University College, Cork, Ireland
Some recent blog comments from me on other blogs:
THE GOOD: GGM
GGM: Avatar
I have not seen Avatar as of yet, but will aim to see it this week. James Cameron should stick to making blockbuster films and avoid attempts at proving that Jesus Christ has remains.
The Jesus Family
GGM makes interesting comments concerning the religious right in the Excited States of America and related intellectual thought. There is not much of a religious right in the Socialist Paradise of Canada or Ripoff Britain, which are my two official countries. We do have quite a religious left though.
I stated in his blog comments:
'Nothing is perfect in this world (although the perfect God works within).
All material whether secular or labeled Christian should be looked at critically.
Jason does well at this.'
THE BAD: Not looking at all human sources critically
There are many Christian and supposed Christian sources that misuse the Bible, theology and philosophy of religion and other disciplines. Error can be minor or major.
Certain views are not necessarily inherently more likely to be true because they come from a Christian source or an apparent Christian source.
THE WHATEVER
I enjoy his charcoal and pencil drawings and some of his finished painted work online in really fine. But in this sketch, which I realize is quick, those clouds do look like scribbles. What do you think?
THE GOOD: THE JEFF
THE JEFF on Islam
I stated in his comments concerning Islamic criticisms of the Bible:
'The various Biblical ancient copies from various ancient locations demonstrate minor differences with the same books. The theological accuracy and correctness of the inspired Bible via wide range copying has been kept. God did not maintain Scripture by dictating the originals and all the copies.
There is no supernatural force field or like.
The Bible is the very credible word of God.'
THE BAD: Dictation theory
God verbally inspires all Scripture Erickson (1994: 219). Each human writer (or his scribe) had a distinctive human style. Erickson (1994: 217). But this does not make Biblical vocabulary and content, therefore exclusively human. Erickson (1994: 218). God inspires a certain author to write certain things, but as Erickson points out, God had been influencing and working on that author for a long period of time. Erickson (1994: 218). God definitely directed the writing of the author but it is not dictation as if God was bypassing the education and thoughts of the author.
The writers of Scripture were not persons without individuality. As Thiessen states the dictation theory ignores the stylistic difference in authors. Thiessen (1956: 106).
I therefore believe in the doctrine of Biblical inspiration of Biblical authors, but not dictation theory. So, for example, Romans would not have read exactly the same if Peter had written it, instead of Paul. Even if both versions were equally inspired by God/The Holy Spirit.
I also reason that only the original autographs were inspired and inerrant, and not copies, although God has accurately maintained his word theologically through various copies from the old world. Technical differences in manuscripts do not alter central Biblical messages.
THE WHATEVER
Now, a woman sent me this!
THE GOOD: My online audio series provide me with lecturing experience.
I will continue with them. I really appreciate those that listen and as well those that participate.
THE BAD: Take one, take two, take twelve.
Plus I still have to do the academic and online research.
THE WHATEVER
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
russ,
ReplyDeleteclouds may be scribbles, but there is danger lurking in the water. that first squggle he say is someone swimming looks more like a shark lurking in wait for the second guy swimming.
Larry
I know, not his best effort.:)
ReplyDeletePerhaps Jaws made an unauthorized appearance.
Cheers.
I enjoy his charcoal and pencil drawings and some of his finished painted work online in really fine. But in this sketch, which I realize is quick, those clouds do look like scribbles. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI have never seen that 'Ralph Papa' guy before, but I was not impressed by his drawing talent. He did do a good job on the perspective of the waves, and charcoal is not an easy medium to draw with. But I sure would not put that drawing on a video, if it were me. But, I suppose the simplicity of it could possibly be educational and interesting for someone who was not an artist.
I won't reveal who the person is, though I'm not sure whether anyone here knows the person or not. But yesterday I made the following comment on another blog site (their article was about evangelism):
ReplyDelete"Excellent message. All Christians need to be busy spreading the gospel. This morning at Publix, I gave the cashier an Obama million-dollar bill gospel tract, asking her, "Have you received one of the souvenir collectible million-dollar bills?" She laughed and took it, starting to read it. The bagboy asked, "What is it?" So I gave him one too. I like handing out gospel tracts, because I have always been an introvert, and I am the type that can never think of what to say at the time, and I am not spontaneous, so gospel tracts are a great help. I am also glad that there is no one set way to witness, but that we can use creativity and our imagination, and even humor, when we witness to people. When I am talking to a person face-to-face, I like to use the "Do you consider yourself a good person?" approach. In the past, others have used surveys. There are all kinds of methods and ideas we can use to witness to people. We just need to make sure they understand that they are a sinner, and that they need to repent. When a Christian leads someone through a quick "repeat after me" prayer, if the person doesn't really understand what they are doing, and are only repeating the prayer because of peer pressure, that could possibly lead to them becoming a false convert. Many people today generally don't truly understand what sin is, and they generally don't understand why they even need a Savior, and they don't understand God's holiness. And there are a few others who think they are too wicked for God to save."
The blog author e-mailed me with the following message:
I can't accept the comment you made as presented. In the comment box, I have written that I wish for those commenting to not put a link, web site or any blog site attached to their comment. I refering to the tract link. I also believe that faith alone will not save a person and praying a "sinner's prayer" is no where to be found in the scriptures. One is saved at the point of obiediance in baptism. If you wish to modify your comment, I'll be glad to publish it. I cannot with a clear concience join in a faith only invitation. I hope you understand.
I responded by e-mail with the following message [note that, in my comment, I made the words "Obama million-dollar bill gospel tract" into a link to where I purchased those tracts from]:
"OK, well, I believe that biblically, one is saved by faith through grace, and that works does not play a part in salvation, so I guess we are in disagreement. Justification by faith is shown in Romans 1-4, etc. Baptism is an act of obedience and a public confession that one has been saved, but it is not a part of the salvation process, just as evangelism is an act of obedience, but does not help a person to get saved. Romans 3:21-22 says that, through Christ, righteousness comes apart from the Law. Romans 4:5 says that a man's faith is credited as righteousness. Some people talk about the verse "faith without works is dead" in James, but James is talking about the *fruit* of faith, while Paul, in Romans, is talking about the *root* of faith. When James says "faith without works is dead," he is talking about the evidence of true salvation, not how to get saved. Romans 3:28 says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."
If a person were saved by baptism, then every time someone took a bath or stood out in the rain, they would get saved. Water is powerless to save a person from their sins. Only Jesus' redemptive and sacrificial act on the cross can save a person.
So again, I guess we are in disagreement."
Thanks for the comments, Russ. I can always count on you for encouragement.
ReplyDeleteI love the chic-mobile!
GGM
The writers of Scripture were not persons without individuality...So, for example, Romans would not have read exactly the same if Peter had written it, instead of Paul. Even if both versions were equally inspired by God/The Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteVery well stated. I would like to remember that for anytime I'm trying to explain the authenticity of the Bible to Muslims. To Muslims, the Qur'an is the word of God vowel for vowel, syllable for syllable, revealed in Arabic to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of about 20 years. Muslims consider the Qur'an to be uncreated and eternally existent on lauh mahfuz, a guarded tablet in heaven. Muslims believe that, though the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad at intervals, it was always there with God. They basically believe that, as God is, so the Qur'an is.
Since the rise of higher biblical criticism in the 17th-18th century Enlightenment, Muslims have also used the methods of Western critics to discredit the Bible. (And from the age of 6 or 7, Muslim children are taught that corruption has occurred in the Bible. They are taught that a Muslim believes in all the books of Allah, which includes the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel, but since the earliest books are lost or changed, a Muslim follows the Qur'an alone.) However, Muslims do not dare apply the same technique of biblical criticism to the Qur'an or other Islamic sources. The few who have published such speculation have found themselves condemned in fatwah, legal decrees declaring them to be apostates and no longer Muslims (for which the penalty, under Islamic Shari'a law, is death).
Here is a YouTube video about Celebrity Playing Cards for you unsaved friend, and also a Gospel Soccer Ball. You can order the Celebrity Playing Cards here.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found the site Living Waters Canada the other day.
Bay Window
ReplyDeletePotted Plants
ReplyDeleteBird's Eye View
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome, Sir GGM.
ReplyDelete'Very well stated. I would like to remember that for anytime I'm trying to explain the authenticity of the Bible to Muslims.'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
'The few who have published such speculation have found themselves condemned infatwah, legal decrees declaring them to be apostates and no longer Muslims (for which the penalty, under Islamic Shari'a law, is death).'
Figures.
I don't understand that guy's reaction to Jeff's comments. I guess some people get offended really easily or are sensitive to certain topics.
ReplyDeleteRuss, I had to chuckle when I read your "The Bad" about audio responses, that it took many takes to get it right. I wanted to share my experience with you.
Last year, I taught a programming class at our son's homeschool co-op. I decided to "save time" by pre-videotaping my class notes, to avoid having to do handouts. I thought I could get it in one shot, but ended up having to suffer through retake after retake after retake. The problem was exaccerbated by the fact that I did not always know what exactly I was going to say or do next, and I also stutter. By the end of the class, I changed my approach. If I messed up, I would keep the camera rolling and simply move on. Then I would use my video editing tool to trim out the bloopers.
I have also taught at the college level, live, of course. You can't take back the blunders you make, but (1) you can make a joke out of it and (2) the students don't expect perfection anyway. In fact, they identify with you more, if they see that you're human.
There's just something about recorded media that makes us aim for a higher standard.
Thanks, Greg.
ReplyDeleteI have found that reading off of written notes for audio posts is helpful.
I don't understand that guy's reaction to Jeff's comments. I guess some people get offended really easily or are sensitive to certain topics.
ReplyDeleteHe replied to me:
What was Saul (later to be named Paul) told to do to wash away his sins? Acts 22:16 Now remember that he had been praying for three days and was still in his sins. So there's no sinner's prayer going to cut it. Even had a personal encounter with Jesus Himself. he was still in his sins. He was required to do the same thing the 3,000 were required to do that started the church on the day of Pentecost..
What were the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost required to do. Acts:2:38, Repent and be baptized in water for the remission of their sins. Water does and can never remove sin, but God chose it as the place that he would wash away sins of the obedient sinner with the precious blood of Jesus.. You can never be saved before you are baptized. If you have faith in Jesus as the Son of God and will confess this before men , repent of your sins instead of just being sorry , be baptized for the remission of them...God will add you to
Baptism is not the first act of a Christian...it's the last act of a sinner.Ephesians:8...we are saved by the Grace of God but through our faith ...faith in the operation of God in baptism(Colossians 2:12) that operation is defined in the next verse...forgiving you all trespasses.
1Peter 3:21; we are saved in baptism...Just as in the days of Noah...they were saved by water...God says whereunto even baptism doth now save us. Jeff I'm not making this up. This is what Almighty God says. If my preacher were to ever preach it any different ...I'd call him a liar.
Your friend may have felt different...but we can't trust feelings...they change...God never changes...we need to trust Him.
I struggled with these very verses that I'm leading you to for a long long time. If I believed them then I had to admit that my mother and father were wrong in the way they were taught. it was hard but I finally just had to come to terms with what I was going to believe ...God or man....I chose God.
I must say that I'm glad to see a response from you.I must point out that a small misquote from you is one that needs to be corrected. You said that we are saved "by faith through Grace" when actually it's "by Grace through faith" Eph. 2:8. By God's grace and through our faith. there is a difference.
Jeff, please read God's word and when you see something that doesn't agree with what you believe...remember if there is a problem with what's being said...it's not on God's part.
My final e-mail to that guy was:
ReplyDelete"The reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is because we are justified by faith:
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:1)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8)
Salvation does not come by faith plus a ceremony; and baptism, like circumcision, is a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person:
"Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." (Romans 4:10-11)
We are saved by faith alone---faith in the shed blood of Jesus for our sins---and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help. If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe, not when we get baptized, otherwise we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions -- otherwise it isn't necessary.
First, you need to understand that God works covenantally. A covenant, as I'm sure you know, is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. The New Testament and Old Testament are New and Old Covenants. The word "testament" comes from the Latin 'testamentum' which means covenant. So, the Bible is a covenant document. If you do not understand the idea of covenant, you cannot understand, in totality, the issue of baptism, because baptism is a covenant sign.
Here is an example showing that God works covenantally:
"May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep." (Hebrews 13:20)
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThe Eternal Covenant is the covenant between the Father and the Son before the creation of the world, whereby the Father would give to the Son those whom the Father had chosen. That is why Jesus says things like; "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away," (John 6:37), and, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day," (John 6:39); and, "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9).
If you fail to understand that God works covenantally and that He uses signs as manifestations of his covenants (rainbow, circumcision, communion, etc.) then you will not be able to understand where baptism fits in God's covenant system.
Second, you need to know what baptism is. It is a ceremony that represents an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.
The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Mankind where God promises to Mankind eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision. "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation" (Berkhoff, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620). Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you," (Genesis 17:7). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also eight day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet (Ex. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews).
(cont.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteIn the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to this topic it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed and circcumcision, which ultimately represented the shed blood of Christ in his covenant work of redemption, was a foreshadowing of Christ's work.
If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).
Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism."
'Jeff, please read God's word and when you see something that doesn't agree with what you believe...remember if there is a problem with what's being said...it's not on God's part.'
ReplyDeleteLol.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThe only place in the Mideast where Christian communities continue to grow is in the Jewish State of Israel. Israel’s tolerance is logical. What people of faith knows the dangers of religious persecution better than the people of Israel especially those whose families originated in the Islamic world? Between 1948 and 1956 more than 850,000 Jews were forced to flee the Arab lands where their families had lived for centuries.
Most found new homes in Israel; others settled in Western Europe and the Americas. Today there are almost no Jews in the Arab world. In Egypt, where 180,000 Jews once lived, there are fewer than 80. In Iraq, where Jews once comprised a third of Baghdad, there are possibly ten left. In Libya, there are none.
For much of Islamic history there was relative tolerance of both Jews and Christians. Though never treated as equals to Moslems, they were accepted as Dhimmi protected minorities. Today there seems to be a dangerous tendency in many Muslim nations to neither respect nor try to preserve the historic sanctity of these once sheltered cultures and faiths.
When Afghan fanatics destroyed two ancient statues of Buddha, the world was shocked. But the world should not forgot that between 1948 and 1967, when Islamic forces controlled the Holy City of Jerusalem, there was a systematic campaign to erase the historic Jewish presence. Synagogues were destroyed and ancient Jewish gravestones carted away. Even today, the Palestinian Authority not only denies Israel’s right to consider itself a Jewish state, but denies the historic Jewish connection to Jerusalem. It is an empty effort to enhance the Palestinian political narrative at the expense of others’ hard earned history.
If there is a hope of true peace in the Middle East, extremist Islam must reform its view of others. It cannot go on teaching that non-Islamic history in the Middle East is “fiction.”
There is a sacred opportunity now to take up the call for the Islamic world’s hard-pressed and ever shrinking Christian communities. All people of commitment and tolerance – Christian, Jew, and Moslem – should speak out loudly and forcefully so that the Islamic world’s Christians do not suffer the same fate as its now all but non-existent Jewish communities."
from:
http://blog.standforisrael.org/issues/security/persecution-of-christians-in-the-middle-east
'If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).'
ReplyDeleteYes.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;
9(D)not as a result of works, so that (E)no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, (F)created in (G)Christ Jesus for (H)good works, which God (I)prepared beforehand so that we would (J)walk in them.
Baptism can be reasoned a work (of obedience as well as a sign).
No human work contributes to salvation.
Thanks, Jeff.:)
Kevin Trudeau in trouble again
ReplyDeleteIran toward a nuclear missle?
My Facebook status:
I scanned a bit of a film a few minutes ago on AMC. This made me laugh which is rare for a movie. Scene: Hollywood pool party with producers etc. Leading man tries to talk with a young blonde. He asks her what she does for a living. She states: I'll see who else is here. Lol. Straight and to the point.
Avatar is an incredible piece of eye candy filled with action effects and story, a definite wild experience with 3D glasses at the movie theater.
ReplyDelete-Looky Lou-
I agree that critical thinking is a good attribute as long as it doesn't lead to pessimism, bitterness, and irrational skepticism. Seek truth always!
ReplyDelete-Judge Joey-
I wouldn't mind one of those "new cars for women" myself...pretty cool.
ReplyDelete-Judge Joey-
ReplyDeleteJudge, I pray that I shall have realistic philosophy and thoughts.
Are you a television judge?
Chucky,
ReplyDeleteI have pondered on a car like that myself.
-Looky Lou-
ReplyDeleteI hope to see Avatar later this day.
I am not expecting a fantastic movie, but a fantastic spectacle.
Thanks.
This has made me a laugh hard: Someone having a go at televangelists
ReplyDeleteCNN Canada
ReplyDelete'Olympic official: "Fool's paradise" to think Canada can catch U.S. now.'
You know sometimes whatever country or countries people are from they just need to think. As if Canada was going to beat the US in medals...long shot. I shook my head in the past when I heard people on the tube stating Canada was going to win the games, which looking at the results of the past Winter and Summer games the other day, they have never done. The US has roughly 9x the population and often well-funded sports. The hockey is not done yet, Canada has typically not gone undefeated in best on best hockey tournaments that it has won, whether Olympics or Canada Cup/World Cup. BTW, the US did beat Canada in the 96 WC. Canada won it back in 04.
CNN: The Facebook games that millions love (and hate)
ReplyDeleteQuote:
'Critics said some of the offers amounted to scams, leading players to download unwanted software or unwittingly sign up for memberships that appeared stealthily on their phone bills.'
OK, more Islam comments by me.
ReplyDeleteI'm currently trying to witness to this Muslim guy on Facebook. Muslims find it offensive to refer to God as "Father" and Jesus as "Son." That's why it's not a good idea to start out using John 3:16 with a Muslim. So, this is one of the issues I'm trying to address with this guy. Here are a couple comments I made to him (notice that I did throw in John 3:16, but that's because we have been discussing for a few days now):
The Bible uses the terms Father and Son to restore the relationship between God and humanity. On the other hand, Islam teaches only that God is Lord and that we are all His servants. But the Gospel (Injil) says about Jesus, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son [Jesus], that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)
As far as Jesus (Isa) being the Son of God, it is a spiritual relationship that we’re talking about. It has nothing at all to do with fleshly birth. “Son of God” does not mean biological son. If Americans say that George Washington is the Father of our Nation, does that mean that the entire nation has actually sprung from his loins? Of course not. Likewise, Christians believe, “His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with powers according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:3-4)
A Muslim might ask a Christian, “Why do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, since God has no wife and therefore cannot have children?” Well, if an elderly man says to some boy or teenager (that he is not related to), “Son, come and do this for me,” does that boy actually become his son just because he called him ‘son?’ Does that man then become the boy’s father? It’s the same with Jesus. He is a spiritual son, not God’s biological son, and God is the Father, spiritually speaking.
'As far as Jesus (Isa) being the Son of God, it is a spiritual relationship that we’re talking about. It has nothing at all to do with fleshly birth. “Son of God” does not mean biological son.'
ReplyDeleteJesus is the eternal Word and eternal Son, as eternal God within the economic Trinity.
God the Son became incarnate man.
Jesus I reason is called the Son, partially to benefit our human understanding in contrast to Father.
God the Son is therefore not a Son produced by sexual relations.
How to draw a beach, I cannot draw a straight line. LOL.
ReplyDeleteAvatar was good, but the movie to see is, Shutter Island, That was great!
I can only draw a straight line with a ruler.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick.