|
|
Post by 4leafclover on Jun 2, 2010 6:29:03 GMT -5
Might as well introduce myself. I don't know that I'll participate much, but y'all may as well know a little bit about me if I do.
I'm a conservative, Christian, homeschooling, non- tv watching, skirt wearing mom to seven children. Sounds Quiverfull, doesn't it? But I don't think I do any of those things for the same reasons, or in the same way as the Quiverfull folks. They remind me of this quote by C.S. Lewis - "He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one."
Having correctly identified one error, they seem eager to rush into its opposite. Some children are led into drugs, alcohol and sex by their worldly friends, so the answer is no friends who aren't completely like-minded? Huh? We don't have to strive for balance and discretion, understanding that people can make different choices than ours and still not be sinning?
I used to hang around on the titus2 message boards , but eventually I got really freaked out by some of the things that were going on in these people's lives. At the time I concluded that it was the Dominion Theology/Theonomy that messed them up. I'm not sure of that now, but lately I've become interested in Dominion Theology again, and I'm trying to figure out just how dangerous it really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Jun 2, 2010 23:35:20 GMT -5
Welcome! There's nothing wrong with living how you want to as long as you're not hurting people. I think you probably have a good balance - or at least the fact that you try to be balanced seriously puts you in a whole different league. Yay  |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 2, 2010 23:45:06 GMT -5
Welcome!  |
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 3, 2010 21:47:44 GMT -5
If you're interested in researching the downside of dominion theology, Dark Christianity on LiveJournal is a good place to look. They link to other sites such as Talk 2 Action that have useful information. |
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 14, 2010 15:32:13 GMT -5
At the time I concluded that it was the Dominion Theology/Theonomy that messed them up. I'm not sure of that now, but lately I've become interested in Dominion Theology again, and I'm trying to figure out just how dangerous it really is. I was very much involved in the Dominion Theology/Christian Reconstruction Movement for a number of years before I became a Covenanted Presbyterian. I still think there is much of merit in what I learned there and though I junked a lot of my covenanter stuff when I was excommunicated from that group, I hung on to my Recon stuff. Mostly because I know that you can't compartmentalize your life. Dominion theology and CR was a self conscious attempt to live out the Christian faith in every area of life. It means attempting to think God's thoughts after Him in a particular discipline and to see how He reveals Himself through that discipline. As with anything that mankind touches, it is always possible to twist it awry and make it what it shouldn't be. However the abuse of a thing doesn't negate it's legitimate use, IMHO. Cheryl |
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 14, 2010 21:56:13 GMT -5
Cheryl, my understanding was that Christian Reconstructionism is largely a political movement: rebuilding the U.S. governmental system in accordance with Old Testament law. Is that not correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 16, 2010 12:07:56 GMT -5
Cheryl, my understanding was that Christian Reconstructionism is largely a political movement: rebuilding the U.S. governmental system in accordance with Old Testament law. Is that not correct? I would not say so. My understanding of Christian Reconstruction is that it is basically an attempt to think God's thoughts after Him as applied to all areas of life. So I wouldn't merely do mathematics, but instead mathematics is a vehicle for taking dominion over the world (ie calculus is used to take dominion over the air because it is used in the building of bridges or building of airplanes), and it also reveals something of the nature of God to us. If I am a sociologist or an economist, I look to the general equity of God's law or principles of God's Word to inform me as how to perform in those disciplines in a way that is pleasing to Him and fulfills those principles of justice and equity. As regards civil gov't, the Recon position is that the kings of the earth have a delegated authority that they must give an account for in the end. (See Psalm 2 and Romans 13 for instance). Therefore as a civil ruler, I am accountable not only to the people I govern, but also to God for how I govern. It is therefore incumbent on me as a ruler to make sure that I am giving true justice, have honest weights and measures, and that I am not framing mischief with a law, etc. One of the things that the Recon position really opened my eyes to is the fact that there is really no neutrality. Man is a religious creature by nature, whether that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or secular humanism. All our actions grow out of our beliefs. In fact, if you REALLY want to see what a person believes (as opposed to what they SAY they believe), watch what they do. If you understand the worldview that drives the decisions that are being made, then you understand what it is you are dealing with. One of the things that Recons vehemently deny is that salvation is achieved through the State. So there are a lot of misconceptions about them but I have read enough of their works over time to see that this really is the truth. If you want to know more about them, there are several articles on Wikipedia though I wouldn't say that I agree with all that is said in them. Hope this helps. I don't know if that helps at all |
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 16, 2010 13:50:14 GMT -5
One of the things that the Recon position really opened my eyes to is the fact that there is really no neutrality. Man is a religious creature by nature, whether that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or secular humanism. All our actions grow out of our beliefs. In fact, if you REALLY want to see what a person believes (as opposed to what they SAY they believe), watch what they do. If you understand the worldview that drives the decisions that are being made, then you understand what it is you are dealing with Sorry, I have to quibble. Yes, everyone has a worldview, a set of beliefs about how the world works, one's place in the world, etc. Some of these are religions, some are not. Equating every possible set of beliefs to a religion leads to some very sloppy thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 16, 2010 14:39:01 GMT -5
Sorry, I have to quibble. Yes, everyone has a worldview, a set of beliefs about how the world works, one's place in the world, etc. Some of these are religions, some are not. Equating every possible set of beliefs to a religion leads to some very sloppy thinking. I would posit that man is inherently a religious creature. Every worldview is circular in nature. It rests on a set of propositions that a person holds to be true and it becomes the grid through which they interpret the world. This is true whether one is a Buddhist, an atheist, or a Christian to name a few examples. It was in this sense that I used the word, "religious". Any of these propositions upon which a worldview rests are unprovable and faith based, hence their religious nature, whether or not they belong to an organized religion. |
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 16, 2010 20:37:09 GMT -5
I would posit that man is inherently a religious creature. Every worldview is circular in nature. It rests on a set of propositions that a person holds to be true and it becomes the grid through which they interpret the world. This is true whether one is a Buddhist, an atheist, or a Christian to name a few examples. It was in this sense that I used the word, "religious". Any of these propositions upon which a worldview rests are unprovable and faith based, hence their religious nature, whether or not they belong to an organized religion. Well, if you're going with the Humpty Dumpty / Though the Looking Glass sort of language usage, you can of course make words mean whatever you want them to mean. If you want to make clear arguments, it's wise to use them according to generally-accepted definitions. Atheists most assuredly do not have religions. I don't want to derail this thread, so if there's anything further I'll head over to the Talking to (a)theists one. |
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 16, 2010 21:32:01 GMT -5
There are many types of religion in the world true. But one can treat anything in a religious way. That usage has been accepted for a very long time. "Science is his religion", "He has made psychiatry his religion", as an example. I think the point is that people as human beings have an innate desire to belong to something higher and larger than themselves, whether it be a religion-religion or something else that is all-consuming and encompassing as some causes and belief systems are for their own true believers. It is part of the human psyche.
A Christian may believe that that impulse is the soul reaching beyond itself for God. An atheist may believe that it is the psyche yearning for meaning and belonging. The neuro-psychologist may believe that it is how our synapses fire in response to stimuli. But the impulse seems to be present in us all.
It isn't meant to be insulting to those who interpret this differently, I am sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Jun 17, 2010 11:15:52 GMT -5
Here's where I have a difficulty with this belief. For the first italicised section - why do I have to have a God in order to feel that I should act in a responsible manner? Is not my duty towards my fellow-man enough to insure that I behave myself? (looking at politicians, I begin to believe that no god or belief system makes much of a difference, but I digress). I don't feel that it's necessary to feel responsible to a judgement after death when one can look out in the day-to-day and see the results of your decisions right there. For the second italicised section - Here's my worry with this part. The belief that every thing you do is intended to further the kingdom of God tends to create a presupposition that everything OTHER (nonChristian) people does is intended to futher .... what exactly? Like you just said, there's no neutrality. There's a very strongly implied dualism here - us vs them. But what if I think I'm Switzerland? I feel pretty neutral myself. Am I wrong? Am I really an agent of Satan because I'm not on your team, and there's no option to sit on the sidelines? (this is asked in a lighthearted tone, by the way.) ;D It's very easy to say and think that Christians are doing everything for the glory and advancement of God, so nonbelievers are doing everything for the glory and advancement of Satan, or the World. There's no room for the concept that quite a lot of people are doing things for no further reason than they either feel they have to, they need to, or they want to. There's no deep religious reason for me to work in a library - I just like it here. I'm not trying to convert (devonvert) anyone, or sway local people to one view or another - I just give them books! It's easy for me to think that many other people are holding the positions they hold because they like them or are good at them. What is it that Freud said? Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe! |
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 17, 2010 11:39:23 GMT -5
For the first italicised section - why do I have to have a God in order to feel that I should act in a responsible manner? Is not my duty towards my fellow-man enough to insure that I behave myself? For the second italicised section - Here's my worry with this part. The belief that every thing you do is intended to further the kingdom of God tends to create a presupposition that everything OTHER (nonChristian) people does is intended to futher .... what exactly? Like you just said, there's no neutrality. Those are good questions. You are right about the no neutrality bit. I should also have added that worldviews and their implications are also inescapable. We don't operate in a vacuum. All law is an application of a particular worldview. In the US and Canada, we have decided that to murder is wrong, and therefore it is illegal to take someone's life. In parts of India, they have said that you can't kill the cows that devour their crops because of a religious belief they hold about cattle. And so it goes. Recons are probably more self-conscious than most folk about the source of where law comes from. But here is the thing, one of the beliefs that they hold most vehemently is that the state is not a saviour and you can't force people into God's Kingdom. You can legislate morality to a certain extent through force on the external level, but it says nothing to what happens internally in a person's soul. And from my experience, most recons are small "l" liberals, meaning they believe in a very limited role for civil gov't. Far more limited than what we currently have under secular humanists. I know a lot of legislators in the US (far less so in Canada) proclaim the fact that they are Christians. But again, I would say look at what they do as opposed to what they say. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, walks like a duck... |
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 17, 2010 13:20:43 GMT -5
Cheryl, my understanding was that Christian Reconstructionism is largely a political movement: rebuilding the U.S. governmental system in accordance with Old Testament law. Is that not correct? I would not say so. My understanding of Christian Reconstruction is that it is basically an attempt to think God's thoughts after Him as applied to all areas of life. So I wouldn't merely do mathematics, but instead mathematics is a vehicle for taking dominion over the world (ie calculus is used to take dominion over the air because it is used in the building of bridges or building of airplanes), and it also reveals something of the nature of God to us. If I am a sociologist or an economist, I look to the general equity of God's law or principles of God's Word to inform me as how to perform in those disciplines in a way that is pleasing to Him and fulfills those principles of justice and equity. To me, this seems to imbue mathematics and science with a thoroughly politicized meaning. I'm curious what you think about the instrumentalization inherent in the kind of practice you describe? Wouldn't it turn every life practice into a procedure designed to attain a certain level of God-ordained mastery? What about the thinkers who simply love what they do and who find their work life-affirming in itself? Not to mention, doesn't the imperative of attaining mastery over the birds of the air and the fish of the sea become a little tedious after a while? I mean, honestly? Sometimes, one just feels like watching a mindless TV show. By the way, Dominionists are not the only ones talking about how worldviews and biases shape our beliefs and experiences. Practically the entire canon of post-liberal Continental philosophy grapples with questions about these things (I hesitate to use the term "postmodern" because most of these authors were quite far from associating themselves with the "postmodern movement."). See, for example, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze/Guattari, Adorno, Benjamin, Butler, or Spivak, for a start. |
|
