Featured Pastor Jeffres on O'Reilly

Regarding the subject of O'Reilly, I honestly haven't watched his program in a long time and I'm not sure what his overall views are. But either believing gay marriage should not be illegal or believing that the states should decide (whichever one he actually believes), I don't see how either necessarily makes one leftist or rightist, religious or otherwise.

You can believe gay marriage is wrong and disapprove of it without also believing that the government should ban it. Not a popular opinion in a political environment where one side wants you to be behind them 100% or else and the other places a great deal of importance on opposing it. But that opinion does exist.
So of one does hold to being against gay marriage from a doctrinal standpoint, just not a political one, how are they departing from orthodoxy?

Now for all I know, O'Reilly might be a some kind of leftist or probably a moderate. Considering the republicans these days, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. But I can hardly see this one issue defining whether he is or not. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?

 

Questdriven, O'Reilly presents himself as a pious Catholic but he is more of a cafeteria Catholic, choosing what he wants out of overall Catholic doctrine. This makes him a religious liberal. Catholicism rejects any legalization of same-sex marriage.

Also, your point ignores the legislative history of the USA whereby the federal Congress banned polygamy in a law aimed at Mormons. If this act was illegal, Mormons are entitled to about a trillion dollars in damages from the USA.

 

Really someone needs to come and show Bill how to really accept Christ and the true reason he needs to be saved, if he has not. Which he does not seem to be. Will leave it at that.

 

To many here, a liberal is anyone to the left of Jerry Falwell, or Bob Jones University, or Attila the Hun.

 

Okay, so there's more to what you are saying than just the gay marriage issues apparently. I don't know enough to comment further.



I have my own thoughts, but this isn't the place for them.

 

Hannity represents more traditional Republican thinking than O'Reilly, who is better known. A lot of it depends on what you think of calling someone a "Bible thumper" and then saying that it is not a term of disrespect. So I guess the issues are theological. I don't think that terms like Attila the Hun show a serious, civilized discussion. It was reported on tv this morning that Bill O'Reilly said that the Holy Spirit led him to write his book on theology and he decided to remove the part about Jesus saying that He is the Son of God and God because O'Reilly didn't that that Scripture was historical on that point. That sounds a lot like the Jesus Seminar to me personally.

A more reliable Catholic conservative is Phyllis Schlafly, and she should be the model of someone you can trust. http://www.eagleforum.org/about/bio.html

One of the main problems in the West is freedom of conscience, and we see the issues here in this thread.

 

I stated fact.

A serious, civilized discussion? Here? With people who think if you don't believe as they do that you're not a Christian, or that you're a heretic?

 

I don't know what you believe and I think that you are free to believe whatever you want. As for Bill O'Reilly, he calls Evangelicals "Bible Thumpers" and says that it is not a term of disrespect. He advocates gay marriage. He says that Jesus did not say that He is God and did not say that He is the Son of God. O'Reilly also said that the last words of Jesus on the Cross were not historically accurate and that Jesus probably did not say them.

I consider that liberal theology and I don't consider liberal theology as Christian but cultic.

Okay? I adhere to traditional regular Christian doctrine as taught by both Scripture and the Church historically. Scripture condemns the kind of marriage advocated by Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly cannot say that it is okay to break the Ten Commandments because adultery leads to hell no matter what Bill says or thinks.

 

Well, yeah, I wouldn't go to O'Reilly for theology, if what is said is true.

I guess I just didn't understand why a big deal was being made out of it since I personally don't care what O'Reilly chooses to believe. (Although I don't want to see another soul in hell. But as long as he believes on Jesus, that's not so much of an issue IMO.) But then I put a lot of emphasis on freedom of speech and opinion. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my beliefs in theology, but politically speaking I'm libertarian.

 

I don't think you know what O'Reilly believes theologically. He is a Roman Catholic; that is all you know. He wrote a history book, not a theology book.

I also think liberal theology is cultic, but I also feel that way about fundamentalism. They are opposite wings of the same bird.

 

No, but he is not an apostle and did not write a theology book. He has said that he included only what could be substantiated from non-Biblical sources -- that is, non-theological history. To me, that does more to affirm the historical Jesus than some theological rant from someone with a biased perspective.

 

Nice misdirect. Good way to twist and then avoid what I'm saying. Or maybe I give you too much credit; maybe you truly are not comprehending.