There is one thing that O'Reily said that I am forced to agree with (did I really just say that?) and thats the fact that Christianity and Science are not mutually exclusive. Of course, he himself have behaved in a way that shows he doesn't actually believe that, but it's one fact that remains true. Those on both sides that seem to think the existence of the other is somehow detrimental to humanity really needs a smack in the face.
Bill O Reliy vs science ..... i don't beleive this
how many more wannabe politically enlightened douches are gonna post videos forums about Fox News?
also, i used to have a lot of respect for the young turks, but that show has shown its true colors more than once to me and they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites acting like fucking know-it-alls.
@Red said:
"There is no doubt in my mind that Bill O'Reilly is a complete and utter moron. I believe in God, and I think both of these people need to stop trying to shove their own opinion down other peoples' throats. I'm not opposed to having schools teach the Theory of Evolution, because it is a theory, but the moral superiority the christian side feels just because they believe in God is a little bit ridiculous. However, even though Bill O'Reilly's manipulating slimery is offensive to my brain, Richard Dawkins' phrasing makes it seem like everyone who doesn't believe in science's way of explaining things is an idiot that denies "fact". Practically nothing in this world is fact, and trying to make others think your opinion is fact appalls me, as I've said countless times. "
Agreed. ++respect
I consider myself rather conservative, but Fox is ''lolwhut'' Also, O'Reilly doesn't please fcking anyone. He just offended most Christians because he said he believes evolution,but he offended Athiests by everything else he said.
" @turbomonkey138 said:I just die a little inside.Fox News continues to destroy every other cable news network in the United States in the ratings. It's not going anywhere. "What i think is why this news channel is allowed anymore . "
I dunno why you would. On the whole, most people don't get their news from cable news networks, which is good, because people who get their news from cable news networks are pretty dumb for doing that. Being the leader in a pack of rats isn't something to be proud of. MSNBC and CNN are pretty big jokes, too. Who's the most popular clown in the room? Who cares?
" @AgentJ said:There've been some ass backwards atheists too. Mao and Pol Pot for instance. That doesn't make me want to not be an atheist anymore." @Akeldama said:the fact that someone as completely ass backwards as Bill believes in a god means i never will. He deserves to be weeded out Darwin style. "" one more reason for me never to be a Christian "Hey, don't blame Christians or Conservatives for guys like O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and limbaugh. Blame the modern Republican party. "
Anyway, O'Reily just said he didn't believe Jesus was God. He just throws his lot in with them because they give the illusion of certainty about the origins of life.
" @Akeldama said:He said he "wasn't sure" whether Jesus was God, though that statement wouldn't make sense even if he was sure, since Jesus isn't God. He's gods son if anything. Besides, like the video said that could just be O'Reilly trying to make himself sound reasonable. Its a common debate tactic, and he knows what he's doing" @AgentJ said:There've been some ass backwards atheists too. Mao and Pol Pot for instance. That doesn't make me want to not be an atheist anymore. Anyway, O'Reily just said he didn't believe Jesus was God. He just throws his lot in with them because they give the illusion of certainty about the origins of life. "" @Akeldama said:the fact that someone as completely ass backwards as Bill believes in a god means i never will. He deserves to be weeded out Darwin style. "" one more reason for me never to be a Christian "Hey, don't blame Christians or Conservatives for guys like O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and limbaugh. Blame the modern Republican party. "
Roger Ebert put it about O'Riley best.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html
" Roger Ebert put it about O'Riley best. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html "That was fantastic. Thanks for the link
"Watching fox is committing intellectual suicide. "
Yep, and my political philosophy is take whatever Bill O'reilley says, and do the opposite.
And we do know how it all got here, its called the fucking big bang........ even major religons are beginning to recognize that as part of their teachings. And science has ethics and morals, as do religons. Basically, when i rule the world, im tearing down Fox News.
" how many more wannabe politically enlightened douches are gonna post videos forums about Fox News? also, i used to have a lot of respect for the young turks, but that show has shown its true colors more than once to me and they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites acting like fucking know-it-alls. "That is why I unsuscribed
Hasn't this been dealt with already?
Oh, yeah:
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/7852/1086255-orlyfactor_thumb.jpg
Here's a concept for everybody here obviously throwing around bait for flame wars: if you don't like politics, don't talk about them at all. Leave the selfish fools to fade away in obscurity.
I think this thread is ready to be locked now.
" @TwoOneFive said:no, its just that everyday somebody else decides to post something about Fox News. WE GET IT. FOX NEWS IS BIAS AND DUMB. move along now." how many more wannabe politically enlightened douches are gonna post videos forums about Fox News? "So because someone talks about a subject that you have a problem with they are a 'wannabe politically enlightened douche'? "
Keep in mind that "God's Son" is an example of misinterpretation. Phrases like "fear of God" and "Son of God" are different in today's understanding.
"Son" in the case you've mentioned was most likely a meaning along the lines of "an aspect of (or other part)" or something similar. This example might be a reason that some of the arguments against the modern Bible aren't very good ones. If the Bible was written today as a modern record with nearly identical meanings using well accepted language, these arguments probably wouldn't hold water much better to many people that follow it. I do not believe in entirety the Gospels' teachings, but I do believe that a significant deal of it is factual. What would help us most is to know a little of the background of these records and who (even unintentionally) changed them...and why. We can most likely assume that some of it is based on other well regarded notions.
It's not so different from other histories' being rewritten to suit the times...and much of those histories were factual too. Where do we find real truth? I don't know, but starting with interpretation is one way.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment