RECONSTRUCTION THEOLOGY AND HOME EDUCATION [Rushdoony, HSLDA, Gary North]

Houston Unschooling Group ^ | 1999 | Mary McCarthy

[Robert_Paulson2]

I accomplished my goals on this thread, thanks. Go pound sand.

---

attacking the site owner for not agreeing with you, and refusing to take sides was your goal...

rofl...

[Catspaw]

I don't know, but I've read a lot about him and several of his writings and haven't seen that. Given his position, it wouldn't make much sense for him to refuse the aid of any Christian group just because he doesn't agree with their eschatology (theology of the end times). That, I imagine, is why he has worked with Catholics (Alan Keyes) and dispensationalists (I'm pretty sure that's Jerry's position) who don't have the same views of the end times.

I haven't seen that either--but Moore is finally free from judicial restraint. I'll be interesting in the upcoming months to see what he does and says.

[Alex Murphy]

Dominion theology is wrong. Jesus said he would build his church. These folks want to take his job and hijack it to build political kingdoms for themselves

If you really take the article's undocumented and biased assertions seriously, then how do you account for this one statement?

"...income taxes would not exceed ten percent..."

Your protestations are laughable, and your allegations unsupported by this piece of Democrat dreck. About the only "political kingdom" one could build on 9% tax revenue is a Libertarian-styled one. How many jack-booted, stone-wielding, Reconstructionist thugs can they afford to put on every street corner (and thus on the government dole), if the taxation rate can't exceed 10%?

[Modernman]

I think sexual deviants need mental help. Not me

By "sexual deviants," I think he means anyone other than people who engage exclusively in married, missionary position sex with the lights off.

[Modernman]

If I understand correctly, they envision an eventual world where Christ has opened the hearts of nearly everyone to the glory of His kingdom.

I think that's kind of a cleaned-up version of the ideology. There also seems to be this under-current where people who refuse to accept their particular ideology would find themselves disenfranchised, or worse.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

See post #223.

And after reading your post #224, I realize now where you're coming from, M and M.

[malakhi]

And you accomplished exactly nothing, unless making yourself look foolish was your goal.

He's accomplished turning the thread into a discussion of the posters rather than a discussion of the article. Perhaps that was his intent.

[bondserv]

I have noticed a pattern of thought among the anti-social conservative leg of FR. Their defining characteristics are:

1. Science provides salvation.
2. Principles based on selfishness (Fiscal Conservative)
3. No position on watershed issues (Abortion, Homosexuality, Mind altering drugs...) using privacy as an excuse.

These positions are derived from an anti-God mentallity based on the intellectual acceptance of the theory of evolution. Homeschooling by Christian conservatives destroys the direction they wish to take the country because it is anti-evolution.

Their biggest fear is that they will be marginalized by the larger segement of the social/fiscal conservative movement. Because of the clear divide in ideology, they are sytematically trying to tear down the religious orientation the country was founded on, as well as the Republican party.

They are despots to our culture because they undermine the most significant tenent of our society.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS granted by our societies Creator. And the fact that those rights can only be defined by our societies Creator.

[malakhi]

How many jack-booted, stone-wielding, Reconstructionist thugs can they afford to put on every street corner (and thus on the government dole)

You're assuming they'd need to pay people to do this. You have a few people on this very thread who seem willing to volunteer.

[Boxsford]

What is wrong with you??? You've been on FR long enough to know better. You admit to just casually reading the article and then post what you perceived to have read!! Incredible.

[Boxsford]

Great post, thank you.

[bondserv]

Freedom comes from Christ, we just borrowed the idea.

Thank you for your encouragement!

[irishtenor]

Well, for one thing...I am at work, and casual perusal is all I can accomplish. Was my premise incorrect?

[Boxsford]

Was my premise incorrect?

Well, all I can suggest is that you reread the article carefully and familiarize yourself with the people mentioned in the article and judge for yourself. As a Christian homeschooler, I am familiar with most of people mentioned and have personally met some of them The article was written in 1999 and the poster of the article is a freeper known to bait and incite anyone with a faith in God and all the morals and values attributed to that faith. It was posted for the sole purpose of causing disruption and arguments. CP thrives on baiting Christians. He's got mud in his tires.

[irishtenor]

That is what I thought, and that was the basis of my question. The question was... what is wrong with these people bringing back morals and integrity to our government and society? I don't see where they were doing wrong.

[Boxsford]

It's a hit piece on Christians. The author attributes a false ideology to those mentioned. There's a paranoia feel to the article.

[irishtenor]

Right. That is why I asked him what was wrong with what they were doing. I wanted to hear his side.

[Aggressive Calvinist]

Most who throw around the terms "Theonomy" and "Christian Reconstruction" have not read much of the original literature, but second-hand stuff.

"Theonomy" and "Christian Reconstruction" are terms that are thrown around loosely to ensnare the gullible. Most of it is traditional Calvinism.

The best place to start is Cornelius Van Til.

[drstevej]

***The best place to start is Cornelius Van Til.***

Warms the cockles of me heart!

BTW, I have many of CVT's books that are autographed, including "Defense of the Faith."

[Law]

Bump for review.