Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kirk Cameron's "Monumental"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I wouldn't be too hard on Kirk regarding answering doctrinal type questions, he is essentially a Hollywood type, it always seemed to me anyway. The pretty face to get attention (in a good way). In that regard, he should not be given a pulpit. It just makes you wonder, did he not prepare for this? Did he think it would be easy being a target? The worst thing a pastor or spokesman can do is borrow their doctrine from someone else, which is perhaps what happened with him at wotm, but I don't know his history, just guessing.
    Don't panic! Just be Rapture Ready.

    Joel 3:2

    I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will put them on trial for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by iSong6:3 View Post
      Like legalists do, he is focusing on acts and omitted the verse before this, Matthew 7:21:

      Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

      What is “the will of the Father”? The answer is found in John 6:28-29:

      Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

      Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


      That starkly simple answer still unclear to anyone? He repeats this in John 6:40...

      And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

      The people Comfort mentioned, while they called Him Lord and did *good things*, did not have a living faith in Jesus Christ. So they were not saved.

      Notice the Lord does not say, Yes, you did some good things but you also sinned, so get outta here. No, His statement to them in Matthew 7:23 is that I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [unbelief, the thing they were missing is belief in Jesus, see the above.]

      That's the issue, not sin, but that there was no personal relationship by grace through faith in Jesus's atonement for sin.

      Very dangerous to preach Lordship Salvation and to put fear in God's people, saying that saved people can tell a few white lies or struggle with lust and will go to Hell for that.

      Paul struggled with his own sin nature. So do we.

      When does Jesus's blood no longer cover His own in the Bride? At what point does He wipe the Blood off so that someone who was saved is no longer covered/saved?

      (Answer: Never.)
      Amen.

      Thanks to sweeetlilgurlie on Narniaweb for the sig

      Comment


      • Originally posted by iSong6:3 View Post
        Like legalists do, he is focusing on acts and omitted the verse before this, Matthew 7:21:

        Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

        What is “the will of the Father”? The answer is found in John 6:28-29:

        Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

        Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


        That starkly simple answer still unclear to anyone? He repeats this in John 6:40...

        And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

        The people Comfort mentioned, while they called Him Lord and did *good things*, did not have a living faith in Jesus Christ. So they were not saved.

        Notice the Lord does not say, Yes, you did some good things but you also sinned, so get outta here. No, His statement to them in Matthew 7:23 is that I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [unbelief, the thing they were missing is belief in Jesus, see the above.]

        That's the issue, not sin, but that there was no personal relationship by grace through faith in Jesus's atonement for sin.

        Very dangerous to preach Lordship Salvation and to put fear in God's people, saying that saved people can tell a few white lies or struggle with lust and will go to Hell for that.

        Paul struggled with his own sin nature. So do we.

        When does Jesus's blood no longer cover His own in the Bride? At what point does He wipe the Blood off so that someone who was saved is no longer covered/saved?

        (Answer: Never.)
        I see Kliska already did this too but,
        There is One King, and He is not this guy. sigpic

        Comment


        • Originally posted by sunshine2777 View Post
          I've heard Kirk Cameron in the pulpit and always "thought" he was going the right direction in his faith. But after watching that very strange interview with Piers, it looks like he's off track. He would NOT give a clear answer on whether homosexuality was a sin. Piers M. even asked him repeatedly point blank and Kirk danced all around it. He did in most of his answers. Very sad to watch.
          I also noticed that right away (in disappointment). However, on his t.v. show with Ray Comfort, he never had any hesitation in calling sin "sin" and naming examples of certain acts as sin. So it struck me that he wanted to keep the conversation going about how life here is getting worse and falling apart, but not get bogged down in the details. Besides not naming homosexuality as a sin (actually, engaging in homosexuality is the sin, not admitting to having homosexual tendencies and resisting them...just as we are to treat any other tempting sin--flee from it), he wouldn't name specific immoralities either when they were talking about t.v., going into a mall, etc., IMO probably because Piers would undoubted disagree and they'd lose minutes on that slippery slope discussing their differing viewpoints of sin. My impression was he knew he only had about 8 minutes and didn't want to get hijacked on liberal specifics that Piers was bringing up, but rather keep the focus on the general conservative points he wanted to make about the worsening financial state of the U.S., morality and the family, and what we as parents/individuals can do to help make life better, with God in it, for our children--things that apparently will be highlighted in his documentary.

          He was not his usual confident, assertive, outspoken self. He seemed slightly uncomfortable, maybe knowing he was in the lion's den and that Piers would try to corner him on other points he didn't want to discuss in that segment. And now he's getting flak for it. It wasn't a good interview for him, and both Kirk and Piers weren't smiling when it ended.

          I haven't been keeping up with Kirk Cameron lately, I haven't researched his upcoming movie, and this interview was the first time I've seen him in a while. So that's one reason why I want to see it, to decide for myself what's going on with him.



          ETA:
          Adding my for iSong's post. That's another great one, dear lady.

          Comment


          • A Symbol of The Big Problems Within The American Church

            By Brannon S. Howse

            Opinion and Commentary

            Facebook

            My radio program and last column has many people talking about the movie Monumental and the statue, Monument to the Forefathers that seems to be a major prop for this movie. While the monument is an important topic for many reasons, I believe it is also a symbol of the troubling, big picture, and state of the American church. Far too much of the church has taken the music, the paganism, the political fight, the pragmatism, the styles and the methods of the culture and tried to mix them with Biblical Christianity. We have proven with plenty of historical documents from 1863 and 1906 that the Monument to the Forefathers is a pagan statue and it should not be called anything but pagan. I believe this monument is a good example of the problem with much of the church today, mixing the truth of Christianity with the paganism of the world. This is often done by mistake and with good intentions, but it is no less a problem.

            Neither I, nor anyone I know, has said that the movie Monumental deliberately chose a monument that historical documents report has a history and message of paganism and freemasonry. Neither I, nor anyone I know has said the film will be a pro-freemason film. Neither I, nor any of my radio guests, nor the majority of the Christians that have contacted our organization to thank us for our research on this topic are interested in entertaining wacky conspiracy theories. We understand that sometimes people just make mistakes. I think picking the Monument to the Forefathers to be the "Gilgal" stone for American Christians was just that, a mistake. After all, should Christians rally around Stonehenge? This monument I believe is actually worse because it has a form of godliness but denies the God of the Bible. The monument's main character is a lady pointing to "a higher power" and "towards the impersonation of the Spirit of Religion above" according to those that planned the monument and erected it.

            D.L. Moody, when speaking of the Masons said, "You can never reform anything by unequally yoking yourself to ungodly men. True reformers separate themselves from the world."

            When you unite around an ecumenical monument with pagan symbols that was built, funded, and dedicated in part by Masons with the Grand Master of the Mason overseeing the cornerstone ceremony, it is not a good idea to call for this statue to be the "Gilgal" stone for American Christians. How can anyone call this a Christian monument or Christian symbol when a "Masonic procession" that included numerous Masonic Lodges and the Knights Templar, a Catholic order, was organized to celebrate the laying of the Masonic cornerstone? I believe Christians that want to call this monument a Christian symbol or a "Gilgal" stone are perhaps inadvertently yoking themselves to a pagan symbol as well as to men that mocked God and served Satan. It may be unintentional but it is still tying oneself to a pagan and ungodly symbol that is hostile to the gospel. Ignorance may be bliss but it does not make such activity any less troubling.

            When discussing the monument, we have dealt with facts that are documented by the very people that designed and erected the monument. I believe the Christians that are praising this statue simply did not do all the necessary research on the Monument to the Forefathers. Within ten minutes of hearing the name of the monument, I confirmed with one search engine the monument's Masonic dedication. Within four hours I had obtained a book written in 1863 detailing the monument's Masonic and pagan history, symbolism, funding, and ecumenical message. How long has this film been in the works?



            In John MacArthur's Masters Seminary Journal, fall, 1994 the following statement was published by Eddy D. Field II and Eddy D. Field III:


            The Lodge teaches clearly that one may earn admittance into heaven on the basis of works, regardless of religion. This is a false gospel, which places those who advocate such a doctrine under Paul's imprecation. If this is not enough to convince a Christian not to involve himself in Masonry, it should be enough that a Christian Mason binds himself by oath to all other Masons in a way that associates him with their idolatry. In 2 Cor 6:14 Paul forbids such a relationship. The activity of a Christian Mason is even more unbiblical, though, when he kneels at the altar of the false god of the Lodge and pays homage to its deity. These facts demonstrate that Christian participation in the Lodge is more than a matter of individual Christian conscience. It is imperative that Christians not participate in this organization.



            The defenders of the movie that want to claim that we do not have a right to speak on what we already know until we have seen the film are 100% wrong. In fact, what they say does not even pass the common sense test of reason and logic and must be seen for what I think it is; deflection of legitimate concerns and spinning.

            I notice that the movie's defenders have not refuted our documentation of the freemason paganism of the monument or our Biblical text that confirm that Christians should have nothing to do with such things. I notice that the movie's defenders have not addressed or refuted any of the documentation presented in my last article. All they can say is "wait until the film comes out". Truth is often sacrificed by members of the good old boy club because of the benefits that come with such loyalty and compromise; I turned in my membership to that club a long time ago.

            I did not have to see the film to know or discover historical facts. I have also watched several lengthy speeches by Kirk Cameron talking about this monument and calling it our "Gilgal" stone. [17 minute mark] I have also watched the movie trailer and other interviews with Kirk that I believe reveal enough to cause concern.



            I invited Kirk to call me in June of 2011 to discuss some concerns of what I was hearing about his upcoming film. We exchanged text messages in late February of 2012 in which I invited Kirk to be a guest on my radio program. I wanted to interview Kirk about his film, his purpose for producing the film, who he picked to interview and why and to have him explain his eschatology. Knowing his eschatology would help shed light on his overall worldview. Unfortunately, Kirk did not appear on our program as a guest to discuss the film.



            We have plenty of pre-released and promotional information related to the movie, its reported interviewees, goals, and ideas. Many of these clips have been played on my radio program. When the film comes out on DVD, I will see it. Then both positive and negative will be reported. However, the childish attempts to spin and discredit legitimate concerns I believe only reveals a lack of commitment to truth and a larger commitment to pragmatism. There is plenty of data to examine now about the movie that allow for concrete statements and analysis. I believe a few of the defenders of the movie have already lost some of their credibility because of their willingness to compromise truth in order to have a bigger audience. These are not the folks I believe we should look to now to lead us through this mine field.

            One defender has implied that we need to not question this film or Kirk, but to just trust him because of his association with the gospel and Way of the Master. It is because of these associations that so many have been concerned about what we have seen and learned prior to the film even being released. The idea that we cannot disagree with someone or question their project because of who they are and what they have done is exactly the celebrity driven Christianity that has gotten the church in trouble time and time again.

            While I am told the Monument to the Forefathers is only a part of the film, I think the fact that it has been a rallying point and has been called a "Gilgal" stone for American Christians is really a symbol of the problem facing the church.

            Sadly, many Christians, as I once did, are taking that which is not Christian or Biblical and trying to make it such. While I am sure the gospel will be presented in the film when it is released, this does not make the use of the monument as a "Christian" symbol acceptable. Neither does presenting the gospel make it Biblical for Christians to commit themselves to being "liberty men and liberty women". We should first and foremost be men and women that proclaim the gospel and reject moralizing and reconstructionism. Embracing the Monument to the Forefathers as a Christian symbol is indicative of the big problem and the big picture. The unbiblical big picture is made of up many parts.

            1. Reconstructionism or perhaps revivalist postmillennialism or reconstructionist postmillennialism

            2. Dominionism

            3. Moralizing

            4. Christian activism or political activism as a solution

            5. Embracing those that have embraced ecumenicalism if it helps to win the culture war and thus giving credibility to ecumenicalism even if it is done so unintentionally

            6. Christians giving credibility to false teachers and those preaching another gospel and another Jesus by working with or appearing with them in spiritual discussions, spiritual interviews, and spiritual enterprises.

            7. Spiritualizing or taking out of context Biblical text to justify Christian activism, reconstructionism, dominionism or a reconstructionist postmillennialism.

            8. Denying a literal interpretation of the Bible in regards to Biblical prophecy

            9. Man centered attempts based on man's political and cultural strategies to restore a nation

            10. A lack of willingness to accept the overwhelming possibility that America will not be "reclaimed" because God has given her over as described in Romans 1. The gospel can still go forth and God will be honored even as He reveals Himself to be the righteous judge that judges nations and individuals. In such a nation and climate, Christians can point people to the gospel that allows them to pass from judgment into life. If we are truly selfless perhaps we would pray for persecution and national judgment so that the church would be purified, the distraction of Christian activism would end, and the Great Commission would be our only focus.

            11. Emotionalism and fear that cause Christians to compromise and build unbiblical alliances instead of fully trusting in the sovereignty of God

            12. The sin of placing our desire for our families and the future of our children ahead of God's desire for our families and the future of our children. God may very well want our children to live in a nation that is hostile so they might seek Him. Has the materialism of our nation made our children and grandchildren more likely to seek after God or are they materially satisfied and have need of nothing? If God desires persecution to get the attention of our children and to drive them to the cross, then I pray for persecution. It is better to be persecuted in this life and to come to Jesus Christ than to be comfortable in this life and be tormented in hell for eternity.

            When watching the trailer of Monumental and some of the promotional interviews by those involved, I, and some of our Worldview Weekend speakers, got the feel of dominionism, reconstructionism or reconstructionist postmillennialism. Statements have been made about having a plan or formula to restore liberty and freedom. I believe one statement implied that if someone had a pre-tribulation eschatology then their beliefs could create self-fulfilling prophecies. There are Biblical prophesies that God will fulfill regardless of our beliefs about them.

            Additionally, the film trailer seems to mock those that believe in a literal interpretation of the Word of God in regards to Biblical prophecy. Another concern is the news reports that state that David Barton will be interviewed in the film. Barton has called Glenn Beck a Mormon and a Christian.

            One has to wonder if after the film is debuted in the theatres, will there be a campaign to have the movie shown in churches around the country? Will they advocate purchasing resources that rally the church to reconstructionism or to accept postmillennialism that includes Christian activism? How has Christian activism worked out the past thirty years? I am not saying we should just throw up our hands and retreat. What I am saying is that only the proclamation of the gospel and training our children and church members in Biblical theology and doctrine is going to have a lasting and eternal impact. More Christians working to "reclaim the culture" is not going to work if God is turning our nation and world over as described in the Scriptures, and I believe He is turning us over.

            The mixing of evangelicals with false prophets for the sake of the culture war is really an offense to the Gospel. God is not dependent on us to violate Biblical principles in order to be successful at restoring righteousness. The culture war is really the byproduct of a spiritual battle and the spiritual condition of America. The church cannot confront the cultural and spiritual problems by compromising on Biblical and spiritual issues. God is watching and I contend that our efforts are being thwarted by God as Divine judgment for setting aside Scriptural warnings and uniting with false teachers in spiritual enterprises intertwined with our Christian activism.

            If Biblically sound Christians stand together for righteousness in the public square and yet we lose we still win because we were able to lift up the gospel in our Godly efforts. However, if Christians compromise the gospel and unite with false teachers in spiritual and political enterprises, regardless of the political outcome, we will have lost because we gave credibility to false teachers and their false gospel. I believe this is Satan's strategy. Our willingness to lose our liberty and freedom and to even be enslaved before we compromise the gospel is how we can win today and win for eternity.

            The late Vance Havner was correct when he declared: "The devil is not fighting religion; he is too smart for that. He is producing a counterfeit Christianity so much like the real one that good Christians are afraid to speak out against it." I believe Americanism is one of many forms of a counterfeit Christianity. When you mix the gospel and Christian activism with people that are calling a Mormon a Christian or people that have signed Evangelicals and Catholics Together, or give credibility to men that have united with Glenn Beck's ecumenical Black Robe Regiment or men that have spoken for Cindy Jacobs of the New Apostolic Reformation; you are giving credibility, whether intentionally or not, to a compromised Christianity.

            I have declared it before and I will declare it again; Christians that partner with false teachers or those involved in the social gospel, or ecumenicalism and think they are defending liberty for the sake of the gospel are actually compromising the gospel for the sake of liberty.

            So, let us watch and see how this all washes out and let us see if the movie Monumental causes the church to gain a deeper commitment to preaching the gospel and teaching Biblical theology and doctrine. Will it be one more misguided and perhaps well-intended campaign to enlist the church into Christian activism reconstructionism or reconstructionist postmillennialism? Is America better today than it was thirty years ago despite all the Christian activism, and hundreds of millions spent by pro-family groups and attempts at reconstructionism? No!

            Mixing the gospel with reconstructionism of any kind and Christian activism is a futile exercise at best. So can the true church get back to our true calling which is fulfilling the Great Commission? After all, that is a big picture strategy that will have monumental results.



            Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com



            http://worldviewweekend.com/worldvie...articleid=8041
            For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matthew 6:21)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Steve53 View Post


              They are oblivious to the lateness of the hour.
              yes and sad they miss the obvious signs we are near the end of the age.if they had embraced prophecy and dispensation they would know how close it really is.
              this dispensation is about over with.

              what i see ahead,Isiah 17,Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38-39 and and somewhere the Rapture of the Church but that has to happen before Ezekiel 38-39 reaches fulfillment.

              don't know if Psalm 83 is a actual battle or not but time will tell.
              In God I Trust

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HumbleBerean View Post
                Kirk says "As for me and my family,we are going this way" and holds up the monument. Joshua 24:15 says "as for me and my family, we will serve the Lord". Interesting he would use those words. The middle part of the verse says "choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell" well, the monument he is pointing to was made in 1859 by the Masons who worship a different god. Many(not all) of our founders(not the pilgrims), who Kirk is pointing to in his movie, were Masons and deists, among other things, and worshipped a different god.
                I agree with you that he misquoted the Bible. I picked up on that but wasn't sure what he meant by "we will go this way". May he was defining 'this way' as the way of the Lord. Of course, his words could also be interpreted as 'this way' meaning the way of that monument and the movement that he is trying to generate, or join. Regardless, he was unclear on the issue, and should have read the rest of the verse as it is written. (OF COURSE, AFTER TAKING A SECOND LOOK AT THE VIDEO, HE DOES SEEM TO DIRECTLY REFER TO THAT MONUMENT THINGY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OPEN MOUTH, INSERT FOOT)

                I also agree with you that many of our founding fathers were masons, diests, etc. As you stated others were Christians. But , the other guys who were masons, diests, etc. ultimately agreed to subject themselves to the Chrisitan principles that were used as a bases of the founding documents. So, in that sense, could you not argue that our nation was founded on Christian principles even though not every signer was a Christian? Ultimately, their individual beliefs did not determine the foundation of the country. Ultimately, the Christian morals and principles were the foundation upon which the founding documents were written whether each signer agreed with them or not (at least, this is how I have looked at the issue till now).

                From the following website I got the following quote:

                "In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

                http://www.faithofourfathers.net/index.html

                I've also heard that you could not run for office back then unless you professed Christian faith or something like that..(I hope I'm not giving out false information but I haven't researched this down to the smallest details)

                I have always understood that our nation was founded on Christian principles (at least, after I got out of the public school system).

                Anyway, if the above logic is true, then Kirk ultimately could be trying to get people to realize that our nation was founded on Christian principles which (as you know) is the foundation (ideally) we should get back to if it were possible. I feel that (from what I've read) , he is trying to wake people up and get them motivated to do something about it if possible. I don't agree with the stuff he said about the 'endtimers', but the more people that realize our country was , in fact, based on Christian principles , the better. However, as others have said, the world cannot and will not be reformed because it's in a decline and won't get better till Jesus comes back. So, I don’t agree with the movement or sentiment that we can somehow reverse or beat back the evil that we are currently so drowned in. We may be able to win some battles here or there, but ultimately, (as others have pointed out and as the Bible states), the general direction of this world (and the United States) is on a continuous and irreversable (sp?) spiral into evil. So, I don't agree with everything he says, and certainly not the Lordship, works based salvation stuff.

                I hope I don't take the thread off topic, but the reason I thought is is relevent in this thread is because he talked about it in the video.

                (I've read some of your stuff in the apostasy sections before and I know you are very smart and wise about this stuff. Maybe I've got this all wrong, and if I do, I'll need to keep researching this issue until I do have the right understanding without throwing the thread off topic)

                (AGAIN, I WASN'T WATCHING THE VIDEO CLOSE ENOUGH. I LOOKED UP 'IS GEORGE WASHINGTON A MASON' AND HE WAS I THINK. WELL, LIKE I SAID EARLIER YOU ARE WISE AND KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. NOW I'VE GOT TO GO READ UP ON MASONS. I'M JUST CONFUSED BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE FOUNDING FATHERS MENTIONED JESUS CHRIST IN SOME OF THEIR WRITINGS. IF THEY WERE INTO SATANIC STUFF, HOW COULD THEY WRITE THOSE THINGS ABOUT JESUS LIKE THEY BELIEVE IN HIM AND STUFF LIKE THAT?) (I'VE HEARD THAT IT ONLY GETS SATANIC IN THE HIGHER LEVELS. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO BE A MASON AND BE IGNORANT OF THE SATANIC STUFF GOING ON THERE?)

                (I think I should delete all this crazy thinking of mine, but someone probably already read it anyway)
                Last edited by iSong6:3; March 3rd, 2012, 06:16 PM.

                Comment


                • Apostasy Alert with Jackie Alnor
                  by Rapture Ready Radio in Religion


                  Airdate: Fri, March 2, 2012


                  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rapture...h-jackie-alnor


                  Jackie examines a statement made by Kirk Cameron who was a guest on the Glenn Beck program in which he appears to be critical of those who
                  believe that the condition of the planet is going to get worse before the LORD returns.

                  This is an unfortunate common critiism of those who are listening to the arguments of the Reconstructionists and Kingdom-builders. Also a quick overview of the fables of the unorthodox Eastern Orthodox Church.



                  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rapture...h-jackie-alnor
                  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matthew 6:21)

                  Comment


                  • Peace777

                    Id recommend watching the documentary "The hidden faith of our founding fathers" by Chris Pinto
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU24fJ4NQxo

                    When we talk about our founders and America being founded on Christian principles definitions matter. Who are the founders we are talking about? The Pilgrims who came over in 1620 were very much Christians. They left Europe to escape the persecution. They did not come here to set up a theocracy but rather to allow for the freedom to worship as each individual chose because Christianity and the bible do not teach they can be forced on others. They seemed to handle things pretty well for about 150 years. And thats where we would get to the definition of the other founders of 1776.

                    To get anything done the leaders of 1776 would have to present themselves as Christians and use terms Christians use. Much the same as Mormons today use the same terms as Christians but they mean different things. Some founders are said to be Christians based on something as small as signing their name with the date 'in the year of our Lord". Thats how EVERYONE signed things back then.

                    Even if this movie can prove that everyone of the the founders were Christians and this country was founded on Christians principles, then what? So what? Do we really believe that because we were founded as a Christian nation that everyone will stop what they are doing today and get back to those principles? The only thing that will change the heart of evil men is the gospel.

                    There very well could be masons who are Christians. Masons progressively reveal their teachings to members. The ones who built this temple though, I have no doubt knew fully well what masons believe and put such symbolism in the monument.

                    The bible teaches that we are not to have anything to do with false idols and other gods(which the masons clearly have)

                    Deuteronomy 11:16
                    Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

                    2 Corinthians 6:14-18
                    14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
                    15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
                    16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
                    17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
                    18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

                    Amos 3:3
                    Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

                    Colossians 2:20-23
                    20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
                    21(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
                    22Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
                    23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

                    Even if parts of this monument have Christian elements, there are definitely parts that are to a false god. The 2 do not mix. And to think that looking to a monument mixed with paganism and false idols will please God and fix our country is ludicrous. Lets just keep it simple and instead of pointing people to a monument, point them to the bible and Christ. God will honor that.

                    Comment


                    • Kirk Cameron: Homosexuality is 'Unnatural' and 'Destructive'

                      Kirk Cameron made his stance on gay rights, and gays in general, crystal clear in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan last night. Survey says: definitely not pro! After Morgan broached the topic, Cameron deflected by making reference to Christine O'Donnell's gay-marriage-induced walkout of last summer, but the Growing Pains star eventually shared his views:

                      “I believe marriage was defined by God. Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the Garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.”

                      Pressed further to acknowledge whether or not he considers "homosexuality a sin," Cameron said:

                      "I think that it's...unnatural. It's detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."

                      GLAAD has responded with this statement:

                      “In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character,” said Herndon Graddick, Senior Director of Programs at GLAAD. “Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”

                      http://news.yahoo.com/kirk-cameron-f...230000311.html

                      Not too many of the tolerant folks are taking too kindly to hearing the truth from Kirk.
                      And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 1 Timothy 6:8

                      Comment


                      • God loves all sinners, but they need to repent & accept the gift of salvation. We are to love the sinners, but hate the sin. Abhor evil and cleave to that which is good. They will call evil good, and good evil. I agree with Kirk it is unnatural. God made man to be with woman.
                        sigpic John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Love RR Family, Janice

                        Comment


                        • I don't think Kirk was out of step at all. He did not say he did not love gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. He just said that it was unnatural to God and does not support marriage. Where did it say he didn't love them? They always seem to twist what you say.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Shannon9602 View Post
                            I don't think Kirk was out of step at all. He did not say he did not love gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. He just said that it was unnatural to God and does not support marriage. Where did it say he didn't love them? They always seem to twist what you say.
                            exactly. Good for Kirk, may G-d put a hedge of protection around him as he faces the fiery darts from glaad.

                            Comment


                            • I love it when Christians stand up for the biblical truth and don't kow-tow to the PC left.

                              Comment


                              • My husband said something similar to a supervisor recently. I was very proud of him.

                                Not a lot of men standing up for Jesus these days!

                                " I have had an increasing burden to engage in some down and dirty, street evangelism." March 6, 2010

                                Isaiah 6:8 I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “ Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?”

                                Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

                                Matthew 22:9 NIV
                                'So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’


                                I'm praying for you daily!
                                I get my Bibles here

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X