Keith Olbermann Smacks Down O'Reilly and Gibson

[GOP = Terrorists]

The link to the video is no longer working, but I interpreted Gibson's response to Olbermann along the lines of "Olbermann misrepresented what I said".

Nope.  "I find myself being misquoted or the actual words I've said taken way way way out of context in order to build outrage against me."

"I'm called names like 'fathead' and 'the worst something or other; for things that I really did not say..."

"Today one of my former colleagues repeated a misquote to justify saying some truly disgusting things about me.  Condescendingly, he 'tisk tisked' that he used to like me.  I frankly doubt it.  Otherwise.  Why would he be so willing to believe trash?"

What Gibson said, "If somebody is going to have to answer for following the wrong religion their not going to have to answer to me, we know who they are going to have to answer to."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good thing it isn't.  He flat out denied saying what Olbermann said that Gibson said.  Then Olbermann played it on the air.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep we're intolerant of the intolerant.  Shouldn't you be at Gibson's side screaming about an imaginary war on Christmas?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What Gibson said, "If somebody is going to have to answer for following the wrong religion their not going to have to answer to me, we know who they are going to have to answer to."... He flat out denied saying what Olbermann said that Gibson said.  Then Olbermann played it on the air.

Ok Gibson may be denying he said it, but I don't see anything wrong with Gibson saying [paraphrased] "I believe Christianity is the only true religion, even though I tolerate other people believing what they want to be believe even if they believe a lie."

There is nothing intolerant in believing your beliefs are true.  There is nothing intolerant in rejecting other beliefs.  There is nothing intolerant about disagreeing with another person.

On the contrary, if I physically attempt to stop a person's actions or beliefs, then I am being intolerant.

I do not tolerate murder, therefore I vote to make it illegal.

I do not tolerate theft, therefore I vote to make it illegal.

---

Yep we're intolerant of the intolerant.  Shouldn't you be at Gibson's side screaming about an imaginary war on Christmas?

Sorry, I haven't been following the "war on Christmas".  I don’t care if stores mention “Christmas”.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Ok Gibson may be denying he said it

That is what this is about.  That is why John Gibson has no credibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I know you believe that.  Don't you also believe in the coming rapture? =)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I accept the fact that it is debatable.  I personally think it is highly egotistical and pretty ignorant to think you have the only full understanding of divinity.  But as long as those people did not wish to push their ignorant beliefs on me I have no problem.  Oh and the whole "War on Christmas" malarkey is exactly that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. =)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Umm you were the one just the other day announcing the coming rapture right?  If you are not part of the insane fundamentalist movement who sees an imaginary war on Christianity than I apologize.  =)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I personally think it is highly egotistical and pretty ignorant to think you have the only full understanding of divinity.

You misunderstand Christianity, for it does NOT claim to fully understand God.  As Paul wrote, “Beyond all question, great is the mystery of godliness.” (1Tim 3:16a)

But what Christianity is claiming is that “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1Tim 3:16b)

And Christianity accepts the opinion of Jesus, who we believe is God manifest in the flesh, when he stated that he was the ONLY way to be saved.  So, even though we can’t understand God, we understand that he provided one path to salvation.

---

As far as explaining the logic of believing that what we believe is the truth...I can only respond by asking a simple question: 

Why would we believe in Jesus if we thought his claims about himself weren’t true?!

Who purposely believes something they believe is a lie?!

What is the definition of “believe” if not to “accept as true or real”?

Do you think we believe in Christ only in order to be better citizens?  If so, I can only respond with the words of Paul: “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1Cor 15:19)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Umm you were the one just the other day announcing the coming rapture right?  If you are not part of the insane fundamentalist movement who sees an imaginary war on Christianity than I apologize.  =)

Yes, I believe in a coming Rapture, and yes I believe Christians in the US are being mocked for their faith, just as Olbermann mocked Gibson for giving his personal opinion that he believes Christianity is the only path to salvation.  In other countries, Christians are being killed for their faith in Christ.

But it doesn’t bother me if a store doesn’t promote “Christmas”.  In fact, I don’t make an attempt to notice if the store has signs which read “Christmas”.  I don’t go to stores to check up on the Christianity of the owners.  In fact, the religion of the owners doesn’t cross my mind.  If I am in a store, I am there to buy something.  Period.

I’m a little bit deeper into the battle of the Faith than to be concerned with trivial matters such as whether a store says “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas”.   

When is the last time a store’s “Merry Christmas” sign saved someone?

No, I am more concerned with controlling my own flesh and tearing down imaginations of those opposed to Christ.

I prefer to fight on enemy territory.

[opebo]

Umm you were the one just the other day announcing the coming rapture right?  If you are not part of the insane fundamentalist movement who sees an imaginary war on Christianity than I apologize.  =)

Yes, I believe in a coming Rapture, and yes I believe Christians in the US are being mocked for their faith, just as Olbermann mocked Gibson for giving his personal opinion that he believes Christianity is the only path to salvation.  In other countries, Christians are being killed for their faith in Christ.

You can't go around saying people are 'damned to hell' and expect them not to hate you for it, you dolt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Controlling your own flesh?  Why would you want to do that?  Your body is a perfectly well-functioning and quite inoffensive thing.   It is quite literally you.  Your attitude towards it, not to mention your bizarre fantasies of 'sin' suggest self-hatred, and I recomend psychoanalysis.

[afleitch]

Jmfcst has a tendency to say 'Christians' when really he means himself. It is classic self-righteousness. He fails to realise than many if not the majority of Christians in America and around the world hold vastly different views on the matter than he does.

[opebo]

Jmfcst has a tendency to say 'Christians' when really he means himself. It is classic self-righteousness. He fails to realise than many if not the majority of Christians in America and around the world hold vastly different views on the matter than he does.

jmfcst is to the bible as Emsworth and Philip are to the constitution!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst has a tendency to say 'Christians' when really he means himself. It is classic self-righteousness. He fails to realise than many if not the majority of Christians in America and around the world hold vastly different views on the matter than he does.

Yes, I do NOT invent my own religion, as you do.  Rather, the basis of my religion is scripture which is the same basis that ALL the writers of the bible had. 

I do NOT sift through the bible to pick and choose which parts of it I believe.  Rather, I accept the whole thing as the Word of God.

And I really do NOT care if I am in the majority or minority, for the falling away from the faith is simply a sign of the end-times.  I do NOT tailor my beliefs to please men: "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Gal 1:9)

So, go ahead and continue your mocking of Christ's teachings and believing that his grace gives license to your sexual immorality, but just remember it was Jesus who said, "Unless you repent, you will perish." (Luke 13:3)

And go ahead and mock me, for it brings me great joy:

Mat 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You can't go around saying people are 'damned to hell' and expect them not to hate you for it, you dolt.

The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. John 7:7

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Mat 15:18-19

But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.' John 15:25

[afleitch]

Will you ever say answer anything straight jmfcst without referring to the Bible? And by the way I didn't 'invent' my own religion- its a little 1 billion strong faith called Catholicism, you might want to check it out

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Will you ever say answer anything straight jmfcst without referring to the Bible? And by the way I didn't 'invent' my own religion- its a little 1 billion strong faith called Catholicism, you might want to check it out

Yet you don't follow the teachings the Catholicism.

[afleitch]

Will you ever say answer anything straight jmfcst without referring to the Bible? And by the way I didn't 'invent' my own religion- its a little 1 billion strong faith called Catholicism, you might want to check it out

Yet you don't follow the teachings the Catholicism.

But I do. I am a church going humble man who finds strength through my faith. Yet is you who mocks me and says that I 'mock Christ's teachings.' You also believe you have the authority to judge me and my faith. You do not have that right.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But I do. I am a church going humble man who finds strength through my faith. Yet is you who mocks me and says that I 'mock Christ's teachings.' You also believe you have the authority to judge me and my faith. You do not have that right.

Do you agree with the following Catholic beliefs?

Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#II

----

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Homosexuality:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [1], tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [2].” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstance can they be approved.

Footnotes:
[1]
cf. Gen 19:1-29 (story of Sodom)
cf. Rom 1:24-27 "men... were inflamed with lust for one another"
cf. 1 Cor 6:10 "Neither the... homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of God."
cf. 1 Tim 1:10 "the ungodly and sinful... perverts"
[2]
cf. CDF, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, VIII

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/catechism.html

[afleitch]

Do I follow them word for word? No. Do most Catholics? No. Are we still religious. You bet.

Your opinion of me is based around the fact that you are aware that I am a homosexual (which you are at pains to point out more than I do). You show a distinct lack of respect for my opinion as a result. You condemn my strength of my faith and the integrity of my character and you take great pleasure in judging me. That is not for you to do. You have no right to judge the faith of forum members and you are lucky that I am considerate enough to talk with you rather than ignore you which countless others on thsi forum have chosen to do.

Lastly in your Catechism extract you failed to notice the fact that the Church acknowledges that homosexualities 'phsychological genesis remains unexplained' You are right to suggest that only the homosexual act is considered contrary to the bible, but not the position of being a homosexual and having related thoughts and feelings themselves. If you were aware of Catholic teaching and had been taught it for 11 years in school as I was, you would be aware of that fact

[opebo]

While jmfcst's repulsiveness may tempt one to blame him for this intolerance, afleitch, he is quite correct that it is the official position of your cult.  It, like all cults, is intolerant.  I would recommend jettisoning it and facing the world like an intelligent secular. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do I follow them word for word? No. Do most Catholics? No. Are we still religious. You bet.

1) You don't share their belief that the bible is the word of God.
2) You don't share their definition of faith.
3) You don't share their definition of sin.

Fact is, the leadership of your church doesn't consider you saved.  To the contrary, they preach that you are unsaved.

Those are HUGE differences.

---

Lastly in your Catechism extract you failed to notice the fact that the Church acknowledges that homosexualities 'phsychological genesis remains unexplained' You are right to suggest that only the homosexual act is considered contrary to the bible, but not the position of being a homosexual and having related thoughts and feelings themselves.

Not only did I not "fail to notice" it, I am in TOTAL agreement with it...yet your Church still considers homosexual acts condemnable sin, as do I.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While jmfcst's repulsiveness may tempt one to blame him for this intolerance, afleitch, he is quite correct that it is the official position of your cult.  It, like all cults, is intolerant.  I would recommend jettisoning it and facing the world like an intelligent secular. 

Unlike you and me, Afleitch is not honest with his beliefs and is trying to have it both ways (no pun attended towards you).  He is double-minded.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your opinion of me is based around the fact that you are aware that I am a homosexual (which you are at pains to point out more than I do). You show a distinct lack of respect for my opinion as a result. You condemn my strength of my faith and the integrity of my character and you take great pleasure in judging me. That is not for you to do. You have no right to judge the faith of forum members and you are lucky that I am considerate enough to talk with you rather than ignore you which countless others on thsi forum have chosen to do.

Stop trying to use your homosexuality as an excuse for our disagreement.  Even Opebo sees that your beliefs are in conflict with your church:

While jmfcst's repulsiveness may tempt one to blame him for this intolerance, afleitch, he is quite correct that it is the official position of your cult.  It, like all cults, is intolerant.  I would recommend jettisoning it and facing the world like an intelligent secular.  

A person has to be in one sorry state to need opebo as council.

[afleitch]

I have neither the patience nor energy to argue with you anymore so don't think that by provoking me i will reply. I've decided i'm going to join the long list of people who have no time for you.

[Joe Republic]

Wait a sec?  Was jamfest quoting the bible?  That's new.

[Flying Dog]

Do I follow them word for word? No. Do most Catholics? No. Are we still religious. You bet.

1) You don't share their belief that the bible is the word of God.
2) You don't share their definition of faith.
3) You don't share their definition of sin.

Fact is, the leadership of your church doesn't consider you saved.  To the contrary, they preach that you are unsaved.

Those are HUGE differences.

---

Lastly in your Catechism extract you failed to notice the fact that the Church acknowledges that homosexualities 'phsychological genesis remains unexplained' You are right to suggest that only the homosexual act is considered contrary to the bible, but not the position of being a homosexual and having related thoughts and feelings themselves.

Not only did I not "fail to notice" it, I am in TOTAL agreement with it...yet your Church still considers homosexual acts condemnable sin, as do I.

If I may be so bold, the fact is that some of the worlds 1.1 billion catholics may not share the views of the hardline narrow dogmatic view of the Vatican. Catholicism is an ideal not to be dictated be the Vatican and their views. Do not assume that the views of the pope reflect the views of catholics as a whole. As a catholic, I view catholicism in my own way as do many other catholics.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do I follow them word for word? No. Do most Catholics? No. Are we still religious. You bet.

1) You don't share their belief that the bible is the word of God.
2) You don't share their definition of faith.
3) You don't share their definition of sin.

Fact is, the leadership of your church doesn't consider you saved.  To the contrary, they preach that you are unsaved.

Those are HUGE differences.

If I may be so bold, the fact is that some of the worlds 1.1 billion catholics may not share the views of the hardline narrow dogmatic view of the Vatican. Catholicism is an ideal not to be dictated be the Vatican and their views. Do not assume that the views of the pope reflect the views of catholics as a whole. As a catholic, I view catholicism in my own way as do many other catholics.

"Catholicism is an ideal not to be dictated by the Vatican and their views."?!...LOL...go tell that one to the Vatican!

"I view catholicism in my own way as do many other catholics."...and how, exactly, did you arrive at "your way"?  What is the basis of "your way"?  Is it the bible, or is it the bible + the Vatican, or is it direct revelation, or is it the back of a box of Apple Jacks?  What is it?

I find the idea that religion is just something left to human imagination quite contrary to the purpose of God giving his word to man.

[Everett]

Actually, the title sounds like a wrestling match. Why bring religion into wrestling matches?

[Flying Dog]

Do I follow them word for word? No. Do most Catholics? No. Are we still religious. You bet.

1) You don't share their belief that the bible is the word of God.
2) You don't share their definition of faith.
3) You don't share their definition of sin.

Fact is, the leadership of your church doesn't consider you saved.  To the contrary, they preach that you are unsaved.

Those are HUGE differences.

If I may be so bold, the fact is that some of the worlds 1.1 billion catholics may not share the views of the hardline narrow dogmatic view of the Vatican. Catholicism is an ideal not to be dictated be the Vatican and their views. Do not assume that the views of the pope reflect the views of catholics as a whole. As a catholic, I view catholicism in my own way as do many other catholics.

"Catholicism is an ideal not to be dictated by the Vatican and their views."?!...LOL...go tell that one to the Vatican!

"I view catholicism in my own way as do many other catholics."...and how, exactly, did you arrive at "your way"?  What is the basis of "your way"?  Is it the bible, or is it the bible + the Vatican, or is it direct revelation, or is it the back of a box of Apple Jacks?  What is it?

I find the idea that religion is just something left to human imagination quite contrary to the purpose of God giving his word to man.

The vatican likes to call people like myself '' Cafateria Catholics'' , accepting what we want to of catholicism and leaving all the rest.