Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

There are 1635 comments on the Q-Notes story from Feb 13, 2013, titled Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?. In it, Q-Notes reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Q-Notes.

barry

Pisgah, AL

#1590 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> have you told us what denomination - if any - you belong to? or what your views are on any ethical matters, or economic, political, or social policies? do your views on theology shape your views on other matters which I listed? or others?
yes
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1591 May 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed: don't waste it on nonexistent, invisible wishing machines (god) that never-ever grant you any wishes.
(John 16:23 KJV ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.)
Clearly, this is a false promise of wish-fulfillment-- as the bible-god never manages to actually... grant them.
Proof?
The millions of Genuine Christian™ children who die each and every day-- needlessly, if the bible's wishing-machine were actually ... real.
there you go again, claiming that that verse talks about some magic wand that Christians think they have.
the sad truth is you are partly right. some Christians do think it talks about some magic wand. however they and you are wrong about the interpretation of that verse.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1592 May 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I did.
I was even more disappointed than before.
It is so full of evil, of misogyny, of oppression, of pro-slavery?
That it cannot possibly be from anything good.
Proof-positive there are no gods who give a damn about humanity-- for permitting such a horrid book of evil to even exist.
And to allow it to delude people such as ... you.
In fact?
YOU are also proof-positive there CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A GOD OF ANY SORT.
What self-respecting god would suffer the likes of .. YOU to be it's spokes-person?
Hmmmm?
read the whole thing again.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1593 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Bullsht and you know it. Why didn't Abraham use some other way for a burnt offering then?
Sorry but you are really going out of your way changing the meaning of terms as it pleases you. The Hebrew term for burnt offering is crystal clear. We even have Abraham clearly demonstrating it.
Again if you do not like what the bible says I say shun it instead of these childish apologetic games. Oh and the icing on the cake? Not a single Jewish or Christian leader ever mentioned another option than an actual burnt offering for her was in the late 18th century when the story started getting heat.
Nuff said.
<quoted text>
he did, the ram provided by God took isaac's place.
your refusal to accept what the words say is either stubbornness or
arrogance. you can clearly look those words up for your self.

if you are going to argue over what the Bible says then don't take verses out of context. keep them in the context of the completed word of God.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1594 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
So all angels in heaven are of The Lord right? There aren't any free lance angels right? Any angels of Charlie?
No.
My point stands.
<quoted text>
"the angel of the Lord is a title" it does not say "an" angel but it says "the" one angel of the Lord. your trying to salvage your position. why not just accept what the Bible explains to us about that phrase?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1595 May 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"the angel of the Lord is a title" it does not say "an" angel but it says "the" one angel of the Lord. your trying to salvage your position. why not just accept what the Bible explains to us about that phrase?
Apollgist garbage from theist liar with no proof of god.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1596 May 25, 2013
Yahweh ordered Abraham to free up his son as a burnt offering. Nothing is being taken out of context. You are either very stupid or being purposely obtuse.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>he did, the ram provided by God took isaac's place.
your refusal to accept what the words say is either stubbornness or
arrogance. you can clearly look those words up for your self.

if you are going to argue over what the Bible says then don't take verses out of context. keep them in the context of the completed word of God.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1597 May 25, 2013
Show me the passage where it says the one angel of The Lord and not just angel of The Lord.

Hurry up now!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"the angel of the Lord is a title" it does not say "an" angel but it says "the" one angel of the Lord. your trying to salvage your position. why not just accept what the Bible explains to us about that phrase?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1598 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yahweh ordered Abraham to free up his son as a burnt offering. Nothing is being taken out of context. You are either very stupid or being purposely obtuse.
<quoted text>
the point is that God would not have accepted isaac as an offering so he stopped him and provided a substitute. you can not find any place in the Bible where God accepted a human sacrifice except in the person of Christ himself on Calvary's cross.
i am not the one being obtuse. you refuse to look at the whole story let alone the context of the story.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1599 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Show me the passage where it says the one angel of The Lord and not just angel of The Lord.
Hurry up now!
<quoted text>
i already showed you the passages, in fact you posted the passage of the story where it says, "the" angel of the Lord. "the" signifies one only not "a" which implies there are others but the word was "the".

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1600 May 25, 2013
The point is you are applying your apologetic arguments point of view talking for your god, nothing more. You would think if a god existed and created this so called perfect book for humanity to read he could properly express his message. Instead throughout the years apologetics have to change how it is they interpret the bible so it is socially acceptable.

Seems more like your lot is projecting themselves on the bible verses the other way around.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the point is that God would not have accepted isaac as an offering so he stopped him and provided a substitute. you can not find any place in the Bible where God accepted a human sacrifice except in the person of Christ himself on Calvary's cross.
i am not the one being obtuse. you refuse to look at the whole story let alone the context of the story.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1601 May 25, 2013
Again that is your personal apologetic opinion being projected on the bible.

Now again show where the bible says the one angel of The Lord, otherwise you have once again failed and I will as usual accept your defeat.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i already showed you the passages, in fact you posted the passage of the story where it says, "the" angel of the Lord. "the" signifies one only not "a" which implies there are others but the word was "the".
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1602 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
The point is you are applying your apologetic arguments point of view talking for your god, nothing more. You would think if a god existed and created this so called perfect book for humanity to read he could properly express his message. Instead throughout the years apologetics have to change how it is they interpret the bible so it is socially acceptable.
Seems more like your lot is projecting themselves on the bible verses the other way around.
<quoted text>
well, he did give us a perfect book. you just wish that you could be spoon fed from it. "study to show yourself approved unto God...". "search the scriptures daily...". why should God move on to the complex things when people/you reject the simple things?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1603 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Again that is your personal apologetic opinion being projected on the bible.
Now again show where the bible says the one angel of The Lord, otherwise you have once again failed and I will as usual accept your defeat.
<quoted text>
my personal apologetic opinion? what else does the adjective "the" mean when put directly in front of a noun?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1604 May 25, 2013
I have repeatedly demonstrated more bible knowledge than you. You just require apologetic arguments to make up for your god's lack of being able to express his message. And guess what? Apologetic arguments today are different than even 50 years ago because it changes with society norms. 100 years from now apologetic arguments will have radically changed from even now.

Proof of my claim. If I was wrong apologetic arguments would not need to change so often but they are required to change.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>well, he did give us a perfect book. you just wish that you could be spoon fed from it. "study to show yourself approved unto God...". "search the scriptures daily...". why should God move on to the complex things when people/you reject the simple things?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1605 May 25, 2013
The angels in the lot story were called the same. Again are you this stupid or purposely obtuse?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>my personal apologetic opinion? what else does the adjective "the" mean when put directly in front of a noun?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1606 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I have repeatedly demonstrated more bible knowledge than you. You just require apologetic arguments to make up for your god's lack of being able to express his message. And guess what? Apologetic arguments today are different than even 50 years ago because it changes with society norms. 100 years from now apologetic arguments will have radically changed from even now.
Proof of my claim. If I was wrong apologetic arguments would not need to change so often but they are required to change.
<quoted text>
there are all kinds of arguments. many of them like most of your wrong. so while they like yours are also apologetic arguments that doesn't mean i agree with them.
now i realize that you don't think that your argument are apologetic but they are when you try to claim that the Catholic church was the original church, when you try to explain your understanding of scripture, and when you try to defend the agnostic or athiest view of history. you also are an apologist and those on your side of the issue are also changing or adjusting their position. so i don't view my being labeled as an apologist as any form of an insult. just don't lump us all together as one when we don't agree as one.
my arguments come specifically from the word of God when it pertains to what the word of God says. i don't think that that will change so i don't think that my arguments will change unless someone shows me that i missed something. my position is not new people have held these positions down through the ages. it may not have been the majority position. it may not have been the popular position but when you consider that anyone who disagreed with the C "church" was persecuted and killed you can see why it was not the majority position.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1607 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
The angels in the lot story were called the same. Again are you this stupid or purposely obtuse?
<quoted text>
try again, there is no "angel or angels of the Lord" in the Lot story. however the "Lord" is present in the story
so who is the stupid or obtuse one here?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1608 May 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go again, claiming that that verse talks about some magic wand that Christians think they have.
I'm simply putting the verse OUT THERE. It is what it is: a promise of unlimited wishes.

But you LIE about what it REALLY is, because the TRUTH is so ... stupid.

<laughing>

But you are quite stupid, are you not?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1609 May 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>read the whole thing again.
I did.
I was even more disappointed than before.
It is so full of evil, of misogyny, of oppression, of pro-slavery?
That it cannot possibly be from anything good.
Proof-positive there are no gods who give a damn about humanity-- for permitting such a horrid book of evil to even exist.
And to allow it to delude people such as ... you.
In fact?
YOU are also proof-positive there CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A GOD OF ANY SORT.
What self-respecting god would suffer the likes of .. YOU to be it's spokes-person?
Hmmmm?

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
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Into The Night 23,597
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,723
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 5 hr IB DaMann 94
bigger fish to fry (Jul '11) 7 hr Suspicious Packag... 2
What are the best arguments against religion? 7 hr Richardfs 8
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web