Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Feb 13, 2013 Full story: Q-Notes 1,638

President Barack Obama with Rev. Billy Graham at his house in Montreat, N.C., April 25, 2010.

Full Story
Lincoln

United States

#573 Mar 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed it is; what's worse is that they are enslaved by chains that are purely imaginary.
Do these imaginary chains hurt
and have you sought help?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#574 Mar 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Do these imaginary chains hurt
and have you sought help?
the chains are on you cult members' minds, so you'd have to tell us rational thinkers...
barry

Rainsville, AL

#575 Mar 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes I have factually stated and you verifeied my accounts were accurate. There is as I said blood on your church's and my former church's hands.
I could go on and on with other examples but it's pointless as you have admitted I was correct and you are now at best trying to move the goal posts.
Sorry but you fail
<quoted text>
let me rephrase it. the Catholic church as a whole, the lutheren church as a whole, the calvinist churches as a whole embraced and condoned the persecution and slaughter of dissenters. they did it with pride. Catholics to this day still defend the inquisition. it was part of what they felt they needed to do. the blood is on their hands.
what you have posted is crimes committed by individuals that are in no way condoned, endorsed nor embraced by the churches involved. it is a shame on them and a shame to them. no one felt that it was a good thing that the church should do as a principle.
now if you left your church because they endorsed whatever evil thing happened, then you did the right thing. if you left your church because they tried to cover up what happened or defend the one who did it then you did the right thing. but you have to admit that God certainly wasn't involved in it. i would hope that you could find a church, a body of believers who will do what is right in spite of the embarrassment that it might bring and simply trust God to honor his word and preserve his church.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#576 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, no you didn't. you pointed out another way in which a person would be forced into slavery.
Is openly lying about your own posts part of this baptist cult you are a part of? how does that work?
you're either trying to change the subject or you misunderstand history and your conception is based on but somehow limited to an accurate view of the American slavery.
you have no concept of the legal principle of propitiation.
Lincoln

United States

#577 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the chains are on you cult members' minds, so you'd have to tell us rational thinkers...
So thats it.
Are you Southern Baptist as was Billy G.?
Lincoln

United States

#578 Mar 14, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>let me rephrase it. the Catholic church as a whole, the lutheren church as a whole, the calvinist churches as a whole embraced and condoned the persecution and slaughter of dissenters. they did it with pride. Catholics to this day still defend the inquisition. it was part of what they felt they needed to do. the blood is on their hands.
what you have posted is crimes committed by individuals that are in no way condoned, endorsed nor embraced by the churches involved. it is a shame on them and a shame to them. no one felt that it was a good thing that the church should do as a principle.
now if you left your church because they endorsed whatever evil thing happened, then you did the right thing. if you left your church because they tried to cover up what happened or defend the one who did it then you did the right thing. but you have to admit that God certainly wasn't involved in it. i would hope that you could find a church, a body of believers who will do what is right in spite of the embarrassment that it might bring and simply trust God to honor his word and preserve his church.
Or is it
Some "Catholics to this day still defend the inquisition." ?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#579 Mar 14, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you're either trying to change the subject or you misunderstand history and your conception is based on but somehow limited to an accurate view of the American slavery.
you have no concept of the legal principle of propitiation.
I have never referenced american slavery.

again how do you square your god telling you it is OK to own ohter humans? how do you square having better morals than yor god?(assuming you are against owning other humans..)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#580 Mar 14, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>man will never be perfect until we see Christ. Churches will never be perfect. however there is a perfect sound doctrine that some churches hold to. but in time they to will fade away in error. the doctrine however will still exist and still be held by those who believe it. you will never find it in any denominational institution.
so how does any human know hte word of your mythical god at all? if the bible is not perfect.(and we know it isn't...) then on what do you base this idea of your god upon?

You just stated the the whole basis of your god nad your concept of your god is questionable.

how does that work?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#581 Mar 14, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>your words;
"how bout the children of those slaves that your god ays the slave owner now owns forever? how do you rationalize that horrid par of your god myth away?
this should be fun to watch..."
post a link, show a reference, i want to see where you are getting it from. maybe you are right and i am wrong. i'd just like to know that what you have is more than a lazy repeating of what you have been told.
Are you kidding me? It's in your own freakin' bible!!
amazing how little the people who profess a faith actually know about their own religious cult..why is that? why do you not know your own 'god's words"?
it's not really even up for interpretation as it clearly states, "god said unto moses.." does that give you a hint of where to start learning about your own cult?
Sheesh!

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#582 Mar 14, 2013
Jesus told children sitting at his feet that the end of the world would happen before they died. That didn't happen.

He either lied or failed.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>man will never be perfect until we see Christ. Churches will never be perfect. however there is a perfect sound doctrine that some churches hold to. but in time they to will fade away in error. the doctrine however will still exist and still be held by those who believe it. you will never find it in any denominational institution.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#583 Mar 14, 2013
I left the exact same church you belong to now. My Parents still attend. Now you are trying to radically change what was said before.

Your current and my former church has blood on it's hands and we both know it. I did the moral thing, you turned a blind eye to it.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>let me rephrase it. the Catholic church as a whole, the lutheren church as a whole, the calvinist churches as a whole embraced and condoned the persecution and slaughter of dissenters. they did it with pride. Catholics to this day still defend the inquisition. it was part of what they felt they needed to do. the blood is on their hands.
what you have posted is crimes committed by individuals that are in no way condoned, endorsed nor embraced by the churches involved. it is a shame on them and a shame to them. no one felt that it was a good thing that the church should do as a principle.
now if you left your church because they endorsed whatever evil thing happened, then you did the right thing. if you left your church because they tried to cover up what happened or defend the one who did it then you did the right thing. but you have to admit that God certainly wasn't involved in it. i would hope that you could find a church, a body of believers who will do what is right in spite of the embarrassment that it might bring and simply trust God to honor his word and preserve his church.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#584 Mar 14, 2013
I even posted a link to a Christian apologetic website stating that in the bible the children of slaves were automatically slaves to their parent's owners!

As expected he refused to comment.
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I have never referenced american slavery.
again how do you square your god telling you it is OK to own ohter humans? how do you square having better morals than yor god?(assuming you are against owning other humans..)
Lincoln

United States

#585 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you kidding me? It's in your own freakin' bible!!
amazing how little the people who profess a faith actually know about their own religious cult..why is that? why do you not know your own 'god's words"?
it's not really even up for interpretation as it clearly states, "god said unto moses.." does that give you a hint of where to start learning about your own cult?
Sheesh!
"Know it alls"... are fun when they get wound up...on too much coffee :-)

God is with a Capital Gee,
except in communist countries.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#586 Mar 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Again those rules only apply to Hebrew slaves not non hebreew slaves. You keep running away from that.
Noah damns his son Ham and all of his family's future generations to be slaves. Genesis 9: 18-27.
And more... From a christian website no less!
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/800...
Slaves might be obtained in a variety of ways. Generally they were acquired as prisoners of war, as a result of the various conquests that Israel was authorized to wage (cf. Num. 31:7-9). In an Israelite home, servitude could be an advantage over death, because servants were to be viewed as household members. Sometimes servants were obtained as gifts (Gen. 29:24), or through purchase (Lev. 25:44). The offspring of slaves automatically belonged to the same owner (Ex. 21:4).
The offspring of slaves automatically belonged to the same owner.
Still want to talk debt?
Paul ordered Onesimus an escaped slave to return to his Christian slave master.
<quoted text>
nice try. at least it is an honest attempt and presents points that can be addressed.

#1 your understanding of who was cursed in Genesis 9 is a bit off. but that is ok. i can still answer the claim.
#2 the word used is serve or "servant" there are many classes of servants in the Bible which would also include a slave. for example kings had servants in their courts who obviously would not be involuntary slaves. the prophets had "servants" who obviously were not involuntary slave. so to claim that they were damned to slavery is not accurate. the better understanding is that they will never rule over the other children of Shem and Japeth.
#3 "servitude could be an advantage over death, because servants were to be viewed as household members." (from your post above)
#4 don't isolate vs4 from the rest of the chapter.
vs2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

vs3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
vs4 explains another situation;
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

so the children stay with the mother. the mother may not have been a "slave" or a servant. she may not have had a master. but if she did or was a slave the children stayed with her. and when she went free so did they.

then of course the next two verses tell what happens if a man wants to stay and serve his master voluntarily. a concept that you seem to have difficulty comprehending. that the life of service to his master might just be a more comfortable life with better benefits, housing and food then he had as a free man.

Vs5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

vs6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

#5 Paul "ordered" Onesimus to return for two reasons. as a Christian he could not live a Godly life running from the law of the land.
and he actually tells his master to take him back not as a servant but as a brother. read the book.

the original point is that American slavery as it came to exist was never endorsed by the Bible.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#587 Mar 14, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
"Know it alls"... are fun when they get wound up...on too much coffee :-)
God is with a Capital Gee,
except in communist countries.
your god is a myth. no captal G...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#588 Mar 14, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>nice try. at least it is an honest attempt and presents points that can be addressed.
#1 your understanding of who was cursed in Genesis 9 is a bit off. but that is ok. i can still answer the claim.
#2 the word used is serve or "servant" there are many classes of servants in the Bible which would also include a slave. for example kings had servants in their courts who obviously would not be involuntary slaves. the prophets had "servants" who obviously were not involuntary slave. so to claim that they were damned to slavery is not accurate. the better understanding is that they will never rule over the other children of Shem and Japeth.
#3 "servitude could be an advantage over death, because servants were to be viewed as household members." (from your post above)
#4 don't isolate vs4 from the rest of the chapter.
vs2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
vs3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
vs4 explains another situation;
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
so the children stay with the mother. the mother may not have been a "slave" or a servant. she may not have had a master. but if she did or was a slave the children stayed with her. and when she went free so did they.
then of course the next two verses tell what happens if a man wants to stay and serve his master voluntarily. a concept that you seem to have difficulty comprehending. that the life of service to his master might just be a more comfortable life with better benefits, housing and food then he had as a free man.
Vs5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
vs6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
#5 Paul "ordered" Onesimus to return for two reasons. as a Christian he could not live a Godly life running from the law of the land.
and he actually tells his master to take him back not as a servant but as a brother. read the book.
the original point is that American slavery as it came to exist was never endorsed by the Bible.
no, the original point is that your god clearly and openly says one human can own another human for their entire life.

how do you square that with yourself? why can't you answer that simple question?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#589 Mar 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I left the exact same church you belong to now. My Parents still attend. Now you are trying to radically change what was said before.
Your current and my former church has blood on it's hands and we both know it. I did the moral thing, you turned a blind eye to it.
<quoted text>
we handle our issues. we once had a youth "minister" who was molesting boys in the youth group. the pastor with out hesitation when made aware of it stood before the congregation and announced that there would be a business meeting at the earliest legal time to present the facts and to expel him from the church. the police had already been called and he did go to jail. we expelled a deacon for having an afair with another lady in the church. we handle our issues. there is never a cover up. and things are set right. we never condoned or covered up anything. we took a stand against jack hyles. it wasn't popular but we condemned it. sorry if your church did not have the same courage. however you can find an independent baptist church that does.
so don't accuse me or us of turning a blind eye.
and i really don't think you left any church that i belonged to.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#590 Mar 14, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I even posted a link to a Christian apologetic website stating that in the bible the children of slaves were automatically slaves to their parent's owners!
As expected he refused to comment.
<quoted text>
excuse me.
taking an hour to post hardly constitutes "refusing to comment"
some of us have work to do.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#591 Mar 14, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, the original point is that your god clearly and openly says one human can own another human for their entire life.
how do you square that with yourself? why can't you answer that simple question?
no, you're link was a response to this conversation;

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>sold inot slavery and willingly going into slavery in two consecutive posts...
hmmmm..
how bout the children of those slaves that your god ays the slave owner now owns forever? how do you rationalize that horrid par of your god myth away?
this should be fun to watch...

my response was;
post a link and i will respond.

you posted and i responded. now you are trying to claim that your post was in response to something else? nice try.

so let's go again; you want to post a link that says "(my) god clearly and openly says one human can own another human for their entire life."?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#592 Mar 14, 2013
btw, the original comment by me was that American slavery was never condoned in the Bible. i think i've shown that to be correct.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 min ChristineM 2,297
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 32 min Eagle 12 232,918
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 1 hr Thinking 3
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr TheHeadlines 145
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 11 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 12 hr Thinking 3
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Sat polymath257 23,199
More from around the web