Why has "divine right" been taken seriously as a justification

why wouldn't it?

>>2161073
It wasn't, it was literally made up in the 1500s-1600s as a way to excuse absolute monarchy, which replaced the previous feudal system where "right-to-rule" was based on more pragmatic concerns such as "I have tons of vassals, and this territory is my property, which I can cut up among my descendants as pleases me"

The rise of the nation-state as a concept helped bring "divine right of kings" into an actual political theory, whereas before the closest thing [in the Christian Era that is] was "The Church supports my authority"

>>2161087
Because why would you believe god whispered to your king that he has the right to rule even if he may not be the right man for the job?

>>2161092
If the connection between God and the monarch was made up in the 1500s, why were kings and emperors coronated by religious leaders, such as the Pope, since the very beginnings of the feudal system?

>>2161128
you believe in god
you believe in the sovereignty of the monarchy
so why don't you believe that god granted the monarch his sovereignty?

I'm an atheist in a republic so I don't believe in either but we are talking about christian monarchists here.

>>2161149
Same reason American presidents swear on the Bible.

>>2161092
Romans 13 you uneducated brainlet.

>>2161149

The connection has always been there, but it transformed from "I am king because God allows me to be king" to "I am king because God wants me to be king". A small but important change.

>>2161128
>Because why would you believe god whispered to your king that he has the right to rule even if he may not be the right man for the job?

Well many wouldn't, obviously, hence the countless rebellions. But a usurper would be relying in the same justification and so wouldn't be disparaging the concept itself.

And there are always plenty of flag-waving retards who will believe whatever propaganda you give them.

>>2161817
Pandering to evangelicals?

It's still taken seriously and you could die if you question it here where I live.

>>2162002
saudi?

>>2162069
Close enough

>>2162079
uae?

File: cthulhu2016.jpg (27KB, 375x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 375x360px

It's a lot more comforting to think that your leader was selected by God.

As opposed to thinking he was selected by Russia, or Goldman Sachs, or the FBI fighting an internal war against the CIA, or what the fuck ever.

>>2161908

No. Monarchy has always been connected to the idea of god as a divine institution since the very beggining. It's still very present in certain cases like the figure of the Japanese Emperor and other asian monarchies in which this connection is essential to the very concept of Monarchy.

What you see overtime is an evolution of the attributes, idealization and actual powers concentrated in the hands of the Monarch, but that has all to do with the specific historical context of the times. In the case of Absolutism, the higher concentration of power in the hands of the Monarch was direct cínsequence if the surging of the concept of nation-state.

Even so, you can't generalize, as it depended a lot more on the specific context of each country; as in while Absolutist King Louis XIV was much more able of authoritarian ruling, of his own will, than Rennaisence King Henri III, it's the opposite scenario if you compare Absolutist Charles I or II of England with Rennaisence Henry VII or Elizabeth I, which were far more unchallenged in the exertion of personal authoritarian ruling than their future Absolutist counterparts

>>2161925
>countless rebellions
What the fuck are you talking about? There weren't that many rebellions and despite what lefty meme tell you most peasants liked their monarchs, and would support them against the nobility. When rebellions did happen against the monarch himself from the peasants it was usually because of ethnic or religious differences, not because of ideology.

Listen. The Bible has verses specifically referring to this very thing, that essentially leaders of the state are ones ordained by God. It's not really a stretch that people largely accepted the divine right of kings because it was a foundational and probably largely taught part of their belief system. This obviously changed with the Enlightenment, but I can definitely see why the majority of people, being religious/Christian, would accept such a philosophy as the idea that their King is actually ordained by their God.

Is 'the majority voted so' any better?

>>2164457
>b-but muh democracy!
In all seriousness, yes, it absolutely is better. Why would you want some despot to rule you until his death, and then have his children who he reared to view similarly to him to take his place? Could you imagine someone like Obama being given that kind of position in American society? That is an abhorrent idea.