Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to be controversial but Jimmy Carter is a political figure not an important religiouis figure. His racist comments against Israel still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We have spoken before about the difference between doing good things and being a good Christian. No doubt Carter has done some good with his work but I don't consider him a religious figure.
I tend to agree and disagree with you. Ever since the Church and State were separated back in the day in Europe, the state has taken over many of the functions of collecting alms for the poor, elderly and disabled that were once fed through Church donations. Also, it's the President of the U.S. who is the most powerful figure in the world, and given the actual power to destroy entire nations and human civilization itself. Even our founding fathers proclaimed an unshakable faith in God, and were moral leaders as well as religious, political & military figures who often led by practical example. Many conquerors throughout history, killed and conquered in the name of Christianity and proclaimed divine purpose. A person doesn't need to be a graduate of a theology school to be a religious figure, do they? How many Biblical religious figures were theology school grad's, was Moses?
I'll add the name of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. His dream was our dream.
Oh geez, give the old woman a break! She walked among the poorest of the poor and from what I've seen she did so with a pure heart. How much time have you and I spent in 3rd world ghettos? It seem to me you are offended by her Catholic beliefs regarding contraception and abortion and want to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
That maybe the case. But we do tend to devote far too much respect to people who claim to be doing good deeds, or acting on faith. Look at Princess Diana and the outragous level of respect giving toward her, when she spent a life in luxery that most of us can only dream of.
That maybe the case. But we do tend to devote far too much respect to people who claim to be doing good deeds, or acting on faith. Look at Princess Diana and the outragous level of respect giving toward her, when she spent a life in luxery that most of us can only dream of.
I can agree with you to a point. But it's not exactly Princess Di's fault that she was born entitled. I highly doubt that I would have the gumption to give up all of that wealth and go live in a monestary myself. Rather, like her, I would probably try to use my wealth and status to affect change. Princess Di could have lived a selfish life ala Paris Hilton, instead, she took her time, her money and her celebrity and tried to make a positive difference.
That maybe the case. But we do tend to devote far too much respect to people who claim to be doing good deeds, or acting on faith. Look at Princess Diana and the outragous level of respect giving toward her, when she spent a life in luxery that most of us can only dream of.
I agree about Diana , it is really outrageous that she has become a virtual saint considering her life .
I know mother Teresa was not beyond reproach but at least she "lived" a truly selfless life and did not accumulate a fortune whilst preaching about god and helping the poor. She gained nothing for herself . She did indeed have some dubious "allies" but I remember her saying she would pretty much do a deal with anyone if it helped the poorest people on earth whom she considered her "charges". I have to respect her sincerity and her purpose if not necessarily all her methods.
I can agree with you to a point. But it's not exactly Princess Di's fault that she was born entitled. I highly doubt that I would have the gumption to give up all of that wealth and go live in a monestary myself. Rather, like her, I would probably try to use my wealth and status to affect change. Princess Di could have lived a selfish life ala Paris Hilton, instead, she took her time, her money and her celebrity and tried to make a positive difference.
I agree completely... is somebody not allowed to be considered "good", simply because they were born into privilege? That's ridiculous! What matters is what you DO with that privilege, and I think Diana was a shining example of charity & goodwill.
Actually, again no matter the negative associated with some of these men due to their human frailties, the fact is many, many people have been converted to Christ through their ministries.
I see why you appreciate their end results, but shouldn't the tactics matter as well? And also think about WHY they were converted, and any negative teachings that might go along with their "change"... hate to bring up his name, but I'm sure Fred Phelps has also converted many, and I'd NEVER in a million years give him any kudos for that.
I agree completely... is somebody not allowed to be considered "good", simply because they were born into privilege? That's ridiculous! What matters is what you DO with that privilege, and I think Diana was a shining example of charity & goodwill.
Its not that can't be considered "good". Its the level of respect and almost mythical worship that people grant certain public figures. In reality a lot of them live the life of riley, spend a few hours in a third world country being photographed by the biggest magazines and then jetting of on their private planes back to luxery. Why the hell should I respect that?? I give a far greater proortion of my wealth than she ever did, and I actually WORK for a living. Oh and I pay taxes.
I see why you appreciate their end results, but shouldn't the tactics matter as well? And also think about WHY they were converted, and any negative teachings that might go along with their "change"... hate to bring up his name, but I'm sure Fred Phelps has also converted many, and I'd NEVER in a million years give him any kudos for that.
LOL, gizmo, I don't know. God spoke through a donkey in scripture to Balaam! No, I'm NOT comparing any of these guys to donkeys but I guess God can use anyone or anything He wants!
Yes, I think the "means" does count. Absolutely. But I also think that when someone had led thousands and thousands to Christ, but they have has their own moral failures, I don't think it negates that they have been influential in a positive way in at least some respects. I do see a dfference, however, between moral failings and hate speech.
LOL, gizmo, I don't know. God spoke through a donkey in scripture to Balaam! No, I'm NOT comparing any of these guys to donkeys but I guess God can use anyone or anything He wants!
Yes, I think the "means" does count. Absolutely. But I also think that when someone had led thousands and thousands to Christ, but they have has their own moral failures, I don't think it negates that they have been influential in a positive way in at least some respects. I do see a dfference, however, between moral failings and hate speech.
I agree with kay here, she seems to be very balanced in her viewpoint, IMHO. Of course the "means" count, but of course, so do the results!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No fainting allowed!
