User Profile: JGraham III

JGraham III

Member Since: September 22, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [11] April 20, 2015 at 9:51am

    All this ‘argument’ over minimum wage is simply a communist take-over tactic. It is the pitting of the ‘have’s’ against the ‘have-not’s’. Because so many people are ignorant to history they are doomed to repeat it, someone said. Classic communist agitation ALWAYS appeals to the so-called 7 deadly sins, of which greed is one. This push for $15.00/hr. is an appeal to the greed of those who ‘have not’ and plays to their slothful lifestyle (they is lazy..) as well. Additionally this movement plays to envy and pride too. Occupy Wall Street was also a classic model of communist use of the base human urges, not because they give a damn about the plight of the ‘poor working man’ (the proletariat) but because they are useful tools in order to gain an end; theirs and not the schmucks they are using.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2015 at 3:58pm

    As a skier with knee issues (but partly because I was also an avid weightlifter as well :) I will wager you that this guy will still be proud of this particular accomplishment even if he has had both knees replaced as a result of his athletic involvements. My goal is to be able to ski for free at my local area, and at 66 I only have 6 more years to go.. Wah! Hoo!.. that’s the battle cry of the Old Goat Ski Club…

  • [3] April 18, 2015 at 3:53pm

    amdatme:
    What is your point? All of the “big 10″ are found in some form except for one. Care to guess which one? Yep. Keeping the Sabbath. “one man esteems one day above another and another man esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” or so said the Apostle Paul, and he should have known. Born a ‘Pharisee of the Pharisees’ he was steeped in the fine nuances of the Law and yet he says something outrageous like this… could it be because he had realized that Jesus Christ IS our Passover and our Sabbath. Everyday can be a Sabbath if the person wants it to be. Such freedom and hardly anyone knows of it…

  • April 18, 2015 at 11:54am

    808:
    The dissenting opinion warned that this arrangement would allow for the formation of another government within the US of A that would be subject to itself alone and NOT the Constitution. This is what (according to the reference I have :) has happened. We effectively have two governments and the Congress, et.al. know it but somehow have neglected to tell us the difference. Any statute passed by Congress that does NOT contain the wording to this effect, “this shall apply to the several States” has been ruled to NOT apply to them but the District of Columbia and the associated federal enclaves (such as your county’s federal court house).
    The bottom line is this: our whole taxation system has been built upon this sleight of hand trick. When you filled out an I-9 or a 1040 form or any of the other variations of them, you effectively told them, “I am under your jurisdiction; please tax me.” They take it that you are in effect an employee. So, your statement above is de facto correct as far as the IRS is concerned. Good luck trying to set the record straight. I can tell you more if you are interested..:)

  • April 18, 2015 at 11:46am

    808:
    While I am not a tax protester, I have known some who have been and have read some of the literature they possess. The argument goes something like this: when the federal gov’t imposed a tax on personal income at the time of WWII, they called it a Victory Tax. The statutes said that a tax on personal income could only be for a specific purpose and for a fixed amount of time, 2 years being the maximum allowed. This necessitated the production of the various forms from the IRS to accommodate the collection of this ‘temporary’ tax. Please understand that something done back in the 1870′s made what happened next ‘doable’, and that was the construction of the District of Columbia as a separate governmental and political entity from the rest of the country, not unlike what was done with the formation of the Vatican and the City of London. Both are their own “city-state” and are strictly speaking separate from the countries in which they reside. So, now it is with DC. Then, there was a landmark SCOTUS ruling in 1901 regarding the taxation of sugar in Puerto Rico, done at a rate different than the same company’s holdings in South Carolina. Equal protection under the Law, right? Nope. The SCOTUS ruled that as Puerto Rico was not a state and therefore rested under the direct authority of Congress (Article 1 of the Constitution), Congress could tax sugar from Puerto Rico differently from S. Carolina. The dissenting opinion warned of the danger of this ruling. to pt2—>

  • [12] April 17, 2015 at 8:37pm

    If this pastor can reach the lost in the manner he has embraced, then good for him. And, for an atheist to have commentary about something he does not believe is laughable at the least and disingenuous at most. Who cares what any atheist has to say about Christianity?

  • April 17, 2015 at 5:45pm

    Matthew:
    Again well put! And I would add a corollary to “give unto Caesar..” and that is “what is not Caesar’s, don’t give to him and don’t tell him about it.” Caesar can do his own investigative work, and besides when the Church again starts walking in the power of the Holy Spirit and again ‘the blind see; the deaf hear; and the lame walk” you won’t be able to keep the people away from wanting to know more. Then perhaps the advice of Gamaliel will be heeded by at least some in government ” refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nothing. But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest haply you be found to fight against God.” Acts 5:38b-39

  • [2] April 17, 2015 at 5:34pm

    Matthew:
    Very concisely put. I would add that the Church will take on the appearance of what it had in the First Century, that of one that walked with the power of the Holy Spirit and dwelling in the homes of the Faithful. Easier to minister and much, much harder to find if one does not want to be found. Could be quite interesting!

  • [1] April 17, 2015 at 3:24pm

    enoch:
    Is God the author of the laws that govern nature? If He created all this, then would it not stand to reason He designed the mechanisms by which they all work together? It is true that ‘fire and brimstone’ rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah, but you are aware that brimstone is another term for elemental sulfur, yes? I submit to you that God simply utilized factors inherent in the world He created in order to bring about the resultant conflagration that consumed Sodom. No conflict in my book!

  • [5] April 17, 2015 at 12:29pm

    As a skier of only adequate skill, and not a lot of respect for most ‘boardheads’, I have to say that this guy is most impressive!

  • [1] April 17, 2015 at 11:22am

    Feunlaven:
    The times are coming down to “we ought to obey God rather than men” as Peter said to the religious wonks of his day. It is coming to that here faster than ever. The State does hold the legal determination of a so called wedding ceremony but just as slaves used to ‘jump over the broom’ because the South wouldn’t acknowledge a marriage between a man and a woman because they were slaves, so it will become similar for Christians as we accelerate toward the glorious One World. Christians will marry whether the State says they can or not.

  • [11] April 17, 2015 at 11:14am

    If I wanted a “Rodney Milquetoast” for President, Sen. Graham would by my man. I rather don’t think I’ll be voting for another Mr Compromise like I did when I voted for McCain.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] April 17, 2015 at 11:00am

    Are you a Druish Princess? May Disney usher you into their Pantheon of Princesses!

  • [1] April 17, 2015 at 10:44am

    I have heard speculation re: Sodom and what destroyed it. I think it had to do with natural gas escaping to the surface and being ignited. There are supposedly large oil deposits underneath the south end of the Dead Sea where Sodom was located. There are innumerable sulfur nodules scattered about the place too I have been told, all of which point to some devastating explosion involving oil/natural gas.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] April 17, 2015 at 10:40am

    J_Mo:
    If our ‘cult’ is so irrelevant, then why do you spend such exhaustive efforts on this site excoriating it? In reality, it is you and your thoughts about Christianity that are irrelevant as I cannot remember one thing you have said about it that has been accurate. Rather the opposite as I do believe you know what you are doing. The Bible calls such statements as yours “speaking lies in hypocrisy”.

  • [3] April 17, 2015 at 10:36am

    The lever of influence (or baseball bat might be a more descriptive term) the government has and is not afraid to use is called the 501c-3 tax exemption for non profit corporations. This is how the Feds have the churches ‘by the short hairs’. Shortly after I became an elder in my church I began to dig into how a church could surrender this odious intrusion by the IRS into private church business (such as who gets to be married and who doesn’t). Like most government snares it is easy to get into one but oh so hard to get out.
    I will predict that very soon, faster if another communist/democrat gains the White House in 2016, that the Feds will start stripping 501c-3′s away from ‘non-compliant’ churches with respect to gay marriage. It actually will be a blessing in disguise because there were NO statutes in place prior to all the non-profit garbage that compelled churches to pay taxes. Paying taxes on property and collections was/ is a fiction thrown up to blind the unsuspecting and ignorant church boards in order to stampede them into signing onto the 501c-3 which has given the Feds access to church records and assets.
    In order to surrender the 501c-3 voluntarily a church has to disperse ALL assets including property and disincorporate, all of which is a very messy ordeal. It would be easier for the church in question to allow the gov’t to strip the tax exemption away and reform accordingly without that albatross about its neck.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] April 17, 2015 at 10:21am

    I am not aware of the specific wording of statutes regarding marriage and who is qualified to perform such ceremonies in my own state (Soviet State of Washington), but I don’t think there is wording in any of them that would say just because someone is licensed to perform weddings that they would necessarily have to do so just because someone asked. Our church recently revised our by-laws to say that weddings would be performed only for those who are regular attendees of our services, if not members already. Furthermore any such requests would of necessity would be done only after the Pastor or Board of Elders were sufficiently satisfied that Christian counselling had been received by the couple requesting the ceremony.
    Churches are not publically traded corporations (and neither are businesses that are sole proprietors such as a bakery or florist shop) and are not under the restraints of government edicts to accept anyone who comes in the door. The last time I checked our church sits on privately owned property and someone who was deliberately trying to cause trouble such as is suggested in this article could be removed by the authorities for trespassing if necessary :).
    It is high time for Christians to be ‘wise as serpents and harmless as doves’ when it comes to the traps and snares the gaystapo is laying for them. Use the tools the Lord gave us might be a good place to start, especially with the one called ‘discerning of spirits’.

    Responses (8) +
  • April 16, 2015 at 10:22am

    @p8riot:
    Thank you also for the civil discourse!
    @808:
    Please reference my comment to p8riot :)

  • April 15, 2015 at 10:11pm

    808:
    “just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s accurate”. True. But on the other hand, the counter is also true. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate and all because it doesn’t say what we think it should. The manuscript I cited was found in an Orthodox church in central Turkey, which puts it rather close to the focus of many of Paul’s journeys and also to the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation 2&3. It is also interesting that you cite the Apostles as authoritative to which I whole heartedly agree. The best references we have of them are the books of the NT that bear their names, even if it was the Holy Spirit that moved them, thereby becoming the real author of what was written. Agreed? Yet, Luke was never numbered among the original 12 and he said he had it on good authority what he wrote down was the truth. And, no he didn’t go around interviewing everyone as some have suggested. He got what he wrote “anothen” from above: that is to say, by revelation. The question re: the Apocrypha is not whether the books contained therein (some 15 by one count) are of historical value (they certainly are) but whether or not they have the same authenticity as being “God breathed” as 2 Timothy 3:16 says the Word is.
    We can argue until we are blue in the face about this :). What is in the Apocrypha that is so needed to include that is not in the 66 books of the Bible? And, can these ‘necessary things’ be confirmed even if only obliquely by other scriptures?

  • April 15, 2015 at 10:59am

    p8triot:
    I completely agree, it should (and it is) be easy to understand without lengthy explanations. The problem is, however, when religion gets in the way, then the lengthy verbiage gets trotted out. Most of the Bible can be understood right where something is written. What happens though is that religion and well intended religious people come along and teach something that is contrary to what the Word does say and then the fat is in the fire so to speak.
    The context of the conversation between the Lord and Nicodemus is about being born: the Lord refers to the new birth being born ‘again’ (lit. from above) and Nicodemus confuses it with the birth that all of us who come into this world experience. Then the Lord clarifies it for him by showing that there are two ‘births’; one of ‘water’ (referencing the breaking of the amniotic sac) and then the ‘new’ birth which is from above, that being of the Spirit. Simple. I am well aware of the teachings surrounding the water baptism, which the Lord said was “John’s baptism”. More than once and in more than one place, He contrasts his own ministry with that of John. John himself said that “He must increase and I must decrease”, meaning John’s work was finished and Jesus’ work was beginning. Water is cool but no longer a requirement. Why live in the Old Covenant when the New Covenant has so much more to offer?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love