate government of Korea.
Maybe ancient Rome would be a better example
>>1363151
Welcome to people trying to justify their innate desires by claiming divine authority.
You missed it in the Bible? How? The entire bible is about how the Israelite are "Gods chosen people". How convenient for them. However everyone else in the ancient world was pulling the same stunt, Pharaoh for instance. If a tribe of people conquered someone else it was because their God was more powerful than the enemy's God.
>>1363218
It's not my favourite part of the bible. That would be the sermon on the mount.
Back to OP >>1363151
The Roman Catholic church was adopted by barbarian warlords to help make them appear more kingly, post fall of Rome.
There is also to consider that the Old Testament offered role models, like King David, for the barbaric Frankish groups like the Merovingian and Carolingians to aspire to. Church support, and ceremony, gave these untidy men a royal glamour and made them seem more kingly.
- using King David as an example
>>1363277
Just read this back - I know it is gibberish (4am), but the meaning can be gleaned.
>>1363291
>I think it's pretty obvious that this comes directly from Constantine's (lol) wish to use the church as a tool for cohesion in the Empire.
The entire Bible was written long before Constantine was born, not a single scholar disputes that.
>Democracy may be a sham, but it's better than just "sit down and take it like a fag, lol".
Is this what duty means to liberals?
>>1363285
>4am
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N
>>1363294
>The entire Bible was written long before Constantine was born, not a single scholar disputes that.
Then it may have been written to appease the Romans and maybe make them ease their prosecution.
>Is this what duty means to liberals?
I'm not sure what definition you're using of liberal, but duty certainly doesn't mean bowing down to authority and following it blindly.
I don't think you do either, otherwise you'd have to accept that the USSR endorsed church was legitimate.
>>1363310
>I don't think you do either
I don't think you think so either*
And not that I think about it, even the Catholic church's legitimacy can be justified with bowing down to authority.
>>1363151
>Romans 13
I'm seriously intrigued by this discussion...
Did Romans mean that if you were a Christian ruler or did it also apply to non-Christians as well? Like Christians living under Muslim rulers?
I mean it seems to say rulers are only rulers because God allows them to be so...
Which means Obama is ruler by the grace of god and we should follow him?
Or am I reading too much into this?
>>1363367
Well it talks about how being upright and righteous will get you commended, so I usually thought it applied to states that aren't like North Korea.
But at the same time he was living under the Romans, who within 100 years would start persecuting them and they still didn't rebel in large numbers.
Feudal system
>>1363310
>Then it may have been written to appease the Romans and maybe make them ease their prosecution.
The epistles in question was written to Christians who evidently had a rebellious temperament.
>I don't think you do either, otherwise you'd have to accept that the USSR endorsed church was legitimate.
Obviously state power goes beyond its bounds when it tries to supersede God. Paul himself believed that and died for it. The state doesn't have more authority than Christ and cannot command you to do that which God prohibits.
>>1363352
Not when said authority demands heresy.
>>1363375
So in this case Romans also applies to non-Christian rulers like of course the pagan Romans.
Which if you were to apply today which means pay your taxes and obey Obama.
How does this apply to democracy? Whoever wins is the winner because God allowed it?
>>1363211
i am a slave to christ! let his works be done through me! hallelujah!
>>1363367
I believe the view of the Catholic church is that the French revolution was Satanic and ended for the most party true Godly divine right and replaced it with mob rule. Napoleon would return France to divine right when he was coronated with the pope's blessing (he and the pope agreed before hand he would crown himself it wasn't a surprise).
I would say most modern western government do not have a divine authority in the way of the old kings and nobility as the old kings and nobility were mostly overthrown by arms.
Likewise the Muslims overthrew by the sword, Christian authority.
The Romans however, had authority especially over Israel as prophesized in Daniel.
>>1363216
the christian korean should turn the other cheek
>>1363385
Yes, but democracy is mostly a rejection of rule by God ideologically. It's rule by the people. But yeah, you are duty bound to obey your ruler, although frankly I see the monarch of England as more of a legitimate ruler of America, but Obama for all intents and purposes.
>>1363390
>The Romans however, had authority especially over Israel
What
>>1363381
That's completely contradictory.
>subdue to wordly authority, as it is given by God
>except when that authority undermines our Church
And you do realize that from everyone's perspective, it is the others who are the heretics, right?
Also, how do you justify the fact that Orthodox patriarchs were ordained by wordly authorities?
>>1363431
>submit to worldly authority unless it conflicts with God's command
Not too hard
>Also, how do you justify the fact that Orthodox patriarchs were ordained by wordly authorities?
No they weren't. At most they were sometimes chosen (since they are ambassadors, unlike regular bishops), but they were always ordained by bishops.
>>1363434
>Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God
Sound like it should be impossible for authority to go against God, and even if they did, sounds like God is still supporting them since He isn't taking that authority away, so one should still be subduing to such authorities.
>No they weren't.
Okay, poor choice of words, but the point stands. If there's an ability for wordly authorities to choose the patriarchs, it is possible to influence the patriarchs' stances on religious matters.
>>1363434
Constantine, go to sleep.
>>1363451
But somebody is right on the internet
>>1363448
>Sound like it should be impossible for authority to go against God
Since God became angry and destroyed the careers of several kings of Israel (starting with Saul) for going against him, your exegesis is awful.
>. If there's an ability for wordly authorities to choose the patriarchs, it is possible to influence the patriarchs' stances on religious matters.
Certainly, but you must remember, Patriarchs aren't mini Popes. They aren't infallible, they have no authority over other bishops in administrating dioceses, and they cannot unilaterally push a declaration concerning dogma. They have the highest position of *ceremonial* respect, and they can call councils, but otherwise, they are another bishop of their jurisdiction.
>>1363451
I live on the West coast.
>>1363462
So no matter how terrible a government, it is allowed by God, otherwise he would have destroyed it?
So North Korea exists because God allows it?
>>1363482
Since God is omnipotent, obviously nothing can be without God permitting it (that doesn't mean he necessarily approve of it).
>>1363462
>Since God became angry and destroyed the careers of several kings of Israel
Oh no! It seems like we've found yet another contradiction between the old and new testaments!
>Patriarchs aren't mini Popes.
I realize that, but then again, if people are to subdue to authority regardless, what difference does it make? If not like most people actively care what parts of what a priest is saying is dogma or isn't.
>>1363488
So does this mean god is a communist since communism is inevitable?
>>1363462
I thought you were an actual Russian. Does that mean you're just a meme Orthodox Christian? Might as well go with Oriental communion if you wanna be a hipster.
>>1363496
>Oh no! It seems like we've found yet another contradiction between the old and new testaments!
No. For instance, Saul tried to kill David when he found out he lost God's favor and David was to be made king. But David refused to fight Saul, because Saul was annoitted. When someone killed Saul (notably, as Saul's own request), David had him put to death for killing the king.
>If not like most people actively care what parts of what a priest is saying is dogma or isn't.
The thing is, the homily is not the dogma. The dogma is the Liturgy. ALL of Orthodox dogma, every bit of it, is expressed at some point in the annual cycle of Liturgy, and this Liturgy has never taught heresy and never will. When a Council is held, we can see how binding it is by whether or not it gets validated in Liturgy a few hundred years later.
>>1363497
Christianity isn't deterministic
>>1363511
I'm Greek Orthodox
>>1363497
So during the time Communism ruled in Soviet Union, it was allowed by God?
Given the same logic, Isis is allowed by God to exist and those living under it should abide by its rules (mostly).
>>1363247
>North Korea isn't the legitimate government of Korea
how the fuck is North Korea less of a legitimate government than Rome? both gained power simply through conquest
>>1363497
Christianity is communism
>>1363558
>David had him put to death for killing the king.
Because it would be dangerous for him to let a king-killer go free. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, though.
The point here is that if authority comes from God, authority shouldn't be able to go against God. If it does, that either means God condones going against Himself, or that God is powerless to stop such authority. In either case, blindly following such authority AND rebelling against such authority could be construed as sins.
>The thing is, the homily is not the dogma.
I know. What I'm saying is that if, say, the freaking Patriarch of Istanbul condoned something that went against (whatever is currently defined as) God's message, few people would be able to distinguish mindless babble by a fallible man and actual church dogma. And since he's in a position of authority, it doesn't even matter which is which, might as well follow everything as dogma until someone comes and corrects the message (and a splinter church is created with the ones that liked the "incorrect" message).
>>1363578
>North Korea isn't part of any empire, they are a state within a country set up in defiance of the state (which currently exists), and always have been.
This is complete bullshit. Both Korean governments are equally as legitimate and illegitimate. Both claim the same land and ignore the other side's claims. Both were created under the same circumstances. One is completely crazy, but that's okay, because that authority came through God in His Divine Wisdom, just like its counterpart's.
>>1363590
>Because it would be dangerous for him to let a king-killer go free.
No, because he considered it wrong by God's law. Saul wanted to die, he wanted to commit suicide and asked the guy to do it, the guy didn't do it out of a desire for political gain.
>the point here is that if authority comes from God, authority shouldn't be able to go against God
Non sequitur. Satan comes from God, he goes against him
We've anathematized like four Patriarchs of Constantinople over the years for heresy. We can tell. Dogma is not something that sprouts out of the ground like mushrooms, it's something that has been continuously taught since Christ.
>>1363601
The North control a lot of the country, but they're still technically rebels against the state.
>>1363613
>the guy didn't do it out of a desire for political gain.
The guy in question doesn't matter. The point is that letting someone who killed the former king go free isn't exactly the message you want to send to your population right after becoming king.
>Satan comes from God, he goes against him
Except the Bible explicitly says God condones authority and the masses should follow such authority.
>Dogma is not something that sprouts out of the ground like mushrooms
I'm not talking about the creation of new dogma, I'm talking about people following the words of the current patriarch as if they were dogma because, well, God gave him the authority.
>>1363624
No, they're not. This isn't ISIS we're talking about here. NK and SK are both completely legitimate governments born at exactly the same time and still at war with each other for control of the whole territory they claim.
>>1363691
Let's get one thing straight: dogma is derived from the Greek word for "teaching". In Orthodox Christianity, it means "What Christ taught the Apostles." What someone says isn't dogma just because they say it, what is dogma is what CHRIST personally taught, by definition. Someone else saying something doesn't make it dogma anymore than the king saying the sun orbits the earth makes it the truth.
>This isn't ISIS we're talking about here.
How is it any different?
>>1363702
Can't you read?
>What someone says isn't dogma just because they say it
Of course, never claimed that. I said that what someone in a position of authority in the church says can be followed LIKE dogma if you're supposed to subdue to authority at all times except when it undermines the message of God, which is what that person is supposedly saying to begin with.
The only difference from Papal Infallibility (from the pragmatic standpoint, not from the theological standpoint) is that you can call heresy after the fact without causing an apocalyptic shit storm.
>How is it any different?
>NK and SK are both completely legitimate governments born at exactly the same time and still at war with each other for control of the whole territory they claim.
>>1363726
>I said that what someone in a position of authority in the church says can be followed LIKE dogma
Unless they conflict with it. The leaders of the Church are the servants of God, the emissaries; that does not give them authority to override God.
> is that you can call heresy after the fact
No, you can call it during, as was most famously done during the iconoclast crisis.
>>1363151
>Where does the 'Divine right of kings' come from?
Persians
Well, the melting pot that was Mesopotamia
Heck, Safavids were the latest (last?( muslim empire to claim divine kingship (Ismail I)
>>1363736
>that does not give them authority to override God.
It's always possible to use subtleties to guide the rhetoric to where you want it to be. I'm not talking about a Patriarch going crazy, I'm talking about a Patriarch convincing people to follow a cause that doesn't necessarily align with (whatever the current version of) God's message currently is, but it's just close enough (and/or the change is slow enough) that not many people realize.
>>1363736
>you can call it during
It's kind of hard to call someone a heretic until after they've become a heretic m8.
