Dominionism for Dummies

[Deleted03]

visionarywomanhood.com/the-liberals-dominion-theology/

 

I'm a little confused I thought it was a guest post by Kelly GC but maybe not.

 

anyway, among the pearls:

 

Quote

The only question is…which ideology’s dominion places Christ where He belongs (He is, after all, the Author and Creator of the universe…does that count for anything?) and results in liberty and justice for the human race? Which ideology brings about the establishment of true order, civilization, and rational thinking? Which ideology can be proven by empirical evidence, logic, and rationality? Which ideology is TRUE?

 

ok so I make a difference between ideology and religion. It's in their benefit. O_o If now it's free for all, let's start tearing the Bible apart and putting the FBI on their asses...! MY head, it hurts

 

 

Quote

Dominion Theology was the widely held belief of the Church for 2,000 years. It was one of those “no-brainers†for the Reformers and the Puritans. I mention those two groups in particular because they are two of the most intelligent, studious, and influential groups that have risen in the history of the Church. They studied their Bibles, wrote prolifically, and lived out the Word of God in every facet of life. They are the founders of the most blessed and free nation in the world. Really…giants in history. Perfect? Of course not, but nevertheless, examples for us to consider as we compare our own modern version of the Christian life to their ardent pursuit of God in all things.

 

In fact, if you lived during those times and you didn’t believe in the Church triumphant through the unfailing work of the Holy Spirit, you were considered off kilter.

 

Now maybe I lost something in history classes, but seemed to me they left England because of religion persecutions and thus would not establish one particular religion in the US. I thought there were Jews and other religions represented in the founding years?

 

Sometimes I want to bump my head in the wall (but I don't) won't they ever understand that liberalism is the very reason they are allowed to have their little crazy speech, to force their daughters to stay at home without anyone coming and checking what they're doing? That because of the very loose liberalism that tolerates all speech even hate speech, people like westboro are allowed to protest, and people like them are allowed to get in front of abortion clinic and protest??? Get a clue!!!

[debrand]

It's a myth that the Puritans came to America seeking religious tolerance. In Holland, they had freedom to practice their own beliefs but they didn't like the surronding culture. They came to America to practice their own faith free from outside influences.

I do not consider the Puritans to be the founders of America. They didn't create a new country as they still considered themselves subjects of England.

The people who signed the Constitution were the founders of the United States. They were a mixed group and did value seperation of church and state. And for any fundie who is reading this post....the exact words, "seperation of church and state." aren't in the constitution but it is obvious that is what the founders wanted.

Here is an interesting article from Wikipedia about Maryland's history and religious tolerance.

The Maryland Toleration Act, also known as the Act Concerning Religion, was a law mandating religious tolerance for trinitarian Christians. Passed on April 21, 1649 by the assembly of the Maryland colony, it was the second law requiring religious tolerance in the British North American colonies and created the first legal limitations on hate speech in the world. (The colony which became Rhode Island passed a series of laws, the first in 1636, which prohibited religious persecution including against non-Trinitarians; Rhode Island was also the first government to separate church and state.) Historians argue that it helped inspire later legal protections for freedom of religion in the United States. The Calvert family, who founded Maryland partly as a refuge for English Catholics, sought enactment of the law to protect Catholic settlers and those of other religions that did not conform to the dominant Anglicanism of Britain and her colonies.

The Act allowed freedom of worship for all trinitarian Christians in Maryland, but sentenced to death anyone who denied the divinity of Jesus. It was revoked in 1654 by William Claiborne, a Virginian who had been appointed as a commissioner by Oliver Cromwell and was a staunch advocate for the Anglican Church. When the Calverts regained control of Maryland, the Act was reinstated, before being repealed permanently in 1692 following the Glorious Revolution. As the first law on religious tolerance in the British North America, it influenced related laws in other colonies and portions of it were echoed in the writing of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which enshrined religious freedom in American law.

[debrand]

[And Rhode Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_island

Roger Williams, a theologian who was one of the first to advocate freedom of religion, separation of church and state, abolition of slavery, and equal treatment to Native Americans, was forced out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Seeking religious and political tolerance, he and others founded "Providence Plantations" as a free proprietary colony. "Providence" referred to the divine providence and "plantations" referred to an English term for a colony (people leave one place and are "planted" in another). Thus, this name bore no relation to the later Southern and Caribbean Islands slave plantations. Later on, Providence Plantations and Rhode Island were merged to form the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

[Joykins]

Now maybe I lost something in history classes, but seemed to me they left England because of religion persecutions and thus would not establish one particular religion in the US.

She's right about the Reformers and the Puritans, Calvinists who weren't happy unless they were running both religion and government. It's more the radical reformation--Quaker, Baptist, Anabaptist--that kept the ideals of separation of church and state and religious freedom. Pennsylvania, for example, founded by a Quaker, always had religious freedom, as did some of the colonies the refugees from the Puritans founded (like Rhode Island)

Other colonies had varying approaches to religious freedom. Maryland was initially a refuge for Roman Catholics from persecution and had religious freedom (for Christians only, heh), but the law changed relatively frequently in the Colonial era depending on who was in power.

I thought there were Jews and other religions represented in the founding years?

In some colonies, yes. Every colony was different. As someone from Maryland, and whose family (Christian and Jewish) is from Pennsylvania, I have a different idea of my religious heritage as an American than someone who relates primarily to Puritans, I suppose. I mean, it wasn't ALL about New England.

[MamaJunebug]

Luther lived in a time where the religious affiliation of the local government was the official religion of the local people. Of course he and other reformers wanted to take the Gospel of Jesus to the world, but that meant -and means - something decidedly opposite Dominionism.

The Gospel is that Jesus fulfilled the Law and made the laws of observance obsolete.

Jesus also overturned the "eye for an eye" and other, Sharia-type laws.

Whereas Dominionism would reinstitute such laws and customs.

So no: One cannot say that Dominionism has been the object of the Church throughout two millennia !!

Even where Christianity has become an official state religion, women were allowed to progress and mercy was shown in criminal sentencing. See historic Europe.

The Dominionists lie, folks.

[jenny_islander]

MamaJunebug hit it on the head. Dominionists want to use the verbiage of one particular translation of the Bible to take the American ethos of punishment to an absurd end. (For foreign readers: There is an assumption in U.S. culture that when something goes wrong, someone has to be punished, preferably the person who is already something of an outsider. Dominionism promises to make a perfect world by basically punishing anybody who isn't comfortably on top for not being on top. It's very American.)

Something that might be confused with Dominionism spread out when Europeans began to expand their political control. This was a conflation of Christianity with Christendom. IOW, "We are Christians, so Christianity must be whatever we do; Christianity is the supreme good, so whatever we do is okay; because Christianity, the supreme good, is whatever we do, other people must dress, eat, and talk just like us or they aren't Christian (and if they can't look exactly like us they can never be proper people anyway); and we have to force everybody into our particular type of Christendom because it's the supreme good and also because if we don't other Christians will come along and do the same and get all of the gold and land."

If the Dominionists get their way and take control of the federal government, they will probably announce some kind of reconquista (although not in Spanish, that's brown people talk). But they are not carrying on the vision of Christianity. Get hold of a translation of the Bible in plain English and read the entire passage surrounding pretty much any verse a Dominionist cites in support of Dominionism; those words do not mean what the Dominionist leaders say they mean. The local Orthodox Christian seminary favors the Oxford Study Bible, if that helps; we use the Revised Standard Version in our Anglican church; non-forted-up Baptists of my acquaintance favor the New International Version; you might also try the Jerusalem Bible for its poetry. Each translation has its biases but they are at least in English that people actually speak.

[hoipolloi]

Frank Schaeffer re-posted this commentary (with good links) on dominionism - what it is & what it isn't, particularly in relation to Christianity & conservative Christianity: frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2011/09/sunday-august-28-2011-evangelicalisms.html#links

[Witsec1]

Ms. Visionary Womanhood is too chicken to publish my comments. She let through one that called her insane, but deleted one of mine that actually contained some substance. They just cannot tolerate any dissenting opinion.

[Joykins]

As someone who was actually raised relatively conservative evangelical, these Dominionists and quiverfull "fundies" for the most part don't seem to live in the same world I did as a kid. Of course there is some overlap--premillenialists and radical postmillenialists make poor long term allies but have similar short-term interests; both may, for example, want laws to uphold a stricter morality that reflects their values. But one sees the Kingdom of God as something that God will bring back in a flash to a world increasing in sinfulness, while the postmillenialists want to tear down current society in order to build their own theocracy; only after that is established can the kingdom of God be fulfilled. If the Dominionists have their way to some extent they may find their short-term allies are not really in it for the whole ride.

Calvinists tend to be more postmillennialist while Baptists and the like tend to be premillennialists.

I decided I didn't want to be either of those, luckily there are other alternatives.

To some extent this (theocracy vs. staying out of government) has always existed as a tension within Christianity.

[Witsec1]

And, she just deleted another of my comments.

It was in this post, claiming that liberal secular humanists are Hitler !!!111111eleventy!!!!

visionarywomanhood.com/when-there-is-no-god-and-truth-is-relative/

I just posted this, let's she if she deletes it:

Interesting. Of course, Germany has and had an established church so the relationship between church and state is quite different than that of the US.

Everywhere the church collaborates with state power, as in the English/European states with established churches, there is a massive turning away from the Church. So it beats me why Christianists in the US want to use state power to enforce Christianity in the US. The First Amendment seems to have worked pretty well so far.

Do you have any examples of liberals saying that religious people should be prohibited from engaging in politics? On the other hand, there are actually laws on the books in some states that prohibit atheists from holding office.

"But the neutrality argument is still used, mostly by liberals who don’t want today’s Christians interfering with the burgeoning control and power of government that permits woman to kill their unborn babies and same-sex couples to marry."

That's not actually the argument. The argument, based on liberty of conscience, is that people should be allowed to decide for themselves on matters of conscience as long as the liberty of others is not impinged. For example, the Mormon church should not be able to prevent a liberal rabbi from marrying a same sex couple. How does the liberal rabbi's celebration of same sex marriage interfere with your liberty of conscience to prohibit same sex marriage within your faith group? Why should the government be involved in determining which faith group has the correct intepretation?

The case of abortion is more vexed, but there's no evidence that 20+ years of Christian war on choice has reduced the abortion rate. Criminalization and punishment is not the answer to every social problem.

Why yes, I am procrastinating work, why do you ask?

[Witsec1]

ZOMG, she let it go through! Will she respond?

[Deleted03]

oooo

Yeah of course for them christianity is a universal truth whether you believe it or not.

[Witsec1]

I posted another comment asking why she deleted my previous comments. I asked for clarification on her comment policy. She then deleted all my comments and sent me this email.

Dear Flora,

I am not able to engage you in debate on the VW blog. Your commentary requires response, and right now I have a friend whose son is within days of dying of cancer...and that's just the tip of the iceberg over here. There are many other forums and/or blogs designed for the kind of discussion you are desirous of having on this issue. On those forums/blogs you will find all kinds of people with more time than I have...and they will perhaps enjoy some rounds of discussion. I'm very sorry, but this is my last conversation with you due to my extreme time limitations right now. I need to focus on essentials...and keep to the purpose of the VW blog. Since my method of picking/choosing comments to publish is confusing to you, out of necessity and in an effort to be fair, I will be forced to block all of your comments in an objective, rather than subjective way. I hope you understand and will be able to find a more appropriate place for the discussion on your heart.

Grace to you,

Natalie

So basically, she is too busy for disagreement, but not too busy to call her political opponents Nazis. :roll:

[Deleted03]

I posted another comment asking why she deleted my previous comments. I asked for clarification on her comment policy. She then deleted all my comments and sent me this email.

So basically, she is too busy for disagreement, but not too busy to call her political opponents Nazis. :roll:

why does she bother answering at all???? this is the most BS censor ever.

[Witsec1]

I responded:

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I'm afraid I don't understand why you chose to make such a controversial post, given the circumstances. I just assumed that when someone posts about political and historical topics, especially in such a controversial way, she is open to the possibility of polite disagreement. I don't think it reflects well on you or your cause to make such a controversial post, and then shut down all discussion that is not in agreement with your own point of view.

"Views that are expressed with kindness, gentleness and a sincere motivation to love others are encouraged. Loving one another does not mean you need to agree with others 100% of the time! Civilized, respectful and intelligent discourse is a blessing and a benefit to those mature enough to participate. Any commentary that does not exhibit these traits will not be allowed on this site"

There is nothing in it about not posting comments that require a response. You might want to phrase the comments policy a little more clearly.

She responded:

Your assumptions are incorrect. Experienced bloggers know that they have the right and privilege of controlling the information on their own blog, including all comments. Some opt to refuse all comments. Some opt to allow certain types. On my blog I will present the information I deem appropriate, and on your blog, you may do the same. I don't go around badgering people with opposing viewpoints on their own turf. I go to their turf with an attitude of respect for their opinions...and perhaps to learn. It's their blog. Not mine. I do avail myself of online forums if I'm in the mood for a debate. I encourage you to do the same. That's the nature of a forum. It is not the nature of all blogs.

The information you are so passionate about expressing on my personal blog is what most folks in America are already familiar with due to a liberal public school system, a liberal media, and a liberal Hollywood. It's not novel at all. If I want to present some thinking that lies "outside the box" of current cultural philosophy and commonly held beliefs, on my personal blog, why is that a problem for you? Can you not allow other human beings, on their very own blogs, the opportunity to express their own beliefs and present ideas that differ from your personal opinions without feeling the need to make yourself heard?

I will not respond to any further correspondence from you. I do not enjoy being rude, but I simply do not have time for round after round, and this is precisely why I deleted some of your comments. If I respond to you...you'll come back with more arguments in a forum type style. My blog is not a forum for discussion...with you...or anyone. You need to accept that. I would encourage you to find some forums for debate...or some blogs that agree with your line of thinking. There are millions of them out there, and I think you'll be happier reading them than you are reading mine.

I responded:

Of course it is your right. I don't actually think too many Americans know about Roger Williams, more's the pity, so I do think I had something to add to the conversation. I actually do enjoy discussing things with people who do not share my viewpoints, but understand if you feel differently.

Boo hoo, I am so hurt and persecuted that she thought my comments were not original. I thought I was making a good point about Roger Williams and liberty of conscience. I was very polite too. Someone read her post and disagreed thoughtfully and respectfully, what blogger except a fundy would have a problem with that? If anyone is curious about why we snark, this is why. A person like this is not worthy of respectful disagreement.

[Witsec1]

She just responded again:

You have a very honoring attitude, and I admire that. I can tell you are not trying to be a problem. And honestly, if my life was different circumstantially, I think we could have some very thought provoking conversations. (I'd love to talk about Roger Williams, actually...) I'm sincerely sorry to shut you down, I really am. I respect your opinions, and I understand your desire to help others see another side. Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from.

Aw gee. Still, why do you have time to post something that smears liberals as Nazi symps. Why do you let a comment through and then delete it after you decide you don't have time to respond?

[Effie]

Aw gee. Still, why do you have time to post something that smears liberals as Nazi symps. Why do you let a comment through and then delete it after you decide you don't have time to respond?

Wow... I think she just doesn't know how to meet your objection. She takes the coward's way out. She realizes she might not have any answers to your criticism.