ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, September 20, 2019

Medieval History 101 Episode X


His supporters satirize his opponents’ anxiety about the extent of his power by calling President Trump “God-Emperor,” but the taunt is only effective because Americans are not supposed to want kings, never mind emperors. And yet, how else would one define the West? Can there be civilization without hierarchy? Can there be peace without an emperor? Throughout the Middle Ages, European Christians looked to Charlemagne as the model for the emperor who would defend Christendom and bring back the glories of Rome. How much did Charlemagne himself contribute to this ideal? Would the Franks of the eighth and ninth centuries have recognized later representations of Charles as emperor and king?

Medieval History 101 Episode XGetting Medieval on the Emperor by the Grace of GodEpisode Guide.

Labels: ,

51 Comments:

Blogger Roberto Masioni September 20, 2019 11:29 AM  

At least with monarchy there is a chain of responsibility.

Blogger Charlie the Chaste September 20, 2019 11:30 AM  

This looks great, well done!

Blogger CarpeOro September 20, 2019 11:47 AM  

Caught up on Owen's and the Darkstream while convalescing after surgery, now I need to start on the Medieval 101 series. Started reading Oman's Medieval history after finishing his Byzantine history, want to continue the refreshing of my knowledge of the period.

Blogger Stilicho September 20, 2019 12:03 PM  

What's a good, entertaining version of the stories of Charlemagne and the Peers?

Blogger Jacked Huwhite Boy September 20, 2019 12:14 PM  

Already commented on the last thread but thought I'd repeat it since it's more on topic here and might have been missed there: is there or are there plans for there to be a way to subscribe to the medieval history 101 series in the same way you can subscribe to Owen? I'm seeing the "feed the bear" and "the legend" subscriptions but was confused as to what's included in the "basic" vs "premium" subscriptions.

Blogger peacefulposter September 20, 2019 12:37 PM  

At least with monarchy there is a chain of responsibility.

Nothing like the threat of the guillotine to keep your leader in line.

Beats a non-confidence vote.

Blogger Student in Blue September 20, 2019 12:46 PM  

She's entirely correct, when there's no hierarchy, there is necessarily conflict, and any situation where someone may claim is a flat societal structure or is "non-hierarchical", there is still people in leader and follower relationships.

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction September 20, 2019 1:35 PM  

Given the utter implosion of our democratic system I think more than a few of us republicans have opened up to the monarchal position and we could do, and have done, far, far worse than an Emperor Trump.

Blogger doctrev September 20, 2019 1:40 PM  

The complete failure of American democratic institutions and culture has ended in a very reactionary nationalist movement. I'm actually surprised the tens of millions that fanatically love the President haven't taken up their guns already. I wonder if they will if the election fraud is large enough?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 20, 2019 2:07 PM  

Monarchy is the future.

Blogger Oswald September 20, 2019 2:25 PM  

All these people that want socialism, I would assume they would want a King or an Emperor over them also. They want the government to run their lives,and not have to think for themselves. Any King worth his salt wants to do all the thinking for the people as well. When you see how the Democrats run out to vote for the person that has rock star appeal, then you know these people will fall for anything and give up everything as long as that person is not espousing old fashion American values, and are offering to take care of them.

Blogger Crew September 20, 2019 2:43 PM  

Hmmm, when I click on Download in Chrome it opens a new tab and starts playing.

Is there something else I am supposed to do?

Blogger lazarus long September 20, 2019 3:30 PM  

I heard Charlemagne was a composite character. Just what I heard.

Blogger Robert Coble September 20, 2019 4:21 PM  

Simply observe the MSM whenever there is a story about the British royalty. Her Majesty's loyal subjects are alive and well - in America, yearning to be brought under a monarch with the attendant aristocracy (which they assume themselves to be).

Blogger RandyB September 20, 2019 5:50 PM  

Key point. They presume themselves to be the nascent aristocracy. More the fools, they.

Blogger xevious2030 September 20, 2019 5:57 PM  

"Is there something else I am supposed to do?"

Yes. It isn't spelled out, but you need to click on the three dots on the bottom right, and select "Download" in the popup box.

Blogger John September 20, 2019 6:25 PM  

Having a bad king is the same as having no king: the wicked prevail in either case. For the righteous to prevail, we (apparently) need a king to lead us. I think the existence of a king benefits the righteous more than the wicked.

Blogger Crew September 20, 2019 7:46 PM  

@16: Yup. That worked! Thanks.

Now, if only Antonio Brown could escape allegation of sexual abuse.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 20, 2019 8:51 PM  

"She's entirely correct, when there's no hierarchy, there is necessarily conflict, and any situation where someone may claim is a flat societal structure or is "non-hierarchical", there is still people in leader and follower relationships."

The major advantage to a monarchy is that you at least know who's in charge.

A major disadvantage is that they can be puppeted fairly easily too.

Ideal hierarchy is a hierarchy, but I am not convinced it is necessarily monarchic or imperial.

It would necessarily be fractal, certainly, with smaller leaders subordinate to higher leaders.

It strikes me that one of the easiest ways to implement such a system would be to develop a method of figuring out who's actually in charge already, and why, and propagate that information so that maximum leverage can be exerted to depose them if they are malicious.

Blogger Moongardenne September 20, 2019 9:30 PM  

According to you, Nations are born of the blood. How are Christians born? The blood or the spirit? This can be a complex topic depending on certain situations recorded in the Bible (1 Corinthians 7:14, Acts 16:31, John 3:5-8, and more).I ask this because if Christians are born of the blood then yes Christian nations would make sense and, in certain cultures, this is seen as true (Middle Eastern cultures where you have those born in Christian households and those born in Muslim ones). But, if born of the Spirit, then the idea of a stable Christian nation could exist, but it would most likely become one only nominally (like what many Western churches have become) and eventually degrade into something less than its original form.
Also, I thought Christians were meant to be like servants (Luke 22:24-27), try to live at peace with others and be humble (All of Romans 12), and try to obey the great commision (Matthew 28:16-20). These verses point to making disciples. Where are the verses telling Christians to make Christian nations? In the process of making disciples, enough people could become Christians in a nation to affect its policies in a positive way and the Christian influence on nations can be an amazing force for good. However, this power shift can also become oppressive and warped on those who don’t share the same beliefs (the long history of the Catholic church to name the most infamous example).
All in all, this is a complex topic that one person’s views (mine) can’t fully explain in this short piece.

Blogger John September 20, 2019 9:45 PM  

"However, this power shift can also become oppressive and warped on those who don’t share the same beliefs"

You're goddamned right. Homos, SJWs, liberals, and of course Jews prove that without the mailed fist of the State relentlessly pummeling unrepentant evildoers into the mud, civilization will fall.

"But, if born of the Spirit, then the idea of a stable Christian nation could exist"

Stable Christian nations did exist for over a thousand years. But prosperity, hubris, overconfidence, and lying philosophy got the better of us--at least for a while. There is absolutely no reason why a nation cannot be composed primarily of Christians, nor why it cannot be Christian in its social, cultural, and legal character.

Blogger Moongardenne September 20, 2019 9:54 PM  

"Homos, SJWs, liberals, and of course Jews prove that without the mailed fist of the State relentlessly pummeling unrepentant evildoers into the mud, civilization will fall."
Is it a Christian's place to use
force like this based off of the above verses or in general?

Christian nations can exists, but my theory is not permanently with them eventually succumbing to the same vices as any other nations (if Christians are born of the spirit). And as history has shown countless times.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 20, 2019 10:06 PM  

The Bible says that the law exists not for the righteous, but for the sinners. What need have the righteous of something to tell them to do what they are already doing and to avoid what they never contact?

"Is it a Christian's place to use force like this based off of the above verses or in general?"

If it is a Christian whose function is upholding the law, of course it is.

If punishment does not come for violation of the law, then there is no justice. Mercy is possible, but it does not exist if there is no consequence for sin in the first place. Never to enforce the law is not mercy, it is laxity.

Blogger Moongardenne September 20, 2019 10:22 PM  

My main point is I don't believe Christians should be focused on Nation building like they should on the Great Commission and being more Christ-like. Christ died for his enemies (Pharisees may be on par with modern SJWs). His main focus was on the Kingdom of God and being a servant to all, the least of these. That is the Jesus I follow.

Blogger John September 20, 2019 11:03 PM  

"Is it a Christian's place to use force like this based off of the above verses or in general?"

Romans 13:4 "For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

Christians who reject this Scripture are enemies of Godly civil order and Christendom and should never be permitted to vote, hold public office, serve on a jury, speak publicly on any political or legal matter, or lay hands on a weapon. Ever.

I find it infuriating to hear white Christian men speak of themselves and their posterity as if we are equivalent to the Early Church: mere hapless victims of a foreign government and society outside our influence and control.

These are, of course, the same white Christian men who own 50 different assault rifles, can recite the 2A Creed from memory, and are the single most powerful identity bloc in the United States.

If you have the power and legitimate authority to avenge God's wrath on the wicked, but refuse to do it because of the alleged ideals of a few long-dead slave-owning liberal deists, you cannot complain when your 'liberties' are seized, your lands and property confiscated, your sons emasculated, your women given to foreigners, and your children delivered over to antichrists to be remade into abominations.

Blogger Moongardenne September 20, 2019 11:30 PM  

My argument was never against Godly civil order. My argument was against Christian nation building as our first priority as I believe Christians are born through the spirit and not the blood meaning that over time the Christian order could not be maintained as those who seek power over others tend to display terrible traits time and time again and would most likely only be Christian in name and not deed.
Defending your family is important as well as being a good citizen wherever you are. But, as Christians, I believe, our first mission is the Great Commission and following Christ's self-sacrificial example. If that means being a loser, then so be it.
"I find it infuriating to hear white Christian men speak of themselves and their posterity as if we are equivalent to the Early Church: mere hapless victims of a foreign government and society outside our influence and control."
I agree that people should be allowed to defend themselves and if you have the power to vote for things to make a good change then do it. Again, my point is that our first goal should be the great commission and being a servant like Christ not Nation Building.
"If you have the power and legitimate authority to avenge God's wrath on the wicked, but refuse to do it because of the alleged ideals of a few long-dead slave-owning liberal deists, you cannot complain when your 'liberties' are seized, your lands and property confiscated, your sons emasculated, your women given to foreigners, and your children delivered over to antichrists to be remade into abominations."
Although I would never wish this upon my deepest enemies, this (time and time again) can and does happen to Christians all around the world (China, the Middle East in general, and elsewhere). I'll leave on this note:
Matthew 5 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Sermon on the Mount
5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

The Beatitudes
2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.

10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 21, 2019 12:16 AM  

And victims as Saints is really working out well, a new world being born as we speak, Clown World.

Blogger JAG September 21, 2019 1:47 AM  

Stilicho wrote:What's a good, entertaining version of the stories of Charlemagne and the Peers?

Medieval Myths by Norma Lorre Goodrich has a good section on Charlemagne and his Peers. The book also has sections on El Cid, Beowulf, and Arthurian Legends which was Ms. Goodrich's particular area of expertise.

Blogger Vaughan Williams September 21, 2019 2:45 AM  

As home renovations draw to a close, money may free up to participate in this series. Really looking forward to it. When Notre Dame caught fire, there was a video on youtube by a woman researcher. It has since been no-platformed. It went into the genocide and race implications of Clovis and his conversion to Catholicism, the architecture of the Celtic Christianity that preceded Catholicism in Western Europe, and the testimony of Radegund of Thuringia. Sad loss; I'm sure this Medieval series will more than fill the gap. When Youtube deletes videos, it doesn't even let you know who posted them or what the title was. Very annoying.

Blogger wreckage September 21, 2019 6:24 AM  

Christianity, being non-national in that it is not blood, is therefore 100% compatible with nations. That has been the case with Christianity its entire history, and I am surprised by the thought that someone would not know that.

Further, since Christians are commanded to obey authority, it should concern us greatly how such authority is conceived and apportioned.

Finally, to argue that Christians should be "more" concerned with godliness than with the nation implies that it is "godly" to ignore the welfare of the nation, and "godly" to ignore the actions of the State, both of which directly contradict established Christian thought. Indeed, I am not sure how the idea that self-isolation from the nation and the political process can be considered "Christian" except inasmuch as one respects and follows a monastic calling; surely to be self-consistent you would have to cease this argument, since it is an argument about the nation and the State.

Blogger wreckage September 21, 2019 6:28 AM  

The beatitudes do not imply that it is good to inflict on oneself those states, in order to thus command God's blessings. To be poor, to mourn, and to be persecuted are all notable for being reversed by the hand of God; hence if they are Good then God in the fullness of time does Evil in reversing them.

Blogger wreckage September 21, 2019 6:37 AM  

"Again, my point is that our first goal should be the great commission and being a servant like Christ not Nation Building."

Which is perfectly irrelevant unless the two contradict, which is the implicit argument. That implicit argument is your true argument here, since the entire argument - which is a corrective one by nature - is unnecessary otherwise. You are either arguing that concern for the nation is disordered, or you are talking for no reason.

Blogger John September 21, 2019 8:07 AM  

Moongardenne,

"Defending your family is important as well as being a good citizen wherever you are. But, as Christians, I believe, our first mission"

Stop ignoring God's Word. Romans 13:4 "For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." The mission of Christian state officials to avenge God's wrath on evildoers, not to carry out the Great Commission. God has very different commands for the Church and the State, and Christian men are officials in both.

"could not be maintained as those who seek power over others tend to display terrible traits"

Men who specifically seek power over the wicked (i.e., to crush them) do not tend to display terrible traits. Men who seek power over the righteous tend to display wicked traits.

"I agree that people should be allowed to defend themselves"

I never said anything about anyone defending themselves. I said: "Avenge the wrath of God on the wicked." Does that sound very much like self-defense to you?

"I'll leave on this note"

The Beatitudes have no bearing on the State, nor do they contradict Romans 13:4. If you want Christian government to stop avenging God's wrath on evildoers, then admit you reject God's commands to the State and are a traitor to Christendom.

Blogger wreckage September 21, 2019 10:05 AM  

Written English is really tricky. For example:
Through = threw
Plough = plow
Slough = sloff
and
"I'll leave on this note" is correctly pronounced "I'm flouncing off like a total fag."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 21, 2019 12:15 PM  

"But, as Christians, I believe, our first mission is the Great Commission and following Christ's self-sacrificial example. If that means being a loser, then so be it."

No. Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for everyone. There's no necessity for us to emulate it. It's one thing to forgive the repentant and have mercy on those, it's quite another to let people do whatever they want.

You're disgusting. You're only pretending to argue from the Scripture, really you're arguing in attempt to justify your own willing weakness and laziness. Christ's sacrifice mattered because he had the power to show leniency, and death could not destroy him. You're willing to give everything up for nothing because you are weak and thing that your weakness is good. Perverse.

You don't reap a field by bending over and letting the stalks blown by the wind lash your ass. You do it by taking in a blade, cutting what needs to be cut, gathering what needs to be gathered, and dragging it in, before threshing it to remove what is worthless.

From the letter to Timothy, "But if anyone doesn't provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Nation is an extended form of family.

If you aren't a woman, you certainly aren't a man.

Blogger Moongardenne September 21, 2019 12:19 PM  

My argument isn't about not showing concern for the nations we occupy. My argument is that our first goals should be the great commission and if nations are built in the process that's great, but nation building and maintaining shouldn't be the first goal as it's not sustainable due to Christianity being born of the Spirit not blood unlike Nations which are born of the blood. There's other reasons I believe this too like Christ not being about building the nation of Israel and being a suffering servant as our example.

Blogger Moongardenne September 21, 2019 12:27 PM  

You're right about the defense part, that was my mistake. Let's switch things up. Who are the evil doers and how should the righteous crush them?
Would the prostitute whom Jesus defended from stoning need to be crushed? What about that greedy, stealing tax collector?
Paul was a murderer who killed Christians before converting. Should he have been crushed?

Blogger Silent Draco September 21, 2019 12:58 PM  

Another acolyte of The Church of Nice. Misuse of the Beatitudes is always a tell. Their master pinky-swore to eat the best snivelers last. But what if he lied, as usual?

Who is your Master?

Blogger Moongardenne September 21, 2019 3:25 PM  

I have been respectful and argued my point without name calling, but, since it's taken that turn with you, I'm done. I think this argument does need to be hammered out by people who have invested more time, energy, and due diligence to this subject than me because it is important. Regardless of what you think of me, I don't think you're a bad person or bad Christian for disagreeing with me.

Blogger John September 21, 2019 4:59 PM  

"Who are the evil doers and how should the righteous crush them?"

Who? Open and unrepentant sinners, particular those who have devoted themselves to organizations that openly advance the cause of unrighteousness.

Good examples include: any sodomite who has ever touched a boy. Any sodomite who has engaged in lawfare to advance the interests of sodomy. Abortion providers. Those who preform surgical and chemical experiments on children to transform them into abominations. Idolaters, particular Jews and Hindus and Muslims and militant atheists, as well as many liberal "Christians." Historians, media whores, and others who knowingly pervert the truth. Etc.

How? By arresting them, judging them, and applying a punishment appropriate to the crime.

The woman caught in adultery, the tax collector, and Saint Paul were all repentant. If you want to free of fear of the vengeance of God and the mailed fist of the State, keep your sin in the closet where it belongs. If you want to have a clean conscience, confess and repent.

Blogger Student in Blue September 21, 2019 5:30 PM  

@Azure Amaranthine
It would necessarily be fractal, certainly, with smaller leaders subordinate to higher leaders.

It strikes me that one of the easiest ways to implement such a system would be to develop a method of figuring out who's actually in charge already, and why, and propagate that information so that maximum leverage can be exerted to depose them if they are malicious.


Interesting thoughts, and I tentatively agree. Of course I believe a bigger issue that pops up is, once you have created that system, how do you go about implementing and enforcing it?

Really it all hinges on the quality of the people governed. There are no perfect one-fit solutions for all problems, I believe. What's going to work well for a Christian high-trust society will likely break down very quickly in a pagan low-trust society.

Blogger Moongardenne September 21, 2019 5:31 PM  

You might get two replies since I thought I responded before. Anyway, this argument deserves more thought, time, and research to really be hashed out since it's important (multiple debates and such). I respect your thoughts and wish you a good day.

Blogger wreckage September 22, 2019 1:04 AM  

@42 If I have mistaken your intent, I openly and without reservation apologize. If so, I do ask that you consider my criticism as one of the appearance within this context, and I further retract any and all implications regarding your character.

To repeat for emphasis, please consider the context and your presentation both personally and in argument within the context, as I believe I have highlighted how you might better avoid conflict and rather foster intellectual collaboration.

Blogger Beau September 22, 2019 1:29 AM  

I'm very late to this party but the question Moongardenne raises is critical to both the Great Commission and Western civilization. It does need to be addressed without rancor. He argued his point respectfully. Well done. At a later point I would hope to return your graciousness as we address the topic of being about our Master's business.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 22, 2019 2:49 AM  

Moodchild poses a false dilemma. One can both perform the great commission and perform one's duties as a man and a citizen. What he proposes is to simply ignore all other obligations until the Great Commission is accomplished. Since we have some 2000 years of history here, I can confidently assert that he is proposing, in effect if not intent, that we simply do nothing at all.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 22, 2019 3:22 AM  

" Of course I believe a bigger issue that pops up is, once you have created that system, how do you go about implementing and enforcing it?"

I was actually more disturbed about an entirely different issue. If the system is simple and effective enough, people will use it.

The problem as I see it is that we already have several groups of rebellion-prone libertines who would love nothing more than to try to abuse such a system to destroy anyone attempting to limit them.

A second problem is that it's not exactly one tool, but three. A control-mode analysis, a self-modifying weighting system, and a self-propagating communication scheme. Throw in a means of preventing abuse, and you have four tools in one. From an engineering perspective, that's not going to work unless it fits exceedingly well in the slot it needs to go into, meaning that it's intuitive or close to it.

How I'm looking at it, implementation should be propagated like any growing thing, at the minimum scale it becomes viable and then growing from there. If it's too hard to implement or enforce that way, it hasn't been designed well enough.

"Really it all hinges on the quality of the people governed."

Oh certainly. This isn't going to work in low trust societies or those otherwise lacking the ability to organize at even medium scale. This would be more of a tool to try to stabilize successive intermediate steps so that higher steps can be reached for.

"the question Moongardenne raises is critical to both the Great Commission and Western civilization. It does need to be addressed without rancor."

I apologize for going off half cocked.

However, that argument has been covered again and again in the past here. It doesn't need to be addressed further. The people posing it need to do more research into where they're posting.

The argument is the same as that of a pacifist arguing that all should be pacifists, and wrong for the same reasons. We have the life, clarity, and abilities that we have because our forefathers put the boot down on skulls when necessary. If we refuse to do the same for your people and progeny we're faithless, worse than an unbeliever. If someone wants to argue that they personally are better fit for other tasks, that's fine and may well be true, but to argue that no one in the body should do it....

Blogger wreckage September 22, 2019 3:52 AM  

It can be addressed without rancor thus: that clearly, we must achieve both, each according to his own talents. Just as we must achieve the Great Commission AND family life, the great Commission AND the happiness of our wives, the Great Commission AND proper attention to physical fitness and health... I can only assume he is, even now, raising this very important discussion on forums addressing each of those, and those relating to secular education, career, proper budgeting, car maintenance, home repair, and so on.

Blogger Beau September 22, 2019 4:57 AM  

I can confidently assert that he is proposing, in effect if not intent, that we simply do nothing at all.

No, I don't think so. The First Great Awakening preceded the American Revolution. Ministers of religion in the 1730s and 1740s despaired of the sunken morals of their people. This Awakening prepared colonial hearts. Later, the Second Great Awakening of 1800 further changed individual lives and the tenor of the public square. Again later under the preaching of Charles Finney around 1830 it was noted the creation of a "Benevolence Empire" in which Christians sought to live out Jesus' teachings to assist the weak. A well-worn adage of observation of the church is, "As goes the church, so goes the world." If our eyes are turned to heaven we may dare great things in other endeavours.

I do not advocate the neglect of either. I wish we all experienced the joy of being fishers of men. As it is written, "He who wins souls is wise." Those saved need instruction across a broad pallete. Indeed I think efforts at the re-examining and restoration of education and culture will in themselves expose the curious to the gospel. Did you see the video of one million Muslims in Pakistan listening to an evangelist? Or read the thesis of the guy who examined to conditions of formerly colonized African nations? The difference in the quality of life between the peoples allowed access to missionary efforts by the colonial governments versus those more restrictive European colonial governments was notable. What will we do? I want to return maximum value to my Lord for his investment in me.

Blogger wreckage September 22, 2019 8:02 AM  

@44 It can be and has been addressed without rancor. There is no conflict. None. Indeed I would ask, if he is nation-building as if he were doing it for Christ? Of course he is. Of course. Colossians 3:23.

Certainly I feel that I have been admonished by this call to Christian living. Previously, I worked for Nation and Nationhood in a desultory fashion - but this is contrary to scripture. I will double and redouble my fervour, for it is the Lord I work for, not the acclaim of men.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 22, 2019 11:07 AM  

Beau wrote:I do not advocate the neglect of either.
No, but Moonchild did, specifically, claim that to attend to other duties before the completion of the Great Commission was wrong and counter-productive.

Blogger John September 22, 2019 1:32 PM  

Do we neglect avenging God's wrath on evildoers?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts