Is Bill O'Reilly a god?

[PUGalicious]

Bill O'Reilly is 'da man — especially if you ask him. Think Progress reports this morning that in an interview yesterday on Fox News's Neil Cavuto, "Bill O’Reilly claimed that his reporting intimidated oil company CEOs into lowering gasoline prices":

O’REILLY: I have guys inside the five major oil companies - my father used to work for one of those oil companies by the way - who have told me that in those meetings they look for every way to jack up oil prices after Katrina, every way, when they didn’t have to. They got scared because of my reporting and reporting of some others. They said, “Uh ho.”

CAVUTO: So wait a minute, you’re not, you’re taking credit for gas prices being down from where they are?

O’REILLY: I said my reporting and some reporting of others. They got scared.

Watch in Quicktime

So not only is Bill O’Reilly saving Christmas, he’s making it cheaper for you to get to the mall. Is there anything this guy can’t do?

He's much too humble to ever tell you this, but Bill O'Reilly is "apparently" omniscient and omnipotent. The only thing holding him back from being a diety is omnipresence — unless his omnipresence on the airwaves counts. Is Bill O'Reilly a god?


(Originally posted here)

[jdsplaypin]

He gets his point across and does it well. Even if you disagree with him you clearly understand his viewpoints.

[okieopus]

his point are almost always wrong.

and his arrogance is of the chart

[fromdust]

his point are almost always wrong.

and his arrogance is of the chart

what points are you talking about?

[jdsplaypin]

He is arrogant, i'll give you that.

[Keith]

He gets his point across and does it well. Even if you disagree with him you clearly understand his viewpoints.

Exactly. He may be a little arrogant, but most of the time he is correct, and he always makes good points. Bill never claimed to be a god......that comes from the perception of others who disagree with him and won't admit that he is an intelligent, truthful, man.

[Shaggy]

his point are almost always wrong.

and his arrogance is of the chart

Incorrect. He is right almost all of the time, and because he is, the democrats and the liberals shake in their shoes.

[Curt]

I personally like to hear what O'Reilly has to say and I do beleive he is right most of the time. I also like Limbaugh and Nugent because they are willing to stand up for what is good for this country.

[fromdust]

if he had anything to do with the price drop he needs to get back into the game, becuse they are back up again.

[Didaskalos]

...that comes from the perception of others who disagree with him and won't admit that he is an intelligent, truthful, man.

Intelligent? Sure.
A man? I would think so.
Truthful? ROFL................. now that's funny.....

[Curt]

Intelligent? Sure.
A man? I would think so.
Truthful? ROFL................. now that's funny.....

Cant take the truth..huh?

[PUGalicious]

No, apparently Bill O'Reilly can't. He certainly has a hard time telling it.

[Didaskalos]

Cant take the truth..huh?

I have this funny thing where I expect the "truth" to be true. Just the way I am.

[Curt]

I have this funny thing where I expect the "truth" to be true. Just the way I am.

But how do you know the Bible is true?

[PUGalicious]

How do you know it's not?

[Curt]

How do you know it's not?

My point exactly, none of us were there to witness the events that it says took place so I cant say it is or isnt. So, how can someone say O'Reilly is telling the truth or not, I mean, what would he gain by lying?

[Didaskalos]

But how do you know the Bible is true?

"Know" with any certainty by deductive reasoning standards? I don't. However, every historical document has to be addressed in terms of accuracy of recorded accounts, congruence with other historical documents, etc. As a historical document, it is considered quite accurate (true). From the standpoint of proven prophecy, it stands out beyond any book. Because it was written over such a long period of time by so many different authors yet carries a very consistent message, there is reason for me to believe it is beyond an earthly book.

There are plenty of measures to determine the dependability of the bible as historical text (which could be a very long discussion and doesn't really belong in this thread) but that isnt' really the question for most people. The biggest question comes to the claims of deity and the miracles. I will readily admit that I take some aspects of scripture on faith. The bible has never proven wrong to me in its message. It is often misinterpreted and because there appear to be some transcription issues, many will claim inconsistencies. I have not seen any unexplainable untruths in the bible therefore it is a dependable document to me. Not everyone will come to the same conclusion. That is no concern of mine. However, I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the bible to address whether its content and message are true. My conclusion is that it is.

I am not sure how this parallels to Bill O'Reilly who is easily proven wrong on many occassions. Many of his supporters will call them honest mistakes (I suspect this takes a bit of faith on their part). I see him as an arrogant, self important loud mouth who makes this country more polarized just by opening his mouth. I don't think the truth is nearly as important to him as disparaging those who don't agree with his viewpoints.

[Didaskalos]

My point exactly, none of us were there to witness the events that it says took place so I cant say it is or isnt.

But the bible is an account of the people who were witness to the events being recorded. This is how historical documents work. Is there any historical document that you would consider accurate? How do you know the civil war happened? How do you know George Washington was a real person or was ever really our first President?

So, how can someone say O'Reilly is telling the truth or not, I mean, what would he gain by lying?

Because his truths are measurable as fact or fiction. Case in point.

O'REILLY: Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II.

Year - Income Bracket - Tax Rate
1955 - 44,000 - 52,000 - 59%
1965 - 52,000 - 64,000 - 53%
1975 - 88,000 - 100,000 - 60%
1985 - 169,020 and up - 50%

Clinton raised the rate to 39.6 percent for couples making over $250,000

His statement was simply untrue. Was he uninformed or trying to mislead? What does he have to gain, an uninformed public who will continue to ignore history and help him push his Libertarian ideals.

[Curt]

[QUOTE=Didaskalos] How do you know the civil war happened? How do you know George Washington was a real person or was ever really our first President?
QUOTE]
Because there are photographs of both that to me are pretty much proof and way too many artifacts for me to deny it. So now, which version of the Bible is accurate?
Dont you think that over the years and as many versions of it that have been written there is alot of room for doubt? I mean, several people could re write a Dr. Suess book and change this or that but in the end still get the same message across, doesnt mean it's true. I dont doubt the Bible and I would like to think it is true, I am just looking at things different ways. By the way, thanks for the stats, what would we do with ya.

[PUGalicious]

There are photographs of George Washington??? Wow, that's amazing, considering the camera hadn't been invented yet.

[Didaskalos]

Because there are photographs of both that to me are pretty much proof and way too many artifacts for me to deny it.

So history is accurate back to the point it was photographed? I tend to allow for a broader time in history based on historians accounts but I am just trusting that way I guess

So now, which version of the Bible is accurate?

The most accurate is of course going to be the first account written (speaking of books of the bible rather than the bible as a whole). I am sure many Christians on this forum will cringe but I will easily admit that I have no confidence that every version of the bible sitting on store shelves is completely accurate in its transcription/translations. I, for one, do not think this has to impact its message. Still, I think there have been quite a few discoveries of ancient writings that bring credibility to scripture (not the least of which being the Dead Sea Scrolls). I happen to read (primarily) the New International Version because the team they put together to publish it was quite impressive. At the time, they also had the Dead Sea Scrolls at their disposal as well as very early translations of the bible which are not nearly as far removed from the original writings. I trust it as the most accurate english translation. I do however put some trust in scholars who are able to read and understand much earlier greek and latin translations of the bible.

Dont you think that over the years and as many versions of it that have been written there is alot of room for doubt? I mean, several people could re write a Dr. Suess book and change this or that but in the end still get the same message across, doesnt mean it's true.

Are you trying to convince me that the bible is wrong or trying to convince yourself? I am convinced it is true and you seem less convinced. As this thread is not about biblical defense, I do not want to go on for paragraphs providing a defense but you are welcome to start a thread and I will happily go through the tedious process of showing the accuracy of scripture. In short, yes, there is room for doubt. This is the reason I, as a natural skeptic, have spent so much time looking into the issue. I wasn't overly convinced until I had invested the time.

By the way, thanks for the stats, what would we do with ya.

I guess I find stats entirely more interesting than others do. Of course, my studies were in the social sciences and they helped convince me that everyone has a theory but until one tries to measure its accuracy, it is fairly worthless.

[Curt]

There are photographs of George Washington??? Wow, that's amazing, considering the camera hadn't been invented yet.

I meant of the Cival war..DUH..and what would we do with you also, thanks for setting me straight, I can now go on about my day and know that I have someone looking out for me.

[Didaskalos]

I meant of the Cival war..DUH..and what would we do with you also, thanks for setting me straight, I can now go on about my day and know that I have someone looking out for me.

You did say there were photographs of both and I only referred to the civil war once... so was the DUH applied to the right person??? I wanted you to feel all warm and cozy knowing there are two people looking out for you.

[PUGalicious]

I meant of the Cival war..DUH

I certainly could have misunderstood. Let's go back and look at what you said...

How do you know the civil war happened? How do you know George Washington was a real person or was ever really our first President?

Because there are photographs of both that to me are pretty much proof and way too many artifacts for me to deny it.

You may have mispoke, but I didn't misunderstand what you actually said.

thanks for setting me straight, I can now go on about my day and know that I have someone looking out for me.

Anytime! Glad I could help make this a batter day for you.

[F60]

If I might digress from the historical accuracy of the Bible for a moment, I'd like to comment on Bill O'Reilly. I'm cable-impaired, so I haven't seen his TV show, but the local paper carries his column every Sunday, along with Mary What's-Her-Name from Texas, some liberal columnist. I have to say that O'Reilly's columns are almost always well-written and thought out, even if I don't always agree with them. By contrast, Mary Motormouth's pieces are strident, often-times vicious liberal attacks on anything to the right of Joseph Stalin. In her world, a conservative can do no right or good, and a liberal can do no wrong. Several times in O'Reilly's columns, I've seen him take conservatives to task. He calls it as he sees it, and if the conservatives screw up, he says so. If he seems to "attack" liberals more than conservatives, it's because they screwup more!

Mark