Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on February 21, 2018, 02:39:38 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43142263
-
Worse have walked the Earth than Billy.
RIP.
-
It'll be interesting to see how much he has left in his will, if it doesn't amount to very much I'd like to know how it's been covered up just how much he has really left.
Regards ippy
-
It'll be interesting to see how much he has left in his will, if it doesn't amount to very much I'd like to know how it's been covered up just how much he has really left.
Regards ippy
Not the time for snide comments.
Grow up.
-
I'm wondering if any media will show clips of Billy in full flow.
-
My first reaction when reading topic title was: about time too.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
-
My first reaction when reading topic title was: about time too.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
As I wrote above worse people have walked the Earth than Billy Graham.
As I recall, you have written here that you would tell a dying person words to the effect of "You are going to die, nothing will be left of you other than an empty shell, get on with it".
I have little time for Evangelicals, but I would rather spend my last moments with an evangelical, than with an unpleasant anti theist.
-
My first reaction when reading topic title was: about time too.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
Are you offering this up as proof you can be moral without religion?
The Secular websites and Atheist rant sites are going to be a real treat for us outsiders of secular humanism tonight.
-
My first reaction when reading topic title was: about time too.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
So when my sainted mother dies, I'm supposed to think 'About time too', given she brought me up in her religion?
-
His influence on Anglicanism remains huge. He started the drive towards Evangelicalism which has resulted in the church being less welcoming and tolerant. I do wonder how he could raise a son so lacking in morality.
-
NS,
So when my sainted mother dies, I'm supposed to think 'About time too', given she brought me up in her religion?
If she was also a virulent anti-semite and palpable fraud who built a career on lying to young people you might be inclined to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hl2jdfIiA
-
NS,
If she was also a virulent anti-semite and palpable fraud who built a career on lying to young people you might be inclined to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hl2jdfIiA
Can I intrude here?
Billy Graham did not like Catholics either, but then neither did Ian Paisley. But Paisley, Graham, or for that matter Praise God Barebones, did not endorse killing anybody. Get over it.
-
NS,
If she was also a virulent anti-semite and palpable fraud who built a career on lying to young people you might be inclined to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hl2jdfIiA
Are you sure he was lying? If so, how?
-
Humph,
Can I intrude here?
Billy Graham did not like Catholics either, but then neither did Ian Paisley. But Paisley, Graham, or for that matter Praise God Barebones, did not endorse killing anybody. Get over it.
Get over what?
-
NS,
Are you sure he was lying? If so, how?
Hitchens thought he was a palpable fraud, but I'm not "sure" about anything.
-
Humph,
Get over what?
Your dislike of evangelical christians. They are not bad people per se. If you do not like their message then ignore it. I do.
(OK If I am bored I argue with the Baptists in our local High Street on Friday morning, but I do not see them as fundamentally bad people).
-
NS,
Hitchens thought he was a palpable fraud, but I'm not "sure" about anything.
I'm sure I'm typing this - that isn't a claim to absolute certainty because as a colloquial everyday sense, saying you are sure about something isn't claiming that. Mentioning Hitchens here is worthless, I want to know why you were sure enough to type that he was lying, and a citation of Hitchens gives me no reason to believe you were right to be so sure in your statement
-
NS,
Hitchens thought he was a palpable fraud, but I'm not "sure" about anything.
Apparently Dean Martin said that when he shook Graham's hand his right arm sobered up.
Did Hitchens ever meet Graham?
-
"Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into your rest." I met him once =- at Mission Scotland, Celtic Park, where I was a coounsellor. As far as finances go, I have no idea...however I DO know that the offerings from Mission Scotland went to local churches projects working with the homelerss, such as Calton, Bethany, etc...and that all accounts for the missdion were independently audited. The BGEA organised the events...and, as per usual, opened up their accounts to independent scrutiny. This was no televangelist outfit.
-
My first reaction when reading topic title was: about time too.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
Lives were changed.
I know a few who, by being changed, have changed the lives of others.
-
NS,
I'm sure I'm typing this - that isn't a claim to absolute certainty because as a colloquial everyday sense, saying you are sure about something isn't claiming that. Mentioning Hitchens here is worthless, I want to know why you were sure enough to type that he was lying, and a citation of Hitchens gives me no reason to believe you were right to be so sure in your statement
What point do you think you’re making here? Hitchens I find to be generally reliable in such matters, and if we’re talking “sure” in the colloquial, everyday sense then for colloquial, everyday purposes that’s a citation. If instead you actually mean the, “would it stand up in the courts?” sense for example though then it probably isn’t (except perhaps as a character witness).
Whether BG’s mis-statements about (among other things) American history were lies or just mistakes (or propaganda) is moot, but his anti-semitism is on tape. He apologised for it afterwards, (“I just got caught up in the conversation”) but it’s unpleasant stuff at best. The New York Times and the Washington Post both have balance obits.
-
Can I intrude here?
Billy Graham did not like Catholics either, but then neither did Ian Paisley. But Paisley, Graham, or for that matter Praise God Barebones, did not endorse killing anybody. Get over it.
Humph; Mission Scotland took place in Celtic Park (home of Glasgow Celtic, famously known for its RC roots)
I was a counsellor there that week.
Some of the prayers were conducted by John Fitsimmons, a very well known RC Priest, sadly no longer with us.
The notorious bigot 'Pastor' Jack Glass handed out flyers each night denouncing Graham for having met and prayed with the Pope.
Mind you, said Pastor was infamous for doing the same thing, year after year, outside the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland....apparently he nearly blew a fuse when an RC archbishop was warmly welcomed and invited to speak to us one year.
-
Anchs,
Lives were changed.
I know a few who, by being changed, have changed the lives of others.
For the better or for the worse? Or both?
-
NS,
What point do you think you’re making here? Hitchens I find to be generally reliable in such matters, and if we’re talking “sure” in the colloquial, everyday sense then for colloquial, everyday purposes that’s a citation. If instead you actually mean the, “would it stand up in the courts?” sense for example though then it probably isn’t (except perhaps as a character witness).
Whether BG’s mis-statements about (among other things) American history were lies or just mistakes (or propaganda) is moot, but his anti-semitism is on tape. He apologised for it afterwards, (“I just got caught up in the conversation”) but it’s unpleasant stuff at best. The New York Times and the Washington Post both have balance obits.
Citing Hitchens isn't evidence - not sure why you are asking about the anti semitism as I didn't questions that.
-
Hitchens?
On another board Dicky Underpants knocked me for referring to John of the apocalypse because apparently he was a ''Drug Fuelled'' fanatic.
-
Lives were changed.
I know a few who, by being changed, have changed the lives of others.
And the CofE was changed to become less humane, les tolerant, less loving. The rot that alienates gay and trans people, the attitude that turns away the children of unmarried parents, was fostered by Graham, among others. He represented an ugly side of Christianity. His influence was toxic.
-
Humph; Mission Scotland took place in Celtic Park (home of Glasgow Celtic, famously known for its RC roots)
I was a counsellor there that week.
Some of the prayers were conducted by John Fitsimmons, a very well known RC Priest, sadly no longer with us.
The notorious bigot 'Pastor' Jack Glass handed out flyers each night denouncing Graham for having met and prayed with the Pope.
Mind you, said Pastor was infamous for doing the same thing, year after year, outside the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland....apparently he nearly blew a fuse when an RC archbishop was warmly welcomed and invited to speak to us one year.
Thank you for that piece of local history.
My point was that Billy, whilst not a Catholic, and not agreeing with the RC faith, was prepared to pray with those of that faith even though there were some differences.
As for Jack Glass, a higher authority than me will judge him. I like to think that somewhere else, Ian Paisley is trying to put a case for Glass.....
-
Anchs, For the better or for the worse? Or both?
For Christ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7E7C1X6vPU
-
Thank you for that piece of local history.
My point was that Billy, whilst not a Catholic, and not agreeing with the RC faith, was prepared to pray with those of that faith even though there were some differences.
As for Jack Glass, a higher authority than me will judge him. I like to think that somewhere else, Ian Paisley is trying to put a case for Glass.....
He was a very odd wee man, the 'Paistor' he was getting ready to protest a meeting at Glasgow Uni once and asked me where it was happening and chatted away perfectly nicely until we got to the building, and then started shouting at me (and everyone else0 about how evil we were attending it.
-
Anchs,
For Christ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7E7C1X6vPU
Is that for the better or for the worse in your opinion?
-
Hitchens?
On another board Dicky Underpants knocked me for referring to John of the apocalypse because apparently he was a ''Drug Fuelled'' fanatic.
Hitchens could imbibe and write sense, Revelation is gibberish
-
NS,
Citing Hitchens isn't evidence - not sure why you are asking about the anti semitism as I didn't questions that.
You didn't ask for evidence, you asked whether I was sure. I answered that I wasn't sure about anything, and when you clarified by saying you meant "sure" only in the colloquial, everyday sense then in that sense yes - as sure as I would be for any other character witness with a strong track record. That's why character witnesses are listened to. If you meant am I sure in a stronger sense than that though, then no - and nor did I claim to be.
I mentioned the ant-semitism only because in some sense that too is a form of lying.
-
My first reaction when reading topic title was: about time too.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
Delude? I can't wait to see your outline of why. 8) If he was so wrong, I'm absolutely wrong you will have no problem explaining why, no problem at all.
Over to you...
-
He was a very odd wee man, the 'Paistor' he was getting ready to protest a meeting at Glasgow Uni once and asked me where it was happening and chatted away perfectly nicely until we got to the building, and then started shouting at me (and everyone else0 about how evil we were attending it.
Ah, the memories come flooding back.....
Walking past the knicker-bedecked statue of John Knox outside the Assembly Hall (The authorities were obviously still sleeping of the previous day's events and hadn't gotten round to removing said garment)...and Glass ranting, flyers in hand, thrusting them at all and sundry, condemning us for entering and consorting with a church which 'danced with Rome'.
When I refused a flyer because it was very small print, I was informed that my blindness was 'a sign that, as you are not of the elect, and consorted with the Pope', yyou have been judged and found wanting"
Nice man, wee Jack!
-
Delude? I can't wait to see your outline of why. 8) If he was so wrong, I'm absolutely wrong you will have no problem explaining why, no problem at all.
Over to you...
If you are deluded it would be very difficult to explain that to you.
-
NS,
You didn't ask for evidence, you asked whether I was sure. I answered that I wasn't sure about anything, and when you clarified by saying you meant "sure" only in the colloquial, everyday sense then in that sense yes - as sure as I would be for any other character witness with a strong track record. That's why character witnesses are listened to. If you meant am I sure in a stronger sense than that though, then no - and nor did I claim to be.
I mentioned the ant-semitism only because in some sense that too is a form of lying.
No, anti semitism is not a form of lying.
-
If you are deluded it would be very difficult to explain that to you.
Truth is truth, regardless of the individual's ability to comprehend it, so that is no excuse for failing to answer the question.
How many people did he delude into thinking God loved them, etc, persuading them to come forward and all that stuff.
If Billy Graham was wrong to do what he did, why was he?
-
Delude? I can't wait to see your outline of why. 8) If he was so wrong, I'm absolutely wrong you will have no problem explaining why, no problem at all.
Over to you...
ill answer that , Because the whole god and Jesus thing is simply a man made construct. Simple .
He made money from telling lies
-
Eh?
If Billy Graham was wrong to do what he did, why was he?
Deluded people are quite hard to convince that they are wrong on account of being deluded.
-
Delude? I can't wait to see your outline of why. 8) If he was so wrong, I'm absolutely wrong you will have no problem explaining why, no problem at all.
Over to you...
First, I would ask you please to re-write your post. You will recall no doubt that I listen to posts, I do not look at them and although I have listened several times, the part after the 8 doesn’t make sense.
-
Anchs,
Is that for the better or for the worse in your opinion?
Since I took the step so many others took - albeit in the privacy of my own bedroom, and every day, I thank God I did, you decide.
-
Truth is truth, regardless of the individual's ability to comprehend it, so that is no excuse for failing to answer the question.
If Billy Graham was wrong to do what he did, why was he?
You seem very confused, you were asking to be convinced you were wrong and in that case the ability to comprehend is crucial. I have no idea why you are asking me to justify something I haven't said so I ignored your question as irrelevant.
-
This para in answer to Walter: In order to lie you have to know what you are saying is untrue. Someone may give wrong information which they sincerely believe to be true, later proved not to be, but that's not lying. Lying is deliberate deceit.
Anchor, I too saw BillyGraham, I can't remember precisely when but I was an adult, mid to late twenties so i guess it was the 1980s. There were posters stuck all over the place, like bus shelters, with 'Life' written on them. I enjoyed the evening, was surprised at how low key it was in many ways.
Billy Graham was a human being with flaws like anyone else. At times in his life he said things about which he later felt differently, and admitted that. He was an ecumenist, believed not only that all professing Christians should unite and appreciate what they have in common but members of other faiths too. He said so. He probably felt differently when he was younger. Life is like that, we live and learn until the day we die.
I believe Billy Graham was an upright man, as for Christopher Hitchens who was for some reason brought into this discussion, I've no reason to suppose he was anything other than upright: being upright does not mean being perfect, no-one is.
Regarding Billy Graham's estate, is it anyone's business how much he left. I doubt anything would be hidden. He had five children and many grand and great grandchildren, one would hope he distributed some of it to them whilst still alive, a sensible thing most of us will do, but why speculate about something that is of no concern to anyone outside the family. It's tasteless in the extreme.
(Franklin Graham does not appeal to me at all, a different kettle of fish to his father; one hopes he will have a change in attitude as he gets older but we aren't discussing him on this thread.)
-
Ah, the memories come flooding back.....
Walking past the knicker-bedecked statue of John Knox outside the Assembly Hall (The authorities were obviously still sleeping of the previous day's events and hadn't gotten round to removing said garment)...and Glass ranting, flyers in hand, thrusting them at all and sundry, condemning us for entering and consorting with a church which 'danced with Rome'.
When I refused a flyer because it was very small print, I was informed that my blindness was 'a sign that, as you are not of the elect, and consorted with the Pope', yyou have been judged and found wanting"
Nice man, wee Jack!
Well if the Paistor was sign of being elect, then God likes huge pricks.
-
I’m trying to figure out why anyone says ‘and he prayed with Catholics and others’ in tones of admiration.
-
Not really admiration Rhiannon, just to illustrate that as Billy Graham was on his journey he came to believe in ecumenism & the integrity of all beliefs. A lot of Christians don't! (I do.)
-
Not really admiration Rhiannon, just to illustrate that as Billy Graham was on his journey he came to believe in ecumenism & the integrity of all beliefs. A lot of Christians don't! (I do.)
It doesn’t say much for Christianity that this needs stating. Actually it’s bewildering.
-
Christianity is diverse, some groups are almost exclusive and suspicious of others. It's unfortunate but that's how it is. Those committed to ecumenism are doing what they can to change those attitudes.
-
Christianity is diverse, some groups are almost exclusive and suspicious of others. It's unfortunate but that's how it is. Those committed to ecumenism are doing what they can to change those attitudes.
It’s not unfortunate, it’s ridiculous. (I don’t need an explanation of the ‘diversity’ of Christianity btw - raised by Roman/Anglo Catholics, went to a Baptist chapel Sunday School, nearly became and Anglican priest).
-
Not really admiration Rhiannon, just to illustrate that as Billy Graham was on his journey he came to believe in ecumenism & the integrity of all beliefs. A lot of Christians don't! (I do.)
He might have accepted the integrety f all beliefs.
That does not mean he did not accept the truth of the message he preached - that he saw in Scripture no other interpretation other than Christ was, and is, the One way to God.
-
Agree Anchor. This is what he said:-
"I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ... [God] is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven."
-
Robbie,
Agree Anchor. This is what he said:-
"I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ... [God] is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven."
Did he really? So the Muslims, Buddhists and atheists all have it wrong then. Funnily enough though, when I just checked my "heart" I didn't find a "need for something I do not have" at all, nor did I feel like "turning to a light" as it happens.
Did he say a lot of this palpable drivel, or was he just having an off day?
-
No point in me responding to someone who has left the forum so, no comment.
Night all.
-
Apparently, he once was quoted as saying he was looking forward to dying because he knew he would bne with god. Funny then, that I bet he clung on to life with every fibre until his life ended. I wonder if he was still under the same delusion at the end.
-
Apparently, he once was quoted as saying he was looking forward to dying because he knew he would bne with god. Funny then, that I bet he clung on to life with every fibre until his life ended
At the age of 99 that was obviously something Dr Graham was excellent at. You sound bitter.
-
At the age of 99 that was obviously something Dr Graham was excellent at. You sound bitter.
Wrong. That is one emotion I never feel. It harms only the person who feels it and not the person who inflicted damage. I learnt this back in my twenties from my experience of all kinds of abuse in marriage.
In fact, I am perhaps lucky I suppose to be naturally that way - I never feel envy or jealousy either. I do not have to talk myself away from such feelings.
Also I have learnt throughout my life that those who make the sort of comment you have made are very often projecting onto the intended recipient their own feelings.
-
Wrong. That is one emotion I never feel. It harms only the person who feels it and not the person who inflicted damage. I learnt this back in my twenties from my experience of all kinds of abuse in marriage.
In fact, I am perhaps lucky I suppose to be naturally that way - I never feel envy or jealousy either. I do not have to talk myself away from such feelings.
Also I have learnt throughout my life that those who make the sort of comment you have made are very often projecting onto the intended recipient their own feelings.
I’m sorry for what you went through, Susan. Yes, such experiences are very good teachers, and one thing that’s unmissable from them is the utter futility of emotions such as jealousy, bitterness and hate. And I agree entirely about projection.
-
Robbie,
No point in me responding to someone who has left the forum so, no comment.
Night all.
I'll take that as a, "Yes, he was having a bad day" then.
-
Robbie,
I'll take that as a, "Yes, he was having a bad day" then.
I saw him on a news clip yesterday preaching to a stadium full of people , I turned the sound off and thought how much his body language resembled that of Hitler when he was ranting to his followers .
Must be a technique thing .......or something else is going on !
-
I saw him on a news clip yesterday preaching to a stadium full of people , I turned the sound off and thought how much his body language resembled that of Hitler when he was ranting to his followers .
Must be a technique thing .......or something else is going on !
God wins law?
-
God wins law?
no, most people are gullible
-
I saw him on a news clip yesterday preaching to a stadium full of people , I turned the sound off and thought how much his body language resembled that of Hitler when he was ranting to his followers .
Must be a technique thing .......or something else is going on !
Yes, there were tears at the call - lots of them.
But from someone who was at the business end, let me tell you what happened next.
Many went forward to re-dedicate themselves to Christ; that was part of the call; they renewed the bond that linked them to their Lord.
Others went forward to commit themselves for the first time - or because they were curious.
Tose of us who were counsellors talked with them, ascertained what their motives were, left contact details,gave info packs which contained details of churches of various denominations which offered to support new Christians, and left the enquirers to choose whether or not they acted on those detailes.
If they were in agreement, we'd talk about the decision they made, and we'd pray. If they wanted to leave their details, that was a personal thing; some did, some didn't.
That was it.
I'm still in contact with several of those I counselled in "Mission Scotland".
-
NS,
Hitchens thought he was a palpable fraud, but I'm not "sure" about anything.
I think Hitchens was a huge dickhead, but that doesn't make it so.
-
I am glad some of you think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. For rather obvious reasons I don't. His harsh words about gay people particularly during the AIDS crisis helped to keep the door to research and funding shut that little bit more tightly. He wasnt of course the only one but he was there. A bit of an anti semite as well. Absolutely fabulous darling. Stand by his grave till you are sure he is dead.
-
I am glad some of you think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. For rather obvious reasons I don't. His harsh words about gay people particularly during the AIDS crisis helped to keep the door to research and funding shut that little bit more tightly. He wasnt of course the only one but he was there. A bit of an anti semite as well. Absolutely fabulous darling. Stand by his grave till you are sure he is dead.
I agree with you, Trent. There is no way that I would have been proud to have met the man. I do remember once going to an open air meeting when I was a member of a Methodist Youth Club. It was led by a preacher in the Billy Graham mould who insisted that we would be saved by Jesus if only we would come forward, and exhorted us in his strident rhetorical style to do just that. I also remember looking curiously at the small group of young people who did actually leave their seats to come forward. Even at my tender age of sixteen or so, I couldn't see the point, although, presumably, those who did felt the need to do so. How many of those became and remained committed evangelical Christians I have no idea. But, for me, it would have been quite ludicrous and pointless to do so. Same feelings still remain with me today.
-
There was a clip of Graham on the news, where he perorated about all the problems that we have, and announced that we could not solve them without Christ. I guess it was an old film, as he looked young, and I would like to ask him or his successors if those problems have been solved? I suppose the faithful will say yes. Great voice by the way, very like Luther King.
-
While driving yesterday I was listening to Radio Scotland and they played a bit of the opening spiel he gave when doing one of his crusades here in Scotland: I think it was in 1985. He said along the lines of that had been lots or prayers for a resurgence of Christianity in Scotland and he was here to kick the process off.
Look like it didn't go to plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
-
While driving yesterday I was listening to Radio Scotland and they played a bit of the opening spiel he gave when doing one of his crusades here in Scotland: I think it was in 1985. He said along the lines of that had been lots or prayers for a resurgence of Christianity in Scotland and he was here to kick the process off.
Look like it didn't go to plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
Obviously a partisan contribution!
What the Scots do is up to them.
-
I am glad some of you think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. For rather obvious reasons I don't. His harsh words about gay people particularly during the AIDS crisis helped to keep the door to research and funding shut that little bit more tightly. He wasnt of course the only one but he was there. A bit of an anti semite as well. Absolutely fabulous darling. Stand by his grave till you are sure he is dead.
oooh fabulous Trent ;D
-
Obviously a partisan contribution!
What the Scots do is up to them.
Nothing partisan about it: he came here with the stated aim of promoting the uptake of Christianity in Scotland and, as the information in the link I posted shows, he clearly failed.
-
Nothing partisan about it: he came here with the stated aim of promoting the uptake of Christianity in Scotland and, as the information in the link I posted shows, he clearly failed.
You don't get it, do you?
I am an Orthodox Christian, not Evangelical.
-
I am reminded of the discussion of the Salvation Army on the non skin crawling Christians thread where their discriminatory attitude is meant to balanced by them doing general good, and I think that we must accept, as is made clear in Some Like It Hot, that no-one is perfect. BUT while I can see Graham as a child of his time and can maybe forgive the homophobia, the anti women's right, the anti semitism (which at least he apologised for), it's his actual success in promulgating those views that I have problems. If he was a small town preacher with a congregation of 14 people and twenty dogs, then it might not be an issue. Were he the drunk in a pub riffing on his thoughts, who cares. Even were he to be a poster on a quiet message board, I might not care that much but overall in what he did the very number he communicated with means the harm outweighs any good. I see no reason to mourn other than general empathy, and in this case that is not sufficent
-
You don't get it, do you?
I am an Orthodox Christian, not Evangelical.
as if its important . Regiments in the army have different cap badges, its still the army .
-
You don't get it, do you?
I am an Orthodox Christian, not Evangelical.
The point I'm making is, quite simply, and given that this thread is specifically about Billy Graham, is that despite all the warm words about him on his demise, his stated aim was to promote Christianity in Scotland and in that regard he clearly failed.
What branch of Christianity he belonged to doesn't mask the fact that despite his attempt to promote Christianity in Scotland the opposite has occurred: it is in decline, as the link I posted (from 2017) shows.
-
You don't get it, do you?
I am an Orthodox Christian, not Evangelical.
What does your denomination have to do with whether Billy Graham failed as regards Scotland?
-
The point I'm making is, quite simply, and given that this thread is specifically about Billy Graham, is that despite all the warm words about him on his demise, his stated aim was to promote Christianity in Scotland and in that regard he clearly failed.
What branch of Christianity he belonged to doesn't mask the fact that despite his attempt to promote Christianity in Scotland the opposite has occurred: it is in decline, as the link I posted (from 2017) shows.
I am English.
I look forward to the day when I have an English Passport.
What Scottish people do is their business.
-
I am English.
I look forward to the day when I have an English Passport.
What Scottish people do is their business.
Which is utterly irrelevant to my point about the ineffectiveness of the American Billy Graham in his efforts to promote Christianity in Scotland.
-
Which is utterly irrelevant to my point about the ineffectiveness of the American Billy Graham in his efforts to promote Christianity in Scotland.
Erm..I don't care about Scotland.
-
Erm..I don't care about Scotland.
Which again is irrelevant to the point
-
Erm..I don't care about Scotland.
You do realise that I'm using Scotland only to illustrate a point about Billy Graham, given his media coverage of his death, and noting his ineffectiveness.
In any event your disdain for Scotland (and I've no idea how we've upset you so) isn't the issue I was highlighting, so I've no idea why you even mention it - so if it helps I'll also note that Christianity is declining in England too, so my point about his ineffectiveness applies equally to your locality (since I'm assuming Billy Graham was active there too).
-
You do realise that I'm using Scotland only to illustrate a point about Billy Graham, given his media coverage of his death, and noting his ineffectiveness.
In any event your disdain for Scotland (and I've no idea how we've upset you so) isn't the issue I was highlighting, so I've no idea why you even mention it - so if it helps I'll also note that Christianity is declining in England too, so my point about his ineffectiveness applies equally to your locality (since I'm assuming Billy Graham was active there too).
He is only as effective as the Holy Spirit is effective.
At many evangelical revivals in the past statistics were sometimes taken of 'spiritual decisions made and number of people saved.
You might breath a sigh of relief at non responders and those whose spiritual decisions not to accept Jesus but you are taking a punt on that being the right decision.
-
You do realise that I'm using Scotland only to illustrate a point about Billy Graham, given his media coverage of his death, and noting his ineffectiveness.
In any event your disdain for Scotland (and I've no idea how we've upset you so) isn't the issue I was highlighting, so I've no idea why you even mention it - so if it helps I'll also note that Christianity is declining in England too, so my point about his ineffectiveness applies equally to your locality (since I'm assuming Billy Graham was active there too).
He's obviously angry about something . I put it down to his Christianity and how it has prevented him from being fully engaged with the opposite sex . Have you seen what he's posted on another thread today , obvious frustration there me thinks
-
He is only as effective as the Holy Spirit is effective.
Then (and ignoring how you know this) the Holy Spirit isn't very effective.
At many evangelical revivals in the past statistics were sometimes taken of 'spiritual decisions made and number of people saved.
Super: and the data collection and data analysis methods were? In addition how did they account for pre existing bias given that a religious crusading event might tend to attract some who were already predisposed to religion.
You might breath a sigh of relief at non responders and those whose spiritual decisions not to accept Jesus but you are taking a punt on that being the right decision.
I'm not taking a punt on anything, Vlad: just observing that despite the efforts at promoting Christianity, such as by Billy Graham, here in the UK it is in decline.
-
Deluded people are quite hard to convince that they are wrong on account of being deluded.
Seconded, right on the nail N S, a good answer, a very good answer.
Regards ippy.
-
No point in me responding to someone who has left the forum so, no comment.
Night all.
I suppose if you're deluded that's about all you can say Rob.
Regards ippy
-
What did he say or write that was supposedly anti-semitic? I ask because some people start screeching about anti-semitism or homophobia or whatever at the mildest comments.
-
What did he say or write that was supposedly anti-semitic? I ask because some people start screeching about anti-semitism or homophobia or whatever at the mildest comments.
The anti semitic argument is based on what's linked to below (AFAIK). I think it is anti semtic but he also later apologised for it. Now some might say that he would say that after being caught but it's nor my take
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/billy-graham-nixon-and-anti-semitism-the-bombshell-tapes-1.5844419
-
Oh sorry,I see link has already been posted. So will remove.
-
Hmmm... not good, but could be worse, and he did apologise. Anyway, there is a powerful Jewish lobby, and it shouldn't be beyond criticism.
-
Hmmm... not good, but could be worse, and he did apologise. Anyway, there is a powerful Jewish lobby, and it shouldn't be beyond criticism.
His remarks are hardly criticism of a powerful Jewish lobby. It's fairly basic anti semitism. And yes, he did apologise, as I pointed out. Of the issues I have with what he said, it is less significant.
-
Then (and ignoring how you know this) the Holy Spirit isn't very effective.
Super: and the data collection and data analysis methods were? In addition how did they account for pre existing bias given that a religious crusading event might tend to attract some who were already predisposed to religion.
I'm not taking a punt on anything, Vlad: just observing that despite the efforts at promoting Christianity, such as by Billy Graham, here in the UK it is in decline.
I'm finding your judgment on the Holy Spirit as funny as that on the effectiveness of Billy Graham.
What measure are you making, what comparisons are you making?
The UK does not represent the world which after all was Dr Grahams ministry.
So we are left with at best a piece of jingoism from you Gordon.
That and an argumentum ad populum about numbers of Christians.
-
I'm finding your judgment on the Holy Spirit as funny as that on the effectiveness of Billy Graham.
What measure are you making, what comparisons are you making?
The UK does not represent the world which after all was Dr Grahams ministry.
So we are left with at best a piece of jingoism from you Gordon.
That and an argumentum ad populum about numbers of Christians.
Ah your o!d misunderstanding of the ad pop.
-
NS,
Ah your o!d misunderstanding of the ad pop.
And of the burden of proof. He conjures out of thin air a "Holy Spirit" then demands to know how other people would propose to measure it. Horses and carts come to mind.
-
You do realise that I'm using Scotland only to illustrate a point about Billy Graham, given his media coverage of his death, and noting his ineffectiveness.
In any event your disdain for Scotland (and I've no idea how we've upset you so) isn't the issue I was highlighting, so I've no idea why you even mention it - so if it helps I'll also note that Christianity is declining in England too, so my point about his ineffectiveness applies equally to your locality (since I'm assuming Billy Graham was active there too).
His last rally in London was in 1989, I'm pretty sure I went to it. Well, my Dad was a, what's the word, he showed people to their seats for the whole week or however long, and I went along one evening.
I went along again in 1996 at a theatre in London expecting a similar event. But it was all on screen, filmed in the USA and had a lot of modern pop-influenced music- very noisy.
That spoiled it for me. From what I remember of the earlier rally in '89 I felt God spoke to me, but the later one in '96 seemed all fake; I just assumed he did that because he was too old to come in person, so it didn't bother me.
I wonder if that's one reason why Christianity has been declining recently- that BG hasn't been able to continue his rallys in person.
-
Steward was the word I was looking for.
-
I'm finding your judgment on the Holy Spirit as funny as that on the effectiveness of Billy Graham.
What measure are you making, what comparisons are you making?
Then read back: you commented on the Holy Spirit being a factor and I simply noted that the only conclusion must be that both Billy Graham and the Holy Spirit were inefficient given Graham's aim of promoting the uptake of Christianity in Scotland, and given its decline here since (see the link I posted earlier).
The UK does not represent the world which after all was Dr Grahams ministry.
Well he came here with intentions specific to Scotland: and failed.
So we are left with at best a piece of jingoism from you Gordon.
Not from me: I'm just drawing reasonable conclusions from data in the public domain.
That and an argumentum ad populum about numbers of Christians.
Nope: I'm just drawing attention to information confirming the decline of Christianity in Scotland and pointing out that this confirms that campaigns to increase the numbers of Christians in Scotland must have failed (since there are fewer of them than before).
Might be an idea for you to find out what the term argumentum ad populum means before using it again.
-
I'm finding your judgment on the Holy Spirit as funny as that on the effectiveness of Billy Graham.
What measure are you making, what comparisons are you making?
Just read this again: so hang on sonny!
Earlier you say this:
He is only as effective as the Holy Spirit is effective.
Then I reply:
Then (and ignoring how you know this) the Holy Spirit isn't very effective.
Then you say:
At many evangelical revivals in the past statistics were sometimes taken of 'spiritual decisions made and number of people saved.
and I reply:
Super: and the data collection and data analysis methods were? In addition how did they account for pre existing bias given that a religious crusading event might tend to attract some who were already predisposed to religion.
Perhaps you need to pay more attention to your own posts.
-
His last rally in London was in 1989, I'm pretty sure I went to it. Well, my Dad was a, what's the word, he showed people to their seats for the whole week or however long, and I went along one evening.
I went along again in 1996 at a theatre in London expecting a similar event. But it was all on screen, filmed in the USA and had a lot of modern pop-influenced music- very noisy.
That spoiled it for me. From what I remember of the earlier rally in '89 I felt God spoke to me, but the later one in '96 seemed all fake; I just assumed he did that because he was too old to come in person, so it didn't bother me.
I wonder if that's one reason why Christianity has been declining recently- that BG hasn't been able to continue his rallys in person.
The first mass rally I attended was by a German former POW, Anton Shulte, in Ayr...I expected the hysteria bit, but was pleasantly surprised by the poweful, expository preaching and dignified response.
My first experience of being a counsellor was at the Luis Palau Ayrshire Crusade in 1980; again, since the local churches had the biggest input, the set-up was dignified, the preaching more emotional but not OTT.
The Mission Scotland 1991 was a mixture of traditional hymns plus appearances from Graham Kendrick, Cliff Richard and my friend Ian White; a few testimonies from 'local' Scots, and Billy's incisive preaching.
The 'aftercare' when those who had come forward, was in an atmosphere of joy, and yet firmly rooted in Scripture without the much vaunted emotional hype.
-
Ah your o!d misunderstanding of the ad pop.
Why is it a misunderstanding? Bare statements like that aren't very helpful.
-
Why is it a misunderstanding? Bare statements like that aren't very helpful.
Ad populum is a fallacy which argues that something is true because lots of people believe in it. Gordon wasn't saying that.
-
Just read this again: so hang on sonny!
The elementary surveys at historical revival introduce an intriguing glimpse into ministry.
Presumably there were those answering the call and those that didn't and there is an intriguing third group those who make a spiritual decision but against Christ. I should imagine in the days and weeks after a Mission Scotland there were those who made a spiritual decision one way or another.
In terms of Billy's success people were won for Christ. I doubt the Holy Spirit specified a quota and so in any case he was always up on the deal.
The atheist gloating at his alleged failure seems to be about gloating at a man dedicated to saving people.
At the end of the day Billy did what he did a long time ago and what he did was no different from what Richard Dawkins does.
-
The elementary surveys at historical revival introduce an intriguing glimpse into ministry.
Presumably there were those answering the call and those that didn't and there is an intriguing third group those who make a spiritual decision but against Christ. I should imagine in the days and weeks after a Mission Scotland there were those who made a spiritual decision one way or another.
In terms of Billy's success people for won for Christ. I doubt the Holy Spirit specified a quota and so in any case he was always up on the deal.
The atheist gloating at his alleged failure seems to be about gloating at a man dedicated to saving people.
At the end of the day Billy did what he did a long time ago and what he did was no different from what Richard Dawkins does.
Yep.
olk went forward for many reasons:
Curiosity;
Scoffing:
Interested in commitment:
Act of re-dedication, and
those who genuinely felt the call.
That's what usually happened - and that's what we expected.
We coined the phrase "Sower Session" to describe it..the bit in the Parable of the Sower where Christ describes the destination of the seed split four ways, only a quarter germinating to fruit.
No-one was naive enough to believe every single person would commit themselves....but a surprising number of people who DID make commitments maintained them.
If only a quarter of those who went forward were truly commiting themselves for the first time, then that was a result we could rejoice in!
-
Ad populum is a fallacy which argues that something is true because lots of people believe in it. Gordon wasn't saying that.
Or, surely, false because few people believe in it (argumentum ad unpopulum?). Actually, though, Gordon wasn't saying that, just pointing out that Christianity does not have many followers nowadays, so you're right.
-
Or, surely, false because few people believe in it (argumentum ad unpopulum?). Actually, though, Gordon wasn't saying that, just pointing out that Christianity does not have many followers nowadays, so you're right.
Yes, you are correct about the opposite applying as well, My apologies for the initial brevity but Vlad makes this 'error; so frequently it's very boring. Anytime anyone mentions numbers he will say it is an ad populum despite them not using the numbers to say true or false but making points about popularity or not of something
-
Yes, you are correct about the opposite applying as well, My apologies for the initial brevity but Vlad makes this 'error; so frequently it's very boring. Anytime anyone mentions numbers he will say it is an ad populum despite them not using the numbers to say true or false but making points about popularity or not of something
PPllllaaaaaaaayyyyyyy the Maaaaaaaaaan.
It seems I may have messed up on this occasion.
If you are saying I make this error so many times, how many times and are you making an argumentum ad populum Ha Ha.
Now about NPF fallacy apparently, that occurs whenever any body says 'you cannot prove that''.........
-
At the end of the day Billy did what he did a long time ago and what he did was no different from what Richard Dawkins does.
That's very funny.
-
PPllllaaaaaaaayyyyyyy the Maaaaaaaaaan.
It seems I may have messed up on this occasion.
If you are saying I make this error so many times, how many times and are you making an argumentum ad populum Ha Ha.
Now about NPF fallacy apparently, that occurs whenever any body says 'you cannot prove that''.........
No, it isn't playing the man to point out that you are making the error frequently and then you compound that here by making a new error about it. The ad populum only applies if someone is saying something is true or false because of acceptance or lack of acceptance
-
This is interesting for various reasons, Woody Allen interviewing Billy Graham in 1969:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BEa_DqbEYE
When pushed, BG actually says that the greatest "sin" is idolatry (worshipping the wrong god apparently) - so much for murder etc then.
-
That's very funny.
Why?.........and apparently, since talking about someone's popularity is not Argumentum ad populum.......Dawkins fails to draw anything like the crowds Graham did ending up even as a wee footnote to Pope Benny's visit.
-
No, it isn't playing the man to point out that you are making the error frequently and then you compound that here by making a new error about it. The ad populum only applies if someone is saying something is true or false because of acceptance or lack of acceptance
How frequently?
-
Godwin alert - Hitler drew yuuge crowds as does Mr Trump, like the biggest ever. Bigly big. The bigliest, bigly
crowds you ever did see.
-
How frequently?
Too
-
Godwin alert - Hitler drew yuuge crowds as does Mr Trump, like the biggest ever. Bigly big. The bigliest, bigly
crowds you ever did see.
Apparently Obama picked up bigger crowds than Trump.
-
Too
LOL
-
If you are saying I make this error so many times, how many times and are you making an argumentum ad populum Ha Ha.
No.
-
Why?
Assertions & evangelism vs reason and evidence.
.........and apparently, since talking about someone's popularity is not Argumentum ad populum
Of course it isn't. The ad pop requires the linking of popularity with truthfulness (or untruthtfulness).
.......Dawkins fails to draw anything like the crowds Graham did ending up even as a wee footnote to Pope Benny's visit.
BG used popularity (ie, conversions) as a performance indicator; RD doesn't.
Epic fail.
-
Yes, you are correct about the opposite applying as well, My apologies for the initial brevity but Vlad makes this 'error; so frequently it's very boring. Anytime anyone mentions numbers he will say it is an ad populum despite them not using the numbers to say true or false but making points about popularity or not of something
A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.
-
BG used popularity (ie, conversions) as a performance indicator; RD doesn't.
Are you saying that Dawkins is not out to persuade?
-
Dawkins support for the Atheist bus was not to increase the numbers of atheists?, His call for atheists to openly tackle religion was not a recruitment attempt for New Atheism? His campaign for census atheism was due to his disinterest in atheist numbers?
-
Are you saying that Dawkins is not out to persuade?
More to educate.
Regards ippy
-
Anchs,
A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.
That's not a defence because you haven't understood his mistake. Gordon said that, if BG's measure of success was conversions then he failed. That may or may or be true for the reasons you propose. What Vlad did though was to accuse him of an ad pop ("That and an argumentum ad populum about numbers of Christians") when it was no such thing. To be an ad pop Gordon would also have had to have claimed a relationship between the number of conversions (whatever it actually is) and the truthfulness or otherwise of the narrative.
NS added that this is a mistake Vlad makes consistently despite having it explained to him, just as he consistently makes mistakes about the burden of proof, category error, the meanings of the terms he attempts ("scientism") etc. Whether he does this deliberately for his own amusement or is incapable of grasping the meanings is impossible to tell.
-
A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.
Not sure how that's a defence of Vlad stating the use of the ad populum when it wasn't used. I think rather you are disagreeing with Gordon's rating of the mission as a failure and since that is based on the figures of people overall becoming less religious in Scotland, not sure where the statements above would address that,
-
A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.
Not a defence.
-
he consistently makes mistakes about the burden of proof, category error, the meanings of the terms he attempts ("scientism") etc. Whether he does this deliberately for his own amusement or is incapable of grasping the meanings is impossible to tell.
Positive assertions have a burden of proof. category error?
Meanings? look 'em up in Wikipedia
-
I wonder how history will view BG in due course, once the dust has settled.
I suspect it may be as a remarkably charismatic and influential figure, but one whose ministry was ultimately a failure. Specifically because for all his charisma and influence he failed to stop or even reverse the steady and ongoing decline in christian religiosity across the many countries including the USA.
I think also history will view him as having been on the 'wrong' side of the argument in two of the three great civil rights/equality battles of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, namely equality on the basis of race (he was on the right side of the argument), gender (wrong side) and sexuality (wrong side).
Put together history may see him as an important figure, but one who was fundamentally looking backwards rather than forwards.
-
By way of a coda, you'll also find Anchs that when his errors are explained he'll never, ever address the correction but will instead just launch into something else (also usually a mistake of some sort) as if the correction hadn't been made. He won't for example say here something like, "Ah yes, now I see where I went wrong when I accused Gordon of an ad pop and I'll do my best not to make the same mistake in future" or some such. It just won't happen. What's very likely to happen though is that when someone mentions numbers in a future post he'll immediately reach again for the ad pop accusation with no grasp whatever of what it actually entails.
There's a word for this kind of thing that we're not allowed to use here, so I find now that ignoring this behaviour is the best option.
-
Not sure how that's a defence of Vlad stating the use of the ad populum when it wasn't used. I think rather you are disagreeing with Gordon's rating of the mission as a failure and since that is based on the figures of people overall becoming less religious in Scotland, not sure where the statements above would address that,
I did say "wee". And stats lie - as do censuses.
After all, I put "None of your business" on the religion questions.....and it isn't, after all.
-
Anchs,
I did say "wee". And stats lie - as do censuses.
After all, I put "None of your business" on the religion questions.....and it isn't, after all.
But the point is that it’s not a defence at all (ie, “wee” or otherwise). Vlad’s accusation of an ad pop rested entirely on his misunderstanding of the term – what the stats happen to be is neither here nor there for this purpose, for the reasons I explained.
You'll also note by the way that, as I also explained, he hasn't bother to acknowledge his error. 'twas ever thus.
-
I don't think Billy could have been described as an active world evangelist for the last decades of his life.
Just like Richard Dawkins is past his heyday. We go on and get old. Both though will be remembered for being evangelical.
From Dawkins heyday.
https://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/08/dawkins-evangelical-science
-
I don't think Billy could have been described as an active world evangelist for the last decades of his life.
Just like Richard Dawkins is past his heyday. We go on and get old. Both though will be remembered for being evangelical.
From Dawkins heyday.
https://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/08/dawkins-evangelical-science
Wow, describing "the Dork" as "evangelical" is mangling the already bastardised English language.
There is nothing of the euangelion in him.
-
Anchs,
Wow, describing "the Dork" as "evangelical" is mangling the already bastardised English language.
There is nothing of the euangelion in him.
I'm fairly sure he knows this, but posting palpable nonsense of this sort seems to amuse him for some reason.
-
Moderator posts on word use have been split and put into Mind Your Language on the Literature board. Please stay on topic and again this post will be removed
-
A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.
Actually, we do have some idea. Surveys have suggested that when Billy G. converted someone, they stayed converted.
-
Actually, we do have some idea. Surveys have suggested that when Billy G. converted someone, they stayed converted.
please quote your source.
''surveys have suggested '' meaningless bollox !
-
Actually, we do have some idea. Surveys have suggested that when Billy G. converted someone, they stayed converted.
I'd agre!
But, as you know, not all who actually went forward at a crusade went to make a commitmrnt..I listed some of the other reasons in an earlier post.
Of those who DID make a commitment for Christ, though, the majority remained firm in their new life. A surprising number of those who became Christian had no previous church connection; that's why we were on hand with info on various churches which would pastor them, should they wish to go.
Many, many did!
-
I was one of the goers-forward once, but I was only about 11 or 12 at the time, and didn't really understand. I thought it was about making an effort to be good, and that lasted less than a week.
-
I'd agre!
But, as you know, not all who actually went forward at a crusade went to make a commitmrnt..I listed some of the other reasons in an earlier post.
Of those who DID make a commitment for Christ, though, the majority remained firm in their new life. A surprising number of those who became Christian had no previous church connection; that's why we were on hand with info on various churches which would pastor them, should they wish to go.
Many, many did!
......and the bollox becomes re-enforced !
where have I seen that happen before?
-
I was one of the goers-forward once, but I was only about 11 or 12 at the time, and didn't really understand. I thought it was about making an effort to be good, and that lasted less than a week.
That reminds me of something that happened in 1980 - the Luis Palau Crusade (Ayrshire).
We took a load of Sunday School age kids there (12-15 year olds; we would not have been happy with younger ones there).
I was a counsellor, mainly concerned with my peer group, mainly young adults, so wasn't involved.
Anyway, of the fifteen kids we took, nine went forward.
Yes, I know, peer pressure and all that.
As I understnd it they were referred to my local congregation, which for reasons I don't understand, felt unable to deal with this. Several kids went to the local Bretheren, several more to a Baptist or Pentecostal church for mentoring.
Of the nine who went forward, seven remain commited Christians today (though one of the remainder has died).
I got into trouble for not encouraging the new Christians to go to MY congregation....though it was diddly squat to do with me.
-
That reminds me of something that happened in 1980 - the Luis Palau Crusade (Ayrshire).
We took a load of Sunday School age kids there (12-15 year olds; we would not have been happy with younger ones there).
I was a counsellor, mainly concerned with my peer group, mainly young adults, so wasn't involved.
Anyway, of the fifteen kids we took, nine went forward.
Yes, I know, peer pressure and all that.
As I understnd it they were referred to my local congregation, which for reasons I don't understand, felt unable to deal with this. Several kids went to the local Bretheren, several more to a Baptist or Pentecostal church for mentoring.
Of the nine who went forward, seven remain commited Christians today (though one of the remainder has died).
I got into trouble for not encouraging the new Christians to go to MY congregation....though it was diddly squat to do with me.
I've just come back from walking the dog and thought I'll sit for a minute then have a read of whatever comes up on the forum, your post, it made me think, apart from the social side of this religious stuff of yours which I find easy to understand, for the life of me I really can't see anything of a realistic value in any of the rest of it, I cannot see how anyone, not just you, gets so taken up by this stuff.
What is it that has drawn you Anch, into this religious fold, apparently so deeply, it baffles me?
Regards ippy
P S I just spoke my thoughts as they come into my head.
-
I've just come back from walking the dog and thought I'll sit for a minute then have a read of whatever comes up on the forum, your post, it made me think, apart from the social side of this religious stuff of yours which I find easy to understand, for the life of me I really can't see anything of a realistic value in any of the rest of it, I cannot see how anyone, not just you, gets so taken up by this stuff.
What is it that has drawn you Anch, into this religious fold, apparently so deeply, it baffles me?
Regards ippy
P S I just spoke my thoughts as they come into my head.
Well, I've never gone forward at one of thos rally thingies, but I suspect the same thing happened to those who id.
I encountered Christ; pure and simple.
Is it rational?
Who cares?
For those of us who HAVE encountered Him, though, the relationship is real.
That doesn't mean surrendering my marbles for ' woo-woo' stuf; nor does it mean ceasing to use the mind what's left of it - that God gave me, eitherr.
I'll take one of those kids who went forward at Ayrshire 1980 as an example.
She was twelve when she made a commitment; probably a childhood fantasy....but if it is, she maintains that 'fantasy' today.
She'ss a lecturer in physics at Glasgow Uni now...and still as commited to Christ as the day she went forward.
-
Well, I've never gone forward at one of thos rally thingies, but I suspect the same thing happened to those who id.
I encountered Christ; pure and simple.
Is it rational?
Who cares?
For those of us who HAVE encountered Him, though, the relationship is real.
That doesn't mean surrendering my marbles for ' woo-woo' stuf; nor does it mean ceasing to use the mind what's left of it - that God gave me, eitherr.
I'll take one of those kids who went forward at Ayrshire 1980 as an example.
She was twelve when she made a commitment; probably a childhood fantasy....but if it is, she maintains that 'fantasy' today.
She'ss a lecturer in physics at Glasgow Uni now...and still as commited to Christ as the day she went forward.
In what way did you encounter Jesus?
-
In what way did you encounter Jesus?
On my knees in my bedroom....surprised and a bit shocked, since I'd been an atheist for the previous five years.
-
On my knees in my bedroom....surprised and a bit shocked, since I'd been an atheist for the previous five years.
That’s where and your reaction to it. It’s not how.
-
On my knees in my bedroom....surprised and a bit shocked, since I'd been an atheist for the previous five years.
I bet you had your eyes closed.........and it wasn't jesus !!!!!!
-
Well, I've never gone forward at one of thos rally thingies, but I suspect the same thing happened to those who id.
I encountered Christ; pure and simple.
Is it rational?
Who cares?
For those of us who HAVE encountered Him, though, the relationship is real.
That doesn't mean surrendering my marbles for ' woo-woo' stuf; nor does it mean ceasing to use the mind what's left of it - that God gave me, eitherr.
I'll take one of those kids who went forward at Ayrshire 1980 as an example.
She was twelve when she made a commitment; probably a childhood fantasy....but if it is, she maintains that 'fantasy' today.
She'ss a lecturer in physics at Glasgow Uni now...and still as commited to Christ as the day she went forward.
No still don't get it and I truthfully say I still don't want to either, nor am I looking for something missing in my life.
The spiritual journey often referred to, by the many that share your kind of belief, seems meaningless to me.
A short few days ago I was talking to another dog walker I knew, that lived across the road from my previous house, I've moved about a five minute walk away from my previous address, it was a lovely sunny morning and she was saying to me how much she enjoyed looking at creation in all of its glory, I couldn't help thinking to myself, another one living in the stone age, I just smiled and said yes.
If you could see these ideas through my eyes and it's not just my incredility that people are still into this stuff, it is partly that it's the zero of anything credible that would in any way support these ideas, making my eyes dissappear over the top of my head.
Were it not for the fact that much the larger percentage of people that hold these religious beliefs, insist on passing them on to the very youngest and vulnerable children of the next generation, for which I think is unforgivable, religious believers wouldn't bother me as much as they do, I just hope these beliefs all go the way of the previous ones like Zeus, Wotan and Thor etc, I just wish they would get on with it, the sooner the better.
The U K's in the forefront of failing religion, 53% non-religious here at tha last count I heard of.
Doesn't the lack of viable evidence that might have given these beliefs a lift at least put some question marks inside your head Anch?
Regards ippy
P S I'm on my tablet, no spell check, I have difficulty spelling my own name.
-
On my knees in my bedroom....surprised and a bit shocked, since I'd been an atheist for the previous five years.
As Rhiannon points out, that's not what I was asking. I wondered what form this encounter took.
-
That’s where and your reaction to it. It’s not how.
OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.
-
OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.
WOW! 'an awareness of presence' , what more could anyone need? ::) ::) ::)
'do something in me' i nearly spat my tea out hahahahah
-
Anchs,
Well, I've never gone forward at one of thos rally thingies, but I suspect the same thing happened to those who id.
I encountered Christ; pure and simple.
Is it rational?
Who cares?
Surely the better question would be, “is it true?” wouldn’t it?
“Is it rational?” is still a good question mind, only I think you’ve misapplied it: it’s not, “is an encounter with Jesus rational?”; rather it’s, “is the belief that I did have an encounter with Jesus rational?” and – if you’re going to live your life by the answer – then yes I’d have though you would care.
For those of us who HAVE encountered Him, though, the relationship is real.
See above. Why would you conclude that you’ve done any such thing?
That doesn't mean surrendering my marbles for ' woo-woo' stuf; nor does it mean ceasing to use the mind what's left of it - that God gave me, eitherr.
Well…
I'll take one of those kids who went forward at Ayrshire 1980 as an example.
She was twelve when she made a commitment; probably a childhood fantasy....but if it is, she maintains that 'fantasy' today.
She'ss a lecturer in physics at Glasgow Uni now...and still as commited to Christ as the day she went forward.
Which is precisely why religions try to get them early (“cradle catholics” and all that). Profound religious beliefs (it doesn’t matter much which beliefs they happen to be) formed before the critical faculties form go deep into the limbic system, they become instinctive rather than reasoned and so are exceptionally hard to lose in later life. That incidentally is why those who can do it are often reported to be traumatised by the experience.
On my knees in my bedroom....surprised and a bit shocked, since I'd been an atheist for the previous five years.
Doesn’t work. Why would an atheist be on his knees at all?
OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.
That’s interesting as it sets out very clearly why the narrative is so flawed. Let’s deconstruct it to see why:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...
OK, so you had the cultural knowledge of one belief system in particular already in place, and thus there was something for confirmation bias to feed on a priori.
…and tried hard to deny the existence of God,…
That’s not what atheism entails. “Denying the existence of God” implies you thought there was a god to be “denied” in the first place (ie, Vlad’s “gododging” nonsense in other words). Atheism merely limits itself though to finding the arguments for god to be hopeless – no more, no less.
I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was. On that possibility, I prayed.
“Possibility” is undeniable, but that’s true of anything – gods, leprechauns, the Loch Ness Monster, whatever. Why then would an atheist have “prayed” to the one to which he happened to be most enculturated?
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
Whoa there! It’s a huge leap from “an experience happened” to “He did” with none of the hard yards of reason or evidence to get you from one to the other. Why did the narrative of “He did” appeal to you more than the various alternative (but less solipsistically thrilling) alternatives?
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day.
Lots of issues there. Many report the same thing about different “presences” of any manner of ghosts, spooks, ghoulies, deities and various whatnots that you’d think to be false. What makes you right and them wrong? How too did you go about eliminating the several physiological explanations for this experience so as to be sure that there was a “something” external to you rather than just a mind-induced episode?
So,…
Noooooo! (See above.)
… after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.
Why “surrender” to a belief? This reads to me at least as a surrender of your critical faculties rather than a surrender to a god, with a hint of Stockholm syndrome in the mix too.
This is why your story is interesting I think: it adds to the mountain of reasons some of us see to conclude that people believe in god(s) for very bad reasons.
-
Anchs,
Surely the better question would be, “is it true?” wouldn’t it?
“Is it rational?” is still a good question mind, only I think you’ve misapplied it: it’s not, “is an encounter with Jesus rational?”; rather it’s, “is the narrative that I did have an encounter with Jesus rational?” and – if you’re going to live your life by the answer – then yes I’d have though you would care.
See above. Why would you conclude that you’ve done any such thing?
Well…
Which is precisely why religions try to get them early (“cradle catholics” and all that). Profound religious beliefs (it doesn’t matter much which beliefs they happen to be) formed before the critical faculties form go deep into the limbic system, they become instinctive rather than reasoned and so are exceptionally hard to lose in later life. That incidentally is why those who can do it are often reported to be traumatised by the experience.
Doesn’t work. Why would an atheist be on his knees at all?
That’s interesting as it sets out very clearly why the narrative is so flawed. Let’s deconstruct it to see why:
OK, so you had the cultural knowledge of one belief system in particular already in place, and thus there was something for confirmation bias to feed on a priori.
That’s not what atheism entails. “Denying the existence of God” implies you thought there was a god to be “denied” in the first place (ie, Vlad’s “gododging” nonsense in other words). Atheism merely limits itself though to finding the arguments for god to be hopeless – no more, no less.
“Possibility” is undeniable, but that’s true of anything – gods, leprechauns, the Loch Ness Monster, whatever. Why then would an atheist have “prayed” to the one to which he happened to be most enculturated?
Whoa there! It’s a huge leap from “an experience happened” to “He did” with none of the hard yards of reason or evidence to get you from one to the other. Why did the narrative of “He did” appeal to you more than the various alternative (but less solipsistically thrilling) alternatives?
Lots of issues there. Many report the same thing about different “presences” of any manner of ghosts, spooks, ghoulies, deities and various whatnots that you’d think to be false. What makes you right and them wrong? How too did you go about eliminating the several physiological explanations for this experience so as to be sure that there was a “something” external to you rather than just a mind-induced episode?
Noooooo! (See above.)
Why “surrender” to a belief? This reads to me at least as a surrender of your critical faculties rather than a surrender to a god, with a hint of Stockholm syndrome in the mix too.
This is why your story is interesting I think: it adds to the mountain of reasons some of us see to conclude that people believe in god(s) for very bad reasons.
You seem be holding the exclusive views, that it is possible for god to be meaningless noise, yet be possible and if those weren't bad or contractory enough to be also simultaneously unreasonable at one and the same time.
My reading of Anchors conversion is that he took the possibility of the Christian job reasonably. If it is possible that there is a Christian God then it is possible that he may respond.
I can imagine that this same possibility also inspires some to retreat otherwise they would all do what Anchor did.
Is one retreating from God or the possibility? That must be the on going process going on with those who hold that God is possible but do not chose Anchors way of dealing with it.
-
Is one retreating from God or the possibility.
Neither.
-
OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.
Thanks Anchorman,
I am interested (unlike Walter of course) to know what you mean by an awreness of presence. This may be hard to explain but would appreciate iot if you could.
Thanks
-
Thanks Anchorman,
I am interested (unlike Walter of course) to know what you mean by an awreness of presence. This may be hard to explain but would appreciate iot if you could.
Thanks
I would be interested too, I can't say I see you as another Alan Burns, I ment that in a complimetry way to you.
Regards ippy
-
OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.
I have no wish to denigrate your experience in any way. Whatever you experienced is entirely your own affair.
I would just like to point out the differences that seem to be between thee and me. Firstly, I have always read any part of scripture with an open and enquiring mind, but, never, reluctantly. Perhaps one of the reasons, for me, is that no one has ever forced me to read scripture. Secondly, I have, as far back as I can remember, always accepted that just about any god is a possibility, so I have never been in the position of admitting that God is a possibility. Thirdly, the idea of God being a possibility doesn't seem to have had the significance for me that you seem to attach to it, hence I have never felt the impulse to search for this God on a personal level. Fourthly, the idea of surrendering myself to a god which just might exist is, for me, a rather meaningless concept. Fifthly, I have never to my knowledge felt any awareness of your God.
So, I take on board what you say, Anchs, but I tend to think that we are all products of our nature and nurture, and tend to have greatly different views about such things.
-
You can put philosophy where a monkey puts its nuts, guys. So far, after nearly 41 years of being Christian, I've found no moral or philosophical stuff which can remotely compare with knowing Christ as Lord. Do I have doubts? You bet - but I thank God for them....'cos so far, they haven't caused any problems for me...far from it.. they've only deepened my relationship with Christ after I've ironed them
-
Anchs,
You can put philosophy where a monkey puts its nuts, guys.
It’s not philosophy, just reason and logic.
So far, after nearly 41 years of being Christian, I've found no moral or philosophical stuff….
Have you looked? How for example would you propose to falsify the various difficulties with your thinking I set out in my last post to you?
…which can remotely compare with knowing Christ as Lord
And speaking of logical fallacies, that’s one of them: reification. You’re not being asked to compare your “knowing Christ as Lord” with “moral or philosophical stuff” at all. Rather you’re being asked why anyone else should think you have a “relationship” with Christ in the first place.
Do I have doubts? You bet - but I thank God for them....'cos so far, they haven't caused any problems for me...far from it..
But not doubts then about whether or not there’s a “God” there at all to be thanked? That’s circular (another fallacy).
…they've only deepened my relationship with Christ after I've ironed them
And more reification to finish. Don’t misunderstand here – it’s neither my nor anyone else’s business that you believe in a god for bad reasons. It’s your affair, so knock yourself out if it works for you. What some of us do say though is that you might want to be a bit more circumspect in future about taking twelve-year-olds to be converted to palpable nonsense.
-
I have no wish to denigrate your experience in any way. Whatever you experienced is entirely your own affair.
I would just like to point out the differences that seem to be between thee and me. Firstly, I have always read any part of scripture with an open and enquiring mind, but, never, reluctantly. Perhaps one of the reasons, for me, is that no one has ever forced me to read scripture. Secondly, I have, as far back as I can remember, always accepted that just about any god is a possibility, so I have never been in the position of admitting that God is a possibility. Thirdly, the idea of God being a possibility doesn't seem to have had the significance for me that you seem to attach to it, hence I have never felt the impulse to search for this God on a personal level. Fourthly, the idea of surrendering myself to a god which just might exist is, for me, a rather meaningless concept. Fifthly, I have never to my knowledge felt any awareness of your God.
So, I take on board what you say, Anchs, but I tend to think that we are all products of our nature and nurture, and tend to have greatly different views about such things.
Reluctantly?
You bet./
.
From wherre I stood back in 1977, all religions were bunkum, pure and simple.
I blame the Boys' Brigade...or its' captain, rather.
He'd been dishing out classes for the senior Boys to teach, and gave me "International" - a badge dealing with the BB overseas, and expasion of the movement.
He suggested I read Acts...so I did, and verse 8 stuck like an earworm - sdon't ask me why. It wasn't a text dealing with sin, or repentence, or whatever, but it stuck nonetheless.
I had to deal with it, so I looked at the expansionist church...Bawmber Gasgoine (atheist)'s "The Christians" was helpful, even if I didn't believe.
God, apparently, had other ideas.
It was trying to deal with that earworm that put me on my knees on that night in 1977. logic went out the window...that sense of His presence was overwhelming, and made any objections to silly concepts of logic irrelevent.
Is what happened logical?
Who cares - I certaintly don't. Logic isn't everything.
-
My reading of Anchors conversion is that he took the possibility of the Christian job reasonably. If it is possible that there is a Christian God then it is possible that he may respond.
But why did Anchorman choose the Christian god in particular? If the Christian god is possible, lots of gods are possible. If he had decided that the Muslim god was possible and felt a presence, he would now be a muslim, or if Thor, he'd know be a viking, or if the Loch Ness monster...
The point is that Anchorman chose Christianity entirely due to cultural biases, not because there really is a Christian god.
-
God, apparently, had other ideas.
Why do you think that, when the Europeans first encountered the natives of the Americas, they found no Christians among them?
-
Why do you think that, when the Europeans first encountered the natives of the Americas, they found no Christians among them?
Ever optimistic, I remain hopeful that there will be good, direct answers to your clear questions.
-
Why do you think that, when the Europeans first encountered the natives of the Americas, they found no Christians among them?
The point was regarding MY experience, not that o Native Americans.
-
Ever optimistic, I remain hopeful that there will be good, direct answers to your clear questions.
Twixt optimist and pessimist
the difference is droll.
The optimist sees the polo mint
the pessimist the hole.
Susan, my atheism was due to a look at the various ways cultures used to access the divine - mainlt Egyptian, of course, and the Greek efforts to seguay iit into their own ideology, nicking most of their philosophy from Egypt in the process.
If that was in error, so was all religion. QED.
The problem was that, as I said earlier, God had other ideas.
-
The problem was that, as I said earlier, God had other ideas.
And by an almost unbelievable coincidence it turned out that the One True God was the one most popular in you culture!
I guess it's just tough luck for the Native Americans and others who never got to even hear about the One True God. Not exactly very fair-minded of it, not to make its message somewhat more obvious and available to everybody equally, wouldn't you say?
-
Reluctantly?
You bet./
.
From wherre I stood back in 1977, all religions were bunkum, pure and simple.
I blame the Boys' Brigade...or its' captain, rather.
He'd been dishing out classes for the senior Boys to teach, and gave me "International" - a badge dealing with the BB overseas, and expasion of the movement.
He suggested I read Acts...so I did, and verse 8 stuck like an earworm - sdon't ask me why. It wasn't a text dealing with sin, or repentence, or whatever, but it stuck nonetheless.
I had to deal with it, so I looked at the expansionist church...Bawmber Gasgoine (atheist)'s "The Christians" was helpful, even if I didn't believe.
God, apparently, had other ideas.
It was trying to deal with that earworm that put me on my knees on that night in 1977. logic went out the window...that sense of His presence was overwhelming, and made any objections to silly concepts of logic irrelevent.
Is what happened logical?
Who cares - I certaintly don't. Logic isn't everything.
sounds to me like a case of total submission to a mental aberration. That wouldn't be as bad as it sounds if you kept it to yourself but you involve children who don't know any better . That is unacceptable behavior to me .
-
And by an almost unbelievable coincidence it turned out that the One True God was the one most popular in you culture!
I guess it's just tough luck for the Native Americans and others who never got to even hear about the One True God. Not exactly very fair-minded of it, not to make its message somewhat more obvious and available to everybody equally, wouldn't you say?
Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.
-
Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.
asking you for explanations is pointless because you will not accept responsibility for your own actions .
-
Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.
What "he's" doing (if most versions of Christianity are true) is manifestly unfair and unjust - thus contradicting the whole message.
Why is god hiding away in one particular religious tradition amongst many - giving a massive advantage to some people above others? Why is god's vitally important message to its creation not totally obvious to everyone? Why does it look for all the world like people deluding themselves?
-
Anchs,
The point was regarding MY experience, not that o Native Americans.
Actually it wasn't; rather the point was about the narrative you tell yourself about your experience, not your reification of it.
-
Anchs,
Susan, my atheism was due to a look at the various ways cultures used to access the divine - mainlt Egyptian, of course, and the Greek efforts to seguay iit into their own ideology, nicking most of their philosophy from Egypt in the process.
To access beliefs about the "divine", but ok...
If that was in error, so was all religion. QED.
Yes.
The problem was that, as I said earlier, God had other ideas.
That's not "the problem" at all - it's just a narrative you reached for to explain your experience. The actual problem is that you have no way to establish that it was a god wot did it rather than one of the various, mind-induced phenomena known to cause such things.
-
Anchs,
Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.
Actually it's called "memetics" and missionaries or similar sounding persuasive (or enforcing their views with violence) tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of their claims. You know this already though because of the observable phenomenon of "evangelism" for other beliefs entirely also delivering converts.
-
Anchs,
Actually it's called "memetics"
LOL.
Pseudoscience alert.