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!"
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.