Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Athe...

Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing...

There are 1239 comments on the Mediaite.com story from Apr 6, 2013, titled Gitmo Prison Guard Converts From Atheism To Islam After Seeing.... In it, Mediaite.com reports that:

CNN has an amazing story out of Guantanamo Bay about an American atheist prison camp guard that converted to Islam after spending extensive time talking to with some of the English speaking prisoners there.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Mediaite.com.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#813 Jun 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it take you 27 lines to simply admit that you are a liar with no proof of god being possible?
Just admit it- you lie about god and have no evidence - be a man! Have some balls!
I just explained it to you and explained the difference between claiming something as a theory and claiming something as a fact. I also explained that lack of evidence is proof of nothing, it is merely a logical reason to doubt a claim that can't be proven with evidence as of yet.

Are you 16 years old, as others have claimed you are? I ask that, because I would not want to have a conversation with myself as a 16 year old. I really thought that I knew it all back then, like most 16 year olds and I never listened or even considered anything that others said except for what I wanted to hear and what would confirm what I "think" I already know.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#814 Jun 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
How about someone who would even consider my answer?
I'm happy to consider what you write.

But.

I will neither automatically reject, nor automatically presume it's right.

An idea either stands on it's own merit-- regardless of who posts it, or it does not.

And claims **must** be backed by fact or evidence or links to the same.

Those are the criteria I use.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#815 Jun 20, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had ever really read any of my posts, you would have clearly seen that I have always said that God cannot be proved nor disproved.
And you are wrong about that claim, too.

I've discussed this--at length-- all of which you always ignore entirely.

Any god that is undefined? Cannot be proven one way or another--true.

But nobody worships undefined deities--neither do they start wars, gather followers, raise capital, etc-- over **undefined** gods.

It's the **defined** deities that people are insane about.

And a **defined** god can be **tested**. To see if it's real or fake.

So far?

All **defined** gods have **failed** the test for reality.

All.

Once you **define** a god? That very definition makes it possible to **test** the god's capabilities, attributes, etc.

All such tests always prove the god(s) in question-- to be myth.
iamvalarie

Baltimore, MD

#816 Jun 20, 2013
This guard needs help or msybe water boardered and sent to afgan to teach him a life long lesson. And he needs to grow a beard and look ugly. Americans really are stupid .

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#817 Jun 20, 2013
Google definitions? GOOGLE DEFINITIONS??!!! Hahahahahahahahaha! And you wonder why you get mocked! Oh and once again I am afraid I have to nust you for being a liar.

Post 678 you gave this definition from a non :snicker chortle: google definition sourcde.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agn ...

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God.

Notice belief is not mentioned as you kept bleating before. Now in desperation you have had to rely on google definition? Wow your philosophy class must have had very lax standards. Had I dared presented goodle definitions I would have been laughed out of the classroom.

I really shouldn't have to do this what with you being this grand Philosophy expert who dwarfs us mere mortals but here let me hold your hand ONCE AGAIN and guide you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

This is a basic entry level philosophical arguement, one that has somehow escaped you the topix Philosophy Guru somehow. So read up, get caught up and answer the problem of evil.

I am glad that I am the one to finally introduce you, a philosophy graduate ( LMFAO ) to this entry level concept. Let's see what you can Mystic up.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted a dictionary definition and did not alter it one bit. I didn't link it because it was the first definition.
But here it is again.
https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=17&gs_ri=ps...
So as far as me being a liar, I guess it's old saying "takes one to know one", eh?
<quoted text>
There are different schools of thought about whether evil even exists or not, so I need to know what school of thought you are in before I can answer the question for YOU, they way YOU want it answered. If you would prefer, I'll just quote from Leibniz, a famous Mathematician and Philosopher. But I really see no good that it's going to do, except to get you to stop repeating a question who's answers you have no interest in even considering anyway. And if you have a Masters, as you have claimed, then I'm surprised that you yourself don't already know the answers that Philosophers themselves have come up with. I have a slightly different answer that I arrived at myself. So which do you want?
<quoted text>
There weren't any angry words in my last post to you at all. I was merely stating the obvious. And it still IS obvious.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#818 Jun 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are wrong about that claim, too.
I've discussed this--at length-- all of which you always ignore entirely.
Any god that is undefined? Cannot be proven one way or another--true.
Here's your definition. An uncreated creator. Prove that doesn't exist.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#819 Jun 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Google definitions? GOOGLE DEFINITIONS??!!! Hahahahahahahahaha! And you wonder why you get mocked! Oh and once again I am afraid I have to nust you for being a liar.
You said that I lied and I made up my own definition or altered an existing one. Did I do that or not?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Post 678 you gave this definition from a non :snicker chortle: google definition source. Notice belief is not mentioned as you kept bleating before. Now in desperation you have had to rely on google definition?
The google definition was the FIRST definition I gave, the websters one was the second one that I gave. So there is no "NOW in desperation I have HAD to rely" as to suggest I am falling back on it. You are now trying to twist the chronology. Very dishonest. You will even try to shift the order in which I gave the definitions if you have to.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Wow your philosophy class must have had very lax standards.
Coming from the guy who uses wikipedia rather than quotes from actual Philosophers.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Had I dared presented goodle definitions I would have been laughed out of the classroom.
I do not believe that you ever attended any such classroom about the subject in a formal manner or else you would have said that.
Givemeliberty wrote:
I really shouldn't have to do this what with you being this grand Philosophy expert who dwarfs us mere mortals but here let me hold your hand ONCE AGAIN and guide you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
This is a basic entry level philosophical arguement,
No kidding.
Givemeliberty wrote:
one that has somehow escaped you the topix Philosophy Guru somehow. So read up, get caught up and answer the problem of evil.
I already know about the question and do not need to get caught up on it. I did not ask you to even provide a wikipedia article, I asked you whether you wanted my answer or an answer from someone such as Leibniz. So you didn't read what I said, once again.
Givemeliberty wrote:
I am glad that I am the one to finally introduce you, a philosophy graduate ( LMFAO )
You introduced nothing to me, and I never said my degree was in Philosophy, so you err again. It was one of my minors. You make one error after another.
Givemeliberty wrote:
to this entry level concept. Let's see what you can Mystic up.
<quoted text>
Yes, so entry level for you, that you had to use wikipedia rather than quoting any answers from actual Philosophers. But since you insisted upon the article, rather than my explanation or direct quotes from Philosophers such as Leibniz or others, the free will explanation in the article probably matches most closely to what I think, although I would add more and say that God could only receive true love via free will and God's reason for creating life, and ultimately us was to receive true love. I did not see where anybody proved this explanation to be logically faulty. At most, they mentioned "potential" problems with this explanation, but nowhere was it proven to be logically faulty. It only mentions that critics have "questioned" aspects of it and suggests that the debate goes on.

Now, let me repeat my question from above, since you appear to have a habit of skimming my posts.

You said that I lied and I made up my own definition or altered an existing one. Did I do that or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm really not sure I wish to continue this discussion with you and really wish I could continue with someone else. I just simply, do not like you and find you to be a bitter person who can't even admit if he has made a clear false accusation. I got a very ugly and angry vibe from you from the beginning, and usually it is wiser to just let someone like that go and let them wallow in their own anger, as further discussion usually ends up being pointless and never ending.

Since: Mar 11

Lawrenceville, GA

#820 Jun 21, 2013
You answer my question and I will answer yours. I notice far too many times you have your questions answered but refuse to answer those asked of you.

I have you an entry level philosophical question and several times you obviously had no idea what I was talking about until I held your hand and guided you.

Either answer it or admit I have stumped you. It should be a cake walk for a philosophical expert lol such as yourself.

Google definitions! Lmfao!
Seeker wrote:
You said that I lied and I made up my own definition or altered an existing one. Did I do that or not?

Givemeliberty wrote, "
Post 678 you gave this definition from a non :snicker chortle: google definition source. Notice belief is not mentioned as you kept bleating before. Now in desperation you have had to rely on google definition?"

The google definition was the FIRST definition I gave, the websters one was the second one that I gave. So there is no "NOW in desperation I have HAD to rely" as to suggest I am falling back on it. You are now trying to twist the chronology. Very dishonest. You will even try to shift the order in which I gave the definitions if you have to.
Givemeliberty wrote, "
Wow your philosophy class must have had very lax standards."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
This is a basic entry level philosophical arguement,"

No kidding.
Givemeliberty wrote, "
one that has somehow escaped you the topix Philosophy Guru somehow. So read up, get caught up and answer the problem of evil."

I already know about the question and do not need to get caught up on it. I did not ask you to even provide a wikipedia article, I asked you whether you wanted my answer or an answer from someone such as Leibniz. So you didn't read what I said, once again.
Givemeliberty wrote, "
I am glad that I am the one to finally introduce you, a philosophy graduate ( LMFAO )"

You introduced nothing to me, and I never said my degree was in Philosophy, so you err again. It was one of my minors. You make one error after another.
Givemeliberty wrote, "
to this entry level concept. Let's see what you can Mystic up.
<quoted text>"

Yes, so entry level for you, that you had to use wikipedia rather than quoting any answers from actual Philosophers. But since you insisted upon the article, rather than my explanation or direct quotes from Philosophers such as Leibniz or others, the free will explanation in the article probably matches most closely to what I think, although I would add more and say that God could only receive true love via free will and God's reason for creating life, and ultimately us was to receive true love. I did not see where anybody proved this explanation to be logically faulty. At most, they mentioned "potential" problems with this explanation, but nowhere was it proven to be logically faulty. It only mentions that critics have "questioned" aspects of it and suggests that the debate goes on.

Now, let me repeat my question from above, since you appear to have a habit of skimming my posts.

You said that I lied and I made up my own definition or altered an existing one. Did I do that or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm really not sure I wish to continue this discussion with you and really wish I could continue with someone else. I just simply, do not like you and find you to be a bitter person who can't even admit if he has made a clear false accusation. I got a very ugly and angry vibe from you from the beginning, and usually it is wiser to just let someone like that go and let them wallow in their own anger, as further discussion usually ends up being pointless and never ending.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#821 Jun 21, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your definition. An uncreated creator. Prove that doesn't exist.
That's not a definition. That's barely even a concept.

More to the point?**NOBODY** is starting wars over such an undefined and nebulosity.

You are going to have to actually **define** it.

The above? Is just new-age woo...

... as such?

That pretty much proves it myth.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#822 Jun 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You answer my question and I will answer yours. I notice far too many times you have your questions answered but refuse to answer those asked of you.
I have you an entry level philosophical question and several times you obviously had no idea what I was talking about until I held your hand and guided you.
Either answer it or admit I have stumped you. It should be a cake walk for a philosophical expert lol such as yourself.
Google definitions! Lmfao!
<quoted text>
Yeah. He's pretty much a blow-hard. Full of empty nothing.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#823 Jun 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You answer my question and I will answer yours.
No. you're going to own up to something for once that you have clearly done or the conversation ends. You're not going to control the conversation. And, i asked which you would like, my take on it or a notable Philosophers take on it, and you tried to manipulate things by giving a wiki article and suggesting that I know nothing about the question at all and that I needed that as a reference to understand the question itself. That was manipulation when you know I asked you whether you wanted my take, or the take of same famous philosophers, because I easily could have given you either without any wiki article. You don't even reference philosophers, I have referenced, for example, Leibniz and Kierkegaard in my discussion with Thinker. i know the notable Philosophers and what they contend, you obviously do not
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice far too many times you have your questions answered but refuse to answer those asked of you.
I have attempted to answer every question put to me by everyone, whether they agree with the answers or not. I have not only answered, but I have broken up their posts and answered piece by piece. That's answering, whether they agree with the answers or not. You are the only exception because of the pointlessness of trying to have any reasonable discussion with you. And you rarely even ask any sound questions, you just dismiss everything. Dismissal and insults are not questions. People such as Marco and Thinker have asked sound questions, not you. And, after even saying I have no interest in discussion with you anymore, I still went back on that and answered you about the problem of evil. That's bending over backwards, especially considering that the person asking doesn't even really want an answer, or at least does not want to consider the answer.
Givemeliberty wrote:
I have you an entry level philosophical question and several times you obviously had no idea what I was talking about until I held your hand and guided you.
Absolutely wrong. You haven't asked me one single question of any depth at all. Others have. Maybe you are thinking about when I began to simply ignore you, but even then, here I am again right back into another stupid, pointless conversation with you. Right back into your silly little chess game. And you aren't very good at it.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Either answer it or admit I have stumped you. It should be a cake walk for a philosophical expert lol such as yourself.
Google definitions! Lmfao!
<quoted text>
You didn't even read my answer, did you. I clearly said that the free will answer from the article most closely matches what I think, but I even added the concept of true love to it. This is why I don't want to have discussions with you. Not only are you a very negative person, but you don't even read the answers that I give to you. So it's rather pointless.

So that said, did you or did you not accuse me of lying about and altering or making up my own definition for agnostic? And did I actually do that? Answer that or the conversation ends. A conversation that will never go anywhere anyway.

Why don't you read about Descarte's take on how far doubt can go and keep yourself busy? I reference Philosophers that I am familiar with and have had to study. You reference wikipedia, because I believe that you have no formal studies in Philosophy. Why don't you read a quick primer on Leibniz's take on POE? It's not exactly my take on it, but I see it as a valid argument.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/module...

Funny how I am supposed to be the guy that knew nothing about this and you have to lead me by the hand, when I am the only one who actually references notable Philosophers. That's because I read them, and I do not believe that you have. At most, you might have discussed POE on some forums.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#825 Jun 21, 2013
Yes you actually answer the question. Any reject can google up popular philosophers and copy and paste random quotes from them.

You explain your take on the problem of evil.

Sheesh the best you can do is belch a bland free will excuse? Little old church ladies could do better than that. The free will argument fails because it cannot explain away gratuitous evil not to mention god supposedly stepped in to stop a donkey from getting whipped but sat silently during the WW2 as Jews were being killed by the millions.

Here is a wonderful philosophical presentation destroying the ultra lame free will argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/andrea...
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>No. you're going to own up to something for once that you have clearly done or the conversation ends. You're not going to control the conversation. And, i asked which you would like, my take on it.
LNC Llin

United States

#826 Jun 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes you actually answer the question. Any reject can google up popular philosophers and copy and paste random quotes from them.
You explain your take on the problem of evil.
Sheesh the best you can do is belch a bland free will excuse? Little old church ladies could do better than that. The free will argument fails because it cannot explain away gratuitous evil not to mention God supposedly stepped in to stop a donkey from getting whipped but sat silently during the WW2 as Jews were being killed by the millions.
Here is a wonderful philosophical presentation destroying the ultra lame free will argument.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/andrea...
<quoted text>
In Your Opinion this is "a wonderful philosophical presentation".
Others may see it as stale and dogmatic.
Thinking

London, UK

#827 Jun 21, 2013
Why the inconsistent capitalisation, troll?
LNC Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
In Your Opinion this is "a wonderful philosophical presentation".
Others may see it as stale and dogmatic.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#828 Jun 21, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes you actually answer the question. Any reject can google up popular philosophers and copy and paste random quotes from them.
You know the question I asked you to answer and you know I said that I will not continue the discussion unless you answer it. I will decide whether to proceed or not based on your choice. So far, the choice of yours seems to be that you do not wish the conversation to continue. It's you choice. It's your "free will". And it is as I suspected, all you know about POE is what you have read on forums. I said that earlier, and you quote from a forum.

I asked you whether you wanted someone even one respected Philosopher's answer or mine. You ignored that and tried to flip things by giving me a wiki article and trying to suggest that I even needed to familiarize myself with the issue when that is not true at all. Again, more manipulation of the conversation.

I am not going to let you manipulate the conversation, flip things, alter the angles or reshuffle the deck as you see fit. I asked you a simple question, and I am not going to let you tap dance around it. Again, it's your choice. I will be more than willing to continue the conversation if you own up to making a false and incorrect accusation. If you are the type that can never do that or even admit to any mistake (and you have made many), then the conversation will only be pointless with someone like that.

I believe that I already know your answer and I did when I asked you to answer it before. So I have little expectation of the conversation continuing in any meaningful way. I already know the taunts you will attempt in response so that you can sweep your mistake under the rug, and it will not effect or bother me at all.

It's your choice, not mine. I will make my decision based on your choice. Maybe I might even go on that forum and answer the article, but I won't do it with you unless you finally show a capability to own up to any mistake that you make, and you and I both know that you simply cannot do that.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#829 Jun 21, 2013
Sheesh take your medicine.

If you are unable to answer I will accept your failure as expected.

Seeker belched: You know the question I asked you to answer and you know I said that I will not continue the discussion unless you answer it. I will decide whether to proceed or not based on your choice. So far, the choice of yours seems to be that you do not wish the conversation to continue. It's you choice. It's your "free will". And it is as I suspected, all you know about POE is what you have read on forums. I said that earlier, and you quote from a forum.

Hysterics.

I asked you whether you wanted someone even one respected Philosopher's answer or mine. You ignored that and tried to flip things by giving me a wiki article and trying to suggest that I even needed to familiarize myself with the issue when that is not true at all. Again, more manipulation of the conversation.

No first you have wildly off topic answers that had nothing to do with the problem of evil. I didn't flip anything I showed you a wiki page that illustrated my question, as anyone can clearly see. Had you not given wildly off topic answers I would not have had to held your hand like that.

I am not going to let you manipulate the conversation, flip things, alter the angles or reshuffle the deck as you see fit. I asked you a simple question, and I am not going to let you tap dance around it. Again, it's your choice. I will be more than willing to continue the conversation if you own up to making a false and incorrect accusation. If you are the type that can never do that or even admit to any mistake (and you have made many), then the conversation will only be pointless with someone like that.

Temper temper.

I believe that I already know your answer and I did when I asked you to answer it before. So I have little expectation of the conversation continuing in any meaningful way. I already know the taunts you will attempt in response so that you can sweep your mistake under the rug, and it will not effect or bother me at all.

Hysterics.

It's your choice, not mine. I will make my decision based on your choice. Maybe I might even go on that forum and answer the article, but I won't do it with you unless you finally show a capability to own up to any mistake that you make, and you and I both know that you simply cannot do that.

Yawn. So now that you have had your chance to vent like a hysterical child, can you finally answer the question about the problem of evil or shall we have a nice laugh about your so called philosophical knowledge? Up to you and with minimal hysterics please.

Thank you

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#830 Jun 21, 2013
This is why I wish he would take an ESL class.
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Why the inconsistent capitalisation, troll?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#831 Jun 22, 2013
Like I said, I fully expected the taunts and they have no effect me. Try as you may, but it will not work. All you need to do is to answer the simple question I asked about your accusation. And the article has missed a few considerations and has drawn some incomplete conclusions. I asked you to define what you actually mean by evil as opposed to bad. I had a very good reason for asking that so that I could decide which answer to give. And once again, you ignored my qualifying question, and arbitrarily decided to give me a wiki page to "hold my hand", and arbitrarily make it seem as though I have no experience with POE, when I never needed any wiki article and never asked for one. So my qualifying question was ignored in favor of manipulating and flipping the conversation.

This is yet another reason why I have no interest in discussing this with you, but would gladly discuss it with someone such as Marco or Thinker or anybody that I find to be more reasonable, less manipulative and less of a "win at all costs" attitude. There is no "winning", there is an exchange of ideas.

But that said, I will still discuss this with you, no matter how pointless I realize it would be, if you merely own up to making the accusation mistake that you clearly made. You have made many mistakes, such as saying that a non created creator, which God HAS to be in order to be God, must exist within the creation itself, and I didn't push you to admit that error. But after a false accusation that's enough at this point. I know you are not capable of owning up to anything, so I guess the conversation on this subject between you and I will not occur.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#832 Jun 22, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I just explained it to you and explained the difference between claiming something as a theory and claiming something as a fact. I also explained that lack of evidence is proof of nothing, it is merely a logical reason to doubt a claim that can't be proven with evidence as of yet.
Are you 16 years old, as others have claimed you are? I ask that, because I would not want to have a conversation with myself as a 16 year old. I really thought that I knew it all back then, like most 16 year olds and I never listened or even considered anything that others said except for what I wanted to hear and what would confirm what I "think" I already know.
Again, 11 lines. At least you are improving slowly. But seriously, it still takes you 11 lines to admit you have no proof of god being possible and are a liar.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#833 Jun 22, 2013
Seeker wrote:
Like I said, I fully expected the taunts and they have no effect me. Try as you may, but it will not work. All you need to do is to answer the simple question I asked about your accusation. And the article has missed a few considerations and has drawn some incomplete conclusions. I asked you to define what you actually mean by evil as opposed to bad. I had a very good reason for asking that so that I could decide which answer to give. And once again, you ignored my qualifying question, and arbitrarily decided to give me a wiki page to "hold my hand", and arbitrarily make it seem as though I have no experience with POE, when I never needed any wiki article and never asked for one. So my qualifying question was ignored in favor of manipulating and flipping the conversation.
This is yet another reason why I have no interest in discussing this with you, but would gladly discuss it with someone such as Marco or Thinker or anybody that I find to be more reasonable, less manipulative and less of a "win at all costs" attitude. There is no "winning", there is an exchange of ideas.
But that said, I will still discuss this with you, no matter how pointless I realize it would be, if you merely own up to making the accusation mistake that you clearly made. You have made many mistakes, such as saying that a non created creator, which God HAS to be in order to be God, must exist within the creation itself, and I didn't push you to admit that error. But after a false accusation that's enough at this point. I know you are not capable of owning up to anything, so I guess the conversation on this subject between you and I will not occur.
It takes you 50 lines to simply admit that you are a liar with no proof of god.

What a coward with no balls whatsoever.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 239,801
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr woodtick57 7,608
Is God a Perfect Being? 11 hr Thinking 16
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr ChristineM 2,234
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 13 hr True Christian wi... 137
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 hr ChristineM 19,141
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 19 hr Exodus771 7,512
More from around the web