Stra spurningin: Gu?

Er a setja etta inn hr til "geymslu", ritai etta erlendum ri (binn a breyta essu smvegis til ess a taka etta r samhengi rsins):

eftir a a etta yfir slensku en v miur, virist g hafa betri tk enskunni.

Hr er velt fyrir sr spurningunni hvort Gu s til og ar sem g hafi ekki rita niur skoun mna essu vifangsefni nokkur r kom hn mr nokku vart hversu heilsteypt hn virist vera samhengi eirra heimilda sem g get mr n hlekkja (i megi leita sjlf, nenni ekki a rekja blasutal upp r bkum strax).

This is regarding the Big Question, is there a God? From my point-of-view.

I like this topic and I've gone to long measures to form a personalized opinion on the subject. Not many will manage to read this, but I promise that you will most likely see a glimpse of reason within it if you do, hopefully I will too, because I haven't written down my thoughts about this in years, and it has evolved quite a lot thanks to self-studying - this will be extremely philosophical, you have been warned.


First off, I'd like to point out that most, if not all, involved in this debate bypass, unknowingly or not, the actual question and gone to specifics regarding either the consequences of the so-called faith in God or the validity of either side, without ever touching the question "Is there a God?"

The debate usually evolves into a critique on the capitalization of faith, being - church and / or organized-religion, and mostly out of context to its role as a sociological power-structure.


Now, let's focus on the main question.


Man has thought about this problem since he first had a thought, and given that we are in no way, and I underline this without using the underline format, intellectually superior to our ancestors dating back thousands of years. All we have now that has given us the illusion of intellect is our knowledge / awareness - completely irrelevant of the human intellectual prowess. Now we have, in general, more "fragments" and "bits" of knowledge compared to our ancestors, but what matters most is how we put those bits together into a mold, the fact still remains that we are still using the same tools of the trade as they had at their disposal 10.000 years ago - the only difference being situational at best.


This brings me to Bertrand Russell's (1872-1970) proteg, who surpassed his philosophical and mathematical genius, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). He wrote an essay simply called "Philosophical Investigations," widely regarded as "unbelievably logical," but still has not sunk into our general knowledge even though it has been published and logically agreed upon, which of course can be said about most academic word of any significance.


The curse of our intellect, and in turn; the bane of philosophy, is language itself (in the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, philosophy was mainly about philology, the philosophy of language) . Why you might ask, is language, our source of everything defined, the curse and bane of everything in itself? The simplified reasoning is that language is a tool that we can willingly manipulate to portray ideas and situational conundrums without any necessary connection to the Natural World. We can create problems with our language alone that can never be solved or explained by anything other than the same, more-so or equally, disconnected and manipulated tool, the language. When we use the language to portray the simply "unexplainable" we find ourselves in a similar situation, as Wittgenstein said, as a fly - stuck inside a clear glass bottle. The fly notices the Natural World around it and assumes it can fly about as usual, but just so much that it hits an invisible barrier that cannot be explained by what the fly senses with sight. The language is this glass-bottle, and without connecting it to the Natural World with logistics and reasoning - we will never be able to see the exit above. This encases our perception of Nature inside an invisible barrier of non-defining word-definitions. We are at a time where we ignore knowledge that cannot be spoken in words, and what we can not see or explain - we simply give it a word, which consequently makes us aware of what we do not know, by definition alone, this poisons our thoughts from the inside out rapidly without realizing it.


Nietzsche mentioned how we can destroy the beauty of Nature with definitions. Imagine taking a child to the beach for the very first time, it sees an infinite mass of liquid that rises and falls as far as the eye can see - beating upon the shore with force it does not recognize nor can the child compare it to anything else it has seen. You, the responsible adult, explain to the child that it does not need to worry - you put your hand and swirl it around in the sea and say: "See, it's harmless, this is just the Ocean." In that moment the amazement and astonishment of the child has been subdued and replaced with acceptance and assurance of fact, you defined the unexplainable with a simple word and what was once unfathomable and not possible in the child's perceived world is now simply called "The Ocean" and the infinately complex becomes as simple as a single word.


Alright, then that's out of the way. Given that we are actually debating a problem created by ourselves with no connection to the Natural World (the only connection is, like I said, with the same tool that created the problem) we must first initiate the Natural connection. Why is there a God and how can we connect him / her / it to our surroundings? This brings me to yet another philosopher who is often forgotten but undeniably one of the most important philosophers of all time, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), of which Georg W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) noted: "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all." Spinoza was Jewish and had radical ideas which eventually caused him to be excommunicated and persecuted (his books had to be protected from all churches after his death) this idea is 360 years old, approximately 300 years before Wittgenstein mentioned the necessity of the Natural Connection. I'll sum it up and try to connect the two:


The idea is that everything in the universe; Nature, is simply one substance (not matter, rather the "essence" of everything); Reality. Reality has a set of rules that governs it entirely and of which we are part. God and Nature are two names for the same Reality, a single substance of which all entities of it are modifications of itself, all things within Nature (or God if you like) are determined to exist and cause effects, the extremely complex chain of cause and effect is only partly understood by us humans. We, as a species - with language as our curse and tool, also presume that we have free will because we are aware of our desires but unable to understand why we have them and why we need to act on them. Nature has infinite variations of itself and the physical and mental separation is non-existent, the two are just sides of a coin with infinite sides. God exists as Nature, Nature does not rule the universe by providence - the Universe is part of Nature and thus there is no personality to idolize.


This gives us a logical reason, in its illogical way, to seek explanation of what we do not understand by using the aforementioned curse of the language - just put together a disconnected, unnatural definition based on what little that we know of ourselves and Nature - and we have the definition of God as he is idolized today. And like children who did not understand any of this were contacted by those who did know the fictional word of God and used / uses the exact same tactic as the adult uses to explain the ocean to the child, don't worry, it's just God work.


Now, think about it - Spinoza had managed to connect the dots in such a fashion 360 years ago that he correctly implied the existence of the infinite sameness of everything down to the molecule. Wittgenstein managed, 60 years ago, to define 90% (remember, 73,4% of all statistics are made up on the spot, mind you) of all philosophers into the school of Optimism due to their unaware disconnect to the Natural World whereas they dealt with situational problems that had no Natural basis other than what I personally call Philography (Philosophical Pornography, the art of stimulating your mind without ends being met).


So, to me - there is only God in definition, as he is Nature, our perception of this so-called God is only based on our inability to understand and comprehend the complexity of everything. This complexity and our curious nature can distract the individual to such a degree that he will not fit well within the social-structure we have built around us. The worst part is of course that there is considerable evidence to support the idea that the capitalization of the God-Excuse is just to sedate the individual curiosity, just as Karl Marx (1818-1883) said that Religion was the Opiate of the masses. If we seize to ponder the nature of our surroundings we find ourselves in need of a purpose or at least an explanation of what it might be, and an overly simplified answer to what our purpose is, is capitalized by either monetary-slavery, you need a job - you need money, or religion, you get all of this from the government / those in power. The power to govern can not exist if the individual can not be capitalized, if the God-Excuse removes a large chunk of our individuality / curiosity, then he is free to be enslaved. If he, the individual, does not see the purpose in taking active part of the social-structure originally created by the "slavemasters", there is no power of control. With no power to control, the system collapses.


With this in mind we realize why those in control often regard and abuse religion and/or our volunteered-slavery (think about it). It's not that they are offering you the feel-good-faith or the willingness to do good, nor is it the assurance of whatever bad happens in your life then there's an afterlife; it's your individuality they're after. You trust the government today in a way people trusted God in the past, we go to work - we interact, we do business - with the assurance that there's someone out there thinking of you and in your interest. In that state of mind you do not freely form a personality, you conform your behavior to what is needed by those who do not think about your personal needs at all, they only think about what to do to remain in control. This applies both to religious and / or governing bodies.


__________________________________________



I think I should let this go now as I could probably ramble on forever about this particular part of the Big Question. The other historical, political, sociological and psychological factors that we need to cover on the rise of organized religion is so vast that not a soul would like to even begin reading my post if I did it here as well. There is, of course, my view on how the exact same brainwashing and rise to totalitarianism is evolving as we speak - of which I do not want to cover as of yet. The tactics being used by governments today, even when excluding the religious influences, to control and harvest the masses in even larger scale than before give credence to a conclusion that politicians today are the exact same fragment of our social-structure as priests and Kings-from-God were in the past using the same tools to control. That alone gives us a reason to believe that it's not the belief in itself that we should be debating about, much rather why there are people who use whatever means necessary to be in "control", be it with monetary or religious influence or blend thereof.


Regards,
inn Lve


N skal gera grn!

etta verur eflaust au rfu skipti sem g tla a segja lti.

Teki r frttinni:
"Mtmlin voru samarskyni .."
"62 handteknir eftir a til taka kom vi lgreglu .."

Bin a n essu? g skal hjlpa, hr slandi er flk a grta sig til reii yfir v a ungt flk (sem dirfist a klast gallabuxum!) kasti eggjum ea brjta hur! Er a ekki nokku ljst a mtmli hr su hlfger vettlingatk egar horft er til samarmtmla Danaveldi!

Hvernig haldi i a standi vri arna ti ef a sambrileg staa hefi komi upp og er hr dag? N held g a svr su reiu hj Loyalistunum; " a standi ti s verra arna ir a ekki a flk urfi a rna skattpening mnum veggjahreinsun!" vil g spyrja a einu, af hverju ekki a vera bara frekar stt yfir v a hrna klakanum teljist eggjakast mtmli sta ess a pikka lyklabori lkt og molotovkokteil hafi veri varpa inn leikskla?

g er a.


mbl.is 62 handteknir Kaupmannahfn
Tilkynna um vieigandi tengingu vi frtt

egar ska er eftir breytingum

g hef ekki sett hr inn nja frslu svoltinn tma, tk jafnvel tma fr bloggheimi essum v a fr a vera frekar augljst a v meira sem lesi var af bloggi v gramari og leiari var maur af standi jar og jafnvel augljsrar heimsku sem grasserar mrgum hverjum essu samflagi.

v fr sem fr, g hlt fram mnu lfi og s a spuklan sem umvefur mann sjlfkrafa hjlpar miki til vi a komast gegnum daginn n ess a finna fyrir hkkandi blrstingi og hneykslan llu v sem mbl.is hendir okkkur. Svo fr allt hausinn.

g var v a sj hvernig eir sem telja sig hafa fingurinn plsi jflags okkar tju sig um standi og var mr bi brugi hversu klofinn jrembingurinn var og er. Srafir sj sig knna til ess a kynna sr mlefni landi stundar til hltar og taka og tj sig um upplsingar og frttir tn sem smir ekki enkjandi flki. Smn er a sj hversu margir fordma hvers kyns agerir gegn valdnslu og rttlti gar okkar allra og vilja helst ekki hrfla vi neinu v a er ekki bi a gera sr grein fyrir alvarleika mlsins.

Einna helst er a minnast rkfrslu eirra sem benda a einungis rfar hrur lta sj sig og fleiri koma til a horfa skrgngu samkynhneigra og heimkomu handboltamanna en a mtmla og a arna su bara smu gmlu fsin sem hafa veri a mtmla san lf hfst jru, ef svo mtti koma a ori. Gert er svo stlpagrn v aeins 200 ea jafnvel 5000 manns lti sj sig af sjlfri rkisstjrninni, jafnvel segja a hr s ekki um flki jinni a ra. a er rtt, essar tlur eru ekki jafnhar eirri sem hagstofa okkar gefur upp sem bafjldi slands og eru bloggverjar ekki hikandi vi a a strika undir fullyringu. Dmin hinsvegar hafa snt a a eru ltil jarbrot sem koma byltingum af sta ea mtmla hverju sinni og samtmamenn eirra fussa a venju og segja ekki forsvari fyrir sig n ara en sig sjlfa. Svo kemur bylting, breytingar vera a veruleika og hinir smu fussandi skrlsupphrpandi samtmamenn sna blai snu vi rtt eins og plitkus segist ekki kannast vi smtal ea prsentu. A yfir 2% jar safnist saman til ess eins a mtmla er me eim strstu mtmlum sem gerist essari jararkringlu ekki gleyma v og horfa einungis tlu eirra sem mtmla horfu heildartlu jarinnar.

a er sta fyrir essu, og frekar einfld okkabt. Rkisvaldi hefur tult lagt sig fram vi a koma v undirmevitund okkar a eir eru a gta hagsmuna okkar fr blautu barnsbeini og v er umfljanlegt a eir f nokku gan byr undir ba vngi egar kemur a v a vernda essar smu skoanir og kvaranir. Mtmlendur standa v ekki einungis fram fyrir rkisvaldi heldur einnig eim sem finnst lkt og veri s a brjta foreldri snu ar sem stuttbuxnapsarnir taka essu sem persnulegri rs og allar agerir eru v sem lgbrot. Gleymum ekki a Frelsisstri Bandarkjanna voru 15-20% ba nlendanna hliholl bresku stjrninni gegnum allt stri.

Svo kemur upp aferafrin, ea mtmlendaagerirnar sjlfar. Af hverju a kasta eggi, Hv a brjta hur, Hvernig rttlti i skrlsltin? g sem skattgreiandi arf a borga fyrir hreinsun! etta er a sem erfiast er a kyngja essu bloggsvi, sem skattgreiandi rusar yfir eggjahreinsun en sr r ekki frt a mta til mtmlaagera v n fara skattar a hkka til ess a borga enn drkeyptari kvrun rkisins. essi kvrun var umfljanleg, a gerum vi okkur flest grein fyrir, en a er ekki v sem veri er a mtmla. Forsendurnar - lygavefurinn, seinagangurinn, hrokinn, brotthvarf byrgarmanna, skipulagir karamellu-blaamannafundir, minnisleysi rkisvalds, misrmi mlflutningi, misskilningurinn, "g kannast ekki vi (x"), gegnsr frttamennska, notkun almannafjr til fjrfestinga bankamanna (sem kemur svo aftur til slands gegnum dtturfyrirtki eirra smu), krosseignatengsl aumanna, llegar afsakanir, stjrn gmlu bankanna situr enn a mestu leiti, fjrfestingar eirra rotabi sinna eigin eigna, svona vri lengi hgt a telja upp atrii eftir atrii sem gefa stu til ess a vi urfum a lta okkur heyra. a ngir ekki a fara t og skra og lta kyrrt fyrir liggja, n arf a mta ntt afl stjrnmlum sem hafa a a leiarljsi a upprta essum forsendum sem leiddi okkur a essu feni ar sem vi sitjum n pikkfst fyrir miju. Flk heldur fram a tala um byrg - n er a okkar byrg a mynda nja hugsjn, nja stefnu stjrnmlum og lta reyna, anna vri byrgaleysi.

egar samstaa er rf til a kalla fram breytingar er a allra sasta sem vi urfum a vera sammla hvaa veg vi kjsum a ganga tt a sama leiarenda, sem er ekki punktur, heldur svi (svo flk fari ekki a tj sig um hgri ea vinstri akgrein vegarins), svo lengi sem veri er a mtmla smu hugmyndinni skal flk frekar kinka kolli hlji og ganga burt ekki vera fokillur v gtir ekki rttltt agerirnar fyrir sjlfum r, enda ertu ekki sjlfur a framkvma r. Eina leiin til ess a rttkar mtmlaagerir skemmi fyrir heildinni er egar og ef reiist og telur r tr um a n srt httur llum mtmlum. Ef getur teki essu me stskri r og haldi barttu fram rtt fyrir a arir kasti eggi skalt gera a fyrir alla muni, annars ert a skemma fyrir heildinni. Hins vegar virist a samhljmur flestra sem andmla rttku aferunum a eir mtmla ekki, eir lta sr ngja a vera einungis sammla rkisvaldinu heima fyrir og vinnunni en koma svo moggabloggi og fordma allt sem hentar ekki heimamtmlum eirra og f lka fgakennd andmli fr hinni hliinni og ltur a koma sr vart.

Ef vel er horft og fylgst me er augljst hvers vegna standi er lkt og dag og v augljsara verur a a breytinga er rf v svona ekki a stjrna landi og j. Tel g a vi sum meira og minna a mtmla okkur sjlfum lka fyrir blindni og ageraleysi okkar allt aftur til Byltingartilraunar Jrundar Danaokinu sjlfu, Jnas geri stlpagrn af okkar dugleysi leikritinu i muni hann Jrund, ar lsti hann okkur fullkomnlega sem endurspeglast laptop-tindtum plitskrar rtthugsunar dagsins dag, gerir ekkert en vill lta lta t fyrir a svo s.

Vi kunnum etta einfaldlega ekki, vi urfum a stta okkur vi stareynd flk vill mtmla og gerir vikum saman frii, rkisvald gerir lti sem ekkert til a komast til mts vi beini "flksins", og v eru aferirnar a breytast. Hvernig er hgt a segja a rttkar agerir eiga ekki rtt sr nna egar a er bi a sna og sanna a a hinu frismu 17. jn skrgngu-mtmli okkar eru ekki a virka. Er veri a bija okkur um a vera stillt mean hinu fullornu stjrnmlaforeldrar okkar sj um etta?

Til ess a vera sem minnst fyrir er krafist um a halda skrgngunni fram, svona svo sum okkar hafi eitthva a gera atvinnuleysinu. a er veri a segja okkur a vi eigum a halda fram eim agerum sem virast gagnlausar v geta au arna turninum unni frii. Svo er eggjum kasta og flk hneykslast lkt og um mor s a ra - skrll mttur og skemmir allt fyrir llum, hva er essi skrll a skemma? Fyrir hverjum? Lkt og g sagi an veltur a vibrgum utanakomandi hvort etta eigi a skemma fyrir ea ekki!

g held einfaldlega a sta ess a rkisstjrn taki ekki mark mtmlum okkar er s sama og rkir hj eim sem fara rttku leiina. Vi hfum of sjaldan lti okkur heyra og birtingarmyndir mtmla sem vi ekkjum utan r heimi eru massfar og blugar sem virast n gegn, vi unga flki hfum a sem fyrirmynd r sjnvarpi.

Rkisvaldi hefur greinilega smu skoun, hr eru engin mtmli fyrr en steinum er kasta og menn brenndir. v miur.


mbl.is Icesave hstkkvari viskiptaleitarora Google
Tilkynna um vieigandi tengingu vi frtt

egar trin mtir vantr.

Vill benda a g er me enska tgfu af ankagangi mnum hr:
http://molested-english.blogspot.com

Finnst mr g n a fanga a sem g er a reyna a koma fr mr mun betur v tungumli heldur en slensku, hef ekki hugmynd hvers vegna, en fyrir sem vilja frekari og betri tjningu essum frslum mnum skulu lesa enskuna frekar.

------------------------

N hef g veri a fylgjast vel me bloggumhverfi mnu eftir a g bttist ennan "mogga" hp og ver g a segja a aldrei hef g s jafn mikinn mgsing og rkjandi heimsku meal samborgara minna.

Nefna m dmi a egar einhver talar um trarbrg ea trbrg af einhverjum mli, er nnast til teki vst ml a til komi einn siferispostll og segi hvernig ljsi er raun ekki ljsi og myrkri sem hann lifir s ljsi sjlft. g er ekki traur og nokkur r af mnu lfi hafa fari a a reyna a "frelsa" frelsuu, n er sagan nnur.

http://nanna.blog.is/blog/nanna/entry/301868/

Umran sem skapaist arna fr virkilega fyrir hjarta mr v arna eru tveir ailar sem berjast upp sitt litla lf um hver hafi rtt fyrir sr vegna ess a hinn er starinn ru en maurinn sjlfur. g vil benda a sem g upplifi egar g endurskoai stefnu mna svona mlum snum tma.

g var a lesa Hugleiingar um Frumspeki eftir Rene Descartes egar g var einmitt eim tmapunkti mnu lfi a endurskoa allar mnar hugsanir og kenningar tfr eim sjnarhli a r su allar byggar misfullkomnum skilning fyrri tma. g fattai eftirfarandi:

  • Af hverju arf g sem einstaklingur a ykjast vita hver hinn heilagi sannleikur er?
  • Af hverju er g a stimpla hvern einasta mann sem segist traur sem "skynsamlegur" og jafnvel "heimskur"?
  • Hvernig stendur v a g get ekki stt mig vi a a menn eru misjafnir og skoanir tr eru a lka?
  • Af hverju er a kappsml um hver hefur "rttast" fyrir sr "rkrnan" htt?
  • Hvernig get g stai og tua yfir v hvernig trair koma, trufla mig og reyna a sanna snar skoanir fyrir mr egar g er a gera nkvmlega a sama vi au?
  • Ef traur einstaklingur er jafn sannfrur um sna skoun og g um mna, hvernig get g tlast til ess a g geti "afsanna" lit eirra egar au geta ekki gert a sama vi mig?

a sem gerist arna er a g ttai mig v a g var engum skrri essu mli en hver annar ofsatra einstaklingur. g var a fara offri yfir minni skoun, ea tr, og lt alveg eins og eir sem skra "JES BJARGAR!" yfir alla. Hvernig get g sem einstaklingur rttltt mna hegun egar g fordmi hana sjlfur? etta er hugsanaleysi siferispostlla vantrar, ef i geti ekki stt ykkur vi a a arir tra ru en i sjlfir skulu i ekki dirfast til ess a reyna a "frelsa" frelsuu.

Ekki geri g a lengur, og mr lur enn betur.


stin takmarkast af sjlfselsku.

Eins geslegt og a hljmar var g fyrir eirri uppljmun eitt kvldi rtt ur en g ni a sofna. Eftir a mr datt etta hug fr g a sundurlia hugsun mna og kynnti mr nnar almenna slfrilega tskringu stinni. Hn var raun margtt eins og g hafi hugsa mr en tk einna helst eftir v a meal eirra st: "The complete state of selflessness," etta finnst mr vera rangt.

Ekki halda a g liti stina sem einhvern vibjslegan hlut, nei - g veit a hn er skp fgur og skemmtileg en a erum vi flki hins vegar ekki. Vi erum hinu geslegu og hrilegu og flest allt sem gerist essum heimi er keyrt fram vegna hinna mannlegu sjlfselsku og verlaunafknar. En hn er falleg, a er hn a vissu leyti.

au sem eru n hristandi hausinn og hugsandi me sr: "Svei, hann getur n ekki haldi essu fram! fruss!" skulu bara slaka og fara eitthva anna ef vangaveltur manna fara fram r skilningarvitum ykkar tlu raunveruleikanum. stin, eins og g sagi, takmarkast af okkar getu og vilja til a elska sjlfan sig.

Raunin er s a eina sta ess a srt tilbinn til ess a elska einhvern annan er a hversu heitt rir a lta r la vel. etta virist kaldhrannalegt en etta er rtt. r lur vel egar ert elskaur, r lur vel egar elskar. vilt lta rum aila la vel og vi a lur r sjlfum vel. etta er svo einfalt, en samt svo flki. Helstu rk gegn essu eru fr eim sem ekki hafa hugsa ngu vel t etta, rkfrslurnar eru allt fr eim gfurlega sterku "NEI ETTA ER RANGT!" og til "Hvernig getur veri sjlfselskur egar ert a elska annan aila en sjlfann ig?" a er raun einfalt, etta kemur alltaf aftur til baka a v a ert a elska annan til a bta lan na og ar me er sjlfselskan grrasta fyrir st rum.

En hva me egar flk talar um a frna lfi snu fyrir stina? Er a flk sjlfselskt? J, a er a en samt er a ekki. Ef maur er tilbinn til a lta lfi sitt til a rum li vel hver heldur a drifkrafturinn s bakvi gjrninginn? a er j a a hann vill svo heitt a rum li vel me snar kvaranir a hann er tilbinn a gefa upp allt sitt til ess. g get eflaust sagt me vissu a eim sem frna sr fyrir stina li bara allnokku vel me a, v ef enginn er ginn - myndi enginn gera neitt fyrir neinn.

etta var fyrir sem hafa einfaldlega ekki hugsa lengra og tali st bara vera ... "st".


fengisvandinn var kliskpur!

"Kliskpur, sem notaur var til a kla bjr, hvtvn og freyivn Vnbinni Austurstrti hefur veri fjarlgur a sk Vilhjlms . Vilhjlmssonar borgarstjra Reykjavk."

- segir essari yndislegu frtt af ghjrtuum borgarstjra okkar.

Alkohlisma hefur veri trmt. Vilhjlmur hefur, eins og raun ber vitni, fundi stu vandans sem mibrinn hefur hrjst af og notfrt sr vld sn til a trma honum algerlega einni svipan. a er trlegt a essi lausn hafi ekki legi fyrir ll essi r, ea er a ekki annars stareynd a eir sem eru hluti vandans sem veri er a leirtta hr geti ekki fyrir sitt litla lf drukki volgt fengi?

Klirinn var upphaf vandans, fjarlgi hann og allt mun brosa vi okkur, virkilega skemmtileg flsfa.

g er ekki vanur a skrifa svona urrar og geslegar bloggfrslur, en ar sem g er n kominn "mbl" bloggi fannst mr a rttast a mn fyrsta frsla yri eins og strsti hluti notenda eru hr, urr - og gesleg.

Thanks for the warm welcoming party! Let the games begin!


mbl.is Klirinn fjarlgur r vnbinni Austurstrti
Tilkynna um vieigandi tengingu vi frtt

Innskrning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveiki Javascript til a hefja innskrningu.

Hafu samband