________________________________________________
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
► Hot Links
Tags: Constitution
Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.
Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.
Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.
We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.
Play nice!
Diary of Daedalus
website design was Built By David
Purpose for this thread is to discuss the original intent of the Founding Fathers versus the curent context in which the Constitution is used (some might suggest abused).
Discuss..
It’s a living document!
/lll
Ratified in NY on July 26, 1788
30 Yeas, 27 Nays
The U.S. Constitution says Americans are free to be religious and possess firearms. Bitterly or not.
Where do you all think the Founding Fathers would have drawn the line with the phrase “promote the general Welfare” ?
Lance,
Why not make a thread out of this Preamble. You know mention the issue, your thoughts, then we will all discuss in the comments section?
Maybe? It was a bit confusing!
Inviting heathen into your land was the downfall of the same. Same mistake King Solomon did with his open borders politics.
Your constitution isn’t compatible with heathen religions.
7. Bible Believer
Would Judaism be considered one of those “Heathen religions” that should not have been let into the land?
If you continue to not specify your answer(s), I am going to have to assume that you mean what I think you mean, and act accordingly.
LanceKates:
I think they would have drawn the line at PAYING for the General Welfare.
9. RightWing
I imagine that they would have leaned more toward the right to property, and the right to contract as well. Federal involvement, and destruction of private property, and private contacts would not have gone over well with them.
let’s not forget that the original tea party was over a minuscule tax of approx 1-3% IIRC.
Thanks, whoever put the picture in, I like it.
6 Wrath
I think it’s just been a while since we read the constitution. We talk about so much, but how often do we actually read the words and concern ourselves with what the Founding Fathers, not us or the government, think they mean.
7 Bible Believer
what does a nonchristian have to do with the Preamble to the Constitution?
Are you trying to suggest that nonchristians shouldn’t be covered by the Constitution? And what do you mean by “your” land?
I am quite certain as to what Bible Believer is referring to, but I will wait to see if he answers Wrath and Lance.
11. LanceKates
That was me that added the picture.
Maybe we should include a link to the text of the Constitution as well, and the 1st post as part of the thread?
I’m quite fond of the Declaration of Independence myself.
12. “Your land” as in ~our land. BB is from Sweden, I believe?
WrathofGOD
Do judaists worship the God of the Bible, yes or no? There you have the definition of a heathen.
So what is this act accordingly is it “Get off my site”?
Then I shall comply swiftly. You just needed to ask me and I would.
And your works will not save you.
This is the message still applying to you judaist people:
Hosea 5:15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.
Your offence is that you rejected the Messiah when you crucified him just as the prophets prophesied you would, yet you don’t see it.
Here’s one of your own that saw the absurdity of your empty works:
Rabbi Asher Levy
and since you obviously want to take action against me I will save you from future problems by removing my presence so you don’t have to deal with this anymore, obviously the salt is in your wounds.
And before I go, you write GOD not G dash D. Take care crazy religious man.
And to the rest of you it is my prayer that Jesus Christ will open your blinded eyes to the truth I will leave with this great link:
Come to Jesus
It was a fun time messing around with you all even the soviet inspired evilutionists.
LanceKates
USA is not my land, I don’t live there. A religion that is opposed to your constitution like islam, how is it compatible to your constitution? Or any of the other religions that wants to destroy your constition. That’s one of the things that is destroying your land, you left the God of the land, the God of the Bible and accepted heathen gods. Same mistake as King Solomon (1Kings 11:1-8)
Anyways I’m outta here.
And with that I think I will run to the store. bbl
16 Bible Believer
So you hold the Jews responsible for the death of Christ? Then you should thank them, for without the crucifixion, we would not be able to receive the gift of salvation.
As for ‘accepting heathen gods’ . . . which ‘gods’ have I accepted? By ‘accepted’ do you mean ‘allowed to live’ ?
If so, you don’t have much room to talk if you are from any european nation.
Do you suggest that we round up and kill everyone who is not Christian? Yeah, that doesn’t seem very Godly.
Be careful, Bible Believer, that you do not become so certain of yourself that you become a whitewashed tomb. Remember that pride leads to death.
I looked at Bible Believer’s site.
wow, alot of hate and weak, weak theology.
I’ve run into folks like that before when I was getting my youth ministry degree. horridly weak theology. One keymark is the idea that once you’ve accepted christ, you cannot ‘lose’ your salvation. Paul writes about the danger of thinking that because you’re redeemed you can live in sin. These people read the words of the bible, but they do not understand them. They read books by people who write about the bible,but do not research.
They just look for something to fill the hole in their heart and it is too easy to make themselves look better by basing their theology on what OTHERS are inferior.
16. Bible Believer
First, it should be stated that I never threatened to ban you, nor did I every say anything even close to “get off my blog”. I encourage everyone reading this to scan this thread, and others dealing with this issue (will update if I remember specifically which ones those were) and make up your own minds. After a comment yesterday wherein you claimed a problem with Catholics and Jews, I asked that you clarify your comment. I wasn’t the only one who was concerned with this comment as numerous “Citizens” stated their disgust with the tone and language you used. You however never came back into that thread (despite posting on others) to explain yourself. I read the link you suggested and realized that you were stating that Jews were sinners because we don’t accept jesus as the Messiah, and thus no matter what good deads we do and no matter how we follow the Torah, we are still horrible sinners going to hell. I of course disagree (as i stated therein) but accept that this is your belief as a Christian. Thus I let it go. I agreed to disagree and allow you to think whatever you want.
Today however, (after reportedly numerous posts wherein you attacked homosexuals as “sodomites”) you made the above comment about “Heathens”. Insofar that you made the comments you did about Catholics, and Jews yesterday, I requested that you clarify your comment as to whom you considered “heathens”.
You instead responded the way you did in post 16.
It is you who chose to leave. I did not, nor was I planning on banning you. Even if I had wanted to, I would have had to follow the process as described in our “About” page.
In fact, I simply wanted clarification so I could discuss the matter with you further if you were again referring to Jews. I appreciate and encourage robust debate as long as it is done in a respectful manner. This was the issue I was beginning to have with you. Not your message, but the manner in which you chose to give it. I accept your claims that I am a sinner as just being one major thing that makes Jews Jews and Christians Christians. I would expect all Christians to believe that I, as a Jew, am going to hell because I didn’t accept jesus. That part didn’t bother me at all. The manner in which you chose to spread your message however was caustic, and classless. Still however, I never even thought of banning.
Then you write #16, wherein you outright call me a sinner, tell me to follow a Jew for Jesus claiming to be a Rabbi, cheaply criticize the Jewish habit of not writing the Lords name carelessly (using a “-” instead of o; as in G-d) and leave with the parting shot of further insults such as “Take care crazy religious man”, and something to the affect of “you Jews killed jesus”. (one of the oldest, notoriously anti-semitic canards)
For the record, you are still not banned (not by me, or proper procedure at least), and your own words will stay up for posterity.
#5 Lance Kates
I think “promote the general welfare” referred to trade, not individuals. I think the FF would have left much more to the individual states.
There is a scripture, in the ‘First Testament’ that reads like this, and it’s meaning is quite apparent. I know BB is gone now, but I wish he would return so he could see the word of God spoken by others of whom his theology has problems with.
Ex 18:1-4
The word of the LORD came to me:
“What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
” ‘The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
Also, one more thing. What about the righteous who trusted and had faith in the God revealed to Abraham? Are they lost in sin? I don’t think so. Abraham was called a friend of God.
23. coward and I admit it
Yes! The problem is growing Federalism.
24. song_and_dance_man
What I don’t understand about the BB type of attitude is (a) how it is jesus like and (b) how it is supposed to bring me to jesus (if it were even possible)
Somehow I am able to think every Christian is wrong, yet not have to insult people.
It is too bad.
Wrath? You posted on the Islam Day post about the moes wanting Christians to deemphasize the Trinity. I have never heard this. Do you have a link for it? Thanks : )
26. WrathofG-d
In a back thread where BB laid it down heavy I used a parable spoken by Yeshua to demonstrate that it is not up to us to judge. It is the parable of the wheat and the tares. The tares look like wheat. The servants asked the master if they should pull up the tares. The answer was no, because some wheat might be pulled up in the process.
We cannot judge the hearts of men, only our own, and we have no right to judge as to just who will enter into the Kingdom. That is left only to Him who can read the hearts and minds of men.
This is where many Christians get themselves in trouble and vicariously place the stigma of judgementalism on the rest of us.
And BTW, not all Christians are wrong, but all too many do seem to somehow get a few things wrong on enough things that this attitude is not without merit.
27. UberInfidel67
Unfortunately, no. It was a discussion within a thread at LGF, about a co-religion thing between Muslims and Christians to figure out how to find common ground and peace between the two religions.
The Muslim suggested that there wouldn’t be a problem if the Christians were to under emphasize the Trinity.
I don’t have a link, it was a while ago. Sorry! Maybe you can find it by searching some of those major terms.
If you find it let me know.
OK, Bible Believer.
I warned you yesterday about coming in here and being a shit disturber. You can’t seem to help yourself, so I am putting you on a one week timeout.
I’ll unblock you 7 days from today. If you come in again and bait people, I’ll lock you out permanently.
savage
28. song_and_dance_man
My comment about Christians being “wrong” was in reference to the core concept of Christianity: accepting jesus as the messiah.
As a Jew, I inherently reject that position. If I didn’t, I would be a Christian. This is why I said, I think Christians are wrong.
The point really was that, even though I believe this I can still be friendly to you, and not be rude.
Disagreement is one thing, being a total jerk about it is another.
30 savage
He left on his own
Thanks Wrath. I AM gonna look into that.
30. Savage
I think BB banned itself. However, what happened to this -Procedures for Redress?.
Well, he’s not coming back, period.
In a week, maybe, just not now, song
31. WrathofG-d
Fair enough. What do you think about the ‘first testament’ prophecies that Yeshua seemed to have fulfilled? I can cite them, but I think you may be aware of them already.
To me it hardly seems a coincidence.
And just so you know, I didn’t accept Christianity blindly but insisted on the apologetics of it all.
If you guys want to go that way, that’s fine with me. I warned him the other day not to be an asshat. But he chose to ignore me.
I won’t put up with that, ever….
36. song_and_dance_man
I am somewhat familiar with many of the prohecies that supposedly were fullfilled by jesus, from someone else who asked me this question, but not all of them.
That being said, I think the proof is in the pudding. Do we have ultimate peace? Was the third temple built? Did all Jews come together in full acceptance? No to all.
Although he did fulfill approx 60% or so (random number picked to show that he did fulfill many) he didn’t fulfill ALL.
Then there are the statements in the Torah about how the laws given to the Jews are for eternity. I don’t think G-d was joking, or changed his mind. He meant “for all time”.
OT
I posted this on the Bruce Bawer thread, but this fisking of Bawer and CJ is just too good to not be read by everyone. Enjoy!
ahhhh screw it all
38. WrathofG-d
I too, believe that not one jot or tittle will be removed from the Law until everything that was written is fulfilled.
I am reposting on the live thread, as I am too lazy to think of something else right now:
In order to understand Islam you must understand the story of Issac and Ishmael. To be short, Issac was Abraham’s son via Sarah, as promised by God. Ishmael was a son by a maid of Sarah as they were trying to help God produce his promise. So God eventually rejects Ishmael.
He produces the Arabs, Ishmael was bitter down in his DNA in his rejection by God. His descendents then reject the two revalatory religions Judaism and Christianity to invent their own Satanic religion. Islam at its core is for the bitter and rejected souls in th earth. That is why it does so well in prisions, and among people that are bitter and feel rejected and sit all day long on the pitty-potty. (Think of many American Blacks…Nation of Islam etc.) Or self-pitying Arabs. Islam is the great magnet of God to draw all the bitter and hateful to one place (Spiritually) for judgement.
The escape is the same for everyone, accept Christ and any rejection on you is lifted. No invented religion will help either, not Darwinism, not Obamism, or Communism, or LGFism. Mankind only has so long to accept the truth, then God will send delusions into the earth, and people WILL believe them to their destruction…think of liberalism…it is a mental disorder.
Think of CJ, who was surrounded by truth…he chose to reject.
Forget the constitution…what about the “wedge document”!
well I must have missed something that bible believer said because I just didnt get all of that out of what he said. Anyhow I sure hope things don’t get here like OVER YONDER
Channeling libturd:
The Constitution? That obsolete thing?
Hey, I recognize that thing, it’s one of those “rightwing extremeist” red flags!
…but I’m sure by posting that fact, I’ll be under surveillance too for being at this site in the first place. Ah well.
Hi everybody
Progressives have a twisted view of the Constitution. They interpet it to fit your needs. The funny p[art when they claim the 2nd Amendment is only for Police to carry guns. You can read the 2nd to them all day and they still insist on their nonsense.
And now a question from George
#47 Rodan
Sort of how some progressive Christians read the Bible…
47 Rodan
The left loves to claim that the Constitution is a Living Document, as long as it is being distorted to fit their needs. Try to suggest that the 2nd Amendment meant an individual right and they suddenly go into hyper-conservative-translation mode and suddenly the thoughts of the Founding Fathers matter.
It is a very basic irony that has come to be the hallmark of the Left.
LanceKates,
The 2nd Amendment rips their argument to shreds. They really reach and stretch and explain 18th century English. It really is a show and kills their credibility.
#47 Rodan,
it’s so it’s more consistent with their derranged beliefs.
You see, they like to claim to be defenders of the Constitution. That would be an even more obvious lie if they they were openly against the 2nd just because they didn’t like it. So, they pretend that it doesn’t say what it says or it doesn’t mean what it clearly does.
Also, take into account that if the facts don’t fit a libturd’s POV, it is either mentally erased or is no longer a fact in their minds.
WrathofG-d
Well handled mate. I might not always agree with you but you showed your class here today in how you handles BB. More power to your arm mate.
savage
I think BB slung his own hook and departed already. Too bad as if he had acted like an adult and debated awhile he might have even learned something.
OK..OK… I know that it was a long shot …. but it could happen…. I’m an eternal optimist here mate!
Overall guys that was very well handled and you should be proud of the way it was sorted.
That is why ‘the duce’ is an interesting ‘grown up’ site and 1.0 is a whiny puerile echo chamber.
Progressives actually believe that they have NEW ideas.
Just ask them.
Yeah, but what about the “Wedge Document“? Have you guys read it? Huh? Huh?
Bible Believer was a mole/moby. She used the Left’s cartoon version of what the Christian right believes. It was an act, I suspected as such since her comments were just so stereotypical. It had to be an act.
#5 LanceKates
I think “general welfare” was meant to preclude special status to any particular group of people (hereditary nobility and the like).
Bible Believer sounded like one of those hyper-calvinists: “God hates you but he has a wonderful plan for your life.”
#57
“General Welfare” is often twisted into something its not. Simply put the government should promote things that benefit everyone. It does not mean some should be given things to raise their status any more than it can be restricted from others to lower. theirs.
Nothing like a night at a bar with a live band playing good music.
#56, Rodan.
That’s what I believe; I also suspect that another poster here is not genuine (I think his/her screen name is “just in case” or something like that).
#21. LanceKates
Oh no, you believe in CS (Conditional Security)?
I think that ES (Eternal Security) is entirely biblical, and not “weak theology.”
I am not a Calvinist, so I don’t understand or define ES the way a Calvinist would.
Calvinists seem to ground the believer’s security on the believer’s performance, when the Bible says it’s God who saves the forgiven sinner and is the One Who “keeps” him or her saved.
(I’m not interested in debating the issue in and of itself, just letting you know that there’s at least one person here who does not share your view on the security of a believer’s salvation.)
The only thing I will say is that frequently CS advocates will drag out the straw man argument that ES teaches or permits “a license to sin.”
I believe in ES, but I do not live a life of sin; I am very much aware of the price that Jesus paid for my sins, so I don’t take that for granted or live any ol’ way I want to.
The only “Christians” I know of who would take advantage of the gift of salvation are “carnal” Christians, ones who are very immature.
But for CS proponents to paint all of ES believers that way, or to teach that ES always leads to that, is not honest or fair, but I’ve seen it happen time and time again in their editorials on web sites and blogs.
#38, Wrath
As far as not fulfilling 100% of the prophecies:
I think that’s because some of the prophecies are still future. (The Second Coming has not happened yet, obviously.)
In a sense, the law is supposed to stand for all time. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.
The Apostle Paul wrote quite a bit about the law and the role it has in the life of the believer in the New Testament book of Romans.
Paul especially discusses this in chapters 2:12 – 6. (Romans Ch. 2 – 6)
I doubt there will ever be another individual who will come as close as Jesus did to fulfilling the prophecies.
I don’t see anyone now -or in the future- fulfilling Isaiah Chapter 53, and on top of Isa 53, fulfilling the other ones (such as being born in Bethlehem).
61 Cloudy Day
There is no sin that Christ cannot cover, however the idea that ‘once saved always saved’ denies the ability of the person to later reject Christ.
You may not be able to LOSE salvation due to continuing to be sinful (for if it were that way, none would be saved), but you sure can throw it away by rejecting the faith you had.
62. LanceKates wrote,
I have an online friend who maintains a well-known Christian apologetics site who believes as you do.
I’m not sure where I stand on that issue myself.
But I definitely disagree with the CS guys who talk about sin as being a reason for you being able to have your salvation revoked.
Such CS folks can never define which sins can ‘get you the boot,’ how often you have to sin before you get the boot..
Something so important as that, you’d think if it were true, God would have made it explicitly clear how many sins you have to do, what kind, and how often to get your salvation taken away. But they never specify any of that.
63 Cloudy
But you assume that sin is an act. It is a condition, one of unworthyness. Humans, needing to label everything, have turned it into an action so that they may more easily identify if they’re doing good or not.
Yes, there are some actions that are specifically called sins, but I would put forth that it is the mindset required to perform those actions, and not the actions themselves, that are sinful.
example: I would call suicide a sin, but not diving on a bomb to protect innocents.
The action is the same, but the condition of the person taking the action is what matters. It is easy to control actions, do or do not. It is much harder to control the mind. It is the mind, not the body, that is addicted to a sinful nature.
However, none of that is really the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Founding Father’s concepts shown in the Preamble.
Would it be too much like flamebait to ask for a religion open thread? The posters here seem sensible enough to take part in one without getting into insults… but then again the fact remains that discussing religion on the internet is a bit like running into a tinder-dry forest throwing lighted matches everywhere.
archonix,
Interesting idea.
While I’ve never studied ‘comparative religions’, I did learn my concepts of religion in 12 years of Catholic school, mostly the first eight in grade school. Now this was the early to middle ’60′s (I was in a second grade classroom when Kennedy was shot). I never heard the nuns speak of islam — ever. When it came to Judaism, there was a tremendous respect taught. Taught not only from the Biblical perspective (God had a Chosen People and chose to have his Son born of those People), but also from a human perspective (the Holocaust was only twenty years old).
I was an altar boy, an Eagle Scout, hell, even had the Ad Altare Dei Award (To The Altar of God), which is something you have to go outside of your troop or other scout leaders to attain. (Some things like swimming or lifesaving merit badges had scouting proffessionals, if you will. The only thing I didn’t manage to earn was the mile swim patch. I tried, but only made it three-quarters of the way, and I was a good swimmer [I could swim the length of an Olympic pool underwater with a simple push off the wall]. I still remember when I ‘rang the bell’ on my mile attempt and swam to the dock and grabbed the ladder. I almost fell off I became so dizzyingly disoriented.) While a scout, my patrol leader and his brother were Jewish (sons of a Naval officer); I remember discussing the 1967 war with them as it was happening. I even had my first Passover Seder at their house (I kept that yarmalke for years, but it has since been lost). I never understood anti-Semitism, which is a nice phrase for Jew Hatred. I even experienced such an attitude at a Ranguhs game in 1989. My seatmates were Jewish (four guys, two seats). One game, this drunken lout (not used as an excuse for his behavior, but as an apt description of his condition) behind us, started in with the Jew Boy shit. Even knocked his cap and yarmalke underneath off his head. I stood up and turned to face them. My seatmate didn’t want me to do anything, which surprised me. I wasn’t going to let such stupidity stand without facing it. Period. Gave the guy a good cussing down and had him thrown out.
With my interest in WWII, I learned about Shinto and Buddhism. I could understand Imperial Japanese soldiers coupled with Shinto, but not with Buddhism. Started my confusion with religion, so to speak. Islam was never mentioned, except for all the terrorist hijackings started by Arafat. Islam was not discussed then, nor is it now. Only the actions are mentioned, not the ideology, which is so alien to the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian philosophies which I had the good fortune to inherit. I know from my upbringing that never once was islam labeled an ‘Abrahamic faith’. I was taught that Christianity evolved from Judaism, is distinct from Judaism, but not inimical to it. Islam, if anything, was anathema.
But, yeah, I agree with your suggestion.
Oh, and thanks Cloudy Day, for your thoughts on Justin Case. You said that on the thread when I had my little tete-a-tete with him/her. Anyone who believes in blasphemy laws, legal or extralegal, muslim or christian, is nuts. If the history of the Catholic Church has taught me anything, it is that The Inquisition sucked, and should not be repeated. Not to mention that whole Catholic-Protestant killing over whose God was right argument that lasted globally for centuries.
27 UberInfidel67: It was a “Common Word” letter, sent by Moslems, first to Christians, and then a separate one to Jews. It was classic Islamic taqiyya and kitman, dependent on the recipients being unfamiliar with Islamic ‘theology.’
The Common Word referred to was “God” (‘allah’, with certain inflections and tonal variations, is a word used throughout the world, especially that of the Middle Eastern, for ‘god’, used by Jews, Christians and Moslems). The two letters were actually historically based on a letter which Muhammad sent to another Arabian ruler.
First, the Koran specifically denies the Divinity, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus (Sura, or chapter, 3 is the definitive one of a conversation between Muhammad and Christians over this subject). In it he says they have been deceived by Allah (referred to in that Sura as ‘the Great Deceiver’) who substituted another man for Jesus on the Cross. Therefore, there was no Resurrection. The Koran states that Jesus (relegated to a position as a ‘prophet’ in Islam), and all the Prophets of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians who had the “true” book, the Koran, but as Jews they disregarded it and as Christians, misunderstood it) are, in reality, Moslems (from Abraham onwards). The Koran says Jesus will come again to the world, will “break the cross” (this will be the sign that Jesus (called ‘Isa’ in the Koran) affirms he is really a Moslem and that the practice of Jizya (protection monies paid by Jews and Christians to Moslems so that they may live and practice, with severe restrictions, their religions among Moslems) is at an end, and that, therefore, Jews and Christians must face the same fate as ‘pagans’ (convert or be killed). The Koran goes on to say that there is only One God (‘allah’) and that allah admits no partners with him (this is a reference, to Christians, of Jesus as the Son and to the Holy Spirit because Islam rejects the Resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit into the world).
Islam denies that it was Issac whom Abraham was prepared to sacrifice in obedience to God’s order and substitutes Ishmael. This is Islam’s attempt to deligitimize Judaism and the Covenant which the Lord has established, for all time, with the Jews. (The New Testament, on the other hand, firmly acknowledges Issac and refers to the Jews and Christians together as the people of the Spirit, not of the Flesh and refers directly to Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Sarah and Hagar in these verses.
Thus, essentially, the Common Word reiterates the Koran’s contentions against both Christianity and Judaism and ‘invites’ them to renounce Jesus Christ, if Christian, as God and man and as part of the Holy Trinity. and to Judaism, it demands Jews agree to being supplanted in God’s Covenant and, thus, the people to whom the land of Israel is forever given.
61. CloudyDay
Nice work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutY7NnNuyA
Wrath? It is on a website called A Common Word. And yes, if Muslims and Christians (no mention of Jews) can agree that the Trinity is bullshit, there will be peace. *PUKE*
#67 Kinvara…thank you for the response. I do know how the moes feel about Christ and his position with Christianity. I guess I just wanted to see it in print where these barbarians ask Christians to deny the foundation of their beliefs. Unbelievable.
69. Richard L. Kent, Esq.
That’s great! Thanks!
)