Kirk Cameron makes lowest rated movie of all time

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure they'll work this

I'm sure they'll work this to their advantage.  If anything, they'll convince their core market to give more money, since the forces of evil are conspiring against them.   

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i honestly think cameron is

i honestly think cameron is cracking up. i think he's trying to balance his religious fanaticism, which he obviously embraced at a low moral point in his flourishing career, and which he's heavily invested in now, with every aging celebrity's need to still be relevant. i understand at least part of the film is a half-assed justification of why it's ok to be materialistic as a christian. i mean, he is slowly but surely approaching 50. that can't be easy for mike seaver, with or without jesus.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i honestly

iwbiek wrote:
i honestly think cameron is cracking up. i think he's trying to balance his religious fanaticism, which he obviously embraced at a low moral point in his flourishing career, and which he's heavily invested in now, with every aging celebrity's need to still be relevant. i understand at least part of the film is a half-assed justification of why it's ok to be materialistic as a christian. i mean, he is slowly but surely approaching 50. that can't be easy for mike seaver, with or without jesus.

I believe Kirk Cameron has a giant ego which he has never dealt with; he got on some kind of guilt trip and went fanatical.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I'm sure

zarathustra wrote:

I'm sure they'll work this to their advantage.  If anything, they'll convince their core market to give more money, since the forces of evil are conspiring against them.   

Good point, but with really crap filled movies it will continue being a cluster fuck. His movies are no better than Beach Bimbos in Bikinis


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe Kirk Cameron has a giant ego which he has never dealt with; he got on some kind of guilt trip and went fanatical.




well, obviously. i always thought he was using comfort as much as comfort was using him. he brings comfort a whole new audience and comfort lends him evangelical credibility, which at least keeps him a celebrity among the faithful. the only problem is, i've suspected for several years now that cameron has some major cognitive dissonance going on. i suspect on some subconscious level he regrets the rashness of his youth and wonders, had he not gone the path of religious fanaticism, if he could have been an '80s child star turned a-list adult, like his older contemporary michael j. fox.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

I believe Kirk Cameron has a giant ego which he has never dealt with; he got on some kind of guilt trip and went fanatical.


well, obviously. i always thought he was using comfort as much as comfort was using him. he brings comfort a whole new audience and comfort lends him evangelical credibility, which at least keeps him a celebrity among the faithful. the only problem is, i've suspected for several years now that cameron has some major cognitive dissonance going on. i suspect on some subconscious level he regrets the rashness of his youth and wonders, had he not gone the path of religious fanaticism, if he could have been an '80s child star turned a-list adult, like his older contemporary michael j. fox.

wow. never thought of it that way before and I'll agree with you. I remember that hot chick on the show and how the producers were trying to get him to get hot and steamy with her. From what I recall he freaked out and protested. At first I thought he was gay then I realized he was just a nut.

Comfort I never really knew any thing about until the banana incident. When I saw that on youtube and Cameron, I realized both were completely nuts. Then I found RRS because of them and Brian's challenge. Never did the challenge but I wrote an email to Cameron and Comfort through the wayofthemaste website and told them what I thought.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ha ha ha ha

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Incidentally, whatever Kirk might think, he simply was never a sufficiently capable actor to break out the way Fox did.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
has anyone ever seen kirk's

has anyone ever seen kirk's overtly pro-life movie from the early '90s? i don't think he was a hardcore christian yet because the movie definitely has some nonchristian content (or else he just had no creative control). it's about him joining a college debate team and the topic of the big competition is going to be roe v. wade. kirk plays a stereotypical conservative redneck kid with an awful fake southern accent, and i think even a mullet (when those were still popular). his love interest/foil is a stereotypical liberal college feminist. at first she argues pro-choice, of course, and one of the most cringeworthy exchanges happens when kirk argues with her:


liberal feminazi: "only a shit-kicking conservative would believe something like that!"


dubya-votin' backwoods kirk (in awful fake accent): "way-yull, ah guess that's wut ah am: a shee-yit-kickin' conservative."


anyway, as the movie goes on they fall in love, because hollywood, then of course it comes out that she's just bitter and harbors secret guilt because she was raped and had an abortion herself. when the big competition comes she has to argue pro-life alongside kirk in front of the US supreme court itself, because of course they have nothing else to do. suddenly, femicunt has a change of heart, probably secretly gives her life to jesus, and tearfully tells her story to the justices, and ends with what you just know the creators of this film thought was a coup-de-grace against pro-choicers everywhere, the ultimate pro-life argument that was so amazingly obvious, why hadn't we ever thought of it before?


in a nutshell, her awesomely ultimate argument is: "please take this choice from us women. we can't handle it."


i watched this movie in my senior english class in high school as an illustration of how competitive debating looks. even at the age of 17, i facepalmed. i don't blame my teacher: how many movies centered around competitive debating are there? but still, fuck me...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Happily, not I.

Happily, not I.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Kirk is just holding on to

 Kirk is just holding on to some guilt.  Maybe he is gay?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i doubt that. i think he

i doubt that. i think he just desperately wants to be at least as famous as he was as a child, and taken at least as seriously. which is perfectly understandable: he's an actor, after all. the problem is it's hard to justify that in the light of comfort's brand of evangelicalism. believe me, i know; i was a comfort devotee in college. in his world, if a christian is liked by the masses (or by "the world," as christians like him prefer to put it), then obviously there's a spiritual problem there. obviously he's compromising somewhere, and a christian is never supposed to compromise, and a good christian is supposed to be hated by the world.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i doubt that.

iwbiek wrote:
i doubt that. i think he just desperately wants to be at least as famous as he was as a child, and taken at least as seriously. which is perfectly understandable: he's an actor, after all. the problem is it's hard to justify that in the light of comfort's brand of evangelicalism. believe me, i know; i was a comfort devotee in college. in his world, if a christian is liked by the masses (or by "the world," as christians like him prefer to put it), then obviously there's a spiritual problem there. obviously he's compromising somewhere, and a christian is never supposed to compromise, and a good christian is supposed to be hated by the world.

Wow. No shit. You followed that stuff? What did you ever see in Comfort or was he not as nuts as he is today?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I gave it 1 star... I'm

 I gave it 1 star... I'm working under the presumption that it sucks based on the subject matter.  Let me know when it's available for free viewing and I will watch it.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: I gave it 1

Sapient wrote:

 I gave it 1 star... I'm working under the presumption that it sucks based on the subject matter.  Let me know when it's available for free viewing and I will watch it.

 

i'm sure it is on one of those hack sites being pirated all over the world...Smiling


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
he doesn't appear nuts to

he doesn't appear nuts to most christians, except perhaps the most liberal ones. many consider his methods a little too abrasive but very few will argue he's got his scriptures mixed up or all wrong. if you're a biblical literalist, which many southern protestants in america are, he's very convincing. he's sort of the logical conclusion of that way of thinking. and if you accept his axioms (biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism, sola scriptura), and most evangelicals already do, then he's actually quite charismatic. i followed him because in my christian mind he made sense, and he was able to explain away a lot of the gray areas that make evangelicals so uncomfortable. he offers certainty, and since all evangelicals are inherently insecure in their thinking, that means a lot to them.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:he doesn't

iwbiek wrote:
he doesn't appear nuts to most christians, except perhaps the most liberal ones. many consider his methods a little too abrasive but very few will argue he's got his scriptures mixed up or all wrong. if you're a biblical literalist, which many southern protestants in america are, he's very convincing. he's sort of the logical conclusion of that way of thinking. and if you accept his axioms (biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism, sola scriptura), and most evangelicals already do, then he's actually quite charismatic. i followed him because in my christian mind he made sense, and he was able to explain away a lot of the gray areas that make evangelicals so uncomfortable. he offers certainty, and since all evangelicals are inherently insecure in their thinking, that means a lot to them.

My mom thinks they are nuts.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
he doesn't appear nuts to most christians, except perhaps the most liberal ones. many consider his methods a little too abrasive but very few will argue he's got his scriptures mixed up or all wrong. if you're a biblical literalist, which many southern protestants in america are, he's very convincing. he's sort of the logical conclusion of that way of thinking. and if you accept his axioms (biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism, sola scriptura), and most evangelicals already do, then he's actually quite charismatic. i followed him because in my christian mind he made sense, and he was able to explain away a lot of the gray areas that make evangelicals so uncomfortable. he offers certainty, and since all evangelicals are inherently insecure in their thinking, that means a lot to them.

My mom thinks they are nuts.




i'm sorry if i should know this already, but is your mom a christian? what sort?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
he doesn't appear nuts to most christians, except perhaps the most liberal ones. many consider his methods a little too abrasive but very few will argue he's got his scriptures mixed up or all wrong. if you're a biblical literalist, which many southern protestants in america are, he's very convincing. he's sort of the logical conclusion of that way of thinking. and if you accept his axioms (biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism, sola scriptura), and most evangelicals already do, then he's actually quite charismatic. i followed him because in my christian mind he made sense, and he was able to explain away a lot of the gray areas that make evangelicals so uncomfortable. he offers certainty, and since all evangelicals are inherently insecure in their thinking, that means a lot to them.

My mom thinks they are nuts.


i'm sorry if i should know this already, but is your mom a christian? what sort?

She is a devoted catholic. Typical woman who grew up in NYC with nuns beating her with a stick. When I told her I didn't believe in god any more she didn't speak to me for two weeks. I mean... I lived in the same house as her. Can you imagine answering the phone "mom it is for you".... she wouldn't even acknowledge that I was there. "MOM! IT IS FOR YOU! TELEPHONE!" The house could have been burning down... "MOM! GET OUT OF THE HOUSE".... she would have ignored me.

She claims "once a catholic always a catholic". I asked why. She said, "you were baptized a catholic, raised catholic, etc... you will die a catholic".

So I said, "I reject the catholic church, the pope, their savior, their god"

She put her hands over her ears and did the "la la la la la la I'm not listening.. " bit.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:She is

digitalbeachbum wrote:
She is a devoted catholic. Typical woman who grew up in NYC with nuns beating her with a stick. When I told her I didn't believe in god any more she didn't speak to me for two weeks. I mean... I lived in the same house as her. Can you imagine answering the phone "mom it is for you".... she wouldn't even acknowledge that I was there. "MOM! IT IS FOR YOU! TELEPHONE!" The house could have been burning down... "MOM! GET OUT OF THE HOUSE".... she would have ignored me.

She claims "once a catholic always a catholic". I asked why. She said, "you were baptized a catholic, raised catholic, etc... you will die a catholic".

So I said, "I reject the catholic church, the pope, their savior, their god"

She put her hands over her ears and did the "la la la la la la I'm not listening.. " bit.

 




oh, well, if she's catholic of course she thinks comfort is nuts. catholics have a completely different view from protestants on almost EVERYTHING. contrary to the best intentions of ecumenicism, the differences are much more profound than the similarities. as a rule, catholicism is not a proselytizing religion. according to vatican ii, pretty much anyone can be "saved" as long as he lives his life well. they're not interested in convincing any other christian traditions to follow their way of thinking. pretty much the only things they try to push on others are the pro-life position and the "traditional" family. they're not even bothered by most of the vices that horrify protestants like drinking, and, while premarital sex is traditionally frowned upon, as long as you go to confession for it it's considered understandable. the only almost unforgivable sins for them are being openly gay, getting an abortion, or joining any other religion.


catholics are not biblical literalists (e.g., for them, adam and eve are allegorical), and thus they usually have no problem with evolution or a very old earth, and i know both john paul ii and francis openly endorsed those theories. comfort, being a biblical literalist, has major problems with both.


as for the bible, the majority of them aren't interested in making any sense out of it (that's for the church to do), nor do they usually use it as a weapon in debates like protestants do. as i'm sure you know, the bible is not the only, nor even the most relevant, source of spiritual knowledge for them.


comfort, on the other hand, is an evangelical protestant, bound to proselytize, who considers the bible the ONLY valid source of spiritual knowledge. for him, the catholic church is the antichrist, and one should actively try to win catholics for "biblical christianity." the catholic church, of course, takes a defensive position via other traditions: you leave ours alone and we'll leave yours alone. so of course your mother thinks comfort is a nut. most evangelicals, however, do not.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: oh, well, if

iwbiek wrote:

oh, well, if she's catholic of course she thinks comfort is nuts. catholics have a completely different view from protestants on almost EVERYTHING. contrary to the best intentions of ecumenicism, the differences are much more profound than the similarities. as a rule, catholicism is not a proselytizing religion. according to vatican ii, pretty much anyone can be "saved" as long as he lives his life well. they're not interested in convincing any other christian traditions to follow their way of thinking. pretty much the only things they try to push on others are the pro-life position and the "traditional" family. they're not even bothered by most of the vices that horrify protestants like drinking, and, while premarital sex is traditionally frowned upon, as long as you go to confession for it it's considered understandable. the only almost unforgivable sins for them are being openly gay, getting an abortion, or joining any other religion.
catholics are not biblical literalists (e.g., for them, adam and eve are allegorical), and thus they usually have no problem with evolution or a very old earth, and i know both john paul ii and francis openly endorsed those theories. comfort, being a biblical literalist, has major problems with both.
as for the bible, the majority of them aren't interested in making any sense out of it (that's for the church to do), nor do they usually use it as a weapon in debates like protestants do. as i'm sure you know, the bible is not the only, nor even the most relevant, source of spiritual knowledge for them.
comfort, on the other hand, is an evangelical protestant, bound to proselytize, who considers the bible the ONLY valid source of spiritual knowledge. for him, the catholic church is the antichrist, and one should actively try to win catholics for "biblical christianity." the catholic church, of course, takes a defensive position via other traditions: you leave ours alone and we'll leave yours alone. so of course your mother thinks comfort is a nut. most evangelicals, however, do not.

Yeah that is pretty much her. She on the other hand believes a lot in conspriacy therories. She also believes in miracles and holy relics.

Catholics have this mentality to believe in things which are physical but have no bearing on anything, nor do they have an scientific basis.

When I was in Costa Rica a while back my in-laws wanted to go see this site which "had a miracle". It was lame and dumb. Some bullshit about items being left or a doll. Then there was a spring which showed up and the water healed the sick. Scientists tested the water and found that it was city water, treated water.

The doll thing was completely bullshit and fabricated. When I heard it I nearly broke out in laughter and made my entire family look at me. People come from all over to touch and kiss the rock. People claim to be healed by the water. [facepalm] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartago,_Costa_Rica

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
yeah. in many ways

yeah. in many ways catholicism is what i call a "temple" religion. it emphasizes ritual, pilgrimage, priestly mediation, sacrifice (in the form of the eucharist), and veneration of images and relics. in this way, it's much more similar to the ancient mediterranean religions, hinduism, buddhism, and the east asian religions, than to protestantism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson