Franklin Graham: Facebook ban was 'personal attack toward me'
Evangelist Franklin Graham on Sunday accused Facebook of personally attacking him after the company banned him from the platform for 24 hours over a post he published in 2016.
"Why are they going back to 2016," Graham, the president of the evangelism organization Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said on Fox News after discussing how the social media platform moderates content on a day-to-day basis.
"I think it was just really a personal attack toward me."
His comments came a day after a Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Charlotte Observer that Graham had been banned from the site for 24 hours last week over the contents of a 2016 post....
Sister B, I see no difference in what you are doing in saying in your posts how I see things is inaccurate and me saying what you said is inaccurate. However, I certainly did not mean it in anyway as a discredit to you as a person, so please accept my apology.
I was not sure why you would think I was unaware of the contents of the book of Romans but I carefully worded my statement that Romans was written to a “mainly Gentile audience”
Because of your familiarity with Scripture I need not post examples to say that the general way in which Paul opened his epistles was to identify himself (and sometimes those with him) and then to identify to whom he was addressing his writing. He clearly says it was to Gentiles in verse 13 of chapter one.
Chapter 12 starts a section that goes to the end of the book addressed to believers in general (in contrast to 9-11), there is no indication that he switched back to addressing things that were unique to Jewish believers. I really don't see what you see in 15:7 given its context.
The letter was written around 58 A.D., thus the only Scriptures used in any church regardless of the makeup of the congregation would have been the Old Testament and the Gentile believers would have familiarity with O.T.
US, this is what you wrote "Except the book of Romans was written to a mainly Gentile audience in Rome and there is no indication in the context that what sister B had stated is anywhere close to rightly dividing the Word of truth"
1. You imply my take did not divide the word aright. This is discrediting
2. The book is written with Jews and Gentiles in mind, hence the many verses including both as part of the argument sustained
3. The list of names in chapter 16 includes Jewish and Greek names.
4. If it was written mainly to Gentiles how do explain the generous references to OT individuals as Moses, Abraham, or David, and the many quotations from OT as in chapter 15. It appears the writter assumed the receiver to be familiar with such, which the Gentiles would not be perse.
5. Notice the invitation to forbear in 15: ," receive one another" pointing to existing conflict between the OT tradition wishing to retain feasts, and days, while the Gentile background obviously remained indifferent to such.
6.Jews were scattered throughout the different Roman urbis due to commerce, e.g. Priscilla and Aquila mentioned in chapter 16
B. McCausland wrote: US, discredinting a person in order to debunk an argument seems easy but is not always successful. Please, examine this excerpt from Romans 2 to see if Romans is mainly directed to Gentiles:
Sister B, I did not discredit any person, I said your interpretation was inaccurate . I did not say that Paul did not address Jewish believers in the letter, he was pretty specific when he did address them and it happened in more than one portion. I said it was generally written to a Gentile audience Notice how he started the epistle and addressed those to whom he was writing
Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles
You can take your argument up with the Apostle Paul when you get to heaven.
B. McCausland wrote: discredinting a person in order to debunk an argument seems easy.
Such shallow studies and thoughts from John UK and B Mc.
Every church started with Jews, because that was the set priority; The Jews first and then the Gentiles. However that is not the issue. The question is whether the composition of the churches in Rome was mainly Jewish or Gentile. Well, the very fact that we are talking of Rome not Jerusalem should put us on warning. However, there is more.
1) The letter is written to all believers at Rome, not a specific church. In fact commentators believe there could have been as many as 5 churches
2) Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (1:5; 11:3; Gal. 2:7-8)
3) Paul speaks to them as Gentiles who receive mercy through Jewish unbelief (11:12-13) cf 11:30 where the "ye" refers to them as Gentiles
4) Paul compares the Romans with other Gentiles (1:12-14)
5) Paul refers to the Jews as “my” brethren, and not “our” brethren (9:3)
6) Out of the twenty-four names in chapter 16, over one half are Latin and Greek, not Jewish
This is just from a cursory consideration.
When I have more time I will show how John UK is seeking confirmation bias from Gill for his own warped view.
US, discredinting a person in order to debunk an argument seems easy but is not always successful. Please, examine this excerpt from Romans 2 to see if Romans is mainly directed to Gentiles:
"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that horrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. "
Though some on here might be disappointed that Graham was vindicated, I thought an update should be posted:
(Facebook has apologized for temporarily banning North Carolina evangelist Franklin Graham from its platform over a 2016 post about the state’s “bathroom bill.” (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)
I was suspended from Facebook today for 30 days because I posted on the Democratic Party Facebook page that an atheist woman on there is under heavy demonic influence for denying that there is a Supreme Intelligence governing the universe and for denying there is a spiritual realm.
Wayfarer, I believe you were just called a half-hearted Protestant for saying give thanks for a new year. Good thing that is not what Jesus defines as being luke-warm.
Wayfarer Pilgrim wrote: Give thanks for a new year, may God bless you and keep you till he calls you all homeward.
Thanks bro,
A little snippet is in order here, as explained on the BBC news today.
"England, being Protestant, continued to use March 25th (as the new year) until 1752."
But, as always, not being sufficiently vigilant, she returned to the popish or pagan fold in terms of dates, and accepted the authority of the pope and his pronouncements. Just like she did with christmass.
Someone said we need a John Knox II in the UK today. Sure we do, but it won't be the Catholics who will give him a hard time, it will be half-hearted Protestants who have imbibed a wrong spirit and no longer care about the spiritual war going on all around them. Little wonder the ecumenical movement has made up so much ground and is in the ascendency (in the UK).
Stephen Prothero wrote: ...if you want to chart the troubled recent course of American evangelicalism—its powerful rise after World War II and its surprisingly quick demise in recent years—you need look no further than this father-and-son duo of Billy and Franklin Graham. The father was a powerful evangelist who turned evangelicalism into the dominant spiritual impulse in modern America. His son is—not to put too fine a point on it—a political hack, one who is rapidly rebranding evangelicalism as a belief system marked not by faith, hope, and love but by fear of Muslims and homophobia....
excerpt from, "Billy Graham Built a Movement. Now His Son Is Dismantling It."
[ https://tinyurl.com/yd63mt95
Wayfairer Pilgrim, I'm not on Facebook and certainly have no temptation being there.
My 85 year old mother was lamenting her sorrow about my son’s decision to divorce his wife and follow through with hormonal transgender therapy. She posted her views on a public board, and was sanctioned for hate speech by Facebook. She didn’t threaten or curse , she just is sad she has lost her relationship with her grandson. End of story, but not according to Facebook, a transgender man complained and she was segregated away from Facebook for a period of time and had promise to be a good girl in order to be granted the privilege of being able to talk to her nieces, other grandchildren and siblings, cousins on Facebook. When she told me about this experience by the cultural revolution head master of Facebook, I said, I’m not on Facebook and again another reason why.
1517 wrote: When I read on another thread of Christians attacked and killed for the faith, I hold off feeling bad for Mr. Graham.
Well as most know, I consider FG to be a political hireling, so this comment is biased. I am also the first to admit that the love of money is not necessarily shown by a bank account, but is a heart issue. A poor person can love wealth as well as a rich person.
Now with that said, according to the internet, FG's yearly salary is around 1 million dollars and his father left him over 20 million dollars.
So, at a minimum, I agree with you and can't even imagine feeling sorry for him in the slightest.
Joe Marusak wrote: Facebook is apologizing to evangelist Franklin Graham for banning him from posting on the site for 24 hours last week, a Facebook spokesperson told The Charlotte Observer on Saturday.
It was a mistake to ban Graham over a 2016 post he made on the site, and a mistake to have taken down the post, the spokesperson said.
Facebook has restored the 2016 post and will apologize in a note to the administrator of Graham’s Facebook page,...
excerpt from,
https://tinyurl.com/yd6sfbj5 (Facebook apologizes for banning evangelist Franklin Graham for 24 hours)
Any voice that stands against the tide of evil will be attacked.
But the FB servers are private property, and decry this slight as he might, Facebook is not a public space for open discussion. It is a private space for managed informational exchange.
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
