 |
|
|
|
|
August 10th, 2013
02:33 AM ET
'Breaking Bad' and the evil within us allOpinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN (CNN) - The other day I was asked in a radio interview why I’m still a Christian. Since I’ve never been shy about writing through my questions and doubts, the interviewer wanted to know why I hang on to faith in spite of them. I talked about Jesus—his life, teachings, death, resurrection, and presence in my life and in the world. I talked about how faith is always a risk, and how the story of Jesus is a story I’m willing to risk being wrong about. And then I said something that surprised me a little, even as it came out of my own mouth: “I’m a Christian,” I said, “because Christianity names and addresses sin.” I’ve been thinking a lot about sin lately because like many Americans I’ve gotten hooked on “Breaking Bad” and am plotting ways to avoid any sort of social interaction on Sunday night so I can catch the first of the final eight episodes of the award-winning AMC series. What I love about “Breaking Bad”—besides its gripping plotlines, flawless character development, pitch-perfect performances, and the unmatched chemistry between Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul, is the way it traces teacher-turned-kingpin Walter White’s descent into total moral ignominy, one frighteningly relatable decision at a time. 5 questions 'Breaking Bad' must answer Walter doesn’t start off with the goal of making millions and killing anyone who gets in his way. He just wants to survive at first. Then he wants to provide, then he wants to impress, then he wants to spite, then he wants to rule. His desires aren’t that different from yours or mine, really, and neither are his decisions. In fact, Walter is at his most infuriating not when he’s cooking meth or even shooting a gun, but when he’s betraying a friend, indulging his vanity, engaging in truly staggering feats of self-deception, and using other people for personal gain … basically when he’s acting just like me on a given Tuesday morning. Which brings me back to Christianity. In Christianity, evil isn’t something that simply exists “out there” among thieves and murderers and meth makers. No, Christianity teaches the hard truth that the evil we observe in the world is also present within ourselves. Racism, greed, misogyny, hatred, violence, inequity, selfishness, and pride all take shape within the human heart, so if we’re going to tackle injustice in the world, we have to start with ourselves. Christianity rejects the idea that we’re all okay. The good news is that liberation comes not from climbing some holy ladder to try and escape sin on our own, nor from wallowing in shame and self-hatred because of it, but receiving the grace of God through Jesus and extending that grace to others. This process begins with naming the evil within us and turning away from it—a process called repentance. In one of the most riveting “Breaking Bad” scenes of all time, we see Jesse on the verge of such a moment as he indirectly confesses his most haunting transgression to his Narcotics Anonymous support group. Unwilling to justify his sins like Walter, and desperate to stop numbing himself from them through drugs, Jesse gets frustrated with those in the group urging him to accept himself without judgment. In a fit of frustration, Jesse cries, “So I should stop judging and accept? So no matter what I do, hurray for me, because I’m a great guy? It’s all good? What a load of crap …You know why I’m here in the first place? To sell you meth. You’re nothing to me but customers …You OK with that? You accept that?” The group sits in stunned silence until the leader finally whispers, “No.” I’ve heard from many addicts who say meetings like these are the closest thing they have to church because it’s the only place in the world where people tell the truth about themselves, even the ugly parts. This is what the church calls confession. Confession gives us the chance to admit to one another that we’re not OK and then to seek healing and reconciliation together, in community. It’s not about pointing out the sins of others, but acknowledging our shared brokenness, our shared capacity for destruction, our shared rebellion against what is beautiful and good. I think this is one reason we find Walter White so compelling—and, for that matter, Dexter Morgan, Don Draper, and Piper Chapman. They may be meth dealers and serial killers and prison inmates, but what drives them isn’t all that different than what drives you and me. Nor is the grace that would ultimately save us all. Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Evans. Evans has written previously for CNN's Belief Blog, including: Why millennials are leaving the church; and Not all religious convictions are written in stone.
Next entry »Judge: Baby can't be named 'Messiah'
« Previous entry'No Muslim parking' signs spark outrage
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
God is more real than the chair you are sitting on.
My miniature dragon is just as real as the chair YOU are sitting on.
He is all powerfull and rules the universe...so there.
Now, BarC, you need to stamp your foot for emphasis, otherwise it doesn't count.
dragons is soooooo stupid !
With that dragon, do you know that you are loved to the core of your being? Can you feel that in your soul or spirit? Maybe you don't even feel like you have a soul or spirit... do you feel like you are lacking something? What are you looking for on here?
wow, AE....another claim. let me guess, captain of the debate team?
i like to read the comments. i particularly enoy it when people tell me what THEY think god is like
AE,
I don't think you get the point. You are making a claim that you can't corroborate. I am calling you out on it. Don't take it personally. I do the same with anyone who makes similar claims.
@Blessed, if Bob tells you he dreams but you have never had (or never remembered) a dream you might find this fantastical and call him a liar (I know a case where this actually happened). This doesn't make the dreams less real.
If someone tells you they lucid dream and you have never experienced it, you might, as I did, question this, too. Then you hear the work you have to do to achieve it and it sounds like an even bigger fraud. But again, lucid dream is, I will now attest, real. Though I can't prove it to you (or couldn't have before a few years ago...so let's pretend this conversation is a few years back...)
For Christians the claim is the same. Many are just relying on their subjective experiEnce and are well aware they can't prove it to you. They want you to go try the experiment.
Yes, we know these experiences can have many causes, but really that's the only relevant conversation here. But what they have *is* evidence, even if not very good evidence. And demanding proof is just talking off topic.
Sara,
I have the utmost respect for you though you and I have had to agree to disagree before.
When people make claims that can't be verified, corroborated or objectively studied and present those claims as fact they do everyone a disservice and I would argue do actual harm. I, and many others, have lost relationaships with family and friends due to non-acceptance of these claims and that is minor compared to what many have had to deal with. I have no doubt AE is completely sincere about his claim, however when people are allowed to make claims unopposed it opens up situations where susceptible and gullible people think it is reasonable to trust people that can take advantage of them. ANd I ask you, why should they not be called out? I see you do the same all the time and yet for some reason you take exception here and quite frankly I find your criticism unwarranted and pretentious. If AE wants to accept dreams as evidence that is his business, if he asks others to do the same he needs to be able to justify that position or be prepared to deal with the opposition.
@Cheese, I think I should clarify that I'm referring primarily to the claim content of the first comment by AE, and not the second one which doesn't really make any sense to me. It's possible that you are disentangling some meaning from that second post and commenting in part on that which is something I won't even try to do.
Assuming we are talking then about the first claim, with regard to the reality of god vs the chair, I do also agree that if he's making a claim of certainty of God that is presumptious, and that certainty should be called out just as anyone who posts "There is no God" should be called out. I guess I only leave that because I remember in the last few days AE posted something that said he wasn't absolutely certain. I may be misremembering, but if that is the case, that would make his statement just a lazily written version of
"I strongly believe God is more real than the chair you are sitting on."
More specifically I think it would be (based on my va gue memories of his other posts)
"I strongly believe God is more real than the chair you are sitting on and you can get some evidence if you follow certain instructions"
Assuming AE is an idealist or something like it (he doesn't seem interested in answering me on that) anything mental would potentially be more real than anything physical, so saying "god is more real than a chair" is the same as "I am more real than a chair". Really we are just talking about whether god exists.
So really he's just saying "I have some evidence and you can look in a similar place and find the same evidence. I think it will convince you." Now maybe I'm wrong about that. I haven't been tracking his posts but am going on a fairly faulty memory, and he may be making much stronger claims than that.
But assuming that is all he's saying, we're kind of talking about etiquette, and I do agree with you that AE's just posting a claim with no surrounding content is random and out of place. So you may be right here and I may be giving him too much slack because I've seen his other comments and am filling in known content around his comment to make it seem a bit less weirdly random. Yeah, he shouldn't just post silly one line claims with nothing backing them up. On the other hand, in a general sense, I don't think we can ask people whose only evidence is mental to produce something we can corroborate, because that can't happen.
Correction, I see AE did answer my idealist question, but I don't understand his answer.
–AE posted something that said he wasn't absolutely certain.–
I posted along the lines that certainity of our self and our knowledge leads to immodesty and arrogance.
I've attempted to answer some of these people's concerns.
–I see AE did answer my idealist question, but I don't understand his answer.
Can you define idealist? I see 5 different definitions and they can all imply very different things.
I don't normally define myself as an idealist, but I was trying to be open to the idea in my answer.
AE, in philosophy, idealism asserts that that which is mental is more real than the material. There are different twists on this, but it has relevance to your claim that God is "more real" than a chair, as there are a few different ways we could interpret such a claim. The ideas either that you believe the eternal to be "more real" or that you believe consciousness "more real" are the two major interpretations.
*I've attempted to answer some of these people's concerns. ( I didn't finish this thought)
...and they know my answer. I had to seek humility to find God. My pride and ego stood in the way.
Saraswati
Idealism
I was declaring something more along the lines of grat.itude. Think of it in poetic terms, but I was so happy and wanted to share how real God is and that God is working in my life.
I probaby should have said "God is more real than the chair I sit in".
I'll think about your idealism question. I feel like I am a pretty "earthy" person. And Christianity uses a lot of ordinary objects (water, wine, bread) to commune with the divine, so I'm not sure if it is a fitting description.
@AE.... "I probaby should have said "God is more real than the chair I sit in".
We can philosophize till the cows come home but regardless, that statement is completely false.... unless we are changing the defination of the word "real"
Sara,
I get your point. Below you posted to someone else.... "but arguing with someone for "proof" of their inner psychological experiences is absurd."
It seems this corrosponds to the point you were making to me. I agree with you that asking for, and expecting this type of proof to be presented, and if that person is not able to, expecting them to relinquish their claim...IS absurd.
But that is not my point in making the claim about my dragon and calling out AE about his baseless claim. I am pointing out that competing subjecting claims are equally absurd and making those claims in the first place is tedious. Now if someone wants to say "my subjective experience is real to me and if you follow my suggestion you may have a similar experience" it would be at least honest. In this case and many others I see everyday the subjective claim is made that that person's non-verifiable claim is "as real as the chair I am sitting in" is completely different and dishonest. Not because they are lying, but because they are claiming knowledge they don't have and can't verify, even if they believe they do. My issue is couching a subjective claim as fact. It is at best opinion, and claiming otherwise is shady and underhanded.
Such is the human experience. Pat Benatar can sing "Love is a battlefield", and one can say that is absolutely false. That love is an intense feeling of deep affection and a battlefield the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought. But, part of being human, in my experience, is understanding what she is talking about.
–Blessed are the Cheesemakers–
One difference I notice and want to mention: You were not being honest about your dragon. I am being honest about God.
@Cheese, I think maybe what we're both asking is that people phrase their claims a bit more carefully. It does get tedious to see people, Christian, atheist or whatever, who've been here a while making statements where they haven't even, for instance, bothered to recognize that a key term they are using is used differently by the people they are talking too. This poor formation of statements and claims is so common that I have to give almost everything a very optimistic reading or I wouldn't even bother having discussiions here. I think one of the biggest errors I make is in over-assuming hidden logic where it doesn't exist.
" I am being honest about God."
No you are not. And that is my point. You are being honest that you BELIEVE. But you are claiming knowledge you don't have.
If I sit a jar with an undetermined amount of coins in front of you and ask the question "Are there an even amont of coins or an odd amount?"
If you answer "I think there is an even amount"....That an honest.
If you answer "It is undeniably 100% proven that there is an even amount" THAT is dishonest...even if you believe it.
If you asked me to tell you the amount of coins I would say I honestly don't know.
If you asked me to guess, I would guess even. Or odd.
If you asked me if I believed you were honest about your dragon being real I would say no.
If you asked me if God is real I would say yes.
"If you asked me if God is real I would say yes."
That is honest.
"God is more real than the chair you are sitting on."
That is not honest.
And that is the problem with religion and religious belief, it encourages people to make and accept unprovable claims as absolute fact. The problem becomes very apparent when competing unverifiable religious claims conflict and both sides have to dig in their heels because they have painted themselves in a coroner...and there is no way to resolve the issue, but both think they have the ultimate authority on their side.
That is a generalization about religious beliefs. Not entirely factual. Maybe an honest as.sessment from your experiences, but your experiences aren't facts.
–and there is no way to resolve the issue, but both think they have the ultimate authority on their side.–
There are other ways to resolve the issue.
-That is a generalization about religious beliefs. Not entirely factual. Maybe an honest as.sessment from your experiences, but your experiences aren't facts.-
Stating that religious beliefs are equally unverifiable IS to this point and time, fact. Unless you can objectively prove otherwise...and you can't.
-There are other ways to resolve the issue-
I find it funny you don't seem to care to list any ways to resolve the issue. Just another empty claim...like my dragon.
-but your experiences aren't facts.-
And this discussion started with you claiming your experiences ARE facts....oh the irony.
–And this discussion started with you claiming your experiences ARE facts....oh the irony.–
I never said my experiences are facts.
I did say your experiences are not facts. I think that is my first mention of the word "fact".
I honestly believe God is real. I'm not saying you have to accept that. You can make snarky comments about that all day if you want. It is just your opinion, it is not like you are stating facts.
–There are other ways to resolve the issue.–
Tolerance.
Acceptance.
Respect.
Admitting maybe I am wrong.
Yes, AE. A good first step for you, difficult as it might be since you lack courage, will be to admit that you are wrong.
-I never said my experiences are facts.
I did say your experiences are not facts. I think that is my first mention of the word "fact".-
Stating that "God is as real as the chair you are sitting on" ...IS STATING A FACT. Even if you did not use the exact word "FACT". The symantic game you use is completely dishonest and is one reason I find many believers to be so irritating and obtuse. How can anyone trust a word you say when you play games with language like that?
-Tolerance.
Acceptance.
Respect.
Admitting maybe I am wrong.-
None of those things resolve the issue of what is actually true and real, they deflect the issue as unresolvable. Agreeing to dissagree may resolve potential conflict...it does not resolve the question. Why should I accept your claim of a god over someone elses?
How does the statement that "god is as real as the chair you are sitting in" leave room for you admitting that you could be wrong?
Are you imagining I'm on trial or something?
I posted about God on a religion blog.
I admitted to Saraswati I could have worded it better. But really, it is just a few people that have a problem with it. I'm at peace with that.
AE,
If religious people stated honestly that their belief was strictly opinion and not a fact it wouldn't be much of a problem. But that is not the case is it?
Are you now willing to admit god is nothing more than opinion?
Yes this is a public forum on belief, am I not allowed to question your attempt to frame your opinion as fact?
–If religious people stated honestly that their belief was strictly opinion and not a fact it wouldn't be much of a problem. But that is not the case is it?–
I think they can admit it is a choice, unless God has chosen them.
–Are you now willing to admit god is nothing more than opinion?–
No. God is as real as the air in your lungs. 🙂
–Yes this is a public forum on belief, am I not allowed to question your attempt to frame your opinion as fact?–
I will allow it.
-I think they can admit it is a choice, unless God has chosen them.-
That is a load of garbage, beliefs are not choices. I also love how believers claim to be so humble and then claim to be "chosen" by the creator of the universe, that level of arrogance is galling.
-No. God is as real as the air in your lungs-
I would say god is as real as the dragon in my basement....
Cheesemaker, I've seen many testimonies for God From people,but never one for lizards, except for of course yours. Congratulations on your new diety.
I second the dragon testimony.
Fallacious argument from popularity by Ingtrmthnkr.
-I think they can admit it is a choice, unless God has chosen them.-
That is a load of garbage, beliefs are not choices. I also love how believers claim to be so humble and then claim to be "chosen" by the creator of the universe, that level of arrogance is galling.
-No. God is as real as the air in your lungs-
I would say god is as real as the dragon in my basement..
Wonderful how people can make a claim, and camoflage it as fact. the thing is, AE.....yer standing out like a sore thumb.
AE: You silly little boy, you should know better by now than to make such a claim on this blog...you know we're going to ask for proof and we know you're going to come back with some crap that can't be verified...are you bored this evening?
Who is this "we" you are talking about?
You always respond with either no answer or a sidestepping question. What evidence do you have that a god exists – not the voices in your head, tangible verifyable evidence.
Here is the thing, I don't have to prove God to you to make God real.
And all the snappy comebacks, put downs and victory dances means nothing. I know who I am. And it is not defined by a grown man posting under the name "In Santa We Trust" posting on the CNN Belief Board.
And you know that you can't prove God does not exist to me. You also know that I can not prove God does exist to you.
You love to point out what I do. What do you do on here? Honestly.
AE of course has no evidence to present. But good for you for not letting him off the hook, In Santa. Kudos to you.
Another dodge by AE. What a coward. I rest my case.
AE, You were the one posting that god was as real as the chair you were sitting in. In which case the evidence would be tangible and verifiable. Unless of course you're standing – yes that must be it.
Nobody answers my questions, either 🙁
Let's eat worms.
AE, I've got to agree with you here. The repeated calls for independently verifiable proof are tedious. If you are making claims about stories from the bible I think that kind of discussion has its place, but arguing with someone for "proof" of their inner psychological experiences is absurd. I might point you to research that indicates other ways these experiences could occur, but I would never tell you that because you can't show me the evidence you saw that it is worthless.
Santa,
"AE, You were the one posting that god was as real as the chair you were sitting in"
Actually, he claimed it was more real.
AE, are you an idealist?
Saraswati
-idealist?
Probably... I'm definitely a right brained individual. And I am an artist.
Blame evolution (or God if you it doesn't offend), I didn't choose to be this way!
"I didn't choose to be this way1" << - and gay people did choose to be gay.
Answer
Yea, just like that. Thanks.
Whatever floats your delusion.
I sincerely was agreeing with you, Answer.
AE
"What do you do on here?"
Trying to educate you to the fact that posting your delusion doesn't make it a fact. Do you really think you're adding anything? I don't start threads by saying there is no god whereas you do start threads saying there is a god and yet you seem to think that your comments should go unchallenged (tedious as it may be).
"... victory dances ..."
You must be thinking of someone else.
"... a grown man posting under the name "In Santa We Trust" ..."
As I've said to you before I don't believe in Santa or in any other imaginary being.
Santa
–"... victory dances ..."
-You must be thinking of someone
Probably so. I suffer from a lot of hostile posters sometimes (as does everyone else), and I get defensive which is not wise for me.
–Trying to educate you to the fact that posting your delusion doesn't make it a fact.
I know people who suffer from delusions. They don't choose to be that way, and trying to insult them or bully them into thinking my way would not be helpful at all.
I honestly believe God is real. And coming onto a Faith and Belief blog and expressing that on an article written by a Christian primarily targeted to an Christian audience is not that far fetched of a thing to do.
The thing is AE, nowhere does it state it is targeted at christians...stop making assumptions! This is a public belief blog...it is no focused on your belief and anyone can post. I am not demanding evidence, I simply stated a point that you know making such a claim would get you questions asked that outside of your own experiences, you simply can't answer. Using 'we' in a general sense here or did you miss that from the last 20 times I answered that question??
I'm not saying it is a strictly Christian blog, forgive me if I didn't make that clear.
But the author in her last 2 pieces states she is targeting Christians in her article. It is just not that unreasonable to find people who believe in God standing up for their beliefs in an article like this.
When you say "we" I'm forced to believe you belong to a group that demeans the mentally ill and their conditions. A group that uses derogatory slur names and hostile tactics to get their personal beliefs across. Again, I'm amazed to find some many self-professed intellectuals acting like one group I do not want any part of: right wing fundie religious people. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Church use this same kind of tactics against h.mos.xuals. And they somehow rationalize they are acting in a loving manner. Just like some have told me they do on here.
I don't agree with this quote for all atheists, but I think it fits for your "We atheists":
“Atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority.”
― Stephen Colbert
AE, I didn't understand your answer to my question about idealism. Are we both talking about the same thing: philosophical Berkeley style idealism?
@sara..... "but arguing with someone for "proof" of their inner psychological experiences is absurd."
But he's calling it "real".......
"Real" = "not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory" : "occurring or existing in actuality"
Lets not play the word twisting game shall we??
–But he's calling it "real".......–
If I said God is not real I would be lying. God is a reality in my life. My relationship, my trust, my confidence in God is real.
And there are many other people like me. People you probably place a lot of trust in everyday day: co-workers, family members, doctors, pilots, etc. People who demonstrate good judgment and are of sound mind.
They are not like the "delusional", "brainwashed" "idiots" that some of the posters on here that describe.
That idea that they insist on is not real.
AE
“A father has to be a provider, a teacher, a role model, but most importantly, a distant authority figure who can never be pleased. Otherwise, how will children ever understand the concept of God?”
― Stephen Colbert
“All Dogs Go To Heaven? Sorry, kids. It's only the dogs who've accepted Christ.”
― Stephen Colbert
Gotta love it when people get their theology from a television personality who is a caricature
AE,
Your trust and confidence in god is real. The delusion reference is because you (and others) believe in a god in the face of evidence than no god exists. By that I mean phenomena that were once attributed to gods now generally have a scientific explanation, certainly the major phenomena such as eclipses, earthquakes, thunder, lightning, waves, tornadoes, etc.
Yes we probably do rely on people who believe in god but they don't withdraw and let god make sure the patient doesn't die or that the plane lands itself – they are actively involved using their training and sense of responsibility. So in reality there's no need for them to believe in god to do their best.
Santa
I laughed when I saw those quotes yesterday. Given the context of those quotes and the fact that Stephen Colbert is a Christian makes it even funnier.
Bill, AE had quoted Colbert about atheism so I quoted Colbert about religion. As I understand it Colbert plays for your team in real life.
Santa
What you imagine a Christian believes (concepts held by primitive people) and does (trying to fly a plane by praying instead of operating the controls) is not my reality.
You believe god to be real based on your imagination.
AE,
Taking your second point first, I was saying the opposite – they don't try to fly a plane by praying.
The concept of a god or gods was introduced to explain natural phenomena; we now know what causes those phenomena. Hence no god was required. Now that we have better knowledge, we don't need the superstitions used to explain those phenomena. If we could somehow start afresh with our current knowledge we would have no need to invent gods. The fact that there are thousands of gods should be an indication that none of them is correct. If there were a god we'd all know and all believe.
–Taking your second point first, I was saying the opposite – they don't try to fly a plane by praying.–
Uh, yea. I don't drive my car by brushing my teeth. They are 2 different things. I'm not sure I am following your point.
I don't completely agree with your theory about concepts of god or gods. I, for one, am not following Jesus to explain natural phenomena.
Atheists allways want proof,they say show us the proof that God is real. We offer many testimonies of our experiences with God. Even though our courts of law call witness testimony admissible evidence, its' not good enough for them.
short term, Those making extraordinary claims need to provide extraordinary evidence. That which can be offered with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
Theology must bear the burden of the demand for evidence. At the same time, while the atheist requires it, the believer needs it also. But, the believer need something else first. The believer requires participation and risk. The believer must immerse himself into the practice and risk the error of being wrong, as well as the possibility of being right. His only clue is the testimony of those who have gone before and his own intellectual honesty of his experience as he journeys. For this reason, I think the believer is more courageous than the skeptic. He is willing to put his faith into practice while the skeptic is content to withhold his own immersion into the journey until sufficient evidence compels him. That evidence will, of course, never materialize and the skeptic is thus confirmed in his doubt. That is the burden of faith and the curse of doubt.
@Bill, I think first you need to make a distinction between someone who is a skeptic of Christianity or of all religion and someone who is always skeptical of all things. Most people plunge in and assume that other beings have consciousness, for instance, without absolute proof (or even great evidence) of it. Most of us plunge. in and assume we existed in the past despite the problem of induction. On the other hand, many people refuse to accept the problems with these types of beliefs precisely because they have never had the courage to experiment with true skepticism, and that goes for both religious and non-religious people. In this regard I would say that those who have actually experimented with real skepticism are braver than those who have never dared to. For most people the idea that such experiments might be right is frightening.
Experimenting with believing in god is far less risky. You will still have family and friends and a sense of continuity of time. Certain religions and certain gods might be scary, but god in the abstract is not.
Bravery is taking action when you fear a possible bad outcome. There is no reason to think that skepticism in general is less scary than belief.
But if we are talking just about religious skeptics you have to keep in mind that people still take all sorts of plunges without taking a god plunge. Jumping in and trying to see the universe through the lens of string theory or as an idealist or Spinozan or any other world view different from your own is a plunge. People who are religious skeptics try out these kinds of new views all the time (at least some do...some don't).
The issue is why, with so many views to choose from, someone would pick a particular view. You only have so much time to live and if each swim in a new theory takes months, many of us just don't see the point in trying the views that have obvious holes even when viewed from the outside.
Sara, I'm using the term to mean religious skeptic, in that narrow sense. Classical skepticism is self refuting. There's not even a pool to dive into.
I don't think classical skepticism is self refuting but just not interesting or a real life-style option. It's convenient to call it self-refuting, but I've never seen a true logical refutation.
With regard to religious skepticism then you are left with two issues:
1. Does it really take more bravery to live with certainty than with doubt? Unless the biggest concern in your life is being wrong, I would say not. Most people are concerned with happiness, lack of emotional and cognitive conflict and having money and a strong social network. Religion is hardly a risk in these areas, especially not in the US.
2. You seem to imply that with regard to intellectual issues religious skeptics aren't taking risks. I would argue that they often take risks that are just as big by "trying on" a rationalist view point when they've lived life as empiricists (or any other radical change in world view).
Skepticism states "nothing is true". If that were true skepticism would be false. There now you've seen the refutation.
You seem to have an idealized version of what happens when someone accepts Christ into their life. While I agree that often there is support form family and others, many times (and I include my own case), there is division and alienation. Jesus talks about this in several Scriptures when he talks about the dead burying the dead, and coming like a sword between mother and daughter, etc. So, your conclusion that people become Christian due to societal influence is simplistic.
I don't think a rationale person who inquires into religion and rejects it based on his intellect has exercised any bravery at all. I think what he has done is lend credence to his mental observations at the expense of other sources of information. In many cases, in the first place, he has not intellectually studied to the depths he thinks he has (I only see rare instances of that on this board) and in the second place, he discounts other forms of acquiring revelation because he can't over come the mental hurdles. In a sense, he is illogical and or cowardly because he refuses to pursue the question of faith when he reaches the first challenge and he is prideful because he presumes his finite intellect should be the arbitor.
Bill, I'm not sure where you're getting that definition of skepticism, but it is not one used in philosophy. Skepticism addresses knowledge, not truth:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
Pyrrho of Elis (365-275 BCE) is usually credited with founding the “school” of skepticism. He posited the idea that nothing can be known for certain. The senses are easily fooled, and reason follows too easily our desires. [9] Pyrrhonism was a school of skepticism founded by his follower Aenesidemus in the first century BCE and recorded by Seextus Empiricus in the late 2nd century or early 3rd century CE. Subsequently, in the "New Academy" Arcesilaus (c. 315-241 BCE) and Carneades (c. 213-129 BCE) developed more theoretical perspectives by which conceptions of absolute truth and falsity were refuted as uncertain. Carneades criticized the views of the Dogmatists, especially supporters of Stoicism, as serting that absolute certainty of knowledge is impossible.
I can't claim to be a student but it appears to me that Skeptics claim nothing can be known. If that is true then how can they know that?
-Skeptics claim nothing can be known.-
Maybe that is what that particular philoshopher argued, But that is not what most moderm skeptics have claimed that I am aware of. That sounds more like solipsism.
Bill, Nothing can be known is very different from what you first stated of "nothing is true".
The difference here is that the pure skeptic isn't claiming knowledge of the claim, just belief, so it isn't self-refuting. Alternate forms claim "I know nothing except my own ignorance" or other variants. My experience is that with most forms of skepticism people start with an assumption that they can't be valid without really thinking it through. It's one of those things people reject based more on emotion than reason. And yes, since you were rejecting it before you even had the definition straight, I'm going to guess you fit in that category, too.
No, it's still delusion.
The real delusion is when you can see all the evidence and still deny it.Self delusion .
Exactly right. You have no evidence for a god and yet you believe.
"Generation Xers and retirees,WHO TYPE IN CAPS".
I AM A RETIREE WHO WRITES IN CAPS.
THE REASON IS POOR VISION.
OK???
Actually, studies have shown that using lowercase letters, as opposed to all caps, makes the words easier to identify. You see, our eyes – you know, the ones that creationists use to supper their claims of intelligent design – are actually not overly efficient.
If I had a designer working for me who designed a camera like a human eye (eyes of all vertebrates, actually) I'd fire him on the spot. The eyes of invertebrates (squid, octopus, etc) are designed much better. They took a different evolutionary path. Trying to explain that to a creationist, however, is like trying to explain quantum theory to my dog.
Some people even with 20-20 eysight ,cant' see the obvious. You actually have to open them to see.
Nah, it's sheer laziness on your part; you typed the first part of you post just fine.
in before caps-lock = cruise control for cool
here's some wacky ideas!!!!
change your screen resolution – oops! probably too difficult...
get glasses?
they sell readers at the pharmacy.... rite aid.. cvs.. eckerd drugs, etc...
get some and ease off the caps-lock....
do it.
bubbateon is a liar liar but pants far from on fire.
If you are a Gen Xer, you should only be 52 at the oldest. I'm a late Baby Boomer, and I'm not 55 yet. Methinks you don't know what a Gen Xer is. You CAN be a retiree; but a Gen Xer is nowhere near retirement age...different generations completely.
What I really think you are is lazy. You seem to have no trouble reading other posts that aren't in all caps; why do you have to type in all caps?
Answer: laziness.
Gen X is anyone born 1965-1980 (48 at oldest, 33 at youngest)
Baby Boomers are 1946-1964
The funny thing is that if you actually read Generation X, the author was talking about people who were you adults in 1991 and clearly distinguishing them from those born in the 1980 period. Not that we need to be fundamentalist about it...words change, but that change happened immediately the book came out. The media just decided they could get more convenient stories out of applying the term to the days school kids.
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
Genesis 6:3
What of it?
Sired Lucy...
Saying the LORD is flesh and His time among us is 120 years dares suggest Him to be mortal just like we are...
It suggest that to you. It doesn't suggest that to me. It suggests to me that God dwells within us, not that God is a separate entiity. If your interpretation were true, do you think that God died lo those many years ago? Or He is reborn every 120 years?
We also, for the most part, do not live 120 years. So there's that.
Mine is the Revised Standard Edition.
I use blueletterbible.com for my copying and pasting of scriptures and yes there are many variations of the bibles there... I prefer to stick with the KJV in reading the Bible... 🙂 😳 🙂
quotes from iron age comic books are only valid to those who accept the authority of said comic books.
...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O LORD, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the LORD did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats. And the LORD spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."
MP&THG. Well done!
It is very testimonial that Ted Turner, who is the founder and owner of CNN and other TV networks, announced in 2008 that he is no longer atheist nor agnostic, and that he rejoined the Christian (Lutheran I believe) Church. Interestingly, that is similar to what Rachel Held Evans has been writing about lately!
Why thanks Vicky. CNN will send you your check soon after I get mine.
Wait, we get paid for posting here? 🙂
Stupid losers like you don't get paid even a cent, Mark.
A flame war challenge is the best you can do in a religious debate. Do not be upset if you can not get past Ron and have to resort to name calling.
Trust in this. I grew up being the only African American kid, in my school until..... I have heard worst than anything you can type on a blog. But, feel free to keep proving Ron correct about you. He might not be able to prove God exist but he has proved that you are a angry person when challenged. 🙂
mark: have you ever seriously considered the possibility that there is no god?
Except Ron doesn't respect other religions, or other POV; people should think of him as any authority on Christianity? Mais non.
Mais on your corn to tu. Speakee Engleeesh please non.
Mais non means "but no" in French, but I'm pretty sure you got the gist of it, Ron, as the rest of the post was in perfectly legible English.
mark: why don't you answer?
did you pick up your family's religion and run with it?
is it the religion of those who enslaved and tortured your ancestors?
did you pick up your family's religion and run with it?
Christianity, yes...denomination no. Seeing how I hold that its all the same God, I would not have a problem with any Faiths.
is it the religion of those who enslaved and tortured your ancestors?
Wow, that is straight out of Black Power extremist hate speech. I said many times that the language on the extremes all, sooner or later echo each other.
Question is this .... You know that not all of the African Americans in the South were slaves, let alone all of the the states. So, heritage is unknown. 🙂
fair enough. have you ever seriously considered the possibility that there is no god?
Before or after I was of age to decide to continue with Christianity?
Vic,
Yes, it seems as if Ted Turner has softened his atheism/agnosticism - perhaps into some kind of deism - but AFAIK he has not "joined" any church. He "joined **with**" (IOW, supported) some churches' efforts to fight malaria, but that certainly doesn't mean that he signed up with them for anything else.
Ted Turner is rich enough to do whatever the f that he wants to.
can he buy his way into heaven?
Vic,
And does that make the claims of Christianity any more true?
Ummm...No.
Ted is the founder of CNN. He no longer owns it. And I agree with Ron. TT is rich enough to do whatever he wishes.
Cable News Network (CNN) is owned by Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) a division of Time Warner (TW) which is owned by Robert Edward (Ted) Turner to date.
Vic,
"To date"? What date? 2001?
Cite your reliable source(s), please - **current** ones.
Well, I don't have much sources at the moment. All I knew over the decades (I didn't follow closely investment details on this venture) that Ted Turner had the biggest stake in Time Warner as a stockholder. The floor is open for pitching in official data.
Vic,
Your post at 9:04 was presented as a declarative sentence - as a statement of fact. It's not a good idea to do that... on **any** subject.
Does your device have access to Google?
"over the years, rather"
This one is an odd ball, I don't usually jump the gone. I did however look up many sites for info. Due to time constraints, I only gathered a few details including that Ted Turner lost around $7 billions (which I now recollect) over the merger of TBS and Time Warner and later AOL, resignation from all media corporate positions he held, and retaining 33 million shares of Time Warner.
I apologize for any misunderstanding, and I appreciate anyone's better info.
"jump the gun"
While I believe Turner may be a theist, I have only heard he "joined with" the Lutherans for charitable donations, not "joined" them. Where did you get that info?
dddddddddddddddddddddddJUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS DESARROLLO UN PROYECTO GRILLA PARA VIALIDAD.
REVISELO.
PUDIESEN ENVIARLE EL PROYECTO A JHON DE LEON.
TORTURAS SATELITALES: NANO TECNOLOGÍA EN MEDICAMENTO CASOS DE IRRADIACIÓN EN LÓBULOS E HIPOTÁLAMO, CAUTERIZACIONES DE CAPAS DE MUSCULOS EN EL CORAZÓN, CAUTERIZACIONES EN TÍMPANOS, CAUTERIZACION EN ORGANOS, IRRADIACIÓN SATELITAL, ESTUDIOS DE LA RAZA HUMANA, RELIGIOSOS, GENÉTICOS, ECONÓMICOS EN VENEZUELA.
Borrado de informacion de villas GOOGLE, PARA QUE NO SE CONOZCAN LOS CASOS DE ESTUDIOS DE LA RAZA HUMANA.
http://www.mudpgi.blog.com
DENUNCIEN EN EL FBI, INTERPOL Y EUROPOL, NO QUIEREN HACER LA INVESTIGACIÓN POR QUE ES PENA DE MUERTE PARA TODOS LO POLÍTICOS.
CALA SON CELLOS HABLEN CON PROFECIONALES EN EL AREA RELIGIOSA, ESTAN ENLAZANDO TEORIAS DE ESTAS ORGS.
NO ESTAN DEJANDO TRABAJAR A LOS VENEZOLANOS, DE DIFERENTES MANERAS, UTILIZANDO LAS PLATAFORMAS DE COMUNICACION.
tratamos de ligar las cuentas pero nos estan hackeando para que las cuentas no las encuentren.
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
Say woot???????
Some more 'favorites' from Ron's Christian book of nasty, since he's insisting on dumping his awful bible bile on us:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Some more 'favorites' from Ron's Christian book of nasty, since he's insisting on dumping his awful bible bile on us ad nauseum today. From both foul testaments:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply
...and he also stated who can carry out these Old Testament punishments. Since you were quoting.... or as the Atheist have called it .."cherry picking" text, I wanted to give the text reported from Jesus concerning the Old Laws. 🙂
Don't give them your one inch like that Mark. IF you acknowledge one part true they'll be grabbing for the rest a bit at a time.
@Ron
You said, "Don't give them your one inch like that Mark. IF you acknowledge one part true they'll be grabbing for the rest a bit at a time."
Yes, it is far better to wallow in your ignorance than to open your eyes, ears and mind to the possibility that your beliefs are complete bullshit.
Ignorance is bliss.
Re "cherry picking", Bob speaks to context complaints pretty succinctly in his post. Egg is splattered on your face now, Mark. All over it. How embarrassing for you!
White egg masks are delighful for the complexion. Maybe he digs that.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDASIAN HUMAN RACE STUDIES IN VENEZUELA VENEZUELANS IRRADIATED FROM SATELITES VIOLATIONS HYPER CAOTIC STUDIES MADE WITH NANO TECNOLOGY WOMAN STIMULATIONS
STIMULATION SEND THE DENOUNCE TO FBI INTERPOL EUROPOL THEY ARE WAITING PASS THE TIME TO VICTIMS DIE CALL THEM. http://mudpgi.blog.com/
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDASIAN HUMAN RACE STUDIES IN VENEZUELA VENEZUELANS IRRADIATED FROM SATELITES VIOLATIONS HYPER CAOTIC STUDIES MADE WITH NANO TECNOLOGY WOMAN STIMULATIONS
STIMULATION SEND THE DENOUNCE TO FBI INTERPOL EUROPOL THEY ARE WAITING PASS THE TIME TO VICTIMS DIE CALL THEM. http://mudpgi.blog.com/
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDASIAN HUMAN RACE STUDIES IN VENEZUELA VENEZUELANS IRRADIATED FROM SATELITES VIOLATIONS HYPER CAOTIC STUDIES MADE WITH NANO TECNOLOGY WOMAN STIMULATIONS
STIMULATION SEND THE DENOUNCE TO FBI INTERPOL EUROPOL THEY ARE WAITING PASS THE TIME TO VICTIMS DIE CALL THEM. http://mudpgi.blog.com/
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDASIAN HUMAN RACE STUDIES IN VENEZUELA VENEZUELANS IRRADIATED FROM SATELITES VIOLATIONS HYPER CAOTIC STUDIES MADE WITH NANO TECNOLOGY WOMAN STIMULATIONS
STIMULATION SEND THE DENOUNCE TO FBI INTERPOL EUROPOL THEY ARE WAITING PASS THE TIME TO VICTIMS DIE CALL THEM. http://mudpgi.blog.com/
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
The daily lies from prayer bot.
YOU AND I ARE THE ONLY 2 SMART ONES HERE.
and we're not convinced about you dfdfgsdfg
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my web site thus i got here to “go back the prefer”.I'm attempting to in finding issues to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to make use of some of your ideas!!
steal what you like
PLEASE GIVE ME CREDIT FOR ANY OF MY IDEAS YOU BORROW. I CAN'T WAIT TIL TELL MY MOM I'M WRITING FOR 2 WEBSITES NOW!
The Legend of King Arthur is not evidence for Merlin.
The Greek Myths are not evidence for Heracles.
The Epic of Beowulf is not evidence for Grendel.
The American Folk Tradition is not evidence for Paul Bunyan.
The New Testament is not evidence for Jesus.
The Old Testament is not evidence for Yahweh.
The miracles happened ... in the story.
The prophesies were fulfilled ... in the story.
The character was emotionally appealing and morally right ... in the story.
Get out of your stories.
Atomized Cosmologies are found evident within Celestial and Cellular Cosmologies...
Celestial Cosmologies are evidently formed from Atomized Cosmologies...
Cellular Cosmologies are evidently conformed via Celestial and Atomized Cosmologies interactions...
Ancient are all the Atomized Cosmologies while still yet young are all the Celestial Cosmologies...
Cellular Cosmologies are made from ancient Atomized Cosmologies and have taken eons for the Cellular Cosmologies to be made into manhood and womanhood and childhoods...
Hey, lame....you've had a long life.....jeebus is waiting. Time to accept the business end of that .38 in your mouth
Heracles is also mentioned by Josephus, so there's your proof that he was a real person. 😆
“I teach Sunday school, motherf*****.”
― Stephen Colbert
Thanks for the quote AE. Colbert rocks. So funny and nails the stuck-in-the-muds every time.
Yep, and he absolutely DOES teach Sunday School.
In my opinion, Paul Harvey nails it in this recording. Wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFaLUZ2rf4
And Lennon nailed it with this one. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs
AE
If I were the devil I'd take what I could read from Revelation and come up with a better plan. Funny how Paul didn't mention that one, eh?
Imagine the force, the incredible power "from the Greek for dynamite" necessary to place that mass of electrically charged burning mass of hydrogen into the cold black vastness of nothing, so hot that 600,000,000 tons of hydrogen atoms explode into millions of tons of helium, each and every second, and have done so for 5,000,000,000 years, releasing the light energy we depend upon for every breath we breathe and the food we eat, the water we drink.
And all things, all of them, were made by him and for him and through him.
The sun will one day destroy everything in the solar system. This planet will be long devoid of life since the stabilizing effect of the moon to our wobble is getting weaker and weaker as the moon continues to drift away. Our atmoshphere will be blown off and this planet will become very much like mars.
"Let there be light" and there was light.
He spoke. As he did on a stormy night at sea. Stop it! And nature obeyed him and the winds and the waves became still. Imagine being with him on that battered boat when he arose and commanded the elements to alter their course (and it was so)
Such an intriguing story if you're 5. It would be so much better if you could prove any of it....why lie to children about this stuff when they're going to find out this particular part can be easily debunked with actual evidence?
To have looked upon him. To have seen him. God in the flesh. Incredible. Absolutely mind boggling. And yet I saw the reflection of his mother in his eyes, that day. Dreadful, as she begged them to take him down. He let her suffer, which tortured him, dying there, naked, in disgrace though he was innocent.
I had never noticed that before, the reflection of his mom in his eyes. He endured the pain she went through, watching her watch him as he died an agonizing, horrible death.
I heard someone screaming in the grayish red mist of blood and fine drizzle. It was she. His mother, desperately begging anyone and everyone to stop the execution of her precious son, her baby. It was just moments ago, it seemed, that she suckled him and sang softly til he slept. Now these brutal monsters had nailed his body on a post and beam. "GOD, GOD, GOD! GOD GOD help me GOD. Take him down, at once, you beasts. Jesus, make them take out those nails. Please Jesus. Order them! Now, Jesus, before it is too late. Jesus, my baby. Jesus, stop this now. Help me, dear GOD, help!"
You sound like you could use some help. From a mental health care professional.
Reblogged this on uggggh.
JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS DESARROLLO UN PROYECTO GRILLA PARA VIALIDAD.
REVISELO.
PUDIESEN ENVIARLE EL PROYECTO A JHON DE LEON.
TORTURAS SATELITALES: NANO TECNOLOGÍA EN MEDICAMENTO CASOS DE IRRADIACIÓN EN LÓBULOS E HIPOTÁLAMO, CAUTERIZACIONES DE CAPAS DE MUSCULOS EN EL CORAZÓN, CAUTERIZACIONES EN TÍMPANOS, CAUTERIZACION EN ORGANOS, IRRADIACIÓN SATELITAL, ESTUDIOS DE LA RAZA HUMANA, RELIGIOSOS, GENÉTICOS, ECONÓMICOS EN VENEZUELA.
Borrado de informacion de villas GOOGLE, PARA QUE NO SE CONOZCAN LOS CASOS DE ESTUDIOS DE LA RAZA HUMANA.
http://www.mudpgi.blog.com
DENUNCIEN EN EL FBI, INTERPOL Y EUROPOL, NO QUIEREN HACER LA INVESTIGACIÓN POR QUE ES PENA DE MUERTE PARA TODOS LO POLÍTICOS.
CALA SON CELLOS HABLEN CON PROFECIONALES EN EL AREA RELIGIOSA, ESTAN ENLAZANDO TEORIAS DE ESTAS ORGS.
NO ESTAN DEJANDO TRABAJAR A LOS VENEZOLANOS, DE DIFERENTES MANERAS, UTILIZANDO LAS PLATAFORMAS DE COMUNICACION.
tratamos de ligar las cuentas pero nos estan hackeando para que las cuentas no las encuentren.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
My Spanish is not too good, this made no sense to me so I tried a translator...it also had trouble...
something about unethical medical research and labor issues in Venezuela ...
I think you took a left turn at Albuquerque mate.....
Most of my fellow Mericans don't comprendo your Portchygeese.
Oddly enough, this makes more sense than the majority of the posts written by Lionlylamb (or whatever he is calling himself these days).
Lol...at least for this there is an actual way to translate it. 🙂
PUDIESEN ENVIARLE EL PROYECTO A JHON DE LEON.
TORTURAS SATELITALES: NANO TECNOLOGÍA EN MEDICAMENTO CASOS DE IRRADIACIÓN EN LÓBULOS E HIPOTÁLAMO, CAUTERIZACIONES DE CAPAS DE MUSCULOS EN EL CORAZÓN, CAUTERIZACIONES EN TÍMPANOS, CAUTERIZACION EN ORGANOS, IRRADIACIÓN SATELITAL, ESTUDIOS DE LA RAZA HUMANA, RELIGIOSOS, GENÉTICOS, ECONÓMICOS EN VENEZUELA.
Borrado de informacion de villas GOOGLE, PARA QUE NO SE CONOZCAN LOS CASOS DE ESTUDIOS DE LA RAZA HUMANA.
http://www.mudpgi.blog.com
DENUNCIEN EN EL FBI, INTERPOL Y EUROPOL, NO QUIEREN HACER LA INVESTIGACIÓN POR QUE ES PENA DE MUERTE PARA TODOS LO POLÍTICOS.
CALA SON CELLOS HABLEN CON PROFECIONALES EN EL AREA RELIGIOSA, ESTAN ENLAZANDO TEORIAS DE ESTAS ORGS.
NO ESTAN DEJANDO TRABAJAR A LOS VENEZOLANOS, DE DIFERENTES MANERAS, UTILIZANDO LAS PLATAFORMAS DE COMUNICACION.
tratamos de ligar las cuentas pero nos estan hackeando para que las cuentas no las encuentren.
ddddddddddddddddddddddddd