People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centred; Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; Be kind anyway.
If you are successful you will win some false friends and true enemies; Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you; Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous; Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow; Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough; Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God; it was never between you and them anyway.
These words of Mother Teresa are words to live by. She saw the face of Christ in society’s rejects and ministered to Him.
She understood the Spirit of the letter in the Bible where at the end of it all, God separates the sheep from the goats, neither of whom recognized Him travelling Spiritually incognito among the People in all the Nations of this world. It’s a vision that transcends Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism and Ignorance.
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say to them on his right hand,
Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungry, and you gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and you took Me in: Naked, and you clothed Me: I was sick, and you visited Me: I was in prison, and you came unto Me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see YOU hungry, and fed YOU? or thirsty, and gave YOU drink? When did we see YOU as a stranger, and took YOU in? or naked, and clothed YOU? Or when did we see YOU sick, or in prison, and came to YOU? And the King shall answer and say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto ME.
Then shall he say to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungry, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see YOU hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to YOU? Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to ME.
Mother Teresa laboured in obscurity for many years in the patient love and service of Christ until God rewarded her by making her works manifest to the world, and lifting her up, so that in her final years others served her.
When Princess Diana died, for a week her whole life was caught up in a tsunami of media attention, revealing every detail of her life. There is no denying she was attractive, rich and glamorous.
I believe God called Mother Teresa home to Glory purposefully a week later as the media were still fawning over Diana´s life, repeating over and over again every tantalizing detail, because that´s what got the ratings. Mother Teresa did get some media attention for a day, and then the media went back to covering Diana. They did the whole thing over again on the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death with hardly a mention of Mother Teresa.
I believe God did this deliberately to show how superficial a place the world has become. This is not to suggest Princess Diana was superficial. The world knows with all the riches and glamor, she hungered for Love and Righteousness. Unselfishly, she used her exalted position to highlight many noble and worthwhile causes, but the people of the world idolized the glitz and glamor instead of taking up the causes she Championed.
This is more an indictment of the mass media of this world, having more UN-elected power than the politicians to lead the people in creating a better world.
Owned by rich impersonal Corporations unaccountable to anyone or anything but their own political-economic agenda, ratings and profits, they abdicate any responsibility commensurate with the extraordinary power they have to shape the thoughts, perceptions, understandings, emotions and feelings of the masses in creating the Future world while it is called Today.
Everyone, every individual will be accountable to God, from the greatest to the least, no matter what their station or position in Life.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all Knowledge; and though I have all Faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long, and is kind; Love is not jealous; Love does not boast, is not puffed up, Does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; Rejoices not in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the Truth; Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be Knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be no more. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And NOW abides Faith, Hope, Love, these three; but the greatest of these is Love.
Richard Anderson Falkis an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor‘s Chairman of the Board of Trustees. In 2004, he was listed as the author or coauthor of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 volumes. Falk has published extensively with multiple books written about international law and the United Nations.
I first learned about him in 2013 reading the Israeli government, CanaDa and the US were calling for his dismissal as the UNHRC Rapporteur and my 1st thought was ‘he must be doing something right’ and followed him in his Blog linked below since then.
On Sunday, May 22, 2011, President Barack Obama spoke at an AIPAC Conference, three days after giving his decidedly pro-Israeli speech at the State Department on his broader Middle East foreign policy. It was a shockingly partisan speech to the extremist lobbying group that has the entire U.S. Congress in an unprecedented headlock that has become the envy of even the National Rifle Association. Of course, I assume that Obama’s handlers regarded a speech to AIPAC as obligatory given the upcoming presidential election in 2012. The dependence of political candidates for almost any significant elective office in the United States on Jewish electoral and funding support has become an article of secular political faith, and particularly so for a national office like the presidency. Nevertheless, the enactment of this political ritual by Obama seemed excessive even taking full account of the role of Israeli Lobby as to be worth noting and decrying.
What is worse, the mainstream media typically misconstrued the AIPAC event in a manner that compounds the outrage of the speech itself. For instance, the NY Times headline says it all: “Obama Challenges Israel to Make Hard Choices for Peace.” As Obama pointed out himself in his remarks, “there was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations.” The supposed hard choices involve Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, only restating the generalized international consensus that has often been articulated by American leaders and in a variety of authoritative settings. This is hardly a hard choice, especially as interpreted by the White House’s former Special Envoy, George Mitchell, as including Israel’s perceived security requirements. That is, the land swaps now seem to embrace not only the unlawful settlement blocs that had been conceded by George W. Bush, but now appear to incorporate Netanyahu over the top demands for strategic depth at the expense of Palestinian land, demanding the appropriation of portions of the Jordan Valley along with the deployment of Israeli troops within a hypothetical demilitarized Palestinian state.
What is more, the alleged hard choice is never set against the background of the aftermath of the 1948 War that deprived of about half of the territory they had been given according to the UN partition plan embodied in General Assembly Resolution 181. And as is widely known, the Palestinian rejected that partition as being grossly unfair, imposed from without and awarding the Jewish minority population about 56% of historic Palestine. In effect, the willingness of the Palestinians, expressed first by the 1988 session of the Palestinian National Council to live within the 1967 borders meant agreeing to have their Palestinian state on 22% of the British mandate. This was indeed a hard choice! The land swaps involving settlement blocs, and their bypass roads, and further security zones claimed are all encroachments upon that 22%, and the fact that such further Palestinian concession can be proposed is indicative of just how unfair has become the American led approach to the resolution of the underlying conflict. It is further notable that this fundamental territorial redefinition of the two-state consensus is never acknowledged or even mentioned. In effect, what was thought to be two states in 1947 was dramatically diminished by what became the contours of two states after the 1967 War, and has been further diminished in dramatic form ever since by the settlement process and the various unilateral changes introduced by Israel in the course of administering Jerusalem.
The speech to AIPAC is significant not for these non-existent ‘hard choices,’ but for the scandalously obsequious pleading tone adopted by an American president that acknowledges with pride everything about the U.S. Government’s relationship to the conflict that should disqualify it from ever again having a shred of diplomatic credibility as a third party intermediary. Starting with the fawning “[w]hat a remarkable, remarkable crowd” to his heartfelt words of sympathy for Israeli victims of violence without even a scintilla of empathy for the far, far greater suffering daily endured by the entire Palestinian people: dispossessed, living under occupation, blockade, in refugee camps and exile, or as persons displaced physically and psychologically.
The passage on military assistance to a prosperous Israel should have come as a shock to American taxpayers but passes without notice by the Western media. I quote in full because it so shamelessly overlooks Israeli defiance of international law and its militarist outlook toward the future: “..I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. And that includes additional support—beyond regular military aid—for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system.” It is not surprising that there was loud applause after each sentence in the paragraph just quoted, but it is surprising that an American president would try to please even an AIPAC audience this abject manner. After all, others are listening! Or should be!
Obama similarly brushes aside any concern about the unlawfulness of the Israeli occupation or its uses of force against a defenseless population in Gaza in its massive attacks launched at the end of 2008, and carried on for three weeks. Obama brushes aside the Goldstone Report by name, suggesting that its assessment of Israel’s wrongdoing somehow challenges Israel’s right of self-defense when in actuality the Goldstone legal analysis does just the opposite, and far more ardently and unconditionally than appropriate, in my view. There is not a word about the Flotilla Incident of a year ago or the recent excessive use of lethal force at the Israeli borders in response to the ‘right of return’ demonstrations associated with the Palestinian remembrance of the 2011 Nakba.
Going beyond the negativity of his State Department comments, Obama mimics Netanyahu in condemning the moves toward Palestinian Authority/Hamas reconciliation and unity. He has the temerity to insist that “the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace.” Actually, reasonably considered, the agreement should have been welcomed as an indispensable step toward creating the possibility of peace.
Not a word of challenge is uttered by Obama in front of this AIPAC audience about settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees. Not a word about the Palestinian ordeal, or diminished horizons of possibility, and no White House plan announced to give a talk before a Palestinian audience. The Obama talk was so outrageously one-sided, so contrary to American strategic interests, that it implicitly suggests that the Palestinians are so weak and passive as to let it slip by in silence. Only a justifiable outburst of Palestinian rage could begin to counter this impression of diplomatic surrender.
Palestinian prudence would go further that an angry reaction. After such a speech the only responsible response by the Palestinian leadership is to conclude once and for all, however belatedly, that it is no longer possible to look to Washington for guidance in reaching a peaceful, just, and sustainable resolution of the conflict. Indeed, to allow such a Washington framing of peace at this point, in light of this Obama/Netanyahu posturing, would further disclose the incompetence and illegitimacy that have long handicapped the Palestinian struggle for self-determination based on a just and sustainable peace and founded on respect for Palestinian rights under international law.
Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels said if a lie is repeated often enough, it will be accepted as the truth. Christianity has said for so long Sodom was destroyed because of gay sex, that interpretation is not questioned? I question it?
And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do JUSTICE and JUDGMENT; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him. And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;I will go down now, and SEE WHETHER they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and IF NOT, I WILL KNOW
Genesis 18
Now here is God saying, something is happening in Sodom. It´s not good. I don´t know exactly what it is, but I´ll check it out and then I´ll know for sure.
For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment;
God knows Abraham is a just man, wise in his judgment.God still doesn´t know for sure what the problem is in Sodom, but Abraham, in his concern pressed the Lord.
That be far from you to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from you: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
And Abraham drew near, and said, Will you also destroy the righteous with the wicked? What IF there are fifty righteous within the city: will you also destroy them and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are there?
Abraham is holding God´s feet to the fire in the manner of speaking, saying to God, is ¨collateral¨ damage acceptable to the Great God? Collateral damage is totally acceptable to the world powers these days.
Abraham is very bold with the Lord, pressing for a commitment.
And he said to Him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: What if there shall be 30 found there? And he said, I will not do it, if I find 30 there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: What if there shall be 20 found there? And He said, I will not destroy it for 20’s sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: What if 10 shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for 10’s sake.
That’s good reasoning with God anyway you look at it, the stereotype for Jewish bargaining talents.
Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you be willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land: But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.
Abraham got the word of the Lord, but this implies the angels have orders to go into town, mingle with the people, and look for at least ten righteous people.
What would you be doing if the internet didn’t exist? No TV. radio, telephone, newspapers, movie theatres, public transit, electricity or indoor plumbing? No manufacturing plants or punch clocks and no clocks at all except sunrise and sunset? No air conditioning? Life would be so basic. Just surviving one day at a time would be an accomplishment. No knowledge about what is happening in the world beyond the city walls except when strangers come to town.
The streets were small and narrow, teeming with people looking for something, amusement, entertainment, anything to do to pass the evening.
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and you shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but WE WILL ABIDE IN THE STREET ALL NIGHT.
And he PRESSED UPON THEM GREATLY; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
Lot wanted to get the information from the strangers firsthand, and he bugged them and bugged them until they abandoned their instructions to stay in the streets all night to find 10 righteous people.
The people would recognize strangers, but the angels must have had an aura about them that caused the Sodomites to pause and whisper to one another as Lot led them through the city streets to his abode. Lot wanted them all to himself.
As Lot feasted with the angels behind closed doors, word quickly spread through Sodom about these mysterious strangers. Curiosity was building. Where are they from? What news can they tell us about the larger world beyond the our city walls?
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
ALL THE PEOPLE, OLD AND YOUNG FROM EVERY QUARTER. We have to assume women were included in ALL the people. Did they have a giant orgy in mind? Old, young, male and female? ALL the people?
The whole city was curious about the angel/strangers.
And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? bring them out to us, that we may KNOW them.
I have no idea when and where it started, but some Christian somewhere read that somewhere else in the Bible, probably when Mary, the mother of Jesus, was visited by an angel in human form to tell her she will be the mother of God and she said, ‘how can this be since I have not “known man” Not known man means to be a virgin, so “to know them” was extrapolated to mean having sex.
I just don’t see that connection there in reading the story by this one line: bring them out to us, that we may KNOW them, and building a case that God destroyed Sodom because of gay sex.
What is worse, is people believe it because it’s preached from some pulpits, and don’t read the story for themselves and think with some realistic imagination to make up their own mind, nor have the ability to see the Spirit of the letter in their own “personal” relationship with God, but go by what other people tell them to believe. In the final analysis, it is not between you and them, but between you and God.
And Lot went out at the door to them, and shut the door after him,
Bring them out to us that we may know them.This is the third ¨KNOW¨”in the story. Bring them out! We want to know them. We want to know what they know about the outside world?
A detail in this story is that Lot shut the door behind him so the people did not know what was happening behind the closed door, neither did the angels know what was happening outside.
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
The first thing Lot tells the crowd is you can´t touch the men, but you can do what you want with my virgin daughters. Is this righteous? Is Lot a loving, responsible parent? I don´t think so!
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will NEEDS BE A JUDGE; now will we deal worse with you, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
The people were pissed off at Lot by his free offer of his daughters. I supposed some would think they must be gay or they would want Lot´s daughters, but that´s not what the story says.
ALL THE PEOPLE said, this fellow Lot is new in town and he would judge us. WE want to know what the strangers know. We don´t want your daughters. They had righteous indignation over what Lot thought what they wanted and were angry.
But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
At that point the men-angels only put out their hands from behind the door, and pulled Lot in, and didn’t really know what the commotion was all about!
The angels should have continued on their mission to spend the night in the streets to find 10 righteous people in the city, but they did not even come outside to see what the commotion was all about, and pulled Lot into the house.
Not only did the angels not do what they were supposed to do, they stayed with an unrighteous man who thought nothing of offering his daughters to a mob.
The rest of the story gets very bizarre.
And the men said to Lot, “Whom else do you have here? A son-in-law, your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, take out of the place. For we are destroying this place, because their cry has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that MOCKED unto his sons in law.
Lot had many defects of character it seems.
Verses 30 to 36 I cannot imagine. Lot got so drunk, he didn´t know his daughters seduced him. He was so drunk, he impregnated his virgin daughters. Being that drunk, how could he get it up and not even know it?
In 1985 I was extended the rare honour and recognition of being invited to lunch with The Apostolic Nuncio to Canada. That’s the Pope’s Ambassador.
Mindful of how Jesus talked to the establishment religious leaders, I was also mindful while he lives in me, I am not he. I am a sinner like the Pope, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs and everyone else without exception.
Passing through the main Dining Hall with it’s seven foot fireplace and table seating at least fifty, The Nuncio, Charge D’Affairs, Secretary and I entered a beautifully decorated, intimate Dining room with a table for twelve. The dinnerware had a gold band around the edge with the Papal tiara crown in gold at the top. It was a formal setting. with the whitest linen tablecloth and flowers.
As the guest, the man for all Seasons and Reasons served me first and the Secretary last. At that point I deliberately picked up the dessert fork at the top of the plate to eat the rigatoni meat sauce appetizer with the most wonderful aroma just to see what would happen?
The Pope’s Ambassador stopped me, and pointing to the fork on the side said, “Use that one.”
Replacing it, I said, “Excuse me, Your Excellency. It’s been over ten years since I left the business world where I negotiated multi-million dollar deals in Board Rooms and fine restaurants. I’ve lost touch with that sense of refinement.
To tell you the Truth, Your Excellency, since I’ve been walking with Jesus, most of the people I encounter can’t even afford to eat good food, let alone have matched dinnerware.” Jesus was brutal talking to religious leaders.
Being a Diplomat and recovering, The Nuncio asked, “What’s on the mind of youth?” I answered, “Sex, drugs, music, peace, love, friendship, money, security and work, not necessarily in that order of priority.”
“Oh! It’s just like Sodom and Gomorrah was his reply. I replied, “Surely Your Excellency knows the Prophet Ezekiel said what the sin of Sodom was in Chapter 16:48.It was pride, fullness of bread and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters and she was haughty. Neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. It had nothing to do with sexual activity.” On that, The Apostolic Nuncio shushed both hands at me saying, ¨Eat! Eat!¨
All the nominally Christian Societies Today, fit within the reasons for the destruction of Sodom as described by the Prophet Ezekiel
Sitting in the front seat of the limousine with the man for all Seasons and Reasons living in the gatehouse with his Wife, and driving me home after lunch, he told me his wife is a Cormier. It was a surprise learning of that Co-incidence or design? Especially because a year earlier, in 1985 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau quit his job 2 weeks after RCMP VIP Security questioned me at length on my attitude toward him? It was a surprise to me he quit, and an even greater surprise when I learned he moved from the Parliamentary House to the Cormier House in Montreal, he bought 2 years after I entered his Life. For the last 7 years of his Administration, I was in the position to stand with him Face to Face and talk with or pass Pierre Trudeau a note without any Intermediaries.
Imagine if your Family Name was connected like that to both Political and Religious Powers? Co-incidence or design?
The RCMP have the Records on all that, like the US Secret Service has records on my presence in Kansas City during the 1976 Republican National Convention.
It was a surprise to me when the Secret Service called me out of the compressed crowd in the Lobby of The Crown Center Hotel for questioning, everyone looking up to the President’s Podium, symbol of Power, set up on the Secret Service restricted Mezzanine. The unexpected surprises continued. Instead of questioning me in some anteroom, the Secret Service Agent led me to stand right at the President’s Podium and questioned me Face to Face in view of the masses below and the 3 Networks broadcasting live. With my shoulder length hair, beard and wearing my trademark #13 jersey, it certainly was a Revolutionary Image standing at the President’s Podium in the Spirit of ’76, and the Secret Service has Records of it!
Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? says the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I have no delight in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination to me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you: yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you be willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land: But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it. How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Your silver is become dross, your wine mixed with water: Your princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loves gifts, and follows after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come unto them. Therefore says the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies: And I will turn my hand upon you, and purely purge away your dross, and take away all your tin:
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centred; Forgive them anyway.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see YOU hungry, and fed YOU? or thirsty, and gave YOU drink?
l, because that´s what got the ratings. Mother Teresa did get some media attention for a day, and then the media went back to covering Diana. They did the whole thing over again on the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death with hardly a mention of Mother Teresa.
world has become. This is not to suggest Princess Diana was superficial. The world knows with all the riches and glamor, she hungered for Love and Righteousness. Unselfishly, she used her exalted position to highlight many noble and worthwhile causes, but the people of the world idolized the glitz and glamor instead of taking up the causes she Championed.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not Love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And he said to Him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: What if there shall be 30 found there? And he said, I will not do it, if I find 30 there.
