I bet thousands of bloggers posted about the fact that the date was 666 the other day, and I pride my originality so won't spend too long. Think about it this way: historians think that our yearly calender was screwed up. They think Jesus was born in around 6BC. So this isn't really '06, or at least according to Jesus. Also, Caeser changed our months and days, so that isn't really 6/6 either. Use this as a chance to brush up on your bible. Read the book of the Apocalypse, written by St. John the Evangelist before even his Gospel was written. None of this Code nonsense. Read the real deal. I did.
The picture is of St. Michael the Archangel throwing Satan into the fires of hell, which St. John saw when transported into the future. This is when the antichrist comes, traditionally bearing the number 666 as his symbol. Don't worry. We win in the end.
The next matter of business is something else that thousands must have blogged about: the murder of this man. Abu Musab al-Zarqari, al-Queda leader in Iraq, and a man just as wanted as Osama bin Laden. The price on both heads was the same: $25 Million. Al-Zarqawi was believed to have personally beheaded at least two American hostages, as pictured behind one of the masks above. You can see him without the mask to the left. It is my belief that al-Zarqawi was the most evil man in the world, much worse than any other terrorist in recent years. He killed hundreds of innocent people in a discrimination-based insurgency. And he did it all in the name of God. What an amazing breakthrough to have this devil of a man taken care of. Sent to a much worse place where he can find out what it's like to have men in masks cut your head off on live TV. Say high to St. Michael for me, Abu.
We have even more good news this afternoon, happy to welcome two new bloggers! Not one, but two. My old friend I met on vacation, Zhou Ling Chen, has set up a mystery of a blog, which is honorable at it's worst. Look for Zhou in the links list, or at www.orientunderwarrant.blogspot.com.
And last but not least comes my friend from Church and Golf, JVarn, J-Vizzle to pals, and one smoke of a freestyle rapper. Look for him in the links list or at and appropriate www.jvarn.blogspot.com.
Good luck to both new additions to the blogging community!
5 comments:
None of the "facts" you presented in the comment are actually facts. There is no definate proof of any of them. If Dan Brown is not revolutionary, then you should be used to persecution and not freak out about it.
It makes me sad, Waldo, that you can be so closed minded.
Waldo there was a misunderstanding. I was not criticizing your beliefs, but was just pointing out that those are beliefs, not facts as you presented them.
Allow me to educate you because you obviously need it. A fact is something that is definately true, and an opinion is something that you believe to be true. Their may be evidence supporting your belief, but that still doesn't make it true.
You said the priory of sion was founded in the 50's. In Dan Brown's book, it clearly said that it was founded some time in the 12th century. Your opinion and Dan Brown's opinion are simply differnet. To say that yours is correct and his is false is not intelligent and clearly makes you intollerent.
It is your belief that Jesus is the son of God, rose to the dead, and will come again. Some people don't believe that. In Dan Brown's novel, people believe that Mary Magdelin was the mother of Jesus's child and his decendents are still alive today. Some people (including yourself) don't believe that. But we must respect his opinion.
Waldo, how can you tell me "I can't win" when I've already won. This whole debate started when I accused you of getting too offended by the Da Vinci Code. Over the course of about 14 comments we went back and forth. You said that the main problem with the movie/book was that people would believe it. Now you're comparing it to Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
Basically, you're saying it's so not true it's ridiculous. If it's really so ridiculous, then why are you so nervous about people believing it. That was my point from the beginning and you just admitted that you agree.
It's a fiction story. You didn't avoid seeing Lord of the Rings or Narnia because you were afraid people would believe it. Why would you avoid seeing the Da Vinci Code? You don't have to see it, but to get so angry about it is not necessary.
Waldo... as I've been telling you this whole time, people worship the lord differently. Catholics have thier way, Jews have their way and Muslims have their way. People who agree with the beliefs in the Da Vinci Code have their own view on the issues of God, Heaven, and the history of Christ. To say that their beliefs are wrong and yours are right is simply insensitive.
I'm not saying I believe in what the Da Vinci Code "proves" (although some arguments are covincing) but there is nothing wrong with people who do.
By the way... I'm not sure you know what hypocracy is, because I'm definately not being hypocritical. I think you need more than a history lesson, Waldo. You need a vocab lesson too.
First of all, you need to stop calling me a hypocrit. You're doing a good job of pissing me off but a poor job of making a good argument.
Why would I use another source besides the Da Vinci Code when thats the only thing we're debating? You have never read or seen it, which makes you unable to make a solid argument against it. Reading excerpts or things about it DOES NOT COUNT!
How can you say that something offends you when you haven't even read/seen it? It makes no sense. If you go to see the movie or read the book and then come to me and say "this is offensive to Christians and I don't like it," I will respect your opinion.
The bottom line is that you know nothing about what you criticize. I don't want to hear that "you know enough about it," because you don't untill you read/seen it.
Lets put aside all other arguments that have gone back and forth throughout this debate and look at what I just wrote. You have no reasonable comeback to that.
You will try to write something back but I will not be convinced. I suggest you save the energy in your fingers by not typing much because no matter what you say, the truth remains.
Somehow, we got on the subject of what is a "fact." The only sure fact I've discovered by arguing with you is that you are a weak debator who is unfamiliar with the topics about which you debate. Of course that is not actually a fact, but rather an opinion. But its about as close to a fact as you can get without actually being a fact.
I hope that the length and depth of this comment didn't hurt your feeble mind.
Post a Comment