Kirk Cameron and Bible in trouble with Gay activistst Piers Morgan

[BobRyan]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtrac...ers-morgan.html

The question is - is Piers Morgan just a Bible antagonist or an actual gay activist?

He asked Cameron to comment on a Bible topic and then attacks him for his view on the Bible as if it is a "good thing" just because it is politically correct to do so.

How "unexpected" when dealing with a Bible defined sin that happens to have a political action group promoting it.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Piers Morgan is just not a very nice human being: partly persona, part person.

On the other hand, Kirk Cameron is a shill for the worst kind of ignorantism, so honestly...

I don't have a dog in this fight.

Except that Piers Morgan stumbled onto the right position despite his general boorishness.

Christian opposition to homosexuality is unconscionable prejudice. They're welcome to believe what they wish, but enshrining it in law is unacceptable. And unconstitutional, in the US.

[olger]

Morgan loathsome.

Cameron ethical.

[SivartM]

He asked Cameron to comment on a Bible topic and then attacks him for his view on the Bible as if it is a "good thing" just because it is politically correct to do so.

Or he might just actually disagree, and perhaps wanted to clarify that Cameron is not one of the many Christians who disagree with the traditional teachings against homosexuality.

[BobRyan]

Morgan loathsome.

Cameron ethical.

Word!

[BobRyan]

Christian opposition to homosexuality is unconscionable prejudice.

Christians whose faith is informed by reading Lev 18 and Romans 1 instead of exchanging those chapters for political correctness are to be congratulated and approved.

I am glad that Cameron was able to state the Bible view on this topic even if Morgan was dead set against it.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

You say 'political correctness', I say natural justice and human rights.

[Bravus]

If the Bible is against those things, so much the worse for the Bible.

[SivartM]

Christians whose faith is informed by reading Lev 18 and Romans 1 instead of exchanging those chapters for political correctness are to be congratulated and approved

Again, people can genuinely disagree without being motivated by political correctness.

The Bible clearly teaches the morality of slavery; you abolitionists are just trying to be politically correct.

[Gerr]

The Bible clearly teaches the morality of slavery;

Where?

[fccool]

Morgan loathsome.

Cameron ethical.

I think it's a rather oversimplification of the game that these two people play. Morgan's job is to be controversial. That's his mask. Cameron's job... well, to be a poster child for Christian fundamentalism movement.

Kirk's morality is self-referencing. There's no other standard or judgement that we can evaluate it that Kirk can invoke. Invoking "Because God said so" is really not that far from "Because I've said so". Even his definition of what is natural is rather self-referencing.

If you substitute evangelical "God's standards" with "My preferences based on certain fears", I think it makes much better sense.

If Kirk is to have a better argument, he should really show why and how homosexuality is destructive to fabric of society... more than militaristic jingoism, poor health practices, or entertainment based on violence and propaganda.

[doug yowell]

Kirk's morality is self-referencing. There's no other standard or judgement that we can evaluate it that Kirk can invoke. Invoking "Because God said so" is really not that far from "Because I've said so". Even his definition of what is natural is rather self-referencing.

[Gerr]

Kirk's comments are self-referencing only if one does not accept the Bible as God's voice of authority regarding right and wrong.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Christian opposition to homosexuality is unconscionable prejudice.

Christians whose faith is informed by reading Lev 18 and Romans 1 instead of exchanging those chapters for political correctness are to be congratulated and approved.

I am glad that Cameron was able to state the Bible view on this topic even if Morgan was dead set against it.

in Christ,

Bob

Jesus has given out mandates of making disciples, empowering us to be ambassadors for Christ. If God is Love, then how does one convince another that God loves him when his behavior goes against the King of the Universe....IOWs, just how loving is this God of the universe in your view? If God is love, then justice is not the method of coming to conviction...

That's the problem with most Christians today...the method of conviction is thru justice....I've read Lev 18 and Romans 1...I am not so much interested in justification as in the "Who cares for me" aspect of the Gospel...Cameron may be ethically correct, but his method is wrong...The sinner who rebels against God will persist in his rebellion if he doesnt know that God truely cares for him...

IOWs, if my dad and mom got divorced, and I was placed with my mom when the divorced occured [and like most small kids, wanting both mom and dad to stay together], and I grew up with my mom and my dad lived in the same town as I did, but I never saw him, and at the same time, my mom told me that dad didn't want to see me....you would expect that I would have hard feelings against my dad....and even if I came to see him, my perception of him is already flawed...Anyone who said that "Your dad loves you." would have been met with scorn....

now, believe it or not, it should be a given that most sinners are in this position. To insist that any sinner is to love God because "God is love", is usually met with scorn and ridicule....and don't even go to the Law to force one to love God....tain't gonna happen...

This is the senerio that is played out by most Christians in general over and over and over and over again....They keep saying that God is love, but they never show it, explain it, do it....

We are children of the most high God, and we are reflections of LOve. We need to be experts on love, how to love, how to draw others to Christ. If our expertise is in administering justice, as Cameron is doing, we do a disservice to our Father...

[CoAspen]

Jesus has given out mandates of making disciples, empowering us to be ambassadors for Christ. If God is Love, then how does one convince another that God loves him when his behavior goes against the King of the Universe....IOWs, just how loving is this God of the universe in your view? If God is love, then justice is not the method of coming to conviction...

That's the problem with most Christians today...the method of conviction is thru justice....I've read Lev 18 and Romans 1...I am not so much interested in justification as in the "Who cares for me" aspect of the Gospel...Cameron may be ethically correct, but his method is wrong...The sinner who rebels against God will persist in his rebellion if he doesnt know that God truely cares for him...

IOWs, if my dad and mom got divorced, and I was placed with my mom when the divorced occured [and like most small kids, wanting both mom and dad to stay together], and I grew up with my mom and my dad lived in the same town as I did, but I never saw him, and at the same time, my mom told me that dad didn't want to see me....you would expect that I would have hard feelings against my dad....and even if I came to see him, my perception of him is already flawed...Anyone who said that "Your dad loves you." would have been met with scorn....

now, believe it or not, it should be a given that most sinners are in this position. To insist that any sinner is to love God because "God is love", is usually met with scorn and ridicule....and don't even go to the Law to force one to love God....tain't gonna happen...

This is the senerio that is played out by most Christians in general over and over and over and over again....They keep saying that God is love, but they never show it, explain it, do it....

We are children of the most high God, and we are reflections of LOve. We need to be experts on love, how to love, how to draw others to Christ. If our expertise is in administering justice, as Cameron is doing, we do a disservice to our Father...

[doug yowell]

The gay activist insists that homosexuality is normal and good. The Christian activist responds by saying that homosexuality is abnormal and bad.The gay activist charges the Christian with being unjust,mean and homophobic. The Christian responds by attributing his views from his belief in the Bible.The non-gay activist critic of the Christian charges the Christian activist with being just but mean because he failed to mention God's willingness to forgive the sin which the gay activist failed to acknowledge as sin.How does the Christian demonstrate God's love for the gay activist if that activist refuses to acknowledge the sin as a sin? Was the question of God's love answered by not pointing out the sin?

[fccool]

Quote:

And neither Piers nor yours are not? Is your take true because you said so?

I think the difference is that it's a collective agreement based on rational discussion, rather than forceful pandering to a claim of divine origin, and demand for universal and forceful acceptance of the standards derived through interpreting ancient take on morality.

Avoiding killing each other is not a divine morality. It's a practical morality... the same morality that God ascribes when he floods this world, or whipes out nations in the OT (in case you bring in the futile argument of practical morality as it relates to Hitler)

In fact, all morality is a practical/pragmatic morality. It exists as a set of standards that we use to avoid harming each other.

For you to say that homosexuality is immoral, you would have to present a good case that homosexuality is harmful... not potentially harmful, but plainly harmful in each and every case. If you can't do that, then you really have very little case other than "God said it is". And that's what Kirk invokes.

That's why the morality is self-referencing. It avoids any rational discussion, and when backed up into the corner, it just resorts to "Divine authority".

Quote:

Better sense as compared to what or who's sense.Even if we (like you seem to do in your judgment)throw out the Spiritual sense we're still left with the question of the natural order of things which propagate the human species.

Better compared to common sense. For you to reference "natural order" you have to define what "natural" is. What is "natural"? And that becomes very problematic for you, even if you keep your "Spiritual sense".

Is it natural for humans to eat meat? Is it natural for bugs to suck blood? So, why do you pick on homosexuals? Why not make eating meat illegal, or why not outlaw blood-sucking insects?

If we throw out the "Spiritual sense" then we have left with explanation of natural that's sourced in nature. I think that we can all agree that nature demands procreation, and that every member of the species will not be homosexual. But, homosexuality is in fact found in nature. Sexuality is an instinct. Homosexuality is an instinct. It's "wrong" in respect to what the rest of the species are doing, but it does no harm to the species themselves. It's not "immoral" in that sense, because it does not lead to extinction of species. It's a mere variation of instinctive gender preference.

Quote:

As well as the foundation of where all human rights come from as proposed by the Declaration of Independence.

Foundation of human rights don't come from some piece of paper that permits people to be or to do something. These rights are merely recognized in Declaration of Independence. No need to worship these or any other documents, divinely inspired or not.

What gives me right to do certain things is the fact that I exist. I exist in a certain space that all of us occupy. We have to create certain guidelines of co-existing together with minimal harm done. These guidelines we call morality. Morality is then further evolves into ethical codes. The morality and codes don't drive the humanity. The humanity drives the morality and codes. These simply would make little sense, because in animal kingdom these are not looked down upon at all. These are just viewed as instinctual way of life.

On top of that, these moral codes have to be judged based on some standards of "good", otherwise you can't recognize them as good. You have to have some standard to judge them. What would that standard be in case of "God said so"?

Quote:

Why? If there is no Divine standard incurring no positive or negative benefits then why does Cameron need any reason to promote his argument. A simple exercise in subjectivity and/or power is all that is necessary to make a case.

What you call "Divine standard" is merely a matter of perspective. I can come to you and say that my newly-found God that I worship says that everyone who has a computer should install an anti-virus, and periodically de-fragment the hard drive, and clean the keyboard from any dust and debris.

Does the fact that these things are recognized as good and beneficial things to do make them "Divine standards?". Or was it a mere coinciding values that exist in this case?

Just because there's a set of recognized and universal values does not automatically show that your coinciding "Divine origin" is true and correct. May I remind you that it was moral to stone your kids for cursing you ones. Today it would be immoral, and would land you in jail. The values shift as cultural perception shift.

You can't just make a subjective case and that's all that's needed. You subjective case will be interpreted through lens of cultural taboos, acceptable norms, and ethical standards... the most pragmatic of which usually takes the precedent.

You will most likely not convince American society that walking around naked in public is ok. In some other cultures it will hardly be a problem.

Quote:

Fair and right become subjective and thus irrelevant in the long run if there is no objective standard to choose from.

Fair and right are subjective, and irrelevant to the long run. Your view of morality is as shifty as any other guy. You merely hold to standards that you claim were "eternal", but even judging from the stories from the Divine book that you claim these originate from... nothing can be further from truth. It was not immoral once to marry your sister and sleep with her. It was not immoral once to kill pregnant women and their children based on certain situational ethics. It was not immoral to own slaves. It was not immoral to kill people who try to convince you to worship other gods. It was not immoral to kill animals to cover up your mistakes.

How can you possibly make a case for long-lasting moral standards? The standards that we have right now is a result of culture progressing out of these outdated and violent ideals. The morality is progressive, because it adapts to cultural changes. That's why we don't stone, or burn homosexuals today.

Quote:

If you want to argue morality apart from Divine guidance then be consistent and apply equally the same standard of judgment to all sides rather than simply arbitrarily setting a standard to which all others must conform.

Just because I don't believe in "standard Divine guidance" does not mean that I don't believe in standards. Standards exist whether you like it or not. Standard is an established norm or requirement. To say that standards can't exist without some sort of divine guidance is a futile argument. The very webpage that you are reading right now is guided by agreed upon standards of website programming and coding. These standards are then applied by the browser suppliers, which then interpret these standards likewise. Do these have to be guided by "Divine inspiration" for them to be valuable standards? Or should there be a deity that "standardizes" these for people to really know that these are good and useful?

[doug yowell]

Christian opposition to homosexuality is unconscionable prejudice. They're welcome to believe what they wish, but enshrining it in law is unacceptable. And unconstitutional, in the US.

Perhaps you will be president Obama's next Supreme Court nominee and/or God's corrector of Paul's Christian teachings?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The Christian activist responds by saying that homosexuality is abnormal and bad.

Homosexuality is a condition of the person. It is not about what type of sex activity is being practiced.

Quote:

The Christian responds by attributing his views from his belief in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't condemn the homosexual person because of who they are, rather it speaks against the sexual activity.

[doug yowell]

I think the difference is that it's a collective agreement based on rational discussion, rather than forceful pandering to a claim of divine origin, and demand for universal and forceful acceptance of the standards derived through interpreting ancient take on morality.

[Bravus]

Piers Morgan is not gay (twice married, 4 children), and is not a 'gay activist'.

The absolute most basic level of truth-telling would be a decent *start* in trying to make claims about what is true...

[doug yowell]

Quote:

The Christian activist responds by saying that homosexuality is abnormal and bad.

Homosexuality is a condition of the person. It is not about what type of sex activity is being practiced.

Quote:

The Christian responds by attributing his views from his belief in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't condemn the homosexual person because of who they are, rather it speaks against the sexual activity.

I say a double Amen,Amen to your clarification. Sadly, that's rarely what is being discussed.Don't think it was the question from Piers either.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Christian opposition to homosexuality is unconscionable prejudice. They're welcome to believe what they wish, but enshrining it in law is unacceptable. And unconstitutional, in the US.

Perhaps you will be president Obama's next Supreme Court nominee and/or God's corrector of Paul's Christian teachings?

Mentioned the US situation because that's where the confrontation took place, and where most of the posters are. If y'all don't care about the constitution, it's a matter of zero concern to me: America can work out its own damnation all on its own. Stating that breaking down the separation of church and state is unconstitutional is not anything controverial or unusual. It's probably worth reminding people of, though, since there is (ironically, given Adventists' historic interest in freedom of religion) an increasing enthusiasm for just that unconsitutional step.

Paul's teachings are cultural, not Christian: Christ did not teach what Paul does on this topic. Not up to me to correct, but I can, and do, reject.

[Gerr]

Paul's teachings are cultural, not Christian: Christ did not teach what Paul does on this topic. Not up to me to correct, but I can, and do, reject.

Cultural?

‎‎Le 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

If it were merely cultural, Paul would probably have been silent since same sex activity in the ancient world (Greeks & Romans) had a fair amount of acceptance.

[Gerr]

We are children of the most high God, and we are reflections of LOve. We need to be experts on love, how to love, how to draw others to Christ. If our expertise is in administering justice, as Cameron is doing, we do a disservice to our Father...

Ok, how can you convince a homosexual or ANY sinner that God loves them but that their behavior is not acceptable?