OK, BAR, so Easter is over, and yet I feel crappier knowing that I am responsible for the torture and execution of an innocent man,
And you suggest that I should rejoice?
As if a "Thanks, dude" sufficed? Even if I wore a shirt at tie--does that equal it?
BAR, the human race is rotten, and we owe everything to the Son's sacrifice.
This is more to lament as it is to celebrate.
I am glad to be saved, but I am saddened that it took His suffering and Death to forgive me my transgressions.
This is why Easter isn't a "Let's celebrate" holiday. God is good and wonderful enough to forgive us.
We are bad enough to need our Lord to suffer and die for our redemption.
Now have a party! Eat Peeps and ham!
You've lived so that he who did nothing wrong had to die.
Go ahead and say that such is the thoughts for Good Friday.
I have yet to meet the man or woman who repents that evening. There isn't even any good TV!
Good Friday is merely the reminder that people had better buy crap for their kids come the next Sunday.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
My Thoughts on Easter
I've always revered Easter as the day commemorating Jesus's resurrection, by far the most significant event for mankind since the Fall (actually, it rather elegantly reverses the ultimate consequences of the Fall).
However, I've never liked the popular imagery associated with Easter: hard-boiled eggs, a magical bunny, and candy.
The eggs and bunny represent fertility, the promise of new life. I completely agree that, in its own way, the resurrection represents the promise of new life. Still, the images seem far too pagan for my liking. The only thing we're missing here for full no-holds-barred pagan imagery is a giant phallus--then again, the Easter Bunny often holds a carrot.
At least Santa Claus is based upon a man, St. Nicholas, who gave gifts to those in need, just as God gave unto us his only begotten Son (John 3:16). The Easter Bunny is based upon an animal that procreates at rates amazing even to those in the NBA.
The candy must be the thing that gets kids into Easter. However, it causes them to get excited about Easter for the wrong reason.
At 6:00 A.M., I will wake up my three children (Mass is at 8 A.M., so we need to get started early). Robbie is too young to get it this year, but the older two will be all jazzed over the Easter baskets.
Our celebration of Christmas has the same problem, but at least it isn't filled with pagan imagery and ugly pastels.
On top of all of this, hard-boiled eggs taste, to me, what I imagine a pile of dung must taste like.
Christmas has eggnog, cookies, and all sorts of goodies.
Easter has food that smells like something that came out of my Uncle Les about an hour after Thanksgiving dinner.
We and our children should be happy on Easter. But it's an ironic happiness. We are saved--yes, that is the big deal. However, we should bow our heads in a bit of shame to know that we are so depraved that an innocent and good man had to suffer and die in order that we might have another chance.
Easter should evoke two emotions: gratefulness and shame.
However, I've never liked the popular imagery associated with Easter: hard-boiled eggs, a magical bunny, and candy.
The eggs and bunny represent fertility, the promise of new life. I completely agree that, in its own way, the resurrection represents the promise of new life. Still, the images seem far too pagan for my liking. The only thing we're missing here for full no-holds-barred pagan imagery is a giant phallus--then again, the Easter Bunny often holds a carrot.
At least Santa Claus is based upon a man, St. Nicholas, who gave gifts to those in need, just as God gave unto us his only begotten Son (John 3:16). The Easter Bunny is based upon an animal that procreates at rates amazing even to those in the NBA.
The candy must be the thing that gets kids into Easter. However, it causes them to get excited about Easter for the wrong reason.
At 6:00 A.M., I will wake up my three children (Mass is at 8 A.M., so we need to get started early). Robbie is too young to get it this year, but the older two will be all jazzed over the Easter baskets.
Our celebration of Christmas has the same problem, but at least it isn't filled with pagan imagery and ugly pastels.
On top of all of this, hard-boiled eggs taste, to me, what I imagine a pile of dung must taste like.
Christmas has eggnog, cookies, and all sorts of goodies.
Easter has food that smells like something that came out of my Uncle Les about an hour after Thanksgiving dinner.
We and our children should be happy on Easter. But it's an ironic happiness. We are saved--yes, that is the big deal. However, we should bow our heads in a bit of shame to know that we are so depraved that an innocent and good man had to suffer and die in order that we might have another chance.
Easter should evoke two emotions: gratefulness and shame.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Orson Scott Card and Islam
Earlier, I posted my fondness for Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. Well, since then I have devoured the sequels and companion novels, enjoying all of them and wishing for more.
In Shadow of the Giant, Card makes a fine point about radical Islam. He says that Islam cannot be a legitimate religion until it recognizes peoples' rights to disbelieve and until it allows lapsed Muslims (i.e. people who leave Islam) to go freely and without harm. Until then, it is a tyranny. In a nutshell, he suggests that Islam ought to embrace the idea of separation of Church and State--that a religious offense is not punishable by violence (i.e. intimidation, fines, incarceration, torture, execution).
I can already hear the critics say that Islam already does this, that it is a religion of peace; but come on, who's kidding whom?
Show me the Islamic state with a good record on human rights in general, and the rights of religious minorities specifically.
Read some history. Islam spread via the sword, and it stays because of the sword.
Of course there are many Muslims who disagree and say that their brethren who so speak and behave are in a minority, but what they really mean is that such people are in a minority in the West. Where they are not in the minority, they rule with an iron fist. Look at the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.
By the way, just in case any half-wit reads this and figures that I'm saying something ridiculous like, "All Muslims are terrorists," re-read what I said, for I said no such thing. What I said is that presently, Islam--as it pours from the Middle East as it has for over a millenium--is aggressive, expansionistic, and imperialistic. Many nations have been this way in the past and changed. As Card points out, Islam is perfectly capable of changing too. Doing so will not dilute its theology, but will instead make it a rational religion that seeks members because they believe, not because they are frightened.
Now a truly astute critic will say that Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as Islam, and such a critic is probably (though I really mean absolutely) right.
However, Christianity long ago rejected the notion that men and women could (and should) be forced into the religion. Historically, Christianity must answer for much (e.g. the inquisition and the witch hunts in Europe and the American colonies).
Such an astute critic ought to see that the problem for both religions centers on the issue of Church and State. In the inquisition and the witch hunts, the coercive powers of the State were put to use for "religious" purposes. Only once predominantly Christian nations began to draw the line between crimes against God and crimes against society (i.e. harming the life, liberty, or property of others), did Christianity once again became a peaceful religion.
Yes, Christianity has blood on its hands, but it has long since coagulated. The blood on Islam's hands is still fresh.
In Shadow of the Giant, Card makes a fine point about radical Islam. He says that Islam cannot be a legitimate religion until it recognizes peoples' rights to disbelieve and until it allows lapsed Muslims (i.e. people who leave Islam) to go freely and without harm. Until then, it is a tyranny. In a nutshell, he suggests that Islam ought to embrace the idea of separation of Church and State--that a religious offense is not punishable by violence (i.e. intimidation, fines, incarceration, torture, execution).
I can already hear the critics say that Islam already does this, that it is a religion of peace; but come on, who's kidding whom?
Show me the Islamic state with a good record on human rights in general, and the rights of religious minorities specifically.
Read some history. Islam spread via the sword, and it stays because of the sword.
Of course there are many Muslims who disagree and say that their brethren who so speak and behave are in a minority, but what they really mean is that such people are in a minority in the West. Where they are not in the minority, they rule with an iron fist. Look at the fatwah against Salman Rushdie.
By the way, just in case any half-wit reads this and figures that I'm saying something ridiculous like, "All Muslims are terrorists," re-read what I said, for I said no such thing. What I said is that presently, Islam--as it pours from the Middle East as it has for over a millenium--is aggressive, expansionistic, and imperialistic. Many nations have been this way in the past and changed. As Card points out, Islam is perfectly capable of changing too. Doing so will not dilute its theology, but will instead make it a rational religion that seeks members because they believe, not because they are frightened.
Now a truly astute critic will say that Christianity has just as much blood on its hands as Islam, and such a critic is probably (though I really mean absolutely) right.
However, Christianity long ago rejected the notion that men and women could (and should) be forced into the religion. Historically, Christianity must answer for much (e.g. the inquisition and the witch hunts in Europe and the American colonies).
Such an astute critic ought to see that the problem for both religions centers on the issue of Church and State. In the inquisition and the witch hunts, the coercive powers of the State were put to use for "religious" purposes. Only once predominantly Christian nations began to draw the line between crimes against God and crimes against society (i.e. harming the life, liberty, or property of others), did Christianity once again became a peaceful religion.
Yes, Christianity has blood on its hands, but it has long since coagulated. The blood on Islam's hands is still fresh.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Rushdie
It's one thing to think that Salmon Rusdie is a heretic, even an infadel. It's another thing to proclaim upon him a death sentence because he dared to write a novel. It's still another thing to threaten the British people with violence because they recently knighted him.
The reaction to Rushdie's knighthood shows how sick his opponents are. They believe neither in freedom nor in a good God. They are--ironically--idolitrists, in their worship of Mohammad.
The reaction to Rushdie's knighthood shows how sick his opponents are. They believe neither in freedom nor in a good God. They are--ironically--idolitrists, in their worship of Mohammad.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Islam=Peace?
If Islam is a religion of peace, then why don't so-called mainstream muslims decry the violence of its supposedly mistaken breathren?
If Islam is a religion of peace, why do all Islamic states act so abhorrently?
Why is there no decent Islamic state in the world?
Help me out, for I don't see this happening.
If Islam is a religion of peace, why do all Islamic states act so abhorrently?
Why is there no decent Islamic state in the world?
Help me out, for I don't see this happening.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Holy Shi'ite, Batman!
Click here for an article regarding a car dealership's ad. The following is a brief reply, of sorts.
So there's no uproar when a mufti (i.e. Islamic scholar) issues a fatwa to kill a man for writing a novel (remember Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 death sentence on Salman Rushdie?). The Council on American-Islamic Relations made no campaign against Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa to declare war on the United States). These things are apparently OK.
However, should an Ohio based Mitsubishi car dealership declare "jihad on the US auto market" and distribute toy swords to kids, that's going too far.
So, to all of you culturally insensitive infidels, please note: Issuing a fatwa for jihad that encourages mass murder and giving real swords (or AK-47s or Rocket Propelled Grenades) for the business of killing is OK. Issuing a fatwa for jihad that encourages people to buy your cars instead of another's and giving rubber swords to little tykes is bad.
How outraged would the imams be if there was Russ Milne's Krystalnacht Extravaganza (kids get free swastika arm bands and foam stones).
Seriously, the ad is in poor taste, and I bet that it will be a miserable failure if it happens. Instead, people are trying to stop it and giving the dealership free advertising. Let them be idiotic, and don't buy a Mitsubishi from them. It's time to stop bitching about every little thing that's offensive to Islam. Christianity is mocked far worse on a daily basis, but Christians in this country have an amazing--and apparently rare--ability to shrug it off. It's called turning the other cheek, which is something that some guy said somewhere.
So there's no uproar when a mufti (i.e. Islamic scholar) issues a fatwa to kill a man for writing a novel (remember Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 death sentence on Salman Rushdie?). The Council on American-Islamic Relations made no campaign against Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa to declare war on the United States). These things are apparently OK.
However, should an Ohio based Mitsubishi car dealership declare "jihad on the US auto market" and distribute toy swords to kids, that's going too far.
So, to all of you culturally insensitive infidels, please note: Issuing a fatwa for jihad that encourages mass murder and giving real swords (or AK-47s or Rocket Propelled Grenades) for the business of killing is OK. Issuing a fatwa for jihad that encourages people to buy your cars instead of another's and giving rubber swords to little tykes is bad.
How outraged would the imams be if there was Russ Milne's Krystalnacht Extravaganza (kids get free swastika arm bands and foam stones).
Seriously, the ad is in poor taste, and I bet that it will be a miserable failure if it happens. Instead, people are trying to stop it and giving the dealership free advertising. Let them be idiotic, and don't buy a Mitsubishi from them. It's time to stop bitching about every little thing that's offensive to Islam. Christianity is mocked far worse on a daily basis, but Christians in this country have an amazing--and apparently rare--ability to shrug it off. It's called turning the other cheek, which is something that some guy said somewhere.
Monday, September 18, 2006
A Hand in the Fire
Gee wiz, I guess that the Pope was wrong...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1875811,00.html
From the above source:
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organisation of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a web forum saying the pontiff and the west were "doomed". The message, the authenticity of which could not be immediately verified, said: "We shall continue our holy war and never stop until God enables us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations." (My emphasis)
And yet another
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/18/africa/ME_GEN_Muslims_Pope.php
"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house . . . then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
From the same article:
"Those who take benefit from Pope's comment and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted of attack and protest."
And one more reasonable comment:
"His comments really hurt Muslims all over the world," Umar Nawawi of the radical Islamic Defenders' Front said Monday in Jakarta. "We should remind him not to say such things which can only fuel a holy war."
This latter comment is at least not violent in nature, but it assumes that violence is the answer to what Pope Benedict said ("...can only fuel a holy war.")
It doesn't have to fuel a holy war. Muslims can ignore what the Pope said, just as I can ignore what they say. Why does a fatwa have to be issued everytime a public person publicly disagrees? This doesn't seem very adab (or dare I say kosher?). Isn't it time for sensible people (including all true mujtahidun) to stand up to these fajarah and their lagwh? Surely the wise ones must know that this is not the way to taqwa.
If reason doesn't prevail, then perhaps Pope Benedict needs to read one of Urban II's famous addresses. Deus vult. Jus ad bellum est. Deo vindice.
Pax vobiscum
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1875811,00.html
From the above source:
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organisation of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a web forum saying the pontiff and the west were "doomed". The message, the authenticity of which could not be immediately verified, said: "We shall continue our holy war and never stop until God enables us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations." (My emphasis)
And yet another
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/18/africa/ME_GEN_Muslims_Pope.php
"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house . . . then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
From the same article:
"Those who take benefit from Pope's comment and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted of attack and protest."
And one more reasonable comment:
"His comments really hurt Muslims all over the world," Umar Nawawi of the radical Islamic Defenders' Front said Monday in Jakarta. "We should remind him not to say such things which can only fuel a holy war."
This latter comment is at least not violent in nature, but it assumes that violence is the answer to what Pope Benedict said ("...can only fuel a holy war.")
It doesn't have to fuel a holy war. Muslims can ignore what the Pope said, just as I can ignore what they say. Why does a fatwa have to be issued everytime a public person publicly disagrees? This doesn't seem very adab (or dare I say kosher?). Isn't it time for sensible people (including all true mujtahidun) to stand up to these fajarah and their lagwh? Surely the wise ones must know that this is not the way to taqwa.
If reason doesn't prevail, then perhaps Pope Benedict needs to read one of Urban II's famous addresses. Deus vult. Jus ad bellum est. Deo vindice.
Pax vobiscum
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Stop the Violins!
Christian Churches in Gaza and the West Bank have been shot at and firebombed, and the Vatican has been threatened specifically due to a recent speech in which the Pope indirectly (he quoted a Byzantine emperor from the 1300's) criticized Islam's policy of spreading the faith by the sword.
What a way to prove how wrong the Pope was and that Islam is innately peaceful. I surely hope that mainstream (i.e. peaceful) Muslims will speak out as critically against their impious brethren as they have against the Pope.
A high-ranking Turkish official stated that the Pope's earlier comments place him in the same category as Hitler. I don't recall any Pope in centuries advocating genocide or the physical destruction of rival faiths. On the other hand, I can think of what Al Quaida and the Taliban stood for...
What a way to prove how wrong the Pope was and that Islam is innately peaceful. I surely hope that mainstream (i.e. peaceful) Muslims will speak out as critically against their impious brethren as they have against the Pope.
A high-ranking Turkish official stated that the Pope's earlier comments place him in the same category as Hitler. I don't recall any Pope in centuries advocating genocide or the physical destruction of rival faiths. On the other hand, I can think of what Al Quaida and the Taliban stood for...
Friday, September 15, 2006
Pope
The Pope must not apologize, but his critics could sure use a serving of humble pie. I just hope that the old man keeps dishing it.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Adam and Steve
The Senate once again rejected the notion that an amendment banning gay marriage should be made to the constitution. I'm amazed that for the first time in a long time, a branch of the Federal government did not seize the opportunity to restrict freedom.
I'm not for gay marriage. Homosexuals simply cannot marry each other and it mean the same as marriage between a man and a woman. It's not Christian, but a law against it is just plain wrong. Marriage is a religious institution, and neither the federal, state, nor municipal governments have any business weighing in on it.
There are many churches that call themselves "Christian," yet I do not believe that they are very much so. Supposing one of them should begin marrying men to men or women to women, I would disregard this practice just as I disregard that church's practice of auto-castration and mandatory convulsions during revivals.
Just because two gay people have a ceremony and call themselves "married," I do not have to accept that they are married in the same way as my wife and I. It's like when my son calls himself a pirate. It's kind of cute, how foolish he is to think that he's a pirate, but no matter how often he grunts "Arrrrgggg!" and slashes the dog with his plastic sword (and, unfortunately, digs for treasure in the backyard)--he's not a pirate. Supposing I should tell a real pirate that my son thinks that he's a pirate. What should that pirate say? (Other than "Shiver me timbers!") He'd probably laugh, steal my wallet and wedding ring, and walk me off the plank. Consider the movie Dodgeball. That guy dressed and talked like a pirate--but everyone knew that he wasn't a pirate. Let him pretend, if it makes him happy.
The real issue is one of legal status, of the ease with which estates are passed from spouse to spouse and other legal issues. That's really where the state gets into "marriage." I cannot see why two homosexuals devoted to each other should not be able to enjoy the same legal rights in this sense. Besides, acknowledging such rights would not be tantamount to acknowledging the sanctimony of gay marriage.
If you're really going to go against gay marriage, then you should also go against any marriage done in a Las Vegas chapel (witnessed by Elvis, of course) or by a mere justice of the peace. If you're going to lay down the God card and say that marriage is sacred, and that the sacredness of marriage ought to be protected by the violent capacity of the state, then you must also support violence against those who marry outside of churches. Heck, you should also seek amendments to prohibit any marriage outside of your particular denomination: since yours is the only true church. Baptists should oppose Catholic marriages. Catholics should oppose Lutheran marriages. And everyone should oppose Heaven's Gate marriages.
Since I am at least nominally a Catholic, should I promote legislation against Protestant churches, for they are an affront to the Holy and Apostolic Church? Should I design a bill to forbid the Amish from calling themselves Christians because I am offended by their lifestyle and excessively priced furniture and chicken?
The bottom line is this: If marriage is indeed sacred (and I believe that it is), then the government's position on it is irrelevent. In fact, any governmental position on it is flat out tyrannical. Marriage falls under the jurisdiction of De Civitate Dei. No amendment is necessary, just as no law forbidding my son from calling himself a pirate is necessary.
I'm not for gay marriage. Homosexuals simply cannot marry each other and it mean the same as marriage between a man and a woman. It's not Christian, but a law against it is just plain wrong. Marriage is a religious institution, and neither the federal, state, nor municipal governments have any business weighing in on it.
There are many churches that call themselves "Christian," yet I do not believe that they are very much so. Supposing one of them should begin marrying men to men or women to women, I would disregard this practice just as I disregard that church's practice of auto-castration and mandatory convulsions during revivals.
Just because two gay people have a ceremony and call themselves "married," I do not have to accept that they are married in the same way as my wife and I. It's like when my son calls himself a pirate. It's kind of cute, how foolish he is to think that he's a pirate, but no matter how often he grunts "Arrrrgggg!" and slashes the dog with his plastic sword (and, unfortunately, digs for treasure in the backyard)--he's not a pirate. Supposing I should tell a real pirate that my son thinks that he's a pirate. What should that pirate say? (Other than "Shiver me timbers!") He'd probably laugh, steal my wallet and wedding ring, and walk me off the plank. Consider the movie Dodgeball. That guy dressed and talked like a pirate--but everyone knew that he wasn't a pirate. Let him pretend, if it makes him happy.
The real issue is one of legal status, of the ease with which estates are passed from spouse to spouse and other legal issues. That's really where the state gets into "marriage." I cannot see why two homosexuals devoted to each other should not be able to enjoy the same legal rights in this sense. Besides, acknowledging such rights would not be tantamount to acknowledging the sanctimony of gay marriage.
If you're really going to go against gay marriage, then you should also go against any marriage done in a Las Vegas chapel (witnessed by Elvis, of course) or by a mere justice of the peace. If you're going to lay down the God card and say that marriage is sacred, and that the sacredness of marriage ought to be protected by the violent capacity of the state, then you must also support violence against those who marry outside of churches. Heck, you should also seek amendments to prohibit any marriage outside of your particular denomination: since yours is the only true church. Baptists should oppose Catholic marriages. Catholics should oppose Lutheran marriages. And everyone should oppose Heaven's Gate marriages.
Since I am at least nominally a Catholic, should I promote legislation against Protestant churches, for they are an affront to the Holy and Apostolic Church? Should I design a bill to forbid the Amish from calling themselves Christians because I am offended by their lifestyle and excessively priced furniture and chicken?
The bottom line is this: If marriage is indeed sacred (and I believe that it is), then the government's position on it is irrelevent. In fact, any governmental position on it is flat out tyrannical. Marriage falls under the jurisdiction of De Civitate Dei. No amendment is necessary, just as no law forbidding my son from calling himself a pirate is necessary.
Friday, May 05, 2006
I Spin Out of Control
Lord, forgive me my trespasses, as I somewhat--but not completely--forgive those who trespass against me. You know what? I'll forgive them if they JUST STOP TRESPASSSING!
By the way, and in case you didn't know, this is the whole reason why Christians believe that Jesus was a necessary sacrifice. For those "Christians" who have been changed by Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, I must admit that I'm impressed. You're so freaking stupid that I never figured you for being literate in the first place. Good job on reading an entire book. Hey, it was crap; but at least it was a book.
By the way, there's a part of me that knows that this is out of line, but it's that wussy part of me that the masculine part usually pummels into oblivion. Seriously, if you think that The Da Vinci Code was, in the least, food for thought; then you are, at least, retarded.
P.S. Yes. I used the word "retarded," and I meant it as an insult. "To retard" means "to slow down." A "retarded" person is, thus, a slow person. So, if it bothered you, perhaps it's because the term hit a little too close to home. Or are you able to come up with a rational rebuttal?
I didn't think so.
Also, I know that this posting reeks of ad hominems. So help me, but I don't believe that the opposition deserves any better.
P.P.S. Be careful about responding if you haven't read the piece of trash from which Dan Brown plagiarized: Holy Blood, Holy Grail. On top of this, don't respond if you haven't at least read the Bible. On top of this, don't respond if you know nothing about Roman history and can't figure out that Constantine had nothing to do with the canonization of the Bible.
By the way, and in case you didn't know, this is the whole reason why Christians believe that Jesus was a necessary sacrifice. For those "Christians" who have been changed by Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, I must admit that I'm impressed. You're so freaking stupid that I never figured you for being literate in the first place. Good job on reading an entire book. Hey, it was crap; but at least it was a book.
By the way, there's a part of me that knows that this is out of line, but it's that wussy part of me that the masculine part usually pummels into oblivion. Seriously, if you think that The Da Vinci Code was, in the least, food for thought; then you are, at least, retarded.
P.S. Yes. I used the word "retarded," and I meant it as an insult. "To retard" means "to slow down." A "retarded" person is, thus, a slow person. So, if it bothered you, perhaps it's because the term hit a little too close to home. Or are you able to come up with a rational rebuttal?
I didn't think so.
Also, I know that this posting reeks of ad hominems. So help me, but I don't believe that the opposition deserves any better.
P.P.S. Be careful about responding if you haven't read the piece of trash from which Dan Brown plagiarized: Holy Blood, Holy Grail. On top of this, don't respond if you haven't at least read the Bible. On top of this, don't respond if you know nothing about Roman history and can't figure out that Constantine had nothing to do with the canonization of the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)