• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kirk Cameron defends Todd Akin

AvalonXQ said:
Ah, yes, saying that I wish you had kept my religion out of it in the first place is exactly an invitation to keep attacking my religion.
Click to expand...

As Robrob pointed out, I'm not attacking your religion in the least. In fact, I agree with every aspect of that religion that I've quoted in this thread. Especially what Matthew Henry said.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Tell me, please, I'm dying to know, what do you think my religion says that I don't follow?
Click to expand...

You can't stop yourself can you?

Why not post something on topic instead of endlessly whining about your religion and how teh evil atheists are oppressing you? There's only one person here who is obsessed with your religion.
 
Croydon Bob said:
Why not post something on topic instead of endlessly whining about your religion and how teh evil atheists are oppressing you?
Click to expand...

You have two posts in the last thirty, and they're both off-topic posts whining about me.

Are you sure you remember what "hypocrisy" means?
 
AvalonXQ said:
You have two posts in the last thirty, and they're both off-topic posts whining about me.

Are you sure you remember what "hypocrisy" means?
Click to expand...

You are confused as always. replying to your off-topic whining about your religion by asking you to post something on-topic is not hypocrisy.

You have totally derailed this thread. I came here because I was interested in the OP, not in your paranoid religious fantasies.
 
Croydon Bob said:
You are confused as always. replying to your off-topic whining about your religion by asking you to post something on-topic is not hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
So, making off-topic posts where you whine about another poster making off-topic posts and whining, isn't hypocrisy?

You must be using one of those special dictionaries where every entry says at the end, "but if you do it, it doesn't count."

You have totally derailed this thread. I came here because I was interested in the OP, not in your paranoid religious fantasies.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the posting architecture here restricted your ability to post words on whatever topic you like.

Rather than attacking me for defending myself against another poster, if you want to talk about the OP, why not try -- posting something about the OP? Radical, I know.
 
AvalonXQ said:
What more is there to say?
Click to expand...

That excusing Akin's deliberate falsehood (which he tried to back up by citing doctors) as "two words" that "he misspoke and that he misphrased", and saying that deliberate error is still perfectly okay because "I get the sense there that this is a guy who is defending life and he wants to go to all lengths he can to protect the life of the unborn", as Cameron did, is reprehensible.
 
ANTPogo said:
That excusing Akin's deliberate falsehood (which he tried to back up by citing doctors) as "two words" that "he misspoke and that he misphrased", and saying that deliberate error is still perfectly okay because "I get the sense there that this is a guy who is defending life and he wants to go to all lengths he can to protect the life of the unborn", as Cameron did, is reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would agree with you that the ends don't justify the means. I wouldn't call it reprehensible, however.

Akin held a stupid belief, which I assume he has since been disabused of. Assuming he has, I say make the truth clear and move on. If he hasn't, continue to assault that wrong belief.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Yeah, I would agree with you that the ends don't justify the means. I wouldn't call it reprehensible, however.

Akin held a stupid belief, which I assume he has since been disabused of. Assuming he has, I say make the truth clear and move on. If he hasn't, continue to assault that wrong belief.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Cameron may not be defending Akin's specific words in this specific instance, but he's certainly more than happy to defend the practice of what Akin did: he pretty much says that we should forgive Akin for telling lies, because Akin told those lies for a "good cause". He means well, Cameron says, so we should just ignore the fact that he got caught spouting sheer misogynistic nonsense about women's bodies being able to prevent pregnancy in the cases of "legitimate rape" (because then the "rape exception" for abortion would neatly and conveniently disappear into a Catch-22 - you can only get an abortion if you got pregnant from rape, but obviously if you got pregnant then it wasn't actually rape in the first place).

If you have to lie to defend your moral position about something, maybe it's not so moral to begin with.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
The problem is that Cameron may not be defending Akin's specific words in this specific instance, but he's certainly more than happy to defend the practice of what Akin did: he pretty much says that we should forgive Akin for telling lies, because Akin told those lies for a "good cause". He means well, Cameron says, so we should just ignore the fact that he got caught spouting sheer misogynistic nonsense about women's bodies being able to prevent pregnancy in the cases of "legitimate rape" (because then the "rape exception" for abortion would neatly and conveniently disappear into a Catch-22 - you can only get an abortion if you got pregnant from rape, but obviously if you got pregnant then it wasn't actually rape in the first place).

If you have to lie to defend your moral position about something, maybe it's not so moral to begin with.
Click to expand...

Bearing false witness for god is an honored tradition in Christendom:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

That modern Christians follow suit isn't shocking.
 
ANTPogo said:
The problem is that Cameron may not be defending Akin's specific words in this specific instance, but he's certainly more than happy to defend the practice of what Akin did: he pretty much says that we should forgive Akin for telling lies, because Akin told those lies for a "good cause".
Click to expand...
I agree; "represensible" is the right description for this.

If you have to lie to defend your moral position about something, maybe it's not so moral to begin with.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
Tony said:
Bearing false witness for god is an honored tradition in Christendom:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

That modern Christians follow suit isn't shocking.
Click to expand...

I had never seen/heard that Luther quote before. It's extremely distressing to think that for some people, lying isn't a failure of their moral code but simply a part of it.
 
AvalonXQ said:
I had never seen/heard that Luther quote before.
Click to expand...

It's his statement at the Congress of Schmalkalden, regarding the bigamy of Landgrave Philip of Hesse. On the first day of the Conference, July 15, 1540, Luther was recorded in the protocols (ie, the minutes of the conference) as saying Philip should refuse to publicly acknowledge the bigamy and lie about his illicit marriage to keep it a secret, because to do otherwise would create too much scandal for both Philip and the church (because of issues surrounding the sanctity of the confessional):

Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie?
Click to expand...

See Preserved Smith's The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Chapter XXXIV.

EDIT: Smith's book also reproduces a reply Luther sent directly to Philip after Philip angrily wrote to him and refused to lie, in which Luther basically threatens the Landgrave that unless he "give an ambiguous answer by which you could remain" regarding the truth of his bigamous marriage, Luther will essentially hang him out to dry for publishing a confessional, and if Philip dares to drag Luther's own role in the affair out into the public by publishing that confessional, "I well know how to draw myself out of it and leave Your Grace sticking in it".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom