Pg.2
Li'l Big Lies, Pg.2
Here are some more relatively short li'l essays on a broad range of topics, all designed to topple some portion of the pile of rot that is THE BIG LIE! There's a lot of cluttered thinking going on out there, so check back again some time soon for even MORE commentary on it...
It's Just About Sex
Spanking
Black and White World
Ghosts + UFO's = Demons
Throughout the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, Ken Starr and other presidential critics/accusers were portrayed as puritanical voyeurs who just REALLY wanted to know about the president's sex life, grotesque as it may be! Whoever originally came up with the dishonest notion, uttering that phrase, about the whole impeachment thing being "just about sex" certainly gave their fellow travelers and the human cattle that follow them something to parrot as a smoke-screen for what was really going on.
To boil it down, Bill Clinton, in an attempt to cover up oral sex he got from an intern in the Oval office (Just for the record, oral sex IS sex...That's why they CALL it that. Anyone who's honest knows that, Bill Clinton's contentions to the contrary, if anything it's the person who's genitals are in play that's having sex, not just the person performing fellatio), broke laws and shredded our Constitution in the process. It was the liberals and Clinton defenders who then tried to use sexual smear tactics against complaining conservatives, portraying them as the ones guilty of the same.
Just ask Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, and everyone else who bothered to speak out against Bill Clinton's abuses of the proper rule of law. Larry Flint, James Carville, along with the rest of the Clintonite "spin" machine, using private detectives, FBI files, and every other dirty trick at their disposal, did their best to dig up the sexual past of them all, before, during, and as it appears, after the president's impeachment in attempts to prevent it/retaliate for it.
Now, as lame-duck Bill Clinton limps off in search of his legacy, come reports from cyber-journalist Matt Drudge that he's obtained a draft manuscript of a proposed book, "The Insane Clown Posse" by Clinton-lover John Connolly, in which he accuses Ann Coulter of having an affair with Jerry Rivers (Geraldo Rivera's real name!), and claims that several of Ken Starr's staffers were gay. Though Tina Brown, chairman of Talk/Miramax books, has announced that she is going to cancel the publication of this muck-raking piece of crap, in a way the poop is already out of the chute, so to speak! I neither know nor care about the sexual practices of Ken Starr's staffers, but I will use the probing of whatever relationship exists between Ann Coulter and Geraldo Rivera/Jerry Rivers to work my way around to making a point.
His previous name-dropping demonstrating that he is not a gentleman, the media wouldn't be hurting self-styled ladies' man, Jerry/Geraldo, the president's biggest media ass-kisser, with any promotion of such garbage had Connolly's book seen print...They know he'd LOVE it if everybody thought he'd bagged a babe like Ann Coulter. It would however make her look like a hypocrite, a traitor to conservatism and her principles, not to mention guilty of bad taste in men and poor judgement!
They've mutually denied it on the Jerry Rivers Show (Rivera Live). Miss Coulter also addressed it in one of her columns. She says, in refuting Connolly's report of her supposed tryst, "The sad truth is, my affair with Geraldo at his 'ocean front retreat' was compromised by the presence of my brother, Mrs. Rivera and several other guests." Having no desire nor interest to impugn her veracity, and giving her credit for more brains (pretty as she is, that's the part of her I love the most) than that, I'd tend to take her word for it. It's not as though it's my business or anyone else's, but since John Connolly, apparently jealous of Geraldo's penchant for ungentlemanly writing and capacity for smooching Bill Clinton's buttocks, brought it up, I felt obligated to demonstrate my chivalry (Like probably every other red-blooded Christian conservative male in the country, I admit I have a major crush on her, and have even daydreamed about marrying her and having li'l blonde haired, blue eyed Christian conservative kids with her...Meanwhile, here in the real world, I still somewhere in my heart and in spite of myself hope for all that with WHOMEVER God wants me with, if anyone ever at all, and wouldn't want to see HER trashed by a cretin like Connolly either) by commenting in her defense. Personally, I would have been more than willing to give Ann and Jerry the benefit of the doubt EITHER way, having been the subject of many nasty, untrue rumors myself, as well as having dated a veritable carnival sideshow in my day (Move over, Deuce Bigelow)! Should anyone still care or have any question, they'll know for sure when Jerry/Geraldo writes his next tell-all book anyway (Bette Midler...Ugh!).
I hate gossip, and would like to slug John Connolly just on principle for making the accusations about Ann Coulter to begin with; for making me wonder even for a second about the character of someone I admire. That's the LEAST that gossip (and that's all that's being trafficked in here), whether truth, lie, or merely twisted, can do to a person. Once an accusation is made, regardless of its absurdity or lack of validity, somewhere in the back of their mind people will still wonder.
Ann Coulter didn't deserve Connolly's mean-spirited treatment. She herself publicly stated so many times as to make her normally sexy voice hoarse that the real point to the whole impeachment business was that it was NOT "just about sex", but about perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and the president's lies to the American people, not to mention the double standard of the liberals and feminists who used sexual harassment as a club when the target was a conservative. It was about equal treatment before the law. Bill Clinton is not a king. He is not above the law. In fact, he took an oath to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws of the land. He did not defend the constitution as he's claimed by breaking the laws of the land in ways Richard Nixon never thought of in his wildest dreams, and getting away with it (so far)!
Many men, when confronted in a court of law with questions about embarrassing sexual behavior might tend to lie in a sexual harassment case, but anybody who isn't the president would go to jail for it! The sexual nature of the subject of perjury is no excuse for it, or beyond sexual harassment there would be no hope of prosecution in cases of rape, sexual child abuse, and paternity disputes, among others. The expectation of truthful testimony in a court of law, and punishment for violations, is vital to any system of justice. Bill Clinton was hoist on his own petard when he told Paula Jones to "kiss it". His own EEOC's policies on sexual harassment allowed Monica Lewinsky and others to testify in Paula's suit against him, and then he pulled all the strings his office, Arkansas gangsters, and his "strategic partners"/financial backers in Beijing and Indonesia, commanded to cover up his bad behavior.
It's Bill Clinton, the liberals, and Clinton-lovers who continue, by way of payback, to "practice the politics of personal destruction". Now that Presidential Rape Victim Juanita Broaddrick (following innumerable other presidential accusers, critics, and conservative groups) has been pegged for an audit by the IRS, I guess it should surprise no one that Ann Coulter's alleged sex life is up for grabs. Considering the worst case scenario: Even IF Ann DID screw that sickening weasel Geraldo Rivera, it's not a crime, except against nature! HER personal sex life should not be an issue at all. The next time I see the beauteous Miss Coulter on television (It probably won't be on Rivera Live...I often miss her appearances there because I can't stand looking at "Geraldo" when she's NOT!), I will try to take the ugly, involuntary mental picture (ick!) painted of her by her enemy, and lock it up in Al Cappone's vault! Then I'll probably just melt like usual.
Bill Clinton's crime wasn't that he let Monica Lewinsky polish the presidential podium! It was in the histrionics that followed. It was in his use of his high office to prevent a citizen of the United States of America, Paula Jones, from having her fair hearing in a court of law. It was in his verbal gymnastics routine before a grand jury. His unfitness for office resides in his demonstrable, bald-faced, and often laughable (Note to Bill: IS = IS!), lies. Who can confidently follow a leader when you can't believe him as to why he bombs a Sudanese aspirin factory, starts undeclared war in the Balkans, or bombs Iran while impeachment votes and grand jury testimonies loom, indeed when you can't believe him about anything else?
It's Bill Clinton and his loyal-beyond-the-end liberal buddies who continue to try to make the whole thing about sex, and to use sex as a weapon.
May I start off by saying, "Thanks a bunch, Dr. Spock!" There have always been squishy sentimentalists that have tried to meddle with somebody trying to give their kid a good spanking, but Dr. Spock's books made it fashionable for a whole generation to abdicate the responsibility to corporally punish errant children. As a teacher in the public school, I deal every day with a generation of kids who were raised by a generation of adults that were for the most part raised without spanking, and it ain't pretty! The "therapeutic" mentality of many in the school system doesn't help any, as teachers' hands are tied, and effective means of correcting bad eggs are stripped away. Kids are encouraged to report their parents as abusers if they use corporal discipline. Not content to just let their own undisciplined kids run wild, the meddlers push to criminalize what used to be every parent's right and duty.
Often true abuses are pointed to as a reason to abandon the practice of corporal punishment altogether, but this constitutes an abuse, an act of neglect in itself. Mainly, I would consider the bright line as to what separates abuse from corporal punishment as the difference between a bludgeoning and a stinging slap. A fist or club will cause damage that no one should want to see inflicted on anyone, much less a defenseless child, but a spanking is not comparable, or even close. Shame on any adult who can't tell the difference! Whether administered with a flat hand, a belt, or a paddle, the stinging slap on the fleshy part of the buttocks (I've heard it said that this is why God gave kids a butt!) has a way of keening the senses of the receiver, causing no physical harm if done properly...It's an attention grabber!
It's been argued that corporally disciplining kids actually teaches them violence by example. If done correctly, it does NOT teach violence through violence, but rather shows the child through punishment that actions have consequences! As it may focus on rehabilitation and leniency, our penal system could stand to get wind of this concept. I'm not entirely convinced that public canings for adult offenders, such as they have in Singapore, would be a bad thing!
Our school's psychologist once tried to cite a study to me that claimed most kids resent being spanked and that it's ineffective. In fact, she said, she herself resented it, which led me to think she might have needed a few more whacks to correct her attitude! Most children, if honest about it, appreciate, indeed crave, discipline. It proves to them someone cares about them enough to see to it that they grow up right. Corporal punishment has to be administered with consistency and done out of love, not anger, in order to be effective.
Looking back on the few times I got a spanking at home, or a paddling at school, I had it coming! I understand it was my own actions that earned me that just reward, and that it was done for my own good, though I wasn't very happy about it while it was happening. The behavior that earned it was generally adjusted, and thereafter the mere threat of it was enough to keep me in line. Some kids will learn faster than others, but the general principles hold true with all.
Street-wise punks that need a paddling the most just laugh at the touchy-feelie counseling approach favored by most school administrators now-a-days. The paddle has currently been removed altogether, erroneously enough, as a corrective option in our school district. Though classroom teachers have been denied the privilege for some time, until recently our principal still retained that right (He had liability insurance for his own protection). Having been a witness for him when he paddled a misbehaving student, I must say I admired his technique (It was all in the wrist)! I recall the principal telling one particular recidivist that every time one of his teachers sent him down for correction he would be paddled, and with each visit a whack would be added to the number he received. It only took a few trips to the office to straighten the kid up, and since he knew I was personally itching to drag him down there, he ceased to be a problem for me. In fact, I believe that once the brat's disruptions were ended and he was brought under control, his work in my class began to show signs of excellence, allowing him to achieve his full potential. I have no doubt that the principal did him a tremendous favor by dealing with him that way.
Canadian courts have ruled lately that as it stands spanking is still a legal option for Canadian schools, though not many of them exercise it. Many states in this country forbid it, however, with many "children's advocacy" groups continuing to seek a ban on the practice altogether, in both public and private life. No matter how many laws may be passed against it, parents should continue spanking their children simply because God tells us to!
Though scripture admonishes us against abuse, and warns us that "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones (Lk:17:2)," it also profusely recommends using the "rod of correction" as needed! Proverbs 13:24 strongly states that "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Though they are innocents, children are born knowing how to sin, but need to be taught to do right. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov.22:15)." "The wages of sin are death (Rom.6:23)," so for the kid's own good, "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov.23:13,14)." Sometimes a parent can do everything they should and the kid will still go wrong. However, if children are left to their own devices, parents are asking for trouble, and generally they'll get it! "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (Prov.29:15)." Alternatively, "Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul (Prov.29:17)." As adults, God proves He cares for us when He punishes us for sin ("For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth [Prov.3:12]")...Should we do any less for our own children?!?
In my opinion, using corporal punishment for every infraction lessens its effectiveness, but when a kid is defiant, won't take a warning, or is doing something that will harm himself or others, it's not only prudent; it's imperative. The way in which we deal with our kids determines what kind of grown-ups they'll become, and in turn, what kind of society we'll have. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov:22:6)."
Have you ever taken a good look at the pictures in the newspaper? All those seeming shades of gray, thanks to a process called "half-toning", are actually created with a bunch of li'l black and white squares and dots which, depending on their density in relation to one another, create the optical illusion of varying degrees of light and dark (This is a necessity for any photoreproduction used in printing processes...Anyone familiar with comics or pen and ink drawing knows that artists use shading film, stippling, cross-hatching, etc. to produce similar effects). As with these photographs in the paper, there is often the APPEARANCE of gray areas in LIFE, which, when looked at closely enough, reveal that this is still really a black and white world. There ARE moral absolutes, and an objective TRUTH, demonstrable despite what the relativists might think or say (their voices being deconstructionism and revisionism)!
Moral relativism tries to gloss over reality with a thin coat of primer, attempting to make all thoughts, words, deeds, cultures, and beliefs seem to be equal. This is nothing more than the advocates of relativism trying to assuage their own personal guilt and disguise their agendas. It's an excuse for their own moral failings and cover for their own actions. There are two basic world views: One growing from a belief in God, to whom we will be held accountable (and pay the ultimate penalty unless we accept Christ's payment of it in our place!), and the other being a form of rebellion surely AS religious, born of a willful ignorance and active DISbelief in God, making man a god in His place. The concept of moral equivalence (a component of postmodernism, which I've lumped together with modernism as one world view, because essentially it is the nasty pseudo-spiritual drivel that rushed in to fill the vacuum created when the modernists took God out of play) is an example of the thinking patterns conceived by the latter, a lie created by the evil and promoted amongst their useful idiots. In essence, it's Satan himself appearing as an angel of light; The Prince of Darkness wearing a mask, trying to muddy the waters (I guess it's obvious which world view I subscribe to!). Our schools have done such a great job of teaching kids to be nonjudgmental (or should I say lacking in judgment) that a large majority of college students surveyed were unwilling to condemn Hitler's genocidal gassing of Jews in Nazi Germany. If there was nothing evil about the slaughter of fully grown, innocent human beings then, it's no wonder it's open season on babies in the womb now.
According to Andy Rooney, "Contrary to popular belief, everyone is NOT entitled to their own opinion...If you don't know the facts, your opinion doesn't count!" In any valid system of logic and reason, opinion needs to be formed and informed by facts (using proofs to determine them as such), as opposed to being fashioned in SPITE of or used INSTEAD of them. To be in proper balance, a person's head should lead, and the heart should follow, the passions driving them in the right direction because they have the courage of their convictions based on perceived truth to begin with. Conversely, the politically liberal, in typical bass-ackwards manner, are especially reliant on the shifting sands of emotion in forming what passes for an argument. They tend to get frustrated in debate when they realize the infirmity of their footing and resort to ad hominem attacks. Rush Limbaugh says "What's the definition of a bigot? Anyone who's winning an argument with a liberal!" Generally, they don't CARE about the facts; they know how they FEEL!
Many liberals pride themselves on how "open-minded" they are, though usually it's towards anything and everything but the truth. In more than one of her newspaper columns, Linda Bowles has commented that "liberals are so open-minded that their brains fell out!" A mind that's open to everything closes on nothing, and one who doesn't believe in SOMETHING will believe in ANYTHING.
Because matters of morality are such touchy subjects to most people, it seems like the NICE stance to take that all views carry the same weight. Actually, it's a lazy, cowardly way to avoid confrontation and disagreement when contending with issues that involve any depth of thought. Nobody likes to be told that they're doing something wrong when they're doing something they like, but when one hears the cliche that "you can't legislate morality," it's being overlooked that ALL law is legislating SOMEONE'S morality (or lack thereof)...It's really just a question of WHO'S morality is used as the basis.
Concerning matters of Christianity, religion, morals, or faith, often one will hear a person say "I have my beliefs and you have yours...Whatever you believe is okay as long as you're sincere." Dr. John Warwick Montgomery makes the case that that's like saying "I have my math and you have yours." If in my math 2+2=4 but in yours it equals 5, they can't both be right or equally valid (I suppose this analogy will be lost on the proponents of "whole math"/"the new new-math"...One self-professed pagan relativist tried to argue to me that math, being a man-made construct, was a relative process. What he refused to acknowledge was that mathematics consists of fixed principles, existing before any one of us, and that it's our understanding of them that's relative. Though consisting of abstract concepts, mathematic principles are consistently logical and provable in the concrete). All ideas and beliefs are not equally true. What determines the validity and veracity of any given notion is how well it lines up with the objective truth, the ideal aim for all subjective thought.
Bearing this in mind, perhaps one should consider that in the Holy Bible, God said "I am." He is who He is regardless of what anyone's opinion of Him might be. The same goes for Jesus, His only begotten Son, who said of himself, "I am the way, The Truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:4)." He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 14:8), no matter what the fads or fashionable philosophies of the moment. Much of the resentment existing in the world towards Christians comes from the fact that they've investigated the claims in scripture of the divinity of the historical Jesus, along with His death, burial, and resurrection, perceive them to be true, and are unyielding in their defense and promotion of Him over all others. It's seen as a sign of intolerance when one stands on the biblical claim that Christ is the ONLY means of salvation from punishment in hell for sin (Acts 4:12). Wouldn't we be negligent and uncaring if we really believed this but kept it to ourselves for fear of offending?
Many folks also labor under the erroneous assumption that Christians think they are somehow better than others, feel morally superior, or have a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Anybody with a correct understanding of the gospel realizes that we believe "ALL have sinned (including ourselves), and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)." They also know that "the wages of sin is death," but that the free "gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). Trying to get into heaven by being good would never work for ANY of us, since our OWN righteousness is as filthy rags to a perfect, holy God. Christ FULFILLED the law of God, keeping it in our place because NONE of us is able to keep it perfectly on our OWN merit. When one receives Christ on a personal basis (provisionally he became sin for ALL of us...Of our own free will, we need to appropriate it for ourselves, trusting Him for it individually), He not only washes us clean of our sin through His blood shed for that purpose, He imputes His righteousness unto us. We are then seen by God as good only because JESUS is good. We are saved by grace through faith, but we show our faith is alive by doing good works out of gratitude and obedience to God. They are a declaration of heaven as our destination, not our ticket to it!
Before God gave Moses the Decalogue to make it official, men knew in their hearts the difference between right and wrong, "their conscience also bearing witness" (See Rom. 2:12-15). Anyone that attempts to live a moral life but falls short is often accused of hypocrisy, as if that's worse than having no morals to begin with! The real shame belongs not to those imperfect humans who seek to follow their moral compass in the light of objective truth, stumbling along the way. It belongs to those who would prefer to keep themselves and others eternally lost, aimlessly wandering around, blindly groping in the blackest darkness in the futile hope that any/every path will take them all to the same place.
What do ghosts and li'l gray space aliens have in common? Both are demons in disguise trying to deceive people away from the one true living God and Jesus Christ the Lord as Savior, and both have their roots in Satan's first lie to Eve in the Garden of Eden concerning the eating of the forbidden fruit..."Ye shall not surely die (Gen:3:4):"
At the crossroads between modernism and postmodernism, many folks are searching for something or anything that will fill the God-shaped hole in their lives. Believing we evolved by chance in a random universe, and rejecting the supernatural as real, the modernist was generally spiritually empty. Bored with traditional Christianity, many Westerners began dabbling in Eastern mysticism. A large portion of the intellectual elite (along with the common slobs who follow them) turned to reincarnation via Buddhism, Hinduism and other various esoteric religions. This seemed a natural fit. Since they believe that things evolved organically over a vast period of time from simple to complex organisms, wouldn't they have to evolve spiritually in the same way? The one problem was that man had only supposedly evolved to a certain degree, physically, so what chance Nirvana? That's where the aliens come in.
Having evolved so far beyond us, they are the next step in our growth as a species. Man as God had created his culture, and believing only what his senses would tell him, he saw that mankind, based on its track record, failed to appear very god-like...Beyond viewing the aliens as something to evolve/reincarnate into, newly spiritual modernist man decided that maybe the highly evolved aliens would even come down and show us the way, seeing as how they're so much more technologically advanced and all!
Meanwhile, as the New Age (a revival of "Old Age" witchcraft) beckoned, the postmodernist, not wanting to be held accountable, or found responsible for the whole mess, decided that Man as God was created BY his culture. Having rejected the existence of objective truth, claiming that there are absolutely NO absolutes, and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, the postmodernist accepts all cultures, beliefs, and ideas as equal. All paths lead to God (whatever THAT is), and any spiritual drivel is okay if it feels right for the individual, as long as they're sincere (unless it's that pesky Christianity, which the relativistic, multicultural world considers to be "exclusive"). It thrills the heart of the postmodernist to think that everybody will go floating up to the ceiling when they die, going through a tunnel while all their dead loved ones lead them "into the light", as is described by those supposedly having near-death experiences. No judgment there, just the ultimate in warm-fuzzies!
Many channelers (formerly called "possessed"), those believing they astrally project, and other assorted witches often have spirit guides that (if not just plain dead people) appear to be similar beings of light that may on the surface seem akin to Christ. Edgar Cayce, having claimed to get his "powers" as well as his light-bright spirit guide after falling asleep with his head on the Bible, apparently never got around to actually reading it, or he might have come across the verse that says "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2Cor:11:14)."
Satan and his demons are excellent mimics, but as created beings, they lack true creativity, and can only try to counterfeit or corrupt the things of God. They can pretend to be anybody from your dead granny to Eleanor Roosevelt to bug-eyed freaks from outer space. If they can get people to believe that the dead are all over hangin' around to help or hurt us while they're waiting to be reincarnated or lead us into their light and away from the God of scripture, this reinforces the first lie that sin won't bring us spiritual death or hell. It blinds folks to the need for personally accepting the intervention of Jesus Christ the Lord, of whom the scripture proclaims "there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved" from hell (Acts:4:12). Demons would rather have us believe that if the aliens aren't here to save us from ourselves, maybe we get as many chances as we need to get it right on our own so we can melt into some pantheistic, universal group-soul.
Many demons pretending to be aliens and ghosts can't seem to be able to keep their cruelty hidden, tormenting their dupes as much as the traffic will bear, all the while spouting through their various "mediums" mushy, generic love in whatever form one wants to take it, as long as it doesn't involve that awful Jesus! They all seem to have a special vehemence toward Christ and Christians...What's that line about a man being known by his enemies?!? The notion has been floated that in today's high-tech age, with the popularity of such shows as The X-Files and Star Trek, and movies like E.T. and Star Wars, the Anti-Christ may even claim that the "intolerant" Christians would keep our planet out of some "intergalactic brotherhood", using alien abduction as an explanation for where we all went when the rapture happens. Well, beam me up, Jesus!
Regardless of the validity of such speculation, it seems clear that if God did indeed create any life on other planets, they're not going to be able or allowed to come here, because ours is the only one where man fell. John 3:16 says that "God so loved THE world, that He gave His ONLY begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Those believing in reincarnation should also consider the scripture that states "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Heb:9:27)."
Though often referred to as a parable, Christ's commentary on Lazarus and the rich man is told as a true story. Therein, it is made clear that one goes directly to heaven or hell immediately upon death. It appears that the dead may have concern for their loved ones left behind, but Abraham says that there is a great gulf fixed between us and them, and there's no going back and forth in either direction. When the rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers of the torment waiting for them if they don't repent, Abraham tells him that if they hear not Moses and the prophets, they wouldn't be persuaded "though one rose from the dead", an apparent prophecy of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Lk:16:20-31).
It's sad that otherwise intelligent life on this planet can believe in UFO's, ghosts, and every other bizarre, cunningly devised fable, but reject the notion that Almighty God cares enough about us that He humbled Himself by entering time, space, and history to reconcile us to Him through Jesus Christ the Lord (Rom:5:10).
Entire written contents copyright© 2001 by Ed DeVore
*CLICK HERE TO GO TO GOLGOTHA HOME
*ONWARD TO LI'L BIG LIES, Pg.3
*CLICK HERE TO GO TO LI'L BIG LIES, Pg.4
*COSMIC EDDIE'S CYBER SPACE (stories, comix, personal stuff)