1. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    18 Jan '16 07:44
    This question links to the previous thread of the Divine Right of Kings, where God can arguably be blamed for a poor, or even harmful, social convention.

    The quote below is taken from today's daily msg from TIME magazine:

    Praise God that Christian pastor Saeed Abedini has been freed from his eight-year prison sentence for serving the Lord, spreading the Gospel and planting house churches across Iran,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who questioned why it took the Obama administration so long to secure his release.


    Sorry, Mr Huckabee, you can't have it both ways.

    So who was it: God, or the Obama administration that should receive either the praise or the blame?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Jan '16 09:35
    Originally posted by CalJust
    So who was it: God, or the Obama administration that should receive either the praise or the blame?
    This topic reminded me of this:
    https://xkcd.com/814/
    not quite the same but related.

    In general, God takes all credit and humans or the devil take all blame.

    There have been a number of posters that have, when we are discussing the negative effects of religion, claimed that all negative effects are entirely to be blamed on individual humans and not caused by the religion. But if you ask the same posters whether religion can have positive effects they remain silent rather than admit that all positive effects can be credited to individual humans.
  3. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    18 Jan '16 15:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    This topic reminded me of this:
    https://xkcd.com/814/
    not quite the same but related.

    In general, God takes all credit and humans or the devil take all blame.

    There have been a number of posters that have, when we are discussing the negative effects of religion, claimed that all negative effects are entirely to be blamed on individual humans and n ...[text shortened]... remain silent rather than admit that all positive effects can be credited to individual humans.
    The Bible says that God takes responsibility for everything that happens on earth and to mankind. If there is evil then it is because God allows it and approves of it.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    18 Jan '16 15:45
    Originally posted by CalJust
    This question links to the previous thread of the Divine Right of Kings, where God can arguably be blamed for a poor, or even harmful, social convention.

    The quote below is taken from today's daily msg from TIME magazine:

    [quote] Praise God that Christian pastor Saeed Abedini has been freed from his eight-year prison sentence for serving the Lord, spre ...[text shortened]... who was it: God, or the Obama administration that should receive either the praise or the blame?
    It must be both God and the Obama administration's fault. The Obama administration was taking their good old time and God used that as an opportunity to "kill two birds with one stone" as the saying goes. 😏
  5. Joined
    10 Apr '12
    Moves
    320
    19 Jan '16 19:04
    Scots texts of James VI of Scotland[edit]

    The Scots textbooks of the divine right of kings were written in 1597–98 by James VI of Scotland before his accession to the English throne. His Basilikon Doron, a manual on the powers of a king, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick that a king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from the God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable."

    James I based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible.


    The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is truly parens patriae [parent of the country], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.[1]
  6. Joined
    10 Apr '12
    Moves
    320
    19 Jan '16 19:062 edits
    Has anyone found any older reference to divine right of kings than this personal interpretation of the Bible by the Scotish King?
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    19 Jan '16 20:231 edit
    Originally posted by roigam
    Has anyone found any older reference to divine right of kings than this personal interpretation of the Bible by the Scotish King?
    As i have already said, Christ Jesus is the only one with the divine right of a king, for He is King of kings, and Lord of lords.
    John 18:37 NASB
    Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."


    HalleluYaH !!!
    Praise the LORD !
    Holy ! Holy! Holy!
  8. Mar-a-Lago
    Joined
    02 Aug '11
    Moves
    8826
    19 Jan '16 21:07
    I think the talking snake was a mistake.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Jan '16 03:51
    Originally posted by Captain Strange
    I think the talking snake was a mistake.
    It was a talking serpent dragon. It had legs until God cursed it for deceiving Eve.
  10. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    34219
    21 Jan '16 06:40
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It was a talking serpent dragon. It had legs until God cursed it for deceiving Eve.
    Conclusive proof of evolution: something with four legs lost them and became a legless creature!😏
  11. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35531
    21 Jan '16 08:48
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    This topic reminded me of this:
    https://xkcd.com/814/
    not quite the same but related.

    In general, God takes all credit and humans or the devil take all blame.

    There have been a number of posters that have, when we are discussing the negative effects of religion, claimed that all negative effects are entirely to be blamed on individual humans and n ...[text shortened]... remain silent rather than admit that all positive effects can be credited to individual humans.
    Your bias is showing. Your "facts" are untrue.
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    21 Jan '16 10:22
    Originally posted by roigam
    Has anyone found any older reference to divine right of kings than this personal interpretation of the Bible by the Scotish King?
    not from the Bible although the wikepedia article is quite interesting as it has elements from other cultures which demonstrate a similar concept.

    Personally I think its extra Biblical nor can Romans Chapter 13 be used to substantiate it, because clearly a subjects obedience to the superior authorities is a relative term and not absolute. The apostles for example disobeyed the Sanhedrin when they were ordered to stop preaching and teaching a clear violation of Gods will. The idea that a King or political power is subject to no earthly authority is not found in the Bible and simply because those authorities as Paul states 'stand in their relative position placed there by God', harbours no ideas that the authority is accountable only to God.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Jan '16 11:09
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Your bias is showing. Your "facts" are untrue.
    You are one of those posters that I was talking about. If my 'fact' about you was untrue feel free to link to the thread where you didn't 'remain silent' when asked as I claimed.
Back to Top