User Profile: JGraham III

JGraham III

Member Since: September 22, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [14] September 2, 2015 at 11:03am

    To say the alleged silence the Bible may have on a particular subject gives approval for that particular subject is neither honest nor correct. Sexual behavior is frequently addressed in the O.T., including homosexual behavior and not once does the Bible give approval or even tacit tolerance to it. That the New Testament does not specifically address homosexual behavior in the Gospels is irrelevant, as the Epistles do address it, as well as all other aberrant sexual practices. As Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and that same Spirit is what guides us into “all truth”, the subject of homosexuality, adultery and fornication, etc, etc. are all addressed. Sorry, Mr. Savage, but your selective attitude toward the Scriptures won’t cut it with God, even if it does make you look good among your peers.

    Responses (2) +
  • August 31, 2015 at 8:51pm

    The woodie station wagon would have been used by Surfer Dan, yes? Gotta love the Turtles!

  • August 31, 2015 at 8:49pm

    There were three (3) primary languages spoken and written in the First Century throughout the Roman Empire. The city of Corinth had large populations of Hebrew speaking people and Latin speaking people as well as the native Greek speaking population. Any letters of Paul sent to them would have been translated immediately if not sooner into two other languages other than the ‘original’ the one sent would have been written in, likely Aramaic. Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts all survive to today in all or parts of the New Testament. Many of the oldest Greek mss. have Aramaic sentence structures surviving in them, suggesting they were translated from older Aramaic copies.
    The Greek used in the N.T. is “koine” Greek which was that spoken by the every day person as opposed to the Classic Greek which was used by the well-known Greek authors such as Homer,
    As a point of interest to those who are really into the manuscripts and the origins of the N.T. Aramaic/Hebrew is a language that is very pictorial where Greek is a very precise one. Both together present a very accurate picture of the New Testament. Latin is somewhat clumsier than the previous two which may account for why most surviving manuscripts are either Aramaic or Greek. Latin (or Old Latin) morphed into what is called the Latin Vulgate manuscripts which are a preponderance of what RC bibles are translated from, or at least that is what I was taught. Hope this helps!

  • [8] August 31, 2015 at 10:32am

    Actually the phallus is a very commonly found theme in idol worship, so you are quite correct.

  • [-1] August 27, 2015 at 8:46pm

    Given your evaluation of the affairs of mankind today, it is even more imperative that mankind remember that God is intimately involved in the affairs of men, but especially those who love Him. I would rather take my chances with Him than to go the route you are suggesting The mess mankind has been began in a garden where they traded God’s guidance and input for the ‘reason and logic’ you are advocating. And, history has been littered with the aftermath of mankind’s efforts to raise himself up by his own bootstraps. Didn’t work out too well then and won’t today.

  • [9] August 27, 2015 at 2:00pm

    This would be a great idea in principle, but in practice what would an atheist erect (besides their own egos that is..) in a tribute to ‘nothing’? The answer should be obvious.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-1] August 27, 2015 at 10:28am

    Whatever you say…. I will own up to the mocking of “reverand’ Barry Lind as he is such an easy target. I am right though about your kind and the flatfooted statements that are made about something (Christianity) that it appears you have little real understanding. There is a lot of religious malarkey that has been mixed into Christianity as it is described in the Book of Acts, so perhaps that is what you are reacting to, even if you don’t realize it. But the Christianity of the First Century turned the Roman world upside down, and it still has the capacity to do that to the 21st Century, but it takes the Church believing the power God has given it, a no small task at that.
    Each to his own however; neither of us will be able to convince the other, something I was aware of when this conversation with you began. You do have to understand also that your assertion regarding the unprovable nature of the spiritual is equally balanced (if you will) by the unprovable nature of your assertion that no such thing exists. Proof for the unbeliever is very subjective at the very least.

  • [-1] August 26, 2015 at 9:59pm

    Firstly, I do not need to justify anything I believe to you as you are not anyone’s standard for truth, except perhaps for yourself. I acquired my faith in a very logical way: I decided that either Jesus Christ existed or he didn’t. I decided that either he told the truth or he didn’t. I decided that since the Bible had made claims regarding its own veracity that either it was true or it wasn’t. You have apparently done the same but with different results.
    I fail to understand, however that since we obviously disagree, why it is that you seem to think that gives you license to mock and denigrate my choices and only apparently because they differ from your own.
    Some other points: we did not attend church of any kind, nor was Christianity a topic of discussion in my home until I had become one. My father was a medical chemist and my mother a bacteriologist and later a high school science/math teacher. They raised my siblings and me to think objectively and logically and most importantly to be our own person. So, your assumptions about my upbringing are to say in a word, wrong. No surprise to me as your ilk usually are the kings of flatfooted statements and wild assumptions. My father became a Christian likely on his deathbed; my mother had been one since the age of 4, but the overly intellectual nature of her upbringing had suppressed it until much later in her life when she began to listen to the logical presentation of the gospel I gave her.

  • [7] August 26, 2015 at 10:37am

    Since that famous portrait of Jesus is an artist’s rendition of what someone thought He looked like and is very likely not an accurate portrayal at all, isn’t this yet another tempest in a teapot being generated by those tireless heroes the FFRF? Funny in a way since they deny Him at every turn, yet they will move heaven and earth, as it were, to remove any speck of Christianity from the countryside. Such effort for someone who according to them doesn’t exist. The FFRF is a collection of money grubbing angry people who have nothing better to do than to meddle and interfere with the beliefs of others, all the while propping up the charade that they are actually doing us all a favor. It is all about the money they gain, trust me.
    The last time I checked, doesn’t the FFRF have to “show cause” as to why a picture is an “establishment of religion”? There are a bunch of panty-waists in the country who refuse to stand up and black the bullying FFRF’s eye. Countersue them for an astronomical sum for denying the freedom to practice religion.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] August 26, 2015 at 10:22am

    There you go thinking two dimensionally again! It is a waste of time trying to explain to people like you what the spiritual side of life is or how it works, so I think it is you who do not know what the questions are much less the answers to them.

  • [1] August 25, 2015 at 9:14pm

    I suggest you read what Jon the Baptist said of water baptism and the Holy Spirit in Luke 3: “.I indeed baptize you with water, but one mightier than I com, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire…” (Lk. 3:16b) The rules of English say that the word ‘but’ places in contrast that which precedes it with that which follows it. Water is nice but is not what we are commanded to be baptized in, namely the Holy Spirit. See Acts 1:1-8 for details. With the advent of a new covenant, the trappings of the old pass away. Be baptized in the Holy Spirit and allow water for a public declaration, but do not require it for salvation.

  • August 25, 2015 at 8:55pm

    First of all, forgive me for dignifying your comment by responding back to you. You seem to be big on the handing out of “fanatic” awards on this thread… is there something in your psyche you would care to divulge to those of us so beset by this alleged malady that might enlighten us so we could be on the same plane as you? Also, your disclaimer about not insulting is rather like the statement by Mark Anthony, “I came to bury Caesar, not to praise him” and then proceeding to do exactly that. Fortunately as a ‘fanatic Christian’ I have developed a fairly thick skin and so your cheap shots are really nothing more than a momentary irksome gnat that can easily be dealt with. I most certainly have not lost my ability to think as it is easy to see the tawdry way you dismiss those with whom you disagree. Ironically it is the two dimensional non believers such as I suspect you are that make me sad to “see so many lost like this”. Open your eyes: you might actually learn something from a ‘fanatical Christian’ if you would only accept that you really don’t have the answers you think you have.

    Responses (5) +
  • [21] August 25, 2015 at 10:45am

    The “reverend” Barry Lind always reminds me of one of my favorite lines fro Bugs Bunny “why Granny, yer nothin’ but a wolf in cheap clothing”… ol’ Barry likely is one of those unfortunates that will fall into the category of those who called Him Lord, but He never knew them.

    Responses (4) +
  • [4] August 19, 2015 at 11:20am

    Willie Shakespeare said in one of his plays, “Methinks the man doth protest too much”.. consider yourself, H.P.

  • [5] August 19, 2015 at 11:16am

    The eyes are the windows to the soul, or so it is said. Not that I have much to hide or conceal, but having someone stare into my eyes would be rather uncomfortable and a definite invasion of my personal space :).

  • [-1] August 19, 2015 at 10:05am

    And conversely, it isn’t very difficult to see the conflict of interest in the recent ruling regarding gay marriage when one takes into consideration the obvious proclivity of Elena Kagan and the questionable nature of Sotomayor and Ruth(buzzi) Ginsberg. Thomas and Scalia are scholars but they don’t share the same ideology as you; hence your wretched comment.

  • [1] August 18, 2015 at 10:30am

    Time was in this country where juries would fail to convict based on their opinion that the law under which the defendant was being charged was an “unjust” law. Most of these cases involved slavery and runaways in particular. The informed jury was part of the fabric that insured this nation was a republic. Now juries are never instructed as to this option, the black robed brigade being far smarter than they…

    Responses (4) +
  • [41] August 11, 2015 at 9:57am

    Here is yet another example of the false logic of Seattle and their self assumed role of trend setting for the State and the Northwest. Seattle is completely surrounded either by water or suburban cities, none of which are as crazy liberal as they. All this stupid measure will do is convince any gun store to relocate to the much more conservative Bellevue area or to the Kent Valley or even to Snohomish. They will congratulate themselves until the inevitable rise in gun related crimes occurs.

    Responses (3) +
  • August 10, 2015 at 9:40pm

    The word ‘baptize’ means to immerse in some thing, and not necessarily water. John the B. pointed this out when he said of Jesus, I baptize with water, but he who is coming after me,…. the same will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire”. The initial fulfilling of this was on Pentecost with the birth of the Church.

  • [1] August 10, 2015 at 9:10pm

    Consider that the man to first build a city was Cain.. you know the first murderer. That also makes Cain the first politician…. some things never change.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love