How do Dominionists square their beliefs with the New Testament?

[Hugabear]

From what I remember when I went to church in my younger days, the New Testament was supposed to represent some sort of a 'new covenant' whereby the old harsh ways of the Old Testament gave way to the new ways. For example, when a group of religious leaders wanted to stone a woman for adultery, Jesus told them 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

One of the many reasons why I no longer practice is because to me, it seems like many people that call themselves Christians are no better than the people that Jesus often railed against.

I'm just curious, though, how Dominionists can adhere to a set of rules that seems to be in direct conflict with what much of the New Testament teaches - you know, that section of the Bible that is supposed to represent the basis for Christian belief.

Of course, I could ask the same thing about groups like Westboro Baptist (although I'm pretty sure they'd be considered Dominionsists as well)

[flvegan]

1. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." - Gandhi

It's called hypocrisy. Far too many modern "Christians" practice it daily. They wouldn't know the teachings of Jesus if it hit them across the face with a cinderblock.

[Hugabear]

3. Kinda like this cartoon

[flvegan]

9. More like "Christians" using the Bible and the teachings of Christ to get away with shit

that the Son of God likely never intended.

I believe that Jesus Christ was an Essene, and He needed a really good lawyer and a much better agent to deal with the last 50 years of this human race. I doubt He'd have enjoyed being exploited by His "followers" like He has been.

[trotsky]

19. It does not appear Gandhi actually said that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=291x6565

[SwampG8r]

2. i have wondered the same thing

i notice they use a lot of paul but not much matthew or mark
i also love the way they love the "rapture" when 144000 pure souls will arise to heaven
here i have to laugh at them because the author intended a sarcastic snark in answer to the question what will happen when he comes?
so (i believe ) he set up a way to know
144000 pure souls will arise to heaven (they love this part)
none will be polluted by knowledge of woman (oops they always for get this part lol)
so 144000 morally pure virgin men will go to heaven?who would even know?or care?
god bless their hearts

[Kennah]

7. "none will be polluted by knowledge of woman"

I guess that explains Ted Haggard.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. I totally agree about Paul.

That guy really misinterpreted and perverted the message (in my humble opinion) as he went out establishing his churches. I've never been able to reconcile the letters of Paul with what is taught in the Gospels. Some of the other letters in the New Testament ring pretty true, but Paul's just "off" somehow.

[SwampG8r]

39. if you want to have things to say

to the rich to help them bring themselves to a more christly life
you need matthew and mark
these guys were there when there was no there so i dont have a problem with their view on the message of the christ
jesus was really hard on the rich
he was making them know that if they fell into wealth they fell into the responsibility to shoulder some of Gods burden

[SwampG8r]

40. paul is satan he is a vial of poison poured into the feast of christianity

[ButterflyBlood]

4. The whole Rapture/End Times obsession proves fundies are not true biblical literalists...

Because really, there is no way I can possibly comprehend how one can consider everything in the Bible to be literally true and find justification for the Rapture and all that crazy End Times nonsense that's so big amongst them. This is just kind of more of the same thing.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. Indeed!

Many of the 'fundies' or whatever we call them seem to have returned to the Old Testament. I'm sure Jesus would not approve of their behavior as in 'as you do to the least of these..................'

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. It bothers me when people call the fundies "Old Testament" Christians

First of all, it's insulting to Jews, for whom what we call the Old Testament is their Scripture. I've never heard of Jews being literalists, not even the ultra Orthodox, who debate the meanings of passages endlessly.

Second, it's not accurate. The early parts are indeed full of "wrath of God" passages, but the later prophets are all about social justice.

[Odin2005]

12. As far as I know, very few Jews take the OT literally the way the Evangelicals do.

To them it's about The Law and the teachings of the OT prophets

[LeftishBrit]

33. I agree.

That's what bothers me about the expression; it's not intended as antisemitic, but it has that unintended implication. Most Orthodox Jews are *not* preoccupied with vengeance; they are concerned with obeying the laws and rules, and doing good according to their understanding of the Bible.

And while some parts of the Old Testament are violent in tone, as are some bits of the NT, there is a lot about duty to others, and social justice as you say.

From Isaiah 32:

'For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise profaneness, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the meek with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.'

From Proverbs 6:

'There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.'


A viewpoint shared by many secularists!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. The latter parts of the Old Testament are full of passages like that

It's not a coincidence that American Jews were at the forefront of all the major positive social movements of the twentieth century.

[LeftyMom]

6. Because you can read whatever you want into a text that contradictory.

There's plenty of vile crap in the new testament to support a person who's determined to be a dick, it didn't turn all rainbows and light when the red print kicked in.

[Odin2005]

10. The bible says whatever the reader WANTS it to say.

Religious people, not matter what religion they are, can find "scriptual justification" for any prejudice or bullshit.

[Kurmudgeon]

13. Point out the difference, Domionist is NOT Christian.

And yet, Christianity has been bashed so much for Dominionist sake.
Or as they are traditionally known, Extreme Right Wing Republicans.

[rrneck]

22. Funny thing is

if you say you're a Christian - you're a Christian. If you read the sacred text and live by your interpretation of it that's what it means to be a Christian.

How do you distinguish your claim that somebody is not a Christian or living by the proper interpretation if the sacred text from the claims of the dominionists who would turn this country into a theocracy?

Before you answer you might ask yourself - would you fight for your religion? Would you kill for it? And if not, what is it's true value to you?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

14. Like most fanatics,

They just make shit up.
Why anybody pays attention to them is just beyond me but maybe we are entering into a new Dark Ages.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

15. You should also ask how they square their beliefs with the Constitution.

[ixion]

16. they don't have to 'square' anything, because logic doesn't enter into it

and for that matter, they don't bother to 'square' their beliefs with the Living Jesus, but rather Jesus as a baby or Jesus on the cross. Those two are much easier to deal with than the aforementioned.

[TexasProgresive]

17. G.K. Chesterton said it best:

"The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried & found wanting but that it has not been tried"

Calling oneself Christian doesn't make it so. Saying one is saved is wishful thinking. To be Christian on has to accept Christ, yes, and with Christ comes the cross. These people want a Christ that will lead worldly armies and give them ponies and stuff.They want their cake and eat it too. That is not the way of Christ.

God's wisdom is foolishness to us and our wisdom is foolishness to God.

[trotsky]

20. Strange.

You'd think your god would have given his creations a little better ability to understand his wisdom. Seems almost as if he *intended* to screw us over.

[TexasProgresive]

25. I think it is more like we just like being stupid. n/t

[trotsky]

26. Well that's a rather shallow and depressing view of humanity.

Why couldn't your god have made us just a little more in tune with his wisdom then?

[TexasProgresive]

28. Well if you believe the story we are not as we were intended

A question for you, Who do you know that is truly wise? (not smart but wise)

I know some that have flashes of wisdom but I don't know anyone who is wise most of the time and certainly none who are wise always.

It is not in our nature. Maybe once it was but certainly not now.

For proof look at history and look at the mess the world is in at present. You would think that we would learn but were are still as stupid as a box of rocks when it comes to relating with each other. Or maybe that's a bit harsh to the rocks- we are no more mature then children arguing in the playground.

edited to correct stupid typo

[trotsky]

30. You seem to be further arguing my point for me.

Your god, if he is responsible for creating us, did a fantastic job of fucking us up. It appears you agree.

[TexasProgresive]

31. No It is we who fucked up.

Everything is now a bit off. There is no perfect anymore. No diamond exists without flaws. Our bodies are designed to heal itself but as the system continues to destabilize more and more odd things happen such as the myriad auto-immune disorders where our immune systems are so haywire that they attack us instead of protecting us. As a youngster 50 years ago I know of one kid with allergies-we thought that was pretty strange. Now allergies are prevalent.

I know you probably think I'm out of my mind-and perhaps so but here's the kicker- I believe in God and that everything good comes from God. I believe that most everything bad comes from us humans. Now I guess you don't believe in God so you must believe that everything good comes from humans and everything bad comes from humans. It sounds to me we're not so far apart considering there's not a whole lot of good going on.

Tell me how humanity has evolves socially? What makes us 21 century humans different from Attila or Ivan or Hitler?

[trotsky]

32. I'm sorry to hear you don't think humans can do good.

And I'm sorry that you're still unable to realize that no matter how bad we are, if a god created us, then it is responsible for our current state. Especially when it is unable or unwilling to communicate effectively to us.

You know, there are several Christians on DU who believe Christians like yourself with a primitive, simplistic theology don't really exist, or don't exist in significant numbers. I wonder if any of them are reading this thread?

[TexasProgresive]

37. I and my wife made our children, we raised them to adulthood and now

they make choices on their own. We are not responsible for their actions as adults. We are concerned but the way they live their lives is their free will choice.

This is the same with God. If we are endowed with freedom to make choices how is God responsible if we make evil choices.

And I do believe that humans can do good - just that so many choice not to.

[darkstar3]

38. The God as father analogy doesn't work.

First, you didn't make the world your children live in.

Second, you won't condemn your children to eternity of suffering for finite deeds.

Third, you communicate with your children even if they refuse to acknowledge your authority.

Fourth, you have, I assume, never killed any of your children, nor would the thought of doing so ever cross a non-diseased mind.

I have a whole bunch more, but really, I think I can stop here. The God you worship is not a father figure. If you believe that he created the entire universe in which we live, including humans with their built-in nature that you are so quick to disparage, then you believe that your God is a sadist. There's just no way around it.

[trotsky]

41. Better than I could have put it. n/t

:thumbsup:

[TexasProgresive]

43. In you're willing to continue the discussion

First, you didn't make the world your children live in.

True my wife and I did not create the world but we certainly created an environment in which they lived for nearly 20 years.

Second, you won't condemn your children to eternity of suffering for finite deeds.

For me it is always that we are endowed with free will. My take on it is in line with C.S. Lewis' “The Great Divorce”. This book begins in Hell which is a dreary place. Every day a bus will take the residents to Heaven. Few get on and of those most return. It's a case of misery loves company. Even in the end it is a choice.

Third, you communicate with your children even if they refuse to acknowledge your authority.

Well I communicate well with 2 of 4. The other 2 chose to remain aloof. I am open to them always. The few times they make contact I hope for a restoration of our former good relations. I do not judge and they choose to remain away. In this I can sense some of the sadness turned to joy of the father in the parable of the “prodigal son.”

Fourth, you have, I assume, never killed any of your children, nor would the thought of doing so ever cross a non-diseased mind.

I don't believe that God kills us. It is true that we all will die at sometime in this life. We die of natural causes which was my original premise that our world is not as it should be. Those of us who die at the hands of our fellows are not killed by God. Things are out of whack and becoming more so. (Second law of thermodynamics I believe)

I have a whole bunch more, but really, I think I can stop here. The God you worship is not a father figure. If you believe that he created the entire universe in which we live, including humans with their built-in nature that you are so quick to disparage, then you believe that your God is a sadist. There's just no way around it.

I suppose that I am a sadist because I don't try to force my estranged children back into the fold. They are not happy but if I denied them their choices by force (which I couldn't do legally or morally) would they be any happier?

We all make choices in life. Some good some neutral and some are not good. This is a gift. One of the great evils in our world is when others force their will on others. It doesn't matter even if it is, “for their own good.”

This is the longest discussion ever for me on this forum which I normally avoid like the plague. What I see on Religion/Theology is a microcosm of society at large. We no longer can communicate. Every person is hardened in their positions, like medieval barons in their castles with moats and pikes pointed outward.

That this is so widespread is of great concern to me. We are sitting on a tinder box which could explode into a Sarajevo or Rwanda with people tearing each other to pieces. We are in danger of disintegrating.

[cleanhippie]

44. Did you REALLY just play the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" card? REALLY?

:rofl:


You really should start getting your scientific information from actual scientific publications like this

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

and not religious ones that intentionally misrepresent and distort actual science, like this

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

and this

http://carm.org/second-law-thermodynamics-and-evolution

:rofl:



You are free to believe what you want to believe, but when it comes to factual, empirical, scientific topics, you can have your opinions, but not your own facts.


Wow. Just wow.

[trotsky]

46. With that post you just admitted the "god as a parent" analogy is indeed flawed.

Now that we've established that fact, how about you address my questions directly?

[TexasProgresive]

47. Now you're just being obtuse-all analogies are imperfect.

It is like scientific models which help us to understand something very complex- the model can only represent a portion of the whole. You didn't answer my questions so I will give it a rest.

BTW and way off topic - my father was in Mexico on August 20, 1940 at age 15 very near (on the same street) where Leon Trotsky was shot. He, my Dad, was acting as a courier for Mexican expatriates who had been exiled after the revolution. Dad was born with itchy feet and no doubt jumped at the chance to make these trips during the summer and holiday time. It began a life long love of Mexico and her people.

[trotsky]

48. Why should I answer any questions concerning your faulty analogy?

We agree that it's insufficient. You offered it up as an answer to my questions, and we both agreed it is lacking. So try again.

[darkstar3]

49. So you refuse to acknowledge that a creator God has control of all existence,

yet you still believe that we must be subservient to him or face damnation. I'll circumvent the point-by-point and cut straight to the heart of the matter.

You believe that all the problems we as humans face are caused by free will. Our deaths, eternal damnation, suffering on this planet...they've all been neatly traced by your logic to free will.

The problem is that the concept of free will does not refute the idea that the Biblical God is a sadist. The bottom line is actually quite simple if you take into account suffering, natural disasters, disease, death, and hell: If the Biblical God is indeed "in control", then he is the most cruel and sadistic mass torturer in history. If you doubt that, then tell me that you would willingly allow your child to self-immolate if all you had to do in order to stop it was say a single word.

[trotsky]

18. The same way liberals square their beliefs with the Old.

They ignore the bits they don't like.

[Kurmudgeon]

21. Atheistic Neo-Cons apparently have nothing to get in the way of their Mammon worship either.

[trotsky]

23. Which has exactly nothing to do with the OP or my observation.

But thanks for playing.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

24. They speak with forked toungues

If you quote to them anything out of the OT that they ignore, or that is so heinous that anybody with a modicum of sense and a conscience would consider it abhorrent (like the notion that a woman should be stoned to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night or that slavery is acceptable) they spew the "We're under the New Covenant now" line.

If you tell them they shouldn't be doing things like hurling Leviticus against gay people they fall back on Matt. 5:17-19, where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.


It's the best of both worlds for them. They can use the first dodge to excuse their own behavior, and the second to justify the way they use the Bible to abuse everyone else.

[Thats my opinion]

27. our biggest problem

as progressive Christians, is to put up with the constant anti-Jesus stuff that keeps coming. Yet there has always been a constant steam of solid Christian witness that is much other. Terrible religious perversions always seem to slither in, obscuring progressive faith. But throwing the baby out with the very dirty bath water is never a reasonable approach. I've got an article, ( which among many other outlets will appear Wednesday under editorials in DU and probably with some revision in r/t) on Dominionists and how they have surfaced in the current political campaigns.

[rrneck]

29. Your biggest problem

is your inability to police your own ranks.

Your next biggest problem is that people have discovered that there is no discernible difference between religion and professional football or a Twitter feed.

[Thats my opinion]

35. or evatorgate?

[rrneck]

36. Did you mean elevatorgate?

That Rebecca whatshername thing?

:rofl:

A minor intramural scrum played for noteriety. Do you really think that compares with the collapse of Abrahamic religion beneath the onslaught of its own corruption and loss of market share?

Please.

[Igel]

45. Which dominionists?

1. It's like saying that "Democrats are in favor of legalizing marijuana." But I know Democrats that *are* against legalization.

There are some in favor of it, so it's not false if you read the word "Democrats" to mean "some Democrats. It's false if you read it as exhaustive, "All Democrats." It's probably false if you mean "the prototypical Democrat," if "prototypical" means "majority".

When you say "Dominionists do X" you have to be clear if you mean all, what you think as prototypical, a majority, or some. Otherwise you very clearly run the risk of changing your definitions mid-sentence. I can say, "A Christian is somebody who believes Jesus was the Savior. Christians go to church on Ash Wednesday to receive ashes smeared on their foreheads." Now, this is true: I have Xian friends who get daubed with palm ashes every year. I have Xian friends who don't. The difficulty is going from a definition for one group and then extending it to the whole group.

2. Do you mean Dominionists narrowly defined as they descrbed themselves in the '70s and '80s? Dominionists as defined by their opponents in the '70s and '80s? People called by "Dominionists" by their opponents these days?

The descriptions are different. Many opponents cherry picked texts from published works or missed sarcasm in spoken texts. Not a trait exactly unique to fundie Xians, that.

I can only speak concerning the Dominionist writings in the '70s and '80s and what I personally believe. I'll start with the latter.

3. The NT doesn't have punishments. If you're Xian, you don't stone those committing adultery. Where did Jesus say to execute murderers? Punish sex offenders? Jail thieves? Fine usurers? Punish racists? Did Jesus even mention incest--does that mean Mommy can marry Junior, or I can marry my sister?

Xianity in the NT wasn't a religion meant to govern. It has no provisions for governing. It can no more be used to set up a tax structure that includes penalties than it can compel community members to stone adulterers. All that came later; not coincidentally, Xianity's excesses started about the same time it was revised to be a governing religion. It wasn't until after Jesus that even rudimentary procedures for governing small congregations came about, and those were inconsistent at the time and a bit unclear to us today.

Some Xians are fairly Law abiding. If you're a Xian you love God and does what he says, even if he's not going to punish you for not doing it. Some on DU have written that "love thy neighbor as thyself" was called "the great commandment" by Jesus; they're wrong, of course, "love thy neighbor" was #2. It's a fairly common perception, sort of a gospel without a God, a man-centered gospel. Law-abaiding Xians point this out as they say that if God's our Father most Xians are pretty much juvenile delinquents.


4. Which brings us to what they say. Dominionists in the '70s and '80s were pre-millennialists. They believed Jesus would return *after* a Kingdom of God on earth. They rejected the fairly common "the Church is the Kingdom of God"--look at the church, is that perfection and harmony in all things? Hardly. Their rejection of this canard seems fairly safe. However, if there needs to be a Kingdom of God on earth before Jesus returns, how to go about it? For that you need laws. Where do you find them? The OT. They don't need to say that they're still enforced legalistically in the church. A child can obey a parent because the parent is into punishment or because the child loves the parent. They rejected the former; they dwelt on the second.

They aren't old school totalitarians; if anything, they're the new-school totalitarians often found among liberals, those who insist on majoritarianism as long as the majority's on their side. North and others insisted that God's Law would become the federal law by the usual Constitutional processes. There'd be elections, there'd be amendments, perhaps a Constitutional convention; that this would only happen when a majority of the citizenry wanted it. For that, there'd have to be a lot of conversions; at the time, in the '70s and early '80s, the Religious Right seemed to be on the increase and this seemed, presumably, reasonable to them.

I haven't seen them say anything different. Recently an Anglican preacher, renowned decades ago, died. The quotes from his works in the '40s and '50s and '60s are pure Dominionist in spirit. It's a fairly common meme among Xians that a mostly Xian society should produce a righteous society. Most DUers have no problem with a government reflecting the underlying culture; so most Arab countries will always have an Islamicized kind of government even in a democracy, simply because that's the kind of government most believing Muslims would want. They're not going to decree that they take off for Xmas and Easter. Even among many DUers, if a majority of the citizenry holds a value in a democracy it would be expressed at the governmental level.

I have seen different kinds of utterances from those who weren't the "classic" Dominionists from the '70s and '80s. They're into just implementing their beliefs, the *mechanism* adduced by the classic Dominionists be damned. Even some the DUers who want to have a governmental program to implement social justice are neo-Dominionist in that they don't really care about getting a majority--it's something the government should require of all people, even if a majority objects. In this they are like many of the aberrant "new school" Dominionists, those correctly cited in context by their opponents, the kind of Dominionist that believes that they're superior, they should be in charge, and if others don't like it there'll always be re-education camps.