|| posted on 2-3-2018 at 16:37
|Point being, we have a few different readings of the same text.
When the Bible is fuzzy on the details, it doesn't do well to focus *too* much on a subject to the point where you proclaim that gay people should be
The bits about same sex relations and sexual misconduct are treated with the same seriousness as condemnation of shellfish, mixed fabrics and how to
The amount of *focus* preachers like Billy Graham brought them is disproportionate to the amount of information ever given in the Bible.
Him and his ilk are/were never care about the pain they bring to families by preaching things like conversion therapy.
Incidentally, Leigh...the "I" part of LGBTQI means Intersex, which is a biological condition not an orientation or gender.
(Even I joke LGBTQAbcdefg....)
Calling it a lifestyle rather trivialises the depth of love between a Queer couple.
Men like Billy Graham make it their business to condemn people for love.
|| posted on 2-3-2018 at 15:01
More bland than band if you ask me
|| posted on 2-3-2018 at 14:13
What is your view of the relationship between David and Jonathan?
|| posted on 28-2-2018 at 06:58
|I could understand the Homosexual groups not liking him because homosexuality is against the tenets of his faith. It's too late to ask him, now, of
course, but, I would suggest that he had no problem with homosexuality per se only in relation to the Church. The Bible does identify homosexuality,
along with adultery, murder, and so forth, as sins. It DOES NOT condemn homosexuality as any worse than any other sin. It would be hypocritical of
ANY Christian to treat a Homosexual ANY different to a person who is an alcoholic, or lies or cheats on their Tax. We (Christians) are commanded to
LOVE the sinner and recognise that we, too, are just as guilty of sin as the next person, Our only claim to righteousness is by the
blood of Jesus Christ.
The Bible was written to tell those outside of the Kingdom about God and his love. It was also written to tell those who choose to Follow God HOW to
live and the consequences (benefits or otherwise) thereof. If you do not subscribe to those tenets then, of course you are free to do as you will and
take your chances against the truth, or otherwise, of the Scriptures.
Whilst I, as a Christian, would counsel against the LGBTI lifestyle, it is not my place to tell ANYONE (who does not follow my faith) how they should
live, and treat people as I find them. I would suggest that Billy Graham was not too different than that.
Sorry, this sounds more like a sermon than anything else, and that is not my intent. It is meant more as an explanation.
|| posted on 26-2-2018 at 16:29
|He's absolutely hated among the lgbt groups I follow.
His views on homosexuality and specifically the way homosexuals were to be treated seem to have lead to so much suffering.
This week I've read of people losing their families, being sent to "Conversion" camps and even driven to suicide by Family who thought Graham was
the best thing since sliced bread.
|| posted on 22-2-2018 at 23:43
|A chief reason he had so much influence for the good is that he stayed close to the heart of the Christian faith in most of his preaching, and the
Lord blessed his ministry.
I heard one of his long-time friends speak of their personal history. Graham heard this other man preach at an evangelistic service and thought he
was really good. Graham helped him set up an organization (to take the steps with respect to employees, governing structure, etc.) for support.
Graham wanted the message to get out, and was not jealous of another man carrying the message, but rather wanted to help him with the sometimes
troublesome details. He mentioned that Graham worked with other Christian leaders whom many evangelists had avoided because of doctrinal differences
(e.g. Pentecostals and Roman Catholics). He, himself, spoke to Graham suggesting that might not be good to do. Graham asked, "Do you know the
people you're asking me to avoid?" Graham pointed out that he was able get a wider hearing because he was willing to cooperate with others, with
whom he was not in full agreement.
|| posted on 22-2-2018 at 13:51
|I have read a biography of the man and he certainly did not pull any punches. He was not in it for the money, though, of course, that would have been
thrust upon him by the "adoring masses". He was a very humble man and very focussed on his message. He would not go into an area to preach until he
had the support of the local churches to follow up on those converts made at his rallies. Those churches had to supply counsellors who were to be
trained up by his team prior to the rally. It is also reported that another was to become the evangelist that Billy eventually became, but was
unwilling to perform the task.
Strangely enough, I remember going to a crusade that I always thought was Billy Graham. I remember asking my mum if we could go forward at the altar
call. However, he only came to Adelaide in 1959 and I would have been only 2 then, so it is unlikely.
|| posted on 22-2-2018 at 10:00
|Same here, Nim. I believe he got quite rich on the business. According to the obituaries here, the alternative job he was considering was "Sales".
|| posted on 22-2-2018 at 06:29
|Not a person I ever had much time for - but R.I.P.
|| posted on 21-2-2018 at 22:23
|How Billy Graham Became The Most Famous Preacher In America
By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor
Updated 12:41 PM ET, Wed February 21, 2018
An article that is somewhat long, and certainly a limited explanation of how he came to prominence, i. e., people like him, and the movement he
participated in, needs a book length (or 2-3 maybe) explanation re the confluence of individuals and American historical events to illustrate his
life, i. e. # 2, to explain just how he happened to touch a "responsive cord" in so many people, and fell on deaf ears for others.
For those across the pond, there really is a "Bible Belt" in the USA, but not an all encompassing one either. 'Taking to the highway' to preach
is a long standing practice in the USA (of the iterant preacher type especially), but whether such individuals represented an established religion, or
just themselves is open to considerable debate, to include why certain religious groups did a good deal of that, and others hardly any, if at all.
What constitutes a "seminary", "ordination" etc., does not come with some sort of a hard and fast criteria, to include in some "churches"
something like who is a "bishop".
|| posted on 21-2-2018 at 18:55