Billy Graham, charismatic evangelist with worldwide following, dies at 99(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Billy Graham, charismatic evangelist with worldwide following, dies at 99
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/billy-graham-charismatic-evangelist-with-worldwide-following-dies-at-99/2018/02/21/acf3f446-170a-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html?utm_term=.f1d978c7c605
32 comments
Interesting! It would appear that religiousness and impirialistic warmongering make a splendid match. Of course, we must not forget that that was the time when a completely insane Nixon proposed nuking North Vietnam.
I came to this thread to try and find the "hacker news-acceptable" way of saying he was an utterly horrible person and you've delivered :)
>a completely insane Nixon proposed nuking North Vietnam
Knowing someone sane held back the insane leaders of each superpower gives me hope for the future. If humanity was truly hopeless, we wouldn't be here.
Knowing someone sane held back the insane leaders of each superpower gives me hope for the future. If humanity was truly hopeless, we wouldn't be here.
This doesn't seem all that surprising. A lot of evangelicals seem to have a distinctly unchristian attitude.
Jesus wasn't violent, but he was not entirely a pacifist either:
- He drove out money changers from the temple with ropes as whips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
- He said, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10#Verse_34
- He said, "and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_swor...
There are a lot more counter-examples, but we tend to forget he did the above.
------
I'm sad that this article was flagged, but if it's going to cause regulars on Hacker News to make mean-spirited comments about Billy Graham, I suppose it's for the better.
- He drove out money changers from the temple with ropes as whips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
- He said, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10#Verse_34
- He said, "and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_swor...
There are a lot more counter-examples, but we tend to forget he did the above.
------
I'm sad that this article was flagged, but if it's going to cause regulars on Hacker News to make mean-spirited comments about Billy Graham, I suppose it's for the better.
Graham did a fantastic TED talk[0] on technology, faith, and suffering.
In it, he admires how technology has improved life and changed the world, but rightfully points out that the human heart and its propensity toward evil can't be fixed by technology alone. Fantastic talk.
[0]: https://www.ted.com/talks/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_a...
In it, he admires how technology has improved life and changed the world, but rightfully points out that the human heart and its propensity toward evil can't be fixed by technology alone. Fantastic talk.
[0]: https://www.ted.com/talks/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_a...
I reject the notion that humans have a propensity towards evil. That's a fundamental tenet of Catholic and Protestant theologies but that doesn't make it a truth necessarily.
Given that humans are by our biology and history a social and cooperative species, it stands to reason that humans have a propensity towards "good" instead.
And I've updated my post to put good in quotation marks because obvious good and evil are not exactly objective truths either.
Given that humans are by our biology and history a social and cooperative species, it stands to reason that humans have a propensity towards "good" instead.
And I've updated my post to put good in quotation marks because obvious good and evil are not exactly objective truths either.
Graham addresses that in the TED talk. It'd encourage you to watch it - it's a short 15 minutes.
Bertrand Russel, not a religious man by any means, said that "It's in our hearts that the evil lies, and from our hearts it must be plucked out."
Einstein said it's easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
Whether we humans are inclined towards evil, or we are inclined towards good but become corrupted, the end result is the same.
Bertrand Russel, not a religious man by any means, said that "It's in our hearts that the evil lies, and from our hearts it must be plucked out."
Einstein said it's easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
Whether we humans are inclined towards evil, or we are inclined towards good but become corrupted, the end result is the same.
We are certainly prone to prioritizing our own self-interest.
"black hearted" evil is rare enough. Rampant justification of actions that serve self-interest is a little less rare.
"black hearted" evil is rare enough. Rampant justification of actions that serve self-interest is a little less rare.
Eh, you are both too inclusive and exclusive with your thinking.
Darwin said "survival of it fittest", but it's closer to "survival of the fit enough", which means not one, but a plethora of options are available for survival. Some of the options that allow survival are considered evil by a portion of society, some of the options that allow survival are considered good by portions of society.
We like to think of evil and good as ideas that can be erased or gotten rid of, but that is just unrealistic idealisms. Evil and good are just the outcome of acts. We, as a society can reduce the potential for some kinds of acts, but we cannot get rid of said acts we consider evil simply because they can be spontaneously discovered.
Humans do have a propensity towards evil.
Humans also have a propensity towards good.
This is because humans are the most able being in our known universe. Our potential is almost unlimited.
Darwin said "survival of it fittest", but it's closer to "survival of the fit enough", which means not one, but a plethora of options are available for survival. Some of the options that allow survival are considered evil by a portion of society, some of the options that allow survival are considered good by portions of society.
We like to think of evil and good as ideas that can be erased or gotten rid of, but that is just unrealistic idealisms. Evil and good are just the outcome of acts. We, as a society can reduce the potential for some kinds of acts, but we cannot get rid of said acts we consider evil simply because they can be spontaneously discovered.
Humans do have a propensity towards evil.
Humans also have a propensity towards good.
This is because humans are the most able being in our known universe. Our potential is almost unlimited.
> I reject the notion that humans have a propensity towards evil. That's a fundamental tenet of Catholic and Protestant theologies
Perhaps, but not in the sense that this...
> Given that humans are by our biology and history a social and cooperative species, it stands to reason that humans have a propensity towards "good" instead.
...is a mutually exclusive alternative. In fact, I think most Catholic and mainstream Protestant theologians would agree with you that humans have an inmate propensity for good.
Perhaps, but not in the sense that this...
> Given that humans are by our biology and history a social and cooperative species, it stands to reason that humans have a propensity towards "good" instead.
...is a mutually exclusive alternative. In fact, I think most Catholic and mainstream Protestant theologians would agree with you that humans have an inmate propensity for good.
Yeah; quite frankly, while I used to find that talk profound when I was younger it now sounds like a stealthy, albeit long-winded drive toward "y'all need Jesus" and nothing more. Some interesting anecdotes, though.
I thought that talk was very apropos to the latest school shooting in Florida.
Graham's conversations with Nixon were taped. In at least one of them he has a lot of negative things to say about Jews and the Jewish community:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/us/billy-graham-responds-t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/us/billy-graham-responds-t...
There have been a lot of negative things said about Jews and the Jewish community. From those who are ignorant (of which there are many), they will oppose the majority of a group for the actions of a few. This is applicable to many different groups.
What a lot of people have forgotten is that the vast majority of the first followers of Jesus Christ were Jews. There were sections of the Jewish leadership that wanted him dead and happily conspired with their political opponents and enemies to bring about this outcome.
Those first Jewish followers were persecuted and hunted down by the Jewish leadership. It is interesting that it was one of those ravening wolves by the name of Saul who ended up being one of the great evangelists for Jesus Christ going by the name of Paul.
The historical antipathy against Jews arose out of the idea that it was the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, when the crucifixion was carried out by the Romans (a particularly effective "law enforcement" technique under Roman law). This idea arose because of the claim by some of that Jewish leadership to having taken on the political kudos of causing his death - getting rid of a particularly thorny individual (thorny to their political and financial aspirations). Those in leadership who supported Jesus Christ were themselves attacked.
The fact that this Jewish sect had great impact on non-Jewish people and was the result of the evangelising by Jews is something that seems to be forgotten by and by.
Jesus Christ was sent to the Jews for the Jews and it went much further. So without the Jews, what is known as Christianity today would not exist. Without them we would not have the Good News.
I find it fascinating that amongst the Jews there is a growing group who recognise that Jesus Christ is their messiah and they are being persecuted by the various Jewish authorities for this recognition.
Without the Jews, the Gentiles are incomplete and without the Gentiles, the Jews are incomplete.
What a lot of people have forgotten is that the vast majority of the first followers of Jesus Christ were Jews. There were sections of the Jewish leadership that wanted him dead and happily conspired with their political opponents and enemies to bring about this outcome.
Those first Jewish followers were persecuted and hunted down by the Jewish leadership. It is interesting that it was one of those ravening wolves by the name of Saul who ended up being one of the great evangelists for Jesus Christ going by the name of Paul.
The historical antipathy against Jews arose out of the idea that it was the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, when the crucifixion was carried out by the Romans (a particularly effective "law enforcement" technique under Roman law). This idea arose because of the claim by some of that Jewish leadership to having taken on the political kudos of causing his death - getting rid of a particularly thorny individual (thorny to their political and financial aspirations). Those in leadership who supported Jesus Christ were themselves attacked.
The fact that this Jewish sect had great impact on non-Jewish people and was the result of the evangelising by Jews is something that seems to be forgotten by and by.
Jesus Christ was sent to the Jews for the Jews and it went much further. So without the Jews, what is known as Christianity today would not exist. Without them we would not have the Good News.
I find it fascinating that amongst the Jews there is a growing group who recognise that Jesus Christ is their messiah and they are being persecuted by the various Jewish authorities for this recognition.
Without the Jews, the Gentiles are incomplete and without the Gentiles, the Jews are incomplete.
Today is a sad day for those of us who think of Billy Graham as a spiritual father (or in my case great grandfather).
He was great for his influence over so many millions of people, generous for his message of peace, and flawed for his humanity.
While the 20th century will be remembered for its many violent moments, Mr. Graham joins Gandhi as one of the great luminaries of hope amid dark times.
On a personal note, my grandmothers life was changed by the preaching of Billy Graham when she turned on the TV after being stood up on a date and saw the preacher inviting her to a different kind of life. That moment changed the course of her life and mine, and for that I am grateful.
He was great for his influence over so many millions of people, generous for his message of peace, and flawed for his humanity.
While the 20th century will be remembered for its many violent moments, Mr. Graham joins Gandhi as one of the great luminaries of hope amid dark times.
On a personal note, my grandmothers life was changed by the preaching of Billy Graham when she turned on the TV after being stood up on a date and saw the preacher inviting her to a different kind of life. That moment changed the course of her life and mine, and for that I am grateful.
Got to see his "Crusade in Central Park" when I was pretty young. Felt like about a million people had come to see a single man speak ;)
New York Hears Words of Hope From Billy Graham
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/23/nyregion/new-york-hears-wo...
New York Hears Words of Hope From Billy Graham
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/23/nyregion/new-york-hears-wo...
Perhaps not a great man - or perhaps he was. But certainly one who had his eyes firmly fixed on the hope of a better world, and did all he could to help people feel less afraid. I can imagine no more noble purpose.
Not to assume that the deceased are always remembered fondly, but I'm a bit confused by your comment. If he isn't great, but had noble purpose, I'd love to know how that works–at least, to learn a different way of quantifying a life lived.
Not for us to judge the historical impact of his work; we haven't the perspective.
He encouraged Nixon to bomb Vietnam if the war continued, which the Nixon admonistration estimated would have killed 1 million people.
Everyone is a mixed bag of good and bad, but pushing a military leader to kill so many (mostly civilian) people is not forgivable.
Everyone is a mixed bag of good and bad, but pushing a military leader to kill so many (mostly civilian) people is not forgivable.
Billy Graham had a TED talk addressing the tech community specifically [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90mj79GqWhc]
RIP. Unlike the fraudster televangelists such as Jim Bakker, he always seemed genuine to me.
As a friend said, it's a shame his son seems insistent on whoring out his name for the GOP.
"A secret thirteen-page letter (released to the public by the National Archives and Records Administration in April 1989) was written on April 15, 1969, by White House Chaplain Billy Graham to U.S. President Richard Nixon in which Graham encouraged Nixon to utilize a military campaign to bomb dikes across North Vietnam should the Paris Peace Talks fail to reach a negotiated settlement of the U.S. war in Southeast Asia. Graham had developed his dike bombing strategy during an earlier business meeting in Bangkok with his evangelists assigned to Southern Vietnam. Graham later told Nixon that this proposed escalation of the war in Southeast Asia was a plan that 'could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam' by employing 'tens of thousands of North Vietnamese defectors to bomb and invade the North.' Estimates from the Nixon administration concluded that such a military aerial bombing campaign against dikes in North Vietnam would have killed approximately one million North Vietnamese."
I'm not bringing this up to smear a guy who's recently died. It's just fascinating to me that the same person who's perhaps the most effective (and, by all appearances, genuine) evangelist ever would also have opinions on the right kind of bombing tactics to force a military agreement by crippling civilian infrastructure.