Are blasphemy laws an indicator of lack of faith?

[Tumah]

In the modern sense, perhaps, but in the Old Days, the King was far more connected to the doings of his kin. In fact, the word "King" comes directly from "kin".

Regard Woden, who is King but wanders the world as a beggar, seeking knowledge for himself and challenging the proudly held wit of others himself.

I don't know where to turn to for a description of monarchies outside the Bible, but I would imagine that if we looked at actual monarchies as opposed to pantheons, we would find it generally more like what I have described.

 

[philbo]

Blasphemy laws are an utter disgrace to humanity. No idea deserves to be placed above your right to make fun of whatever you damn well please. If your skin is that thin, it'll do you some good. They're nothing more than thought-crimes. Any and all thought crimes are bad by default, and anyone who argues for them wants to control you. Freedom of thought is the most important thing humanity has. No God or Gods, prophet or messiahs, set of laws or codes should be placed on an untouchable pedestal because of the sad insecurities and totalitarian tendencies of their followers.

I'm not going to disagree; but that's a view from outside. I just think that even from a believer's perspective, blasphemy laws are illogical: they only make any kind of rational sense if you don't actually believe, or think that the god you believe in is incapable of passing sentence.

 

[Nietzsche]

I don't know where to turn to for a description of monarchies outside the Bible, but I would imagine that if we looked at actual monarchies as opposed to pantheons, we would find it generally more like what I have described.

If you're interested I could give you some reading material on it.

 

[Tumah]

If you're interested I could give you some reading material on it.

Sure, if their accessible online, why not?

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't know where to turn to for a description of monarchies outside the Bible, but I would imagine that if we looked at actual monarchies as opposed to pantheons, we would find it generally more like what I have described.

You would imagine it, if you went under the assumption that all Kingships everywhere were the same. But from what I've seen, that's not the case. The Northern Gods reflected the ideals and behaviors of the Northern People. Kings in the Old Days were more closely defined in role to what we might describe nowadays as a Chief; the modern image we have of Kings, and the Kings seen in the Bible, are more accurately called "High Kings".

In those Days, you were King if the Kin agreed that you were King. If there was ever a time when "democratic monarchy" could not be oxymoronic, it would have been then.

 

[Tumah]

You would imagine it, if you went under the assumption that all Kingships everywhere were the same. But from what I've seen, that's not the case. The Northern Gods reflected the ideals and behaviors of the Northern People. Kings in the Old Days were more closely defined in role to what we might describe nowadays as a Chief; the modern image we have of Kings, and the Kings seen in the Bible, are more accurately called "High Kings".

In those Days, you were King if the Kin agreed that you were King. If there was ever a time when "democratic monarchy" could not be oxymoronic, it would have been then.

I can't really argue with you because I don't know. But I can say that I would have expected the Northern Gods behavior to be a reflection of the Northern People's desires, rather than their actual ruling system. But I don't know. So there's nothing I can really say.

 

[Riverwolf]

I can't really argue with you because I don't know. But I can say that I would have expected the Northern Gods behavior to be a reflection of the Northern People's desires, rather than their actual ruling system. But I don't know. So there's nothing I can really say.

Depends on the God, and on the Tribe in question, when it comes to specifics, to be sure.