I personally believe that at least in principle it would be wonderful to allow images in posts. But this, if you reason about it, would imply two things: to allow <img> tags, and to allow image hosting at the Monastery. To be fair, the second one would not be strictly necessary, but I presume you can feel how unreliable the former would be without the latter: apart that hotlinking external resources may be considered harmful, a post with an image hosted at another site may look nice now and horrible in a year or so, should that image disappear. Thus the admins of this site must have good reasons not to allow hosting of images here in the first place, (disk space? traffic?) and (probably as a partial consequence) <img> tags at all.

Of course, the simplest solution to your problem would be to put either your single images elsewhere or an entire "post" on a blog, or wiki or handwritten html page if nothing else suits you, and link them here: a broken link would look much better than a missing image.

I've recently discovered that the Disqus commenting system which I use to "augment" my tumblelog to a (more commonly seen as) "real" blogging platform doesn't allow <img> tags either: (not that it surprises me terribly, but I had hoped...) it's true that it's still an "external" service, but I think they could allow them, perhaps at a user's option: I for one would use it with images hosted on the same tumblelog - but now that I think about it, I don't know what the casual commenter may do, if given that freedom... So perhaps they're right. Or they may give that freedom to the admin only, but that would introduce an asymmetry that some visitor may dislike. Never mind, it's already a very good tool!