Every human alive, the king included, was just a servant to thegods, and those gods could choose to treat him or her however theywanted.
At what point in history did it seem apparent to a larger portion of the populace that "god(s) anointed the king" was no longer a presumed reality? When did it seem that way to the kings themselves? Or have they always believed the myth?
And just as professions tended to run in families, the kingmight have trained his son in the arts of leadership, grooming himfor the throne.
It certainly makes some sense that in a diversifying economy familial connections of passing down trades from father to son by dint of closeness, teaching, and familial connection that the job/title of king should be passed down in the same way.
The Sumerian term for king, “lugal,” literally meant “big man.”
FloodGate’s attendance soared as members of other congregations defected to the small roadside church. By Easter 2021, FloodGate was hosting 1,500 people every weekend.
What drives the attendance at churches like this? Socializing, friends, family? Is it entertainment, politics, solely the religious part, or a conflagration of all of these? A charismatic minister?
For Europeanaudiences, the indigenous critique would come as a shock to thesystem, revealing possibilities for human emancipation that, oncedisclosed, could hardly be ignored.
Indigenous peoples of the Americas critiqued European institutions for their structures and lack of freedom. In turn, while some Europeans listened, they created an evolutionary political spectrum of increasing human complexity to combat this indigenous critique.