Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology      Home login  
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 1
Dominionism or Reconstructionist TheologyPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
This rather extreme right branch of evangelical theology is going to be of greater focus and concern in the near future as it seems that Republican vice-presidential candidate is a member of one of the churches that subscribes to this theology. What do you know about it and how do you feel about this theology coming to the forefront in North America in a time when extremist theologies already create an atmosphere of division and conflict worldwide?

Here are some links that lead to sites describing it and it's origins - feel free to look up your own:
Deconstructing the Dominionists, Part I

Several parts in series (seven I believe)

Some specifically on Sarah Palin and her relationship to the Dominionists
Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse
Sarah Palin used AK tax dollars to fund dominionist churches
New revelations re "stealth dominionist" Sarah Palin
At Palin Church, Jews For Jesus Head Says Terrorism vs Israel Is God's Punishment

Assemblies of God Alaska website

From the dailykos article on Dominionism

It also appears that Sarah Palin is a member of a misnamed group called Feminists for Life. FFL in fact engages in "cultural appropriation" of women's suffrage icons to promote a very woman-unfriendly agenda that--despite attempts to sound "not like those crazies in Operation Rescue"--would not only criminalise abortion but the IUD and hormonal birth control methods, and potentially everything outside the rhythm method (the term "abortifacient birth control" is a codephrase in the dominionist "pro-life" community for hormonal birth control--partly due to a unique urban legend claiming "the pill" and other hormonal birth control causes abortion and partly because of a unique definition of pregnancy beginning at conception rather than at implantation (the latter is what most mainstream OB/GYNs use) and thus making anything preventing implantation potentially "abortifacient").

From the dailykos article on Dominionism

FFL promotes such fun bogosities as "post-abortion syndrome" (the idea that having an abortion will inevitably lead to PTSD and insanity), and promotes mandatory waiting periods and misinformation guidelines that can be insurmountable for poor or rural women--even those forced to make the most heartbreaking choice because of a nonviable pregnancy. In fact, one of their biggest causes isn't feminist at all--they actively promote the idea that the best choice for women is to stay home as fulltime mothers, and it can be well argued that the only traditionally feminist viewpoint they really support is women's suffrage!

Enjoy and discuss.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology
Posted: 9/5/2008 4:09:11 PM
Nice to hear from you, themadfiddler. Also found your style of moderating both intriguing, and fair, if a little different from other mods. But really fair.

On topic: I am both a proponent of Dominionism and an opponent of it.

This thread might give you an idea: "Tithing While Bills Go Unpaid" On the one hand, the OP in that thread seems to be suggesting that the person following the Bible and giving tithes is in the wrong. But in her Opening Post, she quotes the Bible itself in Luke 11:42, which stipulates that you cannot ignore everything else in order to give tithes.

So it is clear to me that the Bible (New Testament) does indeed include a reasonable way to carry out tithing and therefore, were we to follow WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS, taking all of it into account, we would have a reasonable philosophy that few would agree with, and would be a significant improvement on our current system. On that basis, I believe that dominionism is a good system.

However, many people, like the man the OP was complaining about, only read one half of the Bible and not the other, or take it literally and don't really think into it too much, and so they end up with a distorted view of the Bible that most of us would find both irresponsible to act upon and illogical when one looks at the Bible itself. Even more, when you examine the actions that these people suggest, it is clear that a lot of the time, it favours their lifestyle as a minority interest group, over the majority of Christian's needs and the needs of the majority of all people. It seems that so many people who are in favour of Dominionism take this skewed and self-interested viewpoint, that I mistrust their motives and believe that it is merely an excuse to suggest that their motives are backed by G-d.

So while I am all in favour of Dominionism, I believe that the only people who have the right to state what G-d wants of us, are only those who are most knowledgeable of the Bible, who resolve what the Bible says with the realities of life and how people really are, and those who are the most objective and understanding of others, and who have the utmost integrity to never let themselves by influenced by greed, power, pride, prejudice, or any other selfish trait.

As so few people exist, and those who favour Dominionism seem to want to put themselves in charge of what the Bible says, and they DEFINITELY don't want the above telling us what is in the Bible, I believe that it is just another ruse.

John McCain is not very well liked in the UK, as he is on the Bush side, and no-one I know likes Bush. Sarah Palin is on the same side, so no-one likes her that much either. However, over here, it was reported that she pushed her pregnant daughter and her boyfriend into getting married. I don't know if this is true. But since so many teenage relationships fail in the UK, most people think she is a nutcase for even allowing them to get married. Since Obama is so well-liked in Europe, the Republicans are not that well-liked, and she just makes it worse for them.

I suspect that the only reason she was announced as a running-mate, was because the Republicans saw just how much public voting appeal went to Hillary Clinton from women, and they believed that now that Hillary was out of the running completely, they thought they could grab her voters for Palin. How wrong they were. I've seen her on TV. Sarah Palin is everything that Hillary Clinton is NOT. You could not ask for 2 more opposing types of people.

In fact, one of their biggest causes isn't feminist at all--they actively promote the idea that the best choice for women is to stay home as fulltime mothers, and it can be well argued that the only traditionally feminist viewpoint they really support is women's suffrage!
I would also like to point out that according to this philosophy, Palin has every right to vote for McCain, but she should stay home and just be a fulltime wife and mother. So her own philosophy requires her to abandon all political aspirations and all political office, including the nomination for vice presidency and her governorship of Alaska, which means her own political philosophy is to stop pushing it on everyone else, because that's the man's job.
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 3
Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology
Posted: 9/7/2008 2:46:09 PM

When someone links to the Daily Kos, the post loses credibility with me, and I do my own research.

With respect, that is intellectually irresponsible.

Do your research by all means, but read their argument then be prepared to tear it down. If you can't tear it down but seek to dismiss it out of hand just because you don't like it's point of origin, you're already committing basic logical fallacy and I am sure you don't want to slip into that.

Sure they probably have a bias you would find "liberal"

If you note there were several other sites there listed...there primary concern seems to be any steering of America towards theocracy by any groups that would wish to do so because of the essential dangers of any group claiming to speak for God. I think any one of us here should have the good sense and humility to know the impossibility of that task. If not, some personal re-examination might be in order. The Dominionists are certainly out to do try and make America if not all of North America into a is their stated goal. How much Palin's church is interested in this is in question.

One thing that isn't in question is that this church has a solid right wing agenda that is not friendly towards other faiths. That is of course their right, but their essentially anti-Jewish stance is one I find disturbing especially given Palin's lip service to the AIPAC lobby in America. Perhaps she was not in attendance nor aware of the speaker they had from "Jews For Jesus" who promoted the idea that terrorism against Israel was God's punishment against the Jews for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour?

As more information makes it's way into the media I guess you will be able to pick and choose which source you find acceptable for consumption on this issue.
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 4
Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology
Posted: 9/7/2008 5:31:27 PM

I hope you will relax about the idea that some right-wing Christian fanatic is going to impose a theology on North America. It isn't going to happen in my opinion.

Remember when Judge Roy Moore in Alabama refused to remove his plaque of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom? I, as a Christian, believed that he was wrong for defying the order to remove them. Some people supported him, and he is a hero in some circles. I think he was an embarrassment. It should have been a non-issue. Not everyone wants to cram religion down the throats of the entire population. As a Calvinist, I believe that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9). Therefore it is God's work that saves someone rather than my preaching or badgering them to death.

I agree with you in essence...but I am also suggesting a certain level of vigilance. In the case of Palin, I have to say I have seen some disturbing tendancies...the censorship issue with the town librarian, the lecture given at the Assemblies Church by the JFJ preacher showing essentially outright contempt for Jews and Judaism and no repudiation of this...if it starts to walk and quack like a duck it at least bears examination for possible "duckiness."

I also think there are varying levels of public involvement allowed within Dominionism that permit a more world-participating lifestyle while still being seen as righteous. In any case I think this movement bears closer examination, and any potential connections Palin may or may not have to it also do.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 5
view profile
Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology
Posted: 9/9/2008 5:30:41 PM
RE msg 12 by And Can It Be:
This is why I believe these movements end up requiring that their followers adopt the Law as given on Mount Sinai.
If you ever meet anyone who claims to "keep the Law as given on Mount Sinai", just ask them when was the last time they ate pig, or pork, or ham, because it's all pig, and it's all banned in the Bible.

If you are trying to impose God's rule on a nation, you have to follow the only model that is available--ancient Israel.
That is a bit difficult to swallow, because the Bible says that the King is not allowed to have a lot of gold and silver, so he cannot be rich. Who is going to tell George Bush he has to give his family fortune to charity?

RE msg 15 by NERO1:
IMO what would ideally happen is radicals, literalists, and "true believers" from ANY of the three "Abrahamic" faiths would all move to their own section of the world (ideally the Middle East ......
Make your mind up. Either Jews have a right to live there, in their own state, or they don't, and they are a dispersed people, living in every corner of the globe. Can't be both.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology
Posted: 9/10/2008 4:28:58 AM
^^^ You live in a country that is mostly Christian. Most countries in the Middle East are mostly Islam. Israel is a country that is mostly Jewish. Why do you want to take that away?

Radicals and "fanatics" from all three of the faiths should have it jointly; it might be fun to watch that from afar. Like setting them all in the same room in hell with only one air conditioner control.
I would really LOVE to see that. Christian countries are known for starting wars. So they would start one. Then all the Muslim countries in the Middle East would join in. However, the Jews would win. Jews have been the survivors of over 2000 years of anti-semitic mass murder, so it's water off a duck's back for them. As the saying goes, "what doesn't kill you, makes your stronger". So when they do fight back, they fight with much greater strength than anyone else. You only have to look at the revolt in the Warsaw Ghetto, to realise that the Jews gave the Germans a lot harder battle than the Americans and the British, considering they had no weapons, and the Germans had tanks and machine guns. But Jews today are not the Jews of the previous centuries, who refused to fight Christians. They DO defend themselves against non-Jews. So the Jews would find the attacks by Christians and Muslims like water off a duck's back, but would fight with much greater strenght than their enemies. As the countries of OPEC in the Middle East are Muslim countries that would get involved in such a war, the likely outcome would be that the Jews would end up with all the countries that produce oil in the Middle East. So the Jews would have all the oil, and Americans would be at their beck and call.

at least since Latin ruler Hadrian booted them all out in the mid-2nd century and changed the name to Palestina.
Before that, it was called Judea. The Jews never requested this name. That was the Roman's choice, because they recognised that the land belonged to the Jews. Hadrian changed the name of the region to Syria Palestina to wipe out the name of the Jews, as the result of a revolt against the unfair and illegal Roman Occupation. Hadrian got miffed, and instead of destroying a few buildings, or building a wall, he killed over half a million Jews. He didn't boot them out. He committed GENOCIDE against the Jews. After that, there really weren't many Jews left and Hadrian went on a massive persecution of anyone who practiced Judaism. Those who could leave for Babylon did. But a few stayed. My father's mother was a direct descendant of the Jews who stayed in Hebron, from the destruction of the Second Temple, until the Arab revolt in Hebron, which massacred many Jews.
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 7
view profile
Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology
Posted: 9/10/2008 9:30:49 PM

Yes, each of our religions has extreme elements. Let's not deny that. But let's not end up simply attacking either. Where possible, let's work together to stop the greater danger.....

Al Gore??
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Dominionism or Reconstructionist Theology