That is pretty weak. What has he ever done to substantiate the validity of his beliefs? I mean, after all, this is the fucking word of God, the most important information in the whole of existence, to be heeded with utmost care and alacrity. It is the absolute, intractable truth, couched in a powerful appeal to emotion. And you are arguing that simple passive belief is sufficient for accepting and disseminating this information, that belief absolves possible error with respect to this most crucial teaching? So sorry, but I think the word of god deserves and demands a higher standard than that. As it is, preachers should frame their discourse with legalese caveats to clarify that it is just opinion and belief they expounding.
Also, Franklin Graham is a douche, that strikes me as a pretty serious indictment of Billy, that he has allowed his son to run amok in this most deprecable way.
You previously provided a selection of four poisoned wells to explain the change in Catholic doctrine on this point. Since all four of them result in the same change to doctrine, does that mean that all four of the options are equivalent? If all four are equivalent, why did you ask which one best describes the church’s motivations?
Kinda cute that you think we need ‘vicarious redemption’ to be defined for us, then you mangle it. Yeah, it’s kinda, sorta like ‘scapegoating’ except that the Scapegoat in question is (Sam Kinison volume escalation) The Creator Incarnate!
Qin, don’t you know Christians are to be poor, weak, powerless doormats so that the wealthier, stronger, powerful non-believers need not fear those who believe in a rival Lord to them?
Christians are to be poor, weak, powerless doormats because that is essentially the ideal that Jesus taught. Paul might have offered some different doctrine, but Paul was not the son of god, now was he?
I don’t know what he made out of his American crusades, but he never took money out of foreign countries: not “nothing after expenses”, actually “nothing at all”.
And for the rest of this thread: haters gotta hate, right? Take it to the pit.
‘By your fruit shall ye be known’ and his son is a giant suppurating carbuncle on the asscheeks of humanity. Negative 1000 points.
Billy himself wasn’t as strident and spittle-flecked as some of his contemporaries, and he wasn’t anti evolution and didn’t seem to be heinously racist against at least blacks, even though he was anti semitic and a homophobe. Zero points.
So, less awful than a lot of other fundies? Not exactly a glowing report card.
Also he’s dead and he’s not a poster here so why the attempt to junior-mod this shambling corpse into the pit anyway?
I suppose the idea is that if some people really want to piss on his grave for reasons already shared, and if they try to do so in the actual obit thread they may get modded, then the pit is suggested. But I suppose, this zombie is perfectly cromulent to discuss if he was “one of the good guys” even now.
Other than some jokes about his clothes back during the Nixon years (God just thought he looked better in $200 suits) he seems to have attracted less dirt than most televangelists. All in all not a bad guy to me.
It IS something of a comment of where the standing of evangelists has descended, that a lot of the comments are to the effect that he shines in comparison to others.
Well, not evil per se but Somebody doesn’t look kindly on it:
Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
There are evangelists who are genuinely and sincerely in it to evangelize (to spread the gospel and “win people for Christ,” or whatever term you want to use), and there are those who are in it for the money or the fame or the political power or other ulterior motives. One way to interpret the thread title’s question is as asking whether Billy is/was one of the former or one of the latter.