Catholic church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Post Reply

Post by Gelin_ » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:45 am


You got to be careful my friend. It sounds to me you are saying that since we have followed the europeans when they gave us christianity we should follow them AGAIN now that they have rejected christianity. It seems to me that you are advocating the same game or pattern you want to reject. Am I right or wrong?

For the record: The teachings and doctrine of Jesus-Christ as outlined in the Bible (whatever translation or version) are not eurocentric.



Post by Gelin_ » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:10 am

[quote]Gélin wrote:

"The teachings and doctrine of Jesus-Christ as outlined in the Bible (whatever translation or version) are not eurocentric".

Almost true....but unfortunately, the bibles contain very little that can be considered teachings and doctrine of Jesus - who was eventually declared the Christ by those who created this ethnocentric religion in his name, and against his very teachings.[/quote]
Almost right...The group that pretends to differentiate between what (they believe) Jesus actually said and what (they believe) others have put in his mouth over time is the "Jesus Seminar". They are funny, and I had the opportunity to be at one of their conferences in Iowa. Voye monte.

Did Jesus present himself as the Christ? A few examples:

<I>Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. - Mat 16:20.

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' f
or you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. - Mat 23:9-11.

I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. - Mark 9:41.

Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ. - Luke 4:41.

The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he. - John 4:25-26.</I>

All this happened way before Paul and others got on board. Outside of Paul's writtings there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was called the Christ. But I don't think we need to go over this again.



Re: Catholic church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Post by Gelin_ » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:57 am

[quote]...THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture...[/quote]
It's simple and very easy to understand - pretty much similar to what's going on in Haiti now with regard to the 1987 constitution.

Before, after and since the bishops of the church of rome have declared themselves the true spiritual leaders of the chruch built by Jesus-Christ centuries earlier, the one and only obstacle the
y have always faced is the bible itself. Historically, they tried to keep people from even looking at it, let alone read and study it. The reason is simple: if the bible is true, then they are wrong. If they are wrong, then people should not follow them or listen to their teachings. That's how protestantism originated in europe in the first place, although there were many non-catholic christians in and outside of europe living out their faith peacefully according to their conscience and their understandings of the scriptures, and away from the glamour and worldly glory that have become so important to many.

Since the pope, the cardinals and the bishops can't be wrong, then the book (upon which their whole system is supposed to be based) must itself be declared wrong, inaccurate, or simply incomprehensible. If that's the case, then that particular book can no longer be used as the standard against which the teachings and actions of the vatican must be measured. That automatically opens up the floodga
tes for all kinds of revelations and doctrines. Tout voum se dlo!

There is nothing new under the sun and I am not surprised one bit by the article. I have read worse than that.



Post by Tayi_ » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:16 am

My dear friends,
It has been a long time. It's been quite busy on this side of things, and I haven't been able to post on the forum, though I've tried to keep up with some of the discussions.

This one revelaed something quite sad. I ask myself the same question that Guy seems to have, "why are my brothers throwing such punches so quickly at a document that is unknowm to them?" I doubt that anyone on this discussion has actually read The Gift of Scripture, but yet that does not stop one from making all kinds of exaggerated claims.

I was wondering why Guy hasn't said anyting yet. I expected a more balanced response from him and he did give such a response when he warned everyone to examine what they are saying on the subject, found here:

The kind of remarks, including the name callings and the exaggerations, somewhat turn me off f
rom having a dialogue here for it seems that my friends here do not even care enough to hold back biting comments about what they do NOT know. Nothing I can say then will have any validity or effect. Some are so interested in "debunking" others' beliefs that they do not care if they use sloppy means.

Bouli has declared that the English Bishops have declared several parts of the Bible to be "fatra pwazon" trash, poison, ( Is this found in the document? This seems to be rather a personal feeling projected unto the bishops themselves. It would be ironic for a document called The Gift of Scripture to go ahead and declare parts of that same Scripture to be trash.

No, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is trash or that it is somehow no longer needed. Read Dei Verbum and see what the universal Church has to say on the topic.
Some may wish the Church would give up the Word of God, but my dear friends it won't happen. It did not happen for the past two thousand years; it won't happen now or in the future.

As we continue in these discussions (I'm not sure how much I'll be able to contribute, especially if we continue the way this line of discussion and the other one on The Gift of Scripture are going) let us remember the words of St. Augustine paraphrased here: In necessary things, let us have unity; in ambiguous things, liberty; but in all things, charity.

( Fides et Ratio may be of interest to some wanting to know in general the thoughts of the Church on the relationship between Faith and reason--they are wedded together.)

For another Catholic's (fuller) reaction to the "news report" on The Gift of Scripture, please consult:

the windows so that the lies may fly out"--all the lies even the one we subconsciously hold.


Post by Tayi_ » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:20 am

In the signature line of my last post it should have read, "even the ones we subconsciously hold. Not "one" in the singular. Typo. :-)

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:51 am

[quote]"Open the window so that the lies may fly out." [/quote]Brother Tayi, I am so glad to hear that you were still visiting the forum, but saddened that you did not (could not) hold the windows wide open with your own participation, "so that the lies may fly out".

Notice the introduction of the little word "so" in your quote, as opposed to the quote below the "Windows on Haiti" site banner which reads: "Open the windows that the lies may fly out." You introduced the word "so" and that's a good thing, because it creates a more contemporary form of expression intended to achieve the same level of meaning as the original. These days, people would not say in standard English "Open the windows that the lies may fly out", yet I chose to stay closer to the original translation from The Ditmarsch Tale of Wonders, which I will reproduce
below (please stay with me, even if you do not yet see where I am going with this particular line of argumentation).

Four fellows who wanted to catch a hare,
went on crutches and stilts;
one of them was deaf,
the second blind,
the third dumb,
and the fourth
could not stir
a step

Do you want to know
how it was done?

First, the blind man saw
the hare running across the field,
the dumb one called to the deaf one,
and the lame one seized it by the neck.

There were certain men
who wished to sail on dry land,
and they set their sails in the wind,
and sailed away over great fields . . .

Then they sailed over a high mountain,
and there they were miserably drowned.

A crab was chasing a hare
which was running away at full speed;
and high up on the roof lay a cow
which had climbed up there.

In that country the flies are as big
as the goats are here.

Open the window that the lies may
fly out.

The Ditmarsch Tale of Wonders (1812)

Now, some words of caution: I don't know for absolutely certain, but I suspect that the Ditmarsch Tale of Wonders was originally written in German. So, as wonderful the above literary piece is (and I think it is), what we are looking at is only a translation, i.e. someone else's concept of the original expression of the author. After I read it, I decided to adopt the "moral" of that fable to my own "Windows on Haiti" endeavor because it seemed to fit rather nicely the purpose I had in mind when I conceived the project: air out the complex, multi-faceted aspects of the Haitian reality, so one could get closer to the truth about Haiti. But in adopting the "moral", I also adapted it in a subtle way that many people might not notice. If you look at the above quote of The Ditmarsch Tale of Wonders, you will noti
ce that they used the word "window" (singular). For the Windows on Haiti banner, I used the word "windows" (plural), so that is a further adaptation, even though I added just one letter to the original script. And now, you have added the word "so" to make the meaning even clearer.

Do you see where I am getting to?

That is absolutely insignificant in scope compared to the extraordinary variety of adaptations and translations, including selections and compilations of the originals writings of those who were supposedly inspired to write "The Word of God".

Tayi, to be honest, let me establish from the start that I do not believe in the fanciful stories of the Genesis, and from a rational/historical basis I profoundly doubt that most of the figures of the Book (written by humans, translated by humans, told by humans, selected by humans, adapted by humans, marketed by humans, quoted by humans for every conceivable purpose, interpreted by humans, taught by huma
ns, processed by humans, etc) actually existed, except in the imagination of some particularly gifted story-tellers, who felt to this day that they had to communicate "The Word of God" to their contemporaries. That tradition continues in contemporary times, as you can see from the founder of the Mormons and other privileged persons whom God has supposedly chosen to reveal His Word, so that it would not be lost somehow on his creatures.

For my part, I think that the reason that Christians, Jews, and Muslims have the same core of beliefs when it comes to GOD (though they do not all recognize Jesus as the Son of God, sent to redeem God's special creatures, which of course happens to be us and uniquely us -- except, I forget, it was not all of us at first but a chosen people among us) is that they have discovered in that so-called but undeniably overprocessed "Word of God" a compelling mess
age which they see as a blueprint for answering the most existential questions that have baffled all philosopers from time immemorial, but also as a guide for the conduct of our temporal lives, in preparation of the afterlife, which is truly the keystone for Religion, in the multiple forms that we have come to know it. The afterlife is the destination. We had better know how to get there. Even though they say that "all roads lead to Rome", in practice we know what happens when we get off the wrong highway exit. We may sometimes be lucky enough to find our way again or we may simply be obliged to return where we came from. But in all respects, we all prefer to have a map, one drawn on paper or a mental image, guiding us to our final destination. Remove that final destination, take away "the afterlife", and all of a sudden you would find that very few people truly would be concerned about this so-called "Word of God", which is the most maddeningly complex map you will ever find. Jesus tried to simplify it
, but then his followers just took his directions and added them on top of all pre-existing ones. [That is why Gelin is so fond to make the distinction between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, which is really a clever way of saying "do not worry about all the contradictions and misdirections of the previous maps, I have found a better one". Somehow, God in His infinite wisdom dictated to his chosen people a bewildering set of instructions, but after observing that His Word did not translate too well to intelligent and rational human beings, he decided to send His Son with a new set of instructions, which is not only simpler but most importantly extended now to all people, not just the chosen one. That is why I am forced to say "Thank You" to the brother because he is truly gifted in making the "Old Testament" (previous directions from GOD) disappear in favor of the "New Testament", the n
ew and improved version of the way to God in the afterlife.] But what if there was no afterlife? Forget that I said that, it's opening another can of worms. Human beings need to believe in the eternal reward of the Presence of God and/or the eternal damnation in the Presence of A Great Torturer, in order to be shaken from their compacency and great penchant to sin, sin, and sin again.

The Bible is the message. Some people choose to believe in it literally, and that makes no sense, but if they choose to believe in the Bible to the letter in the first place, there is absolutely no reasoning possible that would shake them from their core belief. They will read all sorts of contradictions in the Bible and tell you right in your face that those contradictions make perfect sense. If you ask them to explain it, they will then tell you to seek a more enlightened person or that it is not their place to question the "Word of God". I have met several people who feel somewhat t
errified when I bring up to them many of the contradictions of the Bible. They will say "Please, please, I don't want to talk about it", as in fear that lightning may strike me (or the both of us) dead, for daring to question the "Word of God".

The "Word of God" psychology, not to say "phobia", is an "all too real" reality, perhaps more real than the "Word of God" itself.

I am not on a mission to demystify people about Religion, as Jafrikayiti and Bouli seem to be. I believe that our existence is made of myths, and we only demystify ourselves to readily accept other myths. When you demystify certain people, they are left with nothing that gives meaning to their existence. Jafrikayiti talks of demystifying in order to liberate our people's minds. I personally believe that as long as there will be a world, one mythology will either supplant or co-exist with another. I am not against demystification either, as I am an advocate of rationality. However, there are other qualities in life tha
t I prize as well, such as serenity, happiness, peace of mind, self-fulfillment, among others. I would not jeopardize them all for the sake of a so-called liberation, the rewards of which are much touted by some, but not yet proven to me. For myself, I have no problem at all working with Christians and non-Christains alike, and I do not see the Church as the biggest enemy of the Haitian people and/or the Black race (note that race itself is another myth, which is quite useful to some). It's interesting to note that the Haitian people too have their own mythology and so do many African people. Are the Haitian mythology (commonly called Vodou) and various African mythologies (more ancient than Christianity) more liberating or closer to the Truth? I will leave that debate to the ideologues and the theologians. I am neither. For my part, I act from a personal sense of ethics which was necessarily influenced by my Christian upbringing. I do believe that the "word of God" is tru
ly the "Word of Man". When I read the Bible in English, French, and Haitian Creole, I cannot help but smile at how obvious it truly is that GOD woud have been more consistent in His teachings and in the expression of His Will. I do not condemn the Church of Rome in their findings that the Bible should not be interpreted literally. If anything, I believe that this is quite an understatement. It is a timid and very careful retreat from fanaticism and fundamentalism. Of course, they will catch Hell for that retreat. Many Protestants already considered the Catholic Church as "The Church of the Devil". For my part, I choose to step away from all that nonsense. As for the afterlife, it will be what it will be (or not be). If you are there, you may look for me if your GOD thinks I was worthy. If you do not see me, don't worry about me, because I am not worried about it either. I choose to live my life, according to my personal sense of ethics, and I will leave it to the Bible scholars, the Priests and th
e Pastors, the Mormons and the Witnesses of Jeovah, the Popes and the "Enfants de Marie" to decide where I fit in their afterlife. That is truly not my concern.

What I want is more justice, peace and happiness for all my brothers and sisters in this life, the only one I know (or at least "think" I know.)


Post by Gelin_ » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:01 am

Guy, by now you know where I stand regarding the opinions and positions of others in matters of faith, religions, and even haitian politics. You expressed your position in a very clear way, and I see a man who loves his freedom (mind) and is determined to keep it and enjoy - at any cost. But, you said something that caught my attention in a very particular way:

[quote]...When I read the Bible in English, French, and Haitian Creole, I cannot help but smile at <U>how obvious it truly is that GOD woud have been more consistent</U> in His teachings and in the expression of His Will...[/quote]
Let's consider this for a few moments. On what basis do you think that God would have or should have been more consistent in his teachings and in the expression of his will? Is it because you associate consistency (consciously or unconsciously) automatically with the essence of the creator? According to what principle
, as you see it, should God be consistent in his teachings? Perhaps, that "idea" or "image" of God came directly from your christian education, or from your own evolution as an adult. Do you see what I am trying to say? We all have some very deep preconceived ideas about life, people and God himself (some would say "herself"). But how good really are those ideas when it comes to dealing with a being who is (by definition) outside his creation and whose ways (of thinking and doing things) are fundamentally different from our ways (of thinking and doing things).


User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:46 am

Gelin, on matters of the existence or nature of God, I do not express what I know. I know nothing. I simply express what I sense, and you are right to say that my "idea" or "image" of God may have come from my christian education. I will not deny this, because I am a product of every day that I have lived on this earth, and that certainly includes everything that went into my education and my experience of life.

I was not preaching to anyone when I expressed my belief that God, if anything, would be consistent in his teachings. This image of God, as flawed as it may be (but is it?), does not relate well to a set of writings over time that you believe is the "Word of God" and that I consider to be the "words of certain people" about their conceptions of God. A set of writings that betray the frailties of mankind, but some of its strengths as well.


Post by Gelin_ » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:23 pm

[quote]...This image of God, as flawed as it may be (but is it?), does not relate well to a set of writings over time that you believe is the "Word of God" and that I consider to be the "words of certain people" about their conceptions of God. A set of writings that betray the frailties of mankind, but some of its strengths as well.[/quote]
That set of writings contains many instances where (I believe) God did talk to people and communicate his will and teachings. But in that same collection, there are many cases where people just communicated their own conceptions of God and their own interpretations of what was already given as the word of God, earlier. In a few places in the Bible, it is recorded how certain people gave their own words for the word of God himself. Within the Bible also there are ways to test them. One very interesting thing about that collection of writtings is how it presents both the fra
ilties and strengths of mankind as it relates to our dealings with God himself and with our neighbors.

And on top of that, we have the problem of translation.



Post by Gelin_ » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:34 am

[quote]"man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals,"....

Indeed "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."--Matthew 5 v:3

The dummer the "blesser" ?


Being poor in spirit (as Jesus meant it) DOES NOT mean being stupid...


User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2152
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:40 am

OKay, Gelin, I'll bite. What does it mean?


Post by Tayi_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:19 am

Guy, it is refreshing to hear from you as you share your thoughts. Obviously, we disagree on some points but we agree on many others such as charity (in one's words for example). Thank you for being so honest and modest!

I did not even realize that I added the word "so" to the Windows banner. It must have been just a natural assumption.

Guy, you wrote about the Bible that it is...
[quote]written by humans, translated by humans, told by humans, selected by humans, adapted by humans, marketed by humans, quoted by humans for every conceivable purpose, interpreted by humans, taught by humans, processed by humans, etc[/quote]

YES. You have just affirmed one side of the coin. The other side is the inspiration of God. So you see, the Bible is much like the Incarnation: God and man, Supernatural and natural. Many in the past (and still today) have tried to diminish that human contribution, but the C
atholic Church upholds it. That humans took part in the composition of the Bible does not necessarily mean it must be untrue or untrustworthy; if there really is a God, and if He did indeed reveal Himself in the Sacred Texts, and if He has the power to work through humans without taking away from His message (all of which I believe) then the human side of Scripture does not pose a problem (unless, of course, you already pressupose that God does not exist or if He exists, that He did not or cannot do any of these things listed above).

This human aspect will actually be one of the elements that will indicate that the Bible must have a higher than just natural origin. For if it has so much human influence how can it be so powerful? How can it make prophecies (in the Old Testament, for example) that will be fulfilled hundreds of years later almost to the letter? I know I've made some big jumps here but I am not, at this time, trying to prove the inspiration of Scripture, just explaining how we view
the human contribution in accordance with the divine.

May God bless your quest for Truth, peace, justice and happiness! Let us do it together!

Your brother,


Post by Tayi_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:45 am

Jaf, it is good to hear from you!

Thanks for taking my concerns seriously. I also take yours seriously as you warn me not to cop out of having these important dialogues. My concern though is that if we want to have fruitful discussions we have to agree at least to be fair in our use of data; and I was pointing out the unfair use of The Gift of Scripture. Basically it was not even used, but the claims that were brought forth made it seem as if it were.

[quote]I agree with you that one should be careful not to read into this "breaking news" what is obviously not intended to be seen in it.[/quote]

I'm glad we're on the same page! That will help our discussions. But you also stated in your post:
[quote]I have realised how cunning these Bishops are trying to be with their "gift of scripture".

Have you notic
ed how, at the same time as they admitted that some texts in the "word of God" should be considered untrue, they have listed a set of core fairy tales which - by methodology which shall remain mysterious - are confirmed to be true. [/quote]

It seems to me that you are reading into it a little too much. That list of verses that is found in Gledhill's report, is that a list presented by the bishops? Did the bishops really lists verses in Scripture that are "untrue" as opposed to others that are true?

Good chatting with you, Jaf! By the way, how can I get a copy of Viv Bondye, Aba Relijyon I would like to read it and maybe chat with you about it.

Your brother,
Lape Kryeate a avek ou menm tou, vye fre. (I can't get the accents on my iBook)


Post by Tayi_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:20 am


Sa fe de jou vre ke nou pa tande. Please excuse me for continuing in English; I won't be able to get the accents on my computer for the Creole.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts!

You also quoted the following:

"The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ" (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).

"The obedience of faith" (Rom. 13:26; see 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) "is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals," (4) and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him."


I fully agree! About the first quotation, if by public revelation, you think it means just any new knowledge, that is not true; it
is used in a technical way here. By the cessation of Public Revelation it means that Christ was the fullness of Revelation about God. There will not be a new gospel adding to what Christ has taught. We can grow in our understaning of what He taught (development of doctrine), but we cannot teach a new gospel. Of course, this does not imply that we cannot grow in our knowledge of the sciences etc.
I hope that clarifies meaning of the first quotation.

As to the second quotation, there is no problem with fully submitting one's will and intellect to God. You would have great difficulty proving that it is bad to do so. I think you may be misunderstanding what it means. It does NOT mean that one stops thinking or willing. Rather in God one thinks most perfectly and wills most perfectly, for the thiking and the willing are in accordance with Truth and Goodness. God is Truth and God is Goodness. I hope we all agree that it is not only encouraged, but one o
ught to submit his intellect to Truth and his will to Goodness!

You agree with that at least on the natural level. If you have a child and you tell him that he must do his homework. You are asking him to submit his will to you (at least in that one instance) and that is fine because you know that it is better for him to do his homework now rather than playing video games. By obeying, his will is in accordance with what is good. And that's a very good thing! Now if someone can submit his will to you, an imperfect human being, why not to God who is perfect? To prove your implied point, you would have to prove that God does not exist or that if He does, He is untrue and evil--then it would not be good to submit our intellect and will to Him. Good luck proving that!

The Church upholds reason, rationality. Faith and Reason do not oppose one another. Read Fides et Ratio to see what a great relationship they have. They are inseperable. You can se
e that personified in the great minds such Augustine and Thomas Aquinas among thousands of others. These guys were not dumb or brainwashed. They had heroic Faith but you or I am not even close to their genius (well, maybe you are). Faith and Reason!

Kenbe fem!


Post by Gelin_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:06 am

Earlier I wrote:
[quote]Being poor in spirit (as Jesus meant it) DOES NOT mean being stupid...[/quote]
To which Guy replied:
[quote]OKay, Gelin, I'll bite. What does it mean?[/quote]
And Bouli was quick to add:
[quote]Gelin, Let me taste. After one throws <U>his intellect</U> away, what does he have left to test what is true or not. Never mind if he has to get rid of his will also. [/quote]

Tayi just pointed out how faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

The truth of the matter is that when Jesus said these words (whether or not the Jesus Seminar agrees), he was talking about our situation regarding the " spirit world " that exists according to the Bible. With regard to that spiritual world, we will be blessed if we accept the fact that we know nothing about it (poor in knowledge) and can't do nothing with/about it on our own (poor in power).
Jaf himself always says it with his famous " M pa Konnen " - and I like it when he says that.

If we can reach that point (of humility) and accept our limitation with regard to that world (although we can be knowledgeable and powerful in this world), then we become open to receive from God if he visists us in some way. That's why John the Baptist said that <I>"A man can receive <U>only</U> what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27)</I>.

If you know that you are poor in spirit, then <U>maybe</U> you'll do what every (reasonable) poor person does: <I>Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you (Matthew 7:7).</I>

If on the other hand you know that you are not poor in spirit, then...



Post by Gelin_ » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:26 am

[quote]Byeneme Gélin, Just for the record, I do not hold the copyright to "mwen konenn m pa konnen" (I know that I do not know). Ii is a African saying. - Jaf[/quote]

Jaf, men ki sa k tap pase nan tèt mwen pito:
[quote]Paske, se atravè egzistans linivè, moun, ak bèt tout kalite mwen wè sans pou egzisytans yon "kreyatè". Apresa, pa mande mwen ba ou manti. Mwen pa konnen ki sa kreyatè sa a ap regle. Ki kote li ye, ki kote li pa ye. Ki fòm, li pran....MWEN PA KONNEN.[/quote]

Post Reply