I apologize for posting a link to an article about the subject of this thread, and which deals with the work of Samuel Perry, referred to previously by others in the thread. How "silly" can I get?
If you are so inclined, please read my original post on this thread, #95, page 5. What I see in your take here is a combination of righteous "gotcha" (as if you caught someone saying "1+1=3") and a sense of disappointment and/or hurt that what you are hearing from persons who are proclaiming great things are instead human and self-serving. That is a shame. My reply is in that post. I hope you take the time to read it. It is long but I hope it helps. Take care.
Once again, if you would just listen to the facts and not the rhetoric, it is WHO you are using to enlighten us, not that it isn't factual. Earlier in this thread, I was asked to present the facts supporting the supposition that my former Governor had some disturbing proclivities for endorsing killing a live birth child. I did that, but it came from Rush Limbaugh. I apologized for that to those on "the other side" and explained why I say it as a validation and not more propaganda peddling, especially since I witnessed it myself. If you are so inclined, by all means quote a left-sided Rush-esque entertainer who uses facts to entertain and not aganda-driven lies. How about Bill Mahar? He seems to be the equivalent.
BS. Which "news" channel, for example, wouldn't even broadcast the Jan. 6 committee hearings? Like who cares, right? The best political reality TV since the Watergate hearings. Watergate? What was that? Richard M. Who?
Yeah? How much CNN do I watch every day? How do you know? You got spies at my place? I better check my closets and under the bed. Damn, now I'm paranoid. I think I'll throw out the TV. I'll just listen to radio. Is Rush Limbaugh still on?
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you said you watch CNN and find nothing wrong with it. That’s all.
So much for "Judeo-Christian" values - a phrase I always found a bit odd and from many, likely disingenuous.
For reference, “predispensational millenarian” is not a correct theological term. It is a pejorative that was made up by people who do not understand biblical views, and meant to denigrate Fundamentalist Christians. Dispensationalism holds that all of time is divided into periods or dispensations, where God dealt uniquely with mankind in those periods. It’s incoherent to have something pre-dispensation. Correct terms would be pre-tribulational (with respect to the rapture) or pre-millennial (with respect to the second coming of Jesus). You can hold either of those views without being a dispensationalist. By the way, I am not a dispensationalist.
I defer to you but that's the term as I have read it in what I seem to recall was a non-pejorative characterization. Whatever the correct term is, I do think that's what was being described. I've also used the term eschatological but that's overbroad, in my opinion. There are a wide range of eschatologies, by definition. I did not mean to suggest that it covers all "fundamentalists", however we define that term. The reason I used the term is the advisor's specific use of the language that Jews have to "repent" to join their movement. That strongly echoed to me of that sentiment. How widespread it is, I don't know and I'm not suggesting. But it does seem to characterize his thought process.
I'm not buying this. This is a boogie man. I heard a quote once about Christian Reconstructionism...that there are more books written about the subject than there are actual converts to the position. It is fringe. People on the fringe can get together and have conferences, but it doesn't mean the group has any kind of meaningful influence. I have met a couple of general equity theonomists in recent years, but they are pretty far distanced from the Christian Reconstructionist positions you are talking about. There is no pro-theonomy church I can even think of in the Gainesville area, which I know very well. I have heard some of the theonomists describe themselves as "theonomist with a lower case t," and they really don't want to be lumped in with the "Theonomist with a capital T." They are kind of ashamed of the early parts of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. It kind of goes hand in hand with patriarchalist beliefs, but if that is how they want to run their families and the parents are both on the same page with that then so be it. I do feel sorry for the children, especially the daughters, in those homes once they trend towards adulthood, but it is what it is. The truth is, though...you consider Christian Reconstructionism to be a threat because they want to impose their ideology on everyone else through the mechanisms of government. The irony, though, is that is precisely what the left is. They have an ideology that they seek to impose on everyone, and they want to use the government and the education system to do it. The differences between the two is one of the ideologies is somewhat informed by the Bible, and the other regards the Bible as toilet paper. You are perfectly fine living under a green energy environmentalist theocracy, an anti-racism theocracy (biggest lie there ever was calling it anti-racism), an LGBTQIA2S+ theocracy, a Marxist Frankfurt School theocracy, etc. And the theocrats you deride and are so afraid of don't want education to be an instrument of brainwashing all the children in the society to make sure they imbibe the ideology. It is like a fish in a pond with alligators getting worked up about crocodiles out there somewhere. Maybe it would be really bad if crocodiles somehow found their way into your pond, but you might want to be more concerned about the alligators in your own pond circling you right now.
