Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Feb 13, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Q-Notes

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

Comments
1,521 - 1,540 of 1,638 Comments Last updated May 29, 2013

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1547
May 23, 2013
 
Sadly we see you take away and add a lot to the bible so it fits your beliefs.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go again throwing out generalities that can't be discussed because who even knows what you are referring to.
my "apologetic" opinion is based on what the Bible says and nothing else. whether i work backwards or forwards, in this case it has to be backwards since we are arguing the conclusion and not the process, it is always comparing scripture with scripture. if i claim that the Bible says something, i can show it.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1548
May 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
You think it's the perfect and inspired word of god? In that case why do you not accept what it says and instead change it? It seems your god could see that his perfect book could explain his message, thoughts an feelings perfectly. In that case you shouldn't need to create apologetic arguments.
<quoted text>
i do accept what it says, all of it. not just what i think it says but what it says it says.
nobility in God's eyes come from searching the scriptures.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1549
May 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
There are several angels yes?
<quoted text>
yes?????
but how many "angels of the Lord"?
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1550
May 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes I am right and I accept your apology. Abraham didn't love under Levitical law either so the rest of your post is fail. And how could you possibly know what god would or wouldn't do unless he is a projection of yourself?
:)
<quoted text>
i said your point was valid. i didn't say you were right. no abraham did not live under levitical law but God prevented him from breaking it none the less. he didn't live under mosaic law either. but he still chose to believe God.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1551
May 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Sadly we see you take away and add a lot to the bible so it fits your beliefs.
<quoted text>
you on the other hand make nebulous accusations that lack specifics so that you can never be challenged.
the last time i checked all of my post use the Bible to make my arguments concerning the Bible. that is hardly taking away or adding to it.
you on the other hand wish to isolate one verse and make a claim without considering what the rest of the Bible says. that sounds to me like you're the one taking away from the Bible.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1552
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad to see you posting. I know you and Madscot are from Oklahoma, and you've both been in my thoughts since the tornado.
I live far from the Tornado Corridor-- intentionally so.

I often thought it would be in everyone's best interests to convert those areas into rural land or even better-- animal refuges / re-forestation projects.

Keep people out of there, apart from recreational activities.

I mean-- we don't let people build houses directly on a fault line, or in front of lava, right?...right?

What?

We do?

....!!!!

Oh well.... stupid is, as stupid does, I guess.

Most will rebuild-- to get there home demolished in another 3-4 years or less...

... that's the average record for certain areas, of longevity before another twister wipes it out.

But...

... Praze Jayzus! We'un's'll ReBuild Again! Bless-lord!

(uggg)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1553
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>the Bible interprets its self.
Indeed it does-- how do you think I lost all my faith in it?

By READING THE WHOLE THING-- COVER-TO-COVER.

That is how.

No self-respecting god would suffer such as the evil bible to even EXIST-- it literally taints the whole idea of "god", simply by existing!

That?

That is 100% proof the bible is not from any god-- and no god who gives a crap exists, either.

Thanks for playing!

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1554
May 23, 2013
 
In that case accept it for what it says and not what you want it to say. Jephthah's vow was for whatever came out of his house to greet him would be a burnt offering to god. His daughter came out first. He kept his vow.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i do accept what it says, all of it. not just what i think it says but what it says it says.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1555
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

There are other angels in heaven not of The Lord?

It looks like you need to read the bible before you humiliate yourself again.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>yes?????
but how many "angels of the Lord"?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1556
May 23, 2013
 
They are all god's laws yes? God did not state, you shall do this for a century or two he said this is law. Even Jesus clearly said he was not there to change the law of old.

In today's day and age Abraham would be a psychopath and a monster for what he did.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i said your point was valid. i didn't say you were right. no abraham did not live

under levitical law but God prevented him from breaking it none the less. he didn't live under mosaic law either. but he still chose to believe God.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1557
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

No you use non-biblical apologetic arguments.

You conform the bible to your tastes rather than accepting the perfect word of your so called god. So Yahweh your god said nothing while Jephthah's daughter was killed as a burnt offering. Burnt offerings clearly described in genesis with Abraham. Maybe he had a good reason to allow it? He works in mysterious ways I hear.

So instead of adding things not written accept what your own bible in that story clearly says.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you on the other hand make nebulous accusations that lack specifics so that you can never be challenged.
the last time i checked all of my post use the Bible to make my arguments concerning the Bible. that is hardly taking away or adding to it.
you on the other hand wish to isolate one verse and make a claim without considering what the rest of the Bible says. that sounds to me like you're the one taking away from the Bible.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1558
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Same here man, when I read it with an open mind and refused to look at apologetic arguments I realized I could never follow such a barbaric book.

If you made a movie out of the bible and did it exactly how it is written, the movies would be XXX and you would be arrested for making it.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed it does-- how do you think I lost all my faith in it?

By READING THE WHOLE THING-- COVER-TO-COVER.

That is how.

No self-respecting god would suffer such as the evil bible to even EXIST-- it literally taints the whole idea of "god", simply by existing!

That?

That is 100% proof the bible is not from any god-- and no god who gives a crap exists, either.

Thanks for playing!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1559
May 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Same here man, when I read it with an open mind and refused to look at apologetic arguments I realized I could never follow such a barbaric book.
If you made a movie out of the bible and did it exactly how it is written, the movies would be XXX and you would be arrested for making it.
<quoted text>
Indeed.

Even if you only made a movie of a small part?

It'd be rated R... wait.... what was the name of that Snuff Film made by that bigot crazy Aussie again?

;)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1560
May 23, 2013
 
:)) touché!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed.

Even if you only made a movie of a small part?

It'd be rated R... wait.... what was the name of that Snuff Film made by that bigot crazy Aussie again?

;)
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1561
May 24, 2013
 
Mad Max - the second not coming.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed.
Even if you only made a movie of a small part?
It'd be rated R... wait.... what was the name of that Snuff Film made by that bigot crazy Aussie again?
;)

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1562
May 24, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
Move along home
only the usual troll posting under a third name.
L0L
<quoted text>
It's nothing to brag about, we already know you are trolling, and we know that you have no cognitive skills which could point out some very apparent mistakes you are making in your rush to judge others.

Think posting style. Very few people on this planet can say much as some else, without revealing traits which belie that fact. I'd put money on the fact, that you have found not a single thing that could be proof of what you say.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1563
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>well, in some places a man can go to jail for simply spanking his child.
however your point is valid. but we don't live anymore under levitical law now do we so i doubt that God would require such a thing.
Doubt? You doubt? The buybull says that you will keep all laws and commands, everyone of them. No exceptions.
Is there a new buybull that negates the old ones?
Bo Donaldson

Wellington, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1564
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Billy, don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1565
May 24, 2013
 
Great post! Pity he won't comprehend 1/4th of what you said.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>It's nothing to brag about, we already know you are trolling, and we know that you have no cognitive skills which could point out some very apparent mistakes you are making in your rush to judge others.

Think posting style. Very few people on this planet can say much as some else, without revealing traits which belie that fact. I'd put money on the fact, that you have found not a single thing that could be proof of what you say.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1566
May 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
In that case accept it for what it says and not what you want it to say. Jephthah's vow was for whatever came out of his house to greet him would be a burnt offering to god. His daughter came out first. He kept his vow.
<quoted text>
if you owe a debt, you can't pay the debt off with something that is not acceptable to the one you owe it two.

the hebrew words for "burnt offering" literally do not contain nor do they have any direct correlation to the word burn. they are almost always translated as burnt offering because their literal meaning can be fulfilled in the burning of the offering. however the literal translation comes from a metaphorical use of the word. there were other ways to fulfill the vow without burning the offering.
let me try to explain it again to you. the words that jeptha is recorded to have said do not contain the literal word for burning.
he never mentions the word "fire" or the word "altar". therefore hed had options when it came to fulfilling the vow. options explained in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. he would not have fulfilled his vow if he would have burned her. it would have been rejected by God and he would have been cursed. he fulfilled his vow in a way that pleased God.

now much of your misunderstanding seems to come from the possibility that you can only function in one language and therefore have trouble understanding word order, structure and translation nuances. you stubbornly hold to a primitive understanding of the english language and you are content to do so because you desperately want it to be.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••