Billy Grahm, Barack Obama and 'God's agent' Franklin
by Albert 1

49368184
# 1. 5/4/10 1:58 AM by Jay - OR
Jesus, proclaimed as the Christ, made it very, very plain that the only way to the Father was through him . . . , also that the Father was in Heaven. Without some qualifications (and I believe there are many) that has to be an exclusive position, if I ever saw one. Franklin has said nothing that his father has not said; nor something that, until recently, most Christian ministers--none foreclosed from the White House, to my knowledge--have said at one time or another.

I don't get your point, I guess. (I'm sure some might say you are defending the current president regardless of a lack of critical thinking, and in the process rationalizing it somehow. I've chosen NOT to take what you wrote in that manner.)

Editor's Note: First you begin as if you witnessed Jesus saying that or at the least are claiming to have faith in the the accuracey of the translation and transmission thru the centuries. Sorry Jay I can accept that statement as opinion only.

Second I discern a critical distinction between Jesus, the man in human form and a spiritual principle called Christ.

In my opinion it is one of the major flaws in Christian practice to confuse the two and misunderstand the significance of the distinction.

Lastly rather than "defending" the President I Am congratulating him for being more true to the principle of seperation of church and state.

I consider Franklin Graham's statement as a sincere expression of a spiritual distortion I observer as common among Evangelicals.

They and he are entitled to their opinion and right to practice religion but when they attempt dominion over civil government in any manner I draw the line.

You surprise me some here for many of these same Evangelicals, especially the fundamentalist ones dont consider LDS as representing true Christianity.



6074252
# 2. 5/4/10 9:20 AM by Jim - Rochester
"one of the greatest tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion" -- -- Arthur C. Clark

Editor's Note: And now it thinks it can hijack government.



4246388
# 3. 5/4/10 9:58 AM by Eric - Rochester, NY
It sounds to me like Grahm's church has something in common with the current administration - they're both 'exclusive'.

Editor's Note: I'll have to see how you illustrate Obama's exclusivity to comment fairly on that comment.



67981692
# 4. 5/4/10 1:16 PM by BF
I don't see how this column can be understood by some as "taking a shot" at Franklin Graham.

Oh! -- Maybe it's the part where you suggested that Franklin dodged a question.

Maybe it was where you pointed out that Franklin considers his faith to be a superior and exclusive path to Heaven.

People around WOTL have the same superior attitude and hurl accusations of others dodging questions all the time, and nobody thinks ill of them.

So why is it so bad when you do it, Albert?

It couldn't be that you get criticized no matter what you say, could it?

Editor's Note: More likely the "Christians" are just being true to type.



49368184
# 5. 5/4/10 2:45 PM by Jay - OR
Are you disputing that Jesus said what was reported? I certainly didn't expect you to think I was witnessing His words. (My witness, for what it's worth, does not come from reading--especially something that I know may not have been translated correctly.)

Christianity, for centuries, has acknowledged those were his words, and yet the "exclusivity" issue has not prevented Christian leaders from being welcome in the White House. Ever! At least, not ever before. Muslim doctrine is as exclusive--if not more--and yet the president you congratulate picked out Franklin Graham. Give me a break. (Don't misunderstand, I personally have areas of strong disagreement with the Grahams when it comes to doctrine--and their form exclusivity is part of it.)

Editor's Note: I am disputing the dredentials of those claimg such reporting to be credible.

I used "credential and credible" both in the same sentance.

More than a bit of skepticism if you will.

Rather than dispute in the negative I just dont support as a positive.

I do allow for Truth to reveal itself. I think we may be back to the circular reasoning impasse.



4246388
# 6. 5/4/10 4:52 PM by Eric - Rochester, NY
You said:

"I'll have to see how you illustrate Obama's exclusivity to comment fairly on that comment."

It's a simple observation. Grahm's church excludes people based on their religious beliefs. Obama's administration excludes people (Grahm) based on their religious beliefs.

Editor's Note: Since when was Graham being considered for any official post? Visits to the WH reflects on policy that I feel is much more inclusive than in previous ones.. I doubt if Obama would invite an avowed racist for the same reason.

Grahm does not favor equality in religion and stated so in the interview I witnessed.

Are you serious that Obama has fired all in his administration who might have Evangelical sympathies? I hope he does if any try to incorporate Fundamentalism into thier duties.

If you want to check out exclusionary policies check out the public stance of the two major parties......

The actual effect can be noted on the rubber stamp policy of Republican Congress and the obvious ornieness of the Demecrats who tend to think as individuals much more than I Am comfortable with.



4246388
# 7. 5/4/10 9:28 PM by Eric - Rochester, NY
There is no need to justify or explain either side, Albert, it was truly just an observation.

Editor's Note: I often find that ex[ansions of observations are useful. In my own experience I dont always find that so easy especially in a dialog as the feedback will often cause one to reconsider the original statement.

I always welcome sincere observations even when they may cause initial discomfort.

Thanx Eric




include comments