I was researching a story when I ran across something surprising, actually staggering. Al Jazeera posted a blog by Paul Rosenberg early September 6, 2011 concerning Dominionism. I had never heard the term so I dug a little deeper. It seems this was defined by Pat Robertson in a speech given in 1984. He said,
“What do all of us do? We get ready to take dominion! We get ready to take dominion! It is all going to be ours – I'm talking about all of it. Everything that you would say is a good part of the secular world. Every means of communication, the news, the television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance – it's going to be ours! God's going to give it to His people. We should prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ.”
Anyone who has studied the bible in depth recognizes this as what will happen during the 1,000 years of peace. Or so I thought anyone would. Another eye opener is that there are many Christians who do not believe there will be a peace-filled millennium. They believe the reference in Revelation describing Satan being bound in the pit for that period is symbolism, not literal. I do not believe that. I’m of the original school of hermeneutics which states interpretation of the bible is literal when it makes literal sense and there is no need to look further. It is only when it doesn’t make sense do we need to begin studying symbolism. Or rather, the golden rule of interpretation which is: When the plain sense of the text makes sense seek no other sense. This kind of warped reasoning comes from not truly understanding the bible, and the only way to truly understand it is to have the Holy Spirit.
The lack of the Holy Spirit it indicated in numerous ways, for example Rosenberg cited another opinion article from the New Yorker written about Michele Bachmann. The beginning of it questions the Christian beliefs that Bachmann has eschewed throughout her political career. Among other things, the article states:
“Michele Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians.” Read more.
I have a huge problem with this viewpoint. Only someone who has a twisted view of biblical principles could think that institution or tracts or leaders shape our Christian worldview rather than the biblical principles we drink in from bible study. True, secular Americans who have not stepped foot in church since Christmas or Easter probably do not recognize Christian values as such, but they do know the laws of the land such as stealing is against the law, and other common laws based on biblical principles.
The article is about Bachmann’s “ignorance” and “wrong” views states, “She believes that evolution is a theory that has “never been proven,” and that intelligent design should be taught in schools.”
Let’s take a look at that for a moment. Here are just a few questions—
Has there ever been an art masterpiece created without the guiding hand and mind of an artist? Has anyone ever spilled a coffee cup, paint bucket, or any other holder of some staining liquid over a white piece of canvas or paper and a masterpiece suddenly appeared? Short answer is, No.
Has anything ever developed such as the intricate computer, technological anything without a scientific mind in control over the placement of parts? Electricity occurs in our natural world. However, it took the mind of Alexander Graham Bell to recognize the vibrations of the wire which electricity was flowing to understand that same wire could carry sound waves along with the electricity.
DNA is so complex humans didn’t discover it until the late 1980s. It couldn’t possibly have occurred as an accident. In the scientific realm, a Theory is something that can be recreated in the laboratory. Evolution has never been recreated in the laboratory. Cloning has been done with the intelligent design behind it, but it still must start with a fertilized egg in which DNA is transferred after DNA is removed. That is not evolution.
I am bumfuzzled when it comes to these remarks that keep being repeated without any real science behind them. If Darwin had been born in 1960, he would never have postulated his hypothesis of evolution because he was a scientist and took facts at face value. He speculated reasons for the strange appearances of the animals in the Galapagos islands. I cannot find even one proven instance of evolution, adaptation yes, but evolution not.