Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

There are 1637 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.

“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?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1610 May 25, 2013
Now you demonstrate you do not know the meaning of the term apologetic. There is no such thing as an atheist view of history. So once again you show your ignorance.

The fact is apologetics like you change your stances on issues throughout the generations. Your arguments always attempt to match up the bible to the current secular morality. As secular morality improves the apologetic's arguments have to change.
barry wrote:
<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.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1611 May 25, 2013
Best read it again.
barry wrote:
<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

#1612 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Now you demonstrate you do not know the meaning of the term apologetic. There is no such thing as an atheist view of history. So once again you show your ignorance.
The fact is apologetics like you change your stances on issues throughout the generations. Your arguments always attempt to match up the bible to the current secular morality. As secular morality improves the apologetic's arguments have to change.
<quoted text>
Yep.

That is proof-positive that *secular* morality is superior in every way, to religious morality.

Secular moral codes can and do change as we humans realize better ways to deal with each other.

For example: in the majority of the world's industrialized countries, it is no longer legal to put criminals to death. This is a 180 degree change from before, where killing criminals for the least little thing was quite common.(The US is one of the few exceptions for the former)

In short? Secular morality is better.

Religious morality has been playing catch-up all along-- it is always quite behind modern ideas.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1613 May 25, 2013
And guess what? 100 years from now apologetics will be claiming the bible advocates for whatever moral right is being fought for then something not being quoted by them now.

In the past apologetics used the bible to stop interracial marriages, equal rights for women and more. Later when secular society said these were to be allowed? After some foot dragging the Christian apologetics remembered the bible advocated for that all along! Whoops!

Lmfao
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yep.

That is proof-positive that *secular* morality is superior in every way, to religious morality.

Secular moral codes can and do change as we humans realize better ways to deal with each other.

For example: in the majority of the world's industrialized countries, it is no longer legal to put criminals to death. This is a 180 degree change from before, where killing criminals for the least little thing was quite common.(The US is one of the few exceptions for the former)

In short? Secular morality is better.

Religious morality has been playing catch-up all along-- it is always quite behind modern ideas.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#1614 May 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>really? prove it.
the law has been fulfilled.
There has been no biblical law fulfilled. Anything that has been done, was done by man, nature or accident, nothing more.

All biblical laws pertain to all Jews forever*, everyone else is Gentile, and they are of no more consequence than slaves or dogs. Jewish heaven is for Jewish male, virgins only. With the exception of Mary, but then Jesus taught her to be a male.

* Jesus came not to change them, not a single one. You should be living very much like the Islamics do now, stoning to death your neighbors, and children, for not following your holy books to the letter.
You wouldn't wear mixed fibers or eat shrimp would you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1615 May 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And guess what? 100 years from now apologetics will be claiming the bible advocates for whatever moral right is being fought for then something not being quoted by them now.
In the past apologetics used the bible to stop interracial marriages, equal rights for women and more. Later when secular society said these were to be allowed? After some foot dragging the Christian apologetics remembered the bible advocated for that all along! Whoops!
Lmfao
<quoted text>
Yep.

Bible-worshipers also used it to justify stealing land and resources from Natives, when and wherever they could.

These days, we humans correctly see that for what it is: exploitation.

And the bible-apologizers have reversed themselves, claiming the BuyBull was against it after all....

.... I'd laugh, but too many folk have died as a result of the bible already...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1616 May 25, 2013
And we can see similar stories throughout history with Christians.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yep.

Bible-worshipers also used it to justify stealing land and resources from Natives, when and wherever they could.

These days, we humans correctly see that for what it is: exploitation.

And the bible-apologizers have reversed themselves, claiming the BuyBull was against it after all....

.... I'd laugh, but too many folk have died as a result of the bible already...
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1617 May 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
so, if you say that Christians are stupid for believing that they have a "promise of unlimited wishes", then i propose that you are just as stupid for thinking that that is what it says.
you do claim that that is what it says don't you?
you do claim that Christians who believe that are stupid, don't you?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1618 May 26, 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?
i'll bet you can count on your one hand the # of times that you have read the whole Bible cover to cover.
which to your credit is probably more times then the vast majority of "Christians".
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1619 May 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Now you demonstrate you do not know the meaning of the term apologetic. There is no such thing as an atheist view of history. So once again you show your ignorance.
The fact is apologetics like you change your stances on issues throughout the generations. Your arguments always attempt to match up the bible to the current secular morality. As secular morality improves the apologetic's arguments have to change.
<quoted text>
wow, athiests don't have a view of history. really? so you also reject the theories of evolution?
i never try to match the Bible to the "the current secular morality".
so you are lumping me into a group that i am not a part of.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1620 May 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Best read it again.
<quoted text>
obviously i read it again. so if you are so sure that the "angel of the Lord" is found in the text of the Lot story, then perhaps you can post the reference for it.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#1621 May 26, 2013
This is where your lack of reading comprehension comes in. Atheism means not believing in god that is it. So there is no atheist world view.

Now do atheists as people have views on the world? Naturally and they will be as varied as what one likes to eat for dinner. Why? Because atheism does not even deal with a so called world view. Now many atheists, not all, are secular humanists. So if one asked me my world views for example, they would reflect a nonviolent secular humanist standpoint.

Oh and yes you do modify your apologetic arguments to current society norms. Just 70 years ago you would be hard pressed to find an apologetic arguing from the bible that interracial marriages were a good thing. Instead you would find the majority of Christian apologetics arguing against it. And this is just one example of how the Christian apologetic's argument changes with the times. If the bible were guiding the people in society and not people projecting the bible upon how society is anyways we wouldn't see such radical changes throughout the years.

You for example because of how you were raised in what is acceptable in modern secular society can't stand to think Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a bunt offering, even though the bible clearly says he did. Instead of merely accepting what the bible says you have to add several unrelated passages and even for this one example change the meanings of words. This is how desperate you have to get to make your bible fit today's secular standards! Lol!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>wow, athiests don't have a view of history. really? so you also reject the theories of evolution?
i never try to match the Bible to the "the current secular morality".
so you are lumping me into a group that i am not a part of.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#1622 May 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i'll bet you can count on your one hand the # of times that you have read the whole Bible cover to cover.
which to your credit is probably more times then the vast majority of "Christians".
That is how almost every one who has read the buybull cover to cover counts it. On one hand. Most people read "lessons" as directed by thier spell casters, but never actually read the whole thing. For my self in halk a century, I have read it cover to cover twice, on the third reading, I skipped the begats. They were just too tedious to go through again, besides I am pretty sure that there was no new hidden messages in the list of men who begat more men.

Reading it is the sole reason, that I am now atheist. Did you know that buybull god will make you eat your children?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1623 May 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
This is where your lack of reading comprehension comes in. Atheism means not believing in god that is it. So there is no atheist world view.
Now do atheists as people have views on the world? Naturally and they will be as varied as what one likes to eat for dinner. Why? Because atheism does not even deal with a so called world view. Now many atheists, not all, are secular humanists. So if one asked me my world views for example, they would reflect a nonviolent secular humanist standpoint.
Oh and yes you do modify your apologetic arguments to current society norms. Just 70 years ago you would be hard pressed to find an apologetic arguing from the bible that interracial marriages were a good thing. Instead you would find the majority of Christian apologetics arguing against it. And this is just one example of how the Christian apologetic's argument changes with the times. If the bible were guiding the people in society and not people projecting the bible upon how society is anyways we wouldn't see such radical changes throughout the years.
You for example because of how you were raised in what is acceptable in modern secular society can't stand to think Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a bunt offering, even though the bible clearly says he did. Instead of merely accepting what the bible says you have to add several unrelated passages and even for this one example change the meanings of words. This is how desperate you have to get to make your bible fit today's secular standards! Lol!
<quoted text>
ok, then don't call me an apologetic. because 70 years ago the Bible still said that moses was married to an ethiopian. and the book of the Song of Solomon still was a love story between a black[dark] women and a white king.

so if you can not show where i would have changed except perhaps to admit error and become more accurate in my position, don't lump me with those who would stick their finger in the air and try to get out in front of popular trends.

the passages i used clearly defined the term and the function of the term. you are the one who wants to isolate scripture and take iit out of its context simply to make an unfounded accusation.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1624 May 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And we can see similar stories throughout history with Christians.
<quoted text>
Yep.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1625 May 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so, if you say that Christians are stupid for believing that they have a "promise of unlimited wishes", then i propose that you are just as stupid for thinking that that is what it says.
That is EXACTLY what it says-- that is why I think it is 100% bullsh7t.

But you? YOU LIE about what it says-- you HAVE TO LIE.

Because even YOU are not quite so stupid to believe in the false promise of that verse---

-- do you wear seatbelts? Yes? YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

-- do you use modern scientific medical drugs? Yes? YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

-- do you pay for insurance of ANY kind? Yes? YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

In short?

You are just a lying azzhole.

Just like all the REST of your hate-cult.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1626 May 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i'll bet you can count on your one hand the # of times that you have read the whole Bible cover to cover.
Hundreds for me. For you? I'd bet you $100 that it would be ZERO. You lying azzholes NEVER actually READ the ugly thing all the way through.

I was a Genuine Christian™ for most of my life. During that time, I read it through-and-through-- just not all at once.

That didn't happen until about 10 years or so ago, when I took a college-level class, which DID go cover-to-cover, slowly, with much study.

That was the beginning of the end of the last of my faith in the ugly bible-- I saw a horrid book of evil.

No way a GOD who CARES is responsible for it-- or even SUFFERS IT TO EXIST.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#1627 May 26, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>That is how almost every one who has read the buybull cover to cover counts it. On one hand. Most people read "lessons" as directed by thier spell casters, but never actually read the whole thing. For my self in halk a century, I have read it cover to cover twice, on the third reading, I skipped the begats. They were just too tedious to go through again, besides I am pretty sure that there was no new hidden messages in the list of men who begat more men.
Reading it is the sole reason, that I am now atheist. Did you know that buybull god will make you eat your children?
not enough coffee this morning?
Thinking wrote:
"My point is you're too cu*ting thick to spell "altar" properly."
<quoted text>
and your response was;
"On the previous page alone ... some real doozies. "Angle, alter, etches, tf and he'e"...."

well, in just this post above
" On one hand.[incomplete sentence] Most people read "lessons" as directed by thier [their] spell..."
"halk" [half?]

i remember a post by you about making your points "succinctly".

oh, and then your post #1421;
"...I think that maybe Satin [Satan] is having his way with them."

well i'm sure it is not normal for you but you obviously are not as smooth and succinct as you think you are. so load up on the coffee it will be ok.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min IB DaMann 43,102
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 6 min IB DaMann 5,676
A Universe from Nothing? 9 min IB DaMann 430
News Why I quit atheism 16 min IB DaMann 692
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min IB DaMann 18,469
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 49 min Eagle 12 85
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 52 min Eagle 12 9,361
More from around the web