entries friends calendar user info Theocracy Watch Previous Previous Next Next
profile
Dark Christianity
Name: Dark Christianity
calendar
Back April 2009
1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930
links
page summary
Dark Christianity - Dominionists and "Greenwashing"
Exploring and Exposing Dominionist Christianity
sunfell
[info]dark_christian
[info]sunfell
Add to Memories
Tell a Friend
Dominionists and "Greenwashing"
Dominionists have a habit of presenting destructive concepts in 'friendly' looking packages. Take Intelligent Design, for example. It is presented as an 'alternative' to standard science, which teaches evolution, but is actually meant to discredit science altogether and replace it with religious beliefs.

But they don't stop with ID- they also want to put a friendly face on their desire to destroy the planet to hasten Christ's return. There are many websites that look official, but are masquerades for Dominionist-driven programs that will do more harm to the environment than good. Here are some examples.

Fruitful Dominion: A new environmental ethic? is an article from CFACT, which is apparently an anti-environmental group masquerading as an environmentally friendly group.

Yes, the Judeo-Christian ethic starts with the premise of dominion. But the first command given in Genesis 1:28 is a command to "Be fruitful." And while in its context this refers to physical reproduction, there is a fuller sense of fruitfulness that likely captures the entire essence of what this kind of dominion is all about.

Productivity. Prosperity. Prolificacy. Not just for people, but for all of the earth. These are just a few of the beneficent ideals wrapped up in the notion of fruitfulness. They will only be achieved, however, if we recognize and embrace the lofty position and responsibility of each and every person on the planet.

This was quite well expressed in the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, an ethical statement of belief put forth, with CFACT's active participation, by an interfaith council of clergy and theologians not long ago.

In recognizing that "the moral necessity of ecological stewardship has become increasingly clear," Cornwall seeks to clear up three common misunderstandings that can impede a sound environmental ethic.

First, the document notes that "many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumer and polluters rather than producers and stewards." This is important because a right understanding allows "growing affluence, technological innovation, and the application of human and material capital" to improve the condition of all living things.

Second, Cornwall addresses the misconception that "nature knows best," or that "the earth, untouched by human hands is the ideal." Here the writers point out that humanity alone is capable of developing resources and strategies that can "unlock the potential...for all the earth's inhabitants," and therefore embrace beneficial human management of the earth.

Finally, the declaration declares out that while "some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated." This is of particular concern in developing nations, where basic issues like "inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive biomass fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural, industrial, and commercial practices" go largely unaddressed while more distant and theoretical issues receive the lion's share of funding and attention.

This third issue is particularly troublesome, not only because efforts to combat exaggerated risks can exacerbate problems of poverty among those who can afford it the least, but also because it dangerously delays improvements in the environmental impact of developing nations which are forced to slog away at nature, much like our ancestors did centuries ago.

In the end, an earth-centric perspective on environment and development will benefit neither people, nor nature. However, a principle of "fruitful dominion" will yield a great harvest for all living things.


A 'great harvest' of what? Food? Or something else? "Harvest" is one of those words to watch out for- to most people, it means exactly that- harvesting of food. Not for Dominionists. "Harvest" in their parlance is a religious undertaking- bringing souls to Christ.

Sound familiar? They use the same tactics as the Intelligent Design people- wrapping a religious agenda in friendly- looking science- using tactics and terms, which upon close inspection reveal their true colors.

The term is 'greenwashing'- the use of 'green' words and ideas to advance an anti-environmental thrust. There are many fake 'green' groups that use these tactics. And greenwashing seems to be a Dominionist tactic- pretending to 'save' the environment with sweetly titled destructive programs like 'healthy forests', 'clear skies' and such which do the opposite of their titles. Here is an example of genuine Dominionist 'greenwashing'. Read it carefully, note the traps.



Cornwall Declaration of Environmental Stewardship

The past millennium brought unprecedented improvements in human health, nutrition, and life expectancy, especially among those most blessed by political and economic liberty and advances in science and technology. At the dawn of a new millennium, the opportunity exists to build on these advances and to extend them to more of the earth's people.

At the same time, many are concerned that liberty, science, and technology are more a threat to the environment than a blessing to humanity and nature. Out of shared reverence for God and His creation and love for our neighbors, we Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, speaking for ourselves and not officially on behalf of our respective communities, joined by others of good will, and committed to justice and compassion, unite in this declaration of our common concerns, beliefs, and aspirations.

Our Concerns

Human understanding and control of natural processes empower people not only to improve the human condition but also to do great harm to each other, to the earth, and to other creatures. As concerns about the environment have grown in recent decades, the moral necessity of ecological stewardship has become increasingly clear. At the same time, however, certain misconceptions about nature and science, coupled with erroneous theological and anthropological positions, impede the advancement of a sound environmental ethic. In the midst of controversy over such matters, it is critically important to remember that while passion may energize environmental activism, it is reason -- including sound theology and sound science–that must guide the decision-making process. We identify three areas of common misunderstanding:

1. Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God's image, to add to the earth's abundance. The increasing realization of this potential has enabled people in societies blessed with an advanced economy not only to reduce pollution, while producing more of the goods and services responsible for the great improvements in the human condition, but also to alleviate the negative effects of much past pollution. A clean environment is a costly good; consequently, growing affluence, technological innovation, and the application of human and material capital are integral to environmental improvement. The tendency among some to oppose economic progress in the name of environmental stewardship is often sadly self-defeating.

2. Many people believe that "nature knows best," or that the earth–untouched by human hands–is the ideal. Such romanticism leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation. Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth's inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth. Human life, therefore, must be cherished and allowed to flourish. The alternative–denying the possibility of beneficial human management of the earth–removes all rationale for environmental stewardship.

3. While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. Some well-founded concerns focus on human health problems in the developing world arising from inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive biomass fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural, industrial, and commercial practices; distorted resource consumption patterns driven by perverse economic incentives; and improper disposal of nuclear and other hazardous wastes in nations lacking adequate regulatory and legal safeguards. Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss. The real and merely alleged problems differ in the following ways:

a. The former are proven and well understood, while the latter tend to be speculative.

b. The former are often localized, while the latter are said to be global and cataclysmic in scope.

c. The former are of concern to people in developing nations especially, while the latter are of concern mainly to environmentalists in wealthy nations.

d. The former are of high and firmly established risk to human life and health, while the latter are of very low and largely hypothetical risk.

e. Solutions proposed to the former are cost effective and maintain proven benefit, while solutions to the latter are unjustifiably costly and of dubious benefit.

Public policies to combat exaggerated risks can dangerously delay or reverse the economic development necessary to improve not only human life but also human stewardship of the environment. The poor, who are most often citizens of developing nations, are often forced to suffer longer in poverty with its attendant high rates of malnutrition, disease, and mortality; as a consequence, they are often the most injured by such misguided, though well-intended, policies.

Our Beliefs

Our common Judeo-Christian heritage teaches that the following theological and anthropological principles are the foundation of environmental stewardship:

1. God, the Creator of all things, rules over all and deserves our worship and adoration.

2. The earth, and with it all the cosmos, reveals its Creator's wisdom and is sustained and governed by His power and loving kindness.

3. Men and women were created in the image of God, given a privileged place among creatures, and commanded to exercise stewardship over the earth. Human persons are moral agents for whom freedom is an essential condition of responsible action. Sound environmental stewardship must attend both to the demands of human well being and to a divine call for human beings to exercise caring dominion over the earth. It affirms that human well being and the integrity of creation are not only compatible but also dynamically interdependent realities.

4. God's Law–summarized in the Decalogue and the two Great Commandments (to love God and neighbor), which are written on the human heart, thus revealing His own righteous character to the human person–represents God's design for shalom, or peace, and is the supreme rule of all conduct, for which personal or social prejudices must not be substituted.

5. By disobeying God's Law, humankind brought on itself moral and physical corruption as well as divine condemnation in the form of a curse on the earth. Since the fall into sin people have often ignored their Creator, harmed their neighbors, and defiled the good creation.

6. God in His mercy has not abandoned sinful people or the created order but has acted throughout history to restore men and women to fellowship with Him and through their stewardship to enhance the beauty and fertility of the earth.

7. Human beings are called to be fruitful, to bring forth good things from the earth, to join with God in making provision for our temporal well being, and to enhance the beauty and fruitfulness of the rest of the earth. Our call to fruitfulness, therefore, is not contrary to but mutually complementary with our call to steward God's gifts. This call implies a serious commitment to fostering the intellectual, moral, and religious habits and practices needed for free economies and genuine care for the environment. [emphasis mine- 'stewardship' here is actually destructive.]

Our Aspirations

In light of these beliefs and concerns, we declare the following principled aspirations:

1. We aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order.

2. We aspire to a world in which objective moral principles–not personal prejudices–guide moral action.

3. We aspire to a world in which right reason (including sound theology and the careful use of scientific methods) guides the stewardship of human and ecological relationships. [italics mine- 'careful use of scientific methods' is another greenwash catchphrase.]

4. We aspire to a world in which liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals. [italics mine- the subversion and religious takeover of government- something already in progress in the US, is the 'liberty' they talk about. If they cannot destroy government, they will use it to destroy the planet. ]

5. We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people's natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible. [Emphasis mine- 'private property' here means corporate stewardship- and big business rarely has incentive to 'care for their own property'.]

6. We aspire to a world in which widespread economic freedom–which is integral to private, market economies–makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers. {Again, the corporate emphasis- another Dominionist tactic.]

7. We aspire to a world in which advancements in agriculture, industry, and commerce not only minimize pollution and transform most waste products into efficiently used resources but also improve the material conditions of life for people everywhere. [If they actually did this, we really would have a better world- but this is not their intent.]


Remember, they want to dominate the planet, which apparently means destroying it to permit Jesus to come and whisk them away to watch the planet's final destruction. This abominable misinterpretation of Gospel in the hands of the powerful is destroying this planet. We need to be saved- from them. And we need to be aware of their deceptive tactics.

Sunfell

Tags: , , ,

Comments
dogemperor From: [info]dogemperor Date: January 17th, 2005 12:00 am (UTC) (Link)
THe use of code words is something that actually has a long history in dominionist circles in order to hide their true intent.

"Harvest" is one that has been used for quite some time, and as you noted, is pretty much a codeword for rapture/dominionist conquest.

Other known codewords in circles (which should be known to those fighting dominionists):

"Family" (in dominionist circles, denoting the dominionist agenda--probably most famously known in Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, but many many *many* dominionist groups use this term as a keyword, even denoting churches that are dominionist friendly ("family center" or "family prayer center" or "family friendly"). This has also been used for at *least* thirty years)

"Heritage" (in dominionist circles, typically used as a codeword for the dominionist canard this is a "Christian" nation, and by extension to groups that are friendly to the dominionist agenda of converting the US to a theocracy or are otherwise dominionist friendly; examples have included a plethora of right-wing groups with the name "Heritage" in them, the Heritage USA televangelist themepark, and even a few dominionist churches; the group I myself walked away from was terming itself " Heritage Center")

"World Prayer Center" (I have *never* seen this term used outside of coercive groups, and the vast majority that I've seen have been of a dominionist bent; the group I walked away from is styling itself World Prayer Center, and a fair number of AoG megachurches are also using that term)

"Liberty" and/or "Justice" (again, has been used as a code word among dominionists for their agenda and as a "flagword" for dominionist friendly organisations)

"Evangel" (including "evangelist) (used in a fair number of blatantly dominionist churches; very very often they term themselves merely "evangelist" instead of dominionist)

This is part and parcel of a history of deception they've had, including "Hell Houses" (promoted as haunted houses but people end up being involuntarily sermonised), tickets to "rock concerts" which turn out to be sermons on the evils of rock music, antidrug talks by "family friendly" athletes that do not reveal their links to dominionist groups which end up as dominionist sermons (often shocking public school principals who would have *never* agreed had they known).

The Moonies (which themselves are pretty much a cross between American dominionists and a perversion of Korean Haneolism) even have a term for it: "heavenly deception". The AoG group I walked away from didn't have a specific term for it per se, but it was implicitly and occasionally explicitly stated it was acceptable to deceive someone into being led into a sermon "because it could well lead to them being saved".

Again, I'd like to reiterate this isn't an *old* thing, they've done this for probably the better part of thirty to fifty *years* and have had lots of time to get very...*savvy* about disguising links.
swisscelt From: [info]swisscelt Date: January 17th, 2005 12:06 am (UTC) (Link)
Another code word in political circles signifying Dominionist-friendly politicians is the use of the word "values", e.g. "Ohio values", "Georgia values", etc. "Family values" is also used, but this is in a bit of a decline, perhaps because people are wisening to it.
dogemperor From: [info]dogemperor Date: January 17th, 2005 12:24 am (UTC) (Link)
The "values" thing is actually an extension from "family", as in "family values", but as you noted it *has* expanded to a codeword itself for the dominionist agenda.

Heck, one can even say (especially in conjunction with the codewords used largely in dominionist circles) the very word "Christian" *itself* has been appropriated as a codeword for explicitly dominionist things (which is why it's SO important to emphasize IMHO that Jesus would most likely be shocked and appalled at their behaviour and that it is *not* Christian in the *least*, at least if we're going even by standards of mainstream Christianity).
sunfell From: [info]sunfell Date: January 17th, 2005 12:16 am (UTC) (Link)
Thank you for the definitions- it would be good to begin to create a lexicon of Dominionist 'code words' so we can decipher what they're really saying when they interact with the World at Large. I will create another Memories category called Lexicon for us to start collecting these terms.

Sunfell
swisscelt From: [info]swisscelt Date: January 17th, 2005 12:07 am (UTC) (Link)
Interesting bit of Yahwist philosophy: "Come back and slave over the planet as YHWH intended, or the earth shall be destroyed!" I also love how they can use Genesis 1:28 to their own ends here, but deny it when it comes to polygyny/polyandry, or acknowledging woman's co-equal role, or recognizing that man (and woman) is free to do as he/she pleases so long as what she/he does is "fruitful".

But then, what else should I expect from the father of lies?
dogemperor From: [info]dogemperor Date: January 17th, 2005 12:21 am (UTC) (Link)

(continued)

FWIW:

The general use of codewords and such isn't restricted to dominionists at all (Xtian Identity groups use a fair number of codewords in reference to their racist agenda, as do Scientologists) but is probably a thing encompassing all coercive groups; part of how they keep one isolated and hide their rot is that they literally *do not speak the same language as most people*.

Other codewords (which tend to be used mostly within dominionist circles):

"worldly" (definite connotation of Satanic, and at the *least* undesirable; normally referring to pretty much everything outside of dominionist circles)

"dominion" itself (as we all known, largely used as a codeword for pre-millenialist "Xtian" theocracy, or the "rule of God" in general)

"demonic"/"Satanic" (pretty much all things outside dominionist groups are defined as at least a "little" satanic, these terms more often used in reference to that actively supporting non-dominionist things)

"deliverance" (relating to casting of demons out, exorcisms, etc.; most often used in "deliverance ministry", which will be described in full, but is a particular belief in many dominionist groups that *all* things outside the church are quite literally infested with devils and that Xtian salvation is *not* a cure all for this; the closest parallel in any group I've found is the belief by Scientologists in engrams (read up over at xenu.org for more info on the Sciento equivalent)...)

"oppression" (essentially "possession lite"; groups following "deliverance ministry" feel even "Saved" people can be either flat out possessed by devils, or can be "oppressed" (aka active attempts to make one's life hell, literally, so you basically "come over to the other side"))

"generational curses" (again, a "deliverance ministry" reference; basically according to them all diseases *including genetic and/or inherited diseases* are the result of demonic possession; yes, the nutters actually believe *Satan lives in your DNA* and that God can do miracle cures via spontaneous genetic engineering and that somehow long-lasting genetic disorders such as haemophilia and the like can be cured with a lot of tongues and an impromptu exorcism (funny, I have not seen it *yet* with my family, who on my mom's side have genetic disorders that pretty much *guarantee* anyone who shows any signs of sugar metabolism disorder will become diabetic by the age of forty; yes, this includes my sister who was convinced at age 30 that God Himself told her in a "floor session" she'd never be diabetic even though she was hypoglycemic at that age (which is a prognosticator in my family's case of people who are likely to become diabetic); funny, she's diabetic now...))

"backslid" (essentially falling away from dominionist dogma; saying someone has "backslid" is an insult because by default they are becoming more "satanic"; usually such a person is targeted for stuff up to and including involuntary exorcisms)

"lukewarm" (a slur in dominionist churches towards mainstream churches; a reference to a Bible verse stating God will accept hot or cold but will spit lukewarm things out; is essentially a lesser form of "worldly")

"willful spirit" or "hard to reach" (a slur targeted towards walkaways and/or "rebellious" kids and/or people who don't buy the dominionist agenda; in "deliverance ministry" circles the "willful spirit" is quite literally seen as a demon and the "willful" person or child seen as literally demonically possessed; this slur, along with "lukewarm", is essentially a religious slur)
gothic_oreo From: [info]gothic_oreo Date: January 17th, 2005 02:22 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: (continued)

Interesting note on backslid, I have seen that term used to justify everything up to and including pedophilia by dominionist groups.
dogemperor From: [info]dogemperor Date: January 17th, 2005 12:41 am (UTC) (Link)

More codewords

In response to an article that a friend of mine posted where he'd noted some media sources were claiming dominionists felt Saddam was ressurection of Nebuchadnezzar II...I noted that they pretty much misunderstood two common codewords in dominionist circles:


*nods*

The closest I've ever heard to that in the group I walked away from is that Saddam was termed Magog (usually equated with the Antichrist) and that Iraq and specifically Babylon was Gog.

Babylon *itself* is typically used as a codeword for "evil, corrupt" in dominionist circles, and "Nebuchadnezzar" is *also* a codeword that has been used for someone (world leader) who is seen as particularly evil and flat out satanic (and who will be smited).

I *have* heard Saddam referred to as "a Nebuchadnezzar" in *THAT* sense (in the sense that "Nebuchadnezzar" is commonly used as a code word in dominionist circles for "antichrist/Evil World Leader Directly In Opposition To God's Plan"); I've also heard Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, and pretty much any world leader in active opposition to dominionist goals referred to as "a Nebuchadnezzar" (and pre-Gulf War, much of Russia as "a Babylon", occasional references to Las Vegas as "a Babylon" as well) in that context.

People who are not familiar with the use of codewords in dominionist circles (and dominionists *love* codewords as much as *any* other coercive group) would probably make this confusion.

The group I walked away from actually flat out stated people believing in reincarination were devil-worshippers, though, LOL


So a few more more for the list:

"Nebuchadnezzar" (often used as synonym for the antichrist, or at least a world leader in active opposition to dominionist aims; more in news now due to US occupation of historical Babylon, but has been used for at least 30 years to denote world leader dominionists oppose the most; does *not* denote that the Bad Person is a literal reincarination, they're using Nebuchadnezzar as an example of "one of the most wicked people ever, and showing how they'll be brought low" (yes, up to and including thinking they're cows)...)

"Babylon" (often used as synonyms for Gog, below, or as a synonym for *any* evil place; not only the historical Babylonian Empire (now Iraq) but Russia and even the cities of New York, Las Vegas, and especially San Francisco have been referred to as Babylon)

"Gog and Magog" (in dominionist circles, Magog is used to refer to the prospective "Antichrist of the Week" (has been used to denote every leader of Russia from the 50's well on to fully four years post fall of the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, and (likely) Osama Bin Laden); Gog is used to refer to the county the Antichrist comes from (which has been variously identified as Russia, Iraq, (probably) Afghanistan, (probably) the entire Moslem world in general). Is reference to a section of Revelations. It would *not* shock me to find dominionist theology had a *lot* to do with specific targeting of Iraq in this regard.)
sunfell From: [info]sunfell Date: January 17th, 2005 02:28 am (UTC) (Link)
I am learning a lot here- and I thank everyone for their input. I had a moderate Catholic upbringing- more like Roaming Catholic Lite. The Church has some 'buzzwords' of their own, but nothing like the Protestant/Calvinist based lexicons. I had no idea, for instance, what being 'saved' meant- until I got to Arkansas, no one was rude enough to baldly ask me about my religion, or what church I went to, or if I was 'saved'. But at the high school I went to, that was the norm, rather than the exception, and I quickly learned that some words did not mean what I thought they meant.

I'll admit here and now that I thought 'worldly' was a compliment back then, since I had lived all over the world before I landed in AR. I was shocked when I was told that I would burn in hell because I was worldly. I learned a lot since then...

Still, it is good to get information from folks who have been there. Again, I thank you. This will inform my future reading at their websites.

Sunfell
hummingwolf From: [info]hummingwolf Date: January 17th, 2005 02:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
It amazes me that there aren't any good dictionaries to translate Fundamentalist into Secular. I didn't realize until starting to read this community just how much automatic translating I do on a regular basis--and, since I was never fully part of any of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical subcultures myself, how much I still don't understand. "Backsliding" and "worldly" are words I know, but I'd thought that "Heritage" and "Liberty" were right-wing codewords, not specifically religious ones.

I'll admit here and now that I thought 'worldly' was a compliment back then

In normal speech, it is a compliment. It means you are wise in the ways of the world, sophisticated. The only bad part is that there may be overtones of "slickness" if someone calls you worldly. But in biblical terms, it really means that you're too much at home in this world, caught up in things of the flesh (not necessarily sex, btw, but the material world in general) and not in the Spirit. Depending on who you're talking to, Bill Clinton could easily be used to illustrate both definitions.
10 comments or Leave a comment