LOL. I love how O'Reilly puts the Bible quote in context, acting like he scored points. So we aren't supposed to kill people for working on the Sabbath, God will take care of that. Umm, that's STILL crazy and immoral.
The old testament was a theocracy for the jews specifically. it is not meant for gentiles. additionally now that the new covenant is in place, the old is obselete and even the jews are no longer unter the mosaic covenant. so the whole "so we should kill homosexuals, and adulterers then..." is a straw man argument. not that i expect less from atheists.
John: Indeed. At least in the OT, when you were killed, that was the end of it. Under the new covenant, you face an eternity of torture, based not on deeds but on beliefs. Even MORE crazy and immoral.
Maher and O'Reily have succeeded in lowering the level of religious discourse in a mere 7 minutes. I could be happy never listening to them at all, I think.
So if the OT was only meant for the Jews and not the Gentiles does that mean that the commandments don't apply since it was part of the OT. Matthew's Jesus seems to think you must follow the law even in you are a gentile. That's fine if you don't think so but there are plenty Christians out there who still think they are under the OT covenant.
Bill conveniently forgot to mention what happened to the first sabbath breaker in Numbers chapter 15. God commanded the people to stone him to death; which they did. He should read his bible more before he speaks.
martin, you are mistaken as to the reason for condemnation, it is not for lack of belief, it is for the sins committed. you are rescued by your trust in the Savior. your representation is like saying someone dies not from a disease, but from lack of a doctor and medicine.
jason, youre right, most, the majority of christians do not properly understand the scope and function of the old covenant.
I love how Christians deny the applicability & reliablity of the OT even though they constantly use (& in deed require) it to justify the existance of their religion.
Without an Adam & Eve & origianl sin there is zero reason for a saviour.
The OT is quote mined for 'prophecies' that are taken out of context to show how Jesus was mandated by Yahweh (who is never mentioned by name in the NT) to come & save the believers.
And of course the OT laws are negated by Jesus except for the ones the believers like that justify hating gays, demeaning women, starting holy wars, etc.
you should read a systematic theology sometime. while some christians are mistaken in their views as to the scope and relevance does not mean all are mistaken. you however are very mistaken on nearly everything you said in your post.
I find it ridiculously silly that Christians say the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament and then paste the 10 commandments everywhere and work on Sundays in direct violation of the 10th commandment.
Of course, Christians who claim the Old Testament was for the Jews are only speaking of their version of Christianity. Reconstructionists want "every jot and tittle" (apparently) of the Old Testament to apply to modern life. Blasphemers, the unchaste, homosexuals, witches, unruly teenagers and people who work on Sundays should be stoned to death. How would you like to live in a world run by these "Christians?"
Brad, I agree. I found the exchange hard to watch.
OK, so all of you arguing whether the old testament counts anymore are really not seeing the forest for the trees. At best you are proposing a God who once thought it was ok to kill women for getting raped and refusing tho marry the rapist, or punish basically everything with death . . . that doesn't really jive with your all loving unchanging account of God guys.
Considering he puts himself up as an America-wide mouthpiece (not the size of his mouth but his media footprint) for his religion I find O'Reilly's ignorance of the bible quite staggering.
O'Reilly actually manages to make an important point (unintentionally, I'm sure). It really is a mistake to equate the Bible with Christianity. I think it's hard for us to escape this thinking because many of us who were brought up as Protestants have this idea that there is a biblical ideal of Christianity that exists like some pie in the sky no matter what it is that Christianity is actually practicing.
But I think ultimately if you're going to criticize religion, you have to criticize what Christians actually believe, rather than what you think they should believe based upon the Bible. Of course, there are plenty of people whose faith will be cut out from under them if they learn that the Bible is flawed, but as we saw in this clip, it doesn't mean anything to people like O'Reilly.
I watched the video for a few of minutes of a couple of blowhards attempting to boost each others' ratings. Enough of that.
It's a ridiculous game, pointing out contradictions and the crazy rules in the Bible. Do you also spend time arguing whether Santa Claus can deliver toys to children who live in houses without chimneys?
Pity Maher didn't mention in response to O'Reilly's statement that Christians follow the NT that condemnation of homosexuality is based on the OT(Leviticus)...
Atheists like to mock Christians by accusing them of not obeying God’s law regarding stoning an adulterous person. Or they like to say that we should be killing all the people in the next town over because that’s what the Bible tells us to do.
I think they actually believe what they’re saying.
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus touch dead bodies
If the law was still in effect, why didn’t Jesus wash before eating
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus harvest on the Sabbath
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus touch people with leprosy
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus turn ceremonial water it into wine
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus touch an unclean (bleeding) woman.
All these laws Jesus ignored but held in high esteem the law that marriage was between a man and a woman and that marriage should not be broken apart.
All these laws Jesus ignored but also said that He came to fulfill the law which could be narrowed to two points: . Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and . Love your neighbour as yourself.
Why do atheists advocate keeping the dietary, cleanliness and holy day laws (which Jesus ignored) while advocating breaking God’s law regarding marriage and love (which Jesus upheld)?
Why do atheists advocate keeping the dietary, cleanliness and holy day laws (which Jesus ignored) while advocating breaking God’s law regarding marriage and love (which Jesus upheld)?
I'm looking for consistency. If a Christian cites the laws regarding ceremonial uncleanliness in Leviticus as the reason why homosexuality is an abomination, then it would seem that the other sections in Leviticus on how to maintain ritual purity should carry some weight.
Conversely, many Christians have no problem getting a divorce, even though Jesus specifically stated that if you get divorced and remarry, you are committing adultery.
To echo ildi: Asking Christians to be consistent in construing and applying “god’s laws” is not the same as “advocating” any of them. “Atheism” doesn’t take a position on religious “laws” other than they are almost certainly promulgated by men, not God.
On the other hand, the fact that countless “Christians” continue to argue potential constructions and applications clearly demonstrates it is "Christianity" that is hopelessly confused.
"Conversely, many Christians have no problem getting a divorce, even though Jesus specifically stated that if you get divorced and remarry, you are committing adultery."
And they're wrong. What's your point?
My point is that all through the New Testament the writers clearly and emphatically portray a salvation that has nothing to do with the levitical laws regarding a host of things.
Sexual purity within the safety bounds of a male/female marriage was not one of those exceptions and Jesus made that perfectly clear.
If atheists were not so terrified of the New Testament they would know this.
In order to maintain their hostility toward their Creator, atheists instead burrow into Deuteronomy and Leviticus, did a rut a deep as possible and stay there.
Sexual purity within the safety bounds of a male/female marriage was not one of those exceptions and Jesus made that perfectly clear.
No, really, that's about all he had to say about marriage, that remarrying was adultery.
If atheists were not so terrified of the New Testament they would know this.
In order to maintain their hostility toward their Creator, atheists instead burrow into Deuteronomy and Leviticus, did a rut a deep as possible and stay there.
I'm definitely less afraid of hippie Jesus who smites fig trees when they're out of season (such a moody young man; but then, it's not an easy on the nerves to try to lead a political revolt), than of that old psychotic despot Yahweh who loves him some smell of burning flesh in the morning, and who orders murder and genocide on a regular basis.
Thesauros, FYI most of us are not hostile toward your maker, because we don't believe your maker exists (by definition, eh)
If we are hostile, it's toward the ignorance and head-in-the-sand attitudes of supposed Christians who claim to believe the bible is inerrant, inspired, etc. and yet are unaware of its immorality, amorality, inconsistency, and downright silliness. They also seem to be unaware of their own hypocrisy, e.g. citing Leviticus about (male) homosexuality (penis-in-bum acts only) being an 'abomination' yet throwing out the other parts that don't support their own prejudices.
Having to live amongst you dullards frustrates us enormously, and that frustration can come out as "hostility toward" your "creator."
Thesauros, I think you misunderstand the common atheist point regarding the old testament.
If one is to claim that the entire scripture is inspired by an unchanging, eternal and infallible god then the barbarity and clearly uncivilized standards of the old testament speak clearly against that claim regardless of whether they're still in force for any group. The fact that they were ever in force denies the validity of the claim of divine inspiration.
Regarding what rules are actually in force it is extremely confusing. There is the Mosaic law, Jesus' teachings and Paul's teachings. The three conflict. Jesus ignored the old law at times, yet honored it at others. Jesus taught that works were what mattered, Paul spoke of faith.
At the end of the day therefore it doesn't matter which doctrine you follow. If you claim divine inspiration for a book of eternal morality you should not be able to find it condoning rape, slavery, murder or genocide. Period.
If you claim divine inspiration for a book of eternal morality you should not be able to find it condoning rape, slavery, murder or genocide. Period.
Actually this is what I would expect from a collection of ancient myths that reflect the mores of a Bronze Age middle-eastern ethnic group competing with their neighbors for resources. It would be strange indeed if their writings reflected negatively on the then accepted tactics of slavery, rape, and genocide or ignored the purity superstions.
I've never seen such an idiot as Maher rant and people actually hail him...
Not only did he get the scripture wrong about the Sabbath taking it totally out of context he also doesn't know when Sabbath was...It wasn't Sunday, it was Friday evening to Saturday evening, had nothing to do with Sunday...what an idiot.
Secondly, he has a problem with the "disavowing" of the Old Testament, so he only reads the part of the bible that "he thinks" bolsters his case, and then takes that completely out of context...He never got to any the Gospels where Jesus says that he IS the "rest" (ie: Sabbath), that he fulfills the OT for righteousness or the other parts that state that the OT was simply a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ...he certainly is a comical genius, or imbecile, depending upon your perspective... I vie for the latter.
Then to redefine faith as "purposeful suspension of critical thinking" what an idiotic statement...Under that definition everything we normally do, we do by faith...Does anyone critically think, when they turn the ignition or press the start button in their car, or how about flip the light switch...don't we all purposefully suspend our critical thinking to do life's ordinary tasks...to take that type of "scholarship" seriously is the purposeful suspension of a brain!
Then my favorite...we don't believe anything unless we're "told to" or unless "we read it in a book"...OK smartypants, who told you that and what books do you read to bolster your weak faith??? Insert foot in mouthitis.
This interview certainly doesn't debunk anything John but it does reveal bias and unfounded assertions gone wild...If Maher is an atheist champion, the church and religion in general is in better shape than ever!
Harv, what difference does the date of the sabbath make? Maher is an atheist so you can't expect him to know the ins and the outs of the Bible perfectly. Have you studied every other religious text to know they are all bullsh*t?
Anyway as to your actual point that might have some merit, Jesus said he "fulfilled" the law - not abolished it. Look up what fulfill means - abolish has nothing to do with it - make whole does. In other words he's adding on to what the law says, not subtracting from it.
As to the rest of the video, I believe it captures perfectly the best and worst examples of Christianity in Bill O'Reilly. He clearly doesn't know anything about the Bible. He clearly doesn't understand that a large percentage of Christians do take the Bible literally (I bet ol' Harv does). And his mock outrage at being insulted (all the while insulting Maher by saying no one watches his show) is classic ignorant Christian. Thanks O'Reilly for showing everyone how "true Christians" really behave! Ha.
This was a goddamn disgrace. A ratings ploy, pure and simple. Fox didn't really care how this turned out, O'Reilly didn't really care how it turned out, all he had to do was talk a little louder for a little longer duration than Maher and the network that believes Glenn Beck is a real journalist can claim a little spike in ratings. This is why debates have a specific arena and setting.
I laughed so hard when Bill O'Wrongly said that if Jesus was running the country, blah, blah, blah. . . If Jesus (the one we read about in the NT) was running this country, the first thing he would do would be to slaughter all of the Christians! Look, I read it in the NT:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34 NIV
It's so bloody amusing watching the christians coming here and making excuses for the Old Covenant and how it's now obsolete because Jesus brought a New and Improved Covenant.
You all are plain admitting that God thought better of the original one which was dense with blood sacrifice (oops, so was the next covenant!!), killing and the like, and decided to draw up a new one which was a little more in keeping with evolving societal standards.
Why the hell didn't he give a better one the first time around? Not omniscient? If you folks only knew how silly you look to rational people, trying as you do to make this covenant bullshit smell good.
"Maher and O'Reily have succeeded in lowering the level of religious discourse in a mere 7 minutes."
lol! I couldn't have said it better myself! Although I do like to watch O'Reilly from time to time, unfortunately, he's out of his area of expertise when it comes to discussing religion. Bill Maher isn't exactly the brightest athiest in the box, either. O'Reilly should have had William Lane Craig or some other apologist on to spar with Maher. Maher appeared totally bored and totally unconvinced. He probably got some good fodder for his show, too.
36 comments:
LOL. I love how O'Reilly puts the Bible quote in context, acting like he scored points. So we aren't supposed to kill people for working on the Sabbath, God will take care of that. Umm, that's STILL crazy and immoral.
The old testament was a theocracy for the jews specifically. it is not meant for gentiles. additionally now that the new covenant is in place, the old is obselete and even the jews are no longer unter the mosaic covenant. so the whole "so we should kill homosexuals, and adulterers then..." is a straw man argument. not that i expect less from atheists.
John: Indeed. At least in the OT, when you were killed, that was the end of it. Under the new covenant, you face an eternity of torture, based not on deeds but on beliefs. Even MORE crazy and immoral.
Ugh, I hate cable news.
Maher and O'Reily have succeeded in lowering the level of religious discourse in a mere 7 minutes. I could be happy never listening to them at all, I think.
So if the OT was only meant for the Jews and not the Gentiles does that mean that the commandments don't apply since it was part of the OT. Matthew's Jesus seems to think you must follow the law even in you are a gentile. That's fine if you don't think so but there are plenty Christians out there who still think they are under the OT covenant.
Bill conveniently forgot to mention what happened to the first sabbath breaker in Numbers chapter 15. God commanded the people to stone him to death; which they did. He should read his bible more before he speaks.
You think he would after the results of the last Pew poll.
martin, you are mistaken as to the reason for condemnation, it is not for lack of belief, it is for the sins committed. you are rescued by your trust in the Savior. your representation is like saying someone dies not from a disease, but from lack of a doctor and medicine.
jason, youre right, most, the majority of christians do not properly understand the scope and function of the old covenant.
http://truthinreligionandpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/laying-down-the-law/
this is my article on the issue, sorry if this is a double post, but the screen changed as i was clicking "post comment"
I love how Christians deny the applicability & reliablity of the OT even though they constantly use (& in deed require) it to justify the existance of their religion.
Without an Adam & Eve & origianl sin there is zero reason for a saviour.
The OT is quote mined for 'prophecies' that are taken out of context to show how Jesus was mandated by Yahweh (who is never mentioned by name in the NT) to come & save the believers.
And of course the OT laws are negated by Jesus except for the ones the believers like that justify hating gays, demeaning women, starting holy wars, etc.
busterggi
you should read a systematic theology sometime. while some christians are mistaken in their views as to the scope and relevance does not mean all are mistaken. you however are very mistaken on nearly everything you said in your post.
I find it ridiculously silly that Christians say the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament and then paste the 10 commandments everywhere and work on Sundays in direct violation of the 10th commandment.
Of course, Christians who claim the Old Testament was for the Jews are only speaking of their version of Christianity. Reconstructionists want "every jot and tittle" (apparently) of the Old Testament to apply to modern life. Blasphemers, the unchaste, homosexuals, witches, unruly teenagers and people who work on Sundays should be stoned to death. How would you like to live in a world run by these "Christians?"
Brad, I agree. I found the exchange hard to watch.
OK, so all of you arguing whether the old testament counts anymore are really not seeing the forest for the trees. At best you are proposing a God who once thought it was ok to kill women for getting raped and refusing tho marry the rapist, or punish basically everything with death . . . that doesn't really jive with your all loving unchanging account of God guys.
~Rhaco
Considering he puts himself up as an America-wide mouthpiece (not the size of his mouth but his media footprint) for his religion I find O'Reilly's ignorance of the bible quite staggering.
O'Reilly actually manages to make an important point (unintentionally, I'm sure). It really is a mistake to equate the Bible with Christianity. I think it's hard for us to escape this thinking because many of us who were brought up as Protestants have this idea that there is a biblical ideal of Christianity that exists like some pie in the sky no matter what it is that Christianity is actually practicing.
But I think ultimately if you're going to criticize religion, you have to criticize what Christians actually believe, rather than what you think they should believe based upon the Bible. Of course, there are plenty of people whose faith will be cut out from under them if they learn that the Bible is flawed, but as we saw in this clip, it doesn't mean anything to people like O'Reilly.
I watched the video for a few of minutes of a couple of blowhards attempting to boost each others' ratings. Enough of that.
It's a ridiculous game, pointing out contradictions and the crazy rules in the Bible. Do you also spend time arguing whether Santa Claus can deliver toys to children who live in houses without chimneys?
Pity Maher didn't mention in response to O'Reilly's statement that Christians follow the NT that condemnation of homosexuality is based on the OT(Leviticus)...
I wonder how many people bought the "that was Exodus, not Deut." line and actually thought he already lost.
Probably all believers said, "See, he was wrong."
No wonder Bill is a Yahwehist. He hasn't actually read the Bible.
Do you also spend time arguing whether Santa Claus can deliver toys to children who live in houses without chimneys?
Ya - well how DOES he do that?
Atheists like to mock Christians by accusing them of not obeying God’s law regarding stoning an adulterous person. Or they like to say that we should be killing all the people in the next town over because that’s what the Bible tells us to do.
I think they actually believe what they’re saying.
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus touch dead bodies
If the law was still in effect, why didn’t Jesus wash before eating
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus harvest on the Sabbath
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus touch people with leprosy
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus turn ceremonial water it into wine
If the law was still in effect, why did Jesus touch an unclean (bleeding) woman.
All these laws Jesus ignored but held in high esteem the law that marriage was between a man and a woman and that marriage should not be broken apart.
All these laws Jesus ignored but also said that He came to fulfill the law which could be narrowed to two points:
. Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and
. Love your neighbour as yourself.
Why do atheists advocate keeping the dietary, cleanliness and holy day laws (which Jesus ignored) while advocating breaking God’s law regarding marriage and love (which Jesus upheld)?
Atheism, confusing to the core.
Why do atheists advocate keeping the dietary, cleanliness and holy day laws (which Jesus ignored) while advocating breaking God’s law regarding marriage and love (which Jesus upheld)?
I'm looking for consistency. If a Christian cites the laws regarding ceremonial uncleanliness in Leviticus as the reason why homosexuality is an abomination, then it would seem that the other sections in Leviticus on how to maintain ritual purity should carry some weight.
Conversely, many Christians have no problem getting a divorce, even though Jesus specifically stated that if you get divorced and remarry, you are committing adultery.
@thesauros
To echo ildi: Asking Christians to be consistent in construing and applying “god’s laws” is not the same as “advocating” any of them. “Atheism” doesn’t take a position on religious “laws” other than they are almost certainly promulgated by men, not God.
On the other hand, the fact that countless “Christians” continue to argue potential constructions and applications clearly demonstrates it is "Christianity" that is hopelessly confused.
"Conversely, many Christians have no problem getting a divorce, even though Jesus specifically stated that if you get divorced and remarry, you are committing adultery."
And they're wrong. What's your point?
My point is that all through the New Testament the writers clearly and emphatically portray a salvation that has nothing to do with the levitical laws regarding a host of things.
Sexual purity within the safety bounds of a male/female marriage was not one of those exceptions and Jesus made that perfectly clear.
If atheists were not so terrified of the New Testament they would know this.
In order to maintain their hostility toward their Creator, atheists instead burrow into Deuteronomy and Leviticus, did a rut a deep as possible and stay there.
Bill has not the slightest bit of Bible knowledge. "You have to kill those who work on the Sabbath? Was that Romans?"
ROFL!!
Sexual purity within the safety bounds of a male/female marriage was not one of those exceptions and Jesus made that perfectly clear.
No, really, that's about all he had to say about marriage, that remarrying was adultery.
If atheists were not so terrified of the New Testament they would know this.
In order to maintain their hostility toward their Creator, atheists instead burrow into Deuteronomy and Leviticus, did a rut a deep as possible and stay there.
I'm definitely less afraid of hippie Jesus who smites fig trees when they're out of season (such a moody young man; but then, it's not an easy on the nerves to try to lead a political revolt), than of that old psychotic despot Yahweh who loves him some smell of burning flesh in the morning, and who orders murder and genocide on a regular basis.
Thesauros, FYI most of us are not hostile toward your maker, because we don't believe your maker exists (by definition, eh)
If we are hostile, it's toward the ignorance and head-in-the-sand attitudes of supposed Christians who claim to believe the bible is inerrant, inspired, etc. and yet are unaware of its immorality, amorality, inconsistency, and downright silliness. They also seem to be unaware of their own hypocrisy, e.g. citing Leviticus about (male) homosexuality (penis-in-bum acts only) being an 'abomination' yet throwing out the other parts that don't support their own prejudices.
Having to live amongst you dullards frustrates us enormously, and that frustration can come out as "hostility toward" your "creator."
Thesauros, I think you misunderstand the common atheist point regarding the old testament.
If one is to claim that the entire scripture is inspired by an unchanging, eternal and infallible god then the barbarity and clearly uncivilized standards of the old testament speak clearly against that claim regardless of whether they're still in force for any group. The fact that they were ever in force denies the validity of the claim of divine inspiration.
Regarding what rules are actually in force it is extremely confusing. There is the Mosaic law, Jesus' teachings and Paul's teachings. The three conflict. Jesus ignored the old law at times, yet honored it at others. Jesus taught that works were what mattered, Paul spoke of faith.
At the end of the day therefore it doesn't matter which doctrine you follow. If you claim divine inspiration for a book of eternal morality you should not be able to find it condoning rape, slavery, murder or genocide. Period.
Derek, you write,
If you claim divine inspiration for a book of eternal morality you should not be able to find it condoning rape, slavery, murder or genocide. Period.
Actually this is what I would expect from a collection of ancient myths that reflect the mores of a Bronze Age middle-eastern ethnic group competing with their neighbors for resources. It would be strange indeed if their writings reflected negatively on the then accepted tactics of slavery, rape, and genocide or ignored the purity superstions.
"God would handle this situation."
And he did,by ordering Moses and his people to stone the man,who picked up sticks on sabbath.
I've never seen such an idiot as Maher rant and people actually hail him...
Not only did he get the scripture wrong about the Sabbath taking it totally out of context he also doesn't know when Sabbath was...It wasn't Sunday, it was Friday evening to Saturday evening, had nothing to do with Sunday...what an idiot.
Secondly, he has a problem with the "disavowing" of the Old Testament, so he only reads the part of the bible that "he thinks" bolsters his case, and then takes that completely out of context...He never got to any the Gospels where Jesus says that he IS the "rest" (ie: Sabbath), that he fulfills the OT for righteousness or the other parts that state that the OT was simply a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ...he certainly is a comical genius, or imbecile, depending upon your perspective... I vie for the latter.
Then to redefine faith as "purposeful suspension of critical thinking" what an idiotic statement...Under that definition everything we normally do, we do by faith...Does anyone critically think, when they turn the ignition or press the start button in their car, or how about flip the light switch...don't we all purposefully suspend our critical thinking to do life's ordinary tasks...to take that type of "scholarship" seriously is the purposeful suspension of a brain!
Then my favorite...we don't believe anything unless we're "told to" or unless "we read it in a book"...OK smartypants, who told you that and what books do you read to bolster your weak faith??? Insert foot in mouthitis.
This interview certainly doesn't debunk anything John but it does reveal bias and unfounded assertions gone wild...If Maher is an atheist champion, the church and religion in general is in better shape than ever!
Later
Harv, what difference does the date of the sabbath make? Maher is an atheist so you can't expect him to know the ins and the outs of the Bible perfectly. Have you studied every other religious text to know they are all bullsh*t?
Anyway as to your actual point that might have some merit, Jesus said he "fulfilled" the law - not abolished it. Look up what fulfill means - abolish has nothing to do with it - make whole does. In other words he's adding on to what the law says, not subtracting from it.
As to the rest of the video, I believe it captures perfectly the best and worst examples of Christianity in Bill O'Reilly. He clearly doesn't know anything about the Bible. He clearly doesn't understand that a large percentage of Christians do take the Bible literally (I bet ol' Harv does). And his mock outrage at being insulted (all the while insulting Maher by saying no one watches his show) is classic ignorant Christian. Thanks O'Reilly for showing everyone how "true Christians" really behave! Ha.
This was a goddamn disgrace. A ratings ploy, pure and simple. Fox didn't really care how this turned out, O'Reilly didn't really care how it turned out, all he had to do was talk a little louder for a little longer duration than Maher and the network that believes Glenn Beck is a real journalist can claim a little spike in ratings. This is why debates have a specific arena and setting.
I laughed so hard when Bill O'Wrongly said that if Jesus was running the country, blah, blah, blah. . . If Jesus (the one we read about in the NT) was running this country, the first thing he would do would be to slaughter all of the Christians! Look, I read it in the NT:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34 NIV
It's so bloody amusing watching the christians coming here and making excuses for the Old Covenant and how it's now obsolete because Jesus brought a New and Improved Covenant.
You all are plain admitting that God thought better of the original one which was dense with blood sacrifice (oops, so was the next covenant!!), killing and the like, and decided to draw up a new one which was a little more in keeping with evolving societal standards.
Why the hell didn't he give a better one the first time around? Not omniscient? If you folks only knew how silly you look to rational people, trying as you do to make this covenant bullshit smell good.
"Maher and O'Reily have succeeded in lowering the level of religious discourse in a mere 7 minutes."
lol! I couldn't have said it better myself! Although I do like to watch O'Reilly from time to time, unfortunately, he's out of his area of expertise when it comes to discussing religion. Bill Maher isn't exactly the brightest athiest in the box, either. O'Reilly should have had William Lane Craig or some other apologist on to spar with Maher. Maher appeared totally bored and totally unconvinced. He probably got some good fodder for his show, too.
"If you folks only knew how silly you look to rational people, trying as you do to make this covenant bullshit smell good."
Go get a rational person, and we'll as them.
Post a Comment