Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

THEOLOGICAL ANTI-RETROVIRAL THERAPY

with 710 comments

“Radical Muslims fly planes into buildings.
Radical Christians kill abortion doctors.
Radical Atheists write books.”

~ Hemant Mehta

TART Remarks is a no-holds-barred forum for people critically engaging
on the origin, influence and consequences of religious belief.
Sensitive readers are strongly advised not to enter.

______________________________

About religion I defer to Carol Shields on “sincerity” in her novel Unless:
“Decency? Decency’s over. Decency’s lost whatever edge it had.
I will never again be pointlessly, endlessly decent”… about religion.
Explore this blog. Or not. But know that my approach is…
unapologetically in-your-face.

| I use profanity | I am not tolerant of religion | A picture is worth a 1000 words |

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used
against unintelligible propositions.”

Thomas Jefferson

“Perhaps there is a significant measure of truth in a-theism
(also called non-theism), to discover
the “divine” (the good, fine, beautiful, exalted)
in life generally and especially in humanity.”

~ Hennie Viviers, 24 August 2008. NHN lecture. Midrand, South Africa.

Written by Nathan Bond

September 1, 2008 at 06:08

710 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Wat gebeur ná die dood?

    Rick

    July 25, 2013 at 14:24

  2. REALITY CHECK #2

    PS. Rationale for Scriptural references: Everything of critical value that had to be said has already been said by God in the Holy Bible, so why try to add to it? Armchair-philosophers on the Internet are just wasting everybody’s time (and precious web-space) with their (sometimes) interesting but nevertheless useless pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. How anyone living today can propose to improve on the character, life, words, wisdom, teaching and bona fides of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, Messiah, Saviour of mankind) boggles the reasonable mind. Definition of an atheist-evolutionist:

    A person who created himself ‘4,6 billion years’ ago and went on to, over time, evolve into just everybody else (including his wife) too.

    An atheist-evolutionist can be detected miles away … his favourite past-time is to be always shaking his fists at God (who doesn’t ‘exist’!). Just reads the replies to this post and you will know what I mean. ‘Evolutionary Theory’, the atheist’s religion-of-choice, should (scientifically/academically) be mothballed along with the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus, Hollywood-ghost stories and all so-called alien/UFO sightings. The wise, sensible and reasonable man will respect and heed God’s warning:

    Heb 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you will hear His voice,
    Heb 3:8 do not harden your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness,
    Heb 3:9 when your fathers tempted Me, proved Me, and saw My works forty years.
    Heb 3:10 Therefore I was grieved with that generation and said, They always err in their heart, and they have not known My ways.
    Heb 3:11 So I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter into My rest.”
    Heb 3:12 Take heed, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
    Heb 3:13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
    Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
    Heb 3:15 while it is said, “Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.”
    Heb 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke; however, not all who came out of Egypt by Moses.
    Heb 3:17 But with whom was He grieved forty years? Was it not with those who had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness?
    Heb 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they should not enter into His rest, but to those who did not believe?
    Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. (www.e-sword.net).

    (Evangelic) Christians believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and the only legitimate, accredited Mediator between God and man, a role which no earthly ecclesiastic, priest, pope or anyone else for that matter (i.e. guru, avatar, yogi, mystic, etc.) could ever successfully usurp. Atheist-evolutionists believe in random ‘Evolution’, the unplanned biological accident that created this Universe by sheer coincidence. With this pseudo-scientific myth they are trying to usurp the role of ‘messiah’ to mankind, and substitute ‘saviours’ simply won’t work. Jesus has issued a stern warning to those who entertain that kind of delusion:

    “I am the Good Shepherd, and I know those that are Mine, and I am known by those who are Mine.” (John 10:14 MKJV, http://www.e-sword.net).

    Whether I believe in God and a Creator, or the atheist-evolutionist believes in random, brainless ‘Evolution’ … both of us are engaging in 100% religious activity. Please don’t try to tell me that ‘Christianity is religion’ and ‘Atheism-evolutionism is science’ … both are religious concepts and human endeavours. In fact, the miracles that atheist-evolutionists believe in (to explain the phenomenon of Creation with) is exponentially more fantastic and incredible than anything any fundamentalist Christian ever believed in. The Christian puts his faith in the bona fides of Jesus Christ as Creator of the Universe and everything in (and even outside of) it. The atheist-evolutionist puts his faith in the mystical, nameless creator of random, brainless ‘Evolutionary Theory’, but still a ‘creator’ nevertheless. No matter how one looks at it, this world was CREATED … period (either by Jesus Christ, as the Christians would have it, or by ‘Evolutionary Theory’, as the atheist-evolutionists would have it). Had this world not been created, the atheist-evolutionists would have referred to this Universe as the ‘CHAOS’, and not as the ‘COSMOS’ the way they usually do. I have even overheard full-blooded atheist-naturalists referring to lions in the bush as ‘beautiful creatures’ … what a confusing evolutionist oxymoron!

    (Quick debriefing: Even if the philosophical house-of-cards of ‘Evolutionary Theory’ were true, then who made ‘Evolution’?).

    It is recommended that the Nathan Bond commentators stop their silly babbling and accept Jesus Christ for WHO and WHAT He is … the (only) accredited and legitimate Saviour of mankind. And if you are still vacillating between Christ and Darwin, just compare CV’s: Which one of the two has the most impressive curriculum vitae? Who would you prefer at your deathbed one day … Christ or Darwin? Again Jesus has warned: “The wise man builds his house on the ROCK (Jesus); the foolish man builds his house on the sand (atheism, unbelief).”

    Dear Reader, please mark this day, 18 June 2013: This will be the day that you will forever remember as the day upon which you had either rejected or accepted Jesus Christ as your own personal Lord and Saviour … so don’t do something that you will forever regret. Atheism is foreign and dangerous religious fire; play around with it and be sure to burn your fingers to philosophical cinders.

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.
    EvangelismRSA.

    http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen
    http://www.evangelismrsa.blogspot.com
    http://www.buzzbell.blogspot.com

    Piet Stassen

    June 18, 2013 at 11:28

  3. Piet Stassen you must take your prescribed medications!!

    PietV.

    June 17, 2013 at 21:30

  4. REALITY CHECK!

    For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23, KJV, http://www.e-sword.net).

    Piet Stassen

    June 17, 2013 at 21:20

  5. Piet Stassen are you spamming? You are on the wrong place. At this place there are no believers. Hans is an actor.

    PietV.

    June 16, 2013 at 22:13

  6. Oh look, it’s Hanswors’ alter ego, Proffie Piet “Profanity” Stassen come to put us wayward heathens, apostates, heretics, pagans, non-believers and associated vermin back onto the right path! And what a pair they make! (They can’t agree on what idiocies they believe, but then that’s nothing new with godiots.)

    So Proffie, made any conversions lately? Do you miss those wild, heady days when the church said you could use sword and fire to “save” us?

    Con-Tester

    June 15, 2013 at 20:53

  7. Special message for the BLOG ADMINISTRATOR at Nathan Bond’s T/R: John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV, http://www.e-sword.net). (Hallelujah!).

    Piet Stassen

    June 15, 2013 at 20:12

  8. @Con Tester: did you used waterboarding. I ‘ll think Hans will confess that he tells lies. At this moment I advise to listen carefully to something he should not say. But just like many other christians he is doubting his relationship with an invisible friend. On the stage he could not afford to show his real problem.

    PietV.

    June 15, 2013 at 20:06

  9. For example, Hanswors will offer you a bunch of laughable fairytales and made-up excuses why the Afrikaans Holey Babble translation he uses is not one of the “dogmatic new translations as they are changed to fit into every groups (sic) way of understanding ” he laments in today’s comment at 13:48. He will completely ignore the fact that Afrikaans is about as far removed as a language can be from Latin, ancient Greek, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew.

    Like I said, you can’t reason with people like that. You can only mock their execrable boneheadedness.

    Con-Tester

    June 15, 2013 at 14:44

  10. PietV., I don’t think it is realistic to expect that one can spread critical thinking, destroy ancient ignorance and defeat superstition in Africa — at least not within our own lifetimes. Just look at the example our friend Hanswors sets. There is nothing you can say to him that would even just make him stop and think. He knows all the answers and it’s everybody else who disagrees with him that is automatically wrong. Hanswors is never wrong because he’s got an invisible skydaddy on his side.

    What I’m saying is that you’ll have to deal with millions upon millions of Hansworses in your quest to bring enlightenment to Africa. That doesn’t mean you can’t mock their stupidity and childishness at every opportunity, though. Laughing at them and their goofy nonsense is the only sane response in my opinion.

    Con-Tester

    June 15, 2013 at 14:21

  11. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, it is clear that you would like to revert back to Bronze Age ignorance. We wont (sic) have a functioning society any more of course, as all the children that are born, will be indoctrinated by lamebrains like you to believe childish bullshit.

    Con-Tester

    June 15, 2013 at 14:10

  12. Con-Tester, it is clear that you all would like to revert back to ancient Babylon. We wont have a Fathers Day any more of course, as all the children that are born, will be bastards.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 15, 2013 at 13:55

  13. PietV, the only thing wrong in regard to the Bible, are dogmatic new translations as they are changed to fit into every groups way of understanding. I haven’t really looked at the blog.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 15, 2013 at 13:48

  14. Mister Hans and mister Con Tester do you like freethinker facebook. Are there things we could improve.
    Our goal is to spread critical thinking and destroy ancient ignorance. How can we defeat supersition in Afrika. In the Netherlands it is going well. Hans Matthysen do you have good feedback? You know the Christians in this area. What is the best opportunity to educate them en tell them what is wrong with the Bible?

    PietV.

    June 14, 2013 at 21:31

  15. My fók Hanswors, your Holey Babble has fuck-all to do with rational thinking and you are so irrational to even suggest it does, and you can’t even sit back, re-lacks (sic) and observe reality. Many who do study Matthysenology don’t know what reality is and also have no logic.

    Exactly as expected, you just don’t disappoint, ou dwaas. You completely ignored the part where I said, “No stupid dodges, no evasions, no goalpost-shifting, no lies, no fabrications, no Holey Babble citations or any other Hansworsian tricks please…”.

    Con-Tester

    June 14, 2013 at 08:00

  16. Con-Tester, the Bible is about rational thinking and you are so irrational, you can’t even sit back, re-lacks and observe. Many who do study Theology, don’t know what God is and also have no logic.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 14, 2013 at 07:51

  17. PietV, I have no problem with the rest and I trust that both my points made above are understood by yourself.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 14, 2013 at 07:41

  18. @Hans; I thought that we were talking about the bible and now at this moment you are using a small part. Do you have problems with the rest.

    PietV.

    June 13, 2013 at 12:37

  19. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, do you think I don’t know that!? Oh wait, thinking is not one of your talents, so no, you were always much, much dumber than that. Your whole long and incoherent kakpraat story is a farce, not a pretence. But do explain for us who aren’t nearly as dumb as you that if you weren’t ever a non-believer how you can write the following bullshit (June 12, 2013 at 19:43):

    The rational part is, when you put it into practise, then you find out how irrational you used to be.

     
     
    

    No stupid dodges, no evasions, no goalpost-shifting, no lies, no fabrications, no Holey Babble citations or any other Hansworsian tricks please, just a straightforward explanation of what possible logic and/or nuggets of wisdom you think the above contains, okay? Clear enough?

     
     
    

    Good luck with that. :D

    Con-Tester

    June 13, 2013 at 08:06

  20. Piet V, Christianity started with the birth of Jesus Christ, so I would suggest that you start from there. Deuteronomy 1, we read about the Amorites and the word means “don’t we know”. This appears to be the attitude (enemy) you are against because to tell you the truth, you don’t know and until you are willing to learn, you will never know.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 13, 2013 at 07:58

  21. Con-Tester, I was never so dumb and even to pretend, one would have to be quite dumb.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 13, 2013 at 07:36

  22. It sounds like an exercise. Shall I start in Deuteronium?

    PietV.

    June 12, 2013 at 22:02

  23. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

     
    

    My fók Hanswors, now you want to pretend by direct implication that you were an atheist once! And the cherry on top of that fucked-up lie is that you call it “rational”! You really should check out Mickey Mouse, you know.

     
    

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    June 12, 2013 at 19:52

  24. PietV, oh, sorry man. The rational part is, when you put it into practise, then you find out how irrational you used to be.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 12, 2013 at 19:43

  25. I am not waiting for a confession. Could you give me something else. 1 good rational argument. I ‘ll hope that you understand this question.

    PietV.

    June 12, 2013 at 11:23

  26. In that case, prepare yourself for a really lo-o-o-o-ong wait.

     
    

    I asked Hanswors for much the same several years ago and I am still waiting but with almost no hope. As you can see, all you will get is irrelevant Holey Babble bumf and incoherent gibberish that Hanswors somehow thinks is meaningful. Then he will tell you that you can’t prove him wrong.

     
    

    What a sad fruitcake.

    Con-Tester

    June 11, 2013 at 18:24

  27. Thank you Con Tester. The best thing to learn is to use it. Hans is given me a profession of faith. I am waiting for the rational part of it.

    PietV.

    June 11, 2013 at 16:18

  28. PietV., don’t try too hard to make any sense of what Hanswors wrote today at 07:46. I say this because I know that you will struggle with the English.

     
     
    

    Hanswors wrote a stream of unintelligible babble from start to finish. As you know, unintelligible babble is also a very big part of the fundamental idea of Crushtianity. And I bet he won’t explain any of it.

    Con-Tester

    June 11, 2013 at 08:09

  29. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, sit back, re-lacks (sic) and observe (but I doubt you have even that rudimentary ability). Then maybe you’ll stop making such an utter arsehole of yourself. It’s just a suggestion, though.

    Con-Tester

    June 11, 2013 at 07:59

  30. Con-Tester, sit back, re-lacks and observe.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 11, 2013 at 07:47

  31. PietV, the fundamental Idea of Christianity is as follows; Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    We, the son/ daughter of man must be reborn (a child is born), so that the son Christ, who is the wisdom and power of God, can be given to us. The power and wisdom of God was, before the world was. The proof of God is only obtained, should one allow the spirit of man, to be divided from the soul of man, so that the soul of man, can be united with the Spirit of God. This then brings eternal joy and peace. You appear to have a complete irrational idea of fundamental Christianity.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 11, 2013 at 07:46

  32. Irrational a god, a virgin who became his son, this son who is actually a part of this god, came here and died for the salvation of the people. This is a irrational viewpoint, it is a belief and not more than that. Because there is no proof for a god. There is also no proof for original sin. It does not fix in the evolutionary pathway. It is just a myth. In the 200 questions I put many extraordinary examples. So this is just a small part. Could you give me the rational part?

    PietV.

    June 10, 2013 at 17:35

  33. My fók Hanswors, you are talking shit and no wonder, you are full of it. That’s because the fundamental idea of Crushtianity is to proliferate brain-dead godiots like you.

     
     
     
    

    And man, does it ever succeed in that!

    Con-Tester

    June 10, 2013 at 17:34

  34. PietV, what would you say, is the fundamental Idea of Christianity?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 10, 2013 at 17:03

  35. Con-Tester, you are talking shit and no wonder, you are full of it.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 10, 2013 at 16:59

  36. Thank you Con-Tester for your inside information about Africa. Short but to the point. Most people doesn’t have not the slight impression of these things. Steve H. is on my facebook. A couple years ago I bought his book. And spoke him a few times. Afrika need 1 million Hurlins. To restore the brains of people.

    @Hans; How do you make clear that christianity is rational? The fundamental idea is irrational.

    — This blog causes me some trouble; sometimes my text will not pass the corridor”.

    PietV.

    June 10, 2013 at 10:41

  37. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, it’s you who’s not capable of any rational discussion. Not only that, you’re incapable of recognising it. Also, you once said directly that it’s not possible for you to be wrong about any of your skydaddy/Jeeeeeebusssst! bullshit. So, delusion indeed. And Mickey Mouse set a much better example than your Jewish zombie wannabe god, see? There are plenty of passages in your Holey Babble that show your zombie wannabe god in a bad light but you are too full of god sauce to acknowledge it and just pull “context” and “figurative” from your arse as it suits you. And then, despite your Jewish zombie wannabe god’s warnings against not doing so, you go and judge others. Just read the shit you wrote here and at Freethinker.nl.

    What an inconsistent hypocrite you are — but I’m sure you’ll just deny it again and amuse us soon enough with more of your dodging, bullshitting and Holey Babble nonsense.

    Con-Tester

    June 10, 2013 at 08:54

  38. PietV, I do agree with most of the things C-T has said although he might not agree. He of course has his own delusions and fails to have a rational discussion, in regard to the Bible because of most religions, that are quite irrational. He rather attacks me as a person and in that way, diverts discussions away from rational debate over any issue. Original Christianity was persecuted, the same as Scientists and intellects, by the world leaders of those times, who later became part of the RCC, yet since Christianity, vast progress has been made.in regard to Science and Technology. Christianity was hi-jacket and has also become a money making business, in most instances, yet true Christianity exists and is rational. C-T will never agree because he is not willing to have a rational discussion, in this regard, although he cannot prove, that Jesus set a bad example.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 10, 2013 at 08:20

  39. PietV. wrote (June 9, 2013 at 21:19):

    Thank you Hans and also Con Tester. Give your feedback at freethinker facebook.

    You’re welcome, but I don’t think you appreciate the full depth and breadth of Hanswors’ delusion.

    PietV. wrote (June 9, 2013 at 21:19):

    What is going on in Africa.

    Tribalism, superstition and irrationality while developed countries stand by, petrified of condemning Stone Age beliefs for fear of offending cultural sensibilities.

    PietV. wrote (June 9, 2013 at 21:19):

    Booming but does secularism have a chance in this area.

    Booming only for a select elite of savvy opportunists and their hangers-on. Secularism will have to wait at least one more generation (more likely, three or more) to gain any real foothold because the powers-that-be have no interest in an educated and self-sufficient following. One would swear that the powers-that-be are actively fostering ignorance and retardation of the people they tread on for the sake of votes and populist ideals that they have no intention of providing. Empty promises are the political currency of Africa.

    PietV. wrote (June 9, 2013 at 21:19):

    Superstition, more evangelistic than rational. How do they develop?

    They merely exploit and build on a pre-existing foundation of more primitive irrationalities like ancestor worship.

    PietV. wrote (June 9, 2013 at 21:19):

    Are there members from south african skeptics at this place?

    No active ones as far as I know. There could be regular readers who don’t participate.

    PietV. wrote (June 9, 2013 at 21:19):

    Does someone knows Stephen Hurlin?

    The author of Courage To Doubt? Yes, I met him a few times some years ago. He’s a jazz musician but I don’t know what has become of him.

    Con-Tester

    June 9, 2013 at 22:14

  40. Thank you Hans and also Con Tester. Give your feedback at freethinker facebook. Every day new pictures, writings etc. But I am also interested in this place. What is going on in Africa. Booming but does secularism have a chance in this area. Superstition, more evangelistic than rational. How do they develop? Are there members from south african skeptics at this place? Does someone knows Stephen Hurlin?

    PietV.

    June 9, 2013 at 21:19

  41. My fók Hanswors, you are the only constantly repetitious brainfart stinking up the place, so have a pleasant evening.

    I’m impressed with all of your latest dozen-or-so replies. They have been, um…, remarkably Crushtian. Very good of you to demonstrate your real character so often and so persuasively. More of the same, please!

    Con-Tester

    June 9, 2013 at 20:03

  42. PietV, ek sal verder gesprêk voer op Freethinker Facebook.nl.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 9, 2013 at 19:48

  43. Con-Tester, you are the only constant brainfart taking place, so have a pleasant evening.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 9, 2013 at 19:44

  44. Hans nice to see you “at home”. Freethinker facebook.nl. Kiks give you a reply. And I put a short novel of Dan Barker on the screen. Are the readers of this blog familiar with Dutch? Hans uses Afrikaans. I could read this.

    PietV.

    June 9, 2013 at 12:54

  45. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, small things amuse small minds and maybe that is why you find “god”, but hopefully you will grow up one day, shame. To think, I was to understand that you are a “boffen” (sic) in the Holey Babble language, yet you say you can’t explain what “from within” means. As you are getting ever dumber than I thought possible, a discussion with you remains not possible, as you also still refer to your skydaddy as though he was reality. I have every intention of mocking your execrable boneheaded stupidity at every opportunity and just thought that with your “wonderful” qualifications, you would be capable of showing it to our friend. It would appear that your so called “wonderful” qualifications has (sic) just created great confusion “within” what passes for your mind, shame. You have yet to give any cogent answers to any questions I have provide (sic) you regarding reality and your (sic) are clearly not capable of doing so. Matthysenology is just a front for thick godiots to fall back in to the ways of childishness because you are against an educated, sane, grown-up society and I trust you know that history. I have asked you when your next brainfart takes place and you have failed to give me an answer but there they all are: more than 10 since 4 June. All positive “intangibles” people have that I mentioned are nowhere to be found in your Holey Babble and you are just bullshitting yourself when you say they are, and you are blind to that fact just because you think you can torture new meaning from the words. You appear to lack any thinking abilities, so go and sit in your favourite pew and try to convince other godiots of your ridiculous crap.

    Con-Tester

    June 9, 2013 at 09:33

  46. PietV, I have just posted something on https://www.facebook.com/freethinker.nl and hope to get reaction. Maybe we should continue discussion, on the whole Bible, on that blog?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 9, 2013 at 09:02

  47. Con-Tester, small things amuse small minds and maybe that is why you find things funny, but hopefully you will grow up one day, shame. To think, I was to understand that you are a “boffen” in the English language, yet you say you don’t know what “within” means. As you all appear dumber than I thought, a discussion with you is not possible, as you also still refer to a skydaddy. I have no intention of drawing you into a discussion and just thought, that with your “wonderful” qualifications, you would be capable of helping your friend. It would appear that your, so called, “wonderful” qualifications has just created great confusion “within” your mind, shame. You have yet to dispute all answers I have provide you, regarding my religion and your are clearly not capable of doing so. Atheism is just a front for atheists to fall back in to the ways of Babylon because you are against a moral society and I trust you know that history. I have asked you when your next orgy takes place and you have failed to give me an answer. All positive “intangibles” people have, that you mentioned, are in the Bible and you are just blind to that fact, just because the specific word is not mentioned. You appear to lack Biblical education, so go and sit in your favourite armchair and learn.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 9, 2013 at 08:39

  48. By the way; In the Netherlands I am a member of this https://www.facebook.com/freethinker.nl facebook. If you like these things or not. We need members. Could I help someone else with the same, give me a call. Owner of this blog, do you not appreciate these messages. You may remove it. You are the boss at this place.

    PietV.

    June 8, 2013 at 21:59

  49. @Hans: These words are not the input of the gost for atheist. No it is just a matter of reading the complete bible. From the beginning till the end. Slaughter, genocide, killing infants, gambling with people and finally sent a son to make a happy end for all the folks who believe in him. Sounds reasonable isn’t? Maybe I am to stupid to understand those things. But it is a very very unbelievable part of mankind. It is easier to believe in Cinderella than in a god from the middle east.

    PietV.

    June 8, 2013 at 21:52

  50. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

     
     
     
    

    My fók Hanswors, you grow funnier by the day. You just can’t help yourself vomiting up ever bigger steaming piles of ká-á-ák a person can without being locked up in a rubber cell, can you? You just can’t help yourself drawing me back into your laughable “debate,” can you? If this is your version of “reasonable discussion,” give me Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck any day of the week.

    And no, I have no fucking idea what your foolish “from within” babble is supposed to signify, so maybe you should try to explain it to us in detail — but you’ll just dodge again with more bullshit, as always.

    As for positive “intangibles” people have that are not mentioned in your fairytale book, how about intelligence, rationality, respect for demonstrable facts, consequent reasoning, compassion and morality without threat? Are these manifestations of your skydaddy even though they aren’t mentioned in your Holey Babble, hmm?

    I’m sure you can come up with more evasive crap and Holey Babble verses to any and all of the above. So please continue to entertain us with your tedious-but-vaguely-funny nonsense.

     
     
     
    

    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

    Con-Tester

    June 8, 2013 at 21:35

  51. PietV, If you do not know what “from within” means, maybe your learned friend C-T, will explain it to you.
    The negative things you have mentioned, is normally the spirit revealed by atheists. Your question is about my God, that is within us, as shown to us in the Bible. He is, that which I have already shown you.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 8, 2013 at 20:54

  52. What’s the meaning “from within”.? You give me a list with positive words. It looks like cherry picking. Why not anger, fear, abuse, killing, destroy, torture etc.

    PietV.

    June 8, 2013 at 12:05

  53. PietV, what is written in the Bible comes originally from within, so it is a poor excuse atheists use because the answers I gave you, you cannot dispute. So I then accept that you have not the following in you, as it is written in the Bible; love, knowledge, wisdom, power, forgiveness, temperance, goodness and so on. I must accept word is in you as you communicate by way of word although it is written in the Bible. Of course, I wonder if acknowledgement is within you?
    I do enjoy Donald Duck series and you can make a graven image of him and I thought you atheist didn’t believe in an afterlife.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 8, 2013 at 08:40

  54. Sorry for the grammatical errors. I do not use english quite often.

    PietV.

    June 7, 2013 at 21:28

  55. I appreciate your efforts Hans. But I must be honest. The only thing you represent is a figure from a book. No things outside the bible. For me it is just Walt Disney. Chapter 12 Donald is nice; chapter 18 Donald is Jealous; chapter 28 he is angry and killing a lot of people. Do you know a believe in Donald Duck. And after my death I am going to meet him.

    PietV.

    June 7, 2013 at 19:26

  56. PietV, you asked where my God is coming from and I gave you a straight answer. You requested more detail and I have complied. I know this God; Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
    Sorry to have disappointed you, by not giving you an answer you would have liked.
    When one understands, one does not loose faith.
    The character is not in the book, it is in our midst; 2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
    I am not giving you a lecture and am answering your question together with applicable Bible verses.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2013 at 18:27

  57. When I read this explanation. I wonder myself does this god exist outside the bible. You give me a character from a book. Do you met this god. And why are you giving me a lecture of the god of the bible and not about Wodan?

    PietV.

    June 7, 2013 at 09:05

  58. PietV, God is love, spirit, word. wisdom, power and knowledge. God which is spirit is; Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
    Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
    All the above is from within and one can’t make a graven image of the above; Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
    Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
    Hos 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2013 at 07:42

  59. Thank you Hans, but can you give me a more specific answer?

    PietV.

    June 6, 2013 at 23:04

  60. PietV, God is from within.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 6, 2013 at 20:16

  61. Thank you Con-Tester for the armchair.
    @ Hans M. : This is a selffullfilling prophecy. Where are the people who lost their belief coming from. Most of them are just like you. Give them prosperity and knowledge and they become freethinkers. It is quite strange that we need the stories of primitive people for personal education. Could you give me an answer where your god is coming from?

    PietV.

    June 6, 2013 at 14:05

  62. PietV, if you think I am loosing faith, you are quite ignorant.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 6, 2013 at 06:59

  63. Greetings, PietV.. Please try to have a sensible discussion with Hanswors about his Huilige Babbel.

    I will prepare my favourite armchair and start making five tons of popcorn. ;)

    Good luck.

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2013 at 22:22

  64. I am that PietV. character. I am reading and watching what’s going on. I feel the struggle, the pain of those who are loosing their faith. There is no cure for it. Just accept and be an atheist.

    PietV.

    June 5, 2013 at 22:02

  65. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

      
      
      
    

    My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, your name is be “My fó-ó-ók Hanswors” because your appear entirely opggefòk. PietV. has put a whole bunch of questions to you via a link and you are obviously dodging them, as you already should know. You will duck them with your usual bullshit excuses one at a time. I doubt that even this is simple enough for you to understand.

      
      
      
    

    :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2013 at 22:01

  66. Con-Tester, your name should be “My fó-ó-ók ” because your appear gefòk. Should PietV wish to put a question to me, he is welcome and as you already should know, I will take them one at a time. I trust this is not too difficult for you to understand.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 5, 2013 at 21:53

  67. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

      
      
      
    

    My fók Hanswors, this PietV. character doesn’t understand your Matthyseno-illogical exe- and eisegesis. You should answer his questions — all of them — so that we can all benefit from your fathomless insight, understanding and fidelity to the True Crushtian™ ideal!

      
      
      
    

    :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2013 at 21:50

  68. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

      
      
      
    

    My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, you obviously didn’t even bother to read PietV.’s questions and still you want to claim that it’s the atheists’ fault that fruitful discussion with you brain-dead godiot morons isn’t possible.

    My fók Ha-Ha-Ha-Hanswors, you’re just too funny for words!

      
      
      
    

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2013 at 21:36

  69. My fók Hanswors, no discussion is taking place as these godiots cannot have a rational discussion because then they might have to come out of their delusions, which appears to be an intoxicating drug.

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2013 at 21:07

  70. PietV, no discussion is taking place as these people don’t believe in having discussions because then they might have to come out of their delusions, which appears to be an intoxicating drug.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 5, 2013 at 20:57

  71. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, shame, you too. Keep thinking, “What would Mickey Mouse do?” (WWMMD) en alles sal regkom, dude.

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2013 at 07:54

  72. Con-Tester, shame, have a nice day.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 5, 2013 at 07:00

  73. My fók Hanswors, shame, you really do live in a fantasy world and that explains you (sic) connection with Jeeeeeeebussssst!. It’s hoping too much that you will grow up one day.

    Con-Tester

    June 4, 2013 at 19:03

  74. Shame, you do really live in a fantasy world and that explains you connection with Mickey Mouse. Hopefully you will grow up one day.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 4, 2013 at 18:55

  75. For those who love to critizice the bible I wrote some dutch questions. There is also a short English translation. http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8382

    Met natuurlijk een hartelijk groet aan iedereen. Please keep on going with your discussion.

    PietV.

    June 4, 2013 at 09:03

  76. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, you have been put under pressure constantly as you have never answered any of my questions and although you’re lying through your godiot teeth when you claim otherwise, you choose to ignore it. You are incapable of understanding what a joke you are. Matthysenology is just an excuse so one can have brainfarts.

    Con-Tester

    June 4, 2013 at 07:54

  77. Malherbe, that guy does not know the Bible and those who follow him either. Jesus Christ of today consists of many members, yet one body. When Jesus broke the bread at the “last supper”, that is what He signified and most so-called Christians din’t seem to have got the message; 1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
    The cloud on which He appears is the gathering of His people; Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
    Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 4, 2013 at 07:00

  78. Con-Tester, you have never put me under pressure as I have answered all your questions and although you can’t dispute my answers, you chose to ignore them. You are incapable of putting me under pressure. Atheism is just an excuse so one can have orgy’s.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 4, 2013 at 06:49

  79. No prohet CT, an honest answer I do not expect. Bulshit, yep…..copious volumes of it.

    Malherbe

    June 3, 2013 at 22:51

  80. Oh, and prepare yourself for a hilarious-but-mind-numbing flood of bullshit excuses, slippery evasions and convenient fabrications.

    Have you read the Book of Con? It sez right there I’m a prophet, me. :P

    My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, you have the floor.

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2013 at 22:27

  81. Malherbe wrote (June 3, 2013 at 22:09):

    Assuming logic and honesty prevails…

    Well, there’s your mistake right there. ;)

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2013 at 22:19

  82. Hansie, I read in Australia there is this godiot named AJ Miller who claims that he is Jesus. Typical characteristics of a cult busy forming with followers from all walks of life – even a medical docter from the UK who dropped everything to be in the presence of this madman.

    What I find especially fascinating is that most people, including contemporary Christians, views this nutcase as exactly that – a nutter to the n-th degree. The fascinating part is that they rightfully think this guy is crazy, but does not question the bona fides of the Jesus of 2,000 years ago. In fact, they do not bat an eyelid when stating that the historical Jesus was indeed the son of thier god. In my opinion there should be more reasons to believe that Miller is the “real Mcoy”, than the so-called historical Jesus. I base this statement on the following:
    1) The historical bloke lived 2000 years ago and his life was only recorded 50 years AFTER his death by people that, for the most part, did not know him personally. The opportunity for distortion is glaring.
    2) 2000 Years ago people were orders of magnitude less educated compared to today, with the majority totally illiterate. In fact, they would be in absolute awe of anyone that could read and write and as such they would be more gullible. The chances for cult formation would therfore be much bigger than today. In fact, the Jesus following of old resembled what we would today describe as a cult. (Does the request/order to his disciples to abandon their families to follow him, sound familiar when viewing modern-day cults?)
    3) More reasons exist for modern-day humans to believe that Miller is the real one. Why? – well, at least you can confront the guy, listen to his arguments and make up your mind. The existence of the “old” jesus is based purely on the writings of a few individuals.
    4) Miller supplies more-or-less the same answers to questions than the “old” jesus gives to questions posed by the Pharisees. Why regard him as a charlatan, but goldy-oldie jesus as the real deal?

    Assuming logic and honesty prevails, there should be no reason for contemporary Christians to disregard AJ Miller’s claims as their saviour. The reasons given suggesting that Miller is a liar, should likewise apply to goldy-oldie Jesus.

    Damn, that pesky little thing called honesty…….

    Malherbe

    June 3, 2013 at 22:09

  83. My fók Hanswors and other godiots, your idea of reality seems very childish to me as you are just not up to the challenge Mickey Mouse is suppose (sic) to stand for. I think godiots are just talk and further useless (sic). By the way, when is your next brainfart?

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2013 at 21:20

  84. Malherbe, howzit. It’s not about patience. It’s about how truly funny godiots are when pressed — everywhere, all the time, except in their own minds. You know, how the best they can do consists of brain-dead repetition of transparent bullshit and presenting infantile and clumsy imitations of their detractors.

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2013 at 21:18

  85. Con-Tester and Malherbe, your idea of fun seems very childish to me as you are just not up to the challenge this blog is suppose to stand for. I think Atheist are just talk and further useless. By the way, when is your next orgy?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 3, 2013 at 21:03

  86. Hi CT. See you are still having fun with this cretin. I admire your obvious infinite patience.

    Malherbe

    June 3, 2013 at 20:36

  87. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, more delusion. Shame!

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2013 at 07:51

  88. Con-Tester, you failed. Shame!

    Hans Matthysen

    June 3, 2013 at 06:48

  89. My fók Hanswors, since my follow-ups are hardly in question and kakpraat comes so naturally to you, you need to see if you can produce an equal or better follow-up to that utterly stunning one of yours of June 1, 2013 at 12:17.

    Surprise us all.

    Con-Tester

    June 2, 2013 at 22:15

  90. Con-Tester, see if you can produce an equal or better follow-up?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 2, 2013 at 21:55

  91. My fók Hanswors, you too.

    (That was a good follow-up, considering it’s from you, Hanswors). A bit thin on the Mickey Mouse content, though.)

    Con-Tester

    June 2, 2013 at 21:00

  92. Have a pleasant week.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 2, 2013 at 20:43

  93. My fók Hanswors, that’s by far the most sensible thing you’ve written anywhere on this blog.

    Ever.

    Con-Tester

    June 2, 2013 at 17:30

  94. Sorry! least.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 1, 2013 at 12:17

  95. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, at lest (sic) it’s not possible to have a fruitful discussion with any of them and if they appear dumb, then you appear to excel far above them, therein. Have a nice weekend.

    P.S. I’ll mock you again soon enough.

    Con-Tester

    May 31, 2013 at 09:19

  96. Con-Tester, at lest one can have a discussion with some of them and if they appear dumb, then you appear to excel far above them, therein. Have a nice weekend.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 31, 2013 at 08:02

  97. My fók Hanswors, don’t you know that all godiots are more or less as dump (sic) as you appear to be?

    Con-Tester

    May 30, 2013 at 21:14

  98. Con-Tester, are all so called atheists, as dump as you appear to be?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 30, 2013 at 20:54

  99. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, refer to a-a-a-all of my previous comments as they are, each and every one, still applicable.

    Con-Tester

    May 30, 2013 at 09:37

  100. Con-Tester, refer to my previous comment as it is still applicable.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 30, 2013 at 08:46

  101. My fók Hanswors, my onerkentlike ká-á-ákpratende dwaas onoplettende trilflitsende pêl, as usual, you have nothing to say that means anthing, yet you avoid answering my very many questions because you know, you can’t really go against the truth.

    And the truth is that you’re a fuckin’ genius, as everyone can see.

    The greater your ignorance, the more evidence you have for the existence of your skydeddieee.

    Con-Tester

    May 29, 2013 at 18:53

  102. Con-Tester, as usual, you have something to say that means nothing, yet you avoid answering my question because you know, you can’t really go against the truth.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 29, 2013 at 18:42

  103. My fók Hanswors, you are not a man of understanding since you have not outgrown your childhood fairytales and their childishness. What is fairytale-like about 1 Con. 14:20?

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2013 at 22:05

  104. Con-Tester, you are not a man in understanding as you have not outgrown your childhood and childishness. What is fairy-tail like about 1 Cor. 14:20?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 28, 2013 at 21:35

  105. 1Con 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in reality be ye fuckwits, but in understanding be ye so ignorant?

    It would appear that you fail to understand what you cannot pervert with a fairytale, shame.

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2013 at 07:48

  106. 1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
    It would appear that you fail to understand what you cannot see or touch, shame.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 28, 2013 at 07:28

  107. My fók Hanswors, “lekker slaap” and don’t deny yourself a peacefull (sic) slumber in ignorance.

    Con-Tester

    May 27, 2013 at 22:47

  108. Con-Tester, “lekker slaap” and don’t deny yourself a peacefull sleep.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 27, 2013 at 22:36

  109. My fók Hanswors, you have just failed the test and proven to be a lying clown, as you referred to me as a “con”. You are making an arse of yourself and proving that you godiots haven’t the faintest clue about anything, including figures of speech, and are in total denial, especially about Mickey Mouse.

    Con-Tester

    May 27, 2013 at 14:36

  110. Con-Tester, you have just failed the test and proven to be a “con”, as you referred to me as “little”. You are making an arse of yourself and proving that you Atheists are in denial.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 27, 2013 at 13:30

  111. My fók Hanswors, thanks for lying again about what I said because when you have a small mind then reality will fuck you up. Should you not know who Mickey Mouse is, read the following; 1Con 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Bibliots and Godiots, Mickey Mouse the power of reality, and the wisdom of a functioning brain.

    Con-Tester

    May 27, 2013 at 08:01

  112. Con-Tester, thanks for saying I am little because when I am small, then Christ can be great in me. Should you not know who Christ is, read the following; 1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 27, 2013 at 07:52

  113. Hanswors, with a dumb answer like that (being more than two years after the fact and completely irrelevant to the point), you must be very stupid to expect that I expect you to furnish a yes or no for an answer. Intelligent discussion with you is not possible (as you have shown repeatedly) since you seem to think that you will lose face should you show that you agree. It is but a sign of a fool and so I can only laugh at you.

    See, Mickey Mouse thinks and writes so much better than little old you.

    Con-Tester

    May 24, 2013 at 21:57

  114. ErickV, jy het seker al uit die oog verloor, dat ‘n doos baie vreugde kan verskaf en hoe meer kommentaar jy lewer, maak jy ‘n drol van jouself. Jy is so droog, dat jy nie eers verveligheid kan stimmuleer nie, wat nog iets anders. Moontlik is daar nog hoop vir jou, al is dit net ashoop.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2013 at 21:46

  115. Con-Tester, with a dumb question like that, you must be very stupid to expect a yes or no, for an answer. Intelligent discussion with you is not possible, as you seem to think, that you will loose face to your audience, should you show, that you agree. It is but a sign of a fool and so I can only feel sorry for you.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2013 at 21:39

  116. Thanks for a marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading
    it, you might be a great author. I will make certain to bookmark your blog and will
    come back from now on. I want to encourage yourself to
    continue your great job, have a nice weekend!

    Alvin

    May 23, 2013 at 07:03

  117. Dear Mr.Bonds,

    To promote skepticism/critical thinking I wrote some questions for the Christian believer. Mefiante from South African Skeptics made a good translation. She is now working at the last part. The most sophisticated questions. Are you able to put the link to these questions at your blog.

    Thank you very much,

    Piet – Rotterdam – Netherlands.

    The original questions

    http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8382

    The translation

    http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10033

    The first one who did this, was Jonathan. This is a good example.

    http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/tough-questions-for-believers/

    Piet

    November 29, 2011 at 20:16

  118. Hans
    Hoe meer jy kommetaar lewer, hoe meer maak jy ‘n doos van jouself.
    Ek dink jy moet liewer nie meer kommetaar lewer nie.
    Dit raak nou vervelig om te sien hoe onnosel jy is.

    ErickV

    February 11, 2011 at 06:19

  119. “[reality] gives you endless trouble”?

    Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    February 11, 2011 at 01:58

  120. Well, Hanswors, you know what they say about appearances. No, it’s safe to assume that you don’t know. Your agreement or opposition is neither sought nor required. Intelligent discussion is clearly not possible with dim-witted fundie clowns like you because you are not capable of following even the easiest reasoning.

    But maybe you can show some marginal cognitive function by answering the following simple yes/no question. Do you consider yourself an exception to the observation that “believers don’t seem very logical or grounded when reading reality” and that “[reality] gives you endless trouble”?

    Con-Tester

    February 10, 2011 at 22:42

  121. Con-Tester, when one opposes you, you appear dumb and when one agree’s with you, your appear dumber.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 10, 2011 at 22:15

  122. Oh yes, lies for jesus, and legs for foreplay. Ha-ha. What the fundies wouldn’t use their tiny imagination for. I guess evolution wasn’t very kind to them.

    Jerry Coyne also wrote about the snake legs today:

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/biology-updates-snake-legs-cat-rolling-and-frog-teeth/

    There are some nice pictures.

    McBrolloks

    February 10, 2011 at 18:22

  123. Mac
    Did you see the comments by that moron with the alias of Quinna99?

    ErickV

    February 10, 2011 at 11:35

  124. Snake evolution puzzle solved

    http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Snake-evolution-puzzle-solved-20110209

    The Garden of Eden Gazette strongly disputes this new finding. Just more lies by evil scientists with their evil machines.

    McBrolloks

    February 9, 2011 at 19:01

  125. Well, that’s a start, ol’ Hanswors. Of course, it’s clear that the implication you wish to make is that you yourself are one of those exceptions you speak of. That is not so at all, what with your being so remarkably true to the mould from which reality-avoiding fundies are routinely cast.

    Con-Tester

    February 8, 2011 at 08:43

  126. Con-Tester, I agree with you on that although you do get the exceptions.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 7, 2011 at 22:13

  127. Believer your argument is a premise, a belief which you base on circumstantial evidence served with a large helping of indoctrination.

    You do claim to know a lot of the finer detail about a subject that has no substance, your claims are seen as false because you have no way to prove them.
    The words you claim are God’s are in fact your opinion or opinions written by men, greedy men, who wish to indoctrinate you further.

    The Atheistic stand is not a premise or a belief but rather a conclusion that is reached due to the lack of any contrary evidence that has substance in reality as we know it.

    I am in agreement with your opinion that none can dictate to a God how to behave in order to satisfy the requirements of potential believers, if such a God would require believers to begin with, but, be this as it may, I have serious doubts about your God’s benevolence.

    The atheistic delusion you refer to is perhaps not unlike your incessant theistic need to proselytise your interpretation of God, and indeed God’s words, and will, and even how God would most certainly feel about the things you’ve observed, as if you or anyone else could actually have knowledge of God.

    In Religion you become politicians, sweeping up the masses to give themselves to the cause as you see it, to give money, and aid, and momentum, and sometimes to spill blood, and to die. All in the name of your opinion or your interpretation of someone else’s opinion.

    Perhaps, a God that works in mysterious ways by helping those who help themselves to reap what they have sown, and if you do not sow you do not reap, and where would be the fun in that.

    Balanced Truths

    February 6, 2011 at 09:05

  128. But of course he does, Dr E!

    “If we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period.” ~ Chair of the Creation Truth Foundation, G. Thomas Sharp.

    They knew for sure, did the goat herders of the Bronze age…

    Nathan Bond

    February 6, 2011 at 08:11

  129. Believer said:

    “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground”. GENESIS 1:26″

    Do you really believe that the contents of Genesis 1 is an historical fact?

    Doktor Einstein

    February 6, 2011 at 07:44

  130. Hanswors, believers don’t seem very logical or grounded when reading reality. In fact, it gives you endless trouble.

    Con-Tester

    February 5, 2011 at 23:19

  131. Believer, I would think that the fruits of my labor would be pertaining to the work of the ministry (1 Cor. 12 from v 27 and on). The day I depart from life on earth, the work, I would hope, would be completed so that I may rest.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 5, 2011 at 22:51

  132. Nathan, Adam en Eva is sinnebeelde en dit blyk of dit nog iets is wat jy vergeet het. Jy erken darem dat jy “simple-minded (as I am)”, is, dus probeer die “simple” dinge verstaan en nie jouself met groot hoë denke verwar nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 5, 2011 at 22:35

  133. McBrollocks, only those who are carnally minded think of a carnal image and those who are spiritually minded think spiritually. Man has intellect and love being the image of God. The inner man/ soul is a spiritual being the image of God, as God is spirit.
    Atheists don’t appear very logical when reading the Bible.
    You still appear drunk from the wine you consumed.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 5, 2011 at 22:13

  134. Never had absinthe before. I bet Thor will bring me a barrel of that.

    I am also 100% sure that King Brian, the king of the Leprechauns, will be bringing me some Poitín.

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 20:03

  135. Nothing amiss with Tassies! Significant theology can be fuelled by Tassies. But coversing with “God” itself may call for summat more robust, I admit. You might also consider absinthe – it makes the heart grow fonder.

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 19:51

  136. Oh yes, my point exactly. I could say, the gods that brings me the best wines, get their stories written down first. I couldn’t write the best list of the best wines down myself, since I don’t mind some Tassies now and again. I am sure the divine gods knows where to get the best wines. Bring it on!

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 19:43

  137. But of course you’ll need wine! You can’t engage the gods if not inebriated!
    Remember Noah and Abraham and David – serious drinkers all!

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 19:39

  138. I mean biographer. Let their truth be settled for once and for all. I will need a lot of wine though, there are so many gods.

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 19:30

  139. Nathan, don’t blame me, the bastard came to me, not vica versa. He spoke to me, not me to Him.

    If Zod has something to say, he can send me some good wine, and I will prepare to listen to Him too.

    Maybe I can become like an autobiographer for deities. They all have so much to tell, and the truth has been edited by men for centuries and longer.

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 19:28

  140. So you’ve spoken to God, have you, McBrolloks!?

    I am here to tell you that I am not impressed.

    Have you spoken to Zod!?

    Have you!?

    Have you!?

    No, you didn’t, did you!?

    You never even knew abou Zod untill I created it this afternoon!

    So, McBolloks, you know like Fawltey’s Manuel – no-o-thing!

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 19:17

  141. Eish……

    You guys have no idea what really happened do you?

    I was passed out from too much wine one night, and God came to me in a vision. He talked to me for about 30 minutes, and explained everything that happened during the first part of His creation. The whole shebang from the big bang right up until Adam and Eve left paradise. It’s all quite a story, and the bible has it completely wrong. God told me that the churches couldn’t handle the truth, so they edited the shit out of it, and now the bible is all mangled into an incomprehensible pack of bullshit. He wants me to set the record straight, so I am rewriting it for all humans, so that we can all understand the truth. I will publish it soon. And then go into hiding for the rest of my life.

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 18:59

  142. Like I say, believers make my arguments so much better than I do!

    I am in absolute agreement with you Believer – it has been my argument for years and years: “God” is the creation of every individual who wants Him to be.

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 18:51

  143. Unfortunately for you, you have to seek God, not Him you. Nothing wrong with it. I would reason the same way if I could create life.

    Truth of the matter is, you do not wish for God to be a reality, or you would have seeked Him. No, you wish for Him to be non-existant, therefore seek evidence to the contrary.

    If you actualy wanted to find God, believe me or don’t, but I guarantee you, you would have found Him.

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 17:19

  144. Love would be a theistic answer, one that would strike a cord with many, it is also predefined and open to little misinterpretation. Improvement, however, is still subject to debate, a convalescent notion.

    Balanced Truths

    February 5, 2011 at 14:27

  145. A noble intention, I have no doubt, but then so many intentions start that way.

    Balanced Truths

    February 5, 2011 at 14:03

  146. The perfect world is the one improved by our daily efforts.

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 13:18

  147. So many definitions…how to make sense of any one of the many words that make up these long sentences when the relevant definitions in each head is unique to that mind.

    What is a perfect world? Perhaps an easier start to that question would be to identify a suitable single aspect, of existence as we perceive it, that could be considered paramount.

    Balanced Truths

    February 5, 2011 at 13:15

  148. Believer, I have been around this block so often with so many people, I’ve lost count.
    I have other things to do.
    If there be a God, let Him come see me for 10m; I want to give him a piece of my mind. He should know where to find me.

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 12:54

  149. I missed the “perfect world” part. The perfect world is yet to come, but we have to choose it. In fact, if evolution was the ruling science, we would have had a perfect functional world, but our Creator wanted us to “live” life, not merely survive it.

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 12:45

  150. Believer

    We don’t know how it all started, but creating gods doesn’t help understanding! One can’t explain one mystery with another!

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 12:41

  151. That’s why I believe in Hod, the one that made “God”.

    I’ve got no proof, mind, but who needs proof!? Us believers should stand together!

    When you go to heaven one day to start believing in Hod, I’ll be there already, worshipping Iod…

    Yod help us when we read Zod!

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 12:38

  152. As I am obviously not going to be able to answer you, you tell me, where did it all begin? How was even the first atom created to be part of the big bang theory?

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 12:37

  153. I would also like to know who or what created God, but some things will be revealed and others kept secret. Again Revelations etc. Not enough reason to dismiss God and His creation.

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 12:32

  154. Believer

    I know the fairy tale! Great story! One of the best ever.

    But I still want to know how things could have died in a perfect world.

    And I still want to know how this “Creator” came to be – “He/She/It” is too special not to have been created by something more superior still.

    And that “Other Great Thing”… How did that happen!?

    And…

    I don’t want to waste more time on this nonsense – just give me the quickk version, please.

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 12:30

  155. Nowhere is writted that Adam and Eve did not eat and maybe even had to kill to eat. Everything was created for mans enjoyment. God created man with the idea that they would love and serve Him, but he also gave man freedom of choise, therefore putting two trees, the tree of life and the tree of wisdom, in the garden and telling man to enjoy everything in the garden, except these two trees. Man ate the fruits of the tree of wisdom, hence us and the wonderfull Darwin, but He banished man from the garden before he could eat the fruit of life and live forever like Him and the angels. Read Genesis…

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 12:23

  156. “In fact, everything else, plant life and animal life was created for our (and His) enjoyment.”

    I am truly jealous of the ability of believers to make my arguments so much better than I can ever hope to do.

    And I still want to know how this “Creator” came to be – “He/She/It” is too special not to have been created by something more superior still.

    And that “Other Great Thing”… How did that happen!?

    And…

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 12:17

  157. You know, this thing about eating makes me think even a little further.

    Evolution theory suggests life a question of survival. An animal eats to survive, whether it has to kill or compete for grazing, depending on species and eating habits.

    Humans however eat for pleasure, build not just houses as shelter, but build beautifull houses with pools etc. for enjoyment. We try to earn a little more to buy nice and quite unnesessary expensive cars, because we want to enjoy life a little more than the guy next door. How did evolution come to this? Not just survival, but life enjoyment?

    A Creator that made us to rule over everything else, because we were made to His liking. In fact, everything else, plant life and animal life was created for our (and His) enjoyment.

    Darwin and other scientists are great minds, far superior than most of us, but the greatest Scientist, the greatest Mind ever, created even them.

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 12:11

  158. Do I really have to respond to this!?

    I simply wish to improve my understanding of religion!

    When something eats, something else has to die.

    No problem. It’s natural.

    But before “The Fall” there was no death. (So I’m told by those who miraculously know the circumstances of creation, and the terms and conditions of even the smallest print.)

    I simply want to understand what to me, wallowing in ignorance, appear to be somewhat of a contradiction: If nothing could have died before “The Fall”… How was Adam and Eve nourished?

    But, in the mean time, by all means, eat!

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 12:04

  159. You make no sense Nathan. Where is it written that we should not eat, meat included. God created for beauty as well as sustainance. It is written that we will enjoy the fruits of our labour in the new Jerusalem after Armageddon. We are not just going to hang around and do nothing. We are going to work our gardens, but will enjoy fruits and vegetables every month and will not have weeds etc. Read Revelations.

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 11:53

  160. Oops! I forgot. The human species is the crown of creation – no other life really matters. It’s only us made after the image of the Great Nipple Bearer in the sky. Silly me.

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 11:23

  161. Berries, fruit and nuts do not represent life; are not made by the “Creator”?

    Or was it just that one forbidden fruit, the eating of which so pissed of the “Almighty One”?

    What bollocks!

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 10:54

  162. Berries, fruit and nuts were the food, just like… er…gorillas eat!?

    The first animal ever slaughtered was by God himself when He killed a lamb to make clothing for Adam and Eve, after they comitted the first sin. I was let to believe you guys actually knew the Bible!?

    The killing of that lamb was also the first form of sabbath (to make holy). After this people had to sacrifice animals, male animals with no imperfections, on a regular basis. He knew then that one day He will sacrifice His own son, Jesus, who is male and has no imperfections, so that we can be saved. After His death all forms of sabbath (sacrifying animals, abstaining from eating certain foods, circumcision, and yes, the sabbath day) was deemed not necessary anymore. Jesus was sacrificed mainly because He ignored the sabbath day and said on many occasions that “He is in the sabbath, and the sabbath is in Him. Read the book John…

    believer

    February 5, 2011 at 10:46

  163. Ai! Jai, jai, jai, jai, jai, jai. Ai!

    Do the superior tribesman have nipples?

    I want to know, simple-minded as I am, how Adam and Eve ate in an environment where there was no death…

    Nathan Bond

    February 5, 2011 at 07:34

  164. This just in:

    To all the ‘logical’ atheists
    by Grant Callaway

    http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/YourStory/To-all-the-logical-atheists-20110204

    He-he!!!!! God bless South Africa!

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 01:00

  165. Con-Tester wrote:

    “Never mind nipples, an alimentary tract and reproductive organs, does “god” have a navel?”

    Hmmmmmmmm……….. Now there is a question.

    Funny that people believe god made man in his image, for if he did, then by default, god must be an ape and a savage.

    McBrolloks

    February 5, 2011 at 00:42

  166. That old book has “more truth,” hey? Only if reality’s not your thing.

    Never mind nipples, an alimentary tract and reproductive organs, does “god” have a navel?

    Con-Tester

    February 4, 2011 at 22:26

  167. Hans, you wrote: “Nathan, God is Spirit and not flesh and blood therefore the answers to you questions are no.”

    That can’t be. Nipples are flesh and blood, and everyone knows god has nipples. I can prove it too!

    You can clearly see god has nipples in that awesome painting.

    McBrolloks

    February 4, 2011 at 21:31

  168. Nathan, God is Spirit and not flesh and blood therefore the answers to you questions are no.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2011 at 21:28

  169. Verifanie, geen wonder jy verstaan nie veel wat een jou wys maak, jy besef nie eers dat my van twee “T’s” het en net een “Es”. Die feit dat jy my “Hansie” noem en nie “Hans”, spreek ook boekdele van jou karakter.
    ‘n Poes verskaf minstens baie plesier maar jy is seker ‘n drol?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2011 at 21:24

  170. ‘n Pel skryf vandag die volgende vir my:

    “We have post-docs working on ‘directed evolution’ projects (in yeast) that don’t ‘believe’ in evolution. Ha! Creationists in Science. Very special.”

    Nou dit kan net agv jou bybel wees Hans. Jy bedoel seker dat as iemand jou bybel verstaan, dat hy lekker deur die kak is en sy brein werk ook nie meer reg nie.

    McBrolloks

    February 4, 2011 at 21:21

  171. Hans, as die drank nog nie my brein gevrot het nie, sal jou bybel ook maar sukkel. Jy sien, my kritiese denk vermoens is nog gesond. Hulle doen elke oggend push-ups om sterk te bly. Die drank vloei deur daardie deel van my brein en dis asof dit lubrication is vir stront, wat dan net so verby glei en my glad nie affekteer nie. Dis seker hoekom die bybel vir my niks behalwe ‘n klomp ou spook stories is nie, maar dit maak my nie bang nie, dis vir kinders en morone om dit te glo. Maar selfs kinders het ‘n moerse probleem om hierdie kak te glo teensy ‘n klomp grootmense met hulle koppe smokkel en hulle brainwash. Die arme kindertjies. Hulle gaan eendag net so fokken deur die kak as hulle ouers wees. 10-1.

    McBrolloks

    February 4, 2011 at 21:18

  172. McBrollocks, I agree with you about “Quackery of this nature is not merely misleading. It is life-destroying,”
    Voer met my sinvolle gesprek oor wat in die Bybel staan en jy mag werklik baie wysheid bekom. Die eerste wysheid is ‘n gesindheidsverandering.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2011 at 21:12

  173. Everybody knows that god has nipples.

    McBrolloks

    February 4, 2011 at 21:07

  174. Creation would explain male nipples!?

    Nathan Bond

    February 4, 2011 at 20:58

  175. Nathan, the monkey joke aside. The questions you asked is the same as if I would ask the following question pertaining to the evolution theory; “Male nipples – what is the purpose?

    believer

    February 4, 2011 at 20:51

  176. An old book that still has more thruth to it than today’s feeble attempts by those who believe themselves to be knowledgeable.

    believer

    February 4, 2011 at 20:41

  177. Nathan,
    with all due respect. You should change your pic. A monkey’s pic would be more appropriate.

    believer

    February 4, 2011 at 20:34

  178. Don’t expect any rational answers from the oke who thinks that “[s]ome things have to be believed to be seen” is actually an argument – and, worse, is convinced by the asinine “force” of it. Chances are you’re going to get in reply a barrage of posturing and pseudo-profundity from an old book.

    Con-Tester

    February 4, 2011 at 19:41

  179. Believer

    I have a question or two…

    Does “God” have a digestive system? Does “God” eat and drink – I am asking because in “heaven” there is, so those in the know inform me, no death, and when something eats, something else has to die.

    Does “God” have a reproductive system? Does “God” have a penis – and, to the point – one that can rise at the sight of a heavenly body (as do mine, created in the “Image”).

    Nathan Bond

    February 4, 2011 at 07:51

  180. 1 CORINTHIANS 11:7
    “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

    GENESIS 3:22
    “And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

    GENESIS 5:1
    “This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.”

    believer

    February 4, 2011 at 07:47

  181. Doktor Einstein:
    Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground”. GENESIS 1:26

    believer

    February 4, 2011 at 07:40

  182. “Vrerifanie, you should read about Jesus and the Apostles and see who was persecuted.
    All things are created well and it is man who buggers everything up, so be careful in your ways.
    God is not a someone”

    Signed: Hans Mathyssen January 28 @ 22:08

    Hansie, jy moet vir jou liewe jesussie en heretjie vreeslik hard bid om jou geheue so ‘n bietjie aan te help. Daar is ‘n dreiging in wat jy se, en dit is dat “die heretjie is nie iemand om sommer mee te fok nie, ou maat, en jy sal kak”. So pasop!

    Soos ek al voorheen gese het, hansie slim. Jou heretjie se poes en jou jesussie se poes ook.

    verifanie

    February 4, 2011 at 07:16

  183. Dankie dat jy my weereens verryk met jou perels van wysheid Hans. Natuurlik “verstaan” ek nie die bybel nie. Ek sukkel maar om stront te glo en om my lewe te ly volgens die “advies” van ‘n klomp bok herders af.

    McBrolloks

    February 4, 2011 at 00:00

  184. ASA bans church’s healing claims

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/ASA-bans-churchs-healing-claims-20110203

    “He said the church claimed to use faith healing to treat several diseases, including heart disease, and had run adverts on its website claiming to treat Aids.

    “Quackery of this nature is not merely misleading. It is life-destroying,” he said.

    He said TAC knew of a woman infected with extreme drug resistant TB who stopped taking her medication because she believed the church had cured her, and died, after infecting her own children with the disease.”

    McBrolloks

    February 3, 2011 at 23:05

  185. McBrolloks, jy verstaan beslis nie die Bybel nie en jou ongeloof is ‘n bewys daarvan.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 3, 2011 at 22:55

  186. Verifanie, jy is seker permanent gesuip? Waar het ek gesê dat jy moet pasop? Dis geen wonder dat jy niks sinvol kan kwyt raak en net braak. Siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    February 3, 2011 at 22:43

  187. Believer.

    Do I understand you correctly? Is it your case that God has the appearance of man? A body with, amongst other things, two arms, two hands, two legs and two feet?

    Or are you just teasing us?

    Doktor Einstein

    February 3, 2011 at 22:04

  188. Phew, clear the air. Does anyone have a match? Believer left another stinker here.

    McBrolloks

    February 3, 2011 at 19:19

  189. When I say “equal”, I do mean in shape and reasoning for the purpose of being HIS represantatives on earth, to protect, as was HIS original plan in the beginning. HE will always be the LORD.

    believer

    February 3, 2011 at 13:59

  190. In our oceans, Cuttlefish are protected by means of camouglage against Baracuda. Humans with their reosoning ability can easily detect these Cuttlefish, but off-course have the wish/instinct/humanity to protect them. Why is that? I guess, because we were created as God’s equal and not just another species???

    believer

    February 3, 2011 at 13:51

  191. Pakistan urged to free schoolboy arrested for blasphemy

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12351125

    McBrolloks

    February 3, 2011 at 03:24

  192. Four arrested after Bangladesh girl ‘lashed to death’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12344959

    “Four people including a Muslim cleric have been arrested in Bangladesh in connection with the death of 14-year-old girl who was publicly lashed.

    The teenager was accused of having an affair with a married man, police say, and the punishment was given under Islamic Sharia law. “

    McBrolloks

    February 2, 2011 at 20:40

  193. Oom Angus sal ook eendag op die scrap hoop van profete gaan le. Maar hy is nog steeds druk besig om te toer met sy freak show.

    McBrolloks

    February 2, 2011 at 19:30

  194. Erick!! Dagsê.

    Jip, die moerboer se storie is inderdaad al holrug gery.

    En ja, die mense se reaksie tydens die massabyeenkomste is inderdaad soos ‘n klomp bedwelmdes.

    En ja, die Buchan-histerie het inderdaad afgeneem, ek vermoed hy is ook al holrug gery. :) :)

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 2, 2011 at 11:01

  195. Daan en Mac.
    Ek weet die storie met Angus is al holrug gery, maar het julle al op die fotos van die byeenkomste gesien? Het julle gesien hoe in vervoering die arme drommels is met daardie waserige uitdrukking in die oge?
    Dit is wat ek noem die opuim van godsdiens. Daar is miljoene regoor die wereld wat verslaaf is daaraan.

    Ek wonder wat het van Angus en sy aartappel boerdery geword? Ons hoor maar deesdae weinig van hom. Na al die miljoene wat hy met godsdiens verdien het is hy seker nou op pensioen.

    ErickV

    February 2, 2011 at 08:10

  196. Ja, wel, as mens vriende verloor omdat jy hulle profeet sleg se, dan moet dit maar so wees. Ek sal nooit my bek kan hou uit respek uit vir ‘n pel se geloof nie. My ander vriende praat amper nooit oor geloof nie, al weet ek hulle is gelowig. Die Angus broers is in ‘n spesiale klas. Enige ou wat daardie poepol volg met sy vrou en dogters se ondersteuning, lewe maar in ‘n baie delusional gesin. Ek het baie respek vir vrouens wat vir Angus haat, want hy probeer hulle regte terug in die bronstydperk in neem. Ek het al met ‘n paar gesels wat gese het as hulle mans Angus manne word, dan pak hulle hulle tasse, en vat hulle dogters saam met hulle. Dis net jammer ek ken ook vrouens wat langs hulle mans staan, en dink Angus us die beste ding wat nog ooit met hulle gebeur het. Ek moet ook byvoeg, een van my ou pelle wat nou so groot Angus man is, is lankal met sy tweede vrou geskei, en hy is nou so mal soos ‘n haas. Hy meng ook sy drank met te veel prozacs en dan raak y heentemal die klits kweit. Maar sondag is hy weer in die kerk, en hy gaan elke jaar vir Angus luister saam met sy seun.

    McBrolloks

    February 2, 2011 at 00:45

  197. Mac.

    Ek is jammer om te hoor dat jy as gevolg van die moerboer, baie van jou pelle verloor het.

    Ek het drie goeie pelle en ons kom ‘n pad saam vanaf 1972 toe ons eerstejaars op varsity was. Dit sal vir my tragies wees as ek een van hulle moet verloor, veral as gevolg van ‘n clown soos ou Buchie.

    Nee, en weet jy wat? Alhoewel my vrou godsdienstig is, het sy, die dag toe Buckie sê ‘n vrou moet aan haar man onderdanig wees, summier ‘n globale kak in hom gevang. :) :)

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 1, 2011 at 20:43

  198. PS, natuurlik het ek nou meeste van hierdie pelle verloor, want ek lag vir hulle, en probeer hulle vertel dat ou Angus maar ‘n drol is. hulle sweer wyd en suid Angus is goed vir Suid Afrika, en goed vir hulle, en as dit nie vir hom was nie sou hulle almal hulle lewens opgefok het. Ag siestog!

    McBrolloks

    February 1, 2011 at 19:14

  199. Daan, ongelukkig ken ek so paar mense wat dink Angus is die poepol van god, in ‘n “goeie” manier. Hulle gesels graag oor hulle wonderlike ondervindinge by die byeenkomste wat hulle al bygewoon het. Hulle vertel my van mense wat “genees” is daar van baie kwale, en wat glad nie meer hulle medisyne vat nie. Vir hoe lank dit vir hulle gewerk het hoor jy nooit nie, jy hoor net van die wonderlike “genesing”. Angus het self vir hulle gese god kan hulle genees as hulle hard genoeg glo in hom. Dis maar sad. Party van die nuwe Angus manne was goeie vriende van my af vir jarre en jarre lank, self ook so een of twee familie lede wat nou dink die son skyn uit sy poepol uit. Maar die ergste is dat hulle vrouens nie omgee nie, en hulle mans ondersteun, en saamstem, dat die vrou onderdanig moet wees, dat die man alle besluite moet maak, en die laaste se het in die huis. Ons arme volkie. Ons mense sal enige poepol met ‘n bybel onder die arm volg.

    McBrolloks

    February 1, 2011 at 19:12

  200. Mac!!! Dagsê.

    Nee, om die waarheid te sê, ek is nie daarvan bewus nie. Jy sê jy het so gehoor. Hoe geloofwaardig is jou bron? En indien mense werklik so onnosel is om hulle voorskrifte weg te gooi, is dit mos nou maar hulle saak. Ek en jy kan niks daaraan doen nie.

    Ja, ek onthou die moerboer se “hartaanval” by die sterk seuns se byeenkoms destyds baie goed. Ek en Nathan het op een van die ander drade nog lekker daaroor gelag.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 1, 2011 at 06:10

  201. Almal onthou seker toe oom Angus ‘n kamstige hartaanval gehad het by MCC 2010. Natuurlik het hy nie gesterf nie, want hy het nie ‘n hartaanval gehad nie, maar natuurlik se hy en sy volgelinge jesus het hom gered. Nogal snaaks hoe iemand so na aan jesus is nog steeds die paramedics om hom laat swerm het, en selfs die medivac helekopter gebruik om hospitaal toe te gaan. Praat vir hipokrasie. Dan was daar ook natuurlik die manne wat regte hartaanvalle op Angus se byeenkomste gehad het. Jesus het hulle nie so gaaf behandel nie.

    McBrolloks

    January 31, 2011 at 22:58

  202. Daan, is jy bewus dat Angus ook mense so opsweep met die heilige gees, dat hulle glo hulle is nou genees van baie kwale waarvoor hulle mediese voorskrifte moet neem. Ek het berigte gehoor waar mense hulle pille weg gooi in die gees van die dienste, wat natuurlik vir hulle baie probleme later gaan veroorsaak. Ou Angus is maar ‘n eerste klas poepol. Angus, die poepol van god.

    McBrolloks

    January 31, 2011 at 22:54

  203. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Nee, natuurlik het ek jou nie ernstig opgeneem nie. :)

    Maar ernstig, Ek het gisteraand laat op die history kanaal na die program gekyk oor 21 Desember 2012. Dit lyk my baie ouens neem die storie ernstig op.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 31, 2011 at 13:38

  204. Mac.

    Angus Buchan, soos enige happy clapper, is net nie my styl nie. Selfs toe ek nog ‘n fundamentalistiese Christengelowige was, het ek ‘n gly in hom gevang.

    Maar ek moet eerlik wees en toegee dat as hy net 10 mans laat ophou brandewyn drink het en daarna hulle vrouens en kinders mishandel, dan het hy tog iets goeds gedoen.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 31, 2011 at 12:29

  205. Soois, ek verstaan die bybel goed. Maar ek glo nie in die beloftes van ‘n ewige lewe ens nie. Die spoke en ander mites is nie ‘n realistiese opsie vir my nie. Julle gelowiges sal enige iets glo, want julle is bang vir die dood. Julle ly aan ‘n neorosis omdat julle so angstig is en vreesbevange is want julle kan nie aanvaar dat hierdie lewe al is wat julle het nie.

    mcbrolloks

    January 31, 2011 at 08:41

  206. Nee-wat Mac,
    jy ken dalk die Bybel, maar jy verstaan Hom glad-nie.

    Ek gaan in elk geval geen hond haaraf maak met julle nie. Dit was in elk geval baie interressant om julle ouens se siening te lees.

    Verifanie, oor jou is ek baie bekommerd. Jy gaan soos ‘n klein bedorwe seuntjie wat nie sy sin in als kan kry nie, nou sien ek jy is al 63. My pa is nie veel ouer as dit nie. Ek bid vir jou.

    Daan, ons sal so af-en-toe e-pos, want ek roep die blog vir die soveelste keer vaarwel toe.

    Groete

    soois

    January 31, 2011 at 07:56

  207. Daan
    Nee man, moenie vir my se jy het my ernstig opgeneem met die storie van die planete nie!
    Soos jy tereg se, Mars is nie ‘n god nie.
    So bestaan daar GEEN god nie. Dit is ALLES mites.
    Al wat bestaan is Moeder Natuur!
    By the way, almal op hierdie ou aarde van ons is as ateiste gebore. Ons word forseer om in gode te glo deur ons ouers, skole en kerke.
    Shit, ek is spyt ek was nie ‘n eskimo of iets nie.
    Dan het ek ten minste nie driekwart van my lewe op kak gemors nie!

    ErickV

    January 31, 2011 at 05:51

  208. An ode to Danny Boy

    McBrolloks

    January 31, 2011 at 00:30

  209. And there you have it, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. Read what McBrolloks wrote. (Thanks muchly, McBrolloks.) If you can’t follow it, try reading it a few more times, and if it’s still not clear, try having one of your grandchildren explain it to you. Now, I have no doubt that you’re enough of an arsehole to construe and selectively cite the bits that could save some of your fury-contorted, spittle-flecked face. That’s your nature. You’re so desperate to make me look bad that you’ll really invent and lob any old crap to see what sticks. It’s just too funny for words.

    Oh, and D’anus-booi Van der Moerig, as a point of demonstrable order, the only things you’ve said repeatedly comprise a runny torrent of infantile, ignorant, ill-bred horseshit. Let’s give you a fighting chance and totally ignore that on this blog, you repeatedly asked after the origin of the “oersaat,” clearly in reference to the origin of life. Let’s just ignore that little detail because otherwise it would be far too easy to see just how fundamentally stupid you really are. So, in your stale, brain-dead, standard-three, argumentum-ad-ignorantiam view, the findings of palaeontology apply to animals but not humans, making humans the product of some or other special creation. And you are seriously proposing this in the face of and in blatant defiance of the available masses of evidence indicating the contrary? If so, you’re even more of a smug, delusional idiot than I previously had reason to suppose.

    D’you see the kind of hot-headed bovine ordure you are capable of vomiting up just because I irritate you? No, I guess you can’t, what with you being blinded by your funny tantrums. It’s really, really amusing.

    (Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms, though.

    In future, you can identify posts directed at you by the foregoing coda.)

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 22:22

  210. Soois, ek ken jou “great boek” nogal goed ou pel. Dink jy regtig dit was jou god se beste poging? He-he!!!!

    Was Daan al op jou plaas gewees? He-he!!!! ‘n Coolbag, Oros, gumboots en vaseline. Ek hoop die arme ou het sunblock aangesit, anders is sy boude bloed rooi gebrand.

    McBrolloks

    January 30, 2011 at 22:09

  211. Ek wil net vor Soois en Daan ietsie vra: Wat dink julle manne van Oom Angus?

    McBrolloks

    January 30, 2011 at 22:02

  212. Daan, jy se ou Mac laaik nie die moffie nie. Nee jong, lees hierbo. “you idiots will never be able to hold a candle to Con-Tester…”. Nee, ek dink hy aanbid die ou.

    Mac, if you have the balls to read the Great Book, I’ll read whatever you tell me to. How is that for a challenge?

    soois

    January 30, 2011 at 22:02

  213. Daan, hoe het dit op die plaas gegaan? Net ‘n tip. Moet nooit verlief raak nie, al kyk sy jou met daardie groot oe aan, en al is haar wol lekker sag. Jy kan ook altyd vir Soois mooi vra of hy haar nie vir jou sal eenkant hou nie, vir jou volgende besoek.

    Ek het so jaar in Australie gewerk. Hulle sweer dis nie hulle wat die skape naai nie, maar dat dit wel die New Zealanders is. Hulle is baie sensitief daaroor. Ek het ook al baie stories gehoor van die Namakwalanders. Shit, dit het geklink asof die mense geweet het waarvan hulle praat. Hier is ‘n eeue oue gesegde: “New Zealand, where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous.” Sorry, as ek enige New Zealanders hier beledig, dis maar net wat ek by die ossies gehoor het.

    McBrolloks

    January 30, 2011 at 21:59

  214. Sorry I missed all the talk here today.

    Soois and Daan are really showing their strengths here. The way they jump to conclusions and the bright ideas they come up with will let any standard 3 pupil in the dust. Their attempts at humor is also quite good on a standard 2 level.

    Let be be clear. Daan and Soois, you idiots will never be able to hold a candle to Con-Tester when it comes to reasoning capabilities, for one. I assume it hurts when he knocks down your juvenile arguments and reasoning with the greatest of easy, every time. It clearly shows when you call him a “moffie”. Ha-ha, for big boertjies that is probably one of the worst insults you can throw at him, but then again, I think it didn’t occur to you guys that Con-Tester put ears on you guys and runs circles around you, so remember, this “moffie” as you call him, has gotten your number every time. Typical fundie caveman reasoning, if you can call it reasoning at all. Maybe a better term would be behavior, instead of reasoning.

    Anyway, it is still pretty amusing to see how their type attempts to use their brains. The thing that baffles me however, is that most of it is just plain old ignorance, mixed in with a dose of faith and belief. Those are self inflicted wounds boys. You shut of your brains, on purpose, and now it won’t work right anymore.

    You guys can fix it, but I doubt you ever or will even try to. You wear your stupidity like a badge of honor for jesus. That’s why the only people who will stand with you are other morons.

    Your arguments are always contradictions in the worst ways. You so want to believe that some god did everything, that you reject anything that tells you otherwise. But then you make up your own facts. Science proves to us what the facts are. Yes, we don’t know everything yet, but if we did, we won’t have science anymore. You guys start by saying god did it this way, and for this reason, and then you make up your own “facts”, or as we call it, lies for jesus.

    Science does not compete with religion. Science could not give a flying fuck about religion. If there was anything scientific to study about religion, it would have happened long ago. Your gods are silent. Your gods are invisible. There is nothing physical about your gods, and there never was. The only real thing about your religions are the deeds done in the name of your spooks by humans. And the ones that stands out the most are all the atrocities over the ages, as far back as man can remember.

    Grow a pair of balls and read a book or two without balking at facts that you don’t like. Science has nothing to say about religion. If you read about evolution, you will not find somebody writing about your gods in there, they stick to their own topic, and the facts.

    But then again, trying to talk to fundies is a total waste of time. I do find it amusing though.

    McBrolloks

    January 30, 2011 at 21:50

  215. I see you’re just as sharp as ever, ol’ Danny-booi Van der Moerig. Sharp like a pile driver. Double entendre, anyone?

    (Special Third-Trial Edition of previous post for “ Danny-booi Van der Moerig in case he missed it again, which is a very common occurrence.)

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 20:24

  216. I see you’re just as sharp as ever, ol’ Danny-booi Van der Moerig. Sharp like a pile driver. Double entendre, anyone?

    (Special Second-Trial Edition of previous post for “ Danny-booi Van der Moerig in cae he missed it.)

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 20:22

  217. I see you’re just as sharp as ever, ol’ Danny-booi Van der Moerig. Sharp like a pile driver. Double entendre, anyone?

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 20:19

  218. Wow!!! Three posts!!!! Methinks the irritating little queer hath protest too much.

    Of course I accept evolution, sparkplug-church dominee. But not when it comes to the origin of man. I said that repeatedly. And of course, it’s nice to learn that a clever palaeontologist has made an irritating little faggot look like a fool.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 30, 2011 at 20:08

  219. :D :lol: :P :lol: :D

    Hmm, soois, you’re perfectly right. I “saw my arse” at the hands of a “real palaeontologist.” Exactly how I “saw my arse” is a deep mystery to everyone except possibly those who can’t follow what they read, variously those with a congenital selective reading disorder.

    But never mind all that.

    From the ignorant drivel that s/he wrote, this “real palaeontologist” of yours is as much a palaeontologist as I am a sparkplug-church dominee – so much so that that person fucked up the spelling (US as well as UK) of his professed discipline. Just like Danny-booi Van der Moerig, in fact, who fucked it up in his huistaal, nogal. What’s even funnier is that Danny-booi Van der Moerig has on several occasions on this blog asserted that he accepts evolution, yet wants to congratulate a palaeontologist poseur for an imaginary trouncing, which poseur holds that “evolution has been debunked!” (exclamation mark and all).

    As for Danny-booi Van der Moerig’s claim that McBrolloks “can’t stand” me as an “irritating little queer,” I wouldn’t know, never having met that person or read anything where s/he expressed such a sentiment. While I’m open to that possibility, it looks much more like it must be another hilarious episode of “The World According to Danny-booi Van der Moerig (With Input by Assorted Morons).” But here’s a promise: If McBrolloks says nothing to clarify the situation and instead posts something else in this thread, I’ll accept that Danny-booi Van der Moerig knows something I don’t. It would be a first, though.

    In summary, let me add: My my, what a warped world of unreason and confabulation you fundies inhabit. Your individual and collective efforts to discredit me are not only entirely unsuccessful (except, of course, in your imaginations), but highly entertaining and revealing, too…
    :D :lol: :P :lol: :D

    (Special Third-Thoughts Edition of previous posts for “DoktorEinstein. Damn, this third-thoughts stuff is hard!)

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 19:42

  220. :D :lol: :P :lol: :D

    Hmm, soois, you’re perfectly right. I “saw my arse” at the hands of a “real palaeontologist.” Exactly how I “saw my arse” is a deep mystery to everyone except possibly those who can’t follow what they read, variously with a congenital selective reading disorder.

    But never mind all that.

    From the ignorant drivel that s/he wrote, this “real palaeontologist” of yours is as much a palaeontologist as I am a sparkplug-church dominee – so much so that that person fucked up the spelling (US as well as UK) of his professed discipline. Just like Danny-booi Van Moerig, in fact, who fucked it up in his huistaal, nogal. What’s even funnier is that Danny-booi Van Moerig has on several occasions on this blog asserted that he accepts evolution, yet wants to congratulate a palaeontologist poseur for an imaginary trouncing, which poseur holds that “evolution has been debunked!” (exclamation mark and all).

    As for Danny-booi Van Moerig’s claim that McBrolloks “can’t stand” me as an “irritating little queer,” I wouldn’t know, never having met that person or read anything where s/he expressed such a sentiment. While I’m open to that possibility, it looks much more like it must be another hilarious episode of “The World According to Danny-booi Van Moerig (With Input by Assorted Morons).” But here’s a promise: If McBrolloks says nothing to clarify the situation and instead posts something else in this thread, I’ll accept that Danny-booi Van Moerig knows something I don’t. It would be a first, though.

    In summary, let me add: My my, what a warped world of unreason and confabulation you fundies inhabit. Your individual and collective efforts to discredit me are not only entirely unsuccessful (except, of course, in your imaginations), but highly entertaining and revealing, too…
    :D :lol: :P :lol: :D

    (Special Second-Thoughts Edition of previous post for “DoktorEinstein.)

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 19:36

  221. :D :lol: :P :lol: :D

    Hmm, soois, you’re perfectly right. I “saw my arse” at the hands of a “real palaeontologist.” Exactly how I “saw my arse” is a deep mystery to everyone except possibly those who can’t follow what they read, variously with a congenital selective reading disorder.

    But never mind all that.

    From the ignorant drivel that s/he wrote, this “real palaeontologist” of yours is as much a palaeontologist as I am a sparkplug-church dominee – so much so that that person fucked up the spelling (US as well as UK) of his professed discipline. Just like Danny-booi Van Moerig, in fact, who fucked it up in his huistaal, nogal. What’s even funnier is that Danny-booi Van Moerig has on several occasions on this blog asserted that he accepts evolution, yet wants to congratulate a palaeontologist poseur for an imaginary trouncing, which poseur holds that “evolution has been debunked!” (exclamation mark and all).

    As for Danny-booi Van Moerig’s claim that McBrolloks “can’t stand” me as an “irritating little queer,” I wouldn’t know, never having met that person or read anything where s/he expressed such a sentiment. While I’m open to that possibility, it looks much more like it must be another hilarious episode of “The World According to Danny-booi Van Moerig (With Input by Assorted Morons).” But here’s a promise: If McBrolloks says nothing to clarify the situation and instead posts something else in this thread, I’ll accept that Danny-booi Van Moerig knows something I don’t. It would be a first, though.

    In summary, let me add: My my, what a warped world of unreason and confabulation you fundies inhabit. Your individual and collective efforts to discredit me are not only entirely unsuccessful (except, of course, in your imaginations), but highly entertaining and revealing, too…
    :D :lol: :P :lol: :D

    Con-Tester

    January 30, 2011 at 19:33

  222. Sooisman!!!

    Ai!!!! Hoe lekker kry ek nou!!! Ek sal graag wil weet wie is daardie paleantoloog. Ek wil vir hom ‘n kas Chivas Regal koop.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 30, 2011 at 17:30

  223. sooibrand,
    jissus jong….Kan hierdie god van jou praat? Het hy ‘n tong, of ore of neuse? Kan hy sien? wat e fok kan hy doen? Want ek sal vir jou se, in my 63 jare op hierdie aarde het ek tot nou toe fokkol, soos in fokkol, van hom gesien of gehoor. Die poes het nou die heelal geskape, volgens jou, ne? En nou sit hy terug, vir fokken hoeveel duisende of miljoene jare, en hy vee sy gat behoorlik af aan die hele mensdom en al die lewende kreature op hierdie planeet.

    Hoekom de fok doen hy nie iets nie? Hoekom neem hy glad nie deel in of aan die mensdom se doen en late nie? As ek so iets moes geskep het, dan sou ek so ‘n fokken belangstelling gehad het daarin, nie waar nie, ipv al die simpele ou fokken speletjies van “julle moet my gehoorsaam, ek is ‘n kwaai god, jaloers, liefdevol, dien my, vrees my, prys my naam, gee offerandes, en al die ander fokken kak.

    Klink vir my soos ‘n ou wat alleen, opgefok, psigoties, fokken narsissisties en bi-polar is. Is dit hoekom siek mense hom so aanhang? Hoekom sal so ‘n magtige wese wil he dat klein onbelangrike mensies hier op aarde hom so aanbid? Laat hy dan sommer nog ‘n fokken miljoen aarde maak, dan het hy mos meer mense wat heeldag sy naam roep, en dan kan hy lekker draad trek terwyl hy dit hoor.

    verifanie

    January 30, 2011 at 17:10

  224. My vriend Burger het my verwys na ‘n interessante geselsie tussen ons eie Con-Tester en ‘n regte paleantoloog. Lekker sy gat gesien daar.

    Con-Tester skryf: “All of which is true. However, evolution is supported by a good deal more than just the fossil record. There is a confluence of evidentiary lines from a wide range of biological and other disciplines: genetics, biogeography, embryology, virology, microbiology, ecology, etc. They all point to the same essential narrative – a narrative that could instantly become untenable if, say, we found fossils of hominids among trilobites. (That is, quite apart from the infantile ineptitude that inheres in the notion that hundreds of scientists are colluding to suppress the Real Truth™© 325 CE.)

    In contrast, neither creationism nor intelligent design (ID) “theory” is scientific, even in principle. It lacks testable consequences, and nothing could conceivably falsify it. Why, there’s no reason at all to challenge the idea that the universe was created, complete with people having false memories and all (c.f. Philip Henry Gosse’s Omphalos hypothesis), last Tuesday just after tea. The closest ID proponents have come to producing a testable criterion is Behe’s “irreducible complexity.” Their archetypes, viz. the eye, the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade, are receiving intense scrutiny. The development of the camera eye is well documented and has been shown to be the product of adaptation and cooption. Moreover, if the eye is designed, the designer is a ham-fisted bungler. Massimo Pigliucci reports that plausible scenarios for the development of the bacterial flagellar motor are at hand but need some evidentiary support. Ditto the blood-clotting chain. When (not “if”) these puzzles have been solved, IDherents will no doubt again shift the goalposts.”

    Die paleontoloog skryf: “Con-Tester, if only the fossil records disprove Evolutionary theory, then that is enough, no matter what other attacks the theory manages to fend off, if this one central pillar is knocked down, the whole theory collapses. Darwin himself recognised this. It is not necessary to knock down the foundations as well, if the wall has come down.

    All that we can say about the other areas of conjecture is that evolutionary theory did a good job there but it doesn’t change the fact that it is still found wanting and should be rejected as a result. Scientists should be trying to uncover a better explanation rather than beating a dead horse.

    I struggle to understand why people work themselves up over a theory that has been found wanting, why so emotional, reject and move on, try think of a better explanation.”

    Connie: “I must ask you, as a palaeontologist, whether this remarkable contention, i.e. that the fossil record allegedly refutes Darwinism, been published in any respected peer-reviewed scientific journals? If yes, please cite some references as to where one can read about it because it would be a highly significant finding. If no, please explain why not, and also when and in which journal(s) one can expect it to be published.”

    Paleontoloog: “First a collection of some of my favourite quotes from proponents of both sides including Darwin and Dawkins:

    1. “The gaps in the record are real”

    “The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307).” (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], “Beyond Natural Selection,” [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45). [top]

    2. … it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained”

    “In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all.” (Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], “Tempo and Mode in Evolution,” [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third Printing, p.115). [top]

    3. “… a disturbing lack of … transitional forms between the major groups of organisms”

    “Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin’s time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin’s time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.” (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], “Geological and Paleontological Arguments,” in Godfrey L.R., ed., “Scientists Confront Creationism,” W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156). [top]

    4. “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin”

    “Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27). [top]

    5. Cambrian Explosion
    * “… if the theory be true … before the lowest Cambrian stratum … the world swarmed with living creatures”

    “Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. … To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,I can …Pray tell, which fossil records are you refering to? I am yet to see/hear of one complete sequence in my lifetime? Are you seriously contending that there is one!

    We should be numbering well over 50 Billion complete sequences and if the fossil record is in keeping with your delusional position, why aren’t all the museums and libraries around the world bursting at the seams with all these findings?

    No smear campaign (and this is where your accusations are Mugabe-likened) could keep these findings out of the scientific journals especially considering the atheist backing behind the majority of scientific publications today.

    If there have been any smear campaigns and propaganda, it has come from the evolutionists…starting with Haekel and his fudged drawings!

    No, when it comes to fossil records, I am afraid Chris is right, evolution has been debunked!”

    http://www.leadershiponline.co.za/articles/politics/323-religion-in-schools

    soois

    January 30, 2011 at 12:22

  225. En dan klink ons ‘n ou glasie…OROS!!

    soois

    January 30, 2011 at 12:14

  226. Wanneer ek eendag in die hemel is gaan ek deur die venster in die hel kyk. Daar waar al die goddelose bliksems braai. Soos fokken varktjops.

    En dan gaan ek vir Petrus vra om vir Nick te sê om elke halfuur sy drietandvurk in Verifanie se gat op te druk. hehehe…..

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 30, 2011 at 10:49

  227. Ou sooibrand,
    Ek het vir jou nuus. JESUS het gevrek fokken twee fokken duisned jaar gelede. Hy is noual net stof. Hy kan niemand fokken “red” nie. Waar de fok van moet iemnd nou eintlik gered word?

    Julle godiote verstaan nie dat Ateisme is normaal. Dit is die basislyn. Dit is om gesond te wees, en nie fokken psigotiese IDEES in jou kop te he nie. Die res is onderkant of bokant die basislyn. ‘n godioot, veral een soos jy, is ‘n gesplete persoonlikheid. Julle ly aan waansin, delusie.

    Normaliteit was eers daar. Toe kom al die res van die kak, soos die miljoene en miljoene tonne kak wat vandag bestaan in die wereld. Dit verg ‘n siek mens wat bereid is om aan al die kak te glo.

    verifanie

    January 30, 2011 at 09:45

  228. Hahahaha,
    Ek het al weer my bloedgroep verander soos ek gelag het. Die Oros en die Vaseline….Hahahaha..
    O jissus, ek pis in my broek van lag. Ou geDAANte loop mos rond met ‘n bottel Oros onder die arm net waar hy gaan… Gaan koop vir jou ‘n nuwe kar dan onderhandel jy met die bottel Oros, geDAANte. Die Vaseline kan jy sommer in jou gatsak sit. Net dalk is die verkoopsman ‘n moffie, dan is die deal geklink.

    verifanie

    January 30, 2011 at 09:35

  229. Soois!! Dagsê.

    Jy maak ‘n fout. McBrolloks is nie Connie de Toetser se sidekick nie. Tewens, hy kan die irriterende klein moffie nie verdra nie.

    Nee, Slim Fanie is Conroy se saaidkiek. Eintlik sy êppie. Kyk maar oral op die blog. Oral waar Slim Fanie se IK van 62 soos masels uitslaan, kom Conrad du Toetser soos Tedelex to the rescue.

    Nee, Mac is cool. Bietjie van ‘n pervert as dit by skape kom, maar nietemin cool.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 30, 2011 at 08:38

  230. O ja!!!! Die Aussies het twee nuwe gebruike vir skape ontdek: Vleis en wol.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 30, 2011 at 08:12

  231. Aggenee!!! Sies Mac!!!!

    As ek sê ek is lief vir skape beteken dit mos nog lank nie ek wil hulle naai nie!!

    Mac, you are one sick individual. I feel for you, man.

    Why did 200 sheep swam from New Zealand to Australia?

    They’d rather get fucked than eaten.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 30, 2011 at 08:09

  232. Mack, hi there.

    My experience was that you and especially your side-kick Connie, were the ones looking for mistakes that we make and then you pat each other on the back. I dont even have to prove it. Just go back on this string and you’ll find the proof.

    Bet you old Connie will clarify things and tell me that he is the lead and you the side-kick.

    soois

    January 30, 2011 at 07:36

  233. “I” did not save anyone. JESUS did. As for the rest…ditto

    soois

    January 30, 2011 at 07:28

  234. Ai sooibrand,
    Ja, ek dink jy moet liewer verdwyn. Jy leef in ‘n totale skynwereld en jy irriteer verskriklik met jou psigotiese stellings soos: “Someone was reached by god tonight..blah blah blah.

    Many pastors, dominees, evangelists and lay preachers have that disconnected, egotistical swollen-head delusion that they have “saved” someone”. My message to you is: Fuck off.

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 22:30

  235. Con-Tester, I was just kidding. But the way the fundies use their rotten brains, is that if you ever make the slightest mistake, even by a fraction, they will start hollering out loud that now, nothing you ever said can be credible, because look here, he made a mistake. And then pat each other on the back because they scored another victory for jesus.

    McBrolloks

    January 29, 2011 at 21:50

  236. Ok, fine, but they day will come…… we will wait…….how ever long it takes……….

    McBrolloks

    January 29, 2011 at 19:25

  237. Er McBrolloks, I was correcting a mistake made by someone else.

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2011 at 19:10

  238. Con-Tester, a believer is always 100% correct. I knew the day would come when you would make a mistake on your numbers! In your face!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 29, 2011 at 18:53

  239. Also, soois, you seem to think that if you can’t prove your contention and if I can’t disprove it, that makes the chances of it being true about 50:50. That position’s also not factually accurate.

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2011 at 18:40

  240. Daan het geskryf:

    “Ek het nie ‘n idee waar jou plaas is nie. Ek is baie lief vir skape en sal graag, as ek in jou geweste is, na joune wil kyk. Ek sal ook ‘n coolbox en ‘n bottel Oros saambring.”

    Daan, moenie jou gum-boots en vaseline vergeet nie.

    McBrolloks

    January 29, 2011 at 18:37

  241. soois, an imposingly sticky part of that factual accuracy that you keep raping with ignorance is that there is no onus of disproof on me or anyone else. If you claim, as you clearly do, that “god” exists, then you have the onus of proof.

    But please feel free to define your “god” in a scientifically exact, rigorous, falsifiable way and we’ll design an experiment to test your claim. We’ll let an independent body of scientists, say from UCT or Wits, adjudicate the scientific exactness, rigour and falsifiability of your definition as well as the practicability and persuasiveness of our experiment. Agreed?

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2011 at 18:36

  242. Soois, I am blind when it comes to god. Maybe you can prove to me he is real.

    McBrolloks

    January 29, 2011 at 18:35

  243. Con-Tester is quite a comic himself.
    He prides on “factual accuracy” being his motto.

    Hate to dabble on your turf, but the only facts regarding this debate is, that you could not prove that God does not exist, and I could not prove His existence to the blind.

    I have been trying to leave this blog for quite some time, but everytime someone draws me back in. I wondered why, but the answer just came in. Someone was in fact reached by God through this blog and also saw the light. Therefore my friends, I have served my purpose here and I bid you a good farewell.

    soois

    January 29, 2011 at 18:07

  244. soois wrote (January 29, 2011 at 13:54):

    Trust old Con-Tester to rectify our numbers.

    You’re a funny man, soois, but seriously, someone has to look after factual accuracy, something your side has been distinctively and characteristically unconcerned about. Goodness knows, they’ve demonstrated it often enough.

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2011 at 17:09

  245. Hansie slim,
    Jy se ek moet pasop. Pasop waarvoor? Ek leef nie in vrees nie. Julle godiote is die klomp simpeles wat 24/7 in vrees leef vir al die idees in julle koppe…. Helvuur, Satan, Engele, Heilige Spoke, Jesus, Die Gotte, Gabriel, 21 Mei en almal in die fokken hemel en in die kak-boek die babel. Ek dink nou net daaraan…..

    Wie wil my wed dat as ek more ‘n ateiste-tentdiens begin, dit nie ‘n week sal wees voordat een of ander
    godioot-ek-is-lief-vir-jesus-en-hy-het-my-ook-lief-ek-moet-die-here-verdedig-en-satan-uitroei, my vankant maak nie. Any bets? Veral as ek die tent opslaan in ‘n klein dorpie waar daar baie gomgatte woon. Terloops, het iemand al agtergekom hoe gomgat-en-liewe-jesus altyd saamloop? Interessant, he?

    Die godiote se tente is oral. Sien ons dat hulle aangeval word deur nie-gelowiges? Maar, Boeta, dit sal seersekerlik gebeur as ek my ateiste-dienste begin, ne?

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 15:17

  246. sooibrand,
    Jou god is ‘n poes. Die heilige gees is ‘n poes. Almal in die hemel is poese. ek se dit al vandat ek twintig jaar oud is. Nog nooit het ‘n bliksemstraal my getref nie. Ek is uiters gesond, gelukking en leef lekker, dankie.

    Ja ek weet, wag maar tot die dag as ek dood is en ek staan daar voor die groot fokken hemelse farter, ag vader. Dis alles kak. Kak idees. Spook maak baba bang stories. Word groot man. Groei op en vergeet die fokken kinderstories.

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 14:59

  247. Trust old Con-Tester to rectify our numbers.

    Rick, nee-man, ek leef mos nie in vrees nie. Is nie ‘n Christen uit vrees nie, maar juis uit vreugde.
    Om die sonde teen die Heilige Gees te doen moet jy wragtig moedswillig God vloek en belaster, dan soek ‘n ou mos moeilikheid. Jy kan nie per ongeluk die onvergeeflike sonde doen nie.

    soois

    January 29, 2011 at 13:54

  248. The number is 38,000, not 33,000, and that’s just denominations arrogating for themselves the label “Christian.” The figure ignores the telling fact that every Tom, Dick and Harry is unshakeably convinced that his own interpretation is Eternal Truth™©® while anyone else’s is faulty – even within the same denomination. Just observe what’s happening here on the blog: the sparkplug church’s members just can’t agree on what they actually believe.

    The figure of 38,000 also excludes other religions like Judaism and Islam. Worldwide, about 10,000 distinct religions have been recognised, and the reader can work out for him- or herself how many denominations there’d be if similar levels of fractionation to Christianity’s pervaded them all. The statistics clearly refute the claim that religion unites people.

    In fact, just the opposite is true.

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2011 at 10:10

  249. Net soos ‘n tipiese godioot sal ou geDAANte vir jou probeer vertel dat finansiele sukses in die lewe direk afhanklik is van jou gloof-in-gotte. “Kyk, die godiote is ALMAL ryk en suksesvol en gelukkig, en ALMAL
    darrie atiote hy set met neks nie, hau!

    Ek sien hoe kruip jy al klaar gat daar by ou sooibrand. Jy kom met ‘n bottel Oros en dan hoop jy om weg te loop met ‘n skaap of twee. Godiote is almal “spungers”. Terloops, ek het nie op my girlfiend “geteer” nie, en….my besigheid is besig om lekker aan te gaan, dankie. Ek weet van mense wie “ryklik geseend was deur die gotte”, net om ook hulle gatte te sien later. Nog ‘n ding, geDAANte…….Ek het al my eie besighede vandat ek jonk is. Die vier kere wat ek ingeloop is met geld, was deur…..???? raai raai raai? GODIOTE wat daar ingekom het en vertel het hoe “heilig” hulle is. Ek het geleer. Deesdae jaag ek daai tipe weg soos ‘n stuk kak wat by die deur ingewaai het.

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 09:36

  250. Soois

    Bly om van jou te hoor!

    Hang bal, asb. Daar’s nog baie dinge waaroor ons kan gesels.

    “Nee, selfs die Woord verwys daarna dat bewyse eers kom nadat jy Jesus as jou verlosser aangeneem het.”

    Goeie trick daai. Dis soos om ‘n kind soetgoed te belowe as hy/sy haar huiswerk doen, en dan nooit jou belofte na te kom nie…

    “Dit is nie my plig om enigiets te bewys nie. Ek kan in teenargument bv se dat aangesien jy nie die teendeel kan bewys nie, moet ek aanneem dat God wel bestaan.”

    Dus, vlieende varke is ‘n realiteit omdat ek so glo en jy kan nie die teendeel bewys nie? Jou god argument en my vark argument is presies dieselfde. En ek dink my vark argument is ‘n bitter kak argument…

    Dankie vir inligting oor die verskille tussen kontemporêre gelowe. Hoewel ek vroeër in hierdie verskille belang gestel het, kategoriseer ek deesdae alles as dieselfde, nl twak weens hul beheptheid met god/gode.

    “As ek verkeerd sou wees oor die hiernamaals (hipoteties), het ek dus niks verloor nie en sal ek niks verder weet nie.
    As jy egter verkeerd was, en na jou afsterwe opgewek word vir die oordeel, het jy wel iets verloor. Baie!!”
    Soois, daar’s ‘n paar dinge waarvoor ek bang is. Spinnekoppe en slange is maar twee voorbeelde. Bangmaakstories uit die Bybel is egter meer amusant as vreesaanjaend. En dit bring my by my volgende punt. Gelowiges, sommiges meer as ander, glo uiteindelik omdat hulle die hel vrees. En ek weet hoe dit voel om in vrees te lewe, want ek was self op ‘n tyd gelowig. So tussendeur die Jesus-euforie dring daardie hel ‘realiteit’ tot ‘n mens deur, en dan skielik is die Jesus-ding nie meer so cool nie. Later besef jy weer dat Jesus bereid is om enige sonde te vergewe, totdat jy weer in Markus 3:29 lees dat sonde teen die heilige gees nooit vergewe sal word nie en jy weer opnuut besef dat jy eintlik gefok is.

    “We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them ‘religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad’, ‘psychotic’ or ‘ delusional’… Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.”
    Harris, S 2004. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W.W. Norton & Company. P. 71

    Rick

    January 29, 2011 at 09:30

  251. Ek het gister iets op die internet gesoek, toe kom ek af op ‘n ma wat vra: “Waar kan ek ‘n sterk houtlepel koop wat nie sal breek op my dogtertjie se boude nie” Ek was verstom. Ek kon dit nie glo nie. Daar is ‘n foto van haar dogtertjie en die lyk vir my of sy so tussen 4 en 5 jaar oud kan wees. Ek het sommer begin huil.

    Ai, die mensdom. As ek net dink aan wat daardie onnosele ma aan daai kind doen.. Ek wed jou die ma is vet
    en woedend en sit elke sondag in die kerk. Sy is ‘n tipiese gom-gat Afrikaner godioot. Fokken dom,
    fokken vet, fokken woedend en fokken godioties. Sy lees ook van die “tugtiging” van kinders. Dat daar nog sulke ouers vandag rondloop, is die direkte gevolg van godiootheid en onderdrukking van kinders se gevoelens.

    Die ma was natuurlik ook geweldig geslaan en onderdruk. Dit is te bejammer. Dit is net tragies dat sy nooit gegroei het as mens nie. Afrikaners oor die algemeen, word ernstig gewaarsku deur die dominee-poese om “nie ander boeke te lees behalwe die bybel kak-boek nie”, en dan groei baie van hulle nooit nie, dus die spreekwoord, “so gemaak en so gelaat staan”.

    Die godiote op hierdie blog sal nou natuurlik kom tot haar verdediging. “Ou verismelly, daar is niiiiiks verkeerd met so ‘n klein ou bikiki tugtiging nie. Die ma doen maar net wat sy moet want die liewe-jesus-ek-is-lief-vir-jou-kak se sy moet dit doen, of so iets. Of weer hoor ons: “My pa het my morsdood gebliksem en vandag is daar niks vverkeerd met my nie. Ek weet nie hoekom ek twee bottels whisky elke week uitdrink nie, en 40 sigarette elke dag rook nie, maar daar is niks verkeerd met my nie.

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 09:17

  252. Arme ou Verifanie!!

    Volgens hom is Soois opgefok. Shame!

    Wat ek op hierdie blog aflei is dat:

    Soois ‘n suksesvolle skaapboer is. Hy is al vir baie jare gelukkig getroud en het kinders en kleinkinders wie net so gelukkig is.

    Verifanie is ‘n sakeman maar ongelukkig nie suksesvol nie. Hy het ‘n tyd terug bankkrot gespeel, by die huis gesit en suip soos ‘n sleg Ovambo en op sy arme vriendin geteer.

    Hy het weer ‘n besigheid begin (hy is mos ‘n sakeman wie nooit ‘n klomp histeriese stront kwytraak nie), maar ongelukkig het die resessie hom swaar getref en hy is vinnig besig om weer sy gat te sien.

    Nou wonder ek wie is opgefok….

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 29, 2011 at 09:12

  253. E-ek is ou d-doffie die k-kwantumfisikus en welbekende slapgat draadsitter. E-ek sit op die draad en dan knyp dit my in die poepol en my ballas, en dan wil ek ietsie se, maar e-ek w-weet n-nie w-wat om te se nie, dan maak ek maar my bek oop en d-dan k-kom daar kak uit.

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 08:47

  254. sooibrand,
    Die groot tragedie is: “Jy weet glad nie hoe opgefok jy is nie”. Julle godiote probeer mekaar verbysteek
    met al die kak wat julle kwytraak. Jy moet al jou goed vat en op een van die mane van Jupiter gaan bly.
    Dis hoe ver jou fokken verstand is van die aarde af. Ou hansie slim en doffie die kwantumfisikus sal daar
    aansluit by jou. Nooi sommer vir ou geDAANte ook uit, en moenie vergeet van ou Johannes Kots nie. Hy
    sal net daar kan bly tot die 21ste Mei, dan sal hy weggeraap word. O ja, ou Booger-Burger sal ook graag wil join. (Terloops, ‘n booger is ‘n stuk snot in engels, indien iemand dit nie weet nie) Vaarwel aan al die godiote!

    verifanie

    January 29, 2011 at 08:41

  255. Sooisman!!! Bly jy is terug.

    Ek het nie ‘n idee waar jou plaas is nie. Ek is baie lief vir skape en sal graag, as ek in jou geweste is, na joune wil kyk. Ek sal ook ‘n coolbox en ‘n bottel Oros saambring.

    My e-posadres is vandermerwedaan@yahoo.com

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 29, 2011 at 08:26

  256. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Nee man!! Moenie panick nie. Die Songod, Mitras, bestaan net in Romeinse mitologie. En Mars is ook nie ‘n god nie. Net ‘n gewone planeet!!! Welliswaar met ‘n rooi flavour, maar nietemin ‘n planeet.

    Ons gaan op daai dag hier op die aarde dit nie eers agterkom nie. Nie eers in Nelspruit nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 29, 2011 at 08:21

  257. “Die Jode glo in God, maar weier om te aanvaar dat hulle reeds die Messias gekruisig het en dat Hy hulle dus kan verlos” moet eintlik lees dat die Jode nie deur Jesus gered kan word nie, omdat hulle Hom nie erken nie.

    “kinders en verstandelik gestremde kinders” moet lees, kinders en verstandelik gestremde volwassenes.

    Groete

    soois

    January 29, 2011 at 07:41

  258. Rick,
    eintlik het ek die blog gegroet, maar aangesien jy ‘n rukkie afwesig was en my direk aanspreek, sal ek reageer.

    Nee, selfs die Woord verwys daarna dat bewyse eers kom nadat jy Jesus as jou verlosser aangeneem het. Dit is nie my plig om enigiets te bewys nie. Ek kan in teenargument bv se dat aangesien jy nie die teendeel kan bewys nie, moet ek aanneem dat God wel bestaan. Ek dink ek het vroeer al geskryf dat die argument eintlik nerens heen gaan nie.

    Indien jy dit gemis het, daar is 33 000 gelowige groepe. ‘n Christen is slegs die gelowiges wat Jesus as sy verlosser aangeneem het. Die Jode glo in God, maar weier om te aanvaar dat hulle reeds die Messias gekruisig het en dat Hy hulle dus kan verlos, gevolglik is hulle nog aan die ou wette van Moses gebonde om gered te word (Handelinge), en as jy daardie wette ken, sal jy ook weet dit is onmoontlik om hulle almal na te kom. ‘n Volgende groep glo weer aan ‘n profeet as hulle verlosser. Jy sien, al hierdie gelowe glo in ons Skepper, maar dit is by die redding waar die verskille inkom. Daardeur se ek ook beslis nie dat slegs Christene eendag Hemel toe gaan nie. Dit is God se oordeel wat dit gaan bepaal. So is kinders en verstandelik gestremde kinders bv vry van die oordeel, want hulle is nie toerekenbaar nie.

    Punt is. As gelowige verloor ek niks uit die lewe nie. Daar is die wat Christenskap te ver wil voer en die aardse lewe daardeur vertroebel. Hulle verstaan definitief nie die Woord nie. Daar is niks in die lewe wat ons moet prysgee nie, behalwe die dinge wat enige ordentlike mens al is hy ongelowig ook as taboe sal oordeel nie. As ek verkeerd sou wees oor die hiernamaals (hipoteties), het ek dus niks verloor nie en sal ek niks verder weet nie.

    As jy egter verkeerd was, en na jou afsterwe opgewek word vir die oordeel, het jy wel iets verloor. Baie!!

    Jou keuse Rick, ek kan jou vra om Hom ‘n kans te gee, maar dit bly jou keuse.

    My plig en plesier is om van Hom te getuig, en glo my, as jy en die res sou belangstel, kon ek jou baie getuienis lewer, maar dit bly ‘n geloofsaak, daarom die woord “geloof”, en ek het besef dat die blog nie vir gelowiges is nie, maar vir die wat hulleself wil vermaak met die laster van die drie-eenheid, en die ander wat hulle eie egos wil streel deur hulle boekekennis met ander te deel. Dan is daar die een wat skynbaar kwaad is vir die wereld en die skuld op gelowiges en godsdiens wil pak.

    Daarom groet ek jou ook nou, en onthou, ek is nie kwaad vir julle ouens nie. Ek het net niks positiefs om by te dra nie.

    Hans en Daan, moet tog nou nie dat die ouens julle geloof opfoeter nie.

    soois

    January 29, 2011 at 07:32

  259. Hier kom groot kak. Die wegraping gaan nie in Mei gebeur nie, dit gaan tussen 4 Februarie en 11 Februarie gebeur! Dit is wanneer die son, Mars en die aarde in een lyn is, met die son in die middel.
    Dit is wanneer die Songod in beheer gaan wees met die God, Mars buite sig! Die godiote se “God” gaan dan sy kans waarneem met net Ra as teenstand!
    Halelua!

    ErickV

    January 29, 2011 at 04:56

  260. Hans, you are absolutely right. God is not a someone, he is a no one.

    McBrolloks

    January 28, 2011 at 23:10

  261. McBrolloks, wat ek hierbo vir Verifanie geskryf het gaan vir jou ook.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2011 at 22:26

  262. Hanswors, it is clear that you can only talk shit.

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2011 at 22:12

  263. Vrerifanie, you should read about Jesus and the Apostles and see who was persecuted.
    All things are created well and it is man who buggers everything up, so be careful in your ways.
    God is not a someone.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2011 at 22:08

  264. Con-Tester, it is clear that you live in your own world yet life would have more meaning for you, should you also become part of the world of others.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2011 at 21:46

  265. Smelly.

    Nou van watter “half-godioot” praat jy nou? Of is jy nog steeds net dol en besete?

    Doktor Einstein

    January 28, 2011 at 14:02

  266. Doffie,
    Is dit werd dit om met ‘n half-godioot te stry wat boonop nog verslaaf is aan sigarette en ook ‘n alkoholis is?

    verifanie

    January 28, 2011 at 13:39

  267. Soois

    Is jy nog hier? Ekskuus, maar ek was uiters besig gewees die week.

    Ja, as Christen is dit jou plig om die blye boodskap aan die wêreld te verkondig, maar hoe kan jy dit met oortuiging doen as jy toegee dat jy nie jou god se bestaan kan bewys nie? Dit strook nie! As ek myself tot die punt kan kry om enigsins Christenskap te oorweeg, sal my vertrekpunt wees om met geen twyfel te weet dat die god van die Bybel bestaan. Then again, daar is oënskynlik duisende mense, jy inkluis, vir wie hierdie noodsaaklikheid nie juis van belang is nie. Die storetjies en die wonderwerke klink net te lekker, dus is dit waar en gevolglik bestaan god ook sommer. Trouens, hy LEEF!

    As jy egter in god wil glo sonder enige bewyse, dan is dit jou saak, want jy gaan herhaaldelik argumenteer dat dit ‘n persoonlike ervaring is en vanuit jou persoonlike ervarings met hom het jy geen twyfel oor sy bestaan nie. Indien ek dieselfde argument sou volg oor vlieënde varke sou jy waarskynlik jou bedenkinge oor my gehad het, maar dit daar gelaat…Niemand kan jou verhoed om sommer net te glo nie, maar sien jy nie die gevaarligte flikker wanneer 33 000 Christen denominasies dieselfde argement van persoonlike ervaring voer nie, wanneer Jood, Moslem en watookal dieselfde argement volg nie. Sien jy nie ‘n herhalende en uiters gevaarlike patroon nie?

    Jy hou egter vol dat jy in god glo. Soois, niemand kan jou keer nie, maar ek laat jou met die volgende greep van Christopher Hitchens: “All your work is still ahead of you…”

    Rick

    January 28, 2011 at 13:32

  268. But “DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ), that would then mean that I have two more thoughts than you do on every single occasion.

    Danny-booi Van der Moerig your approval, or not, is entirely superfluous. You are, after all, still singing exactly the same mindless tune as ever.

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2011 at 11:35

  269. But “DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ), that would then mean that I have two more thoughts than you do on every single occasion.

    Danny-booi Van der Moerig your approval, or not, is entirely superfluous. You are, after all, still singing exactly the same mindless tune as ever.

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2011 at 11:33

  270. Con-Tester ( :) haha) wrote(January 27, 2011 at 22:49):

    “Oh, and it’s a mystery that you waste your time here over “iets waarvoor ek minder voel as my skoonma se liddoring op haar linker groottoon.”

    On second thoughts, not that much of a mystery.”

    Yeah, nothing like second thoughts. Maybe you should have much more of them.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 28, 2011 at 09:27

  271. Doktor Einstein

    Dankie vir jou antwoord. Ek besef dat my kommentaar teen jou ongegrond en ongevraagd was. Ek trek hiermee my beledigende aantyging onvoorwaardelik terug en vra opreg om verskoning.

    Ek geniet jou bydraes, Dok. En ek moet sê, dit wat jy skryf laat my baie dink.

    En ek haat dit om dit toe te gee, tewens, ek gril my fokken dood, maar daai “nevermind that …” bydrae van Cont-Ester was werklik goed en stimulerend.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 28, 2011 at 09:15

  272. Sorry!!!! 6.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 28, 2011 at 08:20

  273. Smelly.

    Ek het nie gaan check nie maar ek aanvaar jou woord. Nee, okay, faain, cool. Sorry!!

    En, ja, ek aanvaar jy is fokken slim, maar ek is bevrees, uit jou histeriese bydraes blyk hierdie slimheid enigsins ‘n latente eienskap te wees.

    Wat my pla is dat jy toegegee het dat Nathan 50 keer slimmer is as jy. Dit beteken dat as Nathan ‘n IK van 300 het, is jou IK 5, wat jou natuurlik glad nie vlei nie.

    Ek is seker jou IK is baaaaaaie hoër. Ten minste 62. Ek wens net dit wil uit jou poste ook so lyk.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 28, 2011 at 08:19

  274. Doffie,
    Ai, ek sal maar moet verduidelik. Ek HET die woord “omniscience” gebruik in die kommentaar waarna jy verwys het, Doffie. Ja, so ek het eintlik die beskrywing twee keer gegee, maar nouja, hierdie dinge gebeur, veral omdat ek so vinnig tik en dink en natuurlik omdat ek so fokken slim is.

    verifanie

    January 28, 2011 at 07:41

  275. Ek verstaan Mac. Sterkte. Bly net weg van fokken Prozaks af.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 28, 2011 at 05:45

  276. Ag Dok, dis die arme fundies wat altyd so melodramaties raak oor hulle gode. Ek wys maar net uit hoe klou hulle aan hulle superstisies aan vas, hoe hulle alles probeer verduidelik deur hulle god as die skepper te gebruik, en in dieselfde asem na die god van die ou testament te verwys.

    Ek lei aan ‘n baie ernstige mediese kondiesie Dok. Een waarvoor daar ongelukkig nog geen genesing voor is nie. Jy sien, ek het vreeslike allergie teen domgeid. As ek met dom mense oor die weg moet kom, dan begin ek sweet, en my bloeddruk gaan baie op, dan begin en so bietjie bewe, en dit voel asof ek gaan ontplof. Die enigste ding wat ek kan doen is om ‘n stywe dop te gooi of ‘n bottel rooiwyn uit te drink.

    Die fundies wat so aan hulle gode vasklou is een van die tipe mense wat my allergie deur die dak laat gaan. Maar fok hulle. Ek vertel vir hulle wat ek dink, en dit laat my beter voel.

    McBrolloks

    January 27, 2011 at 23:38

  277. Oh, and it’s a mystery that you waste your time here over “iets waarvoor ek minder voel as my skoonma se liddoring op haar linker groottoon.”

    On second thoughts, not that much of a mystery.

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2011 at 22:49

  278. DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ) wrote (January 27, 2011 at 22:15):

    Con-Tester ( :) haha) aanvaar dat daar meer as genoeg bewese feite is wat die moonlikheid van ‘n bo-natuurlike wese totaal uitsluit.

    Go on, “DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ), be daring and admit that you just made that up. Your attention span and insight are really something to behold.

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2011 at 22:46

  279. Mac.

    Dink jy nie jy raak verskriklik melodramaties nie?

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 22:21

  280. Daan!!

    Wow!!! Slapgat draadsitter, is dit? Bravely spoken, arsehole.

    Weet jy wat is ‘n draadsitter, Daan? Dis iemand wie, wanneer twee partye oor iets baklei, nie bereid is om saam te baklei nie, maak nie saak hoe sterk hy voel oor dit waaroor baklei word nie.

    Hier word nie baklei nie, Daan. Wat hier gebeur is ‘n gestry oor iets waarvoor ek minder voel as my skoonma se liddoring op haar linker groottoon.

    Volgens jou is daar geen antwoorde op die vrae “wie of wat het die Big Bang veroorsaak” en “waar kom die moderne mens (homo sapiens sapiens vandaan”. Vir hierdie rede veronderstel jy ‘n bo-natuurlike wese. (God). Dis faain. Nie Nathan, Con-Tester ( :) haha), of Savage gaan jou anders laat dink of glo nie.

    Con-Tester ( :) haha) aanvaar dat daar meer as genoeg bewese feite is wat die moonlikheid van ‘n bo-natuurlike wese totaal uitsluit. Dis faain. Nie jy, Believer en beslis nie Hans nie, gaan hom anders laat dink nie.

    My punt is hier is twee partye besig met ‘n sinnelose stryery oor iets waaroor ek my regtig minder kwel as wat Jacob Zuma sy volgende kleinkind gaan noem.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 22:15

  281. Very Smelly.

    Jy sê:

    1. “Weereens bewys jy aan ons almal hoe onnosel godiote en half-godiote is.”

    Hoekom sê jy so?

    2. “Sit asseblief jou dikste bril op en lees weer my kommentaar”

    Okay. Uh… hmmm… watter een? Al jou poste is omtrent net histeriese, Gadareense besetenheid.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 21:51

  282. Exactly!!

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 21:42

  283. Not with humans on it dumbass!

    McBrolloks

    January 27, 2011 at 20:46

  284. Global warming?

    What vare you talking about? Earth will survive another 5 million,billion,trillion years.

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 20:44

  285. Ek het hier ‘n TIME tydskrif gedateer November 15, 2010, en op bladsy 4 is daar vrae wat gerig word
    aan Stephen Hawking, deur die publiek.

    Vraag:
    If God doesn’t exist, why did the concept of his existence become almost universal?

    Antwoord:
    I don’t claim god doesn’t exist. God is the name people give to the reason we are here.
    But I think that reason is the laws of physics, rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal god.

    Nathan, can we move onto another page? This here page
    gittin mighty full, don’t you think so?

    verifanie

    January 27, 2011 at 18:45

  286. Amazing how the god of the believers evolved from the creator of the big bang to someone who wants a bunch of very dumb apes to worship him.

    McBrolloks

    January 27, 2011 at 18:41

  287. Terloops, die boonste kommentaar se ek met liefde, hoor. Net soos die got daarbo vir mense hel toe stuur “met liefde”.

    Dankie ek lag lekker en uit my maag.

    verifanie

    January 27, 2011 at 18:26

  288. Doffie,
    Weereens bewys jy aan ons almal hoe onnosel godiote en half-godiote is. Sit asseblief jou dikste bril op en lees weer my kommentaar, en dan sommer vir ‘n derde en ‘n vierde keer sodat jy seker maak jy kyk nie mis nie, maar lees staaaadig hoor!

    verifanie

    January 27, 2011 at 18:24

  289. Funny how all the believers out there have no doubt that there is a god who created everything, especially them.

    Then they give their god a name. This is when the shit starts to fly.

    They can not agree amongst each other who picked the right god.

    The rest always, through the ages, has always gone something like this:

    “My god wants this, and my god wants you all to do that.

    No, fuck you, that’s not what god wants you cunts! We will kill you all in gods name.

    Oh, and you bunch of fucking homos over there, god calls what you do an abomination, so in his all mighty loving name, we are going to fuck you all up too, so that we can go to heaven.

    Hey!!!! Look at that bunch over there!!! They read the same book as we do, but they are not interpreting the word of god right. Get them too!!!! Kill everyone!!!!!

    What? Those people don’t believe in the same god as we do? Mobilize the army. Conscript every young able body! We are going to show them how powerful our god is. We will win, because he loves us. Kill every man women and child.

    Yes, we both believe in jesus. Yes, we read the holy book. But they are called catholics, the most evil satanic organization on the planet. We have to cleanse gods earth from these people. The same goes for the protestants!!!!”

    And it just goes on and on and on.

    Once the believers all agree there must be a god, they proceed to know what god wants. If anyone does not agree, that is a serious offence to god, and they are fair game to kill them or marginalize them.

    Funny how the believers all talk about god’s love and understanding, but if you don’t do what he wants, he will get you, if not today, in the next “life”.

    You believers are the most delusional bunch of wankers around today. You believe everything is gods will. God can save you. God can make your dreams come true. For fucks sake man!!!!!! Just look at global warming. Most, and I mean most of you bunch of wankers, believes it’s not man made. It’s just god hugging the earth a little closer. We can go on about our daily lives, because it’s all part of gods divine plan!!! For crying out loud!!!! You say the earth is special, because it is exactly far enough from the sun, our atmosphere is so thin and fragile, yet you all piss all over this planet, fucking it up daily, refusing to listen to the evil scientists.

    I have yet to read about or hear about a believer with brains who is not trying to explain god with his own stupid dogma, like evangelical nonsense.

    Yes, god is great, but only my god is great. The rest of you are all going to hell.

    You sound like a bunch of 10 year old’s who agrues about who’s favorite superhero is the greatest. Superman or Mighty Mouse. The only difference is, the 10 year old’s will grow up, you arseholes wont.

    Enjoy the wonders of the world, and living in your ignorance about which god created it. Enjoy hating people that are different that you. Enjoy betting that god will make you rich and happy. I hope you share your god given happiness and wealth with those not so fortunate. Oh, wait, that’s gods will. They must have deserved to suffer. Who are you to fight gods will.

    Ignorance, stupidity and wishful thinking, that’s your motto!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 27, 2011 at 18:03

  290. Nathan

    Nee, soos Con-Tester tereg (wow!!!) hierbo gesê het, NIEMAND, nie eers my gunsteling kroegman, kan met sekerheid sê dat ‘n Bo-natuurlike Mag vir die herkoms van die moderne mens verantwoordelik is nie.

    Jy glo dit nie.

    Con-Tester glo dit nie.

    Ek glo dit.

    Hans glo dit.

    Doktor Einstein sê hy weet nie en hy gee ook nie om nie. (Praat van ‘n slapgat draadsitter).

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 27, 2011 at 14:56

  291. I don’t gettit…
    Us humans, and life generally, could not possibly have evolved without the involvement of some higher order, but the “higher order” could – and did?
    I’m just not intelligent enough to gettit.

    Nathan Bond

    January 27, 2011 at 14:12

  292. To recognise and to admit that one doesn’t know what one is talking about … what’s that word again?

    Ah yes, “honest.”

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2011 at 13:14

  293. Nee, Nathan!!!

    Jy is mos ‘n slim man. Jy weet mos dat as daar ‘n almagtige, alwetende God bestaan, hy beslis nie groente EN vleis eet nie!!! Tewens, Hy sal mos nie nodig hê om te eet nie.

    Net die gode van die Noorse mitologie, soos daai stoutgat Loki, het drie maaltye per dag geëet.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 13:03

  294. Believer.

    I enjoy your posts. Like you, I also can’t accept the concept that the universe and mankind just happened.

    I believe that the origin of the Big Bang and mankind must be attributed to some Supernatural Power.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 27, 2011 at 12:58

  295. En wat van omnivorous?

    Nathan Bond

    January 27, 2011 at 12:55

  296. Ai Fanie!!!! Jy sê so mooi “omnipotent”. Hoekom sê jy nie ook “omniscient” in stede van “all-knowing” nie???
    Hmmm??? Dit klink so… so…… tacky!!!!!

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 12:51

  297. Many non-believers have their heaven on earth, while believers will reap the benefits of their suffering hereafter.

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 12:22

  298. To admit that someone does in fact have a good point is, what is the word?…

    Ah yes, CHRISTIAN!!

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 12:16

  299. Should read “knowing the true path”

    verifanie

    January 27, 2011 at 12:03

  300. One has to assume that this “divine power/creator” must be one hell of a brilliant, omnipotent, wise all-knowing, great, fantastic, humane, loving, feeling, caring, omniscient being, to be able to have done all that we see before us, right?

    Then, how come he/she/it is such a big poepol, having created an earth upon which there is great suffering, ignorance, war, hunger, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, sick children….you add the rest? And don’t give me this crap about “finding the right way” and “knowing the true pat” and “god will protect you if you serve him” and all the other bullshit answers that one gets ad nauseum. There are many very happy non-believers who are healthy and wealthy. There are fucking many believers who suffer greatly.

    verifanie

    January 27, 2011 at 12:01

  301. No, it’s not that good a point. There are compelling observational reasons for supposing that the total energy content of the universe is zero. Physicist Alan Guth once spoke of the universe as being “the ultimate free lunch.” Moreover (and just in case it’s somehow not blindingly obvious), invoking some ineffable supernatural maker (who nevertheless has remarkably many human traits) doesn’t answer anything useful either because if we enquire after the origin of that agent (as we not only are logically entitled to do, but must do), we’ll be answered with something facile like, “Oh, he’s always existed” or “Oh, he’s outside of time, space, matter, energy, etc.” Appeal to such a creator is just a fancy way of saying, “I don’t know,” while pretending that you do. And that’s the truth of it: Nobody does know. Not you, not I, not the bloke down at the pub. No one.

    So how about, instead, being a whole lot more intellectually honest about the whole question and omitting the mystical pretence by putting forward as truth only that which is actually warranted by the evidence, namely that the potential for our universe having come into existence was realised by unknown means. It then becomes a truism (assuming that time even has any meaning outside of our universe) that said potential has existed forever.

    But people would rather construct pleasant fairytales than face up to their ignorance. It’s called religion.

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2011 at 11:37

  302. By Marilyn Adamson
    Just once wouldn’t you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God’s existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, “You just have to believe.” Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
    But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
    When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…
    1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
    Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
    The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
    The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
    And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
    Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
    It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
    Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
    Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
    Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
    Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
    Ninety-seven percent of the Earth’s water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
    The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
    The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
    The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages — simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain — the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
    2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?
    Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
    Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”9
    Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”10
    The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
    3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
    Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.
    How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
    “The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”11
    Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”12
    4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.
    All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It’s made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
    Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
    Why is this so amazing? One has to ask….how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person’s body should develop.
    Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
    5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
    I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people…to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
    I didn’t realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn’t escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God’s existence, my prayer began with, “Ok, you win…” It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
    I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, “I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued.” C.S. Lewis said he remembered, “…night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England.”
    Lewis went on to write a book titled, “Surprised by Joy” as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God’s existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
    6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
    Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
    He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.”15
    What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can’t do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people…blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects…created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature…walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I’m telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you’re seeing.16
    Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
    Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.”17 This is God, in action.
    Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We’re told that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”18
    God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
    If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
    This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her].”19 If you want to do this, but aren’t sure how to put it into words, this may help: “Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen.”
    God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, “I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”20
    So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.

    About the Author: As a former atheist, Marilyn Adamson found it difficult to refute the continuously answered prayers and quality of life of a close friend. In challenging the beliefs of her friend, Marilyn was amazed to learn the wealth of objective evidence pointing to the existence of God. After about a year of persistent questioning, she responded to God’s offer to come into her life and has found faith in Him to be constantly substantiated and greatly rewarding.

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 11:12

  303. “If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did all the energy that exists in the universe today come from ?”

    Good point.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 10:58

  304. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    القانون الأزلى الذى يحكم كل النظريات العلمية , و تتولد منه كل القوانين الفيزيائية فى كل العلوم , هو قانون بقاء الطاقة , والذى ينص على:
    ” الطاقة لا تفنى ولا تستحدث من عدم , و انما تنتقل من صورة الى أخرى ”

    و مهما حاول العلماء من اثبات وجود ما يسمى الطاقة السالبة التى تتولد منها جسيمات الذرة , ووجود هذه الكتل السالبة فى بعد آخر , فهو لا يعد خرقا للقانون , و انما سيرا على نهجه من تحول من صورة لأخرى

    ما يعنينا فى هذا القانون التالى : ان كانت الطاقة لا تفنى ولا تستحدث , من أين جاءت كل الطاقة الموجودة فى الكون الآن ؟

    سؤال بسيط , يستحيل الاجابة عنه علميا الا باجابة واحدة :

    لا بد من وجود قوة فوق القانون نفسه , قوة خالقة , قوة أوجدت الطاقة و المادة , ثم صنعت القانون الذى ينظم عمل الطاق
    , قوة تأتى آخر الزمان , عندما يحين الأوان , لتخرق القانون مرة أخرى , بل لتزيله تماما , و تفنى كل أشكال الطاقة و المادة التى أوجدتها أول مرة (” كما بدأكم تعودون”) ,قوة تقيم نهاية للكون المعروف

    هذه القوة باختصار و دون سفسطة علمية هي قدرة الله عز و جل , الذى تحدى الانسان أن يخلق جناح بعوضة (من لاشئ , من الفراغ الأزلى) .

    يا أيها الملاحدة , يا من تدعون ادراك العلوم , وفهم العالم دون اله , كيف تفهمون ذلك , بالرغم من أنه لا يستقيم علميا , فضلا عن عدم استقامته منطقيا (فلكل تصميم لابد من وجود مصمم , فما بالك من الكون والخلق المعقدين , صدفة؟! اجمع صفائح الحديد و الزجاج و المطاط , رجهم معا لملايين السنين , لن تخرج منهم سيارة مرسيدس , فأي عته يتستر به أولئك المتفلسفون)

    ختاما , فان باب المناقشة مفتوح , ومن رأى خللا فى هذا الاستدلال فليراجعنى

    و السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

    [hr=noshade][/hr]
    In the name of God most gracious most merciful

    The universal law that governs all scientific theories, and upon which all the physics theories are based, is the law of conservation of energy that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.
    What concerns us in this law is the following: If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did all the energy that exists in the universe today come from ?

    A simple question that can only be answered scientifically with one answer:
    There must be a force that’s above the law itself, a creating force, a force that brought energy and matter into existence, and then put in place the law that organizes the behavior of energy, a force that will come at the end of time, to break the law a second time, or rather to remove it completely, and destroy all forms of energy and matter it created at the beginning, a force that will bring the universe as we know it to an end.
    This force in short is the power of God, who dared the human beings to just create a mosquito’s wing ( from nothing ).

    O atheists, you who claim to understand science, and understand the world without a god, how do you understand that ? Even though it doesn’t make sense scientifically or logically, for every simply design must have a designer, let alone the universe and the complex creatures, coincidence ? Gather the sheets of metal and the glass and the rubber, and mix them together for some millions of years, you won’t get out of them a Mercedes!!

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 10:29

  305. Believer

    And there is none so irrational who does not want to think logical and realistic.

    Don’t you think that your post has a large element of arrogance in it?

    Doktor Einstein

    January 27, 2011 at 10:23

  306. There is none so blind as he who does not want to see, none so deaf as he who does not want to hear and none so arrogant as he who believes that man is the most intelligent and devine being.

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 10:11

  307. Should some compelling scientific evidence for a deity suddenly come to light, you can be sure of one thing: Every religion, denomination, sect and cult will immediately claim this deity as their own. There will be huge squabbles over ownership.

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2011 at 08:52

  308. Kerels, kerels, kerels,

    IF these 25 scientists are right and IF there is some sort of divine power out there, it does not change anything at all. It does not change the fact that the overwhelming percentage of religious people out there are assholes.

    Religious assholes have this uncontrollable need to OBEY and WORSHIP and SERVE and PRAISE and
    CONDEMN and shout HALLELUJAH and FOLLOW the holy-shit-book VERBATIM and talk shit and BEAT THEIR CHILDREN and BELIEVE ALL SORTS OF OTHER SHIT and follow ALL SORTS OF OTHER crazy BELIEF SYSTEMS and SEE SPOOKS and HEAR GODS and claim to have MET THESE GODS, and other PSYCHOTIC IDEATIONS and STUPID RITUALS and then ARGUE amongst themselves and GO TO WAR about the shit-book and KILL innocents about and over it, and SUPPRESS and INDOCTRINATE children and others and LIE-FOR-JESUS and PERSECUTE those who disagree and EXPLOIT others as so many CHARLATANS do out there and…and…and…Does anyone want to add more?

    verifanie

    January 27, 2011 at 08:29

  309. soois, find out what a “scientific theory” is and how it comes about. Then look up “hypothesis” for good measure. Finally, get a grip on what “speculation” is. When you understand all of those terms properly, then you’ll actually have learned something useful. Maybe you’ll even see why what you’ve written above about “scientists that have taken it further and can also think” (January 27, 2011 at 07:13) is irrelevant. Those quotes demonstrate that some scientists are drawn to the mystical and/or are religious, not much else.

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2011 at 08:09

  310. Some things have to be believed to be seen. – Ralph Hodgson

    Believer

    January 27, 2011 at 07:38

  311. Hierdie sal ook my laaste bydrae wees.

    Con-Tester, Hans is reg, “jy klink soos ‘n langspeelplaat wat vasgehak het”.

    Die punt is dat daar wetenskaplikes is wat dit verder geneem het en kan dink ook. Ek is seker jy sal 25+ wetenskaplikes kan aanhaal wat glad nie glo nie, maar dit is nie die punt nie. Hulle teoriee is ook gebaseer op baie navorsing en dan ‘n bietjie spekulasie.

    Moet egter nie verdere moeite doen nie. Hierdie is eintlik net ‘n “ek is slimmer as jy, of, my pa se kar is vinniger as jou pa se kar, my wetenskaplike is slimmer as jou wetenskaplikes, blog.

    Groete aan almal.

    soois

    January 27, 2011 at 07:13

  312. Hanswors, jy klink net na sagte meedoënlose geraas.

    Burger, 25+ speculative ruminations on ontological questions by famous scientists do not a scientific theory make. There’s little doubt that with a little digging, one could collate a similar list of famous dissenting quotes. I’d’ve thought that would be obvious enough. What’s far more revealing is that creationist and ID proponents feel the need to make such lists in the first place instead of getting on with the business of marshalling evidence for their hypotheses and testing them. The saying that “god” is the place where you got tired of thinking rings as true as ever.

    Con-Tester

    January 26, 2011 at 22:02

  313. Dok Einstein, elkeen se wêreld bestaan uit alles en almal wat een se pad kruis en ja, een se gedagtes.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2011 at 21:47

  314. “We killed all our Klingon gods centuries ago. They were more trouble than they were worth.” Lt Commander Worf, Starship Enterprise.

    Nathan Bond

    January 26, 2011 at 21:44

  315. Con-Tester, jy klink na ‘n langspeelplaat wat vasgehak het.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2011 at 21:43

  316. Hierdie sal my laaste bydrae wees. Dankie aan almal wat my in my soektog gehelp het en aan almal wat met ‘n oop kop my bydraes gelees het.

    Ek laat ‘n paar aanhalings van gerekende wetenskaplikes vir diegene wat regtig belangstel om die Skepper te vind. Aan die res; hoop dit gaan ook met julle goed verder.

    Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.”

    Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

    Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.

    Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”.

    Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

    John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

    George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

    Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

    Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

    Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

    Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

    Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

    Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

    Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.”

    Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

    Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

    Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

    Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

    Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

    Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

    Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

    Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

    Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

    Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.”

    Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

    Burger

    January 26, 2011 at 21:39

  317. Nee, vaderland, daai nuwe Savage gesiggie lyk te terrible; koms probeer weer!

    Savage

    January 26, 2011 at 17:10

  318. “En selfs nadat die son ‘n super nova geword het,..”

    Nee Dok, die Son gaan nie ‘n supernova word nie, maar ‘n rooi reus (Red Giant,) voordat dit stil-stil sal sterf nadat dit ‘n wit dwerg geword het.

    Savage

    January 26, 2011 at 17:06

  319. Ai ou Hans, elke mens woon in sy eie wêreld? Hoe bedoel jy? Eie “droomwêreld” of wat?

    Natuurlik gaan die aarde nog vir ons nageslag bestaan. En vir nog ‘n moerse klomp geslagte na hulle.

    En selfs nadat die son ‘n super nova geword het, sal die aarde, of dit wat van hom oor is, nog steeds, en vir ewig (genuine!!!!) in pikdonkerte om die son wentel.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 26, 2011 at 14:15

  320. Hanswors Matthysen wrote (January 25, 2011 at 22:21):

    [E]lke mens woon in sy eie wêreld wat sal eindig en tog lank na ons wêreld eindig, sal die aarde nog hier wees vir ons nageslag

    :lol: The novice of the evidence-free assertion hath spoken.

    Hanswors Matthysen wrote (January 25, 2011 at 22:21):

    Niks is bedek vir die wat kinderlik genoeg is nie en wel vir die wat hulself aanstel en daarom die misterie.

    :lol: The novice of the vacuous platitude hath spoken.

    Hanswors Matthysen wrote (January 25, 2011 at 22:21):

    Woord, Liefde, Lig (verstaanbaarheid), Lewe, Waarheid en Krag bestaan. God bestaan dus.

    :lol: The novice of the non sequitur hath spoken.

    Hanswors Matthysen wrote (January 25, 2011 at 22:21):

    Wat die sogenaamde uitverkiesingsleër betref, dink ek dat, baie die bal mis slaan. Baie word geroep en net die wat gehoor gee, is dan uitverkies.

    :lol: The novice of the self-serving fable hath spoken.

    Hanswors Matthysen wrote (January 25, 2011 at 22:21):

    Die persepsie wat daar is, dat net sekeres uitverkies word soos vooraf bepaal is, is ‘n wolhaar storie. God se wil is, dat geen siel verlore gaan.

    :lol: The novice of the sage masquerade hath spoken.

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2011 at 23:05

  321. Savage, sou jy kyk na die voorbeeld wat Jesus en die Apostels gestel het, sou ware Christinne nie van julle sosaties gemaak het nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 25, 2011 at 22:36

  322. Doktor Einstein, elke mens woon in sy eie wêreld wat sal eindig en tog lank na ons wêreld eindig, sal die aarde nog hier wees vir ons nageslag.
    Niks is bedek vir die wat kinderlik genoeg is nie en wel vir die wat hulself aanstel en daarom die misterie.
    Woord, Liefde, Lig (verstaanbaarheid), Lewe, Waarheid en Krag bestaan. God bestaan dus.
    Wat die sogenaamde uitverkiesingsleër betref, dink ek dat, baie die bal mis slaan. Baie word geroep en net die wat gehoor gee, is dan uitverkies. Die persepsie wat daar is, dat net sekeres uitverkies word soos vooraf bepaal is, is ‘n wolhaar storie. God se wil is, dat geen siel verlore gaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 25, 2011 at 22:21

  323. If Religions Were Real, you’d get WWE Jeeeeesissss!:

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2011 at 21:39

  324. Tim Minchin’s The Good Book:

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2011 at 20:22

  325. Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 13:56):

    You trust the scientists’ consensus. The vast majority must be correct, right?

    This is a typical fundie knee-jerk reaction. There are several good reasons why I trust the scientists’ consensus, not least of which are that (1) I have studied their findings and evidence firsthand, and (2) I understand their claims. Judging by the naïve distortions and ill-informed misrepresentations you have so far offered, you have yet to show that you can claim either of these things, let alone both. My trust is hardly blind, which is what you mean to imply. Moreover, it’s not a case that “[t]he vast majority must be correct” (emphasis added); it’s that the chances of them being correct is enormously larger than the alternative. If you knew anything about the history of science and you’re inclined to gamble, always bet on the experts. And now, no doubt, we’ll be hearing at length all about Galileo (who was oppressed by religious authorities). Or maybe Wegener. Tesla? The rogue scientist or layperson that has discovered some great scientific fact but is oppressed and ostracised by his narrow-minded peers is very much the exception, not the rule.

    Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 13:56):

    You are blindly following the masses like a sheep. Wait, that sounds vaguely familiar…o yes, isn’t that what you accuse believers of all the time?

    More typically uninformed fundie knee-jerk, this time served with a healthy dollop of tu quoque. See above, please. Or read a few science books.

    Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 13:56):

    As for blasphemy. It might seem like you (most of you probably) use that to demonstrate what a bad-ass atheïst [sic] you are, but the truth is that it is simply used to assault the sensibilities of any believer who dare enter here. The purpose is to bully such poor soul with the “cringe factor”, thus forcing them to retreat or loose their cool.

    Really? And you got that bit of fantasy where, exactly?

    Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 13:56):

    Pityful [sic].”

    Indeed.

    Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 14:00):

    ps. if you had been paying attention, you would know that I cling to no “dogma”, have never quoted the bible and have never threatened you or anyone else with damnation.

    Whatever tickles you, but are you really going to resort to such slipperiness and deny that your contrived non plus ultra quiz game show did not imply it!? Please say it’s so!

    Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 15:48):

    However, since I am only concerned with the question of WHETHER there might be a designer and not WHO that designer might be…

    Please enlighten us exactly what arcane reasoning lets Pascal’s Wager establish “WHETHER” there is a designer!. Please, please, please! It is critical that we must all learn this new logic. It doesn’t take a genius to see that, in the absence of some basic assumptions about the benefits accruing from belief in “god,” Pascal’s Wager falls completely flat as an argument. So I’ll ask you again to explain your striking train of thought here.

    Peripherally, I notice that you missed perhaps the two most important objections to Pascal’s Wager.

    As for soois being a successful, nice, wealthy guy with all sorts of wonderful things in his life, I don’t doubt it and I’m happy for him, but so what? It’s no more relevant to establishing a “god’s” existence than that one can make similar observations about many a congenital drunkard. Maybe you’re trying to demonstrate a broader beneficial principle that extends Pascal’s Wager into the here and now because success and happiness would be utilitarian motivations for belief, not evidentiary ones. Presumably, you hold the truth of a belief to be at least as important as any benefits that the belief may precipitate. It seems to me logical that if you believed purely for utilitarian reasons, you’d not waste your time arguing here.

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2011 at 18:39

  326. “What really pisses you off is the fact that we actually do read those literature, but also have the ability to think and figure things out for ourselves, therefore questioning some of the “facts” and “interpretations” of that literature, and what really grinds you is the fact that we also read the one book that could not have been written any scientist today, not to mention 2000 years ago.”

    What have you gained reading the scientific publications? Where have you shown scientific research you or your cronies did showing alternative results? Nothing. As I said before, you are a pitiful bunch and I thank jesus fucking christ my children did not have to go through your hands.

    Savage

    January 25, 2011 at 18:03

  327. Thanks Burgs, groete vir L en die kiddies.

    Jy sien ou Verifanie, my pa het my gat warm gemaak as ek stoud was, my onnies het my agterwereld gereeld ge-“tan” en ek het wragtig niks daarvan oorgekom nie. Ek het groot en selfstandig geword en geweet wat ouerliefde en gemeenskaplike respek is. Ek loop nie met “hangups” rond daaroor nie. Ek het heel goed uitgedraai en geniet die lewe.
    Nou wat in der ewigheid sal ek nou my “beliefs” voor wil verander?

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 16:38

  328. Con-Tester, I am aware of Pascal’s Wager. I have also read some critiques thereoff. It seems that many of these focus on the fact that people believe in many gods, so that all of these must be factored in, ie. if you choose the “wrong god” you’re equally damned, not unlike any non-believer. However, since I am only concerned with the question of WHETHER there might be a designer and not WHO that designer might be, that question is left to, as I have mentioned before – a leap of faith, but only once I have determined the IF to my satisfaction.

    The second point of contention seems to be the idea that choosing to believe must somehow force me into living a “less fulfilling life”. In other words, I don’t have nothing to loose as suggested in my gameshow scenario.

    Now if you think that choosing to believe is the path to a crappy life, I suggest you get to know a guy like old Soois, who I happen to be lucky enough to know personally and count as a good friend. The man owns his own beautiful farm with hundreds of sheep and a gorgeous homestead. He enjoys substantial monetary success, has some beautiful kids and grandkids. Has a lovely wife who, judging by the smile on his face if you happen to catch him early in the morning, problably bones like an angel (sorry A). he gets to enjoy the beauty and peace of his farm every day. Awful life eh.

    Perhaps it is agood idea CT (since, by your own admission you are already up the creek without a paddle) to get in thick with old Soois. He is a nice chap and might just toss the odd ice-pack or something cool across the chasm to you on the other side, he he.

    Burger

    January 25, 2011 at 15:48

  329. Shit, ek sien daar is nog steeds mense wat al om hul poepholle redeneer.
    Nou aan die nuwelinge, welkom, maar kom aub met iets vars en sinvol voorendag. Die gewone argumente hoekom ons die bybel MOET glo hou vir my ook geen water nie.
    Vir wat dit werd is, wil ek weereens my siening deel.
    Ek glo dat die natuur die sogenaamde “God” is. Dit verduidelik alles oor die sogenaamde teorie.
    Kom ek verduidelik vir die mense wat nog nooit biologie gehad het nie.
    Ek is deur my natuurlike vader geskape.
    Daar was liefde gemaak.
    Wat miljoene spermpies veroorsaak het.
    Een spermpie wat nie lui was toe hy nog in my pa se balsak was en bodybuilding gedoen het, het daarin geslaag om die wedstryd te wen.
    ‘n Embrio het ontstaan en siedaar, daar is ek toe gebore.
    DIT IS NIE DIE OORSAAK VAN ‘N HEMELSE VADER NIE, PUNT.
    Dit was ‘n NATUURLIKE proses soos alle dinge op hierdie aarde vanaf die big bang, of wat ook al.
    Nou indien julle nog nie verstaan nie sal ek vir julle verder verduidelik van bevrugting van bytjies, voeltjies en blommetjies.
    Party het perfek ontstaan en ander nie so perfek.

    Vir my is daar geen sin in ‘n bonatuurlike “God” nie en ek stel in elk geval nie belang in ‘n bose en wrede “God” nie.
    En “Liewe Jesus is al 2000 jaar dood, morsdood.
    Die mense wat glo dat hulle “Hom” al gesien of ervaar het se koppe kap aan.
    Net soos die dronk bliksem wat “Openbarings” geskryf het.

    ErickV

    January 25, 2011 at 14:25

  330. ps. if you had been paying attention, you would know that I cling to no “dogma”, have never quoted the bible and have never threatened you or anyone else with damnation.

    Burger

    January 25, 2011 at 14:00

  331. Ok, so let’s see if I understand you correctly. You trust the scientists’ consensus. The vast majority must be correct, right? You are blindly following the masses like a sheep. Wait, that sounds vaguely familiar…o yes, isn’t that what you accuse believers of all the time?

    As for blasphemy. It might seem like you (most of you probably) use that to demonstrate what a bad-ass atheïst you are, but the truth is that it is simply used to assault the sensibilities of any believer who dare enter here. The purpose is to bully such poor soul with the “cringe factor”, thus forcing them to retreat or loose their cool. This leaves you to enoy your imagined “victory”.

    Pityful.

    Burger

    January 25, 2011 at 13:56

  332. Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 12:54):

    The specific percentage of scientists who do or don’t agree with pure evolution is hardly relevant. One only has to look at our inept government to see that the masses are not neccesarily correct.

    You really should at the very least get familiar with the basics of the subject you want to attack. In this case, you reveal that you haven’t the faintest clue about how science proceeds and accumulates knowledge. That would be real knowledge, not the shit peddled on ID and creationist websites. Science is not like a government or a committee that considers any and all opinions equally before arriving at its findings. The latter are decided by a stringent tribunal composed of evidence and an existing body of well-established knowledge (again the real kind). In short, your trying to equate the business of doing science properly to something like a social gathering is utterly laughable.

    Burger wrote (January 25, 2011 at 12:54):

    The point is that those scientists, whether they are the minority or not are learned thinkers in their own right and can not simply be dismissed with, as you put it, a wave of the hand.

    Exactly! And yet, that very obviously is precisely what you have aimed to do. It is also why scientists’ consensus opinion regarding their area of expertise cannot simply be swept aside, as is clearly your intention. You claim to be able to think for yourself but, apparently, you aren’t able to work out that you’re tilting at windmills – with a wooden donkey and a sosatie stick. If you fly or use a computer or engage in any number of common pursuits, you are implicitly trusting a whole bunch of experts. What makes you so certain that your mere incredulity is sufficient not to trust experts in the one scientific field that has the greatest potential of undermining your most cherished-but-unfounded beliefs? You guys are so fond of pointing out your detractors’ alleged arrogance, but you can’t work out just how supremely arrogant your own approach actually is.

    As for your hypothetical quiz game show, I suggest you Google “Pascal’s Wager” and take cognisance of the very serious objections that have been raised against it. In any case, according to your own accepted dogma, there cannot be any forgiveness for “blasphemy against the holy spirit” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be). This is a “sin” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be) that I’ve committed several times, so it would in any case not matter what answer I gave. Your “loving god” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be) is already keeping that fiery place nice ’n’ toasty for me…

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2011 at 13:38

  333. The specific percentage of scientists who do or don’t agree with pure evolution is hardly relevant. One only has to look at our inept government to see that the masses are not neccesarily correct. The point is that those scientists, whether they are the minority or not are learned thinkers in their own right and can not simply be dismissed with, as you put it, a wave of the hand. Hell, there was time when the vast majority of people believed that the eath was flat!

    Even the highly revered Stephen Hawking said in his book, Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, New York New York: Bantam Books 1998, p. 128.

    “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous… I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”

    Also, Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything: The Origin and Fate of the Universe, Agawam, Massachusetts: New Millennium Press 2002, p. 117.

    It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us. The whole history of the universe can be said to be the work of God.”

    This coming from a scientist who is widely thought not to believe in God.

    Let it be known that I don’t base my conclusion on just a few observations. Intelligent design is not only observable in biological evolution, but in cosmology and other sciences as well. I can refer to the Cambrian eplosion. I might venture into how remarkable it is that all forces in the universe are as perfectly balanced as they are.

    You guys think it takes such a stretch to believe, yet let me offer a little analogy to help illustrate how easy it really is and who is really stretching here.

    Let’s play a hypothetical game of “Who wants to be a millionaire?” In this game there are two contestants: you and me.

    Now, a rumour has been flying around that there may not actually be a prize at all, but if there is a prize it’s way-way better than a million bucks. Furthermore the rumour states that the loser will be killed.

    However, we are both contractually obliged to play anyway (ie. live our lives). Now we have both answered all the questions and the final million-dollar question stands between us and the prize. Remarkably we also both have all our life-lines intact.

    “Here is the final question” announces our host. “Who made man?”

    A. A process of natural selection.
    B. God.
    C. A leprechaun.
    D. Aliens.

    We both opt for using a lifeline and thus we ask the host to take away two incorrect answers and what now remains are A. and B.

    This being the last question we both use another lifeline and so we ask the audience (the audience being the opinion of the entire population on earth). The vast majority says it’s B. (the vast majority of people on earth still believe in a creator/s of some kind, so that’s quite accurate)

    And so on to the last remaining lifeline and so we phone a friend. (This sees you frantically googling and me speaking to some friends and foes to see what they think)

    “What is your answer?” asks the host.

    At this point you, armed with the info you gleaned from your lifelines and your personal predisposition, have to decide. You immediately decide that the audience are a bunch of morons and their opinion is not to be trusted. Your googling reveals a whole lot of differing opinions. However you can find nothing to conclusively prove or disprove, the existence of a creator of any kind. Also the opinions you found on the internet are just that: opinions. You decide that natural selection must be the best option as at least there seems to be enough evidence that it has and indeed is taking place even now. It is of course not possible at this time for you to completely discount the possibility of a designer. This where you must take your “leap of faith” and opt for A.

    I on the other hand am in no better shape than you. First of all I think no more of the audience than you and are likewise forced to ignore them, even though they seem to support what I am predisposed to believing. Talking to others has also only armed me with nothing but a bunch of opinions. Like you, I must now take a “leap of faith” and decide it must be B.

    Now here comes the kicker: sadly whether you are right or wrong, it doesn’t matter if there was a prize at all or not. If I’m wrong, I still get what you get even if you won!

    Who do you think is taking the biggest “leap of faith”?

    Burger

    January 25, 2011 at 12:54

  334. No Savage.
    What really pisses you off is the fact that we actually do read those literature, but also have the ability to think and figure things out for ourselves, therefore questioning some of the “facts” and “interpretations” of that literature, and what really grinds you is the fact that we also read the one book that could not have been written any scientist today, not to mention 2000 years ago.

    Actually you are the one not willing to read anything I or anyone like me writes or anything we advise you to read, therefore my friend, as far as I am concerned, you are not really part of this debate, but alas, this blog belongs to Nathan, and I reckon it is his decision.

    If he asks me to leave this blog, I’ll do it without hesitation.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 12:53

  335. Dok,
    dankie, en glo my, ek lees wat almal skryf, “pro” en “con”.
    NET EEN DING, EK IS NIE ‘N CHRISTEN UIT VREES VIR WAT MAG KOM NIE, MAAR OMDAT EK UITSIEN DAARNA. JODE EN ANDER GELOWE WAT AAN DIE OU TESTAMENT VASKLOU, HET REDE OM TE VREES, MAAR JESUS HET MY VERLOS JUIS OMDAT EKSELF NIE PERFEK IS NIE EN DAAGLIKS OORTREE. DUS HET EK NIKS TE VREES NIE.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 12:38

  336. “That however does not prove evolution in the form of a one-cell organism developing into complex thinking beings.”

    Sweis-soos’n-warm-rod, read Sean B Carroll’s book, “The Making of the Fittest. DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution”, to enlighten you why scientists claim we are all ancestors from a single celled organism.

    The problem with you fundies is you don’t read scientific literature and start your debate from a platform of knowledge. No, you start from your platform of ignorance knowing sweet blue buggerall what scientists have discovered over hundreds of years of research. Then you come to blogs like Nathan’s (and numerous other blogs) and spew your ignorance for all to see. And then you want a civil debate. Not on your life, mate.

    Savage

    January 25, 2011 at 10:56

  337. Soois

    Ek sien jy byt nog vas en stel jou standpunte. Pragtig!

    Weereens haat ek dit om toe te gee dat Con-Tester( :) haha) met goeie punte vorendag kom.

    Dit is juis die feit dat ‘n aantal wetenskaplikes (maak nie saak watter persentasie nie), nie bereid is om die moontlikheid van die bestaan van God uit te sluit nie, dat ek dit ook nie doen nie.

    Daar is dinge wat ek nie met sekerheid kan sê nie, maar daar is baie dinge, veral die fundamentalistiese Christelike leerstellings, wat ek met sekerheid kan sê, het geen fondament om op te staan nie.

    En weet jy wat, Soois, as jy eers besef dat die sogenaamde uitverkiesingsleër soos deur die Christelike Kerk verkondig, nie waar KAN wees nie, dan besef jy dat jy NIKS na die dood hoef te vrees nie.

    Die verskil is dus dat ek die moontlikheid van God se bestaan nie uitsluit nie, nie uit vrees vir vergelding deur ‘n wraaksugtige god nie, maar bloot net omdat ek, soos die paar wetenskasplikes, op hierdie stadium nie kan aanvaar dat die oerknal maar net spontaan en sonder enige oorsaak plaasgevind het nie.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 25, 2011 at 10:28

  338. Only .15 per cent of scientists reject evolution in total, because some or other form of changes do occur in nature, to better equip that specific species for its specific environment and needs. Even us humans tend to become smaller as technology requires for us to have less and less strenghth.

    That however does not prove evolution in the form of a one-cell organism developing into complex thinking beings.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 09:29

  339. As for percentages. Only 38% of scientists do not believe in God, which is high in comparison with the fact that only 4% of Americans (approx 10 million) do not believe, but low if you take in account the type of work they do. 40% Say they do believe in God (same as 95 years ago (1916 count). The rest are uncertain.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 09:18

  340. Con-Tester,
    Boring? Just think of all the fun you could have, sharing your inexhaustible knowledge with others and debating wirh ol Burger.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 09:11

  341. soois, your points 4 & 5 (January 24, 2011 at 10:11) are known as the Argument from Design or the Teleological Argument. The link explains why it is a bad argument, following and extending David Hume’s critique of it. Basically, the universe is not like a building or a clock or something else we know to have been designed by humans for a purpose, so the analogy is already very weak to begin with. Moreover, even if we are persuaded that the universe is designed, it hardly follows that the ostensible designer is an omnipotent supernatural deity, so the argument concludes far more than is warranted by its premisses. More detail is given in the linked-to article under the Formal objections and counterarguments subheading.

    Regarding point 5, I don’t know any atheist who is prepared to make an absolute statement about a “god’s” non-existence in the sense that you portray it: as an irrefutable certainty. No, the claim is made with a similar degree of confidence as one might claim the non-existence of lime-green unicorns with pink hooves – i.e. that such creatures’ existence it is so highly improbable that one would be foolish to hold the opposite view. Furthermore, the onus of proof always rests on those who make positive claims. If you claim that “god” exists as something more than a construct in people’s brains then you are making a positive existence claim and the onus of proving it falls squarely on you. There is no onus of disproof on your detractors because, as you rightly point out, it would require some form of omniscience to do that. Still, if you specify your “god’s” character in an exact, rigorous, falsifiable way, then that specific edition of a “god” is disprovable with absolute certainty for the same reason and in the same way that it is disprovable with absolute certainty that my TV doesn’t have little actors living inside of it.

    Your point about wishing for life after death is an emotional argument, as is your testimonial. They add nothing by way of evidence or logical reasoning that addresses a “god’s” existence. The observation that we would all like to live forever in blissful harmony (and wish the same for our loved ones) does not turn it into a reality, however noble the content of and/or motivation behind that wish may be. We might wish for all human misery to come to a sudden end but wishing alone isn’t going to make that happen. Personally, I’d hate to think there was eternal life. Just picture the boredom, the ennui, the tedium that must inevitably come with living forever. If I remember correctly, Jonathan Swift had something to say about it, too. His fictional Immortals never did anything at all because every day they just reminded themselves that tomorrow is another day and another and another.

    Then soois, what you so gleefully describe as Burger’s “ability to think” (January 25, 2011 at 07:58) can much more accurately be termed “fanciful invention.” The essential point that you clearly are missing is that before you can raise legitimate criticism of an idea, especially a well-established one, you need to understand the idea thoroughly first. Judging by the contributions made thus far, Burger’s understanding of evolution is superficial at best. In the biological, life and earth sciences, only about 0.15% of professional scientists reject evolution. That’s three in 2,000, a similar ratio to physicists who challenge Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity versus those who accept it. Yet no religious douches can be found who make a fuss over those physicists’ dissent. Try to figure out why that might be.

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2011 at 08:50

  342. I rest my case.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 08:34

  343. “Net jammer Burger kan darem nog dink ook.”

    En ander verdere stront wat jy praat sweis.

    Ek kan nie ‘n sinvolle bydrae maak nie want jy sal dit nie verstaan nie, sweis-soos-‘n-warm-rod. Enige iemand soos jy (die ekwivalent van iemand wat nie besef daar is ordes van infiniteite nie, of wat dink oorgangsvorme in die evolusieproses is nog nie ontdek nie) kan logiese wetenskaplike ontdekkings nie verstaan nie want dit druis in teen jou god-meme.

    Savage

    January 25, 2011 at 08:12

  344. Ou Verifanie is nog verder ontwikkel.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 08:02

  345. Ou Savage,
    wanneer gaan jy ‘n slag ‘n “actual” bydrae maak en nie net op die kantlyn sit en kyk wat ander skryf en daarna die een of ander simpel opmerking of aanmerking maak nie?

    Burger, Con-Tester, ek geniet julle twee se bydrae terdee. Net jammer Burger kan darem nog dink ook. Sy verstand het natuurlik ge-evolueer tot die navorsing en dink vermoee, terwyl ou Connie by die navorsing opgehou het, of is ek nou heeltemal die klits kwyt? Evolueer die verstand verby die denkvermoee tot by die punt waar jy nie meer hoef te dink nie? In daardie geval ou Burger, is ou Connie jou ver voor.

    Sterkte.

    soois

    January 25, 2011 at 07:58

  346. …..And so for the next hundred million years, the fundies study
    the babble book, and they scratch their heads about glaring
    contradictions, and they argue, and they accuse one another of
    being confused, and they make war, and they indoctrinate
    their poor, defenceless children, and they read about poepol
    Solomon and his rod-for-the-fool’s-back shit, and they believe
    it, and they physically assault their beautiful, vulnerable kids,
    and they wait for jesus, and they wait, and they wait, and
    they wait and wait.

    In the babble book, one text says yay, the very next one says
    nay, and off they go, hansie slim “correcting” doffie,
    johannes ditto to hansie, soois to burger, gedaante to soois,
    and so on, providing immense laughter for non-fundies, who see them
    all as stupid, even the clever ones (surprisingly, we’ve seen one
    or two highly intellectual fundies on this blog), so clever yet
    so very very stupid.

    verifanie

    January 25, 2011 at 07:55

  347. Burger wrote: ““As such, while you spend all your time googling and reading other “learned” scholar’s opinions, I spend mine thinking and asking questions.”

    Well, Burger, you are a muddled thinker, and who did you ask your questions to? Because the answers you got, muddied the waters more.

    No wonder at times I loose my temper with these fucking assholes like Burger, Sweis, and others. Scientific research gives answers to so many of the questions these assholes firstly ask, and then they themselves answer totally incorrectly. As Wolfgang Pauli said, these assholes are so far off the mark, they are “not even wrong.”

    I ask the question: why don’t they read scientific literature. The obvious answer is:

    “The truth is too uncomfortable to my creationist warped mind that I instead will supply the answers that are compatible with my idiotic, feeble mind set.”

    Savage

    January 25, 2011 at 05:20

  348. Something Specter said in that talk:

    “People can believe what they want, but they can’t have their own facts.”

    This is so true. So all you fundies out there, you guys can believe what you want, but you can’t make up your own “facts”. Facts are facts, period!

    McBrolloks

    January 25, 2011 at 05:18

  349. Con-Tester, I hope you don’t mind, but I sent your answer to my question to a friend who seems to be on the denial bandwagon.

    McBrolloks

    January 25, 2011 at 01:40

  350. Thanks a lot Con-Tester. Good talk there by Specter.

    It is amazing how these deniers will waste billions of dollars fighting against these wonderful new inventions that could save hundreds of millions of lives. The “organic elite” as Specter calls them. I call them delusional hippies who still use toilet paper.

    McBrolloks

    January 25, 2011 at 01:37

  351. McBrolloks, the short answer is that opposition to GM foods is paranoid, anti-scientific, knee-jerk bollocks. The difference between cultivated strains that have been bred selectively and GM foods is simply that the latter strains have been arrived at more efficiently using more sophisticated tools. Your body cannot tell the difference between a molecule that is “natural” (all of them are!), one that has been selectively bred, or one that has been genetically engineered into an organism.

    However, the question of whether certain combinations of genetic traits in a food could result in something harmful is one that must be settled empirically.

    I think you’ll like this video.

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2011 at 23:53

  352. Burger wrote (January 24, 2011 at 22:13):

    I am not here to teach or convince anyone, in fact the opposite is true.

    Fuck me, you could’ve fooled me! In fact, you did.

    Burger wrote (January 24, 2011 at 22:13):

    As such, while you spend all your time googling and reading other “learned” scholar’s opinions, I spend mine thinking and asking questions.

    Well, I guess this means you’re much more interested in the truth than I could ever hope to be…

    Burger wrote (January 24, 2011 at 22:13):

    So you might as well stop being dismissive.

    Oh, I see. So suddenly it’s me who started this shit. Right you are. See, maybe if you didn’t come swaggering in here with your kak my-balls-are-the-size-of-grapefruit-and-my-brain’s-the-size-of-a-basketball-and-you-can’t-teach-me-a-fucking-thing-I-haven’t-heard-before attitude, maybe I’d be slightly more tolerant of your fundie crap.

    Burger wrote (January 24, 2011 at 22:13):

    It does not impress anyone, believe me.

    Nor does your singular inability to do decent research of your own or to respect the experience, qualifications, knowledge and insights of the overwhelming throng of experts you yourself so blithely seek to dismiss with a hand-wave and some really bad reasoning.

    Now, we can continue to thump our chests and fling shit at each other or we can start paying attention. It’s entirely up to you.

    Burger wrote (January 24, 2011 at 22:13):

    Now these mutations must, by necessity [sic], be highly beneficial to this organism, thus giving it the edge, in order for the new trait to be perpetuated and become a mainstream trait. Now this trait can’t have too a slight an effect if it wants any chance at becoming mainstream. If the mutation is not sufficiently significant to give the organism a clear enough advantage, that trait will remain an anomaly and eventually dissapear.”

    Try again. This is just wronger than wrong. First off, even the very slightest of advantages will be greatly amplified within a few generations. That is the statistical nature of evolution. Second off, a mutation that is neutral will diffuse into a population over a few generations, and can suddenly become beneficial or detrimental should the organisms’ environment change. In either case, some variants will survive preferentially while others perish preferentially. Third off, a detrimental variation will either quickly die out or start occupying a more suitable environmental niche if one is available.

    Burger wrote (January 24, 2011 at 22:13):

    In other words, these acidental [sic] mutations all critically have to be so complex in structure…

    Again you reveal how poorly you understand evolution. The cumulative effect of the slightest variations when filtered probabilistically according to their viability over many generations is enormous. Mathematical models, from the very simple to the intricately complex, bear this out time and again. Mutation and genetic drift are the sources of variation as raw material, while natural selection inexorably filters this raw material by culling the unfit commensurate with their degree of unfitness. The assumption that evolution must proceed in significant developmental leaps from one generation to the next is entirely and sorely misguided. It’s just another way of saying, “Well, I just don’t believe it and no evidence can ever convince me otherwise.”

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2011 at 23:50

  353. I am hoping some of the clever people here can help me out.

    Is it just me, or is this current “crap-in-your-pants” attitude towards Genetically Modified Food a real hippie phobia with zero credibility? It seems that all over the world the hippies have found a new witch to try and kill.

    Any thoughts on this matter?

    McBrolloks

    January 24, 2011 at 22:31

  354. Con-Tester,

    First let’s get one thing straight. I am not here to teach or convince anyone, in fact the opposite is true. I am here to learn. As such, while you spend all your time googling and reading other “learned” scholar’s opinions, I spend mine thinking and asking questions. So you might as well stop being dismissive. It does not impress anyone, believe me.

    So explain something to me: As I understand it, Darwinian theory hinges upon a very long series of mutations occuring to depart from one species to a completely different species altogether.

    Let’s now start from a very simple organism. let’s, for the sake of this discussion, imagine it has already progressed to a stage where it is no longer a single celled organism, but several cells “clumped together” into a single organism. Now according to Darwin, over many generations these and millions of other organisms like them must occasionally, purely by accident, undergo certain mutations. Now these mutations must, by neccesity, be highly beneficial to this organism, thus giving it the edge, in order for the new trait to be perpetuated and become a mainstream trait. Now this trait can’t have too a slight an effect if it wants any chance at becoming mainstream. If the mutation is not sufficiently significant to give the organism a clear enough advantage, that trait will remain an anomaly and eventually dissapear.

    Now let’s imagine some of the cells in one of these organisms begin to grow and divide, again puerly by accident, to form a rudamentary limb, like perhaps a swimming organ. First of all, a fully functioning swimming organ will already have to be so complex a structure, that the odds of this happening by chance at all are miniscule to say the least. So, much more likely for a chance-occurence would be a far simpler protrusion – no more than perhaps a bump. The problem I have with this is that a simple bump (just an example – it could any anomaly of course) will have no significant effect at all on the ability of that organism to thrive.

    In other words, these acidental mutations all critically have to be so complex in structure that the odds of these happy accidents happening often enough to arrive at a fully functioning human from a single celled organism would be unimaginably small, even over millions of generations, particularly with several near-extinction events along the way to hamper progress.

    As to the decision for who the intelligent designer must be, I think is a matter wholly separate to a discussion about ID vs natural selection. It requires a leap of… yes, you guessed it, …faith!

    Burger

    January 24, 2011 at 22:13

  355. Burger a few points for you to consider:
    • If you’re just going to regurgitate long-discredited creationist/ID propaganda and drivel, pretending that it’s “original thought,” then we’re not going to have a very long or productive discussion;
    • If you’re going to pretend, specifically, that there’s truth to the creationist/ID lie that the support and dissent for evolution is roughly equal among biologists, then we’re similarly not going to have a very long or productive discussion;
    • If you’re furthermore going to pretend that your own gut feelings and incredulity carry at least as much weight as the body of biological scientists who say creationism and ID are bunk, then we’re similarly not going to have a very long or productive discussion;
    • If in addition you’re going to disregard the fact that most palaeontologists are agreed that this constant harping on “transitional forms” is an ignorant ruse (there are plenty of transitional forms!), then we’re similarly not going to have a very long or productive discussion;
    • Evolution ≠ abiogenesis – watch the video below for some real information about the latter;
    • Why is ID so very widely described as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo?”
    • If, as you claim, creationism ≠ ID, then who is this intelligent designer? If s/he’s not a supernatural agent or deity, then who designed him/her? If s/he is, how does s/he differ from any arbitrary deity of your choice?
    • How is creationism and/or ID falsifiable?

    … and finally…

    • Google really, really, really is your friend.

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2011 at 19:40

  356. Rick

    Ek hoop jy het lekker geslaap.

    Ja, ek glo nog steeds in die bestaan van ‘n Bo-natuurlike Wese, maar my deuntjie is beslis nie dieselfde as twee jaar terug nie.

    Ek is bekommerd oor Johannes. Ek het gedag hy gaan in hierdie tye nou gereeld die dae aftel na 21 Mei toe, maar ja, die man is missing in action.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 24, 2011 at 15:21

  357. Rick,
    verder se jy dat dit nie jou plig is as ongelowige om te bewys Christus bestaan nie, maar my plig om te bewys Hy bestaan. My plig? Deur wie opgele? Die God wat nie bestaan nie?

    Nee, my plig is as Christen om die blye boodskap te bring, aan die wat wil hoor. Jy kan ‘n perd tot by die water bring, maar jy kan hom nie maak drink nie.

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 14:56

  358. Danny-booi-Van-der-Moerig!

    Dankie, hoop alles gaan goed by jou?!

    Ek sien jy was self lank weg gewees, nou weer terug, vuur en vlam, met presies dieselfde deuntjie?! Jy bly klou aan hierdie god-ding, né?

    En Johannes?! Enige idée?

    Nou toe, slaaptyd by my.

    Groete,

    Rick

    January 24, 2011 at 14:54

  359. Rick,
    jy draai nou my woorde om jou te pas.
    Ek het gese ek kan dit nie aan ander bewys nie, nie dat ek onseker is oor Sy bestaan nie.
    Ek weet my god bestaan omdat Hy Homself aan my geopenbaar het.

    Jou argument kan beide kante toe geswaai word: omdat ek nie God kan bewys nie, bestaan hy eenvoudig nie, of, omdat jy nie kan bewys hy bestaan nie, moet ons aanvaar dat hy wel bestaan. Sien, sinnelose argument.

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 14:51

  360. Soois!

    Dagsê.

    “Ek kan dit nie “bewys” nie…”

    I rest my case.

    Ek’s ook bly om te lees jy stem met my saam. Waarom dan voortgaan met jou geloof? Jou erkenning dat god waarskynlik nie bestaan nie en dat jy en jou mede gelowiges harde bewyse tot die tafel moet bring om sy bestaan te bewys, teenoor, jou verkondiging van jou Christenskap aan ander, strook eenvoudig nie. Byvoorbeeld, ek kan jou nie belowe om aan my vriend voor te stel as ek nie seker is of hy nog leef nie. Ek sal eers vasstel dat hy lewend is alvorens ek ‘n ontmoeting reël.

    En Soois, as ongelowige is dit nie my werk om te bewys dat god nie bestaan nie. Net so min soos jy gepla is oor eertydse gode waaroor ons in die hede nie eers meer oor praat of dink nie, so min is ek gespin oor jou god. Die waarskynlikheid van god se bestaan lê nie presies tussen die ateïs en gelowige nie. Daar is natuurlik die skrale moontlikheid dat god wel bestaan, maar weens die afwesigheid van enige bewyse kan ons vir alle doeleindes aanvaar dat daar geen god is nie.

    As Christen is jou taak dus tweeledig: Eerstens, bewys god. Tweedens, waarom Christenskap bo alle ander gelowe en denominasies.

    Rick

    January 24, 2011 at 14:42

  361. Soois, o skuus man; ek sien nou. Dog vir ‘n oomblik ek het iets kwetsend kwytgeraak.

    Burger

    January 24, 2011 at 13:41

  362. Burger,
    ek dink jy het verkeerd verstaan. Dit was ek wat Salomo aangehaal het nadat ek kop verloor het. Teregwysing was tot myself gerig.
    Groete

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 13:35

  363. Dagse Rick.
    Bly om te ontmoet “by wyse van spreke”.

    Ek stem 100% saam met jou stelling, ja jy het my reg gehoor, 100%.

    Die punt wat ek juis probeer maak dat net so min as wat ek God se bestaan kan bewys, kan die nie-gelowige bewys dat Hy nie bestaan nie.

    As ek die indruk geskep het dat ander sommer net my god moet aanvaar, dan vra ek nederig om verskoning. Ek het eerder probeer se dat ek in daardie bootjie was. Ek wou “weet” of God bestaan. Het Hom toe met ‘n positiewe houding gaan soek en uiteindellik gevind. Ek kan dit nie “bewys” nie en ook nie op ‘n ander afdwing nie. Eintlik maar net ‘n (skynbaar onmoontlike) poging om aan ander ook die blye boodskap te bring, juis omdat ek baie vir my medemens omgee en my Bybel my so beveel.

    Hoeveel Christendenominasies daar is weet ek nie. Jy moet onthou dat ‘n Jood bv nie ‘n Christen is nie, want hy glo nie in Jesus se kruisdood nie, om maar een te noem, maar dit is waar dat verskeie (duisende)gelowe in die skepping glo, en selfs die Christene uit hordes groepe bestaan. Dit is betreurswaardig en jammer, want dit is moontlik een van die oorsake van ongeloof.

    Ek glo egter dit is waarskynlik hoekom soveel groepe van die kerk af wegbreek en so baie buite die kerk tot bekering kom. Trouens die Bybel voorspel self dat die kerk-era sou eindig en die era van Christendom buite die kerk sal aanbreek. Die slimmes reken dat die kerk-era reeds in 1988 geeindig het en dat miljoene die laaste 23 jaar buite die kerk tot geloof gekom het.

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 13:31

  364. By the way mr CT, much as it is convenient for you to lump creationism an ID together; but for a few parallels they are obviously not the same thing.

    Burger

    January 24, 2011 at 12:55

  365. Ou Verifanie sê jy kry ‘n dubbele braaier as jy twee halwe 44 gelling dromme aanmekaar vassweis.

    Eksamenvlaters:

    Question: What is rabies and how do you treat it?

    Answer: They are Jewish priests and you treat them with respect.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 24, 2011 at 12:53

  366. Soois sê: “Burger,
    ek het laasnag baie sleg geslaap, want ek het juis oor daardie laaste aanmerking gele en dink en besef,
    hel ou maat, nou tree jy nes ‘n ateis op. Jy vertel van Salomo se wyse woorde, maar jy volg hulle nie.”

    Soois, Haai nee nou’t jy my verloor. Ek het nog nooit vir Salomo aangehaal nie en my woorde aan jou was bloot ‘n uitdrukking van my teleurstelling oor die onnodige persoonlike aanval op CT se karakter; heeltemal onvanpas t.o.v. die doktrine wat jy volg naamlik: “turning the other cheek”, sagmoedige teregwysing en so meer. En dis nie dat ek vir die “pompous” engelsmannetjie in die bresse tree nie. Ek dink maar net dat sulke uitbarstings jou geloofwaardigheid negatief beïnvloed.

    To CT: I know where this going: I will quote a few sources and then you will quote a few contradictory sources and so we will continue back and forth until we reach a stalemate at which point, predictably, you will call me an idiot. At which point i will smile and say “of course this was coming”.

    But since neither of us can call a census of ALL biologist to record their opinions, I am happy to concede and alter my original statement thus: “‘n groot hoeveelheid bioloë is dit eens dat daar intelligensie in die ontwerp van alle lewe is en alhoewel dit…..” I am anxcious to see if you would be courageous enough to make the same concession.

    CT said: “Simple: there is no actual conscious or directed design. The only “intelligence” in the patterns of life is an anthropocentric imposition of your own making prompted by your incredulity that a perfectly natural process could have produced them. You want to see patterns that are deeper than they are. Seeing “intelligence” and/or “direction” in the “designs” of life is an artefact of you simply ignoring the huge mass of trial solutions that did not work, and seeing only those that remain, which happen to be successful.”

    CT, understood and agreed, but then where are the intermediate species in the fossil records?” As the fossil record grows, the old Darwinist’s defence of an incomplete fossil record, grows ever thinner. Also natural selection cannot explain the origin of the very first cells. Evolution depends on trillions of permutations and repetitions. Yet repetition is impossible in simlpe amino-acids and proteïns. It requires the existence of a living, self-replicating cell. Until that first living cell is found or produced in a lab, pure evolution will remain a hard sell for me.

    Burger

    January 24, 2011 at 12:53

  367. Rick!!! Dagsê.

    Goed om weer van jou te hoor.

    En van my kant af, dankie vir jou pos hierbo. Soos oor al die jare maak jy sin en jy doen dit sonder om arme ou Soois te beledig en uit te maak vir ‘n beenkop.

    Ek moet sê, ten spyte van die feit dat ek en hy mekaar al verskriklik gevloek en beledig het, mis ek ook DW se bydraes.

    Baie groete.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 24, 2011 at 12:46

  368. Soois skryf:

    “Om te se daar is geen god nie, is ‘n absolute stelling. ‘n Absolute stelling kan slegs waar wees as jy alle kennis daaroor het, m.a.w, as ek wil se daar is geen goud in Japan nie, moet ek weet wat onder elke klip, onder die grond, in elke winkel en in elke mond in Japan aangaan, anders is daardie stelling ongegrond, maar as ek die stelling maak dat daar wel goud in Japan is hoef ek net te weet van een stukkie goud in ‘n juwelierswinkel en my stelling is waar. Dus kan net iemand wat alwetend is die stelling maak dat daar geen god is nie, en daar is geen so iemand nie.”

    Soois, die teendeel is óók waar. Net soos die ateïs nie met volle oortuiging kan aanvoer dat god nie bestaan nie, so kan die gelowige nie beweer dat god wel bestaan omdat hy/sy dit in die skoonheid ‘n blommetjie sien nie. Dis nie waar bloot omdat jy sterk voel daaroor nie, of omdat dit jou beter laat voel as jy voor die doodskis van ‘n vriend of familielid staan nie. Wat vereis word is objektiewe, empiriese bewyse, en dít Soois, is nog nooit gevind nie.

    ‘n Bekende (kan ongelukkig nie nou die naam herroep nie) het eenmaal gesê/geskryf dat wanneer jy twee opponerende redenasies het, beteken dit nie dat die waarheid presies in die middel lê nie. Die onus, Soois, is dus op jóú om jou god te bewys, níé andersom nie!
    En hoewel daar g’n fout is om hardop te wonder nie (oor die dinge waarop die wetenskap nog nie lig gewerp het nie), dien dit ongelukkig nie as bewyse vir god nie.

    DW, ‘n voormalige aktiewe blogger op Tart Remarks (waar’s DW deesdae?), het vroeër tot die vermaak/vervelens van ander bloggers aangevoer dat daar in totaal ongeveer 33 000 Christen denominasies is. Ek lees dat jy ander lesers aanraai om jou god aanvaar, want dan sal jy ‘weet’. Jy raai ander lesers aan, maar hoeveel denominasies het jy al ‘probeer’? En kan jy met volle oortuiging se dat jy werklik ‘weet’? Ek ‘weet’ darem nie…

    Ek hoor graag…

    Rick

    January 24, 2011 at 12:20

  369. Thanx Dok,
    net jammer Savage het soos hyself gese het, my skrywe reeds verdoem en nie verder gelees nie.

    Nietemin, dis sy verlies.
    Groete

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 11:53

  370. Soois

    Welgedaan. Ek stem nie saam met alles wat jy sê nie. Nie eers amper nie.

    Maar, soos Daan, loof ek jou vir jou manmoedigheid om dit wat jy glo, hier te skryf.

    En die feit dat jy navorsing doen en diep DINK, is vir my voorop. VOOROP.

    Sterkte!

    Doktor Einstein

    January 24, 2011 at 11:30

  371. ” .. endie ander wat my ernstig opneem, ..”

    Fok sweis jys dom en moedswillig maar ek dink net fokken dom. Wat het Darwin oor die oog se evolusie verder aan in sy boek gesê? Julle ape haal net gedeeltes aan wat julle pas.

    En oor Einstein wil ek nie eers praat nie – gaan lees op wat Einstein se siening van julle god was voordat jy sulke kak verkondig.

    Ek het nie verder gekom met jou tesis ni,e maar ek wed dis maar dieselfde klomp stront wat jy ons tot nou toe nog op trakteer het.

    Savage

    January 24, 2011 at 10:43

  372. Daan, Burger, McBrolloks endie ander wat my ernstig opneem,
    Hier is hopelik ‘n beter bydrae van my af, en ja, ek moes navorsing doen daarvoor:
    1. Charles Darwin, die skepper van die evolusie teorie , het gese,: “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
    2. Einstein het beswaar aangeteken toe hulle wou he hy moes ateisme ondersteun.
    3. Hoe weet ek as ek na ‘n gebou kyk, dat daar ‘n bouer was? Die feit dat die gebou daar is, is die bewys. Hoe weet ek as ek na ‘n skildery kyk dat daar ‘n skilder was? Die feit dat ek die skildery sien is ‘n onomwonde bewys dat daar ‘n skilder was. Dieselfde geld vir die mooi natuur daarbuite. Jy het net oe wat kan sien en ‘n brein wat vir himself kan dink nodig om te weet daar moes ‘n skepper wees:
    “For the invisible things of him from creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-ahead; so that they are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20
    “Van die skepping van die wereld af kan ‘n men suit die werke van God duidelik aflei dat sy krag ewigdcurend is en dat Hy waarlik God is, hoewel dit dinge is wat ‘n mens nie met die oog kan sien nie. Vir hierdie mense is daar dus geen veronskuldiging nie.” – Romeine 1:20
    4. As ek verby ‘n klomp klippies loop en hulle is in ‘n perfekte ry, gaan ek nie wonder wat in die natuur gebeur het om hulle so te kry nie, ek gaan wonder wie het hulle so gepak, want ‘n intelligente wese moes daarvoor verantwoordelik wees. As jy na die perfekte orde daarbuite kyk, moet jy weet dat ‘n intelligente wese dit so moes geskep het.
    5. Om te se daar is geen god nie, is ‘n absolute stelling. ‘n Absolute stelling kan slegs waar wees as jy alle kennis daaroor het, m.a.w, as ek wil se daar is geen goud in Japan nie, moet ek weet wat onder elke klip, onder die grond, in elke winkel en in elke mond in Japan aangaan, anders is daardie stelling ongegrond, maar as ek die stelling maak dat daar wel goud in Japan is hoef ek net te weet van een stukkie goud in ‘n juwelierswinkel en my stelling is waar. Dus kan net iemand wat alwetend is die stelling maak dat daar geen god is nie, en daar is geen so iemand nie.
    Selfs Thomas Edison het gese: “We do not know one millionth of one percent about anything”.
    As jy ‘n ateis vra hoeveel sandkorrels daar op Mauritius is, of hoeveel hare op Verifanie se hond se rug, sal die ateis se antwoord wees:, “met die beperkte kennis tot my beskikking kan ek jou nie antwoord nie”, terwyl ‘n gewone mens sal se:, “ek weet nie”. Punt is, dat om alles te weet jy wragtig alles moet weet, tot die sekslewe van die vlooie op Dok se kat se pens moet aan jou bekend wees. Tensy ieman alles weet, en daar is nie so-iemand nie, kan hy tegnies gesproke (as ‘n ateis beskou kan word as iemand wat “weet” daar is nie ‘n god nie) nie ‘n ateis wees nie, maar eerder ‘n vrydenker (agnostic) wat nie kan se daar is nie ‘n god nie, maar eerder dat hy nie dink dat daar ‘n god is nie.
    Om met ateiste te redekawel is, het ek agter gekom, dieselfde as om teen die wind te fluit.
    Vra eerder die vraag; “gaan jy wag totdat ‘n geliefde van jou in ‘n kis voor jou le, en jy wens daar was dalk ‘n lewe na die een, voordat jy ‘n bietjie moeite doen en dieselfde tyd en energie aan die Bybel spandeer as aan al die wetenskaplike feite, om tot die besef te kom dat daardie geliefde wel gered kon wees. Glo my, as jy Hom soek, sal Hy Homself aan jou openbaar, en dan sal jy “weet”. Dit het met my gebeur. Nou geniet ek my lewe nog meer . Ek offer niks op nie, behalwe die dinge wat vir enige ander mens in elk geval taboe is. Ek het net ‘n wonderlike vooruitsig dat die lewe nie hier gaan ophou nie, maak nie saak of dit hierdie jaar of eers laaaaaaank na my dood kom nie.
    Juis omdat niemand volmaak is nie, en niemand die gebooie behoorlik kon hou nie, het God vir Jesus gestuur om namens ons die prys te betaal. Daarom is die Bybel in die Ou Testament en Nuwe Testament verdeel. As jy ‘n nuwe testament opstel omdat jy nog ‘n kind bygekry het of omdat jy iemand wil afhaal wat jou verontreg het, is die ou testament ongeldig. Die Bybel werk net so, die Ou Testament is die geskiedenis wat was, met al die ou wette en Sabatte (min mense verstaan dat die sabatte nie net die rusdag behels nie, maar ook die offergawes wat gemaak moes word, die wette rondom wat jy mag eet en mag drink en al die hander opofferings. Dit was aales deel van die sabbat of “heiligmaking”) ingesluit. Die Nuwe Testament verlos ons van al die onmoontlike wette want Jesus het gekom en Hy het gese dat die sabbat in Hom is en Hy in die sabbat. Lees die Bybel behoorlik en jy sal sien dat Jesus die sabbat verontagsaam en ontheilig het. Hy is juis hieroor deur die Jode gekruisig en tot vandag ontken hulled at die Messias reeds gekom het. Hy het bedoel dat slegs deur Hom heiligmaking moontlik is, en nie deur die ou Moseswette nie.
    Groete daar

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 10:11

  373. Thanks, Con-Tester, I see “The regression towards the mean” is also called “reversion to mediocrity.”

    These assholes are surely an insult to mediocre people if one say they (the assholes now) are part of the mediocre clan.

    I don’t know if you read what Van Wyk Louw said, but if anyone write that today, he or she would be labled a rasist and bigot amongst many other things.

    Savage

    January 24, 2011 at 08:12

  374. soois, moenie sleg voel nie, dit gebeer met almal. moet asseblief nie ophou skryf en gesels nie, net daaroor nie.

    McBrolloks

    January 24, 2011 at 06:37

  375. Burger,
    ek het laasnag baie sleg geslaap, want ek het juis oor daardie laaste aanmerking gele en dink en besef,
    hel ou maat, nou tree jy nes ‘n ateis op. Jy vertel van Salomo se wyse woorde, maar jy volg hulle nie.

    Dus trek ek my laaste woorde onvoorwaardelik terug, buiten nou die Salomo gedeelte en vra vir Con-Tester om verskoning vir my uitlating.

    Cheers almal.

    soois

    January 24, 2011 at 06:15

  376. Burger wrote (January 23, 2011 at 22:01):

    Meeste bioloë is dit eens dat daar intelligensie in die ontwerp van alle lewe is…

    Really? “Most biologists are agreed that there is intelligence in the design of all life”? Do you have any credible evidence whatsoever to support this most remarkable contention? (Note that creationist/Intelligent Design resources have no scientific standing or credibility, and for good reason: they’re fundamentally antiscientific.)

    I didn’t think so.

    See, the vast majority of biologists accept that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to account for the great diversity of life and its close conformity and alignment with environmental factors, including other life forms.

    Burger wrote (January 23, 2011 at 22:01):

    Hoe anders beland intelligensie in hierdie lewensvorme dan? Toe julle, net ‘n teorie is goed genoeg…

    Simple: there is no actual conscious or directed design. The only “intelligence” in the patterns of life is an anthropocentric imposition of your own making prompted by your incredulity that a perfectly natural process could have produced them. You want to see patterns that are deeper than they are. Seeing “intelligence” and/or “direction” in the “designs” of life is an artefact of you simply ignoring the huge mass of trial solutions that did not work, and seeing only those that remain, which happen to be successful.

    But you don’t want to hear that, do you? Because you think it somehow diminishes the grandeur of nature that it is governed by blind, ateleological rules.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 22:27

  377. Sorry Con-Tester. Ek het dit nie so bedoel nie. Ha-ha!!!!

    Hoe verduidelik ‘n mens vir ‘n ou wat nie ‘n boek of twee wil lees nie dat intelligente ontwerk ‘n klomp kak is? Hierdie fundies soek ‘n magic bullet vir alles. En hulle magic bullet is……… drum roll……..

    god-dit-it!!!! Kablam, argument over!!! You lose!!! We win!!!! Praise the lord!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 22:10

  378. Jissis, McBrolloks, jou skrywes gee my sommer een moerse horing! Stop dit nou want dis al klaar soos ’n blou ysterpaal wat g’n kat ooit sal kan krap nie. ;) :P

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 22:05

  379. Soois, dis nou jammer dat jy moes uitgaan op so ‘n lae noot. Ek het rerig geglo jy sal nie tot op dieselfde vlak as hierdie mense daal en ewe hard modder gooi nie. Van McBrolloks se banale (en glad nie eers effens snaakse) krieketgrappies, tot Con-Tester se hoogdrawende aanhalings en kommentaar, is ek so verveeld. Komaan ouens; enige beter aanbod as intelligente ontwerp vir die wyse waarop dinge werk?…nie so gedink nie.

    Meeste bioloë is dit eens dat daar intelligensie in die ontwerp van alle lewe is en alhoewel dit nie noodwendig op die bestaan van ‘n bonatuurlike mag dui nie, is dit moeilik (vir my in elk geval) om ‘n alternatief vir ‘n skepper te vind. Hoe anders beland intelligensie in hierdie lewensvorme dan? Toe julle, net ‘n teorie is goed genoeg, solank jy net regtig self goed daaroor nagedink het sonder Google in ‘n ander “tab”. Ja ek praat met jou Con-Tester.

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 22:01

  380. soois skryf: “Korreksie, Spreuke en Prediker.”

    Fok, ek skuld jou ‘n apology. Nou dat jy Prediker in die equation gooi, maak dit alles sin. Halla-balla-fokken-luja-brother!!!!!!!!

    “Boekennis” vir “wysheid” veruil? Got, nou lag ek my gat af. Julle ouens is trots op die feit dat julle fokkol van die natuur af weet nie. En die snaakste deel van dit alles is dat dit ‘n self-inflicted-wound is! Julle bly oningelig en poes dom uit julle eie keuse uit. Jukle verkies om niks te leer nie, want dan kan julle maar altyd dieselfde ou pearl-of-wisdom gebruik: God-dit-it! Ek vra eintelik omverskoning vir die laerskool leerlinge waarmee ek julle vergelyk het. Julle is baie fokken dommer as enige iemand saam met ek ooit op laerskool was. Die meeste laerskool kinders kon ‘n baie beter argument voer as julle brein-dooie-fundie-shit-birds!

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 21:55

  381. Lyk my daar vlieg nog ‘n shit-bird. Die fundies kom en gaan gereeld hier op die en soort gelyke blogs, kak orals, en vlieg dan weg. Die term shit-birds pas hulle die beste. As hulle nou enige iets kon bydrae wat nie pure stront is nie, dan kan mens hulle dalk iets beters noem, maar dit het nog nie gebeur nie. Dit sal ook nooit gebeur nie. Hierdie ouens het breine wat gevrot is deur al die kak wat hulle hulle hele lewens al glo. Dit vat nie veel geloof om ‘n brein te laat vrot nie, want dit werk soos ‘n virus wat gesonde breinselle stadig maar seker vernietig, totdat hulle koppe soos ‘n longdrop is wat vol kak is. Om enige gesprek met hierdie poepolle te probeer voer is onmoontelik. Hulle kak orals, bitch en moan dat niemand hulle kak wil opeet nie, en fokkof dan maar weer. Alles terwyl hulle glo hulle is reg en hulle doen hulle here se werk. Ha-ha!!!! Fokken pateties!!!! Doen ons gerus ‘n guns en gaan kak iewers anders! Julle weet wie julle is. Niemand hier skryf vir julle vermaking nie. Terwyl julle die kak wat julle uitdink hier kom uitstort, gaan julle maar gespot word as julle goeters se soos: “Wanneer julle eendag besluit om “boekennis” vir “wysheid” te verruil, moet julle my nie vra nie, maar gaan lees gerus Salomo se Spreuke en Openbaring.” Ja ou soois, jy is maar een dom poepol wat in spoke glo. Geniet maar jou lewe op jou kniee en lees maar lekker aan daardie bybel waaraan jy en jou tjommies so aan vasklou. Julle lei nie net aan gevrotte breine nie, maar ook beslis aan ‘n neorosis. Julle is groot mense, maar dit klink asof ons hier met ‘n klomp dom laerskool kinders argumenteer.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 21:49

  382. Korreksie, Spreuke en Prediker.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 21:40

  383. Ek sweer ou Con-Tester het ‘n moerse ereksie elke keer as hy sy boekkennis demonstreer. Sy arme boyfriend se hol is seker al fokken seer.

    Wel, wees gegroet en ek hoop julle filosofeer en bemoedig mekaar ook vorentoe.

    Wanneer julle eendag besluit om “boekennis” vir “wysheid” te verruil, moet julle my nie vra nie, maar gaan lees gerus Salomo se Spreuke en Openbaring.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 21:35

  384. Go on, “DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ), be daring and admit that you didn’t actually read Brian Carnell’s commentary because the alternative, i.e. that you didn’t understand what he wrote, is far worse. Carnell fully supports Jerry Coyne’s contention that science and religion are incompatible. His criticism was aimed at soft-pedalling accommodationists who oppose the “new” atheism.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 19:36

  385. When I played cricket in high school, one of my friends scored an excellent 50 in just a couple of balls. He was convinced that it was all because he had a wank in the dressing room before he went out to bat. From that day on, he always went “missing” right before he was due to go and bat. He was convinced he could not score runs if he didn’t have a wank before he went out to bat. We didn’t mind, he was one of our top players, and if it worked for him, hell, we won many games.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 19:22

  386. Burger,

    ek dink jy het sopas die intelligentste woorde wat ek nog op hierdie blog raakgeloop het, kwytgeraak.

    Nou dat jy dit noem… ek sien daar het Desember laas iets op die blog verskyn totdat ek, arme onnosele “believer” togetree het.

    Dink jy nie die outjie gaan vereensaam nie?

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 19:21

  387. Yes, with perfect balance. I hear cricketers are a very superstitious bunch. That’s why I believe with our help, we can balance them better and give them the confidence to eliminate every possible angle of failure. Holy magic winning water, the bracelets, prayer, hymns and even the right sacrifices. With the world cup coming up next, we have to sacrifice big animals before and after every match. This pleases the gods. The more blood, the bigger and better our victories will be!!!! Hallaluja!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 19:11

  388. With reference to our god kicking their god in the balls earlier today, the influence of those Trion:Z Colantotte magnetic armbands with negative ions, worn by the Proteas, can not be disregarded.

    Nathan Bond

    January 23, 2011 at 19:08

  389. Siestog……….

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 19:01

  390. En nog ‘n ding ou Soois, moenie jou bekommer oor hierdie mense lekker gaan lag oor “nog ‘n christen stert tussen die bene” weghardloop van hierdie blog nie. Hulle sal mekaar op die blad klop en gelukwens oor hulle “sege” en voortgaan met hulle eensame en Goddelose bestaan en heen en weer vir mekaar skryf soos meisietjies op een of ander chat-room; so selfvoldaan oor hulle “superieure intellek”.

    En terwyl ek persoonlik geen erg aan dogma, kerk of ‘n deur mense vertroebelde bybel het nie, weet ek jy het jou plig (soos deur jou verstaan word) gedoen en kan met ‘n geruste hart hierdie mense agterlaat. Jy het mos gewaarsku. Weet net dat as hulle nie almal tog gewonder het oor die waarheid nie, niemand van hulle hier sou gelees of geskryf het nie. Elke laaste een hier het heimlik die hoop dat iemand die regte woorde sal vind om die waarheid te ontbloot. Glo my: as die sg. “godiote” ophou om hier te skryf, sal hierdie blog die stille dood sterf wat hy verdien.

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 18:52

  391. Phew, yes, ganseh nearly kicked our god in the balls there. But we won, so our god is stronger. Our god is very mighty, we can win even with Graeme Smith as captain. Praise the lord!!!!!!! I hope next time the team sprinkles their balls with our new patented holy water for sports before the match.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 18:49

  392. ou Soois, aanvaar dit nou maar. Hierdie is dorre aarde en jy sal geen hond haaraf maak nie. My raad is om die modder van jou voete te vee en aan te beweeg. Daar is baie met ‘n oop verstand elders wat wel bereid is om wat jy sê ernstig te oorweeg en nie net aan te hou met die ou ge-ykte argumente nie. Niks nuuts hier nie.

    En ek wag steeds vergeefs vir selfs ‘n poging om (in antwoord op my vraag) te verklaar waarom diere en plante ge-evolueer het om so mooi te wees, sonder enige intelligente werking. Noem dit God, got, moeder-natuur; net wat jy wil. Maar die bestaan van ‘n skepper is so duidelik soos daglig voor my oë.

    Monty Python se Galagy Song uit the Meaning of Life: “I sure hope there’s some intelligence somewhere out there, ’cause there sure is bugger-all down here!”

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 18:40

  393. Dis presies my punt.

    Die godioot sê: “Jerry Coyne praat stront. Brian Carnell maak sin.”

    Die atioot sê: “Jerry Coyne makes perfect sense but Brian Carnell, well, I just don’t buy it.”

    Met ander woorde, die godioot glo net wat hy wil glo en die atioot aanvaar net wat hy wil aanvaar.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 23, 2011 at 18:15

  394. For six’s sake, the Hindu god Pathan is tickling the Old Testament god’s balls!

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 17:48

  395. Nathan, I am glad you are taking your new post so seriously.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 17:18

  396. Savage, perhaps you’re unaware that the effect Van Wyk Louw describes is a case in point of a well-recognised statistical law. It’s called “Regression to the mean”…

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 17:14

  397. As ek so na Daan, Hans, Sweis-soos-‘n-warm-rod, Burger en Kie luister, was Van Wyk Louw reg: Die dom mense gaan ons uitteel in hierdie wêreld. Fok weet, dis goed ons is nie nou in die middeleeue en hierdie spul is aan bewind nie; ons sal sosaties wees.

    Savage

    January 23, 2011 at 16:57

  398. Dean!?
    Great!
    I accept!
    I am now going for my daily vigorous perambulation and shall think the matter over to some fortemente Verdi.

    Nathan Bond

    January 23, 2011 at 16:57

  399. Nathan, thanks for the offer. Yes, you can be the dean. I have some great ideas. I am already working on designing the merchandise. DVD’s with courses, t-shirts with slogans like: Jesus saves printed in big letters. Also: holy water to bless your team’s balls with. A performance drink, it is a mixture of devils’ sweat watered down, giving us a perfect homeopathy effect that will please the gods. A prayer book with useful prayers for all sports and all scenarios. Like when your middle order is collapsing, you can say a useful prayer to steady the ship with. This is going to be a huge $$$$$$$ making venture. Nothing smells like religion. Sorry, I mean nothing sells like religion.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 16:50

  400. The McBrolloks Shool of Theology!?
    I know I’ll enroll!
    Might even be offered a chair?

    Nathan Bond

    January 23, 2011 at 16:40

  401. So, who says us atheists are theologically unsophisticated? My above arguments can keep a bunch of fundies thinking for centuries. I think I will start my own theology school. Where major sporting teams can send their theology coaches to come and study how to better win their gods’ favor so that they can win more matches and trophies.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 16:33

  402. On a more positive note, god, who we all know is a huge sports fan, is helping South Africa beat India in the cricket today. It was quite a battle, with the hindu gods battling it out with the old testamnet god. Looks like our god won, so our god is real and more powerful than their gods. The muslim god was neutral, since there are muslims in both teams. I must say, it looks like jesus tipped the scales for us. He has been good to South African teams. He helped the Bulls in the Super 14, but when they didn’t sacrifice a fat calf for him, he let them down in the Curry Cup. Remember sports fans, you have to show your appreciation to your gods if you want your teams to win more.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 16:31

  403. Burger wrote (January 23, 2011 at 16:04):

    … I’m afraid your additions were nothing but commentary to what Coyne, Russel and others wrote – hardly original thought that.

    First off, I never pretended otherwise. Second off, you can dispense with the goalpost-shifting, which does you no favours.

    Burger wrote (January 23, 2011 at 16:04):

    We can and have read all those arguments before and are perfectly capable of interpreting them for ourselves.

    So you claim, but I have yet to encounter any kind of cogent counterargument to them. Certainly, none has been presented on this blog.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 16:22

  404. Ja-a-a McBrolloks, it’s my special talent, as you know. In contrast, their special talent is to “play the man, not the ball” because they have neither an argument nor any evidence, and when you start doing likewise, then to whinge and whine incessantly about “playing the ball, not the man” because – again – they have neither an argument nor any evidence. When you do play the ball, well, you’ve seen for yourself often enough what happens: the whingeing and whining continue unabated, and the same so-called “arguments” get rehashed as if sufficient repetition somehow has the power to lend them credence.

    It’s bloody hilarious, I tell ya.

    soois, you’re welcome.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 16:15

  405. Ek haal aan:

    “There’s an equilibrium point among the number of people on Earth, the resources at their disposal, technology and those people’s expectations and desires”. Vertel dit vir die ondreontwikkelde lande waar hulle teel soos muise.

    “Too many people just means more suffering and misery”. Donners logies en juis die punt van my vraag.

    “Short of a cataclysmic natural disaster”. My gesprek het juis hieroor begin, maar ek is van die begin af geboe omdat ek in God glo.

    “And now, let’s all brace ourselves for the well-constructed and thoughtful responses that will ensue”. Jip, hy kon homself nie help nie.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 16:13

  406. Con tester wrote: “Right, ol’ Burger, the penny has dropped. You didn’t actually read what I submitted. Had you done so, you could hardly have failed to notice that most of the one posted today at 13:24 is my own writing. That would be the unindented four paragraphs without the big inverted commas to their left constituting the lower two-thirds of that comment.

    So you now have even less of a case and you know it. But I guess you still feel your snidery was justified”

    Con-Tester, point taken, but I’m afraid your additions were nothing but commentary to what Coyne, Russel and others wrote – hardly original thought that. We can and have read all those arguments before and are perfectly capable of interpreting them for ourselves.

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 16:04

  407. Con_Tester,
    ek het jou die eerste keer verstaan, maar ek dink nie jy het verstaan toe ek gese het, “blameer dit op God nie”. Was ‘n tong in die kies verwysing na Verifanie wat soms lyk asof die wereld hom ‘n helse onreg aangedoen het.

    Thanx vir jou antwoord t.o.v die oorvol aarde. Iets om oor na te dink, maar sien, ek hou van wel deurdagte antwoorde, sonder dat dit nodig is om my te verkleineer. Jy sien, juis omdat ek byna breindood is, het ek slim ouens nodig om my te help verstaan.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 15:51

  408. More Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12260569

    “It is the largest known influx to date into the Ordinariate, which Pope Benedict established for Church of England members unhappy over issues such as the ordination of women.

    Three former Anglican bishops have been appointed to lead the Ordinariate.

    Ordinariates allow Anglicans opposed to developments including women bishops, gay clergy and same-sex blessings to convert to Rome while maintaining some of their traditions.”

    Ha-ha!!!!!!!!!!!! Mens kan nie hierdie kak self uitdink nie.

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 15:45

  409. Con-Tester, I see you are making new friends again.

    This is from something Jerry Coyne wrote earlier:

    “I’m sorry, but I don’t see a good reason to engage in “respectful dialogue” with Christianity, any more than I can engage in respectful dialogue with astrology or homeopathy. After all, there is empirical evidence supporting the claims of science; there is none for the major claims of Christianity. “

    McBrolloks

    January 23, 2011 at 15:33

  410. soois, you display your impaired understanding and reasoning abilities. I answered your question about blaming “god”. By direct implication, a non-existent “god” cannot effect any kind of intervention. Either science and technology will keep pace with humanity’s growth by developing new and better ways of providing a decent living standard to people, or they won’t, in which case much misery will result. There’s an equilibrium point among the number of people on Earth, the resources at their disposal, technology and those people’s expectations and desires. Too many people just means more suffering and misery. Short of a cataclysmic natural disaster, I doubt very much that humanity is suddenly just going to go extinct.

    But like I said: “And now, let’s all brace ourselves for the well-constructed and thoughtful responses that will ensue. …” etc.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 15:32

  411. Ek raai sy naam “Con-Tester” staan vir “bullshit-toetser” en jy weet wat hulle se, dit van ‘n bullshitter om ‘n bullshitter uit te ken.

    Ai, daar doen ek dit alweer, vat die man aan in plaas van die onderwerp. Soos ek gese het, meng jou met die semels…

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 15:17

  412. Burger,
    jy moet jou nie te veel aan ou Con-Tester steur nie.

    Vir hom gaan dit net oor wie het wat geskryf en wie kan die mees indrukwekkende woordeskat gebruik. Eintlik se hy bitter min en het nog net mooi boggerol bewys.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 15:12

  413. Burger,
    dankie, nou weet ek Dinosourusse het nie ge-evolueer nie, maar verdwyn (my stelling dat hulle voor Noag en die vloed moes gesterf het.)

    Con-Tester,
    jou ongelooflike intellek het jou seker in die steek gelaat, want enige skerpsinnige ou sou dadelik agterkom dat ek, komies verwys na die wat vroeer in die blog vreeslik afgegaan het oor die god wat staan en toekyk hoe die mensdom swaarkry met droogtes ensovoorts. Ek kom agter jy is die een wat eintlik vrae vermy. Ek het gevra, wat gaan van die mensdom word as hulle nog 5 miljoen jaar hier op aarde moet voortbestaan as daar nie die een of ander “ingryping” gaan plaasvind nie?

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 15:09

  414. Right, ol’ Burger, the penny has dropped. You didn’t actually read what I submitted. Had you done so, you could hardly have failed to notice that most of the one posted today at 13:24 is my own writing. That would be the unindented four paragraphs without the big inverted commas to their left constituting the lower two-thirds of that comment.

    So you now have even less of a case and you know it. But I guess you still feel your snidery was justified.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 14:57

  415. soois, blaming a non-existent “god” for humanity’s miseries would obviously be logically absurd. It should not be hard to see that it makes much more sense to blame such misery on the widespread belief in superstitious nonsense such as a supernatural redeemer and his imminent return.

    Nice deflection from the point, none the less.

    Burger, that saying by Carl Sagan is “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” A little research will reveal what context he meant it in and why it is wholly inapplicable as an argument for a belief in a “god.”

    Oh, and I defy you to find anywhere on the Interwebs where I have “copy-pasted” my comments before. The stuff I cited has been duly and very clearly attributed with links to the original material provided.

    You have no case and you know it.

    And now, let’s all brace ourselves for the well-constructed and thoughtful responses that will ensue. These responses will consist of initial silence, followed soon by a monotonous repetition of the same unaltered, stale, brain-dead, fundie-twaddle, standard-three argumentum-ad-ignorantiam stupidities as we’ve seen in these pages all along and with tedious regularity.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 14:31

  416. Con-Tester, if you were able to contribute anything other than your copy-pasted comments, I might give you some credence, unlike I do right now.

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 14:15

  417. Verifanie sê: “Burger probeer nou iets te verduidelik deur die eklektiese benadering te gebruik, dws om sekere
    dele te neem van twee of meer feite, mites ens. So ‘n bietjie wetenskap, ‘n bietjie bybel, ‘n bietjie gotte……Gooi bymekaar en meng…….Dit is POTTE VOL KAK. ”

    Verifanie, Jammer, wys my waar ek die bybel (of enige soort mite)aangehaal het. Ek praat bloot uit my hart en word gelei deur my eie waarnemings. Bied my eerder ‘n geloofwaardige alternatief vir “intelligente ontwerp” om te verduidelik waarom die natuur soms so onverwags-mooi kan ontwikkel, dan kyk ek graag met ‘n oop kop daarna. Maar jy sal jou soos gewoonlik (gaap) liewer daartoe wend om te beledig en te verkleineer. Dis mos baie makliker.

    Soois sê: “Wie se die Dinosourusse het byvoorbeeld nie lank voor Noag en die sondvloed uitgesterf nie, of ge-evolueer tot vandag se voels nie. Of is die “teorie” dat voels die nakomelinge van die Dinosourusse is reeds ongeldig bewys?”

    Soois, die sogenaamde “kT-boundary” (65 miljoen jaar oud) is ‘n duidelike skeidslyn tussen die dinosourusse soos hulle toe was en dit wat die oorlewendes daarna geword het. Dinosourus fossiele word onder die KT-boundary angetref, maar nie daarbo nie. Die rede is eenvoudig: die dinosourusse is eenmalig dood in ‘n geweldige kataklisme, wat hulle ook daarna begrawe het onder tonne stof en rots uit die aarde, meteoriet-materiaal ens. Ons kry nie meer onlangse fossiele in dieselfde hoeveelhede as onder die KT-boundary nie, omdat dinge natuurlik tot niet gaan en hulle atome uiteindelik weer ge-hersirkuleer word. Kyk maar as jy in die veld loop. Dooie goed se geraamtes verdwyn in ‘n relatiewe kort tydperk geheel en al. Daar was wel oorlewendes (meestal klein diertjies – veral soogdiere) en hulle is die voorvaders van alles wat vandag lewe.

    Daan van der Merwe sê: “Maar Verifanie, die geloof in God is mos nie afhanklik van die Bybel nie!!!”

    Daan, ditsem, sê ek mos ook. Ouens soos Verifane wil graag hê dat alle Godgelowiges, of hulle nou bybel-fundamentaliste is (ek is nie), of bloot uit die gewig van hulle eie waarnemings, glo dat daar ‘n intelligente skepper moet wees, oor dieselfde kam geskeer behoort te word. Dis mos onsin: sommige van ons glo wat ons glo as gevolg van ons eie ervaring en nie bloot skaapagtig agter die massas aan nie. Ek het ook fases deurgegaan wat wissel tussen my eie Christelike opbrengs, latere afvalligheid en “indifference”, gevolg deur ateïsme en uiteindelik teïsme (as dit dan nou geklassifiseer moet word en ‘n naam moet kry), maar met groot agterdog jeens die kerk en die bybel. Dinge is nie swart of wit nie, maar baie skakerings van grys.

    Absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence. (Carl Sagan – ek dink)

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 14:06

  418. When I say 10% of all who ever lived, I mean 10% of people who ever lived in 10 000 years.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 14:05

  419. Tell me something else,
    not with the idea of starting another argument, but as a matter of interest.
    Today there are around 7 billion people on earth, over 10% of all people who ever lived, are alive today. How on earth is nature going to deal with this. Let hunger kill people off, and off course blame God for this?

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 14:01

  420. From Martin S Pribble’s column Science is irreconcilable with religion:

    I say there are no questions that can’t be asked of science, but I would say that in lieu of an answer that mysticism is not a real-world solution to these questions.

    When we ask questions of our universe using current methods of inquiry we arrive at answers that can then be compared against other observances and outcomes. When we use the method of inquiry of theology, the answer has already been pre-determined from the outset, and the answer is always “God”. This is not a viable way to find answers, especially if we truly desire to know truths.

    If there were a creator then we can stop asking questions safe in the knowledge that the ways of the universe are out of our control and beyond our understanding. And some people find it difficult to imagine a universe without a creator because it leaves us alone and isolated in the universe even more so than we already understand ourselves to be.

    Just because we don’t understand something fully does not mean we should attribute it to a universal creator. Just because emotions and other non-physical interactions occur between people does not make it magic.

    Bertrand Russell said this in 1927:

    “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.”

    Science remains unafraid to ask the difficult questions, while theology will skirt around the subject matter, posing questions with circular reasoning and asking for disproof of something science has never claimed to exist in the first place. It’s not the job of science to disprove the existence of god, nor is it the desire outcome. Science is here to help us understand the universe, and one day, given enough time, we may discover why we keep asking for there to be a god.

    Fat lot of good it’ll do, though. For all the difference it’ll make, all of the preceding may just as well never have been argued.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 13:29

  421. Brian Carnell’s comment on Jerry Coyne’s USA Today op-ed piece Science and religion aren’t friends:

    [I]n the mind of at least some of the critics of “new” atheism’s emphasis on the irreconcilability of religion and science, it is okay to go ahead and tell believers, sorry science says there are no miracles, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, faith healing is bullshit, Mohammed never received a message from God, and the universe is entirely explainable by naturalistic causes without any need for intervention by a supernatural force. But once you take the next step and say “Oh, and this means there’s almost certainly no God”, you’ve crossed a line that will drive the believers into the hands of the anti-science fundamentalists.

    I’m just not buying that.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 13:26

  422. From Jerry Coyne’s USA Today op-ed piece Science and religion aren’t friends:

    Atheist books … have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science.

    (Emphasis added.)

    Further on:

    Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible.

    Unfortunately (but likely due to the target audience, the medium and space limitations), Coyne doesn’t discuss at least equally important epistemological reasons like Occam’s Razor (Yes, you can Google that!) or the automatic rejection of unproven hypotheses for why religion and science cannot be reconciled with any degree of honesty.

    Briefly, Occam’s Razor tells us to reject the unnecessary stuff in our scientific accounts of real-world phenomena. No god or other supernatural agency is required to explain the origin of life or the universe. In case you missed it, the operative word here is “required.” Consequently, to assert that a god or other supernatural agency “explains” anything is a convenient bit of feel-good fiction.

    Similarly, the automatic rejection of unproven hypotheses disallows the use of unproven hypotheses as explanatory descriptions. This stipulation does not mean that an unproven hypothesis is automatically false or that it cannot be tested for possible validity; it means that we must conduct ourselves as if it is false until such time as sufficiently compelling evidence for it comes to light. That is, the most basic rules of science sternly prohibit us from using unproven hypotheses as explanatory accounts. There is simply no strong enough evidence for any god or any supernatural agency, and when confronted with this, believers usually like to retreat into the “but god cannot be proved or disproved!” refuge. What they obviously don’t realise is that this trick actually works directly against them because the centre of their belief, namely god, is, by their own clear admission, beyond the pale of science. And if god is beyond science then belief in him/her as an explanatory force for anything observable is inescapably, irredeemably antiscientific.

    A related deceit is to declare that this god is beyond logic and reason, a position that one hears all too often. It’s not hard to see what a cop-out that really is. It lets the believer say whatever they feel like about the nature and/or powers of their god without feeling any twinges or need to supply anything more than a vague hand-wave, which, when stripped of its obfuscation and blah, means more or less, “Well, that’s what it feels like to me right now – and it’ll probably change tomorrow – but I’m not actually able to provide you with a proper argument.”

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2011 at 13:24

  423. Verifanie,
    dit is reg so, maar ek sal sommer self die vrae rondom die mens se natuurlike behoefte om ‘n god te aanbid beantwoord.

    God het die mens ‘n siel gegee en daarmee saam die behoefte om ‘n god te aan bid, met die hoop dat ons Hom sal soek.

    Baie mense vra: “nou as Hy so graag wou he ons moet Hom aanbid en gehoorsaam, hoekom het Hy ons nie so geskape nie?

    As jy vir jou ‘n hondjie wil koop. Gaan jy speelgoedwinkel toe en koop vir jou een wat in Japan gebou is en geprogrameer is om jou te gehoorsaam en lief te he, of gaan jy troeteldierwinkel toe en koop een wat self gaan besluit of hy lief vir jou gaan wees?

    God het die “behoefte” by ons ingebou met die hoop dat ons Hom self sal kies, maar hy wil nogsteeds he dit moet van ons af kom.

    As daardie hondjie jou kies, gaan jy ekstra spesiale aandag aan hom gee, maar as hy anders kies, gaan jy probeer en so aan, maar op die ou-end gaan hy iemand anders se hondjie word.

    Die prys vir God se kinders is die ewige lewe, die res ‘n aardse lewe en daarna niks.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 13:20

  424. soois,
    Dit is verby een-uur en ekht ‘n afspraak. Ek gaan jou later antwoord op jou vrae.

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 13:06

  425. Johannes is sekerlik baie besig in sy laaste dae op moederaarde. :lol:

    Satan

    January 23, 2011 at 12:52

  426. Ek het vroeer beweer dat ek gevind het hoe meer tyd ek aan die Woord spandeer en aan God, hoe meer verstaan ek, “selfs beter as baie predikante”.

    Daardeur wil ek geensins voorgee ek is meer geleerd as hulle nie. Glo my, die ouens ken die Bybel uit hulle koppe uit en kan vir jou presies se waar wat staan. Ek kan dit nie doen nie. Wat ek wel se is dat ek verstaan. Baie ouens en predikante vertrou op hul geleerdheid en intellek, en word as sulks self-aanbidders, predikante ook. As mense vergeet van hul geleerdheid en intellek en meer soos kinders word en vrae vra, kom hulle baie dinge agter. Trouens, Jesus het self gese dat mense meer soos kinders moet word, dan sal hulle geseend wees.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 12:50

  427. Ek en baie van Sy kinders verstaan.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 12:44

  428. Verifanie,
    met jou verwysing na bv. Islamitiese kinders ens. wou ek eers terugkom en verduidelik dat Christene, Jode, Muslims en so aan nie dieselfde glo nie, maar toe besef ek die gesprek gaan nou nie oor Christenskap nie, maar die geloof in ‘n skepper, en al hierdie gelowe het dit min of meer in gemeen. Dit het my egter by ‘n ander vraag uitgebring..

    Hoekom is dit so dat die mens deur al die eeue heen en selfs eilandbewoners wat nog nooit met die beskawing te doene gehad het, die een of ander god aanbid? Of dit nou God is, of ‘n gemaakte god, hoekom het die mens so ‘n behoefte, maar nie diere nie?

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 12:42

  429. Sooibrand,
    Se vir my opreg en baie eerlik….Wie de fok op hierdie planeet verstaan die bybel?

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 12:33

  430. Kom ek stel dit anders.
    Jy se as ons iets nie kan verduidelik nie, moet daar ‘n god wees, maar vir jou is die teendeel waar, as ek nie die Bybel verstaan nie, moet dit nonsens wees.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 12:32

  431. Daan,
    Dit maak mos nie saak WAAR die hele IDEE van ‘n got of gotte-goeters afkomstig is nie. Dit is net die feit dat daar deur mense GEGLO word dat daar sulke goeters is wat iewers rondswerf, seker al lank voordat die heelal geskep is. Wie het hierdie goeters gemaak?

    Burger probeer nou iets te verduidelik deur die eklektiese benadering te gebruik, dws om sekere
    dele te neem van twee of meer feite, mites ens. So ‘n bietjie wetenskap, ‘n bietjie bybel, ‘n bietjie gotte……Gooi bymekaar en meng…….Dit is POTTE VOL KAK.

    Godiote en half-godiote “struggle” met die hele ding van godsdiens. Ek het innige empatie daarmee. Ek voel rerig jammer vir mense wie hulle hele lewe deurbring in ‘n stryd oor die bestaan of nie van een of ander wese. Dit is pynlik, al besef hulle dit nie self nie. Dit maak my kwaad, want dit is die skade wat aangerig is deur die godioot-pushers. Dis net so erg soos die drug-pushers.

    Daar is mense wie geknak is deur hulle ouers omdat godsdiens aldag en heeldag in hulle kele afgedruk was.
    Ek sien dit daagliks.

    En kyk bv. net hoe ge-breinspoel die arme kinders in Islamitiese lande grootword. Dit maak my woedend! Ek is baie lief vir kinders. Ek weet dat kinders moet grootword SONDER ENIGE KAK wat afkomstig is van simpel, agerlike fokken IDEES van mal, neurotiese ouers. Hulle moet totaal vry wees om te dink, te glo, te voel, en te se net soos hulle eie brein/liggam/wese dit wil he.

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 12:32

  432. Verifanie,
    ek dink jy bewys eintlik ‘n punt in ons guns.

    Jy se die Bybel is 2000 gelede geskryf, en tog is daar baie dinge in geskryf wat vandag eers “ontdek” word. As jy my lang “gesteelde” stuk gelees het sal jy baie voorbeelde sien.
    Nou is my vraag: Hoek maak dit die Bybel onwaar?

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 12:22

  433. Burger,

    om aan te sluit kan ek dalk my “teorie” beter verduidelik. Let tog asb net op dat dit ‘n persoonlike en onbewysde teorie is.

    Ek dink ek het vroeer genoem hoe, vir God, 1 dag soos 1000 jaar is en 1000 jaar soos 1 dag. Ek dink hy wou daardeur se dat Sy tyd nie ons tyd is nie, trouens ek stel my so-iets voor in die Bybel.

    Dus kon Sy skepping 7 miljoen jaar geduur het, en nie 7 dae nie, terloops ek betwyfel sterk dat dit letterlik 7 dae was, hoewel ek terselfdertyd ook dit moet beklemtoon dat dit vir Hom as Opperheerser en Skepper nie onmoontlik sou wees nie.

    Wie se die Dinosourusse het byvoorbeeld nie lank voor Noag en die sondvloed uitgesterf nie, of ge-evolueer tot vandag se voels nie. Of is die “teorie” dat voels die nakomelinge van die Dinosourusse is reeds ongeldig bewys? In elk geval dink ek jy verstaan my punt.

    Terloops, jy sal vind dat dit soms lyk asof ek nie kan spel nie, maar “struggle” met die “laptom” as dit by leestekens ensovoorts kom. Ai, ek mis my “desktop”.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 12:16

  434. Maar Verifanie, die geloof in God is mos nie afhanklik van die Bybel nie!!!

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 23, 2011 at 12:06

  435. More Burger,
    So, omdat daar nie ‘n verduideliking is vir iets nie,
    dan is daar ‘n god? Sodra daar ‘n gaping in ons kennis is van iets, dan se die godiote: “Nou sien julle nou net! Ek het mos vir julle gese dat daar ‘n gotte is, ne?. En daar het jy nou die bewys! Ons weet nie, so daar is ‘n gotte.” So eenvoudig.

    Net so eenvoudig soos die denkwese van godiote en half-godiote, (waarvan jy een is).

    Antwoord die vraag: Hoekom MOET daar in ‘n gotte geglo word?

    Besef julle nie dat die ou kak-boek wat geskryf is amper twee duisend jaar gelede, deur mense geskryf was, wie nie een duisendste weet wat ons vandag weet nie?

    Hoe het hulle die natuurwetenskap verstaan en verduidelik? Die hele IDEE van so iets soos ‘n ding of persoon of watookal wat die verstommende
    eienskap(pe) het om ‘n heelal te skep soos ons dit vandag ken, is pure, pure snot en kak en pis.

    Al het die ding of gotte net gedeelteliks bygedra tot die heelal, moes dit ‘n krag en kennis en vermoe gehad het wat die mens sin ligjare verbysteek. Indien dit wel so is, dan ontstaan die vraag onmiddelik: “HOEKOM speel hierdie ding speletjies met die mensdom as hy/sy/dit so fokken wonderlik gevorderd is? Maak dit vir jou sin?

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 11:42

  436. ps. Daan, dankie vir die welkom-matjie. Waar’s die koffie-goed, ek voel nou so tuis, ek maak sommer self!

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 10:09

  437. Verifanie, maar dis mos nou juis die merk van ‘n man wat sy opinie kan verander na gelang van hoe hy groei en nuwe of selfs ou bewyse bestudeer totdat die gewig daarvan hom dwing om tot ander insigte te kom. Dus die teenoorgestelde van fundamentalisme.
    Soois, jy’s moontliok reg dat God en die heelal op dieselfde tyd “gebore” is. Jy sien, jy kan sê dat God nog altyd bestaan het en dus “eternal” is, maar onthou die oerknal was (aldus die teorie) die ontstaan van ruimte SOWEL as tyd. Voor dit was daar nie een van die twee nie! Maar omdat niemand weet wat voor die oerknal gebeur het nie, kan ons nie met sekerheid sê of die ontstaan van die heelal, ‘n eenmalige gebeurtenis was of maar net die nuutse een is nie. God IS die heelal; hy is in elke atoom. Hy is dus nie hier of daar nie; hy is oral en alles. Dis tog duidelik dat die heelal en hoe alles werk, intelligensie moet hê. Ek sien daar is vroeër in dié blog ligweg aan die konsep van intelligente ontwerp geraak. Evolusie kan lag-lag verduidelik hoe dit moontlik is dat ‘n kat wat in Afrika woon so sal evolueer dat hy groot en sterk is om die groot prooi wat beskikbaar is te kan vang, of dat ‘n jaguar in Sumatra kleiner en ratser en kollerig moet word om sy prooi te kan vang. Maar natuurlike seleksie kan nie die ongelooflike skoonheid van byvoorbeeld die pels van ‘n luiperd, tier of zebra verklaar nie. Dit kan nie die skoonheid van blomme verklaar nie – “after all” ‘n by het nie estetiese sensitiwiteit nie; hy sien net die helder kleur en kan die geur daarvan dalk ruik. Geen van hierdie vorme is noodwendig so “efficient” as wat dit kon wees deur suiwer natuurlike seleksie nie. Nee, daar moet ‘n ontwerper, en ‘n donnerse goeie ontwerper betrokke wees!

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 09:59

  438. Haai ouens,
    Ek moet se hierdie is die mees wonderlikste blog in die heelal. Dit verskaf my ure se genot soos ek lag vir al die simpel goed wat die godiote kwytraak.

    Dankie Nathan, ek hoop terdee dat die blog nog sal aanhou vir ewig. Ook dankie aan al die ouens wie deelneem, die slimmes en die dommes, en die heiliges en die antie-christinas en die half-godiote en sommer almal.

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 09:38

  439. Hahaha,
    Die enigste rede hoekom ek gereeld kerk toe gaan, is omdat die (dom)inee se vrou my sterk laaik. Ons vang ‘n knippie agter die kerk. Sy is hot, hot, hot hoor. Maar soms skree sy net ‘n bietjie te hard, so ek moet maar pasop. Dalk moet ons ‘n ander plan maak.

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 09:27

  440. O fok!! Ou Fanie is nog dronk. Fanie, ek hoop nie jy gaan in jou dronk toestand kerk toe nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 23, 2011 at 08:06

  441. O fok,
    Ou geDAANte is ook een van daai godiote wat nou oorgeslaan het na:

    “Ja, evolis..er evollesie… er evolussissie is korrek en die Big Bang en al sulke goeters, want dit is hoe ek deesdae redeneer, jy sien. Ek sou nooit so geredeneer het twintig jaar gelede nie, maar jy sien, net soos al die ander simpel godiote, is ek ook net ‘n volgeling. Ons godiote verander mos on wysie soos die tye verander en ons volg populere opinies, maar nie so baie nie, net so ‘n bietjie. So, ek se dat ek glo so ‘n bietjie in evllis..er..evuros…..er evolis…ag jy weet wat ek bedoel, en die Groot Klappers natuurlik”

    Dit is deesdae moeilik om ‘n godioot te kry wat nie skielik besluit het dat hy al jare lank in evolusie glo nie. (Behalwe natuurlik op hierdie blog, haha)

    Soos dit al gese is: Godiote het so oor die laaste dertig/veertig jaar al so verander:

    Lang hare aanvaar, asook jeans, stovepipes; mini-rokkies; bikinis; vloekwoorde; rock-musiek en veral Elvis en die Beatles, ook die Rolling Stones; gekleurde hemde; kredietkaarte (grooot sonde daardie een – sooibrand, DIT is die eintlike antichris jong); Motivational speakers; Geen hoede vir vrouens in die kerk (kyk net die helse vooruitgang! – dapper godiote)

    Verder was godiote dapper genoeg om ‘n magdom ander
    “antichristelike” dinge te aanvaar – bravo kerels, ons haal ons hoede af – (behalwe soois die sooibrand natuurlik).

    Nou moet baie van hulle nog net aanvaar dat die aarde rond is en nie plat nie, dat weerlig, aardbewings en oorstromings natuurlike fenomena is
    en dat feetjies en kaboutertjies nie werklik bestaan nie.

    verifanie

    January 23, 2011 at 07:55

  442. Gegroet is jy Burger,
    elke keer as ek dink ek gaan die blog vir altyd vaarwel toeroep, dan kom ‘n ou met ‘n bietjie “vleis aan die beendere” en inspireer my om weer toe te tree.

    As jy na van my vorige griffels kyk, sal jy sien dat ek wel die moontlikheid van evolusie ensovoorts (oerknal ingesluit) oorweeg en nie summier in die asblik gooi nie. Ek is net nie oortuig nie.

    Ek en ‘n slim ou vir wie ek baie respek het, het so ‘n ruk gelede juis oor die onderwerp “gestry”, maar hy het my aan die dink gesit.

    Ek wonder net of die oerknal nie iets met God se onstaan het nie?

    Dok,
    weet jy, die Bybel was vir my ook “grieks” totdat ek my aan Hom oorgegee het. Nou begin ek die woord verstaan, beter as baie predikante, en soos julle al kon agterkom is ek nie vreeslik slim nie.

    Sien die ateiste is baie egoisties en selfgesentreerd (die twee woorde beteken seker dieselfde). “n woordegeveg oor hoe intelligent “ek” of “jy” nou eintlik is.

    soois

    January 23, 2011 at 07:48

  443. Savage!!! More.

    Kom nou. Kyk na my bydraes hierbo oor die dinosaurusse en die belaglikheid van die situasie, sou ‘n mens Noag en die ark as ‘n historiese gebeurtenis aanvaar.

    Aan die anderkant, ek is regtig nou nie lus om JOU “good stamp of approval” te verwerf nie.

    Jy sien Savage. Dit hang af in watter gemoedstoestand jy is wanneer jy poste lees.

    As jy in die gemoedstoestand van ‘n atioot is, is al wat jy as intelligent aanvaar net een stelling: “ALLE gelowiges is dom, sleg en fok die wêreld op.”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 23, 2011 at 07:28

  444. ” .. heelwat ateiste, selfs ‘n tawwe ou soos DW, my gekomplimenteer met my bogemiddelde intelligensie.”

    ‘n Ateïs (of ‘n godbot) is nie nodwendig reg deur te sê jy is intelligent nie, Daan. Wys my bietjie van daai intelligensie asseblief; dit ontwyk my elke keer as jy hier post.

    Savage

    January 23, 2011 at 07:01

  445. Burger!!! Dagsê.

    Jy kom hier aan soos ‘n verfrissende bries in die Namib!! Like a shamrock on a sunny day!!

    Ek glo ook dat God die Big Bang veroorsaak het.

    Ek hoop regtig jy is nabye familie van Staal Burger, want hier gaan jy jou vasloop in ‘n vlaag vlermuismis.

    Ek sien baie uit na jou bydraes.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 23, 2011 at 06:58

  446. Savage!!! Dagsê

    Hehehehe.. Neewat ou Savage. Hoe sou Cont-Poester gesê het? “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words …”

    Ag nou ja.

    En weet jy wat ou Savvy, nog lank voor jy hier begin deelneem het, het heelwat ateiste, selfs ‘n tawwe ou soos DW, my gekomplimenteer met my bogemiddelde intelligensie.

    Gaan check gerus in die argief, en moenie ‘n atioot wees nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 23, 2011 at 06:44

  447. Hans

    Praat die Bybel nie van Armageddon, die einde van die wêreld nie? Die konflik wat die wederkoms voorafgaan?

    En weet jy Hans, dis ook ‘n ding wat my al vir baie jare pla: As God bestaan, waarom al hierdie misterie? As die Bybel Sy woord is, waarom al hierdie sinnebeelde en beeldspraak nodig?

    Ek bedoel, hoekom kon die Bybel nie so geskryf word dat almal dit op ‘n natuurlike wyse kon verstaan nie?

    Doktor Einstein

    January 23, 2011 at 06:34

  448. Believer.

    Okay. But, eh… what is your point? I mean, what may one expect to see as a reward for faith?

    Doktor Einstein

    January 23, 2011 at 06:21

  449. Dagsê aan almal, of dis seker naandsê. Dis my eerste kuiertjie hier en ek moet myself dus eers gou-gou voorstel. Ek vermoed ek is die vriend waarna ou Soois verwys, wat glo dat die oerknal en evolusie God se “tools” is (om dit wat ek glo in ‘n neutedop te plaas.) Dit maak dus van my, soos almal hier, ‘n fundamentalis van een of ander aard. Dis nou as ons almal dit eens het oor die definisie daarvan: “een wat jy nie tot ander insigte kan bring nie, al is jou argument hoe weldeurdag en oortuigend”.

    Dit maak my dus seker maar die “derde stem” in hierdie debat.

    Ek het nou-net eers hierdie “link” gekry en almal se “comments” aandagtig gelees, behalwe die wat hulle wend tot beledigings en pogings om partyte met ander oortuigings as hulsef te probeer verkleineer. Ek praat nou van albei partye, sowel “vir” as “teen”. Dis waarom ek lank getob het voor ek die stap geneem het om ook my stem te laat hoor. Ek het ‘n broertjie dood aan iemand wat verkies om eerder die man as die bal te speel. Ek het egter besluit om vir die “benefit” van diegene wat wel rasioneel kan dink en soos volwassenes kan debatteer, ook tot hierdie gesprek toe te tree.

    Ek wil later verduidelik wat my tot my huidige “mindset” gelei het, maar soos julle sien, is dit al laat en ek moet (weens ‘n oorvol werswinkel) staan en tik. My rug sal afbreek so!

    Burger

    January 23, 2011 at 00:24

  450. Net so in die algemeen vir almal sê ek die volgende:
    Noag en al daardie verhale is sinnebeelde en dra vir ons boodskaappe daarin wat vir elke eeu van toepassing is.
    Volgens die Bybel gaan die aarde nie vergaan nie.
    God en Sy engele in Christus Jesus, is hier tussen ons.
    Moet tog nie die skrifte op ‘n natuurlike wyse probeer verstaan nie.
    Faith leads to deeds that bring about results. I believe, yet I also know.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 22, 2011 at 21:59

  451. Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe. — Saint Augustine

    Believer

    January 22, 2011 at 21:01

  452. “… is in elk geval bo julle vermoeens om te verstaan.”

    So sê julle godbots almal; ons ateïste verstaan nie die bybel nie. (Julle sê dit natuurlik vir julle mede godbots ook, as een net effens van jou eie interpretasie verskil.)

    Nee Sweis-soos-‘n-warm-rod (maar ek dink nie jy is eers daartoe in staat nie), ons verstaan maar alte goed dat enige iemand wat in die bybel glo ‘n paar varkies weg het, dis net ‘n kwessie van hòèveel soek is.

    “miskien, net miskien beryk ek een ou”.

    Nee wat, Sweis-soos-‘n-warm-rod, jy kan nie eers ou Daan beryk nie, wat nog van iemand met enige verstand.

    “Anyway, as julle nie weer van my hoor nie is dit omdat ek niks kan byvoeg nie.”

    Wat het jy sover gesê, Sweis-soos-‘n-warm-rod? Net mooi sweet-blou-boggerol.

    Savage

    January 22, 2011 at 19:44

  453. Smelly.

    Daar is werklik geen rede om vir my jammer toe voel nie. Dankie dat jy dit opreg bedoel.

    Kan jy nie verstaan nie of wil jy nie verstaan nie? Ek het 6 jaar terug reeds die “quantum” gedoen. Ek het darem mos nou al ‘n paar keer geskryf dat ek daardie tyd tot die slotsom gekom het dat daar geen gronde vir die Christelike geloof bestaan nie.

    Dit volg mos logies dat ek ook nie langer die sondeval-vergifnis teologie kan aanvaar nie. Ook nie ‘n jaloerse, vergeldende god nie.

    So as ek nie bereid is om die moontlikheid vir die bestaan van God uit te sluit nie, doen ek dit nie uit vrees vir vergelding deur ‘n wraaksugtige, egoistiese Opperwese nie.

    Na alles, as Hy bestaan kan ek werklik nie insien hoekom hy enige iemand, gelowig of ongelowig, met die banvloek wil tref nie.

    Ek hoop jy verstaan wat ek vir jou probeer sê.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 22, 2011 at 14:47

  454. Nee wat ou Commie.

    Kyk self wat jy skryf. Jy praat van “gratuitously mocking people” en om respek te verdie, maar net daarna verwys jy na “such utterly ridiculous ideas”.

    Weet jy ooit wat beteken “gratuitously mocking”?
    Nee o bliksem, moet liewer nie antwoord nie, want nou gaan ek ten minste 7 weergawes van die betekenis kry.

    Kyk, julle metode van werk is eenvoudig:
    Julle wil almal baie graag glo dat die Bybel onwaar is en hits mekaar aan om Christenskap af te kraak en te beledig. Dit laat julle veilig voel. Is kak bang dat die Bybel waar kan wees en lees dit daarom nie en probeer nie Dit verstaan nie (is in elk geval bo julle vermoeens om te verstaan).

    Opgemerk hoe ek nie bang is om die Bybel en die wetenskap na te vors nie? Julle egter te bang om die Bybel ook ‘n kans te gee. Dit is julle verlies.

    Wanneer ‘n Cristen dit waag om te skryf kraak julle hom gou af en as hy besef hy is nou eintlik by Lucifer en kie., en dat hy niks kan doen om julle van oortuiging te verander nie, hou hy op skryf, want wat is die punt? Dit laaik julle, want adn kan julle hom uitmaak as die tipiese gelowige wat die aftog geblaas het.

    Wie oortuig julle? Net julle onnosele self, want bitter min Christene lees hierdie klomp kak.

    Ek wou hierdie blog ignoreer, maar het uit liefde vir my medemens gedink:’ “miskien, net miskien beryk ek een ou”.

    Anyway, as julle nie weer van my hoor nie is dit omdat ek niks kan byvoeg nie. Sal egter reageer op iemand wat werklik ‘n vraag oor die Bybel het. ‘n Vraag uit werklike belangstelling, nie om te spot nie.

    Gee my so 5 minute om uit te gaan, dan kan julle ouens maar lostrek oor ou Soois wat ook die aftog geblaas het. Geniet dit en onthou Nathan, hou Beaufort Wes dop.

    Adios

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 13:58

  455. Yes, that’s what’s bound to happen when a Danny-booi-Van-der-Moerig clone imposes his own distorted and one-sided view of things on events, especially when they are inclined to take everything personally (prolly ’cos of great basic insecurity) to the point of being unable to distinguish between gratuitously mocking people and mocking people’s ideas. People don’t get respect by demanding it. They earn it, and if they don’t want to be laughed at, they shouldn’t have such utterly ridiculous ideas. If they want respect, they can start by showing proper respect for the methods and findings of science. Maybe that way, in a thousand years or so, they’ll pluck up the courage to examine the real reasons why they find me irritating. Until then, I’ll delight in irritating them further about their fundie twaddle.

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2011 at 13:34

  456. In elk geval, Nathan, hou vir Beaufort Wes dop hoor.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 12:46

  457. Vir wie belangstel:

    Sien julle wat op die blog aangaan?
    Wanneer ‘n gelowige hier skryf, word hy summier aangeval, beledig en selfs gevloek, veral as hy nie sommer net die aftog blaas nie. Teenargumente vir Godsdiens is daar nie, in elk geval geen bewyse dat dit nonsens is nie. Sal eerder probeer om die persoon te diskrediteer as om die bron te diskrediteer.

    Ek en ander gelowiges daarteen probeer egter ons punt bewys, sonder dat die wetenskap noodwendig verkleineer word, of sonder om ongelowiges te probeer verkleineer, hoewel sommiges net kru taal verstaan en my noodsaak om tot op hulle vlak te daal (meng jou met die semels en die varke vreet jou op).

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 12:41

  458. Well, soois, that may be the point according to your parochial, self-interested view. The much larger issue is that you, just like that article, aren’t afraid of using fabrication, half-truths and full-blown lies to defend your unsustainable fundie twaddle.

    Your “proof” is an uncompelling travesty and I have given a number of broad principles and reasons for why this is so, but of course you missed them. I do not need to refute it point by point to demonstrate that it is baloney, just as I do not need to refute every astrological prognostication in order to demonstrate that astrology is bogus.

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2011 at 12:33

  459. Jip Ou Connie,
    wou jou juis uitlok om weer vir die ouens my “bedrog” uit te wys en nogsteeds nie die punte genoem vals te bewys nie. Het jy nie gesien ek het jou reeds uitgewys as die ou wat “google” en met programme ander probeer diskrediteer nie?

    Die donnerse punt jou irriterende klein mofgat Hol-Toetser is dat jy nog geen teenantwoord kon gee nie.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 12:15

  460. Verifanie,
    jy is reg, daar is honderde intelligente dinge hier geskryf. Net nie een deur jou nie.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 12:04

  461. I have run a text comparator on the Clarifying Christianity article versus soois’s post of January 21, 2011 at 09:08. I suggest that anyone who’s interested do likewise. You will find that (1) only non-significant changes such as going from third person to first person (for example, “We want people to learn…” was changed to “I want people to learn…”, or “Although an entire web site could be filled with this information, we will
    provide…
    ” became “Although I can fill this entire blog with this information, I will provide…”); (2) some ancillary notes have been omitted; and (3) a whole separate article from that site titled Science and the Bible was inserted at exactly the place where a link to it occurs in the original article, also copyrighted. These are the “not identical” and “I have written lots more” changes that don’t, in the very odd world inhabited by fundies and other dishonest people, transgress fair use principles.

    The above are verifiable facts, and one can now see another example of how these fundies resort to slime and subterfuge in order to wriggle past their silly little lies.

    Another verifiable fact is that scientists in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, futurology, etc.) don’t consult the bible for guidance on where to invest their research efforts. There’s a good reason for that, one that the committed fundie is evidently not able to see.

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2011 at 11:31

  462. sooibrand,
    Daar is al honderde – nee duisende – intelligente dinge geskryf op hierdie blog deur baie slim mense.
    Julle klomp godiote is te fokken onnosel om dit ter harte te neem en te aanvaar.

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 11:07

  463. Doffie,
    Moet nou nie in jou broek kak omdat ou sooibrand daardie “antie” woord gebruik het nie. Dit is maar net nog weer ‘n ding om gristene/godiote bang te maak sodat hulle nie vir hulle self kan dink nie. Seker die RKK wat dit in die kak-boek aangebring het.

    Sooibrand, toe jy ‘n laaitie was, het jou tannie Christina jou gemolesteer. Dit is hoekom jy behep is met die woord antichris.

    Terloops, ek is ook ‘n anti-feetjies, anti-kabouters,
    anti-ufo’s , anti-slange-wat-praat, anti-donkies-wat-praat, anti-yeti, anti-loch-ness-monster, anti-kinder-molestering, anti-swartes-haat, anti-oorlog, anti-kinders-fisies-aanrand, en anti- ‘n klomp ander goed.

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 11:03

  464. Commie-seun moet nou net ‘n teenantwoord raak “GOOGLE”, want sy verkorte opsomming is twaddle.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 10:19

  465. By the way,
    dit neem nie ‘n genie om as iemand iets skryf dit gou te “GOOGLE” nie. As jy die moeite doen om die link te gebruik wat Con-Tester geplaas het en die moeite doen om dit na te gaan sal jy vind dat dit nie identies is nie en dat ek baie meer geskryf het. Punt bly in elk geval dat ek die feite na hierdie blad toe wou bring en nie punte met ‘n ander ou se woorde wou verdien nie.

    Het gedink julle het genoeg verstand om dit te weet. Ek moes nou seker ook die “You-tube” link vir ou Commie se video plaas vir die dom onnosele fokkers (Verifanie en sy intellektuele ewekniee)wat dalk dink hy probeer voorgee hy het self die video gemaak.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 10:13

  466. Daardie slim Suis-Afrikaner se naam is…Verifanie

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 10:05

  467. Verifanie,
    ek wag nogsteeds in spanning dat jy iets intelligents kwytraak, soos om met ‘n feit of twee vorendag te kom, of soos Con-Tester en Nathan my op ‘n geleerde manier op my neus laat kyk.

    Ek dink ou Commie gebruik sy mooi woord, twaddle, op die verkeerde ou.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 10:02

  468. Terloops Doffie,

    Dit is: “For crying in a bucket”

    So van braaing gepraat. ‘n Slim Suid-Afrikaner het ‘n wonderlike nuwe metode uitgevind om 44-gallon dromme te maak…….

    Hy vat twee braais en dan sweis hy hulle aanmekaar.

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 09:57

  469. Ek dink werklik dat ou sooibrand ‘n komediant is wat die gek skeer met ons. Geen mens op aarde kan sulke verwarde, onnosele, opgefokte kak-stront rerig glo nie. As hy dit alles glo wat hy skryf, dan is ek verbaas dat hy nie iewers in ‘n malhuis toegesluit is nie.

    Alhoewel, hy beweer hy is op’n plaas (kan nooit godiote glo nie) en ver van ander mense af, so hy kan maar so mal soos ‘n fokken haas wees en min mense aantas. Ek lag en gooi op terselfdertyd.

    Ons het weereens ‘n voorbeeld gehad van hoe ‘n mens nie ‘n godioot kan glo nie. Eers was dit Doffie met sy klomp leuens, en nou was dit sooibrand met sy laaang kommentaar wat hy wou uitmaak asof dit sy eie slim opinies is…….but Con-tester lived up to his name and caught him out.

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 09:52

  470. Miskien as ouens soos julle op julle kniee gaan, gebeur daar wonderwerke.

    Ek het ook 3 jaar van droogte beleef voordat dit kom reen het.

    Jesaja wou bewys dat sy God bestaan en het gebid dat dit ophou reen en toe onstaan daar ‘droogte. Later het God vir Jesaja gese dat hy wil he dat dit weer moet reen en dat hy daarvoor moet bid. Jesaja het vir die mense gese dat hulle moet gereed maak vir groot reen. Hy moes 6 keer op die berg opgaan en bid voordat dit begin reen het. Hoekom het God nie net sommer reen gestuur nie en hoekom moes Jesaja 6 keer opgaan. God wil he ons moet SY wil bid, net net sommer ons eie nie, en Hy wil he ons moet aanhou bid.

    Hou maar vir Beaufort dop…

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 07:57

  471. Soois
    Ek’s bly oor die reën, man!
    Ek stel my dié onlangse hemelse gesprek voor.
    God: “Laat reën dit op Soois se plaas. Nóú!”
    Gabriël: “God, wat van Beaufort?”
    God: “Beaufort wat?”
    Gabriël: “Beaufort Wes.”
    God: “Wat van Beaufort Wes?”
    Gabriël: “Dis baie, baie, báie droog daar…”
    God: “En?”
    Gabriël: “Hoekom dit nie eerder… of óók, op Beaufort laat reën nie?”
    (Lang stilte.)
    God: “Fok Beaufort. Soois is my man. Maak oop die sluise. Nie te veel nie; laat ons die man op sy knieë hou. Net bietjie.”
    Hoekom is hierdie “God” van die godiote so bevooroordeeld?
    Terloops Soois, gaan lees op wat reën veroorsaak… Is toe allietyf nié “God” nie, raai.

    Nathan Bond

    January 22, 2011 at 07:37

  472. As jy na Nathan se opmerking hierbo kyk en ook ander s’n, sal jy sien hulle wil aanhou om die almag van God te verwerp.

    Die punt is juis dat God die onmoontlike kan doen. Anders moet ek nou se dat as ‘n mens nie die heelal kon skep nie, dan kan God dit ook nie doen nie.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 07:26

  473. Dagse Dok,
    dit is ‘n mooiweersoggend hier op my plaas en die Heer het vir my baie reen gestuur.

    Lekker as ouens oordentlike vrae vra en logiese feite bring en nie net kak praat en alles onmiddelik verdoem nie. Kyk nou hoe lok die antichris jou uit hierbo.

    Eerstens, as jy boontoe kyk sal jy sien dat ek ook eerder dink die Bybelse mense het al geweet van die dinos wat toe reeds uitgesterf het deur beendere te ontdek ensovoorts. Ou Job het eerder van die duiwel gepraat wat vuur spoeg, of dalk ‘n draak? Moet nog hul beendere ontdek.

    Dan moet ons nie evolusie met teling tussen rasse verwar nie. As boer kan ek jou se dat ons uit 3 spesies skape bv vele ander rasse kan voortbring. So ook met honde, katte ens.

    Ek verwerp evolusie ook nie uit beginsel nie, want anders as sommige ateiste, het ek nie sommer net besluit ek laaik dit nie, dus is dit stront nie.
    Kom ons kyk na meneer Niandertalman. Hy het 48 kromosome, nes meneer Gorilla, Chimpansee ens. Ons mense het 46, en soms kry ons mense een ekstra en dan sit ons met ‘n Down’s kind. Nou raai wat. Daar is ‘n ander dom ou donner genaamd meneer Vigs. Hy kan mense met 46 en Down’s mense met 47 besmet, maar meneer Gorilla met sy 48 kry hom nie.
    Jy sien, selfs ‘n VIGS-virus ken die verskil tussen ‘n aap en ‘n mens.

    “En die aarde was woes en leeg”: Al ooit gewonder of God nie vantevore geskep het en dat Sy vorige skepping vernietig is nie, en dat ons nou die oorblyfsels ontdek nie? Is die geskiedenis nie besig om homself te herhaal nie?

    Ek vra maar net.

    soois

    January 22, 2011 at 07:19

  474. Die “ongelooflike” verhale van pratende slange en donkies en die Vloed en… trek die aandag af van die eintlik onsin: “God”.

    Nathan Bond

    January 22, 2011 at 07:08

  475. Is dit nie interessant dat mense vir ongeveer 5,000 jaar?, nie daardie stap kon neem om hulself af te vra hoe al die diere in die ark kon kom nie, en hoe ‘n ou in ‘n walvis se maag kon leef nie? Daar gebeur dit nou in 2010. Wat gaan die volgende groot vraag wees? Dit is so stadig en pynlik soos tande trek.

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 07:03

  476. Doffie,
    I actually feel sorry for you. I mean that sincerely.
    It is because I see someone who is struggling to make the quantum? leap and to declare loudly that all this
    BELIEF stuff is a load of bullshit. You are scared.
    You are scared that the god you don’t believe in might strike you down. Fear is at the heart of all BELIEFS, regardless. As for geDAANte, sooisbrand and the others, they are still stuck way down there in total darkness. I want to say to you: “Come on over, Doffie, there is nothing to fear. Free yourself of all the shit that is cluttering your mind and make that leap”

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 06:56

  477. Maar ou Doffie,
    Wat jy hierbo geskryf het, maak mos nie saak nie.

    ‘n Mens moet mos net GLO!!! En as jy GLO! , dan GLO jy in enige iets, maak nie saak hoeveel kak dit is nie. Nie waar nie? Dis die hele punt wat ons ateiste vir julle probeer vertel. Julle klomp GLO in feetjies, en spoke, en arke, en engeltjies, en kaboutertjies, en Jonasse in walvisse se mae, en solank as wat jy glo dan hoef jy niks te weet van die werklikheid van enige iets nie. Jy is bv. ‘n ou wat nou al net half-glo, maar jy is te bang om daardie stap te neem en om die werklikheid te sien.

    verifanie

    January 22, 2011 at 06:41

  478. Soois

    Jy het groot probleme. Die ironie van die saak is, as jy in geen vorm van evolusie glo nie, is die “geskiedenis” van die ark gewoon nie haalbaar nie. Overgesetsynde, jy MOET in evolusie glo as jy die ark wil laat werk.

    Daan het jou hierbo gewys op die oorlaaide ark, en hy het nie naastenby al die diere opgenoem wat vandag die aarde bewandel en bekruip nie.

    Hy het ook, tereg, gewys op die konsensus tussen die kreasioniste en die evolusioniste oor die evolusie van al die hondespesies van een gemeenskaplike oerspesie.

    Ek het “dinosaurus in the Bible” gegoogle en, soos gewoonlik, op ‘n paar interressante websites afgekom.

    Een website is ‘n wetenskaplike (nie-godsdienstige) site, wat oortuigend aantoon dat dinosaurusse lank voor Ou Testamentiese tye uitgesterf het en nie in die Bybel genoem is nie.

    ‘n Ander website is ‘n kreationistiese (godsdienstige) site wat aantoon dat dinosaurusse beslis in die Bybel (Job) genoem word. Dit lyk amper soos die bron wat jy ook geraadpleeg het.

    Watter website moet ons nou glo? Ek vermoed dis hier waar logiese denke in kom.

    Volgens die kreationiste is dit logies dat daar dinosaurusse op die ark was, anders sou hulle nie in Job vermeld kon word nie. En hulle is dom genoeg om te erken dat daar op ‘n stadium ten minste 50 spesies van Dinosaurusse bestaan het!!!!

    Nou, my fiewe lok ou Soois!! Waar moes arme ou Noag al hierdie ongediertes ingepas het? Waar moes hy nog vir al Daan se ander diere ook plek maak?

    En onthou, hulle verwerp evolusie, so in stede van een hond met sy teef, moes daar plek wees vir 2 Collies, 2 Alsations, 2 Worshonde, 2 Rifrue, 2 Boxers, 2 Chiwahwahs, 2 Corgi’s, 2 Boerboelle, 2 Pikanese, 2 Great Danes (!!!), 2 Pit Bulls, 2 Skotse Terriers, 2 Rooijakkalse, 2 Draaijakkalse, 2 silwerrugjakkalse, 2 wolwe, 2 Hyenas, 2 Dingo’s en 2 Wildehonde.

    Kyk ook na die verskillende wildsbokke net in Suid-Afrika: Springbokke, Gemsbokke, Koedoes, Blesbokke, Klipspringers, Duikers, Steenbokke, Nyalas, Waterbokke, Rooibokke.

    Ou Soois, for braaing in a cucket, dit kan mos nie!!

    Doktor Einstein

    January 22, 2011 at 05:54

  479. Danny-booi Van der Moerig, you’re just bitter and jealous that I disembowelled, for the umpteenth time now, your favourite stale, brain-dead, fundie-twaddle, standard-three argumentum ad ignorantiam case for god. It clearly annoys you that you have no counterargument and I’ll put money on it that in a few weeks or months, you’ll present it here again – in its original, unaltered form.

    Oh, and irritating you is my free, no-strings-attached, and-that’s-not-all gift to you. Cherish it. Please.

    Con-Tester

    January 21, 2011 at 17:33

  480. Nathan,
    of die Bybel net na “eertydse” Dinos verwys en of hulle toe geleef het weet ek nie. Ek kan ook maar net lees.

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 15:40

  481. Yes Nathan, I think that was the only dinosaur that made it onto the ark. That’s why it is still around today. Most well informed believers know this.

    McBrolloks

    January 21, 2011 at 15:33

  482. O McBrolloks

    I couldn’t remember the name of that specimen. It was on the tip of my tongue even this morning, but I could not for the life of me remember the term.

    Nathan Bond

    January 21, 2011 at 15:03

  483. Soois
    En dié… “dinos” het so tussen die mense loop en wei?
    Kyk, daai laaang kommentaar oor hoe die Bybel en die wetenskap lepellê is laf, Soois.
    Die bronstydperk veewagters het ‘n 3-verdieping kosmologie gehad – op ‘n middelste plat aarde.
    Ek is nie verbaas nie en nie geskok nie – hoe moes hulle geweet het?
    Die Bybel is ‘n pragtige voorwetenskaplike sieraad in die letterkunde wat mense se geloof en ongeloof uit die verre verlede verwoord, met die bepaalde kennis en insig van toeka. Niks meer nie.

    Nathan Bond

    January 21, 2011 at 15:00

  484. So gepraat van dinasourusse.

    Watter klein dinasourus rule nog steeds die aarde?

    Antwoord: Klitorus

    McBrolloks

    January 21, 2011 at 15:00

  485. Cont-Poester? ek laaik dit,
    was bang dit is dalk Kont-toetser…

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 14:45

  486. Vir wie ookal belangstel:
    Net nog so ‘n ou interessante ietsie rondom Dinosaurusse, en onthou tog, dit is nie my briljante ontdekking nie, maar ‘n ander slim ou s’n.
    Die Bybel praat van baie bekende diere, maar 3 ander word ook genoem:
    1. Tanniyn: 28 keer in die Bybel genome en vertaal beteken “draak, seemonster, serpent, groot kreatuur en dinosaurus.
    2. B@hemowth (Ja, reg gespel, maar eerder genoem behemoth): groot die wat gras eet soos ‘n os en sy stert beweeg soos ‘n sederboom. Algemeen word verwys na ‘n seekoei of olifant, maar daardie sederboom? Brachiosaurus??
    3. Leviathan: “ferocious and terrifying”. Kronosaurus?
    Laat ek tog net weer se, nie my briljante werk nie.

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 14:42

  487. Soois!!! Dagsê.

    Ja-nee, toe ek jou eerste pos aan Cont-Poester lees, toe weet ek jy het moeilikheid.

    Die meeste ateiste met wie ek te doene kry is eintlik naais ouens, maar hierdie irriterende klein moffie is net gewoon onuitstaanbaar.

    Alhoewel ek nie met alles wat jy skryf saamstem nie, (veral daai dinosaurusse in Job) salueer ek jou dat jy te midde van beledigings en geskel die moed van jou oortuiging het om dit wat jy glo, hier te skryf.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 21, 2011 at 14:33

  488. Ou Daan,
    kyk nou-net.

    Die ouens mag maar ander geleerdes se ontdekkings, bevindings ens. gebruik en dis fine, maar Sooisie gebruik ander gelowiges se woorde en word uitgekak dat hy sopas die doodsonde, plagiaat, gepleeg het.

    Merk egter op hoe hulle hom eerder probeer belaglik maak as om ag te slaan op die feite soos aangevra.

    As iets teoreties moontlik is, is dit “feit”, maar sodra dit opgeteken is in die Woord is dit…, wat is nou weer daardie briljante woord? O ja! TWADDLE!

    Neem aan ou Valsheid-Toetser het self daardie amusante video gemaak.

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 14:17

  489. Con-tester,
    I have a new word for you, “tittle-tattle”.

    Like I said, if I cannot lead you to the facts, I will bring them to you. I was not writing my thesis on Christianity, or publishing a book, but bringing my (no, another Christian’s) proof as requested by some of you.

    By shortening an article or maybe translating it, it would be fine, but dare not quote others and old Con-Man is more interested in “getting all huffy and menopausal on you, hurling condescension and insult”, rather than debating the facts brought forward.

    Just to please you I will publish the part I left out, mainly because indeed I did modify it somewhat, but here goes anyway:

    Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2005 by Clarifying Christianity (SM).
    Printed copies of this article may be circulated if it is reproduced in its entirety, along with this copyright notice. You may not charge for, request a donation for, or seek reimbursement from anyone for such copies. Links are OK. All rights reserved.

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 14:04

  490. Ai Erick!!!

    Sit ‘n spasie in na “stadig”. :)

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 21, 2011 at 11:36

  491. Briljante teenargument,
    ek is verstom…

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 11:18

  492. Soois,
    Siener van Rensburg het ook ‘n klomp “openbarings” gehad en dit in ‘n boek geskryf.
    Glo jy hom? Want as jy die stories in die Bybel glo kan jy netsowel alles van Siener en ook Nostradamus se voorspellings glo.

    ErickV

    January 21, 2011 at 10:56

  493. soois, does it bother you that you plagiarised that article by omitting its source and implying that you wrote it (“I will even be so kind as to try and answer in my best English…” and “I will be so kind as to bring the facts to you…”)? Does that bother you? At all?

    Or are you pissing up a drainpipe?

    If not, the article can be made considerably shorter, as follows:

    The bible is true ’cos (1) it says so in the bible; (2) we can torture post hoc meaning from the language it uses; and (3) we can squeeze historical records of dubious provenance to fit our predetermined finding that the bible must be true.

    Con-Tester

    January 21, 2011 at 10:56

  494. Soois,
    Sorry, ek het nie gesien jy het my geantwoord nie.
    Ek tik maar stadig omdat ek gedink het jy lees stadig:)
    (Shit, Daan, dit werk nog steeds nie)
    Nou Soois, baie mense lieg vir my maar ek GLO hulle nie en ek kan glo wie ek wil daarom sien ek ook die bybel ook as ‘n klomp stories ongeag wat in jou versies staan. Dit is in elk geval deur bokherders geskryf en dit is weer jou keuse om daardie stories te glo.
    Kennis en ondervinding is wat jy kry is as gevolg van bewyse en wat jyself sien gebeur het. Hoorse getuies beteken vir my nul, niks, fokkol.

    ErickV

    January 21, 2011 at 10:50

  495. Wow, selfs bokherders daardie jare het van die natuurwette geweet en dit natuurlik aan ‘n “God” toegeskryf!!!
    Wel I’l be damned!

    En nou, antwoord my vrae aub.

    ErickV

    January 21, 2011 at 10:36

  496. Skuus ErickV,
    die laaste skrywe was ‘n poging om jou te antwoord. Het vergeet om jou naam bo-aan te skryf.

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 10:28

  497. Om te “glo” is volgens my om bo enige redelike twyfel te aanvaar dat wat aan jou vertel word, die waarheid is.

    Om egter te glo volgens die Bybel is egter om te “weet”, want Jesus se eie broer, Jacobus, vertel self in sy kort boek in die Bybel dat om te glo nutteloos is, want die “bose geeste glo ook”, en hulle het tog al vir God gesien en “weets” dus Hy bestaan, maar tog word die term “glo” gebruik. Hy vertel dat geloof sonder dade nutteloos is.

    Jy is reg as jy wil voorgee om te “weet” is beter as om te “glo”, maar as jy na een van my vorige skrywe kyk sal jy sien dat ek God ontmoet het, dus “glo” ek nie net nie, maar “weet” ook. Het dus nie bewyse nodig nie, maar plaas tog bewyse vir die nie-gelowige by my vorige skrywe. Jammer, dis in Ingils.

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 10:25

  498. Ok, you asked for it, and I will even be so kind as to try and answer in my best English so that these highly educated people who does not seem to understand normal lay-mans language can understand, and as it will be totally impossible to lead the non-believer to the facts, I will be so kind as to bring the facts to you, providing of-course that you will actually be brave enough to read it.

    Here goes:

    How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

    Starting the Foundation

    Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. This word is derived from the Greek word “apologia,” which means “to defend.” The entire Clarifying Christianity site is filled with apologetics—proofs and explanations for many Christian-related issues. The focus of this page is the proof supporting the accuracy of the Bible. After all, if the Bible is not true or if it is filled with errors, Christianity would only be a “blind faith”—something people believe without any evidence to support it.
    However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself, and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is becoming less common, there are still people who tell others that they follow Christianity “because it feels right” (or use wording like that). This is unfortunate, since there is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. The existence of all that evidence is one reason I got involved in this blog. I want people to learn about the solid evidence that supports my faith, and can show it to non-believers.
    By the way, if you would like some reference materials that are a little more portable than a computer with an Internet connection, a book I recommend is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. This book is available in larger bookstores and most Christian bookstores.

    The Proof of Science

    There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. I am not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. I have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.

    Statements Consistent With Paleontology

    • Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. )

    Statements Consistent With Astronomy

    • The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

    Genesis 22:17
    Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

    Jeremiah 33:22
    “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

    Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars—which is a lot of stars. (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

    • The Bible also says that each star is unique.

    1 Corinthians 15:41
    There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

    All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

    • The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

    Jeremiah 31:35,36
    Thus says the LORD,
    Who gives the sun for a light by day,
    The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
    Who disturbs the sea,
    And its waves roar
    (The LORD of hosts is His name):
    “If those ordinances depart
    From before Me, says the LORD,
    Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
    From being a nation before Me forever.”

    • The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

    Job 26:7
    He stretches out the north over empty space;
    He hangs the earth on nothing.

    Statements Consistent With Meteorology

    The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

    Ecclesiastes 1:6
    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit.

    • The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

    Job 28:25
    To establish a weight for the wind,
    And apportion the waters by measure.

    The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth. (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore my omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)

    Statements Consistent With Biology

    The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

    Leviticus 17:11
    ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

    The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.

    • The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

    Genesis 1:11,12
    Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:21
    So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:25
    And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

    • The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

    Genesis 2:7
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

    Genesis 3:19
    In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
    Till you return to the ground,
    For out of it you were taken;
    For dust you are,
    And to dust you shall return.

    • It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.

    Proverbs 12:4
    An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
    But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.

    Proverbs 14:30
    A sound heart is life to the body,
    But envy is rottenness to the bones.

    Proverbs 15:30
    The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
    And a good report makes the bones healthy.

    Proverbs 16:24
    Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
    Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.

    Proverbs 17:22
    A merry heart does good, like medicine,
    But a broken spirit dries the bones.

    Statements Consistent With Anthropology

    • We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

    Job 30:5,6
    They were driven out from among men,
    They shouted at them as at a thief.
    They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
    In caves of the earth and the rocks.

    Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

    Statements Consistent With Hydrology

    • The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.

    Psalm 135:7
    He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
    He makes lightning for the rain;
    He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

    Jeremiah 10:13
    When He utters His voice,
    There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
    “And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
    He makes lightning for the rain,
    He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”

    In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.

    Job 36:27-29
    For He draws up drops of water,
    Which distill as rain from the mist,
    Which the clouds drop down
    And pour abundantly on man.
    Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
    The thunder from His canopy?

    This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.

    • The Bible describes the recirculation of water.

    Ecclesiastes 1:7
    All the rivers run into the sea,
    Yet the sea is not full;
    To the place from which the rivers come,
    There they return again.

    Isaiah 55:10
    For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
    And do not return there,
    But water the earth,
    And make it bring forth and bud,
    That it may give seed to the sower
    And bread to the eater,

    • The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.

    Job 26:8
    He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
    Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

    Job 37:11
    Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
    He scatters His bright clouds.

    • Hydrothermal vents are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.

    Genesis 7:11
    In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    Job 38:16
    Have you entered the springs of the sea?
    Or have you walked in search of the depths?

    Statements Consistent With Geology

    • The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).

    Jeremiah 31:37
    Thus says the LORD:
    “If heaven above can be measured,
    And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
    I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
    For all that they have done, says the LORD.”

    Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.


    • The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

    Isaiah 40:22
    It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
    And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
    Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

    The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

    The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

    This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

    We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

    Statements Consistent With Physics

    • The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote the following verse).

    2 Peter 3:10
    But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

    • The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television—something that allows everyone on earth see a single event. (Note: such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

    Matthew 24:30
    Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

    Revelation 11:9-11
    Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

    Things In The Bible That Science Can Not Explain

    The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

    In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. (For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago?)

    The Proof of Prophecy

    One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

    One Type—The Messianic Prophecies

    Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an “anointed one” (“Messiah” in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30, Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah. His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible’s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God.

    A Second Type—Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations

    There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records a case where the Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result of Jonah’s short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people would jeer at God’s prophet and continue their bad behavior—later becoming recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.

    Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.) Although I can fill this entire blog with this information, I will provide one example—the foretelling of the destruction of Edom and its capital city of Petra.

    The Proof of Textual Evidence

    Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).

    Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same text.)

    The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ

    Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the “book” we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus’ miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”

    The Proof of Historians

    Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:

    “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

    In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called “Christus,” which means “The Messiah”) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:

    “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

    soois

    January 21, 2011 at 09:08

  499. Soois
    Nou hier is my eerste skrywe (probeerslag) aan jou.
    Ek sien jy het gevra wat die definisie van die woord “teorie” is en jy het ‘n antwoord van Nathan gekry.
    Ek wil vir jou nou vra. Wat is die definisie van die woord “glo”?
    En dan die volgende vraag wat ek al voorheen gevra het maar geen antwoord van enige gelowige gekry het nie.
    Wat is die beste, om te “glo” of om te “weet”?
    Komaan jy kan dit doen!

    ErickV

    January 21, 2011 at 07:57

  500. Brilliant video you left there Con-Tester. Ha-ha!!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 21, 2011 at 01:49

  501. Get an education.

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2011 at 22:43

  502. Ek sien 51% stem dat porn geblok moet word en 21% dat ouers hulle kinders moet kan monitor, die ander 28% meen anders. Het ook maar gestem vir wat dit ookal werd is.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 21:08

  503. http://www.news24.com/ (vir die poll)

    McBrolloks

    January 20, 2011 at 20:26

  504. So bietjie meer op ‘n ernstige nood! Weet enige iemand hoe die fundies en dom politici vorder met hulle crusade teen pornografie in die land? Ek sien daar is vandag ‘n poll op News 24 daaroor.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10180937

    Forward christian soldiers!!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 20, 2011 at 20:25

  505. DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ), that would be the “fact” which you have now placed on this page for the second time that needs checking. As far as I can establish, your first comment appeared on December 16, 2010 at 08:44 under the “Ratzinger in Britain” entry. Since then, I have posted upwards of 75 comments. (Cue opportune Neanderthal “Hur-hur, what a success rate!” comments from the fundie peanut gallery, which incidentally seems to have evaporated.) If you are seriously suggesting that just one of those posts is sensible, that’s your prerogative. And your insight exposed.

    However, if you stand by it being indeed a fact then a quick review of the succession of postings in the aforesaid as well as the Daar ís ’n God, want… entry leaves one little choice other than to conclude that your discernment between sensibility and nonsense is more than astoundingly stunted.

    And rest assured that that’s the first and most certainly the last time that I’ll be doing your homework for you.

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2011 at 19:59

  506. 1) HOEKOM het nie een dominee ooit gepreek teen die dop-stelsel nie, wat in gebruik was vir geslagte lank en erge fetale sindroom veroorsaak het onder die slagoffers nie?
    Antwoord: Die donnerse dominees was ook gelei deur die ou regering. Hulle was die ou-kerkstelsel wat sou regeer tot 1988 (die sogenaamde kerktydperk) en het eintlik fokkol beteken.

    2) HOEKOM het jy nooit ‘n dominee gehoor preek teenoor die euwel van pedofilia nie? (Dalk omdat die dominees dit self gedoen het?)
    Antwoord: Ek het persoonlik sulke preke beleef al het ek eintlik min respek vir die dominees. As jy na die Rooms Katolieke priesters met hulle kinder lollery verwys, die rkk is die kerk van die Antichris wat vanaf 328 n.c to 1798 n.c (1260 jaar) christene, ons voorouers ingesluit wat uit Europa gevlug het, verdruk, verbrand en onthoof het.

    3) HOEKOM het jy nooit ‘n dominee gehoor preek teenoor die mees euwel van regeringstelsels in die wereld nie, nl. die totale en algehele onderdrukking, uitbuiting, vernedering, en gemartel van 40 miljoen mense nie?
    Antwoord: Ek dink antwoord 1 verduidelik dalk.

    4) HOEKOM kom die almagtige, alwetende, heilige, liefdevolle en barmhartige gotte, jesus en engele nie
    OOIT af aarde toe om iets te doen aan die vieslike kak-en-gemors wat hulle hier veroorsaak het nie? Is hulle te besig om mekaar te naai daarbo?
    Antwoord: Al die kak-en-gemors was al in Openbaring en selfs vroeer voorspel. Mense maak die kak-en-gemors en dan soek hulle die gode om die stront uit te sorteer. Gebeur dit nie dan is dit die gode se skuld net soos hulle verantwoordelik is vir die ou regering se wanpraktyke? Was ons nie self te slapgat om verantwoordelikheid te vat nie?

    5) WIE OF WAT het vir die got/gotte gemaak sodat hy/hulle die heelal kon skep?
    Antwoord: Dit weet ek nie, net soos ek nie weet wie vir die “Big-bang” verantwoordelik was nie.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 19:37

  507. Kom ek gaan nou ‘n weddenskap aan met enigiemand op hierdie blog. Ek verwed my huis, my kar, al my geld, my sandale en ‘n ou pyp met nog so ‘n bietjie Boxer tabak in…..

    ek se nie een van die fokken onnosele, simpele, agterlike god-idioot poese gaan my antwoord op die volgende paar vrae nie.

    Hier is dit:

    1) HOEKOM het nie een dominee ooit gepreek teen die dop-stelsel nie, wat in gebruik was vir geslagte lank en erge fetale sindroom veroorsaak het onder die slagoffers nie?

    2) HOEKOM het jy nooit ‘n dominee gehoor preek teenoor die euwel van pedofilia nie? (Dalk omdat die dominees dit self gedoen het?)

    3) HOEKOM het jy nooit ‘n dominee gehoor preek teenoor die mees euwel van regeringstelsels in die wereld nie, nl. die totale en algehele onderdrukking, uitbuiting, vernedering, en gemartel van 40 miljoen mense nie?

    4) HOEKOM kom die almagtige, alwetende, heilige, liefdevolle en barmhartige gotte, jesus en engele nie
    OOIT af aarde toe om iets te doen aan die vieslike kak-en-gemors wat hulle hier veroorsaak het nie? Is hulle te besig om mekaar te naai daarbo?

    5) WIE OF WAT het vir die got/gotte gemaak sodat hy/hulle die heelal kon skep?

    Nouja, dis nou al seker te veel vir die drie-breinsel godiote. Ons kan later weer so een of twee vragies vra.

    verifanie

    January 20, 2011 at 18:58

  508. O ja,
    ek’t vergeet, as jy iemand wil blameer en niemand het nie, blameer die ou regering.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 18:56

  509. Nou hoe reageer jy op sulke briljante feite?
    Ek is stomgeslaan en totaal oorwin.
    Moet my skoolgeld gaan terugkry.
    Dom onnosele ekke…

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 18:50

  510. Uit die boek van wetenskaplike feite:

    Feit nr. 666

    Spesies: Homo godiotikus rampant:

    Alle godiote en half-godiote is poese. Navorsing toon dat godiote hulle kinders bliksem en dan sommer ook naai. Hulle lieg almal deur die bank. Hulle is swendelaars, en bedrieers. Jy kan nie ‘n godioot vertrou nie. Hulle knyp deurendag die kat in die donker. Veelwywery is endemies onder hulle, veral onder die afstammeling Domineetikus poepollis. Hulle is almal gesplete psigote en soms is die half-godiote nog erger as die vol-godiote. MRI toetse het bevind dat 99% van godiote drie breinselle het. Die ander 1% is goedbedeeld en het vier.

    Oor die algemeen lees godiote slegs: 1) Die kak-boek-bybel 2) Comics 3) Romanverhale 4) Meer Comics
    5) Weer die kak-boek 6) Ou Scope tydskrifte. Hulle kyk net sepies op TV en luister na vervolgverhale op radio RSG. Dit word vermoed dat dit is agv die drie en vier breinselle respektiewelik, dat godiote sulke magtige verbeeldingskragte het.

    Wetenskaplikes reken dat daar nooit in ewigheid genesing sal plaasvind vir godiote nie. Een interessante waarneming is dat oor die wereld heen, soos in Noord Ierland, die Midde-Ooste, die Sub-kontinent ens., godiote hard probeer om mekaar uit te roei, want een groep het die waansinnigheid dat hulle
    verbeeldinge meer “reg” is as al die ander sin.

    Soms, soos die geval tot onlangs was op die suide punt van Afrika, het godiote geheers, agv ‘n kop-in-een-mus verhouding met die destydse regering. Niemand was toegelaat om enigiets te se oor die godiote se ryk verbeeldingskragte nie. Die godiote het ‘n sekere groep nie-godiote erg uitgebuit, aangerand, beledig, vervolg, gemartel en totaal onderdruk. ‘n Ander groep was weer met drank betaal vir geslagte heen, en dit het erge fetale sindroom veroorsaak. Dit het alles gebeur “in die naam van die grote god en here, ons skepper en almagtige, liefdevolle, god van Israel en Abraham, wie sy enigste seun (hoekom?) vir ons gegee het sodat hy kan sterf vir ons – wat hulle noem – sondes”

    Volgende week kyk ons na Wetenskap Feit nr. 2152011

    verifanie

    January 20, 2011 at 18:27

  511. Weet nie van die son nie, het eintlik hier begin skryf om vrae te vra.
    Die slimmes praat van ‘n “Magnetic solar storm” wat (blykbaar as die storm suid of negatief magneties is/Hulle weet glo self nie) die aarde se elektrisiteitsvoorsiening, kommunikasie ensovoorts kan vernietig. Wou eintlik weet of julle slim ouens daarvan weet. Glo self nie die einde van die mensdom is ophande nie, maar het gedink dit sou help om darem te weet.
    Nou-ja, toe trap ek in ‘n geroesde visblik en word uitgekak en beledig omdat ek dit kan waag om in God te glo.
    Soos jy se, ek is op die verkeerde blog om te wonder.
    Julle het al die feite en ek hoef nie te worry nie, die einde is ver weg (as ‘n trein my nie vannag trap nie.
    Bliksem, nou worry ek eers. Daar’s fokkol kans op ‘n hiernamaals en ‘n paradys en so aan. Kan ook nie hoop op so-iets soos reinkarnasie nie, want dit is bonatuurlik en dan sit ons nou=nou weer met die Christen storie.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 16:13

  512. Soois

    Daar is twee goed waaroor ek eenvoudig nie meer debat voer nie: die historisiteit van die Romeinse Ryk en evolusie. Bewyse vir beide is oorweldigend.

    Op hierdie blog is hope inligting oor evolusie; lees dit gerus.

    Die kartering van die genoom, selfs in die afwesigheid van al die ander oorweldigende bewyse vir evolusie, is bepalend.

    Kom ons praat liefs oor die kansigheid dat die son môre sal opkom, by wyse van spreke. Of, nee, wag… dis nie nodig om daaroor te wonder nie.

    Nathan Bond

    January 20, 2011 at 15:52

  513. Nathan,
    dankie vir jou geleerde definisie van die woord “teorie”.
    Relatiwiteit, swaartekrag en elektrisiteit is egter teoriee wat bewys is en wat ek en jy in ond lewensduur kan aanskou.
    Evolusie, hoewel ondersteun deur menigdes geleerde mense vir wie ek so terloops die uiterste respek het, is nog nie bewys nie. Geen paleontoloog, embrioloog, historikus, fisioloog, bioloog, mikrobioloog of geoloog het evolusie in sy leeftyd sien plaasvind nie.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 15:46

  514. Dit is verbasend hoe mense se opvatting rondom hierdie onderwerpe verskil, en dit het baie met hulle geloof te doe.

    Die meeste ongelowiges gebruik evolusie ensovoorts en verwerp Christenskap volkome soos meeste van my geleerde vriende (hoop ek mag so na julle verwys) hierbo.
    Die meeste gelowiges verwerp weer evolusie ens. en glo net in die Woord.
    Ek ken egter ‘n ou wat gelowig is, maar evolusie as ‘n instrument van God se werk beskou.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 15:31

  515. Net so het die geleerdes ook al ontdek dat die Bybel meestal ‘n beskrywing is van wat wel gebeur het. Daarom dat hulle nou probeer om bv. die 10 plae as ‘n natuurverskynsel te verduidelik en hoe die een plaag direk of indirek verantwoordelik was vir die volgende een. Of stel julle net in wetenskap belang solank die Bybel nie betrokke is nie.

    Soos julle al agtergekom het is ek maar ‘n onnosel ou wat beperk is tot “Discovery Science” ens.

    Daar word mooi geleerde dinge gese en ek is beindruk, maar verbreed julle belangstellings. Moenie toeslaan sodra die “experts” ontdek; “o donder, dit of dat het toe wel gebeur soos in die Bybel beskryf, nou moet ons gou die verskynsel wetenskaplik weg redeneer nie, want die mensdom moet tog nie dink daar kan dalk ‘n God of so-iets wees nie.”

    Julle sal vind dat baie ongelowiges die Bybel, of groot dele daarvan glo, maar die Bybel wegpraat as ‘n geskiedenis boek deur mense wat gebeurtenisse opgeteken het en krediet vir hulle god wil gee.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 15:21

  516. Which facts, Con-Tester.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 20, 2011 at 15:06

  517. Ai Daan.

    Ek moet sê, dit was Con-Tester se eerste sinvolle pos wat ek lees.

    En ek dink jy dink ook so. Jy is net besig om, hoe sê McBrolloks, pis te vat.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 20, 2011 at 15:03

  518. Soois, wat verstaan jy onder die woord teorie. Kom, verbaas ons met jou insig, maar ek sal nie op jou wed in die positiewe sin nie.

    Savage

    January 20, 2011 at 15:02

  519. Soois

    ‘n Hipotese is ongetoets en kan berus op ‘n idee, oortuiging, indruk, aanname, droom of siening.

    Daarenteen is ‘n teorie op bewese feite gebaseer en is dit, soos die teorieë van relatiwiteit, swaartekrag, elektrisiteit en evolusie, vir alle praktiese doeleindes waar.

    Evolusie as natuurproses word volledig ondersteun deur empiriese resultate uit ‘n wye verskeidenheid vakgebiede – onder meer die vergelykende anatomie, paleontologie, embriologie, histologie, fisiologie, biochemie, genetika, mikrobiologie en geologie.

    Ons kan dus sonder vrees vir teenspraak praat van die feit van evolusie.

    Nathan Bond

    January 20, 2011 at 15:02

  520. Yes, I also used, among others, the words “fundie” and “buffoons”, as well as the adjectival phrases “god-of-the-gaps”, “logic-raping” and “fact-fucking.” It has yet to occur to the fundie contingent that there’s a very deliberate method in play here.

    Predictably, this has also occasioned the fundie contingent to focus on those terms and expostulate with hilarious contumely rather than consider the points that I have presented. How cutely, uhm, fundie.

    And “DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ), I suggest – yet again – that you check your facts. They are provably in error.

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2011 at 15:00

  521. Kyk mooi na die woord “teorie”

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 14:50

  522. Soois, antwoord Con-Tester i.p.v. om die maklike uitweg te vat. Of verstaan jy nie wat hy sê nie?

    Net oor die Big Bang (BB = Big Bang, nie Brigette Bardot nie.) Die Big Bang teorie verklaar of verduidelik die ontwikkeling (evolusie) van die Heelal terug geneem vanaf die Planck tyd. Dit is nie ‘n teorie wat verder terug gaan as diè tydperk nie. So, as jy wil redeneer dat die BB nie verklaar wat voor die Planck tyd gebeur het, is jy reg. Maar om te sê die BB teorie is verkeerd a.g. daarvan, dan verstaan jy nie wat ‘n wetenskaplike teorie behels nie.

    Sê vir my, bv., hoekom is daar ongeveer 20 % Helium en 80% Waterstof in die Heelal? Dit verklaar die BB teorie baie suksesvol en nog meer. So val die teorie aan as jy wil, maar moet asb. nie sulke dom aantygings maak nie.

    Savage

    January 20, 2011 at 14:46

  523. Aangesien ons natuurlik kan en moet aflei dat dit heel onmoontlik was dat ‘n goddelike of bonatuurlike wese vir die skepping verantwoordelik kon wees, is dit heel logies dat een moerse ontploffing ‘n eensellige diertjie tot gevolg moes gehad het van verdeel het en uiteindellik verander het in verskeie lewende diere, etlike derduidende spesies natuurlik, waarvan soms boonop bonatuurlik intelligent is, soos on eie Proffessor, dit volgens die “experts”.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 14:44

  524. Ai, Daan.

    Ek moet eerlik sê dat ek beindruk is met Con-Tester se laaste pos. Vandat ek hier deelneem is dit sy eerste sinvolle pos.

    En ek dink diep binne in ‘n plek waar jy nie op ‘n partytjie oor wil praat nie, weet jy hy maak baie goeie stellings.

    Persoonlik dink ek jy is net besig om, hoe sê McBrolloks, pis te vat.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 20, 2011 at 14:41

  525. Hoev nie op te soek nie
    twaddle is om siinelose kak te praat, en ek ken ook jou oulike Latynse verwysings; non sequiturs = dit rym nie, ad nauseam = tot vervelens toe of totdat ek naar wor.
    Ek kan aangaan, maar groot woorde wat nogsteed net mooi boggerol se.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 14:32

  526. Jip. En Professor Doktor Conrad du Toetser stel my nie teleur nie.

    Irriterende, verwaande fokken klein moffie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 20, 2011 at 14:24

  527. Glad to oblige. It may help to look up the word. There is none more apt to describe it because it is twaddle.

    Demonstrably so.

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2011 at 14:23

  528. Jip ou Daan,
    daar gebruik hy weer daardie woord; twaddle

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 14:17

  529. Religious fundies ejaculate such colossally inconsequent god-of-the-gaps twaddle as, “Nobody has any convincing naturalistic account of how X came to be, therefore a supernatural agency must be involved … therefore… therefore GOD exists! Yay, it’s proved!”

    It doesn’t matter that the above, erm, “argument” is riddled with non sequiturs.

    It doesn’t matter that there are plausible, though as-yet unproven, speculative materialistic accounts of the phenomenon under consideration.

    It doesn’t matter that experts warn us about the dangers of applying our intuitions to situations where we have no good reason to suppose that they can validly be applied.

    It doesn’t matter that relevant experts speak a language well beyond the grasp of the lay armchair pontificator.

    It doesn’t matter that scientific results and consensus are subject to a very specific rigorous discipline.

    It doesn’t matter that the list is extremely long of examples where someone once said, “Science can’t explain X,” only to have to eat their words a little later.

    It doesn’t matter that the list of productive supernatural explanations for anything contains exactly zero entries.

    It doesn’t matter that the “supernatural” (whatever that might be) has yet to show any reality and has time and again been shown to be an artefact of the human brain’s ability to deal with fuzzy concepts.

    None of this matters to logic-raping, fact-fucking god-of-the-gaps-twaddle-spouting fundies. They just won’t hear it, let alone contemplate it honestly. The above, erm, “argument” will simply be periodically repeated ad nauseam with grave solemnity (as though it was profoundly meaningful rather than a pitiful joke), irrespective of these substantial, even insuperable objections for which they cannot marshal even the weakest of counterarguments. (“It’s SUPERNATURAL, I tell you!” they keep saying in all seriousness.) When you raise the dubious nature of the claim, they get all huffy and menopausal on you, hurling condescension and insult. When you reciprocate, they have a series of aneurisms and apoplexies in their already-vacant brains. And using this deep and abiding disrespect for the norms of fruitful debate as a cudgel, the fundies want to arrogate respect for themselves.

    This is the fundamentalist arrogance and eye-popping hypocrisy of these buffoons, which they are by all indications far too limited to comprehend.

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2011 at 14:07

  530. Dis net ‘n dubbelpunt en ‘n toe-hakie. Los die koppelteken uit. :)

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 20, 2011 at 13:41

  531. Ek dink eerder daardie ou wat sy kinders in ‘n sekere fliek gekrimp het, het iets daarmee te doen gehad:-)
    Ek weet nie hoe om daardie bollietjie gesiggie te maak nie. Kan iemand help?

    ErickV

    January 20, 2011 at 13:32

  532. ErickV!!! Dagsê.

    Jy het my. Ek het van die dinosaurusse vergeet. Nee fok. Ek weet nie.

    Was hulle nie te groot vir die ark nie? Dit kan natuurlik wees dat hulle, juis as gevolg van hulle grootte, oorboord geval en versuip het.

    Dit verklaar dalk hoekom daar nie verder in die Bybel van dino’s gepraat word nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 20, 2011 at 10:25

  533. ErickV,
    goeie vraag, ‘n klomp ou dooie bene “all over” opgegrawe net soois die manuskripte waaruit die Bybel opgestel is “all over” en beslis duisende jare oud gevind is, en heel onverklaarbaar” dieselfde “storie” vertel
    “The mind boggles”.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 10:23

  534. Ou Daan,
    “point taken”, soos die Ingelse se.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 10:18

  535. Daan,
    Wat van die dinosaurusse?
    Ten minste het Noag ‘n kakhuis vol:-) bemesting gehad toe hulle op die berg Arrarat geeindig het!

    ErickV

    January 20, 2011 at 10:17

  536. Soois.

    Die vraag of daar in evolusie geglo moet word of nie, is eintlik sinneloos. Soos om te praat van ‘n vierkantige sirkel of ‘n getroude oujongkêrel.

    Dit is juis die feit van evolusie wat in die ou dae vir my nog ‘n bietjie geloofwaardigheid aan Noag en die ark verleen het.

    Ek het destyds “creation vs evolution” gegoogle en op ‘n moerse snaakse website afgekom.

    Die evolusioniste het tot oortuiging (genuine!) van die kreasioniste BEWYS dat alle honde, nie net Collies en Boerboelle en Worshonde nie, maar ook wolwe, dingo’s, jakkalse en hyenas, van een gemeenskaplike oerspesie ontwikkel (evolved) het.

    En wat sê die kreasioniste toe?

    “Great!!! Dit help ons met die probleem van ‘n reeds oorlaaide ark!! So ons kan die twee Duitse Herdershonde en, vir that matter, al die ander honde van die ark afhaal en so plek maak vir twee renosters en twee volstruise.”

    Maar ek stem met jou saam. En dit is al wat my nog in God laat glo: Daar is geen antwoord op die vraag Wie of wat die oerknal (Big Bang) veroorsaak het nie, en ook nie die oorsprong van die mens nie.

    Soos jy kan ek ook nie glo dat ‘n intelligente wese uit ‘n redelose wese ontwikkel het nie.

    En ek is oor die jare op hierdie blog al verskriklik uitgekak oor hierdie oortuigings van my.

    Maaindjoe, redelike ateiste het ‘n goeie teenargument. Fundamentalistiese ateiste praat van “more fundie twaddle” en “God of the Gaps” en wat nog alles se vlermuismis.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 20, 2011 at 10:04

  537. Daan,
    dankie vir die klarigheid.
    Ek geniet ook die 2 Siamese katte.
    Miskien moet ek ook net myself eenvoudiger stel met my bedoeling dat nie-gelowiges ook fundamentalisties is.
    Ek weet nou nie of jy in evolusie glo nie, maar as jy bv. glo dat ons uit ape voortgebring is, omdat ‘n slim wetenskaplike beendere van uitgestorwe diere met mensagtige, of aapagtige eienskappe opgegrawe het, en jy dit vas glo al wil ek jou wysmaak dat dit belaglik en slegs ‘n teorie is, is jy ook ‘n fundamentalis wat my aanbetref. Slegs ‘n voorstel aangesien ek nie weet wat jy glo nie.
    Maar dankie, die belangrikste is dat ek nou weet wat jy bedoel het.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 09:28

  538. Con-Tester,
    thank you for you insightful reply. You see, I have the utmost respect for people, fundamentalist or not, who can give thoughtful opinions etc., unlike those who seem to get mad and dish out insults without actually saying anything.
    We do not have to agree, but can we at have a discussion using facts, or fiction, and respect each other’s right to an opinion.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 09:17

  539. Sooisman!! Dagsê

    Ek het jou nie as ‘n fundamentalis beskryf oor jou geloofstandvastigheid nie.

    Ek stem saam met Dok se se siening van fundamentalisme, en dis hoegenaamde nie my bedoeling om jou te beledig nie.

    As jy glo, in stryd met logiese denke, dat Noag en sy familie saam met 2 olifante, 2 rotte, 2 seekoeie, 2 kwaggas, 2 wolfhonde, 2 Con-Testers, 2 muishonde, 2 vlakvarke, 2 bosvarke, 2 springbokke, 2 kameelperde, 2 koedoes, twee buffels en 2 jakkalse vir meer as 2 maande in ‘n ark op vloedwaters oorleef het, en jy glo dit net op die basis dat die Bybel so sê en dat God almagtig is, dan is jy fundamentalisties.

    Vir dieselfde prys, as jy op dieselfde basis glo dat ‘n man vir drie dae lank in ‘n vis se maag is, en daarna springlewendig uitgespoeg word, (yuk!!), ja, dan is jy fundamentalisties.

    Sooisman, ek weet nou nie hoe godsdienstig jy is nie, maar ek kan jou verseker dat ten minste 80% van alle teoloë in ons land asook heelwat predikante, selfs konserwatiewe, ortodokse predikante, vandag toegee dat die skeppingsverhale in Genesis 1 en 2, Hebreeuse mitologie is.

    Weereens, Soois. Ek bedoel glad nie om jou te beledig nie.

    Soos Nathan Bond op een van die drade gesê het: Dit vat ‘n intelligente (wat jy is), eerlike (wat jy beslis is), man wie eerlik met hom self is en met die vermoë om lank en diep en logies te dink, om tot die besef te kom dat daar aansienlik baie van die Christelike dogmatiek is, wat gewoon nie water hou nie.

    Baie sterkte!!!

    NS. Ek het vergeet: Daar moes ook 2 Siamese katte en 2 krokodille in die ark gewees het.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 20, 2011 at 09:14

  540. soois, also have a good look at Danny-booi Van der Moerig’s posts on this blog. You will find that not only is he not able to stand any criticism of his silly babblings, he immediately gets insulting when he can’t present any actual argument. Then he gets into a rage when he gets the same thing back. Then, to top it off, he disappears for a few weeks or months, only to return with exactly the same steaming pile of silly horseshit as before. That is, he doesn’t take any regard of the counterarguments and sees only what he wants to see, evidence for which you will find all over this blog.

    And that behaviour, ol’ soois, goes by the name of “fundamentalism.”

    You can also examine most of what “DoktorEinstein ( :lol: ) has contributed so far on the blog. He barges in here without first ascertaining the facts, and self-righteously presumes to lecture about how the world is and how it ought to be. He is repeatedly advised to check his facts but clearly couldn’t be bothered to do so, and has the audacity to wonder why he is not well received. Further, he engages in exactly that conduct which he pretends to deplore.

    And that behaviour too, ol’ soois, goes by the name of “fundamentalism.”

    Both of those clowns are well aware of what it would take to have a civil debate with me, yet they’d prefer to remain stuck in their respective ruts, another telling trait of fundamentalism.

    So, as you can perhaps now see, the irony of their accusations against me are as palpable as the screen in front of you.

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2011 at 08:43

  541. Dok,
    Kon dit self nie beter gestel het nie. Weet nou nie so mooi van die “rasionele denke” gedeelte nie, maar ek respekteer jou opinie van die betekenis van genoemde geleerde woord.
    Wou eintlik net uitwys dat die woord, afgelei van “fondasie” eintlik beteken “onveranderbare opinie” en dat ‘n fundamentalis fundamentalisties “vir” of “teen” geloof kan wees.
    Was ook nie seker of daan my as ‘n fundamentalis beskryf het met die bedoeling dat ek standvastig in my geloof is, en of hy my eintlik op ‘n geleerde manier wou beledig nie. As jy na baie inskrywings hierbo kyk sal jy opmerk meeste ouens my vloek en beledig, dus is ek maar ligvoet.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 08:22

  542. Soois.

    Nee, die term “fundamentalisme” is ‘n gegewe begrip en nie oop vir debat nie. En ja, jy is heeltemal reg: Daar is fundamentalistiese gelowiges en fundamentalistiese ongelowiges, en kommunikasie met hulle is baie moeilik.

    Ek dink ‘n goeie beskrywing is dat ‘n fundamentalis nie rassioneel kan of wil dink nie.

    Sê byvoorbeeld vir ‘n gelowige dat ‘n slang nie kan praat nie, en sy antwoord is: “Die slang het met Eva gepraat want dit staan in die Bybel en by God is alles moontlik.” Hy is fundamentalisties.

    Of sê vir hom dat dit biologies onmoontlik is vir ‘n maagd om swanger te raak en geboorte te gee, en sy antwoord is: “Jesus is uit die maagd Maria gebore want dit staan in die Bybel en by God is alles moontlik.” Hy is fundamentalisties.

    Dieselfde met ongelowige fundamentaliste. Hiervan is Verifanie se kommentaar aan jou hierbo ‘n sprekende voorbeeld. Ou verysmellyfanny is nie net fundamentalisties nie. Soos jy kan lees is hy ook dol, histeries en totaal buite beheer van homself.

    Kyk gerus ook na die poste van Con-Tester. Jy sal merk dat, maak nie saak wat ek skryf nie, sy enigste kommentaar is “more fundie twaddle”.

    Dit ou Soois, is fundamentalisme. Jy moet verstaan dat ‘n fundamentalis se breins vasslaan by sy fundamentalistiese idees wat dit vir hom onmoontlik maak om rasioneel te dink en logies te redeneer.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 20, 2011 at 08:08

  543. soois-brand,
    Ek sien jy is lief vir die woord “helderdenkend”.

    Die klomp absolute totale en riooldeurdrenge stront-kak en braaksel wat jy dan daarna skryf, kan net kom van iemmand wat heeldag sit met sy kop diep binne in ‘n emmer vol kak. Dit geld ook vir ou geDAANte met sy AWB karakter-struktuur. Hier is nog ‘n wetenskaplike feit wat nooit sal verander nie:

    Mense wat gotte se stemme hoor, is PSIGOTIES.

    verifanie

    January 20, 2011 at 07:59

  544. Soois,
    Dit maak nie saak wat jy se of skryf of dink nie. Jy glo in ‘n klomp kak wat glad nie bestaan nie, net soos die res van die simpele godiote en net dit alleen vertel vir ons dat daar ‘n moerse klomp skroewe los is daarbo saam met jou drie breinselle.

    Vir enige mens om te kan glo dat daar goeters soos hemele en engele en klein jesussies “daarbo” rond dryf of swerf, en satantjies en helle wat nou weer
    “daaronder” is, en gotte (1, 3, 1)? wat al duisende jare daar is, maar fokkol en niks doen aan die verskriklike lyding in die wereld nie, moet hy ‘n dom poes wees.

    Alle godiote is dom poese. Daar’s nou vir jou ‘n wetenskaplike feit wat vir ewig en ewig sal bly staan en nooit sal verander nie. Jou brein is verrot. Amen.

    verifanie

    January 20, 2011 at 07:45

  545. “Fundamentalisme” is een van daardie terme wat emosies opwek sonder om ‘n alte duidelike inhoud te hê. Party mense gebruik dit om ander mee sleg te sê. So kan een groep gelowiges ‘n ander as fundamentalisties bestempel. Soms word dit gebruik om álle gelowiges oor dieselfde negatiewe kam te skeer. Daar is ook gelowiges wat geen probleem daarmee het om hulself fundamentalisties te noem nie.
    Wanneer mense dan oënskynlik verskil, of saamstem, oor wie ‘n fundamentalis is, en wie nie, weet hulle nie altyd wat hulle bedoel nie. Met sulke vae terme is die wyse ding om hulle óf te vermy, óf uit te spel wat jy daarmee bedoel. Wie dít nie wil doen nie, moet van poging tot propaganda verdink word.

    ‘n Interessante vraag is of slegs gelowiges fundamentaliste kan wees. Dink aan iemand wat glo dat die wetenskap sekere dinge “bewys” het en dat oor daardie “feite” nie meer gedebatteer moet word nie. So iemand se manier van dink oor sy oortuigings is struktureel identies aan dié van fundamentaliste.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 07:08

  546. “Fundamentalisme” is een van daardie terme wat emosies opwek sonder om ‘n alte duidelike inhoud te hê. Party mense gebruik dit om ander mee sleg te sê. So kan een groep gelowiges ‘n ander as fundamentalisties bestempel. Soms word dit gebruik om álle gelowiges oor dieselfde negatiewe kam te skeer. Daar is ook gelowiges wat geen probleem daarmee het om hulself fundamentalisties te noem nie.
    Wanneer mense dan oënskynlik verskil, of saamstem, oor wie ‘n fundamentalis is, en wie nie, weet hulle nie altyd wat hulle bedoel nie. Met sulke vae terme is die wyse ding om hulle óf te vermy, óf uit te spel wat jy daarmee bedoel. Wie dít nie wil doen nie, moet van poging tot propaganda verdink word.

    ‘n Interessante vraag is of slegs gelowiges fundamentaliste kan wees. Dink aan iemand wat glo dat die wetenskap sekere dinge “bewys” het en dat oor daardie “feite” nie meer gedebatteer moet word nie. So iemand se manier van dink oor sy oortuigings is struktureel identies aan dié van fundamentaliste.

    soois

    January 20, 2011 at 07:06

  547. Doktor Einstein.

    Baie dankie vir jou sinvolle, insiggewende bydraes hierbo.

    Ek dink nie dat dit wat jy hierbo skryf “more fundie twaddle” is nie.

    Anders as ‘n sekere deelnemer, dink ek ook nie dat jy ‘n “brain dead, dimwitted knucklehead” is nie.

    Ek het ook groot waardering vir die wyse waarop jy vir Soois hanteer. Ek glo dat, deur ordentelik met ‘n fundamentalis te kommunikeer, jy baie verder gaan kom as met ‘n klomp sinnelose beledigings in hoogdrawende Oxford Ingels.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 20, 2011 at 06:37

  548. Die enkele grootste fout wat gelowiges maak, is nie te aanvaar dat ons net eenvoudig diere is nie. Ons is diere! Aanvaar dit. Moet nie probeer om met jou klein verstandjie te verwerp wat ouens soos Darwin en andere wie donners slimmer as ons is, ontdek het nie.

    Gestel ‘n ou het so ‘n pragtige groot hond. Se nou maar dit is ‘n Alsation of Boerboel of watter tipe hond jy ook al lief het. Kom ons se dit is ‘n pragtige hond en hy is so gesond soos wat kan kom. As jy by die hek instap dan waai sy hele liggaam van blydskap en opgewondenheid. Hy spring op en sit sy twee groot pote so plaks op jou skouers en wil jou sommer in die gesig lek. Jy gooi ‘n stok en daar gaat hy soos die wind en gaan haal dit.

    Ons kan se dat hierdie hond is oorstelp van ‘n gelukkige gemoedstoestand, nie waar nie?

    Daai hond het nog nooit in sy lewe gewonder waarvandaan hy kom nie, of waarheen hy eendag gaan nie. Hy leef nou. Hy is op hierdie aarde met al vier sy pote en hy geniet dit gate uit. Hy vreet en hy hardloop en hy naai en hy doen dinge en slaap lekker en sommer alles.

    Wat sou gebeur het as ons die hond, toe hy klein was,
    ‘n intellektuele brein kon aanwerk met ‘n operasie. (Ja, ek weet dit kan nie gebeur nie) En gestel verder
    dat ons die puppy vasgebind het aan ‘n baie kort ketting en hom dan ook geslaan het. En dan, toe hy oud genoeg was, het ons vir hom vertel van die gotte en jesus en al die ander kak. Kom ek wed julle dat ons dan eendag ‘n hond daar sien le in ‘n hoekie, en dinge bepeins soos “Waar kom ek vandaan?” en “Waar gaan ek eendag as ek doodgaan?” As jy hom roep, dan pis hy homself papnat met sy stert tussen sy bene, want hy is nou BANG. Hy sal got vrees, mense vrees,
    in spoke glo, ens.

    Dit is hoe ‘n mens ook kan opgefok word. Hoeveel biljoene mense loop rond met ‘n magdom van vrese en diep persoonlike probleme. Vrees vir die “wederkoms”
    en die hel. Vrees vir ander mense want hulle was geslaan en onderdruk. Mense wie nooit ooit ‘n opinie of gedagte of emosie of gevoel kon toon nie, want die ouers/onderwysers/skoolhoofde/dominees/pastore/jesus/
    gotte/hel is/was almal simbole van geweld en hulle moes gevrees word.
    Die bybel was in hulle kele afgedruk sedert geboorte.
    Die indringende boodskap was baie duidelik. “Boetie, dink net of se net of praat net ietsie klein wat as “sleg” beskou word, en dan gaan jy kak”. “En onthou boetie, daar is vreeslik baie “sondes” op aarde. Moenie aan jou piepie vat nie, moenie draadtrek nie, moenie gedagtes he van meisies naai nie, moenie vloek nie, moenie rook nie, moenie drink nie, moenie terugpraat nie, moenie “parmantig” wees nie, moenie jou gat ruk vir my nie, want ek is jou pa/ma en jy moet “respek” (VREES!) he vir my en alle volwassenes, ongeag of hulle poese is.

    En verder: “Moenie “vloer-moere” gooi nie, moenie huil nie, moenie lag of hardloop of spring of skree nie, moenie dikbek rondloop nie, (don’t sulk), se dankie, se asseblief, soen die tannie en die oom,
    sit regop, eet mooi, moenie vloek nie, moenie lelik praat nie…..Ek is jou pa en ek wil nie jou kak hoor nie….

    Vir hoe lank kan ons nog aangaan? Is daar enige wonder dat die selfmoord syfer onder kinders elke dag styg? Ek ken persoonlik kinders wie glad nie met enige van hierdie kak grootgeword het nie en raai wat? Hulle is die lieflikste, mees saggeaarde, vriendelikste, gelukkige mense op aarde. Hulle ouers het hulle toegelaat om al hulle PYN uit te huil sedert hulle babatjies was. Hulle ouers het verskriklik min gepraat en fokken baie geluister. Daar was innige liefde en houvas-drukkies. Hierdie kinders het NOOIT die woord “respek” gehoor nie. Hulle kon se vir die ouers net wat hulle wil, en kon vloek ook.

    Vertel dit vir ‘n godioot en jy sal dadelik hoor: “God, ek slaan sy gat vuurwarm as hy my nie met “respek” behandel nie.

    Mense, druk asseblief….al die onnosele fokken IDEES wat julle het oor mense, godsdiens, die bybel en alles, so fokken diep in julle gatte in dat dit nooit nooit weer uitkom nie, en julle sal bydra tot die genesing van die mensdom. (Die dom mens?) Moet nie ‘n kind “grootmaak” nie. Laat hulle net groei. Gee fokken baie liefde.

    verifanie

    January 19, 2011 at 12:57

  549. Dok, jy maak dit baie moeilik om nie van jou so af en toe te hou nie. Jy maak groot waarhede kwyt maar ek sal liewer nie met Stroois ‘n gesprek aanknoop nie want ek het ongelukkig nie die geduld daarvoor nie.
    Dit lyk in elk geval vir my dat hy slegs hoor wat hy WIL hoor en vertel aanhoudend hoe die ander mense op hiedie blog onnosel is sonder dat enige van hierdie mense hom sover beledig het. Tipiese godioot wat op ‘n troontjie sit.

    ErickV

    January 19, 2011 at 12:49

  550. Ek stem saam.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 19, 2011 at 11:58

  551. ” .. dit is nie belangrik of Jesus vanaand, more of oor 100 jaar weer kom nie ..”

    Julle gaan wag, julle kinders gaan wag, julle kleinkinders gaan wag, julle agterkleinkinders gaan wag, julle agter-agterkleinkinders gaan wag …. maar hierdie liewe jesus van julle gaan nie weer kom nie.

    Savage

    January 19, 2011 at 11:38

  552. Daarshy, dit is mos waarvoor ek vra. Helderdenkende mense se opinies en antwoorde waaraan ek kan herkou.
    Ek was ook skepties oor mense wat GOD se stem hoor. Ek self “hoor” darem nie stemme ens. nie, dit is eerder soms gedagtes wat net in my verstand opkom, ander kere lees ek antwoorde in die Bybel raak nadat ek antwoorde gevra het en natuurlik soms antwoord Hy my juis deur mense.
    Openbaring praat van die 1260 dae van verdrukking. Op die ou end was dit 1260 jaar (538 N.C tot 1798 N.C). Napoleon het toe die pous van daardie tyd verslaan.
    Jy is ook reg, dit is nie belangrik of Jesus vanaand, more of oor 100 jaar weer kom nie (vir my en ander wat gered is), maar omdat ek ook kinders het en familie het wat goddeloos leef en dink daar is nog baie tyd, soek ek antwoorde sodat ek hulle kan waarsku.
    Daar staan geskrywe; “ek plaas ‘n wag by die poort van die groot stad. As hy die vyand van ver af sien aankom, is dit sy plig om diegene daarbinne te waarsku. Indien hulle ag slaan daarop en hulleself verdedig, verdien hy ‘n ereplek, maar as hulle nie daarop ag slaan nie en gedood word, is hy onskuldig. Maar as hy vlug en homself red verdien hy die ewige dood.
    Miskien het ek ‘n plig om te waarsku, sodat die wat nog nie gered is nie kan wakker word.

    Verskoon tog die gebrek aan sekere leestekens, maar ek en die “laptop” verstaan mekaar verkeerd.

    soois

    January 19, 2011 at 11:03

  553. Soois

    Ek lees wat jy skryf en het waardering en respek daarvoor.

    Nee, ek dink nie jy is koekoes nie. Ek is net verskriklik skepties as dit kom by persoonlike kommunikasie tussen individue en God.

    Wat betref die tekens van die eindtyd. Dis ‘n probleem.

    Volgens die Bybel is een van die tekens dat Christene bloeddorstiglik en genadeloos vervolg gaan word. Kan dit moontlik wees dat Christene nog erger vervolg kan word as in die tyd van keiser Nero?

    Een van die ander Bybelse tekens is ongekende natuurrampe. Tsunami’s, aardbewings en vulkane wat Vesuvius soos ‘n eenduim klappertjie gaan laat lyk.

    Ek weet nie, ou Soois. Waar daar ooit weer so ‘n verskriklike aardbewing soos in San Francisco in, was dit 1927?

    Wat die probleem natuurlik groter maak is dat, volgens die Bybel, ‘n duidend jaar vir God soos een dag is. Dit beteken natuurlik dat Nero se vervolging van Christene so goed soos minder as twee dae terug was. Wat verder beteken dat die wederkoms, vir wie daarin glo, eers oor 4 of 5 dae, dws 4 of 5 duisend jaar, gaan gebeur.

    Ek kon egter nog nooit verstaan waarom die kwessie van die eindtyd ooit ‘n issue moes wees nie. ‘n Christengelowige lewe mos elke dag uit dankbaarheid soos die Bybel vra.

    So wat maak dit dan vir ‘n Christen saak of die wederkoms/wegraping more, 21 Mei 2011, 19 Augustus 2049, 24 Februarie 2078 of 6 Oktober 2723 gaan plaasvind?

    Doktor Einstein

    January 19, 2011 at 10:35

  554. Terloop, toe ek bid en HOM vra oor die doop het HY my weereens na die Bybel gelei en eers die geskiedenis van Jesus en Sy neef, Johannes die doper laat beleef, toe die onstaan en doel van die doop en eers daarna die opdrag om my te laat doop.
    Die geleentheid om gedoop te word het Hy nog byna ‘n jaar later laat kom deur ‘n man wat met die Woord deur my dorp gereis het. Geen predikant het my gedoop nie.

    soois

    January 19, 2011 at 10:15

  555. Doktor Einstein,
    dankie vir jou insiggewende en oordentlike skrywe… die enigste rede hoekom ek nou terugskryf, want ek was vas van plan om my van hierdie blog te distansieer.
    Ek respekteer jou redes en sienswyse, my probleem is egter in ‘n mate omgekeerd van joune, ek was eintlik nie ‘n oortuigde Christen nie, pleinweg was ek seker ongelowig, maar het op ‘n tydperk in my lewe gekom waar ek wou weet. Is die hier en nou alles, of is daar iets om nog na uit te sien vorentoe.
    Het my to na GOD en die Bybel gewend, en later, nie oornag nie, het ek GOD se stem begin herken en het HY nog altyd sederdien my gebede en vrae deur Sy WOORD, die BYBEL beantwoord. My oortuiging kom dus nie van slim en geleerde mense af nie, maar van HOM, of ek het ‘n geweldige goeie verbeelding of dalk ‘n denkbeeldige vriend wat met my praat. Miskien is ek totaal koekoes, maar toe ek net mooi dink ek is nou die volmaakte Christen het die “gedagte” by my opgekom; “Soois, jy moet nou gedoop word”. Geen mens het nog ooit vir my gese om gedoop te word nie, ek het nog nooit op daardie stadium eers ‘n preek oor die doop gehoor nie. Nou waar kom die “gedagte” vandaan? Sederdien het die “gedagtes” nog nooit weer opgehou nie, en as ek luister my die regte besluite laat neem, en as ek nie luister nie, die verkeerde besluite.
    Hoe kan ek nie glo in sulke omstandighede nie?
    Groete daar…

    soois

    January 19, 2011 at 10:09

  556. Soois.

    As ek met die agterdeur-lyn die indruk geskep het dat ek met jou en jou oortuigings die spot dryf, vra ek jou opreg om verskoning.

    Ek was tot so ses jaar terug ‘n fundamentalistiese Christengelowige.

    Daarmee bedoel ek dat ek ALLES van die Christelike leërstellings onvoorwaardelik geglo het. Van die sondeval en die genadevolle vergifnis teologie, tot by die wederkoms, oordeelsdag en hiernamaals.

    Twee van my neefs (hulle is broers) is opgeleide teoloê. Een van hulle was 12 jaar lank ‘n predikant in die Hervormde Kerk.

    Beide hierdie manne het met hulle kennis van teologie, tot die slotsom gekom dat die Ou Testament tot die tyd van Koning Dawid, net te veel op Hebreeuse mites en legendes gebaseer is en daarom as ongeloofwaardig verwerp moet word.

    Hulle het my fundamentalistiese beginsels en oortuigings gerespekteer, en ons was oor ‘n lang tyd in heelwat gesprekke.

    My een neef het my so 8 jaar gelede ‘n artikel, geskryf deur Prof Andries Van Aarde, oor die Historiese Jesus en die Opgestane Jesus, gegee. Ek sal sy woorde nooit vergeet nie:

    “Albert, lees hierdie artikel met ‘n oop gemoed. Dink objektief en realisties oor dit wat jy lees. Dis al wat ek jou vra.”

    Ou Soois, Ek neem al ‘n hele aantal jare op die forum Kletskerk deel. Daar het ek ‘n man raakgelees wie onder die skuilnaam “Wedergestorwe Christen” skryf. Hy is ‘n teoloog met ‘n doktorsgraad in Ou Testamentiese Wetenskap, Hy, soos Andries Van Aarde, het meer breins as ek en jy saam. En daarmee sê ek hoegenaamd nie dat ons dom is nie. Wat hulle van die Bybel, teologie en godsdiens vergeet het, sal ek en jy in ons leeftyd nie leer nie.

    Ek het baie oor die skepping en ewolusie gelees en baie gedink.

    Ek het oor die jare en vir goeie redes al my vertroue in die kerk verloor, maar dis ‘n ander storie.

    Die grootste fout wat ons geleer word, is om nie dogma te bevraagteken nie. Ek weet nie of jy “Kringe in die Bos” van (wyle) Daleen Matthee gelees het nie. Indien nie, lees die boek gerus. Jy sal sien wat ek bedoel.

    As ‘n mens bereid is om net te dink en eerlik met homself te wees, kan ‘n mens nie anders as om aspekte soos die “chatty snake” en die sondeval, die maagdelike geboorte, die opstanding en die hemelvaart te verwerp nie.

    Ek kan verstaan dat mense tot so twee geslagte terug, in die Bybel kon glo as die absolute en onfeilbare Woord van God.

    Maar hel ou Soois! Ons het darem in die 21ste eeu toegang tot ‘n magdom van kennis en feite sodat ons werklik van beter behoort te weet.

    Sterkte!

    Doktor Einstein

    January 19, 2011 at 09:34

  557. Nee my vriend, ek het lank gelede juis getwyfel, maar wou weet of daar ‘n hiernamaals was om na uit te sien of nie, het my toe na GOD en my BYBEL gewend en die waarheid ontdek. Daar is baie wat glo hulle ken die WOORD uit hulle koppe uit en kan selfs verse aanhaal, maar glo my, die woord se juis dat valse profete en lasteraars en die antichris die Bybel baie goed sal ken en dit toepas om hulleself geloofwaardig te maak. My skrywe was eintlik gerig op die wat glo, omdat ek opgemerk het daar is ook soms gelowiges wat skryf, en ek wou hulle opinie vra rondom die eindtye, juis omdat ek nie alwetend is nie, en daarom uit ander se kennis wil put. Ek het egter net niksseggende reaksie van die gekry wat glad nie glo nie. Ek ken ‘n paar ateiste, en hulle is almal oordentlike mense wat ten spyte van hulle ongeloof ander se geloof en sienswyse respekteer. Hier het ek egter in die kring van die spotters beland. En jy is verkeerd, ek is NIE welkom hier nie, want my VERLOSSER is nie hier welkom nie.

    Soois

    January 19, 2011 at 08:41

  558. Soois
    Jy’s nuut hier en jy’s welkom.
    Maar besef asseblief dadelik: daar is deelnemers op hierdie blog wat al oor die Bybel en die godsdiens dinge vergeet het wat jy waarskynlik nog moet leer.
    Hierdie deelnemers ken juis die Bybel en het nie sommer een oggend wakker geword en besluit hulle laaik nie meer die kerk nie.
    Suutjies trap hieroor. Oor die res kan jy maar laat waai.

    Nathan Bond

    January 19, 2011 at 06:45

  559. Dit gaan nie oor ‘n agterdeur oophou nie, ek is net eerlik genoeg om te erken dat ek nie seker is ander het die jare korrek uitgewerk nie, m.a.w, bewys vir my die sondvloed was 4990 v.c en dan sal my stelling wees dat die wegraping beslis 2011 is. Dit is egter onmoontlik om ‘n gesprek te voer met mense wat nie eens die moeite gedoen het om die Bybel te leer ken en dan die geskiedenis te bestudeer nie. Glo my, dit sal julle aan die dink sit. Probleem is, as julle kon dink, sou julle sinvolle teenargumente gehad het, maar julle wil net spot en laster, die Bybel waarsku verskeie kere hieroor. Terloops, een van julle daag GOD ‘n paar keer uit om hom met ‘n weerligstraal dood te slaan. Ek het nuus vir jou, daardie soort genade is vir SY kinders bestem. Vir die res is 5 maande van pyn en lyding in die pyplyn.
    Ek geniet die lewe en doen die dinge van ‘n gewone mens, en glo my, ek beplan dinge vir ver in die toekoms. Ek sit nie op ‘n hopie en wag vir die einde nie. Dit sal kom wanneer die HERE so se, maar glo my, dit kom. Of dit nou more of oor 100 jaar is, maar dit kom. As ek 22 Mei 2011 wakker word, en ons is nog hier, sal ek bly wees en aanvaar ons het nog tyd oor, maar as HY vanaand kom is ek reg vir HOM. Groete en sterkte.
    Soois

    Soois

    January 19, 2011 at 06:40

  560. Dokter Albert
    Hoekom vertel jy Soois nie asseblief van waar jy kom nie – soos in jou denke-agtergrond. Herinner sommer die ander lesers ook.
    Dis natuurlik slegs ‘n voorstel!
    Dis natuurlik net ‘n voorstel

    Nathan Bond

    January 19, 2011 at 06:17

  561. Soois!! Dagsê

    Ek is bly om te sien jy laat ‘n agterdeur oop vir die moontlikheid dat die “Bybelkalender” moontlik verkeerd is.

    Ek weet nie hoe oud jy is en of jy kinders het nie. Indien jy wel kinders het, sal ek jou aanraai om, ter wille van hulle, hierdie snert van Mei 2011 te vergeet.

    Die eenvoudige waarheid is:

    1. Daar was nooit iets soos ‘n sondvloed nie. Dis Hebreeuse mitologie.

    2, Daar was nooit ‘n man met die naam Noag wie vir meer as twee maande in ‘n ark met 86 pare honger diere op vloedwaters gecruise het nie. Dis Hebreeuse mitologie.

    3. Daar bestaan nie soiets soos ‘n wederkoms nie. Dis ‘n fundamentalistiese Christelike idee.

    4. Daar bestaan nog minder iets soos ‘n komende wegraping. Dit is nie ‘n fundamentalistiese Christelike idee nie. Dis pleinweg net ‘n kak idee.

    So, Soois, vergeet van al hierdie stront, kyk naweke saam met jou seuns rugby en krieket, en geniet saam met hulle die lewe.

    Doktor Einstein

    January 19, 2011 at 06:06

  562. Ja, ek stem. Gelukkig gaan ek beslis nie saam met die boring klomp sit en liedjies sing en hande klap vir ‘n ewigheid nie. Die bewyse is op die internet van alles wat ek al geskryf het, so liewe jesus se skape sal my beslis nie daar wil he nie. Dankie fokken tog!!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 18, 2011 at 21:25

  563. Soos jy, wens ek die wegraping wil nou uiteindelik kom! Dan kan ons saam in die hel goeie geselskap, gloeisels skoffel en sekere gebottelde sondes geniet in plaas daarvan om heeltyd na die simpel, droewige, lawwe, bogagtig breindooie snert van gelowiges te moet luister.

    Con-Tester

    January 18, 2011 at 21:13

  564. Wel, dit raak laat en is nog nie 21 Mei nie. Gaan dus nou lekka doeks. Ek gesels more weer.

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 21:05

  565. Waars die ouens wat eintlik die Bybel al gelees het en wat iets tussen hulle ore het. Die wat onkundig is kan net spot en uitlag, maar eintlik net mooi boggerol kwytraak.

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 21:03

  566. McBrolloks
    Die Woord sê: “My volk gaan ten gronde weens ‘n gebrek aan kennis.”
    Maar daar’s hoop!
    Die wegraping (rapture) begin glo in hierdie dae van verwoesting… Kan jy dínk hoe ‘n salige plek hierdie ou blougroen rotsie wat ons Aarde noem gaan wees as liewe jesus al sy kinners wegvat!?
    Praat van hemel op aarde!
    Roll on rrrrrapture!

    Nathan Bond

    January 18, 2011 at 20:56

  567. Sorry Nathan. Ek het te veel trane in my oe gehad om dit alles deuglik te lees. Ek wonder watse houd het hulle daar in die woestyn gebruik om die ark mee te bou. Dit moes seker lekker harde hout gewees het anders sou dit vrot en deur die termiete opgeeet gewees het. Ek wonder waar hulle al die kos gestoor het en gekry het. Ag fok my, hier gaan ek al weer. Probeer goed verstaan wat my brein nie kan begryp nie. Ons atheiste is darem maar ‘n dom klomp.En boonop kan ek nie eers ‘n dood gewone ou kalender uitfigure nie. Fok my!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 18, 2011 at 20:47

  568. Godsk, McBrolloks, nie net hét die Vloed gebeur nie, dit het op 21 Mei 4009 VAE gebeur. Jy weet ôk fôkol.

    Nathan Bond

    January 18, 2011 at 20:40

  569. Soois skryf:

    “Die mense het lekker vir ou Noag gelag wat 120 jaar lank ‘n ark op droee woestyngrond gebou het. Ek dink nie hulle lag meer nie…”

    Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!! Ek dink mense lag vir ouens soos jy wat glo dis ‘n ware storie. Fok my!!!!! Jy vat seker die piss, of hoe?

    En as jesus se eerste wonderwerk water in wyn verander was, was hy maar ‘n regte poes gewees, met al die elende om hom, help hy liewer ‘n klomp suip gatte op ‘n troue.

    Julle fundies is die beste comedy wat mens vandag orals kan kry. Mens kan nie hierdie kak self uitdink nie. Hou asseblief so aan. Julle is vreeslik entertaining!!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    January 18, 2011 at 20:34

  570. Hallo Nathan.
    Gehoop om van jou te hoor. Wat gebeur met jou besittings as jy doodgaan?

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 20:27

  571. Savage, 11 Mei 2011 en die Sonstorm kom nie van my af nie, maar van die slim wetenskaplikes.
    Voorbeeld: “A perfect storm” – Discovery

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 20:24

  572. Soois
    As jy vanaand te sterwe kom, kan ek jou nuwe Audi kry? Toe! Assebliéf!

    Nathan Bond

    January 18, 2011 at 20:23

  573. Die mense het lekker vir ou Noag gelag wat 120 jaar lank ‘n ark op droee woestyngrond gebou het. Ek dink nie hulle lag meer nie…

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 20:20

  574. Savage, 11 Mei 2011 en die Sonstorm kom nie van my af nie, maar van die slim wetenskaplikes.

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 20:18

  575. Jip, gedink ek sal reaksie uitlok.
    As julle mooi gelees het sou julle sien ek maak nie ‘n stelling nie, maar vra eintlik vrae. (se nou maar of “what if”)
    Nee-wat, Jesus het ook wyn gebruik, daarom het die Fariseers en skrifgeleerders gevra wie is nou eintlik die Messias, Jesus die wynsuiper of Johannes die doper wat nooit wyn gebruik het nie. Onthou Sy eerste wonderwerk: Water in wyn verander.
    Ek het sopas my nuwe Audi bestel en plek bespreek vir die April vakansie. Wat se dit? Nie dat ek nie glo nie, maar dat ek nie heeltemal oortuig is dat mense die Bybelkalender korrek uitgewerk het nie. As ek maar dink hoeveel foute my rekenmeester al gemaak het. Die sondvloed het egter op die 17 de dag van die tweede maand van die Joodse kalender plaasgevind (21 Mei op ons kalender). As die slimmes e jaar 4990 V.c korrek is, is ek bevrees 2011 is die korrekte jaar. God het vir Noag gese ek gee jou en jou familie 7 dae en ek gee jou nageslag 7 dae. Hy het ook gese vir Hom is 1 dag soos 1000 jaar en 1000 jaar soos een dag.
    Dus is ek gereed vir vanaand of 21 Mei, en as 22 Mei aanbreek en niks het gebeur nie, weet ek die mens het die kalender verkeerd uitgewerk, maar ek is nogtans gereed vir die toekoms, of vanaand, want ek kan vanaand te sterwe ook kom.

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 20:14

  576. ” Terloops, vir die ouens wat eerder in die wetenskap ens. glo, het julle gesien wat gebeur op 11 Mei 2011? ‘n Magnetiese sonstorm wat aale kommunikasie en elektrisiteitsvoorsiening kan vernietig. Nou wonder ek maar net.”

    Wonder maar, sweis, (sy sweis soos ‘n warm rod (dit beteken sy naai lekker (1960’s))) maar waar jy hierdie kak lees weet net jy.

    Welkom sweis, (sonder die genaaiery nou) maar ons gaan lekker vir jou lag.

    Savage

    January 18, 2011 at 18:43

  577. Soois, wat gaan jy met al jou aardse besittings doen voor 11 of 21 Mei? Ek sal al jou drank by jou oorneem. Jy wil sekerlik nie he god moet sien jy het baie dop by die huis nie. Okk, vir ‘n paar rand, sal ek na jou honde kyk as jy honde het. Ek sal mooi na hulle sorg, want ek is baie lief vir honde. Ek het ook ‘n nuwe grassnyer nodig. So as jy een het, sal ek hom vat. Sit net alles mooi in jou garage en stuur asb vir my jou adres. Ek sal na die opraping na jou huis toe gaan. Email my by: McBrolloks@hotmail.com

    Dankie Soois!

    McBrolloks

    January 18, 2011 at 18:34

  578. :lol: It’s been a while since I laughed so heartily at the unbelievable baloney these believers are capable of spouting. Danny-booi Van der Moerig, some competition for you and your intellectual equals.

    Con-Tester

    January 18, 2011 at 18:08

  579. Ek sien so ‘n paar jaar terug het iemand (Coetzee?) die Bybelkalender aangehaal en die einde van die mensdom (11 Mei 2011?)voorspel. Eintlik moet dit wees 21 Mei 2011. Julle het die ou nogal gespot en so aan. Ek was ook een van daardie ouens wat geglo het dat niemand weet wanneer die eindtye kom nie (Mat 24:36), maar in Openbaring 3:3 staan, “As julle nie wakker word nie, sal Ek onverwags kom soos ‘n dief, en julle sal nie weet wanneer Ek op julle afkom nie”. Nou is my vraag, was dit nie maar op daardie stadium in Mattheus se tyd nog ‘n geheim wat later wel bekend moes gemaak word nie, soos in Daniel beskryf? Kyk maar na Noag. Vir hom is gese om ‘n ark te bou want daar kom ;n groot vloed, maar die tyd is toe nie aan hom geopenbaar nie. 120 jaar later, 7 dae voor die vloed, het God hom eers gewaarsku dat die vloed oppad is. Is dit nie ook Sy bedoeling om ons aan die eindtye te waarsku nie? Terloops, vir die ouens wat eerder in die wetenskap ens. glo, het julle gesien wat gebeur op 11 Mei 2011? ‘n Magnetiese sonstorm wat aale kommunikasie en elektrisiteitsvoorsiening kan vernietig. Nou wonder ek maar net.

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 17:48

  580. Hallo julle,
    joe, ek weet nie of ek maar moet stilbly of reageer nie. Aan die een kant moet ek seker aanvaar daar is die wat eenvoudig nie wil glo nie, maar aan die ander kant is dit ook my plig as Christen om julle te waarsku. Terloops, ek sien Pat van Niekerk het ‘n “komiese” stukkie aangehaal van ‘n ou wat uit Levitikus dinge noem. Wys jou net hoe nodig God dit geag het om Sy Seun Jesus te stuur sodat Hy in ons plek vir al daardie sondes kan sterf.

    Soois

    January 18, 2011 at 17:08

  581. Hanswors, I suppose one must be a religious numbskull to fathom any sense from the incomprehensible gibberish you have vomited out above. Then again, you keep reminding me that I never knew your “holy spirit.” I guess that must be it, then. This “holy spirit” of yours lets you make up any old shit as you like to avoid answering questions and to pretend that you know better than anyone else. :lol:

    Con-Tester

    December 22, 2010 at 23:04

  582. ValkOog, wil voorkom of jy beter sal kan doen met ‘n arendsoog.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 22, 2010 at 20:37

  583. Screw-tin-eyes, sou mens die lewe van Jesus volg, dan sou een sien, dat Hy nie als letterlik opgeneem en geleef het wat in die Ou Testament staan. Hy het ook ‘n nuwe verbond tot stand gebring, deur Sy leefwyse, om sodoende die verkeerde persepsies wat mense gehad het oor God, te verander. Tot vandag toe is daar nog baie wat nog nie by gekom het nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 22, 2010 at 20:35

  584. Pat, ek het jou skrywe van 15 Junie 2010 baie geniet en dit wys weer hoe een kan dwaal as een nie weet wat ‘n sinnebeeld is.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 22, 2010 at 20:24

  585. ErickV, die lewe in ons laat ons asem haal en wanneer die lewe in ons, ons liggaam verlaat, dan hou ons op asem haal. Dieselfde met die diere en terloops, waar het ek gesê dat dit die Heilige Gees is?

    Hans Matthysen

    December 22, 2010 at 20:09

  586. Con-Tester, you do love to create diversions because what I said you cannot dispute. You use the tactic in most of your reasoning to avoid having to commit or submit, yet you only are fooling yourself and a few others.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 22, 2010 at 20:00

  587. DW, dit is goed om te weet dat jy nog bestaan, want jy was vir ‘n wyle baie stil en nog beter is, dat jy nie onwelvoeglike taal kwyt geraak het.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 22, 2010 at 19:48

  588. Lyk my ou Hans het die aftog geblaas en nou is onse liewe Vicar ook besig om dit te doen. Al wat Bisar, ag ek bedoel Vicar, nog kan doen is om almal te vloek en geen positiewe kommetaar te lewer nie.
    Vicar,
    Ken jy die storie van “the birds and the bees”?
    As jy dit ken (en dit glo ek nie) sal jy weet dat die Natuur ons laat asem haal, soos enige ander lewendige dier op aarde. Dit het absoluut niks te doen met die sogenaamde “heilige gees” nie. So, kruip maar voor jou sielkundige gees as dit jou laat lekker kry.

    ErickV

    December 15, 2010 at 09:00

  589. Valkoog, laat jou kinders asb. hulle eie besluite neem as hulle die dag groot is. Waarom is jy bekommerd oor die voorbeeld wat julle stel.

    Dis meer belangrik om ‘n liefdevolle omgewing by die huis te skep as die skyn volhou om kerk toe te hardloop. Jy moet probeer om bietjie vir jouself te dink. Vra jou man hoe hy dink – miskien, net miskien is sy benadering nie so vreeslik as wat jou Liewe Jesus hartjie vir jou sê nie.

    screw-tin-eyes

    July 1, 2010 at 00:35

  590. Aan LMFGA,

    ek voel saam met jou.. Maar google gerus artjanov.com
    as jy antwoorde soek. Good luck…!

    patrick

    PAT VAN NIEKERK

    June 30, 2010 at 17:39

  591. LMFGA!!!
    Wat de fok is ‘n geestelike verdieping???

    http://www.sarie.com/my-lewe/jys-nie-alleen-nie/page:2#lys

    Ek is vroeg in my veertigs. Ek het onlangs ’n geestelike verdieping ondergaan, veral omdat dit my deur moeilike tye help. Ek het al hoe meer ’n behoefte aan gebed en die wete dat ’n Hoër Hand in beheer is. My man is glad nie geestelik ingestel nie. Hy is meer prakties en wil altyd in beheer voel. Ek kan nie met hom gesels oor my geestelike behoeftes nie. Dit voel asof ons uitmekaar dryf. Sondae sit hy en koerant lees, terwyl ek kerk toe wil gaan of net iewers op ’n kerklike vlak inskakel. Dis nie ’n goeie voorbeeld vir ons twee laerskoolkinders nie. Wat kan ek doen?

    ValkOog

    June 16, 2010 at 19:23

  592. Pat, dit het nogal ‘n smile op my gesig gesit. ‘n smile van ironie. Dit is inderdaad ‘n bef*kte klomp wat steeds glo die Bybel is ‘n boek om na te volg en volgens te lewe.

    Hoe rasionaliseer gelowiges om steeds vandag se lewe by die ‘wette’ van die ystertyd te laat inpas. Dit vat verseker verstandelike gimnastiek om dit reg te kry – d.w.s. as daar natuurlik nog ongebreinspoelde verstand teenwoordig is :-)

    screw-tin-eyes

    June 16, 2010 at 00:38

  593. Het sopas hierdie ontvang van ‘n vriend. Ek deel dit graag met almal….

    In her U>S> radio show, Dr. ura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

    Here is a response from a U.S citizen:

    Dear Dr. Schlesinger,
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

    Your adoring fan. James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia

    P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian …..

    PAT VAN NIEKERK

    June 15, 2010 at 17:25

  594. Hans Doffel
    Gaan vra enige Gr. 5 leerling wat “Inteligente Ontwerp/Inteligent Design” is en hy sal jou kan vertel.
    Indien nie kan jy dit maar op die internet “google” indien jy weet om dit te doen. Indien jy nie weet hoe nie vra dan maar vir ‘n Gr. 1 leerling om dit te doen.
    My vermoede was korrek, jy is te onnosel om te weet wat dit beteken. Jy is ook waaragtig te onnosel om ‘n reguit vraag te antwoord soos C-T genoem het.

    EricV

    June 14, 2010 at 06:07

  595. No Hans, what you implied is right there for everyone to see but apparently it’s only you who can’t see it. Once again, you can stop making stuff up. And stop avoiding the subject, too. Because, more and more, it looks like you can’t actually answer any questions and instead just pull the same old smelly diversions out of your arse.

    Con-Tester

    June 13, 2010 at 11:59

  596. Hans , die hoeveelheid kak wat jy praat laat my dink jy is in die Ou Apostel kerk.

    DW

    June 13, 2010 at 11:56

  597. ErickV, wat beskou jy as “Intelligente Ontwerp”?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 12, 2010 at 20:06

  598. McBrollocks, as you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, you revert to insults. That is a sign of a peace of earth, that is void and without form.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 12, 2010 at 20:01

  599. Con-Tester, what I supposedly implied is only in your mind and what you wish to believe.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 12, 2010 at 19:53

  600. My fok Hans, is jy waaragtig so dof?
    My sogenaamde “besluit” het niks hiermee uit te maak nie. Ek het jou ‘n eenvoudige vraag gevra om uit te vind wat JOU denke is. Maar ek sien nou dat jy nie in staat is vir ENIGE denke nie, net ‘n klomp gebrabbel.

    ErickV

    June 11, 2010 at 08:11

  601. Wow Hans, your brain really doesn’t work does it? You must be living proof that religion eats brains. Your zombie jesus has consumed a big part of your brain. He left you just enough so you can wipe your own arse. It is a waste of time to try and debate anything with you and your brethren.

    Oh, Saint Ball-Licker, what do I do?????????????????????

    McBrolloks

    June 8, 2010 at 13:50

  602. For the umpteenth time: you implied that you knew them better than anyone else, Hans. You really should pay better attention to the comments because you are coming across as exceedingly dense.

    Con-Tester

    June 7, 2010 at 20:20

  603. Con-Tester, I repeat my question as you appear to know all and others not; What makes you think, that all the facts have been recorded?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2010 at 20:16

  604. McBrolloks, stupid reasoning on your side as you prayed for your dog and hoped the vet would have the skills to save the dog, when it was ill. Please allow others also to pray and hope the docters would achive sucses. I am sure he thanked the docters and staff for a task well done and the screw part appears to be in your mind.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2010 at 20:09

  605. DW, ek dink Savage kan vir homself antwoord, want ‘n dom drol soos jy, is nie in staat om iets agter te kom nie.
    Jy weet wat glo die hoof stroom en as jy eenigsins opgelet het, wat ek al op hierdie blogs geskryf het, sou jy weet, dat ek en Johannes, nie naastenby dieselfde glo nie.
    Die vryheid het geleidelik vanaf die reformasie ingetree, dus sal ek saam met jou stem, dat daar nog heelwat insedente was.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2010 at 19:57

  606. No Hans, see my comment of May 19, 2010 at 22:36. This time try to follow what it says instead of making up new stories.

    Con-Tester

    June 7, 2010 at 19:55

  607. ErickV, maak nie saak wat ek vir jou antwoord, want jy het reeds besluit wat jy wil glo.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2010 at 19:44

  608. Con-Tester, prove to me that all aspects of that history was recorded at the time?

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2010 at 19:41

  609. Ray McCauley recovering well
    2010-05-29 16:34

    Rhema’s McCauley has heart op
    Johannesburg – Rhema Church founder and chief pastor, Ray McCauley, was “recovering well” after heart surgery, a spokesperson for the church said on Saturday afternoon.

    McCauley underwent heart surgery on Friday after falling ill the same day, spokesperson Giet Khoza said earlier in a statement.

    He did not want to give details of the nature of the surgery or in which hospital 61-year-old McCauley was being treated.

    “This is all I can tell you at the moment,” he said.

    “He is currently recuperating in hospital and the Rhema leadership asks the Christian community and other faith communities to pray for his speedy recovery.”

    The Rhema leadership also appealed for McCauley to be given the privacy and space to fully recover.

    “…much as the outpouring of love towards Pastor McCauley is appreciated, the Rhema leadership appeals that he be accorded the privacy and space he needs while recovering,” they said.

    – SAPA

    “”He is currently recuperating in hospital and the Rhema leadership asks the Christian community and other faith communities to pray for his speedy recovery.””

    Screw the doctors and the hospital, it is the prayers keeping him alive. And why the hell did he go to the hospital when he fell ill? Isn’t it god’s will? Doesn’t it mean god wants him in heaven now? He is cheating death with all this science stuff. I hope god can forgive him.

    McBrolloks

    May 30, 2010 at 02:18

  610. Hans skryf ; It was only because of the reformation that freedom of religion was in place and only then could the persecuted become visible again.

    Jou foking hol op ‘n tol. Hoeveel mense is tydens die reformasie deur die sogenaamde kerkvaders van die hervorming vermoor?
    Jy Hans , jy is ‘n foking dom doos.

    DW

    May 26, 2010 at 08:44

  611. Hans skryf;Jy het seker al agter gekom, dat ek nie glo volgens wat die hoof stroom Christenne glo nie.

    Kyk Hans , nou weet ons dat jy en Johannes ander kak glo.

    Maar vertel my wat glo die hoofstroom Christene .
    Oo ja ek sien jy het nog nie vir my geantwoord op watter tekste in die Bybel letterlik opgeneem moet word en watter figuurlik opgeneem moet word nie.

    DW

    May 26, 2010 at 08:38

  612. Hans
    Kan jy waaragtig nie ‘n reguit vraag beantwoord nie?

    ErickV

    May 26, 2010 at 05:54

  613. How so, Hans? You keep painting yourself into logical corners and then you come up with all sorts of weak imaginary excuses when caught out, which happens every time. Then you duck and dive like a hunted fish instead of facing up to it. In this case you very clearly implied in your comment of May 14, 2010 at 17:09 that you know the unrecorded facts concerning the establishment of Christianity and the RCC. If you had any idea of how foolish you come across, you’d simply keep quiet. But no, you just keep making an ever-bigger fool of yourself.

    And that’s not my imagination.

    Con-Tester

    May 25, 2010 at 21:38

  614. Savage, wat die Bybel betref, is ek nogal meeste van die tyd reg omdat ek intens daarin belang stel. Ek glo nie in fabels nie en wat daar geskryf staan moet vir my sin maak anders het dit geen waarde nie. Jy het seker al agter gekom, dat ek nie glo volgens wat die hoof stroom Christenne glo nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 25, 2010 at 21:34

  615. ErickV, hoe dink jy?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 25, 2010 at 21:28

  616. Con-Tester, you seem to have a very active imagination.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 25, 2010 at 21:26

  617. Maybe this will help Hans

    screw-tin-eyes

    May 20, 2010 at 22:16

  618. Sorry ErickV, maar ek moet iets sê. Hans glo in evolusie. (Soos deur God verklaar is maar net Hans kan dit interpreteer.) As Hans sê IO is nie wetenskap nie, sal Hans wel ‘n versie uit sy boek van fabels uitkrap en bevestig dat dit wel God is wat so sê. (As Hans natuurlik in IO glo, sal hy wel ‘n versie te voorkyn tower.) Hans is in die onbenybare posisie; hys altyd reg. (Soms is dit lekker om verkeerd te wees.)

    Savage

    May 20, 2010 at 14:18

  619. Hans
    Glo jy in “Intelligente Ontwerp”?

    ErickV

    May 20, 2010 at 07:39

  620. Hans, by direct implication you have claimed exactly, precisely, indubitably that you, and you alone, do know the unrecorded facts better than anyone else. Just another case of, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book. You can’t prove me wrong.” This brainless dancing around the point and these hopscotch arguing tactics of yours are almost, nearly, close to funny. It all falls a bit short on the persuasiveness side, though, mostly because you can offer no proof at all, convincing or otherwise.

    Con-Tester

    May 19, 2010 at 22:36

  621. Con-Tester, I have never claimed that I know all the facts and it is obvious, that those who were persecuted, had to flee and their facts would not have been recorded, by the Roman authority of the time.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 19, 2010 at 21:33

  622. Hans, what makes you think that you know all the facts that haven’t been recorded?

    Easy: you don’t. So you can stop pretending and get on with those 400+ bible contradictions of which you have made passing attempts at just two towards resolving. Wholly unsuccessful attempts, at that.

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2010 at 17:38

  623. McBrollocks, we all have to die and can’t always chose how and therefore we have to accept it.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2010 at 17:12

  624. Con-Tester, omdat jy nie weet wat in die Bybel staan nie en ek wel daarom weet ek dat Jesus nie gay was nie. Voorbeeld; Die twalf het nie lang hare gehad sou jy die volgende geweet het: 1 Kor. 11:14 Of leer ook die natuur self julle nie dat as ‘n man lang hare dra, dit vir hom ‘n oneer is nie;
    So you believe what the RCC claims, yet they murdered Peter. How naive can one be?
    Peter was head of the Church that was persecuted, yes and never part of the establishing, of the Roman Catholic Church. It was only because of the reformation that freedom of religion was in place and only then could the persecuted become visible again. What makes you think that all facts have been recorded?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2010 at 17:09

  625. Defollyant, you really haven’t a clue what the Bible is about, New or Old Testament and you never have.
    I invite you to approach me with any one or two of the 400+ so called contradictions and we will see if they are really contradictions of which I doubt.
    Gods Church has always existed, although not officially to be recorded by man, whom chose to try and destroy it.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2010 at 16:42

  626. McBrolloks, at least it keeps them busy whilst waiting to be killed.

    ErickV

    April 30, 2010 at 12:29

  627. Boy ‘pray-phones’ murdered dad

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Boy-prayphones-murdered-dad-20100429

    Tragic. But how can people still believe god can save them after they were attacked? Can’t these people understand there is no god to help them?

    McBrolloks

    April 30, 2010 at 04:43

  628. Hans Matthysen wrote (April 5, 2010 at 8:30 pm):

    The church of the Pope originated from those who persecuted Jesus and the Apostles.

    Nonsense, Hans. Either you don’t know your scriptural mythology or you’re making up convenient fairytales again. The RCC is founded on the doctrine of apostolic succession, which holds that Jesus himself appointed the Apostle Peter as the first head of his church. Catholic theology teaches that all of Peter’s successors in Rome will, in their own time, be heads of Jesus’ church. Read Matthew 16:18–19. Moreover, Christianity, as represented by the RCC, only became the Roman Empire’s state religion in 380 CE, about 350 years after its founding. Therefore, to say that the RCC “originated from those who persecuted Jesus and the Apostles” is to propound ignorant twaddle – factually and theologically.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (April 5, 2010 at 8:30 pm):

    The churches you refer to, in regard to apartheid originated from the RCC.

    Another convenient little fairytale. Hans, the Protestant Reformation started around 1517 CE, and concluded around 1648. Apartheid became SA state policy in 1948 – i.e. 300 years later. As you should know, Catholicism is not, and never was big among Afrikaners, be they of Dutch or French Huguenot descent.

    You really should be more mindful of the facts when setting out to fabricate.

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2010 at 17:57

  629. Hans, hoe weet jy Jeeeeeesussssss was nie gay nie? Hy’t mos nooit getrou nie of met ’n vrou sy lewe gedeel nie; hy’t homself eerder met twaalf langhaar manne vir maatjies omring. Klink vir my hy’t ten minste gay neigings gehad.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2010 at 21:09

  630. Darn, that was me again.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2010 at 20:56

  631. Hans, all Christian churches originated with the RCC. It’s funny how there are near enough 40,000 recognised variants thereof, and how you keep self-righteously proclaiming that “They clearly got the message of the New Testament wrong.” Hans, why does your so-called “holy” book have an Old Testament? Did your omniscient, omnipotent, supremely benevolent, uncaused first-cause creator skydaddy fuck it up the first time around and realise that he needed to change his tune? Why if he’s omniscient and therefore knew exactly what was coming?

    Why are you not able to see the ridiculousness of the nonsense you’re spouting?

    And, so far, you’ve “addressed” just one of the 400+ bible contradictions. That still leaves 400+ to go.

    defollyant

    April 5, 2010 at 20:54

  632. Savage, die gelowe wat daarin glo, dat hulle predikers nie in die huwelik mag tree, kan ‘n groter probleem hê as die ander en daarom is dit beter om nie Gay predikers toe te laat nie.
    (1 Tit. 3:2 ‘n Opsiener dan moet onberispelik wees, die man van een vrou, nugter, ingetoë, fatsoenlik, gasvry, bekwaam om te onderrig;)
    Sou daardie kerke handel, volgens die voorbeeld wat gestel word, deur Jesus en die Apostels, sou die propleem sekerlik nooit ontstaan het. Sulke dinge gebeur wanneer daar afgewyk word, van die gesonde leer van Christus.
    Soos julle altyd tekere gaan oor die verdeeltyd onder Christenne, erken jy nou, dat daar ook verdeeltyd onder julle adiote is.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 20:48

  633. McBrolloks, The church of the Pope originated from those who persecuted Jesus and the Apostles. They clearly weren’t following the example set for them, by the last mentioned.
    The churches you refer to, in regard to apartheid originated from the RCC. Do you think they ever followed the example that Jesus and the Apostle’s set?
    They clearly got the message of the New Testament wrong.
    You know to little about me, yet you make false accusations. I follow no one blindly as I am not a fool.
    Your kind are also an insult to humanity.
    The way you adiots read the Bible with your so called 400 contradictions, appears to be very dangerous.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 20:30

  634. No apologies needed, Con-Tester. Thank you for the great link and especially for drawing my attention to what should have been, to me, an obvious shortcoming on this blog – a place where readers and commentators can speak their minds at will on any topic of their choice. This situation has now been rectified.

    Click here for the text referred to by Con-Tester and to comment on it.

    And click here for a place to speak your mind on any relevant topic not covered elsewhere on the blog. Desist, preferably, from bewailing SA sport and politics, for example, except where the hand of you know who is identified by godiots and other cretins.

    Nathan Bond

    April 5, 2010 at 08:12

  635. Provocative.

    (Apologies, Nathan: This main page should remain uncluttered but I couldn’t find a suitable other blog page on which to post this.)

    Con-Tester

    April 4, 2010 at 22:04

  636. Het die blog Biologos ontdek. Daar is nou vir jou loons, hoor. Hulle word deur die Templeton foundation gesponser, so daars baie geld daar betrokke.

    Was nie ‘n dag op die blog nie of ek kry ‘n waarskuwing van “Moderator” af dat as ek weer iemand “delusional” noem, skop hulle my af. (Daarmee ook my posts vewyder.)

    Thrillsville!

    Savage

    April 4, 2010 at 17:44

  637. Exiled Pedophile Priest May Have Continued Abuse

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/us/03wisconsin.html?hpw

    McBrolloks

    April 3, 2010 at 18:40

  638. Lyk of Elia ons met die ‘vlammende koets’ verlaat het.

    Hy het hierdie warm plek (NTR blog) vir hom, verruil vir ‘n warm ‘chariot’

    Hy dink seker nog oor die feit dat sy geloof op vrees gebou is.

    screw-tin-eyes

    April 3, 2010 at 07:55

  639. As clouds darken over Catholic Church, Vatican’s legal strategy takes shape

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-churchabuse_31int.ART.State.Edition2.4c5dd21.html

    Objection, Your Holiness!
    How do you become a lawyer for the pope?

    http://www.slate.com/id/2249533/

    McBrolloks

    April 2, 2010 at 21:29

  640. Nathan, jys reg. As die ateìste ‘n unie stig, sluit ek by die boskerk of so iets aan.

    Ek sien selfs die ateìste het maar kort-kort ‘n klein skermutseling aan – party wil nie met die heavy weights soos Dawkins, PZ en Coyne geassosieer word nie; nogal interessant om van die redenasies te lees.

    Savage

    April 2, 2010 at 11:15

  641. Savage
    Ek besef jy is meestal tong-in-die-kies hierbo, maar die feit dat natuurlike oortuigdes (got- en demoonloses) so in verskillende rigtings trek is juis iets wat my aanstaan. Om in ‘n “groep” te wees wat altyd algar saamstem – oor die essensiële! – is maar vir my bôring!

    Nathan Bond

    April 2, 2010 at 08:11

  642. “Trying to organise atheists is often compared to herding cats.”

    From http://www.education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=147&intversion=42

    Ja maggies, miskien moet ons ook ‘n got of ‘n dink kry om ons meer in lyn te bring – kyk hoe mooi werk die krisjins saam. (‘n Paar lyke hier en daar kan mens maar oorsien wat.)

    Savage

    April 2, 2010 at 08:05

  643. From McBrolloks’ link: “Relatively few victims have come forward publicly in Germany to tell their stories of sexual abuse at the hands of priests, as Mr. Fesselmann did in the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung last month. Culturally, Germany is more reserved, and its people less demonstrative and emotionally open than in the United States.”

    It would be interesting to see to what figure the current 4% priest paedophiles in the RCC would grow after a well structured scientific investigation was done.

    Hans, jou een uit ‘n miljoen het al klaar gegroei tot veertig duisend uit ‘n miljoen; wat dink jy sal die werklike syfer wees? 100,000 uit 1,000,000? 150,000 uit 1,000,000? Watter syfer sal jou oortuig dat Christene maar ‘n euwel spul is?

    Maar Liewe Jesus het mos vandag op die kruis gesterf vir julle sondes. (JFC maar dit is darem ‘n kak storie hierdie, as ek al ooit een gehoor het.) Maar anyway, dis mos wat julle glo. So jy gaan maar net op jou knieë, of stoot ‘n paar beads rond terwyl jy prewel, en siedaar, Jesus se bloed het al jou gruweldade uitgewis. (Herder, maar dis ‘n lekker gedagte; gn wonder so baie is met die Bybel geklap nie.)

    Savage

    April 2, 2010 at 07:44

  644. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/world/europe/02church.html?hp

    How a Molestation Case Emerged Decades Later

    McBrolloks

    April 2, 2010 at 04:48

  645. Hans, I did read some of the new testament. What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo-bat-shit-crazy-bullshit!

    Those guys who wrote that dribble were crazier than a bunch of shit-house rats.

    They must have been on LSD, or mushrooms, or suffered from some form of mental illness or another. Maybe lead poisoning? But then again, most religious fundies I know are nuts.

    Fuck knows, but don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

    I personally think you fit in perfectly with the description I gave of the authors of your favorite testament.

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2010 at 23:09

  646. Hans, what is strange, is that people like you pick and choose what you like in the bible. Cherry picking the phrases that suits you. Most of the atrocities committed around the world in the last 2000 years was in the name of some religion. The pope ordered the crusades.

    Where were you and your brethren when your dominees were preaching from the pulpits during apartheid, that the whites, and in particular, the white Afrikaners, were god’s chosen people, in their new chosen land, here to bring salvation to the savages (blacks)? They were reading from your new testament. They cherry picked passages that suited their cause.

    You and you brethren followed blindly. Atrocities were committed, I am sure your jesus would have cried about. Yet now, all your sins are forgiven, and you get to start a fresh, a new clean slate. How convenient!

    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
    Steven Weinberg

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2010 at 23:00

  647. MacBrolloks, have you read the New Testament yet? You would have noticed, that Jesus and the Apostles never preached that way of life and so, their actions were therefore not that of Christianity. It is rather a abuse of Christianity. It is strange, that a intellect like you, could not see that.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 21:41

  648. Another example of how the love of jesus touches everyone, except people who do not believe in the love of jesus.

    “The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, refers to the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as the ethnic cleansing of 25,000–30,000 refugees in the area of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. A paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions, officially part of the Serbian Interior Ministry until 1991, also participated in the massacre. In 1993 the United Nations had declared Srebrenica a “safe area” under UN protection but its Protection Force (UNPROFOR), represented on the ground by a 400-strong contingent of armed Dutch peacekeepers, failed to prevent the massacre.”

    These soldiers who rounded up the 8000 men and boys were christians. They had flags with crosses on them. They believed they were doing their lord and saviors work. They believed they were on a crusade for christ.

    Jesus loves you.

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2010 at 18:38

  649. Savage wrote (March 31, 2010 at 6:51 am):

    [B]ut then, who cares a fuck about [the brain-dead, zombie-struck, moon-howling, cave-dwelling fundies]?

    Jeeeeeeeeesusssssss, allegedly ― but not so as you could properly tell.

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2010 at 11:42

  650. From McBrolloks’ link: “The implications of the above slogans are, after all, that men who don’t follow Jesus are not real men, and that people who do not repent will go to hell.”

    What an arrogant idiot, this pastor Grobler.

    Elia, Hans, Johannes, e.a., dit is die voorbeeld wat julle gelowiges die wêreld instuur. Glo in ons god, of julle is nie regtig mans nie (wat van die ongelowige vrouens?; ons moet vir pastoor Grobler vra) en julle sal in die hel brand. Hoe kan mens so ‘n poephol soos pastoor Grobler se kerk bywoon? Nee wat, hoe meer ek na julle imbesiele kyk, hoe meer moet ek dankie sê dat ek nie die god-meme het nie.

    Savage

    March 31, 2010 at 06:51

  651. And when you shout out loud and clear: “There is no God!”, you are not a fool in rational thinking people’s eyes. You may be a fool in the Bible thumpers’ eyes, or the brain-dead, zombie-struck, moon-howling, cave-dwelling, fundies’ eyes, but then, who cares a fuck about them.

    Savage

    March 31, 2010 at 06:37

  652. “The billboard quotes the first sentence of Psalm 14: “The fool says in his heart: ‘There is no God’.””

    Ha-ha. As always, the bible is full of shit.

    Say it load, say it proud. Don’t say it in your heart.

    There is no god, and if there was, he is a son of a bitch!!!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2010 at 00:49

  653. Ek het ‘n vragie vir jou, Elia.

    Jy deel nou jou besorgenheid hier met ons, dat ons lewe op die spel is. ‘Obviously’ is jy nie net bekommerd nie, maar bang vir ons onthalwe.

    Waarom :- Omdat jy glo dat ons lewe in gevaar is omdat ons nie in jou christen God glo nie en dit sê.

    Het jy al gedink daaroor dat jou geloof en jou glo in jou God suiwer en vierkantig berus op VREES ???

    Die Bybel deel eers koekies uit (God is lief vir julle) en dan klappe (God gaan julle straf as julle nie is nie). Kan enige helderdenkende mens verlief neem met sulke twak.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 30, 2010 at 19:21

  654. Elia, my naam: Screw-tin-eyes = scrutinize, wat beteken in Engels:

    The verb SCRUTINIZE has 2 senses:
    1. to look at critically or searchingly, or in minute detail
    2. examine carefully for accuracy with the intent of verification

    Capiche ??? Jy moet ‘n frokken absurde verbeeldingskrag hê om sulke stupid betekenisse aan die naam te gee.

    Waarteen waarsku jy ons dan. Jy waarsku ons dat ons lewe op die spel is = jy dreig met die dood, deur jou God wat ons nou gaan :-

    of dood maak (by his method of choice)
    of in die hel laat braai (wat die vrees van elke Christen is, siestog).

    Ek sê vir jou God bestaan nie vir my nie, so jou dreigement hou vir my geen gevaar in nie. Sal jy bang wees as ek vir jou sê: Die kabourtertjie onder in my tuin gaan vanaand jou keel kom toe druk omdat jy nie sy heilige boom in in die tuin wil natgooi nie.???? Dis presies wat jou dreigement vir my beteken.

    Wat verstaan jy nie as ons sê jy kan ons nie bangmaak/dreig met iets wat nie bestaan nie. Dus daar kan geen antwoord wees nie.

    Ons hoor nie stemme in ons kop nie. Ons is nie onder die beswyming van die God-meme nie en kan vir onsself dink.

    En dan, wat my heeltemal beneuk gemaak het – hoe durf jy dit in soveel woorde sê dat ongelowiges verantwoordelik is vir wat in die wêreld aangaan en verkeerd is. ‘Nice, passing the buck’ – wel ek pas hierdie buck net so terug vir God, want…

    As jou God dan so:

    Alwetend is: moes Hy die toestand van die wêreld al gesien het en begin betrokke raak het.

    Almagtig is: moes Hy die wêreld al begin regruk het. Dit behoort net ‘n wuif van die hand te vat.

    Al-om teenwoordig is: moes Hy dit ervaar het en gekeer het.

    Genadig is: moes Hy al lankal iets begin doen het.

    Hierdie laaste 4 sinne is waarom ek met sekerheid kan sê: Daar is nie ‘n God nie. Daar was nooit een nie, sal nooit een wees nie en daar kan nooit een wees nie. ‘ It’s a figment of your imagination’.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 30, 2010 at 17:20

  655. Elia
    Nee. Ek plaas nie my lewe op die spel vir iets so onsinnig as die moontlike bestaan van ‘n kabouter al dan nie.
    Nee. Ek kies nie om ongelowig te wees nie. Gelowiges kies om gelowig te wees.
    En my naam word volledig verduidelik elders op dié blog.

    Nathan Bond

    March 30, 2010 at 16:57

  656. Beste Nathan

    Ek het jou nie aangespeerk nie want jy het nie aan die laaste gespreke deelgeneem nie.

    Ek is seker jy so wou …. ne. Los nou ma die snedige oopmond soenery

    Nou hoe het ek dit dan nou met jou ? Jy haal my oorspronklike vraag baie mooi aan amper asof jy dit n teen vraag maak.

    Moet ek daarin lees het dat jy se, ja ek plaas my lewe op die spel daarvoor dat die Lewende God van Abraham, Isak en Jakob nie bestaan nie.

    Nathan Bond
    Ek sien jou naam so: Nath – an Bond
    Nath — nieteenstande
    an — n
    Bond — verbond, verpligting

    Kies jy om ongelowig te wees.

    ANDERS sal dit n baie eerbare oorneem van die Nathan Halbach en sy moeder Pat Bond in voortsetting met hule stryd wees. Of hoe?

    Groete

    Elia

    March 30, 2010 at 16:29

  657. Nathan skryf; Wys haar vir my en ek sal haar oopmond soen en verskoning maak.

    Not ‘n fok nie so vinnig nie. As sy nice Boobjob ( onthou dit behoort al bietjie te hang na al die duidende jare van wegkruip) het, lekker ruik , ‘n lyfie om oor te dink , versorgde naels ,hare mooi gedoen…

    Nee wat on second thought sy is te foking oud . Fok god .

    DW

    March 30, 2010 at 15:54

  658. DW, ek dink jy het vir arme Elia nou bang gemaak.

    Hy dink dalk, omdat ons mos nou ook volgens hom ‘n ‘geloof’ is, dat ons dalk ook sulke vreeslike vloeke kan uitspreek soos wat hy gedoen het in die naam van sy God.
    :-)

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 30, 2010 at 14:35

  659. Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Jou naam beteken: Leerder -(van) die Hemel.

    Nee, vir enigiemand met ’n basiese kennis van Engels beteken my naam duidelik “klugspel toetser.” Hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor my naam op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Vir my beteken dit dat jou ge – gal braak…

    “Gal braak,” meen jy? Nee, ek lag en spot oor galowiges se onnoselheid. Hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor my gedrag op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    … en jou gelaster (teen my heilige spookasem) GOD, eintlik n geroep om hulp is…

    Is jy ernstig!? Hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor my gedagtes op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Weereens se ek dat ek niemand gedreig het nie.

    En weereens praat jy ’n hoop selfdienende en loutere strooi. Vir die hoeveelste keer nou: volgens die onbetwisbare reëls van jou geloof gaan ek een van die dae vir ewig in ’n groot kooloond gegooi word om daar soos ’n tjoppie te brand en te braai weens my lastering teen jou god. Jou aanhoudende pogings om díé gedeelte van jou storie op ’n kant te sit is dwaas en jy boelsjit net jouself daarmee.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Ek het net n vraag gevra…

    Jou vraag is deur ’n paar mense, ek ingesluit, al duidelik beantwoord. Jy, in teendeel, ontduik net van die vrae wat mense aan jou rig. Jy het op my vraag aan jou nog steeds nie antwoord gelewer nie. Lekker man, nog ’n skepskop doel vir jou god!

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Ek dink nie daar bestaan n mens wat in niks kan glo nie…

    Daar’s ’n moerse groot verskil tussen “glo” soos in jou god en “glo” soos in “hier’s die bewyse.” Maar galowiges is altyd entoesiasties gereed om die twee op dieselfde vlak te plaas omdat dit hulle laat dink dat dit hulle galoof met feitlike geldigheid voorsien. En dit is galowiges wat so gou gereed is om só ’n kakstorie oor ongelowiges op te maak soos, “julle glo in niks en is aanhangers van julle self” en “self julle het n hele ‘teologie’ oor die niks waarin julle jul self bevind en in glo.” Hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor ongelowiges se waardes op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Julle maak my betrokke deur teen GOD waarin ek glo te laster en my geloof aftemaak as n feeverhaal en julle stuur dit die wereld in.

    Verstaan dit mooi: Die feit dat ek jou reg respekteer om in watookal te glo beteken nimmers en nooit dat ek die inhoud van jou geloof moet respekteer nie. Ek dwing jou nie om jou geloof te verander nie of om jou bek te hou. Jy, in teendeel, maak rusie hierso omdat jy wil hê ons ongelowiges moet sjattap oor die banale kakstorie van jou god. Jou vryheid om ’n geloof van jou eie keuse te volg gee jou nie die reg om kritici daarvan te onderdruk. Raak gewoond daaraan.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    [E]k dink egter dat die mannier waarop julle julle kritiek en kommentaar lewer vlak is en in swak smaak…

    Jy is geregtig op jou opinie. Myne is dat galowiges se manier van redeneer uiters vlak is en in vlou smaak.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    … dis laster teen die GOD waarin gelowiges glo julle verydel die integriteit van gelowige mense…

    Nee, nie hulle integriteit nie, hulle denkvermoëns. Hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor ongelowiges se bedoelings op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    … terwyl GOD julle juis in Sy genade uitstaan as gevolg van die gelowiges op aarde.

    Rêrig!? Is dit nou ’n feit!? Enige bewyse daarvoor (en let wel dat versies uit jou Gristelike Babbel onvoldoende is)? Indien jy niks bewyse het nie, hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor hoe die wêreld is, op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Ek erken dat die mens sondig en afvallig in sy natuur is…

    Hoekom is jy so gou gereed om só ’n kakstorie oor mense se basiese geaardheid op te maak?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    … maar dis tog belaglik om GOD in sy 3 eenheid daarvoor te blameer…

    Kakstorie. Volgens jou geloof, het jou god alles – maar alles – gemaak. Verder is hy nou kamstig ewig, almagtig en alwetend. Dus is dit logies onvermeidelik sy skuld dat dinge skeef gaan.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    Die wereld en sy toestand is juis te wyte aan die afvalligheid van die mens sy sonde en ongelowiges soos julle…

    Weereens: As jou god die wêreld in sy ewige, alwetende almag geskep het, dan het hy geweet presies hoe dinge sal ontwikkel. Nog steeds maak hy dit so. Dit kan nie anders wees nie as om jou god se eie blamasie te wees. Maar sulke konsekwente redenasie blyk heeltemaal buite die bereik van galowiges te wees. Hulle wys dit keer op keer.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 om 12:07 nm.):

    [G]ebrek aan insig sou ek se…

    Ek ook.

    Con-Tester

    March 30, 2010 at 14:15

  660. Elia
    Jy spreek mý nou wel nie aan nie, maar ek het ‘n paar oomblikke terwyl ek wag – so hier is mý antwoord op wat ek meen jou oorspronklike vraag was: “Is jy bereid om jou lewe op die spel te plaas of GOD bestaan of nie?”
    Ja. Jou god bestaan nie. Wys haar vir my en ek sal haar oopmond soen en verskoning maak.

    Nathan Bond

    March 30, 2010 at 12:19

  661. Con – Tester

    Jou naam beteken: Leerder -(van) die Hemel. Vir my beteken dit dat jou ge – gal braak en jou gelaster (teen my heilige spookasem) GOD, eintlik n geroep om hulp is … dalk die dat die LEWENDE GOD jou nog in sy genade hou en dat n bliksemstraal jou nog nie getref het soos wat een van die skrywers hier, na verwys het nie.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2010 at 7:04 pm
    Nou verduidelik asb. hoekom jy geregtig voel om jou afskuwelike dreigstokkie in andere se gesigte te waai. En moet tog nie voorgee dat jy “bekommerd” is oor ongelowiges se lot nie want dis ’n kakspul omdat jy hulle glad nie as individueë ken nie.

    Weereens se ek dat ek niemand gedreig het nie.
    Ek het nie my kommer oor een van julle se wel en wee uitgespreek nie.
    Ek het nie my evangelie aan iemand probeer verkondig nie.

    Ek het net n vraag gevra..en n paar tekse aangehaal waarin ek glo … julle het daarmee gehandel soos dit julle aangespreek het.

    Ek het geen persoonlike vete met enige val jul sogenamde ongelowiges nie.(Ek dink nie daar bestaan n mens wat in niks kan glo nie,self julle het n hele “teologie” oor die niks waarin julle jul self bevind en in glo)

    Julle maak my betrokke deur teen GOD waarin ek glo te laster en my geloof aftemaak as n feeverhaal en julle stuur dit die wereld in.
    Ek het nie probleem met julle ongeloof nie, dit is julle reg, ek dink egter dat die mannier waarop julle julle kritiek en kommentaar lewer vlak is en in swak smaak,dis laster teen die GOD waarin gelowiges glo julle verydel die integriteit van gelowige mense terwyl GOD julle juis in Sy genade uitstaan as gevolg van die gelowiges op aarde.

    Ek erken dat die mens sondig en afvallig in sy natuur is (met verwysing na die priesters wat kinders mollesteer)maar dis tog belaglik om GOD in sy 3 eenheid daarvoor te blameer HY sit mos nie in n beheerkamer met n rekenaar nie.(Ek hoop dat julle sal begryp wat ek hiermee se) Die wereld en sy toestand is juis te wyte aan die afvalligheid van die mens sy sonde en ongelowiges soos julle … en nou wil julle GOD daarvoor blameer… ( gebrek aan insig sou ek se ma wie is ek nou )

    screw-tin-eyes

    Jou naam beteken:
    screw – uitsuig,afpers,en gierig wees
    Tin – Rammelkas,blinkpapier
    eyes – ten aanskoue van (Die lewende GOD)

    Ek verwys – 6:37 pm Ek sien nou hierdie ou soek dat daar vir hom prentjies geteken word, want hy verstaan nie ons antwoorde nie.

    My vriend jy kan soveel prentjies teken as wat jy kan en dan gaan JY nog niks begryp nie. Ek het jou nerens gewaarsku teen die hel en of iets gese van die lewe na die dood nie. Dit is jou eie versinsels. Wysheid en verstand is een ding maar insig is toetaal iets anders en dit het jy ongelukkig nie en ek wil niks by jou weet nie, waaruit maak jy die afleiding, jy skryf n klomp twak waarvoor ek nie gevra het nie. Dan hou jy nog jou lyf siener ook deur te se ek gryp na die BYBEL Verwys – “Nee, nee, los die Bybel. Ek sien jy wil jou hand uitsteek en ‘n paar versies kwoteer. Ons weet almal die ou boek is nie ‘n ‘reference’ boek met feite nie, Elia” Ek weet die BYBEL beten vir jou niks so hoekom sal ek daaruit met jou n argument wil voer.

    Ek het n reguit vraag gevra. Dit vereis n JA ek sal my lewe nou en hier op die spel plaas of Nee ek sal nie. (So wat verstaan julle nie, of is julle besig om n direkte antwoord te ontwyk.)
    Die antwoord is nie een in n deurlopende kommentaar waarvoor n mens moet soek of so terloops moet aflei nie. Ek verwys: Con-Tester “Weereens wys jy hoe onoplettend gelowiges kan wees. Dit is nie my geloof nie. Kry dit reg in jou kop. Dis my ongeloof in die bespotlike onsin en voorbarigheid waarmee gelowiges vorendag kan kom. Maar, ja, ek het al klaar my lewe talle kere op die spel gesit deurdat om teen jou heilige spookasem te laster. Soos jy seker weet, daar’s g’n vergifnis vir dit nie.”
    Ek het nerens na vergifnis verwys nie. Ek het julle neres vermaan of terg gewys nie.

    Savage – Jou naam beteken ….. LOL almal weet.

    Ek glo dat jy iemand is met n baie goeie en vinnige verstand, n tawwe kalant om teen jou in n debat te he,en ek se dit met respek en nie om jou te tart of afbrekend nie (hoe ook al )

    Jy maak 5 stellings en dit spreek van n totale gebrek aan insig, waarvan sommige daarvaan n gruwelike verdraaiing is (LOL en nou kan ek dit nie eers feite noem nie want niks waaraan ek glo is vir jou n feit nie )van wat in die (boek)Lewende woord van GOD staan waarin ons glo nie.As jy na die Bybel wil verwys my vriend doen dit ten minste reg sonder om dit in jou eie weergawe daarvan te verdraai. Want jy het nie die insig daarvoor nie jy het net n goeie verstand.

    My vraag aan julle bly dus staan.
    Ag en probeer tog die vraag die keer reguit en sonder al die kommentaar antwoord.

    Groete

    Elia

    March 30, 2010 at 12:07

  662. Elia skryf;Jy tart die lewende GOD van Abram,Isak en Jakob.Is jy bereid om jou lewe op die spel te plaas of GOD bestaan of nie.

    Elia praat jy nou van die 3 gotte wat 1 gotte is wat 3 gotte is ?

    Gods ou dude watse kak vraag.

    Kom ek daag jou 3 fokken gotte wat 1 gotte is uit om my dadelik met ‘n weerligstraal dood te slaan. Sien die gotte het fokol gedoen .

    Kom ek probeer weer, dalk slaap die fokken 3 gotte van die Bybel.
    Hi gotte word wakker,ek dink julle 3 gotte wat 1 gotte is, is ‘n klomp fuckup dose.
    Jy sien Elia, fokol het gebeur.

    Ek het my lewe nou op die spel geplaas en jou gotte het fokol gedoen.
    Wat is jou punt ?

    Dalk moet ek die 3 gotte indiwidueel uitdaag.
    Gotte nr. 1 Jesus se papa , fok jou jou doos.
    Gotte nr. 2 Liewe Jesus, ou seer handjies en voetjies dude , het jy nie balls nie ? Hoe voel dit om ‘n gotte in 325 te geword het? Fok jou jy is net so min ‘n god soos perdedrolle wat vye is .
    Gotte nr.3 Die heilige spook. Fokof jou spook.

    Jy sien ou dude fokol het gebeur .

    Wat is volgende ?

    DW

    March 30, 2010 at 08:08

  663. Die heel grootste probleem met gelowiges soos vriend Elia is dat hulle iewerste die skreeusnaakse en valse idee verwerf het dat die aard van hulle geloof so is dat dit ’n outomatiese waarborg behels teen kritiek. Dus is hulle verwagting altyd dat wanneer hulle hardop verkondig, “Ek glo!” moet almal skielik swyg en hulle idiotiese twak sonder beswaar respekteer. Dit is maar net nog een manier op ’n lank lys van hoe geloof homself teen noukeurige ondersoek beskerm.

    Maar net die feit alleen dat iemand iets glo bied obwiejislie niks skuiling teen kritiek nie. Dit sou goed wees as gelowiges in staat was om juis díé heel eenvoudige besonderheid te verstaan.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2010 at 20:01

  664. Elia skryf: “Ek vra net een vraag en ek vra dit weer: Is julle bereid om julle lewe op die spel te plaas vir wat julle in glo, want dit is julle geloof, julle glo in niks en is aanhangers van julle self.”

    Ek sien nou hierdie ou soek dat daar vir hom prentjies geteken word, want hy verstaan nie ons antwoorde nie.

    Antwoord:

    OF: Jy wil by ons weet of ons besef dat as ons die dag die emmer skop / doodgaan, ons nie die ewige lewe gaan beërwe soos jy glo jy gaan nie, reg.

    Wel, ek het nuus vir jou. Daar is nie so iets so ‘n lewe na die dood nie. Ons gaan sterf soos enige ander dier, Elia. Kapot, geesloos en vrek.

    Of: Jy bedoel dat ons gestraf gaan word omdat ons nie nou glo in jou God nie, en dat die straf hier en nou sal wees. Wel, ek wag al lank vir die straf.

    Nie een van die opsies het vir my enige waarde nie. Watse bewys het jy dat daar enige straf uitgedeel gaan word aan ons godelose klomp – hier of na die dood ???

    Nee, nee, los die Bybel. Ek sien jy wil jou hand uitsteek en ‘n paar versies kwoteer. Ons weet almal die ou boek is nie ‘n ‘reference’ boek met feite nie, Elia.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 29, 2010 at 18:37

  665. Beste Elia, wys asb. uit waar jy dink dat ek jou beledig het en hoe. Dankie man, ek waardeer dit. Maar verstaan ook asb. duidelik die volgende: dit gebeur baie, baie dikwels dat ouens hierso opdaag, een of twee keer op die blog skyt en dan sommer weer verdwyn. Dus seker ook my “vlak van belediging,” en siende dat dit jou meer as twee dae gevat het om terug te keer, nou ja toe…

    En ek het jou vraag wel beantwoord om 12:02 nm. vandag (tweede kommentaar/antwoord gedeelte) want sien, daar’s ’n vertraaging tussen wanneer mens kommentaar pos en wanneer Nathan dit vrystel. So laat ek ook my eie teleurstelling uitspreek oor jou onwilligheid en/of onvermoë – of selfs ontduikings pogings – om my vraag aan jou, nou al vir die vierde keer gevra, te antwoord.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2010 at 17:28

  666. Con-Tester

    Ek wil nie daal tot jou vlak van belediging nie. So, ek spreek eerder net my terleurstelling met jou opmerk uit, ek het regtig gedink jou vlak van intellek is tot meer in staat.

    Ek wag dus nog vir jou antwoord ook.

    Groete

    Elia

    March 29, 2010 at 15:58

  667. Tirades is in die ‘eye of the reader’ as ek die idoom kan buig.

    Ek glo in niks. Ek glo so min dat ek eintlik nie eens as ‘n atheis bestempel wil word nie. Weereens, geloof is om iets vir die waarheid te aanvaar waarvoor daar geen bewyse is nie. Skryf dit vir jou êrens op, toe Elia man.

    Wat jy voel jou plig is, is jou probleem. Weet jy hoe aanmatigend jy is om ons ‘aan te spreek’ en te preek met bybelversies. Dis water van die eend se rug vir my.

    As jy insinueer dat daar ‘n gevolg vir my gaan wees omdat ek ongelowig is dan het ek nuus vir jou. Dit, liewe Elia, beteken niks.

    Verstaan jy as ek sê dat die God waarmee jy dreig, nie bestaan nie. Hy bestaan in jou kop.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 29, 2010 at 15:41

  668. Oukei, toe nie… ;)

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 at 8:56 vm.):

    Julle matig julle self aan om die GOD waarin ek glo in die openbaar te vloek en te laster.

    En jy matig jouself aan om diegene wat nie so glo soos jy nie te dreig met jou hemelpappa se wraak. Die feit dat jy dit nie kan of wil raaksien nie verander niks nie.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 at 8:56 vm.):

    Ek vra net een vraag en ek vra dit weer: Is julle bereid om julle lewe op die spel te plaas vir wat julle in glo, want dit is julle geloof, julle glo in niks en is aanhangers van julle self.

    Weereens wys jy hoe onoplettend gelowiges kan wees. Dit is nie my geloof nie. Kry dit reg in jou kop. Dis my ongeloof in die bespotlike onsin en voorbarigheid waarmee gelowiges vorendag kan kom. Maar, ja, ek het al klaar my lewe talle kere op die spel gesit deurdat om teen jou heilige spookasem te laster. Soos jy seker weet, daar’s g’n vergifnis vir dit nie.

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 at 8:56 vm.):

    Ek sien geen deigrement in die vraag nie.

    Seker omdat jy aspris blindheid verkies. En ek het dit dan so mooi vir jou verduidelik. Wat verbyster jou so erg oor die eenvoudige idee dat dit ’n dreigement is, al is dit ’n hol en leë ene, om vir ’n ander mens te impliseer dat jou fiktiewe wolke oomie hulle lewe gaan verwoes indien hulle nie jou pad volg nie?

    Elia skryf (Maart 29, 2010 at 8:56 vm.):

    Ek vra omverskoning as die die teks aanhaling julle bedreig laat voel het, dit was nie die doel nie.

    “Bedreig!?” :lol: Nee wat, ek voel glad nie bedreig deur ’n feëtjieverhaal nie, maar soos tevore gesê, ek wonder net hoekom jy geregtig voel om so belaglik dreigend amusante nonsens te spuit op mense wat jy nie eers ordentlik ken nie.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2010 at 12:02

  669. Bid Elia nog vir ’n braaivuur of is hy dalk in ’n vuurige koets hemel toe gevat?

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2010 at 10:58

  670. Goeie More

    Nathan
    Con-Tester
    screw-tin-eyes
    Savage

    Ek kan nie help vir die glimlag wat om my mondhoeke speel terwyl ek julle reaksie lees nie. Julle reageer so heftig en driftig. Julle beledig,skel,en praat so minagtent van my en my vermoë om rasioneel te kan dink.
    Julle matig julle self aan om die GOD waarin ek glo in die openbaar te vloek en te laster.
    Ek daarin teen voel dit my plig om daarop te reageer.
    Ek vra net een vraag en ek vra dit weer: Is julle bereid om julle lewe op die spel te plaas vir wat julle in glo, want dit is julle geloof, julle glo in niks en is aanhangers van julle self.
    Ek sien geen deigrement in die vraag nie. Al wat julle hoef te doen is om n antwoord te gee, deur te sê is:
    Ja ek is bereid om die niks waarin ek glo met my lewe te verdedig, of ne Elia jy is mal ek sal nie die kans vat nie.
    LOL….. maar dankie vir die tiradiese reaksie.

    Ns. Ek vra omverskoning as die die teks aanhaling julle bedreig laat voel het, dit was nie die doel nie. Dit was meer ter bevestiging in wat ek glo en dit behoort julle mos glad nie te raak nie want julle glo nie daarin nie.

    Groete

    Elia

    March 29, 2010 at 08:56

  671. Savage, ek moes eintlik gesê het: Elia, skraap bietjie moed bymekaar en begin dink sonder vrees.

    Daar is mos ‘n totale ‘mental block’ (wat ek self sowat 10 of so jaar terug gehad het) wat jou verstand weglei van verder dink, want jy is bang jou kinders of familie word gestraf omdat jy dwaal.

    Dankie tog ek het daardie verwurgende strop van my af gekry. Ek is skaam-kwaad vir myself en dit maak my vies as ek sien hoe ander net so blind is.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 27, 2010 at 14:09

  672. En Savage, ons gaan nie eens vir hulle kan sê: “Ek het jou mos gesê nie” :-)

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 27, 2010 at 08:32

  673. “Gee jouself bietjie meer krediet en begin dink man.”

    Screw-tin-eyes, wat bedoel jy met Elia (en al sy gebroeders) moet dink? Hulle kàn nie dink nie, al wil hulle. Hiers voorbeelde van hulle denkvermoëns:

    1. Daar word bewyse gevra vir die bestaan van hulle god en die bewyse word verskaf deur uit hulle boek van fabels aan te haal.
    2. Daar word gevra dat hulle moet bewys hulle boek van fabels is in werklikheid ‘n boek van feite en waarhede. Die bewyse word weer eens verkaf deur net op ‘n ander plek uit hulle boek aan te haal.
    3. Die wetenskaplikes is almal verkeerd met die bepaling van die ouderdom van die heelal en die aarde. En moet nie evolusie vergeet nie; totaal ‘n klomp BS. (As ‘n lig skakelaar aangesit word en die gloeilamp brand, is dit seker hulle god wat die elektrone deur die filament stuur.)
    4. Hulle boek sê bid en daar sal vir jou gegee word. Nou hoekom soek die kerke dan altyd geld? Het hulle al daaraan gedink?
    5. Jesus, hulle dissipel het gesê jy mag geen onreg aan kinders doen nie. Nou hoekom verkrag priesters kinders en die hoof tokkelossies van die kerk beskerm die pedofiele en vee alles onder die mat in?

    En so kan mens aangaan en aangaan. Maar nee, hierdie gelowiges is breindood, en mens het ‘n brein nodig om te kan dink.

    Sê my, Elia, het jy die skuilnaam gekies omdat jy verwag dat jy ook eendag lewend hemel toe sal gaan en die dood vryspring? Kom ek vertel jou ‘n geheim: jy gaan eendag doodgaan nes almal van ons en dan gaan jy daarna niks meer weet nie. Geen hel, of hemel, of liewe Jesus nie, niks nie.

    Savage

    March 27, 2010 at 07:24

  674. Dis inderdaad die plek vir dit!

    Nathan Bond

    March 27, 2010 at 01:32

  675. Hel, ek weet nie wat my so omgekrap het nie, dis dan vrydag.

    Sorry, bietjie woes stoom afgeblaas, maar dis mos die plek vir dit.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 26, 2010 at 22:27

  676. Nee, ek weet wat hier aangaan. Dis natuurlik om hulle eie christelike gatte te red ‘in their minds’. Hulle moet almal mos tereg wys, anders doen hulle nie hulle christelike plig nie.

    Elia, wat jy nie verstaan nie is dat jou God, enige God, vir my net soveel beteken as Liewe Heksie (wat ook kan toor) en Karel Kabouter.

    Jou reels en christelike moets en moenies is nie van toepassing op my nie. Gevolglik kan ek myns insiens nie laster nie, want ??? ek is goddeloos.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 26, 2010 at 22:11

  677. Beste Elia, moet asb. nie dom en/of onskuldig met my probeer speel nie. Ek vra jou mooi. Jy doen jouself geen gunste só nie. Lees eerder eers van die ander indraes in díé blog.

    Elk geval, hier’s’t:

    ● “Jy tart…” met die inbegrepe gevolge van jou god die ongelowiges vir ewig hel toe gaan stuur om voortdurend vreeslik te ly.
    ● “Is jy bereid om jou lewe op die spel te plaas…” weereens met die inbegrepe gevolge van jou god die ongelowiges vir ewig hel toe gaan stuur om voortdurend vreeslik te ly.
    ● “[Dit is] ’n gruwelike sonde en gevaarlik om God uit te tart en sy heilige Naam te smaad, want vreeslik is dit om te val in die hande van die lewende God.” en nog’n keer met die inbegrepe gevolge van jou god die ongelowiges vir ewig hel toe gaan stuur om voortdurend vreeslik te ly.

    Nou verduidelik asb. hoekom jy geregtig voel om jou afskuwelike dreigstokkie in andere se gesigte te waai. En moet tog nie voorgee dat jy “bekommerd” is oor ongelowiges se lot nie want dis ’n kakspul omdat jy hulle glad nie as individueë ken nie.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2010 at 19:04

  678. Ek is so bly hierdie soort dreigemente maak my nie meer bang nie.

    Hoe kan mens iemand tart wat nie bestaan nie Elia ??

    Lewend nogals, dan kan hy mos ‘n draaitjie kom maak en sy goddelike gesig kom wys dat ons kan praat. Die ou Bliksem is seker te bang, as mens kyk na die toestand van die wereld wat volgens julle, sy ‘genadiglike’ toedoen is.

    Julle soort dreigemente maak net kinders bang wat gebreinspoel is om geloof aan te hang en as hulle dit nie doen nie, volgens julle christene – reguit hel toe met die bloedjies, vir ewig en altyd waar die vuur hulle gatte gaan brand.

    Kry julle nie skaam om kinders deur vrees in die geloof te kry en te hou nie. Dieselfde geld vir julle volwasse gelowiges.

    Het jy al gedink dat jou geloof eintlik in stand gehou word deur vrees ??? Kom by, for goodness sake. Dis nie meer die donker eeue nie. Gee jouself bietjie meer krediet en begin dink man.

    Elia skryf: ” Is jy bereid om jou lewe op die spel te plaas of GOD bestaan of nie ?”

    Wat ‘n aanmatigende stelling. Wie is jy om die swaard oor enige iemand se hoof te hou. Ek wag al jare vir ‘n bliksemstraal uit die hemel om my te piets oor ek ‘n ateis is, maar (‘gaap’) dit gebeur nie.

    Dit moet mos ‘n onmiddelike ding wees, die ‘teregwysing’, ander bring jy die moontlikheid van ‘chance’ in die prentjie in.

    Come to think of it – hoe kan jy eers dreig en dan almal ‘n lekker naweek toewens. Laat dit jou beter voel ?

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 26, 2010 at 18:57

  679. Beste Con-Tester

    Ek sal graag eers wil verneem wat die sogenaamde dreigement is waarna jy verwys

    Elia

    March 26, 2010 at 18:12

  680. Elia, as ’n gelowige, verduidelik tog bietjie vir ons hoekom gelowiges altyd só geregtig voel om dreigemente namens hulle god te maak teenoor diegene wat nie soos hulle glo nie.

    Toe nou, ek’s oortuig jou verduideliking sal baie insiggewend wees.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2010 at 16:22

  681. n Rustige naweek aan almal

    Elia

    March 26, 2010 at 16:13

  682. Nathan

    Ek sal jou antwoord in afwagting bly.
    Pascal’s Wager se dingetjies is baie interessant.

    Aan die ander kant is daarmee gesê dat alle ander sondes, hoe aaklig ook al (1 Kor 6:10, 11; Gal 5:19–24), ja, alle sondes wat bely word, deur God, kragtens die bloed van Christus, vergewe word. (1 Joh 1:7–10) So kon Jesus dan ook aan een van die rowers wat Hom gesmaad het (Matt 27:39–44; Luk 23:39), sê: “Ek verseker jou: Vandag sal jy saam met My in die paradys wees.” (Luk 23:43)
    Intussen is dit ’n gruwelike sonde en gevaarlik om God uit te tart en sy heilige Naam te smaad, want vreeslik is dit om te val in die hande van die lewende God. (Heb 10:31) En van Christus word gesê: “Elkeen wat op hierdie klip val, sal verpletter word; elkeen op wie hy val, sal hy vermorsel.” (Luk 20:18)

    Elia

    March 26, 2010 at 15:51

  683. Ja, jy is tegnies korrek. Is dit al wat jy te se het ?

    Elia

    March 26, 2010 at 15:23

  684. Elia
    Eintlik is dit Abraham, I&J se “god”.
    Google bietjie “Pascal’s Wager”.

    Nathan Bond

    March 26, 2010 at 15:15

  685. Nathan Bond

    Jy tart die lewende GOD van Abram,Isak en Jakob.Is jy bereid om jou lewe op die spel te plaas of GOD bestaan of nie ?

    Elia

    March 26, 2010 at 15:08

  686. Dunno why BolggerDude wasn’t spammed, but there the comment sits now, entrenched.

    Nathan Bond

    October 9, 2009 at 23:00

  687. This BloggerDude’s comment is sneaky form-letter spam. Click here to see why.

    Con-Tester

    October 9, 2009 at 10:05

  688. I don’t know If I said it already but …This blog rocks! I gotta say, that I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks, :)

    A definite great read….

    BloggerDude

    October 9, 2009 at 03:03

  689. By the way, ek joke net hoor.

    Spear The Almighty

    June 30, 2009 at 14:44

  690. Jy gaan defnitief deur Jesus in die hel gegooi word.

    Spear The Almighty

    June 30, 2009 at 14:43

  691. Hello all
    [url=http://www.internetmosque.net ] A new MP3 CD quality stereo audio English only Quran (for the first time on the internet)[/url]

    Does God Demand Perfection ?

    Many Christian missionaries tell us that God expects us to be perfect . They quote Psalm 15:1 as proof of this belief.

    (Psalm 15:1) says, using a Christian English translation of the Old Testament;

    “Who may live on your holy hill? He whose walk is BLAMELESS and does what is righteous, he who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander in his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellow man, who despises a vile man, but honor those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, and lends his money without usury and does not accept bribes…”

    Christian Missionaries say :

    “…God DOES require perfection….Have you kept all of this small list that David claims is required? The word BLAMELESS, is defined as being without fault ”

    In other words,Christian missionaries see this as meaning we have to be perfect. However, a look at the Hebrew shows that this is not the case.

    The word translated here as “blameless” is tamim (tav-mem-yud-mem sofit). It is found in many other verses, and looking at it in context elsewhere can help to elucidate its meaning.

    From the Torah :

    Genesis 6:9 “These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a just man and perfect [tamim] in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” Since Noach was human, he was not perfect, but yet he was “tamim”. If Noah can be “TAMIM”, so can I, and so can any of his decendents (everyone).

    From the Torah ( Prophets ) :

    (2nd Samuel 22:26.) “With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful, and with the upright( tamim ) man You will show Yourself upright [tatamim]”

    Appearently, in addition to Noach and David (see Psalm 18 below), there are other tamim people.

    From the Writings :

    Psalm 18:

    1. “To the chief Musician of David, the servant of the LORD, who spoke to the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD saved him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul;”

    The stage is set, the Psalm is about David, a man who was not perfect, and yet, it says in this Psalm 18 : verese 22- 24) :

    “For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His judgments were before me, and I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also upright [tamim] before him, and I kept myself from my iniquity.. Therefore has the LORD recompenses me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in His eyesight.”

    David was capable of being tamim, so are you, and so am I. (See also 2 Samuel 22:24 for the same statement about being tamim as verse 24 of this Psalm)

    (Job 12:4.) “I have become a laughing stock to my friend; I, who called upon God, and he answered me. A just, blameless [tamim] man is a laughing stock.”

    Job, a non-Jew, is “tamim” so can I be, so can you be. Whether you are a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian ( If they stop worshiping flesh )

    What does God Require , seeing that God does not require perfection ?

    Michah 6:8 says :

    “It has been told you, O’ man, what is good, and what the LORD does require of you, only to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God”.

    We see in the Holy Qur’an:

    “And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones” Translation of Ayat 2:45

    God is forgiving and merciful, He forgives us when we fall short of the mark. God expects us to strive to do good, but knows that we are but human and imperfect .

    “Then I acknowledged my sin to You; I did not cover up my guilt… and You forgave the guilt of my sin.” Psalm 32:5

    “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2Ch 7:14

    “on account of sins. When our transgressions prevail over us, thou dost forgive them.” Ps 65:3

    “Thou didst forgive the iniquity of thy people; thou didst pardon all their sin. ” Ps 85:2

    ‘The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression,..’Nu 14:18

    “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isa 55:7

    “And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.” Jer 33:8

    We see again in the Holy Quran:

    “Surely We have given to you a clear victory that Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight Way” Translation of Ayats 48:1-2

    For more details [url=http://www.internetmosque.net ]click her[/url]

    DattAbuby

    June 27, 2009 at 13:40

  692. Hallo Natahn. Are you related to James Bond? (I see you surname is Bond)

    Mind you – Brook Bond is a tea in English – so maybe you are not a tea lief.

    Just a thought. You seem nice person, Natahn. Please let me know if you are relative from James Bond – he is good man.

    Maybe you are his son?

    Anyways, Go well, Natahn ben James

    Donaldson.

    Donald Buchan

    April 27, 2009 at 20:56

  693. Private message:
    Hi – Has someone hacked your site? I received an email purporting to be from you (address nathan.e.bond@gmail)asking for money as you were “stuck in England”. The grammar and spelling errors made it clear it wasn’t you, but I thought I’d give you a heads-up just in case . . .
    Cheers
    Pete

    bewilderbeast

    March 26, 2009 at 08:54

  694. Anne

    Ek het jou bydrae op die regte plek gepos en daarop gereageer: “It’s the grave!”

    Nathan Bond

    November 22, 2008 at 07:12

  695. Maar Copernicus was tog ook ‘n geestelike, Mnr. Bond? En nogal ‘n Katoliek. Net soos Mendel en ander geestelikes/priesters wat oor die eeue ‘n bydrae tot die natuurwetenskappe en die astronomie gemaak het. En steeds maak.

    Anne

    November 22, 2008 at 01:24

  696. Excellent post.Preserve the great work,You should definitely have to keep updating your site

    Bible Verses

    November 1, 2008 at 23:21

  697. Mr. Tester

    Being electronically indisposed for a fortnight seems to me to be hell indeed. See you soon!

    Nathan Bond

    October 21, 2008 at 06:05

  698. Nathan, do not fear – I am not deserting your blog. I am merely indisposed and incommunicado, electronically speaking, until early November, at which point I’ll once again pick up my cudgel against unreason. I mention this only in case the fundies start being unbearably obstreperous and you should start feeling alone in consequence. Actually, now that I think about it, there’s always DW’s apparently superficial bumpkin-like taunting that more often than not carries some mordant but nonetheless telling barbs.

    As it adds nothing of value to any topic, please feel free to consign this message to silicon purgatory.

    Con-Tester

    October 20, 2008 at 20:28

  699. Nathan Bond – Daai kode is php. Los die theme nes dit is, die author behoort een of ander tyd ‘n verbetering uit te bring (hopelik, in elk geval) en IE is in elk geval ‘n rubbish browser.

    Ek stem, die blog lyk baie beter as die vorige een. GGWP.

    Johan Swarts

    October 4, 2008 at 15:16

  700. Nathan, I know you are radical, yet a change is as good as a holiday. I am away on holiday for the week, so you guy’s, have a pleasent week.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 29, 2008 at 07:52

  701. Con-Tester

    It is easier on the eye. Courtesy of WordPress of course. Not so sure about the Exterminator bug though; haven’t used it for a long time. Exterminator, that is, not the bug. But I repeat myself.

    Nathan Bond

    September 23, 2008 at 07:41

  702. New look today? I like it, more eye-friendly.

    Still, there are some strange HTML codes that appear on most pages, usually towards the top, just after the blog entry’s title and “with xxx comments ________” bit. They look like HTML comments that haven’t been rendered correctly because they start with the “<”+“!” character combination. Could be a Micro$oft Internet Exterminator (both 6 and 7) bug, though.

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2008 at 06:59

  703. Actually, I own(ed) the book. I have certainly read it. Verdict? It’s an illuminating study in the deployment of evasion towards preserving parochialism.

    As for keeping the image (or not), that’s a non-issue either way from where I’m standing. No doubt, the publisher intended it as faint ridicule of (hominid) evolution, so your use of it may constitute a backhanded poke in the eye. And that’s just fine by me.

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2008 at 22:20

  704. Godsk! I really did not know it was used on a book cover! I was sent it by a correspondent who knows that I usually refer to myself as an educated ape.

    But I is gonna keep it anywheys…

    Nathan Bond

    September 11, 2008 at 19:29

  705. That photo… I knew I’d seen it before. ;)

    Nathan’s note:
    The image Con-Tester refers to is the gorilla donning a graduate’s cap and sporting sexy glasses; top right. It is also my avatar.

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2008 at 18:41

  706. jbdv, die knoppie is op the blad “Warts and all” – ek het bietjie rondgespeel met die loekênfiel van die blog. Daar is seker iets interessants te lese in my “antwoord”, maar (na net meer as 500 kopieë) stuur ek dit deesdae nie meer aan nie. Min tot geen punt daarin om dit te versprei nie. Ek het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat…

    Nathan Bond

    September 3, 2008 at 12:12

  707. Nathan
    Hier was so ‘n knoppie gister met ‘n boodskap in die lyn van “kliek hier as jy die antwoord soek op bewerings wat teen my gemaak is” – toe het ek nogal gedink ek wou jou mail daaroor om te sien of daar iets woel wat interessant is, maar nou kan ek nie weer daai knoppie vind nie. Hoe gemaak?

    jbdv

    September 3, 2008 at 10:16


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: