God does not exist: Proof!
WARNING: This essay contains strong language. Reader discretion is advised.
For many years I flatly refused to be called an atheist. I was not prepared to be identified in theistic terms. “Atheist” implies some “God”* which one can deny. And “atheist” is a “them” term, as in “us and them”. And, also, and perhaps most importantly, atheism is not a scientifically defendable position: One can not pronounce for certain that God does not exist, because there simply is no falsifiable evidence at all.
But I’ve changed my mind. Nowadays I am quite comfortable, and rather proud, to be called an atheist. I am indeed an atheist. And a radical atheist at that. I say radical, because I want people to know that I have, in the words of novelist Douglas Adams, thought long and hard about it. And I am convinced beyond a velleity of doubt that the probability that God exists is vanishingly small.
As a matter of fact, I have recently realised that there is overwhelming evidence that God does not exist: Every time a child cries out in hunger, God’s nullity is confirmed.
Think about it. Would you starve your children? Even if you are appallingly pissed at them for stealing your precious fruit? I know I wouldn’t.
Now, please don’t throw that “Original Sin” and “Divine Justice” bullshit at me. You know, that story about God being so just that the felony of Adam and Eve simply had to be remediated. That bullshit about kids starving because we are “sinful”. And “God”, poor bastard, can’t help it for justice. Yech, I think I’m going to be sick.
Think about this, if you will: If the Gospels are to be believed, there never was a more unjust execution in the history of the universe than that of Jesus, the Christ. For his alleged felonious status, he was inexplicably unknown to the prosecuting authorities who spent 30 pieces of silver to get a confidant to identify the innocent man. He is kangaroo judged by a riotous jury of his foes, condemned by indifference, clapperclawed, excruciated and crucified in what must surely rank as the number one most scandalous injustice in cosmic history.
This is God’s fix for the wanton depravity of pilfering fruit? Of offending His ludicrous idiosyncrasies? This evildoing speaks to God’s justice? It’s all O.K. now? God sees his “only begotten son” tortured and calumniated and in the son’s very moment of utmost despair, before dying, God turns his back on him… and His Omnipotence is divinely just?
G-i-v-e _ m-e _ a _ b-r-e-a-k!
This entire “God and Divine Justice” fallacy is predicated upon supreme injustice. Surely this ridiculous tarradiddle is nothing more but a machination of Bronze Age naiveté and Dark Age ignorance trumping even the ingenuity of the Monty Python Troupe. I exclaim with deference to Horace, risum teneatis, amici? – can you hold back your laughter, friends?
I asked my perspicacious American friend, Mayor of Manhole, Mississippi, Leroy Tecumseh van Buren, for his opinion.
Said Tecumseh, “I’m dumb-fuckin’-struck. Discombobulated. I don’t know whether to scratch my watch or wind my butt. These people must be destabilized by gross quantities of impure corn liquor and generations of profoundly unbiblical sex. In fact, I’s thinkin’ it’s a massive, collective, psychotic chemical flashback of all the drugs smoked, swallowed, shot, and absorbed rectally from 1960 to 1990. Thirty years of street drugs will get you some fucking weird ideas, my friend! Their minds must be aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapour of invention.”
Wise man, Tecumseh.
God. On a certain level I am disappointed that He does not exist. For I would have loved to poke him in the eye.
If God does exist, he is clearly such a scum bag that he should be avoided at all cost. Children, especially, should never be exposed to this abuser. Just think of what he threatened to do, what he allowed to happen, and what he did, to the children of Abraham and Jephthah and… and to his own “only begotten son”! This guy should not be allowed within a zillion light-years of children!
If God does exist, and if His Omnipotence ever was to show his incandescent visage he should be shot on sight and his stony heart crumbled by laser… just to make sure he stays dead this time.
* To be clarion clear: I am referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Aristotle’s God: immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, indivisible, He of perfect goodness and necessary existence (?)… not some vanilla “straw man” god.
As god bestaan dan wen hy loshande die eerste prys by die kleuterskool vir wegkruipertjie speel. Ek dink hy het vir homself weggekruip of hy is so skyt bang vir satan dat hy die hase pad gekies het en sy flight wat hy met satan verloor het aan suigelinge wat kaal die lewe inkom aan oorgelaat het.
Wat ‘n dapper en almagtige god ( 3 gotte in een of so iets)
DirkvdWest
February 26, 2008 at 08:48
Nathan en Dirk, dit is duidelik dat julle geestelike voorvaders Amoriete was en daarom kan julle net ‘n braaksel opdis wanneer dit oor die bestaan van God gaan. Julle geestelike moeder was seker van die Hetiete. Kyk maar op wat beteken die woorde; Amoriete en Hetiete en weet, dat ‘n dwaas sal kwaad word as hy getugtig word, maar een wat wys is, word meer wys.
Meeste sogenaamde Christenne vandag, het ook die selfde geestelike vaders en moeders as wat julle gehad het, daarom neem ek julle nie kwalik nie, want ek was in dieselfde situasie gewees.
Hans Matthysen
April 15, 2008 at 21:55
Ma Hans
Hoe het jy dan jou bloedlyn verander?
Jy bedoel nou as jy ‘n Duitser is , jy jou bloedlyn na ‘n Neger kan verander deur vir die Jirrrrre Jeeeesus aan te neem.
Verander jou kleur dienooreenkomstig ook ? Fokket !!!!!
Dirk West
May 9, 2008 at 13:17
Dirk, dit is duidlik dat jy nie die twee woorde opgesoek het nie en dus nie verstaan wat ek vir jou sê nie. Leë blikke maak die meeste lawaai. Vul jou met kennis sodat die lawaai kan verdwyn en jy wysheid kan bekom.
Hans Matthysen
May 11, 2008 at 22:31
Did God Create Evil?
http://www.bibleone.net
Did God create Evil? At a certain college there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class, every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade them and mock their statement of faith.
One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand. The professor asked, “Did God make everything young man?” He replied “Yes sir HE did!” The professor responded, “If God made everything, then HE made evil.” The student didn’t have a response and the professor was happy to once again prove the Christian faith to be a myth.
Then another man raised his hand and asked, “May I ask you something, sir?” “Yes, you may,” responded the professor. The young man stood up and said, “Sir, is there such a thing as cold?” “Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven’t you ever been cold?”
The young man replied, “Actually, sir, cold doesn’t exist. What we consider to be cold is really an absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there.”
The young man continued, “Sir, is there such a thing as dark?” Once again the professor responded, “Of course there is.” And once again, the student replied, “Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term developed to describe what happens when there is no light present.”
Finally, the young man asked, “Sir, is there such a thing as evil?” The professor responded, “Of course, we have rapes, murders and violence everywhere in the world. Those things are evil.” The student replied, “Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn’t like truth, or love which exist as virtues like heat or
light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat, or darkness without light.”
The professor had nothing to say……………..
________________________________________________________________________
From this site’s editor:
The discourse above has merit. God is holy [1], which means many things, such as “justice” and “perfection.” It is without doubt synonymous with “deity.”
Since God is transcendent and independent of His created universe (1 Kgs 8:27), He is separate from its inhabitants and feared by them (e.g., Ex 19:10-25; 20:18-21). Thus holiness becomes equivalent to true deity, separating Him from the impotence of the gods of the defeated Egyptians (Ex 15:11): “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness?” “Holy” in many passages is synonymous with “divine”: “There is none holy [uniquely divine] as the Lord: for there is none beside thee” (1 Sam 2:2; cf. Ps 99:3, 5, 9; Isa 40:25; Hab 3:3). Because He is holy, truly deity and thus infinite, there is no searching of His understanding (Isa 40:28; Ps 145:3). Holiness, then, is what characterizes God, and it includes all His other attributes.
(Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Barton J. Payne, Th.D., Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.)
For certain when there is “holiness” there is the absence of “evil.” God never created evil or anything as evil. Evil, in its purest form, is a “decision” (of the will) made by a created being to exist without (apart from) God. When God created Lucifer, a magnificent and strikingly beautiful angelic form, God created him with the ability of free choice. When Lucifer willfully chose pride to dominate his life and willfully chose to elevate himself to the level of God, it was then that Lucifer (Satan) introduced “evil” into the created universe [2]. When Eve and Adam chose to disobey God in the Garden of Eden, it was they who introduced evil into the human race, which is transmitted (the “sin nature” through the seed of the male from generation to generation, to us today [3].
Did God know before “creation” that His created beings would introduce “evil” into creation? The answer is yes. He knew, but without allowing His created beings the freedom of choice and its result, there could never be a full manifestation and appreciation of God’s holiness, love and grace [4]. What is more is that man, as a creation of God in His image, would never have had the opportunity for true fellowship with God, which is the very essence of the heavenly state. On a parochial plain, we may understand an inkling of this when we understand that there is no appreciation of light without the existence of the absence of light (darkness), or warmth without the existence of the absence of heat (cold). So only in that sense, can one make the accusation that God is “responsible” for the existence of evil, that is, He permitted it to happen. It was not His choice that it was to occur. It was His choice that all created beings would choose Him. But because they did not, He now is able to manifest His true nature to them. In the final analysis it could not have been any other way. Without free choice, man would have been a mere robot, who could never have understood and appreciated the nature of and fellowship with God—the ultimate and perfect state of a created being.
From a human viewpoint there are degrees of evil, but the truth is that “evil” is simply the decision to be “without God.” As one continues to exercise this decision in one’s life, it may well manifest itself in degenerative acts of unspeakable degree that may indeed impact one’s eternal state in hell should one die “spiritually” in that state of being. But no matter the degree, as man so judges the outward forms of evil, any person who is “without God” and thereby in a spiritual state of evil at the time of physical death will face an eternity in this condition apart from God in the lake of fire [5].
The only way a person may escape this spiritual condition (of “evil” or “death” is by faith alone in Christ alone. When a person turns totally and genuinely, by a decision of the will, to Jesus Christ (which is “the” act of repentance, that is, the turning away from every other confidence such as works or religion) by placing full confidence (trust) in Him and His sacrifice on Calvary for his personal salvation; that person instantly (at that moment of decision) is transferred from a spiritual state of evil (without God) to a spiritual state of holiness (union with God). This is a permanent arrangement that can never be undone, by God or man. [6]
Even so, while in human form, which embodies the “sin nature;” a Christian can still experience prodigal moments and journeys [7] as a result of evil (without God) decisions that will affect his present physical life and eternal awards to come [8]. Nevertheless, because the Christian’s soul and spirit are linked with God through Jesus Christ and are always in a spiritual “state of holiness,” they will be secure because of what Christ did, and never because of what the Christian can or will do. [9]
No Christian may every blame God for moral evil within the created universe, nor for any temptation toward evil. God does in fact create in some instances, and permits in others, calamity and adversity in the Christian and non-Christian life for the purpose of punishment, correction and guidance; but never is God the author of moral evil. [10]
The creature—whether angel or human—is created to be God-centered. To become self-centered is a contradiction of the basic law of creature existence. The falsification of God’s moral order, is, when self-centered, complete. It is also found to be a violation of the original design relative to interrelationships between finite beings themselves. Sin is not against God, but is against all other fellow beings.
There are several doctrines that man may never be able to fully understand. The beginning of evil may indeed be one of them. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is evil present within the universe and upon earth. Yet the day is coming for those who by faith alone in Christ alone have changed their spiritual state from “evil” to “holiness,” when they will experience no more evil or its fruit forevermore.
Pitie
May 14, 2008 at 14:14
Nathan….Who designed your site?? its flow is excellent…. looks nice….
Pitie
May 14, 2008 at 14:15
Die enigste wat Darwin-godsdiens en die christen-kerk-godsdiens in gemeen het is die “donate” link !
Noudat ons uit die Bybel leer dat kerk-era verby is en dat God die kerke aan die Satan oorgegee het is dit nie snaaks om te sien hoe die “slang” sy eie stert begin raakbyt nie…!
Ek dink nie hy kan los nie…!
johannes coetzee
June 20, 2008 at 10:53
Johannes, die kerk wat God tot stand gebring het is ewig en jy verwys seker na die kerke wat se oorsprong ontstaan het met die vervolging van Jesus en Sy dissipels?
Hans Matthysen
June 23, 2008 at 21:06
Hans die kerkstruktuur is die strukture wat deur die eeue heen in terme van die Bybelse riglyne totstandgekom en opgerig was deur die verkiesing van opsieners in die opsienersamp waarna 1 Tim 3 verwys.
johannes coetzee
June 24, 2008 at 10:09
Johannes, wat jy hierbo skryf is die getuienis van mense en die kerkstrukture waarna jy verwys, is deur die Romeine, Jesus en Sy volgelinge se vervolgers, gestig. Hulle het wel die Bybelse geskrifte as riglyn gebruik, tog is dit nie die ware wynstok nie. Die strukture wat God, deur Jesus daar gestel het, bestaan uit Herders en nie uit huurlinge nie. Dit is die getuienis van God.
Hans Matthysen
June 30, 2008 at 22:41
Since you are referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, why not look into Islam. I think you will find some stuff very different and there will be no need for you to encounter original sin, Jesus on the cross, salvation and stuff like that.
As with a God allowing suffering and pain to children, I don’t think that is a strong argument against his existence. William Lane Craig refers to that as the emotional argument against his existence. Just because it feels wrong does not mean it is so.
Tim
July 20, 2008 at 16:05
Tim
It is not possible to disprove the existence of “God”. And, methinks, that somehow means that “arguments against” a deity is also futile. I contend that it is much better – for “God”! – if it doesn’t exist: the shame of “God’s” cosmic fuck-ups would be too great even for an omnipotent being.
Islam, as I indicate in “72 Virgins” (see Pages) is a pathetic excuse for an idiotology (sic). Not interested.
Nathan Bond
July 20, 2008 at 19:25
Nathan
The so called Cosmic F@#%$-^& of God, please be so kind as to show me what that consists off?
We are living in the 21st century and not the dark ages. Long gone are the days that anyone can claim unverified facts. Do not forget, the internet is a powerful tool and anyone can use it.
For every scientist that believes in the EVOLUTION, another is not.
And believe it or not it can be proofed.
So – God did not make any so called cosmic F)(*-()% my frind, Humans did!!!!
Greetings
DJ
July 22, 2008 at 10:53
DJ
When I argue “God’s” cosmic fuck-ups, I argue from the faith-based perspective that “God” indeed exists. I do so because believers are quick to recognize “God” and give praise for everything that impress them – from aunt Martha’s miraculous healing to little Johny’s improved numeracy skills. But “God” never gets debited!
So… if indeed there is a “God”, he is responsible (directly or tacitly) for hunger, for wars, for illness, for earth-quakes, for tsunami’s, for volcanic eruptions, for tropical storms and the like. And don’t, purleaze, blame it all on some fruit pilfering eons ago. If “God” is still pissed at Adam and Eve he has unresolved issues he needs to discuss with a shrink.
Pretty damned immature, this “God”.
Ps. About evolution… go read, dammit!
Nathan Bond
July 22, 2008 at 11:37
Hey, Nathan! your wish may come true, ole man.
When Jesus does come back to earth he probably WILL be shot and/or poked in the eye. Have you seen that play by the Irishman where Jesus comes back to earth? He lands up in Guantanamo Bay (hey, he looked brownish, had a beard and a towel on his head and spoke Palestinian – Worse: He couldn’t speak English!!! So you can’t blame that US Customs oke at JFK that threw him in the slammer!).
PS: What’s this “site editor” shit? Is there a sort of holy oke hidden in the background who is allowed to come onsite and say things (which BTW looked like BS to me) that somehow carry more weight than what us mortals say?
Explanation, please!
bewilderbeast
July 24, 2008 at 14:01
Nathan en Dirk, dit is duidelik dat julle geestelike voorvaders Amoriete
Lekker Hans
Moses se vir die Amoriete – val plat tussen die riete maar watch vir julle tiete daar is moerse muskiete .
DW
September 23, 2008 at 08:12
As God nie ons skepper is nie, hoe kan dit wees dat Livitikus en Deuternomium so ‘n goeie handleiding vir die biochemiese masjien blyk te wees.
Mense vind nou nog steeds uit dat die Wette wetenskaplikke mediese voordele vir die biochemiese masjien inhou.
Die ene oor lee blikke is net so van toepassing op Angus Bachus en die Drie suster kerke … vul jou self dus met rellevante kennis voor jy ander mense van lee doppe beskuldig … party Sataniste ken julle geloof beter as julle self…
Bierpens
September 26, 2008 at 19:13
“Scientists continue to be some of the biggest deluded fools on the planet sprouting off completely unsupported nonsense.”
WOW!!!!!!! Hier’s die link. http://www.Preterism.info.
Ontspan Nathan! Ek het verlede week vir die eerste keer van Preterisme gehoor. Ek teken toe sommer in op hulle nuusbrief! ‘n Mens kan dit skaars glo, maar hierdie ouens is nog meer fucked-up as die 38 2011 Bybeliete. (Ekskuus! Ek het van Mal Johannes vergeet: Maak dit 39.)
NS. DW, wat de fok gaan aan in Johannesburg?! Na gistermiddag beter die manne in Joeies vandag wegbly van gholf en eerder kerk toe gaan. Toemaar, die Bulle sal in die finals die Leeus wys hoe om die Sharks op te fok.
Daan Van der Merwe
September 28, 2008 at 06:14
” thought long and hard about it”!!!
What you just wrote here (the few remaining words after filtering out the obsene vocab)just proves you did not think at all.
How can you not proof God’s existence? Turn on Dicovery Channels and watch sea world (for example)…they will give you a mouth-drop evidences of God’s existence. The breath-taking organized cosmos is just too well organized to exist by some massive explosion.
Why are you angry at God, when you must be angry at the messing that humans commit in the absence of God?
Belief does not mean the total absence of ratinality. For instance, you use your head and logic to find out that God lies beyound your mental capabiilities of grasping the mysteries of this universe. You can’t claim that you understand this universe and the different froms of life which exist on it…they are a way beyound your head and beyound the head of the greatest scientists of our time..so you use your head to at least conclude that there is someone with supreme intelligence who created this complicated thing that you live in and is intelligent enough to have created you so beautifully complex.
Why does God allow some people to be hungry? well, imagine that you are living in a world where no one is needy of anything. All people are rich with their phsyical and phsycological needs overly satisfied. Where is the challenge? how can you prove that you are with God and not with otherwise? It is a necessity to have a room for imperfections so that we can prove ourselves by fixing those imperfections and filling in the gap. Imagine that students do not take exams at all (absense of pain and challenge), how will the professor know that they understood the material well? how will the students know that they have earned themselves an education if they did not take those tests (verbal, written, practical-easy and difficult tests)? So you see, the concept of pain is not far from your head or your understanding, coz while you seem to argue against it, you are actually appreciating it and realize its importance in life.
Let’s look at a simple example:
Your friend is sick. God allowed your friend to be sick so that you can help him (this is a chance for you to do something good), at the same time, your friend will benefit from this sickness:
1) he will sense your love and it will bring him joy.
2) he will grow stronger (if he did not have patience, he will learn it through his sickness- if he had no time for God, he will have time for God during his sickness and will feel God’s hand in his life, when he was too occupied with life to feel it)
3) It is a true test of his metal (essence). If he is truely strong and truely love God, he will endure his sickness and will get out of it stonger than before and more able to face life challenges. If however, he has a weak essence, then he will learn this deffect and will fix it. Even you believe in the blessings of hardships and you know that they create stronger humans and are usually an eye-opening experience, which opens one’s eyes on God’s beauty, the faithfulness of those who love you, who are your real friends and how aren’t, etc…
If you understood the usefulness of hardships, you will never blame God. Also, you have got to distinguish between the hardhips that God allow, and the hardships that one causes himself to suffer from becaue of his immoral behvaior or thinking. So if someone was so envious of his neighbour that he killed him, he can’t blame this on God, but only on himself and his twisted mind. God is innocent of the sins humans commit, and whatever harship He temporarily allows us to face, they are only meant for our strengthening and learning to become better humans than what we are now.
Mary
November 16, 2008 at 14:47
Mary, having read your “example”, I wanted to puke. Believers are sick.
Nathan Bond
November 16, 2008 at 15:35
Ditto. I am awed by what revoltingly, contortedly, perversely contrived rationales you believers are capable of dreaming up to preserve the illusion that your god is good.
Oh, and you might want to brush up on your cosmology and natural history. Too many straw men, you know. Also, look up David Hume’s critique of the argument from design while you’re at it.
Con-Tester
November 16, 2008 at 16:55
An atheist has to convince himself – believing in God comes naturally. Vocabulary of the atheist speaks for itself!
Goldstein
January 21, 2009 at 08:07
Goldstein
Methinks humans are born atheists. And then the priests begin their molesting…
As I have said over and over and over again – my language is calculated to clearly show my disgust at religion and its idiot “God”. When religion ceases its unspeakable terror and its unimaginable mendacity my language will be tempered. Until such time, religion remains a crock of shit and religion’s “God” a cunt.
This atheist is happy to let his cant speak for itself as long as Christians let their deeds speak for themselves: war, discrimination, dupery…
What say you Christians abandon the lies – creation, virgin birth, life everlasting – and I abandon the descriptive words for your lies?
Nathan Bond
January 21, 2009 at 08:18
Goldstein wrote (21 Jan 09 at 8:07 am):
Yes, that’s true: atheism usually is a conclusion drawn from various lines of evidence and reasoning. Then again, so are the findings of science. In contrast, belief in (a, any) god is invariably a socially installed premise from which a veritable cornucopia of unsustainable and indefensible conclusions are drawn (c.f. “Anti-science”).
Goldstein wrote (21 Jan 09 at 8:07 am):
Yes, vocabulary – as opposed to gibberish – tends to do that.
Con-Tester
January 21, 2009 at 12:41
So, what you are saying, is that people who are termninally ill and prayed to be healed yet die of their illness just did not believe sufficiently, or prayed hard enough, or their deaths must serve as a lesson to others? I lost two friends in the space of four days, Mary. Your ‘argument’ sucks. Fuck off.
Jan Swart
May 12, 2009 at 12:46
what is the concept of God?
Say He is Allah the One and only; Allah the Eternal, absolute; He begets not nor is he begotten; and there is none like unto Him (Quran,al-ikhlas,112:1-4)
What is the religion accepted by Allah?
The religion before Allah is Islam (Quran,Ali Imran,3:19), (Quran,Ali Imran,3:85)
May Allah Guide Us All to the True Path.
Dzulhelmi
October 1, 2009 at 19:38
“Allah” the guide to the “True Path,” eh?
Tell that to Coetzee, van der Merwe and Matthysen. I’ll lay a thousand to one odds that they won’t believe you.
Con-Tester
October 2, 2009 at 22:18
Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (furthest)regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth (Quran,Al-Fussilat,41:53)
Think about it.
Please visit: http://www.sundacolugo.wordpress.com
Muhammad Dzulhelmi
October 3, 2009 at 15:09
Die woord allah is ontleen uit die Bible en word veral in sekere dele van die boek Daniel en Esra.
Maar presies wat die Katolieke, die Lutherns, die Babtiste, die Mormone, die charismatiese groepering, die Reformed, die “you name it” kerkgroeperinge hulle eie “do it yourself” gospels geskep het, het die Muslim of Isamietiese gemeenskappe hulle eie “do it yourself” gospels geskep.
As my mense (die christendom) tog maar net die Lewende God, die God van Abraham, Isak en Jakob, die Skepper van die hemele en die aarde met soveel respek, agting en vrees bejeen het sooswat die volgelinge van Allah uit die Islamitiese of Muslim gemeenskap dit doen sou beide groeperinge (die christen en muslims) ontdek dat hulle nie net dieselfde aardse vader het nie maar ook dieselfde Hemelse Vader het.
In ‘n sekere sin het die christendom veral vanwee hul hoogmoed gedurende die amper pas afgelope 2000jaar baie skade aangerig in die “broeder” verhouding tussen die nakomelinge van Isak en Ismael. Dis seker dan ook een van die hoofbeweegredes waarom die Muslim of Islamitiese gemeenskappe hulle eie “Woord van God” geskrywe het.
Vandag is dit ongelukkig die Islamitiese gemeennskappe wat in presies dieselfde strik getrap het as die waarin die Joodse gemeenskap getrap het gedurende die dae van die eerste koms van die Messias.
Genadiglik is Heilige God besig om die rekord straight te stel, naamlik dat die Heilige Bybel die enigste ware Woord van God is. Vir die christen wat in vormgodsdiens verval het wag egter die grootste verrassing van alle tye wannner die Messias op 21 Mei 2011 terugkeer en Hy die grootste deel van Sy finale oes uit die sogenaamde Oosterse en Asiatiese volkere gaan inbring.
Vandag hoor nie net die christendom weer die ewige evangelie nie maar hoor die ander 2/3des van die volkere buite die christendom die Goeie Nuus vanuit die Bybel en word hulle onleiding van die Heilige Gees in Sy ewige Koninkryk ingelei….!
Gedurende hierdie laaste van die laaste dae ontdek die nakomelinge van Isak en die nakomelinge van Ismael dat hulle inderwaarheid “broeders” met ‘n gemeenskaplike vader en Vader is wat deur hulle onderskeie kerkstrukture vir eeue van mekaar geskei en uitmekaar gehou is.
Genadiglik het die kerk-era vir goed op 21 Mei 1988 ten einde geloop toe Heilige God die hele kerkstruktuur “uitgespuug” het…!
Die een ware “kerk” is saamgestel uit niemand minder as diegene wat deur Heilige God voor die grondlegging van die aarde uitverkies is, Hy voor die grondlegging van die aarde vir hulle sondeskuld betaal het, Hy hulle gedurende hul leeftyd ‘n nuut herskepte hart (siel of gees) gegee het, en Hy aan hulle op 21 Mei 2011 ‘n nuut herskepte verheerlikte liggaam gaan gee sodat hulle vir ewig met Hom in Sy Koninkryk te regeer.
Aan God, aan Heilige God al die eer, van nou af tot in ewigheid. Amen.
Kom gou Here Jesus kom gou…!
johannes coetzee
October 3, 2009 at 21:12
johannes coetzee wrote (October 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm):
Allow me to translate: ):
See? That’s one down who doesn’t buy your version. Now we just need Matthysen and van der Merwe to weigh in with their own various flavours of infallible biblical knowledge.
Con-Tester
October 4, 2009 at 18:50
Somehow in all that drivel I managed to miss “the Babtists” [sic]. Silly me!
Con-Tester
October 4, 2009 at 18:54
When is soon? Only indoctrinated brain dead cloth head fools like you , Hans and Johannes believe in bull shit . Get a life man.
DW
October 6, 2009 at 08:28
Johannes , as daai 3 gotte Jeeesus van jou die aarde iewers in 2011 gaan kom opfok het hy ‘n spesiale plan om al die Allah kakpraters ook op te fok.
Jy skryf ; Genadiglik is Heilige God besig om die rekord straight te stel, naamlik dat die Heilige Bybel die enigste ware Woord van God is .
Huh ? Wat bedoel jy nou . Gaan die Moslems en Jews nou begin Bybel lees en in liewe Jesus begin glo ?
Kak man jy droom , die Moslems dink jy is ‘n infidel en die Jews weet Jesus is ‘n kakpraat god ( 3 gotte )
Nou sê vir my ou Johannes . Jy het nou al mooi verduidelik hoe jou 3 gotte die 2 biljoen fuctup kerk gelowiges gaan uitspoeg . Wat gaan jou 3 gotte met die Moslems en Jews doen. Gaan hulle harder kak as jou Christen Broeders wat kerk loop?
Jy skryf ; Vandag hoor nie net die christendom weer die ewige evangelie nie maar hoor die ander 2/3des van die volkere buite die christendom die Goeie Nuus vanuit die Bybel en word hulle onleiding van die Heilige Gees in Sy ewige Koninkryk ingelei….!.,
Fok nou verstaan ek jou nie ou Johannes . Jy beweer dat jy net die evangelie moet HOOR en dan word jy ingelei. Gods man , dan is ek mos ook gesave , ek het die kakpraat evangelie al baie gehoor .
Of bedoel jy dat as jy na jou RADIOSTASIE KERK luister – HOOR – dan is jy gesave , maar as jy in die kerk sit is jy gefok.
Wat van as jy in die Mosk of Sinagoge sit en na die Imam of Rabie luister en HOOR . Is jy dan ook OK – of lê die triek in jou Radiostasie se kakpraat stories .
Jy skryf ; Die een ware “kerk” is saamgestel uit niemand minder as diegene wat deur Heilige God voor die grondlegging van die aarde uitverkies is.
Ooo my fok hier kom dit nou . Is jy uitverkies Johannes ?
Want jy weet as jy nie een van die lucky ouens in jou gotte se lucky packet is nie , is jy poer in jou moer ou broeder. Moertoe man ….met of sonder die gotte Jeeeeesus.
Wat jy nie verstaan nie ou broer , in jou eie woorde skryf jy dat god reeds besluit het wie gaan piekniek saam met hom hou en wie nie.
Weet jy wat ou Johannes , die dag as ek my laaste asem uitblaas wil ek sê dat ek alles uit die lewe gekry het wat moontlik was. Ek wil die dood net net maak – soos in sideways inglip en alles opgebruik .
Maar om piekniek saam met jou jaloerse gotte daarna te gaan hou , nee wat , ek like dit fokol om te sing soos in 24/7 , en nog minder om gotte se gatte te lek , en ek soek ook nie 72 of 100 virgins nie. Nee jissis , gee my eerder 72 slette of hoere met nice boob jobs wat die job ken. Jissis nee , fok , ‘n pieknie saam jou gotte en virgins . Wat kan kakker as dit wees.
Nee jissis , dink net om na Jesus se gekerm heeldag te sit en luister oor hoe seer sy handjies en voetjies is en hoe banggat hy was toe sy papa hom verlaat het .
Kry vir jou Johannes ek het nie tyd vir jou gotte se family kakpraat en opfok business nie .
DW
October 6, 2009 at 09:27
Dit is nou werklik ‘n Babel se verwarring wat ek hierbo lees en dit wil voorkom, of die onbekende God, nog vir baie onbekend is.
Hans Matthysen
October 6, 2009 at 22:42
Ek het eers ‘n klomp goed oor Johannes kwyt geraak en toe alles maar ‘delete’. (DW het hom in elke geval op sy plek gesit). Dit behoort nie hier te gaan oor die ‘incoherent’ gebrabble van ‘n ‘lunatic-fringer’ wie se benewelde brein hom dinge wysmaak wat feeverhale na die waarheid laat lyk nie.
Ek wil net se^: Johannes, maak jou sinne klaar man – dis baie snaaks, jou sinsbou. Dit klink seker vir jou bybelse, ne^. Bv. ‘Die woord allah is ontleen uit die Bible en word veral in sekere dele van die boek Daniel en Esra.’ …ge-wat ???
Pitie, shame I ‘pitie’ you, to be taken in by this word-play. Have you ever heard of science. Warm, cold – it can measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit, right. Same goes for light and dark. They are scientific facts and their origin can be determined. It should not to be used in this way to delude people. But hey, only the gullible can be deluded,that is a fact too.
‘Good and Evil’ have existed since time immemorial. And don’t tell the snake in the park thing, please. Even before your Adam and Eve frolicked around in the naughty garden, there was good and evil. It exists in the natural world of which we are a part. And then you go and imply that this is proof – agghh pleeeeze.
Ek ‘like’ vir Daan. Net ‘n kwessie van tyd, reg ou maat, dan het die grysselle gewen?
Mary – go read some science books. Open your mind. It’s very liberating and above all – makes you see what utter fools you religious people are making of yourself.
Everybody else who thinks proof that god exists is in the bible – wow. You guys will believe anything that is written down. If you can’t taste, see, hear, feel or smell it (and maybe calculate it should be added), it does not exists in my book.
screw-tin-eyes
December 8, 2009 at 17:01
Screw-tin-eyes, God bestaan omdat die volgende bestaan; Woord, Liefde, Lig (verstaanbaarheid/insig), Waarheid, Wysheid, Gees, ens.
Hans Matthysen
December 15, 2009 at 23:33
Hans, jy is besig met metafisika hier; nie eens nàby ‘n Christelike geloofsverklaring of –openbaring nie. Dit is duidelik jy het nie veel van ‘n begrip van rasionele denke nie, want om hierdie stelling van jou te bewys is onmoontlik. Of vertel jou boek van fabels vir jou sulke goed?
Savage
December 29, 2009 at 17:27
Hans, van wanneer is hierdie eienskappe (Woord, Liefde, Lig (verstaanbaarheid/insig), Waarheid, Wysheid,) wat jy noem, die alleenreg van jou god, wat jy kan gebruik as bewys dat hy bestaan.
Eienskappe soos liefde, insig, verstaanbaarheid en ek wil selfs se^ wysheid, bestaan in die dierewereld ook en dis bewys. Dit bewys nie dat daar ‘n god is nie, dis is natuurlike emosies man.
Jou god het nie hierdie emosies tot stand gebring om te bewys hy bestaan nie, okay !!!
En anders gestel, ‘by no stretch of the imagination’ is hierdie emosies bewyse van ‘n god nie. Asseblief man. Kom by, dink en moenie al die gebreinwaste ‘cliches’ oor en oor herhaal nie. Dit gaan dit nie waar maak nie.
En hier is nog iets vir jou. Vandat ek nie meer glo in die bybel en ‘n god nie, het ek:
-baie meer liefde vir my medemense,
-meer simpatie met hulle leed,
-haat ek oorlog,
-besef dat ek net die een lewe het en dit moet gebruik om die wereld ‘n beter plek te maak,
-dat mense nie gestraf word met ongelukke en dood omdat god kwaad is vir hulle nie, maar dat ons verantwoordelik is vir ons dade en niks moet doen om ander leed aan te doen nie.
Dis meer as wat godvreesende mense kan se^ wat oorlog maak in gods naam, glo dat kinders lei omdat hulle of hulle ouers ‘sondig’ is, of was. Snert. Hou jou god – Die woorde/eienskappe wat jy hierbo genoem het is nie deel van die god wat jy voorhou nie – kyk net om jou.
screw-tin-eyes
December 30, 2009 at 23:18
http://www.beeld.com/Content/MyBeeld/Briewe/1976/dc6fc97cc0b14e74888507f9f0146d4c/30-12-2009-09-27/As_God_nie_altyd_sin_maak,_%E2%80%98join_the_club%E2%80%99
Pieter
December 31, 2009 at 08:22
Ai toggie, Pieter! Ai!
Nathan Bond
January 1, 2010 at 08:47
Pieter, as jy vasklou aan sulke infantiele twak redenasie, dan verdien jy om voort te gaan en jou lewe te vermors.
screw-tin-eyes
January 1, 2010 at 10:37
Eintlik is dit nie Jaco O’Callahan se god wat ’n plan het nie, nè Pieter. In werklikheid is dit Jaco en al sy gelowige eweknieë wat ’n plan het – ’n om mooi verskonings uit te dink vir hoekom hulle god homself gedra asof hy glad nie bestaan nie.
Con-Tester
January 1, 2010 at 10:43
Pieter, as jy vasklou aan sulke infantiele twak redenasie, dan verdien jy om voort te gaan en jou lewe te vermors.
gelukkig is my lewe geen vermorsing nie, miskien jou beskeie opinie, maar nou ja ; elkeen is seker geregtig op sy eie stupid opinie.
Pieter
January 4, 2010 at 12:16
Pieter, dit is vir my so pateties om te sien hoe sommige christen-mense verkies om hulle-self ‘in die duister’ te hou wat kennis aan betref. Maar die onderwerp hier is of God bestaan, al dan nie. Waarop jy net ‘n baie swak-beredeneerde aanhaling van ene Jaco gepos het. Regtig, dis ‘n baie lui benadering. Komaan, se^ bietjie iets wat jy self beredeneer het en oor gedink het wat betrekking het op hierdie saak. Anders moet ek maar weer my ‘beskeie’ opinie herhaal en dit mag dalk bietjie meer kleurvol wees.
screw-tin-eyes
January 4, 2010 at 21:16
Savage, as jy die Bybel geken het, sou jy weet dat God nie iets anders is nie en neem kennis, dat niks in jou lewe het ontstaan sonder die “woord”. Dit is duidelik dat jy nie veel begrip het van God nie en ook nie geestelike denke nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 4, 2010 at 21:25
Screw-tin-eyes, dit is wat God is en het niks te doen met alleenreg nie.
Het jy nog nooit gehoor “en oweral is God”, ja in die diereryk ook.
Dit is duidelik, dat toe jy eens op ‘n tyd ‘n gelowige was, het jy nooit die Bybel geken of verstaan.
Ek het nog altyd baie liefde vir my medemense.
Ek het nog altyd baie simpatie met hulle leed.
Ek het nog altyd ‘n haat vir oorlog.
Ek besef nog altyd, dat ek net die een lewe op aarde het en dit moet gebruik om die wereld ‘n beter plek te maak.
Ek het nog nooit geglo, dat mense nie gestraf word met ongelukke en dood omdat God kwaad is vir hulle nie, maar dat ons verantwoordelik is vir ons dade en niks moet doen om ander leed aan te doen nie. (Die Bybel wys dat ons moet waak en bid, nie slaap en bid nie.)
Moontlik het jy, op daardie stadium, God aanbid by die altaars van die Baalse priesters.
Jesus en Sy volgelinge het geen oorlog gevoer of hulself verdedig behalwe teen die bose magte van die lug.
Hans Matthysen
January 4, 2010 at 21:46
Hans, dit is weereens duidelik dat jy nie veel begrip het van die realiteit nie en ook nie feitlike oorwegings nie. Die vervelige redenasies wat jy aanhoudend en herhaaldelik vir jou god bied, is bankrot en dwaas, en sou belaglik gewees het was hulle nie so uitgeput nie.
Con-Tester
January 4, 2010 at 23:23
H: ‘Het jy nog nooit gehoor “en oweral is God’
Ja, ek het al daarvan gehoor, maar helaas nog nooit gesien.
H: Dit is duidelik, dat toe jy eens op ‘n tyd ‘n gelowige was, het jy nooit die Bybel geken of verstaan.
Tot die beste van my vermoe het ek probeer. Iemand wat dit ‘verstaan’ flous homself – m.a.w. is ‘delusional’ . Pak die boek weg saam met Alice in Wonderland en ander boeke van die aard.
Ek het jou nie beskuldig dat jy nie jou medemens lief het, simpatie het en van oorlog hou nie. Ek ken jou nie en sal nie die aanname maak nie. Wat ek wel gese^ het is dat omdat ek (myself) nou anders redeneer oor dinge, my insig gebaseer is op realiteit en dit het my gevoel in baie opsigte versterk. Julle ouens wat so moet keer vir julle ongesubstansieerde ideologie is darem lig geraak.
Wat ek wel se^ is dat oorlog in die naam van God of Allah op ‘n daaglikese basis bedryf word en dat leiers oor die wereld dit doen om hulle verksuilde agendas te bereik. Dit kry hulle net reg deur God in die ‘equation’ in te bring. Die kolaterale skade is onskuldige kinders en nie eens dit sit hierdie ‘war mongers’ af nie.
H: ‘ Moontlik het jy, op daardie stadium, God aanbid by die altaars van die Baalse priesters’
Een woord: Stront. Ingekleur: brabbel wat nie sin maak nie. Waar kom jy aan die twak?
H: ‘Jesus en Sy volgelinge het geen oorlog gevoer of hulself verdedig behalwe teen die bose magte van die lug.’
‘Bose magte van die lug’ = nog stront. Lekker hoe jy Jesus net losmaak van die 3-God. Hy is tog deel van die 3-enige, reg. Of is die nuwe neiging in jou kringe om elkeen van die 3 ‘n eie persoonlikheid te gee. Dit kan nogal oulik wees. God – al die O’s, magtig, orals, liefdevol (??) en dan Jesus – vredemaker ‘extra ordinaire’. Natuurlik is die Spook (Heilige Gees) daar om ons bang te maak
screw-tin-eyes
January 5, 2010 at 10:07
Hans, ek het jou ‘n vraag gevra en jou soortvan geantwoord op die twak wat jy kwyt geraak op McBrolloks, maar jy het soos ‘n groot speld verdwyn. Jy sê ek ken nie die Bybel nie en insinueer dat jy wèl. Watter deel van die Bybel interpreteer jy korrek? Die hele een, of net hier en daar waar dit jou pas? Waar is al die ander kerke en Chritelike gelowe verkeerd, so van so dat elke denominasie vas oortuig is dat hùlle die enigstes is wat aan Jesus se voete sit?
As wetenskap bedryf was soos julle godsdiens bedryf, sou ons nog almal in grotte gewoon het. Maar dankie tog dat ons voorouers nie almal deur die delirium virus besmet is soos julle nie. Deur nugtere vrae te vra, en toepassing van die natuurwette te bewerkstellig deur wetenskaplikes en ingenieurs, word jy en jou mede gelowiges toegelaat om sonder verhindering julle viruses waarmee julle besmet is te verprei. En die groot tragiek van die hele storie is is dat julle arme kinders net soos julle grootgemaak word, en weerhou word om vrae te vra wat enigsins die Bybel (soos geïnterpreteer deur Hans, let wel) sal in twyfel trek. Nee wat, julle is lewenslose doppe wat rondloop en dieselfde twak oor en oor prewel; geen wonder niemand met ‘n halwe brein het respek vir julle nie.
Savage
January 5, 2010 at 19:13
“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: “Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull, their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.” Matthew 13:13-15. Aan almal wat die pot missit oor Christenskap: Christenskap is NIE tradisie nie, Christenskap is NIE ‘n tronkstraf of beperking nie. God belet jou nie om vrae te vra nie, inteendeel vra soveel soos wat julle wil, Hy sê tog: “ask, and it will be given to you, seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (Matthew 7:7) Moet net nie skrik as HY jou antwoorde gee wat volgens JOU nie aanvaarbaar is nie. Hy het ons almal vrye wil gegee, volg HOM of wees teen HOM. Your choice! “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” Matthew 7:24-27
All-4-GOD
April 12, 2010 at 17:24
Recommended reading for all Nathan Bond supporters:
1. ‘Evolution: The Science That Evolved Into A Fairy Tale’
2. ‘Meditations & Contemplations: A Reader For Both Creationists And Evolutionists’
[Free downloads at http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
Piet Stassen
September 18, 2011 at 09:20
Recommended reading for ignorant fundie twits: Anything not written by other ignorant fundie twits.
Con-Tester
September 18, 2011 at 20:05
Piet Stassen, my raad aan jou is om te hou by jou avakadopeer navorsing. Van die twak wat jy my aanbeveel om te lees, het ek reeds gelees. Vraag is nou of jy bereid is om iets onapologeties te lees – iets soos Dawkins se “Thr Greatest Show on Earth”.
Malherbe
September 18, 2011 at 20:32
Ek wonder net wat sou die fundies maak as daar nie so ‘n ding soos die bybel was nie?
Sou hulle ‘n ander “heilige boek” soek vir riglyne van hoe om te lewe?
Soos wat ek die storie sien kan hulle glad nie sonder daarmee klaarkom nie.
Hulle kan glad nie verantwoordelikheid vat vir hul eie dade nie! Dit is altyd die duiwel of die vader se skuld!
ErickV
September 20, 2011 at 10:15
Dis juis hoekom ek aanhoudend aandring dat hulle bietjie Mickey Mouse moet gaan lees en swot. Maar dit blyk te veel gevra te wees dat die fundies bevoeg genoeg is om enige lesse of betekenis daarin te kan raaksien want Mickey Mouse se mistieke elemente is meer gevorderd as die fundies se storieboek s’n.
Con-Tester
September 20, 2011 at 10:31
Ek dink “Lord Of The Rings” is meer aanvaarbaar. Daar is net sulke snaakse karakters in as die in die bybel!
ErickV
September 20, 2011 at 11:01
Recommended reading for all Nathan Bond supporters:
1. ‘Evolution: The Science That Evolved Into A Fairy Tale’
2. ‘Meditations & Contemplations: A Reader For Both Creationists And Evolutionists’
[Free downloads at http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
Piet Stassen
October 17, 2011 at 10:53
“… and in other international news, world-renowned biotheologian, Emeritus Professor Piet Stassen has definitively settled the long-standing question of human origins once and for all. His two-part paper titled ‘Why Evolution Is Bunk: God Did It!,’ which was published in the prestigious journal Nature last month, was immediately accepted as totally convincing by all experts in the fields of biology, medicine, genetics, geology, embryology, and many other relevant areas of study. One specialist was reported as saying, ‘If only we’d known about this god chap from the beginning! There can be no doubt that this finding removes every unsolved problem in the biological and related sciences at a stroke. No wonder all of us and our colleagues are rushing to redirect our research efforts accordingly. Humanity owes Professor Stassen a huge debt of gratitude.’ Having solved all of biology, the question now being asked most in academic circles is what is next for Professor Stassen. Current consensus among his peers is that this genius’s next research project will focus on why neither Mickey Mouse nor Frodo Baggins is not the True Saviour™…”
Con-Tester
October 17, 2011 at 11:46
Piet Stassen
October 17, 2011 at 10:53
Regarding your download, there is a section on evolution that requires transitional forms, there are plenty the Frogfish is a good example. What do you make of that?
Balanced Truths
October 17, 2011 at 19:15
1. Admonition Of The Week
Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to say a word before God. For God is in Heaven, and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice by the multitude of words. [Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 MKJV, eSword].
2. Gospel Tract Of The Week
‘Fourteen Steps For Evolutionists To Prove The Creationists Wrong’ [free download from http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen
3. Snippet Of The Week
'Evolution's Most Amazing Feat!' [Easy-to-understand single-pager ... free download from http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen Promise Of The Week
4. Promise Of The Week
'And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And every curse will no longer be; but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him.' [Revelation 22:1 MKJV, eSword].
5. Mystery Of The Week: Man Or Mouth?
Weird … why would it on Earth be necessary for the brave, outspoken, opinionated, profane and garrulous ‘Con-Tester’ to hide behind a chatroom-alias?
Piet Stassen
October 17, 2011 at 20:15
Halleuya!!! At last!! The proof we al needed!! Thanks to Piet Stassen!!
All scientists, paleontoligists, geoligists, archaeoligists, etc are wrong! They are educated but stupid!
They know absolutely nothing! All their studies are useless. They must start to read the bible! Everything is in there! Before their eyes!! How can we after all these years be so stupid!
All the goat herders that lived 6,000 to 2,000 years ago knew everything! Even though they were uneducated! They had the knowledge! It is because of them that we have al the technology! Praise them all! Piet Stassen proofed that all hearsay evidence in the bible taught by goat herders are true beyond any doubt!
All Magistrates and Judges please note! All hearsay evidence must be allowed in all courts from now on!
BECAUSE PIET STASSEN, THE BIG GURU, SAID SO!!
ErickV
October 19, 2011 at 09:21
REMINDER OF THE WEEK
Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to say a word before God. For God is in Heaven, and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice by the multitude of words. [Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 MKJV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
October 20, 2011 at 23:26
REMINDER OF THE WEEK
Don’t be taken in by the fundie twits’ twaddle. Their words aren’t few, and they’ll say literally anything, no matter how idiotic, in “defence” of their nonsense. They are fools’ voices, as you can surely see from the multitude of their words.
Con-Tester
October 20, 2011 at 23:33
Holy shit, here is His Bibles Voice again. He knows fuckall else than verses!!!
Donnerse pateet!!!
ErickV
October 21, 2011 at 05:04
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
Piet Stassen
October 21, 2011 at 22:37
X. LESSON IN PROFANITY X
O fok, presies hoe fokken dom is hierdie onnosel godioot poese!?
Con-Tester
October 21, 2011 at 23:23
Dear brave Mr. Atheist hiding behind the petticoats and protection of a chat-room alias: Your ideology [atheism-evolutionism] must be a pretty embarrassing one if one must wear a mask in public to survive the shame. The point is, it is easy to be a macho-hero with a hood over your head [Ask any Taliban-terrorist]. You cannot hide your identity from God, you know … God sees through the hood and the alias. The Bible says: ‘Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.’ [Hebrews 4:13 MKJV, eSword]. The million-rouble question: Will Mr. Atheist ever be macho enough to remove the hood [the alias] voluntarily, or shall we have do it for him?
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. THE URGENT NEED FOR TRANSFORMATION
Paul warns: Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and the forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and your impenitent heart, do you treasure up wrath for yourself in a day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God … [Romans 2:4-5 MKJV, eSword].
4. THE PROMISE
‘Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will in no way impute sin. [Romans 4:7-8 MKJV, eSword].
5. THE INVITATION TO RECONCILE WITH GOD
Paul says: ‘For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation.’ [Romans 5:10-11 MKJV, eSword].
6. THE SECOND COMING
Jesus says: And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come … And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory. [Matthew 24:14, 30 MKJV, eSword].
7. THE GUARANTEE
Jesus says: ‘The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away.’ [Matthew 24:35 MKJV, eSword].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
Piet Stassen
October 22, 2011 at 07:37
Bible thumping moron!!!
ErickV
October 22, 2011 at 10:23
Dear cowardly Mr Godiot hiding behind the juvenile fantasy, evidence-free delusion and fundamentally incomprehensible twaddle drummed into your vacant cranium from childhood: Your idiotology must be a pretty daft one for you to think that repeating the same bullshit over and over and over again is going to convince any rational person of its supposed truth. Your “best” arguments and evidence are a pisspoor fuckin’ joke and your whole stale barely-worth-a-chuckle repertoire smells musty and mouldy — almost as much so as your non-existent skydaddy whose at best resembles an ineffectual and miserable old fart, and at worst an indiscriminate serial psychopath.
Try a new tack. Maybe you’ll learn something, though that’s evidently nigh impossible.
Con-Tester
October 22, 2011 at 10:23
ErickV, your response is better than mine.
Con-Tester
October 22, 2011 at 10:27
THE MILLION-ROUBLE QUESTION: WILL THE MACHO-ATHEIST HIDING BEHIND THE FRILLY PETTICOATS AND CHANTILLY-LACE PROTECTION OF HIS/HER CHAT-ROOM ALIAS EVER COME OUT OF THE CLOSET? IT IS EASY TO BE BRAVE WITH A HOOD OVER YOUR HEAD … ASK ANY TALIBAN-TERRORIST.
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
Piet Stassen
October 22, 2011 at 11:46
Oooh, I’m so impressed with the profound depth and subtle finesse of your playground psychology antics. The answer to your dumbass question — i.e. “WILL THE MACHO-ATHEIST HIDING BEHIND THE FRILLY PETTICOATS AND CHANTILLY-LACE PROTECTION OF HIS/HER CHAT-ROOM ALIAS EVER COME OUT OF THE CLOSET?” — is, “What ‘closet’ are you gibbering about, hmm?” And there’s no need to shout, see? It scores you only negative points, see?
If you think your feeble tactics will persuade me to reveal my identity publicly, then you’re an even bigger moron than currently available evidence suggests, and my answer to that is, “No, not to any godiot of your laughable mediocrity.” It’s precisely the inundating prevalence of pontifical, self-righteous, deluded idiots like you who convince me that doing so would be a serious lapse of good judgement. Besides, the people who count know who I am.
Or do you perhaps think that knowing my identity will affect the validity of my points, hmm? If so, you’ll have to explain that little bit of godiot/religiot/crediot/bibliot logic so that all may see the contorted bullshit you morons constantly manufacture with such ease.
Have you got it? Has it penetrated? Are your two brain cells capable of jostling that straightforward answer?
I reckon not.
Con-Tester
October 22, 2011 at 12:31
THE MILLION-ROUBLE QUESTION: WILL THE MACHO-ATHEIST HIDING BEHIND THE FRILLY PETTICOATS AND CHANTILLY-LACE PROTECTION OF HIS/HER CHAT-ROOM ALIAS EVER COME OUT OF THE CLOSET? IT IS EASY TO BE BRAVE WITH A HOOD OVER YOUR HEAD … ASK ANY TALIBAN-TERRORIST. [ARE ALL ATHEISTS MORAL COWARDS, OR JUST THIS ONE?].
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
Piet Stassen
October 22, 2011 at 13:01
What part of “No” is giving you so much trouble, hmm? All of it, of course!
Not surprising, really.
Kind disregards,
Con-Tester
Con-Tester
October 22, 2011 at 14:56
Oom Piet,
Dit verstom my dat die weerhouding van identiteit vir jou so ‘n belangrike faktor is op ‘n forum soos die. Gaan dit enigsins verskil maak aan die argumente? Indien dit egter jou herhalende gebrabbel sal stop, hier volg ‘n paar voor-die-hand-liggende redes hoekom Malherbe ‘n mate van anonimiteit verkies:
1) Diskriminasie: Ek leef in ‘n gemeenskap waar die oorgrootte meerderheid die een of ander got aanhang. Ons landswette is veronderstel om sekulariteit voor te staan, maar helaas, dit is nie die geval nie. Die uiteinde is dus dat ekself, maar meer belangrik, my gesin, die risiko van diskriminasie loop. Blatante diskriminasie teen ongelowiges in ons RSA skoolstelsel is ‘n werklikheid en word eers ervaar wanneer jy die skoen aantrek.
2)Uitlaatklep: A.g.v. punt 1, het ek geleer om in my daaglikse omgaan met die gemeenskap, my tong te byt en ‘n poging an te wend om minder uitgesproke te wees. Tragies, maaar ongelukkig die realiteit. ‘n Anonieme forum dien dus as welkome uitlaatklep waar ek my gedagtes en uitsprake vrye teuels kan gee. Wonderlik bevrydend. Dankie Nathan.
3) Bevordering van oop gesprek: Dit kan maklik bewys word dat in ‘n debatsomgewing, anonimiteit die hindernisse tussen mense verwyder. ‘n Gelowige het byvoorbeeld die vryheid om sy/haar vrae vertwyfelinge rakende geloof te openbaar op ‘n anonieme forum sonder om die gevaar te loop dat Oom Doom hom Sondag oggend gaan voorkeer, of Oom onderwyser, of Pa en Ma,… Hoe wens ek nie ek het as kind blootstelling tot hierdie tipe forums gehad nie. Dammit, ek het soveeel tyd gemors om die dogma reg te probeer bewys. ‘n Forum sonder anonimiteit sou egter nie dieselfde waarde bring nie.
Beantwoord dit jou “MILLION-ROUBLE QUESTION” oom Piet? Ek skat nie. Ek voorspel jy gaan antwoord met jou tradisionele cut-en-paste joppie.
Malherbe
October 22, 2011 at 22:43
Nog iets Oom Piet. Ek wou nog altyd weet: Hoekom is godiote so lief om te skree? Ek vind die verskynsel werklik interessant. Geloofsforums is vol van uitterksels in hoofletters. Miskien is daar ‘n rede voor. Miskien hoor jul gotte dan beter verbeter dus jul kans op die ewige presentjie? Ek het nou oom, se vraag (in hoofletter) mooi beantwoord. Sal oom hierdie vragie van my beantwoord of moet ek dit eers UITSKREE?
En ja oom, ek besef my vragie het niks met die argumente hier uit te waai nie…amper soos oom se vraag aan CT.
Malherbe
October 22, 2011 at 22:50
Jy’s meer geduldig as ekke, Malherbe.
To the question whether all atheists are whatever disparaging wet dream this bibliot feels like pulling out of his arse, the answer is self-evident. That is, should he care to have an actual look instead of pumping his ridiculous hey-my-mind’s-already-made-up-and-my-eyes-are-closed-to-all-else bullshit. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc. — where’s the anonymity, hmm?
But in fact it says most of what needs to be said about the lamebrain arrogance of the godiot that he seeks to equate the anonymity afforded by a forum such as this with the rabid actions of towel-headed religiot fundies bent on converting the world. The parallels with Taliban terrorists are of course much closer and much more numerous with this godiot’s own actions in seeking to scare the world into following his absurd fantasies. That is, should he care to take objective stock of his laughably ham-fisted fumblings, this would be obvious to this daffy stuffed shirt of a hypocrite.
Con-Tester
October 22, 2011 at 23:36
Ek hwt ‘n tyd terug ‘n e-pos van Nathan gekry, wat ek glo julle almal gekry het, waarin hy onder andere sê dat hy nie meer oor godsdiens skryf nie.
Hy het, as ek dit reg het, hierdie blog begin in ‘n poging om godsdiens uit te roei deur daarvan ‘n bespotting te maak en om gelowiges uit te kryt as ‘n klomp beenkoppe.
Ek het omtrent twee jaar gelede op hierdie blog die volgende aan Nathan geskryf:
“Godsdiens is ‘n idee. Daar is net een manier om ‘n idee te beveg, en dit is met ‘n ander idee. En as dit jou idee is om met God die spot te dryf en gelowiges as ‘n klomp idiote voor te hou, kan ek jou noual sê jy mors jou tyd”.
Die van ons wat al lank hier deel neem, weet dat gelowiges gekom en gegaan het sonder dat die gespottery enige afbreuk aan hulle geloof of godsdienstige behoeftes gedoen het. Hans Matthyssen het nog voor my hier begin bydraes lewer en het blykbaar ook nou die aftog geblaas.
Een ding is seker. Niks wat hier geskryf is en veral die pogings om hom belaglik te maak en te verkleineer, het hom enigsins laat afwyk van sy geloof of godsdienstige oortuigings nie. Dieselfde met Soois.
En wat is tans die situasie? Die enigste gelowige wie gereeld kommentaar lewer is Piet Stassen wie, soos Malherbe tereg opgemerk het, so mal is soos ‘n kolhaas op tik.
Ten minste het hierdie blog, tesame met ander forums en persone, my laat dink en is ek nie langer die fundamentalistiese gelowige wat ek was toe ek hier begin deelneem het nie.
Daan Van der Merwe
October 23, 2011 at 08:27
Daan, ek kan nie namens Nathan praat nie en het ook nie die mail waarna jy verwys ontvang nie. Na my mening is forums soos hierdie nie daar om gelowiges tot ander insigte te bring nie. Dit bestaan bloot om ‘n alternatiewe posisie te stel. Hard, en duidelik en sonder skaamte en apologie. Ek (en baie ander wat soos ek dink) gee ‘n blou duit om wie of wat gelowiges aanbid. Ons het egter ‘n moerse probleem met die feit dat hul dogma daagliks in ons kele afgedruk word. Soos dat hulle druk uitoefen om die parlement met gebed te open (soos in die verlede). Of dat sekere staatsdiens departemente hul oggend begin deur opening van gebed (soos die SA polisiediens)!! Of dat godsdiens op slinkse maniere by skole ingevoer word. Of dat daar hoog opgegee word rakende die morele waardes wat godsdiens outomaties tot gevolg het – so asof ongelowiges ‘n spul vlak immorele misdadigers is. (Al ooit gehoor iemand praat van “hy is so ‘n mooi ateis, sy voete so plat op die aarde”? – as ek nog een keer moet hoor dat Bakkies of Victor of wie-ookal so mooi en oulik is bloot omdat hul in ‘n skydaddy glo, gaan ek sweerlik braak.) Nee Daan, in my boeke kan elke ou in die privaatheid van sy huis of binne ‘n kerkgebou aanbid wie en wat hy wil. Wanneer hy egter die vermetelheid het om die wetenskap deur sy dogmatiese bril aan te val, of vir my as ongelowige vertel dat ek ‘n verkeerde posisie voorstaan – alles gebaseer op sy heilige boek – wel, dan gee hy my sekerlik die reg om die lafheid van sy dogma uit te wys. Of hoe?
Gelowiges maak hul daagliks daaraan skuldig om almal om hulle te wil bekeer. Annerdag sit ek op die vliegtuig en terwyl ons opstyg, prewel die ou langs my (hard genoeg vir almal om te hoor) ‘n gebed vir ‘n veilige vlug. Skynbaar het die loods se vaardighede of die teglogiese ontwikkeing wat met vlug gepaardgaan, oor die ou se kop gevlieg. Wat doen Malherbe? Hy bly stil. Los die man uit dat hy voortleef in sy selfgeskepte wollerigheid. Maar toe gebeur dit – die vragie na Malherbe se kant toe: “Ken jy vir Jesus?” Hierdie uitlokking gee my sekerlik die reg om te reageer met ‘n “Nee, het die man nog nooit ontmoet nie”? Na ‘n twee uur vlug was die ou in trane. Wat egter verstommend was, was die mense rondom ons (wat die argument kon aanhoor)se kopskuddende reaksie. “Het jy dan geen respek nie?” “Jy is darem nou te hard op die arme man”. My punt is: Indien die samelewing my nie die kans gun om eerlik te reageer wanneer ek uitgelok word nie, dan is ‘n forum soos hierdie sekerlik die ideale plek. Niemand het vir die Sooise, Hanse en Stassens gedwing om hier te kom spoeg nie. As jy jouself vir ‘n stuk biltong uitgee, kan jy sekerlik nie kla wanneer jy gekou word nie.
Malherbe
October 23, 2011 at 09:44
Terloops, ek let op 21 Oktober 2011 het gekom en gegaan. Terleurgesteld Johannes Coetzee? Of is daar nou ‘n nuwe datum?
Malherbe
October 23, 2011 at 11:06
Daan
Baie jare terug, nog lank voordat Nathan of George begin het om in SA platforms te skep waar gelowiges en uitgesproke anti-godsdienstiges mekaar kan aanvat, het ek deelgeneem aan een van die eerste soortgelyke forums in Amerika waar ek tot baie dieselfde gevolgtrekking as jy gekom het. Daar was twee karakters wat my sterk beïnvloed het, een was n baie intelligente wiskundige wat met oënskynlik onuitputbare geduld elke argument aangevat het en, met behulp van n deeglike kennis van hipnose, baie suksesvol was om menige n fanatiese gelowige op sy plek te sit sonder om hulle as gehoor te verloor. Hiermee saam was daar n gelowige, kerkganger en baie aktief in een of ander denominasie, wat met besonderse helderheid n geestelike argument aangevoer het, hy het duidelik onderskeid gemaak tussen die wetenskap en die geloof en nooit die een teen die ander afgespeel nie, ek kon nooit, as n wetenskaplike, fout vind met wat hy gesê het nie.
Ek glo beide jy en Malherbe is reg in wat julle hier gesê het, daar sal geen wenners wees nie en daar is waarde in die uitlaat wat menige n anonieme deelnemer hier kan maak, persoonlike waarde en waarde vir die leser wat dalk nooi n bydrae sal maak nie.
As die tipe platform meer mense van fundamentele oortuigings kan laat afsien is dit n baie waardevolle stap in die regte rigting.
Balanced Truths
October 23, 2011 at 12:11
Malherbe, soortgelyke punte wat jy maak oor hoekom ’n forum soos hierdie nodig is, is al ’n paar keer tevore gemaak op die blog maar dit wil lyk asof dit nie deurdring nie. Dalk word dit as ongeldig gesien. Hoe dit ookal mag wees, daar is nog redes wat ook al gemaak is, bv. dat die forum vir mense duidelik wys dat daar wel andersdenkendes is wat die religieuse tjol deurkyk het en dan verwerp het. Voordat hulle ’n forum soos die teekom, sal baie gelowiges dit eenvoudig nie glo nie as jy vir hulle vertel dat daar ’n aansienlike groep ateïste kan wees nie. Die verstommende arrogansie daarvan het my dronk geslaan toe ek dit vir die eerste keer raakgeloop het. Verder, kan ’n forum soos die ’n baken van hoop wees vir mense wat dalk dink hulle twyfel alleen, en dat daar geen skaamte aan sulke twyfel of verwerping gepaard hoef te gaan nie.
As Daan sê dat hierdie blog bygedra het tot sy heroorwegings van sy geloofsposisie wat hom minder fundamentalisties laat verkeer het, dan het die blog mos nou in ten minste een instansie ’n waardige werkie verrig. Die feit dat o.a. Hans en soois blykbaar tou opgegooi het wys daarop dat hulle blykbaar uiteindelik tot die besef gekom het dat hulle pogings om hul strooi te verkondig keer op keer uitgedaag sal word en as onsin afgetakel sal word, want dit ís onsin — onsin wat boonop fundamenteel onverstaanbaar is, maar wat die gelowige deur sy of haar aksies beslis beweer hulle verstaan (en daardeur weer arrogant optree). So het daai gelowiges wat gekom en gegaan het dalk geleer dat daar wel mense is wat ordentlike bewyse eis, en wat nie tevrede is net omdat die kak met ’n diep en ernstige stem saam met ’n vinger in die lug uitgesaai word. Selfs het hulle dit nie geleer nie, verstaan hulle sekerlik dat daar plekke is waar hul onnosel kinderstories nie eenvoudig aanvaar sal word nie net omdat hulle sê dit is so. In ieder geval het die blog dan ook ’n bietjie vordering gemaak.
Con-Tester
October 23, 2011 at 12:21
Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy. Aristotle
Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck
As far as reality provides some measure of itself, the eastern <iYinYang resonates with me. Whenever I am forced to relinquishing control, admitting that no action of mine, no matter how carefully calculated, will have any desired effect, when I realise my fate is left to lady luck, it is then that I think of this balance of good and bad and allow myself to be reminded that on the scale of a Multiverse any plea on my part for good fortune would have little influence other than psychological self motivation.
Perhaps God helps those who helps themselves
When it comes to religion…I am somewhat tolerant of people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life – or of the universe in human life – while the religious system in the context of an institutionalized system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine becomes somewhat less tolerable when it interferes with the freedom of others’ personal beliefs or values. For the less educated there is psychological value in a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and/or attitudes that somebody lives by in order to cope.
However, the fanatical obsession that causes certain practices or activities that somebody is completely devoted to or preoccupied by becomes a danger to the freedom of others. I severely dislike politics and other forms of manipulative proselytising.
I believe science and the scientific method is the closest we sentient humans have come to a universal truth where we can all be on the same page, so to speak, but I am also influenced by circumstantial evidence to the not so scientific opinion that there is a somewhat more subjective balanced truth in general.
Balanced Truths
October 23, 2011 at 12:24
I am not sure what your point is BC – the last paragraph is confusing. I get the impression you are sitting on two chairs. If true, this is in my opinion not a sustainable position.
Malherbe
October 23, 2011 at 16:21
If true, Malherbe, it would be the minefield of incomprehension and mystery it clearly is today, and it would be subject to every individual’s interpretation and as such open to politicians’ manipulations and to charlatans’ agendas, which it clearly is today. Thus we speak of science because we can measure it, and we speak not of other things because we have no proof, and we feel not like being ridiculed.
What has sustainability got to do with it, if it is indeed true?
Balanced Truths
October 23, 2011 at 18:21
Con-Tester
October 23, 2011 at 19:31
ATHEISM-EVOLUTIONISM: THE WEIRDEST RELIGIOUS-CULT ON PLANET EARTH?
1. ‘Atheism-Evolutionism’ is probably the weirdest, most puzzling religious-cult on planet Earth. Adherents of this cult [i.e. the atheist-evolutionists, or more correctly, the Darwin-worshippers] assert that they do not believe in God. Instead, they have invented a substitute-god, i.e. the golden-calf of atheism-evolutionism. Fortunately, the members of this cult can be fairly easily identified. They, for instance, have a huge problem with a person [Jesus Christ] who once had said, “I have come from God … ” yet, contrary to all known mathematical-logic, they have, at the same time, no problem to fall prostrate on their knees and worship a person who used to be a very ordinary, sinful man [Charlie Darwin] who once had said, “I have come from an ape … “.[!?].
2. Now, how could any rational, sane human being trust and believe what a person has to say whose brain had ‘evolved’ from that of an ape? Duh! I would not even trust an evolutionist with a box of popcorn. Let’s recall Darwin’s famous last words: “Hey guys, listen closely: My brain, in fact, my entire anatomy, has evolved from that of an ape, or at least then I share a common ancestor with the ape. Please come closer, I have this exciting new theory …!” [1859].
3. Critical-thinking: Men and primates share many common traits not because they share a common ancestor, but because they share a common [as in 'mutual'] Creator, Jesus Christ. Needless to say, I reject the [erroneous] teaching, i.e. that humans are ‘primates’, with the contempt it deserves. Never mind the resemblances [between humans and primates] … the differences are simply too critical. For instance, apes do not turn into humans after six beers.
4. Darwin would probably have excelled in science-fiction. Unfortunately he went ahead and wrote a piece of preposterous science-fiction gobbledygook which he actually published as fact, probably the biggest academic-fraud and most virulently-racist ‘literary’ tripe anyone could ever have imagined. The racist slant of his theories is clear from the [full] title of his 1859-book:
‘On The Origin Of Species Or The Natural Selection Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.’
[Dear objective reader, go to any library and check out how the evolutionists and the media usually conveniently leave out the racist slur of 'favoured races' in the book's full title and only refer to the first part, 'The Origin Of Species'].
5. Darwin had a theory that the ‘lighter-skinned races’, i.e. the ‘whites’ would ultimately one day rule over and dominate the ‘darker-skinned’ races. For instance, ask yourself the question: Why are all ‘hominids’ in museums and textbooks always depicted as darker-skinned, cave-dwelling morons … why are there no lighter-skinned ‘hominids’? Palaeontological racism, perhaps? [Charlie, you old racist you!]. In fact, I have a hunch that the atheist-evolutionists have a hidden agenda … with their sick, rotten, racist ‘Evolutionary Theory’ they are trying to revive the redundant neo-nazi, white-supremacist [apartheid/segregationist] ideology under the ‘respectable’ guise of ‘science’ and ‘biology’. What a brontosaurian embarrassment to our Constitution and Human Rights Charter! Shame on the [pseudo] academics and [pseudo] scientists. Real men and real scientists follow Jesus Christ, just ask Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Andrew Murray, John G. Lake, Watchman Nee, Philip Yancey, R.A. Torrey, Henry Morris, Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, William Lane Craig, Lance Ferrell and many others.
6. There is, alas, a well-known spiritual-law [& natural-law] that goes, ‘Deep calls unto Deep’. [I don't think the atheist-evolutionists are familiar with this concept]. In other words, in the final analysis, with Darwin’s ‘Evolutionary Theory’ only apes would really be interested in what an ape has to say, so don’t blame the rest of us for not buying into the science-fiction of ‘Nature-has-made-the-Universe-by-pure-random-coincidence-and-chance’. Nature [per se] is not that intelligent, and even if it were, the making of this Universe would logically then not have been random-coincidence and -chance, but Intelligent-Design.
7. The religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism simply fails to boggle the mind. The Darwin-worshippers assert that they do not believe in God and/or in the Universal dichotomy of good-versus-evil … yet in the same breath they contradict themselves by saying that ‘religion is evil’. If religion were ‘evil’ [the antithesis] what then does the atheist-evolutionists hold up as the ultimate good [the thesis]? Come on, guys, sometimes you really do not make sense at all. On the other hand, some of your conclusions may sometimes be actually correct … even a stopped watch is right at least twice a day.
8. The sad irony is that, contrary to atheists-evolutionists, even demons have the common-sense to believe in God. The Apostle James writes: ‘You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble.’ [James 2:19 MKJV, eSword]. Atheists-evolutionists, if you refuse my teaching [and you probably will] or even the obviously more-superior teaching of Jesus Himself [you probably shouldn't] at least then demonstrate some rudimentary spiritual-intelligence and learn from the demons. My recommendation to you is as follows: Get your over-inflated little Mickey Mouse ego’s out of the way and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Master today, otherwise, as Jesus Himself had said, you may die in your sins, a thought simply too ghastly to contemplate. The BLOOD of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, still cleanses from all sin! In fact:
THERE IS A FOUNTAIN!
There is a fountain filled with BLOOD,
Drawn from Emmanuel’s veins,
And sinners plunged beneath that flood,
Lose all their guilty stains!
[William Cowper, 1731-1800].
9. Dear Nathan Bond supporters and readers, I have done enough to persuade you to follow Jesus Christ. If you reject Him today, you do so at your own peril. Oswald Smith has once said that no man has the right to hear the Gospel twice until everybody on Earth had heard it at least once, so I am not going to further waste my precious, priceless Gospel-seed on arrogant, stubborn, unyielding, rocky ground while I could have dropped it into soft, receptive soil instead. If the religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism [bad news thriving on death, fossilized-bones and disaster] makes you happy, go ahead … knock yourself out. But remember this: Jesus saves today … tomorrow may be too late.
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
[www.scribd.com/PietStassen].
Piet Stassen
October 23, 2011 at 20:44
Prof. Piet Stassen strikes again, this time with an even bigger wagonload of straw men in their bullshit suits. It’s all emotive rhetoric and no substance — which is understandable, given that Prof. Stassen’s recent successes in overturning the whole of biology and several other scientific disciplines must have taxed him immensely, physically, emotionally and, above all, intellectually.
Con-Tester
October 23, 2011 at 21:18
Oh and BTW, all those grammatical and hyphenation errors aside, the English plural of “ego” is “egos”, not “ego’s”. It’s typical of a godiot/religiot/crediot/bibliot not to care about the basics.
Con-Tester
October 23, 2011 at 21:24
Shit, Piet Stassen is nog maller as wat ek gedink het! Ons van ape afstam? Watter klomp bok kak!
Maar nou ja, wat anders van ‘n mens wat al sy kennis slegs uit die bybel uitkry?
Google oompie, GOOGLE!!!!!!!
ErickV
October 24, 2011 at 11:12
Ten minste hou ou Piet darrem hierdie forum aan die gang!!
ErickV
October 24, 2011 at 11:23
Satan
October 24, 2011 at 14:28
Vergeet van Piet Stassen! Ene Frikkie Botes skryf in 30 Oktober se Rapport die volgende in reaksie op ‘n brief deur Jan Venter van Bloemfontein:
“Ek en YHWH is een, en YHWH is geen god nie, satan is god wat aanbid wil word en diensknegte van god is baalaanbidders, kinders van YHWH is mede erfgename van die koningkryk omrede die koningkryk van YHWH binne ons is en nie met sigbare tekens kom nie . Jesus is die christus, net soos ek en my mede broers en susters van YHWH die christus is, Jesus het slegs die christus kom openbaar weer aan die mense wat satan so lank gepoog het om die christus in ons dood te druk. Ek is geen dienskneg van geen god nie, ek is slegs n kind van YHWH en Jesus is my broer wat 2000 jaar gelede op aarde was. Wanneer ek die lewe laat sal ek weer en word in YHWH die GROOT EK IS en soos Jesus een is met hom sal ek ook weer wes. Die onsterflike siel van die mens wat vir ewig in die hel gaan brand is onbybels en baal se dwaal leer. Die kerk is van satan. Lees 2 Thess 2 vers 3 en 4 en ook Joh 8 vers 44.”
Jislaaik! En om te dink daar’s mense daarbuite wat dit nét nie wil glo nie.
rick
October 30, 2011 at 04:15
Briljant
Balanced Truths
November 1, 2011 at 19:59
“Die feit dat o.a. Hans en soois blykbaar tou opgegooi het wys daarop dat hulle blykbaar uiteindelik tot die besef gekom het dat hulle pogings om hul strooi te verkondig keer op keer uitgedaag sal word en as onsin afgetakel sal word…”
Nie so nie, het my Christelike plig gedoen. As ‘n werkie klaar is, is hy klaar. Diegene wat agter gebly het, het net hulleself om te blameer in die hiernamaals. Groete en sterkte.
soois
November 2, 2011 at 14:43
Whatever you say. Millions upon millions wouldn’t believe you, but I do…
[Notice the sheer undiluted arrogance here: “I’ve done my duty in warning you that you’d better mend your rotten ways to be more in line with mine or else you’ll burn in hell forever. If you won’t listen to me, it’s your own fault (and never mind that I cannot offer the tiniest shred of credible proof for any of this).”
A prime example of crushtian love, charity and tolerance.]
Con-Tester
November 2, 2011 at 15:44
Soois,
Se jy nou goodbye soos Johannes Coetzee?
Satan
November 2, 2011 at 20:51
Ons was geestelike hoere en was verkeerd met 21 Oktober as die finale dag op aarde .
Op 21 Oktober het God wel geestelik die laaste basuin geblaas. Die finale seels word nou oopgemaak en alle onreg word vasgespyker teen die gewete en siel van die sondaar. Die Kerke wat in 1988 deur God uitgespeg is nou vasgeketting in die Hel. Die deure na salvation is nou gesluit. Die twee getuies wat vir 153 dae bespot en geestelik gedood was het opgestaan .
Alle eer aan God
johannes coetzee
November 3, 2011 at 09:05
Fuckin’ hilarious how Camping’s Clowns blankly refuse to see the fuckin’ obvious! Everything just gets twisted to fit their warped worldview.
Johannes, it’s been a month now and you have yet to provide Nathan with his Chateau Petrus. Oh wait, my bad, you never actually took the wager ’cos you couldn’t muster the balls to put your convictions on the line properly. That’s probably why your skydaddy decided at the last minute to postpone enacting his wrath on all us worthless sinners…
Con-Tester
November 3, 2011 at 09:31
Satan,
goeiedag ou maat. Nee jong, ek sal seker maar kort-kort inloer en kyk wat se die ouens op die blog. Ek weerhou my egter van argumente waar moontlik, want ek het tog klaar my oortuigings hier gedeel, en dit hang mos maar van elke ou self af of hy Jesus ‘n kans wil gun of nie. Kyk nou maar na CT se reaksie, waar hy my as arrogant beskou net omdat ek ander wou waarsku. As hy nou bv iemand sou waarsku om hulle motors onder dak te plaas omdat daar ‘n erge haelstorm in hulle rigting oppad is, sou hy as ‘n held beskou word, nie arrogant nie. Ek sien hoe ‘n paar ouens hier op ‘n ramp afstuur, maar ek moet maar stilbly. Ek sien al die tekens, maar moet maar my kop in totale fatale moedeloosheid sak en in ongeloof, omdat dit duidelik ouens met bo-gemiddelde inteligensie is, ouens wat hoogs geleerd is, wat nogsteeds totaal en al blind is vir dit wat besig is om te gebeur, maar miskien is dit juis die geleerdheid en intellek wat die probleem is, die skans wat maak dat hulle die wetenskap en die Woord eenvoudig nie kan versoen nie.
Johannes Coetzee, jy weet, jy is die rede hoekom ek in die eerste plek op die blog afgekom het. Ek het van jou voorspellings gehoor en wou meer uitvind. Het jou naam ge-”Google” en op die blog afgekom. Het intussen die geveg voortgesit omdat ek gesien het hier is mense wat verlore is en dit glad-nie besef nie, maar ek is nogal teleurgesteld in jou, want jou uitsprake maak dat mense al minder glo. Eerstens omdat jy datums en tye wil voorhou wat nie gebeur nie, en dan met die een of ander flou verskoning kom hoe julle die Woord verkeerd verstaan en vertolk het, en tweedens omdat jy wil voorhou hoe net sekere mense gered is en hoe dat die tyd vir bekering verby is. Hoor my mooi, totdat Jesus die dag terugkeer, san elkeen wat Hom as verlosser aanneem gered wees, eers daarna is die wat Hom verwerp het verlore. As ek nie ‘n persoonlike verhouding met Hom beleef het nie, sou iemand soos jy eerder my weg van God gedryf het as die “Con-Testers” van hierdie wereld. Pasop dat jy nie dalk eendag verantwoording moet gaan doen oor die mense wat verlore is as gevolg van jou nie. As jy wil preek en getuienis lewer, mooi so, maar maak seker jou getuienis en preke is opbouend, nie afbrekend nie.
Groete aan almal.
soois
November 3, 2011 at 09:34
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 09:34):
You’re just too dim a godiot to get it, aren’t you? An approaching hailstorm is a verifiable occurrence. That means you can show convincing proof that one is coming. The shit you’re talking has no credible argument or evidence to back it up, and was pulled kicking and screaming from the arses of a bunch of smoked-up, toked-up Bronze Age goatherds before being sold to the world as
The Eternal and Immutable Truth™. Your profound arrogance is that you expect — nay, demand — that people must buy into your juvenile fairytale on nothing more than your idiotic say-so and your claims that you “see” things coming. Prove it, and I’ll listen. If you can’t prove it, stop trying to pretend that it’s true by peddling fantasies upon fantasies.In any case, according to your own rule book, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (whatever the fuck that’s supposed be) cannot be forgiven. Need I really remind you yet again of the multiple instances where I committed this “crime”!? Are you that dense, hmm? Here it is again: Your Holy Ghostey is a fart in a Jiffy bag with the cesspool morals of a Jeffrey Dahmer.
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 09:34):
Yet more of your dimwitted arrogance. It’s so funny how you and other godiots simply can’t agree when you sing from exactly the same hymn sheet. Each of you thinks you have
The Eternal and Immutable Truth™and whoever disagrees is a heretic, condemned to hell. Moreover, it’s not my purpose to separate idiots like you from your infantile fantasies, and your inability to fathom my purpose just keeps playing right into my hands. But your reactions are truly revealing — and, to me, comforting…Con-Tester
November 3, 2011 at 10:36
“An approaching hailstorm is a verifiable occurrence. That means you can show convincing proof that one is coming…” not to the person you are phoning 30 km downwind, and especially not if you only see weather patterns that suggest an oncoming storm, not the actual storm, but as usual you are uncomfortably stupid for such an educated person to grasp this.
“Your profound arrogance is that you expect — nay, demand — that people must buy into your juvenile fairytale on nothing more than your idiotic say-so and your claims that you “see” things coming…” unlike you who “demand” that we should believe your bullshit and unproven theories, I have not once demanded that people should believe me. I have merely asked people to give Jesus a chance and find out for themselves whether I am lying. Again you, out of fear that others might discover the truth, is the one demanding things and trying to belittle me and other believers. You are in fact, a pathetic little person, obviously without a life except for being at your pc or cell on a permanent basis, and therefore has a sick need to rob others of the chance of life, and I do mean real life with hopes and dreams. I actually feel sorry for you.
“But your reactions are truly revealing — and, to me, comforting…” Do I need to say more?
soois
November 3, 2011 at 18:13
Oh, so now you’re suddenly talking to me again? Or rather, preaching at me again. Make up what passes for your mind, please, or it might just start emerging that you don’t have one. Actually,…
Let’s pick apart your religiot/crediot/bibliot/godiot stupidities, shall we?
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):
Do you even know what you’re waffling about, hmm? There are any number of options open to a perso to check the validity of what you’re saying in the case of a hailstorm, starting with simply looking at the sky, or asking the weather bureau, or phoning a friend, or cautiously driving in the direction you indicate, or … or … or … etc. But noooo, you’d rather spew forth more unbelievably idiotic crap than acknowledge you’re desperately spew forth such unbelievably idiotic crap.
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):
Then what the fuck are you doing here preaching your childish and unproven gumph on an atheist blog without a shred of credible proof to offer!? Oh wait, you want to warn people of impending doom, never mind that you can’t see your own laughable folly. And with “bullshit and unproven theories,” I presume you mean mainly evolution, and hominid evolution in particular. You’re so funny the way you whinge about how people won’t listen to you. Maybe you should just for a change try to listen to those hundreds of thousands of specialists and experts who have actually looked at the evidence and found it not to be “bullshit and unproven theories.”
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):
And several of the people here, including myself, have told you that they’ve already tried all that and found it to be a worthless joke. Obviously that’s not good enough for arrogant you, and you feel the need to preach everybody into submission. So yes, you are lying. And talk about not listening. Again.
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):
soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):
Not really, but evidently that won’t stop you repeatedly making a dom poes of yourself.
Get it through your thick skull that your warnings are futile. You can take your god in his three pieces and stick him where the sun don’t shine, see? Or where the monkey puts his nuts, whichever you prefer. When you start talking sense and actually offering some kind of vaguely plausible argument, you’ll find me and no doubt many others a whole lot more receptive. Until then, your bullshit will remain a bunch of fairytales retold by a bunch of smoked-up, toked-up Bronze Age goatherds in slightly altered guise before being sold to the world as
The Eternal and Immutable Truth™. The fact that you fell for this baseless zombie story as something special says much about your and every other religiot/crediot/bibliot/godiot’s critical faculties.But not as much as you obvious inability to comprehend a simple and oft-repeated statement: “Prove it, and I’ll listen. If you can’t prove it, stop trying to pretend that it’s true by peddling fantasies upon fantasies.”
Con-Tester
November 3, 2011 at 19:05
LESSON IN PROFANITY
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen
Piet Stassen
November 3, 2011 at 23:20
Oooh look, it’s Professor Profanity come to join his genius protégé and to give us another earth-shattering lecture! Wow, aren’t we just blessed with good fortune to have such an illustrious pair of intellects among us. Must be gawd’s hand…
Con-Tester
November 3, 2011 at 23:25
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
Piet Stassen
November 4, 2011 at 09:09
Another absolutely brilliant lecture from our very own resident whiz kid non pareil, Professor Piet “Profanity” Stassen! The depth of insight and incomparable verve this man brings to his material is incomparably captivating. Would that everyone was able to add so momentously to the corpus of human knowledge. The really puzzling thing is that “Profanity” Stassen is neither yet a Nobel laureate nor canonised for his extensive Good Works.
Con-Tester
November 4, 2011 at 09:25
Hebrews 6:4-6(KJV):
Now read that again until it penetrates: Your own fairytale book tells you that are you are wasting your time trying to convert lapsed believers back into the fold. “[I]t is impossible … to renew [apostates] again unto repentance.” What part of this is frying your two-and-a-half brain cell, hmm? Or is it another “metaphorical” passage that you get to interpret for everyone else and fight over with others, hmm? If so, why does your brainless god talk so much klonterige riool in metaphors, hmm?
Con-Tester
November 4, 2011 at 10:22
It is written:
For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 6:23 ASV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 4, 2011 at 23:52
All of which is moot, given that apostates are beyond redemption and that blasphemy against the Holey Ghostey is an unforgiveable sin. I’m surprised (well, more like vaguely amused) that a man of your towering intellect fails to grasp this rather elementary concept, Professor Piet “Profanity” Stassen.
Con-Tester
November 5, 2011 at 08:58
It is written:
All that which the Father giveth me [JESUS] shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [John 6:37 ASV].
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. [Romans 8:1 ASV].
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [1 John 1:7-9 ASV].
Piet Stassen
November 5, 2011 at 10:01
All of which is still moot, given that apostates are beyond redemption and that blasphemy against the Holey Ghostey is an unforgiveable sin. I’m surprised (well, more like vaguely amused) that a man of your unsurpassed intellect fails to grasp this rather elementary concept, Professor Piet “Profanity” Stassen.
Con-Tester
November 5, 2011 at 12:21
It is written:
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. [Romans 4:7-8 ASV, eSword]. Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. [Isaiah 1:18 ASV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 5, 2011 at 13:07
Still totally moot. Did you have an accident and fall on your head? It would explain your inability to comprehend the simplest of matters. A great loss to humanity, a mind as fine as yours. That’s why no smileys this time…
Con-Tester
November 5, 2011 at 13:50
It is written:
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. [Romans 4:7-8 ASV, eSword]. Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. [Isaiah 1:18 ASV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 5, 2011 at 18:23
Once more: Entirely moot. Saying your silly storybook refrain over and over and over won’t change that because your silly storybook says that certain “iniquities” cannot be forgiven and certain “sins” will always be reckoned. Clearly, you’re too thick even to understand your own silly storybook.
What a fuckin’ hoot you are!
Con-Tester
November 5, 2011 at 18:53
It is written:
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil: for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. [Luke 6:45 ASV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 5, 2011 at 22:02
Fuck me, some actual progress! So you’ve stopped this feebleminded fairytale fearmongering of yours and opted for lowbrow mendacious moralising instead. Only problem is, who’s who in this latest little cameo you’ve plucked from your silly fairytale book?
Con-Tester
November 5, 2011 at 22:52
It is written:
Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?
For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. [Isaiah 53:1-12 ASV,eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 6, 2011 at 07:52
This what passes for reason with you? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Con-Tester
November 6, 2011 at 08:17
It is written:
‘ … and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.’ [Hebrews 11:6 ASV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 6, 2011 at 17:36
Goodness me, back to the old moot shit again, are we? Moot twice over, in fact.
Con-Tester
November 6, 2011 at 17:41
What the fuck is this forum coming to?
Daan Van der Merwe
November 6, 2011 at 21:59
A fuckin’ pulpit with a fuckin’ peanut gallery attached.
Con-Tester
November 7, 2011 at 08:19
Prof Piet Stassen,
Ek stem jintemal saam met jou oor “profanity”
Hierdie gefokken gevloekery is sommer ‘n klomp kak. Dis wat ek se. Ek se dit heeltyd. Kyk, ek is nou nie ‘n gewelddadige oukie nie, eintlik ‘n vreeslike saggeaarde ou, vredeliewend, en lief vir almal. Maar…..
As ek eendag ‘n ou moet ontmoet wat vreeslik vloek…..
Here prof, ek moer sy tande in sy keel af dat hulle by sy poepol uitmarsjeer. So ‘n fokken poes sal weet dat ek (wie eintlik ‘n baie nice ou is). nie sulke kak gaan vat nie. Hy sal weet van sy ma se poes, haar moer en sommer ‘n klomp ander goeters as ek met hom klaar is.
Sulke donderse etters, bliksems, fokops, dose en poese moet hulle eie kak gaan naai.
Laat ek jou gou vertel prof. Ek staan eendag by ‘n busstop en ek hoor die ou hier langs my
begin so vreeslik te vloek. Jammer dat ek dit nou gaan herhaal, maar dit moet vertel word.
Hy begin te skree: The butcher took a BLOODY piece of meat, threw it over the DAM wall,
into the BLOOMING flowers….
Wel ek was geskok tot in my fokken tone. Ek draai om en se vir hom in my beste Engels:
Hay, lissen here you. “Why is you swerring like a matrose from a ship hay? Dussn’t you no dat the free gots in heffen dussn’t like dat? De free gots what are one saying you will burning in hel foreffer and effer hay?
Ek se: I is so taaiered from herring all dis swerring, you know?
Hy se hy is Italiaans en leer engels en oefen dit en hy vra my do you work for de lort cheeses ek se ja en hy se hy werk vir melrose cheeses en ons moet vriende word. Ek se not de fok, ek word nie vriende met iemand wat so vreeslik vloek nie. Ek het hom nie gemoer nie, want die bus het gekom. Maar voordat ek op die bus geklim het, toe se hy vir my:
“Therre isa onaly wanna gott” Ek se “free”, hy se “wanna”. Ek se “free”, hy se “wanna” . “Free wanna” Free wanna, Free wanna. En toe vertrek die bus. Ek het vir hom tong uitgesteek
Ek staan eendag in die veld, en daar is niks om my nie, net ‘n donkie wat daar onder ‘n boom staan. Hier kom ‘n ou aangeloop en hy se: “Look at that ass”. Ek kyk om my rond om te sien waarvan hy praat, maar sien niks nie. En so weer ‘n keer, moes ek iemand berispe. Ek se vir hom:
“Hay, you finking all de taaim yus from asses hey? Dere are yus a donkie here, but you only finking of asses? Sis man, you fakking dirty man you. De free gots am going to kick you in you balls”
Jissie, dis oaks ice go big very big corse he finks dis boertjie are going to bliksem him hay.
He yus runned away.
Ja-nee Prof, ons goeie mense moet opstaan en preek as daar gevloek word………
verifanie
November 10, 2011 at 07:46
verifanie,
Wie gee jou die reg om met jou donnerse soetsappige fokken woordjies te kom? Gelukkig fokken vloek ek glad nie soos ‘n wetterse, etterse, blou bles bliksemse matroos nie!!
Piet Stassen, ek skaam my in my moer in vir hierdie konte!!!!
ErickV
November 11, 2011 at 13:49
ErickV,
Ek is so bly dat jy aangesluit het by Prof. Piet Stassen en myself. Ek kan sien dat jou ma jou vuil fokken bek goed uitgespoel het met ‘n sterk seep, en nou kan jy ook nie so fokken vloek soos sommige van die ander donderse bloggers nie. Ek sien ou Con-Tester is ook ‘n ou met ‘n rein hartjie.
Jy sal bly wees om te hoor dat ou Prof. Piet staan gereed met ‘n groot doos (oeps jammer!) er..boks vol seep. Hy wil graag elke kont wat so vloek, se bek uitspoel.
Reg so! Die fokken bliksemse etters is groot poese as hulle nie will leer om op te hou vloek nie. En hiermee wil ek net groot hulde bring aan ons slim en wyse leier, Prof. Piet Stassen………….
Ahem…..
Prof, baie dankie vir die pragtige en reine lesse wat jy aan ons bring, keer op keer.
Ons, die dom klomp dose wie niks weet nie, waardeer dit so veel dat jy ons op die regte pad probeer hou. Was dit nie vir jou nie, dan sou ons maar net sulke eenvoudige dom, onnosele, nikswetende fokken bliksems, dose, poese, etters,
naaiers en moerkonte gewees het. Alle Heil aan Prof Piet….!!!!.
verifanie
November 11, 2011 at 21:49
It is written:
He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” [Hebrews 10: 28-30 MKJV, eSword].
Piet Stassen
November 12, 2011 at 11:39
It is written:
There once was a farmer who sat on a rock,
shaking and waving his big hairy….
fist at the neighbours who sat on some bricks,
teaching their children to play with their….
kite strings and marbles as in old days of yore.
along came a woman who looked like a….
decent young lady with legs like a duck,
tell them she’ll show them some new ways to…
educate their children to sew and to knit,
while the cleaner of the stable was shoveling the…
dirt and the rubbish, the muck and the mire,
and the dirty old farmer was pulling his….
horse from the stable to go on a hunt,
and the farmer’s young lady was powdering her….
Daan Van der Merwe
November 13, 2011 at 07:01
It is written:
In the Garden of Eden lay Adam;
complacently stroking his madam.
And great was his mirth
for he knew that on earth,
there were only two balls and he had ‘em.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 13, 2011 at 07:04
My fok, ouens! Ek los julle vir twee fokken dae en kyk hoe fokken maak julle. ’n Swak fokken voorbeeld van Gristelikke fokken liefde as ek ooit ene fokken gesien het. Die fokken hel gaan julle nog fokken hard bliksem, luister wat fokken sê ek. En Proffie Piet “Pa Profanity” Stassen sal dit fokken staaf met ’n klomp fokken bybelfokkenversies en emmersvol fokken Jeeeeeebussssst! geneurie.
Con-Tester
November 13, 2011 at 22:10
It is written:
Jack and Jill went up the hill
for some hanky panky.
Jill the dill
forgot her pill,
and now there’s little Frankie.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 14, 2011 at 05:54
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha…….
Dit is so lekker om te lag vir die klomp gristelike konte.
Con-Tester,
Ek moet se dat jou Afrikaans by die dag verbeter, jong. Mooi so! Hou so aan.
Daan, ek is so bly om te sien dat jy nie so ‘n verskriklike eng, konserwatiewe kop-in-jesus-se-hol
gristen is nie. , en dat jy ook so ‘n bietjie, lekker grappies kan trotseer. Ek het gelees jy skryf dat jy
darem nou al tot sekere meer “verligte” insigte gekom het. Sterkte hoor!
En nou Prof? Wat gaan jy nou doen? Dit lyk nie vir my of jy ons amal “bekeer” het van ons lekker lag
en grappies maak nie….. Jy moet jou skoon ou bekkie maar iewers anders neem. Dalk gaan jy daar ‘n paar ouens kry wat dadelik sal ophou sulke “vieslike” woorde gebruik. Hahahahahahahahaha.
verifanie
November 14, 2011 at 07:15
The moving finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a word of it.
[Omar Khayyam, d.1123 A.D.]
Piet Stassen
November 14, 2011 at 09:12
Oooh look, more veiled threats! And wow, this time from a heathen source, nogal. But ai-ai-ai, our Proffie is slipping. First, he says you can repent and beg forgiveness for anything from his three-in-one skydaddy so that you don’t need to roast forever. Now he seems to be saying that you can never take back things you wrote (with the implication that you’re gonna get bliksemed for it later when you vrek). I guess you need to be a Proffie with postdoctoral work in profanity studies before you are able to understand such apparent contradictions.
(Dankie verifanie, maar onthou dat ’n taal se meer basiese uitdrukkings gewoonlik die maklikste en vinnigste geleer word…)
Con-Tester
November 14, 2011 at 10:34
It is written:
A randy young fellow named Clair,
was enjoying his girl on the stair.
On the twenty third stroke
the bannister broke,
so he finished her off in midair.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 14, 2011 at 18:56
It is written:
There was a young woman from Wheeling
Who professed to lack sexual feeling
’Til a cynic named Boris
Simply touched her clitoris
And she had to be scraped off the ceiling.
Con-Tester
November 14, 2011 at 19:17
Satan
November 14, 2011 at 21:20
It is written:
There was a young lady from Crew
who said to the curate with rue:
The vicar is quicker
and slicker and thicker,
and two inches longer than you.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 15, 2011 at 05:47
It is written:
A lively young hussy called Mary
Did things in her bed that were scary,
Her belly did burgeon,
She cried, “I’m a virgin!
And Joseph? Oy vey, he’s a fairy!”
Con-Tester
November 15, 2011 at 12:38
It is written:
There was a young lawyer named Rex,
who was sadly deficient in sex.
When charged with exposure
he said with coposure:
“De mininmus non curat Lex.” *
* The law does not concern itself with trivalties.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 15, 2011 at 19:09
It is written:
A stubborn old preacher called Stassen
Was fiercely opposed to wild cussin’,
With biblical verses
He criticised curses,
And carped with a shitload of fussin’.
Con-Tester
November 15, 2011 at 19:51
Have you heard of the guy from Kent
Who’s tool was all buckled and bent
So to save himself the trouble
He put it in double
And instead of coming he went
verifanie
November 15, 2011 at 21:43
It is written:
A policeman from Nottingham Junction,
whose organ had long ceased to function.
Deceived his good wife
every night of her life
with the aid of his constable’s truncheon.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 16, 2011 at 05:32
Confucion wisdom:
Confucius says: Elevators smell different to midgets……..
Woman who flies upside down in aircraft, is sure to have crack up…….
verifanie
November 16, 2011 at 07:34
Newton wisdom:
Isaac Newton said: A woman with one leg is a pushover.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 16, 2011 at 18:48
It is written , Jesus is coming again and very soon.
johannes
November 17, 2011 at 13:58
Dis die 17de November en die Groot Opfok is al amper ’n maand laat. Wat’s ou dooskop Camping en sy drolagtige hansworse se verskoning vir die fokop nou weer, Johannes?
Want dis nog nie geskryf nie.
Con-Tester
November 17, 2011 at 14:15
Johnny!!! Welkom terug. Bring on the shit.
Daan Van der Merwe
November 17, 2011 at 20:26
Holy shit! Ou Kampeerder se disippel is terug!
Hoeveel keer gaan “liewe jesus” nog kom?
Ek dag dan masterbasie word volgens die bybel nie toegelaat nie!
ErickV
November 19, 2011 at 08:04
The only persons that have to “prove” the existence of a god, any god, are those who assert that it exists.
If I claim that there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden, the onus is on me to prove it, not on those who disbelief my ridicilous claim to disprove it.
A negative cannot, per definition, be disproved and the non existence of a god (or my garden fairies) can therefore not be disproved,and to assert that this constitutes proof of anything is irrational in the extreme.
On the other hand, if a god did actually exist, the bad and evil things that happens in the world is easy to explain: simply postulate a nasty god instead of a good and loving one. It makes perfect as the Abrhamic god have always struck me as a particularly nasty sadist.
Shazee
December 19, 2011 at 14:08
Right-on Shazee,
Glad to hear another sane voice in this wilderness of fucked-up, idiotic, insane, stupid, child-molesting,
war-mongering, preaching, proselytising and totally blind assholes who can’t accept the simple reality of
science. As far as I am concerned, just like Billy Connoly said:
“You’ve had your two or five thousand years of shoving religion and christianity down our throats, BUT NOW IT’S OVER” iT’S ALL FUCKING OVER!
Welcome to this blog.
verifanie
December 19, 2011 at 16:42
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
1 January 2012.
Piet Stassen
January 1, 2012 at 20:53
“Marked by contempt and irreverence for what is sacred” – sounds about right I would say.
Shazee
January 1, 2012 at 22:11
What a fucking hoot you are, Proffie Piet Stassen! Ever thought of doing a comedy show? You could call it “Profanity, God and I: A Still Life.”
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 16:13
PS: Proffie, you and Bollocksed Goofs (
) should get together. See if you two can conduct a coherent conversation of more than five words each.
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 16:45
I see there is a lot of shit written above and so I got thinking, shit comes from arseholes so I am not needed here.
Hans Matthysen
January 2, 2012 at 21:40
What a very keen nose you have, Hanswors! While you’re so intently sniffing the arseholes and the shit and thinking how unneeded you are, maybe you will answer my questions. Maybe, in the process you can expose me for a fraud and at the same time give more of your much-needed support to ol’ Bollocksed Goofs (
) since you’re the only one of an admittedly small sample who does.
That should be very easy since he is, as predicted, not able to keep ignoring me for any length of time, and “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and… you know the tune).
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 22:49
Con-Tester, your interpretation of my short comment has shown that, although you are suppose to be exceptionally highly qualified in the English language, your comprehension thereof is very poor.
What question?
You don’t really want anybody to ignore you because you love the attention, unless it reveals what a fool you really are.
Hans Matthysen
January 4, 2012 at 22:17
But Hanswors, when it comes to comprehension, you’re obviously unbeatable. One just has to read any three of your comments to see that. That’s why I keep asking you the same question, which you have yet to answer, Hanswors: What is “spiritually”, Hanswors? Is it just some brainfart you pull from your arse every so often so you can act superior and make yourself feel better? Because that’s what it looks like. How can one detect “spiritually”, Hanswors? How can one test for it and decide — reliably and objectively — that it is there?
You should be able to answer the above very quickly and easily since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…)
Con-Tester
January 4, 2012 at 23:01
Con-Tester, the brain fart must perhaps exist in your mind as I have referred you to the Dictionary in regard to your question, but then, the big I am does not accept what is written in dictionaries. Maybe you should make better use of your time and wright your own Dictionary as it might be popular among atheists.
How do you like that for a quick answer?
Hans Matthysen
January 6, 2012 at 22:15
Hanswors, it looks like you’re too kakbang even to attempt an answer. I’ve already pointed out to you that the dictionary definitions are inadequate because they are somewhat circular and don’t provide any clarity in terms of functional and/or mensurational characterisation. In case you haven’t understood this yet, it’s why I keep asking you.
After all, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), so you can furnish deep and abiding explanations. Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and… you know the tune by now). Should I remind you of the question, to which I defy you to point out where you have given an unequivocal “yes” or “no” answer? If your answer isn’t silence, it’ll be evasion. Guaranteed.
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 22:36
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
13 January 2012.
Piet Stassen
January 12, 2012 at 21:22
Oom Piet, ek sien wat jy probeer doen, jy is soos die ou waarvan CT gepraat het, jy probeer ons moeg maak met jou sotlike toss.
Dit is dieselfde kak wat jy oor en oor pos, amper soos die die kinders in die Madrasa’s moet doen totdat die kak behoorlik ingesink het, VRA MAAR VIR ENIGE TALIBAN TERRORIS.
Sit jy ook en wieg en jou koppie knik as jy die stront pos?
Shazee
January 12, 2012 at 21:49
Con-Tester, I am looking out for your own dictionary.
Hans Matthysen
January 12, 2012 at 23:28
What are you trying, but failing, to say, Hanswors? For someone who “understand[s] more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), you sure talk incoherently.
Will you speak more clearly?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…). Should I remind you of the question, to which I defy you to point out where you have given an unequivocal “yes” or “no” answer to?
Con-Tester
January 12, 2012 at 23:40
Con-Tester, 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Hans Matthysen
January 13, 2012 at 23:13
So, once more, Hanswors, you’re saying that “spiritual” = “unseen and eternal”. That would mean that, among others, mass and energy are “spiritual”. While I know how to detect and measure both mass and energy reliably and objectively, your “unseen and eternal” definition doesn’t tell me how to detect and/or measure “spiritual” things objectively and reliably. In order to be counted as “real”, such measurement/detection criteria are essential. Can you or your Holey Babble provide them, Hanswors?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Them darn crickets’re still making that god-awful racket…). And don’t pretend you’re not reading this, see? ’Cos it puts your chosen moniker in perspective.
Con-Tester
January 13, 2012 at 23:22
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
23 January 2012.
Piet Stassen
January 23, 2012 at 09:25
Proffie Piet “Profanity” Stassen delivers another lecture so stunning in its depth and breadth as to convert the world instantly.
Mind you, there are those two niggly insuperable problems of the futility of renewing apostates to repentance (Hebrews 6:4—6) and the one unforgiveable sin of blasphemy against the holey ectoplasm (Mark 3:29). It is not surprising that they should remain wholly unaddressed…
Which lapse reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? This “ghastly cunt, unmitigated piece of ordure, treacherous fuck” admires your gift for profanity. The least you can do in return is to give a clear answer. Go on, be a demon… 
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 11:22
Oom Piet, waar kom die toegewyde obsessie met vloekery vandaan?
Dink jy nie daar is ernstiger goed in die wereld aan die gang waaroor jy jouself as goeie christen behoort te bekommer nie? – die ouens wat se koppe afgekap word in Iran byvoorbeeld. Dit behoort jou sommer baie te pla en nagte te laat wakker le, die meeste word dan juis onthoof vir oortredings van Islamietese wette, iets wat jou ook mos nie aanstaan nie, ne? Ek bedoel nou die goddelose Islam natuurlik.
Wat ek nie kleinkry nie is die onvoorspelbare tydsverloop tussen jou poste.
Ek kry die indruk dat jy van tyd tot tyd n helder oomblik kry en dan onthou om die “post comment” knoppie te druk. Probeer volgende keer as jy weer so n bevlieging kry, om ook te onthou om iets oorsprongkliks te pos.
As jy my wil bekeer gaan dit nie help ek kry die indruk jy is dalk net geestelik versteurd nie.
Sien oom Piet, ek het nie eers een vloekwoord gebruik nie, ek wil regtig nie nog n n episode ontlok nie.
Shazee
January 23, 2012 at 12:12
Shazee, you must understand that the mere act of announcing unbelief already constitutes profanity in Proffie Piet “Profanity” Stassen’s view. Why else would he always focus on Holey Babble verses that tell us all about words and speaking in relation to his skydaddy’s insecurities?
Which anxiety reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Still letting me “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you],” eh? 
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 12:47
Shazee, jy moet besef dat ouens soos oom Piet heimlik wens dat dieselfde fundamentalisme deur Islam, ook plaaslik uitgevoer word. Moenie dink oom Piet gaan tot jou redding snel wanneer sy gebroedsel jou met klippe doodgooi omdat jy sy gotte se naam “ydelik” (of watter sonde ookal volgens sy Bronstydhandleiding)gebruik het nie. Nee, ek skat oom Piet is die tipe wat sal toekyk, ‘n horing kry, en dan vir sy vrou vertel hoe sy gotte se geregtigheid voor sy oë geskied het. Mens hoef net te let op die hoeveelheid kere wat die Kristinne jou smaakvol meedeel hoe jy in die ewige vuur gaan brand, om te besef dat bg aantyging glad nie vergesog is nie.
Malherbe
January 23, 2012 at 13:28
Ja, nee, soos iemand al voorheen gese het – so mal soos n kakhuis kokkerot – oeps! Sorry oom Piet, gaan le maar so n bietjie jy sal gou beter voel.
Shazee
January 23, 2012 at 15:53
Oh wow, this guardian-of-good-morals god of the Holey Babble seems to like a bit of soft porn every so often!
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 20:13
…which lechery reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or must I just “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you]”? (Hmm, “stuprate.” Good word. Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.)
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 20:14
Perde en donkies nogals ne? Boobs en bestialiteit, my moer.
Hans, verduidelik bietjie die simboliek hieragter asseblief man.
Oom Piet het jy gesien wat se hierdie vuilbek donners? Ag nee sies man, gee hulle so n bietjie n paar lesse in “profanity”
Shazee
January 23, 2012 at 21:01
Ja Shazee, maar dieselfde bliksems het dit teen porno op ‘n betaalkanaal. Die gotte is werklik vreemd. Ek sien die “Modemolle Monster” se suster reken op haar Facebook blad dat sy en haar broer “eendag saam gaan aansit aan jesus se tafel”, want hy sal sy hartjie na afloop van sy dade vir jesus gee. Ja, en indien die vrou wat hy aangerand het sou besluit om ongelowig te raak omdat haar gotte haar nie kon beskerm nie (sekerlik ‘n moontlikheid), eindig sy in die ewige vuur. Daar’s nou vir jou ‘n regverdige got, om nie eens te praat van intelligent nie.
Malherbe
January 24, 2012 at 10:53
Malherbe, kan jy nie die verskil sien nie? As dit in die BOEK is moet dit mos heilig wees,of hoe?
In die werklike wereld waarin ek en jy leef is dit n baie siek moer wat oor perde en donkies fantasseer, maar as dit in die BOEK staan moet daar seker een of ander heilige simboliek daaragter wees, of anders weet ek nou nie wat nou eintlik daarmee bedoel word nie………
Kyk, skynheiligheid het klaarblyklik geen perke nie.
Shazee
January 24, 2012 at 21:59
Con-Tester, can you measure love, forgiveness, the power of a word, righteousness, understanding, joy ect?
Hans Matthysen
January 24, 2012 at 22:27
Yes Hanswors, you can. They are distinctly classifiable as emotive states via a fMRI. Look it up if you’re confused. Additionally, they are emotive states that are distinguishable depending on whether they are directed towards a real target or an imaginary one, except in the case of severely psychotic subjects.
But you’re still and very obviously dodging my questions, Hanswors. All of that while I answer yours. Very honourable and upstanding. Will you now answer my questions? Or can we expect yet more dodging from you?
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 22:39
Shazee, dieselfde boek, daai Huilerig Gebabbel, sê dan ook jy mag mos nie draadtrek nie — of ten minste komkolle oppie grond sit nie. Dis nou seker letterlike draadtrek wat verbode is want die simboliese draadtrek van sekere galowiges en pseudogalowiges wat hierso hul “saad” van wysheid op die grond versproei is dan selfbevredigend aansienlik…
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 22:40
…which onanism reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or is my auto-stupration not yet sufficient for your eclectic tastes? Purleeeeze, be a generous ol’ shtuppie and share with an unrepentant GC&UPOO&TF a scrap of your magnificent magnanimity, your poised balance and your veracious truth. Maybe then others will not see through you so easily, but it’s just a GC&UPOO&TF’s thought.
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 22:40
Johannes Coetzee nog nie weer hier gewees nie?
Satan
January 24, 2012 at 22:43
Con – Tester, I am going to stop my DSTV subscription, this is enough entertainment for me.
Ek het darem nou fokken lekker gelag jong.
Shazee
January 24, 2012 at 22:49
Ek’s bly om dan dalk ook ’n bietjie verligting te kan voorsien, Shazee. Die jirre weet, ons kry oorgenoeg vervelige boelsjit…
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 23:20
Hallo julle almal,
Hies ek ok weer. Shit, maar julle kan darrem ‘n klomp kak praat as ek nie by is nie!
Arme Oom Piet kry alweer geen rus vir sy siel nie.
Ou arme Hans is nog steeds besig met sy bybel drome. Hy praat van “love,forgiveness, the power of a word, righteousness, understanding, joy ect?”
Nou, ek is bly hy het dit genoem. Ek het gedurende die kersgety op ‘n baie interressante video afgekom.
Gaan google Athene’s “Theory of Everything”.
Dit beaam my siening ook. Alles word deur die brein veroorsaak. Liefde, seks, jagsgeit, drange, godsdiens, balans van regverdigheid, ens.
Soos die engelsman sal se “It’s all in the mind”.
EricV
January 25, 2012 at 11:54
Nathan,
Onthou jy toe ek so ‘n ruk terug navraag gedoen het oor Josie Raaths van “Radio Kansel”?
Hy het toe nog met my dogter uitgegaan.
Nou ja, my gut feeling was toe reg. Hy was nie so lekker in die kop nie.
Hy het oor die naweek selfmoord gepleeg oor blykbaar ‘n vroumens en ook as gevolg van die kerklike instansie waarvoor hy gewerk het. Dit was in die koerant “Sondag” en ook Beeld van gister.
Ai, die arme godiote darrem! Hulle breins werk nie so lekker nie.
EricV
January 25, 2012 at 12:04
Con-Tester, you are talking shit as you cannot measure the things I have mentioned. You can measure the physical bodies reaction to emotions but you cannot measure the things I have mentioned.
I will give you an answer in Afrikaans to your so-called question: Janee.
Hans Matthysen
January 25, 2012 at 23:07
Hanswors, it’s you who’s talking shit. All measurements that we make are without exception the response of an instrument to a stimulus. You can even measure a measuring instrument’s response to a stimulus. As it happens, the system I mentioned involves measuring, by fMRI, the response of a prior instrument to a stimulus, namely the brain.
I defy you to name even one thing that can be measured directly on its own terms without involving instrument response. You cannot. The very notion is self-contradictory. Even your senses/brain combo is a collection of instruments — sometimes erroneous, to be sure, but instruments nonetheless.
Therefore, and once more, you’re talking ignorant tripe of the most delusional and ill-informed sort. We can measure those things, as described, at least to the extent of establishing their presence or absence.
So, answer my questions, please.
Which haughty ignorance reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? A GC&UPOO&TF would like a simple, effortless answer, assuming that’s not beyond your capabilities.
Con-Tester
January 25, 2012 at 23:33
Het iemand “Godsdiens en die reg: so se die VSA” deur Andreas Van Wyk op bl 24 van vandag se Beeld gelees?
Shazee
January 26, 2012 at 21:51
Con-Tester, wake up! You cannot measure wisdom of which you come short.
Hans Matthysen
January 26, 2012 at 23:15
Hanswors, wake up! You obviously cannot help yourself dodging my points. Or my questions.
Which artifice reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More auto-stuprating on my part good for you? This GC&UPOO&TF can think of few things more pleasing than pleasing you. A little quid pro quo, maybe? In the name of honesty if nothing else? Didn’t think so. Too bad.
Con-Tester
January 26, 2012 at 23:22
Con-Tester, you cannot measure love.
Hans Matthysen
January 27, 2012 at 22:11
Yes Hanswors, as a matter of demonstrable fact, you can. So much so that you can distinguish the real thing from the pretence. If you think otherwise, I suggest you do a hasty bit of reading on the subject of cognitive science’s current status. That’s because quite clearly you would rather make eminently ignorant assertions about stuff you know nothing about than answer worthwhile questions — or face the fact that you’re clutching at chaff.
Which spasmodic bullshitting reminds me: Hey, …
Con-Tester
January 27, 2012 at 23:55
“BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS”
EricV
January 28, 2012 at 07:26
Con-Tester, you are referring to a lie detector that only can tell from the bodies reaction whether one’s love is true or false. It cannot measure love.
You cannot measure forgiveness.
Hans Matthysen
January 28, 2012 at 21:40
Hanswors, look up “fMRI”. Learn something new. Please.
Are you going to go through the entire dictionary until you actually find something we can’t measure at present? (Here’s a hint: The fact that we don’t know exactly how to measure some things now, doesn’t mean that they can’t be measured at all, ever — unless argumentum ad ignorantiam is your thing. The only reason some things appear to be beyond mensuration is because we lack clear, functional definitions of those things. Capisce?)
Which brain-dead non-reason reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? There’s a GC&UPOO&TF seeking relief, if not salvation, from your withering condemnation… 
Con-Tester
January 28, 2012 at 23:11
Hanswors, can you catch a red herring?
Con-Tester
January 28, 2012 at 23:16
Con-Tester, accept the fact that you cannot measure grace and don’t change the scenario.
Hans Matthysen
January 29, 2012 at 21:54
Who’s changing the scenario, Hanswors? You are. You keep looking for new words describing things we can’t measure, just as I predicted. Even so and as already pointed out, the things we can’t measure are merely things for which we have no proper functional definition.
Which shiftiness reminds me: …
Con-Tester
January 29, 2012 at 22:22
Con-Tester, at last you acknowledge that you cannot measure the things I mentioned. Good for you!
Hans Matthysen
January 30, 2012 at 23:23
But Hanswors, you yourself acknowledge nothing. Nor do you actually answer anything.
So now you’re saying you can’t measure “grace” (at best, a wholly subjective notion), and therefore “grace” = “spiritual”/“spirit” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be). Is that what you’re saying? If so, it doesn’t explain anything. It’s a circular argument. Nor does it address the point I have repeatedly made that we may not be able to measure/detect certain things because we lack adequate definitions for them. Yet, all along I have been asking for just such a definition. Therefore, your “answer” is a failure.
Try to understand my questions better: What is “spiritually”, Hanswors? Is it just some brainfart you pull from your arse every so often so you can act superior and make yourself feel better? Because that’s what it looks like. How can one detect “spiritually”, Hanswors? How can one test for it and decide — reliably and objectively — that it is there?
Which smarmy non-answer reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? C’mon, shtup me more, more, more!
Con-Tester
January 31, 2012 at 08:21
Con-Tester, why would one want to argue. What you cannot see or touch, yet you know it is present appears to be spiritual. Symbolism show’s things observed in the mind (with the minds eye).
Hans Matthysen
January 31, 2012 at 21:40
Hanswors, that’s total nonsense. If you can’t properly, reliably and objectively detect something, how do you know it’s not a delusion?
Which muddleheaded non-thinking reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More auto-stupration for me, I guess. Hmm, “stuprate.” Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.
Con-Tester
January 31, 2012 at 22:14
Con- Tester, are your perhaps on drugs, as you appear to be delusional?
Hans Matthysen
February 1, 2012 at 20:57
Predictably, Hanswors, you dodge the crucial question (which has been put to you before on this blog) with an irrelevancy. So let me repeat it for you before answering it because you won’t do so for one of several possible reasons: If you can’t properly, reliably and objectively detect something, how do you know it’s not a delusion?
The answer is that you don’t know, no matter how hard you assert that you do.
Now follow my example and get back to answering my other questions because it would appear that you are actually the one on drugs (like godphine, religuana, credoine and biblium), what with all the fanciful shit you make up.
Which far-fetched gobbledegook reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More shtuppie-shtuppie needed, you reckon? Okay, but don’t say I’m an uncooperative GC&UPOO&TF now, see?
Con-Tester
February 1, 2012 at 23:31
Con-Tester, how do you know when something is delusional?
Hans Matthysen
February 2, 2012 at 22:14
Very easy Hans wors, when there is no reliable reason, evidence or argument to support it, Hans wors. Then it’s very likely to be a delusion. (There are of course certain minimal standards in each the ideas of “reason, evidence or argument” that to an extent depend on the magnitude and a priori plausibility of the claim in question, standards of which godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots are typically wholly ignorant.)
Now, will you attend to all those other questions, reason, Hans wors? Or can we expect yet more table-turning, goalpost-shifting an evasion from you?
Which cognitive deficiency reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
February 2, 2012 at 22:32
1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1
pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
[Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY
2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2
Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].
3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3
There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].
4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4
The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].
5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5
Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].
6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6
Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].
7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7
“Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].
Kind regards,
Piet Stassen.
3 Februarie 2012.
Piet Stassen
February 3, 2012 at 20:14
Oom Piet het n fokken helder oomblik! Hy het wakker geword en onthou om die donnerse knoppie te druk. Fok my flenters oom Piet, ek hoop iemand onthou jou medikasie terwyl jy nou fokken wakker is.
Shazee
February 3, 2012 at 20:26
Con-Tester, as God is Love, reliable reason, evidence and argument is support thereof.
Hans Matthysen
February 3, 2012 at 21:48
Tut-tut, Shazee, profanity and all that fucking half-witted rot, care is in order.
And all that fucking spasmodic, epileptic fucking repetition, you’d fucking swear on a stack of fucking Holey Babbles it was fucking religious…
Which fucking hilarity-inducing monotony reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)…
Con-Tester
February 3, 2012 at 21:50
My humble apologies CT, I was so exited to see oom Piet in the land of the living again that I got ahead of myself.
Shazee
February 3, 2012 at 22:00
Sorry, I actually meant my humble fucking apologies.
Shazee
February 3, 2012 at 22:29
Support of what, Hanswors? What exactly are you gibbering about? Please help us lesser intellects understand! Please explain what you mean to say!
What does your bald assertion that “as God is Love, reliable reason, evidence and argument is support thereof” have to do with objective assessment of reality? Or is it just something quasi-novel you pulled from your arse because you thought it sounded clever, Hanswors? Please explain!
After all Hanswors, you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ.” So why, instead of constructing incomprehensible drivel, don’t you rather demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding”?
When you’ve settled the above, you can pick whichever 40 of those contradictions you want to. Why is this giving you so much difficulty? Why all the avoidance and evasion? It’s almost as skippily dippy as not being able to supply a simple yes-or-no answer to a very simple question.
Which top-drawer gabble reminds me: Bollocksed Goofs (
), you need to see more shtuppie-shtuppie by a GC&UPOO&TF?
Con-Tester
February 3, 2012 at 23:09
Con-Tester, just wipe the shit out of your eye’s and look around you. See the reliable reason, evidence and support of God’s (Love’s) existence. It is a reality. Sorry that it is not very complicated as it is not meant to make you Scribes ect. feel important.
Hans Matthysen
February 4, 2012 at 22:04
Hanswors, in English, plurals do not take an apostrophe, except in certain special cases. And it’s “etc.”
That besides, you’re presenting an argument from Hanswors’ personal perceptions. “It is a reality,” you confidently assert. Sorry boet, but you’ve got no evidence. As ever, your “argument” is “It’s true because I say it’s true! I can show you an old book.”
That’s just plain shit covering your eyes, Hanswors. Maybe yours need a good wipe.
Still and all, you’re avoiding questions with wishful bullshit.
Which hilarious silliness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Your avoidance of this simple question is really amusing. How much auto-stuprating must a GC&UPOO&TF do to win your gracious favour? (Hmm, “stuprate.” Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.)
Con-Tester
February 4, 2012 at 22:18
“If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into another difficulty.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.
Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.
Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. ”
~C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Shreger
March 26, 2012 at 04:15
Quote me C. S. Lewis, will you, you blackguard, you bounder, you rogue and you varlet!?
I haaaaate C. S. Lewis!
O.K. Just an overreaction.
But I haaaaate C. S. Lewis!
Nathan Bond
March 26, 2012 at 18:21
Your dislike of the author does not refute his logic.
And it is interesting how you judge God to not be loving enough, then turn around and espouse your own hatred for another person.
Shreger
March 26, 2012 at 19:10
What a pile of contrived, ill-informed poppycock: God exists because my ideas of good and evil are either subjective, in which case my argument against “god” is implausible, or those ideas are properly objective, in which case I have come to them from an absolute moral authority.
Even if we accept the necessity of some absolute fount of morality (which already presumes far more than it actually explains), there is still a huge unfilled gap between that presumption and any particular edition of “god”. More importantly, this naïve either-or account of our moral sense neglects the inherited, the instinctive and the learnt aspects thereof. Our morality isn’t somehow separate from the rest of our existence in the natural world.
So, once more: What a pile of contrived, ill-informed poppycock. Aplogiots will love it, of course.
Con-Tester
March 26, 2012 at 19:22
There might, or might not be a creator of the universe, which is an omnipotent “god”, but he\she\it will still have to answer the Darwinion imperative; where does this creator come from? How did this creator originate?
The problem remains that the creator must have arrived late in the history of the universe, as “he” must “himself” be an evolved creature.
Shazee
March 26, 2012 at 20:10
Con-Tester, glad to see that I can learn something from you, thanks.
I think you have been smelling the poppies.
Hans Matthysen
March 26, 2012 at 23:12
And what exactly have you learned from me, Hanswors?
No dodges or stupid excuses now, please. Just a straight answer will do — that is, if you’re capable of such a thing.
Con-Tester
March 26, 2012 at 23:18
These guy’s do not believe in love, because “God Is love.
Hans Matthysen
March 26, 2012 at 23:18
No Hanswors, I don’t believe in the fevered figments of your imaginings that you wish were real but for which you have no evidence or compelling argument.
Con-Tester
March 26, 2012 at 23:24
Shazee, the “Word” you speak can destroy or create.
Hans Matthysen
March 26, 2012 at 23:26
“What a pile of contrived, ill-informed poppycock: God exists because my ideas of good and evil are either subjective, in which case my argument against “god” is implausible, or those ideas are properly objective, in which case I have come to them from an absolute moral authority.”
~Con-Tester March 26, 2012 at 19:22
You would be right in saying that the quote of C. S. Lewis that I posted does not prove the existence of God. However, that was not the point of the quote. I posted the quote because it explains how the, “Proof!” that God does not exist (which you may see at the top of this page) is, in fact, not proof at all.
Lewis’ conclusion that, “atheism turns out to be too simple,” was formed on the fact that his brand of atheism was fundamentally based on the aforementioned, “Proof!”
If your atheism is not based on said, “Proof!” then the quote from Lewis is not speaking of your brand of atheism, and you may feel free to ignore it.
I should also mention that C. S. Lewis did not believe in God because atheism was disproven for him, but rather, because he felt he had met God. I do not think he penned the above quoted words in order to convince atheists of the, “error of their ways.” It was, I think, meant as a means of combatting the fallacious above written “Proof!”
Shreger
March 27, 2012 at 19:52
Yet more contrived, lamebrain poppycock, this time seasoned with an overdose of artifice.
The world is not what you would expect from an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, supremely benevolent creator. The fact that our sense of morality rails against the way the world is, is ditto not the product one would expect from an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, supremely benevolent creator. The fact alone that this divergence exists prominently and pervasively, even if it is only one of perception, strongly suggests something is fundamentally wrong with either the world or our perception thereof, and possibly both, when measured against the alleged attributes of the supposed creator of both those things.
When the apologiots finally see through to that compelling essence of the problem, then we might actually and finally expect that one of them will mount an argument against it that is more than sophistry and manufactured bullshit which serve solely to cover it up. When the godiots finally see that Occam’s Razor effortlessly slices their wishful cerebral appendages away like the cancers that they are, then we might actually succeed in having a fruitful discussion. When the religiots concede that they may, for any number of entirely naturalistic reasons, be mistaken, then we might start treading on some common ground.
But it is not in their natures to acknowledge the extreme weakness and very probable erroneousness of their utterly ridiculous “arguments”. Ergo, any fruitful discussion with bibliots and crediots is simply not possible. Only ragging them remains.
Con-Tester
March 27, 2012 at 20:31
So in conclusion, my advice to you is to present something original, something persuasive, or be ridiculed. Or keep quiet. Your choice. But don’t complain about being treated badly. Read this blog and its comments first before you proceed to stick your feet in your mouth.
Con-Tester
March 27, 2012 at 20:33
Con-Tester, life has no meaning without “Love” (God), so I can only feel sorry for you.
Hans Matthysen
March 27, 2012 at 23:05
Feel whatever you want, Hanswors, but you’re a presumptuous fucking idiot if you think there cannot be love without your “god”.
Instead of making stupid excuses and avoiding things, try answering some questions.
Con-Tester
March 27, 2012 at 23:15
Con-Tester, it is not an excuse, as that is what God is, love! You of course give the impression, that you only love yourself, as if you are a god yourself.
Why don’t you ask a question? You have not contradicted any answer I have given you, instead you just badmouth me as you cannot contradict what I have answered. You don’t only appear to be an intellectual idiot but also an intellectual fool.
Hans Matthysen
March 29, 2012 at 08:04
More garbled bullshit and excuses, Hanswors. If your skydaddy… er, I mean your “god” is just another word for “love”, why do you go and complicate matters like you always do? Why can’t you keep it simple and straightforward, hmm?
And I’ve contradicted every “answer” you’ve given. I’ll do so again, Hanswors: You’re talking blatant childish kak.
Now try actually answering some questions. Read the comments in this and other threads to find the questions since you imply you don’t know which questions I’m talking about. Or how about another hilarious “explanation” of a bible contradiction, say?
Con-Tester
March 29, 2012 at 08:14
Con-Tester, you haven’t contradicted me, you have only expressed what you think of my answer. Lets see if you can do better than that?
Hans Matthysen
March 29, 2012 at 22:14
Once more, Hanswors: You’re talking horseshit. You’re making stuff up as needed. All your assertions are nonsense.
There, I’ve contradicted you again. Three times, nogal. Pick up a dictionary and look up the word “contradict”. Learn something new, ou.
And on the topic of new stuff, try actually answering some questions.
Which pathetic evasions remind me: Hey, Bollocksed Goofs (
), this GC&UPOO&TF still not done enough shtupping for your liking, eh? Ah well, too fucking bad.
Con-Tester
March 29, 2012 at 22:25
Con-Tester, you don’t accept what is written in the dictionary just as you don’t accept what is written in the Bible.
Hans Matthysen
March 30, 2012 at 21:31
Really, Hanswors? I said your Holey Babble is a collection of fairytales. I said the dictionary definition of certain words is entirely inadequate. How in your skydaddy’s name does that equate to not accepting what’s in those books!? Is that what is being taught on Planet Hanswors lately?
That beside, you’re still just making up new bullshit and dodges and excuses.
Con-Tester
March 30, 2012 at 21:37
Con-Tester, you can’t be very bright if you think that you can say, that what I have experienced, does not exist just because you have not had similar experiences.
Hans Matthysen
March 31, 2012 at 22:17
Hanswors, you can’t be very bright if you don’t realise that if I claim experiences with Mickey Mouse, my claims are completely and unquestionably true!
Now answer some questions, you funny clown, you.
Con-Tester
March 31, 2012 at 22:35
Con-Tester, I know about Micky Mouse so post a question.
Hans Matthysen
April 2, 2012 at 21:07
Hanswors, that would be Mickey Mouse. Mind your utterly disrespectful spelling, now!
My and others’ questions to you that you have dodged, evaded, avoided and generally bullshitted your way past questions are all over this blog. I’m done repeating them at your Lordship’s convenience. Seek them out yourself. Or amuse us with another of your “explanations” of all those Holey Babble contradictions. You decide, see?
Con-Tester
April 2, 2012 at 21:18
I can always enjoy a good argument even if only for the sake of the argument itself so here are my thoughts on the matter:
The question is still basically how an all powerful and loving god would ever allow the evil that we see around us correct? I just wanted to make sure that is the main point of this since it appears to have degraded into a series of ad hominem attacks from both sides.
I think that in order to understand this it is important to understand how we were created and the reason for said creation in the first place.
One such understanding is the idea of being created with the purpose of being in voluntary relationship with the creator. In order to sustain such a relationship both sides need a free will to choose to work towards the same goal otherwise it is no longer voluntary. Obviously the all powerful creator would have a free will since creation would have to be a choice on his part and we as the creation would then have to be created with a free will of our own in order to fullfill this purpose. In other words we need to have the freedom to break the relationship as well as uphold it.
Apparantly he decided to create more than one of us and give us some limited ‘creation’ abilities of our own (namely, reproduction) and therefore we are also required to relate to eachother as well. As far as I can tell a part of how the Bible says that we as the creation are supposed to relate to this god is in upholding relationships with the other people around us here on earth as well.
If we were unable to hurt each other in this relationship then it would cease to be voluntary and since we cannot directly hurt someone that is all powerful the closest that we can come to is to be able to hurt the rest of his creation.
If we are created as relational beings with a free will then could the state of this world not all make sense as the results of our actions or lack thereof?
The reason that people are starving in slavery or otherwise oppressed is because someone decided to break from that ideal of holding up the relationship with the people they can influence. Some of the people doing this even claim to be Christians although I do not believe that they can actually be truely Christian if they are willing to break off from the moral code they are supposed to follow so easily.
The reason for the natural disasters that plague us is also related to this, if we are arguing from the Christian view of God then we must assume that the Bible is accurate which means that at some point a while ago God became fed up with the failure of humankind and destroyed most of us in a global flood. Before this the world was perfect, there probably were no earthquakes, floods or famines, but a flood of that size would do some serious damage to this planet, causeing unsability in the earth’s crust and all kinds of interesting things such as deserts.
The real question I think is why so many of us, both Christian and not, are not doing anything about the issue? We potentially have the power to help those people but we just sit around and make as much money as we can, not really willing to put out the effort to correct the obvious wrongs in the world. I must say that Christians have been responcible for a large percentage of the efforts that are actually in place to help but there are supposed to be 2 billion people in the world that claim to be Christian, about a quarter of the total population, and many of them are living as hypocrates instead of helping.
nemo
April 19, 2012 at 07:19
nemo, it would be really, really good if you godiots bothered to read just a little further than the end of your oh-so-easily-out-of-joint noses. Then perhaps we would be spared the tedious posting and reposting of such unutterably inane and unsustainable drivel as yours. The “Free Will” argument is as stale and bankrupt as it is deceitful. In fact, it is an excuse, not an argument.
Con-Tester
April 19, 2012 at 17:58
Nemo, an ad hominem attack ceases to be one, once the integrity and honesty of one of the parties to the debate becomes relevant to the veracity of his arguments.
Hans,amongst others, has a proven track record (easily proven by direct reference to this blog) of avoiding straight questions, shifting the focus of arguments he cannot answer, arbitrary rationalisation, and of generally misrepresenting plain facts.
His honesty and integrity is clearly not irrelevant to the argument.
Shazee
April 19, 2012 at 21:28
Shazee, when you try and lead me with questions into that which I do not believe, then of course I will go another direction. I am not dishonest and am mealy broadening the horizon.
Hans Matthysen
April 19, 2012 at 23:04
Hanswors, that would be “merely”. And despite your glib protestations to the contrary, you are thoroughly dishonest, as I have amply demonstrated on April 16, 2012 at 08:20 in the The Year of the Atheist thread. You still can’t prove me wrong on any of those things.
Con-Tester
April 19, 2012 at 23:10
I like how honest and open parts of this discussion are. I appreciate people who present things in a logical and honest way. I am a Christian, and I’ll admit that it is hard for me to deal with the hardship of the world. Yet I also realize that God has called me to be “Salt and Light” which basicially means I am responsible for what happens in the world. We are the caretakers and representatives (image bearers) of God. While these issues have been brought up many times, they are continually fresh due to new people who are affected by them. Each person has to decide for themselves what they believe, and I appreciate all of you who are willing to interact with this subject instead of running from it. I personally believe that I am right, but everyone believes they are right so that isn’t a huge revelation. What I would like to know is more of how some of the other people in this post came to their conclusions.
In the end we all have to live with the consequences of decisions we make and the things we believe. Thank you for allowing me to see what you believe, and I hope that those of us in both camps can continue have honest discussions. I hope that we can truly investigate each other’s claims and find out for ourselves what we believe.
Chaos Poet
April 20, 2012 at 01:37
Con-Tester could you explain why the free will idea does not work? I do not actually have anyone else in my contact circle who is capable of answering it from your perspective and the post about free will on this blog does not really seem to say much about it either. The example of the young man and his lover seems to do a perfectly good job of illustrating just how humans are capable of using their free will to corrupt the free will of their weaker peers and is not really very accurate when applied to the Christian God.
In the case of God I think the parable should be somewhat closer to what Johan said although it could be a bit better explained.
Firstly as a result of the woman’s actions she has a child that she is then unable to feed. The young man then sends her love letters offering to forgive her and help raise the child but is rejected. This continues until both her and her child starve to death. The help was offered but never forced (preserving the woman’s free will) and thus rejected.
nemo
April 20, 2012 at 05:45
Nee hans, niemand probeer jou met vrae enige plek inlei nie.
Jy maak dit onmoontlik om ‘n sinvolle redenasie met jou te probeer voer deur deur jou onophoudelike vermyding van vrae waarop jy nie ‘n eerlike antwoord het nie, antwoorde, wat as jy dit eerlik en reguit moet antwoord, nie jou vooraf opgestelde geloof kan ondersteun nie.
As jou bygeloof rasioneel was, of as dit op enige wyse hoegenaamd deur objektiewe bewys ondersteun was, sou dit nie vir jou nodig gewees het om ‘n strik agter elke vraag te vermoed nie. Dit sou nie vir jou nodig gewees het om die fokus van die onderwerp onder bespreking so deursigtig en oneerlik te verander nie. Dit sou nie vir jou nodig gewees het om CT se kommentaar met jou kinderagtige, laerskoolagtige “one liners” te vermy omdat jy nie meer sinvolle antwoorde het nie.
As jy reg was in jou primitiewe bygeloof sou jy vrae reguit kon antwoord en dit rasioneel kon regverdig.
In jou vermyding van vrae en in jou rasionalisering van die onlogiese en ongeloofwaardige is jy nie anders as alle gelowiges nie, jy is net effens dommer en komiekliker as die gemiddelde.
Ek wag vir jou “one liner”
Shazee
April 20, 2012 at 05:48
Nemo, it is an interesting free will that god provides: you have a free choice to behave exactly as he dictates, and to believe exactly as he requires, and go to heaven and eternal bliss, or I can choose not to behave or believe as he wants me to and burn in hell forever.
You call that free will?
Shazee
April 20, 2012 at 06:49
nemo, besides Shazee’s powerful and compelling point (April 20, 2012 at 06:49), the “Free Will” defence is a fuck-up right from the start. By hypothesis, your ostensible creator skydaddy is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and supremely benevolent. That means, among other things, that there is nothing s/he doesn’t know or can’t do. More specifically, it means s/he could have created a world without any suffering and yet retain complete free will in it because there’s nothing your skydaddy can’t do, right? Equally, s/he knows exactly the total detail from start to finish of how everything is going to turn out because there’s nothing your skydaddy doesn’t know, right? Finally, s/he wants it all to be blissful for everyone because your skydaddy is perfectly good, right? Now why do we still have a world where this supposed all-powerful, all-wise, all-good skydaddy creator’s alleged plan has gone so badly off the rails? And the idea that natural disasters and other so-called “acts of god” that take an indiscriminate toll in human lives, the idea that such events are the product of “free will” is just fucking hilariouly absurd. Remember, your skydaddy, in all his/her power and wisdom and goodness, supposedly made the world that way, when there’s no reason whatsoever that s/he couldn’t have made it differently, especially when s/he knew right from the beginning exactly how it was all going to turn out.
Besides AIDS orphans and millions of starving children (all of which your skydaddy supposedly has the power to alleviate at a stroke, but apparently not the will), do you know that between 15% and 20% of human pregnancies end up in miscarriages? That’s a few tens of millions of deaths annually of the unborn innocent for no good reason, making your skydaddy the most prolific abortionist ever to have bloodied the world.
So on all those premises and their consequences, the “Free Will” defence is a fucking joke. And a sick one at that. Either your skydaddy is a ham-fisted bungler who can’t do whatever s/he sets his/her mind on, or s/he’s a myopic retard who doesn’t know even a fraction as much as the godiots pretend, or s/he’s a sick fuck with a psychopathic streak as wide as the universe. Or maybe some combination of those possibilities.
Occam’s Razor, however, demands that we drop the whole stupid argument altogether instead of trying to salvage the irredeemable.
But like I said: It would be really, really good if you godiots bothered to read just a little further than the end of your oh-so-easily-out-of-joint noses. Perhaps I should have said “… bothered to read and to think…”.
Con-Tester
April 20, 2012 at 08:40
This is still free will Shazee, he has given us a choice between life and death, urging us to choose life. As far as how he requires us to behave, the main jist of it is simply to love him first, and secondly to love other people as we would love ourselves (this also means that we would need to respect ourselves as well of course). Everything else falls into place if those two requirements are met first. Most of the things we are called to do are simply a result of not everyone following that ideal, and some people needing to be rescued from their oppression. Yes we are supposed to turn the other cheek to oppression but that does not mean that we should turn someone elses cheek for them. So basically if we help other people as opposed to hurting them, and recognize God as the supplier of everything that is worth anything in the world we are doing just fine. Yes there is still a lot wrong with this world, many people abuse this freedom quite heavily, and we are still suffering the effects of the corruption brought on by this sin but eventually that will all be restored to the way it was originally created.
Quite honestly since he created all of us, it is entirely in his right to destroy us for no reason if he really wants to. The fact that he has given us the oportunity to escape that fate says quite a lot about his mercy/goodness/patience I think.
Well I guess there is also the requirement of acknowledging that we are not perfect (as in not even close), and that the only way we would ever be considered good enough is if he decides to forgive us (this being the whole point to Jesus taking the penalty instead of us), but I think this goes without saying. I know that I at least have hurt plenty of other people, both accidentally and on purpose, and am still hurting people now. Although I try to avoid this whenever I can, I would still be disqualified from entering a perfect world simply by the fact that, as I am right now, I would corrupt it myself. This isn’t really about what we can do after all, all we need to do is decide that we want to continue existing enough that we are willing to accept his help and forgiveness, including the changes it will bring to our lives. Everything else he has taken care of already.
This view will obviously not make a lot of sense unless it is first assumed that God exists, created this world, and is directly responsible for everything good in it, but I think that is sort of required for most of my arguments.
nemo
April 20, 2012 at 08:59
nemo, it’s not free will to say to someone, “You can choose to follow me or not, but if you don’t, I will make sure you suffer eternal torment of the most horrific kind.” What you’ve done is tacked on some convenient ad hoc bullshit to preserve the notion that your skydaddy gave you free will.
But if you really think that that’s “free will” then you have a willing slave’s mentality.
Con-Tester
April 20, 2012 at 09:12
Nemo, even if I grant your point that god has the right to destroy us, seeing that he has created us in the first place, what would that tell you about the character of god? He gives us life and consciousness, he gives us free will, and if we don’t exercise the free will in a manner hat he approves, he burns us in hell forever.
I don’t call that free will, I call it blackmail by a psychopathic control freak.
Anyway, CT has rumbled your free will argument already, so I need not say much more about it.
Shazee
April 20, 2012 at 09:18
In response to Con-Tester, Christians are called willing slaves. We as Christians are “bond-slaves,” which means that we choose who we serve. We either serve God or not. That is a very good point though. For further reading on this you can look at I Corinthians 7 (In the Bible).
As far as Shazee’s point of blackmail, that is a very good point as well. I will admit that it can look like that. In a sense, we are choosing to either serve God and live eternity with Him (being saved from separation by Jesus), or live eternity without Him. I’ll have to ask Him more about these subjects.
One question is, does your understanding of Heaven and Hell come from the historical study of the Bible and where the ideas of Gahanna (however it is spelled) and Hades interplay? Or does it come from the societal portrayal of Christian faith by non-Christians? Just wondering what the background of your understanding is so I know where you are coming from.
Is your argument that a good God “wouldn’t” condemn people to Hell or that Hell cannot logically exist? Until we solve the problem of whether Hell exists, and whether or not God exists, we cannot interact with sub-topics or the interplay of the two.
Grant me a little logical babble.
- To prove God exists we must start with the presumption of possible existence/non-existence, not His actions.
- If we prove God exists (or doesn’t) by His actions, then we are jumping the gun a bit.
- To prove God doesn’t exist based on His actions or supposed actions, is starting with the assumption that God exists and can act (which your very argument refutes).
- If you start with an assumption of actions, then His existence becomes an absolute which can either be affirmed or blindly denied.
- If you wish to disprove God’s existence, start with evidence and logical arguments on the basic assumption of being (which is ironically assumed here whether it was meant or not).
- If you wish to disprove God’s goodness then fine, go ahead and try to disprove that; however, disproving His existence based on actions merely questions His goodness rather than His existence.
- Either argue His goodness (and continue with these arguments) or argue His existence (and redirect this conversation)
I will admit that we Christians affirm that His actions show us of His existence (one area of this is called natural theology), but someone acting proves they exist but it cannot disprove existence.
-To prove that someone doesn’t exist by actions, you must prove they don’t act.
- Only those who exist can act.
- If they don’t exist, they don’t act.
- If they act, they do exist; whether they are good or evil is yet to be determined.
An couple analogies for this are as follows: “Since the bully is a jerk, I’m going to say He doesn’t exist because I don’t like Him.” or “My Dad abused me so I am going to treat Him as thought He doesn’t exist: I will never talk to Him or even acknowledge Him.” Either way, it doesn’t prove they don’t exist. Granted, this topic is a lot bigger than these two analogies.
As far as an argument of His goodness, you are presenting a good argument; however, as far as arguing His existence your logic is slightly misdirected. If you wish to argue against the existence of a GOOD God, then you are on the right track. Please choose which you are arguing for: I am willing to go either way but you need to decide which way you want to take it.
Chaos Poet
April 20, 2012 at 21:41
Inconsequent apologiot babble, all noisy subterfuge and no substance. This kind of contrived and convoluted nonsense, together with that you are actually serious about it without realising its utter sterility, is what makes you blokes so hilarious.
You can either follow manfully and diligently and with integrity the logic to the inevitable conclusions that your own premisses demand, or you can go and make up new shit along the way to cover up all the other shit you’ve fabricated for covering up the cracks and flaws, and so end up ultimately with a big, heaving, steaming pile of shit. The former is called “intellectual honesty.” The latter is simply fucking ridiculous (not to mention transparently and reprehensibly dishonest), and the main reason why it is hardly ever possible to have a meaningful discussion with a godiot.
Con-Tester
April 20, 2012 at 22:12
Shazee, ‘n paar betekenisvolle woorde is beter as baie woorde, wat min betekenis het.
Jy gaan by my nie die standaard antwoorde kry wat jy verwag omdat ek nie glo soos meeste sogenaamde Christenne nie.
Soos CT reageer, is ek verplig om laerskoolagtige “one liners” te gebruik.
Hans Matthysen
April 20, 2012 at 23:14
Hanswors, it’s just so typical of you godiots to be self-righteous. As far as childishness goes, I’m only carrying your proud and unwavering tradition forward, only with much more honesty than you are capable of. I do it quite consciously, you know. And now you can’t stand it. What a funny man you are, Hanswors.
Con-Tester
April 20, 2012 at 23:20
Chaos poet, “I’ll have to ask Him more about these subjects”.
Are you going to ask “Him”, as in the good Lord? In all seriousness, but how do you intend on doing that?
rick
April 21, 2012 at 03:28
Chaos Poet, the argument about a good god, or a bad god cannot prove the existence, or the non existence of a god. If god is omnipotent he is surely capable of being either bad or good, as he chooses to be.
If I start with the assumption that god actually does exist, and I observe what is happening in the world, he certainly is a bad god, a very bad one.
The point, however, is not whether god is good or bad.
The point is that the christian doctrine proclaims a good and benevolent god.
If you do not grant the possibility that the god you believe in is a malevolent psychotic bully, he most certainly does not exist.
Shazee
April 21, 2012 at 04:40
Jong Hans, ek verwag nie ‘n spesifieke tipe standaard antwoord van jou nie, net een wat sin maak.
Ek moet se, jou geloof klink nogal vreemder as die gemiddelde, en dit se baie.
Wil jy nie ‘n bietjie vir ons vertel wat noem jy en die “baie wat soos jy glo” julself nie. Dit klink nog vreemder as die gemiddelde gereformeerde stront waarmee ek grootgeword het.
Shazee
April 21, 2012 at 04:55
I am not sure how the idea that our conception of God proves He doesn’t exist if we are wrong. If we are wrong about God being good, then we are wrong about Him being good.
“If you do not grant the possibility that the god you believe in is a malevolent psychotic bully, he most certainly does not exist.”
I don’t quite understand the logic of this argument, if you could please clarify. As I see it, even if we are wrong and He is not a good God, that does not refute His existence; it merely proves we are wrong about His moral standing. You are arguing that God is not good, but I am not sure how our perception of Him changes His existence. I can believe that my friend is an amazing person who is always looking out for my good; but if I’m wrong then they still exist, I’m just a sap for believing them. Yes, Christian doctrine proclaims a good and benevolent God, and yes I believe that to be true; but if I am wrong then it simply means that God is evil, not non-existent.
Thank you for the response, but a bit more clarity on your argument would be awesome.
P.S. Rick, yes I do mean I will ask God. Part of my faith is that I believe He interacts with us, but that is far beyond the scope of this argument. I don’t think this area needs any clarification unless everyone here wants to hear my life story. I am willing to do that, but I don’t think that it is the point of this discussion. If you want to, just ask and I can talk to you on a different medium so we don’t divert from the topic at hand.
Chaos Poet
April 21, 2012 at 07:35
Chaos Poet, allow me to give you an unsolicited piece of advice for how to go about things on this, an atheist blog that will foster more harmonious exchanges: Do not pretend that what you’re doing is reasoning and debating when in reality you’re confabulating excuses, and try to recognise it whenever you do so. In that vein, why don’t you just ask your question simply and without first preloading it with all manner of garrulous and extraneous drivel!?
The argument is simple. It goes like this: The state of the world militates overwhelmingly against the existence of a purported creator-god who has the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and supreme benevolence — so much so that the existence of such a god is readily dismissible, and even more so in view of the fact that we have far simpler, more plausible, naturalistic, evidence-borne, ateleological explanations for why the world is as it is.
It’s Occam’s Razor in action.
The minute residual chance that it may be otherwise needs to stand or fall on its own merits, evidence and/or arguments. It’s just no good pulling a brace of verbose pretexts from your arse to try and paper over the cracks. Either come with a new argument or acknowledge the serious objections outlined above.
Con-Tester
April 21, 2012 at 08:21
I apologize for the misunderstanding. You are right, I did misconstrue things. I appreciate you bringing things back on track. I do recognize that there are some serious objections which, while not necessarily new in essence, do need to be examined by any of us who claim to the faith.
I’ll be working on looking at the arguments presented as they come up. I would love to hear more about the implications of your stance, but I will watch and see how the discussion goes.
Before this the free will debate was being discussed. It will be interesting to see where it progresses from there.
Chaos Poet
April 21, 2012 at 08:55
Chaos Poet, I hope it is clear now. It is unlikely that anybody will be able to prove one way or the other that a creator of some sort does, or does not exist, any time soon.
The point is that the christian god, specifically, as he is being presented by christians, clearly and demonstrably cannot logically exist.
If you want to argue that your god could very well be a bad god, then why worship him?
Shazee
April 21, 2012 at 11:20
I think this is not getting very far because of a difference in our definitions of ‘free will’ and ‘good’.
I am actually curious what you think free will actually is if not being free to choose between different options? Being free to choose as I see it does not mean being free of the consequenses that would follow the choice. That I would define as anarchy not freedom.
The idea of a supremely benevolent and yet all powerful God could be a problem depending on what you think of as supremely benevolent. The idea of good that you are using, correct me if I am wrong, is basically an abscense or abhorence of anything unpleasant. This again I do not think is correct, at least not in this context. I would say that good is simply the ability to fulfil the original purpose that comes attatched to the object in question. A good chair is one that I can sit on without breaking and with a reasonable amount of comfort, a good weapon is one that can be used to inflict large amounts of damage in as little time with as great of accuracy as possible. As far as God is concerned he is capable of defining himself as good simply because he has no inherant purpose. As for the presense of evil in the world this is then because we are able to choose whether or not to fulfil our purpose. He could have created a world without the need for evil but that would then have a different purpose. Part of, possibly most of, the purpose for this world is to show that God is able to and willing to redeem even that which has been completely corrupted. In order for that to happen there must be corruption to redeem.
The only reason I believe what I do is because in my reading and thinking I have not come up with any preferable alternative. Basically I ended up deciding that in the worst case the requirements to live as a Christian did not really go contrary to how I would want to live my life even if I wasn’t one. I was not going to lose anything by setting up an insurance for the next life if it did turn out to be true. The majority of what I have written so far is just what I came up with from my reading of the bible and the rest is from discussions with friends.
As for Occam’s Razor, this only applies to arguments that are presenting the same point, not to arguments flowing contrary to each other. The argument of Creation verses Evolution is not two different ways of explaining the same thing. They both describe different worlds. From the evolution perspective the world is a product of chance and therefore has no real purpose wheras from the creation viewpoint there is a very deffinate purpose and we are actually required to act on it.
Also the physical evidence found in the world does not exactly disprove the existance of God even if it is interpreted as pointing to evolution. The idea that God created the world through the medium of evolution does not actually have any negative impact on the gospel message. It does present some potential theological issues but most of those can be chalked up to different interpretations of the scriptures.
I do not personally believe that the world was created that way but that is another debate for another forum and/or time as it does not really relate to the idea of the goodness of God.
Also Shazee I do think that Chaos Poet has at least one good question here:
“One question is, does your understanding of Heaven and Hell come from the historical study of the Bible and where the ideas of Gahanna (however it is spelled) and Hades interplay? Or does it come from the societal portrayal of Christian faith by non-Christians? Just wondering what the background of your understanding is so I know where you are coming from.”
From what you are saying so far it does not look like you are actually talking about the same Christian beliefs that we are. I think a better way to describe hell would be an existance perminantly outside of God’s influence.
nemo
April 21, 2012 at 16:44
nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):
Why, so do I!
nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):
That explains nothing, least of all how it is that humans’ and your skydaddy’s ideas on benevolence diverge so widely.
nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):
Then the concept of “evidence” is clearly one that is irrelevant to you. So why on earth are you proselytising here?
nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):
But you don’t need to believe in any fairytales to live those values.
nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):
Check out Pascal’s Wager. Learn something new.
nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):
What utterly ignorant tripe!
As for the rest of your ill-informed reply, I suggest you get yourself informed on the various issues, particularly those relating to epistemological, scientific and other philosophical aspects of these questions. It gets fucking tedious having to go over the same ground repeatedly because some dimwit simply can’t be bothered to do his or her homework.
Con-Tester
April 21, 2012 at 17:12
Nemo, you. Are beginning to sound like Hans with all this talk of different interpretations.
Ocam’s razor simply states that a true, or valid theory is the simplest one that accounts for the known facts. It is called Ocam’s razor because it cuts away the inessentials.
The simplest theory, according to the known facts, certainly does not support the christian god as creator of the world, or the biblical creation myth as the way the universe was created.
As for your definition of free will; if I tell my child that he must study law at university, or I will cut of his financial support, that is not a free choice, it is coercion.
A free choice would be; study what you are interested in, and I will support you.
If god were to say: ” this is what I would like you to believe, and this is the way I would like you to behave, but since I have given you a free will, which implies free choice, if you choose to behave differently, that is ok too” – that would be free will.
Shazee
April 21, 2012 at 17:14
Con-Tester, so you say that, Word, Love, Wisdom, Spirit, Truth, Power, does not exist, for that is what God is, according to the Bible.
You seem to be such a big I am, as when someone out of politeness, apologizes, because you, the big I am seems to misunderstand what the someone has said. You haven’t the integrity to acknowledge and so you tramp on others with your big boots. It is no wonder God was disappointed in His creation because of arseholes like you. It will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a “big head” like you, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I have already pointed out, that only one who has heard the Truth and rejects it, can land up in Hell and not those who are still in darkness. You should acknowledge, that when the subject is on what is written in the Bible, you are definitely no expert.
Hans Matthysen
April 23, 2012 at 09:29
Shazee, ons is die liggaam van Christus. 1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik. Ons glo in “vrede op aard (die aarde waarop die Saaier saai) en in die mens ‘n welbehae”.
Hans Matthysen
April 23, 2012 at 09:39
More of your usual bullshit Hanswors. I never said any such thing. Show me where, drolkop. But if “god” is your own private-language word for all those things, why do you need to add all that stupid waffle and unnecessary Holey Babble crap to it, hmm?
And you seem to be such a big I Am Without Brains, so you’re two up on me. Don’t try and mend fences with me, see? It won’t work. The only thing that’ll work is if you start talking sense, which just isn’t going to happen. So, you can take your threats of hell and stick ’em down the front of your pants, see? That’s my way of telling you you’re hardly a hotpoint.
Con-Tester
April 23, 2012 at 09:41
Oh and Hanswors, when you say, “ It is no wonder God was disappointed in His creation because of arseholes like you,” your true crushtian nature and values really shine through like a beacon…
Tell me, who the fuck do you think you are to question and criticise how your skydaddy made me, hmm?
Con-Tester
April 23, 2012 at 09:54
You see Hanswors, you speak in such childishly haphazard terms that it is often hard to understand what the fuck you’re bleating about. I see now that your reference to “ when someone out of politeness, apologizes” pertains to Chaos Poet’s comment of April 21, 2012 at 08:55 — or at least, that’s the only interpretation of your incoherent whining jabber that would make any kind of sense. So now tell me this, Hanswors: Is there no end to your finely-honed powers of comprehension?
Con-Tester
April 23, 2012 at 10:37
Is dit al Hans? Ek glo ook aan vrede op aarde (nie dat ek veel daarvan sien nie) maar ek het nie vir jesus nodig daarvoor nie.
Shazee
April 23, 2012 at 11:57
Con-Tester, the only sense you understand is nonsense and I am not questioning anything but merely expressing, that I understand why God is disappointed in His creation of man.
Hans Matthysen
April 23, 2012 at 22:49
Shazee, en jou gesindheid teenoor ander is bewys dat jy nie ‘n welbehae in die mens coester.
Hans Matthysen
April 23, 2012 at 22:53
Oh, so now you’re changing your silly little fairytale again, eh Hanswors? What a funny and deceitful little guy you are!
Once more, ou drolkop: Show me where I said what you claim. Come, come, grow an honesty bone or two or your skydaddy might start wondering about how much of a crushtian you really are, ou Hanswors. (Although one can only wonder about what exactly an omniscient skydaddy would wonder about in your case.)
Con-Tester
April 23, 2012 at 22:57
Hanswors, your attitude towards reality is proof that you don’t foster any interest in facts, reason, evidence or logic.
Con-Tester
April 23, 2012 at 23:00
Wat is my houding teenoor ander mense Hans? En op grond waaarvan maak jy afleidings omtrent my gemoedstoestand?
Shazee
April 24, 2012 at 03:42
Con-Tester, reality is that I have proof and that is a fact, for I reason with logic, by evidence, as written in the Bible, which you and friends fail to acknowledge.
Hans Matthysen
April 24, 2012 at 22:18
Go on, Hanswors, pull the other one. “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” Ha-ha-ha Hanswors, what a funny little deceiver you are!
By the way, how long did it take you to weave all those words into a quasi-coherent-but-factually-erroneous sentence? Besides the laughable claims you make, you fucked it up further when you added a reference to your Holey Babble.
Now be a good drolkop and show me where I said those things you attributed to me on April 23, 2012 at 09:29, see? Otherwise we might start thinking that you are being evasive. Or something.
Con-Tester
April 24, 2012 at 22:26
Shazee, op grond van die feit, dat jy my antwoorde nie eers probeer verstaan of bevraagteken om verstaan te word. Julle val net aan in plaas daarvan dat debat gevoer word.
Hans Matthysen
April 24, 2012 at 22:40
Hanswors, what a funny little joker you are! All you do is shit your runny poo over whatever is put before you and then you go all huffy and self-righteous with your, “Julle val net aan in plaas daarvan dat debat gevoer word.” You aren’t capable of debate, ou. You just preach your sermons and expect that everyone must bow before your delusions of great and infallible wisdom.
It’s what you get for being such a Holey Babble expert for whom it is impossible to be wrong.
What a funny little joker you are, Hanswors. You really make me laugh.
Con-Tester
April 24, 2012 at 22:47
Hans, watse debat kan ‘n mens met jou voer? Jy weet dan jy is reg voor die debat nog begin.
As ‘n mens jou ‘n reguit vraag vra, weier jy volstrek om dit te antwoord.
Jy aanvaar enige vers in die bybel as die finale arbiter van die argument, of dit logies sin maak, of nie.
As die bybelverse wat jy aanhaal onlogies is, of as dit nie jou argument ondersteun nie, interpreteer jy dit op die vreemdste maniere, tot dit beteken wat jy wil he dit moet.
As jy nie so toegewyd was in die kak wat jy kwytraak nie, sou ek geglo het jy probeer gekskeer.
Ek het al gedink dat niemand regtig so klip onnosel kan wees nie, maar blykbaar is ek verkeerd.
Shazee
April 24, 2012 at 23:17
Hans, we cannot judge those outside the Church; Paul states that clearly. Yet you hold to the title of a believers so I say this to you: Please take a few days and pray about what to say before you say it. Your earlier defense was not needed or done well. Please stop judging them, that is God’s job. Please re-read Paul’s epistles before you respond. I care about ya bro, but you need to slow down a bit.
Due to the public nature of the discussion, I must also say this: while I do not claim perfection or even near goodness, we as Christians are to keep each other accountable. We are to love everyone, even those we don’t agree with. I recognize that we have not done this perfectly (and I apologize on the behalf of all Christians from bad missionaries to the crusades and on) but Christianity is not about Christians, it is about Christ–the only one who is perfect.
Let this be an argument for the goodness of God: He accepts those of us who are imperfect and loves us, no matter what we have done. The greatest argument for God’s goodness and existence should be our lives, unfortunately we (including, and especially me) do not show this; and I am deeply sorry.
Chaos Poet
April 25, 2012 at 00:18
Chaos Poet, I have never come across a godiot who does not in fact judge, yourself included.
If I don’t accept your delusion I am dammed, and all the “saved” should feel sorry for me (or kill me, as circumstances require).
What a pathetic outlook on life: “I am sooo unworthy, I can never deserve anything, I keep on stumbling, but thank you god for saving me, despite making me so fucked-up in the first place”
No amount of praying is going to make Hans honest, or make him sound less like a retard.
Shazee
April 25, 2012 at 05:29
I don’t accept your argument for the goodness of god either.
God is omnipotent, remember? He created me exactly as he wanted. Why should I be grateful to him for forgiving the weaknesses and faults that he “designed” into me?
Shazee
April 25, 2012 at 08:01
Careful there, Chaos Poet. According to the Matthysenological canon of Hansworsian imperatives, what you’re preaching is heresy. Or blasphemy. Or profanity. Or something.
Con-Tester
April 25, 2012 at 08:11
Con-Tester, I share my understanding of the Bible but I don’t preach. You do not debate, you just throw “mud”.
Hans Matthysen
April 25, 2012 at 21:34
No Hanswors, I throw mud (not “mud”) at preachy, sermonising, puffed-up drolkoppe who have over a lengthy period repeatedly and consistently shown themselves incapable of conducting anything that could be called debate. This is in response to those selfsame preachy, sermonising, self-important drolkoppe who claim they can’t be wrong and who shit their runny poo all over whatever countermanding stuff is put before them because their understanding is barely sufficient to comprehend that it is countermanding stuff.
You, on the other hand, … Well, I’ll leave it to your florid imagination to guess where you fit in here, except to ask whether you even have the first clue as to what I’ve just written. Com now Hanswors, be honest for a change and answer me.
Con-Tester
April 25, 2012 at 21:42
Shazee, wanneer jy debat voer, gaan jy ook uit die veronderstelling uit, dat jy reg is. ‘n Ja of nee antwoord is nie noodwendig opklarend nie en ek is seker jy verstaan dit. Ek verduidelik maar net hoe ek die betrokke verse verstaan en jy kon nie bewys dat ek verkeerd is nie of vir my opklaring gee, sou jy met my verskil. Net omdat dit vir jou vreemd is, is dit nie nodig om irrationeel daarop te reageer nie.
Mens moet toegewyd wees anders gebeur die volgende; Jes. 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
April 25, 2012 at 21:52
Don’t try to rationalise away your constant evasion, avoidance, dodging and general bullshitting, see Hanswors? You’re no good at it and you’re not fooling anyone other than yourself, see? As for others needing to prove you wrong, you’re as absurd on this point as ever, you funny illogician you. And no, you’re decidedly not just explaining anything, you funny sermonising preacher you. The irrationality is all yours, too.
So once again, you’ve spewed forth nothing but your usual self-serving and delusional tosh and piffle, Hanswors.
Con-Tester
April 25, 2012 at 22:02
Chaos Poet, I have not judged because I have not condemned and I have only said what attitude I seem to have detected.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (It would appear that Jesus also detected an unwanted spirit/ attitude.)
Hans Matthysen
April 25, 2012 at 22:06
There, you see? Like I said: “According to the Matthysenological canon of Hansworsian imperatives, what you’re preaching is heresy. Or blasphemy. Or profanity. Or something.”
Quite obviously, I forgot about simple delusional bullshit.
Con-Tester
April 25, 2012 at 22:12
Hans, as ek ‘n debat voer het ‘n standpunt wat ek bereid is om met logika en bewyse te regverdig.
Ek is verder bereid om my opinie aan te pas as ek verkeerd bewys word.
Jy, aan die ander kant “weet” dat dit onmoontlik vir jou is om verkeerd te wees. Jy het dit al omomwonde erken.
Jy is totaal en al bestand teen logika en weersprekende argumente of bewyse.
Wie van ons twee se se uitgangspunt is dan irrasioneel?
Shazee
April 25, 2012 at 22:20
There, you see, Hanswors? Another one who sees right through you. Ooops, sorry, I meant to say, “Another misguided atheist who can’t prove you wrong.”
Con-Tester
April 25, 2012 at 22:29
For all the bibliot/religiot/apologiot/crediot/godiot fundies: A “Dear Christians” letter. For all the difference it’ll make to the moron squad’s behaviour, though, the effort is wasted.
The money quote? Here it is:
Con-Tester
April 26, 2012 at 10:09
Yes, and my pet hate is the bumper sticker: “Real men follow Jesus”
Every time I see that idiotic comment pasted on the back of some moron’s vehicle, I immediately have a good handle on his IQ.
Shazee
April 26, 2012 at 10:35
Hansie,
Kom ons kyk of jy hierdie keer ‘n reguit verduideliking kan gee (wat ek sterk betwyfel) op die volgende versie.
Isaiah 45:7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
So, kan jy dit vir ons verduidelik? Volgens my is jou “LORD” fokken wreed om al die jare miljoene mense deur plae en natuur rampe te vermoor. Volgens die versie is hy sommer Satan ook.
Moet ons nou nie kom vertel dit is “geestelik” of “allegories” of “simbolies” nie.
Vir my is dit duidelik soos daglig.
ErickV
April 26, 2012 at 15:00
ErickV, Jes. 45 v 7, verwys; die “Waarheid” (God) wat vrede moet bewerkstellig, stig nie altyd nie en veroorsaak soms kwaad. Die waarheid/lig, bring soms vrede in een se gemoed en ook soms jalosie en verwarring, wat lei soms na onkunde of dade van ongeregtigheid.
Hans Matthysen
April 26, 2012 at 22:48
Very convenient, Hanswors. But it says very clearly and explicitly, “I … create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” It doesn’t say, “I do all my good stuff and people fuck it up so it all turns to shit.” It says, “I create evil.” How do you explain that? Or does your skydaddy just babble as much kak as you do?
Con-Tester
April 26, 2012 at 22:55
Hans, dit is so waar as fok net jy wat sal sin maak van so ‘n antwoord.
Jy rook jou kouse man. Waarom is jy so desperaat om sulke kak te verdedig?
Shazee
April 26, 2012 at 22:57
Hansie,
Dit is hoekom ek genoem het dat ek twyfel dat jy ‘n reguit antwoord kan gee. Jy het dit waaragtig bewys.
Sorry ou seun, jy yl.
Wat julle godiote net nie sal doen om julle kak in die bybel te verdraai nie.
Ek ooit weer ‘n kruisten gaan word? Never in my life!
ErickV
April 27, 2012 at 06:16
ErickV, according to Hebrews 6:4-6 and Mark 3:29, it wouldn’t do you any good anyway. Now let’s see how Hanswors distorts those verses to manufacture new meaning.
Con-Tester
April 27, 2012 at 08:05
Con-Tester, you still do not realize that God is the “Word” that we speak therefore a man like Churchill spoke and said I declare war. What evil came out of that. I don’t believe in “words” coming out of the sky, so you can scrap the idea of a skydaddy. Only man speaks words and God is with man (Emmanuel).
Hans Matthysen
April 27, 2012 at 22:08
You had better clarify that gibberish you just wrote, Hanswors, because it’s totally inscrutable. What’s it supposed to mean? In fact, it looks like you do ‘believe in “words” coming out of the sky’ from your skydaddy, so I won’t be scrapping that idea quite yet.
Con-Tester
April 27, 2012 at 22:15
Shazee, jammer om jou verwagting te blus en ek weet dit kwel julle omdat julle nie die vers uit daardie hoek kon sien.
Hans Matthysen
April 27, 2012 at 22:17
ErickV, jy skryf nou net ‘n klomp twak omdat jy nie kan weerlê wat ek geskryf het. Siestog!
Hans Matthysen
April 27, 2012 at 22:24
Con-Tester, why don’t you tell me how you would understand the verses you mentioned and I will let you know if I agree with you or not.
Hans Matthysen
April 27, 2012 at 22:26
Hanswors gorrel (April 27, 2012 at 22:17):
Jy’s só ’n lekker ou grapjassie, Hanswors! Te fokken kostelik vir woorde.
Con-Tester
April 27, 2012 at 22:29
Kak dodge there, Hanswors. I’ll pass. The verses are self-explanatory in my view — that is, not wearing those special Hanswors glasses.
Con-Tester
April 27, 2012 at 22:32
Then again Hanswors, if you bothered to read further than just your eyebrows, you’d know how I understand those verses. It’s on this very page, but you bibliots just can’t be bothered to find anything out before shooting your mouths off.
It’s all just too comical for words.
Con-Tester
April 27, 2012 at 22:41
Jy het nie my verwagting “geblus” nie Hans, die tipe onsinnige stront is presies wat ek van jou verwag.
Shazee
April 28, 2012 at 00:22
Vir wat moet ek ‘n klomp kak uitle en weerle?
ErickV
April 28, 2012 at 05:21
Ja Erick, soos Hitchens dit so mooi gestel het: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Hans het nog nooit enige bewys gebring nie, so geen rede hoekom ons vir bewyse moet gaan soek om sy stront te weelê nie.
Malherbe
April 28, 2012 at 18:41
Con-Tester, you seem to write a lot of shit, yet you say nothing.
Hans Matthysen
April 28, 2012 at 22:31
Shazee, Kwaad (stront) is in die oog wat dit sien.
Hans Matthysen
April 28, 2012 at 22:38
But Hanswors, I don’t write half as much shit, and I still manage to say twice as much as you do. And you know what the best part of it is? It’s that I don’t even have to try in order to succeed in that regard.
See, you just dodge whenever things get a bit tight. I asked you to explain what you meant and your answer is to accuse me of writing a lot of shit without saying anything. That’s what you always do, you funny, dishonest man you.
Con-Tester
April 28, 2012 at 22:40
ErickV, jy het dan so baie oor die Bybel te sê en nou sit jy met ‘n bek vol tande?
Hans Matthysen
April 28, 2012 at 22:41
Malherbe, as God nie bestaan nie, het julle nie so groot aanslag teen God en die Bybel gemaak nie. Julle bewys dus dat God bestaan of is julle nou soos ‘n bokser wat skadubox doen?
Hans Matthysen
April 28, 2012 at 22:46
Hanswors, the absurdity of your last “argument” (April 28, 2012 at 22:46) illustrates the fathomless depth of your delusions. It is the best joke you’ve ever told on this blog. By far.
Con-Tester
April 28, 2012 at 22:55
Ek moet erken Hans, jou laaste stelling oorskry alle perke van idiotisme. Jy het dit reggekry om ‘n nuwe laagtepunt te bereik. Ek het nie gedink dis moontlik nie, maar jy het my verkeerd bewys. Baie geluk.
Malherbe
April 29, 2012 at 03:22
Volgens Hans is die vlg argument geldig: Malherbe maak die stelling dat die aarde plat is (sonder enige bewyse). ‘n Magdom rasionele denkers takel hom toe en vra vir bewyse. Hans maak nou die gevolgtrekking dat ‘n plat aarde wel bestaan. Hoekom? Eenvoudig – die “aanslag” teen die plat aarde is groot genoeg dat dit dien as voldoende bewys dat ‘n plat aarde ‘n werklikheid is.
Komaan Hans, erken ten minste dat jy dronk was toe jy bg stukkie “redevoering” uitgedink het. Of dat dit nie jy was nie maar jou 6-jarige nefie wat op jou laptop kom speel het…., of watddefokookal. Dink net aan ‘n verskoning, want selfs ek voel verleë vir jou part.
Malherbe
April 29, 2012 at 03:33
Nee Hans.
“Kwaad (stront)” is nie in die oog wat dit sien nie. Stront is stront, wie ookal daarna kyk.
Dit is net jy en jou mede bygelowiges wat in stront kan trap en dan wil redeneer dat dit eintlik malvalekkers is.
Dit is nou terwyl julle die stank van julle argumente wegredeneer deur dit arbitrer as metafories of simbolies te verklaar, of soos jyself, totaal weerstandig te wees vir logika of bewyse.
Ek nooi jou uit om Bertrant Russel se “Why I am not a Christian” te gaan Google.
Ek sal graag wil sien hoe jy die logika van sy argumente weerspreek.
Shazee
April 29, 2012 at 06:30
Malherbe!!!! Jy moet fokken vroeër gaan slaap!!!! Dan kan jy ten minste Sondae oggende kerk toe gaan.
Daan Van der Merwe
April 29, 2012 at 09:47
Con-Tester, you are good at convincing yourself as you appear to really believe the shit you write.
Hans Matthysen
April 29, 2012 at 21:57
Malherbe, aangesien jy glo dat God nie bestaan nie, oorskry jy alle perke van idiotisme omdat jy jou so besig hou met niks (dit wat nie bestaan nie).
God is liefde en ek het geen twyfel dat liefde bestaan.
Hans Matthysen
April 29, 2012 at 22:03
You’re a fine one to talk like that, Hans</b.wors. Have you smelled the shit you write lately? Or ever, for that matter? No, you haven’t you funny, deceitful man, you.
And you’re still dodging furiously, you funny, deceitful man, you. I ask you to explain what you wrote, and your answer is to accuse me of writing a lot of shit without saying anything. No doubt, you believe your own shit, Hans</b.wors, you funny, deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
April 29, 2012 at 22:08
Ooops, HTML is kookier than you, Hanswors.
You’re a fine one to talk like that, Hanswors. Have you smelled the shit you write lately? Or ever, for that matter? No, you haven’t you funny, deceitful man, you.
And you’re still dodging furiously, you funny, deceitful man, you. I ask you to explain what you wrote, and your answer is to accuse me of writing a lot of shit without saying anything. No doubt, you believe your own shit, Hanswors, you funny, deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
April 29, 2012 at 22:11
Shazee, ek het gaan loer na Bertrant Russel se skrywe waarna jy verwys en eerstens, sy persepsie van God is verkeerd, soos meeste sogenaamde Christenne. Hy noem verse en dit is duidelik, dat hy nie verstaan wat daar geskrywe is omdat hy die vleeslike bedink.
Hans Matthysen
April 29, 2012 at 22:37
Now you have proven yourself to be a barefaced liar, Hanswors. You have done no such thing as read Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian.
You really are a funny, deceitful man, Hanswors. You are now provably a liar.
Con-Tester
April 29, 2012 at 22:43
Hans, doen tog maar die moeite om die stuk te gaan lees waarna ek jou verwys het.
As jy dit doen sal jy verstaan waarom Con-Tester jou ‘n leunaar noem.
Shazee
April 30, 2012 at 00:50
Kom ek wed jou ou Hanswors sal, uhm, onerkentlik wees oor die feit dat hy blatant hierso gelieg het. Hy sal vanaand of môre aand net weer optree met ’n mandjievol uiters kak verskonings. Sy hemelpappa sal dan baie trots op hom wees oor sy manmoedige gedrag…
Con-Tester
April 30, 2012 at 08:21
Ja, dit is nou duidelik dat Hans nie werklik in ‘n debat belangstel nie.
Daar is geen rede of logika wat tot hom sal deurdring nie.
Hy stel nie belang in bewyse nie, hy stel nie belang in ‘n logiese redenasie nie. Hy stel nie daarin belang om uit te vind dat iemand vir hom gelieg het nie.
Ek kan nie insien wat sy motivering is om so desperaat en ten alle koste vas te klou aan iets wat enige sot kan sien eenvoudig nie waar is nie.
Wat kry hy daaruit?
Shazee
April 30, 2012 at 12:42
De moer alleen weet. As ek moet raai sou ek sê dat hy daardeur die illusie kan behou dat hy iets wonderbaars en waardevols beet het. Kyk net hoe gee hy aanhoudend voor hoe ons dommetjies sy onnosel praatjies nie kan volg of verstaan nie. Kyk net hoe is hy aanhoudend besig om die tjol te probeer verdedig en te versprei. Kyk net hoe duidelik ontevrede is hy as hy die kak vir homself moet hou.
Sonder dit is sy lewe maar seker heeltemaal leeg en betekenisloos.
Con-Tester
April 30, 2012 at 13:21
Hans, dat jy met soveel eiergeel op jou bakkies elke keer terugkom vir meer, laat my dink aan die bokser wat pap geslaan word en elke keer deur sy afrigter vertel word dat hy eintlik wen. Ek wil voorstel jy probeer skaduboks, en spaar sodoende jouself die aanhoudende vernedering.
Malherbe
April 30, 2012 at 14:28
Daan, ek was wel Sondag in die kerk – ‘n goeie vriend se begrafnis. Ek was tot laatnag wakker om sy gesin by te staan, daarom my laat skrywe. En ja, die NG dominee’s se boodskappe is nog net so flou en vervelig soos in die dae toe ek gereeld die kerk besoek het. Ek vind meer inspirasie in my Duitse herdershond se oë as in die kerke se gottediens.
Malherbe
April 30, 2012 at 14:36
Shazee, Con-Tester en Malherbe, glo dit of nie, ek het daarna gaan, LW, loer en lieg nie vir julle nie. My reaksie is werklik want sy persepsie van wat God is, is die skydaddy ding waarin ek nie glo nie. Hy bedink ook alles wat hy in die Bybel lees op ‘n vleeslike wyse net soos julle.
Hans Matthysen
April 30, 2012 at 22:54
And I call bullshit on you again, Hanswors. You’re either lying through your teeth or entirely delusional. You pick. You cannot tell me that you sourced and read and absorbed a 200-plus-page book by one of the leading 20th century philosophers in 34 minutes. Or, for that matter, a 20-page essay by that author. Nor was Russell a crushtian as you imply. His objections are philosophical, not from your Holey Babble, as you imply.
So once again, you are a liar or delusional or too dof to understand what is put before you, or possibly some combination of these. You choose, you funny, deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
April 30, 2012 at 23:05
Con-Tester, you are not very bright as I have told you that I just had a look. Wake up!!!! Your coffee has already gone cold.
Hans Matthysen
May 1, 2012 at 21:45
Hanswors, even if it’s true that you have only “daarna gaan, LW, loer”, you’re still trying to bullshit and lie to everyone (but only succeeding in bullshitting and lying yourself). You obviously feel qualified simply to dismiss Russell’s arguments with your uninformed bullshit and lies, based purely on a superficial “gaan, LW, loer”. You who want people to take your Holey Babble bullshit and lies seriously, you just couldn’t be bothered to make a proper effort to absorb a very serious challenge to your bullshit and lies. Then, to top it off, you spin a pile of bullshit and lies about how Russell has a wrong perception of your Holey Babble and your skydaddy and how he misunderstands your Holey Babble, which you would know is total bullshit and lies had you only actually read the thing, and which demonstrates that, at best, you’ve looked at the shape of the words without any understanding whatsoever of what they mean. And still you feel confidently knowledgeable enough to pass your ridiculous judgements. What a funny and deceitful man you are, Hanswors.
But it’s exactly as I predicted: You’ll be “onerkentlik” and full of transparent bullshit excuses, laughable lies and pisspoor evasions. No doubt you will continue in this exact vein because the Great Hanswors simply can’t be wrong.
Besides all of which, you’re still dodging an assortment of questions put to you in the last few days right here in this thread. They’re right in front of your nose, ou drolkop.
So, in short, you remain a laughable bullshitter and a liar, you funny deceitful man, you. Moreover, I expect that you’ll read the above with the same diligence as you read Russell, you funny deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
May 1, 2012 at 21:49
Miskien, GROOT miskien, gaan ou Hansie eendag groot word en volwasse begin dink. Maar nou ja, ek twyfel of dit moontlik is. Lig sal jy sien ou Hansie, lig sal jy eendag sien.
ErickV
May 2, 2012 at 05:22
ErickV, wanneer jy moontlik Lig sal sien, sal jy jou gat lig en vir jou medemens lewe, want dit bring vrede, vreugde en blydskap.
Hans Matthysen
May 2, 2012 at 21:31
Yes, we can all see how you lift your arse, Hanswors, and live for your fellow man, defending rationality…
Con-Tester
May 2, 2012 at 21:36
Hansie,
Hoor hier drolkop, vir watter mense het jy al “gelewe”?
Kom vertel ons ‘n bietjie meer daaroor. Jy is blykbaar die enigste wat dit kan doen.
ErickV
May 3, 2012 at 05:00
ErickV, ek lewe vir my gesin, ons gemeentelede asook almal wat my pad mag kruis.
Hans Matthysen
May 3, 2012 at 22:50
Bullshit and lies, Hanswors. Bullshit and lies. I’ve crossed your path. You’re making your skydaddy really proud, my ou liegbek pêl…
Now, I’ll be away from here for a few days. Don’t miss me too much, see?
Con-Tester
May 3, 2012 at 22:54
Hansie,
So, jy wil beweer ek “lewe” nie ook vir ander nie? Net jy kan?
Ou boet, jy moet nou versigtig wees wat jy my antwoord. Jy kan dalk reaksie kry wat jy nie sal verwag nie. So, wees baie, baie versigtig!!!!
ErickV
May 4, 2012 at 14:25
Con-Tester, you have not crossed my path, you have tried to delete my path.
Hans Matthysen
May 4, 2012 at 21:42
ErickV, jy sal alleen weet of jy net vir jouself lewe en of jy vir ander lewe.
Hoekom moet ek versigtig wees? Het jy een of ander onsigbare ghuru wat my met ‘n weerligstraal gaan tref.
Hans Matthysen
May 4, 2012 at 21:48
Malherbe, jy sal nie ‘n goeie bokser uitmaak nie aangesien dit wil voorkom of jy nie eers sal weet of jou teenstander raak getref is of nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 4, 2012 at 21:52
Ek dink (met onsekerheid) dat gegewe die huidige model van die mens wat, so hoor ek, meer as ‘n miljoen jaar oud is die woedende, rasende, tierende gesprek oor God en die godsdiens sal onbeperk voort gaan soos dit miskien alreeds plaas gevind het sedert die eerste mens. Dit is soos die patriargie (wat ook altyd daar was en ook altyd daar sal wees) geanker in ons fisio-endokronologies-genetiese samessellling. Die ge- en die ongelowige sit aan weerskante van dieselfde genetiese muur hulle koppe en stukkend stamp. Ons enigste uitkoms is genetiese modfikasie(soos met die sojaboon) maar die ‘Here’ alleen weet waar dit gaan eindig. Ek verneem maar net of ons nie, as ‘n vrede-barende toegewing aan die ‘barbaarse’, ‘goddelose’ ‘tydelike’, ‘aardse’ logiese denkwyse van die mens, kan kyk na die tekortkominge van die taal in die Bybel nie?
By voorbeeld: God wat, soos ek verstaan, onnaspeurlik, ondeurgrondelik is word in die Bybel in die manlike derde persoon aangespreek as ‘Hy’, Hom’, ‘Sy’. Wat sou dit beteken? Waarom nie: ‘Onse Moeder, of onse Dit, wat in die hemel is’? Of miskien, meer sinvol,: ‘Onse Onnaspeurlike wat in die hemel is’? Is dit noodsaaklik dat God patriargaal moet wees? Indien ek (soos met die Pous – en ‘n Joodse Rabyn mag ook nie ‘n eunig wees nie) onder God se ‘rok’? sou wou inloer om te sien of hy manlike genitale het sal die gelowiges my van laster beskuldig. Ek verstaan ook dat daar wel in die verre verlede, ‘onwettiglik’, met die met die Bybel gepeuter is deur die ‘heiliges’. Kan ons nie die Bybel, met al sy voortreflikhede, letterkundig deur trek na die moderne lewe nie sodat ons “twyfelaars’ en die arme godsdienstelik-tweederangse-bykomende mens – die vrou- wat deur die Godvresende Taliban, volgens hull Goddelike wette as ‘n saad bed en ‘n kospot behandel word ook met ‘n lied in die hart dit kan lees nie? Die wat wil glo kan glo en die wat dit met ‘n knippie sout wil lees kan so maak. Is dit nie hoe ons alle boeke behoort te lees nie? Ek vra maar net – of stamp ek nou ook my kop teen daai genetiese muur?
Noek vanBiljon
May 5, 2012 at 13:59
Noek, die manlike en vroulike geslag is nie net fisies verskillend om sodoende verskillende rolle in ons natuurlike of aardse bestaan te vervul nie, maar ook psigies en mens behoort dit te erken en te aanvaar. God is soos goeie saad waarvoor ons aanvanklik behoort te wees tot goeie vrug en daarom in patriagale vorm voorgestel. Die Taliban en hul wette is in geen opsig van Goddelike aard en sou jy die voorbeeld van Jesus se lewe aanskou, sal jy die karakter van God ken. ‘n Siel is meer werd as al die skatte van hierdie aarde en daarom is ‘n vrou nie minderwaardig as ‘n man. Ek stem saam, dat die wat wil glo, laat dit so wees en die wat nie wil glo nie, ook goed so.
Hans Matthysen
May 5, 2012 at 23:05
Hans, jy sal ook die karakter van god kan sien in die volksmoorde wat sy volk in sy direkte opdrag uitvoer.
Jy sal sy karakter kan sien in die wyse waarop hy opdrag gee hoe daar opgetree moet word teenoor die vrouens (hou die maagde as seks slawe en maak die ander dood) en die kinders (maak die laaste een dood) van ‘n verslane vyand.
Jy sien dit baie mooi in die opdrag wat hy gee dat ‘n pa sy seun moet offer (of dit nou simbolies is of nie)
Jy sien hoe regverdig (om nie van logies te praat nie) jesus is as hy ‘n vyeboom vervloek omdat dit nie vrugte dra nie, alhoewel dit nie die regte seisoen is nie.
Die punt is natuurlik dat hierdie alles geen refleksie is op die karakter van god nie, maar wel op die lewensbeskouing van die primitiewe bokwagters wat die sprokie in die eerste plek uitgedink het. Dit is net ongelooflik dat enigiemand dit vandag nog kan ernstig opneem, wat nog te se om dit te beskou as die onfeilbare woord van god wat my gedrag en my denke moet rig.
Die wyse waarop die Taliban (en oom Angus, as hy sy sin kry) vrouens behandel, is net een voorbeeld van hoe skadelik die primitiewe bygeloof is, en waarom redelike mense so heftig daarteen gekant is.
Shazee
May 6, 2012 at 03:43
Somebody who died recently said something like this: ‘If you should come across a man who tells you that he is looking for the truth, grapple him to your heart with hoops of steel; but if you should come across a man who tells you that he has found the truth, run away from him as fast as you can’. Who said that?
Noek vanBiljon
May 6, 2012 at 17:49
Shazee, ons het daardie verse bespreek waarna jy nou weer verwys en julle lees goed wat nie daar staan nie omdat julle graag wil hê dit moet so wees sodat julle die God waarin ek glo wil diskrediteur. Jesus het duidelik die karakter van God bekend gestel so kom by asseblief want anders kom jy baie dom voor. Ek stem saam dat die Islam geloof primitief is en jy kan nie dieselfde sê van die Christen geloof nie omdat jy in die eerste plek die ware Christen geloof nie ken of verstaan nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 6, 2012 at 20:02
Noek, it is thus logically clear, that the one who said that, is never going to find the truth together with those who believe that somebody.
Hans Matthysen
May 6, 2012 at 20:06
Nee Hans, inteendeel, ek lees presies wat in die verse staan, en ek lees dit in konteks.
Dit is jy wat dit “geestelik” en “simbolies” lees, onthou jy nou weer?
Ek sal ook graag wil verneem op grond waarvan jy die Moslem geloof primitief noem? Hulle glo wat hulle glo op presies dieselfde gronde, en met presies ewe veel regverdiging, as wat die christenne glo wat hulle glo – onthulde “waarheid” wat in ‘n ou boek staan.
Wed jou jy kan my nie verkeerd bewys nie.
Shazee
May 6, 2012 at 21:02
En nog ‘n punt Hans; dit is effens dom van jou om te beweer dat ek nie die “ware christen geloof” ken nie, bloot omdat ek nie daarmee saamstem nie.
Die een volg regtig nie noodwendig op die ander nie.
Natuurlik verstaan ek dit seker maar nie omdat ek nie jou weergalose insig het nie ne?
Hoe fokken arrogant.
Shazee
May 6, 2012 at 21:13
Noek, I don’t know who said that, but it sounds about right, especially if the truth that is claimed is an evidence free, revealed truth.
By the way, don’t worry too much about Hans’ incomprehensible remarks, that is just the way he is. God made him that way.
Shazee
May 6, 2012 at 21:46
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 4, 2012 at 21:42):
No, no, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, your “answer” shows clearly that you totally missed the point and are just making a noise for the sake of making a noise. You made the idiotic statement that you live, among others, for everyone whose path you may cross. But you’re talking kak because I crossed your path but you’re not living for me. If you think you are, you’re wrong, and you can stop it any time the mood strikes you…
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):
But Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you said earlier that your skydaddy is “Word, Love, Wisdom, Spirit, Truth, Power”. Now you’re saying you skydaddy is like a good seed. You really should try to make up your mind, as feeble as it may be.
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):
Good joke, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! So why did your skydaddy make those Taliban okes then?
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):
What is a “siel”? Functional definition, please Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl.
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):
Oh Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you’re such a joker! That’s another blatant lie you’re telling. It is entirely obvious that it’s anything but “goed so” with you that there are unbelievers. Why else would you invent so much kak in trying to rescue your skydaddy?
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):
Ai toggie, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, what nonsense you pull from your arse. Your skydaddy himself together with his dof followers is doing a much better job of discrediting himself that any atheist ever could.
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):
Yes indeed, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! Most of it when your virgin-raping skydaddy’s psychotic son started trying to scare people into submission with eternal damnation and hell. That’s when he really showed your skydaddy’s true character.
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):
Another excellent gag you made there, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! You could nail someone to the irony, that’s how thick it is.
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):
C’mon, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, admit you ate a big handful of funny-pills this morning! How else can it be that you’re so full of good jokes!?
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):
Shit, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, your jokes just get better, although this one has an air of superiority about it that probably won’t sit well with some people. Maybe you should tone down the crudeness a little.
Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:06):
Those who believe that somebody what, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? And have you found “the truth”, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? Come, tell us quickly now.
Con-Tester
May 7, 2012 at 18:18
Shazee, dit is vir jou gerieflik om te dwaal, want ware Christenne lê hul lewe neer om vir ander te lewe en jy wil jou dus nie daaraan verbind nie.
Jy weet, op grond waarvan sê ek, dat die Islam geloof primitief is, want jy dink ook so en jy weet daar is ‘n hemels breë verskil tussen Islam geloof en Christendom.
Christenne wat glo dat Jesus Christus een dag op ‘n fisiese wolk gaan kom, is nie ware Christenne en dit is hoe jy Christendom ken, dus is ek nie arogant nie, maar jy is die een wat sukkel om by te kom.
Ek het maar net die logiese gevoltrekking uitgespreek op daardie een se gesêgde en julle Adiote roem nogal daarop dat julle op logika staat maak. In hierdie geval blyk dit dat logika jou nie pas nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 7, 2012 at 22:11
But where did you “lê [jou] lewe neer om vir ander te lewe” Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? For me or anyone else, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? And what the fuck have you ever done to prove that you are a “ware Christenne” (whatever the fuck that might be), you funny, arrogant, deceitful man, you?
Con-Tester
May 7, 2012 at 22:20
And Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you speak so glibly about “logiese gevoltrekking” and “logika”. Didn’t your skydaddy ever tell you it’s bad manners to use terms you have no clue about? And language like “Adiote”! Tut-tut, wouldn’t your skydaddy be a bit “die moer in” when you judge others like that? Especially when you’ve wailed so much about people being “afbrekend”?
You really want to add hypocrisy to your list of stupidities, eh?
Con-Tester
May 7, 2012 at 22:27
Con-Tester, I agree that I am only making a noise as it appears that, that you enjoy noise as that is all you have ever made. You don’t appear to know what it is to live for others as you appear to only live for yourself (the big I am).
You should look up the meaning of an equation as it would appear that you don’t know what it is.
You still do not understand how God, the Word, made us, including, the Taliban and you are supposed to be an intellectual.
Ek moet nou sê. jy kom nie meer dom voor nie, jy is blykbaar dom.
Maybe I have found the truth, but of course you will never know.
Hans Matthysen
May 7, 2012 at 22:45
There’s no “maybe” about it, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl. Your grasp on reality and The Truth™ is as impressive as your skydaddy. Plus, you’ve made it abundantly clear — several times, nogal — that next to your incandescent genius, my intellect is a spluttering birthday candle, that you can’t be wrong and that you know more than anyone else about your Holey Babble, it must be true! I mean, it must be true because you say so and you can show us an old book, right? And not even your skydaddy can take that from you, can he you funny, arrogant, dishonest man, you?
Con-Tester
May 7, 2012 at 22:58
Hans, nou weet jy sommer dat ek ook glo daar is ‘n groot verskil tussen die chistelike geloof en Islam? Is jy nou by al jou talente heldersiende ook?
Ek vra weer, waarop basseer jy jou oordeel van Islam? Het jy al die koran gelees? (Voor jy vra, ja ek het)
Die kern van byde gelowe is ‘n skepper wat jou gaan oordeel op grond van wat jy gedoen het, of geglo het terwyl jy gelewe het, en jou dan gaan straf of beloon na gelang van daardie oordeel.
Julle verskil bloot oor die detail, maar glo basies dieselfde bygelowige kak. En beide bygelowe is ewe onlogies, primitief en skadelik.
Waar val jy uit met christenne wat glo dat jesus op ‘n wolk gaan kom? Daar is bes moontlik van julle sotte wat dit ook glo, maar waar het ek gese dit is wat ek glo ‘n “ware christen” is?
Jy maak ongegronde afleidings en jy is moer arrogant in jou onkunde.
Logika pas my goed Hans, maar miskien moet jy jou nie uitspreek oor iets waarvan jy kennelik bitter min begrip het nie. Dit laat jou “dom voorkom”
Shazee
May 8, 2012 at 02:22
After watching this, it’s obvious that Floyd Shivambu learned all his skill for explanation from none other than my ou liegbek pêl, Hanswors.
Con-Tester
May 8, 2012 at 11:31
OK, let’s try that again. After watching this, it’s obvious that Floyd Shivambu learned all his skill for explanation from none other than my ou liegbek pêl, Hanswors.
Con-Tester
May 8, 2012 at 11:35
Con-Tester, to me there is no maybe but to you, it is a maybe that I have found the Truth. I have never said, I “know” more but I did say I “understand” the Bible more?better than most. I should think you would know the difference and it is not a question of arrogance because arrogance does not give one insight.
Hans Matthysen
May 8, 2012 at 22:02
Oh Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, I’m just so-o-o-o-o sorry that with respect to your Holey Babble, I confused knowledge and understanding, thoug what the difference is in practical terms eludes my obviously inferior intellect. After all, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, aren’t you godiots just too fond of reminding us dommetjies that through understanding comes knowledge or something equally hackneyed?
That besides, your claims of infallible wisdom regarding your skydaddy is about as fucking arrogant as a thing can be. You cannot prove anything you say about it. All you can do is say, in effect, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” In this regard, your insight into the vastness of your arrogance is nil, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl…
Con-Tester
May 8, 2012 at 22:13
Shazee, vir jou inligting, ek is in besit van beide die engelse en afrikaanse weergawes van die Kor’an. Ek het hulle lanklaas gelees en tog het ek nog ‘n goeie idea wat daarin staan, onder andere dat twee van die boeke is identies, woord vir woord, dieselfde as twee van die Ou Testament se boeke.
Omdat Jesus van Nazaret ‘n Jood was, kon die Arabiere Hom nie aanvaar nie en hulle het maar vir hulle self ‘n alternatief daar gestel, wat nooit die ware en egte gelyk kan wees nie.
Jy moet maar oplet wat ek skryf, want ek het nooit gesê jy “glo” en wel jy “ken”. Ek is nie arrogant nie, dit is jy wat nie oplet wat ek skryf omdat jy met vooroordeel lees daarom kom jy “dom voor”.
Hans Matthysen
May 8, 2012 at 22:31
Ha-ha-ha Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, your grasp of the history of Jew/Arab animosity is as broken as your ideas about reality. And you’re too arrogant to go and inform yourself properly because you already know all the answers, you funny, dishonest man, you!
Con-Tester
May 8, 2012 at 22:40
Hans, my ou mater, jy is darem ‘n kakprater sonder weerga, ek moet jou dit toegee.
As die Arabiere so gekant is teen jesus omdat hy ‘n Jood is, waarom beskou die Moslems hom as ‘n hoogs gerespekteerde profeet? Hy is mos immers ‘n gehate Jood, dan nie?
Hulle beskou hom bloot nie as die laaste prrofeet of messias nie.
Soos ek gese het, dieselfde stront, net die geur verskil.
Lees jy nou die Moslems se heilige boek ook om jou bygeloof te pas, net soos jy met jou eie bybel maak Hansie?
Shazee
May 8, 2012 at 23:35
Die Patriargale stelsel is so oud soos God en dit is en was nog altyd universeel. God is die opperste Patriarg en hy maak en breek net soos hy wil. So ook maak sy ‘eers-geskapene’, die man, net soos hy wil en al wat vir die arme vrou oor bly is om te kla en gesteek te word. EK wonder of die spesie homo sapiens sapiens op hierdie grondslag Darwin se elegante voorskrifte gaan oorleef. Ek twyfel. Daar is te veel woedende ambisie tot bereiking. Steven Goldberg meen dit kan nie anders wees nie maar gee nie te kenne dat dit so hoort te wees nie. Ek vestg my hoop op die genetikusse maar wil in die tussen tyd ‘n voorstel maak.
Die vrou in die vorm van feministe spartel nou al, bitterlik, dekades lank om haar self in die politiek, handelswereld en die leermag te handhaaf waar die patriarg gedy. Ek wil voorstel dat sy taktiek moet verander en haarself op die godsdiens moet toespits waar sy gruwelik om die mees onverskoonbare en onverstaanbare? redes misken word. Ek het niks teen die Katolieke nie maar ek wil die Katolieke stelsel as ‘n voorbeeld gebruik om aan te dui wat ek in gedagte het omdat die die Pous so ‘n opsigtelike figuur is.
Katolieke vroue moet daarop aandring dat die volgende Pous ‘n vrou moet wees en dat die kardinale, stelsematig by afsterwe, deur vroue vervang moet word en dat die ganse priesterskap uiteindelik deur vroue beman? bevrou? moet word. Tot die tuiniers moet vroue wees.
Wat besiel die die katolieke stelsel om ‘selibate’?, wat tot by hulle ore belaai is met semen, aan te stel om oor kinders toesig te hou? Die vrou is van wee haar endokronologiese geaardheid baie minder geneig daar toe om kinders te molesteer en om in die naam van God oorlog te voer terwyl die Macho man in die naam van God alles wat hom frustreer met sy vuiste wil reg donder.
Al die ‘westerse’ godsdienste moet so verander word en daar na moet die ander godsdienste bearbei word, veral die Taliban.
Dan sal ons met oorgawe en met ‘n lied in ons hart kan bid:
‘Onse Moeder, van die hemel en van die aarde, u wil geskied’
Noek vanBiljon
May 9, 2012 at 10:11
It’ll never happen. The fact is that the reason the RCC doesn’t ordain women is that a RC priest represents Jeeeeeebusssst! at the point of consecration and it is RC doctrine that only a man can fulfil that role, just as it would be impossible for a man to represent the Virgin Mary (cf. the RCC’s similarly kooky notion of “Transubstantiation”) That besides, those cassock-pissers with their funny hats and sticks have far too much self-interest vested in their seedy scheme ever to allow their “infallible” dogma to be challenged by anyone who is not part of their inner circle. You must remember that religion in all its multifarious guises is always conservative and never a force for substantial change. After all, since change usually upsets people, the so-called “security” that religions offer derives directly from that anal stodginess. They just throw in a few rituals and cloak the whole package in mysticism so that its asininity isn’t quite so obvious.
And this is also why it’s so important to laugh at those brain-dead arseholes at every opportunity.
Con-Tester
May 9, 2012 at 10:50
Con-Tester, I do agree with you about your inferior intellect.
The Muslims don’t respect Jesus as a Prophet and just say so to mislead Christians.
Hans Matthysen
May 10, 2012 at 22:21
Yes, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, but your agreement isn’t necessary, you funny, deceitful man, you. See, you keep telling us and so it must be true since you say it’s true and you can show us an old book.
Plus, I didn’t say anything about Muslims and your virgin-raping skydaddy’s bastard son Jeeeeeeebussssst!. Someone else did, but in your typically arrogant brain-dead way, you missed the obvious and react to what you think the situation is, not what it actually is, you funny, deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
May 10, 2012 at 22:30
Ja nee Hans, waarvan praat jy? Ontken jy nou dat die Moslems vir jesus as ‘n profeet beskou?
Waarom sal hulle dit wil doen bloot om die christenne te mislei? Wat sou hulle daardeur wou bereik?
Jy besluit nou sommer ook vir die Moslems ook wat hulle nou eintlik glo,
Ek is regtig jammer Hans, maar jy bly maar ‘n onnosele en arrogante poepol wat te dom is om die sotlikheid van sy “argumente” in te sien.
Shazee
May 10, 2012 at 22:39
Hans, ek het ‘n vraag vir jou: hoe verstaan jy die drie-enigheid van god?
Was die vader, die seun en die heilige gees nog altyd deel van dieselfde wese, onafskeidbaar van mekaar?
Shazee
May 11, 2012 at 06:47
Con-Tester, I have already pointed out to you that the RCC hi-jacked Christianity.and are not the true vine.
Hans Matthysen
May 11, 2012 at 22:39
Ha-ha-ha Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, so now you’re changing the subject again instead of being “erkentlik” about the plain fact that you fucked up.
Nice brain-dead move, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you funny deceitful man, you!
And your own beliefs wouldn’t exist at all if it wasn’t for the RCC. They account fully for four-fifths of your idiotic beliefs’ history. But you aren’t “erkentlik” or honest about that plain fact either, you funny deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
May 11, 2012 at 22:51
Shazee, as Muslims Jesus as ‘n profeet aanvaar het, sou hulle handel volgens Sy woord.
God die Vader is die “Woord” (1.), volgens Joh. 1. Wanneer die “woord” vlees word, m.a.w. ek lewe dit, dan is die (2).”seun” Christus sigbaar. Daarna kom daar goeie resultate wat vertroosting, Heilige Gees, is en bring.
Hans Matthysen
May 11, 2012 at 23:04
Waarom verwag jy ‘n beter standaard van die Moslems as wat julle christenne aan julle self stel Hans? Julle handel net so min as hulle volgens sy woord. Beteken dit julle aanvaar hom ook nie?
Jyself is al verskeie kere hier uitgevang dat jy blatant lieg as dit jou pas. Is dit hoe jy volgens “sy woord” optree?
Wat jou ander verduideliking betref; los maar. Ek vermoed dat geen verduideliking omtrent jou drie-in-een-god sal sin maak nie.
Shazee
May 12, 2012 at 07:47
But Shazee, don’t you see? My ou liegbek pêl Hanswors isn’t a normal crushtian. In fact, he keeps reminding us just how abnormal he is because he keeps saying how not normal he is, and so it must be true because he says so and he can show us an old book…
Con-Tester
May 12, 2012 at 08:10
Yes CT, I suspect that you are correct, Hansie is not quite normal on many levels.
His general bullshitting is typical of godiots, however.
Shazee
May 12, 2012 at 09:27
Con-Tester, should the true Christians have not been subjected to persecution by the Romans and co. then my belief would perhaps even have been more prominent in present times. You are not so bright if you think that the RCC accounts for four fifths of my belief. They do account for many ill doings under the cloak of Christianity, yes.
Hans Matthysen
May 12, 2012 at 21:51
Blah blah blah, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. “true Christians” shmoo pisstians. You’re avoiding the facts by making up new bullshit and lies to cover up all your old bullshit and lies, ou. The RCC is directly responsible for your beliefs surviving up to the Reformation, you funny ignoramus. Ring any bells? Church bells, maybe? No? Like I said, you’re just too full of your own ignorant bullshit — and you can’t even smell it, you funny deceitful man, you.
And your ignorant take on “ill doings under the cloak of Christianity” doesn’t hold for Protestants, eh? They being the True Vine™, eh? Oh wait, you’re a speshull crushtian, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. You know some universal and eternal truths that billions of others don’t.
Fuck, but you’re even more delusional than anyone has any right to think.
Con-Tester
May 12, 2012 at 22:02
Shazee, verskoon maar, maar jy kom vir my baie dom voor en ek het nogal op ‘n stadium gedink, dat jy nogal insig het. Waar het ek verwag dat Moslems beter standaarde as Christenne moet hê?
Ek is nog nie een keer uitgevang nie, want ek steek niks weg nie en julle verkies om baie wat ek aan julle uitgewys het, te ignoreer. Soos ek al voorheen gesê het, ” niemand is so blind soos hy wat nie wil sien nie”.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Ek moet erken, ek is anders as baie ander sogenaamde Christenne.
Hans Matthysen
May 12, 2012 at 22:10
Nee wat Hans, jy is nie so vreeslik anders as as ander christenne nie, julle is maar almal “a peculiar people”. Dit is nogal snaaks ( nie peculiar nie, maar lagwekkend snaaks) hoe graag jy spesiaal en anders wil wees.
Dit is nogal ironies dat ‘n ou wat aan pratende slange glo ander mense dom of onkundig noem, of hoe Hansie?
En ja, jy verwag natuurlik ‘n ander standaard van Moslems as wat jy van jouself verwag, jy mag lieg, maar hulle mag nie. Wat het jy al vir ons uitgewys wat onafhanglik bevestigbaar is, wat nie ‘n blote verwysing na jou gediskrediteerde heilige sprokiesverhaal is nie?
Gee ‘n paar voorbeelde, dan hou ek dalk op om jou ‘n arrogante liegbek te noem.
Shazee
May 13, 2012 at 00:27
We owe Hans an apology; it has been scientifically proven that god exists.
Check out “WHAT IS THE TEMPERATURE OF HELL” on the – atheistnexus- posted by David Curry.
Shazee
May 13, 2012 at 08:12
Julle ouens laat my darem te lekker lag. Ek weet nie wie se woord ‘Skydaddy’ is nie maar ek hou daarvan. Ek dink daaraan om nou al my E-mails te beeindig met: “May Skydaddy and the Force be with you’ in plaas van ‘Vriendelike Groete’
Noek vanBiljon
May 13, 2012 at 12:28
With about 352,000 hits, who can really say?
Con-Tester
May 13, 2012 at 18:48
Er, Googledaddy strikes. about 352,000 hits…
Con-Tester
May 13, 2012 at 18:50
Further intense prayer directed at Googledaddy followed by extensive prostration before same has persuaded His Awesome Searchiness to reveal that it was, allegedly, coined by one Guthrie Devine.
Con-Tester
May 13, 2012 at 19:03
Con-Tester, what would you imagine, would of happened, if the persecution did not take place?
Hans Matthysen
May 13, 2012 at 20:53
Shazee, ek het nog nooit geglo,dat ‘n slang kan praat en daarom is dit duidelik, dat jy ook maar baie strond uit jou duim uit suig. Hoe sal jy ooit verskille kan onderskei as jy so baie strond uit jou duim kan uit suig?
Ek het vir jou uitgewys, dat daar geen weersprekings in die Bybel is nie en jy kon nie die teendeel bewys nie. Jy verkies om eerder leeuns aan te neem omdat dit julle Adiote geval.
Hans Matthysen
May 13, 2012 at 21:04
That would be “… would have happened…” Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. Goddit?
What would have happened, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, is speculation and not really relevant, but I suspect without the RCC, your stupid beliefs would be very different in content and would very probably be those of a crazy fringe cult today.
What matters is what did happen, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, and that is that the RCC sustained your stupid beliefs for the better part of 1,600 years before the bullshit pressure got the better of a social rebel.
Now be a good little godiot and be “erkentlik” about the undeniable history of your stupid beliefs, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl.
Con-Tester
May 13, 2012 at 21:10
O ja, ek het vergeet, dit is een van die dele wat simbolies gelees moet word. Die slang het net simbolies gepraat en adam het net simbolies die appel gevreet. Jesus het toe gesterf vir ‘n sonde wat nooit plaasgevind het nie, dit was mos net simbolies ne?
Lekker logies Hans, dankie vir die insig.
Shazee
May 13, 2012 at 21:12
So Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, in The Gospel According to Hanswors, it wasn’t a talking serpent that tempted Eve to take the fruit, eh?
What was it that did the tempting then, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl? Or are you saying that the whole Adam and Eve thing is all a big fairytale? Explain how this spiel goes in The Gospel According to Hanswors!
And did Abraham really hear your skydaddy’s voice commanding him to sacrifice his son, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl? Explain how this pile of bollocks goes in The Gospel According to Hanswors!
Con-Tester
May 13, 2012 at 21:32
Con-Tester, to tel you the truth, you can also be regarded as a serpent and of course you talk.
The RCC only sustained what they had stolen, that would have been sustained in any case.
Hans Matthysen
May 14, 2012 at 22:03
Shazee, mens kannie net iets offer vir een se sondes nie en Jesus het gewys, dat ons moet ons self offer om te bekeer van sonde.
Hans Matthysen
May 14, 2012 at 22:11
That would be “tell”, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl. But you’re dodging questions again, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl. And you could be regarded as a lump of fungus and you also talk. Well, “talk” is a bit of a stretch, really. More like “preach”, “sermonise” and “fabricate crap.”
By what means would your idiotic beliefs have been sustained if not for the RCC, hmm? And what exactly did the RCC steal, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl? Is that a fairytale that is told of in The Gospel According to Hanswors.
Con-Tester
May 14, 2012 at 22:13
Met alle respek Hans, wat de fok praat jy van?
Het jesus aan die kruis gesterf vir jou sondes, of het hy nie?
As hy het, wat gorrel jy van jouself offer?
As hy nie het nie, waarom noem jy jouself ‘n christen?
Ek raak al hoe meer oortuig jy is aan die bol gepik.
Shazee
May 14, 2012 at 22:28
Ek het mos al genoem dat ou Hansie ‘n moerse geestes probleem het. Glo jul my nou?
ErickV
May 15, 2012 at 04:57
Hansie, ek dink regtig jy het profesionele hulp nodig.
ErickV
May 15, 2012 at 04:58
Project Reason – dis die een
Noek vanBiljon
May 15, 2012 at 22:17
Shazee, Voor Jesus, het hul lamme ens. geoffer vir hul sondes en hul lewe het nie juis verbeter nie.
Rom 12:1 Ek vermaan julle dan, broeders, by die ontferminge van God, dat julle jul liggame stel as ‘n lewende, heilige en aan God welgevallige offer dit is julle redelike godsdiens.
Ons moet dus diensbaar wees tot goeie werke en dan sal ons nie in boosheid (sonde) vasgevang word nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 15, 2012 at 23:03
ErickV, ja, om jou tot beter insigte te kry het ek seker profesionele hulp nodig.
Hans Matthysen
May 15, 2012 at 23:05
Shit, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, there you go with the lying, evasion, avoidance and bullshitting again. What a funny deceitful deluded man you are.
Con-Tester
May 15, 2012 at 23:09
Con-Tester, by all means.
Hans Matthysen
May 15, 2012 at 23:11
So Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, according to The Gospel According to Hanswors, your stupid beliefs would have been sustained in the absence of the RCC “by all means”.
Fuck me, but you’re a genius! Your pithy clarity and penetrating analyses are breathtaking in their explanatory power. Still, it’s a pity you invent and talk so much transparent kak, though…
Con-Tester
May 15, 2012 at 23:18
So, jy moet jouself net “diensbaar stel” tot goeie werke, dan is jy fine?
Waarom moes jesus dan aan die kruis sterf?
Het hy, of het hy nie gesterf sodat ons sondes vergewe kan word nie?
Shazee
May 16, 2012 at 00:42
Shazee, Jesus sterf sodat ons kan besef, dat ons sondes kan nie met geld of met aardse rykdom afgekoop word nie. Daar is dinge of gesindhede wat ons moet Pry sgee.
Hans Matthysen
May 16, 2012 at 22:11
Hans, as die doel van jesus se kruisdood was om ons te leer jy kan nie jou pad hemel-toe koop nie, was dit maar ‘n redelik onsuksesvolle oefening.
Het jy al uitgewerk hoeveel geld die Mighty Moron maak met die vroue-onderdrukkende stront wat hy kwytraak? Het jy al gesien hoe lyk die Moreleta NG se nuwe kerkgebou? Van die senior Dominees daar het jagplase ou maat.
Ek was by een geleentheid deur my “wedergebore” werkgewer gedwing om ‘n seminaar oor “besigheidsbeginsels” by te woon waar al drie dae uitsluitlik gegaan het oor hoe jou tiende alleen nie genoeg is nie, nee, as jy ryk wil word moet jy behalwe jou tiende nog ook “extravagant” offers gee.
Was jy al in die Vatikaan? Kan jy jou indink hoeveel rykdom daar bymekaar is?
Het jy al gesien hoe lyk die liggaamsbouer van Rhema se huis?
At Boshoff van CRC het sy eie helikopter wat hom lughawe toe vlieg.
Ja, ek weet Hans, hulle is nie die ware wynstok nie, dit is net jy wat die ware boodskap ontvang het.
Die punt is nog steeds dat dit maar ‘n skrale opbrengs vir so ‘n wrede dood is as net jy die boodskap gekry het.
Shazee
May 17, 2012 at 08:25
But Shazee, none of those godiots are the TrueVine™! At least that’s what Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl would have you believe. If you don’t follow The Gospel According to Hanswors , no matter how incoherent, haphazard and ad– or post hocit might be, then you’re automatically wrong.
In short, there are two simple rules for settling any and all Holey Babble and skydaddy questions. They go as follows:
1. Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl is always right.
2. If in doubt, see Rule 1.
There, that should settle any lingering doubts.
Con-Tester
May 17, 2012 at 09:51
But is so hard to follow the gospel according to Hans. He seems to change it on a daily basis as the situation requires.
Shazee
May 17, 2012 at 19:44
Well, that’s where the two aforesaid rules come in handy:
So we’ll just have to take Hanswors’ word for it, won’t we now? After all, it’s true because my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl Hanswors says it’s true and he can show us an old book.
Con-Tester
May 17, 2012 at 20:17
Shazee, Jesus waarsku ons teen die huurlinge en in Handelinge agt word ons teen die “Simon die Towenaars” van hierdie wêreld ook gewaarsku.
Aangesien een siel meer werd as al die skatte van hierdie aarde is, is die opbrengs dit oor en oor werd.
Shazee, gees is onbeperk en van verskillende hoeke gesien, is verskillende boodskappe wat nie mekaar weerspreek nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 17, 2012 at 21:18
Con-Tester, sorry man as I forgot to thank you for the “genius” complement you gave me on the 15th.
Hans Matthysen
May 17, 2012 at 21:25
Once more Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, what is a “siel”? What is “gees”? You have yet to supply a functional definition of this word you use so freely. Come now, for a genius of your magnificent prominence it should hardly be difficult.
Con-Tester
May 17, 2012 at 21:25
Always the greatest of pleasure to promote such utter brilliance as yours Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl!
Still, the correct word would be “compliment”…
Con-Tester
May 17, 2012 at 21:34
Towenaars en geeste Hans? Waarom vertel jy my nie sommer ook van die tokelossie nie?
Daar is geen toorkuns of geeste betrokke nie, net glibberige liegbekke wat dom donnners soos jy van hulle geld verlos.
Shazee
May 18, 2012 at 05:18
Con-Tester, I must compliment your compliment.
Hans Matthysen
May 19, 2012 at 21:42
Shazee, julle adiote kan nie bewys dat Jesus nie vir die goeie gestaan het nie en dan trek julle so tevelde teen wat weet geen mens nie. Alles wat julle my graag toesnou is maar wel hoe en wat julle is. Siestog, en dan is dit veronderstel om seker van julle helde te maak. Hoerdie blog van ou Nathan het geen waarde om aan ander te bied nie want om mekaar met modder te gooi is maar swaksinnig.
Hans Matthysen
May 19, 2012 at 21:57
Thanks Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, but really, it’s only a compliment if one reads it by the same rules as one must read The Gospel According to Hanswors.
“Hoerdie”, Hanswors? Really? You really are quite a joker, especially with your constant foot-in-gob disease.
And of course it’s another one of those read-as-you-would-The-Gospel-According-to-Hanswors that you say this blog has no value and yet you show up here regular as clockwork, you funny deceitful man, you. As for throwing mud, you started it when you decided to throw around your lies and bullshit. You reap what you sow, ou! I’d’ve thought you knew that already from The Gospel According to Hanswors.
Con-Tester
May 19, 2012 at 22:22
Hans, ek sal jou vertel waarteen ons te velde trek: jy moet verstaan dat niemand regtig omgee wat jy en jou mede godiote glo nie. Wat ‘n sot se persoonlike bygeloof is, is nie op sig self vreeslik belangrik nie.
Waarteen ons te velde trek is die irritasie wat julle veroorsaak as julle daarop aandring om dit in ons kele af te druk.
Ons maak beswaar daarteen dat julle so arrogant is om ons kinders in die skole te wil besmet met julle verstand-verrotende virus.
Ek persoonlik het ‘n broertjie dood aan die siek en siniese wyse waarop desperate mense afgepers en mislei word om geld, wat hulle dikwels kwalik kan bekostig, te oorhandig aan ouens wat in persoonlike helikopters en stralers rondvlieg. Dit, terwyl van hulle gemeentelede skaars kos het om te eet.
Ons het ‘n probleem daarmee as julle daarop aandring dat julle persoonlike bygelowe openbare beleid moet rig.
Jy sien Hans,dit behoort nie so moeilik te wees om te verstaan wat ons probleem is nie. Dit is nie dat julle primitiewe bygelofies op ‘n persoonlike vlak baie belangrik is nie, dit is dat julle dit so arrogant op almal probeer afdwing.
Shazee
May 20, 2012 at 07:23
Jamen.
Con-Tester
May 20, 2012 at 08:42
Shazee, dit is die RCC en die wat van hulle afgestg het oor die jare, waarna jy verwys. Ek het ook ‘n probleem daarmee soos julle. Dit is nie ‘n rede om die goeie voorbeeld van Jesus af te maak as iets wat sleg is en daarom sê ek weer, laat hy wat dan onkundig is, onkundig bly. Die wat vervolg is, is nie die wat afdwing op ander nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 20, 2012 at 21:32
Oh dear, poor Hanswors is still being persecuted by da eeebil aytists!
Nobody is disputing that your Jeeeeeeebussssst! made a good role model for certain things, you funny deceitful man, you. But you fuckwits simply won’t accept that he was also a very bad example of certain other things, just as you won’t accept that he wasn’t the first one to preach the stuff most people accept as good. Equally, you godiots can’t get it through you dense skulls that good behaviour isn’t any proof of divinity or some fanciful non-material realm. Even less are you able to absorb the idea that your own sense of morality doesn’t need examples to follow if your parents did their job right with you.
So Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, you’re still just spraying around bullshit and lies and made-up nonsense, while raping logic, reason and evidence.
Con-Tester
May 20, 2012 at 21:59
Hans, is jy in ‘n gemeente waar jy ‘n tiende betaal?
Shazee
May 20, 2012 at 23:49
Hansie,
Ek wil graag ‘n paar feite vir jou noem.
Die ateiste het nie ‘n bybel nodig om ‘n goeie lewe te ly nie.
Gelowiges sou heel moontlik kriminele gewees het indien daar nie boeke soos die bybel was om vir hulle riglyne te gee nie.
Sonder skenkings van lidmate sou geen kerk bestaan het nie (kertjieng).
Sonder kerke sou daar nie ‘n godsdiens gewees het nie.
ErickV
May 21, 2012 at 05:31
Jy is reg Eric, het hierdie mense nog nooit gewonder waarom god so naarstigtelik hulle geld nodig het nie?
Wat wil hy daarmee koop? Hy kan mos net enigiets wat hy wil he optoor, en siedaar!
Gebruik hulle Rande of miskien Euro’s in die hemel?
En wat van sy “dienaars” hier op aarde? Hy kan mos self aan hulle behoetes voorsien sonder om van hulle skaamtelose bedelaars te maak, of hoe?
As ek nog een keer moet hoor “it is not your money, it is god’s money”, beskyt ek myself.
Shazee
May 21, 2012 at 09:12
Hallo Hans,
Ek sien jy veg nog die geveg onverpoost.
“Shazee, dit is die RCC en die wat van hulle afgestg het oor die jare, waarna jy verwys. Ek het ook ‘n probleem daarmee soos julle. Dit is nie ‘n rede om die goeie voorbeeld van Jesus af te maak as iets wat sleg is en daarom sê ek weer, laat hy wat dan onkundig is, onkundig bly. Die wat vervolg is, is nie die wat afdwing op ander nie.”
Ou Hans, lank lank gelede was daar die 12 stamme van Israel. Tien van hulle het later weggetrek en in Europa gaan woon, die tien lande wat onder die Romeinnse ryk geval het, en uit die tien het later die RCC onstaan. Twee stamme, naamlik Juda en Benjamin het eers in Israel agter gebly. Levi is ook ‘n stam, maar die het nie ‘n eie landstreek ontvang nie. Uiteindellik het die stamme, Juda en Benjamin ook na Europa gegaan en daar verstrooid geraak, maar hulle was die protestante wat later na Suid Afrika en Rhodesie gevlug het. Ons boere Suid Afrikaners is die afstammelinge van Juda en Benjamin se nageslag is na Rhodesie. Gaan lees gerus mooi in Jesaja en veral in Sagaria waar God verwys na Sy “verstrooide en verdrukte volk anderkant die riviere van Kus (Ethiopie) wat met papirusbote daar aangekom het en wat weer sal opstaan”, m.a.w Suidelike Afrika. Ons voorouers het met skepe hier aangekom en nie direk per land nie. Die slim wetenskaplikes kan maar gaan opsoek en sal vind dat antropoloe ook bevind het dat die blanke in SA se skedel verskil van die in Europa, wat beteken dat al stam ons af van Engelse, Franse, Hollandere, Duitsers ens., ons eintlik nie heeltemal dieselfde is nie. Ek prtaat natuurlik nie van die wat later hiernatoe ge-emigreer het nie.
Mense dink dat die Jode Sy verkose volk is, maar die woord JEW is afgelei van “baster”. Selfs by die skepping waar die mens volgens SY beeld geskape is, is die woord “man” afgelei van die wat kan bloos, naamlik wit mense. Jakob se “vrugte” (nakomelinge) was aanneemlik vir God, maar Esau s’n was onaanneemlik (kinders van ‘n nie-blanke vrou). Ek probeer nie ‘n rasse ding hier se nie, want God het ook kinders onder die Heidene, ek probeer net se dat ons die nakomelinge van God is, en as ek se ons, bedoel ek die nageslag van die wat per skip hier aangekom het.
Dus is die RCC ook nakomelinge van God en ook deel van Sy 12 stamme. Die probleem is dat daar diegene onder die RCC sowel as die onder die protestante is wat met hulle gedrag Christene in die verleentheid stel, maar die Bybel en veral Openbaring het gewaarsku dat die Satan ons in ons eie kerke sal mislei.
Dus, nie almal wat se hy is christen is noodwendig ‘n Cristen nie. Ek wil net herhaal, God het kinders vanuit alle volke, maar ons maak deel uit van die 12 oorspronklike stamme van Israel.
soois
May 21, 2012 at 09:23
En ja Erick, jy is ook korrek dat ateiste nie die bybel nodig het vir ‘n morele kompas nie. Inderwaarheid het niemand die bybel nodig vir morele riglyne nie, nie eens die christenne nie.
As jy vandag jou lewe moet lei volgens die bybel se voorskrifte sal jy vinnig in ‘n tronk beland of as oorlogsmisdadiger vervolg word.
Ek dink nie hierdie mense weet regtig wat in die bybel geskryf is nie, of hulle lees net die dele wat hulle pas, en ignoreer die res.
Shazee
May 21, 2012 at 09:34
Soois, jy reken dat die blanke in Suid Afrika anatomies verskil van ‘n blanke in europa?
Kan jy dalk ‘n wetenskaplike bron vir daardie juweel aanhaal?
Shazee
May 21, 2012 at 09:43
So soois, seeing as you’re not only one of your skydaddy’s descendants and among his chosen, not only the world’s greatest unpublished biologist, not only evidently now also the world’s greatest unpublished anthropologist-cum-ethnic-historian, but also an exegetical expert to rival Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, perhaps you’ll answer this: Which one(s) of the ±39,000 recognised crushtian sects, divisions and denominations is/are The True One(s)™? And what objective criteria do you use to decide this?
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 09:44
Like I said, many will operate under the word “christian”, but does that make him/her one!? Let me also repeat, that just to believe in God and creation does also not make you a Christian, it makes you only religious. Only if you accept Jesus Christ as your ONLY Saviour, you can call yourself one, but then you have the resposibility to live like one, not to “deserve” His Salvation, but BECAUSE OF His Salvation.
Objective criteria? The Holy Bible my friend.
Shazee, die blanke is verdeel in die Alpynse (Celtic) oftewel Homo Alpinus en die Teutoniese of Homo Europaeus. Dan word daar ook verwys na die Mediterieense blanke wat bes moontlik nie heeltemal blank is nie. In elk geval, net ‘n interessante opmerking en julle is welkom om tussen mekaar daaroor te debatteer. Eintlik het ek net vir Hansman daarop gewys dat die RCC en die protestante ongelukkig valse christene onder hulle het wat ongelukkig een van die redes is hoekom ouens soos jy en ou Connie nie glo nie.
soois
May 21, 2012 at 10:21
ErickV,
“Gelowiges sou heel moontlik kriminele gewees het indien daar nie boeke soos die bybel was om vir hulle riglyne te gee nie.”
Heeltemal korrek. En so sou nie-gelowiges gewees het sonder die morele riglyne van die Bybel.
Shazee,
“Jy is reg Eric, het hierdie mense nog nooit gewonder waarom god so naarstigtelik hulle geld nodig het nie?
Wat wil hy daarmee koop? Hy kan mos net enigiets wat hy wil he optoor, en siedaar!
Gebruik hulle Rande of miskien Euro’s in die hemel?
En wat van sy “dienaars” hier op aarde? Hy kan mos self aan hulle behoetes voorsien sonder om van hulle skaamtelose bedelaars te maak, of hoe?
As ek nog een keer moet hoor “it is not your money, it is god’s money”, beskyt ek myself.”
Jy is ook reg, God het definitief nie ons geld nodig nie, maar die gesindheid van die Christen om te gee, dus om te gee vir ander. Sy hele behoefte is dat Sy kinders mekaar moet liefhe en ondersteun, daarom dat ons moet gee en nie net Hy nie.
So op die onderwerp van geld. Ek merk op dat daar verwys word na die predikers wat skatryk is en ek moet saamstem. Een van die redes hoekom ek my satellietskottel laat opsit het, was vir die baie sogenaamde Christenkanale daarop. Ongelukkig het dit in ‘n geldmaaksirkus ontaard en vind ek maar min Christene op die uitsendings. Deesdae hoor ek net hoe ek my geld moet “seed” en dan sal ek soveel meer terug ontvang. Hierdie ouens bid dan dat die 100, 200 of 300 ouens wat hulle swaar verdiende geld ge-“seed” het in veelvoude terug sal ontvang. Dit is nie God wat hier werk nie, maar Mammon, want hierdie ouens soek ons geld, en die ouens wat “seed”, doen dit nie vir die goeie nie, maar om self terug te ontvang. Terloops, ek ken vir Oom Angus, en laat ek julle maar vertel, hy is nie ‘n ryk ou nie. Om die waareid te se, sy seuns boer nou op sy grond wat swaar belas is met skuld. As hy so lekker geld gemaak het, was dit anders. Doen moeite, gaan kyk wat kos dit jou om sy MCC’s by te woon, kyk wat gee hy alles in ruil vir daardie geld, media soos oa CD’s en DVD’s, skryfbehoeftes, aandenkings en kampeerplek, om van die organisasie nie eens te praat nie, dan wed ek jou jy sal vind dat hy waarskynlik self moet geld in-betaal.
Groete aan julle
soois
May 21, 2012 at 10:45
Your Holey Babble? An objective criterion!? Even a dimwit of your superlative insight must surely see the joke. No? Let me explain: If your fairytale book was in any way objective we wouldn’t have as many different interpretations of it as there are dimwits reading it. Capisce?
No, probably not.
So yet again you can’t actually answer my question with anything approaching precision or clarity. Nor do you have the intellectual honesty or balls to admit your ignorance on this matter, and so you fabricate a stream of self-serving lies and bullshit to try and cover it up while extending your proud tradition of raping reason, logic and evidence.
Well done, you just don’t disappoint.
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 11:04
Oh, and besides all the other problems with your fairytale, it’s not any “false crushtians” that cement my disbelief. It’s actually idiots like you with your singular inability to give any kind of meaningful answer that are at fault.
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 11:09
Soois, ek het, soos jy seker opgemerk het, per ongeluk my antwoord op die verkeerde geselslyn gepos – gaan kyk maar op “warts and all”
Jy mis in elk geval die punt met jou volgende pos ook: ek weet god (selfs al het hy bestaan) het niemand se geld nodig nie. Dit sou bitter onlogies gewees het as ‘n almagtige wese kontant nodig gehad het.
Die punt is dat daar desperate sotte is wat dit glo, en daar is gewetenlose dose wat dit uitbuit.
Shazee
May 21, 2012 at 11:15
More of this crushtian courage and integrity, please! That’s where you point out and explain the utter stupidity of the godiot’s claims and he then disappears for a while before returning with exactly the same drivel a short time later.
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 17:33
Con-Tester, you are the one who is poor; Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
In what other things was Jesus a bad example?
You are not very bright, if you think, we don’t know, that others before Jesus also preach certain things, yet they they were not as successful as Jesus was and is. The denseness therefore appears to be with you.
Hans Matthysen
May 21, 2012 at 21:47
What a fine puddle of incoherent babble you have rendered for our amusement, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl! Your inability to follow a few simple points comes through brilliantly once more.
And, on top of it all, you still can’t prove me wrong.
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 21:54
Shazee, sekerlik ja en dit gaan nie na huurlinge of “Simon die Towenaars” nie. Lees 2 Konings 12, en kyk waarvoor word die tiendes gebruik. LW, sou jy nie die verse lees nie, sal jy onkundig bly.
Hans Matthysen
May 21, 2012 at 21:55
ErickV, ateiste lewe net vir hulself, waar Christenne vir ander lewe en dit is die verskil van, om ‘n goeie lewe te lei of net te lewe. Vertrou jy sal hierdie paar eenvoudige woorde kan verstaan.
Hans Matthysen
May 21, 2012 at 22:02
My, my, what a pile of self-serving bullshit you are able to confabulate, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl. You clearly know nothing whatsoever about atheists’ lives, nor could you be bothered to find out before sticking both your hands and both your feet into your mouth all at the same time.
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 22:10
Soois, wanneer ek die Bybel lees, bedink ek nie vleeslike dinge nie; Rom. 8 v 4 tot 6.
Hans Matthysen
May 21, 2012 at 22:11
So what do you think about when you read your Holey Babble, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl?
Con-Tester
May 21, 2012 at 22:18
Jammer om te hoor jou kerkgebou val uitmekaar uit Hans. Dit is mos waar voor jou tiendes gebruik word ne? Om ‘n vervalle kerkgebou te herstel, volgens die skrifgedeelte wat jy aanhaal.
Wat is die weddenskap jy kom vertel my ek moet iets simbolies daarin lees.
Ek het ‘n goeie idee wat die simboliek volgens jou gaan wees, maar ek wag maar vir jou antwoord.
Shazee
May 22, 2012 at 04:29
Ateiste leef net vir hulself Hans?
Het jy die moeite gedoen om die artikel te gaan lees waarna Con-Tester nou die dag verwys het, of het jy “onkundig” gebly?
Hierdie mense is seker nie “ware” ateiste nie, ne Hans?
Shazee
May 22, 2012 at 04:41
Hans, kon nie jou stelling dat ateiste net vir hulle self leef net daar laat nie.
Ek het na drie van die rykste mense wat ooit op die aarde rondgeloop het se profiele gaan kyk.
Hulle is: George Soros, Warren Buffet en Bill Gates.
Hierdie drie het saam biljoene dollers vir liefdadigheiswerk en die bevegting, en navorsing oor, gevreesde siektes geskenk.
Bill Gates het so baie geld geskenk dat dit hom laat afsak het op die lys van rykste individue in die wereld, en hy beplan om uiteindelik prakties sy hele fortuin vir die doel te skenk.
Raai wat Hans? Al drie die menere is self-erkende ateiste (google gerus hulle onderskeie onderhoude met David Frost).
Nie sleg vir ouens wat net vir hulself leef nie, of hoe? Moet asseblief nie weer jou oningeligte stront oor ateiste se selfsugtige en doellose lewens hier verkondig nie.
Shazee
May 22, 2012 at 09:13
Shazee, I posted a link to the article you refer to on May 14 in the Christopher Hitchens dead at 62 thread. Not that Hanswors, my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, will bother to locate and read it because, well, he has all the answers already anyway.
On a related note that cuts right to the heart of the godiot’s pervasive intellectual dishonesty and conceit, here’s a well-crafted article by a philosophically savvy individual enumerating several grave problems that face those who want to prove that their skydaddy exists. A taste:
I’ll put money on it that no godiot will understand, let alone address the issues raised in any meaningful way. Bets are now open.
Con-Tester
May 22, 2012 at 10:01
Interesting and thought provoking article Con-Tester.
I will not pretend to have grasped all of it on the first reading, but as I read it, it negates the religious claim that knowledge can be acquired by pure thought, and furthermore that a believe can only qualify as knowledge if it is both true and justified?
It seems that it is pointless to try and get a philosophical handle on the truth, or otherwise, of religious believe. It should just be admitted that it is a believe without attempts to justify it.
Shazee
May 22, 2012 at 11:13
Soois,
Eerstens se jy “En so sou nie-gelowiges gewees het sonder die riglyne van die Bybel”.
Nou sal ek graag wil weet. Wat van die ander lewende wesens op hierdie ou aarde van ons wat nog nooit van die bybel gehoor het nie? Het hulle geen morele waardes nie?
En tweedens seg jy. “God het definitief nie ons geld nodig nie.
Die kerke en ander soortgelyke instansies het “God” geskape en moet “God’ onderhou sodat die kerke en hulself kan voortbestaan.
Ek stem daar met jou saam dat jou “God” nie die geld nodig het nie want jou “God” soos jy hom ken bestaan nie.
Ek moet om verskoning vra dat ek nie so gereeld kommetaar lewer nie. Ek “hit and run” hier so af en toe as ek die kans kry. Ek is ongelukkig nie ‘n skaap boer van die Karoo nie.
ErickV
May 22, 2012 at 12:33
Shazee, in vandag se tyd noem ons dit onderhoud of instandhouding en dit is niks om oor jammer te wees nie.
Dit is nou jammer dat julle nie onder daardie mense tel waarna C T verwys het nie.
Daardie skenkings was goed vir hulle besigheid en is ook deel van reklama. Hulle is maar die enkele voorbeelde waarna jy kon verwys het en ja daar is ook goeie mense onder ateiste so sorg minstens dat jy ook een is.
Hans Matthysen
May 22, 2012 at 21:43
Shit, but you see right through everything, eh Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl? So when wealthy atheists do something generous for their fellow man, they do it for the sake of their businesses’ continued wellbeing. In contrast, a crushtian like you does it to get a place in some imaginary place of eternal bliss after you die. And you know fuck-all about what any atheist posting here does or does not do for his/her fellow man, see? Or does your skydaddy tell you, hmm?
You really are a fucking arrogant little arsehole, you funny deceitful man, you.
Con-Tester
May 22, 2012 at 21:54
Hansie,
Ek sien ou Soois moet namens jou antwoord. Wat is fout? Weet jy nie wat om my te antwoord op my stellings nie?
Ek sal nie verbaas wees indien jy dalk ook jou geloof gaan verloor en tot ander insigte gaan kom nie.
ErickV
May 23, 2012 at 05:37
Hans, jy moet nou nie so “onerkentelik” wees nie man. Ek het minstens die moeite gaan doen om die skrifgedeelte waarna jy my verwys het te lees, ek het dus nie “onkundig” gebly nie.
Dit is meer as wat jy gewoonlik kan se omtrent die literatuur waarna ons jou verwys.
Daardie hoofstuk gaan letterlik oor die tempel wat vervalle geraak het as gevolg van verwaarlosing, dus my simpatie met jou vervalle kerkgebou.
Wanneer gaan jy eendag ophou om wilde en ongegronde stellings te maak omtrent mense wie se persoonlike omstandighede en gewoontes jy hoegenaamd niks weet, of kan weet nie?
Ons debatteer hier omtrent die geldigheid van ons onderskeie lewensbeskouings, en jy maak aannames oor ons persoonlike gewoontes en moraliteit wat op geen feite hoegenaamd gebasseer is nie.
Het jy my al ontmoet? Of vir CT, of vir Erick, of enige van die ander? Jy het seker nie nodig om ons te ontmoet nie, want jy “ken” mos ons “tipe”
Het god aan jou openbaar wie ons nou eintlik is en hoe ons optree?
Jy moet verstaan, Hans, dit skeel my min wat jy van my dink, ek is net nuuskierig om te weet hoe jy aan die kennis gekom het waarop jy jou stelllings basseer.
Verder het alle goeie dade van ongelowiges natuurlik ‘n kommersiele motief. Dit is seker hoekom Billl Gates en Warren Buffett besig is om feitlik al hulle geld weg te gee. Hulle “seed” seker om tienvoudig terug te kry. Ek het gedog dit is eintlik die christenne se racket.
Shazee
May 23, 2012 at 10:40
Hans, ek hoor wat jy sê ou maat.
Kom ek gee ‘n voorbeeld of twee van die waarheid van die Bybel, waarin jy nie net duidelike profesiëe kan sien nie, maar selfs vêrdere verwysing na Suid Afrika as sulks. Of ten minste, indien die ouens op die blog te verstrooid is om dit raak te sien, ten minste stof tot na-denke, of dood gewoon “toeval”, ‘n woord waarvoor nie-gelowiges baie lief is.
Kom ek neem ‘n visie van Eségiël as voorbeeld. Eségiël het graag visies van diere gebruik. Ons moet onthou dat hy duisende jare gelede geleef het en dus nie ‘n ander manier geken om dinge van die toekoms te beskryf nie. Hy was ook die hekwag vir die volk van Israel wat bemoeid was met hulle welstand en toekoms. Ek gaan Eségiël 1 as voorbeeld gebruik. Sy eerste visie.
1:4-7 “ Ek het ‘n gesig gesien. Daar het ‘n storm uit die noorde gekom, ‘n groot wolk. Vlamme het heen en weer geflits en daar was ‘n helder skynsel om die wolk. Van binne uit, uit die vuur uit, het dit geblink soos gloeiende wit metaal.
Daaruit het vier wesens te voorskyn gekom. Hulle het ‘n mensvormige voorkoms gehad,
maar elkeen het vier gesigte en vier vlerke gehad.
Hulle bene was reguit en hulle voete was soos beeskloue en het geblink soos koper wat opgevryf is.” …by die inhuldigingseremonie van Nelson Mandela het die parade begin met 4 Impala vliegtuie wat in formasie gevlieg het, van “blink metaal”, met 4 gesigte (kentekens) en 4 vlerke. Hulle onderstelle (bene) is blink en van vooraf gesien lyk die wiele soos die gesplete hoef van ‘n “bees”.
1:8 “Onder hulle vlerke aan elk van die vier kante van elkeen was daar menshande. Al vier wesens het gesigte en vlerke gehad.” …mensehande verwys daarna dat die wesens deur mense gemaak is en ook moontlik die “kasteel” (SA Lugmag se wapen daardie tyd) met 5 punte (vingers) wat soos ‘n hand kan lyk.
1:9 “Die een se vlerke het aan die een langs hom s’n geraak. Die wesens het nie van koers verander wanneer hulle beweeg nie. Elkeen het reg vooruit beweeg.” …het in formasie gevlieg.
1:10 “Elkeen het vier gesigte gehad. Die vorms van hulle gesigte was so: voor dié van ‘n mens, regs dié van ‘n leeu, links dié van ‘n bul, en agter dié van ‘n arend. Elke wese het dus vier gesigte gehad.” …vooraansig die van ‘n mens (vliëenier), links die van ‘n bul (16 eskader embleem), regs die van ‘n leeu (19 eskader embleem), agter die van ‘n arend (SALM embleem).
1:11-14 “Sy twee boonste vlerke was oopgesprei en het aan dié van die wesens weerskante geraak; met die twee ander vlerke het hy sy lyf bedek.
Die wesens het reg vooruit beweeg in die rigting waarin die Gees dit wou, en hulle het nie van koers verander wanneer hulle beweeg nie.
Die vorm van die wesens, hulle voorkoms, was soos dié van gloeiende kole vuur; hulle was net soos die vlamme wat heen en weer tussen hulle beweeg het. Die vuur het helder geskyn en blitse het uit die vuur geskiet.” …verdere beskrywing van stralers in formasie.
1:15-17 “Terwyl ek so na die wesens kyk, sien ek ‘n wiel op die grond langs elke wese met sy vier gesigte.
Die voorkoms van die wiele en hulle afwerking was soos dié van edelstene. Hulle het eenders gelyk en al vier was so gemaak dat daar ‘n wiel dwars binne ‘n wiel was;
hulle kon in die rigting van enige van hulle vier kante beweeg, maar hulle het nie van koers verander as hulle beweeg nie.” …helikopters, met hulle rotors.
1:18-21 “Die wiele was groot en indrukwekkend en al vier se vellings was rondom vol oë.
Wanneer die wesens beweeg het, het die wiele saam met hulle beweeg, en wanneer die wesens van die grond af opgestyg het, het die wiele ook opgestyg.
Waarheen die Gees ook al wou, het hulle beweeg, en die wiele het saam opgestyg, want die wesens se gees was in die wiele.
Wanneer die wesens beweeg, beweeg die wiele; wanneer die wesens staan, staan die wiele; wanneer die wesens van die grond af opstyg, styg die wiele saam op, want die wesens se gees was in die wiele.” …nogsteeds verwysings na helikopters.
1:22 “Bokant die wesens se koppe was iets wat gelyk het soos ‘n gewelf, blink en skrikwekkend soos ‘n ysberg. Die gewelf was bokant hulle koppe oopgespan.” …die blink “canopies” van die vegvliegtuie.
1:23-25 “Onderkant die gewelf het hulle vlerke gestrek, die een teen die ander, en elkeen het met twee vlerke sy lyf bedek.
Ek het die geruis van hulle vlerke gehoor. Wanneer hulle beweeg, was dit soos die geruis van ‘n sterk waterstroom, soos die stem van die Almagtige, soos die gedruis van ‘n menigte mense bymekaar, soos die gedreun van ‘n leërmag. Wanneer hulle tot stilstand kom, het hulle hulle vlerke laat sak.
Daar het ‘n stem gekom van bokant die gewelf bo die wesens se koppe af. Hulle het hulle vlerke laat sak wanneer hulle tot stilstand kom.” …weereens die stralers met ‘n gesuis soos ‘n sterk waterstroom of die gedruis van baie mense ens.
1:26 “Bokant die gewelf bo hulle koppe was daar iets soos saffier met die vorm van ‘n troon, en daarop was ‘n gestalte met die voorkoms van ‘n mens, hoog daarbo.” …die uitskietstoel met die vlieënier daarop.
1:27 “Van wat gelyk het na sy heupe, daarvandaan boontoe, het dit vir my gelyk na die glans van gloeiende wit metaal, na iets soos vuur met ‘n rand rondom, en van wat gelyk het na sy heupe, daarvandaan ondertoe, het dit vir my gelyk na vuur met ‘n helder glans rondom.” …die uitlaat van vuur.
1:28 “Die glans rondom was soos dié van die reënboog in ‘n wolk na die reën. Dit was soos die magtige verskyning van die Here. Toe ek dit sien, val ek plat en ek hoor ‘n stem praat.” …die hittegolwe rondom die stralers.
Julle sien dit!?, of dalk nie.
“ Verdere “toeval” is dat Eségiël in sy tweede visie gesien het hoedat ons (SA) vertrap word en hy beskryf weer die wesens, behalwe dat die bul-embleem uitgelaat word, maar vervang word met ‘n “vliegtuig”-embleem en dit is so dat 16 Eskader toegemaak is na die inhuldiging van Mandela en dat die vliegtuie na FTS oorgeplaas is met die emblem van ‘n Impala vliegtuig as hulle wapen of embleem.
soois
May 23, 2012 at 12:48
(Apophenia + Confirmation bias) × Cherry-picking = Failsafe fuckwittery
Con-Tester
May 23, 2012 at 13:44
Nee Soois, hy het aliens gesien!!
Party mense dink mos die piramides is deur aliens gebou.
Maar elk geval, jy klink net soos Siener van Rensburg.
ErickV
May 23, 2012 at 14:22
Soois, ek het so pas my woordeskat met twee nuwe woorde uitgebrei: “apophenia” en “fuckwiittery”.
Skryf asseblief nog, miskien leer ons nog iets interresant.
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 07:01
Shazee, jip ou maat, die woordeskat van iemand wat eenvoudig nie die teendeel kan bewys nie.
ErickV, die waarheid is dat ‘n Britse dametjie eintlik my bogenoemde “visie” al in 1993 gehad het. Toe was dit nog die toekoms. Ek het haar “visie” net aangepas in die verlede tyd omdat die dinge intussen al gebeur het. Sy het voor 1994 ook al uit ander dele van Esegiel voorspel dat Sy volk (Juda – Suid Afrika) deur ‘n nuwe regering oorgeneem sal word omdat hulle (SA), God vergeet en verlaat het, en dat hulle (ANC) ons sou verdruk, vertrap en stelselmatig uitmoor . Daar is een plaasmoord elke tweede dag in SA en 60 aanvalle op blankes elke dag op plase en in stede waar diefstal nie eers plaasvind nie. Slegs gevalle waar ‘n verdagte betrokke is mag in die media genoem word (blykbaar “public relations” I beg u). En sy het die dinge uit die boek Esegiel gehaal voor 1994.
Terloops, van Oom Niklaas (Siener) van Rensburg gepraat. Hy het soortgelyke voorspellings gemaak en ene Nostradamus het eeue gelede geskryf van die “groot verleier” wat in ‘n tronk in Suid Afrika gaan wees en deur ene “Le Clerc” vrygelaat gaan word om SA en die wereld te mislei. In elk geval raak ek nou polities hier en dit gaan eintlik oor die waarheid van die Woord van God.
Nee wat ouens, julle kan spot, stry, mooi geleerde woorde uiter, vloek, skree, lag noem dit maar op, maar stadig maar seker gaan hierdie dinge voor julle oopvou en as dit te laat is, is my gebede met julle.
My gebede is in elk geval met julle.
soois
May 24, 2012 at 08:22
Soois, jy maak seker ‘n grap.
Vind jy dit indrukwekkend dat iemand in 1993 kon voorspel dat Suid Afrika in 1994 ‘n nuwe regering sou he???
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 08:33
Well Shazee, we learn that those words are “die woordeskat van iemand wat eenvoudig nie die teendeel kan bewys nie”. And having learned that, we also learn (as if the lesson was really necessary) that godiots/religiots/apologiots/crediots/bibliots haven’t the first clue about any burden-of-proof concept. We furthermore learn that these morons are happy with their ham-fisted retrofittings of Holey Babble gumph to whatever events they would like them to fit. Additionally, we learn that at different times and places, the same Holey Babble gumph has been retrofitted to different events by different dimwits. Then, towards the end of our instructive lesson, we learn that these idiots are never able to predict the future from their fairytale book with any kind of reliability, precision and/or accuracy. Whenever they try to, as in Camping’s case, they fail abominably and then start vomiting up pisspoor evasions, bullshit, and excuses for why their predictions fail but they never see what’s obvious to any impartial observer, namely that their premises, source and methods are all profoundly flawed. Therefore and in conclusion, we learn that these asinine twits are incapable of comprehending the term “compelling, reliable evidence.”
Con-Tester
May 24, 2012 at 08:46
By the way,Soois, het jy geweet dat Nostradamus okkultiese metodes gebruik het vir sy “voorspellings”?
Word sulke voorspellings nie erens in die bybel verbied nie?
Behoort jy die goed te lees jong?
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 08:47
Con-Tester, there is a very interesting posting today on -richarddawkins.net- regarding the these failed predictions.
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 08:58
ErickV, as jy ‘n skrywe tot my rig sal ek jou antwoord en verder gee ek geleentheid dat Soois jou self antwoord as jy ‘n skrywe aan hom rig.
Hans Matthysen
May 24, 2012 at 09:02
Shazee, die waarheid maak seer en welsyn instansies en aksies ontstaan hoofsaaklik deur gelowiges en word deur gelowiges bedryf. Julle het al duidelik gedemonstreer in julle skrywes, dat julle neerkyk op gelowiges anders sou julle minstens hulle goeie werke en noodsaaklike rol wat hulle vervul, erken het. Aan watse organisasie dra jy by tot die welsyn van ander?
So ter loops, die Bybel is nie teen die profetiese gees waarmee Nostradamus en ander mee begaafd was of is. Die waarsêers is ‘n probleem, want hulle lieg vir die mense en somtyds raak mense so oortuig, dat hulle, hulleself daarna toe dryf aan wat die waarsêer voorspel het.
Hans Matthysen
May 24, 2012 at 09:29
Con-Tester, eternal life is not a place but rather a condition, as spirit is not confined to the psychical.
Hans Matthysen
May 24, 2012 at 09:36
Soois, ja profetiese gawes wys somtyds dinge wat mense nie wil glo nie. Pred. 1:9 Wat gewees het, dit sal daar weer wees; en wat gebeur het, dit sal weer gebeur, en daar is glad niks nuuts onder die son nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 24, 2012 at 09:55
Very interesting, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ongelloflik arrogante ou liegbek pêl. Truly fascinating. Got any proof for the reality of your fantasies? I mean something more meaty than “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book”?
No, I didn’t think so.
And you still haven’t furnished a functional definition of this word “spirit” that you use so freely, so how the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the fuck you’re gibbering about. And what do you mean by “not confined to the psychical”?
Come, come now. A genius of your earth-shattering importance must surely be able to answer these simple questions for us lesser intellects.
Con-Tester
May 24, 2012 at 10:07
Hans, die bybel se mos die likerhand moet nie weet wat die regterhand doen, wat betref welsyn skenkings nie.
Ek glo nie dat dit werklik relevant is tot die gesprek presies watter skenkings ek aan wie doen nie. Die punt van die argument was dat gewetenlose “predikers” goedgelowige en desperate mense vir eie gewin uitbuit.
Nietemin, jy het my ‘n reguit vraag gevra, en ek sal jou ‘n reguit antwoord gee: daar is heelwat hawelose mense in my omgewing vir wie ek op ‘n gereelde basis komberse, kos en klere gee. Ek het al dikwels vir doktersbesoeke en medisyne betaal. Ek praat nie van nou en dan nie Hans, die mense ken my en klop gereeld vir hulp aan. Ek reken hierdie ad hoc hulp wat ek verleen beloop veel meer as my “tiende”
Ek vra nie vir die ouens wat hulle glo of nie glo nie, ek vra nie aan watter etniese groep hulle behoort nie, ek help as ek kan sonder aansien van die persoon.
Ek hoop dit is reguit genoeg vir jou, en as jy my woord in twyfel trek is ek heeltemal bereid om jou aan my “gemeentelede” te gaan voorstel. Se maar.
Verder sal ek graag wil weet hoe jy onderskei tussen ‘n “profetiese gees” en iemand wat gewoonweg kak uit sy duim uit suig?
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 10:20
Shazee
“Soois, jy maak seker ‘n grap.
Vind jy dit indrukwekkend dat iemand in 1993 kon voorspel dat Suid Afrika in 1994 ‘n nuwe regering sou he???” …nee, obviously nie, maar die res wat nou wel aan die gebeur is, asook hoe die inhuldigings-seremonie sou lyk, en as ek na Oom Siener verwys, wat ‘n baie groot Christen was, het dit al in 1918 voorspel as my datum reg is. Ook visies van God.
“By the way,Soois, het jy geweet dat Nostradamus okkultiese metodes gebruik het vir sy “voorspellings”?
Word sulke voorspellings nie erens in die bybel verbied nie?
Behoort jy die goed te lees jong?” …net soos daar mense is wat Siener valslik as ‘n vrymesselaar wou uitmaak, is jou inligting oor Nostradamus ook foutief. Hy was ‘n Christen wat bv op een geleentheid voor een van twee monnike neergeval het en gese het hy moet eer aan sy ekselensie betoon. Daardie monnik het eers na Nostradamus se dood die volgende pous geword. Nostradamus het van sterrekunde en sterrebeelde gebruik gemaak, so het Oom Siener van beeste en perde gebruik gemaak, want God gee Sy beelde dmv iets wat die betrokke profeet ken. Siener was ‘n boer en Nostradamus het graag die sterre bestudeer. Jesus het voor Sy hemelvaart gese dat daar mense sal wees wat talente ontvang, party sal dodelike gif kan drink en leef, party sal kan tale uitle, party sal kan genees en party sal profete wees wat die toekoms sal kan sien. Almal daar om Sy boodskap te bevorder. Hy het net gewaarsku dat daar ook baie valse profete sal wees, maar hulle word gou uitgesnuffel.
soois
May 24, 2012 at 16:19
So, Soois, jy vind dit wel indrukwekkend dat iemand kon voorspel hou die inhuldiging seremonie sou lyk, met vliegtuie en so meer? Dit vat duidelik nie veel om jou te beindruk nie.
Jy reken dat astrologie ‘n betroubare metode is om die toekoms te voorspel? Die bewegings van sterre en konstelasies het ‘n invloed op gebeure in die toekoms en die gebeure kan voorspel word as jy dit net reg kan lees?
Die kak wat mense tog kan glo.
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 17:01
Once again we see how readily the godiots/apologiots/bibliots/crediots/religiots lie according to their needs and wants. Nostradamus was of Jewish descent on his father’s side but was Roman Catholic by virtue of his father’s father having converted (some sources claim it was under duress, which is possible given the RCC’s long and bloody history of Anti-Semitism). Nostradamus was an astrologer by which trade he made a living.
According to these godiots’/apologiots’/bibliots’/crediots’/religiots’ own assertions, Roman Catholics are not True Crushtians™. Moreover, Pope Sixtus V and later Pope Urban VIII explicitly condemned astrology as superstitious and heretical based on Holy Babble gumph. And remember that Papal Bulls concerning scriptural matters are infallible.
Now this clown before us will have us believe that Nostradamus was actully a True Crushtian™ and so his methods are A-OK with his skydaddy even though the Holey Babble explicitly censures fortune tellers. There are so many different contradictions in this little Nostradamus/RCC/Holey Babble/fortune-telling scenario that it belongs in a novel by Kafka.
But it won’t worry the godiots’/apologiots’/bibliots’/crediots’/religiots’ minds in the least. They’ve got it all figured out by a simple rule: “If warping logic, bending facts, fabricating stuff and/or raping reason is what’s needed to support my point, then that’s just what I’ll do.”
Con-Tester
May 24, 2012 at 17:50
I’m going to start collating and posting the shit these nanowits write here on the FSTDT site. At least there it will serve to amuse the much larger rational audience that it deserves.
Con-Tester
May 24, 2012 at 19:59
Great site, great idea.
Shazee
May 24, 2012 at 20:44
Shazee, dit lyk my jy is so gereed om tee te stribbel dat jy die vermoeë om te lees verloor het.
“So, Soois, jy vind dit wel indrukwekkend dat iemand kon voorspel hou die inhuldiging seremonie sou lyk, met vliegtuie en so meer? Dit vat duidelik nie veel om jou te beindruk nie.” — Die punt was eintlik dat Eségiël dit duisende jare terug al gesien het.
“Jy reken dat astrologie ‘n betroubare metode is om die toekoms te voorspel? Die bewegings van sterre en konstelasies het ‘n invloed op gebeure in die toekoms en die gebeure kan voorspel word as jy dit net reg kan lees?” — Nee, ek het gesê dat Nostradamus daarvan gehou het om die sterre te bestudeer, dus het God Sy openbarings aan Nostradamus gegee deur drome oor sterre, net so het Hy drome van beeste en perde gebruik omdat Siener ‘n boer was.
“Die kak wat mense tog kan glo.” — The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
soois
May 25, 2012 at 17:18
Soois, jy dink ek het my vermoe om te lees verloor?
Ek reken jy het jou vermoe om te dink verloor.
Hoe kom jy daarby uit dat Esegiel duisende jare terug voorspel dat Nelson Mandela president van Suid Afrika sou word?
Waar staan Mandela se naam in die bybel, of is dit weer ‘n interpretasie?
Jou kop raas man, en as jy ‘n greintjie objektiewe eerlikheid gehad het sou jy dit besef het en gaan hulp kry het.
Het jy weer ‘n slag na die die kinderagtige stront gaan kyk wat jy skryf?
Dit hou nooit op om my te verstom dat julle ouens so skaamteloos julle naam kan gat maak nie, oor en oor.
Die begin van wysheid is eerder om die verstand wat jy (na bewering) gekry het begin gebruik om ‘n slag vir jouself te begin dink. Soos ‘n grootmens Soois, nie soos ‘n wensdenkende kind nie.
Shazee
May 25, 2012 at 21:24
“I regard the brain as a computer which will break down when its components fail; there is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers, it is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark”
(Stephen Hawking)
“It is time that humanity wake up from the long nightmare of religion”
(Steven Weinberg)
Shazee
May 26, 2012 at 05:58
Soois,
Kan jy vir my aub se wat jou doel op aarde is?
ErickV
May 26, 2012 at 06:07
Shazee, dankie vir jou eerlike antwoord en ja dit doen my hart goed om te weet, dat jy ook liefdadigheid teenoor ander bewys, al is hulle net die wat jou pad kruis. So waardeer ek alle instansies wat hulle medemens liefdadigheid bewys, al is hulle een of ander gelowiges of nie. Ek kam nie alle gelowiges onder dieselfde kam nie en ek haat ook die gewetenlose “predikers” wat goedgelowige en desperate mense vir eie gewin uitbuit.
Die “profetiese gees” is ‘n gees van stigting en bewaring. Dit is nie ‘n gees van verwarring of fantasie nie.
Hans Matthysen
May 26, 2012 at 21:56
Shazee, die Bybel praat nie van Nelson Mandela nie, maar van Sy volk (Juda) wat Hom sou vergeet en dus (tydelik) in verderf sou verval. Ek gaan die dinge nie verder vir jou probeer uitspel nie. Soos 2 Tim 2:16-17 se, “Maar die onheilige en sinlose praatjies moet jy vermy, want dié wat dit versprei, sal nog verder in goddeloosheid verval, en hulle woorde sal voortvreet soos kanker. Onder hulle is daar Himeneus en Filetus,” en vers 23 “Moet jou nie met dwase en sinlose strydvrae inlaat nie, want jy weet tog dat dit net rusies veroorsaak.” Ware woorde, want maak nie saak hoe ek of Hans of enige gelowige antwoord nie, die goddelose sal dit verdraai en verstaan net soos hy wil. Dus ‘n sinnelose mors van asem en tyd.
ErickV, my doel in die lewe is om ter ere van Hom te leef, Sy geskenk aan my (die plaas wat eintlik Syne is, maar deur Hom aan my geleen word) ten volle te benut en ten volle te leef. Om deur my lewe ‘n voorbeeld aan ander te stel, om hulle te inspireer, my kinders en kleinkinders die Blye Boodskap te gee, en om myself, my eggenote en my volgelinge voor te berei op die ewige lewe wat na hierdie kort tydelike lewe sal plaasvind. Net soos wat ons ons kinderdae deurbring en leer en voorberei vir die volwasse lewe, net so is die aardse lewe net die voorbereiding op die ewigeid. Ons kinderdae is wonderlik, maar tydelik. Net so is ons lewe op aarde wonderlik, maar ook tydelik.
Die langste boek in die Bybel is Psalms 119, die kortste boek in die Bybel is Psalms 117, die middelste boek in die Bybel is Psalms 118 en die middelste vers in die Bybel is Psalms 118:8. Daar is 594 verse voor Psalm 118:8 en daar is 594 verse na Psalm 118:8. Tel hulle bymekaar en jy kry 1188. Toeval?? Raai net wat staan daarin? “Om by die Here te skuil, is beter as om op mense te vertrou.” ‘n Samevatting van waaroor die hele Bybel gaan.
soois
May 27, 2012 at 20:57
soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):
Fuck, you can cut the irony with a rubber mallet. See, you brainless godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots/bibliots just keep on fabricating new “facts” to cover up all the bullshit and lies you’ve vomited up before. If only you had the cranial capacity to see yourselves through impartial eyes, you’d get an inkling of how ridiculous you are.
soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):
Yes, we can all see the example you set, the inspiration you give, how you want to hobble your children’s critical faculties, and what a deluded moron you are, hoping for another chance so that you can make good for all the things you fucked up in this life and get a lollypop for all the wrongs done against you.
soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):
And it is this piece of wishful fiction that makes you fuckers simultaneously so dangerous and so laughable. You accept it without a shred of proof and try to sell it to everyone else as Eternal Truth™.
soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):
No, just some idiot with delusions of mathematical adequacy.
Con-Tester
May 28, 2012 at 08:49
Dit is die gees Soois, as jou argument as onsinnig uitgewys word, weier om verder aan die gesprek deel te neem.
As iemand bewyse vra, haal die bybel aan.
Hoe voorspelbaar.
Shazee
May 28, 2012 at 15:03
Ek wonder wie is dit wat net kan aanhaal?! Wie het die volgende geplaas? ““I regard the brain as a computer which will break down when its components fail; there is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers, it is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark”
(Stephen Hawking)
“It is time that humanity wake up from the long nightmare of religion”
(Steven Weinberg)”
Ja-nee, hoef niks meer te se nie. Staan agter die deur, tipies ateis. Sterkte.
soois
May 28, 2012 at 16:02
Con-Tester wrote:
“Fuck, you can cut the irony with a rubber mallet. See, you brainless godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots/bibliots just keep on fabricating new “facts” to cover up all the bullshit and lies you’ve vomited up before. If only you had the cranial capacity to see yourselves through impartial eyes, you’d get an inkling of how ridiculous you are.” A sad situation when a person who are supposed to be much more versed in the English language than myself, apparently has not a clue to the meaning of the word “impartial”.
“Yes, we can all see the example you set, the inspiration you give, how you want to hobble your children’s critical faculties, and what a deluded moron you are, hoping for another chance so that you can make good for all the things you fucked up in this life and get a lollypop for all the wrongs done against you.” You don know me and have no idea about my life, therefore your comment is laughable and I wonder whan an “impartial” person will think of that. I cannot think of one thing I have “fucked up” in my life (a fringe benefit for being a Christian ), and I cannot think of a wrong-doing against me. No, I love this life and it can go on as long as possible, but I also know there is a life hereafter full of beautifull, loving and IMPARTIAL people.
“And it is this piece of wishful fiction that makes you fuckers simultaneously so dangerous and so laughable. You accept it without a shred of proof and try to sell it to everyone else as Eternal Truth” The sad thing is that us Christians are the only ones with proof. Not like the idiots who believe in all kinds of THEORIES.
soois
May 28, 2012 at 16:23
Twee aanhalings Soois, en ek het dit nie aangebied as bewys van enigiets nie. Dit is ‘n fundie truuk daardie, nie myne nie.
Shazee
May 28, 2012 at 17:02
Oh, so suddenly you’re talking to me again after your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty are in danger of being exposed once more? What a fine upstanding fellow you are!
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
Language errors aside, sad indeed — that you think you know what “impartial” means. Your every word reeks rankly of partiality towards a Bronze Age fairytale and against all reason, facts, evidence and logic.
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
Whatever you say, sport. Since it’s you saying it, it simply must be true, mustn’t it? But if you stopped to look at and think about it for half a second — assuming of course against all indications that you have that capacity — you would have found that I know all the bullshit and lies and evasions and brainless crap and ignorant fundie nonsense that you have spewed all over this blog. It also means that I know you a lot better than you think.
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
That’s because you’re an unrepentantly arrogant doos with delusions of adequacy.
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
No? You got Alzheimer’s too along with all your other mental deficiencies?
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
(Emphasis added.) You “know”, eh? Knowledge is defined as “true, justified belief”. That means you can prove what you claim to know. So prove this little gem you claim above. Or stop talking such pathetic kak.
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
Go on, produce it then, you funny joker, you! Prove the world of atheism wrong, I challenge you.
soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):
What, like special and general relativity? Like germs and pathogens causing disease? Like quantum mechanics? Like plate tectonics? Like thermodynamics? Like electromagnetism? Like aerodynamics? Oh, you mean like evolution! Well, I’m not surprised, seeing as you’re the world’s foremost unpublished expert in biology, railing against all those hundreds of thousands of lesser experts who disagree with you.
Con-Tester
May 28, 2012 at 17:17
Just watched the news.
Main story; child week. Stories of the antichrist raping children, putting them into a freezers etc. Fuck you CT, fuck you Nathan Bond and fuck you every part of the antichrist. I am finished with this blog, one of satan’s sites. Enjoy your satanic lives. God forgive me, but I will not pray for these child raping bastards.
soois
May 28, 2012 at 19:14
He-he-he, but soois your “antichrist raping children” are self-proclaimed godiots — just like you, in fact — so your arrogant and self-righteous fuck-yous are a little bit misplaced, my dimwitted little ranting hater. Where’s your Jeeeeebusssst! with that other cheek now, hmm? Or do you, just like most of your godiot kindred out there, follow those teachings only when it suits you? In any case, your skydaddy will take care of these offenders, now won’t he? And if you want to pin child rape on atheists, you should go straight to your nearest police station and give yourself up, see?
On top of all of which, you’ve claimed to be “finished with this blog” before, so your consistency leaves a bit to be desired. You’ll be back, my mendacious sheep pilot.
Con-Tester
May 28, 2012 at 19:35
Soois, woede oor kinders wat verkrag en vermoor word is verstaanbaar en ek deel dit met jou.
Het een van die deelnemers aan hierdie blog iets daarmee te doen sover jy weet? Het iemand hier al te kenne gegee dat hulle so iets sou goedkeur?
Vlieg jy ook in jou moer in met jou ongegronde insinuasies.
Shazee
May 28, 2012 at 19:38
En daar kom Soois se alter-ego nou uiteindelik deur. Ek het nogal gewonder hoe lank gaan dit nog wees.
Hy is ook maar nog ‘n klip christen wat op ‘n troontjie sit en almal wat nie met hom saamstem nie te oordeel Ek het nou net alle respek wat ek vir hom gehad het verloor.
Soois, hoe kan jy se dat die kinder verkragters anti christene is? Wat van die godiote wat priesters genoem word. Hulle mollesteer en verkrag jong kinders en is al oor en oor bewys.
Maar nou ja, alle mense wat nie jou (en ander fundies) se siening deel nie is mos sataniste.
Kyk maar vir die veroordeling van daardie goth meisie wat ook in die “bediening” wil staan.
Julle is almal fokken siek!
ErickV
May 29, 2012 at 05:42
Ek volg hierdie blog so dan en wan. Dis insiggewend, maar die vermaak is tops!
Die Antichris wat kinders verkrag. Genoeg is reeds geskryf oor die verkragtings, en elke regdenkende mens sal stem dat dit sif verby is. Soois is vinnig om die ‘slegte’ met die antichris te vergelyk, maar wat de fok is die AC nou eintlik? Ek’s so gatvol vir die lot gelowiges wat aldag rondloop en die res van die wereld vertel hoe hulle God nodig het vir moraliteit. Feit is, om in die Antichris te glo, moet jy in God glo!
Soos ek al vantevore op die blog geskryf het, die gelowiges kan net nie verloor nie. Want sien
Goed: Prys die Here!
Sleg: Fokken antichris/ateis/ander gelowige…
Godsk!!
ns, gepraat van ‘godsk’, waar is Nathan Bond deesdae?
rick
May 30, 2012 at 16:44