Kirk Cameron and Bible in trouble with Gay activistst Piers Morgan

[olger]

Gosh...Homosexuality is "unnatural." "Women left the natural use of their own bodies.." (Romans 1:26).

Uhh....detrimental...yeah. Destruction is kinda detrimental (1 Cor. 6:9). "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Destructive? Yeah..

100% success rate for Cameron.

[Tom Wetmore]

Leviticus 18 and 19

(btw, no death penalty: banishment. Good to *read* it before you use it to make other people's lives miserable)...

In the desert wilderness context in which these Mosaic laws were given, to be cut off from the people or banished from the camp meant the offender was put out to fend for themselves alone. In the desert, that was a death sentence.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

It is an impassable divide in which you require Christians to believe in your Divine inspiration and reject Paul's.

Who's fooling who here? Christians take Paul's word of being Divinely inspired, and along with validation from the testimony of other Scriptural authors,Peter and Luke,they form their moral beliefs on the foundation of all of their truthfulness. You claim that Paul was not inspired by the Spirit or instruction of Jesus but rather spoke out of his own human misguided perceptions in violation of true and moral decency.Paul is a non-optional Biblical authority for Christians. Attack his moral credibility and you attack the Jesus and the Bible's moral credibility.

Your views are admittedly drawn from your own imagination of what human decency should be. It openly conflicts with the source of Christian beliefs on the subject.

Quote:

I can imagine what it is like to be a homosexual person in this society, and how difficult that would be. I can imagine the impact of 'loving' Christians and their pronouncements.

Try imagining how it would feel to be God in this society, trying to save people from the slavery of their sins and having them tell you that there was nothing to save them from except those who told them there was something wrong with them.

Quote:

It's what happens when you take moral pronouncements from a culture 1800 or 2500 years ago and enshrine them, rather than allowing moral understanding to grow and develop along with other kinds of knowledge and understanding.

No,what happens is that when the modern culture reaches the point where it feels it is more moral and more intelligent and more spiritual than it's predecessors, it's arrogance begins to attack the very principles upon which it was built.The moral pronouncements of a 2500 year old Divinely instructed culture have to be more reliable than the newly "enlightened" moral mandates of a culture that rejects the Divine instructions.

Quote:

If I quote Jesus it is because I value his teachings.

If you truly valued His teachings you would believe them.And you would also value Paul's teachings because it was Jesus who called him to represent His gospel teachings. Your punk on Paul's sexual instructions are an open punch on Jesus.

Quote:

If I quote the Bible, it is to demonstrate within the confines of your own framework that your position is inconsistent. That's all.

Well,I give you credit for being honest on why you even use the Bible at all.Obviously, you find more consistency in your own views than those of the Bible. and you're pretty consistent in avoiding rational questions that you don't seem to want to answer like, why did Jesus not tell Paul that homosexual activity was OK?

[Gerr]

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

If coitus with same sex is ok, then the above proscriptions are also null and void and therefore ok.

[fccool]

Quote:

Whose collective bargaining? The majority of the world's population is religious. Which superior anti-religious collection of rationalists should the rest of us submit our morality to?

Once again, you interpreting everything in terms of "us vs them". It does not work like that in the real world. Whatever "God-given" morality that you think exists is merely your acceptance of a faith belief. There are thousands of beliefs around the world that would co-inside with "don't kill", but all given by different deities. Just because the belief is reasonable, does not mean that it's "divine".

As far as your question goes... morality is a consensus that does not follow from distinct religious or atheistic disposition. It's simply a recognition that certain way of human behavior is more conducive to collective survival than other.

It's not black & white either... even in religious setting.

Quote:

So apart from a Divine participation why is any morality moral? You assert what you intend to be taken at face value because you like the way it sounds to you. How is this different from your same charge against the Christian "assertions"?

You can't call something moral simply because someone said it is so. That's not what morality is. Morality is a collective judgement.

Quote:

If there is no judgment for human behavior and no divine instruction and design then who are you to tell the world what's important?

There is judgement for human behavior. That's what morality is. We don't need standards of divine origin to differentiate from beneficial and harmful. Did God invent Web Standards?

Quote:

We are all going to die and if there is no future judgment then why should I care about what anyone else thinks as long as I can live this life to the max of my personal pleasure?

Well, you should care, because collectively as humans we decided that detrimental behavior is to be discouraged and punished. It has nothing to do with "no heaven after death", and everything to do with our ability to collectively co-exist right here and right now. That's what morality is based on.

Quote:

Harming others is bad for them but maybe good for me. So what?? If I don't like homosexuality then I don't need to answer to Piers or you or anyone else. And I'm no objectively worse than anyone else.

If you don't like homosexuality, that's really your personal choice and preference. The point is that your likes and dislikes in this matter should not negate rights of other to certain societal privileges that you yourself enjoy otherwise.

Quote:

Why isn't Piers required to prove the same thing? It is moral and non-harmful because why??In every case.

You really going to make this argument? Would you go into a store and declare tomatoes harmful and poisonous because ancient Romans believed them to be, and that someone has to prove you otherwise for you to stop demanding a universal ban on tomatoes?

The burden of proof is on you, because you are making accusation of harm to society. Prove it.

Quote:

But so is anger, jealousy, envy,the me first instinct, ect... Some are born with self destructive instincts and some with other destructive instincts.One could easily consider those differences as being normal since they have always existed among humans.

Definition of normal is "expected". If you don't believe anger, jealousy and envy to be expected emotions/attributes of human behavior at certain stage in their lives, you have to really show that these really do not happen in most humans.

You can's simply re-define what "normal" is based on your idealized idea of normality.

Quote:

How do we know that? If the reverse was true and the 99% of the human population were homosexual would that homosexual instinct harm the species?If your answer is no I'd have to wonder about the amount of rationality we'd be talking about here.

It's like saying that garlic is poisonous and bad, because if 99% of our food consisted of pure garlic, we would all die from ulcers and liver problems. So, is garlic poisonous? If your answer is no, then I have to wonder about the amount of rationality we'd be talking about here

Quote:

True except that those rights were recognized as having a Divine origin.

Yes, by people who accept certain religious perspective. Of course they will recognize that. It's a religious per-requisite. Just because people recognize their religion as true, does not mean that it is.

I think you well know that many people behind the Declaration did not agree on the nature of "Divine origin". Many perceive the Divine to be simply the innate intelligence of the universe (deists).

Quote:

I was with you until the last sentence. The codes and morality have been already posted for us to follow.The origins of these rights spring from two vastly different sources.

By whom? By people who wrote the Bible and told you that God told them to? Do you know how many stories worldwide are of "divine origin"?

Quote:

You have not accurately represented the Divine Biblical perspective. Most of the instructions given to Israel in the desert were different from the surrounding cultures at the time including the "stoning your children" one.The entire system deviated from the existing me centered mores of the day.

And how does that make it anymore moral, if morality is indeed eternal black and white principles? It's no different than saying "It was ok then, but it's not ok now". Or "It's ok for them, but not ok for me". It's called SITUATIONAL MORALITY... it's relativistic in nature to which culture you are applying it to.

Quote:

Of it God would comment,"...Therefore, be careful to observe(it),for this is your wisdom and your understanding in THE SIGHT OF THESE PEOPLES WHO WILL HEAR all these statutes and say,'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people?'"

Once again, it's not any different than saying that "It was ok for them, because God told them it was ok". It's called situational morality.

Quote:

The cultural shift that you refer to was not a result of a new secular discovery but rather a clearer look into the redemptive nature of the gospel It never changed a sin into a good,or right into wrong.

It has nothing to do with secular discovery. This world at large was never secular. The secularity is never been my point. Whether something is claimed to be divine is not a reason to believe in divine origin of that thing. I think we can agree.

The point is that collectively people saw that brutal punishment is unfit for civilized societies. It had nothing to do with "Jesus dying on the cross converting the mindset of populations". This development happened with thought progress of society as they learned from their mistakes. It did not matter if they lived in Japan, or Alaska. They all came to similar conclusions that brutal punishments and rituals are unfit for progressive societies.

Quote:

Yet you argue that there is an inherent agreement in evolutionary human understanding of common morals. So which is it? Don't many argue today that public nudity is merely a cultural taboo and that as such they should have a human right to do as they please because it isn't really hurting anyone ("that's your problem"}?

You are trying too hard. I never said that there are no deviations in moral perspectives. In fact, it's the core of my point that there are. The more separated the culture is, the more likely it is preserve its own set of morality.

Look at Muslims, Amish, and Amazon Natives. Isolation perpetuates certain moral perspective, and shuts out other cultural intervention. You have a different set of moral perspective than that of Catholics, or protestants. But you do have an overlapping set that all of us can agree with apart from religious or cultural preferences... and those are based primarily on avoiding causing harm to us and other like us.

Quote:

And what exactly was it that exhibited such a moral changing influence on our western culture (full circle to the original question),atheism?

Our increase understanding of our history, and our behavior.

[Gerr]

You can't, Gerry, because it's not true. It makes no sense.

God loves people. All people. Stop there.

Tell people that God loves them and that everything they do is acceptable to Him? Is that what you are saying, Bravus?

What kind of love does a teacher have who does not tell a failing student what he/she is doing wrong or how to get better grades?

What kind of doctor would not tell his/her patients what's killing them?

What kind of a parent who does not point out the destructive behaviors in their children?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

You can't, Gerry, because it's not true. It makes no sense.

God loves people. All people. Stop there.

Tell people that God loves them and that everything they do is acceptable to Him? Is that what you are saying, Bravus?

What kind of love does a teacher have who does not tell a failing student what he/she is doing wrong or how to get better grades?

What kind of doctor would not tell his/her patients what's killing them?

What kind of a parent who does not point out the destructive behaviors in their children?

Excellent points Gerry

[Guest]

Yep...

[fccool]

Quote:

Tell people that God loves them and that everything they do is acceptable to Him? Is that what you are saying, Bravus?

What kind of love does a teacher have who does not tell a failing student what he/she is doing wrong or how to get better grades?

What kind of doctor would not tell his/her patients what's killing them?

What kind of a parent who does not point out the destructive behaviors in their children?

How about we ask you to stop having sex all-together, or only have sex with people that you are not sexually attracted to. Let's see how you would speak then.

Sexuality is an instinct. It's a evident instinct to the point that it deviates from natural order of sexuality, but it does not make it harmful.

Here are the reasons given as to why homosexuality or homosexual marriage is harmful... notice that none of the reasons actually explain what and who are harmed and in which way.

This list is generally used, but I'm using this site:

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politica...be-opposed.html

I'll refute the points given here as to why it is harmful.

1) It is not marriage

The idea is that homosexual marriage is not marriage is based on certain definition of marriage. So the focus is shifted from the concept, and rather rests with technicalities.

It really stems from the gender differentiation solely based on sexual organs. There's much more to womanhood or manhood than sexual organs. Much of the homosexuality are really gender different in terms of psychological mindset. They are either men trapped in women's body, or woman trapped in man's body. From such perspective, the idea of basing marriage ONLY based on the pair of different sexual organs present is rather reducing humanity and marriage to sexual organs. It's a poor argument.

2) It Violates Natural Law

This argument really re-defines the idea of "natural". Such definition of natural really rests on the idea that homosexuality is an "acquired taste" rather than something that actually occurring in nature (the proper definition of natural). It likewise is a poor argument.

3) It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

This argument ignores that quite a bit of children are raised by single mothers or single fathers. This fact does not deny these parents a chance to raise their children.

4) It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

It's really a pandering to an invented term that is not clearly defined. What is a "homosexual lifestyle". How different is it than simply calling it a "sexual lifestyle". Is heterosexual lifestyle better than homosexual lifestyle? How so?

5) It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

This objection relies on circular mentality. First it defines homosexuality as moral wrong, then it uses it as an argument without showing as to why it is morally wrong other than "Bible says it is".

6) It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Brilliant argument , I guess following from this argument, we should deny marriage to all sterile couples.

7) It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

Just because something imposes acceptance, does not make it a detrimental problem of society. Some things should be accepted. Anti-racism and anti-segregation laws were imposed on much of American society. We are better off as a society because of these.

8) It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

Really my favorite one. It really panders to the idea that homosexuality is primarily about excessive sexuality. It completely diminishes the emotional aspect of relationship, and turns such into purely sexual construct - unless it is a heterosexual, of course.

9) It Offends God

First of all, how does it make something harmful? God is offended by people who get angry to the point of cursing each other. Does it mean that these people should be denied certain privileges in society? God is likewise seems to be offended by people eating pork. What should we do as a society about that? How about people who worship pagan gods? I'm sure that would offend God more than homosexuals. What should we do about them?

Anyone sees a paradigm and slippery slope with such mentality?

These arguments set up enormous double-standards, and don't really explain as to why homosexuality is harmful.

[Bravus]

Gerry, they are all good questions, except that they all assume homosexuality is something harmful, since they all relate to harmful things.

Assuming the thing you set out to prove is called circular reasoning.

[Neil D]

Tell people that God loves them and that everything they do is acceptable to Him? Is that what you are saying, Bravus?

What kind of love does a teacher have who does not tell a failing student what he/she is doing wrong or how to get better grades?

What kind of doctor would not tell his/her patients what's killing them?

What kind of a parent who does not point out the destructive behaviors in their children?

What kind of relationships are you forming, Gerry? Behavioral?

It's been my understanding that when friendship/relationships occur, other behaviors begin to be removed or drop off....When we introduce people to the God of Love, the past is forgiven, and people learn about who God is, and desire to do things with Him...They form relationship and behaviors with God that thier old behaviors begin to drop off...

Your questions presuppose that the past is of relevance....I am confident that God who starts any relationship will form the behavors until the day of Jesus Christ...I am absolutely confident of this and you, as a Christian should be too. See Phillipians 1 for more details.

Don't you do that?

[Gerr]

What kind of relationships are you forming, Gerry? Behavioral?

Did I say that? However, I don't see how behavior can be divorced from relationships. How long will your relationship with your spouse endure if you keep flirting with every handsome/beautiful person that comes along?

Mt 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

‎‎Mal 3:5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

[Gerr]

Gerry, they are all good questions, except that they all assume homosexuality is something harmful, since they all relate to harmful things.

Assuming the thing you set out to prove is called circular reasoning.

We all make assumptions. I assume (with good evidence) the Bible's claim that it is God's word and accept its divine decree of right and wrong. You assume otherwise. So circular reasong looks like a common practice.

Without divine instruction on right and wrong, one would be confused looking at nature alone. Lions kill to satisfy their hunger. Jakals steal what they did not work for. A dog will mate with any female including its own sister, mother, or daughter.

[Bravus]

(the fact that Bob is probably the only person in the world ever to call Piers Morgan a 'gay activist' - a reality of one - still hasn't been addressed)

[M. T. Cross]

(the fact that Bob is probably the only person in the world ever to call Piers Morgan a 'gay activist' - a reality of one - still hasn't been addressed)

I pick on Bob too much, I left it alone

[fccool]

Quote:

We all make assumptions. I assume (with good evidence) the Bible's claim that it is God's word and accept its divine decree of right and wrong. You assume otherwise. So circular reasong looks like a common practice.

Let's say that I assume that there are mile-long hyppos from Mars that written a letter to me that I follow (for whatever good reasons there are). And use the arguments from that letter to show everyone that I'm correct on many issues that need no proof other than the Hyppos want it that way.

Would your assumption that they don't exist considered circular reasoning? That would be rather odd if it did, but that's what you seem to be arguing here.

Quote:

Without divine instruction on right and wrong, one would be confused looking at nature alone. Lions kill to satisfy their hunger. Jakals steal what they did not work for. A dog will mate with any female including its own sister, mother, or daughter.

Sure, they would be confused if they were never around human civilization that developed and solidified its values for thousands of years. I'm fairly sure that primitive humans did not have the same sets of values that we have today, as shown by their own records.

For example, it was common to use sex as a tool of punishment and humiliation in Ancient Rome. If your wife cheated on you with someone, you had a right to rape the guy, which would render him a prostitute or an outcast in Roman culture.

In Biblical times, you can see that morality is rather shifty. God could have created several sets of men to be intermarried without need to have sex with sister or a brother. That does not happen. People are just prohibited doing so after a while. It now becomes an immoral thing to do. Not to mention the idea of killing pregnant women and keeping virgins for wives. That certainly sounds a bit odd to us, but it would not be based on moral understanding of more primitive humans.

I bet if God would tell you out of the blue that you should go to your neighbor, kill his wife, and keep his virgin daughter for a wife... you would at the very least question it, or accused God to be be Satan.

Hence the morality of the OT is very grey. We developed a much better ideas as we progressed.

[BobRyan]

(the fact that Bob is probably the only person in the world ever to call Piers Morgan a 'gay activist' - a reality of one - still hasn't been addressed)

[Bravus]

Who set the thread title?

[CoAspen]

Kirk Cameron and Bible in trouble with Gay activistst Piers Morgan

Some one with the initials...BR

[fccool]

I don't think Gay Activist would necessitate an activist who is gay, just like Animal Rights Activist would not mean that the activist is an animal... although some are in either case :)

[Bravus]

Of course. But it would require some evidence of gay activism...

[doug yowell]

Of course. But it would require some evidence of gay activism...

Or someone actively supporting the gay cause.

[Bravus]

Disagreeing with Kirk Cameron is merely evidence of having a functioning cerebellum.

[BobRyan]

Of course. But it would require some evidence of gay activism...

His public tirade against Cameron for daring to accept what the Bible teaches in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 -- is either the epitome of gay activism or it is just a mean spirited slam-the-bible-when-you can agenda.

I just did not know which one Morgan preferred.

[BobRyan]

Who set the thread title?

OK -- I accept that one --

But the shortness of the title space does not leave enough room to provide options - so I stated them in the opening post.

In any case - Morgan's statements in the article and the fact that Cameron says that Morgan already knew that Kirk accepted the Bible statements on this subject before asking the question on the interview - does not exclude Morgan from the category in question.

So I simply ask the question.

in Christ,

Bob