This is my entry to The Friday Challenge, 9/25/09 edition. I had fun with this:
Dear Sainted Cephas:
I know that manning the Pearly Gates is both full - time and taxing work, so I'll keep this epistle short and not take up a lot of your eternity with idle chatter. I'm writing in reference to one Edward "Ted" Kennedy, as I cannot understand how he became an inmate of my rather storied asylum. I'd like you to pass this message on to our Holy Lord, in hopes that He will attend the clerical error that sloshed Ted out of hot water and plopped him down into the fire, as it were. Surely this illustrious man deserves a thousand acres with plenty of frontage on a street paved with gold; to wit:
Ted loved women; no American politician loved women more, with the possible exception of one William Jefferson Clinton; however the latter no doubt is the subject of a future letter and not the present one, so we'll end with him on that tantalizing note. Setting aside the late Chappaquiddick unpleasantness -- in which Ted did everything short of risking his life and status for Mary Jo Kopechne's safety -- Ted has proven a sterling example to hormonal exuberance everywhere. Speaking of women, Ted was a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. This is a profound point in his favor, for if women have no right to choose, then what choice do they have, besides back alleys and rusty coat hangers? Jehoshaphat, how such barbarism offends my delicate sensibilities!
Given that two heads are better than one, Ted's Janus - faced brand of politics brought new meaning to cutting edge political opportunism, which in turn stoked such innovations as pandering, demagoguery, and bipartisanship. I contend that this polysyllabic praise should not go unnoticed. Nor should Ted go unrewarded -- for how many mere men could balance a giggling girl on one knee, and a good stiff Chivas Regal on the other -- without spilling either one? Ted Kennedy and none other, that's how many. I know Heaven already has a Lion of Judah, but how about the Lion of the Senate? Collect them all. Our Father's house has many mansions; and I'm certain that at least one needs a Fifth Column; in matters temporal and spiritual, that's where Ted Kennedy comes in. Please give my tiny request all due consideration. Thank you for your attention. Give my best to Michael.
Your Humble Servant,
Prince Lucifer S. Brimstone
P.S. The air conditioner's on the fritz, and we're having a devil of a time with the heat! Send someone from maintenance A.S.A.P.! Thanks.
"L"
Monday, September 28, 2009
Dungus Darwinius
A newly discovered dung beetle is named after Charles Dungwin -- I mean, Darwin.
I can think of nothing more fitting.
Except perhaps an intestinal parasite named after Obama.
I can think of nothing more fitting.
Except perhaps an intestinal parasite named after Obama.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Evidence of a Biblical Patriarch
This is very interesting:
Egyptian coins carrying the name of Joseph, the biblical patriarch whose arrival in Egypt as a slave eventually provided salvation for his family during decades of drought across the Middle East, have been discovered in a cache of antique items shelved in boxes in a museum, according to a new report.
The report from the Middle East Media Research Institute said the coins with Joseph's name and image were found in a pile of unsorted artifacts that had been stored at the Museum of Egypt.
"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the newspaper report.
One even had the image of a cow "symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry talks of grain," the report said.
"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani, which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time," the report said.
This must be another example of those "biblical inconsistencies" that surface so often.
Egyptian coins carrying the name of Joseph, the biblical patriarch whose arrival in Egypt as a slave eventually provided salvation for his family during decades of drought across the Middle East, have been discovered in a cache of antique items shelved in boxes in a museum, according to a new report.
The report from the Middle East Media Research Institute said the coins with Joseph's name and image were found in a pile of unsorted artifacts that had been stored at the Museum of Egypt.
"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the newspaper report.
One even had the image of a cow "symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry talks of grain," the report said.
"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani, which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time," the report said.
This must be another example of those "biblical inconsistencies" that surface so often.
Friday, September 25, 2009
A Hymn to Obama
Sing with me now:
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
He'll steal your cash and take your soul.
World domination is his goal.
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
In your hand he holds your fate;
You're just a wage - slave of the state.
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
If your skin is pearly white,
Watch out for the new Dark Knight.
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
Won't you come and join, with me,
His cult of personality?
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
Honolulu or Mombasa --
Whence came you, my Dear Mufasa?
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
He'll steal your cash and take your soul.
World domination is his goal.
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
In your hand he holds your fate;
You're just a wage - slave of the state.
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
If your skin is pearly white,
Watch out for the new Dark Knight.
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
Won't you come and join, with me,
His cult of personality?
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
Honolulu or Mombasa --
Whence came you, my Dear Mufasa?
Mmmm! Mmmm! Mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama!
Friday, September 18, 2009
What a Crock Part II
Part I
If you read the text of Okenya's health care deform speech to Congress, you'll discover that he, too, was accusing people of lying just moments before Joe Wilson set his preapproved script aside and uttered the unvarnished truth. Here's a relevant excerpt:
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Judging by media reactions, it seems that accusing people of lying during a speech given before a joint session of Congress is perfectly acceptable -- if you happen to be the president.
Summation:
Our illustrious president making false accusations before Congress of radio and cable talk show hosts and prominent politicians lying about his health care plan = good.
Joe Wilson rightfully pointing out before Congress that Okenya is lying about his health care plan = evil.
Clearly, the Mulatto Messiah is held to different standards than the rest of us peons -- far lower ones.
If you read the text of Okenya's health care deform speech to Congress, you'll discover that he, too, was accusing people of lying just moments before Joe Wilson set his preapproved script aside and uttered the unvarnished truth. Here's a relevant excerpt:
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Judging by media reactions, it seems that accusing people of lying during a speech given before a joint session of Congress is perfectly acceptable -- if you happen to be the president.
Summation:
Our illustrious president making false accusations before Congress of radio and cable talk show hosts and prominent politicians lying about his health care plan = good.
Joe Wilson rightfully pointing out before Congress that Okenya is lying about his health care plan = evil.
Clearly, the Mulatto Messiah is held to different standards than the rest of us peons -- far lower ones.
What a Crock
By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about Okenya's little speech to Congress, during which Representative Joe Wilson (R - SC) stated, "You lie!" when the subject of illegal alien health care coverage arose.
Leaping on the story faster than Kanye West on someone else's microphone, the Okenya Sycophancy Media (OSM, hereafter) denounced Wilson as boorish and reprehensible in his behavior; Maureen Dowd and others - including Jimmy Carter - have even gone so far as to suggest that racism was the motivating factor in Wilson's outburst. Of course, no evidence need apply. The mere fact that one disagrees with the Mulatto Messiah is proof of racism, in and of itself; this has been Rule Number One for Democrats and the OSM since the day Okenya strolled into office after selling the nation a bill of goods.
Inevitably, the matter of whether or not Wilson was correct in his accusation is of less importance to the OSM than the question of Ronald Reagan's favorite Bible verse.
So while the OSM is checking for racists in every wood pile, let's address and answer the question: Was Joe Wilson correct?
I'll let the following passages speak for themselves:
Barbara Simpson: I have the full copy of H.R. 3200 at home on my dining room table – all 1,017 pages of it. I've read it all. There's nothing in it that screens out non-residents, much less illegal aliens.
Indeed, two congressional committee attempts to pass legislation to specifically require proof of legality were twice voted down by Democrats.
Ann Coulter (responding to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC): In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health-care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded "affordability credits" to people who can't afford to pay for their own health care.
Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care – including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.
Moreover, liberals won't have to wait for some court to find that the words "nothing in this subtitle shall allow" means "this bill allows," because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health-care vouchers aren't going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.
Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions – just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health-care bill covers illegal aliens.
Examiner.com: The Center for Immigration Studies reported that Obamacare could benefit 6.6 million illegal immigrants, costing taxpayers an estimated $31 billion. The Congressional Research Service stated that Obamacare "does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the exchange." The CRS also noted that there is no requirement for people to present proof of citizenship for coverage. In July, Republican Representative Nathan Deal proposed an amendment that would require identity verification for coverage, but the amendment was defeated by the House. (emphasis mine)
Given that the health care deform bill is Okenya's pet project, belief in his ignorance about what it contains or omits simply isn't credible. That leaves us with duplicity.
Last time I checked, actions speak louder than words. So the OSM, Okenya, and his acolytes in the Democrat Party shouldn't expect our trust, when their actions don't match their words. Contrary to the zeitgeist, our president isn't a god; we're not obligated to accept on faith whatever steaming load he shovels at us -- despite all contrary evidence. Until Okenya and the Democrats explain why efforts at amending the bill by excluding illegal aliens were voted down, and when they provide rational answers as to why a one thousand - plus - page document includes no significant language banning border jumpers from blanket coverage, I'll continue in my agreement with Joe Wilson, and reiterate his words:
"You lie."
Leaping on the story faster than Kanye West on someone else's microphone, the Okenya Sycophancy Media (OSM, hereafter) denounced Wilson as boorish and reprehensible in his behavior; Maureen Dowd and others - including Jimmy Carter - have even gone so far as to suggest that racism was the motivating factor in Wilson's outburst. Of course, no evidence need apply. The mere fact that one disagrees with the Mulatto Messiah is proof of racism, in and of itself; this has been Rule Number One for Democrats and the OSM since the day Okenya strolled into office after selling the nation a bill of goods.
Inevitably, the matter of whether or not Wilson was correct in his accusation is of less importance to the OSM than the question of Ronald Reagan's favorite Bible verse.
So while the OSM is checking for racists in every wood pile, let's address and answer the question: Was Joe Wilson correct?
I'll let the following passages speak for themselves:
Barbara Simpson: I have the full copy of H.R. 3200 at home on my dining room table – all 1,017 pages of it. I've read it all. There's nothing in it that screens out non-residents, much less illegal aliens.
Indeed, two congressional committee attempts to pass legislation to specifically require proof of legality were twice voted down by Democrats.
Ann Coulter (responding to Rachel Maddow of MSNBC): In other words, illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page, goodie-laden health-care bill: Section 246, which distributes taxpayer-funded "affordability credits" to people who can't afford to pay for their own health care.
Even this minor restriction on taxpayer largesse to illegals will immediately be overturned by the courts. But the point is: Except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care – including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan.
Moreover, liberals won't have to wait for some court to find that the words "nothing in this subtitle shall allow" means "this bill allows," because the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that the health-care vouchers aren't going to illegal aliens. Nor does the bill prohibit the states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals.
Democrats keep voting down Republican amendments that would insert these restrictions – just before dashing to a TV studio to denounce anyone who says the health-care bill covers illegal aliens.
Examiner.com: The Center for Immigration Studies reported that Obamacare could benefit 6.6 million illegal immigrants, costing taxpayers an estimated $31 billion. The Congressional Research Service stated that Obamacare "does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the exchange." The CRS also noted that there is no requirement for people to present proof of citizenship for coverage. In July, Republican Representative Nathan Deal proposed an amendment that would require identity verification for coverage, but the amendment was defeated by the House. (emphasis mine)
Given that the health care deform bill is Okenya's pet project, belief in his ignorance about what it contains or omits simply isn't credible. That leaves us with duplicity.
Last time I checked, actions speak louder than words. So the OSM, Okenya, and his acolytes in the Democrat Party shouldn't expect our trust, when their actions don't match their words. Contrary to the zeitgeist, our president isn't a god; we're not obligated to accept on faith whatever steaming load he shovels at us -- despite all contrary evidence. Until Okenya and the Democrats explain why efforts at amending the bill by excluding illegal aliens were voted down, and when they provide rational answers as to why a one thousand - plus - page document includes no significant language banning border jumpers from blanket coverage, I'll continue in my agreement with Joe Wilson, and reiterate his words:
"You lie."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Crusades of Greed?
In a recent discussion regarding atheism at Vox Popoli, a commenter made this statement:
It wasn't religion that was responsible for the crusades, 30 years war, or anything for that matter, it was peoples greed, need for revenge, pride, ego, etc etc. that did it and they just used religion as a JUSTIFICATION. So religion wasn't to blame, it was just a tool to justify peoples own selfish desires. -- Theological Discourse, 9/6/09, 5:23 PM
The above was an attempt at using atheists' logic against them. This comment followed:
At least in the case of the Crusades, greed (economic considerations) actually were the main reason. Religion was just a red herring. (Think of "Clue" the movie.) -- Duckman, 9/6/09, 5:26PM
The second utterance couldn't be further from the truth. It is debatable whether economic considerations were factors; what is not debatable is that they were not primary factors.
How does greed explain the rich nobles who sold off vast tracts of land or other significant portions of their estates -- or in some cases, virtually everything they owned -- that their followers should have food and clothing and weapons? Does this behavior stem from greed as a primary motivator?
How about the poor peasants who left home and hearth, their wives and children -- some with the anticipation that they would never look upon their loved ones again -- and set forth into a land unknown? Lust for monetary gain does not satisfy as an explanation.
Some relevant passages:
Some scholars used to make much of the idea that crusaders gained great wealth from the Crusades, and that most crusaders were motivated by greed and a hunger for power. The primary sources do not bear this out, as crusading seems to have been a hard, lonely, expensive, dangerous proposition. Few if any serious students of the Crusades accept this explanation today.
***
For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.
***
Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.
Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.
Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.
After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.
Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.
They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.
They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
Once can argue whether or not the Crusades demonstrated a good idea brought to fruition; one even can debate the moral necessity and ramifications of such pilgrimages. But the idea that the Crusades originated in base greed is a notion not borne out by the known historical facts. Speaking of "primary," this is one of the primary areas of historical study for attracting those who enjoy spouting off, safe from the bastions of ignorance. It's right up there with the history of modern science, and the "Civil" War.
It wasn't religion that was responsible for the crusades, 30 years war, or anything for that matter, it was peoples greed, need for revenge, pride, ego, etc etc. that did it and they just used religion as a JUSTIFICATION. So religion wasn't to blame, it was just a tool to justify peoples own selfish desires. -- Theological Discourse, 9/6/09, 5:23 PM
The above was an attempt at using atheists' logic against them. This comment followed:
At least in the case of the Crusades, greed (economic considerations) actually were the main reason. Religion was just a red herring. (Think of "Clue" the movie.) -- Duckman, 9/6/09, 5:26PM
The second utterance couldn't be further from the truth. It is debatable whether economic considerations were factors; what is not debatable is that they were not primary factors.
How does greed explain the rich nobles who sold off vast tracts of land or other significant portions of their estates -- or in some cases, virtually everything they owned -- that their followers should have food and clothing and weapons? Does this behavior stem from greed as a primary motivator?
How about the poor peasants who left home and hearth, their wives and children -- some with the anticipation that they would never look upon their loved ones again -- and set forth into a land unknown? Lust for monetary gain does not satisfy as an explanation.
Some relevant passages:
Some scholars used to make much of the idea that crusaders gained great wealth from the Crusades, and that most crusaders were motivated by greed and a hunger for power. The primary sources do not bear this out, as crusading seems to have been a hard, lonely, expensive, dangerous proposition. Few if any serious students of the Crusades accept this explanation today.
***
For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.
***
Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.
Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.
Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.
After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.
Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.
They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.
They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
Once can argue whether or not the Crusades demonstrated a good idea brought to fruition; one even can debate the moral necessity and ramifications of such pilgrimages. But the idea that the Crusades originated in base greed is a notion not borne out by the known historical facts. Speaking of "primary," this is one of the primary areas of historical study for attracting those who enjoy spouting off, safe from the bastions of ignorance. It's right up there with the history of modern science, and the "Civil" War.
Monday, September 7, 2009
"Progress" by the Sword
President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
How many times has this guy done this, now? I've lost count. I suppose 9/11 qualifies as enrichment. It's the religion's most lavish effort toward that end, after all.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
Oallah has contributed to the same steaming load as Duhbya, only far more often, and with heightened laudatory language. A product of the American public indoctrination centers knows more about U.S. history than this clown.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Man, this would be pure comedy gold, if it wasn't vomited forth by someone who should know better. I know that I define progress as physically attacking people who don't share my religion, destroying ancient civilizations, pillaging and raping, oppressing women, treating non - Muslims as tenth - class citizens, and bestowing the three illustrious gifts of slavery, death, or acceptance of Allah to those whom Muslims defeat. If you don't consider this progress, then you're just not forward enough in your thinking.
By the by, why would you celebrate a major holiday of a religion that isn't your own? I can't remember the last time I heard tell of a Muslim celebrating Easter.
How many times has this guy done this, now? I've lost count. I suppose 9/11 qualifies as enrichment. It's the religion's most lavish effort toward that end, after all.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
Oallah has contributed to the same steaming load as Duhbya, only far more often, and with heightened laudatory language. A product of the American public indoctrination centers knows more about U.S. history than this clown.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Man, this would be pure comedy gold, if it wasn't vomited forth by someone who should know better. I know that I define progress as physically attacking people who don't share my religion, destroying ancient civilizations, pillaging and raping, oppressing women, treating non - Muslims as tenth - class citizens, and bestowing the three illustrious gifts of slavery, death, or acceptance of Allah to those whom Muslims defeat. If you don't consider this progress, then you're just not forward enough in your thinking.
By the by, why would you celebrate a major holiday of a religion that isn't your own? I can't remember the last time I heard tell of a Muslim celebrating Easter.
81 Years
What a great testimony to love and loyalty.
It's nice reading the occasional poignant story amidst all the depressing indications of cultural suicide that we're currently enduring.
I think this is far more in - line with what God wants for marriage than the no - fault, I'm - bored - let's - get - a - divorce garbage we see on display with such troubling frequency in modern times.
It's nice reading the occasional poignant story amidst all the depressing indications of cultural suicide that we're currently enduring.
I think this is far more in - line with what God wants for marriage than the no - fault, I'm - bored - let's - get - a - divorce garbage we see on display with such troubling frequency in modern times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)