Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Religion is like a penis

with 565 comments

Photobucket

Noujatoe!

Written by Nathan Bond

February 17, 2012 at 20:27

Posted in Religion must go!

565 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. My fók Hanswors, you are scared shit (sic) of having a discussion because you know, that you cannot hide from reality and the word of Mickey Mouse; Con 4:12 For the word of Mickey Mouse is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged (sic) sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of godiot’s laughable stupidity, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of reality and clear thinking.

    You are liken (sic) unto this great Fuckwit, with all your “knowledge” of buggerall and yet, you are incapable of realising that you are constantly spouting the most ridiculous dung. You can only keep trying to divert attention away from any fruitful discussion points and are then followed by, what appears to be a lot of gibbering halfwits of which you appear to be the greatest. Shame!

    Con-Tester

    May 31, 2013 at 09:18

  2. Con-Tester, you are scared shit of having a discussion because you know, that you cannot hide from the word of God; Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    You are liken unto this great Goliath, with all your knowledge from man and yet, you are incapable of proving a little David wrong. You can only divert attention away from all discussion points and are then followed by, what appears to be a lot of fools of which you appear to be the greatest. Shame!

    Hans Matthysen

    May 31, 2013 at 07:56

  3. My fók Hanswors, but you’re a funny guy with Crushtian values that are really, really, really, really impressive, hey? When you spray your infantile runny shit all over this blog, it’s supposedly meaningful. But when I use exactly the same argument structure and even words as yours applied to different concepts, it’s “something to say that means nothing”.

    Very good, my dwaas ou pielflitsende onerkentlike kákspuitende onoplettende liegbek pêl. That’s the way to impress people. More of the same, please! And please keep using your hilariously ham-fisted punctuation.

    Meanwhile, here’s more of the same for you: My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, you appear to (sic) dumb for one to have a discussion with, as you can only harp, on what you can perceive as something negative and further more (sic), all other aspects appear to have slipped your so called, brilliant mind or perhaps you should try again.

    Con-Tester

    May 30, 2013 at 21:16

  4. Con-Tester, you appear to dumb for one to have a discussion with, as you can only harp, on what you can perceive as something negative and further more, all other aspects appear to have slipped your so called, brilliant mind or perhaps you should try again.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 30, 2013 at 20:51

  5. :lol: :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, you certainly don’t disappoint, hey!? As we have come to expect from you, your phenomenal brainpower is simply breathtaking and your response brimming with profound insight and humility, for example how you, Hanswors, are one of the very few True Crushtians™. But you completely ignore Mickey Mouse at your own peril…

      
      
      
    

    :lol: :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

    May 30, 2013 at 09:37

  6. Con-Tester, one gets religions and one gets true Christianity, which is power and wisdom, meaning Emmanuel (God with us or power and wisdom with man, 1Co 1:24 ). There is no such thing as a sky daddy for that is a false perception of what God is (Hos 11:9). The whole idea thereof is to get man to move away from his barbaric and animal ways. Because of the great majority’s wrong perception, misused the Christian religion to enrich themselves and for power. This does not make true Christianity wrong and as I have previously pointed out, Jesus and His followers were not guilty of such behaviour.
    True Christianity is not against reality Isa 5:13.
    Many do misuse Christianity as an industry and that does not mean that true Christianity is wrong. (Joh. 10:12,13) (2 Kings 12 :6 – 15)
    False Christianity is the complete negation of common sense and sound reason, I would say, yes.
    The age of ignorance commenced with the false Christian system and not with the true Christian system.
    The false system started when Jesus and His followers were persecuted by the Romans who established the RCC. The same then persecuted men of stature who excelled in knowledge of the Universe. The true fruit of true Christianity can be read in Gal. 5 :22.
    Most inventions and discoveries came about because of faith and perseverance, which is power and wisdom.
    Most Christians don’t read the Bible and many who do, don’t understand it. Atheists don’t understand the Bible either. (Isa. 5:13 and Luk. 24:45)
    Should we look at the example Jesus and his followers set, then common sense tells you, that those who do otherwise, even though they read the Bible and say they are Christians, are not true Christians. To reject Christianity because of that, is being biased.
    There are those who have done wrong in the passed and have repented, who are now Christians. Just look at Apostle Paul, who was previously Saul.
    It just comes to show, that most don’t get the true message, your famous minds included.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 30, 2013 at 08:42

  7. A few thoughts and comments by famous minds on “god” and crushtianity, specially selected for my favourite repetitive and wholly unoriginal reality-ducking china, Hanswors. Then again (and as usual), no doubt I expect wa-a-a-ay too much of the godiot black hole of dimwittedness. Inane excuses and evasions are guaranteed. So, for what it’s worth (namely the amusement of the lurking reader):

    Theism is the ultimate conspiracy theory.

    And on the eighth day god created a bunch of other religions. Just to fuck with mankind.

    Where it is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.

    Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality.

    Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.

    I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance.

    We question your beliefs because you are too afraid of a vengeful fictional character to do it yourself.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour.

    Christianity is not a religion; it’s an industry.

    If Christianity was morality, Socrates would be the Saviour.

    Christianity is the complete negation of common sense and sound reason.

    The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system.

    Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.

    What have been the fruits of Christianity? Superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    To most Christians the Bible is like a software licence. Nobody actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click ‘I agree’.

    Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

    You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help!?

    The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible.

    Citing the Bible as evidence for anything is like saying that the sun is in fact a chariot of fire that races across the sky because we read about it in Greek mythology.

    Out of convicted rapists, 57% admitted to reading pornography. 95% admitted to reading the Bible.

    Isn’t it amazing Jesus just happens to want EXACTLY what you want!?

    Based on the number of ’tards who ‘find’ him, I suspect Jesus really sucks at hide’n’seek.

    Jesus loves you! (Everyone else thinks you’re an asshole.)

    Come now, Hanswors, vain hope but let’s have something vaguely sapient from you for a change… :roll: Yeah, right.

    Con-Tester

    May 29, 2013 at 23:07

  8. My fók Hanswors, my dwaas pielflitsende onerkentlike drolspuitende onoplettende pêl, jy het geen antwoord wat ek jou gegee het ooit eers oorweeg nie. Jy kon geen antwoord wat ek jou gegee het eers weerspreek nie en al wat jy doen, is modder gooi en jou eie terkortkominge aan my toeskryf en soos ’n onvolwasse, ook godioot, banale kák kwyt raak, in plaas daarvan om te probeer sinvolle gesprek voer (Sinvolle gesprek voer!? Met ’n dom halwe doos soos jy!? :lol: ). Jy is bevooroordeeld teenoor enige bevraagteken van jou idiotiese kinderagtighede, al het ek jou nie eers probeer oordeel nie (aaklige leuenaar!) en dan is jy ook beledigend teenoor enigiets met intelligensie. Jy is verkeerd as jy dink, dat alle Christenne, die Evageslag, nie as minderwaardig beskou nie. Hulle het wel ’n ander rol in julle biologiese bestaan, wat hulle heeltemaal minderwaardig maak en daarom is hulle fisies en psigies anders saamgestel (maar moer hulle, emosioneel of selfs fiesies, as hulle dit waag om jou uit te daag omtrent jou verbeeldingsvlugte oor jou kamstig hemelpappabepaalde rol as hoof van jou huis). My vrou het my lewe verryk en ek vertrou, ek hare. Doen jouself ’n guns en gaan kyk moderne liberale waardes, miskien sal jy beter die onverskilligheid verstaan tussen die manlike- en vroulikegeslagte. Ek haal o.a. Mickey Mouse aan omdat dit fokken myle meer sinvol is waaroor die realiteit gaan en jy weier om daarna te kyk, net omdat jou voorgangers, wat jou opvatting van die realiteit betref, jou tjol vertel het omdat hulle self nie weet waaroor dit gaan nie. Dit is natuurlik jou eie skuld, dat ek tot die beseffing gekom het, dat jy nie die Evageslag aantreklik vind nie. Jy het dan aandag gevestig op jou piel en jou hol. Om respekvol te wees, kos niks nie en met respek, kan een dan ook respek verdien. Geniet jou aand verder.

    Con-Tester

    May 29, 2013 at 19:54

  9. Con-Tester, jy het geen antwoord wat ek jou gegee het ooit eers oorweeg nie. Jy kon geen antwoord wat ek jou gegee het eers weerspreek nie en al wat jy doen, is modder gooi en soos ‘n onvolwasse, ook ongelowige, “vreemde tale” kwyt raak, in plaas daarvan om te probeer sinvolle gesprek voer. Jy is bevooroordeeld teenoor enige gelowige, al het ek jou nie eers probeer oordeel nie en dan is jy ook beledigend. Jy is verkeerd as jy dink, dat alle Christenne, die Evageslag, as minderwaardig beskou . Hulle het wel ‘n ander rol in ons biologiese bestaan, wat geensins minderwaardig is nie en daarom is hulle fisies en psigies anders saamgestel. My vrou het my lewe verryk en ek vertrou, ek hare. Doen jouself ‘n guns en gaan kyk “Grotman”, miskien sal jy beter die verskille verstaan tussen die manlike- en vroulikegeslagte. Ek haal verse aan omdat dit is waaroor Christendom gaan en jy weier om daarna te kyk, net omdat jou voorgangers, wat die Christengeloof betref, jou tjol vertel het omdat hulle self nie weet waaroor dit gaan nie. Dit is natuurlik jou eie skuld, dat ek onder die indruk gekom het, dat jy nie die Evageslag aantreklik vind nie. Jy het dan die aandag gevestig op my piel en my hol. Om respekvol te wees, kos niks nie en met respek, kan een dan ook respek verdien. Geniet jou aand verder.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 29, 2013 at 19:31

  10. My fó-ó-ók ou Hanswors, my onnosel onerkentlike onoplettende ou liegbek pêl, hoe dwaas is jy nou regtig? Hoe dwaas dink jy is mense wat jou twakspul lees? Jy spuit jou kinderagtige kák oor die blog, ontduik waardige vrae met die mees ongelooflik banale “argumente”, vee geldige punte ui die pad sonder om dit enigsins te oorweeg, en haal bóg versies aan uit jou Huilige Babbel asof dit die grootste kennis is op aarde is in plaas van onhoubare tjol wat geen nugter mens met ’n werkende brein sal kan glo nie. Dan fokkof jy jy vir ’n paar weke of maande en begin weer van vooraf met presies dieselfde bespotlike onsin sonder om enigiets uit die vorige episodes te leer nie. Dan wonder jy hoekom ek sê jy’s ’n dom doos. Wag, wag! Jou antwoord gaan iets bevat oor ’n doos wat plesier verskaf. Dus, vat dit as ’n dom halwe doos.

    My fók ou Hanswors, daar bevestig jy weer dat Con 19:12, is vir jou geskryf, want nou fantaseer jy dat jou hol my pla. Indien jy nie weet nie, vind ek ook die Evageslag aantreklik alhoewel baie van julle godiote van mening is dat vroue minderwaardig is. Hierdie blog daag julle godiote uit en dit is duidelik, dat julle nie in staat is om oor die realiteit gesprek te voer nie omdat julle ’n gebrek aan insig, kennis en wysheid daaroor het. Jy is maar ’n fokken uitmuntende verteenwoordiger vir julle dom dwase.

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2013 at 22:06

  11. Con-Tester, daar bevestig jy weer dat Mat. 19:12, is vir jou geskryf, want nou pla my hol jou. Indien jy nie weet nie, vind ek die Evageslag aantreklik. Hierdie blog daag ons Christenne uit en dit is duidelik, dat julle nie in staat is om oor die Christengeloof gesprek te voer nie omdat julle ‘n gebrek aan insig, kennis en wysheid daaroor het. Jy is maar ‘n powere verteenwoordiger vir julle sogenaamde Adiote.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 28, 2013 at 21:28

  12. My fók Hanswors, my onerkentlike onnosel onoplettende kákpratende ou liegbek pêl, ek stem saam met jou, want blykbaar kan jy nie dink nie omdat jy baie onsamehangend is met jou kommentaar en dan kan jy net herhaal wat jy soos ’n pappagaai geleer of gelees het. Jy kan blykbaar ook net wat jy met jou belemmerde verbeelding uit jou hol trek, waarneem.

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2013 at 07:47

  13. Con-Tester, ek stem saam met jou, want blykbaar kan jy nie dink nie omdat jy baie onsamehangend is met jou kommentaar en dan kan jy net herhaal wat jy soos ‘n pappagaai geleer of gelees het. Jy kan blykbaar ook net wat met die oë sigbaar is, waarneem.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 28, 2013 at 07:17

  14. My fók Hanswors, my onerkentlike onnosel kákpratende ou liegbek pêl, aangesien jou tril jou so pla, is dit vir my duidelik hierdie volgende teksvers verwys na jou, sonder oordeel; Con 19:12 Want daar is persone wat onbekwaam is om te dink, wat van die moederskoot af so gebore is, en daar is persone wat deur hul eie befoktheid onbekwaam gemaak is, en daar is persone wat hulleself onbekwaam gemaak het ter wille van ’n dwaas illusie. Wie dit kan vat, laat hom dit vat.

    Mickey Mouse het nie sulke mense verwerp nie maar ek bespot hulle want hulle is nie oop om enigiets nuuts te wil leer nie.

    Con-Tester

    May 27, 2013 at 22:38

  15. Con-Tester, aangesien my tril jou so pla, is dit vir my duidelik hierdie volgende teksvers verwys na jou, sonder oordeel; Mat 19:12 Want daar is persone wat onbekwaam is om te trou, wat van die moederskoot af so gebore is, en daar is persone wat deur die mense onbekwaam gemaak is, en daar is persone wat hulleself onbekwaam gemaak het ter wille van die koninkryk van die hemele. Wie dit kan vat, laat hom dit vat.
    Jesus het nie sulke mense verwerp nie en ek ook nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 27, 2013 at 22:29

  16. My fó-ó-ók Hanswors, godiote blyk glad nie realisties te wees nie, maar wel benullose morone. As een so leeg en verwaand in homself is, dan sal een nie die volgende vergelykenis verstaan nie; Con 19:24 En verder sê Mickey Mouse vir julle, dit is hnderd keer makliker vir ’n ou met ’n kameelbrein om sy piel deur die oog van ’n naald te druk as vir ’n arm godioot om in die realiteit te verstaan.

    Miskien is die aanhoudende behoefte om jou tril rond te flits een van die redes hoekom een ’n godioot word.

    Con-Tester

    May 27, 2013 at 12:55

  17. Con-Tester, atïeste blyk nie realisties te wees nie, maar wel egoisties. As een so groot en ryk in hulself is, dan sal een nie die volgende vergelykenis verstaan nie; Mat 19:24 En verder sê Ek vir julle, dit is makliker vir ‘n kameel om deur die oog van ‘n naald te gaan as vir ‘n ryk man om in die koninkryk van God in te gaan.
    Miskien is dit een van die redes hoekom een ‘n Atïes word?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 27, 2013 at 12:44

  18. My fók, Hanswors, , jou onwelvoeglike breingebruik is ’n bewys van jou swak karakter en waardes. Dit is juis mense soos jy, wat Mickey Mouse se leiding nodig het om jou selfbeeld op te hef. Jy het nodig om uit jou Jeeeeeeebussssst! verbeeldings wêreld uit te kom sodat die “egte hemel en ware aarde” van Walt Disney, kan neerdaal in jou lewe. Jy sal dan die realiteit lief hê bo alles en jou naaste soos jouself, in plaas van so fokken dwaas te wees. Die realiteit is nie ’n “skydaddy” nie, en bevat wel “woord”, “liefde”, “wysheid”, “krag”, “lig (verstaanbaarheid)” as menslike dinge en nie ’n gesnedebeeld êrens in die lug nie. Wees nederig en jy sal toeneem in waarde en sodoende ’n realistiese medemens wees.

    Con-Tester

    May 27, 2013 at 07:55

  19. Con-Tester, jou onwelvoeglike taalgebruik is ‘n bewys van jou swak karakter en waardes. Dit is juis mense soos jy, wat Christelike leiding nodig het om jou selfbeeld op te hef. Jy het nodig om uit jou Micky Mouse verbeeldings wêreld uit te kom sodat die “nuwe hemel en nuwe aarde” van God, kan neerdaal in jou lewe. Jy sal dan God lief hê bo alles en jou naaste soos jouself, in plaas van so self gesentreerd te wees. God is nie ‘n “sky daddy” nie, maar wel “woord”, “liefde”, “wysheid”, “krag”, “lig (verstaanbaarheid)” en nie ‘n gesnedebeeld êrens in die lug nie. Wees nederig en jy sal toeneem in waarde en sodoende n’ liefdevolle medemens wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 27, 2013 at 07:39

  20. My fók, Hanswors, is jy weer gesuip? Of dalk nog steeds, my onerkentlike onnosel kákpratende ou liegbek pêl? Of wys jy vir ons nou jou eintlike karakter met hierdie opgefokte dreigemente van hoe ek jou genade en hulp sal smeek die dag dat ek vrek, hmm? Lees hierdie blog bladsy nog ’n slag en hou op om jou belaglik klein piel rond te flits, ou! Leer liewer iets by Mickey Mouse, jou snaakse ou ká-á-á-ákprater.

    Hanswors, jy en al jou godiotiese (breindooie) vriende weet, jy wat die lewe in jou liggaam is, die liggaam gaan verlaat (waarnatoe, ou Hanswors?) en omdat julle beperk is tot die domheid en kinderagtigheid, verval julle in erge ontkenning. 1 Con. 14:38 As iemand ’n dom doos wil wees, bespot die dom doos.

    Con-Tester

    May 26, 2013 at 21:22

  21. Con-Tester, jy en al jou satanistiese (atïestiese) vriende weet, jy wat die lewe in jou liggaam is, die liggaam gaan verlaat en omdat julle beperk is tot die fisiese en verganklikheid, verval julle in erge ontkenning. 1 Kor. 14:38 Maar as iemand onkundig is, laat hom onkundig bly.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 26, 2013 at 21:07

  22. My fók, Hanswors, wanneer jy die dag uit jou liggaam verhuis (waarnatoe, my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl?), moet my tog asseblief nie kom pla nie (moenie daaroor warrie nie, my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl), want jou mede geloofgenote gaan nie glo dat jy “is”, dus sal jy hulle nie kan pla nie. (Watse belaglike ká-á-ák jy kan opkots, my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl!) Jy, is die lewe in jou vlees, wat een dag, daardie vlees gaan verlaat (waarnatoe, my onerkentlike onnosel ou liegbek pêl?) Ek is seker, dat jy bewys het, dat die lewe in ‘n mens se liggaam, een dag, die liggaam gaan verlaat.

    My fók, Hanswors. Jou kákpraat word al hoe meer histeries. Leer eerder iets van Mickey Mouse, my onerkentlike onnosel kákpratende ou liegbek pêl

    My fók.

    Con-Tester

    May 25, 2013 at 23:21

  23. Con-Tester, wanneer jy die dag uit jou liggaam verhuis, moet my tog asseblief nie kom pla nie, want jou mede geloofgenote gaan nie glo dat jy “is”, dus sal jy hulle nie kan pla nie. Jy, is die lewe in jou vlees, wat een dag, daardie vlees gaan verlaat. Ek is seker, dat jy bewys het, dat die lewe in ‘n mens se liggaam, een dag, die liggaam gaan verlaat.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 25, 2013 at 23:12

  24. My fók, Hanswors, sou jy jou onvolwassenheid ontgroei het, dan sou jy Mickey Mouse en die realiteit ook baie beter verstaan. As jy die vergelykenis van die waaier geken het, sou jy besef, dat jy propvol kunsmis (kák) is omdat jy geen diepte van gedagte in jou het nie. Sterkte my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl.

    Con-Tester

    May 25, 2013 at 08:01

  25. Con-Tester, sou jy jou onvolwassenheid ontgroei het, dan sou jy Micky Mouse ook ontgroei het. As jy die vergelykenis van die saaier geken het, sou jy besef, dat jy baie kunsmus (kak) benodig omdat jy geen diepte van grond in jou het nie. Sterkte my ou vriend.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 25, 2013 at 07:19

  26. My fók, Hanswors, jy’s ’n goeie ene om oor “begryp” te wil praat. Meer as ’n klompie jare is verby en jy lieg nog steeds soos altyd, my onerkentlike ou liegbek Hanswors. Begryp jy niks van Mickey Mouse nie?

    Duidelik nie. Jammer vir jou dat kák prewel die begin en einde van jou kennis en kunste is.

    Con-Tester

    May 24, 2013 at 22:48

  27. Shazee, ‘n jaar is al verby en dit wil voorkom of jy nog sukkel om te begryp wat ek hierbo vir jou sê.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2013 at 22:39

  28. Shazee, water in ‘n geestelike sin, is evangie en die saad van die saaier, is die woord. As een die Bybel lees, is dit wat ons in gedagte moet neem en so is daar baie voorbeelde. Om geestelik te dink, is om nie alles letterlik op te neem nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2012 at 08:52

  29. Hoe “bedink” mens “geestelike” Hans?
    Het jy enige idee hoe onnosel dit klink as jy aannhou om dieselfde kak te verkondig?
    “Bedink” eerder iets sinvol man, soos hoe om ‘n vraag reguit en eerlik te antwoord. Ek weet jy dink dit is moontlik prysenswaardig as jy soos ‘n donkie aanhou om dieselfde swaksinnige stront oor en oor te herhaal, maar dit is nie, rerig,rerig nie.

    Shazee

    May 22, 2012 at 22:06

  30. Once more you demonstrate your superb powers of comprehension, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl.

    Con-Tester

    May 22, 2012 at 21:20

  31. Shazee, omdat ek nou die geestelike dinge bedink en nie die vleeslike nie, reken jy nou ek is arrogant. Dit is werklik julle wat arrogant is omdat julle dink, dat julle nie iets kan leer by ander. Julle is eintlik verwaand en sies man, los ander se poepolle uit!

    Hans Matthysen

    May 22, 2012 at 21:17

  32. Hans, ek verstaan nie waarom jy aanhou beweer ons weet nie wat in die bybel staan nie.
    As jy bedoel ons ontbreek feitlike kennis, is dit duidelik ‘n kinderagtige stelling. Ons kan almal lees.
    As jy bedoel dat ons die bybel verkeerd interpreteer, nou ja, almal weet mos dat jy die enigste persoon is wat die “waarheid” ontvang het, jou arrogante poepol.

    Shazee

    May 22, 2012 at 04:15

  33. … which, since you already knew from before what naïfs we supposedly are concerning your Holey Babble, means that you have no actual interest in having a debate or explaining anything, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl.

    In that regard, you keep making my point for me.

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 21:53

  34. Shazee, ek kon my eie woorde gebruik het en het verkies om die Bybel se teks te gebruik, om te sê wat ek wil sê. Julle ontbreek aan kennis van wat in die Bybel geskryf is en daarom ook onkundig.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 21, 2012 at 21:29

  35. Ek sien jy is terug by die gewoonte om bloot bybelversies aan te haal Hans.
    Moet dit asseblief nie doen nie, dit dra niks tot die gesprek by nie. Dit skep eerder die indruk dat jy te lui is om vir jouself te dink.

    Shazee

    May 20, 2012 at 23:43

  36. Which citation of ignorant drivel strongly substantiates my point, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl.

    Con-Tester

    May 20, 2012 at 21:45

  37. Isa 5:13 Daarom gaan my volk in ballingskap weens gebrek aan kennis, en hulle aansienlikes word hongerlyers en hulle menigte versmag van dors.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 20, 2012 at 21:16

  38. These godiots are just too funny for words. They tell you that you must be like child. They tell you that you must believe like a child. They tell you that you must remain ignorant. They tell you that knowledge is a bad thing because it leads to heresy. They’ll even throw Simon Magus at you to show how pagan and evil learning is.

    In the same breath, these hypocritical morons blithely make wide use of the fruits of science and technology — you know, things like medicine, computers, cell phones, cars, DSTV, supermarkets and so on. But those things came about precisely because others were not like children, did not believe like children, did not remain ignorant and did not accept that knowledge is a bad thing.

    Funnier yet is how these dimwits proudly tell you that they respect science (but oddly only those bits that don’t threaten their idiotology), all the while holding up their evidence- and reason-free fairytales as The Ultimate Truth™, claiming special dispensations like “symbolic” and “spiritual” and constantly manufacturing “explanations” because they are entirely unable to meet the rigours and stringency of science. Apart from the ridiculous delusion inherent in their claimed respect for science, there’s also the irony of them speaking of “faith” before proceeding to attempt proving their claims (and failing miserably) whenever challenged, as if faith required proof.

    But such in-your-face cognitive dissonances evidently are no cause for any alarm for the apologiot/bibliot/crediot/godiot/religiot, while in reality they’re the hilarious punch lines of an ongoing comedy skit.

    Con-Tester

    May 20, 2012 at 08:41

  39. Goed Hans, bly dan maar onkundig as jou bybel aanbeveel dat jy doen.

    Shazee

    May 20, 2012 at 06:38

  40. But Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, I’m merely trying to be as good as you with monotony even though I know I’ll never get it right.

    Con-Tester

    May 19, 2012 at 22:14

  41. Shazee, 1 Kor. 14:38 Maar as iemand onkundig is, laat hom onkundig bly.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 19, 2012 at 21:27

  42. Con-Tester, you comment has become very monotonic. Shame!

    Hans Matthysen

    May 19, 2012 at 21:19

  43. Nee Hans, dit is nie die taal wat vir my vreemd is nie, ek verstaan Afrikaans heel goed.
    Wat vir my vreemd is, is jou onvermoe om ‘n logiese en eerlike antwoord op enige vraag hoegenaamd te gee.
    Con-Tester is reg, daar is geen verkragting van logika of feite wat jy nie bereid is om te pleeg solank jy dink dit laat jou ontsnap uit ‘n logies onhoubare posisie nie.
    Jy sal enige kak denkbaar praat solank jy nie ‘n vraag reguit en eerlik hoef te antwoord nie, of om ‘n onbeantwoordbare redenasie te omseil.
    Jy is ‘n goeie advertensie vir jou bygeloof Hans, hou so aan. Dit gee my ‘n voorbeeld om vir kinders te wys as ‘n waarskuwing hoe jou tipe blinde geloof ‘n mens se brein verrot.

    Shazee

    May 18, 2012 at 05:01

  44. No Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, you’ve got it all mixed up. It’ll never happen as long as you carry on with your lies, bullshit, delusions, avoidance, evasion and fabricating juvenile nonsense.

    You too are like a camel, a lobotomised one: Constantly humping logic, evidence and reason.

    Con-Tester

    May 17, 2012 at 21:12

  45. Shazee, ja ek verstaan wat jy sê, want dit is maar vir jou ‘n vreemde taal en daarvoor sal ek my nooit skaam nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 17, 2012 at 21:07

  46. Con-Tester, the Bible was written in a manner, so that the great I am’s, with an attitude like yours, would never understand and it appears to really get to you. You are like a Camel, trying to get through the eye of a needle. It can never happen unless you become as a child.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 17, 2012 at 21:04

  47. Hans, jou antwoord is so onsinnig en intillektueel slapgat as wat jou patetiese bygeloof is.
    Jy probeer nie eers om die argument te beantwoord nie
    Kry jy nie skaam as jy agterna jou sotlike antwoorde lees nie?

    Shazee

    May 16, 2012 at 22:12

  48. Oh okay, so in The Gospel According to Hanswors the makulu skydaddy went out of his way to talk his kak as obscurely as possible so that only godiots would understand it, eh? Well, the doos certainly succeeded with the obscurity thing ’cos every godiot has a different understanding but only that of Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl is the correct one.

    And once more Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl: What is a “siel”? A Functional definition is still missing, ou.

    Con-Tester

    May 16, 2012 at 22:04

  49. Shazee, die verborgenhede is nie bedoel vir elkeen wat misbruik gaan maak daarvan nie en is eerder vir hulle wat die vrug van die Gees openbaar.

    Gal 5:22 Maar die vrug van die Gees is liefde, blydskap, vrede, lankmoedigheid, vriendelikheid, goedheid, getrouheid, sagmoedigheid, selfbeheersing.
    Gal 5:23 Teen sulke dinge is die wet nie.
    Gal 5:24 Maar die wat aan Christus behoort, het die vlees met sy hartstogte en begeerlikhede gekruisig.

    Ek was maar ook soos ‘n “maagd” wat deur God die “Woord”, bevrug is en daaom kan ek ook sê; “my siel maak groot die Here”.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 16, 2012 at 21:52

  50. Hans, jy raak so baie onsinnighede kwyt dat ek nie kan onthou of ek al voorheen die volgende argument aan jou gestel het nie, maar in elk geval, hier kom dit:

    As god alwetend is moes hy mos geweet het dat al die dubbelsinnighede en skynbare teenstrydighede in die bybel ‘n struikelblok vir dom ouens soos ek sou wees.
    Sy kern- vereiste vir my om gered te word is skynbaar dat ek in hom moet glo.
    As jy reg is, het god my ook gemaak met al my swakhede, insluitende die onvermoe om dinge te glo wat patent onlogies blyk te wees.

    My vraag is nou: waarom het god, as hy lief is vir my, en hy wil graag he ek moet gered word, die bybel laat skryf op ‘n wyse wat vir enige mens wat logies daarna kyk na blote nonsens lyk?
    Waarom die bybel nie op so ‘n wyse laat skryf dat dit ondubbelsinnig en onteenseglik waar is nie?
    Hy kon byvoorbeeld die formule vir Einstein se relatiwiteits-teorie daarin laat skryf het, instede van onkundige nonsens soos Noag se vloed, en die toring van Babel, ensovoorts.
    Waarom het hy die bybel laat skryf op ‘n wyse wat selfs diegene wat dit glo onder mekaar laat stry, en wat ouens soos jy noodsaak om alles wat nie sin maak nie as simbolies te interpreteer?

    Moet nie vir my vertel dit is ‘n “toets”, of dat ek ‘n vrye wil het, of dat ek soos ‘n kind moet glo, of iets dergliks nie; god is alwetend en almagtig, hy het vooraf geweet ek sal die toets nie slaag nie, en hy kon dit vir my moontlik gemaak het om te glo as hy wou.

    Shazee

    May 16, 2012 at 08:48

  51. Hans, ek stem saam dat al die sogenaamde wonderwerke in die bybel hoogs onwaarskynlik is.

    Die probleem wat jy het is eerstens dat die dele wat jy wel letterlik opneem presies net so ongeloofwaardig is as die dele wat jy as simbolies beskou.
    Waarom is dit onwaarskynlik dat die see skei, maar jy glo heel gelukkig dat ‘n maagd swanger word sonder seks?

    Die tweede probleem wat jy het is dat jy absoluut geen regverdiging het om sekere dele van die bybel arbitrer as simbolies te verklaar nie.
    Hoe besluit jy watter dele is letterlik en watter dele simbolies? Dit kan verseker nie op grond van logika wees nie.

    Al die voorspelbaar ontwykende gegorrel antwoord natuurlik steeds nie die vraag waarom jou interpretasie van die bybel reg is en byna almal anders s’n verkeerd is nie.

    Shazee

    May 16, 2012 at 00:25

  52. Oh, come now, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, you know better than that. You are the one who started all this lying, evasion, avoidance and bullshitting. And now you have the chutzpah to accuse me of not communicating while you preach and sermonise on how the world is, you funny deceitful deluded man, you!?

      
    

    :mrgreen: :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

    May 15, 2012 at 22:59

  53. Con-Tester, you are not communicating and I doubt if you know how.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 15, 2012 at 22:54

  54. Shazee, meeste mense lees die Bybel en probeer dit letterlik so sien en in werklikheid is baie daarvan simboliek. Geen mens kan op ‘n wolk staan en geen see kan skielik in twee deel, dat daar ‘n pad is om deur te loop. Gee groep mense kan vir veertig jaar, dag en nag aanmekaar trek en ‘n wolk bedags volg en ‘n vuurkolom snags. Geen bos kan aanmekaar brand en nog praat ook. Daar is soveel sogenaamde Christenne wat dit so wil glo en dan dink hulle nog die aarde is net ongeveer 7 000jr oud. Ag nee man!

    Hans Matthysen

    May 15, 2012 at 22:51

  55. Oh poor, misunderstood, unjustly maligned Hanswors!

    Your lies and bullshit are all over this blog, you funny deceitful man, you! Your protestations of innocence are as laughable as your beliefs, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl.

      
    

    :lol: :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

    May 15, 2012 at 22:41

  56. ErickV, ek verstaan die Bybel goed en dit beteken nie, dat daar nie nog geheime daarin lê, wat ek nog moet ontdek? Waar het ek nou eintlik gelieg?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 15, 2012 at 22:32

  57. Hansie
    Jy skryf “The pregnancy of Maria remains a mystery and also the manner in which the Bible has been written.”
    Maar my fok Hansie, ek dag jy verstaan die bybel dan so goed. Jisses, maar jy kan lieg!

    ErickV

    May 15, 2012 at 04:52

  58. Ek is bly om te sien jy kan vir jouself lag Hans. Dit is altyd goed as ‘n mens jouself nie te ernstig opneem nie.

    Waarom glo jy dat jy ‘n unieke insig het in die boodskap van die bybel? Daar is vele christelike denominasies en sektes wat almal glo dat hulle die bybel reg verstaan, en almal se interpretasie verskil in ‘n mindere of meerdere mate.
    Gestel ek sou tot “bekering” kom, waarom moet ek glo jy is reg en hulle almal verkeerd?
    Klink vir my effens arrogant Hans.

    Shazee

    May 15, 2012 at 02:30

  59. Oh, and for the umpteenth time, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, what is “spiritual”? Functional definition, please. The dictionary doesn’t supply a functional definition, just the fanciful bullshit cooked up centuries ago by a bunch of delusionals.

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2012 at 22:05

  60. No Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, you aren’t communicating. As usual, you’re preaching and sermonising, mostly with bullshit and lies and delusion, you funny deceitful man you. This means that, brain-wise, you’re a putrid corpse.

    A mystery, eh? Really? Didn’t the Unholy Fart inseminate Maria with his ephemeral shlong? Didn’t your skydaddy speak his bullshit to a bunch of stoned goatherds who got some dof scribes to write it down? Didn’t the RCC compile your Holey Babble by an act of vote some three centuries after your Jeeeeeebussssst!’s death?

    Isn’t that the history? Or are you going to talk more bullshit and lies and delusions calling it “a mystery”, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl?

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2012 at 22:02

  61. Con-Tester, spiritually speaking, you are one dead person and I am communicating with you.
    The pregnancy of Maria remains a mystery and also the manner in which the Bible has been written.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2012 at 21:53

  62. Well, I for one am stunned, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. You actually caught a joke. Fancy that. On the downside, you still haven’t figured out what Syndrome X is.

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2012 at 21:48

  63. Shazee, janee ek het nou lekker gelag vir jou humor. Die feit is, dat Jesus van Nazareth was navolgenswaardig en die Bybel is ‘n uitsonderlike samestelling van boeke. Ek is baie geseënd omdat ek dit boodskappe wat daarin saamgevat is, redelik goed verstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2012 at 21:40

  64. Nee Hans, ek is seker dat Maria nie “spyt” was nie. Die enigste een wat blykbaar “gespuit” het was die huilerige spook.
    Waar het jy skool gegaan Hans? Spelling was duidelik nie hoog op die agenda nie.

    Shazee

    May 13, 2012 at 21:20

  65. So Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, do you think Maria was bullshitting about the whole virginity thing? I mean, like David Hume did, if some young thing came to you today and said she’d gotten pregnant without actually pomping and that some skyfairy had fluistered sweet nuffinks in her ear, would your first instinct be to believe her and to proclaim a miracle because that’s so-o-o-o-o-o much more likely than that she’d be a liegbek flossie, much like you, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl?

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 21:01

  66. Shazee, ek kry nie swaar nie en dit is duidelik dat jy nie altyd goed kan begryp wat jy lees.
    Die engel het vir Maria gesê waarvoor sy uitgekies is en sy het aanvaar dat God se wil moet geskied. Ek dink weer jy kan nie altyd onthou wat jy gelees het nie en kyk of Maria agterna spuit was?
    Jesus is die seun van die mens en Christus is God in die mens, dus is jou stelling nie so lekker nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 13, 2012 at 20:43

  67. That would be “molehill”, Hanswors my ou onerkentlike liegbek pêl. “Molehill”. Goddit?

    As for what one can expect of dommetjies, you’re the perfect candidate to answer that question, only you don’t know it, just as you clearly don’t know what Syndrome X is.

    So, are you still seeing dead people, Hanswors my ou onerkentlike liegbek pêl? Carnal or otherwise? With or without Syndrome X? Do they mumble or do they speak to you as clearly as your skydaddy does, hmm?

      
    

    :P

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 20:23

  68. Con-Tester, you are really trying to make a mountain out of a moles heap on what I said, but then, if you are dumb, then what can one expect? When one mentions something, you hallucinate because it is above your carnal thinking and so I detect you have Syndrome X.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 13, 2012 at 20:03

  69. [Syndrome X] is a mental disorder characterised by a breakdown of thought processes and by poor emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganised speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction. … Diagnosis is based on observed behaviour and the patient’s reported experiences.

    Genetics, early environment [including religion], neurobiology, and psychological and social processes [including religion] appear to be important contributory factors; some recreational and prescription drugs [including religion] appear to cause or worsen symptoms. Current research is focussed on the role of neurobiology, although no single isolated organic cause has been found. The many possible combinations of symptoms have triggered debate about whether the diagnosis represents a single disorder or a number of discrete syndromes.

    (Expansions added where appropriate.)

    I leave it to the reader to identify Syndrome X of which we have a clear case before us. Google will be most helpful in this endeavour. Also, in this instance the condition is appreciably compounded by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 10:27

  70. Rerig Hans, as jy stemme hoor en spoke sien moet jy hulp gaan kry. Dit is nie nodig dat jy so alleen suffer nie.

    Jy het nou die aand te vertelle dat die engel eers met Maria gesels het voordat die huilerige spook haar gespyker het. Ek kan nie onthou dat die engel haar toestemming gevra het nie, en was sy nie in elk geval ‘n bietjie jonk om in te stem dat die spook haar mag “ken” nie? Klink my hy het gevreet, of dit “ryp” was en of dit groen was.

    En nog ‘n ding Hans, as die vader, seun en heilige gees eintlik een en onafskeidbaar is, beteken dit dan dat jesus sy eie pa is?

    Shazee

    May 13, 2012 at 00:57

  71. Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, you’re changing the subject again. The obvious fact remains that you’re talking kak as usual. Try and grow yourself a brain, see? And some honesty too while you’re on it, you funny deceitful man, you.

    Are you still seeing dead people, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl? Are they telling you stuff, like how impossible it is that you’re wrong? And how your skydaddy loves and cares for you? And maybe also how “spiritually mature” (whatever the fuck that might be) you are, too?

      
    

    ;) :P :D :) :D :P ;) :P :D :) :D :P ;) :P :D :) :D :P ;) :P :D :) :D :P

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2012 at 21:49

  72. Shazee, ek kry jou nou weer baie jammer omdat jy beperk is tot dit wat verganklik is. Siestog, jy is beperk tot wat jy kan aanraak, met jou vleeslike oë sien of proë. Jy het seker nie ‘n goeie waarnemings vermoë nie.Dit kan ook maar net toegeskryf word aan eiesinnigheid.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 12, 2012 at 21:33

  73. Con-Tester, you believe what you choose to believe even if it is not the truth, so how can one take you seriously. It is rather funny that you have a lot of knowledge yet you appear to remain a fool.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 12, 2012 at 21:25

  74. Hans, ek kry jou amper jammer. Dit moet erg wees om spoke te sien. Maar ek is jammer om jou terleur te stel; daar is byna verseker nie spoke nie. Jou verbeelding en jou jou hoop fok rond met jou kop, gaan sien ‘n sielkundige, miskien kan hy jou help.

    Shazee

    May 11, 2012 at 22:53

  75. Oukei Hanwors my ou liegbek pêl, you’re seeing dead people — or at least you believe you are. Fine. Jolly good. You’re sane enough to admit that you can’t prove it.

    But how the fuck does citing Holey Babble bullshit substantiate your delusional claims, hmm?

    Are you listening to yourself?

    Would you believe some other arbitrary dimwit who sommer came to you with similar claims?

    ———————————————

    Again, how the fuck does citing Holey Babble bullshit substantiate your delusional claims, hmm?

    Or relate in any way to me calling you a moron?

    Are you a glutton for punishment with all this bullshit, lies and nonsense you spout, you funny deceitful man, you?

      
    

    :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P :D :P

    Con-Tester

    May 11, 2012 at 22:35

  76. Con-Tester, die Engel het eers met Maria gepraat en daarna het sy ingestem, dus was dit nie ryp nie (Luk. 1 v 38).

    Hans Matthysen

    May 11, 2012 at 22:27

  77. Shazee, ek was gister by ‘n begrafnis en die oorledenne het by my aangedoen en ongelukkig kan ek dit nie aan jou bewys nie. Job 4:12 Verder is ‘n woord op geheimsinnige wyse na my gebring, en my oor het ‘n gefluister daarvan opgevang,
    Job 4:13 by die gedagtespel, uit naggesigte gebore, wanneer diepe slaap op die mense val.
    Job 4:14 Skrik het oor my gekom en siddering en het my hele gebeente laat bewe.
    Job 4:15 Toe skuif daar ‘n gees voor my verby; die hare van my vlees het opgerys.
    Job 4:16 Hy bly staan, maar ek kon sy gedaante nie herken nie—’n verskyning voor my oë! Ek hoor die gefluister van ‘n stem wat sê:
    Job 4:17 Sou ‘n sterfling regverdig wees voor God? Of ‘n man rein wees voor sy Maker?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 11, 2012 at 22:13

  78. Maar dan is ek bly ons stem saam Hans, daar gaan geen veroordeling wees nie, nie vir jou nie en nie vir my nie, daar is niemand wat ons kan oordeel nie, as ek en jy doodgaan is dit die einde.

    Jy moet versigtig wees met die spoke wat jy sien ou maat, die ouens met die wit jasse gaan jou een van die dae kom haal as jy so aangaan.

    Shazee

    May 10, 2012 at 22:24

  79. Shazee, hoekom sal ek jou wil verkeerd bewys?
    Volgens Rom. 8 v 1, is daar geen veroodeling vir die wat in Christus Jesus is nie, dus is jy reg wat my betref.
    Ek wil nie groot word nie want Jesus wys na ‘n kind en sê; “aan sulkes behoort die Koninkryk.
    Ek geniet my lewe en het vandag weer een ervaar wat onlangs oorlede is al kan ek dit nie vir jou bewys nie.

    Job 4:15 Toe skuif daar ‘n gees voor my verby; die hare van my vlees het opgerys.
    Job 4:16 Hy bly staan, maar ek kon sy gedaante nie herken nie—’n verskyning voor my oë! Ek hoor die gefluister van ‘n stem wat sê:
    Job 4:17 Sou ‘n sterfling regverdig wees voor God? Of ‘n man rein wees voor sy Maker?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 10, 2012 at 22:07

  80. Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you show how cockeyed your reading is. Again. I said: “Your virgin-raping skydaddy’s bastard son Jeeeeeeebussssst! wasn’t unique and certainly not the first to set a “good example”, you funny, deceitful man, you.”

    But your brain is so fucked-up with Jeeeeeeebussssst! sauce that you don’t notice what is patently obvious. I’m not against your Jeeeeeeebussssst! per se, nor have I ever said that I was. I have told you many, many times what I am against but you want to go and make up lies about it, you funny, deceitful man, you.

    But sure as eggs is eggs, you’ll miss the point. Again.

    Con-Tester

    May 10, 2012 at 22:03

  81. Con-Tester, so you do acknowledge that Jesus set a good example, so how come you have are so much against Him?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 10, 2012 at 21:49

  82. Hans, ek is oortuig dat ek ‘n minder stresvolle lewe as jy het, ek weet dat as ek doodgaan dit die einde is. Daar wag nie ‘n oordeel vir my nie, en ook nie vir jou nie.
    As jy moontlik eendag grootword sal jy dit ook besef.
    Geniet die enigste lewe wat jy ooit gaan he, dit is al wat daar is of ooit gaan wees.

    Ek wed jou jy kan my nie verkeerd bewys nie.

    Shazee

    May 9, 2012 at 22:13

  83. You’re just envious, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl. That’s why you’re spouting your usual bullshit and lies, you funny, deceitful man, you. Your virgin-raping skydaddy’s bastard son Jeeeeeeebussssst! wasn’t unique and certainly not the first to set a “good example”, you funny, deceitful man, you. If you knew anything about history, you’d know and acknowledge that. And, as a bonus, you can’t prove otherwise, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl.

      
    

    :lol: :P: :D :P :lol: :lol: :P: :D :P :lol: :lol: :P: :D :P :lol: :lol: :P: :D :P :lol: :lol: :P: :D :P

    Con-Tester

    May 9, 2012 at 21:29

  84. Shazee, jy is maar seker ‘n oppervlakige mens as jy dink, dat ek nie my aardse bestaan geniet nie. Ek bekommer my gladnie oor duiwels nie want, wie is sterker as Hy wat in my is. Jy is maar beperk tot dit wat aards en verganklik is en daarom is ek oortuig dat ek my lewe baie meer geniet as jy.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 9, 2012 at 21:24

  85. Con-Tester, Jesus of Nazareth set a good example of how one should be and because of your deceitful nature, you have not been able to acknowledge that fact. You have also not been able to prove otherwise.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 9, 2012 at 21:12

  86. Ek en jy is verseker op dieselfde rit ou Hansie, as ons tyd kom gaan die wurms ons vreet en dit is al wat daar is.
    Die spoke gaan ons nie kom haal en nog braai ook nie, sorry om jou terleur te stel.
    Die verskil tussen ons is dat ek dit besef en die enigste lewe wat ek ooit gaan he geniet terwyl ek kan, terwyl jy jou bekommer oor die duiwels wat jou met vurke gaan steek as jy jou nie mooi gedra nie _ shame.

    Shazee

    May 8, 2012 at 23:11

  87. Actually, it’s “Vredewors”, which makes the reasons for your attraction to it a whole lot clearer, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl

      
    

    :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2012 at 21:49

  88. No, no, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, again you missed a not-so-subtle clue and inserted the wrong personal pronoun into your latest stream of horseshit.

    And you should stop telling such smelly lies, see? I know it makes your skydaddy proud of you when you do but your schizophrenic skydaddy sez that bearing false witness is still a sin, you know. Rather turn the other cheek, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl.

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2012 at 21:44

  89. Shazee, ek geniet die rit waarop ek my bevind en dit is sekerlik nie dieselfde een waarop jy jou bevind. Ek het die beste raad wat daar is: Jes 9:5 Want ‘n Kind is vir ons gebore, ‘n Seun is aan ons gegee; en die heerskappy is op sy skouer, en Hy word genoem: Wonderbaar, Raadsman, Sterke God, Ewige Vader, Vredevors—

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2012 at 21:43

  90. Con-Tester, you are right, I am drowned in your stupidity as you wouldn’t even know when a question has been answered.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2012 at 21:32

  91. Nou eers Hans?
    Ek dog ek is lankal die spoor byster, maar dankie vir jou goeie wense, ek geniet nogal die rit.
    Hierdie rit waarop ons almal is, is al wat daar vir jou en my is. Neem goeie raad en begin om dit ook te geniet sonder om bang te wees dat spoke jou gaan vang en in die vuur gooi as jy nie ‘n soet seuntjie is nie.

    Shazee

    May 8, 2012 at 01:08

  92. But Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you appear to be drowned in stupidity — so much so that mimicry is your only weapon, shame.

    As you deem yourself more qualified on your Holey Babble than anyone else and as you can’t be wrong about your skydaddy, I would have thought you would be able to enlighten us regarding “spiritual (geestelik)”.

    To enter reality, you need to be critical about over-inflated kak. Your head appears to be toooooo! big.

    Your non-mindedness, excuse-mongering, lies and general bullshitting are obvious and I presume you don’t know what that means either.

    I used your words, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, because you are such an insightful genius. You teach us all so much without ever actually answering any questions. Keep up the good work.

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 21:50

  93. Con-Tester, you appear to be drowned in knowledge so much so, that understanding has eluded you, shame.
    As you deem yourself more qualified to compile a dictionary than those who did, I would have thought you would be able to enlighten us regarding “spiritual (geestelik)”.
    To enter the Kingdom of God, you need to be as a child. Your head appears to be toooooo! big.
    Your carnal mindedness is obvious and I presume you don’t know what that means ether.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 7, 2012 at 21:39

  94. But Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, that implies that you are on a rit to êrens. So where are you off to, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? Going to see your skydaddy, are you?

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 21:22

  95. Shazee, mens kan sien jy is nou die spoor byster, nouja geniet jou rit na nêrens.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 7, 2012 at 21:15

  96. Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 4, 2012 at 21:35):

    Die kern van my geloof is Emmanual, God met ons. (LW. Con-Tester, geen skydaddy)

    But Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, the kern of your galoof is still a skydaddy you call “God”. Doesn’t he kak on you when you don’t do like he sez, and doesn’t he love you and doesn’t he reward you when you do good and honour him? That’s a skydaddy, whatever other name you want to use. A bit of an egomaniacal poes maybe, but a skydaddy no less for it.

      
    

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 4, 2012 at 21:37):

    [E]k “spook” om jou bietjie geestelike insig te gee.

    What is “geestelik”, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? Functional definition, please!

      
    

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 22:26):

    [S]oos jou liggaam wat uit celle bestaan wat dood gaan en met nuwes vervang word, so is die liggaam van Christus Jesus, wat nooit verderf sal sien nie.

    Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you told another hilarious joke! That analogy is pricelessly childish and inept, and you didn’t even forget to leave out the part about what happens to the cells that die! You’re almost as good a biologist as that other wag, soois. The two of you should write a biology textbook together.

      
    

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 19:45):

    (B I B L E = Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth.)

    Well, cut me off at the knees and call me “Tripod”, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! History says nothing about NASA having written your Holey Babble. Still, what you say here is yet more proof that you believe in a skydaddy.

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 18:39

  97. Hans, jy het nog nie vir my ‘n rede gegee waarom ek nie Spiderman strokiesprente as waardevol moet beskou nie.

    BIBLE= basic idiot believer’s loony excuse

    Shazee

    May 6, 2012 at 20:47

  98. Shazee, wil jy ‘n rede hê?
    Jy het nog nie een enkele logiese rede verskaf waarom ek nie die Bybel as waardevol moet beskou nie.
    (B I B L E = Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth.)

    Hans Matthysen

    May 6, 2012 at 19:45

  99. Hans, jy gorrel alweer bybelversies. Ons is mos al hierdeur.
    Jy het tot dusver nie ‘n enkele logiese rede gegee waarom ek nie jou heilige boek moet aflag vir die primitiewe sprokie wat dit is nie.

    Shazee

    May 6, 2012 at 04:05

  100. Shazee, soos jou liggaam wat uit celle bestaan wat dood gaan en met nuwes vervang word, so is die liggaam van Christus Jesus, wat nooit verderf sal sien nie.
    Nie alle sogenaamde Christenne is deel van die liggaam want daar het baie verleiers uitgegaan.

    2Jn 1:7 Want baie verleiers het in die wêreld ingekom: die wat nie bely dat Jesus Christus in die vlees gekom het nie (LW teenwoordige tyd en nie verlede tyd nie). Dit is die verleier en die Antichris.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 5, 2012 at 22:26

  101. So alle christenne is deel van god se liggaam? Hy moet ‘n moerse liggaam he teen die tyd, en dit word net al hoe groter.
    Klink vir my maar baie pie-in-the-sky Hans.
    Om die waarheid te se, dit klink nogal baie
    sky daddy-agtig.

    As hierdie jou beste verduideliking is van wat jy glo, en waarom jy dit glo, kan jy enigiemand kwalik neem wat vir jou lag?

    Shazee

    May 5, 2012 at 05:08

  102. ErickV, jy is my geestelike probleem want ek “spook” om jou bietjie geestelike insig te gee.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 4, 2012 at 21:37

  103. Shazee, Jesus neem die brood (LW een brood) en stel dit voor as Sy liggaam. Hy breek dit en gee elke een ‘n deel daarvan om te sê, dat hulle elkeen is nou deel van Sy liggaam. 1 Kor. 12 v 27 bevestig dit.
    Die kern van my geloof is Emmanual, God met ons. (LW. Con-Tester, geen skydaddy)

    Hans Matthysen

    May 4, 2012 at 21:35

  104. Erick, ek vermoed dat jy reg is. Hans sal nie vir my ‘n sinvolle verduideliking kan gee van wat dit is wat hy glo nie. Sy “track record” tel teen hom.

    Ek is ten spyte daarvan nuuskierig, ek sal graag sy verduideliking wi hoor.

    Shazee

    May 4, 2012 at 19:59

  105. Shazee,

    Hansie Slim kan fokkol vir jou uiteensit nie. Hy het ‘n moerse geestellike probleem.

    ErickV

    May 4, 2012 at 14:28

  106. Maar Hans, daar staan duidelik en in detail in die Evangelies geskryf dat jesus as ‘n individu gesterf het en as ‘n individu opgestaan het?

    En of ek dit nou geestelik of vleeslik bedink, ek kan wragtig nie kop of gat uitmaak wat dit presies is wat jy glo nie.

    Wil jy nie die kern van jou geloof op ‘n duidelike en bondige wyse vir my uiteensit nie?

    Shazee

    May 3, 2012 at 22:57

  107. Shazee, Christus staan op in ‘n nuwe liggaam wat uit baie lede (mense) bestaan, wat Jesus is.

    1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 3, 2012 at 22:42

  108. En waar kom christus dan in Hans?
    Jy se jesus was ‘n mens wat gesterf het en weer opgestaan het. Hoekom?

    Shazee

    May 2, 2012 at 21:21

  109. Shazee, die mens, Jesus.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 2, 2012 at 21:14

  110. Hans, as jesus en christus twee verskillende entiteite is, wie het aan die kruis gesterf en weer lewendig geword na drie dae?

    Shazee

    May 2, 2012 at 04:34

  111. There, you see Hanswors? You’ve just vomited up a whole streak of skydaddy bullshit, you funny dishonest man, you. And proved my point in the process. Again.

    Con-Tester

    May 1, 2012 at 22:16

  112. Jesus verwys self na die Christus in hom; Joh 4:10 Jesus antwoord en sê vir haar: As jy die gawe van God geken het en geweet het wie Hy is wat vir jou sê: Gee vir My water om te drink, sou jy Hom gevra het en Hy sou vir jou lewende water gegee het. Ja, Jesus en Christus is twee verskillende entiteite.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 1, 2012 at 22:12

  113. Hans, kan ek net duidelikheid kry oor iets: glo jy dat jesus en Christus twee verskillende entiteite is?

    En wat bedoel jy dat jy in “man” glo?
    Is dit “man” soos in die mensdom?

    Shazee

    May 1, 2012 at 08:24

  114. Bullshit, Hanswors. Every comment you post simply oozes your I-believe-in-my-skydaddy juice. Everyone can see it except you. If your beliefs were merely “in man, namely; Love, Truth, Light (understanding), Word, Wisdom and Spirit” then why complicate them with all that Holey Babble nonsense? And what is “Spirit”, Hanswors? That is a question I have asked you numerous times that you have yet to answer, you funny, dishonest man, you.

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2012 at 22:46

  115. Con-Tester, I have never demonstrated that I believe in a skydaddy. It is your false perspective in what I believe. What I believe in, is in man, namely; Love, Truth, Light (understanding), Word, Wisdom and Spirit.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 30, 2012 at 22:38

  116. Shazee en Daan, die kind is Jesus, gebore uit Maria en die seun is Christus, nie gebore nie maar gegee.

    1 Kor. 1:24 maar vir die wat geroep is, Jode sowel as Grieke: Christus, die krag van God en die wysheid van God.

    2 Kor. 12:9 En Hy het vir my gesê: My genade is vir jou genoeg, want my krag word in swakheid volbring. Baie liewer sal ek dus in my swakhede roem, sodat die krag van Christus in my kan woon.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 30, 2012 at 22:32

  117. “Shazee, Christus is God self wat in Jesus kom woon het en nou in ons……….”

    Sorry Hans, maar dis eenvoudig nie waar nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 29, 2012 at 09:54

  118. Nee, maar dis reg Hans. Net soos ek gese het: hy is god, maar ook sy eie seun en sy eie pa.
    Wondelik!

    Jou geloof maak sin jong. Dit is so helder soos daglig.

    Jou aanhaling uit die bybel het my oortuig, hoe kon ek ooit getwyfel het??

    Shazee

    April 28, 2012 at 23:46

  119. Shazee, Christus is God self wat in Jesus kom woon het en nou in ons. Jesus is Maria se kind.
    Jes 9:5 Want ‘n Kind is vir ons gebore, ‘n Seun is aan ons gegee; en die heerskappy is op sy skouer, en Hy word genoem: Wonderbaar, Raadsman, Sterke God, Ewige Vader, Vredevors—

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:24

  120. Hanswors, take note: Then why do you keep demonstrating that you believe in one, hmm?

    And why do you keep dodging questions if not for the sake of defending your skydaddy’s skydaddiness? Is the oke such a wuss that he can’t take care of himself so he needs your protection, or what?

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2012 at 22:14

  121. Malherbe, Rom 10:17 Die geloof is dus uit die gehoor, en die gehoor is deur die woord van God.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:12

  122. Con-Tester, take note, there is no skydaddy; 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:

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:08

  123. Ja Shazee – jou bg stelling min of meer presies soos ek dit aan my dominee as 18-jarige gestel het. Maak nie saak hoe geleerd hulle is nie, hulle trap almal liederlik klei wanneer hulle hierdie 3-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is probeer verduidelik. Hoekom nie net erken dat hul 3 gode aanbid nie? – ‘n pappa, sy seun en ‘n spook. Probleem is natuurlik dat hulle dan al hoe meer soos die historiese Grieke met hul vele gode klink en dit wil hulle ten alle koste vermy.

    Malherbe

    April 28, 2012 at 18:33

  124. Nou verstaan ek Hans.
    Jesus is die seun van god, maar hy is ook god self, dus sy eie pa, en sy eie seun.
    Nie alleen dit nie, maar hy is ook in elke mens wat in hom glo, dus in miljoene liggame, wat eintlik net een liggaaam is.
    Dit maak perfekte sin Hans, jy verduidelik dinge darrem so mooi.

    Shazee

    April 28, 2012 at 00:41

  125. Hans, kan jy ‘n bewys vir jou gode se bestaan verskaf wat nie op jou bybel gebaseer is nie?

    Malherbe

    April 27, 2012 at 22:33

  126. No Hanswors, the point is that if you claim that something is true, you must be able to prove it. And the more remarkable your claim is, the more urgent it is that you prove it. Instead, all that you’ve ever done is to say in effect, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” And you’ve just done it again, you funny man, you!

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2012 at 21:47

  127. Shazee, Jesus neem die brood by Sy laaste maaltyd, breek dit en gee dit aan hulle om aan te dui dat Sy liggaam waarin die Christus is, is nou nie meer in een mens nie, maar in vele lede, tog een liggaam. 1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 27, 2012 at 21:47

  128. Con-Tester, the point is, there are things others know, have experienced and have had proof that is only for those who seek it.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 27, 2012 at 21:39

  129. Hanswors, I said “fucking up”. You misread. And are you sure that “A” your wife gives you is not just to stroke your ego? Or does she perhaps also mean “fucking up”? Because you do that exceptionally well, I’ll grant you…

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2012 at 23:09

  130. Ok, fine Hans, verduidelik nou vir my die storie van die twee jesusse. Asseblief man. Ek dink nie jy kan nie, en daarom verander jy nou weer die onderwerp.

    Shazee

    April 26, 2012 at 23:09

  131. Con-Tester, at least my wife gives me an “A” for fucking and she has proof, yet she is not able to present it to you or anyone else. You will just have to take her word for it.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2012 at 23:02

  132. Shazee, Sy lewe het in baie se harte geskrywe tot vandag toe nog.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2012 at 22:59

  133. Yes Shazee, it’s always been my understanding, too, that there’s just one Jeeeeeeebusssst!. Well, sort of. The head honcho who is one is actually three but really just one. It’s all frightfully complicated but makes perfect sense to godiots. Point being, it’s one or three. It sez nuffink about two as far as I’m aware. No doubt Hanswors will pull an “explanation” from his bum (or three bums, I dunno) and so help us understand by further muddying the situation thoroughly…

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 22:40

  134. Wat bedoel jy hy was die skrywer van jou geloof Hans? Ek weet nie van een plek in die bybel waar jesus self skryf nie. Alles wat jesus na bewering gese het is minstens tweedehandse oorvertellings. Nie een van die bybelskrywers kon jesus (as hy ooit histories bestaan het) self geken het nie, of self gehoor het wat hy te vertelle gehad het nie.

    Ten spyte van die bogenoemde verstaan ek nog steeds nie die storie van die twee jesusse nie. Sover ek weet maak die bybel net melding van een?

    Shazee

    April 25, 2012 at 22:00

  135. Yes Hanswors, it’s totally obvious how advantageous Jeeeeeebussssst! was for you… :roll: :mrgreen: :roll:

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 21:25

  136. Shazee, Hy is die skrywer van ons geloof en Hy het die “Weg” vir ons gebaan, kyk dus watse groot voordeel Hy was vir my.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 25, 2012 at 21:20

  137. Congratulations Hanswors, you actually doubt something! Well fucking done, ou drolkop, however misplaced that doubt is. It does rather put a dent in your infallibility, though. An expert like you should not doubt; rather, you should know. So I award you an “F” for fucking up.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 21:15

  138. Con-Tester, at least I can make you smile a lot and I doubt if you can do the same to your fellow man.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 25, 2012 at 21:08

  139. Nou ja toe Hans, ek dog ek is sarkasties en nou vertel jy my wragtig ek is nogal op die regte spoor!
    Dit lyk my daar is werklik niks te belaglik om te glo nie.
    Vertel my nou; as die jesus wat aan die kruis gesterf het jou nie help nie, wat was die punt daarvan, en waarom is dit in die bybel aangeteken?

    Shazee

    April 25, 2012 at 04:57

  140. :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: Hanswors, is there no end to all the things that are lost on you? :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2012 at 23:30

  141. Jan Swart, no wonder they persecuted Jesus and His disciples. They must have been in the “Way”.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 24, 2012 at 23:24

  142. Shazee, 1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik.
    Kol. 1:24 Nou verbly ek my in my lyding vir julle en vul in my vlees aan die oorblyfsels van die verdrukking van Christus vir sy liggaam, wat die gemeente is;
    Rom 8:1 Daar is dan nou geen veroordeling vir die wat in Christus Jesus is nie, vir die wat nie na die vlees wandel nie, maar na die Gees.
    Dit wil voorkom of jy amper iets verstaan wat ek geskryf het en daarom meld ek bostaande verse wat moontlik verder lig op die saak sal gee.
    2 000jr van nou sal daar nog steeds ‘n liggaam van Christus wees, naamlik die gemeente.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 24, 2012 at 23:22

  143. Ha-ha-ha, you’re such a wit, Hanswors. So very funny all the time, what with your infallible knowledge. But the appearance of my immaturity is just you finally picking up on the fact that I’m reflecting your own approach. What’s giving me trouble, though, is that I can never plunge all the way to your levels of infantile asininity. Still, I promise to keep practising…

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2012 at 23:11

  144. Con-Tester, jy kom nogal baie onvolwasse voor vir jou ouderdom en moontlik is die klem op die dom?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 24, 2012 at 23:04

  145. Damn straight.

    Shazee

    April 24, 2012 at 13:28

  146. Mark Twain:

    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

    I, for one, look forward to meeting all you heathens, heretics, apostates, blasphemers, iconoclasts, unbelievers and irreverent low-lives. Try as I might, I simply can’t imagine a torture more horrifying than to have to listen to the suffocatingly unctuous and cloying praise doled out by the blessed faithful 24/7 for all eternity…

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2012 at 10:03

  147. Wat ek oor wonder, is waarna dit is wat die ouens presies so vreeslik na uitsien.
    Ek was al in kerkdienste waar die dominee redelik “entertaining” is, ten spyte van die stront wat hy kwytraak, maar die meeste daarvan is maar erg vervelig.
    Byna elke persoon wat so pligsgetrou kerk toe gaan elke Sondag, is maar net te verlig om na ‘n uur daar uit te kom. Hulle sit in die kerk en uitsien na die skaapboud in die oond, en die paar lekker wyne voor die middag slapie.
    Min mense kry nie die Sondag-aand “blues” nie.

    Die ouens het nie mooi hieroor gedink nie. As hulle reg is, wag daar ‘n ewigheid van Sondae op hulle. Dit laat my wonder waarom hulle nodig gehad het om die hel uit te dink.

    Shazee

    April 24, 2012 at 09:28

  148. If Jesus is “the way” and to be a Christian is to be “in Christ”, aren’t Christians just in the way? – Jimmy Carr

    Jan Swart

    April 24, 2012 at 08:46

  149. Laat ek kyk of ek dit reg verstaan Hans: jesus (die mens) het 2000 jaar gelede aan ‘n kruis gesterf, maar dit help jou fokkol, want jy het nie 2000 jaar terug geleef nie.
    Christus (wat die jesus van vandag is) het ook gesterf (hoe en waar?), maar hierdie keer help dit jou wel, omdat jy vandag leef.

    Veronderstel die oordeelsdag kom eers oor nog 2000 jaar van nou af; sou dit dan beteken dat die jesus van vandag nie die mense wat dan leef in die hemel kan kry nie?

    Gaan daar nog ‘n reeks jesusse kom wat die mense wat in hulle tyd leef moet red?

    Is dit min of meer die “waarheid” wat aan jou onthul is?

    Shazee

    April 24, 2012 at 04:29

  150. Well shit, Hanswors, now why didn’t you say that right from the start!? That your Jeeeeeeebussssst! has multiple personality disorder along the lines dividing his name? Fuck, it explains everything

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 23:28

  151. Shazee, Jesus en Christus is nie dieselfde nie. Jesus is die mens en Christus is Krag, wysheid ens. van God.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 23:23

  152. Vreemder, en vreemder, Hans. Ek dog daar is net een got en hy bestaan nog altyd. Natuurlik is daar drie, waarvan jesus een is, maar aldrie is mos eintlik een, nie waar nie?
    Nou vertel jy my daar is eintlik twee jesussies, een wat twee duisend jaar terug geleef het, en ‘n ander een wat nou leef – what gives? Verduidelik ‘n bietjie daai een, asseblief man.

    Shazee

    April 23, 2012 at 11:36

  153. Shazee, Jesus Christus, van die teenswoordige tyd, het vir my sondes gesterwe sodat ek ook dieselfde pad kan volg, terwille van ander. Met ander woorde ek lewe nie meer net vir myself nie maar ook vir ander. Die detail is belangrik omdat dit die verskil is tussen verbeelding en realyteit.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 10:56

  154. Yet again, the community of puffed-up cretins presumes to speak on matters well beyond its reach.

    What a bunch of clowns. And to think anyone takes these arseholes seriously when they can hardly ever agree on what’s what in their funny little mediaeval world.

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 08:57

  155. Ok Hans, ek moet seker aanvaar dat dit die naaste is wat jy daaraan sal kom om ‘n vraag te antwoord. Ek neem jou antwoord as “ja”.
    Jy het natuurlik geen ander keuse nie, want as jy nie erken jesus het vir jou sondes gesterf nie, is jy nie ‘n christen nie.

    En nou is ons terug by my oorspronklike punt: alle christene, jy inkluis, glo almal basies diieselfde kak, julle verskil net oor die detail.

    Shazee

    April 22, 2012 at 04:24

  156. Ha-ha-ha Hanswors, you may think you know about your Holey Babble, so rather stick to that because it’s highly entertaining watching your bumbling inanity in action. Also, because when it comes to reality, you fail. Miserably.
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    April 21, 2012 at 22:52

  157. Shazee, Jesus het gesterwe sodat ek ook die sonde in my lewe kan afsterwe.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 21, 2012 at 22:50

  158. Con-Tester, you do seem to know about grammar and spelling so rather stick to that because where the Bible is concerned, you fail.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 21, 2012 at 22:47

  159. Hans, dit is nogal “entertaining” om te kyk hoeveel maniere jy kan vind om ‘n reguit vraag te vermy.
    Jesus van vandag, jesus van 2000 jaar gelede, whatever. Glo jy jesus het vir jou sondes gesterf, watter een ookal?

    Shazee

    April 21, 2012 at 04:04

  160. ErickV, daar is net een God wat in Sy seun van vandag geopenbaar word en ek hang/hou nie beeldjies aan nie. Dit wil voor kom of jy nou nog nie wakker geskrik het nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 20, 2012 at 22:57

  161. Hey Hanswors, no spelling or grammar errors for once! Well done, old boy. On second thoughts, I take that back. Your stupid comment would have been linguistically acceptable had you written “… that proves that you are dumb…”

    As for your “facts” and your “reasoning”, well, they are as faulty and as vrot as ever. See, you’re not having a discussion. You don’t even know what that word means. You’re delivering a Hanswors sermon in your usual lame preachy style. But do carry on. If nothing else, it’s vaguely entertaining watching you happing bubbles.

    Con-Tester

    April 20, 2012 at 22:53

  162. Shazee, weens jou gebrek aan kennis aangaande wat in die Bybel geskryf staan, is dit werklik jy wat nie jou vraag verstaan nie. Ek het nie 2000jr gelede gelewe, dus kan net die Jesus Christus van nou, vir my sondes sterwe.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 20, 2012 at 22:50

  163. Con-Tester, one of the reasons that prove that you are dumb is because you deviate from the discussion.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 20, 2012 at 22:44

  164. Hansie,

    Lekker dik vellig ne?
    Nou nog ‘n vragie aan jou. In die 10 gebooie word daar gese dat jy net een god mag aanbid. Jy mag nie enige ander god of afbeelding aanbid nie. Hoekom stig julle fokken dom dose dan nog ‘n god met die naam JESUS en maak afbeeltjies van hom?
    Maar nou ja, ons het mos al gesien dat jy is nie in staat om ENIGE reguit antwoord te gee nie.
    Toe, kom nou uit met nog ‘n fokken versie waarin jy so verstrengel is.

    ErickV

    April 20, 2012 at 04:57

  165. Hans, dit is tog ‘n baie eenvoudige en reguit vraag. Ek vra nie waarop jy jou geloof basseer nie, ek wil net weet of jy glo jesus het vir jou sondes gesterf, en dat jy daarom hemel toe gaan.

    Dit behoort jou te bekommer dat jy nie ‘n reguit antwoord op die vraag kan gee nie. As jy nie kategories “ja” kan antwoord op so ‘n vraag nie, is jy mos nie “gered” nie?
    Daar is net twee moontlike antwoorde op die vraag Hans ; “ja ek glo dit” – of – “nee, ek glo dit nie”.

    Dit is nie ‘n strikvraag nie Hans, ek probeer jou nie in ‘n lokval lei nie, ek wil bloot weet of jy dit glo, of nie. Is jy skaam om direk, en sonder enige ontwyking, te se wat jy glo?

    Shazee

    April 20, 2012 at 04:26

  166. So Hanswors, let’s see if I got your consistency right. On the one hand you keep insisting how “dum” I am and how my contributions aren’t worth any comment. On the other, you keep commenting anyway. Did I get that right?

    Then you go all self-righteously “has deviated from discussion” when it’s far beyond your capabilities to even have a discussion at all. More than that, it’s far beyond your capabilities to realise that you are incapable of anything one could fairly call a “discussion”. (Dunning-Kruger, anyone?) All you can do is preach and babble and sermonise and drone on endlessly about your childish flights of fancy. And make up convenient bullshit when challenged. What a funny man you are, Hanswors.

    I suppose you need to be a D-flawless 24-carat Holey Babble-toting godiot/bibliot/crediot/apologiot/religiot to see the consistency in your approach. But don’t stop, see? We need okes like you to keep demonstrating the utter ridiculousness of the horseshit you’re trying to sell…

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 22:58

  167. Con-Tester, (Has deviated from discussion)

    Hans Matthysen

    April 19, 2012 at 22:49

  168. 1 Con. 14:22 Die tale is dus ’n teken nie vir die denkendes nie, maar vir die godiote; die profesie egter is nie vir die dekendes nie, maar vir die godiote.

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 22:47

  169. ErickV, janee, jy sou ‘n goeie Pinkster gelowige gewees het want ek sien jy kan vreemde tale praat. Jy is mos ‘n ongelowige nè? 1 Kor. 14:22 Die tale is dus ‘n teken nie vir die gelowiges nie, maar vir die ongelowiges; die profesie egter is nie vir die ongelowiges nie, maar vir die gelowiges.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 19, 2012 at 22:42

  170. Try again Hanswors. You haven’t answered Shazee’s question. As usual, you have just dodged, evaded, avoided and bullshitted your way past it without saying anything of any substance.

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 22:35

  171. Shazee, Rom 8:1 Daar is dan nou geen veroordeling vir die wat in Christus Jesus is nie, vir die wat nie na die vlees wandel nie, maar na die Gees. (Dit wil voorkom of Jesus van heden se tyd, is die een ter sprake, wat vir jou sondes sterwe, sou jy in Hom lewe.) (1Kor. 12 v 27)
    Rom 6:6 aangesien ons dit weet dat ons oue mens saam gekruisig is, sodat die liggaam van die sonde tot niet gemaak sou word en ons nie meer die sonde sou dien nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 19, 2012 at 22:29

  172. Hansie,

    My fok, maar jy is onnosel. Weet jy ooit wat is bliksemse liefde? As jy se “god” is liefde, dan is jou liefde fokkol, ziltch, niks, mahala, bokkerol! Soos C-T se, jy weet fokkol, ziltch, niks, mahala, bokkerol van my af.
    Gelukkig is ek nie so ‘n onnosele doos soos jy nie! My lewe het tien duisend keer meer waarde as jou eenvoudige, zombie agtige wese.
    Weet jy ooit dat jou “wese” een moerse geluk is? Weet jy ooit dat jy die een fokken spermpie is wat die wedren gewen het? Moet nou nie se dat dit die fokken wil van een of ander bokdrol op ‘n wolkie is nie!
    En nou sit die wereld met jou eenvoudige “wese” opgeskeep. Plaas dat ENIGE ander spermpie gewen het. Dan was ons ten minste fokken ontslae van jou!
    Jy is fokkol, ziltch, niks, mahala, bokkerol. Jy het GEEN waarde nie!
    So, gaan pleeg selfmoord sodat ons en die res van die wereld ontslae kan wees van jou. Jy en die ander fokken godiote is slegs ‘n fokken virus vir die wereld!

    ErickV

    April 19, 2012 at 05:36

  173. Ek het nie geweet daar is twee van hulle nie Hans, maar ok, enige van die twee, watter een jy ookal in glo.

    Shazee

    April 18, 2012 at 23:36

  174. What a funny man you are, Hanswors. Do you really think nobody sees how hard you are avoiding a straight answer to Shazee’s question!? :D :D :D

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 22:54

  175. Shazee, Jesus van heden se tyd of van Nàsaret?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 22:42

  176. My fok, maar jy’s ’n arrogante drolkop, Hanswors! Watse fokken voorbarigheid moedig jy jouself aan om vir ’n ou oor wie jy fokkol weet, te sê at hy nie liefde ken nie!? Luister nou mooi vir oom Con-Tester: Jou onnosel verbeeldingsvlugte is nie feite nie, hoor

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 22:36

  177. ErickV, volgens die Bybel is God liefde (1 Joh. 4:8 Hy wat nie liefhet nie, het God nie geken nie, want God is liefde) en ek ken God. Jammer dat jou lewe so armsalig is, dat jy nie liefde ken nie. Jy is nie net dof nie, dit blyk nag by jou te wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 22:29

  178. Sure thing Hanswors, but your inability to speak sense is a manifest fact at this point. Do you know what “clear and specific” means, Hanswors?

    (That’s another question you won’t answer.)

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 22:23

  179. Con-Tester, sorry man, I didn’t expect you to be so dumb so just ignore what I wrote.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 22:15

  180. Hans, kan ek in die hemel kom as ek nie glo jesus het vir my sondes gesterf nie?

    Shazee

    April 18, 2012 at 17:03

  181. Hansie,

    Dit is hoog tyd dat jy ook besef dat daar absoluut geen bewyse in die bybel is vir die bestaan van ENIGE god nie. Slegs Moses het beweer dat hy direk met die sogenaamde “god” gepraat het, wat natuurlik ‘n kak storie is.
    “Liewe Jesus” is as gevolg van rebelsheid deur die Romeine aan ‘n kruis was gespuiker en hy het gevrek en gevrot in die aarde.
    Alles in die bybel is hoorse. Besef dit vir ‘n fokken slag. Niks wat jy gorrel is die waarheid nie!
    Bliksem, maar jy is dof!

    ErickV

    April 18, 2012 at 05:19

  182. Hanswors, what is this “one day you also will not be tangible” stuff you’re babbling? Come now, be clear and specific.

    As for your Holey Babble verse, I infer that I’m lost and you are found because “our” gospel isn’t hidden. Who is this “our”, Hanswors? Come now, be clear and specific.

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2012 at 23:27

  183. Con-Tester, you are confined to things tangible and one day you also will not be tangible. 2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

    Hans Matthysen

    April 17, 2012 at 23:18

  184. Shit Hanswors, your “nederigheid” is fucking impressive. Almost as much as how “erkentlik you are. Still, when it’s not possible that you could be wrong and you’re a total expert on understanding your Holey Babble, you don’t need to understand a straightforward question like the one Shazee asked you. Because then you can pull an “answer” like yours from your arse that is a steaming pile of horseshit which doesn’t even begin to address what was asked!

    My, what a powerful bag of tricks you have! :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2012 at 23:16

  185. Malherbe, it is obvious that you only utilize a small part of your small mind and no wonder the happy look that must be on your face. Get it?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 17, 2012 at 23:13

  186. Shazee, sekerlik nie, ons moet soos Hy lewe. 1 Joh. 1:7 Maar as ons in die lig wandel soos Hy in die lig is, dan het ons gemeenskap met mekaar; en die bloed van Jesus Christus, sy Seun, reinig ons van alle sonde.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 17, 2012 at 23:05

  187. Quite correct Hans – small things do amuse small minds. Compared to the Dawkinses and Coynes of this world, I am quite happy to admit to having a small mind. That is why you amuse me, Hans. Get it?

    Malherbe

    April 17, 2012 at 08:38

  188. More of your own version of “nederigheid”, eh Hanswors? I mean, not only is it impossible for you to be wrong, not only have you ever conceded that there might be some things you don’t know, not only are you never without an answer (no matter how stupid and bullshit), now you are also giving out “hidden treasures”.

    You can’t prove a single thing about them, let alone that they exist. All you can do is spout horseshit and say, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.”

    Belese dwaas” or not, Malherbe’s “hidden treasures” are worth infinitely more than the sewage you’re pumping, Hanswors. At least his treasures relate to something tangible, namely your daffiness.
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    April 16, 2012 at 08:06

  189. Hans, glo jy dat jesus vir my sondes gesterf het, en dat ek net die die ewige lewe kan kry as ek dit glo en aanvaar?

    Shazee

    April 16, 2012 at 05:55

  190. Malherbe, “small things amuse small minds”. Jy is nie in staat om met my gesprek te voer, oor wat in die unieke boek geskryf staan en dus wend jy jou nou na vermaaklikheid om aandag weg te trek van jou onbeholpenheid en ‘n belese dwaas soos CT, val daarvoor. Siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2012 at 00:14

  191. ErickV, ek aanbid nie die kruis nie en verstaan eerder die boodskap wat daarin lê. Ek weet ook van Konstantyn en dat hulle christendom gekaap het. Ek dra ook nie goeters om my nek en al daardie twak nie. Dit wil voorkom of julle almal, nie mooi oplet na wat ek die afgelope jare vir julle skryf nie omdat julle te vol bevooroordeling is. Dit is reeds ‘n teken dat julle gebreinspoel is.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2012 at 00:05

  192. Shazee, jy het moontlik baie mense kennis opgedoen, maar daar is kennis wat vir jou nog verborge is omdat jy dink, ek glo basie soos al die ander denomienasies.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 15, 2012 at 23:49

  193. Con-Tester, I expect nothing from nobody and if you can not see the hidden treasures I am willing to give all for, then it is not meant to be.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 15, 2012 at 23:40

  194. Kostelik en innie kol! :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2012 at 16:42

  195. Net vir jou Hans. En, ja ek besef die digkuns nie my sterkste punt nie – nes redevoering nie joune is nie.

    ODE AAN HANSWORS

    Daar was ’n man by name Hanswors,
    wat geglo het in die gotte se tjol.
    Soos my hond wat sy Kosbak aanbid,
    in die hoop vir meer Epol.

    Hy kan geen bewyse bring,
    Hou maar net aan glo in sy selfgeskepte entiteit,
    wat die rol vervul,
    van beter voel met wollerigheid.

    Sy gotte is goed,
    dit staan mos geskryf,
    in ’n stowwerige Boek.
    Gepen deur bronstyd bokherders,
    Wat verveeld was met draadtrek,
    en ’n leeftyd as swerwers.

    Toe skryf hul ’n boek,
    vol fabels en anner kak,
    en stel dit voor as ’n smaaklike koek,
    sodat die gepeupel kan smul,
    aan hul strontversierde gebak.

    Al beveel hul gotte verkragting en moord,
    Al word daar nie gehoor gegee,
    aan die onskuldige se nood.
    Die Hansworse sal glo,
    Hul sal glo tot die dood.
    Want rede maak vir hul geen sin.
    Bewys is net nog ’n woord.

    En met elke weergebore,
    raak hul net dieper,
    en verder velore,
    ‘n Domastrante kloot,
    wat nors is wanneer rasionele denke,
    hul selfgeskepte gekkeparadys onbloot.

    Malherbe

    April 14, 2012 at 16:25

  196. Hansie,

    Ek is net baie bly ek is nie deel van jou gesin nie. Ek sou al lankal wegehardloop het.
    Weet jy ooit wie Keiser Konstantyn was?
    Wel, hy is die vader van christenskap. Die drie-enigheid is deur hom en sy trawante geskep.
    Hy was ‘n ROMEINSE KEISER in die jaar 325 toe hulle op die drie-enigheid besluit het. So, dit is definitief nie 2000 jaar oud soos deur die christene (of is dit nou kruistene) beweer en belieg nie.
    Dit is regtig ‘n jammerte dat jy as gevolg van die doktrine so agterwee gebly het. Jy weet fokkol anders as die bybel nie!
    Hoekom aanbid die christene die kruis? Moet my nou nie kom vertel dat dit nie so is nie. Kyk maar hoeveel van julle dra die simbool van wreedheid om julle nekke. Hoeveel kruise is in die kerke?
    Maar nee, gebreinspoel sal julle gebreinspoel bly.

    ErickV

    April 14, 2012 at 05:30

  197. Hans, alle christelike denomienasies wat vandag bestaan kan uiteindelik hulle oorsprong terugvoer na die RCC. Julle glo almal basies dieselfde stront, maar stry bloot onder mekaar oor die detail van julle verbeeldingsvlugte.

    Shazee

    April 14, 2012 at 05:09

  198. Shazee, as die RCC se voorgangers Jesus Christus en Sy volgelinge probeer vernietig het, kon hulle ware Christenne gewees het? Hierdie ander klomp wat so baie geld maak onder die dekmantel van Jesus Chritus of die Christendom, is hulle ware Christenne? Ons moet waak en bid, en nie slaap en bid nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 13, 2012 at 22:36

  199. Yes Hanswors, mimicry is where your talents end. You keep showing it.

    And more Hanswors, it’s just just like your smug and conceited “nederigheid” comment in the The Year of the Atheist thread where you clearly expect everyone to fall on their knees in praise of O! Great! Hanswors’! supreme knowledge of all things Hansworsian. You’re an arrogant an funny little man. Where’s your own “nederigheid”, drolkop?

    Con-Tester

    April 13, 2012 at 22:32

  200. Con-Tester, you are a sad big joke.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 13, 2012 at 22:28

  201. ErickV, wanneer ons oor die Bybel en Christendom praat, dan is Bybel versies gepas of weet jy dit nie?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 13, 2012 at 22:25

  202. Hansie,

    Wanneer jy met jou gesin gesels, haal jy ook dan bybel versies aan?
    Dit lyk vir my so, want ek glo nie jy kan sonder bybel versies kommunikeer nie!
    Dit alleen is genoeg bewys dat jy in bybel versies verstringel is.

    ErickV

    April 13, 2012 at 13:24

  203. Of is dit nou weer “simboliese” pratende slange, Hans? Ek kan altyd jou verbeeldingsvlugte so mooi uitmekaar uit hou nie, daar is so baie.

    Shazee

    April 12, 2012 at 22:14

  204. Vir iemand wat aan pratende slange glo sal ek nie so vinnig wees om van ander ouens bewyse te vra nie Hans.

    Shazee

    April 12, 2012 at 22:10

  205. ErickV, jy kan tot nou toe nie bewys dat ek in bybel versies verstrengel is.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 12, 2012 at 22:02

  206. Is dit die beste wat jy kan doen Hans? Lyk my het heeltemal opgegee. Hoog tyd.

    Shazee

    April 12, 2012 at 22:01

  207. Shazee, jy het net een punt en dit is dat jy stry teen jou beter wete.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 12, 2012 at 21:56

  208. Very original Hanswors. And very mature, too. Your skills as a copycat/bullshit artist/master evader aren’t in question. Nor is your inability to address valid questions satisfactorily. Your idiotic babble is now merely, “Nyah-nyah, I’ll say anything just to have something to say.”

    You’ve become a sad little joke and only you can’t see it.

    Con-Tester

    April 12, 2012 at 21:55

  209. Con-Tester, look who’s talking!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 12, 2012 at 21:49

  210. Die spreekwoord se “Niemand is so blind as die mens wat nie wil sien nie”.
    Ek se weer “Niemand is so blind as die mens wat in bybel versies verstrengel is nie”.
    Ou Hansie is een moerse voorbeeld daarvan!

    ErickV

    April 12, 2012 at 05:03

  211. Hoekom het ek net geweet jy gaan met daai ou kak storietjie uitkom Hans?
    Hierdie ouens mag dalk fucked-up wees, maar hulle is nie ware christenne nie.
    Ek lag my ‘n papie vir die voorspelbaarheid – gaan google maar weer “no true Scotsman” Hans.

    En los nou maar die storie van die wolke Hans. Dit raak afgesaag. Jy het duidelik my punt totaal en al gemis. Jy vergat net jou naam verder met nog verduidelikings.

    Shazee

    April 12, 2012 at 01:41

  212. Shazee, jy het duidelik nie aan die voorbeeld wat Jesus gestel het, gedink.
    Die Romeine saam met die Jode het die “ware Christenne” vervolg en die RCC tot stand gebring nadat hulle die Christendom gekaap het, so jy het nou duidelik gedwaal.
    Jy het nog verder verdwaal omdat jy nie Heb. 12 v 1, behoorlik gelees het. Die wolk waarna verwys word, is die skare mense bymekaar. Lees tog maar weer met verstand en nie soos een wat onnosel is nie asb.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2012 at 23:15

  213. Hanswors, again you are the epitome of one who should talk. And that would be “monotonous”. One would have thought that someone as well-practised in soporific monotony as you would at least get that right.

    And if my comments bore you so, you can make like your intellectual kindergarten pal, ol’ potatosoois: You can ignore them, but this obvious little solution just doesn’t occur to a brain-dead religiot/bibliot/apologiot/godiot/crediot. You morons just cannot stand not saying something when your stupidity is brought to light. So just carry on doing your thing, Hanswors. You’re doing a fine job showing the world how dense you twits really are.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2012 at 23:11

  214. Con-Tester, your usual monotones bullshit never ceases.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2012 at 23:00

  215. En dit is ’n vraag wat elke leser vir hom- of haarself moet ontrafel hoekom ou Hanswors so fokken onbekwaam is…

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2012 at 22:58

  216. ErickV, lees tog Mat. 19 v 12. Want daar is persone wat onbekwaam is om te trou, wat van die moederskoot af so gebore is, en daar is persone wat deur die mense onbekwaam gemaak is, en daar is persone wat hulleself onbekwaam gemaak het ter wille van die koninkryk van die hemele. Wie dit kan vat, laat hom dit vat.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2012 at 22:52

  217. Jan Swart, but you will be in everlasting death.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2012 at 22:46

  218. Goeie punt Jan. Die klipkoppe wil seker nie alleen suffer nie.

    Shazee

    April 11, 2012 at 21:05

  219. Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell when I die?”
    Priest: “No, not if you did not know.”
    Eskimo: “THEN WHY DID YOU TELL ME?’

    Jan Swart

    April 11, 2012 at 16:45

  220. Barbaarse praktyke soos Jim Jones?

    ErickV

    April 11, 2012 at 14:23

  221. So sien ‘n mens ook baie keer teef op teef en reun op reun!

    ErickV

    April 11, 2012 at 14:18

  222. Hierdie afgelope naweek sien ek mos nou hoe die Jack Russel teef die jonger reuntjie van agter probeer spyker! Ek vind dit toe baie amusant toe ek daardie oomblik aan die “gay” stront dink wat die kruistene alewig gorrel. Is dit ook Adam en Eva se skuld?

    ErickV

    April 11, 2012 at 14:16

  223. And of course there’s the very curious flipside of cultures who hadn’t heard word one of Hanswors’ virgin-raping skydaddy or his illegitimate son Jeeeeeebussssst! but who nonetheless had few if any practices we would consider barbaric even today. In fact, the conceit of “knowing” this psychopathic skydaddy makes it easy to incite and to justify perpetrating horrors on others who aren’t part of the in-crowd.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2012 at 08:09

  224. “Gelowe wat barbaarse praktyke beoefen” – nogals ne?
    Is dit nou byvoorbeeld praktyke soos die beskaafde martel metodes van die Spaanse inkwisisie Hans? Of dalk soos die gebruik om ‘n Edward Mortara van sy ouers weg te neem omdat ‘n jong dogter water op sy voorkop gedoop het?
    Is dit dalk die gebruik om vrouens as hekse te vermoor omdat iemand se koei nie meer melk gee nie?
    Moontlik verwys jy na die derduisende mense wat gedurende die kruisvaarte in jesus se naam vermoor is. Of dalk dink jy aan die mislukte aartappelboer wat ons vertel hoe vrouens hulle mans onderdanig moet wees?
    Wag, ek het dit nou, jy bedoel seker die dominees wat ons vertel het dit is jesus se wil dat mense wat nie presies soos jy lyk en klink nie, eintlik die kinders van Gam is, wat bedoel is om houthakers en waterdraers te wees?
    Natuurlik Hans, jy is reg; waar sou ons tog sonder jesus en sy beskaafde pappa gewees het?

    Wat betref god wat op die wolke sit; ai tog Hans.
    Jy is dan so ‘n deskundige op simboliek en metafore. Dink jy regtig ek dink jy glo in ‘n ou omie met ‘n lang baard wat op die wolke bo ons koppe sit? – alhoewel………

    Shazee

    April 11, 2012 at 02:21

  225. Shazee, die voorbeeld wat Jesus gestel het, het juis moraliteit verkondig aan barbaarse voorgeslagte. Daar is nou nog gelowe wat barbaarse praktyke beoefen omdat hulle nie Jesus se voorbeeld navolg nie.
    Wat die wolke betref, lees die volgende in die ou en nuwe vertalings en jy sal moontlik verstaan dat die wolk of wolke waarna verwys word is nie die natuurlike wolke daar bo in die blou lug nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 10, 2012 at 21:37

  226. So what, Hanswors? What’s this babble supposed to mean, besides stating the obvious with a bit of shiftiness thrown in? Are you just trying to sound clever or do you actually have something worthwhile to say for a change? ’Cos you’re sounding as daffy as ever. Explain what you mean, please!

    And you really should study “Poe’s Law”. You might learn something new that’s a little more advanced than this stale Standard-three goofiness you keep trying and trying and trying to entertain us with.

    Con-Tester

    April 10, 2012 at 21:31

  227. Con-Tester, when something is difficult it is still possible and when something is impossible, it most probably can’t be done or rarely be done. The opinion of one who finds things difficult or impossible will differ from the opinion of another who doesn’t find things difficult or impossible.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 10, 2012 at 21:25

  228. I must admit to a certain schadenfreude about the decline of “die kerk”.
    My only concern is that many of the former members are finding a new home in the charismatic churches which are just as loony, and a lot more noisy.
    Some are even falling for the mighty moron’s brand of nuttiness.

    Shazee

    April 10, 2012 at 20:52

  229. Despite some intellectual fossils’ concerted efforts to anchor it in the 17th century,the DRC’s exclusionary history is paying big dividends. The irony is a delicious treat, best savoured slowly.

    Con-Tester

    April 10, 2012 at 09:41

  230. Hans, ons was eens op ‘n tyd diere in die veld (ewolusie, onthou jy nou weer?). Die meeste van ons het gevorder tot waar ons nie meer die donderweer, of die son, of jou drie-in-een-god aanbid nie.
    Jy maak ‘n reuse denkfout as jy dink ek het ‘n god nodig om moreel op te tree. Dink net wat dit van jou openbaar as jy beweer jy het ‘n god nodig om moreel op te tree; jy steel of pleeg nie moord nie, jy molesteer nie kinders nie omdat god vir jou kyk.
    Ek, aan die ander kant, weerhou my van die soort optrede ten spyte daarvan dat ek nie glo “big brother” hou my van die wolke af dop nie.
    Ek vermoed in elk geval dat die meeste christene banger vir die polisie as vir god is.

    Shazee

    April 10, 2012 at 06:02

  231. Shazee, ek kan mos nou nie help as jy jou so baie onnosel hou nie. Jy het seker maar nie mooi opgelet oor als wat geskryf is nie.
    Ek het geen probleem oor wat in die Bybel staan want ons behoort in elk geval nie deur ons begeertes ons te laat oorheers nie. Ons behoort selfbeheersing toe te pas en ons nie oor te gee aan dit wat imoreel is nie. Sonder God se Gees sal ons, ons sekerlik oorgee aan imorele losbandigheid soos die dier van die veld.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 9, 2012 at 23:07

  232. So Hanswors, you would rather tell more Holey Babble lies to cover up your previous ones than be honest and admit that you’re bullshitting. I’m sure your skydaddy would be quite proud of this evading, avoiding, dodging and general bullshitting you do for him…

    And you didn’t bother to look up “Poe’s Law”, did you now? Come, come, be honest now and admit that you didn’t.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 22:57

  233. Con-Tester, I will ignore the bullshit you wrote and thanks for now I understand the word “eunuch” much better and I therefore agree.
    I do think that the RCC has it wrong when I look at the following verse: 1Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    They are not husbands of one wife.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 9, 2012 at 22:49

  234. Oh wait, I forgot that ol’ lamb-chop-with-potatosoois is studiously ignoring me. This is something that usually comes to the fore when a few moments before he’s talked up a steaming pile of fundie kak and I’ve challenged him to talk a bit of sense for a change. One would think that the world’s greatest unpublished biologist/philosopher/know-it-all wouldn’t be prone to the sulks, but there you go.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 21:28

  235. Soois, julle ouens moet nou besluit of julle god almagtig is of nie. As hy almagtig is, hoe het die duiwel hom so maklik ore aangesit? Volgens julle vat dit hom nou al duisende jare om die skade wat die duiwel aangerig het te probeer herstel. Redelik pateties vir ‘n almagtige skepper, dink jy nie?

    Verduidelik ook sommer hoe die duisende jare se gewag dat ons, ons moet bekeer nou eintlik ‘n bewys van sy groot genade is. Hoeveel geslagte kan jy in ‘n duisend jaar inpas Soois?
    Ek leef nie duisende jare nie Soois. Al wat jou god doen is om toe te laat dat meer en meer gaslagte gebore word waarvan die meeste “verlore” sal gaan. Baie is mos geroep, maar min uitverkies ne?
    As die redenasie nie so klip onnosel was nie sou dit lagwekkend gewees het.

    Shazee

    April 9, 2012 at 20:50

  236. In short then, soois (the world’s greatest unpublished biologist/philosopher/know-it-all), this skydaddy of yours makes this bad dude you call Satan to tempt humans into following their natures as given to them by the skydaddy himself. Then he pulls a bunch of rules from his arse that, despite his infinite wisdom, he can’t foresee to be impossible for his own creations to follow, thereby setting them an impossible task. Then he changes his all-powerful, all-knowing mind by stacking the deck differently, and you call this a “second chance”.

    Makes perfect fucking sense — if you’ve had a full frontal lobotomy.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 20:10

  237. soois, the world’s greatest unpublished biologist/philosopher/know-it-all vomits up this gem (April 9, 2012 at 19:31):

    Well, I guess then we must be tolerant towards pedophiles engaging in their preferred sexual activities, since they surely derive great sexusl pleasure from this!?

    Please, please, please explain this vast leap of logic for all of us lesser intellects. In particular, you should focus on how your magical logic turns “trusting and defenceless child” into “informed and consenting adult.” No bullshit or evasion or goalpost-shifting or any of the other favourite fundie tactics now, see? Just a straight explanation of this fantastic bit of reasoning that is the envy of the rational world.

    soois, the world’s greatest unpublished biologist/philosopher/know-it-all vomits up this gem (April 9, 2012 at 19:31):

    … God … [created (some) of us] … to prohibit us from engaging in the wrong pleasures.

    Another stunning bit of logic that screams for an explanation. This all-powerful, all-good skydaddy makes you dimwit fundies, giving you certain desires that he actually disapproves of and for which he’ll punish you in eternal torment!? That’s the same kind of horseshit reasoning that declares a father innocent for giving his kids a hand grenade that killed them because he warned them not to pull the pin.

    You fundies really do say the damndest things. Make that “Planet Hanswors-with-potatosoois”.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 20:01

  238. Come to think of it, let us ponder this for a while. It actually proves that evil (satan) does exist. If evolution was the method of creation, then why would some specimens evolve into living organisms which meddle into sexual activities that does not promote procreation? Yes I know you will ask; “why did God create people that meddle in homosexuality and pedophilia”? The answer is, He did not. Satan, banished from Heaven and blinded with vengeance, misled Adam and Eve into disobeying His (God’s) one rule and therefore banishing humankind into hell with him. God made hundreds of rules to give humanity a second chance, but this was too hard for us. Then He gave us a third chance by sending his own Son, Jeshua (Jesus), to pay the ultimate price for salvation. Guess what? He is giving us all another chance by waiting thousands of years so that everyone has a chance to accept the salvation of Jesus Christ beforejudgement.

    soois

    April 9, 2012 at 19:50

  239. ““Still can’t see why god would give me the ability to derive pleasure from sex and then would not want me to engage in that activity if not strictly necessary. He is omnipotent after all, why not create a different mechanism to procreate if he does not like the idea of sex that much?
    This,however, does leave Hans with another problem; being gay presumably does not diminish sexual desire. Is gay sex, as opposed to heterosexual sex, the lesser of the two evils? Is that how I will improve my chances of getting into “the kingdom of heaven”?””

    Well, I guess then we must be tolerant towards pedophiles engaging in their preferred sexual activities, since they surely derive great sexusl pleasure from this!? No my friend, God did not give us rules and did not create (some of us) with sound minds to rob us of the pleasures of life, but to prohibit us from engaging in the wrong pleasures.

    soois

    April 9, 2012 at 19:31

  240. Yes, I suspected that it might have something to do with the bizarre christian obsession with sex.
    Still can’t see why god would give me the ability to derive pleasure from sex and then would not want me to engage in that activity if not strictly necessary. He is omnipotent after all, why not create a different mechanism to procreate if he does not like the idea of sex that much?

    This,however, does leave Hans with another problem; being gay presumably does not diminish sexual desire. Is gay sex, as opposed to heterosexual sex, the lesser of the two evils? Is that how I will improve my chances of getting into “the kingdom of heaven”?

    Shazee

    April 9, 2012 at 10:35

  241. On Planet Hanswors, the term “eunuch” refers to gay males and females (or, again as on Planet Hanswors with its triplet of errors, “Gay male’s and female’s”). So on Planet Hanswors, it’s in your favour to be gay and renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be). This is probably where RCC priests and other sick repressed fucktards take their cue because even on Planet Hanswors, the Holey Babble does not say, “Don’t be a gay pederast scumbag,” no matter how hard you torture and panelbeat the words’ meanings. And since the Holey Babble doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, it must then be okay with the skydaddy-in-chief…

    (For further details, refer to the RationalWiki entry explaining “Poe’s Law”.)

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 09:20

  242. Hans, ek verstaan nie wat jy probeer se nie. Ons praat oor teenstrydighede, of dit nou 800, of 300 is, en jy verwys my weer na die skrifgedeelte waar jou god blatant lieg. Wat is jou punt?

    Jy het ook nog nie vir my verduidelik hoe dit my sal bevoordeel ten opsigte van “the kingdom of heaven” as ek myself laat ontman nie.

    Jy kan maar net nie insien dat verwysings uit ‘n gediskrediteerde en hoogs ongeloofwaardige bron nie enige bewys of verduidelikingswaarde het nie.

    Shazee

    April 9, 2012 at 08:31

  243. Hanswors, that would be “gay males and females.” But you missed my point. Once again. As you always do, either by choice or by virtue of denseness.

    And Hanswors, the observational problem is yours. You are blatantly, provably lying when you say, “I will only respond to questions put to me one at a time.” You are lying because the majority of those unanswered questions that you’ve dodged, evaded, avoided and generally bullshitted your way past were asked of you one at a time, and still you didn’t answer them properly if at all.

    Therefore, you have lied and now you’re lying some more to cover it up, Hanswors, and it’s obvious to everyone except you.

    Con-Tester

    April 8, 2012 at 22:47

  244. Shazee, gaan lees maar weer 1 Kon. 22 vanaf vers 20 en aan.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 8, 2012 at 22:41

  245. Con-Tester, I think that, the Old Afrikaans translation is more correct in regard to Math. 19 v 12, as it would rather be referring to Gay male’s and female’s. The passage makes more sense to me when I look at it in that regard.
    It has never been in my nature to lie, so you appear to have an observation problem.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 8, 2012 at 22:36

  246. Hans, ek weet nie eintlik wat om te se van jou storie dat party ouens dink jou bybel praat 800 keer kak, en ander ouens weer dat dit net 300 keer is nie. Ek weet rerig nie wat jy dink dit bewys nie. Verduidelik maar.

    Wat ek veel meer komieklik vind is die storie van die ouens wat vrywillig hulle knaters afsny ter wille van “the kingdom of heaven”. Hoekom sal dit jou bevoordeel om die famile juwele af te sny Hans?

    Shazee

    April 7, 2012 at 22:51

  247. Hanswors (met of sonder aartappels), that would be “business”. In your Matthew 19:12 quote, I suggest you replace “eunuchs” with “dimwits” and read it again to get a much better understanding of what’s going on.

    And please don’t lie quite so blatantly to your audience, see? When you say, “I will only respond to questions put to me one at a time,” it’s obvious to anyone who’s followed this blog for a month or more that you’re lying through your teeth. You don’t answer anything, ever. You just evade, avoid, make up excuses and generally bullshit your way past questions.

    All those unanswered questions are still looming over your cement-filled head, see?

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2012 at 21:55

  248. Shazee, as dit jou sal gelukkig maak, is daar geen teenstrydigheid in die Bybel soos ek dit verstaan.
    Twee verskillende skrywers van twee verskillende boeke in die Bybel. Die een is bewus van 800 en die ander is net bewus van 300. Jy sê dit is ‘n teenstrydigheid en nou moet die Bybel as onwaar beskou word? ‘n Mens kan sekerlik nie so onnosel wees nie?
    Rom 10:17 Die geloof is dus uit die gehoor, en die gehoor is deur die woord van God.
    Waar dink jy het ek my geloof in Christus gekry?
    Jy sê dit is my stelling?
    Joh 1:1 In die begin was die Woord, en die Woord was by God, en die Woord was God.
    Omdat ek verstaan wat in die Bybel geskryf is, het ek geen twyfel an as jy ander bronne soek, lewe die boodskap en jou eie lewe sal die bron wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 7, 2012 at 21:53

  249. Con-Tester, what others do, is their busyness, as long as it does not interfere with our assembling, in regard to the season in question.
    Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
    I will only respond to questions put to me one at a time.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 7, 2012 at 21:35

  250. Oh, and Hanswors (with or without aartappelsoois), just because I’ve asked you another question, that doesn’t mean that you can sommer forget about all the other ones asked before, see? It just means that I’ve given you yet another opportunity to evade, avoid, make up excuses and generally bullshit your way out of trouble.

    Okay? Do you get it? Has it penetrated that there are still many questions awaiting answers from you? Are you clear about the point that those questions you need to answer are all over the blog, waiting? Do you understand? Just say “yes” or “no”, Hanswors, and if it’s “yes” you can start answering, see?

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2012 at 20:58

  251. Hey Hanswors (with or without aartappelsoois), do you agree with the ACDP that holding Mr Gay World at Easter is a deliberate ploy designed to “provoke Crushtians”? Or do you follow the teachings of your virgin-raping skydaddy’s illegitimate son Jeeeeeeebusssst! about turning the other butt cheek? Or is it all just symbolic anyway, Hanswors?

    Which puffed-up cretinicity reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs ( :lol: :oops: ), this GC&UPOO&TF is still a “yes” or “no” behind. All this auto-shtupping has left me a bit dazed and your direction is sorely needed. Not.

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2012 at 19:24

  252. Hans, het jy al gaan kyk wat “contradict” beteken?
    Dit is as iemand die teenoorgestelde se van wat jy doen. Dit is wanneer iemand nie met jou saamstem nie, en dit duidelik maak. Die Afrikaans is om iemand te “weerspreek”
    As jy nie op hierdie blog tot vervelens toe ge-“contradict” is nie sal ek graag wil sien hoe “n mens dan iemand moet “contradict”

    In teenstelling met weerspreek, is die Afrikaans vir “contradiction” ‘n “teenstrydigheid”. Iets kan nie gelyktydig “wees” en “nie wees” nie. Dit is logies onmoontlik.

    Ek hoop dit help jou Hans, en sal jy in die lig hiervan dit oorweeg om nou aan te beweeg na die volgende teenstrydigheid op die lys, aangesien jy duidelik verlore is met die eerste een.

    Shazee

    April 7, 2012 at 08:45

  253. Hans, dit help nie die gesprek as jy dieselfde stelling oor en oor herhaal nie. Ek verstaan jy beweer god is die woord, en die woord is god.
    Wat ek nog nie van jou gehoor het nie is waarop jy die stelling basseer (behalwe natuurlik dat dit in ‘n ou sprokie staan).
    Gee my iets wat klink soos ‘n logiese redenasie, of ‘n objetiewe bewys, wat jou stelling staaf.

    Shazee

    April 6, 2012 at 22:38

  254. Hanswors, again you fail to address the point. Besides being thicker than curdled yoghurt mixed with cement, are you also too fucking lazy to scroll up the page and think before you plaster your idiotic turds all over the blog?

    Con-Tester

    April 6, 2012 at 22:22

  255. Shazee, God is die woord en die woord is God. Wat is nou onduidelik om te verstaan want die woord bestaan of betwyfel jy dit?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 6, 2012 at 22:17

  256. Con-Tester, again you fail to contradict what I have commented. All you appear to do is create a storm of dust that has no meaning.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 6, 2012 at 22:13

  257. Ok Hans, na al jou ontwykende kakpratery (weereens), antwoord nou die vraag wat ek vir die derde keer aan jou stel; hoe bewys kommunikasie deur woorde dat god bestaan?

    Shazee

    April 5, 2012 at 22:56

  258. More of your inconsequent yadda-yadda, wibble-wibble, nyaff-nyaff, hap-hap, Hanswors. This time from your Holey Babble which you know is a bunch of feel-good fairytales for dimwits. Thus, you have neither proved your belief to be true nor justified it in any meaningful or convincing way, and therefore you can’t claim knowledge.

    Go on, prove me wrong, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2012 at 20:42

  259. Shazee, wat help dit jy het ‘n moerse groot brein en jy gebruik nie eers ‘n ertjie se gedeelte daarvan nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2012 at 20:36

  260. Con-Tester, I know God as God is the word. (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

    I know Jesus Christ whom He has sent. (Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:)

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2012 at 20:31

  261. Plus, a lot of people did get rich in, Hanswors, using your Holey Babble. It normally involved deceit and terror tactics of one sort or another.

    Con-Tester

    April 4, 2012 at 22:23

  262. Ha-ha-ha, Hanswors. Your Holey Babble was put together through an act of ballot by a committee of self-appointed “experts”. Good one, ou!

    
    

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

    Con-Tester

    April 4, 2012 at 22:16

  263. ErickV, die Bybel is ‘n unieke boek en as ‘n mens so ‘n boek vandag kon skryf, sou een baie ryk kon word.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 4, 2012 at 22:09

  264. True, but have you noticed how the ANCYL retards are now behaving just like religiot fucktards? They are now trying to turn the Malema debacle into an issue of free speech. They clearly think that “freedom of expression” actually means “freedom from any consequences for talking bullshit.”

    Godiot retards operate under exactly the same conceit.

    Con-Tester

    April 4, 2012 at 15:25

  265. Jip, but I reckon even Malema’s brand of bullshit is a notch or two more comprehensible than Hansie’s.

    Shazee

    April 4, 2012 at 13:51

  266. Another preachy and bombastic dimwit with much more love of his own voice than good sense gets potato salad all over his face.

    Hmm, Hanswors met aartappelslaai. Dìè resep kan dalk werk… :roll:

    Con-Tester

    April 4, 2012 at 11:48

  267. Nee wat Hansie, aan jou is geen salf te smeer nie. Vlieg jy en jou sogenaamde bedrog “geskrifte” in julle moer in. Dit help nie om met ‘n geestesversteurde trol te redeneer nie.

    ErickV

    April 4, 2012 at 05:11

  268. Okay Hanswors, I get you. You actually think that these retorts consisting of five or so monosyllables that you post are actually satisfactory answers. Well, they’re not. They are excuses and bullshit, stuff you pull from your arse just so that you have something — anything — to say in reply. You probably think that’s very clever and that it shows what an expert you are. But it’s none of those. It just makes you look like a stupid arsehole, something you’ll remain until you realise it and admit that you might just be wrong.

    Con-Tester

    April 3, 2012 at 22:20

  269. Ja Hans, ek sal graag ‘n gesprek wil voer met iemand wat nie ‘n ertjiebrein het nie. Iemand wat byvoorbeeld nie te dom is om te besef hoe ‘n verleentheid sy onnosele en deursigtige ontwykings van vrae waarop hy niie sinvolle antwoorde het nie, sy mede godiote moet veroorsaak.
    Jy maak al jou mede (by)gelowiges se naam nog meer krater as wat dit reeds ou Hansie. Jy is regtig nie ‘n goeie advertensie vir waartoe jy ons probeer oortuig nie.

    Laat ek dit dan maar vir jou met ‘n teelepel ingee; my aanmerking was ‘n uitnodiging om te verduidelik hoe ‘n gevoltrekking dat god bestaan volg op die feit dat mense dmv woorde kommunikeer.
    Het jy dit Hans? Lees stadig en spel die woorde hardop, miskien kry jy dit.

    Shazee

    April 3, 2012 at 22:12

  270. And Hanswors, I’ve asked you this several times before: To “know” something is to have “a true, justified belief” in the item you claim as knowledge. You claim to know “God and Jesus Christ who [sic] He have [sic] sent”. Now show us that your belief is (1) true, and (2) justified, otherwise admit that you merely have a strong conviction, not knowledge.

    In case you have once again failed to notice it, that’s a question for you, one that you will no doubt again dodge with excuses and bullshit and talking liquid spurts of kak.

    Now prove me wrong with a sensible answer for once, ou Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    April 3, 2012 at 22:01

  271. Shazee, het jy iets wat jy wil bespreek?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 3, 2012 at 21:55

  272. But Hanswors, since you keep dodging questions with bullshit and excuses and by constantly talking kak, it means that you have chosen “[t]o change it for ignorance and darkness” and thus shown yourself to be stupid. Nor do your personal preferences have any bearing on the truth or falsity of your claims, which is another point you’re too much of a dikkop to see or acknowledge. Now prove me wrong by giving a decent, complete and, above all, vaguely intelligible answer.

    Con-Tester

    April 3, 2012 at 21:53

  273. ErickV, dit is goed dat jy sê, “volgens my (jou)”, want jou verstand is in elk geval nie oop gemaak om die skrift te verstaan nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 3, 2012 at 21:53

  274. Con -Tester, to know God and Jesus Christ who He have sent, is wonderful. To change it for ignorance and darkness would be stupid.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 3, 2012 at 21:41

  275. Hansie,

    Kom hierdie oom vertel jou iets anders van “die woord”.

    In Salomo se tyd was daar ‘n ou met die naam Hiram Habif. Hy was in die beheer van Salomo se tempel as die hoof messelaar/bouer.
    Nou, in daardie tyd het daar nie iets bestaan as ‘n sertifikaat van bevoegdheid nie. In dien ‘n hoof messelaar elders aansoek doen om ‘n gebou op te rig is daar aan hom gevra: Wat is swaarder as homself en ook ligter as homself?
    Die hoof messelaar het dan met ‘n kode woord geantwoord wat slegs deur mede hoof messelaars/bouers geken is.
    Hiram Abif se vak leerlinge (2 van hul) wou die kodewoord by hom afdwing omdat hulle nog lank moes leer om te kwalifiseer. Hy het natuurlik geweier waarop hy deur die vak leerlinge dood gemaak is.
    Hierdie was ook die begin van die Vry Messelaars.
    Die kode woord was “manna” of “witgoud”. Dit het alles met alchemie te doen. Dit is ‘n mengsel van goud en nog ‘n ander stof. Hierdie is ook as ‘n voedsel gebruik. Indien jy dit warm maak verander dit in gas wat baie ligter as helium is. Indien jy dit vries dan word dit so swaar soos lood.
    Gaan lees gerus Laurence Gardiner se boek “The Shadow Of Solomon” indien jy meer wil weet.
    Volgens my beteken hierdie “woord” baie meer as jou donnerse “woord” van die bybel.
    Indien jy daardie boek lees gaan jy baie meer weet as die gemiddelde Vry Messelaar. Die skrywer self was die Hoof Messelaar in Londen vir baie jare maar het dit opgese om die navorsing te doen. Dit op sigself het baie jare geneem.
    Volgens my is hierdie boek baie meer waar as jou “boek” van kroeks.

    ErickV

    April 3, 2012 at 14:17

  276. Het jy al van ‘n non sequitor gehoor Hans?
    Mense kommunikeer deur middel van woorde, ergo, god bestaan.
    Jy moet stadig met daai kak wat jy rook Hans, jy kan toegesluit word daarvoor.

    Shazee

    April 2, 2012 at 22:56

  277. Shazee, als wat ek van jou weet, het deur die woord ontstaan. Wat jy gevoel het, het die woord jou geleer dat, dit is, wat warm beteken. My punt is, God is die “Woord”. (Joh 1:1 In die begin was die Woord, en die Woord was by God, en die Woord was God.)

    Hans Matthysen

    April 2, 2012 at 21:32

  278. Hanswors, you have been singularly incapable of contemplating the very real possibility that you’re talking kak. You have been shown to be a slippery customer without a single shred of intellectual integrity and you don’t seem to like it. Solution: Change your attitude.

    Con-Tester

    April 2, 2012 at 21:26

  279. Con-Tester, you have had no adequate response to any of my comments about the messages revealed in the Bible. You just reap what you sow and now you appear not to like it. Solution: Change your attitude.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 2, 2012 at 21:20

  280. Hans, ek was ongeveer een jaar oud toe ek my hand met kole gebrand het, en ek dra vandag nog die litteken daarvan. Ek geleer dat dit donners seer is om aan warm kole te vat. Wattter “woord” het my hierdie kennis gegee?
    Alles wat ek weet en ken het verseker nie deur woorde alleen ontstaan nie, maar gestel ek gee jou gelyk ter wille van die argument, wat bewys dit, en weereens, wat is jou punt?

    Shazee

    April 1, 2012 at 02:10

  281. Hanswors, don’t try your typical transparent table-turning tricks on me, see? If you don’t have an adequate response to my question, it would be far more honest and admirable for you to admit it. This confecting of bullshit and excuses that you do is pissing off your skydaddy. Why, one of these days he’ll even refuse to appear to you to tell you that you’re krapping his gat! And where will we be then, hey!?

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2012 at 22:42

  282. Con-Tester, the way you act, you seem of the opinion that your brain cannot be tricked. I mean, you even give yourself the name of “Con-Tester’?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2012 at 22:32

  283. Malherbe, ons het daarvan gelees, het jy nie?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2012 at 22:28

  284. Shazee, die kop knik is maar net weer ‘n woord wat nie hoorbaar is nie. Als wat jy weet en ken het deur die woord in jou lewe ontstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2012 at 22:27

  285. ErikV noem dat “Geen persoon by sy volle posetiewe kan sulke kak praat nie.” Ek dink Erik slaan die spyker op die kop. Ek dink Hans skeer die gek. ‘n Ou wat met erns praat van “leungeeste”? Geen mens kan sulke stront uitdink nie.

    Malherbe

    March 31, 2012 at 12:04

  286. Verskoning Hans, ek sien nou ek het jou kommentaar nie heeltemal reg gelees nie. Ek staan by my antwoord, maar ek stem in elk geval ook nie saam dat leuns noodwendig deur woorde alleen plaasvind nie.
    Woorde is bloot geluide waaraan ons arbitrere betekenis heg, sodoende sinvol met mekaar te kan kommunikeer. Woorde het geen spesiale krag of betekenis behalwe dit wat ons self daaraan heg nie.
    Ek kan baie maklik lieg sonder om ‘n enkele woord te se; ek kan byvooorbeeld my kop instemmend knik, of skud, om instemming of ontkenning op ‘n vraag te kenne te gee, en tersefdertyd soos ‘n tandetrekker lieg, sonder om ‘n enkele woord te se.
    Wat is dan so spesiaal aan woorde, of “die woord”, en wat is jou punt in elk geval?

    Shazee

    March 31, 2012 at 10:15

  287. Nee Hans, ek stem nie saam dat die “woord” god is nie. Ek stem wel saam dat die bybel so se. Dit is regtig nie dieselfde ding nie, Hans, as jy die verskil kan insien nie.
    Volgens jou redenasie wil ek lieg, maar ek het god se hulp daaarmee nodig, en daarom gee hy vir my ‘n leungees omdat hy so lief is vir my dat hy my daarmee wil help.
    Soos die Amerikaners se – go figure.

    Shazee

    March 31, 2012 at 07:54

  288. Shazee, leuns vind plaas deur woorde. Jy sal seker daarmee saam stem. God is die Woord.
    Joh 1:1 In die begin was die Woord, en die Woord was by God, en die Woord was God.
    As een ‘n leun gees wil hê, dan gee God (die Woord) die leun gees.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 30, 2012 at 22:01

  289. So Hanswors, your stance is that your own direct experiences are beyond any possible error. You cannot be mistaken about them, just as you cannot be fooled by an optical illusion or a misperception, hey? Your brain is incapable of being tricked or tricking itself, yes? You are entirely exempt from confirmation bias, correct? That is your position, right?

    How fucking magnificently convenient for you.

    Hanswors, with all that wonderful infallibility on your side, why then do you just keep on dodging questions? The latest in a lo-o-o-o-o-ong string of dodged questions is the one about “common sense” vs. “rules/laws”. Do you see how you just change the subject when you have no answer? Do you see what an arrogant and contemptible intellectual coward your skydaddy has made you?

    No, probably not. That’s because your skydaddy made you that daffy.

    Con-Tester

    March 30, 2012 at 22:00

  290. Con-Tester, all I have experienced in my life and the fact that I know God and Jesus Christ He has sent, is proof that I am cannot be wrong.
    Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 30, 2012 at 21:50

  291. Hans, jy weet, dit help nie eens om met ‘n logiese argument in ‘n hoek te probeer dryf nie. Jy spring doodeenvoudig daaruit deur gewoonweg die logika van die argument te ignoreer, en dan “random” toss te praat, of daarop aanspraak te maak dat jy reeds die vraag beantwoord het, of jy ignoreer gewoonweg die vraag.

    Kom ons probeer weer; waarom het god in die eerste plek hierdie “geeste” geskep? Die doel van ‘n leungees is tog sekerlik om iemand te laat lieg, of hoe? Jou god is mos nie onnosel nie Hans, of is hy? As ek ‘n gees skep wat iemand gaan laat lieg as ek dit vir hom gee, en ek gee dit vir hom, en hy lieg nadat ek dit vir hom gegee het, waarom is ek dan kwaad vir die persoon wat lieg?
    God is mos almagtig, is hy nie? Hy gee vir my ‘n gees wat hy wil he my moet laat lieg, en ek lieg. Dit kan nie anders nie want ek kan nie god se wil weerstaan nie, hy is mos almagtig.
    Hoe de donner is dit dan my skuld as ek lieg, en nie god s’n nie?
    As jou god dan vir my wil kwaad wees omdat ek lieg, is hy of ‘n sigopaat, of hy is net so dom soos jy.

    Shazee

    March 29, 2012 at 22:57

  292. Hanswors, how can you say it’s not possible that you could be mistaken?

    No bullshit and excuses now, see? Just a clear, straight answer to some questions, see? First and foremost the above one, see?

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2012 at 22:41

  293. Con-Tester, I experience God in my life every day, so how can I say that God does not exist?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 22:38

  294. ErickV, terloops, fisieke aangetrokkenheid is nie liefde nie. Dit wil voorkom of jou studies jou verwar het.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 22:30

  295. Hanswors, it’s a bad idea to use words with adverse connotations like “prejudice” the essence of which you yourself personify. It diminishes further what little credibility you have left.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2012 at 22:29

  296. Shazee, ek het al reeds verduidelik en dit blyk, dat jy dit gemis het omdat jy in jou eie vooroordeel verdiep was.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 22:21

  297. Nah, Hanswors is just too unremittingly, dedicatedly daffy to be a troll. He’s been on the same shtick since 2008 at least, and he posts much the same shitfaced drivel at several other sites as well. Trolls typically evaporate after a few weeks or months when it’s obvious that the joke is starting to wear a bit thin. Hanswors plainly doesn’t have any such discretion.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2012 at 18:58

  298. Ja, ek het ook al gedink dit is onmoontlik dat iemand by sy volle positiewe sulke onsamehangende stront kan glo, en vertel. Lang ondervinding het my egter geleer dat daar regtig morone is wat die kinderagtige kak glo, of Hans die ware Jacob is, of nie.

    Shazee

    March 29, 2012 at 14:36

  299. Shazee,

    Ek is amper seker dat ou Hansie ‘n trol is, maw hy is opsetlik besig om net reaksie uit te lok.
    Geen persoon by sy volle posetiewe kan sulke kak praat nie.

    ErickV

    March 29, 2012 at 12:29

  300. Al die kak wat Hans praat is amper genoeg om my aan die “leungees” ding te laat glo,ens, ens.

    Shazee

    March 29, 2012 at 10:41

  301. Hansie Slim,

    Nee Hansie, jy moet bewys dat jy nie lieg nie, maw bewys dat enige gees of god bestaan! Al is dit ‘n fokken leungees!

    ErickV

    March 29, 2012 at 09:57

  302. Shit, but you’re hilarious, Hanswors — all the more so because you do it unintentionally and with such consummately ham-fisted effortlessness! So now your skydaddy… er, I mean your “god” doesn’t make rules and laws. He gives “common sense” instead. What is this “common sense” of your skydaddy’s, Hanswors? What is it but a set of fuzzy rules about the world that we have acquired through experience and learning? And who made the world in such a way that it conforms to this “common sense”, Hanswors?

    It’s also impressive the way your infantile fairytale changes to whatever you need it to be as demanded by reigning circumstances. In other words, you just make up new bullshit and excuses to cover up the old bullshit and excuses. You don’t address anything properly or explain it rationally because you can’t. Then you go and make it your audience’s fault that you aren’t able to speak clearly and coherently. And you’re too daft or dishonest to acknowledge any of the very obvious flaws in your story and your methods. You just keep on compounding your comical fantasies.

    Like I said, you’re fucking hilarious, Hanswors!

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2012 at 09:55

  303. Nou ja toe Hans, is dit nie wonderlik nie, god gee my ‘n leungees, maar daarna is dit my eie skuld dat ek lieg.
    1 Kon 22:23 – En nou,kyk, die Here het ‘n leungees in die mond van al hierdie profete van u gegee, en die Here het onheil oor u gespreek –

    Kan dit duideliker, of meer onomwonde wees, Hans? Daar staan nie dat die profete uit hulle eie gelieg het nie. Julle godiote is mos so lief vir “konteks”, nou gaan lees dan die hele hoofstuk; god wou Agab dood he, hy het doelbewus veroorsaak dat die profete lieg sodat Agab na sy dood kon gaan….maar ons is mos al hier deur?

    Kom Hans,n entertain my weer ‘n slag, en verduidelik hoe dit die profete se eie skuld was dat hulle gelieg het.

    Terwyl jy daarmee besig is; verduidelik waarom god in die eerste plek ‘n leungees geskep het. Hou vir eenkeer op kak uit jou duim suig om ‘n vraag te vermy, en gee ‘n reguit antwoord as jy kan.

    Shazee

    March 29, 2012 at 09:32

  304. Shazee, God skep nie die leun nie. Die wat die gees van die leun kry omdat hulle die waarheid nie lief het nie, skep hul eie leuens. As een nie posetief is nie, wat is een dan anders, ‘n vakuum miskien? Con-Tester, dit is nie ‘n reël nie en wel “common sense”. God is “common sense”.
    As een ‘n pad van negatiwieteit en dwaling verkies, dan skep mens dit self omdat God aan die mens skeppingskrag gegee het en dit geld ook vir die leuen.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 09:06

  305. Erick V, I don’t love brains, I love persons, truth, understanding (light), attitudes. ect. and when the body of one ceases to exist, I still love those persons ect.
    Jy moet maar jou stelling van lieg bewys.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 08:45

  306. Con-Tester, jy is heeltemal korrek, en dit is natuurlik my punt. Die vraag is of Hans en sy trawante dit kan insien. Kan nie wag vir Hans se volgende aflewering nie.

    Shazee

    March 28, 2012 at 10:32

  307. Maar Shazee, wie het nou die reël gemaak dat elke positief ’n negatief moet hê!? As “god” self die reël gemaak het dan is dit mos heeltemaal willekeurig. As dit ’n voorafgaande reel is wat “god” moet gehoorsaam dan is “god” eerstens nie almagtig nie want hy is deur ’n reël verplig om dinge op ’n sekere wyse te doen, en tweedens moet die vraag gevra word waar die reël vandaan kom.

    Gelowiges is te onnosel om díé punt te verstaan. Hul gewone “antwoord” is dat “god” se wyses geheimsinnig is asof dit nou enigiets verduidelik.

    Con-Tester

    March 28, 2012 at 09:53

  308. Ok Hans, ek is nou vir eers klaar gelag, maar moenie ophou met jou “verduidelikings” nie, dit is baie entertaining.
    Terwyl jy besig is; verduidelik sommer hoe jy uitwerk dat “een namens eenself praat” as god hom geseen het met “gees van die leun”?
    As god iemand ‘n leungees gegee het, wat was god se doel daarmee? Moontlik dat hy moet lieg? As dit nie god se doel was nie, waarom vir die persoon ‘n leungees gee? As dit wel god se doel was dat hy moet lieg, waarom is dit dan ‘n sonde om te doen wat god wil he jy moet doen?

    Sien jy die probleem Hans? Soos CT altyd se – nee, waarskynlik nie.

    Shazee

    March 28, 2012 at 08:49

  309. O ek sien Hans, jy wil jou nou tot fisika wend om jou god te probeer regverdig. Jy reken dat daar ‘n negatief is vir elke positief.
    Antwoord dit die vraag Hans? God het die waarheid geskep, en moes daarom noodwendig die leun ook skep aangesien elke positief ‘n negatief het. Maar moenie worry nie, god het die leun geskep omdat hy nie ‘n keuse gehad het nie, en dit is daarom nie sy skuld dat mense lieg nie.

    Ek wil graag nog met jou gesels Hans, maar jy sal my eers moet verskoon tot ek oor my lagbui gekom het.

    Shazee

    March 28, 2012 at 06:08

  310. Hansie Slim,

    En nog ‘n ding. Indien jy die skrywes in die bybel sien as die “woord van god” dan lieg jou god en jy verskriklik.

    ErickV

    March 28, 2012 at 05:47

  311. Hansie Slim,

    Do a bit of study and you will find out that “love” and “god” is a figment of your brain!
    So stop talking shit!

    ErickV

    March 28, 2012 at 05:43

  312. Shazee, jammer man, ek vergeet dat jy nog blind is en nie insig het nie daarom blyk dit vir jou of my antwoorde irrelevante stront is.
    Jy weet dat teenoor posetief, is daar negatief en daarom gee God ‘n negatief, gees van die leuen sodat een namens een se self kan praat. Een kan net namens God praat as een die gees van waarheid besit.
    Deur helfte van die waarheid kan een mislei word en dus het niemand gelieg of namens God gelieg nie. Dit is net julle wat dit uit julle duim gesuig het dat God lieg of iemand namens Hom.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 27, 2012 at 22:57

  313. More of your contrived bullshit and excuses, Hanswors. Not a truth anywhere in sight. That’s because you aren’t capable of understanding my words. Try answering some questions for a change.

    Con-Tester

    March 27, 2012 at 22:52

  314. Con-Tester, your reaction shows that sticks and stones can break your bones but words, hit much deeper and you cannot hide from them.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 27, 2012 at 22:40

  315. Nee Hans, ek wil nie noodwendig antwoorde he wat my pas nie, ek wil net antwoorde he. Dit is wat ‘n gesprek met jou so frustrerend maak, jy antwoord byna nooit ‘n vraag nie. Al wat jy doen is om een of ander irrelevate stront kwyt te raak en dan maak jy daarop aanspraak dat jy die vraag beantwoord het. As iemand dan op ‘n antwoord aandring, hou jy eenvoudig soos ‘n dom donkie aanhou beweer jy het al die vraag beantwoord het.
    Kom ons probeer weer; – ek wil nie, vir die doel van hierdie argument, weet waarom god my ‘n leungees gee, al dan nie. Ek wil weet waarom hy in beginsel dit nodig gevind het om in die eerste plek so ‘n entiteit te skep?
    En dan het jy ook nog nie die vraag aangespreek waarom jy beweer dat jou god nie ‘n leunaar is as hy mense gebruik om namens hom, en in opdrag van hom, te lieg nie.
    Verstaan jy hoegenaamd wat ‘n teenargument beteken Hans?

    Shazee

    March 27, 2012 at 02:55

  316. Hanswors, you’re an even bigger moron than appearance suggests if you think your “answers” are actually satisfactory ones. The problem is your ham-fisted inability to give proper explanations. The problem is not others’ inability to understand what you say, which is just another one of your stupid excuses and laughable dodges.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2012 at 23:13

  317. Shazee, jy verwag seker ek moet antwoorde gee wat jou pas, anders verstaan jy niks

    Hans Matthysen

    March 26, 2012 at 23:03

  318. Yes Hanswors, that’s your usual childish and lamebrain bullshit.

    Now maybe you should try something new and exciting like answering a few questions.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2012 at 22:59

  319. Con-Tester, when one serves God, one does not try to impress people. (Gal. 5 v 22)

    Hans Matthysen

    March 26, 2012 at 22:54

  320. Ai tog Hans, waar het jy die vrae beantwoord? Al wat jy te vertelle het is dat god my ‘n “alternatief” gee, of dat hy my ‘n ander “gees” gee as ek nie van die een hou wat hy my oorsprongklik wou gee nie.
    Hoe beantwoord dit die vrae? Vind jy dit onmoontlik om ‘n vraag reguit en eerlik te antwoord? Die enigste vraag wat jy nog ooit direk geantwoord het was toe ek jou vra of jy die moontlikheid oorweeg dat jy dalk verkeerd mag wees, en dit was soos tandetrek om selfs so ‘n eenvoudige antwoord uit jou uit te kry.
    Jy is of te dom om die vrae te verstaan, of jy lieg doelbewus, kies maar self. Persoonlik dink ek dit is ‘n kombinasie van die twee.

    Shazee

    March 25, 2012 at 23:06

  321. Hanswors, you’re talking yet more of your skydaddy’s bullshit, rather than answering questions. And you can’t prove me wrong, either! :lol: :lol: :mrgreen: :lol: :lol:

    
    

    Come on Hanswors, impress your skydaddy with your perfect understanding. Educate us heretics and unbelievers on how infallible your Holey Babble is. After all, your skydaddy commands you not to talk shit and to spread his word with honesty and passion. Surely, all this dodging and bullshitting you’re doing is seriously pissing off the old fucker, don’t you think? Go on, be daring and show us some “love, light (understanding), ect. [sic].

    Con-Tester

    March 25, 2012 at 22:53

  322. Malherbe, jy klink gesuip, want jy dwaal van die gesprek af.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 25, 2012 at 22:40

  323. Shazee, ek het joy vrae beantwoord of verwag jy ‘n ander antwoord?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 25, 2012 at 22:36

  324. Con-Tester, you are wrong, as you are the one who is always talking about bullshit therefore it must be in your mind.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 25, 2012 at 22:33

  325. Hans, jy is nie net in ‘n hoek vasgeverf nie. Jy is in ‘n diep gat wat jy vir jouself gegrou het. So diep, dat jy tans beroof is van alle perspektief en net donkerte om jou waarneem. Al wat jy kan doen is om verwoed voort te grou in jou selfgeskepte donker wêreld terwyl jy deurentyd obskure onsinnighede soos “goddelike waarhede” (waddefokisdit?)uitbraak. Maar doet gerus voort, Hansie, en vertel ons wanneer jy Japan bereik het.

    Malherbe

    March 25, 2012 at 09:45

  326. Maar natuurlik kon ons weerle wat jy se Hans, dit is skynbaar net jy, en moontlik Soois, wat so dronk is op godsdiens dat julle dit nie kan insien nie.
    Maar soos ek gese het, whatever, en sal jy nou ophou “dodge en dive” en daardie twee vragies van my antwoord, asseblief man.

    Shazee

    March 25, 2012 at 05:33

  327. Like I said Hanswors, you godiots simply can’t smell your own bullshit. But what you morons fail to understand is that that doesn’t mean others can’t smell it. In fact, the stench is quite mind-numbing.

    Con-Tester

    March 25, 2012 at 01:46

  328. Con-Tester, no wonder you are always talking shit? You are constantly smelling your own bullshit.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 24, 2012 at 22:24

  329. Shazee, ek het gedink jy is flink van begrip en jou miskien onderskat. Aangesien jy nie die Goddelike waarheid wil aanvaar nie, gee God jou ‘n ander gees waarmee jy gelukkig is.
    Ek is en was nog nie deur enige een van julle in .n hoek gedryf nie en julle kon nog nie weerlë wat ek vir julle geskryf het.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 24, 2012 at 22:21

  330. Rick, Johannes Coetzee is ‘n valse profeet soos ons almal gesien het en ek kan en wil jou van niks oortuig nie, want oortuiging lê by elkeen self.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 24, 2012 at 22:08

  331. Hans, en nadat jy Shazee, en al die ander lesers wat wat tot dusver vrae aan jou gerig het, beantwoord het, oortuig my dan waarom ek juis JOU weergawe moet glo, en nie ‘n kalant soos Johannes Coetzee s’n nie.

    rick

    March 24, 2012 at 04:30

  332. Ja Hans, whatever. Antwoord nou die vrae wat ek aan jou gestel het;
    – vir watter doel het ‘n god wat lieg tot sonde verklaar het, ‘n leungees geskep?
    – As jou god mense as instrumente gebruik om deur te lieg, waarom is hy volgens jou nie ‘n liegbek nie?

    Jy, en jou god is blykbaar twee ewe groot liegbekke, maar dit verbaas my nie, dit is maar wat ek geleer het om van christene te verwag, veral die sogenaamde “wedergebore” christene.
    Jy se by herhaling dat ons die teenstrydighede een vir een moet kies, en dat jy dit dan een vir een sal bespreek. Toe jy in ‘n hoek gedruk word met die eerste een, raak jy dikbek, en weier jy om selfs die tweede een aan te pak, soos jy by herhaling gespog het jy sal doen.
    Soos ek gese het; ‘n liegbek, net soos jou god.

    Shazee

    March 24, 2012 at 03:06

  333. Some fucking alternative, Hanswors: An eternal roasting. You godiots are just not capable of smelling your own bullshit.

    Con-Tester

    March 23, 2012 at 22:29

  334. Shazee, God is darem goed vir die mens, want as jy nie die waarheid wil aanneem nie, dan gee Hy jou darem nog ‘n alternatief.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 23, 2012 at 22:23

  335. Yes Hanswors, be a good little Crushtian and go flush your stomach. Your bellyaching is getting a bit monotonous.

    Con-Tester

    March 23, 2012 at 22:21

  336. Rick, dit is duidelik dat jy nie ‘n antwoord het nie en teen jou beterwete stry, daarom stuur jy my om my “maag” te spoel, van al die “stront” wat julle klomp kwyt raak. Dit klink na goeie raad man.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 23, 2012 at 22:16

  337. No Hanswors, that would be you, seeing as you’re entirely unfamiliar with ordinary language. In particular, your facility for dodging straightforward questions by invoking alien bullshit is as boring and impenetrable as it is unremarkable.

    Con-Tester

    March 23, 2012 at 22:13

  338. Con-Tester, jy was seker eens op ‘n tyd deel van die Anabaptist want ek sien jy ken vreemde tale.
    1 Kor. 14:22 Die tale is dus ‘n teken nie vir die gelowiges nie, maar vir die ongelowiges; die profesie egter is nie vir

    Hans Matthysen

    March 23, 2012 at 22:05

  339. “Rick, so you think that love is not great or wisdom, or light (understanding) ect.”

    Man, Hans, gaan kak! etc etc…

    rick

    March 23, 2012 at 02:23

  340. Con Tester, Hitchens was (sadly) a true genius. I particularly like the quote from Richard Dawkins,

    “If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline”.

    Unlike the bitch slap, he of course had the Hitch slap which chucked many arguments, even good ones, out the back door.

    rick

    March 23, 2012 at 02:21

  341. Hans, dit lyk my hoe meer onbeantwoordbaar jy die vraag vind, hoe meer onsamehangend raak die kak wat jy kwytraak.
    Verstaan selfs jy wat jy daar geskryf het?
    Ek vra jou waarom god dit nodig gevind het om ‘n leungees te skep, en jy antwoord in een sin (letterlik een sin) dat god my ‘n leungees gee, maar dat dit nie sy wil is om dit te doen nie???
    Behalwe dat ek nog selde sulke onsamehangende stront gelees het, beantwoord dit nog nie naastenby die vraag nie – waarom het god in die eerste plek hierdie tipe geeste geskep? Wat was, en is, sy doel daarmee Hans?
    Jy probeer ook nie eens die argument dat god mense gebruik as instrumente om deur te lieg antwoord nie. Ek vermoed jy kan nie, en daarom raak jy hierdie irrelevante gobbledygook kwyt.
    Bewys my vir eenmaal verkeerd, en kom terug met ‘n antwoord wat klink of dit geskryf is deur iemand wat nie die eerste geslag is om regop te loop nie.

    Shazee

    March 22, 2012 at 22:58

  342. Rick, so you think that love is not great or wisdom, or light (understanding) ect.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2012 at 22:36

  343. Shazee, Ek kan nie liefde, wysheid ens. sleg laat lyk nie want kwaad is in die oog wat dit sien en jy wil dit so sien.
    As jy nie die goddelike waarheid of gees van waarheid wil glo nie, dan kan jy die gees van die leun glo en God is die woord, dus word leuns deur woord oorgedra. So gee God jou die gees van die leun en dit is uit die wil van die mens en nie uit die wil van God nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2012 at 22:32

  344. Hanswors, I have pointed out to you before that you yourself have set the example for this “contradict” thing. The only difference is that I have not bothered adding what on Planet Hanswors passes for reasoning. In other words, I have omitted the bullshit reasoning.

    And I’ll contradict you once again, Hanswors: You’re talking kak because wibble-humph-gulp-oof.

    There, you see? Now I’ve added a Hanswors reason why you’re wrong. That’s a successful argument on Planet Hanswors.

    If you feel attacked, that’s your blind spots’ and your stupidity’s pinch you’re feeling.

    Which vacuous prevarication reminds me:…

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2012 at 22:19

  345. Malherbe, lees maar net wat geskryf is, in die regte konteks.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2012 at 22:13

  346. Con-Tester, If you could contradict me, you would stick to the subject under discussion and as you can’t, you attack the person. You also have a foolish following who are just as incapable of contradicting me on the subject under discussion.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2012 at 22:09

  347. Quite a coincidence, rick: I also reread the same book a few weeks ago. Hitchens packs more good and solid sense, style and beautiful language into five words than any godiot I’ve ever read manages to muster for an entire book.

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2012 at 19:00

  348. Hans, ek was bitter lanklaas by die biblioteek / boekwinkel, met die gevolg dat ek nie meer boeke oorgehad het om te lees nie. Besluit toe sommer of Hitchens se “God is not Great” af te stof en weer te lees. Lekker aan die lees geraak toe die volgende gedeelte raaklees:

    “These men are more enlightening when they are wrong, or when they display their inevitable biases, than any falsely modest person of faith who is vainly trying to square the circle and to explain how he, a mere creature of the Creator, can possibly know what the creator intends.”

    Nadat ek die stuk gelees het, het Hans Matthysen se naam in my kop bly vassteek. Wonder hoekom?!

    Hitchens C 2007. God is not Great: p. 8.

    rick

    March 22, 2012 at 16:00

  349. Hans, ek dink nou aan iets; waarom het god entiteite soos leungeeste en geeste van dwaling geskep?
    As dit byvoorbeeld ‘n sonde is om te lieg (jy mag nie valse getuienis teen jou naaste spreek nie), waarom ‘n leungees skep? Klink dit nie vir jou effens huigelagtig van god om lieg as ‘n sonde te verklaar, en dan ‘n gees te skep, ‘n gees wat god se opdragte uitvoer deur mense te laat lieg – wat dit inderdaad vir hulle onmoontlik maak om nie te lieg nie?

    Shazee

    March 22, 2012 at 12:48

  350. Here is something to raise a chuckle for any right-thinking person. Note how many of the failed predictions are based on some fanciful notions tortured and extracted kicking and screaming from the Holey Babble, which shows two things: (1) Just how reliable a science/history book the Holey Babble really is, and (2) what an utterly ridiculous, contrived and artificially propped-up farce this alleged “literal/figurative” distinction really is. Exegesis/eisegesis, my hairy arse — just heavy-sounding words to lend an air of legitimacy to the habit of making shit up as you go along.

    The Holey Babble acolytes will of course selectively point out how all the other predictions failed, as if doing so somehow validates their so-called “holy” book. While the failures shouldn’t surprise anyone, being based, as they are, on wishful thinking, you can be sure that accusations of heresy and deviation from the True Path™ will fly around, leaving the basic problems of blind stupidity and uncritical gullibility unaddressed.

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2012 at 10:06

  351. Hans, jy dink jy maak ‘ n punt deur met woorde te speel, maar jy besef blykbaar nie dat jy jou god net slegter en slegter laat lyk nie.
    Nee, as god my ‘n gees van dwaling gee, dwaal hy nie self nie, maar wie se skuld is dit dan dat ek dwaal, myne, of god s’n?
    As god my ‘n leungees gee en dan skeinheilig wil terugstaan en sy hande in onskuld was as ek maak presies soos die opdrag wat hy gegee het, is hy soos ‘n Mafia- baas wat lafhartig die wins inoes terwyl hy agter sy ondergeskiktes wegkruip. In der waarheid is god veel meer aanspreeklik as die Mafia-baas, want ‘n mens het nog die keuse om ‘n ander mens se opdrag te verontagsaam, maar god is almagtig en kan sy wil absoluut op my afdwing.
    Jou argument Is net so belaglik soos iemand wat ‘n ander persoon met ‘n mes doodsteek, en dan die skuld op die mes wil pak.
    So Hans, sorry om te se; jou god is ‘n liegbek, en met jou poging om hom van die aanspreeklikheid daarvoor te distansieer, maak jy nog van hom ‘n slapgat ook wat nie verantwoordelikheid wil neem vir sy eie misdrywe nie.

    Shazee

    March 22, 2012 at 04:29

  352. Ai Hans, ek het dan nou gedog indien ek jou styl gebruik, jy met my sal saamstem. My denke nog te “vleeslik” na jou sin Hans? Ek het nie gedink iets of iemand kan meer onsamehangend as jou bybel wees nie, maar jy het my verkeerd bewys. Inderdaad ‘n prestasie.

    Malherbe

    March 22, 2012 at 00:46

  353. Hanswors, you are wrong: I am contradicting you. For someone who likes pointing others at the dictionary, you should follow your own advice. In any case, you yourself showed us all how this “contradict” thing works on planet Hanswors where a skydaddy keeps all his daffy followers snug and cuddly. Only question is, is it literal or figurative? :P

    
    

    But be that as it may, do go ahead with your next “explanation”, Hanswors. A cardinal rule in showbiz is to not keep your audience waiting too long or they might start throwing vrot veggies at ya when ya does finally pitch.

    Which delayed gratification reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2012 at 22:02

  354. Malherbe, jy is nie net bietjie deurmekaar nie, maar sommer baie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 21, 2012 at 21:50

  355. Shazee, as God jou ‘n gees van dwaling gee, het God gedwaal?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 21, 2012 at 21:45

  356. Con-Tester, and so you cannot prove me wrong ether. I would say that you are not agreeing with me but I am not so sure if that is contradicting me.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 21, 2012 at 21:35

  357. Ja Malherbe, daai bottel wyn klink nie sleg nie.
    Ek self gaan ‘n bietjie probeer om met die huilerige spook te kommunikeer vanmiddag oor ‘n paar skuimkoppe saam met die braai. Ek het al oor die jare vele “revelations” op die manier gekry. Sal laat weet as iets insiggewend openbaar word.

    Shazee

    March 21, 2012 at 13:22

  358. Maar Shazee, verstaan jy dan nie? Die beginsel is tog eenvoudig: wanneer in ‘n hoek vasgekeer, word teruggeval na simboliek. Wanneer dit jou argument egter pas, moet die bybel letterlik interpreteer word.

    Ter verduideliking:
    Voorbeeld 1: homoseksualisme is “sonde” want die bybel sê so. Hier vertaal ons dus letterlik.
    Voorbeeld 2: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 – hierdie stukkie (waar die gotte aanbeveel dat die verkragting slagoffer saam met die verkragter doodgemaak word omdat sy nie geskree het nie), moet egter figuurlik geinterpreteer word (sal graag wil weet wat die figuurlike betekenis is).

    Sien Shazee, baie maklik. Ons ouens dink te “vleeslik” want die fokken “gees” openbaar nie die gedeeltes wat ons “figuurlik” moet interpreteer sodat ons eendag “letterlik” (?) in die “figuurlike” (of is dit nou letterlike?) hemel kan beland. Dis eintlik bitter eenvoudig wanneer die heilige spook alles “letterlik” aan jou openbaar. En dan is daar nog daai ander mooi woord van MalHans – “sinnebeeld”.

    Ek nou self bietjie deurmekaar. Gaan nou eers ‘n bottel Pinotage nadertrek – miskien is dit al wat nodig is vir die heilige spoke om my te betrek en met MalHans se wysheid en insig te slaan.

    Malherbe

    March 21, 2012 at 10:10

  359. Hanswors sal dìt natuurlik nóóít erken nie. Hy sal letterlik enige storie opmaak om sy godbeswyming aan die gang te hou.

    Hanswors and his imaginary skydaddy. Ay, what a pair!

    Con-Tester

    March 20, 2012 at 23:41

  360. Ek wil ook vir jou se Hans, daar is absoluut niks simbolies of figuurlik aan die storie nie. Dit word as letterlike geskiedenis voorgehou. Agab is volgens die storie letterlik doodgemaak nadat die profete letterlik vir hom gelieg het, letterlik in opdrag van, en met die hulp van god.
    Ek verdraai net mooi niks nie. Dit is die storie presies net soos dit daar geskryf staan – gaan lees dit weer.

    Shazee

    March 20, 2012 at 23:23

  361. Hansn ek sweer jy is aan die bol gepik. Jy is in ‘n hoek, en nou word die storie skielik weer simbolies.
    Het god nie ‘n leungees oor die profete laat kom nie? Het dit nie veroorsaak dat hulle lieg nie? Het dit nie tot Agab se dood gelei nie? Of is hy net simbolies dood?
    Ek is jammer om dit weer te moet se Hans, maar jy is gevaarlik onnosel en dit is net jy en Soois wat dit blykbaar nie besef nie.
    Lees weer wat jy geskryf het man; al wat jy se is -god het nie gelieg nie – as iemand vir jou onteenseglik uitwys hy het wel gelieg, se jy net weer – god het nie gelieg nie. Waar is jou teenargument man. Dit help nie om soos ‘n dom laerskool seuntjie net dieselfde kak oor en oor te herhaal nie. Dit is nie ‘n argument nie, dit is gewoonweg onnosel. Iets word nie waar net omdat jy dit oor en oor soos ‘n papagaai herhaal nie. Word vir ‘n slag groot man.

    Shazee

    March 20, 2012 at 23:06

  362. ErickV, jy babbel ‘n klom goed af dus gaan lees Heb. 12 v 1 (ou vertaling) dan sal jy moontlik die wolk verstaan waarop Christus Sy verskyning maak.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 20, 2012 at 22:12

  363. Shazee, ek stem saam, lieg is lieg en God het nie gelieg nie. Jy kan dit probeer draai soos dit jou pas en die feit bly, God het nie gelieg nie. Ek het jou reeds voorheen daarop gewys dat die verhale simbolies is en jy neuk nog aan met vleeslike denke. Daar is nog hoop vir jou, ashoop. Die valse profete moet uitgeroei word, nie letterlik nie, maar wel figuurliik. Hulle moet dus ‘n gedagteverandering ondergaan. Ek vertrou dit is nou vir jou duidelik.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 20, 2012 at 22:07

  364. Yes Hanswors, I can contradict you. With just four words, Hanswors. Here they are, Hanswors: “You are wrong, Hanswors.”

    See? I’m flatly contradicting you, Hanswors. You can’t prove me wrong, Hanswors.

    Now stop evading by talking mountains of shit and amuse us with your next “explanation”. Come, come. Time is a-wastin’, Hanswors. We need you to lie some more for your skydaddy ’cos we haven’t had a good joke from you in a while.

    Con-Tester

    March 20, 2012 at 22:02

  365. Con-Tester, you say a lot of rubbish because you cannot contradict what I have written.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 20, 2012 at 21:53

  366. Hansie,

    Jy se wat jy uitwys is die “waarheid”.
    Nou waar kom jy aan die “waarheid”? Uit die bybel? Dan is daar fokkol aan die “waarheid” nie.
    Die eerste keer wat ek aan die WERKLIKE WAARHEID blootgestel was, was in die skool met biologie en wetenskap klasse.
    Ek is geskape as gevolg van gemeenskap tussen my vader en moeder. Weet jy ooit iets van spermpies en ‘n baarmoeder, ens? Geen mannetjie op ‘n wolkie het my geskape nie! Sit dit in jou pyp en rook dit!
    Geen wonder jy se dat ek in vreemde tale praat nie want jy verstaan net mooi niks wat ek, Con-Tester en Shazee aan jou probeer verduidelik nie!

    ErickV

    March 20, 2012 at 05:52

  367. En wat van Camping en Johannes Coetzee van wie jy praat. As god jou opdrag gee om vir hulle te lieg met die doel om hulle in ‘n lokval te lei sodat hulle vermoor kan word, sal jy dit doen Hans? Volgens jou is hulle ook valse profete, en hulle moet dan mos ook “uitgeroei” word.
    As jy vir my se jy sal dit nie doen nie, moet jy vir my verduidelik waarom nie. Wat is die verskil?

    Shazee

    March 19, 2012 at 22:40

  368. Nee Hans, lieg is lieg, wat ookal die doel. Ek dink ook nie dit is besonders eerbaar om te lieg met die doel om iemand se dood te veroorsaak nie.
    God het opdrag gegee, of minstens toegelaat, dat in sy naam gelieg word. Die doel van die geliegery was moord. Daar is nie ‘n manier hoe dit weggeredeneer kan word nie.
    Jou redenasie blyk te wees dat Agab verdien het om vermoor te word, en dat dit daarom eerbaar en geregverdig was vir god om te lieg – dus – hy het nie gelieg nie??!!

    Shazee

    March 19, 2012 at 22:27

  369. Hanswors, if actually spoke sense, and brought verifiable facts, evidence and/or plausible arguments to the table, I’d be the first to accept what you say. However, you are clearly not capable of understanding the meaning of the terms “sense”, “verifiable facts”, “plausible arguments” and “evidence”, so you just keep on vomiting up the most incredible bullshit and excuses known to mankind. Your evasions are just as side-splittingly funny as your “explanations”.

    See how you make up new bullshit to cover up that you have no actual interest in explaining these in-your-face contradictions? See how you tell big fat lies for your skydaddy?

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2012 at 22:13

  370. Shazee, dit is juis daardie dun lyn wat die verskil uitmaak tussen ‘n weerspreking en nie. Die doel daaragter bepaal of dit eerbaar is of nie. God het dus nie gelieg nie.
    Agab verteenwoordig die valse profete en hulle moet uitgeroei word. Ek bedoel kyk nou by voorbeeld na Ou Camping en Johannes Coetzee? Hulle is maar baie stil en hulle valse profesies is uitgeroei en ek sien daar is nou weer ‘n nuwe valse profeet wat valsheid weer voorspel vir einde 2012.
    ErickV het nog nooit met my rede gevoer nie en het maar net vreemde tale gepraat, dus wonder ek nog steeds of hy nie voorheen ‘n wededoper was nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 19, 2012 at 22:08

  371. ErickV, jy kan dus nie stry dat wat ek daar uitwys is die waarheid. Terloops, my lewe is ewiglik verryk deur Christus, die Evangelie wat deur my brein spoel.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 19, 2012 at 21:52

  372. Con-Tester, what makes you think that your opinion has any credibility? You have no intention of accepting anything I show you even although I may be right, so your comment is irrelevant and I therefore have no intention of selecting another so called contradiction.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 19, 2012 at 21:47

  373. Goeie punt Shazee. Ekself is skuldig daaraan dat ek soms eerder bekhou. Veral in sosiale kringe en bloot omdat mens “moeg” raak om na dieselfde stront oor en oor te luister. Die ouens is werklik so voorspelbaar en onoorspronklik – mens sien die “argument” al op ‘n myl.

    Ek sal nooit vergeet hoe verlig ek was toe ek destyds op George Claassen se Prometheus blog afgekom het nie. Tot op daardie stadium was ek onder die indruk dat ek min of meer alleen staan in my bevraagtekening van dogma. (Ongelukkig het daardie blog gesluit.) Nathan se blog is vir my dus van onskatbare waarde – al is dit net om my Christen vriende te wys met watter semels hulle hulself assosieer. ‘n Pel van my sê annerdag na ‘n besoek hier dat ouens soos Hans sal maak dat hy sy geloof prysgee. Ouens soos Soois en Hans doen ons atties eintlik ‘n moerse guns.

    Malherbe

    March 19, 2012 at 16:10

  374. ErickV, ek het simpatie daarmee dat jy moeg is om met mense te probeer redeneer wat weet hulle is reg, en wat totaal onbereikbaar is met logika en bewyse.
    Dit is natuurlik hulle verklaarde stategie om jou moeg te maak daarvoor, so moeg dat jy maar naderhand stilbly.
    Die enigste teenvoeter daarvoor is natuurlik om net so knaend die die onredelikheid van blinde geloof uit te wys.
    As dit nie was vir mense soos Sam Harris, PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens, en ja, ook ander kommentators soos Nathan, Con-Tester en jyself wat die gordyn oopgemaak het dat die lig van rede en logika op hierdie onlogiese, onredelike en skadelike bygelowe skyn nie, was ekself bes moontlik nog daarin vasgevang.
    Moet nie dat hulle jou moeg maak nie. Jy se dalk net eendag iets wat by iemand aanklank vind en die penny drop vir hom\haar.
    Voorspoed.

    Shazee

    March 19, 2012 at 10:27

  375. Hans, ek wil jou nou nie weerhou daarvan om vir ons die volgende teenstrydigheid op die lys duidelik te maak nie, maar ek het tog ‘n ander vraag vir jou;
    Jy haal 1 Konings 21: 21 en 22 aan, maar ek verstaan nie mooi wat jy daarmee probeer bewys nie. Soos ek dit lees bewys dit lynreg die teenoorgestelde van wat jy probeer bewys.
    God wou vir Agab dood he, en toe laat hy die profete vir Agab lieg sodat hy na sy dood kan gaan in ‘n lokval wat god vir hom voorberei het. Kyk na vers 23, god het direk veroorsaak dat die profete lieg. Dit was sy wil en sy opdrag.
    Hoe verklaar ‘n mens dit anders as dat god wou gehad het die profete moet lieg, en dat hy dit vir hulle onmoontlik gemaak het om nie te lieg nie. Hulle was die instrumente waardeur god ‘n onwaarheid verkondig het.
    Hoe verklaar jy dit Hans?

    Shazee

    March 19, 2012 at 09:45

  376. Hansie,

    “niemand is so blind as hy wat nie wil sien nie”.
    Exactly Hansie, exactly!
    Dit is hoekom ek nie meer lus is om met mense soos jy, wat te diep gebreinspoel is, te redekawel nie.
    Daar is geen nut daarvoor nie. So lank ek baie tevrede en gelukkig is om die godiotiese gemors vaarwel toe te roep, het ek nie ‘n fokken saak wat mense soos jy glo nie. Dit is julle probleem. Sit maar met die fodde en bagasie van godsdiens op julle skouers en “lewe” dan daarmee.

    ErickV

    March 19, 2012 at 08:38

  377. More bullshit and excuses, Hanswors. All you’ve given me about your skydaddy is vague incomprehensible fairytales. Not a verifiable fact or credible argument is anywhere in sight. And you godiots will truly say anything to preserve the illusion that you can’t be wrong. For example, you’ll pull out another Holey Babble verse that directly contradicts the one that doesn’t suit your needs and then say there’s no contradictions. Or you’ll say things like, “you should look at the dictionary” when it is plain as daylight that you yourself are being especially pigheaded in “defence” of this nonsense you simply can’t be wrong about.

    It’s just too funny for words — just like you are.

    But please select the next contradiction to “explain” for our amusement, why don’t you?

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2012 at 08:08

  378. Hans, die onderskeid tussen “lie” en “deceive”, is ‘n baie dun lyn, en nie een van die twee is juis vreeslik eerbaar nie.
    As jy lieg vertel jy iets wat jy weet nie waar is nie, en as jy mislei laat jy iemand iets glo wat jy weet nie waar is nie.
    Verder kom die woord “delude” van die Latynse stamwoord “deludere”, wat beteken “om onregverdig te speel”.
    As jy nodig het om jou god op grond van sulke woordspelings te moet verdedig raak jy maar redelik desperaat.

    Shazee

    March 19, 2012 at 07:53

  379. Con-Tester, I have revealed to you what God is on different occasions and you just choose to ignore it, so what is there further to say? I have not given you any excuse so stop dreaming.
    Read verses 21 and 22 of 1 Kings 22 and take note that the Lord did not lie. Do the same with 2 Chronicles 18 v 22 and read the verses 20 an 21 and take note that the Lord did not lie.
    Read the surrounding verses of the verses you quote in Jeremiah 4 and 20. God did not lie read chapter 20 verse 8 and in chapter 4, after the removal of the corrupt, peace prevails.
    In regard to Ezekiel 14 v 9, you should look at the dictionary and you will note that lie and deceive is not the same thing. Take note, God therefore did not lie.
    Regarding 2 Thes. 2 v 11, delusion is not a lie although it led them to believe a lie. Take note, God did not lie.
    It would appear that your advanced studies of the English language has not improved your understanding thereof much.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2012 at 23:35

  380. Hans, wat my stelling dat jy nie ‘n bewering kan maak sonder ‘n poging om dit te bewys nie, te doen met die antwoord wat jy nou gee?
    Wat het dit daarmee te doen dat ek enigiets wat CT se vir soetkoek opeet?
    Wat het die onderskeie bybelskrywers se persoonlike kennis met enigiets te doen? Ek dog die bybel is deur die huilerige spook geinspireer?

    Shazee

    March 18, 2012 at 22:43

  381. Bullshit Hanswors, as ever with you. For an all-powerful entity, your skydaddy sure fucks up surprisingly often when inspiring the different writers of his infallible word, eh? ;)

    Con-Tester

    March 18, 2012 at 22:33

  382. Shazee, jy het duidelik nie die verse betrokke en rondom behoorlik gelees nie omdat die name duidelik verskil. Wil voorkom jy eet als vir soetkoek op wat CT kwyt raak. Twee verskillende skrywers sal in elk geval net skryf van dit waarvan hulle kennis dra en een het van meer kennis gedra as die ander een. Daar is dus geen weerspreking nie. Die ander keer het ek dit ook verduidelik en ja, niemand is so blind soos hy wat nie wil sien nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2012 at 22:27

  383. Hans, dit is ‘n onbevredigende antwoord wat jy gee. As jy se dit is twee verskillende veldslae moet jy mos verduidelik waarom jy dit beweer. Jy kan nie bloot ‘n stelling maak, sonder enige verduideliking of bewyse, en dan aanneem dat dit die einde van die argument is nie.
    Vir dieselfde geld kan ek beweer dat jy verkeerd is, en dat die twee verse wel na dieselfde veldslag verwys. Dit bewys niks nie. Dit is op die vlak van ‘n laerskool stryery op die speelgrond.

    Shazee

    March 18, 2012 at 08:20

  384. Hanswors, “Num 23:19 God is not a man…” is not an answer. It’s an evasion. An imaginary skydaddy is no different from an imaginary “god”, and whether s/he lies or not is debatable (see 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10 & 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9 and/or 2 Thessalonians 2:11). So it would be good if you tried this question again: Please explain for us how your skydaddy isn’t a skydday, just like that of all those other people who call their skydaddies “god”.

    As for your “explanation” of the “2sam 23:8 ≠ 1chron 11:11” bible contradiction, that’s the same daft excuse you gave several months ago. It’s obvious to any reasonably astute reader that the two accounts refer to the same events. Except of course to you Hanswors, because you can’t be wrong, now can you?

    But whatever.

    Please entertain us with your next “explanation”. And try to do better with it, see?

    Con-Tester

    March 17, 2012 at 23:02

  385. Shazee, kyk maar ook wat ek vir C T geskryf het.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2012 at 21:46

  386. Con-Tester, 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?

    1. How many men did the chief of David’s captains kill? 2sam 23:8 ≠ 1chron 11:11
    No contradiction as the different verses are referring to two different battles.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2012 at 21:43

  387. :lol: :lol: :lol: Irreverence at its best! :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Con-Tester

    March 15, 2012 at 21:04

  388. Soois, watter deel van “gerespekteerde wetenskaplikes” het jy nie verstaan nie?
    Watter deel van “nie skeppings webblaaie” het jy nie verstaan nie?

    Shazee

    March 14, 2012 at 10:37

  389. Instantly dismissible. Full of the typical canards, ignorant fallacies, distortions of fact and ridiculous straw men that make cretinist and IDiots feel all warm ‘n’ fluffy.

    But what else can one expect from the world’s greatest-ever unpublished biologist with delusions of significance?

    Con-Tester

    March 14, 2012 at 10:21

  390. Ou Hans, praat van teenstrydighede. Kyk ‘n bietjie hierna…

    “Evolution claims that natural selection is the “organizer” that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. But, how would natural selection recognize a beneficial mutation when a series of mutations are required to produce a beneficial change? For example, evolution teaches that bones from reptiles’ jaws evolved into the bones in mammals’ middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles chew when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until the wings were fully functional. The Archaeopteryx is often given as an example of a transitional form between flying reptiles and birds but it isn’t. Even though it had teeth and a tail like a reptile, this bird had fully formed feathers which are much more complex than frayed scales. There are no known fossils of transitional forms showing how new limbs or organs evolved. Evolutionists used to list several vestigial organs in humans including the appendix and hypothalamus, which were thought to be useless organs left over from earlier stages of human evolution. This list disappeared as important functions were discovered for each organ on the list. The fossil record and currently living animals do not provide any examples of evolving organs or half-formed limbs.

    Another way that the fossil record contradicts evolution is that there are many instances where fossils are out of order in the layers of rock. It is possible to explain the fossils being out of order by claiming that the layers were shifted or inverted but that explanation is highly questionable. In order to explain the fossils being out of order in Europe, geologists have suggested that a mass of rock thick enough to contain the entire Matterhorn somehow moved onto Europe from northern Africa. The movement of such a large mass of rock would certainly cause a lot of rubble but there is no sign of anything like that at the boundary between the rock layers. They fit tightly together.

    An alternate explanation for the fossil record is that animals which were all alive at the same time were buried by a massive flood. The first to be buried would be the non-mobile bottom dwelling animals such as sponges followed by the slow moving clams and worms. The next to be buried would be swimmers such as jellyfish and fish. The next to be buried would be animals that live on the margins between land and water, amphibians, followed by reptiles. The last to be buried would be fast moving land animals such as mammals and birds. According to this explanation, the fossil record shows the order in which animals were buried, not evolved.

    Some geologists say that there could not have been a universal flood because there is no universal disconformity, that is, a break in the sequence of rock layers. It is true that there is no universal disconformity but none is required since the areas under water at the beginning of the flood would be in conformity with the sediments produced by the flood. While not a universal disconformity, there is a very sharp division in the geologic column which can be easily explained by a huge flood. The oldest rocks, the Pre-Cambrian, contain only a few fossils of single celled organisms and also colonies of algae while the next layer, the Cambrian, contains a wealth of fossils of bottom dwelling animals from sponges to trilobites. The best explanation for the sudden appearance of so many fossils is rapid burial. There is a formation called Red Sandstone found throughout the British Isles which contains millions of fossilized fish. The fish are twisted which indicates that they were alive and still struggling when they were buried. Rapid burial would require a flood and no local flood could produce such a widespread layer.

    There is other evidence that most rock layers were formed rapidly. The purity of so-called “evaporite” rocks indicates that they were not produced slowly as a shallow sea dried up but rapidly by a chemical reaction in a slurry of dissolved chemicals. A flood would also explain why sometimes fossils are found out of order. The gaps in the geologic column of rocks can be explained by currents that eroded the fresh sediments while they were still soft. The eroded deposits were then re-deposited on top of earlier deposits.

    The rapid accumulation of soft sediments would also explain why some rock layers are tilted and folded. I took a photograph of rock layers that were folded into a U about 15 feet across. I cannot imagine any amount of pressure and time that would be able to fold these rocks so tightly without breaking them if they were already hard. But they could have folded quickly and with comparatively little pressure if the rock layers were still soft.

    So, when I look at the world, the rock layers and the complexities of life, I see that the evidence for evolution is not as strong as is generally believed and that there are many contradictions to evolution.

    Indoctrinated in evolution
    I used to believe in evolution. I was thoroughly indoctrinated in evolution when I was in college. My zoology instructor traced evolution step by step. I used to sneer at the idea of creation and pitied anyone who believed in it. I believed that creation was religion and evolution was science and I firmly chose science.

    But I was completely ignorant of the religious basis for the widespread belief in evolution. One evolutionist stated that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful and it would take a large number of successive beneficial mutations for evolution to occur so the probability of evolution was incredibly small but he believed that it did happen because he thought the idea of a creator was impossible. That isn’t a scientific statement but an incredible leap of faith. According to Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley who was called the Bulldog of Evolution, evolution was widely accepted not because of scientific evidence, but because it freed mankind of their accountability to a creator for their moral choices.

    I was also ignorant of the scientific evidence that contradicted evolution and supported creation until I read a book called Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris whose Ph.D. is in hydraulic engineering. He presented a scientific comparison of two theories of origin: Evolution and Creation. Since origins are one-time events, they are outside the realm of empirical science. Experiments may indicate the probability that something happened in a particular way but that doesn’t prove that it actually happened that way.

    Since the two theories can’t be proven by empirical science, they have to be evaluated according to the principles of theoretical science. A theory makes predictions about the real world. If the world operates as predicted, then the theory is validated. If the world is otherwise, then the theory has to be rejected or modified.

    The primary evidence for evolution is comparative anatomy which predated Charles Darwin. It is obvious that the skeletons of different mammals as well as all vertebrates have many common features. This is also true of many facets of plants and animals right down to cellular biology and genes. Evolution claims that the explanation for this is that similar plants and animals are descended from a common ancestor. However, there is another explanation for this. I used to live in a house that was practically identical to the house next door, but no one ever suggested that they were descended from a common ancestor. It was assumed that they were built by the same builder. This was confirmed by historical evidence when I spoke with the builder’s daughter. Likewise, animals and plants are similar because they were all created by the same Creator. Similar structures were used for similar purposes and different structures were used for different purposes. So comparative anatomy supports both theories.

    Organisms do adapt to their environment but that is also consistent with both theories. A wise creator would include flexibility in his creations so they can adapt to changing environments. The peppered moth in England changed from predominantly light to predominantly dark as the trees were darkened with soot. But that is not an example of evolution because the peppered moth has reverted back to predominantly light now that the air is cleaner.

    Natural selection is also consistent with both theories except that according to evolution, improvements are selected and according to creation, harmful changes are eliminated.

    Regarding mutations, evolution would predict that they are beneficial since they are what make evolution possible. Creation would predict that they are harmful since the original creatures were perfect so any change is harmful. Evolutionists admit that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful so this contradicts evolution and supports creation.

    Regarding variation, evolution would predict that there would be gradual variations producing a continuum of individuals while creation would predict distinct kinds of animals with distinct gaps between the kinds. The fact that plants and animals are readily classified into different genera tends to support creation. However, modern creationists do not insist that God created each species since Darwin pretty well demolished that idea. God apparently created dog-kind with enough built-in variation to produce wolves, coyotes, dingoes and dogs. Darwin jumped to the conclusion that variation would lead to the apperance of new kinds of animals. But dog breeding has shown that there are limits to variation since highly inbred dog breeds suffer from genetic weaknesses.

    The fossil record can be made to support evolution if the geological column is organized according to the fossils in the rocks but this is circular reasoning. There are very few locations where the entire geological column is found in order. There are many places where fossils are found out of order. The explanations for how they got out of order are highly questionable as I explained earlier. A massive flood would create the same general order for the fossils and also explain the places when the fossils are out of order as well as the gaps in the geological column.

    Regarding the age of the earth, evolution would require a very old earth to allow time for evolution while creation doesn’t require old or young. Old age for the earth was calculated based on accumulated rock layers assuming that each layer represented one year but when Mt. St. Helens erupted, geologists discovered that over 600 distinct layers of ash accumulated in one afternoon during the eruption and as the eruption column collapsed.

    Old age has also been suggested by radioactive dating of rocks. This is also highly questionable. A lava flow in Hawaii was dated historically at 200 years but potassium-argon dating indicated that it was 2,000 years old. According to potassium-argon dating, the oldest rock at the Grand Canyon is a lava flow which flowed across the rim, dribbled down the side and puddled at the bottom of the canyon. Obviously, the lava flow is actually younger than the canyon but potassium-argon dating gives the false indication of great age for the lava flow.

    Of course, there are some objections to a young earth. Since we can see stars that are millions of light years away, I have to assume that when God created stars, he also created their starlight as if they had been shining for many years.

    One evidence for a young earth is the accumulation of space dust. Before the first moon landing there was concern because NASA calculated that as much as 120 feet of space dust would have accumulated on the moon over a few billion years. But the astronauts found rocks on the surface. This contradicts an old age for the earth and moon.

    (Don’t jump on me for this one. I have already heard the arguments reasining why and how the moon may not have collected nearly this much dust.)

    Another indication of a young earth is the accumulation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Recent measurements in the upper atmosphere indicate that C-14 is still accumulating faster than it is decaying so the process has been continuing for less than the 30,000 years it would take for C-14 production and radioactive decay to reach equilibrium.

    When the predictions of the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation are compared to the real world, Creation’s predictions are found to be much more accurate than Evolution’s predictions. Evolutionists have found ways to explain these contradictions but support for the theory is weakened because so many explanations are required.

    When taken as a whole, the real world gives evidence that belief in a Creator is a reasonable faith and that belief in evolution is not as scientific as it claims. And, once you accept the possibility that the creation had an all powerful and wise Creator, then the creation story is not preposterous at all. In fact, it is quite uplifting to realize that mankind was God’s final and greatest creation since God put some of his own creative ability into mankind.

    The final prediction of evolution is that humankind will eventually become extinct after we are succeeded by a superior animal or we make the earth uninhabitable. On the other hand, the final prediction of the creation story is found in the last chapter of the Bible. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. People will dwell together in peace in the presence of the Creator.”

    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29969

    soois

    March 14, 2012 at 09:50

  391. Hanswors, my bad re the link. I copied the wrong one (or maybe WordPress played skydaddy and fucked it up. Here is the correct one.

    Oh, and Hanswors, please explain for us how your skydaddy isn’t a skydday, just like that of all those other people who call their skydaddies “god”. And while we’re talking about appearances, it appears that you cannot read signals correctly and you also appear incapable of addressing the questions that others put to you. Not that that’s a problem for someone like you who for whom it’s impossible to be wrong about your skydaddy… oops, I meant “god”, and who knows far more than anyone else about your Holey Babble.

    But here’s a promise: I’ll start taking what you say seriously just as soon as you start talking coherent sense.

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2012 at 22:20

  392. Kan nie wag nie Hans.
    Ek wil ook net weet wat jy bedoel met “erkentelik”? Beteken dit dat iemand wat nie meet jou saamstem nie, nie erkentelik is nie?

    Shazee

    March 13, 2012 at 22:10

  393. ErickV, wees geduldig aangesien C T se wobblad is op die oomblik nie beskikbaar nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 13, 2012 at 22:08

  394. Shazee, ek het lank gelede die eerste drie vir hom bewys en hy was nie erkentlik daaromtrent nie. Sal weer sodra die webblad weer beskikbaar is.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 13, 2012 at 22:04

  395. Con-Tester, again you display what an idiot you seem to be as I do not believe in a God in the sky. You appear to be so full of yourself, that you don’t seem to register what others say.
    I tried the link of so called contradictions and got a 404 message. I will try again tomorrow.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 13, 2012 at 22:01

  396. As ek so na ou Hans se bydraes kyk wat gewoonlik in die aand geplaas word dink ek aan die spotterende vertaling in fanakalo van ‘n vlermuis.
    “Lo pikanin flymachien hena jopa night shift”

    ErickV

    March 13, 2012 at 13:02

  397. And if that’s not to your liking Hanswors, you can try your claimed infallibility on some of these.

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2012 at 09:44

  398. Hanswors, in case you can’t find the link, here it is. Again.

    Now, no dodging, see? None of this “you pick and I’ll explain” bullshit that you love so much, see? You pick and you explain, see? That way, the game is entirely in your favour, see? That’s a courtesy, just like me giving you the link over and over and over again, see?

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2012 at 09:43

  399. Hansie Slim,

    Ek het ook al vir jou ‘n link gegee, maar jy is so blind soos ‘n mol.
    Die link is http://scepticsannotatedbible.com
    Daar is 464 weersprekings. Maar nou ja, jy stel nie belang om wakker te skrik nie!

    ErickV

    March 13, 2012 at 06:09

  400. Hans, Con-Tester het al by herhaling vir jou die link gegee, waarom begin jy nie sommer by die eerste een op daardie lys nie? Toe, daar is die eerste een vir jou Hans, wat nou?

    Shazee

    March 13, 2012 at 01:54

  401. I read a quotable assessment recently that, like all good analogies, is succinct, accurate and illuminating. It went something like this:

    Debating godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots/apologiots is like playing chess with a pigeon: No matter how well you set up the rules, they will fly in, knock over all the pieces, cluck a great deal, crap all over the board, and then fly off claiming victory.

    Con-Tester

    March 12, 2012 at 22:25

  402. But Hanswors, that won’t be necessary, like I’ve told you on numerous occasions before. You can pick any 40 of them you like and show us how you can’t be wrong about your skydaddy and how knowledgeable you are about your Holey Babble. Why are you still dodging this issue so hard? How often does one need to explain things to you in baby-talk before they sink in?

    Con-Tester

    March 12, 2012 at 22:11

  403. Shazee, kom ons bespreek al 400 een vir een en kies jy maar die eerste een.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 12, 2012 at 21:54

  404. Con-Tester, kom ons bespreek al 400 een vir een en kies jy maar die eerste een.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 12, 2012 at 21:52

  405. Nee Hans ek weet nie dat dit waar is nie, en ek het nog nie die die goed ervaar waarvan jy praat nie.
    Ek sien die bybel ook nie anders nie, ek sien en lees dit presies soos dit is. Dit is jy wat hierdie “pie in the sky” interpretasies daaraan gee. Ek het probeer wegbly van persoonlike beledigings, maar as jy weer met die kak uitkom dat daar nie teenstrydighede in die bybel is nie, is ons weer terug by my opinie omtrent jou IK.

    Shazee

    March 11, 2012 at 22:40

  406. Hanswors, I’ve given you a link to over 400 of them. Multiple times. How soon you forget, eh?

    But what has that got to do with the plain fact that you haven’t explained anything, and that you’re just continuously dodging questions? In fact, this latest little attempt is as see-through as all the rest. I think you’re hilarious.

    Con-Tester

    March 11, 2012 at 22:35

  407. Ja wat, volgens ou Hanswors dwaal almal wat nie glo soos hy nie. Dit is só want hy sê dis só en hy kan jou ’n ou boek wys. Boonop is dit volgens hom onmoontlik dat hy verkeerd kan wees oor sy “god” (waddefok dìt ookal mag wees)… :roll:

    Con-Tester

    March 11, 2012 at 22:31

  408. Con-Tester, you have not been able to show me one contradiction in the Bible and now you want me to believe you because you say it is so.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 11, 2012 at 22:31

  409. Shazee, as jy die Bybel en God anders wil sien, dan moet jy maar lekker dwaal. Jy en al jou maatjies kannie een weerspreking in die Bybel bewys nie. Liefde (God) is bewys, Lig (verstanbaarheid)(God) is bewys, ens en jy kan dit nie ontken nie, want binne in jou, het jy dit wat ek noem, ervaar.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 11, 2012 at 22:25

  410. Hans, ongelukkig al wat jy vir my bewys het is dat jy met ‘n passie glo wat jy glo, en niks anders nie.
    Jy wil vir ons uitwys dat dit ‘n goeie toedrag van sake sal wees as die god waarin jy glo wel bestaan. Ek kan jou amper gelyk gee dat dit ‘n goeie ding sal wees.
    Die probleem is net dat hy nie bestaan nie Hans. Die god van volkome liefde, wysheid en genade waarin jy glo bestaan nie, hy bestaan nie eens in die bybel wat jy lees nie Hans. Gaan lees die bybel sonder jou naiewe geloofsbril, en jy sal sien ek is reg.
    Die god in jou bybel is ‘n ongevoelige, jaloerse, wrede, onlogiese, inkonsekwente en (gelukkig) hoogs onwaarskynlike monster.
    Waarin jy glo is ‘n karikatuur van ‘n mitiese karakter. Dit hou geen verband met die werklikheid, of sefs met die skepper wat inderdaad in jou bybel voorgehou word nie. As jy ophou om alles in die bybel metafories of simbolies te wil verklaar sal jy sien wat ek bedoel.
    Jy is ongelukkig aangesteek met die godvirus en ek twyfel of jy ooit die onlogiese absurditeit van jou geloof sal insien, of selfs die moontlikheid sal oorweeg dat jy moontlik verkeerd mag wees.

    Shazee

    March 10, 2012 at 23:30

  411. Shazee, ek bewys God aan jou, want ek bewys liefde jeens jou. Kyk hoe verdraagsaam is ek teenoor jou en dit blyk net dat jy verwag dat God iets anders moet wees asof wat ek jou vertel, nie ingewikkeld genoeg is vir jou nie. God is die “woord” en alles in jou wêreld het juis deur die “woord” ontstaan. God is gees en jy kan nie liefde, vergifnis, wysheid, woord ens. met jou hande vat of proe of sien of vat en in ‘n bottel sit nie. Dit is alles goed wat reeds aan jou bewys is, maar nee, jy wil iets anders sien.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 10, 2012 at 22:35

  412. Hanswors, you haven’t explained anything to anyone on this blog. Just about the only thing you’ve done here is preached your stupid refrain that, in a nutshell, goes like this: “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.”

    Besides that, you’ve avoided and dodged and evaded answering everyone’s questions, and there is no sign that you’re going to change your laughable, childish ways. If you think anyone is buying your stupid excuses that you call “explaining”, think again, Hanswors.

    Which self-delusion reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs ( :lol: :oops: )…

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 22:23

  413. Con-Tester, you are not interested in trying to understand anything I have written on this blog. I have explained Bible verses to you, that you could not contradict and your favorite excuse is, that you don’t believe in the Bible. You don’t have to believe in the Bible, but you could at least try and understand what one is saying about verses quoted by you and others.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 10, 2012 at 22:16

  414. Hans, ek dink nou weer daaroor, jy kan nie ernstig wees nie, of jy het nie my vraag verstaan nie. Ek het gevra dat jy vir my moet verduidelik hoe die bestaan van liefde, praat en hoor die bestaan van ‘n god bewys, soos vir ‘n dom ou, nie soos ‘n dom ou nie.
    Verstaan jy nie wat “bewys” beteken nie, Hans? As jy nie “bewyse” kan verskaf sonder bybelversies nie, wat van minstens ‘n logiese redenasie, of weet jy ook nie wat dit is nie?

    Shazee

    March 10, 2012 at 06:30

  415. That’s it??? Dit is hoe jy my vraag antwoord??
    Asseblief Hans, se tog vir my jy kan beter as dit doen!

    Shazee

    March 9, 2012 at 23:00

  416. Rick, siestog! Moet ek nou elke keer die volgende sê; Liefde, Wysheid, Lig (verstaanbaarheid), Gees, Woord en wat nog? Ek kan nou nie stry met jou en Shazee se laaste kommentaar nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2012 at 22:06

  417. You don’t understand, Hanswors. A great many things you don’t understand. Most importantly, you don’t understand how much you actually don’t understand. You think I’m pretending when I say that I do want to understand!? Dismissing me with a convenient dodge like “you don’t really want to see, as you have made up your mind accordingly” is very, um, Crushtian of you. I’m sure your skydaddy and his bastard son Jeeeeeebusssst! are very proud of you for it. Even your Holey Babble condones all of this evasion and dodging you’re doing… :roll:

    Con-Tester

    March 9, 2012 at 22:06

  418. Shazee, dit is God, naamlik; liefde, wysheid, ens.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2012 at 21:59

  419. Con-Tester, you don’t really want to see, as you have made up your mind accordingly and therefore it has nothing to do with your or my ability or inability.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2012 at 21:55

  420. Skitterend gestel rick, jy het my nou lekker laat lag man.

    Shazee

    March 9, 2012 at 17:00

  421. Ditsem! Maar dis natuurlik te wyte aan Hans se ongeewenaarde intelletuele kapasiteit Ons dommes kan net nie kers vas hou nie!

    ens ens. :-)

    rick

    March 9, 2012 at 16:59

  422. So rick, ek verneem dan dat jy ook een van ons dommetjies is wat geen fokken clue het wat ou Hanswors nou eintlik gorrel. Is my opvatting reg?

    Con-Tester

    March 9, 2012 at 16:49

  423. Haha, die grootste ”give away” dat Hans nie eintlik weet waarvan hy praat nie is sy herhaaldelike gebruik van die afkorting ”ens” (ensovoorts). Laasgenoemde woord het beslis sy plek, maar as dit te veel gebruik word, dan moet jy weet dat die spesifieke skrywer suig kak uit sy duim.

    Jesus, Heilige Gees, God, ens ens… :-)

    rick

    March 9, 2012 at 16:07

  424. Hans, weet jy, ek het al sleg gevoel dat ek jou onnoselheid beskuldig maar jy maak dit regtig moeilik vir ‘n mens.
    Kom ek gee jou gelyk; ja, daar is liefde, woorde ens in die wereld, niemand betwis dit nie.
    Maar wat is jou punt? Hoe bewys dit die bestaan van jou god? Jy het my al terug van onnoselheid beskuldig, so verduidelik nou vir my soos vir ‘n dom ou hoe die onteenseglike bestaan van liefde, woorde, praat en hoor die bestaan van ‘n god bewys. Sonder bybel aanhalings asseblief tog; aanhalings uit die bybel bewys niks behalwe dat dit in die bybel staan nie.

    Shazee

    March 9, 2012 at 07:55

  425. But I do want to see, Hanswors. I’d’ve thought that was clear enough. Yet, I don’t se and you are refusing to explain properly or to answer my questions appropriately. So, once more: Do you think that’s a reflection of my inability to understand or of your inability to explain, Hanswors?

    Does it not bother you that most of the time nobody has a clue what you’re babbling about?

    Is that something you learn to ignore at the same time that you learn that you cannot be wrong about your “god”, Hanswors?

    Con-Tester

    March 8, 2012 at 22:50

  426. Shazee, God is liefde, woord, wysheid ens. dus glo almal in woorde, wysheid, liefde ens. Dink jy daar is ‘n mens wat nie smag na liefde. Jy is welkom om jou totale ander verklaring te gee as dit nie te langsamehangend is nie. Daar is genoeg bewyse van woord, wysheid, liefde ens.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 8, 2012 at 22:36

  427. Con-Tester, it is rather a matter of ” nobody is so blind as those who do not want to see”.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 8, 2012 at 22:24

  428. Jip, but I bet Hans will like equation.

    Shazee

    March 8, 2012 at 13:34

  429. In Hanswors wiskunde, is:

    (Woorde + Praat + Glo × Liefde – Vlees) ÷ Gees = God

    Of iets in die voge. Soos jy kan sien is die logika van die gelyking ietwat fucked up.

    Con-Tester

    March 8, 2012 at 12:04

  430. Goed dan Hans, kom ons probeer weer:
    Ek het jou gevra om te verduidelik wat jy bedoel met jou stelling dat almal in god glo, maar nie almal weet dit nie. Jy kom terug met ‘n antwoord dat almal woorde hoor en almal praat, en daarby dat almal in liefde glo.
    As jy beweer dat almal in liefde glo, impliseer jy daarmee dat jy almal ken en dat almal aan jou te kenne gegee het dat hulle in liefde glo. Is dit waar Hans, ken jy elke persoon op aarde en jy weet eerstehands dat almal in liefde glo? As dit nie is wat jy beweer nie, hoe weet jy almal glo in liefde?
    Verder maak jou implikasie dat om in liefde te glo noodwendig beteken dat jy in ‘n god glo nie veel sin nie. Ek glo persoonlik in liefde, maar ek kan vir jou ‘n totaal ander verklaring daarvoor gee as ‘n geloof in ‘n god (laat weet maar as jy in die verklaring belangstel).
    Wat ‘n mens moet maak van jou stelling dat almal woorde hoor en almal praat, weet ek nie. Wat probeer jy daarmee se? As jy kan praat en woorde hoor glo jy in ‘n god, maar jy weet dit nie???
    Jou stelling dat jy niemand kan oortuig nie is waar, maar dit is nie in beginsel waar nie. Jy persoonlik sal my moeilik van enigiets oortuig met jou onsamehangende en sinnelose redenasies, maar ek is wel oop vir oortuiging op grond van bewyse en logiese redenasies.

    Jy sien Hans, dit is nie dat ek verward is en daarom nie van jou antwoorde hou nie, dit is net dat ek gefrustreerd raak met jou konstante selfdienende en ontwykende antwoorde.

    Shazee

    March 8, 2012 at 09:07

  431. Okay Hanswors, so you admit you can’t answer my questions in a way that is understandable to me. Do you think that’s a reflection of my inability to understand or of your inability to explain? Does it not bother you that most of the time nobody has a clue what you’re babbling about? Is it this “spiritual” vs. “fleshly” thinking, Hanswors? Can you not even explain that basic thing for us? Surely that should be easy for you, seeing how vast your knowledge of your Holey Babble is and how it’s impossible for you to be wrong about your “god”. Come, come Hanswors, don’t be so selfish with your expertise.

    Which confused dodging reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs ( :lol: :oops: ), you got a “yes” or “no” for me? Or are you still dodging? Thought so.

    Con-Tester

    March 7, 2012 at 22:02

  432. Shazee, ek mag klink soos ‘n swaksinnige sot, hoe verder ons gaan, maar jy gedra jou soos ‘n swaksinnige sot, hoe verder ons gaan.
    My antwoorde is nie wat jy graag wil hoor nie en nou is jy verward omdat jy nie ‘n bietjie vir jouself kan of wil dink nie. Probeer weer noukeurig lees en kyk of jy kan verstaan wat gesê word.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 7, 2012 at 21:18

  433. Con-Tester, one cannot answer your questions as one will just confuse you even more.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 7, 2012 at 21:10

  434. Hans, hoe verder ons gaan, hoe meer begin jy klink soos ‘n swaksinnnige sot.
    Wat op fokken aarde het jou antwoord met enigiets te doen wat relevant tot die gesprek is?
    Jy raak al hoe meer obskuur en onverstaanbaar. Ek begin regtig wonder of daar nog sin daarin is om met jou ‘n gesprek te probeer voer. Jy antwoord bitter selde ‘n vraag, en as jy doen, is dit ‘n onsamehangende en sinnelose gebabbel.
    Is jy verstandelik vertraag Hans?

    Shazee

    March 6, 2012 at 23:39

  435. Hanswors, it’s obviously never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, it’s you yourself who verkeers in duisternis. I mean, when you’re constantly immersed in discombobulated murk, even a firefly will seem to you like a spotlight.

    Con-Tester

    March 6, 2012 at 23:22

  436. Shazee, almal glo in liefde en almal praat en hoor woorde. Ek kan niemand oortuig nie aangesien oortuiging in elke mens self. Con-Tester, blyk nie al een wat nog in duisternis verkeer.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 6, 2012 at 23:17

  437. What are you babbling about now, Hanswors? I mean besides flashing your penis… er, incoherence in public again?

    Why don’t you rather answer my questions, Hanswors — or at least try to — with some sense?

    Con-Tester

    March 6, 2012 at 23:13

  438. Con-Tester, I am right, you have confused yourself.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 6, 2012 at 23:08

  439. Hans, ek het jou nou net op die ander geselslyn om verskoning gevra, maar my oorsprongklike kommentaar kan dan maar staan in die lig van die antwoord wat jy nou hier gee.
    Ek het nie ‘n idee waarvan jy praat nie, en ek het ook nie ‘n clue wat jou antwoord met my kommentaar te doen het nie.

    Jy beweer almal glo, maar almal weet dit nie? Verduidelik dit tog asseblief vir my Hans. Oortuig my jy het nie dringend sielkundige hulp nodig nie.

    Shazee

    March 5, 2012 at 23:11

  440. Shazee, as jy met aardse dinge besig is, sal jy aardse dinge ervaar en as jy met Hemelse dinge besig is, sal jy Hemelse dinge ervaar. Ek dink nie ek kan ervaar om ‘n drie te druk as ek sokker speel en nie rugby nie. Almal glo in God maar almal weet dit nie so geen veronderstellings is nodig.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 22:51

  441. What are you babbling about now, Hanswors? I mean besides flashing your penis… er, religion in public again?

    Why don’t you rather answer my questions, Hanswors — or at least try to — with some sense?

    Con-Tester

    March 5, 2012 at 22:37

  442. ErickV, jou reaksie toon dat jy nie kan weer lê wat die versies vir jou sê nie en om erkentlik te wees is nie vir jou aanvaarbaar nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 22:26

  443. Con-Tester, it is only a problem for a insignificant few who are confined to that which is carnal. A few who are seeking rather for a highly complicated explanation that confused even themselves.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 22:21

  444. Hans, jy se jy het dinge ervaar wat jy nie kan bewys nie. Ek neem aan dit is, onder andere, hierdie ervarings wat jou so onwrikbaar laat glo.
    My vraag is nou net waarom elke mens op aarde nie soortgelyke ervarings kry nie, dan kan almal mos gered word. Is dit nie wat god wil he nie?
    Moet nou nie weer vir my vertel hoe kinderlik ek eers moet word voordat ek die ervarings sal he nie – god is almagtig en hy kan ‘n super wonderwerk verrig as hy wil, ‘n wonderwerk wat niemand met enige twyfel sal laat nie, kinderlik of nie.
    Se byvoorbeeld ‘n dominee kondig aan dat hy god gaan versoek om die aarde volgende Maandag om een minuut en twee en dertig sekondes oor 12h00 te laat stilstaan in sy wentelbaan om die son, en dat die stilstand vir presies 30 minute tot op die sekond moet duur.
    Veronderstel dit gebeur presies soos hy versoek het, en god skort boonop die ander wette van fisika op sodat ons die gebeurtenis ongeskonde oorleef. Dink jy selfs die gehardste ateis sal nie onmiddelik tot bekering kom nie?
    As dit so belangrik vir god is dat almal in hom moet glo, waarom hierdie suutjies poep geestelike ervaringtjies wat nie jy of enige ander gelowige kan bewys, wetenskaplik of andersins nie? Jou god speel wegkruipertjie Hans. Dit is ‘n kinderspeletjie, geen wonder jy moet eers kinderlik (kinderagtig) word voor jy die nonsens sal glo nie.
    Ek het niks behalwe minagting vir die lui, oneerlike en skadelike redenasie proses wat tot blinde geloof lei nie.

    Shazee

    March 5, 2012 at 08:37

  445. Hansie Slim,

    Jou breindood liggaam word gevoer deur bybel versies.
    Ek stel nie verder belang om jou klomp sinlose kak te lees nie.
    Soos ek ook voorheen genoem het, is jy ‘n eenvoudige TROL!

    ErickV

    March 5, 2012 at 05:48

  446. No Hanswors, you cannot prove it at all, scientifically or any other way. That’s the problem. All you can do is say, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.”

    By the same token, you cannot prove that what you claim about having “had experiences of many who are not in the flesh any more” is anything but the cotton wool that fills your head playing tricks on you.

    In short, you cannot prove even the first thing you say about your “god”. Anyone listening to you is therefore perfectly justified to write off your stories as bullshit.

    And it’s a massive joke (one you yourself obviously don’t get) that on the one hand you say you can’t prove it scientifically (there really being no other way to prove something), and on the other insisting that it is impossible for you to be wrong about it.

    And my body without “me” being like a car without a driver? That’s so naïve as to defy kindergarten. What is this “me” thing, Hanswors, hmm? Are you aware that Cartesian dualism is not a viable philosophy? Do you even have any clue what I’m telling you?

    Which blind and goofy incoherence reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 4, 2012 at 22:16

  447. Con-Tester, I have had experiences of many who are not in the flesh any more, during my life and although I cannot prove it to you scientifically, it does not mean that it does not exist. When you are not in your car driving it, it is as good as dead, as without a driver it is useless.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 4, 2012 at 21:51

  448. What’s the difference between “jy” and “jou liggaam”, Hanswors? Are you aware that Cartesian dualism is a dead duck?

    Con-Tester

    March 3, 2012 at 22:24

  449. Shazee, jou liggaam word veras en nie jy nie, want jy sal nie meer in jou liggaam wees nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 3, 2012 at 22:15

  450. Erickv, Mat 23:29 Wee julle, skrifgeleerdes en Fariseërs, geveinsdes, want julle bou die grafte van die profete en versier die grafstene van die regverdiges; (Kyk ook vers 27). Daar is grafte by die begrafplaas en daar is grafte. Jy is soos ‘n graf wat nog nie oop gegaan het nie, want jy is nog induisternis en jy is dood wat geloof in God betref.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 3, 2012 at 22:10

  451. Seker in ’n duisternis wat helder is weens die vlamme… :roll:

    Con-Tester

    March 3, 2012 at 11:56

  452. En waar gaan ek wees as ek nie begrawe word nie, Hans? As ek byvoorbeeld veras word?

    Shazee

    March 3, 2012 at 08:35

  453. Hansie Slim,

    Ek dag dan dat al die grafte met die wederkoms sal oopgaan?
    Jy sien, die probleem met jou is dat JY nog nie die lig gesien het nie!

    ErickV

    March 3, 2012 at 05:20

  454. Shazee, jy is tans nog in duisternis en dit is waar jy sal wees. ‘n Graf is duisternis.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2012 at 22:37

  455. Dit is wonderlike nuus Hans! Ek hoef nie hel toe te gaan nie – uistekend!
    Net uit nuuskierigheid, waar gaan ek dan heen as ek die emmer skop – sekerlik nie hemel toe nie?

    Shazee

    March 2, 2012 at 07:58

  456. Shazee, jy is nog in duisternis en dus kan jy nie in die Hel beland nie. Dit is net hulle wat sie Lig gesien het en dit nie aanneem nie, wat in die Hel kan beland.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 1, 2012 at 23:08

  457. Ja Malherbe, jy is seker reg. Ek wens net ek kan sin maak van wat dit nou eintlik is wat Hans glo.
    Ek wonder soms of hy self weet van die een dag tot die volgende. Sulke deurmekaar pratery het ek nog selde teegekom.

    Shazee

    March 1, 2012 at 20:37

  458. Shazee, ek sou my te veel steur aan Hansie se stelling nie. Deur dogmatiese brilglase lyk alles maar dof.

    Malherbe

    March 1, 2012 at 19:21

  459. Hans,
    Jou kommentaar maak nog minder sin as gewoonlik.
    Watter deel van my opmerking is dof?
    Die gedeelte dat ek gaan braai as ek nie in jesus glo nie? Is dit nie wat gaan gebeur nie?
    Of is dit die deel dat jesus nie baie vergewensgesind is nie? Sou jy se dit is vergewensgesind dat ek vir ewig hel toe moet gaan net omdat ek nie in hom glo nie?

    Shazee

    February 29, 2012 at 22:25

  460. Shazee, as jy nie werk nie, gaan jy nie ‘n salaris kry nie. As jy nie oefen nie, gaan jy nie fiks word nie en daarom dink ek, jou stelling oor Jesus, is ‘n bietjie dof.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 29, 2012 at 22:03

  461. Daan,

    Ja jong, ek weet jy glo nie die boodskap van die nuwe testament nie.

    Ek stem ook met jou saam dat dit verskoonbbaar was vir die mense in die antieke tyd om aan die mites van die bybel te geglo het. Hulle kon eenvoudig nie van beter geweet het nie.
    Die probleem is natuurlik dat niemand in die 21ste eeu die selfde verskoning het nie.
    Elke persoon wat deelneem aan hierdie blog het duidelik minstens toegang tot die internet met sy oneindige skat van kennis, ook wetenskaplike kennis – hulle behoort sekerlik van beter te weet.

    Ek is ook nie een van die mense wat by elke geleentheid iets gaan skryf soos “jesus se poes” vir die blote skokwaarde daarvan nie.
    Die rede waarom ek nie “god” of “jesus” met hoofletters wil skryf nie is eenvoudig om my protes te registreer teen die goddelike status wat die godiote aandring om aan hom toe te ken.

    Groete

    Shazee

    February 29, 2012 at 09:13

  462. Hello Daan!

    Ek dink Shazee het dit goed genoeg opgesom. Ek het maar Tarzan genoem om dat dit ook ‘n “ou boek” was. Ek glo dat daar wel bybel figure was wat wel bestaan het en wat ‘n Ahbramse “god” aanbid het. Dit is, soos gese, nie bewys van daardie “god” nie.
    Omtrent alle mense wat al op hierdie aarde van ons gelewe het (Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens en Homo Sapiens Sapiens) het al een of ander “god” aanbid. Dit is gelukkig natuurlik as gevolg van ‘n natuurlike brein funksie. Dan wonder ek ook hoekom tjank jakkalse en wolwe vir die vol maan? :)

    ErickV

    February 29, 2012 at 05:31

  463. “The overwhelming problem is that this Jeeeeebussssst! character comes encumbered with lots more superstitious mythology than actual credible fact (which is why I will continue to refer to him as I do).”

    Dit is so. Maar dit is nie hierdie man, Jesus, se skuld nie. Ja, hy het ook die bestaan van God verkondig, maar die mense van die antieke tyd was almal bygelowig, en het meestal almal in die bestaan van ‘n god/gode geglo. Ons kan hulle ook nie kwalik neem nie, want hulle het nie eers amper naastenby die inligting gehad wat ons vandag het nie.

    Dit staan jou natuurlik vry om na Jesus te verwys soos jy wil. Dit skeel my min en vir hom nog minder. “Jeeeeebussssst!(bold)” is ten minste meer aanvaarbaar as “fok jesus” en “jesus se poes”. En jy begin die naam met ‘n hoofletter “J”, wat grammatikaal korrek is.

    Na alles, ons skryf selfs “Julius Malema” en nie “julius malema” nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 29, 2012 at 05:08

  464. Shazee!!! Naandsê.

    Maar natuurlik is die historiese bestaan van Jesus hoegenaamd geen bewys dat hy die seun van God is nie, of dat ‘n god bestaan nie. En ek het dit ook nooit insinueer nie.

    En natuurlik is die sentrale boodskap van die Nuwe Testament sonder ENIGE substansie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 29, 2012 at 02:15

  465. Hans,
    Jesus self is nou nie juis vergewensgesind nie.
    As ek hom te na kom deur nie in hom te glo nie gaan ek vir ewig braai.
    Dit is nou nie om te praat van die onverdraagsame houding wat ek daagliks by sy kinders hier op aarde teekom nie.

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 22:24

  466. Daan,

    Daar is natuurlik historiese figure in die bybel.
    Die punt is egter eerstens dat die sentrale boodskap van die ou sowel as nuwe testament vergesog en fiktief is.
    Tweedens is die historiese bestaan van jesus, al dan nie, bitter ver van ‘n bewys dat hy die seun van god is, of dat ‘n god hoegenaamd bestaan.

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 22:17

  467. In that case, we’re more or less agreed, Daan. The overwhelming problem is that this Jeeeeebussssst! character comes encumbered with lots more superstitious mythology than actual credible fact (which is why I will continue to refer to him as I do).

    And no, I don’t have a per se problem with the promotion of peace and love. What I do have a problem with is promoting these obvious and largely natural strivings of people as though they needed a supernatural impetus and/or they were somehow the indispensible key to some imagined beyond-the-grave treasure/reward, rather than worth striving for in their own right (again, in the sense of a general status quo because assorted rivalries will probably never be completely eradicated).

    Con-Tester

    February 28, 2012 at 22:09

  468. Erick!!! Naandsê.

    Jou verwysing na die fiktiewe karakter “Tarzan”, geskep deur Edgar Rice Burroughs, is nie ‘n goeie vergelyking nie.

    Ek hoop werklik nie dat jy die bestaan van AL die karakters in die Bybel as fabel/fiktief/mitologies verwerp nie.

    Daar kan geen twyfel bestaan dat Adam, Eva, Henog, Noag en waarskynlik ook Abraham en selfs Moses NIE historiese karakters was nie. So ook Job.

    Maar seersekerlik kan die bestaan van karakters soos Dawid, Salomo, Rehabeam, Jerobeam, Hiskea en Herodus nie betwyfel word nie?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 28, 2012 at 22:04

  469. Of course you don’t owe me anything, Hanswors. Where did I claim that you do, hmm?

    But you do owe the readers of this blog, as a group, a decent account of your claims. Sadly for your how-great-am-I orgasm, I’m part of that group.

    Con-Tester

    February 28, 2012 at 21:52

  470. Con!!! Naandsê.

    Verskoon my dat ek oorslaan na Afrikaans.

    Nee, ek het jou verwysing na die “Biblical” Jesus nie gemis nie. Kyk gerus weer na my oorsproklike pos waar ek verwys het na ‘n man met die naam van Jesus van Nasaret.

    Google gerus “Jesus Seminar” en kyk na hulle gevolgtrekkings rondom die “historiese” Jesus teenoor die “opgestane” Jesus (die “Bybelse” Jesus.).

    Kom ek gee jou a “money back guarantee” dat jy dit baie sal geniet. Hulle verwerp onder andere Jesus se maagdelike geboorte, sy opstanding, sy hemelvaart en spesifiek sy goddelike status. Die “fellows” van die “Jesus Seminar” het omtrent almal doktorsgrade in Nuwe Testamentiese wetenskap.

    Hulle ontleed spesifiek die 4 kannonieke evangelies van Mattheus, Markus, Lukas en Johannes, en kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat heelwat dinge wat Jesus volgens hierdie evangelies sou gesê het, nie korrek is nie. Veral die evangelie van Johannes word bykans in sy geheel as ongeloofwaardig verwerp.

    Jy sê: “That some charismatic desert-wandering outcast Jew probably existed with delusions of godhood, preaching messages of peace and love….”

    Nie sleg nie. As jy maar net die twee woorde “outcast” en “probably” nie gebruik het nie, sou ek heeltemal saamgestem het. En jy kan maar hierdie “charismatic, desert-wandering Jew” ‘n naam gee: “Jesus van Nasaret.” En net terloops, het jy ‘n probleem met ENIGE persoon wat liefde en vrede verkondig?

    Ek twyfel of jy sal belangstel, maar een van die leiers van die Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, het ‘n baie goeie boek oor die historiese Jesus geskryf. “The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant”. Hy is die wereld se voorste navorser van die historiese Jesus en het die laaste 35 jaar van sy lewe aan die navorsing gewy. Ook ‘n “money back guarantee.” Hy kom in die boek tot heelwat uiters aanvaarbare gevolgtrekkings wat die Bybelse Jesus totaal weerspreek.

    En dis wat ek gesê het: “Om die historiese bestaan van hierdie man te betwyfel, is futiel.”

    Google gerus ook “John Dominic Crossan”. Jy sal veral sy praatjie op U-tube oor fundamentalisme baie geniet. Money back guarantee.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 28, 2012 at 21:50

  471. That would be “infidels”, Hanswors. I s’pose it’s a relief to think that anyone not believing the Matthysenological Interpretation is merely a heretic, not a full-blown infidel.

    Con-Tester

    February 28, 2012 at 21:49

  472. Con-Tester, I owe you nothing.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 28, 2012 at 21:49

  473. Shazee, Jesus het ons geleer, deur voorbeeld, al word ons te na gekom, moet ons nie vergelding soek nie en ‘n vergewinsgesindheid openbaar.
    Moslems soek maar ‘n rede om “infedils” (hulle wat nie in Islam glo) dood te maak, ooreenkomstig die opdrag in die Kor’an.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 28, 2012 at 21:45

  474. No Hanswors, I want to “hear” your answers. Answers that you owe from yonks ago. That’s all.

    Sorry once more to stand in the way of your what-a-genius-I-am orgasm.

    Which crippled wanking reminds me: … :roll:

    Con-Tester

    February 28, 2012 at 21:39

  475. Con-Tester, skuus man, ek sien jy wil ook gehoor word, Jammer man.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 28, 2012 at 21:34

  476. Ja, en die local tribe het kak gemaak, toe stuur Tarzan sy seun om vir hulle te vertel hoe stout hulle was.
    Die hoofman het nie gehou van die kak wat klein Tarzan praat nie, en hulle kook hom toe in ‘n pot en vreet hom.
    Pappa Tarzan het ook nie eintlik van die klein fokker gehou nie, en was so bly dat hy hulle toe al hulle sondes vergewe.

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 20:45

  477. So, ou Tarzan was ook daar in gees!
    Ek dink ou Hans behoort hom ook te laaik!

    ErickV

    February 28, 2012 at 20:31

  478. Ja, die gees van Tarzan spook nou nog by my.

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 15:04

  479. Shazee,
    Die kruistene wou dan die trok verbrand wat die Rapport vervoer het as gevolg van Deon Maas se artikel wat in die koerant geplubliseer is!
    O ja, dan nog ‘n ding. Ek het ook al ‘n ou boek gelees wat se dat Tarzan ook gelewe het. Dit was die oorspronklike boek (eerste) van Edgar Rice Burroughs wat in 1912 geskryf is. Daar was natuurlik nog baie ander boeke daarna oor Tarzan geskryf. Soos wat daar baie boeke in die bybel ook is. :)

    ErickV

    February 28, 2012 at 13:22

  480. Ek sien die Moslems is besig om Afghanistan af te brand omdat Amerikaanse soldate ‘n paar koran’s in ‘n vuur gegooi het.
    Ek weet dit is net die vonk in die kruitvat, en dat daar ander redes ook is waarom die onluste uitgebreek het.
    Wat egter vir my verstommend bly is die kleinserigheid waarmee enige gewaande tenakoming van geloof so ‘n ekstreme reaksie uitlok.
    Die moslems is, op huidige vorm, die die mees militante groep wat die buitensporige tipe reaksie betref, maar ek sien dieselfde mentaliteit by alle geloofsgroepe.
    Niemand is beseer met die brand van die koran’s nie, dit was nie unieke en onvervangbare eksemplare nie, maar dit regverdig dat ‘n Afghaanse polisieman twee Amerikaanse soldate doodskiet, dat hangranate gegooi word en dat ‘n selfmoordaanval nege lewens eis.
    Dit is nou dieselde moslems wat onvervangbare kultuurskatte van ander gelowe vandaliseer en vernietig, wat so gegrief voel oor die brand van ‘n paar boeke waarvan daar waarskynlik miljoene op die planeet oor is.
    As ek kyk na die reaksie wat enige kritiek op feitlik enige geloof uitlok, wonder ek of die verskil tussen die Moslems in Afghanistan se reaksie en die van, byvoorbeeld christene, nie bloot een is van graad nie.
    ‘N reaksie wat sonder te veel provokasie net so kan eskaleer.

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 09:35

  481. Nee Hanswors, die eintlike problem is dat jy dink jy kan dink maar jy kannie.

    Con-Tester

    February 27, 2012 at 22:44

  482. ErickV, die eintlike probleem is, dat jy gedink het.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 27, 2012 at 22:38

  483. Daan, 2 Kor. 3:6 wat ons ook bekwaam gemaak het as dienaars van ‘n nuwe testament, nie van die letter nie, maar van die gees; want die letter maak dood, maar die gees maak lewend.
    Jy het die letter (data) bestudeer, maar ongelukkig het die gees ontbreek en daarom is jou geloof dood.
    Christus het nie vir my gekom 2000jr gelede nie omdat ek nog nie bestaan het nie. Christus kom vir my in Sy liggaam, wat die gemeente is, in my leeftyd. Wanneer my aardse bestaan beeindig word, vind Sy wederkoms, vir my plaas.
    Die Christendom verkondig nie almal die regte boodskap nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 27, 2012 at 22:34

  484. Well of course you’re right, ErickV: Even if there was absolute and indisputable proof to hand of a biblical Jeeeeeeebusssssst!’s existence, that in itself would not automatically validate any of the claims about him or those attributed to him.

    My point is merely that the question of the existence of the biblical Jeeeeeeebusssssst! is not as clear-cut as it is often made out to be. It’s quite possible that he’s a composite of a single actually existent main character with embellishments taken from a small number of other notable characters associated with him and of his time — in a similar way to which Sherlock Holmes is a romanticised composite of a few core Scotland Yard investigators Arthur Conan Doyle may have known or heard about.

    Con-Tester

    February 27, 2012 at 17:40

  485. Nee EricV, daar volop bewys van die drie-in-een-god, vra enige christen. Hulle het ‘n boek wat hulle jou kann wys. Dit staan daar. Regtig.

    Shazee

    February 27, 2012 at 17:37

  486. Die fonds van die mummie wat die argeoloe in die “Valley of the kings” gemaak het en as Tutenkamen uitgeken is, is seker ook ‘n bewys dat die songod Ra bestaan het. So ook met al die Griekse gode.
    So, ek dink al die Christene moet met ‘n beter verskoning kom as wat hulle se dat omdat daar ‘n persoon soos Jesus bestaan het, is daar so iets soos die “Drie in een God”.
    Ag, asseblief!!!

    ErickV

    February 27, 2012 at 15:09

  487. Look, in case you missed it, I did say — three times, and twice with emphasis — that the existence of the biblical Jeeeeeebusssssst! is hardly a concrete fact. That some charismatic desert-wandering outcast Jew probably existed with delusions of godhood, preaching messages of peace and love and who later started being a thorn in the Romans’ side because people increasingly followed his magnetic personality, this is not in itself an especially remarkable supposition. What is remarkable is the total absence of any first-hand accounts attesting to this man’s singular significance in his own time — or any time, for that matter.

    Still, that’s quite a neat trick you’ve got there, I must say. Dismissing out of hand and without consideration a challenge to beliefs without actually knowing what the objections and contentions are and then labelling such dismissal as “honesty” and “objectivity”. That is exactly the ignorant approach of fundie religiots.

    But hey, that’s your choice, as is the decision to deliberately distort my meaning.

    Con-Tester

    February 27, 2012 at 08:01

  488. JamaarHans, dit kan seersekerlik nie dui op wat die Christelike leer verkondig oor die wederkoms nie. Of gaan daardie mense weer die koms van Jesus ervaar? Dit kan tog nie wees nie.

    En wat betref jou aanhaling van Kol.1 vers 24, sorry, maar ek kan nie langer die grootste gedeelte van die Nuwe Testament as geloofwaardig, en daarom as gesaghebbend, aanvaar nie.

    Ek het tot hierdie slotsom gekom nadat ek ALLE data tot my beskikking, EERLIK en OBJEKTIEF beoordeel het.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 27, 2012 at 05:26

  489. No. The keywords here are “honesty” and “objectivity”.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 27, 2012 at 05:12

  490. Malherbe, weet jy hoe kan jy werk aan lig? Lig jou gat en tree wys op teenoor ander met liefde gepaard sonder om te lieg (wees waardig en lewe in waarheid) en doen goed aan alle mense.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2012 at 22:54

  491. Daan, goed om van jou te hoor. Dit is reg dat daardie geslag die koms van Jesus Christus ervaar het. Sy liggaam bestaan nie meer uit een mens nl. Jesus van Nazareth nie. Toe Hy die brood gebreek het en aan elkeen daarvan gegee het, het Hy getoon dat Sy liggaam uit vele lede voortaan bestaan, tog een liggaam. Elke keer wanneer ons in Sy naam vergader, is Hy in ons midde en teenwoordig, want ons is Sy liggaam (Kol. 1 v 24).
    Die God wat ek in glo, is liefde, wysheid, lig (verstaanbaarheid), woord ens. of sal jy sê dit bestaan nie?
    Christus, die krag en wysheid van God, is die Seun wat gegee is. Jesus is die kind wat uit Maria gebore is en is die seun van die mens. (Jes. 9 v 5)
    Die water, ys en stoom is maar net om te verduidelik dat drie werklik een is.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2012 at 22:48

  492. soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 20:46):

    Fact remains … the idea of a Superior Being frightens the bejeeeebuss out of you.

    Nope, not in the least. How can something that is so hugely improbable to exist possibly frighten me, eh? What does frighten me is how pervasive in humanity your ability to make shit up as needed as well as how widespread your kind of gross stupidity are. That’s what really frightens me.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 22:02

  493. Fact remains, the idea of a Creator, the idea of a Superior Being frightens the bejeeeebuss out of you. You will argue until you are blue in the face, to convince others, but mostly yourself, that you are in control of your own life and future. Relax, as you are banning Jesus from your life I have good and bad news. The good news, you have succeeded in being in control of your own destiny. Bad news, that destiny I do not wish upon my worst enemy.

    Well, it is off to bed for me, good night to ya all.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 21:42

  494. False analogy. Ignorant twaddle. Misrepresentation.

    Typical.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 21:41

  495. We all agree (I hope) that Jan van Riebeeck landed in the Cape in 1652, because the history books says so. Just because the greatest History Book happens to be about God and His creation, as well as His Son and the salvation through him, it is considered to be a lie, just because you are uncomfortable with religion? I guess then that if I do not like history, I must consider the Jan van Riebeeck story as a lie.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 21:36

  496. Well, there you go. Revealing your own chosen ignorance is, well, … revealing.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 21:07

  497. Evidence? What evidence?? What evidence can you submit that proves that Julius Caesar existed? Or Leonidas? Or Ghengis Khan? Or Cleopatra? Or Ptolomeus XIV?

    No, I did not bother to read the article. What is one article on the web? A person’s (persons’) opinion.

    I can paste an article here that shows that John Calvin was a saint. I can paste an article here that shows that John Calvin was the devil incarcinated.

    I can paste an article here that shows that dinosaurus was on Noah’s ark. I can paste an article here that shows that the flood and Noah’s ark is a crock of rubbish.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 26, 2012 at 21:00

  498. We have written, first-hand eyewitness accounts of George Washington who was well known in his own time. Such is missing for Jeeeeeebusssssst!

    We have written, first-hand accounts of George Washington by contemporary historians of his. Such is missing for Jeeeeeebusssssst!

    We have many samples of George Washington’s own writings. Such is missing for Jeeeeeebusssssst!

    We have many verifiably independent accounts of George Washington and his life that all converge consistently on the same narrative. Such is missing for Jeeeeeebusssssst!

    If the above facts don’t at least raise your eyebrows, you’re even more gullible than appearance suggests. Once again, the religiot/bibliot/crediot/apologiot/godiot is evidently incapable of doing an impartial assessment of the facts.

    “It’s true because the Holey Babble says it’s true.” That’s the sum total of the evidence for the biblical Jeeeeeebusssssst!

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 20:44

  499. http://themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/evid.html

    “The prevailing view among critics is that the Virgin Birth has no historical basis. They trace the stories of the Virgin Birth to believers in the latter part of the first century who were familiar with the prophecy in the Septuagint of Isaiah that a “virgin” would conceive a son called Immanuel (“God with us”). They say that these believers invented the Virgin Birth to accomplish two apologetic purposes at once: first, to prove that Jesus was the Christ of prophecy, and, second, to prove that Jesus was God, on the assumption that it was more reasonable to view Him as the Son of God if He was not the son of a human father. Five lines of argument decisively set aside this view.

    1. Corroborating circumstances. If anyone today said that he was conceived in a woman before she ever knew a man, and that his conception was, in this respect, a unique phenomenon, his pretense would probably soon collapse. Contrary evidence would be forthcoming if he had at least one older sibling by the same mother, or if the date of his parents’ marriage preceded the earliest possible date of his conception, or if at least one parent did not support the pretense. There were no such obstacles, however, to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth becoming established in the early church. It so happened that Jesus was indisputably the eldest in His family, which, like most families in that day, was rather large. He had at least six brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). It also so happened that no one could show that His parents were married at least nine months before His birth. The Gospel of Luke reports that His conception occurred more than three months before Joseph took Mary as his wife (Luke 1:38-39, 56). Finally, it so happened that the teaching of the Virgin Birth was not silenced by opposition from Jesus’ family. Indeed, since His family was prominent in the early church (1 Cor. 9:5), we deduce that the teaching must have enjoyed their approval.

    2. The credibility of the apostles. It is preposterous to imagine that a new doctrine could have been introduced in the late first century without encountering stiff opposition from conservative elements committed to “holding fast the faithful word” as they had “been taught” (Tit. 1:9). Yet there is no record of any early disputes or schisms concerning the Virgin Birth. If the doctrine did not emerge in the last fifty years of the first century, it must have originated when the church was still dominated by the apostles and Jesus’ family. The question whether the doctrine is credible reduces to whether these people would have condoned lies in the official accounts of Jesus’ life. Any presumption that these people were liars clashes with the abundant evidence of their earnestness and high character.

    3. The accusation that Jesus was illegitimate. When Jesus met hostile crowds in Jerusalem, He said,

    38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

    39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

    40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

    41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

    42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

    43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

    44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

    46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

    47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

    48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

    John 8:38-48

    The charge that He was in league with evil powers had been made previously (Matt. 12:24). So it is likely that the other charge—that He was a Samaritan—was not a new charge either. Earlier in the same exchange, when Jesus said that His Father stood behind His claims, the Jews responded by asking, “Where is thy father?” (v. 19). When Jesus, in reply, said of Himself that He was not of this world (v. 23) and that they did not know Him because His Father was not theirs (v. 38), they taunted Him by saying, “We be not born of fornication” (v. 41). The cutting edge of the jibe is the implied accusation that although they were legitimate, Jesus was illegitimate. As their anger mounted, they cast subtlety aside and jeered that He was the offspring not of His legal Jewish father, a well-respected carpenter in Nazareth, but of some unknown Samaritan. The basis of the charge was probably a rumor of Mary’s pregnancy out of wedlock. That pregnancy must have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conceal from gossiping tongues. The obvious motivation behind the charge was not only religious (to stop His ministry) but also political (to undermine His claim to the throne). The mob was easily persuaded that His real father was a Samaritan because Nazareth, His home town, was not far from Samaria.

    The significance of the dialogue in John 8 is that its veiled allusions to the unusual birth of Jesus are purely incidental. They are clearly not intended to make a doctrinal point. Thus, they cannot be fictional expansions designed by church leaders to curry popular favor for a doctrine that they have lately introduced.

    4. Jesus’ two allusions to the Virgin Birth. Certain utterances of Jesus show that He regarded His birth as a fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. His words at the Wedding at Cana have puzzled many readers. In answer to His mother, He said,

    . . . Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

    John 2:4

    Why does He speak to her in seemingly harsh tones? Why does He address her bluntly as “woman”?

    We gain insight into these words when we look at the only other recorded words of Jesus to His mother. These are also in John.

    When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

    John 19:26

    Here, the title “woman” is obviously not intended as a rebuke. Jesus would not wound Mary with hurtful words when she is already overcome by grief and horror. What does He mean? Why, on the occasion of His death, as on the occasion of His first miracle, does He announce that His mother is “woman”? He means that she is the woman prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Therefore, He is the woman’s seed—the virgin-born One whom the faithful through the ages have longed to see because through Him they would have victory over sin and death.

    5. Paul’s allusion to the Virgin Birth. All Bible scholars today, liberal as well as conservative, agree that Paul’s epistle to the Galatians is an authentic work written no later than A.D. 65 (1). Most assign it a date near A.D. 50 (2). Yet notice what Paul teaches in this epistle concerning the nature of Christ.

    But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

    Galatians 4:4

    The expression “made of a woman” is peculiar. The meaning of “made” is not “born,” but “cause to be” or “begotten.” If Paul were speaking of any ordinary man, we would expect him to say, “born of a woman,” the expression that Jesus used with reference to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). Yet Paul is speaking not of Jesus’ birth, but of His biological conception.

    This is evident when we further examine his use of “made.” In the same text, he says also that Jesus was “made under the law.” He is affirming that Jesus was by parentage a member of the nation of Israel. Elsewhere, he says,

    Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

    Romans 1:3

    Paul is affirming here that Jesus was by parentage a physical descendant of David. Yet, Jesus’ sonship to Israel and David began not when He was born, but when He was conceived. Thus, in Paul’s lexicon, a person is “made” when he is formed in the womb. But why does he say that Jesus was “made of a woman”? For two reasons, we can be confident that these words imply the Virgin Birth.

    If, as the critics allege, Paul never heard of the Virgin Birth, we would expect different language in Galatians 4:4. Paul would identify Jesus as the seed of David, as in Romans 1:3, or the seed of Abraham, as in Galatians 3:16. To stress Jesus’ humanity, he might refer to His human parents. But although he might mention both of His parents or only His father, he would scarcely mention only His mother.
    Unless “made of a woman” presumes the Virgin Birth, the phrase is inessential to the argument. Paul could affirm the Incarnation by simply saying, “God sent forth His Son as a man made under the law.” But he says specifically “made of a woman” because he is thinking of the purpose in Christ’s coming. That purpose was “to redeem them that were under the law” (v. 5). He could be the redeemer of others only if He was sinless Himself, and He could be sinless Himself only if He was conceived without the aid of a human father; that is, only if He was made of a woman.”

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 20:32

  500. http://toptenproofs.com/article_resurrection.php

    “One of the common tactics skeptics use to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is to say that “since none of us were there, no one can really say what happened 2000 years ago”. While there is some truth to that statement, it is an illogical argument against something having been documented in history. Here’s why. None of us were also around when George Washington was President, so technically, we can’t “prove” he was President, however, if there is enough historical documentation attesting to his Presidency and corroborated historically by enough eyewitnesses, combined with absolutely no documented claims denying these facts, logic demands we accept his Presidency as historically true. To deny this would be illogical and unscientific.

    The same holds true for the resurrection of Jesus. Skeptics, of course, have a tendency to discount the Biblical accounts because the Bible is “just a religious book”, but that is not true. In addition to the Word of God, the Bible also happens to be a book of history, documenting by eyewitnesses the actual events of that time in history. History records from eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ actually died and then 3 days later rose from the dead and was seen by 500 men over a span of 40 days. But, skeptics will still refuse to accept this by coming up with hypothetical theories to explain away the resurrection.

    One of the most common is to claim the disciples merely stole the body of Jesus and hid it, then lied to people telling them he really rose from the dead. So let’s examine this one particular theory and see if it stands the test of scrutiny and logic by asking a few simple questions.

    If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, why did the disciples go from frightened, timid followers of Jesus before his death, to bold evangelists willing to die preaching his resurrection if they just really made the whole thing up and he was still dead? Remember, before Jesus was crucified, the disciples were, for the most part, cowards. Peter denied even knowing Jesus 3 times before the crucifixion. What event changed them from cowards to courageous? Answer: They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
    Why were the disciples willing to be tortured and killed for a known lie? You don’t need a degree in human psychology to know that people do not die for a cause they know to be false. People do certainly die for false beliefs all the time, but they think they are dying for the truth. If the disciples faked the resurrection, they would know Christianity is a lie. History records they were tortured and killed for their faith, and not one of them said, under torture “okay, okay, we made the whole thing up”? Why is that? Answer: They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
    Why would they make up the resurrection story if Jesus turned out to be a fraud? Remember, Jesus told them he would rise after 3 days. If he was still dead on day four, that means he wasn’t who he claimed he was, he wasn’t the Messiah and certainly wasn’t God after all, so why would the disciples worship a dead guy who lied to them and was exposed as a fraud? Answer: They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
    What was their motive? Lies or deceptions are typically done for some selfish motive. Preaching the resurrection of Jesus would not bring them wealth, fame, status or popularity. It would only cause them to be hated, scorned, persecuted, excommunicated, imprisoned, exiled, beheaded, tortured and crucified, as history records, so again, what could possibly be their motive? Just to save face? That’s certainly not logical. No one is going to go through what the disciples went through just because they’re too embarrassed to say “I guess we were wrong”, so what was their motive? Answer: It was the TRUTH. They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
    How do the disciples, 12 ordinary people pull off such a hoax? Remember, this “hoax” would trigger thousands of skeptics per day to convert to following their scam as well as redirect the entire world to even eventually change their calendars and establish their hoax character, Jesus as the best known religious figure in all of humanity. How could they pull something like this off without ever getting exposed, offering a death bed confession or even admitting it was a hoax under torture? Answer: It must not be a hoax. They must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
    Why would thousands of people immediately convert if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead? Think about it. History records that thousands upon thousands were instantly and immediately mass converting to be followers of Jesus, as many as 3000 in a day. It is recorded that after the crucifixion, Jesus appeared alive over a span of 40 days and to “500 brethren”. (Back then, only men were counted in crowd totals, so factoring in women and children, Jesus most likely appeared to safely 1500 to 2000 people over 40 days). If that many people saw Jesus alive, it would explain how so many were converting because even the most hardened skeptics would have crowds and crowds of former skeptics saying “yes, it’s true, we all have seen him too”, but if no one saw him alive and the crowds had only the words of the disciples to go by, why would thousands convert? Remember, the disciples were preaching to many who didn’t want to believe Jesus was the Messiah, so what words could they speak to hostile crowds to convince them Jesus really did rise from the dead? “Trust us”? That might convince some of the disciple’s closest friends, but not thousands upon thousands of skeptics. So why did thousands convert? Answer: Crowds must have actually seen the risen Jesus.
    Why did the disciples make themselves look bad in the Gospels? Think about it, if you were going to make up a story, wouldn’t you present yourself in somewhat of a positive light? The disciples painted themselves as sniveling cowards lacking in faith. Why? Answer: They must have been telling the truth.
    How did Saul of Tarsus, the chief persecutor of Christians convert to become the Apostle Paul, the chief follower of Jesus if he didn’t really have an encounter with a risen Jesus? Logically, if Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, Saul would just gloat in his victory, exposing Jesus as a fraud who couldn’t conquer death after all, so what event could have caused him to convert? Answer: He must have actually encountered the risen Jesus as recorded.
    How could the disciples even steal the body in the first place? The body was encased in a tomb with a 24 hour watch by Roman guards trained to kill. The punishment for breaking a Roman grave seal, or attempting to steal a body or overpowering a Roman soldier was death, so how did timid, cowardly disciples muster up the courage to try this? And as stated before, for what motive? That’s a big risk for absolutely no payoff. Some will say “maybe the guard was asleep”. First, dereliction of duty brought death to a Roman soldier, so I doubt they would “fall asleep” and secondly, the stone covering the tomb weighed 2 tons and was rolled into a stone groove which would have been flush against the stone opening of the grave. Think about how loud a 2 ton stone scraping against stone would be as several disciples tried to move it. I don’t think Rip Van Winkle could sleep through that, so, how could the disciples have stolen the body? Answer, they didn’t. Jesus actually rose from the dead.”

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 20:27

  501. Evidence? Did you actually read the article? It questions the existence of the biblical Jeeeeeeebusssssst!

    Read that again: The biblical Jeeeeeeebusssssst!

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 20:07

  502. For an atheist, any atheist, to doubt the existence of a man called Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth, is just as futile as it it is for a fundamentalistic Christian to believe in Jesus’s virgin birth, his resurrection and his ascession to “heaven”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 26, 2012 at 19:41

  503. “Jesus het volgens die Evangelie van Mattheus tydens die bergpredikasie gesê dat van die mense daar teenwoordig, die wederkoms sal ervaar!!!! ” En hulle sal, van hulle. Openbaring praat baie duidelik dat die grafte ontwrig sal word en dat die wat leef en die wat gesterf het Sy wederkoms sal aanskou.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 13:46

  504. Jeeeeeeeebusssssssst!, if he existed at all, is thought to have been crucified in 33CE, putting it about twenty years short of 2,000 years ago.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 09:13

  505. Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 09:03

  506. Wat Zeus betref, ja hy is “wysheid, liefde, lig, gees, ens”. Hy is dit, want ek glo dit. Ek ervaar die Zeusgees daagliks binne my. Die liefde ook, om van wysheid nie eens te praat nie. Toegegee, ek werk nog aan die “lig”. Daar het ek nou die bestaan van my got Zeus bo alle twyfel bewys.

    Dankie in alle geval vir jou antwoord. Nie jou beste nie, maar tog… Con-Tester se naam vir jou is “spot-on” – jy hoort in die sirkus.

    Malherbe

    February 26, 2012 at 08:59

  507. Hans!!! Dagsê.

    Jy sê “Shazee, jy dink ons aardse bestaan is die alfa en die omega en ek nie.”

    Ek is bevrees dat ons aardse bestaan inderdaad die alfa en die omega is. Hoe kan dit anders wees? Geen nugterdenkende mens kan tog in die 21ste eeu nog glo in die wederkoms van Jesus, die oordeelsdag en ‘n ewige lewe in die hemel/hel nie.

    Jesus het volgens die Evangelie van Mattheus tydens die bergpredikasie gesê dat van die mense daar teenwoordig, die wederkoms sal ervaar!!!! Die gemeente van Thessalonika wou by Paulus weet waarom die wederkoms dan nie plaasvind nie en arme ou Paulus het sy hande vol gehad om hulle te kalmeer. :) :)

    En Jesus is oor ‘n paar weke presies 2 100 jaar gelede gekruisig!!!! Dit kan mos eenvoudig nie, ou Hans!

    Verder kan daar ook geen twyfel wees dat die Hebreeuse god Jahwe, net so min bestaan as die Griekse god Zeus of die Romeinse god Jupiter. Daar bestaan ook nie iets soos ‘n Drie-Enige God nie. Jesus van Nasaret kon onmoontlik die biologiese seun van God die Vader wees. Nog minder is sy goddelike status bewysbaar, selfs uit die Nuwe Testament waarvan die getuienis enigsins te betwyfel is.

    Ek is bevrees dat jou vergelyking van water, ys en stoom, nie water hou nie. No pun intended. :).

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 26, 2012 at 07:03

  508. Vicar!!! Dagsê.

    Jy sê: “Contester jy is mos n proffesor so se asb. vir ons glo jy regtig dat daar n groot BANG was toe bedtaan die heelal soos in boom toe is daar n aarde, venus, jupiter, ens”.

    Dit is nie ‘n baie goeie vraag nie.

    Daar kan baie min (eintlik geen) twyfel bestaan dat die heelal sy bestaan te danke het aan die oerknal (Big Bang) 9.5 biljoen jaar gelede. Wat (of Wie) dit veroorsaak het, sal ons waarskynlik nooit weet nie. Daar kan ook geen twyfel bestaan dat die heelal vandag nog besig is om groter te word, so die Big Bang gaan eintlik nog steeds voort!!! Daar word steeds nuwe sterre “gebore” en bestaande sterre “gaan dood”.

    Jy noem twee planete in ons sonnestelsel. Dit is, met respek, baie kortsigtig. Wat van al die ander biljoene planete in biljoene ander sonnestelsels wat weer deel is van miljoene ander sterrestelsels?

    Hoe kan ons al hierdie dinge anders verklaar?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 26, 2012 at 06:29

  509. That would be “which”, Hanswors.

    As for your problem, yes, it makes perfect sense that it see-ee-ee-ee-ee-eems to you not serious. It’s in the nature of those afflicted with the dof end of Dunning-Kruger to see it that way.

    Once again, my apologies for breaking off your how-great-I-am orgasm.

    And you’re still totally avoiding all those questions, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    February 25, 2012 at 22:07

  510. Con-Tester, my problem seems less serious than yours, witch also appears to be in your head.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 25, 2012 at 21:59

  511. Malherbe, op jou vraag een, is Zeus, wysheid, liefde, lig, gees ens?
    Op jou vraag twee, bestaan wysheid, liefde, lig, gees ens. nie? As dit was, dan sou ek moontlik nie in God geglo het nie, maar nou het ek dit als ervaar.
    Het ek ooit op hierdie blogs die woord Satan genoem?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 24, 2012 at 23:27

  512. Hanswors, you seem to have an answering-the-questions problem. It seriously diminishes the vision you carry around in your head of your supreme expertise in the gumph you promote. If you’d like me to put it bluntly, it makes you look just like a complete moron. Answering questions could improve matters substantially for you.

    So, once more, sorry to disrupt your orgasmic self-reveries.

    Con-Tester

    February 24, 2012 at 23:21

  513. Shazee, dit gaan nie oor myself nie maar oor die Bybel en Christenne, dus is jy reg, vir myself het ek niks te sê nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 24, 2012 at 23:15

  514. Con-Tester, you appear to have an orgasm problem as it remains on your mind. Go and see a Medical Doctor.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 24, 2012 at 23:10

  515. Hans, antwoord gerus die vraag aan Vic. Jou antwoorde baie snaakser as syne. Ek is besig om ‘n grapboek saam te stel wat al jou grappe bevat, so moet asseblief nie terughou nie.

    Om jou geheue te verfris, die kruks van my stelling was “Wanneer jy verstaan hoekom jy nie in die ander gotte glo nie, sal jy verstaan hoekom ek nie in joune glo nie.” My vrae aan jou:
    1)Hoekom glo jy nie in Zeus nie?
    2)Wat sal jou oortuig dat jou gotte nie bestaan nie?

    Wanneer jy bg (baie reguit vrae?) beantwoord, wees asseblief jouself en haal aan soveel jy wil uit jou heilige boek. Voel vry om konsepte soos “siel” en “sinnebeeld” en “heilige geeste wat in jou woon” ter verduideliking te gebruik. Moenie nalaat om ons te vertel dat ons nie verstaan nie omdat die geeste nie met ons praat nie. O ja, en bring gerus daai ander etter, ou Satan, in by jou redevoering – altyd ‘n wenner en bitter snaaks. Dankie by voorbaat vir die vermaak.

    Malherbe

    February 24, 2012 at 12:20

  516. Ai Hans, jy bly nou maar eenmaal ‘n dom donner.
    Dink jy regtig my opmerking dat jou antwoorde korter raak as jy nie bybelversies aanhaal nie, is ‘n versugting dat jy dit wel doen?
    Ek het die opmerking gemaak om aan jou uit te wys dat jy nie veel vir jouself te se het as jy nie uit pappa se dagboek mag aanhaal nie.
    Jammer ek het jou weereens oorskat. Ek sal in die vervolg soveel moontlik woorde met enkel lettergrepe gebruik as ek met jou praat.

    Shazee

    February 23, 2012 at 22:18

  517. Hanswors, I will have a good evening. At least, I don’t have a bunch of unanswered questions hanging over me.

    Sorry yet again to get in the way of your orgasm.

    Which interruptus reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs ( :lol: :oops: ), what’s that answer again?

    Con-Tester

    February 23, 2012 at 21:47

  518. Shazee, lees jou komentaar van 21 Feb. 2012.
    Dit is nou ongelukkig een van daardie dinge as my antwoorde jou nie geval nie. Ander kan dit verstaan, maar nouja ons laat dit maar daar.
    Soos die bybel ook melding van maak naamlik; “Laat die wat onkundig is, onkundig bly”, of so iets.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 23, 2012 at 21:40

  519. Con-Tester, have a good evening.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 23, 2012 at 21:22

  520. Vic, ek wil net se; jou beledigings skeel my nie vreeslik nie, maar waarom doen jy nie die moeite om so nou en dan die “kakpratery” wat ek oor jou geloof kwytraak aan te spreek met logiese argumente van jou eie nie?
    As jy my met logiese, en beredeneerde argumente kan oortuig wat jou geloof so spesiaal maak dat ek nie die onsinnigheid daarvan mag uitwys nie, sal ek bes moontlik daarmee ophou.

    Dink jy nie dit sal meer effektief wees as om mense wat nie presies soos jy glo, bloot “kakpraters” of “pielkoppe” te noem nie?
    Dit is nou as jy die skuim lank genoeg van jou mond af kan hou.

    Shazee

    February 23, 2012 at 09:23

  521. Hans, ek sal waardeer as jy vir my uitwys waar ek “getjank” het omdat jy nie bybelverse gebruik nie.
    Ek wonder of jou kop van die een oomblik tot die volgende uithak en jy dan die onsinnige en onsamehangende kak kwytraak sonder dat jy dit agterkom?
    My vraag was gewees of god agtergekom het hy het ‘n fout gemaak en toe stuur hy sy seun om die glipsie reg te maak, onthou jy nou weer?
    Jou antwoord daarop was een of ander onsinnige gegorrel oor mense wat eers barbaars was, en dat die barbaarse wette reg was vir hulle vlak van beskaafdheid.
    Wat jou geteem oor wat ek eendag sal sien nou eintlik tot die debat bydra sal net jy weet.

    Shazee

    February 22, 2012 at 22:36

  522. How convenient that you are so intelligent and well-informed, Hanswors! Pity, however, that you never explain your meaning, and so your words come out just like a stream of idiotic drivel.

    Sorry once more to interrupt your self-induced I’m-so-great-and-knowledgeable orgasm.

    Which Bollocksed Goofs ( :lol: :oops: ) reminds me of some shtuppie as relevant to GC&UPOO&TFs, contingent on a yes-or-no answer.

    Con-Tester

    February 22, 2012 at 22:32

  523. Vicar, what I have seen and experienced will never be discarded for this world and all its riches.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 22, 2012 at 22:26

  524. Con-Tester, I do agree, that you are stupid people, should you not have got my point. I dare not make any more points otherwise you will just get more confused.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 22, 2012 at 22:22

  525. Shazee, jy dink ons aardse bestaan is die alfa en die omega en ek nie, so dit maak jou nie reg en my verkeerd nie. Een dag sal die waarheid wel seevier.
    God is wysheid en word nie op een afgedwing nie en aan die einde van ons aardse bestaan sal elkeen Sy almag aanskou.
    As ek Bybelverse gebruik dan tjank jy en as ek hulle nie gebruik nie, dan tjank jy ook. Dit bewys dat geen antwoord gaan vir jou sin maak, want niemand is so blind soos hy wat nie wil sien nie.
    Ek was lus om die vraag te antwoord wat Malherbe aan Vicar gevra het en dit staan Vicar ook vry om nog ‘n antwoord te gee. Nou wat sê jy van my antwoord?
    Ek kruip nie agter die ou en nuwe verbond weg nie. Dit is jy, wat nie die verskil wil erken nie, so as jy onkundig wil bly, dan is dit dan nou maar so.
    Ek het ook die saak van die vergelykenis verduidelik en dit pas jou nie om erkentlik te wees daaroor nie, dus, wat is daar nou verder daaroor te sê?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 22, 2012 at 22:10

  526. Shazee, wat is jou vraag nou weer?
    Vyf woorde van wysheid is beter as duised woorde van mense se snert.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 22, 2012 at 21:43

  527. Vicar, jy skryf: “Malherbe jou vernederende ateistiese gebruik van my Gode is alreeds n aanduiding dat jy maar net soos n sekere DW op hierdie blog na Christene verwys, n bewys dat jy maar net twyfel in jou eie oortuigings derhalwe volg jy n blinde sienswyse van die sogenaamde “gotte”. ”

    Vicar, vertel my hoekom jou gotte anders is as die ander, en ek belowe jou ek sal nie net my stelling terugtrek nie, maar ook na jou gotte as Die Enigste God verwys. Totdat jy dit doen, verkies ek egter om nie te diskrimineer tussen jou got en die ander gotte nie. Anders gestel: Wanneer jy verstaan hoekom jy nie in die ander gotte glo nie, sal jy verstaan hoekom ek nie in joune glo nie. Eenvoudig ne? Deursigtig ne? Eerlik ne?

    Malherbe

    February 22, 2012 at 18:18

  528. Vicar, what in Jeeeeeeeebusssssst!’s name are you “jammer … man regtig jammer” about? Assumption being the mother of fuck-up, it would help if you spoke your meaning more clearly, and steered clear of assuming that everyone else just uses the same tiny fraction of their cerebral capacity as you do. Using a BB is no excuse for sloth and carelessness, but then you godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots/bibliots are always full of convenient excuses…

    As for what I do believe, it’s very simple: (1) There is a naturalistic explanation for everything. We may not know it, nor be able ever to comprehend it, nor even be able to find or recognise it, but it it’s there. (2) “God” is the place where you got tired — tired of asking questions, tired of investigating, tired of realizing that you are limited, tired of thinking, tired of accepting that “I don’t know!” is a perfectly acceptable answer and – above all – tired of life. (3) “God” is not any kind of useful or fruitful answer to existential questions. It’s a bankrupt, sterile, piss-poor fucking excuse.

    Con-Tester

    February 22, 2012 at 17:54

  529. Ja Vic, jou taalgebruik het so effens verbeter, maar jou redenasie vermoe nog steeds nie.
    As jy my n holhanger wil noem as ek met die ateiste op die blog saamstem, be my guest.
    Vir ingeval jy nog nie agtergekom het nie, ek is n ateis, en dit is n ateiste blog die.
    Kan jy nou die kloutjie by die oor bring, of moet ek vir jou prentjies teken?

    Shazee

    February 22, 2012 at 17:39

  530. Ou Shaz skryf

    Nee, ou Vic, ek antwoord nie namens Con-Tester nie, hy is heeltemal in staat om namens homself te praat.
    Het jy enigiets anders te se behalwe infantiele beledigings?
    Ons kan maar so ‘n paar uitruil as dit jou sal laat beter voel want dit klink nie jy is tot veel meer in staat nie.
    Of wil jy iets vir my se wat n meer beredeneerde antwoord verg? Sal maar wag en kyk of jou woordeskat veel verder as “holhanger” of “pielkop, huh” strek.

    In die eerste plek het ek nie in my laaste inskrywing enige gekruide taal gebruik nie, so my woordeskat het alreeds verbeter; stem jy saam.
    Tweedens kyk my vorige vrae op die blog dan sal enige aap sien jy antwoord namens of ter ondersteuning van Contester alhoewel ek weet dat hy Capable is om dit te doen.
    Derdens ek beledig jou nie immers jy doen dit met jou kak opmerkings van Geloof : ” Jou naam moet eintlik Kakprater wees” : dit is nou n belediging.

    Vicar

    February 22, 2012 at 17:16

  531. Connie ek is jammer maar ek blog van my BB af man regtig jammer hoor. In elk geval jy se dan nie waarin jy glo nie.

    Vicar

    February 22, 2012 at 17:03

  532. Nee, ou Vic, ek antwoord nie namens Con-Tester nie, hy is heeltemal in staat om namens homself te praat.
    Het jy enigiets anders te se behalwe infantiele beledigings?
    Ons kan maar so ‘n paar uitruil as dit jou sal laat beter voel want dit klink nie jy is tot veel meer in staat nie.
    Of wil jy iets vir my se wat n meer beredeneerde antwoord verg? Sal maar wag en kyk of jou woordeskat veel verder as “holhanger” of “pielkop, huh” strek.

    Shazee

    February 22, 2012 at 17:00

  533. Vicar wrote (February 22, 2012 at 16:23):

    Contester jy is mos n proffesor…

    No, I’m not.

    Vicar wrote (February 22, 2012 at 16:23):

    … so se asb. vir ons glo jy regtig dat daar n groot BANG was toe bedtaan die heelal soos in boom toe is daar n aarde, venus, jupiter, ens

    Errors and incomprehensible bits aside, no, I don’t believe such a thing. I also don’t believe in ignorantly-constructed straw men. Nor do I believe that you have the first clue what you’re talking about. Nor do I believe that you’re going to make any effort to find out. Nor do I believe that you’re going to do anything other than regurgitate the wholly uninformed drivel you found in cretinist/IDiot resources.

    Con-Tester

    February 22, 2012 at 16:53

  534. Malherbe jou vernederende ateistiese gebruik van my Gode is alreeds n aanduiding dat jy maar net soos n sekere DW op hierdie blog na Christene verwys, n bewys dat jy maar net twyfel in jou eie oortuigings derhalwe volg jy n blinde sienswyse van die sogenaamde “gotte”.

    Contester jy is mos n proffesor so se asb. vir ons glo jy regtig dat daar n groot BANG was toe bedtaan die heelal soos in boom toe is daar n aarde, venus, jupiter, ens

    Shazee ek se jou mos jy’s n holhanger op Contester se rug en ander plekke want jy antwoord dan namens hom wanneer ek n vraag aan hom/haar rig.

    Hans
    Hierdie ateiste het lelik seergekry as babas daarom val hulle veral die Christene aan, maar moet nie jou geloof in God verloor deur hulle sinnelose opmerkings nie*wink* ek weet jy sal nie.

    Vicar

    February 22, 2012 at 16:23

  535. Hanswors, explain for all us stupid people here how you get from the plain fact that Crushtian children are indoctrinated (the same as children of any other religiots) to this absurd statement of yours: “Con-Tester, so you want to tell me that Christians kill their children, should their children decide to believe in something else.”

    I’m wondering whether the hole in your logic is bigger than the one in your head.

    When you’ve explained this remarkable piece of induction, you might consider answering the questions put to you for the umpteenth time on February 20, 2012 at 18:54 in the Year of the Atheist thread. Because you’re still engaged in furious and substanceless dodging.

    Which reminds me…

    Con-Tester

    February 21, 2012 at 18:42

  536. Se my Hans, waarom antwoord jy n vraag wat Malherbe aan Vicar gerig het?

    Shazee

    February 21, 2012 at 12:56

  537. Hans, ek sien jou antwoorde word al hoe korter vandat jy nie meer vir my bybelversies aanhaal nie.
    Jy antwoord egter steeds nie vrae nie.
    Al antwoorde wat jy ooit gee is of bybelversies, of ontwykings wat totaal van die punt af is.
    Wat het jou stelling dat jy god met jou “verstand” dien enigsins te doen met my oorsprongklike vraag?
    As god seker opdragte onomwonde en duidelik in die ou testament gee, en hy stuur later sy seun om gemartel te word en te sterf sodat daardie afstootlike opdragte nie meer uitgevoer hoef te word nie, wat beteken dit?
    Het god van plan verander, en die enigste manier wat die almagtige skepper van die heelal kan uitdink om die fout reg te stel, is om sy seun te laat doodmartel aan n kruis?
    As hy almagtig is kon hy mos net van plan verander het sonder dat iemand gemartel moet word.
    As hy dit nie net van plan kon verander nie, is hy nie almagtig nie.
    As hy dit wel van plan kon verander sonder dat iemand aaklig moes sterf, maar hy het verkies om dit nie te doen nie, wat se dit van hom?

    Jy kan ook nie wegkruip agter “ou verbond” en “nuwe verbond” nie. Die feit bly staan; dit was god wat die opdragte in die eerste plek gegee het. As jy in die bybel glo, moet jy ook glo god het letterlik bedoel die arme meisie moet doodgemaak word vir die sonde wat sy gepleeg het om verkrag te word.
    Op watter wyse god ookal besluit het om die “deal” te verander, die oorspronglike immorele opdrag was onbetwisbaar steeds van hom afkomstig.

    Shazee

    February 21, 2012 at 12:51

  538. Malherbe, ek glo net in een God. Die “Vader” is wysheid wat deur die “Woord” na ons toe kom en wanneer dit ons leefwyse (mens) word, dan is die uitwerking daarvan sigbaar nl. die “Heilige Gees”. Probeer ‘n bietjie wysheid openbaar deur ander lief te hê, met dade, wat jou pad in die lewe kruis en jy sal die werkinge van die Heilige Gees ervaar. Ek neem nou aan dat jy seker kan agterkom dat die drie een is soos wat ys, water en stoom is. Daar is net drie fases van dieselfde ding.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 21, 2012 at 11:45

  539. Shazee, ek dien God met verstand en het nie ‘n blinde geloof nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 21, 2012 at 11:34

  540. Con-Tester, so you want to tell me that Christians kill their children, should their children decide to believe in something else. Are you on drugs?
    The way you look at life, it would appear that you have no substance.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 21, 2012 at 11:27

  541. Malherbe, al glo die ou aan n ander pappa, of moontlik meerdere pappas, wat hom uit die hemel dophou, die sotlikheid bly maar dieselfde.
    Soos al voorheen gese is; what is the diffirence between one figment of the imagination, and another?

    Shazee

    February 21, 2012 at 06:58

  542. Sê my Vicar, glo jy in dieslfde gotte as Hans? Ek vra maar, want klink of dit moontlik ander gotte kan wees, en ek wil net die die fout maak om die verkeerde gotte aan jou toe te dig nie. So watter een is dit? Allah? Die Hindu gotte? Of die 3-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is?

    Malherbe

    February 20, 2012 at 22:39

  543. Vicar, of jou taalgebruik jou identiteit weggee of nie, dit vertel heelwat van die tipe persoon wat jy is.
    Hoekom moet ek my “smoel” hou as jy nie hou van wat ek se nie? Spreek liewer my stellings aan met iets wat naastenby klink soos n argument van jou eie, in stede van die semi-geletterde kak wat jy kwytraak.

    “Vicar” kom van die stamwoord “vicarious”. Dit is n woord wat in Engeland ontwikkel het, eers as die alternatief of ondergeskikte van die “parson”, en later as beskrywing vir die geestelike leier van die “parish” in eie reg.
    Jou gebruik van die woord laat jou onderrok uithang oor jou gelowige pretensies, jou pateet.

    Wil ook net vir die Engelstalige deelnemers aan die forum, wat moontlik nie so wel bekend is met die Afrkaanse kultuur nie, uitwys dat die gebruik van die woord “smoel” baie platvloerse en eenvoudige taalgebruik is. Dit se heelwat oor ou vic se agtergrond, seker die wat hy sy “smoel” vol het oor ouens wat hy nie ken nie se kinderjare.

    Shazee

    February 20, 2012 at 06:23

  544. O, en nou is jy besig om vergifnis te probeer verkoop, ou vic!? Wat se skielike omkeer is dit nou!? G’n wonder mens kan nooit op julle godiote staat maak nie.

    Jy self het nog nooit onder jou huidiglike skuilnaam enigiets van enige beduidenis op hierdie blog bygedra nie. Net skel en kakpraat. Kry eers vir jou ’n bietjie eerlikheid. Dalk sal ek dan van jou selfdienende boelsjit koop. Maar ek twyfel, ou vic.

    En jou bespiegelings oor my kinderjare is ’n belaglike fokken grap. Dit gee baie meer weg oor jou eie opgefokte opvoeding as myne. Jou voorgee simpatie is onnoodig en boonop ’n klug.

    Con-Tester

    February 20, 2012 at 00:20

  545. Contester and Shazee julle moes baie seergekry het as kinders (indoktrinasie) maar ek wil vir julle se dat God julle Lig op die lewe behoort te wees. Asb. Moet nie alle gelowiges onder n’ slegte naam klassifiseer nie want almal glo nie dieselfde nie. Lig is die Verstaanbaarheid aangaande God en Duisternis die teenoorgestelde maar ek is seker dat juLle dit nOooooooOooooooooooooOit sal verstaan nie en Shazee wat beteken Vicar nou weer?

    vicar

    February 19, 2012 at 23:58

  546. Ou vic, jy dink jy ken my, maar ek ken jou, my ou liegbek pêl. :P

    Jou manier van “praat” gee jou weg.

    Con-Tester

    February 19, 2012 at 23:22

  547. Cont. Die enigste manier om met jou te praat is gekruide taal. ShazEe jy is maar n holhanger so hou jou smoel ok.

    vicar

    February 19, 2012 at 23:14

  548. Hans, ek waardeer dat jy die onreg raaksien, en ek sal daarom nie vanaand verder met jou spot nie. Ek sou nogtans wou hoop dat jy eendag die onlogiesheid van jou blinde geloof sal insien.

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 21:29

  549. Hanswors, the fact remains that you have nothing of substance to offer.

    You do not answer legitimate questions with anything other than bullshit and evasion.

    And hilariously blatant lies. For example, “Christian children make up their own minds.”

    Once more, sorry to rob you of your cheap, self-indulgent orgasm.

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 20:59

  550. Shazee, glo dit of jy wil, maar my oorlede skoonpa kon op ‘n sekere plaasdorpie, nie werk kry omdat hy nie aan die regte kerk behoort het nie, so ek verstaan en aanvaar jou punt.
    As daardie “Christenne” die Bybel reg sou verstaan, sou hulle besef daar is ‘n tyd en plek vir alles. Gee aan die Keiser (werkgewer) wat aan die Keiser toekom en aan God wat Hom toekom. Ek stem dus met jou saam dat hulle verkeerd was.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 20:53

  551. Nathan, jy is seker die uitsondering in die reël, maar ek wonder nog oor jou naam. Dit is moers om iets van jou te hoor en dankie vir my moer.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 20:39

  552. Con-Tester, the only substance you are interested in, is that what your eyeballs of flesh can see. Seek and you will find.
    You can not give me an orgasm and you will never enter my mind during sex, so you can not rob me of an orgasm. Sorry to render you powerless.
    Christian children make up their own minds, it is the Muslims that use force and I thought you would know that? Shame!

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 20:34

  553. Oh, and it was “fokken moffie” and “PIELKOP”, not “pielkop”, as if, in keeping with religiot non-thinking, shouting somehow made it more real. :roll:

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 16:03

  554. Yeah, but the real chutzpah is being taken to task over using a nom de plume by some sneaky religiot fuckwit with an overblown sense of self-worth who hides behind an alias.

    You just couldn’t make this shit up.

    Which contrived, self-serving deceptioneering reminds me: He Bollocksed Goofs ( :lol: :oops: )…

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 16:00

  555. “Pielkop” nogal ne. En dit van n ou wat homself “vicar” noem?

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 15:12

  556. Ha-ha, easy there with the spittle-flecked ranting, ol’ preacher man! Just now you’ll show what this Crushtian-Love-and-Tolerance©™ thing you so love trumpeting about is really all about. Anyway, I’m waiting for you (or one of your witless godiot brethren) to set the example with some honesty first. Maybe then I’ll follow your lead.

    As they say, “Hope springs eternal.”

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 14:30

  557. Contester wrote;
    vicar (who is much better known on this blog by another name but who is far too fucking dishonest to be honest about it,

    Well shithead you the one who’s dishonest here. Se my onder watter ander naam blog ek of is jy n fokken moffie wat altyd jou I’d sal wegsteek PIELKOP huh.

    vicar

    February 18, 2012 at 13:12

  558. Skitterend! Ek het altyd gedink daar moet meer goeie redes wees waarom ek so lief is vir bier.

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 12:43

  559. Top 10 Reasons why Beer is Better than Religion:
    • No one will kill you for not drinking beer.
    • Beer doesn’t tell you how to have sex.
    • Beer has never caused a major war.
    • They don’t force beer on minors who can’t think for themselves.
    • When you have beer, you don’t knock on people’s doors trying to give it away.
    • Nobody’s ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured to death over his brand of beer.
    • You don’t have to wait 2,000 years for a second beer.
    • There are laws saying that beer labels can’t lie to you.
    • You can prove you have a beer.
    • If you have devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop.

    From Why Christians Suck:

    A Christian who does not try to push their views on me or on public policy is, to me, sort of like a person who is wearing a funny hat. You know the hat is stupid, and it sort of bugs you, but you try to ignore it even though it is huge and floppy and bright pink with big metallic-green feathers. If you can deal with the funny hat, many Christians are pretty OK; but sooner or later, they always have to say, “So Scott, how come YOU aren’t wearing a funny hat?” and I have to say, “Please fuck off.”

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 11:10

  560. Hans, ek glo nie Nathan of Con-Tester is bang vir hulle regte name nie. Maar hoe dit ookal sy, as ‘n ateis bang sou wees vir sy regte naam is dit kwalik n aanklag op hom, dit is veel eerder ‘n aanklag op die oordeel en onverdraagsaamheid van gelowiges.
    Ek self het vir maatskappy gewerk waar die besturende direkteur onder die invloed van ‘n garismatiese prediker gekom het. Dit is baie duidelik gemaak dat jy n belydende, wedergebore christen (wat de donner dit ookal mag beteken, seker n frontale lobotomie) moet wees of jy het nie meer n toekoms in die maatskappy nie.
    Nodeloos om te se, ek werk nie meer vir die maatskappy nie.
    Kliente van die Mpy het beswaar gemaak dat hulle nie senior amptenare gedurende kantoor ure in die hande kon kry nie, omdat hulle besig was met bybelstudie.
    Raai wat was die oplossing vir die probleempie?
    Daar is opdrag gegee dat daar nie meer gese mag word dat die mense in bybelstudie is nie, daar moet gese word hulle is in “business principles training”.
    Charming storietjie, ne Hans? Waarom die lieg oor waarmee jy besig is? Seker omdat daar niks mee verkeerd is nie, ne? Seker omdat dit nie n growwe skending van die grondwetlike reg op godsdiensvryheid is nie?
    Godsdiensvryheid beteken ook die reg om vry van godsdiens te wees, maar hierdie skynende voorbeeld van christelike verdraagsaamheid erken glad nie die beginsel nie, en as jy nie saamstem nie word jou water en ligte (by wyse van spreke) summier afgesny.
    Moet nou asseblief nie vir my kom vertel hierdie houding van gelowiges is die uitsondering op die reel nie, ek kom dit daagliks tee in een of ander vorm.
    Moet asseblief nie vir my vertel die mense is nie ware christene nie (no true Scotsman), hulle is juis die toonbeeld van ware christenskap.

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 10:30

  561. Kak, Matthysen!

    My naam is alombekend.

    En my oudste kind in in die NG Kerk aangeneem in my teenwoordigheid. Sy het daarna self die onnoselheid besef en haar “bekeer”.

    My jongste word vanjaar aangeneem – ek het my kinders nog nóóit oor énigiets “geïndoktroneer” nie!

    In kort: Jou moer.

    Nathan Bond

    February 18, 2012 at 08:36

  562. That would be “dumb”, ou Hanswors. It’s not what answers we’d prefer, Hanswors. It’s what you can prove, Hanswor. Clearly, you cannot prove anything of substance, Hanswors. You only think you can, Hanswors.

    And as for shoving things down people’s and children’s throats, you religiots/crediots/bibliots/apologiots have that down to a fine art. Literally. In contrast, (and I can only speak for myself here) I just draw attention to the fundamental incomprehensibility, the stupidity, the evidential deficiencies and all the other problems with religious belief, and then let people make up their own minds. On the other hand, you desperately want that others must believe like you and take the Great Infallible Hanswors’s word for it.

    I’m so sorry to rob you of your cheap orgasm.

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 00:22

  563. Nathan and Con-Tester (ashamed of their real names), well why do you shove what you believe down your children’s throats?
    You are so stupid, that you think everybody has to give an answer that you prefer, How dum can one get?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 00:11

  564. vicar (who is much better known on this blog by another name but who is far too fucking dishonest to be honest about it :roll: ) writes:

    … Contester hou jou bek toe.

    Yes, I understand. You religiot fuckwits (1) can’t answer questions, (2) can’t take legitimate criticism, and (3) you know it.

    Which fundamental dishonesty reminds me: … Well, by now, you know what.

    Con-Tester

    February 17, 2012 at 22:28

  565. Nathan@Drewan u r really fucked up and Contester hou jou bek toe.
    Want julle is regtig van julle sinne beroof.

    vicar

    February 17, 2012 at 21:54


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: