Consider the ramifications of this path for the US............... Dominionism is not a myth EXCERPT: "What In Heaven's Name Is A Dominionist?" Pat Robertson asked on his 700 Club TV show, one of several religious right figures to recently pretend there was nothing to the notion. Funny he should ask. In a 1984 speech in Dallas, Texas, he said: "What do all of us do? We get ready to take dominion! We get ready to take dominion! It is all going to be ours - I'm talking about all of it. Everything that you would say is a good part of the secular world. Every means of communication, the news, the television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance - it's going to be ours! God's going to give it to His people. We should prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ." Furthermore, C Peter Wagner, the intellectual godfather of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), actually wrote a book called Dominion! in 2008. Chapter Three was entitled Dominion Theology. When pressed, Peter likes to pretend that his ideas are just garden-variety Christianity, based on Genesis 1:26, in which, before the fall, God gives Adam and Eve dominion over the natural world - a far cry from dominion over other people, who did not even exist at the time, as evangelical critics of this dominionist argument have repeatedly pointed out. Dominionism is not new Dominionist ideas have circulated throughout the religious right for decades prior to Robertson's 1984 speech. A primary source was the small but influential sect known as Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R J Rushdoony in the 1960s, which advocates replacing American law with Old Testament codes. Centrists like Miller make the mistake of thinking that the small size of Rushdoony's core of true believers is the full extent of his influence. But this is utterly mistaken. As Michelle Goldberg wrote in Daily Beast, Rushdoony pioneered the Christian homeschooling movement, as well as the revisionist history, ubiquitous on the religious right, that paints the US as a Christian nation founded on biblical principles. He consistently defended Southern slavery and contrasted it with the greater evils of socialism. A second source traces back to the roots of the Latter Rain movement of the late 1940s, long rejected by orthodox evangelicals because they contradicted scripture and denied primary agency to God - which is why they insist that Christians must actively establish church dominance over all of society, because God can't do it alone. The Latter Rain was denounced by the Assemblies of God - the largest American Pentecostal church - in 1949, not solely for dominionist ideology, but for a variety of related beliefs and practices. When similar teachings and practices re-emerged in the guise of the New Apostolic Reformation 50 years later, the Assemblies of God denounced them again in 2000. This time, however, many Assemblies of God congregations have increasingly accepted the NAR influence. Sarah Palin's long-time church in Wasilla is one such congregation. The most clear-cut example of NAR dominionism is the so-called Seven Mountains Mandate, which holds that dominionist Christians should control the whole world by infiltrating and dominating the Seven Mountains of culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. Dominionism is not a left-wing fantasy A number of authors made charges similar to or derived from Joe Carter, web editor of First Things, who wrote: "The term ["dominionism"] was coined in the 1980s by [sociologist Sara] Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation." However, at the same time Diamond was working on her dissertation - published as the book Spiritual Warfare in 1989 - evangelical writer/researcher Albert James Dager was taking similarly critical aim, though from a different direction. In 1986 and '87, he published a multi-issue essay Kingdom Theology in the publication Media Spotlight. In that text he also used the terms "Kingdom Now" or "Dominion" Theology. In 1990, Dager, too, published a book, Vengeance Is Ours: The Church in Dominion. While his main focus was doctrinal error and non-Christian practices and influences, Dager's work traced dominionism back to the 1940s and even earlier. Many more have followed in his footsteps since then. If you Google the words dominionism and heresy, you'll get more than half a million hits. It should be obvious to anyone that conventional conservative Christians have big problems with dominionism - if only the United States' establishment media could figure out how to use Google. Dominionism is not an imprecise catch-all term Despite lingering definitional differences that are common with relatively new terminology, those who study dominionism and related phenomenon in a political framework have an increasingly common and precise terminology that most writers and researchers share. Researcher Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates provided a very useful guide, The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy, which addresses issues of terminology from several different perspectives - for example, between generic dominionism and specific dominion theologies. Berlet also draws a distinction between hard and soft dominionists. Soft Dominionists are Christian nationalists, he writes. They believe that Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. They fear that America's greatness as God's chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals ... Their vision has elements of theocracy, but they stop short of calling for supplanting the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hard Dominionists add something more to the mix: They want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely addendums to Old Testament Biblical law. Rushdoony's Christian Reconstructionists clearly fall into the hard dominionist camp. But the NAR seems to straddle the soft/hard division. On the one hand, they clearly do claim that conservative Christians are ordained to run the world, not just US society. Thus, the Seven Mountains Mandate. On the other hand, Wagner and others have argued that the Seven Mountains is compatible with democracy. The state of Hawaii shows how: Early in the 2010 election cycle, both the Republican and the Democratic frontrunners for governor were associated with the NAR. That changed when long-time Congressman Neil Abercrombie joined the race on the Democratic side, and eventually won the race handily. But for a while, the NAR came tantalisingly close to realising their dream, at least in one state - not just to win power, but to occupy all the possible paths to power. What's more, in a recent article at Talk2Action, Rachel Tabachnick draws attention to another hedge on Wagner's part, quoting from Dominion! In a section entitled Majority Rules: "If a majority feels that heterosexual marriage is the best choice for a happy and prosperous society, those in the minority should agree to conform - not because they live in a theocracy, but because they live in a democracy. The most basic principle of democracy is that the majority, not the minority, rules and sets the ultimate norms for society." This, of course, is utterly false in a liberal democracy, such as the United States. Liberal democracies combine majority rule as a general governing principle with a framework of rights protecting individuals in political minorities from persecution, political repression, and the like. The fact that Wagner so utterly misunderstands the foundations of American democracy shows just how dangerous such soft dominionism can be. This same lesson can be drawn from Uganda as well, where several different strains of dominionist theology have combined to bring that nation to the verge of passing a law that will make homosexuality punishable by death. Such is the nature of illiberal dominionist democracy. Theocratic thinking threatens the US today There are very immediate consequences that flow from the theocratic mindset. You'll note, for example, that the "Seven Mountains" of culture do not include science. That's not because dominionists intend to leave science alone, but rather because they see no need to dominate what they can simply cut off, ignore and deny. If science tells them that homosexuality is an inborn trait, why fight that in the realm of science when politics, the media, religion and education offer much, much better places to fight? After all, who says that education has to be based on facts? The same holds true for evolution and global warming as well, not to mention the workings of the economy. One rightwing denier of dominionist influence, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, even framed his attack as An unholy war on the Tea Party, while another denier complained that instead of describing the Tea Party as a movement united around concern about big government, many journalists seem to be trying to redefine the colour red by overlaying religious intent and purpose on the movement. Yet the dominionist connection to the Tea Party goes far beyond just the two candidacies of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Ron Paul, whose extreme anti-government positions helped to fuel the emergence of the Tea Party, has much deeper dominionist connections than either of the two new darlings. Paul Rosenberg is the Senior Editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newsletter. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011948160923228.html continued.
Do you want this?? Rick Perry is either a believer or an opportunist.. The most clear-cut example of NAR dominionism is the so-called Seven Mountains Mandate, which holds that dominionist Christians should control the whole world by infiltrating and dominating the Seven Mountains of culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion.
Dominionism is popular in Texas (consider the school board that erased Jefferson). I really think Perry is more an opportunist than a true believer. However he acts the same regardless.
Dominionists are real, even if they don't call themselves that, and even if they don't realize that their push to conform government to religion-based ideals fits the bill. They're a serious threat to the republic, in that they can use its democratic processes to undermine it. They're a stealthy movement that seeks to change the U.S. by "reform", rather than revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism supplants biblical evangelism The Church must grow past the Gospel of Salvation message and understand that it is only when we begin to implement the principles of the Gospel of the kingdom that we will really begin to see change in lives and cities and nations. The Church has no understanding of this realm. . . The Church must grow up. . . . 13 [emphasis added] Dale Neill, president of ICCC Beyond Salvation . . . God's concern goes beyond the salvation of individual people. His redemptive plan encompasses the healing and transformation of entire nations . . . . Nations are discipled as the church makes the invisible Kingdom visible by faithful obedience to God's Word throughout culture--in every area of life, and every realm of society including the family, the community, the arts, sciences, media, law, government, schools, or business. . . .14 [emphasis added] Disciple the Nations
So now reverse that: If knowledge frees mankind from ignorance; then 'we the people' WILL be taking over this taco stand Since, Jesus DID NOT bring 'the name' (the knowledge to enable mankind), then HE WAS NOT the christ. he said so in more places than christians will admit. So now, THE knowledge is currently evolving and 'we the people' are more capable than ever before in all recorded time to combine and enable a greater capacity of knowledge to all corners of this earth. 'we the people' are CURRENTLY learning how to overcome the 'beliefs' And the war of wars apparently seems to be brewing over 'tel megiddo' (the hill/the mount). So combine the concepts; knowledge is conveying across the earth (the internet) and if the heads of the three religions of abraham are cut off (three horns) and some idiot is walking with 'the name to know' upon the head............. Daniel 7;8.................. then mankind will judge the truth will exist and not even god will be able to help the liars.............. YOU, WE, I.................... live in 'the time' It will be ugly as far as i can tell, but when the dust settles the children will have the chance you and i did not have; the truth forever more; World Peace, can exist and eventually will once the garbage is burned it is time to rock this taco stand and to deny truth and to believe you can lie and not be responsible i will state quite clearly; you gotta another thing comin' want advice? buy seed and get out of the cities
Very much so. He's in league with the AFA (American Family Association). If you're unfamiliar with them, do a search for Bryan Fischer. Watch a few of his videos - very eye-opening. Extremist, all the way.
A significant portion of those who make up what is often called right-wing social conservative evangelism is dominionist. Dominionism is behind creationism, intelligent design, school vouchers, the "Christian nation" movement, the faith-based initiative, anti-abortionism, anti-church/state separation and a number of other things I can't think of offhand. Besides the AFA, there's the 700 Club, Falwell Ministries, a host of theocratic-leaning megachurches, Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition and, the scariest of all, The Fellowship, which has DEEP roots in American politics and dreams of global Christian theocracy.
"If science tells them that homosexuality is an inborn trait, why fight that in the realm of science when politics, the media, religion and education offer much, much better places to fight?" An excellent example of this sort of appeal to propaganda to advance theocratic ends comes from Phillip Johnson, the man who popularized Intelligent Design. In Darwin on Trail, Johnson argued that the proper place to settle evolution, design, creation etc. is in the court system. Despite the self-serving nature of the suggestion, as he is a law professor, this would both weaken science (as scientific rigor far exceeds that of any court system) and is tantamount to an admission of philosophical nihilism (that meaning is nonexistent as a consequence of the rhetorical unavailability of the truth behind phenomena). I don't believe Johnson is dumb enough to actually believe his own argument, as both of these consequences stand in stark contradiction to his reasons for making it, namely to establish the metaphysical truth of his religion. Hence the real purpose of his argument is to advance the notion that politics trumps everything, that propaganda is worthy to replace the search for truth.
Is this thread for real? I would say there is a group that has already captured the "7 mountains". LMAO.
Not to hard to imagine. Just picture a future where the US provides direct material, monetary, and military aid to the genocide of the Palestinians in exchange for the Israelis promising to rebuild the Temple on Temple Mount.
