Kirk Cameron and Bible in trouble with Gay activistst Piers Morgan

[SivartM]

I couldn't take Kirk Cameron seriously after he nodded along to Ray Comfort's banana speech, so I'm surprised anyone still takes him seriously anyway. He's sort of an easy target for intellectual oneupmanship, so I think it was a bit unfair of Morgan.

[BobRyan]

So far the complaints Cameron is getting from that media stunt by Morgan - do not run along the lines of "yes that is true according to the Bible but you Cameron are not good enough in our eyes to agree with the Bible on that particular point".

But maybe someone would like to propose it now.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

The Bible is wrong about that issue, Cameron is wrong about that issue.

It's unsurprising that people who are also wrong about that issue are not taxing Cameron with his wrongness.

[M. T. Cross]

I couldn't take Kirk Cameron seriously after he nodded along to Ray Comfort's banana speech, so I'm surprised anyone still takes him seriously anyway. He's sort of an easy target for intellectual oneupmanship, so I think it was a bit unfair of Morgan.

But he makes such moving movies..........

[Gerr]

Grey? And progressed to what? WWI, WWII, the Gulag, same-sex "marriage", WS shenanigans, pedophilia, bestiality?

Quote:

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.

And by what moral authority do those values carry? If a minority disagrees with the majority-determined values, does that make the minority wrong? Or is a majority-determined set of values morally right?

[doug yowell]

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.

[CoAspen]

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

activism |ˈaktəˌvizəm|

noun

the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.

Neither would speaking out on an issue, for or against, make that person an activist. Sometimes it pays to stick with the known definition of words so as not to appear we are seeking to disparage a persons thought or ideas.....especialy if they are disagreeing with us.

[John317]

Good point, Tom.

[SivartM]

What if it was proven over years of experience that eating tomatoes would render you sterile would it be proof enough that it was worth banning? How can you prove that homosexual behavior is a benefit to society other than to provide the individuals with a sense of unorthodox sexual satisfaction.

If it was proven that having a vasectomy would ender you sterile, would it be proof enough that it was worth banning? How can you prove that heterosexual behavior is a benefit to society other than to provide the individuals with sexual satisfaction?

[olger]

The Bible is wrong about that issue, Cameron is wrong about that issue.

It's unsurprising that people who are also wrong about that issue are not taxing Cameron with his wrongness.

Someone just crossed a line.

[John317]

SivartM, do you believe the Bible teaches that the practice of homosexuality is what God wants people to do? Does it teach that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals will be saved in God's kingdom?

[SivartM]

Someone just crossed an eternal line.

Thank you for the update, Lord.

Oh wait, that was olger.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: olger

Someone just crossed an eternal line.

Thank you for the update, Lord.

Oh wait, that was olger.

Nope,you were right the first time.

[SivartM]

SivartM, do you believe the Bible teaches that the practice of homosexuality is what God wants people to do? Does it teach that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals will be saved in God's kingdom?

The Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality. Homosexuality wasn't conceived of as we know it now until a few centuries ago. As far as everyone before then, including the Biblical authors, were concerned, everyone was straight, and voluntary infertility was a sin. Now we know that some people aren't straight, and we aren't in any danger of underpopulation. Homosexuality and homosexual activity in the Bible are completely different issues.

[Bravus]

Very happy on this side of the line with the sane and compassionate.

[olger]

Good luck with that..

I guess when a person has already decided that the Bible is wrong about creation, it's a simple matter to condemn it in other areas.

`G

[doug yowell]

If it was proven that having a vasectomy would ender you sterile, would it be proof enough that it was worth banning? How can you prove that heterosexual behavior is a benefit to society other than to provide the individuals with sexual satisfaction?

Great question,SM. Hope you'll be considering the answer before getting married, which is only where heterosexual behavior has any societal benefit apart from sexual pleasure.1)Heterosexuality can reproduce the species and provide them with the a model of how it is designed (by God)to reproduce and function by gender. Reproduction itself is a major benefit which every society needs to keep it from dying.Even apart from the authority of the Bible this benefit is undeniable.2)Heterosexuality also performs a unique service to society by taking two opposite genders with opposite ways of experiencing sexual satisfaction and creates a unity that cannot be experienced by two of the same sex.3)Hetero sex also is not accompanied by the emotional feelings of shame and alienation from the society itself (not to mention God).Better self respect, better for society.Heterosexual is God's design for humanity.It is assumed that the One who created that machine programmed it to function at optimate efficiency.

[SivartM]

Hetero sex also is not accompanied by the emotional feelings of shame and alienation from the society itself

It would be if everyone who practiced it was the victim of public scorn.

Anyway, why not let the homosexuals just take care of the children abandoned by heterosexuals? There's your social good. Why, the efficacy of homosexual parenting is even backed up by scientific studies.

[BobRyan]

SivartM, do you believe the Bible teaches that the practice of homosexuality is what God wants people to do? Does it teach that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals will be saved in God's kingdom?

[BobRyan]

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

I am sure a number of our agnostic and atheist friends would agree with you on that point (if pharyngula is any clue).

But Cameron is not agnostic or atheist. How can it be a surprise that he might just so happen to accept the Bible - once he claims to be a Christian?

Or is it now "politically in correct" to be a Christian and accept the Christian Bible??

in Christ,

Bob

[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.

[fccool]

Quote:

Hard to rationalize that when a majority group of religious people are being told by a minority group of non-"religious" people that their morality which they once believed was predetermined by their belief in a moral Divinity was really a figment of their unenlightened imagination.

I'm sure that the church told Gallileo, Bruno, and many other people similar things. After all, facts don't really matter right , what you believe matters more.

So, if million people believe in an invisible pink elephants on mars, we should believe in their magical powers simply based on "historical" hearsay, right?

Again, that's not what morality is. It's not majority dictating to minority what to do. You are merely trying to drive the argument into this insane corner that does not exist.

Quote:

Still given by deities, you admit. Even the different deities are consistent.

Lol. I see you are desperate to the point of accepting precepts of polytheism? I don't think I have to explain this one to you. You know what I meant.

Quote:

If it didn't already beg the question I'd swear that you were explaining the atheistic definition of morality.

You swear, because you imagine some other definition that does not match a dictionary one:

Morality - descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Don't really see "ONLY ruse given by Christian God" anywhere near this definition. Do you?

Quote:

Morality is a collective judgement - No kidding,who says so?

How about you argue that point with dictionary authors

Quote:

What's a Web Standard?

It's a man-made standard which guides the code behind this, and all websites worldwide. I'm guessing that God of internet spoke it to Bill Gates on some mountain, and it was right.

Quote:

I guess that if there was no Creator and Judge who demanded compliance with His created order then somebody would have to step up and explain to the rest of the animal world what would make us happy. How'd that get lost on all those other people who believed in a Divine Watcher? Besides, if the collective decision is the definition of morality then why are those who disagree with their definition so urgent to change things?

I think I should point out that every child is born agnostic/atheist. Religion comes and is perpetuated by people who:

1) Discourage any difficult/opposing quesitons

2) Demand obedience and conformity since childhood

Where did people learn the idea of "god". The idea of God is a human-derived idea that covers certain limitation inherent in humanity. For example, when there was rain with terrible thunder, the primitive humans had only one perspective... that of other primitive humans. So, they though a more advanced human-like being is responsible for thunder.

Religious historically evolved over time to grow more complex, and incorporating plentiful moral codes and statutes. In OT there are hundreds of them.

So yes. Someone does step up and explains to you what makes you happy. That person is called your pastor, your friends, your corporations, or your government.

I think you should listen to them, but in the end actually make a rational decision based on facts, and not emotions, fear, or faulty logic.

Quote:

But if I choose to fudge a little bit or even alot what difference will it make in the long run? How does my beating up my wife (if it's deemed immoral)affect your marriage or your ability to successfully coexist with the guy who lives behind you? So I die at 90 years and you die at 17 years.Were both dead and outa here and no one will care. Why should I care to live by what rocks someone else's world? Why can't they just cater to my desires?

The point is that there are cultures where wife-beating is encouraged and acceptable, just like stoning people for disobedience was encouraged and acceptable in OT.

The irony is that you could have been born in Islamic country, and most likely defended wife beating as morally good, and rejected Christian God as idol and false.

So, really no difference here in terms of religious view. You still have the culturally-constrained morality that's supposedly divinely given. So, based on your argument, you would have to give a very good reason for putting people to death for let's say picking up sticks on the wrong day... and why is it that such great moral precepts are not a good idea today.

Quote:

Why not if a majority of my peers agree with my likes and dislikes and share my same sense of morality? If morals are arrived at by a common sense of self benefit then why are those who don't fit in to that belief entitled to overthrow my system? Why can't they go somewhere else and start their own moral order?

They can, and they do. That place is called USA, a place where people would come and progressively establish a framework of co-existing that did not revolve around 1 group's beliefs of what's moral. That's why there are no mandatory prayers in schools, or forceful teaching of Christian belief system. And where we discourage wife beating and stoning not because "God told us", but because we decided it's not a good way to go.

Quote:

What if it was proven over years of experience that eating tomatoes would render you sterile would it be proof enough that it was worth banning?

Driving your car over the years can get you killed. Using your computer over the years can contribute to bad eye-sight, and using your cell-phone can cause cancerous tumors.

You should seriously look this one up before trying this one again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Quote:

How can you prove that homosexual behavior is a benefit to society other than to provide the individuals with a sense of unorthodox sexual satisfaction. Can you prove that polygamy is not a boon to modern culture, or that beastiality or consensual incestuous marriage is damaging to society?

I have enough red herring in the above to supply prison breakouts for a year.

I hope we will not keep returning to this one, so let's make it short and sweet.

1) If you take me to court on charges that I damaged your property, you have to prove as to how I've damaged your property. You don't tell judge, "Well, I don't really need to prove anything. He needs to prove that he did not damage it. So make him prove". You'd laughed at and thrown out of the court.

2) Likewise, you could not make any statements along the lines of "Well, the case that ruled in favor of my neighbor last year is similar to mine, so you have to award me the case, or the defendant has to show that my neighbors property was not really damaged." You would be once again laughed at, and thrown out of the court.

But, point taken, and I'll humor you, so you don't keep this wheel of ignorance spinning here.

Consensual incest marriages of itself are not a danger to society. In fact, it's shifty ground in terms of religious views too, in that God allowed, and actually commanded incest in the Bible. Not all cultures criminalize incest. In Russia it's permitted, for example. The main modern objection to incest is the fact the high probability of birth defects in offspring, and potential sexual abuse of children by mentally deranged parents.

Polygamy is once again not a problem in modern societies. The prohibition maintenance is rather pragmatic than religious, because it encourages independence of women (and discourages abuse), and better income distribution among households. Likewise, polygamy simply would not function in modern society where women are no longer treated like household slaves who could be bought into marriage. The jealousy issue alone would make such union highly undesirable and dysfunctional.

Bestiality is merely a form of fetishism in terms of what it really is. There are people who have sex with porch tables. In the grand scheme of societal problems, it's really a laughable one, and largely irrelevant to issue of homosexuality. I really never heard anyone say "I'm here, I'm having sex with my goat, get used to it". Such people would be merely ignored and laughed at.

So, your turn. Why homosexuality is detrimental to a society? If you choose to avoid this question once again, I'm guessing that you don't really have a good answer.

Quote:

Yeah,right.Like you'd accept anything that any study offered.If it ain't broke... so why is the burden on me to prove that it needs fixing? The majority of those who collectively reached this morality see no need to change things.According to your definition that should be good enough.

LOL Judgement requires certain logic. Your judgement lacks that, so it does not exactly fit into my definition. If you can't provide a good reason for doing something, then you should not prevent other people from doing otherwise.

So far you've repeatedly failed to provide such reason.

Quote:

Only if you want to restrict it''s normal meaning for argument's purposes. Expected is not a term we employ to describe a person born with one head.

But, you can describe such person as normal, because we judge normality by means of certain sets of expected standards. Otherwise normality concept would not make any sense.

I merely pointed out that anger, rage, and jealousy are normal human experiences. You will not find a single human being who did not experience these.

If you have a different definition of normality, I'd be glad to see it.

Quote:

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.

....

That was a double negative that I didn't really follow,sorry.

It was not a double negative. Anger, jealousy and envy are normal human behavior, because majority of humans on this planet experience these at certain point. Thus it's standard and expected. If you are to prove that these are not normal, you have to show that these don't regularly occur in human beings and are deviations.

Quote:

Sorry, that's just a bad analogy. If 99%of the human population were practicing homosexuals then society would become next to non-existent.If it was inherently non-harmful why would this happen?Is the health and reproductive aspect of a society irrelevant to their corporate happiness? How bout the importance of difference between men and women? Not necessary?But it's late now so ....maybe manana.

It was not a bad analogy, but it simply exposes your slippery slope argument. 99% of population IS NOT practicing homosexuals, thus deducing that homosexuality is harmful makes as much sense as deducing that sterile marriages are harmful if 99% of all marriages were sterile.

The differences between men and women are not merely restricted to sexual organs... something that you are tying to reduce gender to. There's psycho-emotionalism gender affinity. Deriving gender solely based on sexual organs is rather primitive in terms of what geder really is. There are men who behave and prefer "feminine things", and there are women who prefer masculine ones... including sexual attraction. That of itself does not injure gender differences. Homosexual relationship is not merely a relationship between two dudes, or two women.

Here's a good example for you:

One of these two is more male than she is female. Can you guess which one?

Secondly you argument simply does not fly based on the fact that sterile marriages are legal. You don't seem to make ridiculous extrapolations as to if 99% of all marriages would be sterile then the damage would be obvious. Sterile marriage is still marriage, and constitutes a small portion of all marriages and does not damage society. Likewise there are childless marriages by choice. Should we mandate children in marriage based on such mentality?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

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?

Well, Gerry, you give that impression....

What make you assume that when I come into contact with my future spouse, that I will continue to flirt? Only a person who's judgmental is suspicious of behavioral changes. A person in love will change his behavior automatically to keep a relationship going..his focus is on the relationship, not on the behavior. He has found the "pearl of great prize" [pun intended]. Those other behaviors of flirting with others, drop off. Hence, the past is forgiven, the present is focused on a relationship, and to focus on behaviors is judgmental.

The only time that a male will continue to flirt is when the relationship is failing or never began in the first place.

So, Gerry, based upon your questioning, I am coming to the conclusion that you expect a behavioral relationship that is suspicious of motivations....It's judgmental....And while it is a relationship, it is NOT a loving relationship...

[Neil D]

Now, since Gerry brought in the human side of things, let me make the divine analogy....

When we find God, we find that "pearl of great price"....We focus on our relationship with Him...At the moment of conversion, all is automatically forgiven of the past...because we seek to do things with Him NOW..our relationship is with God NOW...we are not focused on behaviors, we are focused on a relationship and what we can do NOW....as situations come to light, we have the oppertunity to change...and being confindent that Jesus started these changes, we can be assured that our personalitys and past behaviors will change as we grow....because we are becoming a new person...

[BobRyan]

Good luck with that..

I guess when a person has already decided that the Bible is wrong about creation, it's a simple matter to condemn it in other areas.

`G

True - that is perfectly consistent.