Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.
 
 
 
 

 

« Previous | Next »


Divine slap to the head…


x
Share

Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures

Divine slap to the head in 3, 2, 1…

(George Bush)

picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption:

» Recaption This

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

This funny political picture was posted on Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm.

» 191 comments

Leave a Comment
  1. ema says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    What’s with all the religious lols?

    Reply
  2. Esa says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Looks more like an immenent divine face palm to me.

    Reply
  3. AC says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    What’s the black-and-white-ness in aid of?

    Reply
  4. BAW says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    And it couldn’t happen to a nicer person.

    Reply
  5. Mr.Wholesome says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Nice but JESUS, it’s too little too late.

    Reply
  6. POTUS270 says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    AMEN!!

    Reply
  7. Just Jo says:
    November 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    One Divine b****-slap comin’ right up…..

    Reply
  8. She says:
    November 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    I lol’ed. :) See? Cleverness in lols is appreciated no matter what side of the Political spectrum you’re on.

    Reply
  9. Tessie says:
    November 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    b*sh: “He’s right behind me, isn’t He?”

    Reply
  10. pundy says:
    November 19, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    One could describe this image as an imminent lay-on-hands . The bad kind, yes my name has a purpose.

    Reply
  11. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 9:21 am

    Erm, not sure what happened with my comment boxes here, so I’ll just throw out another few comments. One of my favorte parts of the NT is the description of Christ destroying the temple. It’s usually taught as righteous anger, blah blah blah, but I heard another aspect once that fills it in for me. It’s one of the few stories that slipped by the censorship that actually shows something of Jesus’ personality. The man was a revolutionary, with a very human temper. He taught love and peace, but he also got pissed off and lashed out. The Biblical portrayal of Jesus is very watered down and sanitized in my opinion, and the Church-taught version even more so.

    Jesus was not a conformist. He was not a wealthy business exec with half a dozen kids and the latest and greatest in charioteering technology.

    Ah, I could go on about this all day but I don’t want to bore anyone.

    Reply
    • Uncle Fester says:
      November 20, 2008 at 9:25 am

      I think you’re thinking of the bit with the money lenders… unless you’re referring to the bit with the black sky, the zombies and the earth quake during the crucifixion.

      Reply
      • Interloper says:
        November 20, 2008 at 9:46 am

        No, no, it was the money lenders bit. Talking about literal templar destruction, not figurative/metaphorical (ie the Body).

        Reply
    • ema says:
      November 20, 2008 at 9:29 am

      You are so right about that, he was NOT a conformist and calls for us to do the same. He did however make it entirely clear that his kingdom was not of this world and we should never try to enforce that, so I do get confused over the money changers story… It could be that he did have a slow temper, because he must have seen similar temples before and didn’t go around destroying them all, just that one that we know of.

      Reply
      • Interloper says:
        November 20, 2008 at 10:02 am

        I think his anger, maybe even could be described as rage, was at the overt and unrepentant blasphemy. There were few to no pretensions even as to what was going on there. It was like putting a Las Vegas casino in the Vatican.

        One of the points that gets lost I think is that true full love does include anger. Jesus is so often portrayed with only one or two dimensions – all love and peace and flowers in a meadow, or fire and brimstone Judge. I think Jesus got angry because he saw what the people were doing, and what they were leading others to.

        I’ll use a personal example to try to make more sense. I turned into a bit of a leech on some of my friends this year. I hit a bad depression, stayed with a friend for several months without helping her out, and took advantage of someone else’s kindness too. They not only were angry for being used but also because they saw where I was headed, even though I didn’t. I was thrown out. Slept on the street for a night, then scrambled to get a house etc. They loved both me and themselved enough to get angry and act on it. And if they hadn’t, I’d be a full-blown loser by now.

        *steps off podium, sets down microphone*

        Reply
      • Uncle Fester says:
        November 20, 2008 at 10:43 am

        Wasn’t it in the run up to the Crucifixion? It was a good way to piss off the powers that be and get arrested… although I still think they got him as a horse thief because of the donkey he rode in on… that was stolen, no matter what colour you paint it

        Reply
        • Interloper says:
          November 20, 2008 at 12:39 pm

          “that was stolen, no matter what colour you paint it”

          Ride a painted pony let the spinnin’ wheel spiiiin….
          You’re welcome for the earworm.

          And yes, it was in the runup to the Crucifixion. If you really and truly buy the whole story, it was all a setup and had to be. Funny little nagging detail – the Messiah can’t arise from death if he isn’t dead. I don’t know that I explained my “set-up” comment well there, but I’m about to have to leave and can’t explain further. Another time, perhaps.

          Reply
          • Uncle Fester says:
            November 21, 2008 at 6:18 am

            Possible the donkey was no more than knowing where a rental car was parked…

            Having said that, if you go across the Gospels to get the narrative of the immediate run up to the trial and crucifixion, the authorities knew where he was for a good week before the arrest. He was camping in the Grove of Olives at Gethsemane, and during the day he was at the Temple, or just outside. If they’d thought he was a clear and present danger, they could have got him at any time. but were risking a riot.

            Thus Judas told them something that gave them an opening to arrest him with something that no one was going to argue about. Thus, horse thief seems logical. They were pretty unpopular back in the day… Judas was sticking his neck out to get the message across, since he was Iscarii – a terrorist assassin, the prototype suicide bomber/ political hostage taker, if you will. The Romans tended to execute them on sight, without all that sordid trial stuff, simply because to leave one alive to trial could mean a dead ‘judge’ and some injured guards… although the Roman texts could have been over egging them.

            Reply
            • ema says:
              November 21, 2008 at 7:05 am

              “the authorities knew where he was for a good week before the arrest” – Interesting, how do you get that? Also, what do you mean by authorities? I always thought it was the Jewish high priests that wanted him arrested because he was referring to himself as God – “Before Abraham was I am”. I will have to look but it seems there was a trial and they were having trouble finding anyone to come forward as a witness but they finally found someone and at that point were able to convince the Romans to punish him.

              Reply
              • ema says:
                November 21, 2008 at 7:07 am

                I also thought it was the Romans that were very reluctant to punish him, the whole washing of hands thing… But you would think they would be more than happy to if he was considered an actual theif.

                Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  November 21, 2008 at 9:40 am

                  Answering both posts. The ‘Romans not wanting to get involved’ is a fiction. Pilate never had a history of giving a damn what the locals thought. The Gospels are not a history.
                  In many respects they’re so wildly historically inaccurate as to have been written by people who weren’t active until about AD50 (thus the Pharisees being Jesus’ problem, when they really didn’t have that much power or following in the AD30-AD40 period) and had little idea of either JEwish or Roman law. I’ve taken the stuff that was too unimportant to have been retro fitted from a later date or change by people with something to prove and is cited in more than one gospel. Jesus was tried for *something* under Roman law, claiming he was a local god incarnate may have got him a flogging, but more likely ignored by the Romans. Property theft, terrorism, or murder or a Roman citizen would have got him crucified. Anything else would have been a ‘local matter to be settled by local means’, that is, stoning. As a complete side bar, 4 hours on the cross was a poor showing. Average survival was over two days, some real tough guys lasting out a week, over the shock, blood loss and dehydration, after a solid scourging. Dead in 4 hours was a been a talking point, since it was SO short. It’s alluded to in the fatk they didn’t have to break his knees (although again, there’s no record of the Romans giving a damn about Passover sensibilities). For a really nasty protracted death, look up ‘The boats’ on wiki… It makes 4 hours on a cross after a flogging look ‘tame’

                  As a comment, trying to sell the Romans a religion in which they were the villains would be as easy as selling the Klan the idea that Slavery was a bad idea rather than the natural order of things. Thus the whole ‘Pilate as sympathetic character’ mytheme.

                  Reply
                  • ema says:
                    November 21, 2008 at 10:07 am

                    “Anything else would have been a ‘local matter to be settled by local means’, that is, stoning.” – I was under the impression that the Romans would not allow any sort of execution of anyone unless they were the ones to carry it out, that’s why the Jewish high priests didn’t just kill him themselves…, this might still pull the argument in your favor, I’m just wondering. Also, I’m of the opinion that the gospels were written by people who were so swayed by the Christian message that they would have done anything to see that they were accurate as possible. Why would all but 1 of the apostles, John that is, have willingly died a martyrs death when all they would have had to do was to deny Jesus as the Messiah to live? There must have been something very moving in the life of the man and message that they were willing to die for it…

                    Reply
                    • froofrou says:
                      November 21, 2008 at 10:17 am

                      Fester is wrong about the time of the Gospels writing, and he’s wrong about the flogging before the crucifixion. It wasn’t standard, and all reports indicate that it was a particularly severe beating and was the ultimate cause of Jesus expiring before a day was up. Also, criminals weren’t made to carry the means of their own death to the place of death, which also attributed to the early death. Jesus did not go gently into that sweet night. He was abused, beaten, treated like crap, had a crown of thorns forced onto His head to increase the blood loss, and wasn’t even taken to the crucifixion site until after He had been bleeding for several hours after the beating. It wasn’t a typical execution, and happened after a kangaroo court of a trial. The reason the High Priests didn’t wait until morning is because they DIDN’T want the Roman courts involved, nor did they want the typical person involved in their own court proceedings. Jewish Law stated that they had to have at least two witnesses to corroborate, and they couldn’t even get that.

                      Reply
                      • Uncle Fester says:
                        November 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm

                        Actually, that’s mostly 19th century ‘doctrine’ with little factual support.

                        However, some scholars still buy the idea. Usually from Baptist ‘universities’…

                        Reading primary sources (from my admittedly indifferent Latin, but I dos have some resonable dictionaries) there’s not that much evidence outside of very late apologist texts, the bulk post dating 1500, that Jesus was singled out for any ‘special’ punishment. Bear in mind, there’s a lot riding on it bring ‘the worst death in the world’. Over reliance on the Gospel as history is like relying on Nazi commentators on Jewish history… not terribly accurate.

                        Reply
                  • ema says:
                    November 21, 2008 at 10:09 am

                    “As a comment, trying to sell the Romans a religion in which they were the villains would be as easy as selling the Klan the idea that Slavery was a bad idea rather than the natural order of things. Thus the whole ‘Pilate as sympathetic character’ mytheme.” — Just a small point here, I don’t believe the idea was to sell the Romans as a whole a religion, it was to sell one person at a time, more of a grass roots thing, which is quite different. They were spread out to other areas as well, I believe one of the apostles went as far as India to spread the gospel.

                    Reply
                    • froofrou says:
                      November 21, 2008 at 10:18 am

                      Macedonia, as mentioned in the New Testament, is England and the surrounding territories, if I recall correctly.

                      Reply
                      • ema says:
                        November 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm

                        Oh I found it, that was Thomas that went to India, the doubting Thomas and he was martyred there.

                        Reply
                        • Uncle Fester says:
                          November 21, 2008 at 4:16 pm

                          Again, there’s little evidence (as in ‘no’) Thomas when to India, and there’s not a single martyr that actually bears scrutiny…

                          Peter and Paul in Rome? No evidence, just Catholic tradition

                          Having done a ‘days of the saints’ column, I quickly found
                          that nearly all the pre-Nicene saints have NO evidence, simply a loose collection of often contradictory and irreconcilable traditions. Case in point, you simply have to be dead and Christian during the reign of Diocletian to be accounted a saint and martyr.

                          Based on reports, the only martyrs who went singing to their graves were the Albigensians, who wound up as heretics and were exterminated by St. Athantheus of Alexandria, a man whose ‘special talent’ seems to be death, and who himself died of old age in his own bed…

                        • froofrou says:
                          November 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm

                          I’ll agree with you about Catholic Tradition. The Catholics have screwed it up for most of us ‘regular’ Christians by being dipsticks about how they told the stories. Peter was never crucified on an upside down cross. That is Catholic Tradition. There are other discrepancies as well.

                        • ema says:
                          November 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm

                          I wondered where all those stories came from!

                      • Uncle Fester says:
                        November 21, 2008 at 4:22 pm

                        Macedonia is England? WTF? Macedonia was Greek… Northern Greece to be exact.

                        Albion was a benighted island rich in tin and lead, with some copper and a little gold to both the Greeks and the Romans…

                        England? no way…

                        Reply
                        • froofrou says:
                          November 21, 2008 at 4:26 pm

                          I said ‘IIRC’. Obviously I didn’t :-) There is a tradition that says he went almost as far as England, but I can’t remember the name that was used.

                    • Uncle Fester says:
                      November 21, 2008 at 4:07 pm

                      TBH you’re selling it by the pound, and thus it doesn’t matter if you’re doing it one by one or en masse, you’re still trying to sell the idea to Romans.

                      Thus you’re not going to do overly well trying to sell it as a paganised warm over of the religion of a soundly defeated people, which the Jews were post AD70

                      Reply
            • Interloper says:
              November 21, 2008 at 11:26 am

              Ok, I’ma hafta don my best flame-retarded, *ahem* retardent suit and jump back in here, because this leads directly into my set-up comment yesterday.

              **Disclaimer – this is my personal belief/opinion. I cannot quote sources or back it up, so DONT ASK! ;-)

              I’m going to ask you to look at a major part of this story differently. It’s understood that Judas betrayed Jesus and led the authorities to him. No dispute. I do want to dispute the cause/motivation and why it had to happen, though. As I said before, Jesus could not arise and overcome Death if he had not at some point been dead. It was absolutely a vital part of the story/goings on that Jesus be arrested, beaten and crucified. Well, killed in some manner anyway.

              Ok, here’s where I become a bit of a heretic. I don’t think Judas betrayed Jesus because he was a terrorist, evil, greedy, what have you, although greedy was likely involved and he was most likely touched by evil. I think Judas knew that Jesus was the True Messiah, and thought that he could force Jesus’ hand and make others accept and see this. If Judas could get Jesus’ life threatened, then surely, being Divine, He would use all of the power at His command to save Himself, right?? I think this was Judas’ motivation, twisted misguided and tainted though it may be. Jesus kisses Judas on the cheek before sending him off to betray Him. He knows what’s coming, and He could have stopped it right then and there, but He also knows that it has to happen and this is how it will happen.

              *Readies fire extinguisher in case suit isn’t strong enough*

              Reply
              • ema says:
                November 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm

                Well that’s one I hadn’t heard yet, it might explain why he eventually hangs himself too. I’m sure all the apostles were uncomfortable with the situation knowing that the hostility was growing towards Jesus and that he did have the power to do something about it but chose not to. Many of the Jews were disenchanted with him as Messiah because they wanted a real warrior Messiah that would save their civilization from the Romans which was not what Jesus was about.

                Reply
                • Uncle Fester says:
                  November 21, 2008 at 4:09 pm

                  He only hangs himself in one gospel… in Acts he falls upon the ground and bursts open…

                  I’ve seen some pretty weak apologetics to reconcile the contradiction, which shall doubtless be brought out by some body at some stage.

                  Reply
                  • Uncle Fester says:
                    November 21, 2008 at 4:10 pm

                    or he hangs himself in Acts and falls over, busting a gut in a gospel…

                    It’s been a long time since I did the analysis, and it’s late here…

                    Reply
                    • froofrou says:
                      November 21, 2008 at 4:15 pm

                      A lot of the differences between the Gospels stem from the fact that the authors were aiming the writings at different groups of people. It goes back to my argument of several months ago that you present your arguments in ways people understand, not simply in ways YOU understand. Each Gospel writer had the same basic story, but emphasized different details in the story to appeal to the particular group. I would have to go back and get my research about what Gospel was aimed at which group, but overall Luke’s Gospel (which is the most detailed because he was a doctor (as it were) and a stickler) is aimed at the Gentiles more than the others are.
                      -
                      It’s not a contradiction any more than one person saying I have light brown hair and another saying I have dark blonde hair. Both are right, both are emphasizing separate shadings in my hair color. The basic story, that I have hair and that it is a color, remains.

                      Reply
                      • Uncle Fester says:
                        November 21, 2008 at 4:37 pm

                        Ah that canard…

                        I’m taking the Gospels as eye witness testimony, and taking what is known historically, one can reconstruct a case. you’re going by what people told you it means. I’ve never taken that route.
                        Any late context has to be regarded with a level of suspicion. If you just take the texts and the history, ignoring the need to make Jesus anything, you end up pretty much with what I propose. To add the who is selling this idea takes the text out of eye witness testimony and into the realm of faith. No interest in that since it’s an empty game. What do the texts tell us against the
                        history of what we know was recorded by folk not interested in 1st Century Jewish activities? The Gospels as a whole, with Acts and the letters of both Pauls have to be taken as a tainted source of history. They have to be checked and rechecked with other, untouched, Roman and Greek sources.

                        Basically, taking the a priori position the texts are wholly true or wholly false is a bad position to start. I made a conscious effort to take the texts as ‘witness testimony’ that had been corrupted around the time they were records.
                        Some of the corruptions occurred more than 40 years after the events described, in a semi-literate, no mass media society, and in an alien tongue (Aramaic to Greek). Non vested interested texts carry more weight than the biased ones, since we’re after some semblance of what probably went down.

                        And I think we all know the ‘truth’ is a three edged sword.

                        Reply
                        • froofrou says:
                          November 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm

                          You do have contemporary historians like Josephus backing up the main parts of the history, however.

                        • ema says:
                          November 21, 2008 at 4:52 pm

                          “Gospels as a whole, with Acts and the letters of both Pauls have to be taken as a tainted source of history. They have to be checked and rechecked with other, untouched, Roman and Greek sources.” — I’m not all that sure this is completely true. I don’t believe the early Christians had any ulterior motives in spreading the gospel. Is there any proof of that? Why would they have any more motive to mold history than the Roman or Greek? Sorry if I seem dumb in asking I don’t have the historical background you have and I am interested…

              • Uncle Fester says:
                November 21, 2008 at 4:18 pm

                Actually, if you just read the gospels, Jesus sends Judas on his way with a slice of bread dipped in gravy, with the words ‘do what must be done’, or similar.

                Reply
    • ema says:
      November 20, 2008 at 9:31 am

      And you aren’t boring me! ;)

      Reply
      • Interloper says:
        November 20, 2008 at 9:54 am

        Well, in that case…step into my study and pour yourself a drink.
        This really is my favorite topic. I am a recovering Southern Baptist. (actually, I was brought up in a pretty reasonable and moderate Baptist church) and introduced to pagan ideas pretty early.
        To shorten what I originally had typed, I love to study and discuss both religion and faith. And make no mistake, the two are not inherently the same.

        Reply
        • Uncle Fester says:
          November 20, 2008 at 10:48 am

          There are times I think I spent too much time with my head in it all… in the end you just get to see it all as a vast example of crowd control, run by cynics and supported by people who don’t have enough energy to actually read round it all…

          Reply
          • Interloper says:
            November 20, 2008 at 12:27 pm

            Ding ding ding!! we have a winner. That’s exactly the difference between religion and faith that I referenced earlier, though. I’ve gone through the crowd control, the cynics, and the arguments for and against. In the end (well, so far) what I’ve come out of it with is some knowledge, a lot of enjoyment, and a strong faith that I choose to have, not have been spoon-fed. I am a Christian, I just don’t see the problem with letting these things be discussed and dissected. In fact, the refusal to do so seems to me to be a pretty good way to tarnish the whole bit.

            Reply
            • froofrou says:
              November 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm

              The religions that have caused the most havok over the centuries are those that have kept ther believers ignorant. Catholics, early Christians (circa Dark Ages) and the like. If you look at radicals of any religion, Muslim, Christian, and anything else, most of them have no clue what their own religions stand for. They are simply following what their leaders tell them.
              -
              Bravo for coming out on the other side of Christianity with your faith intact, but your opinions made for yourself :-)

              Reply
            • Uncle Fester says:
              November 20, 2008 at 12:32 pm

              Left me with no faith at all, and a pretty jaundiced view of the gullibility of crowds…

              Reply
    • Kuromisa says:
      November 20, 2008 at 9:56 am

      I’m not a Christian, but I have to say, even disregarding the supernatural stuff, I think Jesus must have been a really cool person. My mom has asked me before if I could have a party with anyone, living or dead, who would be on the guest list? Well, He’d be there. :)

      Waiting to get flamed now…

      Reply
  12. KoopaStormTroopa says:
    February 26, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Glory! what a picture….. lol…

    Reply
  13. She says:
    November 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    *snarf* :D

    Reply
  14. Uncle Fester says:
    November 20, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Naa, I still think Jesus is an arse… don’t care who he’s about to slap

    Reply
  15. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 8:27 am

    Not to stir the pot or anything, but….
    I agree that the pseudo-Jesus that’s often sold, er taught, is at least a farce and sometimes an arse. But that has more to do with the sellers *ahem* propagandists (no, that’s not the word either, try again) “followers” than with Jesus Himself.

    Reply
  16. Uncle Fester says:
    November 20, 2008 at 8:29 am

    Read the book… there were two good bits… for the most part Jesus isn’t characterised at all…

    Reply
  17. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 8:39 am

    ? Two good bits? Please explain what you mean by that.

    And I am most definitely NOT one of the Fundies who thinks that The Book is all God ever had to say or will have to say. There are other characterizations of Jesus in other books and sources. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, portrays Jesus as quite the smart@ss. There is quite a lot of information that was excluded, both inadvertantly and VERY advertently (I’ve always wanted to use that word. I don’t think it’s even a word, I’ve just always wanted to say it.)

    Reply
  18. Uncle Fester says:
    November 20, 2008 at 8:53 am

    I was going by the Trent approved version… if you want ballsout character try the Infancy gospels written as interpolations on Luke… It’s like a twilight zone episode!

    And yes, in Thomas you can see he thinks Peter is an idiot. It explains when he refers the disciples to James when he’d gone. The line of James got wiped out about the time the Eastern Church went from Jerusalem to Constantinople control… They turned up to see Constantine, saw a Bishop, who told them the Emperor was busy and to go home and not one made it. There’s mostly evidence it was Eusebieus’ hand on the dagger for that one, since Constantine wouldn’t have used violence out of the box… Basically, a familial line of Bishops, who could legitimately trace their lineage back to someone who stood with Jesus wasn’t required by the new, official, church…

    As to your word

    advertently – in a careful deliberate manner… so yes it’s a word.

    Reply
  19. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 9:12 am

    oooh, learn something new every day, and here I thought I was just making up words.
    As for ballsout, I don’t have any but I’m there with you in spirit. Or somthing. And Trent Schment, & Niacene Schmiazene. Bunch of fogies in power trying to cement it for themselves. Absolutely antithetical to the spirit of Christ. The Bible wasn’t widely available to the commoners until, well memory fails me but for a very very long time. In the meanwhile the good ole Roman Catholic Church interpreted it pretty much anyway it’s purpose was served, and who could argue with them. Not many could read anyway, even if it had been available.

    I’ve studied an assortment of paganism and I’m very well aware of how much the early Church borrowed/stole/usurped traditions from them in order to get fresh blood, er I mean converts. I see a gigantic divide between my personal faith and the Church, in most any form.

    Reply
  20. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 9:13 am

    ps, I’m not familiar with the Infancy gospels, sounds interesting.

    Reply
  21. Uncle Fester says:
    November 20, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Actually Eusebeus would have been in his 30s maximum… Constantine wasn’t much older… the rest can be ignored since I’ve mentioned the only two who culd read…

    Trent, the average age was a little higher…

    Reply
  22. Uncle Fester says:
    November 20, 2008 at 9:23 am

    Google up

    Infancy Gospel of Thomas

    and

    Infancy Gospel of James

    M.R. James of ghost story fame did one of the better translations of both the Alpha and Beta versions of I.G.Thomas

    They both represent a class of documents that were designed to ‘beef up’ Jesus for a Greek and Roman audience who were used to more full blooded god-men killing people who annoyed them. Both IGThomas and IGJames were written to be included in Luke…

    Reply
  23. Uncle Fester says:
    November 20, 2008 at 11:05 am

    somehow the nesting is shot…

    the above was in reply to the fogies comment…

    Reply
  24. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    True, but then again fogieness then doesn’t necessarily directly correlate to fogieness now considering how much longer life expentencies have become over time. And I didn’t technically say old fogies, just fogies ;)

    Reply
  25. Interloper says:
    November 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Somehow trying to reply to this made my whole computer freezd up.

    That’s true, but fogieness then can’t really be directly correlated to fogieness now as life expectencies have increased so. And I didn’t technically say old fogies, just fogies ;)

    Reply
  26. DeathWyrmNexus says:
    November 20, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Ooooooh, that kind of Jesus I could dig.

    Reply
Go to Top

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up