And I Have Left Behind the Spoiler Print
Taking a Stroll on the Links
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Saturday, 25 February 2012 09:22

For various reasons, this promises to be very interesting indeed. On March 27th, it will be in 550 theaters. Glenn Beck has the first five minutes posted here.

In other (clearly related) news, the province of Alberta is interested in making it illegal for home schoolers to teach their kids, during the course of their formal education, that homosexual acts are a sin. Despotism, tyranny . . . what other words come to mind?


Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Robert Seward  Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:05 am
Falling to Islam comes to mind. Betcha they aren't trying to force that in Muslim schools
Ron Smith  Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:37 am
So Kirk isn't a dispensationalist anymore?

I have to say I was skeptical when I saw Cameron's mug, but I was pleasantly surprised by the opening scene of that movie. I was also pleased by Kirk Cameron's acknowledgement in the interview that a "top down" approach to America's ills isn't working (6:50). But I had to laugh at the end when Beck suggested that Santorum, (a "top down" kinda guy in my estimation) might be the one to pull America out of this "trap". Even funnier is the fact that Beck made reference to a comment at (8:45) where the Christian historian was, I think, referring to God pulling us out of the trap. Up to that point, I thought they were all having the same conversation.

Becks confusion aside, it does look like it'll make an interesting dvd. :)
Devin Mork  - DVD?  Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:40 pm
I might break out the tent and lawn chairs.
Will S  Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:24 pm
//But I had to laugh at the end when Beck suggested that Santorum, (a "top down" kinda guy in my estimation) might be the one to pull America out of this "trap".//

Yes. Only Ron Paul can save america. Elect him and experience bliss and fulfillment; elect any other republican and we are in for a dark and terrible future.

Is Romney a top down kind of guy? I ask because Ron Paul seems to love the guy a lot. Ever notice that Paul never takes shots at Romney. For a guy who sells him self on being beyond reproach he sure acts like a guy who has worked a backroom deal with the author of RomneyCare.
Ron Smith  Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:07 pm
Will, if you actually listen to Paul, you’ll find he is nothing like you represent. He can't save America and doesn’t claim to be able to. Only the Gospel can save America. Paul, as a Christian, understands this. He just wants to restore the republic to constitutional fidelity in order to get the government out of the way.

Santorum is more like your caricature of Paul. He thinks the federal government has to outlaw all bad behavior in order to save people from themselves. But righteousness never came from a law.
Will S  Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Ron,

I was not talking about Paul's opinion of himself, I was joking about Ron Paul fans and their fervent support of him and dismissal of all others as leftist warmongers and big government types.

Regarding your statements on the law and righteousness. You are confused. Murder should be illegal (and abortion is a type of murder) and perversion should not be officially licenced and endorsed by the state (as gay marriage does). It is Calvinist Principle to assert that the law does restrain the unbeliever to a certain degree.

See point number 2:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1746461/posts

Full secular libertarianism, if fully realized, would be another form of evil. It may be a welcome alternative to the oppressive collectivism that the left is attempting to impose right now but let's not fool ourselves.
Will S  Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:06 pm
And of course the gospel is the only thing that causes deep and lasting change in a society but (as we have seen in China and in ancient Rome) the Lord Jesus doesn't need a libertarian government to establish his rule.
Ron Smith  Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:12 pm
Will, no confusion here. I understand the 3 uses of the law. But there is a difference between outlawing civil offenses like murder (including abortion) and outlawing sinful behaviors like drug misuse or porn. You seem to be confused a bit yourself about the fact that not all sin is criminal. For it to be criminal, you need a victim.

Oh, and Galatians 2:21. If righteousness could come from congress or presidential decree, Jesus died for nothing.
Will S  Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:01 pm
Ron, you say you understand the three uses of the law and then you drop in your Galatians 2:21 reference as proof that you do not.

Galatians 2:21 and the many parallels are talking about justification in the court of God. Of course no law or president can give us that righteousness. But the use of the law to restrain and limit evil even on the ungodly is clear and obvious. Now, of course it is not practical or good to attempt thought police and in general laws should prohibit those sins that cause damage to someone other than the sinner. The reason drug use was banned and should stay banned is that it causes harm to many more people than the sinner themselves. Porn is similarly damaging to the society.

It is worth noting that God required the removal of idols from Israel even though those idols, by the libertarian's definition, only caused damage to the individual idolaters.
Ron Smith  Monday, February 27, 2012 12:54 am
"Of course no law or president can give us that righteousness."

Thank you. That was my point. This is how I see any attempt by Christian politicians to outlaw victimless "criminal" behavior. They are not bringing justice to any victim because there are none. They are only attempting to "reform" the so-called criminal, i.e. bring a form of outward righteousness.

Drugs cause absolutely no harm to people other than those who misuse them, unless of course you think keyboards misspell words. Most of the damage has been caused by DC's war on drugs. And in the event any actual crime is committed by someone under the influence or in the drug business, there are laws to handle those actual crimes. The same goes for porn, prostitution, and one night stands, which are all the exact same sin except for the money and the video camera. Shall DC wage a war on one night stands?

Do you support DC defining idolatry and then going about removing what it perceives to be idols from within its borders? When the government of a nation becomes that nation's idol, I don't want that government deciding what is true religion and what is not. I agree that the time will come when every knee will bow and subverting a Christian national religion would be criminal. But that is not going to come from DC.

I think our main point of contention might be that you are arguing the role of government from a theonomic ideal (which I believe in), but I am arguing from what power I feel safe entrusting to this government.
Nathan  Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:28 pm
Perhaps the time he's spent hanging out with Darren Doane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YzC3cpaYgY) has rubbed off on him! :)

Very much along these same lines, here's a lecture Kirk gave recently entitled "The Inevitable Triumph of the Gospel of God". I think the title speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD2eCqvKZe4

(The first six minutes or so should not dissuade you from persevering through to the end of the video.)

I see that the closest theater that will be participating in the "live" event on the 27th is in Coeur d'Alene. Anybody planning on going?
Gaelic Nationalist  Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:21 am
Both Will and GenStop make good points. GenSTop is correct in that Santorurm is an Establishment shill who will reinforce the Federal Reserve and send more of our sons to die in Israel's wars. In other words, more D.C. empire.

The critics of Ron Paul, however, are also correct in one point: because Ron Paul has defined himself in opposition to the Regime, he cannot win. Really, how can he win against Diebold voting machines? Secondly, are you all really naive enough to believe that the Federal Reserve will allow him to win?

It comes down to this: empires cannot be reformed. D.C. is too big not too fail.
Will S  Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:59 am
Gaelic, not only is Paul the only man who could save America, there is a conspiracy of the Fed that will prevent him from being elected. I am loving this.

What I am really curious about is what more Ron Paul needs to do to alienate the Christian conservatives that think he is perfect. Maybe there is nothing. Paul supporters have already shown a willingness to change their views on abortion, homosexuality, and drugs.

Libertarianism is a form of evil. It looks attractive as we watch the left try to impose collectivism but it is an evil nonetheless. Stop thinking that a libertarian is going to fix our problems. He won't. He will create new ones.

Stop trusting in politicians. Pick one that you think agrees with you on most things. Support them and vote for them. But realize that they are all fallen and corrupt men (like all of us are) and that the only King who will fix things is Jesus. Preach the gospel to your family and friends and you have nothing to fear.

I plan to vote for Santorum. His record is imperfect. He was a legislative pragmatist and compromiser. Many of the critiques of Santorum are unfair and many of the things he is being accused of "voting for" he actually fought against but eventually voted for as part of compromise budgets that contained conservative elements as well. That is what he meant by 'taking one for the team'. You can be like Paul and never get anything accomplished and be "perfect" or you can be like Santorum and actually have influence and get muddy.
James  - Gentleman  Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:36 am
Can't we stop this fighting and get back to talking about how horrible this movie is going to be. :)
Gaelic Nationalist  - re:  Sunday, February 26, 2012 12:47 pm
Will S wrote:
Gaelic, not only is Paul the only man who could save America, there is a conspiracy of the Fed that will prevent him from being elected. I am loving this.


I am actually anti-Ron Paul (he holds to a usurious view of economics). That there is a FED conspiracy is well-documented (look into Paul Warburg's ties in the early 20th century, or the fact that the FED is not accountable to the American taxpayer, etc).
Will S  Sunday, February 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Hi Gaelic,

Sorry I assumed based on your comment that you were pro-Paul.

The Fed actually is accountable indirectly. They can be removed or abolished by acts of congress and therefore report, indirectly, to the American taxpayer. If the President and congress agreed to remove the fed or to limit their powers, the fed would be abolished or limited.
Tammy Burns  Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:38 pm
Paul = Peace = states rights = sound money = no bailouts = no deficit spending = no Patriot act = no federal drug war = no income tax = no federal abortion = no homeland security or TSA = no crony capitalists = no federal health care = no social security = no regulations.
Will S  Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:44 pm
Tammy, what do you think of a nuclear Iran? Good idea?
Tammy Burns  Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:08 pm
I'm still waiting for them to find the weapons of mass destruction. We went to war with Iraq for the oil corporations and so what's not to say that's the same reason they want to go to war with Iran?

Jesus is the Savior of the world not the United States.
Will S  Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:18 pm
So, because WMD were not in Iraq, you are convinced that Iran is lying about their widely publicized refinement of uranium? Are the corporations making Iran say that?

Jesus is the savior of this world. You are right about that. But that doesn't mean that the state does not have a duty to protect innocents from the wicked. If a psycho leaves escapes from a mental ward, the state has a duty to prevent them from getting a gun. If a country, like Iran, says that they want to wipe Israel off the map (as they did) and then goes about trying to refine uranium (as they have publicly done), I would say that it is a cowardly and evil thing to do nothing about it.

Maybe we need to learn from Iraq. Instead of sending ground troops and trying to rebuild a nation in our own likeness maybe we should just level strategic buildings and take out strategic government officials and scientists. But to do nothing sounds crazy to me.
David C. Moody  - Top-Down Approach?  Monday, February 27, 2012 10:22 am
I find it slightly humorous that Christians always talk about the dangers of a top-down approach to changing politics. It is humorous because with it comes the assumption that conservatives are statist. They are not statist. (Obviously, politicians cannot save us, even from the wicked. I do not think that redemption comes from politics.)

But, what we need are anti-statist politicians. They would not be doing a top-down change to America. America is still very Christian. America's law system is still very Christian. Anti-statist politicians would not create a top-down change. They would stop the top-down change. They could easily get rid of statist organizations (even like the Dept. of Education). They could veto bills like the Patriot Act. They could stop intrusion by means of voting things down. They would not need to "implement" that much initially. Just like Ron Paul has not implemented much. But he has spent his years in office trying to limit how much tyranny is put on us. We have a Christian system that only the radicals object to. Politicians who are truly conservative would not be "imposing" things on people. They would be stopping things like gay marriage.

The idea of opposing "top-down" change has a good source: America has no hope if God does not change the hearts, minds, and lives of Americans. But putting some anti-statist politicians in office is not "imposing" a "top-down" change to America. It is stopping the top-down change coming from the ungodly.
Charles Long  - re:  Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:45 am
Will S wrote:
Tammy, what do you think of a nuclear Iran? Good idea?


I'm not Tammy, but I feel roughly the same about a nuclear Iran as I do about a nuclear Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, nutty Islamic suitcase porter, etc. Plus a big fat "What's your point?"

At some point the "non-proliferation justification" for America's military action begins to sound a lot like whining about a mineshaft gap.