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.
I'm sure he believed what he was doing was moral, just as the Bush administration thought invading Iraq was moral. That doesn't mean civilian lives instantly exit the equation.
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.
My mom watched his show and I do not have any idea what he was saying to this day - It was like soap operas. I mean there is nothing I would be interested about him at all. I have never been so absolutely uninterested in what someone would say. I cannot explain it because I love to watch youtube videos with people talking about ideas and I will listen to a guy go on and on about an online game. I love to listen to Smart people talking about stuff but I would never ever ever want to spend another moment of my life listening to anything Billy Graham said.. I live near Charlotte NC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Evangelists are perhaps not much of a HN thing, but Graham was a legitimately interesting world figure. Wikipedia describes him as a "close friend" to both LBJ and Nixon, with the latter relationship including Graham's suggestion of the following to Nixon:
"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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
32 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 86.9 ms ] threadEveryone is a mixed bag of good and bad, but pushing a military leader to kill so many (mostly civilian) people is not forgivable.
I'm sure he believed what he was doing was moral, just as the Bush administration thought invading Iraq was moral. That doesn't mean civilian lives instantly exit the equation.
New York Hears Words of Hope From Billy Graham
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/23/nyregion/new-york-hears-wo...
His son doesn't seem to be as non-partisan.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"black hearted" evil is rare enough. Rampant justification of actions that serve self-interest is a little less rare.
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.
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.
"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.
- 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.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/us/billy-graham-responds-t...
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.