Endometriosis Cancer More Condition_symptoms Robin Hood as we all pay.

about a month ago (although the press has learned today) Section II of the Provincial Court of Navarre issued a car in which, in short, has been to say that if you have a mortgage, not pay, the bank will, however, your house and auction that auction will not take off enough to pay what you owe, the bank can not go for the rest of your property to retrieve the remainder of the debt. Much progress has been anti happy with this. And it really is an aberration illegal, unlawful, unfair and, if consolidated, will hurt us all.

Let me summarize the facts for those who do not want to read the entire car. A couple asks a ^{71,000 (1)} credit euros BBVA and, in a certain time, stop paying dues. BBVA demand them and the judge sentences them to pay those same 71,000 ⁽²⁾ euros. They do not pay, the judge will take the house and ordered the auction, which is deserted. As it is empty, the floor BBVA wins ⁽³⁾ amounting to about 43,000 ⁽⁴⁾ €. But when the judge BBVA will continue to claim a lien on the couple's 28,000 ^{(5) EUR} left the judge refuses and says that the floor enough. Argued this decision by saying that asking more than worth floor is abuse of rights and also the floor, when given the pr & eacute; Stam, was priced at 75,000 euros, which is more than the principal and the bank has made even business.

course (and here and I walk away a little from the brief presentation of the facts), that is one of stupidity. First, if sentences for 71,000 and made a payment in the amount of 43,000 (ie, you give the floor to the bank saying it that) the fact is that 28,000 missing and must be payable continue execution. Ball point. If you had made the payment in euros by the 75,000 of assessed value maybe the matter would have a minimal logic, but you can notsay "OK, you owe it to 71,000 euros, there is a floor of 43,000 and not ask for more than 75,000 actually worth." Is an animal so big that I can not imagine a logical context to explain why give something in return for value of 43,000 to settle a debt of 71,000, or at least not without taking to the fore the effects of a physi , music and quantum multiplication of the loaves and fishes. But let's go. Besides

say this that I said, BBVA says to the judge that the floor is not worth 75,000 euros, hey, one thing is what is priced before the crisis and quite another to what is worth now. We've brought to auction for 43,000 euros and not nobody wanted, which means that their market value is actually lower the amount for which is awarded in lieu of payment. But is that. Also, here is an appraisal dated yesterday, Your Honor, that says, in effect, the floor is not worth 75,000 or wet dreams Pocero Paco. And the judge has to say no one cares, that was priced well, which has no evidence that the price has changed and now worth less ⁽⁶⁾ , that the auction is void and means nothing valuation date that it gets you now where the sun do not shine because it is not the appropriate procedural moment tocover (the English equivalent to "not be admitted as evidence.") So nothing, nothing, air that I have another case.

BBVA, I guess quite stunned by the apparent stupidity of the judge, appeals the decision, of course. And the District Court reads it and gives, in mid-December, the car that is news, rejecting the appeal, confirmed the decision of the magistrate, leaves BBVA with a building that just does not want covers half of what they owe without the possibility of seeing a penny more. Let me explain the consequences of self clearly: if the couple is they were millionaires and had hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in a cuenta's own BBVA, BBVA could not touch them. Although the couple in question have to pay (I do not know if you have) do not have to . The bank eats the floor and point. Oh, and, above, to join the insult to injury just ordered to pay costs, forget me not.

The car in question has paragraphs that have no waste. After acknowledging that the claim that BBVA will pay what they owe " from the standpoint of formal and strict exercise of the right (Of course, from the point of view of strict exercise of law, nerd, you judge, not an arbiter of fairness, which tietions to do is apply the law, not what you please!) would not be an abuse of law ", which already by itself should be enough to overturn the judge's decision instance by destroying ratio decidendi is set to do a "minor consideration" which is to say that, after all, if the value of the floor has dropped is because of the banks that created the crisis, so if the BBVA will get hurt, because at the bottom right.

I'm serious.

" (...) while (...) the bank's performance meets the letter of the law and effectivetively entitled to apply what you requested, (...) it nevertheless continues to plant a thought (...) concerning why the appellant challenges the Order under appeal, arguing that realize the value of the property auctioned and awarded materially to the bank today has a real value less than that once you set the appraisal price (...). The basis of the statement that the property is auctioned today a lower real value is based on allegations as to the current market reality has led to the estate had no value at the time that was awarded ; as pricing, significant decreasel value that links the current economic crisis, which suffers not only this country but much of the global environment with which we interact. This being so, and ultimately the very important real economic crisis, which has even the farm that once priced in a given amount today would be valued at least can not ignore that this is also originally a precise cause and that there is another, and this Court does not say so, but has been declared by the President of the English Government (...), which mismanagement of the financial system that players are banksace.

this is not to say that the BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA is causing the economic crisis (Well, thank goodness) , but can not ignore your bank condition and therefore an integral financial system, which as a whole and by the mismanagement of financial institutions that are (...) have led to an unprecedented economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1929 . "

He continued:

"is morally reprehensible alleged attempt to continue running the falling value of the property that served as a warranty & iacutee; to the loan, which had not been granted had not had sufficient value to secure the loan, which was set by the bank performing now, or at least accept, being that the loss of value is directly attributable to the economic crisis, resulting from the malpractice of the financial system, which is repeated, although not directly be attributed especially to BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA, it does not cease to be a reality that is part of the protagonists of the financial system, and why it is especially painful, that the argument which justifies its claim, is based on circumstances as essentially vulgarisrmente is said to have met with considerable sensitivity and ruffled feathers. "

is, that while the request is fair and legally sound, the grant is not because I consider" morally reprehensible. " We not fuck with me.

I'm sure many of my readers more "liberal" (or more unrepentantly Communists, Hayles if any) are already thinking that we must build an altar to this gentleman (who, by Indeed, Jose Fco called Goyena, if you want to write to the Court) can stand up to a giant international bank as BBVA, rising to defend the hombre foot, has not only lost their homes but on top is threatened by an evil corporation that wants to garnish your shirt, blah, blah, blah, and is capable of acting with moral justice and breaking the rigid parameters of the law in terms of what is good and just and moral, more blah, blah, blah. Well, if you are of this opinion, let me promise that there is a world, no, an entire universe beyond your noses. I promise. If guiñáis eyes a little sure you see.

The mechanism that led to this room to make this car, is say, is fair and lawful, but not grant it ands "morally reprehensible " is horrible. We have judges to make what seems to them morally right, we've got to implement the Act, which is a reflection of what we think is morally right to us, the People . It is not tolerable for a judge to put their own principles to the law, you have to do is apply the law or, if that is truly impossible for his moral, quit the race or as little, refrain from proceeding. This "is legal, but I do what my conscience tells me" here you see very heroic and commendable, but the same mechanism that would allow, for example and aOther judges denied their rights to women or homosexuales. "Oh, yes, I know that this claim of sexual harassment at work is fair and legally sound, but I rejected because it is morally reprehensible for someone to go to the office and dressed, let alone "Oh, yes, I know that this adoption application is fair and legally sound, but I rejected because the applicants are fags and homosexuality is morally reprehensible in itself." In this direction can not be taken any step , among other things because I guarantee that there are many more judges who believe that homosexuality (eg) is morally reprehensible in itself that judges considern that as the crisis has caused banks deserve what happens to them. And they have many, many more looking forward to put people in the closet than have the other "to pay the banks."

But is that, apart from the economic point of view of law, this decision affects us all . As things stand now, if I ask for a loan to buy a property and then it drops in value the risk is mine, just as the gain is mine if it goes up in value. Therefore, among other things, what we think six or seven times before trapped for buying a flat. If this statement creates jurisprudencia the risk is transferred to the bank, found that if the lower floor value will not recover the borrowed (but if it goes up you do not see a cent more, of course). That means that the risk of the operation to the bank (which actually has no interest in the operation itself) increases. And this means that for a mathematically prove profitable bank making the loan will have to raise interest rates, or whether we are going to cost more than borrowing money goes to cost more than we give it, and we are going to be more expensive. All ,

And although for some types of collectivist mentality this tipor distribution of responsibility may be attractive (not mine, and or am of each suit that hold your candle) the fact is that what is provided is the worst abuses. If the auto create any real estate speculator case could go to a bank for a loan to buy property and speculate with them because he knows that business can only have two outcomes: (i) or the property goes up in value, and he wins, or (ii) the property loses value and then returns the property to the bank in payment of the loan, which he did not lose: lose the bank. And banks do not lose, but move your risk, we will go higher mortgage rates. On orfollowing words: we fund, and paying the property speculation that raise the price of the apartments that we can not buy ourselves .

I know it's very nice, and very excited to think that heroes are righteous in the world, trocar togas and swords layers of feathers and remove from the rich to give to the poor. But in reality it is not and the poor, or at least less poor as you and I always end up paying . We struggled a lot subject to state law, we can not forget it and throw it all away in an instant. And we have to have enough depth perspective and look to realize whatIt's what's behind the adventures of Zorro, and how for every pound that Robin Hood robbed the prince Juan raising taxes by two.

No, guys, no. This car is in the form at the bottom and the impact, horrible. And if someone wants to discuss it, here I am.

Greetings,

Arthegarn.______________
(1) To be accurate the first request a credit of 59,390 and then 11,865 more comprehensive, total € 71,255.
(2) Technically not the same, the sentence is € 71,024 of principal plus interest, costs and expenses. The fact that the conviction for such principal amount means that it ista people stopped paying the credit at once (only 231 euros amortized principal!), although this has not apparently come to the case.
(3) In fact here and the problems begin, because a bank does not want a building for nothing, what he wants is money to lend and invest, that is their business. And I say this but I am positive that some banks, driven by these performances and these payment in kind, have finished setting up their own property ( Nests BBVA, Altamira Santander ...) under the idea that they have lost, get what you can ...
(4) Just € 42,895.
(5) Exactly 28,129, 52 € 8438.86 principal plus interest, costs and expenses.
(6) No evidence of change in value of property in Spain it has since September 2008 on Mars, blindfolded, cotton in your ears and chanting "No Pasaran" loudly, I suppose.

Mao Saitolesbian Enlightenment I'm going to be an uncle!

And there is more to say! Yippie!

Wedding Program Thank You's Emotional blackmail in the family

do not understand how it is possible that many families in Spain and probably in the world, its members are mistreated each other at the touch of emotional blackmail. Love, which is beautiful and voluntary, suddenly becomes an obligation which must also be manifested in certain ways and at regular intervals, on pain of being "a bad son (or father or brother, or whatever) and systematically morally crushed by those people who say they want both a. I do not understand.

I do not understand the families whose members are set to give birth to each other because Fulanito has not gone to dinner on Christmas Eve Somebody's niece's house. O Christmas Eve, or to eat at Christmas, or birthdaydren with someone, or whatever. Or why not go regularly to visit their parents or brothers or nephews or grandchildren or grandparents or whatever. It's as if people think that only by being related to someone already has the right to be visited by that someone, or to impose your visit, or even more, to regulate how often should the other parent to see a third, sometimes cut no ice, and try him and sentence him if does not behave as he thinks is due, all supposedly in the name of family love for each other. Sorry, I have no head.

I when I go to see someone, whoever he is, and especially if it involves taking the car and go to see him is because he has done something positive, to want verle. For example, I want to wholeheartedly prof_ignatius , Inaeternitas and Héctor (or vigara , almatenebrae and Joel ) but, unless you receive an invitation to any particular circumstance occurs generally do not pick the car go to see them. Sometimes I between the monkey and I call and invite me to something and sometimesis possible and sometimes not, but our relationship does not suffer and deteriorate because we see little. We may distance ourselves, of course, because we have less contact, but my feelings towards them are still as hot and I'm sure theirs to me too, and when I see my happiness is just sincere and natural that if I had seen yesterday. Perhaps more precisely why. But the important thing is that no one gets angry with anyone because visits are irregular or spaced, no one believes that there is a kind of contract signed between us that says if I'm not going to see every month I am a bad friend, or if not buy a Christmas gift for the kid I dignorance of disapproval. Just know that I am, know what I feel, know how to express what is already. Accept me as I am and I them, so we want to and get along. We would never criticize another person's personality because "we do not ignore", that box is, is stupid and selfish that borders on narcissism require another person to change their way of life to adapt to what we expect of it, whether we like it is, well, if not sooner or later end the relationship because we have incompatible ways of seeing. If so, I all do with our friends, nuesrtos known and our co-workers, why do so many peoplehopes things are not well with his family, which is less conducive to their relatives that their friends?

All this I say is how I see my family works ⁽¹⁾ , which is one of the most functional and together I know. I love my family, like I love my friends. Some more than others, of course, but the important thing is that they want not mean I want to see them at all times . And if that does not mean that they want, why you going to do that we share genes? My grandmother, for example, not seen since last year. My parents can go months without being seen and I want to adorac ion and enjoy a huge amount when we're together. My sister Andruin (married with children) I see all of grapes to pears and what is it and I get to talk and be together maybe do one or hopefully twice YEAR o. We have very different lives, we live 30 kilometers from each other and nobody Traña ex does not care, we want the same thing. My nephews Dani and Cristina , children (6 and 4 years), to give another example ⁽²⁾ , I see them when I see her mother because they are glued to their skirts. I can not think (and it is so, it sand I can think of this idea does not appear spontaneously in my mind) to take the car to go and see them . And my sister thinks that I am a bad person for it, or criticizes me, or (I think) comes up.

But we see little does not mean anything, we love her dearly and we are absolutely very, very, very together. What happens is that everyone has his life and we all understand and respect that and none of us would ever get angry with another because you will not see you, or your children, or parents. We all understand that when someone picks up the car and going to see is a guy gift is something special so be happy and what not rmal is not done and that everyone is at home, their lives and their concerns. Never occur to us to think about how you live your life the next door, or how often do you go to visit (or receive my visits), or to go see their fathers or their sons or nephews . If I really like to see someone pick up the phone, I call and I propose to stay and seek when it comes and you're . And if you want my sister or my father or my niece, do the same and that's it. But life and the relationship of others is his very personal, how are we going to get there?

to me I can not ocurriría never, but never, ever, berate one of my family (or my friends) because they come to me or because they accept my invitation to celebrate with me the night of Walpurgis. I could think much less criticize my cousin zaryss (which is the closest thing I have a brother), for example, because you will not see enough his mother. To give a completely true and recent example, my sister zylgrin , who married in May in Lisbon in an intimate family ceremony, has invited paparents of zaryss but not zaryss (who gets along very well.) And I never happen to me by the imagination criticize that and say it's a bad cousin who is waging an ugly or any of the stupid things I hear around me every now and ma muchi situations ; s worldly. It is YOUR wedding, it is YOUR relationship! And anyway, I have faith and confidence in my sister, who is an extremely intelligent and sensitive, and I am absolutely sure that your reasons will, that are good and that is not my business . Oh, and I have confidence in my cousin, incidentally.

criticizes my sister (or whoever) you will not see enough of my mother, for example, or my child, if I had one, would interfere in the relationship between my sister and my mother (or my child) absolutely intolerable. My sister's relationship with his mother is and carry them and although sometimes I can give some advice if you ask me (I'm thinking of another sister, I have many), never occur to me to intrude motu proprio. Ditto with my son, hisaunt is like why should I pretend to be otherwise? If you want to see him much will be long and if not will not see him so much and you're . Psycho-emotional development of my child will not be affected by how often you visit your aunts to whether that frustration at what? And I think that that is exactly what I think Zylgrin that never, ever, ever, has reproached me they will not get to see. If I want to go, well, and if I do not, also fine.

And, returning to a previous point, do not understand why & eacute, lightning would I want to be with my nephews to see them, well, out of the blue . Do not leave me, as I do not get left with a lot of other people. My nephews are cute (well, by the way), smart and friendly, but also some infants with whom I have no interests in common. I can wish them a lot, and I do, but that has nothing to do with that I feel like spending a Sunday with them, let alone one Sunday a month. I do not care, it's that simple, I'd rather be at home quietly reading or going for a drink or a game of Agricola or tying girls on consent. And I'm pretty sure that my nephews I'd rather play with his friends in the pairthat you see your uncle Arthergarn. And in the increasingly unlikely event that suddenly Dani lifted his head and told my sister long time no see me, my sister called me a few days later delighted (if agreed) and I would say "look how cute thing said Dani the other day and then would leave me grinning from ear to ear and I like to go to and most likely see him out this weekend. Or not. But I'd do because I feel like me, not because it is my duty, or because my sister thinks it is. And if not, my sister does not matter & iacute a, because as much think that I sin penance, I'm losing, and never, never, never, under any circumstances, allow to affect our relationship No, because each one is free and does what he wants.

course, I would not do is pick up the phone and give me a row of half an hour telling me that I'm a bad guy who never sees his nephew and watching all the enthusiasm he will be able to have to see me who said that X and not ever see me and all my fault that I am a denatured and blah, blah, blah. Among other things, because as the ^{sent to hell (3)} .

I do not understand the genethat asks you things like "what have I done to not come to see me?" or "how bad is your mother not to any is left to eat with it all weeks? ". Volition is completely spontaneous, you can not voluntarily generate, one can not "want to want" ⁽⁴⁾ . Turn over the question ⁽⁵⁾ , if you wish to understand that person is sincere, and ask yourself what do you do to build on that person's desire to come see you. Of course, if every time you "ARE, or a high proportion of the times" ARE, things end badly, with fights, Criticism, pressures and general attempts to live the life of another or to say how it should live to the beat of emotional blackmail ("bad daughter that you will not see your mother", etc.) normal is that this person does not want to see. Something that should be voluntary and desired expression of love becomes an unpleasant obligation, which is done reluctantly and not by love but by fear of consequences (ie fights, fights , recriminations) and trying to be avoided by all means because it is associated with unpleasant feelings (guilt, sadness, insecurity). In my humble opinion every time someone pushes someone else que do not want to do (ie what you do not fancy at that moment) on behalf of an alleged affair is damaging the relationship because it tries to be like the other rather not accept. And that hurt the relationship, if held long enough, ends up being a poison, in which the depressed person does not have a relationship with the other because he is tired of being down, beaten, humiliated and criticized.

It seems a common sense rule that governs all human relationships, mine and those of anyone. In fact it is an economic rule: if you want someone to buy your product you have to make it attractive, not to tell the p & amp, desktop search, PUBLIC is obligated to buy and not buy it as a bad person. If you do the second one will only get people to rebel, will take maníaa your product, buy less and use whatever increasingly reluctant and eventually managed to stop buying it. Replace "your product" to "you" and you have the answer.

Arthegarn________________
(1) By "family" here I understand the third degree of consanguinity, ie parents, children, uncles, nephews, cousins and (where applicable) their partners, In my case, son A total of 29 including who, divorce or not divorce, will always be my Aunt Margaret.
(2) And, a good listener, few words suffice.
(3) No I would, but I would be completely frozen, I would let you speak to and hear and then try to figure out what emotional intelligence coup happens to my sister and me to vent or, if so, what is the alien planet with whom I talk on the phone and what she has done. Now, if your routine of doing things since then that shit mandaríaa or, at least, put distance between us. And anyone who knows my historia family know that I speak strictly teoríay not tell what to say. And people leave their air sometimes works very very well ..
(4) Well, yes you might want to want, which is not going to get something just for wanting wanting wanting. Unless metamos hypnosis and similar means of modification of the unconscious in between, of course.
(5) To be exact: "Mind your own business and if your desire to understand that person is sincere ..."

Buy Antique Juice King The force and strength of faith.

Yesterday morning, after my usual post entry on the books of the month , I found a comment of txispas about my reflections on pur site of The God Delusion (The God Delusion) which literally says

" If you have faith, you read the book of tontolaba that and it makes you doubt, esque did not have a faith strong enough input. "

Within that I find it slightly irritating that someone thinks you can afford to come to my house and dispatch processintellectual, emotional, personal and more important and complicated my life with a cliche, mainly because it means that person thinks I'm simple-minded enough to contain the process in the above mentioned phrase, the comment deserves three or four details.

First txispas , Richard Dawkins is far from being a "tontolhaba" (without the hache it sounds even worse, sorry). Ad myth that has no personal admiration, but being objective is a biologist and ethologist frontline member Royal Society (the British Academy of Sciences) has been a professor at Oxford until he was removed a couple of years to write, (and has left enough good opinion é , l so that Oxford has instituted the award Dawkins), and generally knows what he's talking. And if the curriculum does not impress you dry, no more than listen to one of the many debates interviews or video that has (or The Four Horsemen , for example) to realize that can be many things, but stupid no. Or, for that matter, read any of his books, without going any further the infensivo ^{The Selfish Gene (1)} .

But the real crux of your response is the subject of strong faith . You see, it depends. I've always thought that my faith was very strong in the sense that he believed sincerely and deeply in God. Our relationship was fluid, God was an integral part of my life and my personality (well beyond the mere WWJD) and took me very seriously, trying to study and learn about God and His will, plans and desires to adjust my life to its meaning within the cosmos. In fact, I took (and I'm still taking) to God seriously enough to be suspicious of what the primer reaching tell me about it, or what I read in the first book that is inspired. The argument authority when it comes to God is open to any lit up-to let go any barbarity and you have to believe him just because he is an authority. Well, if someone comes and tells me that God has spoken to him directly and he has instructed me to forward his plans for me are that I become professional rascal, and I do not believe (obviously), why believe should anyone else? God is for me, too serious a matter to be left to self-appointed experts and buy at wholesale, must scrutinize that expri mir faith to achieve something worthwhile. To do otherwise, leave the contents and configuration of your beliefs on what others say, it seems to me a lack of serious negligence and intolerable. If you question the ability of, for example, my tax advisor, and does not trust my savings unless I show that is worthy of trust, how am I to put God in the hands of the first type clerical collar arrives saying that God knows more than me? Do I care about the money but the Truth about God? No way! So I question, at all times (past and present), anyone who tries to present as a Doctor of the Faith Just what í intimately seems right and proper I consider it worthy of basing my view of God, with all vital implications involved, and my commitment to the truth as well capitalized, is much higher my commitment and sta or that form of understanding God, among other things because if God exists, then it's truth and the pursuit of truth brings me closer to God and if there ... at least we Truth is, it's always better to lie.

As a side note I should mention that there are solid theological and doctrinal arguments that support this position within Roman Catholicism (which at thatmoment for me was very important) and I believe that to act otherwise is to bury your talent and give criticism, it is absolutely necessary in the world in which we live. I have the firm belief that God, if it exists and cares about these things, rather an error in the faith that is reasoned, honest and integrity than a bleat of assent to the Creed. And going even further: if it is not and prefer not find bleating of God in that attitude of admiration ^{reason (2)} .

For me all this is to have a was strong. A faith passed through the crucible of razóny warm and beaten by the hammer of methodical doubt. Any faith that passes these tests deserves, in my view, the adjective strong, so I argue strongly that my faith was not "strong enough." So strong was my faith, my commitment to the truth and my belief that God, if it exists, can not lie, who subjected itself to all the evidence that came to mind in an effort to debug. So strong was, and remains, that when I had to choose between giving to God and closer to what I honestly believed that was the truth, or keep going up to the Lie God, I chose the former. God, if there is not achievable but through the Truth (and if it is reachable via e Lies an Chust of God, I add).

But, of course, I'm talking about the power of faith from its meaning of "set of beliefs of a religion", while you're talking about faith in the meaning of "being sure that what you believe is true " ⁽³⁾ . But while ordinary mortals to use that word with that meaning is to discuss the fact that it is appropriate. The Latin fides giving rise to the word faith had a similar meaning , but it evolved into "loyalty" of the original meaning is not in faith rather than the acepción "security, claim that something is true" (and that only in the periphrasis "attest to something.") No, the word for the tenacious defense of what is believed, a belief that ability to withstand the attacks that doubt in itself is not faith, is bigotry. However I will accept the use of "faith" in this sense, although I appear wrong. The do not like is the "force." You're talking about the ability of faith to withstand the attack of the doubt and do not resist attacks by power, but with strength. Force is used to attack the strength to defend and there, I admitI find quite low.

My faith was (is) strong enough to take me by the dolroso narrow path of honest search for Truth. It is not, and I will not spend a single second to be, a fortress built to repel the attacks of doubt. Doubt is good and there are good reasons to consider as well, including the certainty (as the antonym of doubt) you can have virtually anything but, unless you have something as improbable as Absolute truth, accuracy rejects the possibility of improving the image of reality has to approach mass as is the reality ... actually and not image. Inother words, removes doubt and certainty, with doubt the possibility of improving (because if you're sure that what you believe is right, why change?). That kind of strength of faith, derived from certain, they do not have. Today, almost entirely, and proud. Nothing seems more pernicious, I see nothing that does more damage to the human spirit the certainty or, rather, that the idea that cling to the certainty of the evidence against is transcendentally good. That kind of belief is the mechanism that leads people to fly airplanes into skyscrapersimmolate in a autobúsy so sorry but I see nothing admirable in it.

course what is a memeplexes great, from the point of view of natural selection of memes. The marriage of ideas "God exists" and "When in doubt, hold on to what you believe until you drop" results in the idea that God exists and that the first thing you have to do is take our word, that in fact what God wants most is to create ⁽⁵⁾ , and dedicated to get pruebecitas and tripping over your vid to to "prove your faith "(recently dice "tune your love"), that doubt is actually part of the game and the solution is not rational analysis of it to get a solution but the surrender completely to God and belief know your coazón it is true and everything else are just appearances.

course. And the earth is less than 10,000 years and the fossils and the decay of carbon 14 has put Satan to tempt you there. Fortunately

do not believe that anyone in moderately serious religions. In religions really serious, like Roman Catholicism, the first who do not believe it are those who run the jerarquíaeclesiástica. Before an attack on the belief there are two ways to react: the "strength of faith," consisting of lock you in your belief, strengthen the walls, cover your ears and repeating mantras of style "my faith is strong, I will not hesitate; my faith is strong I will not hesitate " ⁽⁶⁾ and analysis of the reason for the challenge to questionable argument and, hopefully, see what is truth in this argument and improve perception of reality. You will not see the bishops to the hilt saying even the historicity of Jesus as an article of faith, for example, but rather welcome any information & oacute n (reliable, because the critical and methodical doubt applies in both directions) that can provide more data about your personality. But I stray.

Faith, from the point of view of choosing to believe something without proof, is an extremely powerful tool. I've always said it is the religious man's atomic bomb, the ultimate weapon in your arsenal you have to, if possible, do not ever use or at least the bare minimum. Catholics, once again, also gets it right with this, technically you just have to believe you to be Catholic dogmas (and are made very intelligently; So open to interpretation, and you do not have anyone believe you interpretation). The appeal to faith has always been, for me, the ultima ratio and tried to use it minimum. Say, "I can not argue your arguments but I think otherwise" I hated, I still repugnant and after last ⁽⁷⁾ decided not to ever do it again . The search for truth is hindered by such arguments, this disproportionate loyalty to what has been seen as wrong, or the fact that the alternative, a fidelity which, on the other hand, is higher the m & aacute, s is undeserved, because one is faithful to the things that deliver what they promise, and a faith that requires you to think again and again that something is true "because" it does not.

So yes and no. My faith in the truth and that (i) belief in God is only worthwhile if Truth and (ii) can not reach the Truth through the lie was strong enough to face my belief in God with the best arguments against it I could find and, once done, admit that those arguments were better and more convincing than mine and that most likely is that God (or at least the God in whom I had always believed) & amp; nbsp; not exist. I have the firm belief that God exists does not want to believe in him "just because", but gradually comes to know through my work, effort and interest. If, after reading me The God Delusion, have taken the path of the strength of faith and would have focused on my beliefs and repeated some of the mantras that I mention it to save my relationship with God I had behaved like a coward unworthy of the same relationship and shake would be like God in the face with a wet diaper. I I can not mess my relationship with God hiding behinda lie, razóny a rejection of reality. Actually I have too much respect for God and my faith and pra to treat myself as such a manner. If the price to preserve the purity of the best ideas and beliefs that I have ever had is to give them, albeit temporarily until you find better arguments to defend ⁽⁸⁾ repay. And I will because I have no choice, because they rely on the strength of faith is to destroy forever what we are trying to protect.

So sorry, but that that if tontolhaba read the book makes me wonder is because I have a faith strong enough input is outrageously false. My faith was and is, was extremelyrte. What happens is that it hides behind walls of solipsism and circular reasoning, what happens is that I have faith in things greater than me: God, the Universe, the human mind and its ability to evolution and continuous improvement and, above all, in the transcendent value of truth. Why are there . The specific configuration at a given time have my religious beliefs is not something worth wasting faith because it is smaller I, of this or that faith in God as I understand it now does not make me older, I made smaller. Much smaller.

was precisely the strength of my faith that made me doubt , and it is the strength of my faith that keeps me in philosophical or religious position where I am. My faith is so strong that simply I can not act otherwise. So, the a priori, to another.

Arthegarn________
(1) After writing this I read that you've read The God Delusion and you "gave a mixture of laughter, sorrow and disgust." I wonder if we read the same book because, although it is ingenious parts occasionally moved to the smile, very hard parts that may put off some readers (like whenor describes, quite rightly, the god of the OT as " jealous and proud of it, a miserable, unjust, cruel control maniac, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansing freak, a misogi nico, homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic and capriciously malvévolo bully) and is clearly written by someone who does not enjoy the experience of God, which can move punishment, I do not associate that book at all with those feelings, but rather it seems a clever book, beautifully written and very difficult to refute arguments from any position other than the muscle-flexing withhands in his ears. We'll talk more about it, if that.
(2) worship yeah, finally after all be God, but prefer the possession subservient to the voluntary surrender I feel unworthy. In fact I think it would to own a particularly sarcastic and cruel God (but not less likely) to provide the human intellect and capacity for reflection and critique that enables us to have concepts like " God" then , make them a waiver for the Salvation requsite.
(3) It must be said that the definition of toughness on the beliefence Academy does not accept as the meaning of "faith" but of "fanaticism."
(4) La Fortaleza, in Christian doctrine, is the cardinal virtue that overcomes fear and doubt without becoming reckless.
(5) In some religions, eg Christianity , it becomes more important to save the belief in God against all odds that behave like a decent human being and indeed in most to Protestant churches (70 million members) salvation comes only through faith without works have absolutely nothing to do (doctrine of Sola Fide).
(6) Or best of all: " not afraid. Fear kills the mind. Fear is the little death that leads to total destruction. Afrontaré my fear. I'll let pass by me and through my, and when you turn my inner eye to see its way, I'll be just me and my fear is gone . " Just substitute "fear" to "doubt" and you'll see why the Brotherhood held their beliefs for ten thousand years ...
(7) By the way I've never revisited I Am Not Spock. and should. As if someone who has read itand article do not know, now I am determined.
(8) Hence, I define as "agnostic with hope." The hope is that God exists, is ever good enough to find arguments for re-call myself a believer and look in the mirror without my head in shame fall.

Cataract More Condition_symptoms December Books

I Shall Wear Midnight Pratchett is the latest (released in September) and fourth in the saga of Tiffany Aching, as I mentioned at other times, is written for adolescents ( a younger audience than that for which Pratchett usually written). In this novel, Tiffany has fifteen years and attended, among other things, the evolution of their relationship with Roland (the son of Baron), to meet as much as anything Masy with Eskarina Smith, who starred along with Granny Weatherwax's first book in the saga of the Witches (Equal Rites / & nbsp; Equal Rites) and we had not seen since then (for over 20 years) during a lightning trip to Ankh-Morpok in which there is a large selection Guard members (Carrot, Angua and Wee Mad Arthur, the "gnome" Falcon Regiment Monstruous ) and its relationship with the two witches of Lancre (with special attention Tata Ogg, which is discussed in this book with another point but it keeps throwing a few laughs with her a few laughs with Nanny Ogg) and the always hilarious adventures and explanations of the Nac Mc Feegle.

Again this is a story metememética. Pratchett is writing a lot lately about the power of stories and tales, of how the mind set ⁽¹⁾ and with it, the reality as perceived by that mind. The argument (the philosophical basis of the plot) is relatively similar to Wintersmith what makes me think that the whole saga is trying to form the minds of children and tweens who read it to realize that all they have learned so far about how things are supposed to is actually a kind of simplification, something like you have some stories po help you make a model Practical, simple and good enough as fuciona the world, but one that literally you can not trust because, in reality, is based on stories and lies. I think the series is to introduce into the minds of his readers the idea that life hereafter, not really going to be so simple and that appearances are deceptive, that you can not trust someone just because it appears in shining armor on a white horse, and not all witches are bad. One always advisable critical lesson, even for many adults, which has the added virtue of making you throw a few laughs.

And, nearly two a & ntilde, I then finally found the time to reread The God Delusion . I still think it is a superb book, but the second reading has shown me some very interesting points in my eagerness fascinacióny not the first time I noticed, probably because I was too interested in what Dawkins meant that the details of their arguments. For example, one of which struck me most were eventually charged cults and their similarities with Christianity, the new reading has made me see that these similarities are due to the missionaries had introduced clristianos memes as ubiquity or the Parousia in indigenous cultures; Nous for centuries, did not appear spontaneously after the departure of John Furman, evolved after being introduced to this culture by missionaries. The second reading reminds me too much Richard Dawkins is wrong when he talks about Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. His apologists say that Dawkins is wrong for example in speaking of Purgatory is irrelevant, because what matters is not whether the emperor's clothes has ruffled or frilly garter double, but the suit if it does not exist. And that argument is as ingenious as misleading, because when used as an argument to show that the suitEmperor's stupidity no description is necessary to know the difference between a purse and a jabot or additionally be noted that not know what you speak, you lose credibility.

And I found it interesting to reread knowing all the physics and mathematics all know now, The God Delusion prompted me to read and therefore the first time unknown. One of the most devastating chapters for me, the only thing that made me real dent, in fact, was the last The Mother of all Burqas, which speaks of the strange Dawkins ISIM isthe universe and how far we are not equipped to understand it in its entirety. That chapter made me realize that the God they believed was not, despite all their sophistication, rather than dad raised to infinity. If God existed, a God who has created a universe like this, with black holes that challenge the notion of continuity of time and where everything is made of the precipitation of the probability of a lot of individual things or not there are ridiculously small in a given time (if there is such thing as a "moment", of course) ... If God existed, as I say, and & nbsp; was like the universe, then it was so strange, so alien, it was impossible to relate to it. If God existed, there could be, at heart, Zeus magnified in which he believed, and could not conceive God otherwise. Yet now, after reading it knowing everything I know, which is not much, I had an epiphany that I have different let it settle before talking about it.

Again I say: A superb book everyone should read. And I say again: if you are a believer and your religion make you happier and better person, think twice because once you read you can not dissolve. And if I pudiera choose to go back in time and would not read it. It would not be alone.

Finally, after having seen the film , I read Going Postal another Pratchett and the first of Moist von Lipwig. I have already read the second, Making Money and, between us, I hope as rain in May the third, Raising Taxes. I have to say that beyond the complexities of Granny Weatherwax and, above all, Sam Vimes (which is becoming the richest in the Discworld character), my favorite is the saga Lipwig. Ehis book specifically about the resurrection, but is virtually the introduction, the postal system in Ankh-Morpok, led by this character, a professional con artist begins the book practically on the gallows. It is very good, very funny and very interesting, not so much as the second (which is a prelude to the introduction of the stamps) but above the average even the Pratchetts. A pity that none are translated ...

Ah, yes, a curious note. The title of the book, Going Postal , refers to an American expression which means something like "get mad, lose your head, grab a shotgun, subierte the roof of a McDonald's and Liard shot with everything you see. " It originates in the curious statistic that since the mid 80's hardly a year passes without a carrier, specifically a letter carrier in the United States to do exactly that, or something very similar. Lately people think twice before you lose your temper with an employee of the USPS ... You never know where you're going to leave.

And greetings to all of an insomniac Arthegarn____________
(1) And, of course, the collective unconscious and the Weltanschauung ...