14953Re: [Covenanted Reformation] A (maybe stupid) question
- Jul 5, 2006G'day Gus,
In answer to your question, I wouldn't have a Jew hiding in my
basement, because me and my family would, in obedience to the
Sanquhar Declaration of war, be blowing up the train tracks to
All the best,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gus gianello"
> having been a former reconstructionist, who knew Jim Jordan, Ray
> read almost all of both, including North, Rushdoony DeMar, Grant,etc., I
> can say firmly, that Reconstructionist do think its ok to lie incertain
> circumstances. In fact so did the Puritans, who called it "holydeception"
> and justified the practice in the context of saving innocent lifeduring
> war.do as a
> The typical Reconstructionist argument would be, "what would you
> Dutch Christian, if a Jew was hiding in your attic, and an Naziofficer
> asked you, "are you hiding any Jews?"with
> Hope this helps.
> Gus Gianello
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of gmw
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:39 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] A (maybe stupid) question
> As usual, the theonomy/reconstruction topic is a lively one.
> I have a question about reconstructionists. I was once in a room
> some people who were talking about a particular reconstructionist(I
> don't want to say the name, as I do not want to cause slandershould
> this end up not being true). One guy said that this particular
> reconstructionist said it would be ok to lie about something if it
> would help them get into public office so that the work of
> reconstruction could begin. My question is, can anyone well-read
> confirm this story? Or is it just hogwash (I hope)? There aren't
> reconstructionists that think it's ok to lie, are there?
- << Previous post in topic