Active Theocrats: The New Apostolic Reformation and The Seven Mountain Domionists

reply to post by wildtimes


The concept of dominionism has frightened me for some time. It is ironic that the biggest enemies of Shariah law want to put into place an identical framework.

Fortunately, they are dying just like all of the others who wish to do harm and evil to the world. Healing the world is a war of attrition and I'm confident that our children and theirs will be the ones to do it. "Dominionism" will be a bizarre phenomenon of the past that is marveled over just like all forms of bigotry and violence.

reply to post by wildtimes


yeah but you gotta watch anything that gains popularity and then gets funded by the MSM...while a lot of what they say is true, & its funny, there usually tends to be a fly in the ointment in the form of a spin that doesn't quite fit, in other words they make a lot of sense til they begin to take sides on the whole liberal/conservative thing...(it might be one issue or another, but that pokes its head out often enough for me to wonder) then i have to cringe and pull my hair out...

reply to post by wildtimes

Please feel free to explain how a theocracy can be anything BUT power and invincibility in the name of "God." As you and I have been working and talking together to do, we need to find the places we agree, and work from those. As nations, as races and cultures. The very nature of "religious intolerance" is argument, us vs them, right vs wrong, and as long as any religion thinks that THEY are the ones who are RIGHT - and everyone else will go to hell, it would never be workable.

democracy can be the same, power and invincibility if there is no tranparency. Democracy requires vigilant citizens not people living their life around celebrity gossip and letting government fool them by playing on their emotions.

When you judge any '_cracy', you cannot compare the best possible scenario of one (you like) to the worst case scenario of other (that you don't like)

anything can be abused, from a tiny pin to nuclear energy, whats important is, who is responsible enough to hold power and what are his/her motives, priorities and beliefs.
Believe it or not, the belief of a person colours his/her perception and decisions even if he/she is consciously unaware of it.

The people in power(government) need to be afraid of someone be it 'people' in a democracy or 'God' in a theocracy. If not then the system will become oppressive ultimately.

In theocracy they cannot fool God like they can fool and manipulate people in other systems.

A genuine God conscious and God fearing ruler will make sure that there is justice and no oppression. The example i have are the 1st four Caliphs in Islam and i am a fan of Umar (r.a)
the 1st Caliph said this while taking office.

Abu Bakr, at the time he accepted the caliphate,
stated his position thus: "The weak among you shall
be strong with me until their
rights have been vindicated;
and the strong among you
shall be weak with me until, if
the Lord wills, I have taken what is due from them... Obey
me as long as I obey God and
His Messenger. When I
disobey Him and His Prophet,
then obey me not."

The instructions he gave to
Usama prescribed a code of
conduct in war which remains
unsurpassed to this day. Part of his
instructions to the Muslim army
were: "Do not be deserters, nor be
guilty of disobedience. Do not
kill an old man, a woman or a
child. Do not injure date palms
and do not cut down fruit
trees. Do not slaughter any sheep or cows or camels
except for food. You will
encounter persons who
spend their lives in
monasteries. Leave them
alone and do not molest them."

After taking charge of his office,
'Umar spoke to the Muslims of
Medina: "...O people, you have some
rights on me which you can
always claim. One of your
rights is that if anyone of you
comes to me with a claim, he
should leave satisfied. Another of your rights is that
you can demand that I take
nothing unjustly from the
revenues of the State. You can
also demand that... I fortify
your frontiers and do not put you into danger. It is also
your right that if you go to
battle I should look after your
families as a father would
while you are away. "O
people, remain conscious of God, forgive me my faults and
help me in my task. Assist me
in enforcing what is good and
forbidding what is evil. Advise
me regarding the obligations
that have been imposed upon me by God..."

Once a woman brought a claim
against the Caliph 'Umar. When
'Umar appeared on trial before the
judge, the judge stood up as a sign
of respect toward him. 'Umar
reprimanded him, saying, "This is the first act of injustice you did to
this woman!"

'Umar gave his government an
administrative structure.
Departments of treasury, army and
public revenues were established.
Regular salaries were set up for
soldiers. A popuation census was held. Elaborate land surveys were
conducted to assess equitable
taxes. New cities were founded.
The areas which came under his
rule were divided into provinces
and governors were appointed. New roads were laid, canals were
lug and wayside hotels were built.
Provision was made for he support
of the poor and the needy from
public funds. He defined, by
precept and by example, the rights and privileges of non-Muslims, an
example of which is the following
contract with the Christians of
Jerusalem: "This is the protection which the
servant of God, 'Umar, the Ruler of
the Believers has granted to the
people of Eiliya [Jerusalem]. The
protection is for their lives and
properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and
for all their coreligionists. Their
churches shall not be used for
habitation, nor shall they be
demolished, nor shall any injury be
done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses,
nor shall their properties be injured
in any way. There shall be no
compulsion for these people in the
matter of religion, nor shall any of
them suffer any injury on account of religion... Whatever is written
herein is under the covenant of
God and the responsibility of His
Messenger, of the Caliphs and of
the believers, and shall hold good
as long as they pay Jizya [the tax for their defense] imposed on
them." Those non-Muslims who took part
in defense together with the
Muslims were exempted from
paying Jizya, and when the
Muslims had to retreat from a city
whose non-Muslim citizens had paid this tax for their defense, the
tax was returned to the non-
Muslims. The old, the poor and the
disabled of Muslims and non-
Muslims alike were provided for
from the public treasury and from the Zakat funds.

These are just a few excerpts, maybe you'l like to read the biography of Umar (r.a), maybe each ruler should read it and take a lesson in governance.

It would be off-topic beyond this, but this is why i support theocracy lead by eligible, God fearing people rather than pseudo-democracy by rulers who have multimillion dollars stakes in companies that profit by wars, diseases, financial and other oppressions.

reply to post by logical7

log7,
Aside from all I disagree with in your post, you just made another statement indicating that you don't understand me at all.

Believe it or not, the belief of a person colours his/her perception and decisions even if he/she is consciously unaware of it.

Of Course It Does! That is the problem with religious indoctrination to begin with.

Running an entire country on a belief system that can in no way be PROVEN is ridiculous.
Motives do not ONLY come from God...they come from humanism and an aversion to war, oppression, and suffering.
No God is required for those things.

What Cuervo said above is absolutely true. the Dominionists are trying to impose their version of God on this country, REGARDLESS of the fact that their version is merely an opinion and not substantiated with ANY kind of actual evidence. The best thing the Founding Fathers of this country did was to IMMEDIATELY separate Church and State.

WWII pretty much ended religious fervor in Europe. They were so war-weary and disgusted that they simply stopped caring. Too many had died, too much had been destroyed. The Pilgrims came to North America to practice their intolerant religion because they didn't like the Church of England forcing beliefs on them. The Founding Fathers did their thing by declaring Independence from England nearly 200 years LATER.

The incessant warring in the Middle East going on NOW is a result of theocratic tyranny, despotism, inequality and hatred. As much as Israel may be a mixed group, or Muslims and Jews are living in Iran together peaceably - it is because they leave religion OUT OF their daily relationships. The governments, on the other hand, are chomping at the bit to go to war based on their beliefs, and the people are TIRED OF IT.

You can not FORCE adults to believe something you can not PROVE to them. You can, however, FORCE beliefs on innocent young children -- then they will grow up believing it and that is the danger here. These Dominionists are not "peaceful" people. Neither are the Islamist Extremists... they are the same species. Willing to kill and oppress others in the name of a thing that can not be proven any more than they can prove we can breath underwater or go live on the sun.

reply to post by studythem1

yeah but you gotta watch anything that gains popularity and then gets funded by the MSM..

Well, Colbert and Stewart are on cable - but yes, they get attention in some news sources and MSM.

And they have huge audiences - many young people actually GET their news from them - to the exclusion of other "serious" outlets (although Fox can hardly be considered a "serious" news source...Colbert and Stewart are the much needed counterbalance to Fox News as well as Beck, Limbaugh, Jones and their ilk).

As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather my young adult kids watch THEM than any other news source. Liberal and outspoken as they are, they make sense to me.

reply to post by wildtimes

I think Stephen Colbert has a lot of credibility.

Colbert is purely satire. I don’t think these 7 Mountain Extremists are into satire. This group is real and dangerous. They aren’t trying to make a point with parody, they’re trying to control us….and that’s not funny.

reply to post by Cuervo

Fortunately, they are dying just like all of the others who wish to do harm and evil to the world. Healing the world is a war of attrition and I'm confident that our children and theirs will be the ones to do it. "Dominionism" will be a bizarre phenomenon of the past that is marveled over just like all forms of bigotry and violence.

I'm grateful to hear hope in your post...
but they're not going down without a fight. They want to get their mitts on YOUR kids, too. Which would preclude the above war of attrition.....

reply to post by seabag

This group is real and dangerous. They aren’t trying to make a point with parody, they’re trying to control us….and that’s not funny.

I agree with you, seabag.
Entirely. Colbert could probably successfully run for office, but he refuses. These people ARE running for office, and you are right - they're dangerous.

Colbert was the guest speaker at my daughter's college graduation. He has a presence and charisma that is powerful, sensible, and real. I've also heard interviews with him on NPR - he knows what he's talking about, and although his character on the show is satire, his views are not satire at all.

reply to post by darkstar57

yet i do not see them mentioned as opponents of the dominionists..

Muslims are opponents by default, since they are not Pentecostal Evangelical Christians. Between the two factions, WW3 could EASILY become a huge reality, and this time on American soil.

reply to post by logical7

In theocracy they cannot fool God like they can fool and manipulate people in other systems.

"Fool" God? Do you really not see how they "fool" the people into believing in God to begin with? It's PEOPLE that come up with systems, log7... and kill each other for them. And it's PEOPLE that came up with the idea of God and who arbitrarily "decide" what God is/wants/does.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by darkstar57

 

yet i do not see them mentioned as opponents of the dominionists..

Muslims are opponents by default, since they are not Pentecostal Evangelical Christians. Between the two factions, WW3 could EASILY become a huge reality, and this time on American soil.

America will never become a Christian nation and these 7 Mountain Nutters are never going to be in charge. If the election and re-election of a radical like Obama isn’t proof enough then I don’t know what to tell ya.

Dominion Theology seeks to impose ‘the law of God,’ as described in Biblical scripture, as the law of the land in America. This is basically a theocracy and will be rejected by almost all Americans. The reason this form of government won’t fly in America is because we are a democratic republic. The Bible is open to interpretation (hence the many versions of Christianity). This type of governance would require a select few state officials be responsible for interpreting the intent and meaning of Biblical law. These select few would hold all the power with no checks and balances (a complete concentration of power).

This country has NEVER been about placing power in the hands of a few men. America has always been about the power of its citizens and the separation of power within our centralized government as outlined in the first 3 articles of Constitution.

I don’t think this movement will be anything more than another means of balancing the power currently held by liberal progressives in this country. In that regard, I’m glad they are here. But there is no chance they will be calling the shots in America. We are not a theocracy!

reply to post by wildtimes

Aside from all I disagree with in your post, you just made another statement indicating that you don't understand me at all.

I do understand you, i am just trying to point out that you are biased. I know that you know, that belief affects thinking and actions.
Why are you ignoring that a disbelief will affect a person/ruler equally?
You are turning a blind eye to the consequences of a disbelief(secular) system, the economic crisis, the wars, the oppression. Are these not the gifts of a belief? Rulers with a belief that they are invincible?
You are rooting for an idealistic position where people behave upright despite of their disbelief in God and so disbelief in being held accountable and answerable one day if they cause hurt/injustice.
Is this happening in any government? Is any bank's CEO taking public transport rather than a private jet?

The best thing the
Founding Fathers of this country did
was to IMMEDIATELY separate Church
and State.

That was a reaction, a reaction to an oppressive church.
A system based on a reaction!!!
It sure worked but it was problem specific, not a universally applicable idea.

The incessant warring in the Middle
East going on NOW is a result of
theocratic tyranny, despotism,
inequality and hatred.

there is nothing theocratic, its just tyranny, people are not asking for separation of state and religion like in west, they are asking a state formed on Islamic principles, now are all of them stupid to not take the solution that the west used to solve its problem in the past? I guess they are wise and aware that a different solution is needed, the solution however will not be good for the west and its parasitic behaviour, thats why the west is interfering and causing the wars in ME to divide people and prevent them from being united under one faith.

You can not FORCE adults to believe
something you can not PROVE to them.
You can, however, FORCE beliefs on
innocent young children -- then they
will grow up believing it and that is the
danger here.

EXACTLY! The same is however true if innocent young children are raised in a system based on disbelief.
Why should people who don't want it push for a change of system and get it democratically?
Now you have a system where religion is TOLERATED.
A new system would be religious where atheism,agnostism,deism etc will be tolerated.
Non religious people will be free to practice their beliefs in their houses.
Sounds fine! Right?

reply to post by wildtimes

And it's PEOPLE that came up with the idea of God and who arbitrarily "decide" what God is/ wants/does.

Are you sure?!
What you have is an opinion, not a fact. When you build anything over it, it also is just your view.
What i have is also an opinion, objectively speaking.
Why should either of our opinions be superior?

So our fanatics are no different than other fanatics around the world?

We have our own people with their own version of Sharia Law, who think the rest of us should follow it?

I know many will jump on the bandwagon and talk # about Christianity, but if you open your eyes it's all religion. Religion is what's dragging us down, no matter which god they believe in.

reply to post by Kharron

I know many will jump on the bandwagon and talk # about Christianity, but if you open your eyes it's all religion. Religion is what's dragging us down, no matter which god they believe in.

This is not true at all, that is just a smoke screen. What is driving us down is not religion or our religious faith. It is how information is formed and distributed through a structure of policy to form a united political view within a public audience. What is draging us down is the elits fight for political and geopolitical power and influance.

The information is very often formed and deliverd to influence people with a religious faith and those with no religious faith. Patriotisme and national safety is very often used to influence support from non believers.
But religion works very well to gather support from them both.

reply to post by logical7

That was a reaction, a reaction to an oppressive church.

Correct. The Abrahamic religions are ALL oppressive.
Theocracy = Oppressive Religion

Free Thought = Freedom of Thought

I don't know why you get so hung up on the "consequences" thing. Your own religion meets out 'consequences' that many find unreasonable, and those 'consequences' - or what you call "justice" - are delivered by PEOPLE.

You will never convince me that people without religion can not be moral, good, kind, and do the right thing. If you really believe that, logical7, I can only hope to enlighten you to how mistaken you are.

If you want to live in a theocracy, that is your right. There are plenty out there. I do not, and never will willingly do so. Never.

reply to post by spy66


It's both, spy66.
Your own country is quite successful and largely non-religious, is it not? Does it not have socialist policies in place, and is it not a peaceful country?
I've been there, I've visited and had friends there. It's lovely and clean from what I saw (Oslo, Bergen, and Stavanger).

reply to post by logical7

Are you sure?!

Yes, I am sure.

I am absolutely sure that human beings wrote the holy books from their own thoughts -
and I am absolutely sure that only HUMAN BEINGS are doing anything on this planet to kill other people, or to help other people.

Positive. Absolutely positive.

reply to post by logical7

A new system would be religious where atheism,agnostism,deism etc will be tolerated.
Non religious people will be free to practice their beliefs in their houses.
Sounds fine! Right?

No. That's not the definition of a theocracy. Theocracy means that the RULERS are considered to have Divine Grace and receive their thinking from "God." EVERYONE has to follow their dictums with no room for argument. They are free to dictate matters of faith, and insist that EVERYONE learn it, accept it, and believe it. It doesn't work. The Shii'a and Sunni factions are living and dying PROOF of how fractured your own faith is. You cannot deny that...

Henry VIII established himself as the Head of The Church of England - his only 'boss' was God. THAT was a Theocracy - it also didn't work. If it had, we probably wouldn't be speaking English here -
my ancestors came from England right before the English Civil War.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by spy66

 

It's both, spy66.
Your own country is quite successful and largely non-religious, is it not? Does it not have socialist policies in place, and is it not a peaceful country?
I've been there, I've visited and had friends there. It's lovely and clean from what I saw (Oslo, Bergen, and Stavanger).

edit on 30-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Well our government is very succesfull because we are very obedient people, and we have a very low unemployment rate. Because of it we dont need to be looked after that much by our government.

But religious differences are growing since we are taking in more and more forigners who are used to a different political system and culture. People seem to think that culture is pure religion. And that politics is pure culture.