The guy was worth $25 million. How very “Christ like” LOLOL
Off the top of my head, i would guess his chances of getting to Heaven might be better than yours.
based on what?
The capacity to not shit on a guy on the day he dies?
bet his obit mentions him caught on tape saying ugly things about the jewish faith,that is real,must be pointed out for a fair and honest history of his life.
none of us are (by any measure) perfect. It's callous and shallow to focus on the worst failings of a person. In the calculus of giving and healing over a lifetime, Billy Graham didn't pitch a perfect game, but he pitched a no-hitter! That's a lot better than people will say about me...
He commented on the fact that Jews dominated the news media. He made the comments about 45 years ago and later apologized. The reason for his complaint was presumably that the particular Jews dominating the news media were likely biased towards the democrat party and therefore their news coverage was biased.
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
He commented on the fact that Jews dominated the news media. He made the comments about 45 years ago and later apologized. The reason for his complaint was presumably that the particular Jews dominating the news media were likely biased towards the democrat party and therefore their news coverage was biased.
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
he preached if you did not follow what he believed you were not worthy of gods presence and forgiveness and in his early years would say it publicly,you are goin to hell.whata guy.
RE: Sorry if I don’t find profiting off of others’ search for meaning Â
putting his money and time to significant charitable use than most of the charlatans that hide behind religion. I don't think Graham was perfect, but a lot of that is bias I have towards religion. I disagree with his take that people had to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I disagree that one religion is pitting against another or all others by positioning it as the "true path to God". But he at least helped make things under his control.
Just establishing the Samaritan's Purse is evidence enough. That's organization provides aid and relief to areas hit by disasters. He didn't just preach and take people's money, he used it to help others too.
He fought for checks and balances in ministries, limited his own income and was one of the first preachers to have some transparency regarding finances. He amassed a net worth of $25M, but you have to realize he established an organization back in 1950. He owned the magazine Christianity Today which has been in circulation for over half a decade.
He's probably the lone religious person that I find palatable because like I said above - he tried to make people better people. Not for himself. But for them.
Some people on this thread just go out of their way to hate Â
The man wrote 33 books including 5 best sellers and published a magazine. No one was forced to buy his books or magazine; they did so because they wanted his perspective and wisdom. He probably generated hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions in revenue.
The Bible says we should tithe (give 10% to charity). My guess is that Billy Graham gave a lot more than 10%.
If he kept 25 million out of hundreds of millions, while helping people find God, that's a good thing.
Also, keep in mind that 25 mill was accumulated over the course of 70-80 years and I'm sure he wasn't blowing money on booze, coke and hookers (unlike maybe some other preachers who DO give Christianity a bad name).
He commented on the fact that Jews dominated the news media. He made the comments about 45 years ago and later apologized. The reason for his complaint was presumably that the particular Jews dominating the news media were likely biased towards the democrat party and therefore their news coverage was biased.
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
His comments went way past what you’re charcacterizing:
'They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. [The Jewish]''stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,''
''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''
in withholding negative opinions of someone on the day they died. If you were willing to say them everyday while he was alive, not sure why the day he died would be any different. And certainly not when you consider the niagara of positive remembrances he's going to be getting from all corners.
He commented on the fact that Jews dominated the news media. He made the comments about 45 years ago and later apologized. The reason for his complaint was presumably that the particular Jews dominating the news media were likely biased towards the democrat party and therefore their news coverage was biased.
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
His comments went way past what you’re charcacterizing:
'They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. [The Jewish]''stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,''
''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''
and in 2002 he got on his hand and knees for forgiveness,only cause the recording became public. jon meachem said this,hardly some non believer.
The man wrote 33 books including 5 best sellers and published a magazine. No one was forced to buy his books or magazine; they did so because they wanted his perspective and wisdom. He probably generated hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions in revenue.
The Bible says we should tithe (give 10% to charity). My guess is that Billy Graham gave a lot more than 10%.
If he kept 25 million out of hundreds of millions, while helping people find God, that's a good thing.
Also, keep in mind that 25 mill was accumulated over the course of 70-80 years and I'm sure he wasn't blowing money on booze, coke and hookers (unlike maybe some other preachers who DO give Christianity a bad name).
Just to piggyback, when the poster negatively commented on him because he was worth $25 million, I thought, "That's it?" Someone with his reach and influence, he could've easily been in the hundreds of millions of wealth if not a billionaire if he was all about the money.
$25 million is not a lot of money considering the career he had.
in withholding negative opinions of someone on the day they died. If you were willing to say them everyday while he was alive, not sure why the day he died would be any different. And certainly not when you consider the niagara of positive remembrances he's going to be getting from all corners.
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
That's bad logic. If Graham were universally despised by the public, he'd still have loved ones presumably mourning his death. Their feelings wouldn't stop anyone from dumping on him. But because many people liked Graham, the people that don't are supposed to keep quiet?
kind of a non sequitur but the episode of 'The Crown' depicting his Â
friendship with and ministry to Queen Elizabeth was historically interesting (I never knew about that before) and, if at all historically accurate, speaks to him well as a spiritual leader.
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
That's bad logic. If Graham were universally despised by the public, he'd still have loved ones presumably mourning his death. Their feelings wouldn't stop anyone from dumping on him. But because many people liked Graham, the people that don't are supposed to keep quiet?
Respectful people would keep quiet right after he died. Whether or not the person was good or bad, unless they were Hitler or Charles Manson you allow those who mourn the loss to do so without having to hear you disparage their just deceased loved one. Again, it's respect for the living, not the dead. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I was just explaining it. Do what you want with it. Hopefully, you will see that it is the decent thing to do.
that many revered him as a spiritual advisor, but I wish he didn't espouse antisemitic, racist, and especially antigay positions/sentiments throughout his life. I can only hope that the amount of positive influence he had over people who needed him for guidance to live a moral life outweighed the pain he caused to those he condemned and the validation his positions gave to their tormentors.
His son, on the other hand-- along with the litany of false-prophet evangelist grifters-- well, I view them with a bit more clarity.
Respectful people would keep quiet right after he died. Whether or not the person was good or bad, unless they were Hitler or Charles Manson you allow those who mourn the loss to do so without having to hear you disparage their just deceased loved one. Again, it's respect for the living, not the dead. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I was just explaining it. Do what you want with it. Hopefully, you will see that it is the decent thing to do.
I'd respect the logic if I thought it was coming from a sincere place. But you're suggesting we should we respectful of someone after they've died, for the sake of their loved ones. Unless they happen to be really big scumbags. In that case, go to town, because who cares if they have loved ones who are suffering (and who had nothing to do with them being scumbags).
Basically, what this suggests is that you don't really care at all about protecting the feelings of the deceased's grieving family. Perhaps it's your own feelings you're trying to protect.
I recognize
PaulBlakeTSU : 2:13 pm : link : reply
that many revered him as a spiritual advisor, but I wish he didn't espouse antisemitic, racist, and especially antigay positions/sentiments throughout his life. I can only hope that the amount of positive influence he had over people who needed him for guidance to live a moral life outweighed the pain he caused to those he condemned and the validation his positions gave to their tormentors.
His son, on the other hand-- along with the litany of false-prophet evangelist grifters-- well, I view them with a bit more clarity.
The man wrote 33 books including 5 best sellers and published a magazine. No one was forced to buy his books or magazine; they did so because they wanted his perspective and wisdom. He probably generated hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions in revenue.
The Bible says we should tithe (give 10% to charity). My guess is that Billy Graham gave a lot more than 10%.
If he kept 25 million out of hundreds of millions, while helping people find God, that's a good thing.
Also, keep in mind that 25 mill was accumulated over the course of 70-80 years and I'm sure he wasn't blowing money on booze, coke and hookers (unlike maybe some other preachers who DO give Christianity a bad name).
Actually according to the bible people of today should not tithe but give offerings. Tithing relates to the old covenant (old testament). Only the tribe of Levites receives tithes. When the Jesus character died that represented the new covenant. Paul wrote most of the new testament and never mentioned tithes. People are just programmed and shamed into tithing and preachers are happy to accept$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
That's bad logic. If Graham were universally despised by the public, he'd still have loved ones presumably mourning his death. Their feelings wouldn't stop anyone from dumping on him. But because many people liked Graham, the people that don't are supposed to keep quiet?
Dude, I am sure I agree with you on the substance of the matter, but it is just classless. It is also classless to dump on an unpopular figure the day they die.
Dude, I am sure I agree with you on the substance of the matter, but it is just classless. It is also classless to dump on an unpopular figure the day they die.
Maybe it is, but the next time I see someone voice this principle in the face of people violating it, will be the first time.
Respectful people would keep quiet right after he died. Whether or not the person was good or bad, unless they were Hitler or Charles Manson you allow those who mourn the loss to do so without having to hear you disparage their just deceased loved one. Again, it's respect for the living, not the dead. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I was just explaining it. Do what you want with it. Hopefully, you will see that it is the decent thing to do.
I'd respect the logic if I thought it was coming from a sincere place. But you're suggesting we should we respectful of someone after they've died, for the sake of their loved ones. Unless they happen to be really big scumbags. In that case, go to town, because who cares if they have loved ones who are suffering (and who had nothing to do with them being scumbags).
Basically, what this suggests is that you don't really care at all about protecting the feelings of the deceased's grieving family. Perhaps it's your own feelings you're trying to protect.
Actually no it's not. I only mentioned Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler because I don't like using absolutes (most of the time, ha). So they were the two most extreme examples of what I just talked about. And I don't think either of them had loved ones. But, you aren't going to need exceptions...you just asked for the logic behind it and I gave it to you. You now don't want to accept that logic.
So if you can't avoid saying negative stuff about someone who just died out of respect for their loved ones that's your prerogative and I don't care. I wouldn't associate with you and I doubt most people would want to associate with someone like that. As was said, it's extremely classless. So if that's how you want to portray yourself, knock yourself out.
I don't have any skin in the game on Graham. I'm a believer but I haven't been to church with any regularity in about 20 years, and he was 99, so he had a good run. I respect who he was as a person and what he gave to a lot of people, but it impacts me exactly zero.
as I was wen I was younger. The few times I stumbled onto one of his TV specials (the 70's?) ... I didn't watch for very long but, remember thinking that he had a nice style and for some reason I liked him. Today someone on the radio said "Most think that he was so popular because he never brought fear or guilt into his sermons ... and I yelled (to myself) ..."That's it!"
Blue Angel : 9:45 am : link : reply
He did his calling of GOD like no one else.....won many souls for JESUS CHRIST!!!!!
I like to imagine you yelling those words in real life when talking.
His son can eat some dicks though.
Quote:
The guy was worth $25 million. How very “Christ like” LOLOL
Off the top of my head, i would guess his chances of getting to Heaven might be better than yours.
based on what?
Quote:
The guy was worth $25 million. How very “Christ like” LOLOL
Off the top of my head, i would guess his chances of getting to Heaven might be better than yours.
Probably exactly the same as anyone else’s chances I’d say.
Quote:
In comment 13837953 732NYG said:
Quote:
The guy was worth $25 million. How very “Christ like” LOLOL
Off the top of my head, i would guess his chances of getting to Heaven might be better than yours.
Probably exactly the same as anyone else’s chances I’d say.
heaven/hell-fake news
Quote:
In comment 13837953 732NYG said:
Quote:
The guy was worth $25 million. How very “Christ like” LOLOL
Off the top of my head, i would guess his chances of getting to Heaven might be better than yours.
based on what?
Quote:
In comment 13837961 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 13837953 732NYG said:
Quote:
The guy was worth $25 million. How very “Christ like” LOLOL
Off the top of my head, i would guess his chances of getting to Heaven might be better than yours.
based on what?
The capacity to not shit on a guy on the day he dies?
bet his obit mentions him caught on tape saying ugly things about the jewish faith,that is real,must be pointed out for a fair and honest history of his life.
He had a lot of nothing to say
We’ll miss him
We’re gonna miss him
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
he preached if you did not follow what he believed you were not worthy of gods presence and forgiveness and in his early years would say it publicly,you are goin to hell.whata guy.
If you're insinuating that Billy Graham was a fraud because he had a lot of money, that seems unfair.
On the other hand, is there anyone else right now with a more punchable face than Joel Osteen?
Just establishing the Samaritan's Purse is evidence enough. That's organization provides aid and relief to areas hit by disasters. He didn't just preach and take people's money, he used it to help others too.
He fought for checks and balances in ministries, limited his own income and was one of the first preachers to have some transparency regarding finances. He amassed a net worth of $25M, but you have to realize he established an organization back in 1950. He owned the magazine Christianity Today which has been in circulation for over half a decade.
He's probably the lone religious person that I find palatable because like I said above - he tried to make people better people. Not for himself. But for them.
Condolences to the family, all that loved and cared for him.
The Bible says we should tithe (give 10% to charity). My guess is that Billy Graham gave a lot more than 10%.
If he kept 25 million out of hundreds of millions, while helping people find God, that's a good thing.
Also, keep in mind that 25 mill was accumulated over the course of 70-80 years and I'm sure he wasn't blowing money on booze, coke and hookers (unlike maybe some other preachers who DO give Christianity a bad name).
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
His comments went way past what you’re charcacterizing:
'They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. [The Jewish]''stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,''
''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''
Quote:
He commented on the fact that Jews dominated the news media. He made the comments about 45 years ago and later apologized. The reason for his complaint was presumably that the particular Jews dominating the news media were likely biased towards the democrat party and therefore their news coverage was biased.
Is that so bad; so evil?
In the same conversation he said "a lot of Jews are great friends of mine". He wasn't aware that his private conversation was being recorded, so it's not like he added the latter comment for public consumption.
For those citing this issue, I bet I can find a lot worse things about who ever you consider a hero.
His comments went way past what you’re charcacterizing:
'They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff. [The Jewish]''stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,''
''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''
and in 2002 he got on his hand and knees for forgiveness,only cause the recording became public. jon meachem said this,hardly some non believer.
The Bible says we should tithe (give 10% to charity). My guess is that Billy Graham gave a lot more than 10%.
If he kept 25 million out of hundreds of millions, while helping people find God, that's a good thing.
Also, keep in mind that 25 mill was accumulated over the course of 70-80 years and I'm sure he wasn't blowing money on booze, coke and hookers (unlike maybe some other preachers who DO give Christianity a bad name).
Just to piggyback, when the poster negatively commented on him because he was worth $25 million, I thought, "That's it?" Someone with his reach and influence, he could've easily been in the hundreds of millions of wealth if not a billionaire if he was all about the money.
$25 million is not a lot of money considering the career he had.
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
That's bad logic. If Graham were universally despised by the public, he'd still have loved ones presumably mourning his death. Their feelings wouldn't stop anyone from dumping on him. But because many people liked Graham, the people that don't are supposed to keep quiet?
Quote:
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
That's bad logic. If Graham were universally despised by the public, he'd still have loved ones presumably mourning his death. Their feelings wouldn't stop anyone from dumping on him. But because many people liked Graham, the people that don't are supposed to keep quiet?
Respectful people would keep quiet right after he died. Whether or not the person was good or bad, unless they were Hitler or Charles Manson you allow those who mourn the loss to do so without having to hear you disparage their just deceased loved one. Again, it's respect for the living, not the dead. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I was just explaining it. Do what you want with it. Hopefully, you will see that it is the decent thing to do.
His son, on the other hand-- along with the litany of false-prophet evangelist grifters-- well, I view them with a bit more clarity.
Respectful people would keep quiet right after he died. Whether or not the person was good or bad, unless they were Hitler or Charles Manson you allow those who mourn the loss to do so without having to hear you disparage their just deceased loved one. Again, it's respect for the living, not the dead. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I was just explaining it. Do what you want with it. Hopefully, you will see that it is the decent thing to do.
I'd respect the logic if I thought it was coming from a sincere place. But you're suggesting we should we respectful of someone after they've died, for the sake of their loved ones. Unless they happen to be really big scumbags. In that case, go to town, because who cares if they have loved ones who are suffering (and who had nothing to do with them being scumbags).
Basically, what this suggests is that you don't really care at all about protecting the feelings of the deceased's grieving family. Perhaps it's your own feelings you're trying to protect.
PaulBlakeTSU : 2:13 pm : link : reply
that many revered him as a spiritual advisor, but I wish he didn't espouse antisemitic, racist, and especially antigay positions/sentiments throughout his life. I can only hope that the amount of positive influence he had over people who needed him for guidance to live a moral life outweighed the pain he caused to those he condemned and the validation his positions gave to their tormentors.
His son, on the other hand-- along with the litany of false-prophet evangelist grifters-- well, I view them with a bit more clarity.
The Bible says we should tithe (give 10% to charity). My guess is that Billy Graham gave a lot more than 10%.
If he kept 25 million out of hundreds of millions, while helping people find God, that's a good thing.
Also, keep in mind that 25 mill was accumulated over the course of 70-80 years and I'm sure he wasn't blowing money on booze, coke and hookers (unlike maybe some other preachers who DO give Christianity a bad name).
Actually according to the bible people of today should not tithe but give offerings. Tithing relates to the old covenant (old testament). Only the tribe of Levites receives tithes. When the Jesus character died that represented the new covenant. Paul wrote most of the new testament and never mentioned tithes. People are just programmed and shamed into tithing and preachers are happy to accept$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Quote:
Ok here's the logic for you: You hold back out of respect for the suffering and loss of those that loved the person who died.
That's bad logic. If Graham were universally despised by the public, he'd still have loved ones presumably mourning his death. Their feelings wouldn't stop anyone from dumping on him. But because many people liked Graham, the people that don't are supposed to keep quiet?
Dude, I am sure I agree with you on the substance of the matter, but it is just classless. It is also classless to dump on an unpopular figure the day they die.
Dude, I am sure I agree with you on the substance of the matter, but it is just classless. It is also classless to dump on an unpopular figure the day they die.
Maybe it is, but the next time I see someone voice this principle in the face of people violating it, will be the first time.
I know he is in Heaven with the Lord.
Quote:
Respectful people would keep quiet right after he died. Whether or not the person was good or bad, unless they were Hitler or Charles Manson you allow those who mourn the loss to do so without having to hear you disparage their just deceased loved one. Again, it's respect for the living, not the dead. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I was just explaining it. Do what you want with it. Hopefully, you will see that it is the decent thing to do.
I'd respect the logic if I thought it was coming from a sincere place. But you're suggesting we should we respectful of someone after they've died, for the sake of their loved ones. Unless they happen to be really big scumbags. In that case, go to town, because who cares if they have loved ones who are suffering (and who had nothing to do with them being scumbags).
Basically, what this suggests is that you don't really care at all about protecting the feelings of the deceased's grieving family. Perhaps it's your own feelings you're trying to protect.
Actually no it's not. I only mentioned Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler because I don't like using absolutes (most of the time, ha). So they were the two most extreme examples of what I just talked about. And I don't think either of them had loved ones. But, you aren't going to need exceptions...you just asked for the logic behind it and I gave it to you. You now don't want to accept that logic.
So if you can't avoid saying negative stuff about someone who just died out of respect for their loved ones that's your prerogative and I don't care. I wouldn't associate with you and I doubt most people would want to associate with someone like that. As was said, it's extremely classless. So if that's how you want to portray yourself, knock yourself out.
When Gary Carter died I grieved, though.