Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Koos Kombuis sê die Pous is ‘n poes oor die Pous sulke kak goed van gays sê.

Ek stem heelhartig saam!

Maar Koos moet onthou dat Bennie Dick dié goed – oor gays – sê omdat “God” hom voorsê.

So wié’s die éintlike poes?

“Gód” is die eintlike poes.

Biskop David Russell en mnr. Jody Kollapen reken dat Koos se stelling te kras is.

Ag nee wat! ‘n Vieslike woord is nie náástenby so kák as Bennie Dick se Latynse haatspraak nie.

Dis tyd dat ons ophou om die waansin van godsdiens met ordintlikheid aan te vat.

Godsdiens is kák. Punt.

Emeritus-aartsbiskop Desmond Tutu oor die Gasa-geweld: “Die God van Israel én van Palestina – die God van die heelal – huil, want Hy is ‘n God van geregtigheid en liefde.”

Ag ássebliéf tog, Arch!

Wáá kom jy aan die kák dat “God” – “die God van Israel én van Palestina ‘n God van geregtigheid en liefde” is!?

Dié “God” se bloedspoor van geweld en haat trek soos ‘n ewigdurende tsunami om ons aarde!

Soos ek al sóvele kere gesê het: Van Kain en Abel tot die jongste nuus word die ongenaakbaarste geweld in die naam van hierdie “God” gepleeg.

Hoekom?

Want dié bliksem is die Vader van Geweld!

“God” húíl!?

Pleks die fokker iets aan die saak dóén! Pleks van te sit en tjank.

Sjympies!

Assebliéf tog, Arch! Get real!

The Israelis and the Palestinians are killing each other in Gaza. Barack Obama is monitoring the situation. Benny Dick has called for peace. (Yeah. Right.) Gordon Brown “understands” but causes for constraint.

Nobody is talking about the elephant in the room!

The Israelis and the Palestinians are at war only because they believe different things about absolute bloody nonsense – about gods, for crying in a bucket. About gods!

Why can not this idiocy be called for what it is?

From Cain’s invitation to Abel, “Let’s go out in the fields”, through Srebrenica and 9/11 and Bali and Gujarat, to Turkey and Beslan and Hai al-Amaal, and from the Islamboeli in Ossetia and the Djemaah Islamijah in Pantai Jimbaran to Jos and Gaza to breaking news on CNN, IT’S RELIGION STUPID!

It’s time for rational people to say “ENOUGH!”

There’s a proboscidean in the room. A five-toed pachyderm. There’s an elephant in the room! Let’s address it!

Christmas 2008.

The most serious of believers suggest, at Yuletide, that we look beyond the manger and see the empty tomb in the garden of Joseph.

A bloodied naked cross and an empty tomb. The meat and potatoes of Christianity. Certainty by the very absence of evidence.

Irrespective of the pagan history of December 25, Christians celebrate the Virgin Birth; the Word made flesh on this day. It is the day, ingeminates Reformed theologian Amie van Wyk in South Africa’s unashamedly Christian daily Beeld, on which God’s propitiation commenced.

It is folly, waxes Van Wyk, to stop at the trough. Christmas makes sense only when conjoined to the cross; to the resurrection.

No resurrection; no point to Christmas. Point.

So Christmas brings us face to face with the resurrection of Christ.

The risen Christ! Not merely risen in the imagination of his acolytes; not only in the minds of the early Christians, but risen from death itself, from the tomb in Joseph’s garden. Without this physical – as physical as he was when nailed to the cross, mind – resurrection, there simply can be no Christmas.

And how do we know that Christ was risen?

Why, because the tomb is empty!

I found an old  glass dome in an antique shop just the other day. It was empty. And I was filled with the assuaging certainty that Snow-white really was rebirthed by the royal kiss. She lived again. And there’s no doubt about it.

Christians are astoundingly dumb.

Christina Landman meen dat geloof gestrem én laat groei het in 2008. Die Christendom het, reken Landman, in 2008 “búite die ‘Kerk’ gegroei”!

“Bybelskole wat nie aan spesifieke kerke behoort nie, het met 26% gegroei. ‘n Dominee vertel my dat, binne sy gemeente, die mense wat Sondagoggend eerder dienste op die radio of TV volg met 30% gestyg het”, sê Landman.

Noujatóé!

Hierdie “kerk wat aan die buitekant groei” onderskraag die samelewing op drie maniere: “Een, wanneer ons met wysheid na buite kan praat oor politieke onreg, en met liefde na binne mekaar kan versorg. Twee, wanneer massasaamtrekke gelowiges laat sê: kerklose Christene is ook óns mense. Drie, wanneer die samelewing erken dat hulle tog die kerk nodig het – om vir oud en jonk morele waardes en selfdissipline te leer. En ook dat pret ons godsdienstige plig is.”

Nee, dis reg so. En dis moerse cute om die mense wat “buite die kerk” saamdrom ook as “óns” te aanvaar – anders is daar een van die dae nie meer ‘n “ons” nie. Maar het ons werklik nodig om snert soos ‘n “God” te aanvaar ten einde logiese goed tot voordeel van die samelewing te doen?

En is dit nie baie beter om morele waardes en selfdissipline ver weg te kweek van die moordadige, haatdraende, bevooroordeelde “God” en die liegbek “Jesus wag-net-gou-hier-ek-kom-nóú-terug-dan-lewe-ons-vir-átyd-saam-by-Paps Christus” nie!?

Landman het ook onlangs die fliek Religilous gaan sien. Sy sê dis ‘n kak fliek. (Sy sê nie “kak” nie; sy’s te ordintlik – sy sê goed wat beteken dat sy meen dis ‘n kak fliek.)

“Is die kerke en hulle dogmas so belaglik soos Religulous beweer?”, vra Landman.

Toe gaan soek ek op die Internet ‘n maklik verstaanbare lys van die Christelike Dogma en kry dié versameling by www.carm.org – Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:

Basic Christian Doctrine

1.           There is only one God - Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

2.           God is a Trinity - 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2

3.           There are no Gods before or after God - Isaiah 43:10

4.           God knows all things - 1 John 3:20

5.           God is all powerful – Psalm 115:3

6.           God is everywhere – Jer. 23:23,24

7.           God is sovereign - Zech. 9:14; 1 Tim. 6:15-16

8.           God is spirit - John 4:24

9.           God created all that exists - Gen. 1:1; Isaiah 44:24

10.       Spirit does not have a body of flesh and bones - Luke 24:39

11.       God has always been God - Psalm 90:2

12.       Jesus is God - John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8

13.       Jesus became a man - Phil. 2:5-8

14.       Jesus has two natures: divine and human - Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5

15.       Jesus was sinless - 1 Pet. 2:22

16.       Jesus is the only way to God the Father - John 14:6; Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22

17.       The Holy Spirit is God - Acts 5:3-4

18.       The Holy Spirit is not a force. He is alive - Acts 13:2

19.       The Bible is inspired by God - 2 Tim. 3:16

20.       All people have sinned - Rom. 3:23, 5:12

21.       Man did not evolve, he was created - Gen. 1:26

22.       Adam and Eve were real people - Gen. 3:20; 5:1; 1 Tim. 2:13

23.       Death entered the world because of Adam’s sin - Rom. 5:12-15

24.       Sin separates us from God - Isaiah 59:2

25.       Jesus died for all our sins - 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Pet. 2:24

26.       Jesus’ sacrifice was a substitution, for us - 1 Pet. 2:24

27.       Jesus rose from the dead in His physical body - John 2:19-21

28.       Those who reject Jesus will go to Hell - Rev. 20:11-15

29.       Hell is a place of fiery punishment - Matt. 25:41; Rev. 19:20

30.       Hell is eternal - Matt. 25:46

31.       The unsaved go to hell forever - Rev. 21:8

32.       Salvation is a free gift of God - Rom. 4:5; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9

33.       The Bible is the Word of God – 2 Tim. 3:16

34.       Jesus will return visibly to earth - Acts 1:11

35.       Christians will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns - 1 Thess. 4:14-17

36.       There will be a rapture (being caught up into the clouds with Jesus) – 1 Thess. 4:14-17

37.       There will be a final judgment – 2 Pet. 3:7

38.       The damned will be thrown into a lake of fire - Rev. 20:15

39.       Satan will be cast into the lake of fire - Rev. 20:10

40.       There will be a new heavens and a new earth – 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1

Jip, professor Landman, die kerke en hulle dogmas is inderdaad so belaglik soos Religulous beweer.

JC, “the Christ”, son of “God” gave South African middle order batsman Abraham Benjamin (AB) de Villiers a century in Perth today to help the South Africans to a famous, record defying and comprehensive win on Australian soil.

Being presented with his Man of the Match Award, de Villiers recalled a Bible verse he had read the previous night and declared that JC was there for him.

Just how fucking stupid exactly are Christians!?

This Idiot they worship can’t prevent infant deaths in Africa, but has the time and wherewithal to influence the outcome of a cricket test match in Perth. “God” and Son Inc. has not the first inckling of priorities.

Jesus is fucking useless. The doos should not be managing an abandoned long drop in the Richtersveld.

“Worthy of worship”. Purleaze!

Nadat die nuusredakteur van die Kerkbode, Jean Oostuizen, onlangs in By aangedui het dat dit ó tog so laf is om te dink dat daar régtig, égtig ‘n ark en ‘n Sondvloed was, skryf die predikant, dosent, Christelike koerant- en boekredakteur en Uitvoerende Hoof van die Bybel-Media Groep, dr Pieter Fourie dat die Bybel inderdaad veel méér is as ‘n geskiedenis- of wetenskapboek. (“Bybel eerder geloofs- as geskiedenisboek”, By, 20/12.)

Ai, toggie, hoor ek die versugting by Fourie, kán dit wees dat daar nog dommerds is wat meen daar was ‘n groot skip en iemand met die naam Noag toe die hele wêreld onder water was? Dink sulke arme drommels werklik dat geoloë nog die beendere van Genesis 6 se jagse reuse gaan opgrawe? Dat die aarde regtig in ses dae van 24 uur elk ontstaan het? En – die kersie op die room op die melktert op die Clemintina van der Walt bordjie – dat die varkhokke van die verlore seun nog ontdek sal word?

Dat die Bybel heimlik faal as moontlike gesag op watter gebied ook al, maak nie eens ‘n skrapie op godgelowiges se “wapenrusting van God” nie. Inteendeel, die saamgeflansde fabels word terstond “veel méér as ‘n geskiedenis- of wetenskapboek”. Die Bybel is… wag daarvoor: “‘n geloofsboek”.

Wat is die Gees-geïnspireerde uitvloeisel van dié aardskuddende insig?

Dat Fourie hom besig hou met die die verkondiging van die geloof in Jesus Christus.

Dit gaan oor “God”, dommie!

Terwyl dr Adrio König van Tshwane, Gauteng se “radikaal-kritiese teoloë” en ds André Jansen van Aalsmeer, Nederland se “vrysinniges” die oë rol en mekaar beterweterig in die ribbes pomp oor die naïewe dorpsidiote wat nog sús en nog só dink, verskans hulle die opperste valsheid, die grootste leuen van die mensdom: “God”.

Wat ‘n interessante aanslag! Byna briljant: Kom ons verblind die goedgelowige kerkbankers vir die gróót Perdedrol met die vlamme van die klein perdedrolletjies wat ons in die openbaar verbrand.

Perdedrolle is nogals nie vye nie, selfs al het tyd dit al ‘n groenerige kleur gegee.

Bewilderbeast brought this article to my attention. For the first time on this blog, I publish a third party essay without comment…

Why Atheism May Be the Best Way to Understand God

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet. Posted December 19, 2008

Only a lack of belief in God offers the possibility of increasing our understanding of him or her.

Editor’s note: Religion is among the most volatile and divisive issues in the world today. Yet there’s little serious investigation into why people believe, or why some will kill and die for their faith. Larry Beinhart, in his new novel, Salvation Boulevard — and this series of articles — is hoping to start a conversation about these issues. This is the second in the series, the introduction can be read here.

*****

Religion — at least on the face of things — is the primary source of violent conflict in the world today. It is also the point of division in much of the world’s politics.

Obviously, there have been conflicts over ideology, class, race, between tribes and nations, for territory, property and plunder. However, at the moment, religion leads the pack. At least as a way to rally the troops.

It is, therefore, important to understand what religion is and why it is so vital.

As a rough, utilitarian generalization, there are four classes of religion: nontheistic, deism, polytheism and monotheism.

Nontheistic religions include some forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, animism, Wicca and the like.

They have ethical systems, support social and family networks, have spiritual practices, but do not claim, for the most part, divine revelations — instructions from external entities who watch to see if they are carried out.

Classical deism believes in God, the Button Pusher, aka, the First Cause. He pushed the universe’s “Go” button, then walked off, never to be heard from again.

Nowadays, it is common to hear things like “God is Energy,” or the Universe, or Love, or That Which Quarks Come From (heard that one last night, with great conviction and certainty).

Such gods are essentially meaningless, at least in the moral and political sense. They do not, and in most cases cannot, dictate their memoirs, instructions and judgments to people. Whatever their concerns might be, they can go on their merry way without us.

Polytheism was the dominant religious form until the invention of monotheism with conversion, proselytizing and forced conversion. Although certain forms of nontheistic religions blend over into polytheism, and elements of polytheism can be found in some monotheistic sects, the last, remaining, significant polytheistic religion is Hinduism. Although it’s different theologically, the political nature of Hinduism is similar to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the big three in monotheism.

The monotheistic religions claim there is one God. He has revealed himself to prophets, who spoke his words to various other people who wrote them down, perfectly, and that is the ultimate guide to how we should live our lives.

This a God who created us, cares about us, watches, communicates, interferes, cares, judges, rewards and punishes.

Therefore, to understand these religions, we have to ask about God.

Looking at God — the Positions

We are speaking primarily of a meaningful, monotheistic, beneficent God. One who is aware of and cares about human beings, transmits messages to us, is capable of interfering with human existence and does so.

There are three basic positions from which to view God:

Belief (the Missionary Position)

Agnosticism (a No-Position Position)

Atheism (Downward-Facing Dog)

Each position forces certain questions and does not permit others.

Belief

If we start with belief, this is the root question: Why won’t God make himself clear?

I’m a writer. If I had divine powers, believe me, I would get it right the first time and never need a rewrite. So why is there an Old Testament and then a New? Why is there the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, Guru Granth Sahib, Zhuan Falun, the Avesta, the Tattvartha Sutra?

As a writer, I worship clarity. If I need someone else to explain what I’ve written, I consider that a failure of the first order. God should surely do better. So why do the sacred texts of all religions always require someone to explain what they mean?

It is possible — indeed, quite logical — to say: “God is perfect, God gets it right every time. But, after all, he’s talking to people, and you know how they screw things up. How often have you ordered a double cheeseburger with onions rings and ended up with fries? Human error, pilot error, mistakes happen.”

Actually, that’s a pretty good solution. If everyone said, “Yeah, we know God did his best, but look at what he had to work with, so my bible is just sort of an approximation, and yours must be, too, so let’s not fight over it,” then this would be an academic discussion, not worth writing or reading.

But they don’t. They all say, “This is it. The revealed truth. The one and only. You can kill me, and I won’t give that up. If you want to fight about it, I’ll kill you.”

OK, not all of them. But enough to make this conversation a matter of life and death.

Is there a way to pick the right truth? To determine which truth is The Truth?

Each tradition has produced millions of words that prove that theirs is the one that came direct from God and got it right. Such arguments are very convincing to people who already believe what’s being argued for.

But imagine a panel of judges, made up of a Protestant, a Catholic, a Mormon and a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh and a Buddhist, too. Could anyone make a presentation of his or her Truth as the One and Only Truth that could convince them all? Or even get a majority of such a court?

Even within religions — everyone swearing by the same text — there are disagreements, divisions and schisms. These, too — Protestant versus Catholic, Shiite versus Sunni — are volatile enough to lead to violence.

Believers like to argue that the word of God is absolute and unchanging. But in practice, that’s absolutely not true.

The rule for marriage in the Old Testament — based on examples and God’s occasional command — seems to have been, “One man and however many women suit the situation.” The New Testament did not explicitly change that. Both St. Augustine and Martin Luther said there was no scriptural prohibition on polygamy. Yet today things have somehow morphed so that the Catholic Church and most Protestants will insist that it is God’s law that “marriage is a union between one man and one woman.”

Similar changes have taken place over slavery, divorce and the death penalty for adultery. God’s law, as expressed by religious leaders, evolves quite as much as man’s law.

If we start from the Missionary Position — the position of faith — that God exists, these are the kinds of question we need to ask to go forward:

Why doesn’t God make himself clear?

Why does God give different rules to different people?

Why is it that the culture someone is born into is, far and away, the most important determinant of which revelation they believe in?

Is there a way to sort out The Truth?

If a new prophet arrives tomorrow — and they do arrive with great regularity — how can we say that the new revelation is not the true revelation?

Atheism

Here are the questions we have to ask from the atheist position.

If God doesn’t exist, why do so many people believe in him?

If God doesn’t exist, why are spiritual practices and religion among the human universals, things that exist in all human societies?

The exception is the Communist experiment, with state-ordered atheism. That can be regarded as an attempt to alter humanity’s basic inclinations, like the various attempts to ban alcohol. It achieved some success, but at great expense. It required violence, a minority always resisted and the practice bounced back, in varying degrees, as soon as the ban was lifted.

Here’s the great paradox, and the most interesting question: If God doesn’t exist, belief is delusional. Delusion is, by definition, dysfunctional.

Clearsighted atheists should routinely be happier, healthier and wealthier than delusional believers. But they’re not. According to most surveys, they don’t even have a better sex life.

There have been atheist societies. During the second half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe, China and the Communist countries of Southeast Asia, almost a third of the world, were officially atheist. They did not generally out perform the United States, the countries of Western Europe, and many of the Asian countries allied with the West, all of which had freedom of religion, and some of which had state-supported churches as well.

If atheism is the The Truth, why isn’t accepting the truth more helpful? If belief is a Lie, why isn’t the lie more harmful?

Agnosticism

Agnosticism sounds very reasonable, rational and even scientific.

The social sciences — psychology, sociology, anthropology and the rest — officially take the stance that the existence or nonexistence of God, the process of revelation, and what is known through revelation, are all outside the realm of science.

But how can you study the psychology of religious belief in a meaningful way unless you first determine if people are believing in something real or false? It’s the difference between someone trying to climb a tree that’s there and trying to climb one that’s imaginary.

If the word of God is true, it makes a certain amount of sense that people will kill and die for it. Understanding that is pretty straightforward. But if people are killing and dying for a delusion, then there’s some explaining to do.

That’s actually an exciting question. Because it raises fundamental questions about human psychology.

Religion has an important place in all societies. Even in those where it is proscribed.

If the priests are, in fact, acting out the commands of God, they’re like engineers or generals, trying to get certain things done, based on the data that’s available to them.

If religions are made up, with most of their creators and practitioners sincerely unaware that they are creating institutions based on fictions, that’s a very different type of phenomenon.

The economics of religion are quite mundane if God exists. It makes sense that billions of dollars are collected in his name. But if he is a widely held fantasy, then the resources devoted to the God business are a great and fascinating mystery.

If people are making up the God stories, it’s not hard to figure out why they’re different. But if God exists and they’re actually coming from him, we have to wonder why he doesn’t make himself clear. Or — more likely — assume that it’s not his problem, since he’s perfect. and then we would have to ask what’s the matter with his prophets that they keep screwing it up during transmission, and figure out why that is. After that, we must wonder why people insist that the revealed word is accurate.

Agnosticism does not permit us to take either approach. Agnosticism can’t ask the fundamental questions about God. Or man. It leads to triviality or incoherence.

The Way Forward

If we start as agnostics, we can’t ask the fundamental questions.

We can look at what people do, but not understand why they do it. We can look at the forms that religion and spiritual practices take, but we can’t understand why spiritual practices and religion exist, in all their various forms. We can find out a lot about the subject, but not really understand it or create a coherent theory that explains it.

If we start with belief, we’re stuck.

We can’t go up to God, drag him into the witness box, make him swear on himself, then cross examine him about what he’s really like, what he really wants from us, and why he keeps sending different messages.

We can’t get up close and examine him. We can’t set up scientific tests to measure and evaluate him.

All we have are “revealed truths.”

But we have too many. There’s no way to sort out which is “truthier,” short of killing each other in the hopes that only one side will be left standing. We’ve been doing that for over a thousand years, without making any progress.

We are at the same impasse today that we were at when Richard the Lionheart went off to Jerusalem to fight Saladin.

In the effort to understand religion and faith, belief — even if it’s correct — is a dead end. If we start from there, we end there. There is no way forward.

If we start with atheism, we are asking questions about ourselves. That’s something we can do.

We can examine ourselves, test ourselves, and see if our theories — hypotheses — about ourselves will stand up to examination. We can insist on consistency and coherence. If our ideas don’t work, we can change them, and change them again, until they do.

We can even go in front of panel of judges of all the different faiths and say, “if you’re willing to pretend for a moment that God doesn’t exist, would this theory make sense?”

If we can’t succeed, and there is no way to explain what’s going on from a position of unbelief, then we have to eventually give it up and go at it from a different perspective.

Even if you, personally are a believer or an agnostic, and you are in search of some way to advance our understanding of faith and religion, to get past the impasse we’ve been at for millennia, there’s only one way forward.

There are three doors. One leads us to confusion. One goes to a dead end.

Paradoxically, there’s only one that offers the possibility of increasing our understanding of God, the one through unbelief.

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. His latest book is Salvation Boulevard. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net.

Flip Schutte bestuur ‘n motorhandelaarsagentskap. Hy is ‘n teoloog. Hy het drie doktorsgrade. Hy het “nie-tradisionele” sienings oor die godsdiens. Hy is nie kwaad vir die kerk nie. En hy het ‘n mooi gesindheid. Hy wil nie opslae maak nie. Hy kan saaklik redeneer. Hy het ‘n tegemoetkomende houding. Neels Jackson en Adrio König sê dié mooi goed oor Flip.

Neels Jackson van die Kerkbode, ek meen Beeld, is Flip se pryssanger. Van Jackson se ander kliënte is die Burger siamesies Coenie en Isak, en die Voortrekkerleier Piet Strauss.

König meen Schutte meen almal hoef nie presies soos hy (Schutte) te glo nie. Solank elkeen se geloof net help. Dit maak ‘n gesprek baie makliker.

En dan sê König: “‘n Mens moet kies. Daar is die rykdom van die Evangelie, en daar is die willekeurige armoede van radikaal-kritiese teoloë.”

Kom ek vertaal: Jy moet glo soos die belydenis sê jy moet glo of jy kan in jou moer gaan. (Maar Adrio het ook ‘n mooi gesindheid. Adrio sal nie “moer” sê nie.)

Fôk dít!

Ek het ‘n kák gesindheid. Ek is de bliksem in oor die kerk mense se lewens opfôk. Ek wil opslae maak. Ek het ‘n moerse onverdraagsame houding.

Luister hiér, Neels; Adrio… en jý ook as jy wil, Flip: Ek kyk jou vierkant in die oë en sê jou reguit, in jou gesig, dat jy fôkkin delusional is as jy meen daar’s ‘n “God” en dat jy mense links en regs belieg en bedônner met jou kakstories oor ‘n “Skepping”, ‘n “Sondeval”, ‘n “Maagdelike Geboorte”, ‘n “Nederdaling ter helle”, ‘n “Opstanding”, ‘n “Hemelvaart”, ‘n “Wederkoms” en ‘n “Ewige Lewe”. Jy praat jou kop se kák, man!

Fôkkin “mooi gesindheid”. Dis om van te kóts!

Wat’s volgende? ‘n “Mooi gesindheid” jeens georganiseerde misdaad? Ek dink nie iemand behoort ‘n gesin se motor te kaap en hulle te vermoor nie, maar ek kan saaklik redeneer oor die aangeleentheid en ek het ‘n tegemoetkomende houding.

Flip, met jou “tegemoedkomendheid” is jy besig om die kak wat die kerk verkondig vleuels te gee, man.

Ek verwys elders na Sam Harris, die skrywer van The End of Faith, se “konsentriese sirkels van dalende redelikheid”. Harris meen dat enigiemand op hierdie kontinuum noodwendig beskerming bied aan iemand anders wat nader aan die middelpunt van ekstremisme is. Dit beteken dat duidelik meelewende gelowiges, soos basaartannies en kooromies, wat in presies dieselfde “God” glo as Pat Robertson en James Dobson en D. James Kennedy en Jannie Pelser en Isak Burger en Piet Strauss en Angus Buchan, noodwendig aandadig is aan vergrype soos, byvoorbeeld, die ontkenning van wetenskaplike gegewes, die vertrapping van gay regte, die vervolging van rubriekskrywers en onderwysers en DJs en rolprentmakers omdat hulle aspris, goedgelowig, skerp of diepsinnig is, en Dominionisme.

Om die grens van redelikheid oor te steek en “God” (God, Allah, Vishnu, Watôkal) as ‘n werklikheid te aanvaar, is om ‘n ruimte te help handhaaf waarbinne afgryslike monsters gedy. Of jy nou in die nok van die sirkel staan, of op die rand. Of jy nou passasierstralers in wolkekrabbers parkeer of groen en rooi jelliepoeding oor ‘n basaartafel bedien.

As die vergrype van die godsdiens ooit getemper of geneutraliseer gaan word, sal die aftakeling van die buitenste konsentriese sirkel af moet begin – daar waar die gewone meelewende kerkbankers hulle van die fundamentalistiese middelpunt en goedkoop godsdienstige propaganda disassosieër, maar inderdaad presies so waandenkend (delusional) is soos hulle medegelowiges in die middel. Wanneer hierdie “goeie” gelowiges hulle rol in die vergrype van die godsdiens besef kan ‘n nuwe hoofstuk in die mens se vooruitgang moontlik aanbreek.

Die noeste Kristenapologeet Bernhard Ficker se skok oor Marialogie (Die Burger, “Verlos ons van sulke Marialogie“, 15/12) het my “so verras dat ek amper van my stoel afgeval het!”

Enigiemand wat die leerstelling van die Drie-Eenheid* aanvaar behoort plek te kan maak vir nog ‘n lid!

Die begrip “Triniteit” is die eerste maal in die vroeë derde eeu deur Tertullianus gebruik en dié “Drie-in-een-god” is in 325 op die Konsilie van Nicea gevestig en kan beswaarlik meer “gesag” dra as “Marialogie”. So geheel en al onbybels is die Drie-eenheid dat toendertydse sinode-omies sedert 1522 ‘n toevoeging tot die Bybel – die sogenaamde Comma Johanneum in 1Joh 5.vii – gemaak het om ‘n bietjie stukrag aan die sprokie te verleen. (Dié invoeging verskyn nog in die 1953-Afrikaanse vertaling en is sonder ‘n voetnota uit die 1983- vertaling weggelaat.)

As ons die opstanding van Jesus (en Sneeuwitjie) van geslag tot geslag kan oorvertel; as ons die fisiese herskepping van Jesus (en Pinnochio) van geslag tot geslag kan oorvertel… hoekom kan Liewejiesis se mámmie nie ook magic goed doen nie!?

Toe die Kanaänitiese El omvorm is tot die universele skepper Elohim en later geharmoniseer is met die nasionalistiese Jahwe is El se dogter Ashera ongelukkig laat vaar. Iets van haar herleef darem weer in Vrou Wysheid (Spr 8), maar op die ou end is sy nie ‘n godin in eie reg nie, slegs maar ‘n “kloon” van die patriargale Jahwe. Wat van ‘n bietjie meer verdraagsaamheid onder mense wat verskillende goed oor die mitologie glo? Hoekom nie ‘n vrou ook toegang tot die “Godheid” gee nie? Dis darem so byna 2009 en die dames kan selfs al dominees word!

Terloops, wie de fôk dink die Hyligegees ís hy om hier op aarde te kom rondnaai onder ons meisies en dan nie die ma van sy hoerkind in die huis toe te laat nie!? Die Hyligegees se moer man! Klink na ‘n lekker Son-storie dié.

* Triniteit: Vader… moordenaar – “Wat? Jy kan nie Sjibbolet sê nie? Maak dóód!”; Seun… liegbek – “S’tru, wag net hier, ek kom nóú-nóú terug!; Heilige Gees… verkragter – “Mak óépere dai dytsjies Maria, hie’s ‘n bietsjie kêndie vlos!” Met Maria deel van die “Godheid” kan die gode nou onder mekaar doen wat hulle tot dusver net aan mense gedoen het: Náái!