Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

16. I think Billy was a much better politician.

Fri Jul 17, 2015, 04:22 PM

Jul 2015

Whether he was sincere or not, I don't know, but the fact that one might even consider that he was is a testament to his skills.

But, as you say, Franklin is close to being a joke. His political skills are very lame.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality. Why Does Franklin Graham Not Get This? [View all] cbayer Jul 2015 OP

Maybe he's dealing with some Ted Haggard cognitive dissonance! MADem Jul 2015 #1

I think that he knows he has an audience... cbayer Jul 2015 #4

Because Graham is a "carnival hucksters" who forms his ladjf Jul 2015 #2

Bingo. cbayer Jul 2015 #5

His father was very good at what he did. As a fellow educator, I was amazed by the ladjf Jul 2015 #14

I think Billy was a much better politician. cbayer Jul 2015 #16

Love that sailboat. But, it's just as well. That's your boat. nt ladjf Jul 2015 #23

Sadly my boat is up in the air for hurricane season. cbayer Jul 2015 #24

Does that mean you're no longer "basically homeless"? cleanhippie Jul 2015 #25

You should add the link for the inevitable alert that's going to come Heddi Jul 2015 #26

It's my understanding that living in a villa in Italy for the summer cleanhippie Jul 2015 #29

Franklin Graham has twisted his "fairy-tale" Bible beyond all recognition. InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2015 #3

Agree and he feeds it to anyone who will iisten. cbayer Jul 2015 #6

"Why do we say the Bible condemns it?" skepticscott Jul 2015 #7

The bible also doesn't mention bvf Jul 2015 #12

It's not that simple Major Nikon Jul 2015 #47

Umm..yeah..it is that simple skepticscott Jul 2015 #48

You funny Major Nikon Jul 2015 #49

Um...no..my best argument is a direct quote from the Bible skepticscott Jul 2015 #50

If that's the case, your argument sucks even more Major Nikon Jul 2015 #51

Seriously? That's your answer? skepticscott Jul 2015 #53

I have no interest in educating those who wish to remain willfully ignorant Major Nikon Jul 2015 #55

In other words, you can't back up one damn word you said skepticscott Jul 2015 #57

Franklin is a bigot, but so are other clergy folk who are lauded here without reservation and that Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #8

I don't think anyone is lauded here without reservation. cbayer Jul 2015 #11

This comes pretty close: Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #22

Because he doesn't want to. truebluegreen Jul 2015 #9

Exactly. He knows who lines his pockets cbayer Jul 2015 #10

Hmmm, the fact that such condemnation exists to cherry-pick... uriel1972 Jul 2015 #13

As I am sure you know, there are some passages in the bible that are used by cbayer Jul 2015 #17

What part of "Abomination" is not condemnation? uriel1972 Jul 2015 #19

Oh and the standard penalty for abominating in the bible is death, generally by stoning. Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #20

Did you read this author's analysis of that verse? cbayer Jul 2015 #21

Leviticus 20:13 uriel1972 Jul 2015 #27

No amount of judicious cherry-picking can disguise the festering hate that lies within. cleanhippie Jul 2015 #30

Whether you agree with Rev Grahma or not is entirely relelvant. cbayer Jul 2015 #32

I read it as a whole, there are a few "Good Bits" and a lot of "Hate Bits" uriel1972 Jul 2015 #33

Your reading is your reading. cbayer Jul 2015 #35

Hahaha WOW. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #37

I ***DO NOT*** support their bigotry... uriel1972 Jul 2015 #39

My point is that it doesn't support their agenda. cbayer Jul 2015 #41

Okay... uriel1972 Jul 2015 #42

You are certainly within your rights to interpret it any way you want. cbayer Jul 2015 #43

Except that you can't provide that interpretation skepticscott Jul 2015 #44

The article you posted IS proselytizing...sheesh! skepticscott Jul 2015 #40

Do you even read what you post? Lordquinton Jul 2015 #46

When someone claims that there is NOTHING in the bible skepticscott Jul 2015 #45

Read the entire chapter 20 of Leviticus put into perspective and it becomes more clear Major Nikon Jul 2015 #52

I got your freaking perspective right here skepticscott Jul 2015 #54

Please do go all night Major Nikon Jul 2015 #56

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #58

This is a great summary, MN, and much appreciated. cbayer Jul 2015 #60

There are many theologians, biblical historians, and linguists who say the same thing Major Nikon Jul 2015 #61

And the traslations were clearly influenced by the politics cbayer Jul 2015 #62

Did *you* read it? Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #31

Hmm, I'm not saying it's any less uriel1972 Jul 2015 #34

I was responding to cbrayer, not you. Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #36

This is a weapon several churches are using right now against gay people. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #38

because the bible certainly does condemn homosexuality. nt. Warren Stupidity Jul 2015 #15

Um, the author doesn't actually address the leviticus problem, except to show that people AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #18

Nor does he address any of the myriad passages condemning sex without procreation. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2015 #28

Not directly, but he provides references that do Major Nikon Jul 2015 #59

Context, context, context. Thanks for the posts. (nt) pinto Jul 2015 #63