<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dominionism Is Not A Myth, Continued</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 21:00:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780/comment-page-1#comment-106250</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=36780#comment-106250</guid>
		<description>BlackDog,

Be fair.  They don&#039;t object to ALL of the Bible; they are actually rather fond of Leviticus... or, at least, the parts that don&#039;t apply to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BlackDog,</p>
<p>Be fair.  They don&#8217;t object to ALL of the Bible; they are actually rather fond of Leviticus&#8230; or, at least, the parts that don&#8217;t apply to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlackDog</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780/comment-page-1#comment-106055</link>
		<dc:creator>BlackDog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=36780#comment-106055</guid>
		<description>&quot;...And there aren’t too many folks in evangelicalism who really want to hear instruction about what God expects from those who claim to follow him or that God hasn’t given them the right to impose “God’s Law” on the rest of us.&quot;

As I have remarked many times on the blog where I moderate, I am of the opinion that much of American Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentecostal Christianity has gone so far away from what the Bible really says...and what centuries of (particularly Protestant) Christian Tradition teaches...that it might as well be counted as a new religion altogether.

If people DON&#039;T want to hear instruction (from a Biblical perspective) about what God expects, or don&#039;t want to be called out for being arrogant or lying...and WANT to follow all this man-made stuff that&#039;s not even close to what has defined the Christian religion for centuries...then why bother to call themselves Christians at all??

If they&#039;re going to basically use the Bible for toilet paper...why bother claiming it??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;And there aren’t too many folks in evangelicalism who really want to hear instruction about what God expects from those who claim to follow him or that God hasn’t given them the right to impose “God’s Law” on the rest of us.&#8221;</p>
<p>As I have remarked many times on the blog where I moderate, I am of the opinion that much of American Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Pentecostal Christianity has gone so far away from what the Bible really says&#8230;and what centuries of (particularly Protestant) Christian Tradition teaches&#8230;that it might as well be counted as a new religion altogether.</p>
<p>If people DON&#8217;T want to hear instruction (from a Biblical perspective) about what God expects, or don&#8217;t want to be called out for being arrogant or lying&#8230;and WANT to follow all this man-made stuff that&#8217;s not even close to what has defined the Christian religion for centuries&#8230;then why bother to call themselves Christians at all??</p>
<p>If they&#8217;re going to basically use the Bible for toilet paper&#8230;why bother claiming it??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780/comment-page-1#comment-105993</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=36780#comment-105993</guid>
		<description>Warren is a most unusual man.

He is unquestionably a sincere and devout evangelical Christian.  He does not have a view of sexual ethics that allows for same-sex sexual behavior.  He does not fall on our side of the theological divide (though he does, I believe, allow for each individual to &#039;work out their own salvation&#039; and does not see homosexuality and Christianity as inherently mutually exclusive).

However, Warren has taken on the role of conscience of the evangelical community.  This is, without doubt, a thankless job; no one wants to be told that they are lying about Teh Gheys or that their theology consists of a combination of malice and arrogance.

Yet he slogs on: speaking against Uganda; challenging when ex-gay claims get outside the realm of believable; debunking David Barton&#039;s &#039;Christian Founding Fathers&#039; historical revisionism, exposing the Seven Mountains theology and Dominionism for the theocratic movements that they are.  And there aren&#039;t too many folks in evangelicalism who really want to hear instruction about what God expects from those who claim to follow him or that God hasn&#039;t given them the right to impose &quot;God&#039;s Law&quot; on the rest of us.  

Surely he must at times feel like Elijah.  &quot;God, couldn&#039;t you have called me to say good happy things?&quot;

But Warren has the credibility to be heard in that community.  It is a unique position and I thank God for him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warren is a most unusual man.</p>
<p>He is unquestionably a sincere and devout evangelical Christian.  He does not have a view of sexual ethics that allows for same-sex sexual behavior.  He does not fall on our side of the theological divide (though he does, I believe, allow for each individual to &#8216;work out their own salvation&#8217; and does not see homosexuality and Christianity as inherently mutually exclusive).</p>
<p>However, Warren has taken on the role of conscience of the evangelical community.  This is, without doubt, a thankless job; no one wants to be told that they are lying about Teh Gheys or that their theology consists of a combination of malice and arrogance.</p>
<p>Yet he slogs on: speaking against Uganda; challenging when ex-gay claims get outside the realm of believable; debunking David Barton&#8217;s &#8216;Christian Founding Fathers&#8217; historical revisionism, exposing the Seven Mountains theology and Dominionism for the theocratic movements that they are.  And there aren&#8217;t too many folks in evangelicalism who really want to hear instruction about what God expects from those who claim to follow him or that God hasn&#8217;t given them the right to impose &#8220;God&#8217;s Law&#8221; on the rest of us.  </p>
<p>Surely he must at times feel like Elijah.  &#8220;God, couldn&#8217;t you have called me to say good happy things?&#8221;</p>
<p>But Warren has the credibility to be heard in that community.  It is a unique position and I thank God for him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tavdy79</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780/comment-page-1#comment-105975</link>
		<dc:creator>tavdy79</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=36780#comment-105975</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;That may explain why many voices on the political right can’t see Dominionists in their midst. They really don’t stand out anymore like they would have a decade ago.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

There is another possible explanation. Many on the political right have every reason to not want to admit that Dominionists exist, because they have moved so far rightwards that it is now all too easy to compare them with Dominionists, and that&#039;s not a comparison the political right wants to see made.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>That may explain why many voices on the political right can’t see Dominionists in their midst. They really don’t stand out anymore like they would have a decade ago.</p></blockquote>
<p>There is another possible explanation. Many on the political right have every reason to not want to admit that Dominionists exist, because they have moved so far rightwards that it is now all too easy to compare them with Dominionists, and that&#8217;s not a comparison the political right wants to see made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy (TRiG)</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/08/36780/comment-page-1#comment-105967</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy (TRiG)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=36780#comment-105967</guid>
		<description>Warren Throckmorton is not the only one. I encourage you to have a look at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/tag/church-state/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the &quot;church and state&quot; tag on slacktivist&lt;/a&gt;, where Fred Clarke has had quite a bit to say about dominionist theology, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/09/01/lots-more-on-dominion-theology/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quoting you&lt;/a&gt;.

TRiG.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warren Throckmorton is not the only one. I encourage you to have a look at <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/tag/church-state/" rel="nofollow">the &#8220;church and state&#8221; tag on slacktivist</a>, where Fred Clarke has had quite a bit to say about dominionist theology, including <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/09/01/lots-more-on-dominion-theology/" rel="nofollow">quoting you</a>.</p>
<p>TRiG.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
