Talk:Christian reconstructionism

message: No insult intended to any previous editors, but this article still needs major work (just look at the number of non-referenced sections). It's not at a 'B' class in my opinion. The Squicks (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Class rating

message: Footnotes 6, 7 and 8 (as I write) are *all* dead. 86.132.141.169 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Kinism redirects here, but there is currently no mention of Kinism in this article. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done more research and it looks like Kinism has more in common with Christian Identity (to which it is virtually identical) than Reconstructionism. I'm altering the redir accordingly. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinism 

message: "# Calvinism, for its description individual spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit that is required to change people on a personal level before any positive cultural changes can occur," This sentence makes absolutely no sense. I'd fix it myself but I can't because I have no idea what is supposed to be expressed. 83.226.206.82 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, more detail would help put this article in clearer context.  Please, provide reputable citations so we can get that detail included. Uberhill 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible first point 

message: User Ian.Thomson mooted that the slim content there be merged here a few months ago. Maybe time to take up the idea? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Christian Reconstructionism is about as un-Jesus-like as any branch of Christianity and seems diametrically opposed to Jesuism by definition.  If you're going to merge stuff here, merge things like Prosperity Gospel, Dominionism, the Market Church, etc., which are physically linked, historically, to this topic, or merge this topic into Dominionism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Jesuism]]

message: The article has several reference-related boxes in it which date back to 2007.  5 years, folks.  At this point, it's pretty obvious that no references are forthcoming and no one is going to bother to improve the article.  As it stands, the article is a failure and should be removed. 67.233.242.65 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North articles should be enough to demonstrate that there are references out there. Reconstructionism has gone mainstream within evangelical Christianity, so it's still an important topic. Michael J. McVicar has written a few good articles; Max Blumenthal, Frank Schaeffer and others have written about it since 2007. We shouldn't conflate "the article is not moving" with "the topic is dead". -Sigeng (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconstructionism has in no way gone mainstream in evangelical Christianity. Can people play "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" with Rushdoony and North? Absolutely. Could we argue that evangelicals, without realizing it, have incorporated some vaguely Rushdoony-ish stuff into their outlook. Maybe. But "Reconstructionism has gone mainstream with evangelical Christianity" is a stretch. Do major Christian bookstores sell Rushdoony's work? Does Gary North get invited to any serious major evangelical events? Does Christianity Today debate the latest books coming out of American Vision? Is there a major televangelist, anywhere, who recommends people read start applying Old Testament civil law in detail? Of course not. Alephb (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to delete this poorly referenced and unreferenced nonsense? 

message: Armstrong did not characterize the theologians as "totalitarian" but rather the Dominion that they think will come.  It is the difference between a namecalling personal attack and expressing opinion about the substance.  The passage was once more fairly characterized in the past, but was changed here . Poodleboy (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armstrong's characterization of reconstructionism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Reconstructionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041215174321/http://www.scccs.org/scccs/word/PenpointArticle.asp?id=30 to http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2c6a_47e.htm
*Added  tag to http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/219e_47e.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the "Theonomy" subsection, the article currently says that "Prominent advocates of Christian reconstructionism have written that ... God's law approves the death penalty for ... active homosexuals." The sole source cited for this, Gary DeMar's Ruler of the Nations, p. 212, says that, in a hypothetical reconstructionist world, "Homosexuals who practice behind closed doors are out-of-bounds for the courts, of course, unless others witness their homosexual behavior. ... The law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back to the closet, to the dark realm of shameful activity."
The wording in the article could be misleading, then, because of the distinction sometimes made between "active" and "passive" homosexuals (i.e. that during a sex act one person is "active" and the other "passive"). DeMar isn't saying that the "active partner" is subject to the death penalty; he is saying that homosexuals who commit "their criminal behavior" in public are subject to the death penalty.
I'm not sure of the best way to word this, but "active homosexuals" could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusions. Alephb (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "active homosexuals" 

message: I see at the top of this page it says, "This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (September 2021)."  This is rather mysterious.  Was the person thinking of something in particular?  How is an aspiring editor supposed to know what they're talking about?  Inquiring minds want to know... Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 02:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information?