What's the relationship between kings and gods?
The first kings were gods and I think that's very very important to
remember, because it kind of breaks the mold of "hey, these are two completely
separate things, what are they doing overlapping, never the two shall meet"
Basically to remember distinctly that politics and religion first of all
were the same thing, still are understood as essentially the same thing in other
cultures, and that basically this separation
of church and state or of King and God is actually an upgrade. It's an upgrade
to the religious structure because back when Kings were gods, shit would get
awkward every time one of them died. Like there are stories about
how the North Koreans were freaking out when Kim Sr. died and some
weren't sure if the sun was gonna rise next day - not sure how true that is.
There's a lot of upheaval when you think that God's dead. So the model of making the
king - instead of the king being a god, which was the case. An example like
with Nimrod. Of Sumer? Yes.
Nimrod's father Tammuz was the king and the god and his wife Semiramis was
his queen, and when he died suddenly things got weird, and in my opinion she realized "Oh crap -
there goes all my power, my comfortable lifestyle" and so on. So she
probably got one of the high priests to fuck her immediately.
Anyway she became pregnant fairly quickly
and pulled out the high priest alongside her and announced "Hey guys, calm down
God's not dead, he's been reborn."
"I'm pregnant with him and it's it's him again." So this is
what was needed that the Trinity story, the story of the King, the
father being reborn as the son was required to create continuity in this
awkward story of "the king is gone, God is the king." So this is is actually an upgrade, when
the King becomes merely a representative of God, then when the
King dies you just some more representatives
So the Divine Right of Kings was to make it easier.
Right, it makes it way easier than the divine king because when you have a divine king,
you've got a mortality problem. When you have a Divine Right of Kings
all you need is for the high priests to anoint the next one.
It's an upgrade it makes the whole structure more resilient.
Nasim Taleb would be proud of that development. Suddenly it's not all hinging on the life
of a king. The death of a king would would wouldn't really be a problem
Thank you so much. Mmm I'd say "Ching" but then we'd all go
to hell. Can't cheers a non-alcoholic drink.
So basically it you can see how it eases the continuity. If the King
is just a representative of the deity, the King can die and just
be replaced. A good example of this would be when half the Russian
government disappeared into the Ural in a burning
wreckage of plane debris, nobody for a second
thought that Mother Russia was mortally wounded. Mother Russia - power
animal: bear. Gender: female. No one thought that Mother Russia was mortally wounded - she just got
new reps. Simple as that. Problem solved. So you've got the
structure where you have a an overarching deity, assigned a power animal
and gender, it's casually spoken about as if it has desires and characteristics and acts.
"Uncle Sam is paying" Is he? Not literally.
Russia's doing this, Mexico doesn't like that.
The most insidious one for us is of course "We did this. We, Mexico had a war with them, the US."
Yeah, that just shows the totemic nature of these deities because again
the totem was never a representative of for example, the bear
or the wolf or the eagle, whatever it was. It was a representative of we the people.
Doesn't make it any less of a deity, and there's a good argument I've
seen that even even the Abrahamic God and so forth is a representation of
the people
Elohim was supposed to be a fertility god.
Elohim is plural isn't it?
That's true - in most cases fertility requires plurality.
That makes sense - it's not "I Am", it's "We are".
That fits right in with that tribal theory.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét