For a minute I thought you were talking about the guy from that other sitcom that was similar to "Growing Pains", the one with Alan Thicke as the father, and I was like wait, doesn't he have some degenerative disease?
Wait no, Thicke was in "Growing Pains". You know the one I'm talking about.
Good lord Clownae, are you talking about Michael J Fox?
You mean Michael J. Fox, Clownæ?
D'oh, gswift, you scourge. You realize you beat me to it only because I took care to get the ligature right, don't you?
And let's not forget Willie Aames from Charles in Charge, who became Bibleman.
Beware of the honkyfro. It's sign of Jesus on the brain.
The point remains, that "Facts of Life" and "Growing Pains" might as well have been the same show.
Facts of Life was far superior to Growing Pains. I used to watch Facts of Life and dream of running away to boarding school. It looked like so much fun!
The point remains, that "Facts of Life" and "Growing Pains" might as well have been the same show.
Dude, put the bong down. Fox was in Family Ties.
Michael J. Fox was on "Family Ties." Jesus, doesn't anyone besides Jesus use imdb any more?
Yeah Family Ties. Facts of Life, different from the other two.
Furthermore, if we're talking about shows which were both formally and narratively similar to "Growing Pains", then the Jason Bateman vehicle "Valerie" (aka "The Hogan Family") would be a better choice than "Family Ties", which at least initially had a focus on the generational quandries of Boomers relating to Xers that the other programs lacked.
I thought the video in the original post would have been much more interesting with Kotsko in the role of Mario.
Which one's Mario? Is this just a ploy to see Kotsko shirtless? Did you notice one of the gang members flipping off the camera around 1:20?
Here's what I don't get about the evangelical penetration into Hollywood: don't these guys (Cameron, Baldwin, etc.) realize that most of the people who work with them are either gay or Jewish or very close to lots of gays and Jews? Where's the percentage in pissing off so many of the people who, in ways both large and small, hold your dwindling career prospects in their hands? Also, who comes up with their titles? "The Way of the Master"(!?) What the hell is that supposed to be, some kind of Shaolin/S&M epic? These people are obviously both stupid and crazy.
Did anyone in Growing Pains have a glass eye? Also, how many shows were set in Oak Park, Illinois? I remember it seeming like a lot.
It's sort of sweet in that Kirk (on whom I had the obligatory teen crush on in the Growing Pains era... ) is clearly trying his best to not be condescending, yet doesn't quite succeed.
20 - Take a look at Cameron's IMDB entry; he hasn't done anything that isn't Christian-oriented or some sort of crappy "family" made-for-t.v. nonsense in ten years. This is his career now.
20, 23: Possibly because it's not about the percentage.
23 - Of course, but they still make use of the same production and distribution networks as everyone else. The most Christly Christer on those shows is probably no more than 3 degrees of separation from somebody dubbing porn tapes.
That's where the stupid comes in -- they're damning themselves to an eternity of TV loserdom.
Well, how was Cameron's career doing before he jumped into the Christian stuff? There might not have been much to throw away.
There are those who jump in for opportunistic reasons -- like the politicians who find Jesus, of at least his voting block. But some people jump in for sincere reasons, without regard to how it might affect their career.
Yes, I don't doubt that Kirk is a true believer.
I don't like that Kirk Cameron's first name is Kirk. Whenever I see "Kirk" I assume it's referring to Shatner.
the video is compelling. It's interesting that the basic psychology of proselytizing works even on a group of gang members. But on reflection it makes sense that some of the features it works on; gullibility, traditional belief, an inherent sense of guilt, a desire for something comforting, would be strong among the gang members. And, as kids sometimes act out because they want rules and leardership from their parents, the authoritarian image of god that Kirk peddles could be similarly appealing to social rebels.
I passed up the opportunity to get Left Behind: World at War, the second sequel to the original Left Behind movie -- yes, that's right, they're still making them -- because I ultimately decided that $5 was too much. It was damn close, though.
Compelling or not... what a stupid smug bastard. I hate listening to that hustlers's line, "Jesus died on the cross for your sins." What the fuck does that even mean?
Shut up, Kirk.
32: Oh come on, that's not fair. I agree he comes off as a bit smug. I don't personally go for that principle of sharing your faith by cornering random strangers on the street and condensing what God means to you into a few choice sound bites.
BUT "Jesus died on the cross for your sins," isn't some mere "hustlers line." It's the central premise of a religion shared by a sizable chunk of the world's population. What it means is something like, in the Christian faith, when you sin you incur a debt to God and Jesus' death on the cross served to pay that debt in a sense similar to the Old Testament tradition of sacrifice. Someone else could probably explain the deep theology of that better than I. My only real point is that the line is more than just a way to trrick people into converting.
when you sin you incur a debt to God and Jesus' death on the cross served to pay that debt
That sounds like a pretty classic con to me.
"Whoa there, don't you know how much trouble you almost got into? Good thing I was here to look out for you. Say, since I helped you out, can you do me a little favor...?"
34: Uh huh. And Kirk Cameron sounds smug and condescending... ?
I don't know about condescending, but smug, yes, and don't forget the "stupid" and "bastard" parts. And as long as we're talking about it, let me add "predatory," "brainwashed" and "pathetic" to the list.
You don't have to share the man's beliefs. You don't have to like his methods for sharing those beliefs. But the hostility toward all of Christianity your comments seem to reflect is surprising to me. I ultimately don't see how preaching to people that they need to get saved is any more distasteful than preaching to them that Christians are a bunch of ignorant, brainwashed turds.
I have to agree with cerebrocrat, basically. The cross stuff is, upon reflection, a completely rigged game.
1. You're damned by the all-powerful. Sorry, them's the rules.
2. But wait, here's a little sacrifice, which, by the rules, saves you.
3. You're in his debt. He's likes effusive praise and monetary commitment.
Where's the con? Well, who decided on the rules? So you've been had at stages 1 AND 2; a twofer.
Just b/c ppl more or less go along with this doesn't make it any less silly.
I say "more or less", btw, b/c certainly some Christians are aware of this game-rigging and for various reasons it doesn't destroy their faith.
And I know the tone of my above was a bit flippant, but the argument is serious. I've yet to see a decent reply to it, and I tend to provoke theology majors by bringing it up.
What it means is something like, in the Christian faith, when you sin you incur a debt to God and Jesus' death on the cross served to pay that debt
And then you owe him for that too!
apparently many readers of unfogged DO want to go to hell.
37: hostility toward all of Christianity
I don't know where you got that. I was talking about Kirk Cameron, and by extension, evangelizing protestants of the more aggressive varieties. I AM hostile to THEM because I think they're con artists and predators. If you want to try to sell me on your particular set of superstitions, hey, I like a good story. But if your pitch requires the strategies of confidence games, well, then you're a con artist. Creating an unearned sense of personal obligation in a mark is a confidence game. Targeting trapped or vulnerable people is predation. I dislike Cameron here for the same reason I hate people shouting Jesus at me on the subway, and for the same reason I hate ex-gay ministries that like to put speakers on college campuses to create false hope in confused young people. If your religion is so damn good then it shouldn't take manipulating people so ruthlessly to win converts.
What makes Cameron so loathesome here is that not only is he pulling a cheap con, not only does he exhibit the smug bliss of the brainwashed, but he's a sleazy showman as well. For whose benefit was this little stunt captured on video, I wonder, good-news-spreadin' little Kirk rappin' with the tough gang-bangers?
Christians in general, well, I do think a lot of Christian beliefs are pretty daffy, but as I no doubt hold my share of daffy beliefs, I try to be live-and-let-live about that.
42: I got the sense of hostility for the reduction of a fndamental tenet of mainstream Christianity -- "Jesus dies for your sins" -- to a "hustler's line."
I woouldn't try to sell you on my particular set of superstitions, mostly because I haven't really figured them out yet and would be a pretty weak salesperson. But also because I agree with you that faith is not a commodity to be bought and sold and that attitude is distasteful. I don't like Cameron's approach either because I think it reflects poorly on the faith he is espousing. And you make an excellent point about the filming of it.
But I find it more sad than loathsome, more misguided than malicious. If anyone was being conned, it was Cameron if he believed Mario was won over by that five minute, pre-school level introduction to Christianity.
The other day, a friend was talking about this science guy who made a comment like, "Anyone who claims to understand quantum physics doesn't understand quantum physics." I feel the same way about religion -- that, perhaps, is my article of faith. Thus, describing anyone's faith as "daffy" strikes me as a bit presumptuous.
Anyone who claims to understand quantum physics doesn't understand quantum physics.
Probably a misquote of Feynman. It's kind of outdated.
45: Really? People understand that shit now?
These people are obviously both stupid and crazy.
There are a lot of stupid people on the make around here, and a lot of 'em end up being precisely that kind of smug Christian.
reduction of a fndamental tenet of mainstream Christianity -- "Jesus dies for your sins" -- to a "hustler's line."
Bzzt, disagree. "Jesus dies for your sins" is a hustler's line, and a deliberate manipulation of one of Christianity's central tenents, which is that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. Stating that as "you" *is* accusatory, smug, and manipulative.
God, I can't even watch that video. Because he does sound smug and condescending.
"Okay, you gotta pass a test." (Says who?)
"Do you consider yourself a good person?" (Who's asking? Do you? My self-image isn't any of your business.)
I didn't get much beyond that.
46: It depends on what you mean by "understand." Are there issues that are open questions? Sure. Are there aspects of quantum mechanics that are counterintuitive? Sure. But to say that it's not "understandable" I think is archaic. I suspect Feynman was mugging for undergrads when he said that stuff.
Regardless, we're really entering a golden age of experiments that directly measure and test a lot of the stuff that for ages and ages was confined to the coffee-room natterings of professors emeriti who didn't need to worry about tenure.
47: I don't necessarily disagree with the distinction you are making, B, but I do sort of disagree that the distinction is intended as smug and accusatory. I think it's more just the difference in expression of communal vs. individualistic ways of thinking. And I think a very sizable segment of mainstream Christianity would choose the "died for *your* sins" formulations. Not necessarily to make everyone individually feel like crap for being such woebegone sinners, but to convey the personalized attention of God to the individual. Cameron is careful to point out "Jesus died for *your* sins -- and *mine*." It's not being conveyed in an accusatory manner, IMO. Just placing more emphasis on the individual than the community, which is rather typically American.
I suppose the bottom line is that it's far too complex to reduce to these five minute sound bites, which is why the approach doesn't work for me.
Okay, it may not be intended as smug and accusatory, and I know perfectly well that a lot of mainstream Christianity likes the "you" formulation. What I'm saying is that intention or no, it's smug and accusatory and manipulative. Preachers use that kinda shit for a reason.
Anyway, one of the other big things about Jesus is that bit about the plank in my eye making it tough for me to get the mote out of yours, and that tends to get conveniently forgotten with that whole prostletyzing thing.
51: Well, yeah. Big amen on that one.
People say peace, peace, but there is no peace. I come not to bring peace, but the sword.
I hate this whole routine where Kirk and his ilk say, "Have you ever lied? What does that make you? Have you ever stolen something? What does that make you?" They use it all the time like it proves something deep and meaningful instead of being a stupid little rhetorical trick.
As someone else noted somewhere else, the correct response to this is, "Have you ever lost something, Kirk? What does that make you?"
"'Okay, you gotta pass a test.' (Says who?)"
Sez Kirk. That was the qualification for the twenty bucks. Personally, I find Kirk's o-earnestness a bit charming, in the same way that I find Althouse a bit charming.
As for smug preaching, generally I'm against it, but I've basically given up the fight, at least on this forum.
It would be great to see someone play along with Kirk's little test and trip him up on ethical quandries, for example:
"Have you ever lied?"
"Yes. A man broke into my house and asked me if there were any women around for him to rape. My wife was upstairs in the bedroom, but I lied and said "No." Am I going to Hell for that?
"Umm... well... yes, but Jesus has provided —"
"I see. Your religious beliefs are therefore of no interest to me. Good day, sir."
that bit about the plank in my eye making it tough for me to get the mote out of yours, and that tends to get conveniently forgotten with that whole prostletyzing thing.
It's not forgotten. They're selling something, and "Who am I to tell you anything?" isn't going to get people to part with their time and cash.
Of course, it simply isn't true that having told one, two, or n lies makes one a liar.
#48: This is the second thing so far that B and I agree on. The other was that people who got hired due to nepotism shouldn't sleep on the job because it looks bad.
I'm keeping track of these things.
Similarly, having corrected other commenters' spelling and grammatical errors one, two, or n times does not, in and of itself, make one a little bitch.
Of course, it simply isn't true that having told one, two, or n lies makes one a liar.
Then what does make one a liar?
You can't just count lies told without also taking into account opportunites to lie.
So: if lies/opportunities is greater than 1/3, you're a liar.
That's a complicated question, ogged, but if you think for a while, I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion I have.
Show ogged your beetle, Ben.
I'm not even prepared to show him my box.
Turning again to statistics, what I've described, the Lie Average, isn't actually a good way to measure a person's overall dishonesty. For that, you'd need something more sophisticated, like Jill Bames's "Deceit Created" figure, the formula for which presently escapes me.
I think it has to do with the motivation for lying, rather then number of lies told. One really sinister lie told out of pure avarice or malice could make one a liar, whereas morally justifiable lies (see my #57, supra), no matter how many, not.
We're machines buffeted by chance, GB. Intent doesn't matter.
Curious misspelling of "Internet".
Especially smooth liars often hang out in groups. As is the case with such social groups, they tend to adopt similar mannerisms and styles of dress, with the result that many of them together are easily differentiated from nonliars—ironically enough, this makes it easier to avoid being suckered by their lies.
"Box" is so my favorite slangy term for girl bits.
No, rfts, you're doing it wrong. Let's take it from the top.
"Box" isn't rfts' favorite slangy term for girl bits.
Ok, now you go. Remember to get the emphasis right this time!
Very well, "Box" is SO my favorite slangy term for girl bits!
But! Good job, redfox! I'll release the small mammals posthaste.
I hear John Barth's working on a sequel to The Night-Sea Journey
to be called q>The Womb Annals.
I've never seen that work before.
FISHES CAUGHT FRESH
DAILY
Kirk? David Wilkerson called. He wants his movie back.
A very interesting feature of those curly quotes is that they cannot be highlighted by dragging your mouse's arrow over them. Any idea why?
What's even more interesting is that despite being curly quotes, they consist entirely of short vertical lines. This truly blurs the boundaries of expectation and terminology.
A very interesting feature of those curly quotes is that they cannot be highlighted by dragging your mouse's arrow over them. Any idea why?
Probably because they aren't part of the text rendered, but part of the rendering itself.
Why, you aren't just a knave, you're a Jack Chick Satan!
Mammals should be kept in the box and masturbated whenever ethically necessary. If they are allowed to escape their orgasms are not credited to your utils account.
Aren't the nested ones supposed to alternate?
108 and 109 are supposed to alternate.
Let me, make you smile.
Let me do a few tricks, some old and then some new tricks, I'm very versatile.
As the one remaining person who works in Sales™ and can afford to comment on this blog, I should point out: asking questions is a basic Sales™ technique. Sell, sell, sell.
That might be why he's named Kirk. That might be why he's selling. God, eventually, will tell us which came first.
60: That's very touching, GB, but unlikely to get you into my pants.
Speaking of mammals in boxes, Micky--whose tumor mysteriously disappeared--now has a cough. I'd like to see Kirk explain this one. Why must my son's mice be constantly in crisis?
Oh shit, I shoulda seen that one coming.
We must crucify one mouse. I won't tell you which one. But choose wisely. This is really important. Future mice will thank you.
In the last few weeks I had the chance to listen to a recording of Kirk on a Christian show (I can't remember if it was broadcast, podcast, etc.) to talk about his seeeekrit infiltration of a seeeeekrit group of self-styled DuridsDruids. They were, he salaciously reported, creepy Satanists who don't even realize they're worshiping the Devil! His evidence that they're so creepy, it turned out, was the way they met out in the woods and they had a campfire and they refused to tell him that their beliefs were superior to anyone else's. (Yes, he considered the latter one of the things that made them creepy.)
He even took a camera and a recorder to capture it all for posterity and in the process recorded himself promising the group who had allowed him to observe that he wasn't in any way recording them; this makes the "have you ever told a lie?" thing even more delicious to me. When telling his host about his little adventure he thought himself very clever for having lied about the recording equipment.
So he's a clown and a loon? I avoided following the link, figuring from the comments this was standard-issue cross-and-switchblade stuff. Worse than that, I guess. Can't they put him on B/st D/mn Sp/rts/ Sh/w or something?
When telling his host about his little adventure he thought himself very clever for having lied about the recording equipment.
Yeah, but he's just gonna get Jesus to forgive him for lying! Joke's on you, sucka!