USA: National Security Strategy, Juan's Wet Dream

[juan]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:49:18 -0500
Michalis Kargakis <kargakis at protonmail.ch> wrote:

> "Came back" as in "ressurected". 
> He likely experienced death on the
> cross but was able to "come back" at a later point in time (three
> days they say).

	what are you talking about? - the jesus scammer never existed -
	let alone 'resurrected' - that's lunatic nonsense. When people
	die, they are dead forever. 



> 
> Anyway, I want to make a point here that is you can never prove
> anything about anything you haven't experienced in your lifetime and
> even your experiences are influenced by a lot of external factors you
> have no control over. 

	if that was true, then what the hell are you saying about the
	jew scammer's resurrection? You are a radical skeptic....who
	promotes the sick jew-kristian horror tale? Something doesn't
	add up....




> Long story short, it doesn't matter whether
> Christ actually existed or not and taking one side or the other is a
> lost cause. The story of Christ, specifically, teaches a way of life
> that religion has masqueraded for its own profit. Think for yourself.

	
	you sopund like a jesus freak and active supporter of fraud, and
	you are telling me to think for myself? Well, go figure, that's
	what I'm doing. The one who is unable to think for himself is
	you apparently. 



> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj4JgoJRQsM
> 
> Regards,
> Michalis
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: USA: National Security Strategy, Juan's Wet Dream
> > Local Time: December 25, 2017 4:23 PM
> > UTC Time: December 25, 2017 3:23 PM
> > From: juan.g71 at gmail.com
> > To: cp <cypherpunks at cpunks.org>
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:28:53 -0500
> > Michalis Kargakis kargakis at protonmail.ch wrote:
> >
> >> Christ was crucified when he was 33 years old, ie. 33 CE. After
> >> they thought he died, he actually came back
> >
> > lawl - the fucking turd didn't exist - what do you mean, "came
> > back" ?
> >
> >> so I don't know what this
> >> piece is trying to debunk.