View Full Version : Piers Morgan wants to ammend Bible now
This guy is a complete joke. I had always heard talk of him from those talent shows and that he was apparently a jerk, but how does a grown man continue to act like a 2 year old. What a fool.
During a discussion on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday — Christmas Eve — with Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren, Morgan argued that there needs to be an “amendment to the Bible” for same-sex marriage, because like the Constitution, the Bible is “inherently flawed.”
“Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence, the need to amend it,” Morgan told Warren during a conversation where Morgan emphasized the need for America to separate Church and State.
http://www.1140wrva.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10660266
New Piers Morgan petition urges the White House to keep the TV host in the US
http://news.yahoo.com/piers-morgan-petition-keep-him-in-america-in-response-to-deportation-petition-135000744.html
The new petition 'Keep Piers Morgan in the USA' reads: "We want to keep Piers Morgan in the USA. There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment. Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back.
LOL
Guy is a ****ing jackass, He said debate should always be respectful but it was ok to call Larry Pratt an "Unbelievably stupid man".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc
sinlessorrow
12-27-12, 16:33
Piers is a ****ing douche. No way in hell they will rewrite the bible(well not in a replacing way, there are already gay friendly bible).
What amazes me is the bible is not an evolving thing, it's the spoken word transcribed to paper. That would be like rewriting any literature book only worse since I believe everything in the bible is true(KJV).
NoveskeFan
12-27-12, 16:40
Piers is a ****ing douche. No way in hell they will rewrite the bible(well not in a replacing way, there are already gay friendly bible).
What amazes me is the bible is not an evolving thing, it's the spoken word transcribed to paper. That would be like rewriting any literature book only worse since I believe everything in the bible is true(KJV).
There's a big part of the problem with him and those like him. You and I disagree or don't like something, we accept it for what it is and keep our opinion and let others keep theirs. If he doesn't agree with something, the only solution is to make it fit his belief structure. Your wrong for not accepting his opinion. What a douche.
Piers is a ****ing douche. No way in hell they will rewrite the bible(well not in a replacing way, there are already gay friendly bible).
What amazes me is the bible is not an evolving thing, it's the spoken word transcribed to paper. That would be like rewriting any literature book only worse since I believe everything in the bible is true(KJV).
Do you simply not understand how many versions of the bible existed prior to the King James version? And I don't mean original texts which were accepted and rejected prior to the Council of Nicea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations#Differences_in_Bible_translations
And if we were gonna update ancient religious texts, why not fix the most troublesome one and have Islam finally have their Renaissance, even if it is about half a millennia late.
And if we were gonna update ancient religious texts, why not fix the most troublesome one and have Islam finally have their Renaissance, even if it is about half a millennia late.
Well that's just crazy talk! LOL :D
I'm not even Christian and I know he's missing the point.
But I do own a copy of the Bible in Greek.
I also have the Quran in Arabic.
sinlessorrow
12-27-12, 17:19
Do you simply not understand how many versions of the bible existed prior to the King James version? And I don't mean original texts which were accepted and rejected prior to the Council of Nicea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations#Differences_in_Bible_translations
Of course, I was just pointing out which one I use.
Moose-Knuckle
12-27-12, 18:16
Oxygen thieves like Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan (gawd what a faggish name) is why we have a 2nd Amendment in the first place . . .
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-27-12, 19:37
Stop talking about him! He says stupid things to get more people to know who he is and watch his show. Can we have a ban on Piers Morgan posts??
There's a big part of the problem with him and those like him. You and I disagree or don't like something, we accept it for what it is and keep our opinion and let others keep theirs. If he doesn't agree with something, the only solution is to make it fit his belief structure. Your wrong for not accepting his opinion. What a douche.
Funny how those who clamor the most about "tolerance" are the most intolerant of any differing opinions to theirs and demand that everyone else cow to their beliefs. Makes me even more thankful for the Second Amendment.
Belmont31R
12-27-12, 20:06
Funny how those who clamor the most about "tolerance" are the most intolerant of any differing opinions to theirs and demand that everyone else cow to their beliefs. Makes me even more thankful for the Second Amendment.
Btw, they would never allow you to propose doing the same thing to the Koran. They are the utmost hypocrites and I for one will rather enjoy if/when Islam completely takes over Europe and all these leftist fools are crushed under Sharia. I just hope it happens before they take away our guns, so we can still keep the jihad at bay on our shores.
They have been doing the same shit for decades.
The goal here is to tear down traditional building blocks of society, and replace them with alternatives.
This strategy was identified almost 100 years ago. People on the right were blind sided by it, and the country was lost a long time ago. No stopping it now.
This guy is a complete joke. I had always heard talk of him from those talent shows and that he was apparently a jerk, but how does a grown man continue to act like a 2 year old. What a fool.
http://www.1140wrva.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10660266
Nope, not a joke, just a committed marxist doing his duty....
"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)
He's just playing a coin that has worked so very very well for them, he's also rubbing it in our face....
The critics of the bible (The Word of God) have come and gone through the centuries, but his Word is still here. Bashing it is like trying to throw mud at the sun, you just get the mud on yourself, none of it touches his Word. Its just a sign of his ignorance and stupidity. The Bible does not need to be defended, as the Truth is its own defense. He will most likely wallow in the baby pool of life, until he is dead on a slab someday, and it will be to late for him.
GET THE **** OUT OF MY COUNTRY, YOU LIMEY ARROGANT IGNORAMUS!!
That is all
Business_Casual
12-28-12, 07:09
The freedom of speech...
The first freedom.
Let him make an ass of himself, it is his choice.
bc
The freedom of speech...
The first freedom.
Let him make an ass of himself, it is his choice.
bc
Except its against the law if you're not a citizen, to come here and advocate against the constitution. He's a foreigner of great influence, advocating that the constitution of this country be altered.
RogerinTPA
12-28-12, 11:15
Peirs Morgan is the highest form of being a douche bag and can eat a dick.
It's why I signed the petition to deport his sorry ass.
Except its against the law if you're not a citizen, to come here and advocate against the constitution. He's a foreigner of great influence, advocating that the constitution of this country be altered.
Is that really illegal?
Business_Casual
12-28-12, 11:38
I assume he refers to the Alien and Sedition Act.
bc
Is that really illegal?
As far as I know, yes, foreigners are not allowed to infiltrate here and push for the usurpation or abolishment of the government or constitution.
I'll see if I can find the particular law or any cases.
CarlosDJackal
12-28-12, 15:03
So, not only does this piece-of-whale-shit limey reject knows more than the framers of our Constitution from more than 200-years ago; he also thinks he knows what the authors of the bible meant more than 2,000-years ago?
Does he have some sort of time machine or something? :rolleyes:
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-28-12, 15:09
Is Piers a US Citizen? If not, what protection does the Constitution actually offer him?
fallenromeo
12-28-12, 18:20
wow what a tool. This guy would try and repaint the Mona Lisa if you gave him a brush. :suicide:
Business_Casual
12-28-12, 18:44
Is Piers a US Citizen? If not, what protection does the Constitution actually offer him?
"Persons" in the USA are provided the protection of the law. Just ask Miranda...
bc
Animal_Mother556
12-29-12, 03:22
There have been numerous times that i have wanted to pull an Elvis and shoot the television...this guy is the only one that can make me take the safety off
revelation 22:18,19
Revelation 22:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Boltgun
They have been doing the same shit for decades.
The goal here is to tear down traditional building blocks of society, and replace them with alternatives.
What might these "traditional building blocks of society" be, exactly? Not every shift away from fundamentalism/literalism has been bad for the country. Ruling out little pet issues that don't affect humanity as a whole, I'd say the shift away from certain noxious tenets have been overwhelmingly positive. Words like "tradition" and phrases like, "we've always done it that way" are bullshit. Either something can stand on its own merit or it cannot. It's a damn shame that people are allowed to do something in their own homes that you cannot stand; it really is and I feel for all of you with the utmost sincerity.
Many here seem to equate any and every challenge on their faith as some sort of progressive or liberal plot. What we have here are now is a conflation of TWO of the major issues that people cannot discuss without letting their emotion get in their way (Religion and Politics). I'd counter that faith and religion has no monopoly on all good virtues that a nation, or more importantly the individual, possess...nor the actions thereof. Most Christians here are pretty moderate and (GASP) progressive compared to their brethren from a few centuries ago. I don't see anyone pointing at themselves in the mirror as part of the problem.
Bibles, Korans, and every other religious text belongs in homes and hearts of their respective followers. Matters of government should be products of logic and reason. Sometimes there's going to be overlap, sometimes not, but again, things should be able to stand on their OWN MERIT.
montanadave
12-29-12, 20:04
Is is simply not a coincidence that the UK's utter repudiation of their Christian faith and heritage, their totalitarian confiscation of firearms, and their patently absurd promotion of equating the intimacy between a man and his wife to the act of males sodomizing each other, are all taking place in the same generation.
That's the spirit.
Let's fight dumb with dumber. :rolleyes:
sinlessorrow
12-29-12, 23:24
What might these "traditional building blocks of society" be, exactly? Not every shift away from fundamentalism/literalism has been bad for the country. Ruling out little pet issues that don't affect humanity as a whole, I'd say the shift away from certain noxious tenets have been overwhelmingly positive. Words like "tradition" and phrases like, "we've always done it that way" are bullshit. Either something can stand on its own merit or it cannot. It's a damn shame that people are allowed to do something in their own homes that you cannot stand; it really is and I feel for all of you with the utmost sincerity.
Many here seem to equate any and every challenge on their faith as some sort of progressive or liberal plot. What we have here are now is a conflation of TWO of the major issues that people cannot discuss without letting their emotion get in their way (Religion and Politics). I'd counter that faith and religion has no monopoly on all good virtues that a nation, or more importantly the individual, possess...nor the actions thereof. Most Christians here are pretty moderate and (GASP) progressive compared to their brethren from a few centuries ago. I don't see anyone pointing at themselves in the mirror as part of the problem.
Bibles, Korans, and every other religious text belongs in homes and hearts of their respective followers. Matters of government should be products of logic and reason. Sometimes there's going to be overlap, sometimes not, but again, things should be able to stand on their OWN MERIT.
I truly do not care what religion people are and am friends with a few athiests who disagree with my Baptist religion, we still get along and are best friends.
That said I do not go around telling them your religion is old and outdated so lets amend it, thats my issue here. If you do not agree with it great, it doesn't bother me but when you start saying lets amend it because you see it as outdated thats when the problem starts. Don't like the bible? Make a new one, wouldn't be the first time given how many different bibles there are out there catering to current day trends with same sex marriage, ect.
I truly do not care what religion people are and am friends with a few athiests who disagree with my Baptist religion, we still get along and are best friends.
That said I do not go around telling them your religion is old and outdated so lets amend it, thats my issue here. If you do not agree with it great, it doesn't bother me but when you start saying lets amend it because you see it as outdated thats when the problem starts. Don't like the bible? Make a new one, wouldn't be the first time given how many different bibles there are out there catering to current day trends with same sex marriage, ect.
Also part in red.....not so sure about a religion that talks about killing Christians. That is one religion I do not welcome in a country where the vast majority are Christians(or anyone who does not believe in Allah)., It's also why 9/11 happened.
It's actually usually the other way around... Traditionally when Christians have power, they kill Muslims, but when Muslims have power, they respect Christians. Only recently has that started to reverse.
It's actually usually the other way around... Traditionally when Christians have power, they kill Muslims, but when Muslims have power, they tolerate Christians. Only recently has that started to reverse.
Fixed it for you. I'm not quite sure how you could state a case that the dhimma contract equaled respect, but you're free to try! :)
sinlessorrow
12-30-12, 00:38
It's actually usually the other way around... Traditionally when Christians have power, they kill Muslims, but when Muslims have power, they respect Christians. Only recently has that started to reverse.
Sadly that is more the sin nature of man. The bible does not call for the killing of Muslims or the killing of any man(not counting the old testament, those where different times). The Koran specifically calls for the deaths of anyone who does not believe like they do.
Sadly that is more the sin nature of man. The bible does not call for the killing of Muslims or the killing of any man(not counting the old testament, those where different times). The Koran specifically calls for the deaths of anyone who does not believe like they do.
Glock, you're right, tolerate is a better word.
Muslims believe that Christians, and to a lesser extent, Jews, believe mostly the same thing they do. To Muslims, it's the same God. They call him Allah in Arabic, but it refers to the same being as you'd call Jehovah. The Koran includes much of your Bible.
Muslims would kill a polytheist or an atheist, but most likely would not kill a Christian or a Jew... Just tax them more and make their life difficult. But they generally do not force conversion and do not execute you. Generally.
Until very recently... Well... Look at the Crusades.
sinlessorrow
12-30-12, 00:51
Glock, you're right, tolerate is a better word.
Muslims believe that Christians, and to a lesser extent, Jews, believe mostly the same thing they do. To Muslims, it's the same God. They call him Allah in Arabic, but it refers to the same being as you'd call Jehovah. The Koran includes much of your Bible.
Muslims would kill a polytheist or an atheist, but most likely would not kill a Christian or a Jew... Just tax them more and make their life difficult. But they generally do not force conversion and do not execute you. Generally.
Until very recently... Well... Look at the Crusades.
The reason and cause of the crusades was a war between Christians and Muslims which centered around the city of Jerusalem and the Holy places of Palestine. The City of Jerusalem held a Holy significance to the Christian religion. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem commemorated the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial. Pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages made sacred pilgrimages to the Holy city of Jerusalem and the church. Although the city of Jerusalem was held by the Saracens the Christian pilgrims had been granted safe passage to visit the Holy city. In 1065 Jerusalem was taken by the Turks, who came from the kingdom of ancient Persia. 3000 Christians were massacred and the remaining Christians were treated so badly that throughout Christendom people were stirred to fight in crusades. These actions aroused a storm of indignation throughout Europe and awakened the desire to rescue the Holy Land from the grasp of the "infidel."
The Crusades were a defensive war taking back the City of Jerusalem.
theblackknight
12-30-12, 02:53
So your mad that marriage is a state institution, or that gay people are getting in on it?
If marriage went "under ground" again, then it would be even easier for gay people to get hitched.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Magic_Salad0892
12-30-12, 03:40
I belive in gay marriage, but the way the Canadian government legalized it was pretty shady.
I believe that it's more a religious issue, and if religion is such a personal choice, then what business does anybody else have to interfere? (And also... what if they're athiests? In which case, I'd consider it a civil liberties issue.)
As far as I know, yes, foreigners are not allowed to infiltrate here and push for the usurpation or abolishment of the government or constitution...
They are not allowed to run for president either, but we see how well that worked
Magic_Salad0892
12-30-12, 04:24
If you believe in "gay marriage" then you also must believe in "marriage" between two brothers, or even a father and daughter, or 10 family members, or as happened, "marriage" between a woman and a dolphin, and whatever else any warped puerile mind can invent. If fundamental principles are, as you must claim, simply arbitrary, then all subordinate principles are rendered arbitrary, necessarily.
I believe in a marriage between two consenting adults in a romantic relationship. But it's nice how that somehow translates to beastiality, and incest.
And since you also believe the fanatical gun-grabbing left's claim that the State does in fact have the Orwellian power and authority to change the meaning and substance of any term it wishes, then to be logically consistent you agree that the State has every right to redefine into "assault weapon" even a .22 bolt action, or hell, even a crate of oranges.
I never said that I believe they should have that power. In fact, I said it wasn't right now the definition was changed. But you're going to believe what you want anyway.
If you don't like gay marriages then don't have one.
Magic_Salad0892
12-30-12, 04:44
Because that is what you in fact believe, even if you want to lie to yourself and state otherwise. If the most fundamental principle, in the entire history of the human race concerning marriage, the sex of the husband and wife, is arbitrary, as you in fact claim, then number is also arbitrary, and in fact all of it is arbitrary.
It is arbitrary. You shouldn't need a set of documents to prove that you love somebody, and in general marriage is becoming more, and more of a novelty anyway.
In fact, you just again here stated you believe in incestuous marriage. University of Columbia professor David Epstein engaged in a 3 year romantic and sexual consensual relationship with his own adult daughter. According to you, since they were consenting adults, in a romantic relationship, they should be able to get legally married.
Regardless of the fact that I personally find incest disgusting, they're going to have sex regardless of the fact that they're not married, so unless you made pre-maritial sex completely illegal (which I don't agree with) then I guess it wouldn't make much difference then would it? (I'll reiterate that I think incest is absolutely disgusting.)
If you want to equate males making a wilful choice to sodomize each other to the intimacy between a man and his wife, realise that it will be pointed out that you in fact have gone full-retard.
How do you know it's a willful choice? Have you ever at any point been a homosexual? Do you have a choice in what you find attractive?
For example: I have absolutely no interest in a woman with no tattoos, or is fat. I can't really just choose to reverse that.
Magic_Salad0892
12-30-12, 05:10
And has that fact been beneficial, or detrimental, to society?
Neither. I don't specifically believe that marriage is benificial, or detrimental to society, so I don't believe that the degredation (the advent of divorces) of said institution is either.
The overwhelming majority of people find males sodomizing each other absolutely disgusting. The fact is that you still, by the admission of your own criteria, believe in incestuous "marriage".
I'm not so sure the overwhelming majority of people still think that way, as homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in general. And I do not believe in incestuous marriage. I said that sexual relationships regardless of nature will continue regardless of the law of marriage surrounding it.
So now you are also actually claiming that actually engaging in acts of homosexual sodomy are not a choice? Really? They have no free will?
I'm claiming that they're still bound by the same rules of attraction that straight people are.
Also funny that you keep coming back to "males sodomizing eachother", and there has been no mention of homosexual relationships involving women.
Magic_Salad0892
12-30-12, 05:41
Because you again are going on nothing other than your emotions and feelings,
I'm not actually, and shall cease this argument (which should've been a debate) because you insist on insulting me, and name calling. (Which would suggest that you're more emotionally invested than I am.)
I've never argued, or debated in favor of legalizing or accepting incest, beastiality, or pedophilia by the way. And I still do not advocate that. I find it disgusting, and insulting that you insinuate that I condone such behavior.
Magic_Salad0892
12-30-12, 05:52
Quite the opposite. The fact that you take the undeniable facts that I have presented personally conclusively evidences you are emotionally governed.
Which facts?
Again, you simply cannot deny that incestuous marriage does in fact meet the criteria you yourself said should be the only criteria for marriage. Thus you simply cannot deny what you have already supported.
I really should've said "two consenting, not blood related adults". As I had a feeling that would be taken out of context.
But just to pitch this out of left field, you are in fact a female, right? Perhaps that should have been obvious from the beginning. But reading some of your old posts seems to make that all but certain.
No. I am male. (Though I'm reeeeally curious as to which posts you're referring to.)
theblackknight
12-30-12, 10:35
That you foolishly believe the narrative of the gun-grabbing, 2nd Amendment denying, lunatic left in claiming that the State has the absolute Orwellian power to redefine any term it so chooses, (meaning even"assault weapon") only evidences the complete disconnect from objective reality, and near total inability or unwillingness to apply critical thinking to issues, that is tragically so endemic today.
Calm down Turbo . I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, but try telling people church and state should be separate and you get "THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION HERP DERP',well, see how thats working now?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Morgan and progressives like him are Statist, for various reasons: fear, social justice, environment; they believe the state should control the citizen. I believe that clarity is important, and we should use the right words to describe them. This is why when you call them communist or socialist they say, "No I'm not!" They aren't, they are statist, they believe in statism.
Someone invited to his show needs to just beat his ass into a wet spot and then we can all donate to their legal defense.
Guy is a ****ing jackass, He said debate should always be respectful but it was ok to call Larry Pratt an "Unbelievably stupid man".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc
Yeah, I wanted to shoot my TV watching this.
You guys might not remember it, but in January 2011, when scandal erupted, Piers Morgan was openly attacking (on his Twitter) "The Guardian" for publishing informations on criminal activities of "News of The World", corrupt Police officers (including high ranking) helping/covering those activities and corrupt politicians covering those activities.
Those activities include (but not limit to) hacking cell phones of family of soldier killed in A-stan, and hacking cell phone of murdered 13 years old girl (presumed missing at this time) and clearing voice mail to let family think she is alive and listening to messages, all to get better coverage on story.
This is "moral standard" for this man.
Moose-Knuckle
01-01-13, 19:03
You guys might not remember it, but in January 2011, when scandal erupted, Piers Morgan was openly attacking (on his Twitter) "The Guardian" for publishing informations on criminal activities of "News of The World", corrupt Police officers (including high ranking) helping/covering those activities and corrupt politicians covering those activities.
Those activities include (but not limit to) hacking cell phones of family of soldier killed in A-stan, and hacking cell phone of murdered 13 years old girl (presumed missing at this time) and clearing voice mail to let family think she is alive and listening to messages, all to get better coverage on story.
This is "moral standard" for this man.
Disgusting, candidate for the wood chipper for sure.
As far as Im concerned Piers shitbag Morgan is NOTHING but a limey, redcoat, piece of euro garbage.
He needs to pack up and head back to the old country before since its apparently more cultured and civil.
As far as Im concerned Piers shitbag Morgan is NOTHING but a limey, redcoat, piece of euro garbage.
Please, do not offend normal Europeans, by comparing Piers Morgan to us. Plus he is from UK, not from Europe. UK is so much better and higher that we, lowly Continentals are...
Magic_Salad0892
01-02-13, 07:46
Please, do not offend normal Europeans, but comparing Piers Morgan to us. Plus he is from UK, not from Europe. UK is so much better and higher that we, lowly Continentals are...
If it makes you feel any better I love the Polish folks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.