Talk:Dominionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Pat Robertson == | |||
What does Robertson's statement of soteriological exclusivism have to do with the political doctrine of dominionism? You can be a soteriological exclusivist without being a Dominionist (although I'm not sure about vice versa - being a Dominionist but also being an inclusivist or a Hickian pluralist seems totally barmy - although being a Godless heathen, it all seems pretty barmy to me). As an aside: I do find it very amusing that "all you heathens who hate Jesus are going to hell" has such a posh name in 'soteriological exclusivism'! –[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 15:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
:It probably means that I need to replace or supplement it with a more pertinent quote. | |||
:I must share a blog response from a Wiccan to a thunderous preacher saying that unless the circle of stones were immediately destroyed by the neopagans, his God would smite the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S., and unspecified targets. Response: That's all right, dear. My goddess created your god and she won't let anyone smiteth anyone." --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Tom, I'm more than happy to collaborate with you on this, especially if we spin off the things that are more purely legitimate theological distinctions. It's a real issue in the U.S., but there's no single definition. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:27, 7 February 2010
Pat Robertson
What does Robertson's statement of soteriological exclusivism have to do with the political doctrine of dominionism? You can be a soteriological exclusivist without being a Dominionist (although I'm not sure about vice versa - being a Dominionist but also being an inclusivist or a Hickian pluralist seems totally barmy - although being a Godless heathen, it all seems pretty barmy to me). As an aside: I do find it very amusing that "all you heathens who hate Jesus are going to hell" has such a posh name in 'soteriological exclusivism'! –Tom Morris 15:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- It probably means that I need to replace or supplement it with a more pertinent quote.
- I must share a blog response from a Wiccan to a thunderous preacher saying that unless the circle of stones were immediately destroyed by the neopagans, his God would smite the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S., and unspecified targets. Response: That's all right, dear. My goddess created your god and she won't let anyone smiteth anyone." --Howard C. Berkowitz 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Tom, I'm more than happy to collaborate with you on this, especially if we spin off the things that are more purely legitimate theological distinctions. It's a real issue in the U.S., but there's no single definition. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)