I don't dispute a person's right to be wealthy, but there is definitely valid theological arguments against immense wealth and opulence in Christian leaders.

Jesus in the bible isn't exactly mild against the wealthy and nor is he mild against those who turn temples into businesses. And he really goes off against religious leaders who turn their religion into wealth.

And in that instance it is also very hard to argue that hypocrisy could be understandable, because the biblical Jesus definitely did not like hypocrites either.

We're not talking about free trade, the subject is charity and the motivation for that charitable work is his stated belief "We are followers of Jesus who commanded that we feed the poor". Ok, then why is he sitting on hundreds of millions of $ while people, including thousands of children, are hungry, homeless and poor within a few miles of his own headquarters, let alone half way around the world? Are you saying he couldn't or shouldn't have helped them even if it meant 'potential nagative effects' for himself? I.e. having less money... No matter how much he raised, he still lived a life of luxury and riches whilst people starved.

Ghandi was missing a trick when he set an example and lived with as little as possible to hilight his views on the inequality between the rich and the poor, he should have coined it in and tried to be as wealthy as possible whilst telling everyone else not to be too greedy.... however, despite his failure to realise that being a hypocrite is ok I still have huge respect for him living by his principles even though it meant experiencing actual negative effects.


Nope. Pious, fundamentalist evangelicals claiming to do god's work and spewing quotes like the one above are in a special class all on their own, the onus on them for their actions speak at least as loudly as their words is far greater than on someone like myself who doesn't exort others to behave as I say (but not as I do).

And you brought his son into this when you said "Since his son has run a very large charitable organization", in an effort to bolster your support of Graham, so it's hardly fair to say you don't care what I think about him when he's an example of even greater hypocrisy than his father, which is the criticism I'm levelling. The fact that it was Graham's organisation that was paying the son's huge salary just strengthens my argument againt Graham doesn't it. Perhaps that's why you don't care what I think...

Ok, that's a new one for me. I'm sure it's a nuanced view but now I'm wondering what you'll forgive or justify.... Tim Murphy, publicly anti-abortion but who asked his mistress to get an abortion? Arifinto's draconian public anti-porn stance, caught looking at porn? Darryln Johnson's hardline anti-drug speeches, caught regularly doing drugs? How do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable hypocrisy?

It's my view that nothing undermines a message more than the messenger being exposed as a hypocrite, especially as the general populaus are not aware that Tu Quoque is a logicall fallacy and are influenced in their view by accusations of hypocrisy on a dialy basis, I see it all the time. If they're being asked to do impossible things, then the problem is those doing the asking and that's where we need people who stick to their stated principles. The more I think about what you've said here, the more shocked I am.

Yeah, that's it exactly, I dislike him for his charitible impulses. What you say there is a the kind of straw man I'd expect from someone who doesn't even know what a straw man is. From you, it's almost inexcusable.

Jesus himself said , “Truly I tell you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

One of the least ambiguous biblical claims.... I can't find Graham's 'get out clause' for literally not practicing what he preached, but there must be one because he was criticised by other christians for his opulent lifestyle, at some point he must have tried to justify his hypocrisy. When I find it, I'll be greatly surprised if it hurts my view of him, I'm anticipating a 'pfffft' moment because that's what usually happens.

Graham said:

I guess he just didn't think personal wealth of $25 Million and hundreds of $millions in real estate holdings was greedy. Nor did he feel particularly pressured to use it to feed or house the thousands of poor, homeless children who lived a few miles from his HQ despite his view that American farmers should put themselves in harms way to do that.

I can respect the message without respecting the messenger, and hypocrisy is not respect worthy.

I don't think having a lot of money is greedy, either.

Save us, Impotent Behavior Police! The tone is under attack!

Yes, but not quite with the implication you're attempting to establish. That would be a similar error Mightyboosh claiming that being rich and being greedy are the same thing.

The fundamental issue is a "heart" issue. The money changers in the temple were leveraging religiosity specifically for the outcome of making profit. The religion there was the worship of money. It is more difficult to make the affirmative argument that Billy Graham was doing the same thing.

I will wait to see if Original Position actually argues that Billy Graham was a hypocrite. I think he was positing general utilitarian grounds of a form of hypocrisy (which may or may not be what Jesus was referring to, depending on how the argument is structured).

Ironically, "difficult" and "impossible" aren't the same words, either.

I'm not aware of any broad criticisms of his lifestyle. There are criticisms of some of his theological perspectives and his "crusade" style of evangelism, but I don't know that he's viewed as being "opulent."

But fluency with facts does not factor into your analysis, so sure. He was often found in Vegas with hookers splashing his cash and didn't do anything at all to help the poor.

Edit: Oh... wait. I think you're drawing inspiration from something Hitchens wrote.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/...662757,00.html

And the linked article more or less picks this apart.

My argument here is that you are claiming Graham is a hypocrite on insufficient grounds. There is no indication (given so far) that Billy Graham advocated for people to give all their money to the poor. I'm too lazy to look it up, but my guess is that his view was like most other Christian evangelicals, that you should give some percentage of your income to the poor. Giving some percentage of your income to the poor is completely consistent with being wealthy. As far as I know, Graham gave some percentage of his income to the poor. So I don't see an indication from his wealth that Graham was a hypocrite. What would show this to me is if he encouraged other people to give to the poor, but didn't do so himself. Alternatively, if he said everyone should give all their money to the poor or that it was immoral to be wealthy, I'd also agree he was a hypocrite. You haven't shown any of this.

You also had this weird attempt to show Graham was a hypocrite because he supports the US giving foreign aid to starving countries. I wonder, do you think it is hypocritical for people to support restrictions on the use of dirty energy unless they put their own job at risk as well, just like coal miners? Do you think it is hypocritical for people to support less stringent prison sentences, unless they also live in a high-crime neighborhood? Is it hypocritical to support higher taxes on the wealthy unless you are also wealthy? You are here using a completely unworkable standard of hypocrisy, basically saying that you can't support a government policy unless you directly bear its worst costs. I don't think you actually agree with this view of hypocrisy, even though you are assuming it in your criticism of Graham. You got upset at me for claiming that you only found this argument about supporting foreign aid to India making him a hypocrite convincing because you are prejudiced against Billy Graham because he was a religious figure. I'll withdraw that claim if you do assent under consideration to this standard of hypocrisy.

I don't admire Gandhi for being an ascetic, I admire him for his non-violent approach to social and political revolution.

Okay, we have different views here. On a society-wide level, my guess is that ones with more hypocrisy are usually better. I prefer hypocrites to nihilists (I'm not saying you are a nihilist).

Okay.

I'll agree with you that hypocrisy can often harm a leader's effectiveness. But it seems to me more relevant to their functions as symbols rather than their actual management or decision-making. Symbolic function is still important for leaders, but I think most people overestimate its importance.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that his advocacy for starving people in India was the only reason you disliked him. As I said, you also dislike him because he was an influential religious figure. Would you be satisfied if I said that you dislike him in part because he advocated for government policies that would feed the starving while not bearing the worst costs of those policies himself?

I think the grounds are more than sufficient. He exorted others, specifically farmers, to put themselves in 'harm's way' (having had it explained to to him that this would be the result of donating grain), whilst not putting himself in harms way. In fact, his organisation was so profitable that he could pay his son the largest salary of any charitable organisation in the US. How did he justify Franklin needing an almost million dollar salary? Or the hundreds of $millions of real estate holdings? And you keep ignoring the point that literally thousands of children were poor and homeless within a few miles of his hugely wealthy HQ in NC... whilst he was worth $25 Million. I see no evidence that he risked his own livelyhood, or put himself and his family in 'harms way', to help them.

Yes to the coal worker, no to the crime example (which would work if you had used 'neighbourhood with a high ex-prisoner population) , it's hypocritical of me personally to be so anti-oil but still drive my internal combustion engine car, and use electricity produced from oil fired power stations.... It's hypocritical whether or not it's 'workable', and that's a new element to your argument. This is the point, when I do that, that I would be accused of changing my argument or being dishonest. I won't be doing that with you, I'm happy to just follow the natural flow. If that was something that's just occured to you, or that you thought so obvious that you simply hadn't needed to say it previously, fine. I wish I came into every debate with a fully formed complete argument, every facet mapped out, every element considered and resolved, every objection considered and countered, every piece of relevant knowledge known and understood, before I even start, and able to include and articulate every element on my first try... but I don't. Who does...

I won't accept the accusation of 'prejudice'. I consider that I have valid reasons for disliking what he was and what he represented.

I didn't realise that was the choice. I have a third option, leaders who aren't hypocrites or nihilists.


You should (if you don't already) spend some time on sites like FOX news' facebook page. If you count stories that rely on accusations of hypocrisy to undermine figures with whom the FOX demographic don't agree I guarantee you'll be into double figures before the end of day one. It's the most common logical fallacy I see on a day to day basis because it's extremely effective with people who aren't as smart and informed as you. The most common response given to criticisms of Trump start 'but Hillary...' or 'but Obama.....'.


Sort of, because it's not just that he didn't bear the costs, it's that he didn't do what he exorted others to do.

Ooooh... the plot thickens. Now his advocacy in the 1950s counts as extortion because he reflects back on it in the 1980s and thinks he should have advocated harder for a policy to provide food aid to India. Also, there's no indication that the grain would be "donated" in that scenario.

Again, this is a plainly false accusation. It's wrong on multiple levels.

1) Franklin Graham's income is based off of receiving two salaries from two different organizations. His salary from the Billy Graham organization has fluctuated wildly (due to public scrutiny) but does not appear to exceed $300,000.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/...profit-salary/

2) There are others that take in higher salaries than Franklin Graham.

3) "So profitable" does not translate to "extorts so effectively" (not your words, but it's a reasonable inference from your argument).

He didn't. And doesn't. You're now accusing Billy Graham of things that happened when he wasn't even in charge of the organization anymore. He stepped down from the organization in 2005.

When you run a multi-national organization and have owned property for 30-40 years, having large real estate holdings isn't a surprise at all. I wouldn't be surprised if you totaled up the property values for a similarly large organization that you would have a similar number.

You seem to have no sense of how money works. "Net worth" doesn't mean "spendable monies." Without having a clear sense of how that money is distributed, it doesn't mean much. You can dump $25 million into a project to help homeless children and watch the money evaporate quickly with no significant sustainable positive result. The problem of homelessness is really complicated.

This is an excellent demonstration of what it means to "bite the bullet" in an argument. You've been shown the absurdity of your position and how it forces you to accept some plainly bad statements, but you've decided to dig in and do it anyway instead of relenting from your obviously bad premise.

But this effectively renders your accusation of hypocrisy moot because now you're in the same category as he is on this basis. You're more or less labeled everybody a hypocrite and your reason for disliking him (being a hypocrite) has lost a lot of its power to identify him specifically from among all the other hypocrites.

Or, you can admit that you made an error. You seem to be conflating "honesty" with "I can't change my mind." This may also contribute to why you're so bad at learning new things and why you're willfully ignorant. It's because you're trying so hard to not be wrong that you'll throw anything and everything to "win" the argument instead of accepting new information that proves you wrong.

So does everyone that has a prejudice. That's kind of how that works.

The "honest" reason that MB could have put forward is that he despises Billy Graham because he believes he's an extortionist. But he also knows that if he does that, his argument gets written off. So he instead feels the need to justify it by calling him a hypocrite, and (unsurprisingly) we find that he needs a broad definition to make that work (so broad that he himself is included in the category).

Edit:

Ironically, the addition of "extortion" into your argument and away from merely being a "hypocrite" does exactly this. So you still have to reckon with yourself.

I'll point out again that you are incorrectly describing the situation here. The conversation you are talking about was not a public statement exhorting farmers to put themselves in harm's way. Rather, he was reporting a private conversation with the President, and then reporting his own views about that issue in a later interview. None of this was directed to farmers.

But, whatever, separating this from Billy Graham, would you say that any wealthy person who exhorts people to make sacrifices to help the poor is a hypocrite? For instance, Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world, but he and his wife also founded and run the largest charitable organization in the world, donating over $30B to it. Would you say that it would be hypocritical for him to encourage other people to give money to charity since he doesn't suffer any ill effects from doing so himself?

Second, in Christian practical theology, charity towards those worse off is generally considered a universal good, applying to both the poor and rich alike (think for instance of when Jesus praised the widow who gave a mite more than the wealthy people who gave more). Are you saying it would be hypocritical for a Christian who sincerely held this belief to encourage charity for the poor it if she was a wealthy person?

I'm not changing my view - I'm pointing out that you are using a standard of hypocrisy under which broad moral exhortations are almost always hypocritical. For instance, I think housing policy should encourage new development, but this is hypocritical because I'm a renter, not a owner. I think we should have environmental regulations against killing endangered species, but this is hypocritical because my livelihood isn't affected by these regulations. I think we should ban dirty heating oil in large cities because it causes asthma, but since I don't sell this oil I'm being hypocritical. I favor free trade, but this is hypocritical, because I don't work in the kind of industry that will face much competition from foreign workers. I think we should have welfare programs to help poor children, but I'm not a millionaire and so am a hypocrite because I won't have to spend as much funding it as them.

Here in the States, with our two-party system, we often don't have a third option. The point I was trying to make was not that hypocrisy is a good thing, but that it is sometimes the best of a bad situation, or preferable to the available alternatives.

Yes, I'm aware of how effective and common claims about political hypocrisy are. I'm saying the people persuaded by these arguments to oppose Hillary and Obama (or Trump for that matter) are not focusing on what is most important, and instead are focusing on politicians difficult-to-know and often irrelevant level of commitment to their political tribe.

You keep saying this. Please give any evidence for thinking that Billy Graham didn't give money to the starving kids in India.

The public interview where he made his views clear, to the public?

There's a big differnece between Graham and Gates. Gates is not motivated to do his good deeds because he believes that "We are followers of Jesus who commanded that we feed the poor and if obeying that command causes prices to fall and profit margins to narrow, so be it.”" or that "“when we don’t feed the hungry and house the homeless, when we don’t welcome and care for the outcast we sin and the Bible promises that we will be judged for that sin.”" (Those are Graham quotes)

I.e. he's not driven to do the work of a supreme being, that he believes has demanded this work, and that he thinks will punish/reward him for his efforts or lack of them in the after life, a belief that he has literally spent his life convincing others to share. Gates is a philanthropist, Graham was an evangelical preacher who wasn't practising what he preached. AND, Graham's money all came from the people who he was selling that message to, that's the worst part. He exhorted others to give money, or buy his books and beleive his message that we should help the poor, and then he kept it.


Whether or not a view is 'workable' is a new strand to your argument, but I believe you that you're not changing your argument, I said as much.

So you agree then that under my 'standard of hypocrisy' Graham is a hypocrite? We're not talking about anyone else and I've agreed that your examples were also hypocritical, so I guess my claim stands then. It changes nothing that you have a much more lenient view of hypocrites, it's still hypocrisy.

What on earth does the number of parties have to do with the standard and personal qualities of the candidates... You basically used a false dichotomy and you're still trying to defend it. You might choose hypocrisy over nihilism but that's not the actual choice.

I never claimed that he didn't give money. Please don't put words into my mouth. I said that he didn't put himself in harms way and the evidence for that is the very comfortable financial situation he enjoyed right up until his death.

Yes, that's right, in that public interview he wasn't exhorting farmers to give money to India, since he was talking about a famine that happened 30 years previously.

Just answer the question. Would it be hypocritical for Bill Gates to encourage other people to give money to charity since he doesn't suffer any ill effects from doing so himself? I understand that you think there is a difference between the two, but I am asking if Gates would be a hypocrite if after giving $30B+ of his own wealth he exhorted middle and lower income people to also give to charity. I mean, I assume your answer is yes, since it follows from your definition of hypocrisy, but I'd like to see you defend the view that Gates shouldn't do this.

I am saying that people overrate hypocrisy as a vice in public figures. For instance, in politics, voters place way too much weight on qualities like hypocrisy and authenticity.

Also, this is not a false dichotomy, US citizens are often literally faced with a dichotomous choice as to whom to vote for in an election.

My understanding of hypocrisy is that an action is hypocritical if it conflicts with a person's stated beliefs. Thus, if someone says that being wealthy is immoral, but are themselves wealthy, that would be hypocritical. But, if someone says, everyone should give to charity, and does so themself, and is still wealthy, I don't see an action that conflicts with that person's stated beliefs and so I don't think they are being hypocritical. The reason I've emphasized the question of whether Graham gave to charity himself is because on my understanding of hypocrisy and the usual evangelical beliefs, that is the relevant question, not how wealthy he is.

You have a different view of hypocrisy, where it isn't enough that a person's actions don't conflict with their stated beliefs, they also can't advocate that someone should do x if doing x has consequences the person advocating for x won't personally bear. You have assured me that this is your actual view. So fine, by your standards, Billy Graham would be a hypocrite if he exhorted farmers to put their livelihoods at risk in giving money to the poor, since his own livelihood wasn't at risk.

On the one hand, I don't really care. Insofar as this is your view, I'll just take it that being a hypocrite in these situations is a good thing, as people should advocate for these kinds of policies (eg policies such as carbon taxes, endangered species protection, housing development, clean air, foreign aid, etc.), regardless of how wealthy they are personally. Thus, I should take your calling Billy Graham a hypocrite as a form of praise rather than derogatory.

On the other, it would be nice if you defended your position rather than just assert it. You obviously don't agree with me that this hypocrisy understood in your way is a good thing, so I'd like to see why.

You're up early

In that interview he declared his personal view to be one of expecting others to be willing to put themselves in harms way.


No, if all Gates was doing was encouraging others to give, and he himself was giving, then there's no hypocrisy, he'd be setting a good example and practicing what he preached. If like Graham he expected others to be prepared to risk their livelyhoods while he was sitting on a fortune that he wasn't willing to risk, then there would be hypocrisy.

They are not faced with the choice of 'nihilist or hypocrite'. That was the choice you described when saying that you prefered hypocrisy of the two options. However, in reality that is not the choice, so yes, it is a false dichotomy.


You still appear to be misunderstanding exactly what the charge of hypocrisy is refering to. I can't defend a position I haven't taken, and I haven't taken the position you've described above. I'll say again, the hypocrisy is that he felt people should be willing to put themselves in harms way where he himself did not do that. Not only was he not 'in harm's way' but he lived very comfortably off the money given to him by the same people he was telling should be willing to put themselves in harms way. I'm being nice when I'm calling him a hypocrite, there are much stronger terms I could justifiably be using.

I mean, in reality, no he didn't, but whatever, I'll pretend like he did say this. So what? The hypocrisy you claimed was not about his personal views, but about him exhorting these farmers to give to the poor, even if it risked their livelihood, while not doing so himself. If he didn't exhort these farmers to do so (which he didn't), then where's the hypocrisy?

Right, so you think Gates would be a hypocrite in my scenario, but you are just leaving it at that. Here's another example. I don't think it is wrong for
a general to encourage his soldiers to be brave in battle, even if that general will not himself face any personal danger during that battle. Presumably you would consider that general a hypocrite.

I had a ballot in November 2016. In it I was effectively given two options for President. One of them, in my estimation, was a nihilist. The other was a bit of a hypocrite. I voted for the hypocrite because (among other things) I think nihilism is worse than hypocrisy. In reality, these two options were the only ones I had, so I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

The position you describe here is the same as the one I ascribed to you above as far as I can tell. You say the hypocrisy is that he felt people should be willing to put themselves in harm's way to do the right thing (give money to starving people), where he himself did not do that. This is the same as the view that it is hypocritical to "advocate that someone should do x if doing x has negative consequences the person advocating for x won't personally bear." That is, it is hypocritical for Billy Graham to advocate that people should do x (give money to the starving), if doing x (giving money to the starving) has negative consequences (potential loss of livelihood), but not for Billy Graham. So yeah, I don't see anything inherently wrong with hypocrisy as you describe it, so describing Graham as a hypocrite doesn't tell me whether this is a bad thing.

Also, you can still defend your position even if you think I misunderstand it. Explain your actual position, then defend it.

Well yes, in reality he did, it's right there in the quote. Ike warned him about the harm it could cause farmers, Graham later decided that they should risk it. "so be it".

Yes..... he or she would be a hypocrite. In reality though, people don't usually make general officer of combat regiments without having displayed the type of qualities you'd expect to see in the troops, plus a few extra. Would it affect the performance of the troops or the leadership? Perhaps not. Would they be a hypocrite? Yes.

One example proves the rule does it? Not for me. The choice is not usually nihilism or hypocrisy where hypocrisy is the lesser of two evils. I'm no evangelical, but I'm not a nihilist.

Worse, the money that he didn't want to personally risk was donated to him by the people he was exorting to live up to standards he himself didn't live up to. It could be argued that he kept that money from the poor, where it might otherwise have gone had he asked people to donate directly to the poor, by keeping it for himself.

The word hypocrite doesn't really begin to describe how morally unacceptable his behaviour was. He could have been just as effective, maybe even more effective, had he lived up to the standards he preached, as a pauper, giving all the money he earned for his preaching to the poor. What an example to follow he would have been then. I would admire that, would even have found it inspiring.

Done that, over and over.

Hi, Mightyboosh.

Are there any Christian preachers currently living that you find inspiring?

For example, did you know that Rick Warren is a "reverse-tither?" He keeps 10% of his income, and gives away 90%. He also doesn't take a salary for being the senior pastor of his church. In fact, after he earned big bucks from the books that he authored, he returned all of the salary that he had been paid for years as senior pastor back to his church.

edit: No, I do not attend Rick Warren's church, nor do I own a bookstore that sells his books.

Then maybe you should consider using the words that *actually* mean the thing you mean. Throwing out the word "hypocrite" but then constructing an argument based around a really bizarre definition of "hypocrite" doesn't do anything to make your argument more understandable or reasonable.

It's possible. Or he could have been significantly less effective because of a lack of organizational infrastructure to allow his organization to have the reach it has. You complained that his organization has a lot of property that's worth a lot of money, but if you throw all that out, then there's no logistical way to be a multinational organization (remembering that he built most of his organization in the 1960s and 1970s, where you couldn't just send an email to huge portions of the globe).

Okay, so under your terminology, the general would be a hypocrite, but is he acting wrongly in exhorting his troops to bravery when he will not himself be in danger?

Yes, in this case it does. My claim, that you called a false dichotomy, was that sometimes choosing the hypocrite is the best of a bad situation, or preferable to the available alternatives. One example of this does prove the point. That being said, I could give other examples of hypocritical politicians that I've supported because they are better than the alternatives (eg my local Congresswoman).

I'm not surprised that you are claiming the bolded since, on your definition of hypocrite, being one isn't blameworthy. Anyway, you make some other criticisms here of Billy Graham (which I think are unfair), but my interest was mostly in your claim that Graham was a hypocrite, so I'll let them go.

Well, no, in reality , he didnt ( unless you have some really wierd definition of "exhorted the farmers")

heres the quote



He wasnt talking to farmers here. He didnt directly exhort farmers to do anything. And, he is talking about a conversation that happened 30 years previously, where he was talking to someone who wasnt a farmer.

Please show where he exhorted farmers to put themselves in harms way.

Sure, ok, when Billy Graham made his views clear in public interviews, he wasn't in anyway expecting anyone to adopt his values, even though his life's work was literally to publicly exhort others to adopt his values. And when he said things like "Ask God to show you ways you can help those whose lives are crushed by poverty" a zillion times, in a zillion different ways, he expected everyone to do it in the way he disagreed with, ... yeah, he went against his own principles on a daily basis.

So, it was just a throwaway remark and we should take it completely out of the context of his life and motivations.

No, he's doing his job. Again though, there is a big difference between a general, a software billionaire, and someone who claims to be representing an all-powerful universe creating deity, who dedicates his life to exhorting others to also believe that and to live by the values of that supreme being, ... and who then fails to live by those same values. Who takes money from those he is exhorting to help the poor and keeps it for himself....

As with most things, there is a spectrum of hypocrisy and Graham is right over at the 'worst kind' end of it.

'My' definition of hypocrite is the accepted, dictionary definition of hypocrite. This isn't about whether or not you feel it was the best option, or justified, or should be forgiven because of other considerations. He was a hypocrite. That's a fact.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrite

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

It's quite strained to say that "not being in 'harm's way' himself" is actually communicated in the definition of hypocrisy. If he told others to take care of the poor but didn't do so himself, you would have a stronger case. But as it stands, advocacy of a particular policy that does not have direct personal impact does not seem to match the definition of hypocrisy. Nor does encouraging care for the poor while being rich match the definition.

There's also an underlying question as to whether you're even accurately considering "risk." There's no sense in which you can look at his fortune and say that he never put it at risk for the things he advocated simply because he has a fortune. Risk doesn't necessarily imply loss. You can take risk and come out ahead. And it's entirely possible that this could have happened if the policy he advocated were executed. (Given the nature of the ministry he had early on, especially with regards to how he established his salary, you could say that he took incredible financial risks.)

I think the accusation that your position is irrational is accurate. You've butchered the definition of hypocrisy and you've built your beliefs on false claims and false characterizations of actions. You've also demonstrated an severely flawed understanding of the principles at the root of your argument.

Furthermore, you're willfully choosing not to take in new information but rather dig your heels in when shown you're wrong.

A few points.

1) Billy Graham is also just doing his job.
2) There is nothing wrong or hypocritical with asking for donations from people and keeping them for yourself, as long as the people know that's where their donations are going. If you are also exhorting these same people to give to the poor, good for you.
3) If you have an actual reason to believe Graham defrauded his donors, you should give it. It would be dishonorable to otherwise make this claim. Your language is ambiguous here, so maybe you aren't actually claiming that.
4) I highly doubt that Billy Graham has ever claimed to represent God. Please provide a reference.
5) You claim that because Graham was wealthy that he is going against his religious values. When I point out, as I have numerous times, that it doesn't go against the values of evangelical Christianity to be wealthy, you ignore it. Why?
6) In your moral accounting, it is a big mistake to have high moral ideals. I disagree. To illustrate, imagine we can rank people's moral actions on a 100 point scale. Someone who strives for 100 and only hits 70 is better than someone who strives for 50 and hits 50. Yet your view seems to be that the one at 50 is better. Why? Even if you want to lower them a few ticks for not achieving their ideals, I don't see good grounds for that always, or even usually making them worse than less moral people who did achieve their ideals.

Even if everything you said was true, Graham wouldn't even be close to most hypocritical among just recent famous American preachers (eg Jimmy Baker, Swaggart, Haggard, etc).

Lol, okay. Here is my own sense of "hypocrite":

Here are a few dictionaries:

Dictionary.com
Merriam-Webster:
Cambridge:
The way I'm using "hypocrite" tracks pretty closely to these dictionaries. I would compare the meaning you ascribe to "hypocrite" as well, but you've not provided one, so I can't. I will say that nowhere in those definitions does it say that you have to personally face the worst consequences of your moral or religious claims. That is your own made-up criterion.

Here you are also disguising that your understanding of "hypocrite" is controversial by saying it is a "fact," even though no one in this thread has agreed with you, and several people have disagreed with you. That presumption is no longer tenable.

But whatever, I have a long-standing policy of not arguing about word usage. I'm granting you a definition of "hypocrite" under which Billy Graham is a hypocrite. What I'm now arguing is that being a "hypocrite" as you define it isn't immoral, eg in the case of a general commanding his troops without facing the same danger as them. I'd also go on to argue that even though it is "hypocritical," it isn't immoral for a wealthy (or middle or lower-income) person to support policies that will have negative consequences that don't fall on them.

I think the most charitable way I can put your view is that someone should counterfactually be willing to bear those worst negative consequences if they advocate for those policies. That is, if you advocate that farmers should be willing to have a lower profit margin (or be at risk of losing their livelihood) in order to feed starving kids in India, then in order to not be a hypocrite it must be true that if you were a farmer you would be willing to bear this cost. Obviously it can be difficult to determine whether this hypothetical statement is actually true for non-farmers, but if you think it is false, then you can have real grounds for calling someone a hypocrite (in a morally relevant sense). This view seems reasonable to me. What doesn't seem reasonable is claiming you have to prove this counterfactual is true whenever you advocate for these kinds of policies by actually suffering these worst consequences personally.