Skip to comments.‘If Anyone Wants to Call Me a Bible-Thumper, Go Ahead’: Blaze Readers Respond to O’Reilly
Posted on 04/07/2013 11:04:49 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Bill OReillys charged gay marriage debate with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham drew a strong reaction from TheBlaze audience, particularly over OReillys contention that same-sex marriage opponents often thump the Bible to make their point.
ordfan: I AM an opponent of same-sex marriage. If anyone wants to call me a Bible thumper, go ahead. I DO NOT CARE. My Bible IS the basis for my ENTIRE argument against homosexuality period. Now DO NOT be mistaken, being against homosexuality and against homosexuals are two VERY different things. I am not against homosexuals just because of that. P.S. If two men or two women want to live together, thats their choice but find some other title to call it. Sorry, the term marriage has been taken and the definition was established as between one man and one woman a long long time before ANY ONE OF US ever walked this planet. Quit trying to change it or hijack it. Or maybe I should say give it back.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
And that includes us Bill of Rights thumpers like me too!
How about you Bill?
I am a Bible Thumper! Smartest and most healthy thing I ever learned to do. :) Waay better than being a gay marriage thumper... (which is called something I don’t want to repeat, because I take it easy on the swears). :)
In a nation of no-fault divorce, isn’t the institution of marriage already ruined? Getting divorced because “we grew apart” was the end of biblical marriage in the US.
Now, I’m against gay marriage, but where was all the religious outrage 30 years ago when divorce became easy in all states?
Polluted rather than ruined. Ruined implies something that cannot be returned to.
>>Ruined implies something that cannot be returned to.
Go talk to a woman about doing away with no-fault divorce. That’s a Pandora’s Box that cannot be closed again.
There was considerable outrage as I recall, as well as many predictions of social ruin. Turns out that the Bible thumpers making those predictions were quite prophetic....
I’m sick of the “Men can do no wrong. Divorce is ALWAYS the woman’s fault.” mentality around here.
>>Im sick of the Men can do no wrong. Divorce is ALWAYS the womans fault. mentality around here.
I didn’t say that. I implied that women have been the beneficiaries of no-fault more than men. If a divorce has fault, then it can be the man or woman who caused it.
I would not put 100 percent of the onus upon women, many of whom actually want a permanent marriage without divorce.
But have they?
My parents went through a no-fault divorce where my mother was not the chief beneficiary.
>>I would not put 100 percent of the onus upon women, many of whom actually want a permanent marriage without divorce.
I wouldn’t either. And I didn’t. But, women do support no-fault more than men. With no-fault, a woman can decide that “we’ve grown apart” and leave, take the kids, and run her ex into bankruptcy through child support and there is nothing he can do to stop it.
You know, we could avoid this whole ‘fault’ thing if we just used our bio-genetic skills to create humans who were asexual in nature and could reproduce without having to find a mate.
>>You know, we could avoid this whole fault thing if we just used our bio-genetic skills to create humans who were asexual in nature and could reproduce without having to find a mate.
Or the government could artificially inseminate women when it is their turn to procreate. A central family planning agency could choose the perfect sperm to mate with the woman’s egg and “child support” could be paid out of the national treasury which all men could then labor to pay for. Forward!
While I understand your point Bryan92 there are still many people who marry who allow no place for divorce in their beleif system and would not have bar of it.
That’s the dream of militant lesbians. Without the totally “asexual” part, that is. Ever since they discovered that the whiptail lizard species is all female and reproduces asexually without needing a male, that certainly has been their dream.
But in the past, plenty of asexual adult humans abounded; they were called “eunuchs”, though.
>>While I understand your point Bryan92 there are still many people who marry who allow no place for divorce in their beleif system and would not have bar of it.
I agree. My wife and I have been married for 31 years. In that time, I’ve seen so many people destroyed by the ease of no-fault divorce (many try and fail multiple times because its easier to split up than make up).
“OReillys contention that same-sex marriage opponents often thump the Bible to make their point.}
Oh really, O’Reilly?
Ooh, I really don’t agree. From what I’ve seen, it gave men permission to run off in a mid-life crisis while his abandoned wife is admonished to ;move on and put it behind her.
and just as many men, or MORE, clean out the bank accounts and leave their families desititute
I have never ever seen anyone strike a Bible. Who thumps a Bible, anyway? Maybe Elmer Gantry in that horrible anti-religious book.
Thumping a Bible is a stereotype created by liberals and idiots like Bill O’Reilly.
So? With no-fault, a man who professed that he didn’t believe in divorce can move his wife and four children across the country away from her family, and then proceed to completely ignore “his” family for years, find a floozy, and dump said family, leaving the mother to raise the children completely alone.
I finally figured Bill is a complete idiot after his
anti-gun rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTT3A0B1Vs&feature=player_embedded#!
>>So? With no-fault, a man who professed that he didnt believe in divorce can move his wife and four children across the country away from her family, and then proceed to completely ignore his family for years, find a floozy, and dump said family, leaving the mother to raise the children completely alone.
Not every woman marries a scumbag.
I remarried but to a woman with traditional values and deeply religious. We have endured difficulties over 14 years that would rip most marriages to pieces, yet we have come through each with a stronger love for each other. She still has serious health problems that will be with us the rest of our lives but I am far happier with her than I ever was at any time in my life with my ex-.
No-fault divorce enables selfishness and a self-centered view of marriage.
Not every man marries a scumbag.
True- but I just felt a little Yankee Doodle Dandy moment come over me. :)
I do know the Bible very well and choose to accept that it is the truth for my life- if that makes me a “Bible Thumper” so be it.
But yes, I agree with your sentiments.
Bless you and your wife - Should the Lord not come soon then I hope you have another 31 great years together!
O’Reilly has been trying to bluster and yell his way out of his blunder for a week now. I’m surprised none of the people he’s been yelling at have calmly asked him “Aren’t you a proud Catholic, Bill?”
OReillys contention that same-sex marriage opponents often thump the Bible to make their point.}
I watched both broadcasts where O’Reilly talked about this. The point he was making was simple:
do not thump the bible [i.e., use arguements based on biblically based morality] to convice a secular audience against gay marriage;
or, stated positively;
You must use secular arguements to convince a secular audience.
He did not call anyone a “bible thumper”.
Better a Bible thumper than a self-righteous chest-thumper like BO.
Yep. That’s what I have seen.
I only know of 1 instance where the woman was the one who had an affair.
In any case, I think the ne having the affair should suffer more than the ones that don’t.
One of my friends husband cheated on her while she was getting over breast cancer.
Yes, he’s another nominal Catholic. I doubt that after all these revelations of his true leanings, though, that he’d ever have Bill Donohue from the Catholic League back on . . .
****do not thump the bible [i.e., use arguements based on biblically based morality] to convice a secular audience against gay marriage;
or, stated positively;
You must use secular arguements to convince a secular audience.****
Thus implying that Bill OReilly has no secular arguments of his own to make since he has a rather big microphone in front of him.
The whole idea of outreach to secular people is to present the whole gospel truth, not try to cower behind some bogus poll or “scientific study” or what have you that will be countered with another poll or “scientific study”. Things such as that have no authority because they are not grounded in Gods spoken truth. Secular people will only hear Gods spoken truths if Christians speak them.
I think the Biblical wisdom of marriage can be demonstrated and has, just as the Biblical wisdom against homosexual behavior and temporary unions facilitated by no-fault divorce can also be demonstrated and have. These are secular arguments validating Biblical wisdom. So I see your point but also see a certain sadness and hazard to it.
The hazard lies in the phony debates staged to omit the reasoning that substantiates Biblical wisdom. The media does this routinely and O’Reilly chose not to see the reasoned response but only the Biblical response. That was either sheer laziness or deceit on his part.
The sadness is that we lose a reliable standard of behavior that brought some degree of peace and prosperity to our society. We don't always have to personally know the reason behind the wisdom and can rely on some simple Biblical principles. Secularists can offer no stable and reliable standard of behavior. Each is his own god with his own standards.
Rather be a bible thumper than liberalism”s coc! sucker, O’Stupid.
The truth is all that those of us who oppose queer marriage can lean on.
I would rather be with the truth and loose in this world, if God allows it, than capitulate to the queers and their sympathizers.
“This is silly, making the traditional mountain of division from a molehill of a poor choice of words.”
Truth is I don’t listen to O’Reilly much anymore. Any reason why? Just listen to this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.