Your Logo Here


"Friends, if we be honest with ourselves, we shall be honest with each other." - George Macdonald (1824-1905)
Home | Jesus Wept | Disobey | Motives | You Bad | Government | Salvation | Extremism | Healing | Success | Clean your room! |


Ain't that the Truth 

"Teacher:  Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules.
               First, since no one has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow
               students. Second... Elizabeth, do you have a question?

Elizabeth: Yes, I do. If nobody has the truth, isn't that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow
               students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other
               people and their opinions? What's the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make
               sense to be open-minded. Don't you agree?

Teacher:   No, I don't. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?"
               (from the  book Relativism by Beckwith and Koukl)

Read on ...


The conversation above raises an interesting question, "Why should anyone believe anything?" (See what Os Guinness has to say. And Nietzsche v. Jesus Christ)


Relativism: Take the challenge.


You Bad, Me Good 

 

Dualism is the view that breaks the world into two camps: discerning evil in others and denying it in ourselves. Numerous errors stream out in its wake. We deceive ourselves by dividing the world falsely into "us" and "them," "good" and "bad," "black" and "white," "progressive" and "reactionary," by declaring that "we" are obviously good and free and progressive and "they" are obviously bad. At the end of the line, we project onto others the evils we do not admit in ourselves and so lose touch with reality (Os Guinness, 2005, Unspeakable, p. 162).

 

This does not mean that there are not real problems in the world or that all morals are equal. (Hitler's morals are not equal to Mother Teresa's.) Nor does it mean that we should not try and make the world a better place.

 

Needless to say, we need not respond to the dangers of dualism by swinging to the opposite extreme and espousing moral equivalence, as if all cats are gray. There are monsters and there are monstrous evils, and both are to be fought. But we are all liable to become hypocrites, whether standing for virtue or standing against vice, when we engage in dualism. In the stinging rebuke of Jesus to the virtuous appearing Pharisees of his day, we become concerned about the splinter in our neighbour's eye but ignore the beam in our own. Or in Nietzsche's warning, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster" (Guinness, p. 163-64).

 

Justice and freedom may be fought for and won in the name of utopianism, but without realism they never last and are certain to degenerate into either chaos or tyranny (Guinness, p.165).

 

 

But this creates a problem, who's to say what kind of world we should have?

 

One person's reform may well be another person's reactionary position, and we are left with the question: who says? (Guinness, p. 193)....

 

Does this mean that we are left to interminable culture-warring between the disciples of some monistic universalism on one side ("Our way is the only way") and the disciples of multicultural relativism on the other side ("Whatever")? The alternative to this dismal prospect would be to encourage a third position: examined pluralism. Each individual and community is free to assert its principles and argue its position, based on freedom of conscience, but always remembering two requirements (Guinness, p.193).  

    

Read on...   




Education or Indoctrination?

 

Indoctrination is being told what to think, education is being taught how to think.

 

If you know how to think you will know what to think, in other words you'll know who to believe; you'll know when something doesn't add up.

 

Read on...





You're only as Strong as your Strongest Relationship


"Love makes everything lovely; hate concentrates itself on the one thing hated." - George MacDonald


Where there is love there is comfort, strength, courage, appreciation, beauty, art, creativity, music and peace.


The words of the famous song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" are comforting and beautiful no matter what language they are sung in. Is there anything simpler yet more profound?



Money means nothing without love. (Note: I have never met this lady or her child.)

 



 

The Deception of Love

 

What made Nazi Germany possible? Was it hatred? No! The Germany of the 30's and 40's was made possible because of love. It was the peoples love for their nation and leader which made them feel justified in their treatment of others. It was love which blinded them. 

 

Patriotism towards one's nation or devotion to ones religion or beliefs can lead to all kinds of crimes. We all love something or someone, therefore we are all in danger of becoming monsters.

 

I have no doubt that you love your god (your god is that which you are devoted to; whether it be money, Allah, Jesus or pleasure). The question we must all ask ourselves is, "What does my god require of me (or make me do) when others criticize, attack or try to keep me from the object of my worship?" If your god encourages you to make war then what does that say about your god? (Is your god big enough to repay insults committed against him or does he need your help?)

 

Note: Obviously those Nazis who did not commit crimes but praised the Nazi party, because they believed it was good, were guilty of stupidity. They were guilty of making that which was evil appear as though it was good. It is hard to identify deception when you are emotionally attached to that which is deceiving you. The more beautiful the deception the harder it is to identify. (That is why Satan masquerades as an angel of light.)

 

Have the courage to ask uncomfortable questions about that which you love the most. (If God has nothing to hide, and it is the truth you want, He won't mind you asking tough questions.)


 

Islam's Future

According to the Yemen newspaper, the Yemen Times, the average women in Yemen has 6.8 children. (And Yemen is not the only Islamic country to have extraordinary growth rates.) Out of every thousand people 43 are born every year and 8 die. In 1950 Yemen had just over 4 million people, in the year 2000 it had 18 million people and now it has over 21 million. Yemen will have a larger population than Russia by the middle of this century if present rates of growth continue. The average age in Yemen is 15. 

Why is this significant? The public schools in Yemen can't keep up and the Islamist schools are only too willing to take in the young. So whether Islam is radical or not, many young Muslims in the Islamic world are being radicalised. (Obviously, public schools in most Islamic countries do not refer their students to certain Islamic traditions, particular verses in the Quran or particular events in Mohammed's life (see also). What government wants to be overthrown by its own people? This whole issue is very difficult for all governments to deal with. (Hasina Patel, the wife of one of the London suicide bombers, had no idea that her husband was an extremist; and we have no idea how extreme our Muslim friends are unless we discuss some difficult issues and ask them some tough questions.) Many of those who are radical have one face in public and another in private; no wonder governments are concerned. The documentary Undercover Mosque highlights just how rapidly extremist views are spreading. After watching this documentary I can't help but wonder why so many Muslims believe what their leaders tell them.)

Because Muslims love Mohammed and the Ummah patriotism is sweeping through the Islamic world. This is very attractive but very dangerous. Many young Muslims are "discerning evil in others" while denying it in their own community. (They can not bear to hear anything critical of Islam. A Muslim friend, whom I consider moderate, said to me that terrorism was the effect, not the cause. By doing this he effectively justified terrorism while denying personal responsibility for addressing Islamists within the Islamic community.  I wonder how many more crimes will be committed against innocent civilians in the name of this great and glorious religion?) Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough Muslims like this Arab woman to challenge the Islamists.

So what is the real cause of terrorism in the name of Islam? Is poverty the cause of terrorism or is terrorism one of the causes of poverty? Is government policy to blame? Perhaps Islamic terrorism has its roots within Islam itself? (No matter what the cause the future does not look good if this issue is not addressed. See What is the real cause?)



This British Muslim man tells us very clearly what he thinks is the relationship between Islam and terrorism.



This is not mere rhetoric. The number of dead and injured civilians from Islamist attacks each month is frightening. (The numbers are available here.) Unfortunately, far too many argue that this is justified.


So what does the future look like if the roots of Islamic terrorism are not addressed? The demographics point to a very frightening future. It is no secret that the West has a very low birth rate (about 0.8% per adult).  We have an ageing population. If the present rates of growth continue,  1/2 the children born into this world will be born into Muslim families sometime around the middle of the century. The Islamic community will be overwhelming young, we will be old. With numbers comes confidence; extremism will flourish. (Extremism is also encouraged by many of the conspiracy theories which are floating around the Middle East and the internet. These often have political consequences. See The Hidden Hand by Daniel Pipes.)  Have we forgotten about Islam's imperialist past? (See Islamic Imperialism.) Or do we choose to believe the myth of Islamic tolerance? (Even some converts become extreme.) 

A disturbing number of westerners have bought into some myths regarding terrorism (e.g. 9/11) and consequently have chosen to ignore the threat of extremist Islam; but whether we like it or not The threat is real. Up until now (July 2007) the number of terrorist attacks world wide have been increasing every year since Sept 11, 2001.



(By clicking on the counter above you will find a complete list of where the attacks occurred, how many died in each attack and how many were injured.)

What is almost as worrying as these attacks is the indifference many western intellectuals are showing toward Islamic terrorism. These academics blame injustices in the corporate world for terrorism.

It is true that the corporate world has a lot to answer for, but that does not change the fact that it is an ideology and not the corporate world which is motivating Islamic terrorism. What many intellectuals do not seem to understand is that even if all the problems in the corporate world were fixed, the majority of Muslims would still believe that the Sharia (Islamic law) is the best law for humanity, and that all people in the world (Muslim and non-Muslim) will live under the Sharia. Many Muslims believe that Allah will use them to help bring this about. Like an immune system which has turned against itself, many western intellectuals have turned against the west. It is time they reconsidered their position (see Defending the West by Ibn Warraq).

It doesn't take an Einstein to work out that there is trouble brewing. But there is some hope.


In December 2006, the European Parliament was presented with A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding. This charter was written by Sam Soloman, a former radical Imam. (Note: we would expect a similar charter from Buddhists (or any other faith) if many who claimed to be Buddhists were committing terrorist attacks on similar scale to those who claim to be Muslims.) I think it is time for Muslim leaders to show the world how peaceful Islam really is--instead of making excuses--by adopting this or a similar charter. (Trying to shift the blame or issuing  letters like "A Common Word..." does not do anything to address the issue of Islamic terrorism see 1). If Muslim leaders do not address terrorism by adopting something like the proposed charter above, the west may have to adopt policies that will break the will of Islamists.

Some think the way to ease tensions between the west and Islam is for western nations to incorporate the Sharia (Islamic law) into the laws of their own countries. While this is well intentioned, it is not well thought out. For example, what about Muslims who live in western countries who do not want to live under the Sharia? They don't want the Sharia to apply to them but it will, if adopted, because they are Muslims. The following three articles highlight some of the problems with trying to incorporate the Sharia into western legal systems. 1, 2, 3.

For more on these issues see the following.

Muslims speak out

Sura 2:216 or Deut 20:5-9? If you did not want to fight, which army would you rather be in? (Note: In that army, none of those wars were to convert people to their religion. Don't believe me? Search the text. Note also, at the preaching of Jonah Nineveh repented, but they did not recognise Moses as a prophet nor did they become Jews. So what does it mean when it says they repented? See Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe)

"Public Enemy #1"

Our Future?

A former terrorist

Former professor of Islamic history at Al Azhar University tells his story
 
A response to Islamic polemics

Read more about Islam



Want to know the truth about Islam? Read the primary sources (See 1, 2, 3, 4).


Climate Change

Obviously it is wise to conserve resources and look for alternate sources of energy due to the fact that we are running out of oil and coal, but we must be informed if we are to wade into this debate. I have seen Al Gores film An Inconvenient Truth and recently I viewed another film about the climate called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

If you care about the future I highly recommend that you watch both films. We have to be very careful how we deal with this issue otherwise we may be creating rather than solving problems (See Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel; Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction by the IUCN; See also).

Climate change is a big issue but is it the biggest issue we are facing? I think there will be a much more pressing issue this century. We should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels but for a reason other than the one commonly given.

Christian Environmental Organisations


Lies

"...the moment lying is accepted instead of condemned, it has to be required. If it is just another way to win, then in refusing to lie for the cause or the company, you aren't doing your job" --J. Budziszewski (cited in Time for Truth by Os Guinness).

This is the main reason why truth must precede loyalty.

But what about loyalty to your beliefs (or ideology), isn't that more important than the truth? No, it is not.

If I value my beliefs more than the concept of truth, I will reject many facts simply because they do not conform to what I want to believe.


Valuing ones beliefs or ideology more than the idea of truth leads to self deception. When a person values their beliefs more than truth they believe all kinds of myths simply because they want them to be true. Worse still, they pass many of those myths on to others because they think they are true.  (This is how honest people spread the lies which others invent. That is how this hoax spread so rapidly. Note: If we don't think something is true we don't believe it. We only believe things because we think they are true.) But believing something does not make it true. There is no such thing as "your truth" or "true for you" when it comes to objective truth claims. Objective truth claims are either true or false, whether you think they are true or not.

If I believe something which is not true, then how will I ever correct those beliefs if I value those beliefs more than the concept of truth? Telling me the truth won't change my mind because I have already decided what I'm going to believe. (There are those who believe things about God as well as those who reject His existence who value their beliefs more than the truth. An honest person doesn't rule anything out before looking at the evidence.)

Unfortunately, some people think that if you value truth more than your beliefs you will have to turn your back on what you believe. That is not the case. (It is only the case if you discover that you have been believing a lie.)

If I value truth more than my beliefs and my beliefs happens to be true, then those beliefs can withstand tough questions and honest investigation. If my beliefs provide the best possible explanation (given the available evidence) then looking at the evidence for and against what I believe will only strengthen my convictions. (We must keep in mind that no matter how much one investigates some things there will always be an element of mystery about them; and a mystery is not a contradiction.)

Don't twist the truth to suit your desires; conform your desires to the truth.

Be true to yourself; put truth before loyalty.


 

Miracles

How have scientists, using the scientific method, proven that miracles are not possible?


Many people say that science has proven that miracles are not possible but no one has been able to tell me how scientists have proven this. Perhaps it is a myth? If you know how this has been proven, using the scientific method, please let me know.

No doubt there are many so called miracles which are frauds. But this does not mean that everything which is called a miracle is a hoax. To evaluate whether a miracle occurred we have to look at the claim itself and the circumstances surrounding the event. The honest person begins his or her investigation by saying, "I don't know if miracles are possible and therefore I don't know if this is a miracle. I need to look at the evidence and see where it leads." Such a person has placed truth before a commitment to a particular ideology and is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads no matter how uncomfortable it makes them feel.

Intent is prior to content. If you do not love truth above all else you will not find it. OK, so what about the miracle of all miracles, Jesus resurrection? How are we to investigate this? (Note carefully, I'm not asking you to assume that the Bible is true, treat it as you would any other book which claims to contain history. "We treat the Bible like any other book to show that it is not like any other book" --British Scholar, quoted in Reinventing Jesus by Komoszewski, Sawyer and Wallace.) We weren't there (after Jesus crucifixion) to see what happened so how are we to look into this?  We can begin by looking at the available historical evidence surrounding the claimed event in order to determine which explanation best explains the available facts.

First we have to remember that all of the disciples, except John, were killed because they proclaimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They changed from men who abandoned and denied Jesus to men who were willing to die for him. They changed from men who hid behind locked doors into the kind of men who no longer feared death. Which ever explanation you accept you have to account for this change in the disciples. 

The disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses. Would you willingly suffer rejection, poverty, persecution and death for something that you knew to be a lie?  If Jesus did not rise from the dead then the disciples and those who believed them are to be pitied above all men.*

What did the disciples have to gain by inventing such a story? Maybe they didn't invent it, perhaps they were hallucinating? (Note: This would require multiple people to have the same hallucinations at the same times; be willing to be tortured  for what they thought to be the truth (as Paul was on multiple occassions) and be willing for others to die for that belief e.g. Stephen.) Perhaps the disciples went to the wrong tomb? Maybe Jesus only appeared to die as the swoon theorists suggest? Did his physical body literally rise from the dead? What about non-Christian historians? Did the Jews, Greeks and Romans of that time say anything about Jesus, the disciples and the early Church? Or is the resurrection a wicked hoax? (Perhaps they have found his body?)

Do you think Christianity is a wicked religion? If so then you owe it to yourself to destroy its foundation. If Jesus body did not physically rise from the dead then the whole of Christianity is built on a hoax. If it is a hoax then the best way to expose it is to look at the most persuasive arguments for the resurrection and then provide a better explanation for the change in the disciples and the creation of the Church. The evidence can speak for itself. (The wise person is governed by evidence, not probability. The probability that the clouds outside my window at this moment should be in the exact postition and have the exact shape and size as they do is extremely improbable, none-the-less, they are there.)

"...the sincere controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy’s arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy’s arrangements" -- G.K. Chesterton


Why not have a look at the evidence? A good starting point is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas. See also.

Now some will say, "though that seems to explain this particular issue the world is complex and other views better explain the world we live in. Do they? Listen to Biochemical evidence against evolution. It seems to me that what Behe has raised is an insurmountable problem. (Behe has asked some questions which have made a lot of academics very uncomfortable. Unfortunately, many academics don't want other academics and the general public to know what questions Behe and others have raised. They seem to be afraid that somehow, they will lose control of the halls of learning if these questions are allowed to be asked in our universities. Sounds familiar doesn't it? The church once behaved that way and look what happened. Shutting people up is not the way forward. The more you try to shut people up the more movies like this will be made.)

The Resurrection, intelligent design, the moral law, prophecy in the Old Testament regarding Jesus (e.g. psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 were written hundreds of years before Jesus. Who does it sound like they are talking about?), these together with archaeology, the reliability of the text and the character and teaching of Jesus form a very strong convergent argument. (It would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus. I agree with Dallas Willard when he says that Jesus is the smartest man to have walked this earth. See Nietzsche v. Jesus Christ. An example of Jesus brilliance is how he dealt with conflict, as well as what he taught about dealing with conflict and moral disagreement. See "Wisdom When Christians Differ" in Decision making the the will of God by Gary Friesen and Unspeakable by Os Guinness. See also 1 & 2.) 

If you cannot determine if Jesus actually rose from the dead after having looked at the evidence, then how is it to be resolved? One way of resolving the issue would be to look at the evidence for some of the above issues. One piece of evidence in a court case becomes stronger if it is added to many other pieces of evidence. If you look at just one piece of a puzzle it is hard, if not impossible in most cases to make out what the picture is. The more pieces you look at the clearer the picture will become. Even if all the above arguments individually have a 50% probability of being right (in other words each issue is unresolved), taken together the weight of evidence is overwhelming (i.e over 99% probability of being right. A convergent argument with two premises each having a 50% probability of being correct has a 25% chance of forming an incorrect conclusion. Naturally, in a convergent argument, the more premises there are with a 50% or higher probability the stronger the argument is as a whole.). Another way to try and resolve the issue would be to do what Willard recommends and put Jesus to the test. See Nietzsche v. Jesus Christ.

Sexual Morals!

Christian, you say you love homosexuals, but do you really? Listen to the rejection this man felt.
Gay men, have you heard this before?

Porn



What a Confused World


I watched an interesting film about imperialism and a peoples response to it. It was a film made by those on the left about their response to the Israeli Palestinian conflict (view film).

The film highlighted just how confused some people are. These people were willing to tolerate (and therefore not condemn) violent acts towards others because they thought that behaviour was in pursuit of a good cause. That is the kind of logic Hitler used. Certain behaviour must never be tolerated no matter what the situation.


"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." -- Thomas Mann


Who is it we should really fear? Doesn't fear of a certain doctrine or belief lead to violence toward those who hold those beliefs?


Time and time again I here the charge that certain groups are appealing to fear tactics. People who make such charges believe that fear is a bad thing and therefore anyone who appeals to fear is wrong by definition. They claim that those who appeal to fear have to make a certain group look bad so that they can have someone to blame for their problems and so they can feel good about themselves.

 

 

It is true that blaming others can make us feel good but is appealing to fear wrong? Seat belt advertisements appeal to fear; they tell us that if you don't wear a seat belt you might be killed. What about those who say Islamic extremism is a real threat, are they appealing to fear? Yes they are. What about those who say that the American government is to blame for the problems in the world, are they appealing to fear? Of course they are. So it turns out that everyone who points the finger and blames someone appeals to the fear of a certain kind of evil that will befall us if we do not respond to it appropriately. So the real issue is not whether a person is appealing to fear but is what they are saying true? Should we believe them? Does what they say correspond to reality?


How then are we to make right judgements about who is right and who is wrong?


If we are to distinguish between right and wrong, and make fair judgements between different circumstances and situations, we need to keep in mind a simple rule:



Just because two things have some things in common does not mean they have everything in common (this is one of the laws of logic; it is called "Undistributed Middle"). If you think two things are the same, take a closer look.


Blindness is characterized by an inability to make distinctions. Everything looks the same to a blind person. While that is obvious the same is also true of the morally blind person. (The difference is the physically blind usually know that they are blind; morally blind people usually have no idea.Someone who is morally blind is unable to make clear distinctions about right and wrong. They are so blind that many of these people tell others that it is wrong to make a judgement about what is right and wrong. But if it wrong to say some people are wrong why are they telling others they are wrong? They are self contradictory. They are often indifferent when they should be passionate and are passionate and angry about things of little or no importance; they are confused and they don't even know it. Their world is up side down.)

 

Unfortunately for the morally blind person, intelligence and knowledge will not and cannot help them, because they are not fair minded. No matter how much information they have they cannot make a right judgement regarding moral issues because they do not place a high enough value upon truth to always love it and speak it. For them, truth is something you use only when it suits your purposes. Truth for them, is something which is used in the pursuit of power. (Giving such a person more information is really a waste of time and even dangerous, they will only twist it or misunderstand it. George MacDonald pointed out that 'to give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.' Unfortunately, moral blindness is found equally among academics as it is among common people. Their only hope is that they have a change of heart and value truth more than any pleasure, goal or ideology. (Fortunately, there are people who will tell the truth even when it makes them look bad.) 

 

The following is written for those who value truth above all else.  
 

Try to identify differences when comparing situations, ideologies, religions or any other issue where there are points of conflict. This will help you to be fair minded and give you clarity of thought. It will take time but it is worth the effort. (Differences are of the utmost importance, for example, there are very important differences between European Imperialism and Islamic Imperialism. There are important differences between men like Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. There are also some very important differences between Islamic terrorism and the terrorist acts of the IRA; differences in motivation, goals, scale and scope. Were warnings given in some cases? etc.  Another example would be immigration after WWII. After WWII the Italians and other Europeans were able to assimilate into the Commonwealth nations. This is often used as an argument for people of different cultures fitting in. But there is a very important difference between the European immigrants and many of the immigrants who are entering the country today, which most seem to overlook. Though the immigrants from Europe came from different cultures they had similar beliefs. Some belief systems fit right in with democracy (no matter what their race or skin colour) and some do not.


We need to be careful to make fair comparisons; and identify important differences, which we will only do if we love truth. If we do not we will attack views we should defend and defend views we should attack. If the general public don't start thinking more clearly about right and wrong the west will self-destruct. There are too many "good people" fighting for the wrong side.


Some people are so angry about the past and those in positions of authority that they are prepared to attack those in authority simply because they hold a position of authority. (For example, some people blame policemen in general rather than criminals. Exceptions are not rules and rules are not exceptions. It is true, there are some bad policemen, but there are no good criminals. Like wise many are confused about terrorism. For sure, there are some bad soldiers;  but there are no good terrorists. The purposeful targeting of innocents is evil; there are no exceptions.) Be careful whom you condemn and whom you encourage.  And "Don't judge by mere appearances" (source). If you do you might be fooled into calling that which is evil good and that which is good evil. Things are not always as they appear.


Judging fairly is a virtue; it requires investigation, fair mindedness and patience. Don't be one of the crowd; withhold judgement and take a closer look.





Contact me

 

*The disciples were persecuted, imprisoned and killed. They had nothing to gain by inventing such a story and neither did the early Church. 

For almost three hundred years after Christ Christianity was an illegal religion within the Roman Empire. Millions of Christians were put to death for rejecting the gods of Rome. The Romans believed that their gods were angry with them for allowing this wicked religion to exist within the empire. Whenever Rome lost a battle or there was a natural disaster the Christians were blamed. Christians would not burn incense to Caesar and say "Caesar is Lord" (who was seen to embody the power of Rome). Worse still, Christians worshipped a convicted criminal whom they claimed as King, someone greater than Caesar. Christians met in secret, which the Romans regarded as a threat. Many misconceptions and lies were spread about the followers of The Way; they were immoral; they engaged in love feasts, ate flesh and drank blood which led to the charge of cannibalism. In the first three centuries after Christ, there was no worldly gain to be made by becoming a Christian and it was even more dangerous to be a leader within the Church.


©2006 - 2007 All Rights Reserved.

Clicky Web Analytics