Reading Politics

An excellent editorial about the eschatological agenda of the neoconservative movement.
Definitions:

"Dominionism" : a "militant post-millennial eschatology ('doctrine of end times') " which pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal) power by the church as the only means through which the world can be rescued; only after the world has been thus 'rescued' can Christ return to 'rule and reign.' (Some dominionists see the seizure of the earth as the result of 'signs, wonders, and miracles;' others picture it as the result of military and political conquest; most see it as a combination of both.)

"Reconstructionism": a variant of Dominionism which argues that it is the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every temporal institution for Jesus Christ

"Dispensationalism/Christian Zionism":  a belief that the promises made to Abraham and through him to the Jews, although postponed during this present Church age, are nevertheless eternal and unconditional and therefore await future realisation since they have never yet been literally fulfilled. So, for example, it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. 

--From EuroLegal.Org

I'm in a hurry, so I'll pick up this thread later, but I'd encourage those so inclined to read up on this stuff. The idea is that certain sects within Christianity and Judaism believe that we are living in the end times. This in and of itself seems like a harmless enough belief. However, some of these people take that idea and run with it in dangerous directions. For instance, they support reckless environmental policy, because we won't be here long in their eyes.

This lunacy has got to be stopped. When you view some of Bush's actions in the context of this doctrine, in addition to the context of his obeisance to big money, it paints a more complete, and more grim, picture of his agenda, and, more disturbingly, how the American public will be motivated to support it.

We have a bunch of maniacs running this country into the abyss, and dragging the rest of the world with it, based on misinterpretations of scripture.

It's enough to make you want to pray.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Mar 09, 2005.

Ah, so I finally have a name for the kind of Christians I despise--Dominionists.

Even before I read the definition here, I had met their kind.

Still, I think it actually goes back to when Constantine embraced Christianity and turned it into a state religion. This totally changed the dynamics of how Christianity as a religion interacted with temporal powers.

Before this particular brand of Roman Christianity, Christians were anarchists living in communes. Paul never really wrote a letter to the "universal" or "catholic" church, after all. It was always "to the church in corinth" or "to the church in ephesus." christians were not interested in political power or in becoming an institution. christians waged a war of counter-culture not by trying to grab the power of dominant institutions but by living in the fringes and by living in a way that made a mockery of how the world looked at power. While the world saw power in terms of wealth, conquests or control, the early Christias sold their properties, lived in communes, and sought power in other avenues--communal love, mysticism, prophecy, etc. no one was talking about how they needed to convert the emperor so Christianity could be the state religion and they could coerce people into the faith.

the rest is history and we cannot really change that. in the name of christianity, the most horrible things have been committed. and the excuse is that it was all for God, as if God cared for such things. Satan, the Prince of this world, had already offered to restore to Christ dominion over the fallen universe if only Christ would worship him during the temptation of Christ in the desert. Christ flatly refused and told Satan that one must worship only God and no one else.

It's too bad Christ's followers centuries later would fail to follow his example. Many Christians throughout history have done the exact opposite. in the name of Christianity, they were led to worship Satan by committing abominable acts so they could claim worldly dominion for God. although this term "dominionism" sounds like a modern term, its philosophy is not all that new. the idea that christians must "claim" the world for Christ, even through political conquest," is after all the front ideology for such events as the crusades or Spanish imperialism. George Bush is not really any different.

Christianity as we know it is, as someone here in NAO pointed out, a "poisoned tree." How true. As a Christian, my only hope is in one other supernatural prophecy--the second coming of Christ. when that day comes people will come to Christ and say, "Lord, Lord. Do you not know us? We have conquered nations in your name. We have massacred Muslims in your name. We kissed the asses of fascist regimes in your name. we have persecuted the homosexuals in your name." Etcetera, etecetera. And Christ will take one look at them and say, "I know you not."

When that day comes Christ will dismantle all the political power the Dominionists have acquired for themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if the coming Anti-Christ turned out to be a revered Christian political leader.

To hell with the Dominionists.

For instance, they support reckless environmental policy, because we won't be here long in their eyes.

Again, another corruption of Christian doctrine. the Bible speaks of a renewal of the universe. the new Eden will be established not on some other plane but right here. some Christians, however, play up the imagery of being taken to some faraway heaven. This is a lie. "Heaven" is not some galaxy far, far away. "Heaven" is what this earth is supposed to become. What we do in the here in now have implications in the entire narrative of the universe that is unfolding before us. You might have heard of entire towns in the Philippine being buried by landslides because illegal loggers have denuded the surrounding mountains. Of course, these rich logging families are as Christian as the next guy. In time, they will pay for the blood on their hands.

Fellow Christians sometimes rebuke me for habitually exclaiming "Goddamn" or "Jesus Christ!", thinking i'm violating one of the ten commandments that say we must not use the Lord's name in vain. But then, I think, why whould I feel guilty? There are worse ways to use the Lord's name in vain. Like going to war in the name of God. or persecuting people. Or exploiting the environment with one hand while giving financial offerings to a church with another. That is surely using the Lord's name in vain.

so no thanks, George Bush, Pat Robertson, and all you others in the American moral majority. I hope you all go to hell for the blood on your hands and for being responsible for importing your particular brand of Christianity to many places in the world, including the Philippines. Goddamnyou all.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

when that day comes people will come to Christ and say, "Lord, Lord. Do you not know us? We have conquered nations in your name. We have massacred Muslims in your name. We kissed the asses of fascist regimes in your name. we have persecuted the homosexuals in your name." Etcetera, etecetera. And Christ will take one look at them and say, "I know you not."

As a Christian, those are the words i find as being the scariest in the world. Many will come claiming under their "works" that they should enter the kingdom of God, yet God never knew them for the werent correct and never truly followed him.

I wouldn't be surprised if the coming Anti-Christ turned out to be a revered Christian political leader.

This I believe will be true as well. The anti-Christ will mislead all the unsaved, even those who profess Chrisitanity. They will see him as a leader who will bring about another revival. He will make promises to end wars (middle east conflct), hunger, and unjustice which will draw so many so-called Christians.

It will be a time a great peace followed by the end times and his true desires.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

That single post was more intellectually and spiritually stimulating than anything I expected in reply. Well done!

Christianity is of keen interest to me for a number of reasons, but here we are touching on an important one: Christianity's rejection of political authority. Christianity is not a religion of bloody revolution (unless you count the blood of the martyrd), but it is a religion of revolution. To be a Christian is to be a radical--that is, if "Christian" follows what I've read of the Bible and the Qumran scrolls.

When power comes into contact with something, it invariably ruins it, as anarchists have noted for many years. Power exists in all things, and in all things it deserves to remain. When power is concentrated somewhere, it is taken from somewhere else. Such concentrations may occasionally be neccessary, but they should always exist only to the extent that they can be justified under rigorous standards.

When you look at the early Christian church, it was a collection of people unified by a belief. Yet even then I think there are signs of hierarchy and inequity within its ranks. Even when Jesus walked the earth, there were constant squabbles for his favor among his inner circle. Jesus exhorted his followers to quit doing that, and perhaps they finally understood this after his torture and death. Also, Paul's views in his letters appear to be at times sexist. Jesus was no sexist--Mary Magdalene was one of his best friends and should be considered an apostle. Her scripture, along with Thomas' and a few others, was considered heretical eaarly in the Church and marginalized as a result. I guess Paul never met Jesus anyway, so some of his writings can be taken with a grain of salt.

However, the courage that Christians of the era had was remarkable. I don't believe many Christians today would refuse to disavow their faith when faced with a kettle of boiling oil or a thousand other tortures devised by brilliant sadists. If their faith was that much greater, then perhaps their deeds were somewhat greater as well. If their deeds were greater, then they practiced Christianity better--they were better Christians than those in more comfortable circumstances. How many other times through history, and into modernity, have we seen this pattern?

Kirkegaard noticed the "Christian" malaise centuries later. He was amazed at the hypocrisy of modern Christendom, and famously maintained that it was nearly impossible to be a Christian in Christendom. I used to think that he meant it was easy to get disillusioned, but what he really meant was it was very difficult to live the true Christian life, because it is obscured in situations where Christianity is the dominant religion. Kirkegaard saw Christianity as a thing that could only be lived, and not expounded: "Christ did not appoint professors, but followers."

So Christianity appears to thrive under oppression. It is a religion for the poor, the meek, the desperate. If you aren't poor or meek, you must become so if you want to be a Christian--Jesus says so explicitly. This runs counter to civilization's pursuit of wealth and centralization of power.

It takes a complete corruption of Christian doctrine to get it to run in parallel with capitalist political power.

All that said, I have to agree that Constantine's adoption of Christianity (which was likely insincere and political) was a real turning point. (OTOH, this adoption might also be the only reason Christianity isn't just a footnote in a history book somewhere). I'm sure the Church had preexisting problems, but it's hard to get into too many squabbles and oppress too many people when you're running for your life.

When you yourself are oppressed, and you know what oppression feels like, you are perhaps a bit more hesitant to inflict the same on others--and you certainly have less time and ability to do so.

I like what you say about the syndicalist nature of the early church. The reason for the churches' early success was their individual autonomy, and what was the first casualty of "officialdom?"

I also like what you said about heaven existing on this plane on this planet. I guess that's what was meant by "the Kingdom of God is at hand": not just that the kingdom lives within each of Jesus' followers, or that it comes within a certain time frame, but that it is HERE, in the most direct and physical terms. The flora and fauna of the world, in Biblical doctrine, are God's gift to us, for us to enjoy and take care of. While I'm not crazy about the anthro-centrism of this doctrine, at least it's a doctrine that encourages us to respect the environment--not exploit it.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Hrm, this is what I hate about christianity. It'such a do or die doctrine and so widely accepted these days, that if you want to be comfortable you have to have been save. Everyone always shouts about hell and such...

Sheesh...

It's a scary subject. I can't beleive in christ and faith, as defined by the doctrine is beyond me. I AM INCAPABLE of beleiving without proof. Blind acceptance is never good either...

And christianity turns life into a gamble. If I never meet a christian that converts me, I'm fucked?

I should be ashamed of myself.

In fairness, what you're describing is Christendom and not Christianity. A lot of what you said still applies, but Christianity, like Islam, exists in a corrupted state that has been bent to suit the proclivities of evil people for over a milennium. These people will have their doctrine, be it Christianity, Islam, or some other religion, because they need it to motivate the public to support their insane agendas, and they need it to justify to themselves that they have the right to steal and kill. It just happens that religion is an easy way to control people, and that Christianity became the state religion of the strongest powers and superpowers in all of history.

Tainted, heretical Christianity took teachings that encourage unity, selflessness, humility, poverty, asceticism, love, and sacrifice, and warped it into a battle standard for division, greed, theft, torture, opression, hatred, and murder.

Christianity in practice should resemble ascetic Eastern religions more than what we see in the church today. You can probably practice Buddhism in a similar manner to Buddha himself and his earlier followers--it has been allowed to exist in a pure state. Like any religion, it has changed, but the central tenets have not.

Discovering what Jesus and his contemporaries did and how they lived is much harder, because once Christianity was made the dominant religion, original meaning became obfuscated within layers of political power's manipulations.

When I look at Christianity from this perspective, it's a religion whose teachings I respect. When I look at it in the light you describe, I scorn it too. Similarly, I think there is a great deal of spiritual wisdom in Buddhism (I'm especially fond of Zen and Mahayana). If religion can be used to divide and conquer, perhaps it can also be used to unify and overcome.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Still, I don't want to go to hell, but I can't beleive in christianity as it has been presented to me. It's confusing, scary, and otherwise intimidating. Am I right to feel that way?

I wish there was someway to know for sure...

I am okay with living right, but christianity isn't about that. It's about accepting christ, so I can't do it by living right, I have to take a gamble. Do I want to waste my sundays on something that may not be true, or do I want to risk hell? It's confusing...

I know that there is a $DEITY but beyond that, I can't say.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Does the author mean to say that Jesus Christ will return to a kingdom already put in place?

Who will build the temple and all that stuff? Will humans -- if still alive or in existence -- help build the temple in the case that Jesus Christ "returns to a literal" temple?

What about a virtual temple?

What about the internetwork? Will the temple have need of virtualality?

Thank you, in advance, for any replies on my many questions.:)

What comes around goes around.