Church Authority versus Sovereign authority

The natural tendency is for Church and Sovereign to become one (interpreting Religion and Church broadly to include progressivism as a religion and Harvard as its Church)  If one, the question goes away.

But sometimes church and sovereign are geographically different, as when the Holy Roman Empire lost power, resulting in one Roman Catholic Church and many Roman Catholic Kings. Whereupon trouble ensues, and the question becomes urgent. What tends to happen is that the Pope proclaims himself superior to Kings, but is under the thumb of one particular King, so that the supremacy of the Pope started to look suspiciously similar to the supremacy of the Habsburgs. Today we see that Harvard has alarmingly great power in Iran, and Obama alarmingly little, and we see state department functionaries taking power in supposedly independent states, which state department functionaries were usually educated within a very short distance of Harvard.

The solution to this problem is given by the Chrismation of Solomon: Zadok the Priest & Nathan the Prophet Formally Chrismated Solomon King

Formally, Solomon became King because the priest and prophet anointed him so, making church authority supreme over sovereign authority. (Chrismation is Eastern Orthodox Christian language for anointing with oil. Supposedly the oil goes back to biblical times, having been continually diluted with fresh oil.)

In actual substance, Solomon became King by murdering his brother Adonijah, arguably the legitimate heir, in a fight over Abishag, the most beautiful woman in Israel, even though it was illegal and immoral for either of them to possess her, and even though there is no mention in the bible that she intentionally did anything to tempt either of them, and by shedding the innocent blood of Joab in the tabernacle, thereby desecrating the tabernacle.

However by formally submitting to the Church, the sovereign pointed away from the unpleasantness of a messy succession, and to God. In substance, Solomon was in charge, largely due to craftiness and ruthlessness. In form, the church was superior to the state. In substance, Solomon dismissed one priest and appointed another, violating the principle of hereditary priestly succession. 1 Kings 1 and 1 Kings 2 lists numerous morally dubious or openly wicked killings and purges by Solomon over the succession question, and 1 Kings 2 concludes:

So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

So was it blood or oil that made Solomon King?

Thus the bible points to the formal authority of Church over Sovereign, in order to give the sovereign authority, in order to make Kingship inspiring rather than demoralizing, but the substance of authority belongs to the sovereign, not the the Church. Napoleon was wrong to crown himself, not wrong to have himself crowned.

If there is a distinction between Church and State, and there usually is not, nor should there be, we should take the Chrismation of Solomon to demonstrate the proper relationship of Church and State. The Church should be formally superior, to make Kingship holy, to give dignity and virtue to the state. But actual superiority leads to the problems encountered with the sons of Samuel, and with Papal indulgences, and with Habsburg empire, and with Harvard.

56 Responses to “Church Authority versus Sovereign authority”

  1. peppermint says:

    If “church” is a metonym for the overarching worldview describing the place of humanity in the cosmos then without the increasingly drastic control we’re seeing there will be no further deviation from the truth of evolution and nation, which will obviously support the king as long as he has the mandate of heaven.

    Why was it that no one ever mentioned the rape and murder of Mary Phagan when talking about the ADL? The answer isn’t just Jewish media control but in addition the fact that the disappearing Chrstcucks truly believe that anti-Semitism is fundamentally immoral.

  2. Aurelius Moner says:

    Two things.

    1) A man’s kingship is authored by God’s providence, being willed either positively or permissively. The secondary causes which result in kingship include such things as exterminating rivals and forehead polishing.

    2) There’s almost always a difference between what “should be” and what “is,” in this vale of tears. Liberalism’s attempts to “check” the power of the State, on account of its penchant for sometimes going awry, are unwelcome and obviously have unintended consequences. The same holds true for attempting to check the legitimate power of the Church. The Church’s very character requires her to be superior to the State, since she is the soul of the State, informing the State even of the principles by which the State administers its own affairs. If the State dictates truth to the Church, the Church is not the Church; the State is the Church.

    For the State to spite its own head, is simply the first phase of Liberalism… first the king spurns the Church; then the nobility spurn the king; then the bourgeoisie spurn the nobility; then the common rabble spurn the bourgeoisie; then the sodomites and sluts spurn the cis-het scum, as has thus happened in exactly that order. In the next generation, genderqueer vegan toddlers of color involved in cross-species erotic experimentation will be worshipped like Egyptian cats and fed on a porridge of Cis-Homo Libertarians’ powdered bones, one presumes. And so forth.

    If the human element in the Church proves itself incapable of discharging its office, rather than discrediting the Church, I as a king would have little problem butchering cardinalitial creeps precisely out of honor for the Church, and for the security of my own State. If I was morally certain this was necessary, I would do it even if the pope thundered at me, yet would feel no need to discredit the papal office itself in doing so. Once I had translated the errant bishops to various suburbicarian Sees of Dis, I would happily walk on my knees to beg pardon of the pope, abdicate my throne if necessary, etc., because that’s what a king is called to do: to protect and prosper the commonwealth, without undue thought of his personal glory or gain.

    I would have to understand more about your complaint, regarding indulgences, to understand how it is relevant to the contested authority between Church and State.

    So, in short: ideally Church and State exist in a kind of symbiosis, with the Church being actually supreme as the fountain of the principles of authority, yet with the king obviously holding all the weapons of the authority thus established. Just because either side occasionally biffs up, is no reason to go about discrediting the legitimate authority of either.

  3. bob k. mando says:

    “In actual substance, Solomon became King by murdering his brother Adonijah, arguably the legitimate heir, in a fight over Abishag, the most beautiful woman in Israel, even though it was illegal and immoral for either of them to possess her, and even though there is no mention in the bible that she intentionally did anything to tempt either of them”

    well, that’s a novel reading of the text.

    why is it that you think Solomon desired Abishag for *himself*? the OT is hardly shy about pointing out the sins of Jewish kings. Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, was taken illegally by David. had Solomon taken her to concubinage, one would think they would say so.

    Adonijah likewise knew that it would be against the Law for him to sleep with a woman who had warmed his father’s bed ( even if she “knew him not” ). why was this simply not a case of Solomon ordering the death of his brother for the breaking of the Law and the subtle grasping after the throne which it represented?

    • jim says:

      19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand.

      20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.

      21 And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife.

      22 And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.

      23 Then king Solomon sware by the LORD, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life.

      24 Now therefore, as the LORD liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day.

      Mom says to son this is a small favor.

      Son says to mum this is a gigantic favor, comparable to asking for the Kingdom itself. Becomes enraged. And then murders his brother, his beloved mother’s son.

      It makes no sense that Abishag would somehow facilitate Adonijah taking the kingdom. It makes total sense that she caused all the blood to rush from the brains of Solomon and Adonijah into their dicks. Happens to me all the time.

      • Koanic says:

        “It makes no sense that Abishag would somehow facilitate Adonijah taking the kingdom.”

        You’re wrong. The first instance of a son usurping his father’s authority by sleeping with his wife/concubine(s) is Ham’s act when Noah & his women were drunk. There is another instance within the reign of David. The women of the late king were symbolic of the throne: seat, saddle.

        • peppermint says:

          » son usurping his father’s authority by sleeping with his wife

          lol wtf

          maybe, when freud talked about oedipus/elektra complexes, what he meant was ham/lot’s daughters

          • bob k. mando says:

            no lolwtf.

            that’s in the Bible, that’s how Absalom tried to seize power from David.

            David fled Jerusalem but left 10 of his minor wives / concubines to run the household while he was gone.

            Absalom seized the palace, set up a tent on the roof and raped ALL of the remaining wives in the sight of the whole city:
            https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+16%3A20-23&version=KJV

            when David retakes the city these ‘spoiled’ wives are put away and he never went in to them again. that happens a couple of chapters later.

            nor is this particularly unusual in the ancient world.

            why does Oedipus marry Jocasta? she would have easily been 15 years his senior, possibly 30.

            why did the 108 suitors seek so desperately for the hand of Penelope, despite that she would have been over 35?

            re-reading some of this Samuel and Kings stuff, i’m wondering if this isn’t the other half of what GeRM is ripping off in Game of Thrones ( which we already know is partly based on the Wars of the Roses ). King David raised a pretty fucked up family.

            what actually seems to have set Absalom against David in the first place was his full sister Tamar getting raped by his half brother Amnon.
            https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2013&version=KJV

            notice that the OT Law in regards to one who rapes and then sends the woman away AND for incest calls for death.

            David was angry, but never punished Amnon himself and Absalom finally killed him several years later.

            notice also that the punishment for adultery in the OT is … death. David repented and was permitted to live. the text never mentions Bathsheba repenting. but she would have known full well the legal consequences for fucking around on Uriah.

            later, she would certainly have found out that David had had Uriah murdered, that was fairly public.

            so, after all of these commissions of death penalty level offenses, what does she ask her son Solomon to allow?

            she asks Solomon to allow his half brother to commit incest with David’s last concubine … the last concubine who certainly displaced Bathsheba in David’s affection.

            why?

            • jim says:

              Near the end of the Bronze age, due to the collapse of marriage and sexual morality, royalty was in the female line, both in Homeric Greece and in Egypt, and in fact everywhere we have some knowledge of. One became King by marrying the daughter of a Queen. Or at least it helped a hell of a lot. Helen was queen of Sparta by blood, and her husband was just some foreign warrior. Hence Oedipus – another random foreigner with a swift sword – marries Jocasta and thereby becomes King through marrying a queen.

              Abishag was not the daughter of queen, just another concubine.

              The rise of the children of Pelops seems to have replaced matrilineality by patriarchy and patrilineality. The conquest of Troy, and the exodus of Moses, was part of the collapse of a decadent matrilineal bronze age civilization, and its conquest by stern, brutal, and fast breeding, patriarchs who, like Pelops and Israel themselves, tended to have very numerous children.

              Moses dates roughly from the collapse of bronze age civilization and the end of the Bronze age, and the Israel of Kings is well and truly iron age. Israel was sternly patriarchal and patrilineal, and if the Old Testament is to be believed, the Children of Israel preserved patriarchy despite the bronze age decadence around them.

              Late bronze age was matrilineal, in the sense that the typical black ghetto in the US is matrilineal, hence important to marry a queen. Early iron age was brutally patriarchal. Hence Abishag not a source of power. The children of Israel, if their records are to be believed, preserved patriarchal marriage in the midst of bronze age decadence. Hence Abishag not a source of power. Abishag not the daughter of a queen as Jocasta and Helen were, just another concubine, hence not a source of power.

          • Koanic says:

            Your analysis is fine as far as it goes, Jim, but it does not go far enough.

            “And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things”

            Not only did Absalom take David’s wives to cement his bid for kingship: David did the same to Saul, and Solomon afterwards.

            It is not an issue of queenship, but inheritance of royal property – the harem.

          • A pint thereof says:

            “Near the end of the Bronze age, due to the collapse of marriage and sexual morality, royalty was in the female line…..”

            Not convinced about this. There are enough counter-examples to demonstrate that if it does occur, then it’s just showing up out of happenstance.

            Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his Historia Regum Britanniae, has the lineage of the ancient (including late Bronze Age) Kings of Britain. “Marrying the daughter of a queen” certainly wasn’t a pre-requisite to being a ruler in those days…..

            • jim says:

              Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his Historia Regum Britanniae, has the lineage of the ancient (including late Bronze Age) Kings of Britain.

              Not true.

              His history, supposing it to be history rather than legend, starts at the end of the bronze age and the collapse of bronze age civilization

          • A pint thereof says:

            “His history, supposing it to be history rather than legend, starts at the end of the bronze age and the collapse of bronze age civilization”

            Yes. This is the epoch you were referring to, wasn’t it? I’m afraid I don’t follow your objection here.

            Just to be clear then, what exact time period are you saying that royal lineage was matrilineal (or however you want to describe it), and what time period was it not?

            • jim says:

              The end of the bronze age was matrilineal bronze age monarchs becoming refugees, and patriarchal dark age monarchies established by violence.

              Supposing his history, written several thousand years after the supposed events, to be history rather than legend, it depicts the establishment of a monarchy by refugees at the end of the bronze age, which is to say, a dark age monarchy.

  4. bob k. mando says:

    “And then murders his brother, his beloved mother’s son.”

    categorically false.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+3%3A1-7&version=KJV

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel+11&version=KJV

    a – Adonijah was David’s son by Haggith, Solomon was David’s son by Bathsheba, who was taken from Uriah the Hittite by murder, ie – they are half brothers from entirely different mothers

    b – Joab was in no way innocent, he was the one directly responsible for murdering Uriah ( and also several other mighty warriors of Israel in the coverup )

    c – the murder of Uriah was so serious that God cursed David with the death of the first issue from his union with Bathsheba; ie – Solomon’s older full brother by the king did not survive

    d – further, in direct opposition to David’s specific orders, Joab murdered Absalom, a prince of the royal blood. it’s quite likely that Joab himself had thoughts of seizing the throne. regardless, Joab is a murderer many times over
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2018&version=KJV

    e – holy shit, Joab threatened David himself. clearly, had Solomon not had him killed he would have done likewise to Solomon eventually
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2019&version=KJV

    to sum up, Adonijah begged Bathsheba, his step-mother, to intercede with Solomon to allow Adonijah the sin of sleeping with David’s last ( would be ) concubine.

    • jim says:

      b – Joab was in no way innocent, he was the one directly responsible for murdering Uriah ( and also several other mighty warriors of Israel in the coverup )

      That, surely, was King David.

      d – further, in direct opposition to David’s specific orders, Joab murdered Absalom, a prince of the royal blood.

      Absalom was in revolt, and King David’s orders were wrong for a King to give – though I surely would have given the same orders as he did were I in his shoes.

      to sum up, Adonijah begged Bathsheba, his step-mother, to intercede with Solomon to allow Adonijah the sin of sleeping with David’s last ( would be ) concubine.

      Yes. The question then is why did this piss off Solomon so severely.

      • bob k. mando says:

        “That, surely, was King David.”

        David gave the order.

        Joab not only carried the order out, he modified the order so that certain of his rivals died in addition to Uriah. David’s plan was that Joab should get Uriah into the hottest part of the battle, then withdraw the other troops on a pre-arranged signal so that Uriah, alone, would be massacred.

        Joab ran Uriah’s unit up under the walls of the city so as to have others of them die.
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+11%3A21&version=KJV

        just because the king gives an unlawful order does not absolve his subject of culpability for actually carrying out the act.

        when the subject then goes BEYOND the order of the king so that even more die …

        “The question then is why did this piss off Solomon so severely.”

        because, in spite of the fact that Solomon had set them all aside in a kind of “live and let live” continuation of David’s weak policies they continued to scheme and intrigue against him.

        consider, they had gotten Solomon’s OWN MOTHER involved in this shit, against Solomon’s own interest. finding out your own mother is stabbing you in the back is … intensely aggravating. i know from personal experience. not over anything even 1/10th so important though.

        Adonijah already had twofold claims of seniority to Solomon, given that he was both older and the child of a wife senior to Bathsheba. now you’re going to add David’s last, most beautiful wife to the list of arguments why Adonijah should be king? you’re begging for a succession war if you permit this to go on.

        notice also that at the beginning of 1 Kings 2, David had actually counseled Solomon to not allow Joab or Shimei to die peaceably. by the end of chapt 2, Solomon has killed them both.

        but David, who had started his career standing alone against Goliath, ends his reign cowering before Joab. that’s a long fall.

        • jim says:

          Joab not only carried the order out, he modified the order so that certain of his rivals died in addition to Uriah.

          Not so, Joab himself was with Uriah, and nearly died carrying out the order.

          Uriah with Joab approached the city where its strongest defenders were, and those defenders came forth, so that a planned retreat to abandon Uriah became all too real.

          • bob k. mando says:

            “Not so, Joab himself was with Uriah, and nearly died carrying out the order.”

            the text says no such thing.

            it says that Joab assigned Uriah to a “place where he knew that valiant men were”. ie – chomping at the bit, they would be prone to press in advance of the general body of the army.

            then it says that “the men of the city went out and fought with Joab”. ie – the men of the city did NOT all individually attack Joab, Joab is the commander of the Israeli forces. his name is used as a proxy for THE WHOLE ARMY.

            asserting that Joab was likewise with the “valiant men” ( which the text does not say at all ) is as ridiculous as asserting that when Rome contended against Hannibal, that Hannibal was in the thick of the fight right at the front and the elephants were entirely secondary.

            Koanic covers the rest quite well.

            • jim says:

              You are stretching the text.

              Subsequently Joab reports to King David, and King David gives him a hostile grilling on the excessive casualties, and Joab reports events the way I interpreted them, and King David accepts that account, interprets events the way I interpreted them. No plan survives contact with the enemy.

          • Ron says:

            Koanic, Bathsheba wasn’t a hot slut. By this time she was an older woman, a mother, her husband just died, her son just inherited the throne. And she is in a weak position socially because of how she got there.

            The oldest son of her husband who should have been on the throne just came to her to ask her to help get him a wife with one of the royal concubines. This is the next oldest son after the one who died during an outright revolution. And this one had come to the edge of starting one himself.

            So of course she want’s to play matchmaker. In her mind this will solidify good will and bring peace. Besides, it’s something all women love to do. Haven’t you seen matrons do this time and time again?

            Solomon saw the ruse for what it was. Adonijah didn’t give a shit about Abishag. He was after much bigger game. So he did the entire kingdom a favor and put him down before another 30,000 men had to die for absolutely nothing more than some asshole’s overwhelming ego.

          • Ron says:

            oops, hit the wrong reply button.

        • jim says:

          Now you’re going to add David’s last, most beautiful wife to the list of arguments why Adonijah should be king?

          This does not make sense as an argument why Adonijah should be king, and if it is an argument as to why Adonijah should be King, it is a mighty weak argument compared to all the others.

          • Koanic says:

            You’re always talking about signaling, Schelling points and whatnot, Jim. Why so obtuse in this case?

            At one point, the super-genius never-wrong adviser tells Absalom to sleep with David’s concubines as a public bridge-burning commitment to enmity. Unstated is the other reason, because it was culturally too obvious. So obvious that neither the advisor nor Solomon bother to explain it. Only the foolish and emotionally-invested Bathsheba fails to see it – perhaps willfully blind to the significance of a rival she hoped to sever from the throne’s estate.

            For once, you have it totally backwards and are being obtuse. It’s unlike you.

            Here’s a different angle. When Boaz discusses Elimelech’s estate, he doesn’t even mention Ruth until the questions of land and money are already settled. The women are attached to the inheritance. The King inherits all of Israel. Therefore, the royal harem come with it.

            In practice, it’s hard to tell who actually controls a kingdom, particularly in the iron age. But it’s easy to tell who controls the royal harem. Fucking the royal harem convincingly signals strength. These people are shepherds – they all understand the concept of the alpha ram. It’s an act with great propagandistic power and viral coefficient – we still know about it today!

            This pattern is repeated from Noah through Abram and Isaac to Saul, David, Absalom and Solomon. In the case of Abram and Isaac, the parallel sister-wives tales signified that God would not permit the Gentiles to usurp Israel’s birthright.

            • jim says:

              Only the foolish and emotionally-invested Bathsheba fails to see it – perhaps willfully blind to the significance of a rival she hoped to sever from the throne’s estate.

              Bathsheba does not see it. I don’t see it. No one states it explicitly. Why is Bathsheba emotionally invested?

              What I see is Solomon going nuts over a woman, who happens to be the hottest chick in Israel.

          • Koanic says:

            Solomon is the wisest man in history. He says giving Abishag = giving the kingdom. You disagree, siding with Bathsheba, a hot slut.

            Bathsheba’s investment: she is a hot slut replaced by a hotter good girl, Abishag. Marrying Abishag to Adonijah demotes Abishag out of the royal harem and probably out of town. Marrying Abishag to Solomon potentially continues to give Abishag more influence than Bathsheba, and definitely keeps her much closer.

            I think any wife would have difficulty stomaching Abishag’s role switch from husband’s favorite to son’s favorite. Much less a vain corrupt one like Bathsheba.

          • Ron says:

            Koanic, Bathsheba wasn’t a hot slut. By this time she was an older woman, a mother, her husband just died, her son just inherited the throne. And she is in a weak position socially because of how she got there.

            The oldest son of her husband who should have been on the throne just came to her to ask her to help get him a wife with one of the royal concubines. This is the next oldest son after the one who died during an outright revolution. And this one had come to the edge of starting one himself.

            So of course she want’s to play matchmaker. In her mind this will solidify good will and bring peace. Besides, it’s something all women love to do. Haven’t you seen matrons do this time and time again?

            Solomon saw the ruse for what it was. Adonijah didn’t give a shit about Abishag. He was after much bigger game. So he did the entire kingdom a favor and put him down before another 30,000 men had to die for absolutely nothing more than some asshole’s overwhelming ego.

            @Jim
            If your theory about Solomon wanting Abishag for himself was correct he would have taken her afterwards. He didn’t.

            • jim says:

              Solomon saw the ruse for what it was. Adonijah didn’t give a shit about Abishag. He was after much bigger game.

              Not seeing it. As a ruse, seems quite useless. Besides which, hot chicks are better than wealth and power, for wealth and power is just a way to get hot chicks. Paris chose what any man would choose. As Paris would have told you, Abishag was big game.

              If your theory about Solomon wanting Abishag for himself was correct he would have taken her afterwards. He didn’t.

              How do you know he did not?

          • Koanic says:

            I meant hot slut in the MILF sense by this time, Ron. Good stuff.

          • Ron says:

            @Jim

            Which is more embarassing, saying that you killed a rival to get a woman you loved, or saying that your father sent his underling to die in battle so he could get that guys wife who ended up being your mother?

            Id say number 2 is worse, and if someone is already willing to be that honest, its a safe bet they would have told us if he took abishag, especially since its already plausibly established the narrative that adonijah was a rebel.

            • jim says:

              Not seeing the narrative that Adonijah was a rebel.

              Since Solomon had charge of King David’s harem, it may well have been difficult for outsiders to detect whether he was illicitly sleeping with some of them.

              What happens to Abishag, the hottest chick in Israel. Does she remain a virgin forever?

          • Koanic says:

            Still not seeing Jim’s theory. To keep Abishag, Solomon could just have said “No.” No need to kill Adonijah, and no need to go after the priest and the general at the same time. The actions were consistent with wise ruthless preempting of rebellion. He cleaned David’s house as instructed.

            The nearest kinsman takes the childless widow. Taking Abishag proclaims Adonijah not only eldest brother, but nearest kinsman, and inheritor of royal estate. Not taking Abishag proclaims Adonijah’s “shoe is loose”.

            • jim says:

              Reading the writings attributed to Solomon, looks like his attitude to women and sex is similar to my own. I would have killed Adonijah had I been in Solomon’s shoes because my penis made me do it, and then cleaned up his friends and supporters because I would then find my penis had dropped me in hot water.

              Paris, you may recall, encountered a similar problem.

              Similarly, you may recall Chagnon’s explanation for Yanomamo warfare. Warrior types really do act like that.

              We live in a society of abnormally low testosterone levels, and to a considerable extent, abnormally high estrogen levels. Back in the days of what used to be normal testosterone, that is how people behaved.

          • Koanic says:

            Ok, your position makes sense to me now. Not sure that I buy it, but I can see how it’s typical smart skeptical Jim thinking.

          • Ron says:

            @Jim

            Maybe she got remarried, more likely she died alone. “Five minutes of alpha…” as the heartistian saying goes. Women have different considerations then the men. They will not tolerate a decrease in status, which is one more reason why I say Adonijah was making a power move.

            Marrying her would have only undermined Solomons position as king. There was already another son that acted disgracefully with the Kings concubines. As for how hot she was, our traditions list a number of the most beautiful women that ever lived and I dont recall Abishags name among them. With all due respect to Abishag, we are talking about the man who had his pick of any type or number of wives he wanted.

            • jim says:

              Screwing King David’s concubines when he is alive means you are stronger than King David

              Screwing one of Kind David’s concubines when he is dead does not mean you are stronger than King David, nor does it mean you are stronger than King Solomon – unless people suspect that King Solomon is already screwing Abishag.

          • Koanic says:

            I think it does signal something to take the best portion of the king’s estate: sword, horse, woman.

            Also, Jim is certainly wrong. If Solomon had killed his brother without cause, Jehovah would’ve ordained a punishment, a prophet would’ve transmitted the judgment to Solomon, and we would have the record in the Bible.

            Since Jim is determined to interpret the Bible through an atheist lens, he is bound to get most of it wrong.

  5. bob k. mando says:

    to finish the thought, Adonijah’s grasping was the catalyzing factor that induced Solomon to sweep most of the schemers who had infested his father’s court away.

    you’ll note that none of these men ever repented to God for their sins, whereas David had.

  6. JC says:

    Pedo Jim, please do a post on the best comic book strip of all time (link here, not flame):

    http://i.imgur.com/NV7AeZx.jpg

  7. bob k. mando says:

    aye, Koanic is still around and kicking.

    “One became King by marrying the daughter of a Queen.”

    and how does a non-queenly woman become queen? she marries the mighty man who seizes the throne.

    Koanic is right, David took Saul’s wives, Absalom took some of David’s wives, Solomon took the remainder of David’s wives …

    which means that Adonijah was asking for the use of *a woman to whom Solomon currently held sexual rights*, whether Solomon was actually sleeping with her or not.

    “Hence Abishag not a source of power.”

    you yourself have just gotten done telling us that the Hebrews were a Patriarchal society. complete the thought:
    Abishag IS a source of power because she represents the last vestige of the newly entombed *king*.

    and Bathsheba would have known this.

    just as Bathsheba knew that to ask Solomon to give up marital rights to Abishag was a betrayal of her own son, the only child she had.

    why would she do this?

    • Koanic says:

      Because she was a sucker for Adonijah’s Game, and saw an opportunity to remove a weakened rival, and was delusional concerning the removability of that rival.

      • bob k. mando says:

        i would say that in recognition of her own sin, rather than repent, she sought to create cover by inducing others to sin as well.

    • jim says:

      “One became King by marrying the daughter of a Queen.”

      and how does a non-queenly woman become queen? she marries the mighty man who seizes the throne.

      No. Queens begat queens. Bronze age civilization was matrilineal towards the end, in so far as we have records and legends. Warriors did not start seizing thrones until everything was collapsing.

      At the end of the bronze age in Greece, patriarchal warriors, the sons of Pelops, married matrilineal queens, and in the ensuing chaos, eventually, after collapse got deep enough, and the dark age dark enough, patriarchal warriors seized thrones without bothering to marry the queen.

      But Jocasta, Helen, etc, are queens by matrilineal descent. Queens did not become queens by marrying warriors. Warriors became kings by marrying queens.

  8. […] American experiment, conservative insight, and formalism. Confused conservatives. Church and State. Border security (an SF story). Ideological mechanics. Basics of balance. Wrecked names. […]

  9. peppermint says:

    …this is boring. let’s talk about “Akbar in the Gay Bar” Omar and his US citizenship, since people are saying he’s American.

    Alaric never held Roman citizenship, but Theoderic and Odoacer did; all three appear to have been born in Roman territory. It’s probably easier to name people who were born in a country and then fought against it, can we name other people who held citizenship and were of a hostile ethnicity?

    • bob k. mando says:

      no need to restrict it to ethnicity, Islam and Marxism are both ideologies which cross all racial lines.

      Marxists hold allegiance to the International Proletariat, which the United States is not and which the Proletariat has declared as it’s primary enemy since at least Lenin.

      Muslims hold allegiance to the Dar al Islam, which the United States is not and which the Dar al Islam considers itself to be at war with.

      avowing either ideology should be a Pro Forma declaration that you are working for a foreign power and have abandoned all claims to the Rights and Privileges of US citizenship.

      i’d be quite happy including Jewry in this as well.

      • Eli says:

        >i’d be quite happy including Jewry in this as well.

        You’d be helping us, too — in line with Ben-Gurion’s intent and philosophy.

      • peppermint says:

        I’d like to avoid 20c while redpilling the normalfags on handing citizenship to people and then acting like that changes their nationality.

        Does Spandrell have any examples of people born in China, given Chinese citizenship, and leading a war on Chinese territory against the interests of the Chinese people?

        I think Theoderic and Odoacer are the most recognizably figures from the fall of Rome.

        • bob k. mando says:

          aren’t you going to have to get a lot more specific than “the Chinese people”?

          what did they have, a dozen warring kingdoms or more?

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Oh please. The Classical Greeks had dozens of warring cities, but they seemed to be able to tell a Hellene from a barbarian easily enough. The Renaissance Italians were similar, as were the Turks, the Maya, the Vikings, and I’m sure a hundred other peoples who warred amongst themselves but still recognized their racial and cultural kinship. Nationhood is not the same thing as statehood. I have no doubt at all that the Chinese, no matter how fragmented the political map, had no problem at all differentiating Chinese from non-Chinese, even across battle lines.

      • Js says:

        And exactly the same is true of National Socialism, which is no more “nationalist” than Marxist-Leninism. To be loyal to the Aryan race is to necessarily be a traitor to your own country: Hitler didn’t give a shit for Germans as Germans.

        That the Nati

  10. bob k. mando says:

    something else to note:
    Jim has had to give up on his blanket assertion that it was “unlawful” for Solomon to sleep with David’s wives.

    given that God gave Saul’s wives to David.

  11. bob k. mando says:

    no, i’m being a dumbass.

    Saul’s wives were given to David because the men were unrelated, thus no sin.

    Solomon would have had the right to dispose of the sexuality of David’s widows, due to assuming the rights and properties of the kingdom. although he would also have been responsible for their upkeep, given that they amount to his mothers, and his mother was one of them.

    Adonijah, though, was requesting permission for a death penalty sin by asking for David’s last concubine.

  12. Eugine_Nier says:

    Having the head of the church be appointed by the head of state doesn’t seem to have worked out for the Protestant state churches.

Leave a Reply