Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Openbare onkunde

with 62 comments

Beeld het vandag ‘n aanlyn meningspeiling oor evolusie gedoen. Die resultaat, alhoewel nie verrassend nie, is steeds skokkend:

34% van Beeld se aanlynlesers, op ‘n bepaalde dag, is gewillig om hulle onkunde oor evolusie openbaar te maak.

43% van Beeld se aanlynlesers, op ‘n bepaalde dag, is sterk genoeg teen evolusie gekant om hulle verwerping van evolusie openbaar te maak.

Slegs 23% van Beeld se aanlynlesers, op ‘n bepaalde dag, meen evolusie is ‘n belangrik genoeg wetenskaplike teorie om in die openbaar te ondersteun.

Wat kan uit die resultaat afgelei word? Dat Beeld meer wetenskaplike artikels oor evolusie moet publiseer om sy lesers kundig te maak oor die natuur en om mitologiese snert uit te wys vir die verdommende invloed wat dit het.

Wat gaan Beeld waarskynlik doen? Niks. Of vir eerwaarde Neels Jackson vra om Piet Strauss oor die Skepping te pols.

Written by Nathan Bond

September 2, 2008 at 19:25

Posted in Religion must go!

Tagged with ,

62 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Con-Tester, the fact remains, that I have evidence of God’s existence and it is you that fall’s short thereof.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 21, 2009 at 21:03

  2. Ah, Hans, you shoulda told us: You’re just being “adventurous”! That’s OK, then. Phew! For a long while there I thought you were being serious. Ha Ha – You had me there! Welcome to the real world, fellow rational citizen! No more of that “the brain has no function” teasing now, OK?

    bewilderbeast

    August 21, 2009 at 17:02

  3. At last a glimmer of hope! And trust DW, in his inimitable way, to give it to us: Out of all the tons and tons of bullshit, maybe the end is in sight:
    “dis nog net die 3 gotte wat jy uit jou kop moet kry”

    Gotta love it.

    bewilderbeast

    August 21, 2009 at 16:56

  4. …meaning, presumably, that because the word exists, it has a real-world referent, yes?

    If so, what about unicorns? Or dragons? Or faeries? Or krakens? Or Allah? Or Vishnu? Or any number of other things that have a name that you would reject as non-existent or bullshit?

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2009 at 11:20

  5. Con-Tester, maybe the word “immortality” should not have existed, in your view?

    Hans Matthysen

    August 14, 2009 at 22:17

  6. No Hans Matthysen, bullshit. Full stop. You have no evidence. Therefore your view of “immortality” is smug bullshit.

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2009 at 12:34

  7. Con-Tester, bullshit in your view, which is very dim, in regard to immortality and therefore doesn’t count for much.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 12, 2009 at 21:49

  8. Hans Matthysen, the sad part in all of the above is that you think you actually know something important and have to twist reality into all sorts of contorted shapes to get there. The above is 98% bullshit because you have no evidence.

    Con-Tester

    July 4, 2009 at 11:14

  9. Con-Tester, the brain is nothing and has no function, without the soul. It has no conscience or intellect without the soul.
    The fact is, that the awareness of those who have passed, is a reality and the rules you wish to apply, to prove all reality, is not applicable.
    I have many years of experience, in regard to the passing, to know that I am not mistaken and there are many like me.
    The history of humanity’s ideas of the shape of planet earth, is not a relevant argument and is rather a flimsy diversion from the subject in question.
    If you choose not to venture down the avenues in question, then it is clear, that you cannot speak with authority against that in question.
    I have a friend or two, who receive medication, for that kind of condition of the brain and I can assure you, I know the difference.
    You think you are familiar with what is claimed, yet you are not, as you choose not to venture down certain avenues.
    As I have said, without the immaterial soul, the brain, is brainless.
    Spirit can not be confined, as spiritual truth also and what you call “ultimately deleterious baggage”, is apparently what you choose not to be adventurous about, and therefore lack to understand.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 3, 2009 at 22:00

  10. Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    [C]onscience is a quality of the human soul and is absent elsewhere. It one of the reasons the human soul is different.

    No, conscience is an attribute of the human mind. We have a plausible idea of how it came about and this account doesn’t require any immaterial soul, whatever that might be.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    The degree of intellect, by the human soul, is another reason the human soul is different.

    Intellect is demonstrably situated in the physical brain, not in any immaterial soul, whatever that might be.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    The awareness of those who have passed, has not necessary got anything to do with religion.

    I agree. However, in practice such an “awareness of those who have passed” is almost without fail a convenient little fiction the main purpose of which is to bolster one or other larger religious fairytale.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    I don’t intend to suppress understanding, as I have the understanding, in regard to “ghost’s”, that was only gained, after I became aware of their presence.

    If you haven’t seriously investigated and convincingly eliminated the possibility that you could be mistaken re this awareness then I’m afraid to say that your claims, being unproven and unconvincing, are in fact an attempt to suppress understanding.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    One who can see/feel/smell ghosts, normally will confer with others, who have the same abilities, just to make sure, that they are not mistaken. We are all well aware, that our minds can play games with us.

    So you speak with others and accept the similarities and parallels of their testimonials with yours as proof that these “ghosts” are real? You cannot, surely, be serious! Do you know the history of humanity’s ideas about the shape of our planet Earth? Or that of any of a practically infinite number of other misperceptions? Can you not see how downright flimsy your argument is?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    It is clear, that their are avenues, you choose not to venture into, as you cannot measure or define them by your rules and standards. For you then, they don’t exist and that is your loss, as well as those, who choose to follow you blindly…

    I choose not to venture down such avenue for two reasons. First, there is no good evidence to suggest these avenues are anything but a pipedream. And second, there is much good evidence to suggest that these avenues are nothing but a pipedream. But by all means, please supply the apposite reason and/or evidence and I’ll change my tune without much hesitation.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    [M]any who deal with the dying and bereaved, will tell you otherwise, in regard to proof of the presence of consciousness, after death.

    And most of those who deal with the human brain and human cognition will tell you of the brain’s amazing ability to confabulate, a faculty that is directly observable unlike some posited mystical realm where consciousness can exist in the absence of matter.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    I would rather say, that there is a part of “sense” and “logic” you are not familiar with.

    If it’s the one you’ve been talking about then I am familiar with it, or rather what is claimed about it.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    Imagination is very powerful, … namely the presence of conscientiousness. Maybe it is a dimension of which you are not aware of.

    Imagination is demonstrably situated in the physical brain, not in any immaterial soul, whatever that might be.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:17 pm):

    Many are still confined in some ways. God is spirit and we serve Him in spirit and truth.

    How about serving truth for its own sake? Without encumbering it with all sorts of unwarranted and ultimately deleterious baggage, I mean.

    Con-Tester

    December 26, 2008 at 22:18

  11. Con-tester, conscience is a quality of the human soul and is absent elsewhere. It one of the reasons the human soul is different.

    The degree of intellect, by the human soul, is another reason the human soul is different.

    The awareness of those who have passed, has not necessary got anything to do with religion.

    I don’t intend to suppress understanding, as I have the understanding, in regard to “ghost’s”, that was only gained, after I became aware of their presence.

    One who can see/feel/smell ghosts, normally will confer with others, who have the same abilities, just to make sure, that they are not mistaken. We are all well aware, that our minds can play games with us.

    It is clear, that their are avenues, you choose not to venture into, as you cannot measure or define them by your rules and standards. For you then, they don’t exist and that is your loss, as well as those, who choose to follow you blindly, because of your great knowledge.

    I may have missed your point, yet, for many who deal with the dying and bereaved, will tell you otherwise, in regard to proof of the presence of consciousness, after death.

    I would rather say, that there is a part of “sense” and “logic” you are not familiar with.

    Imagination is very powerful, for when I was a boy, comic books imagined man on the moon. I can just close my eyes and I am in Durban. When Jesus spoke about seed, He was referring to the “word”. Some people look at the room they are in, through their minds eye, although their flesh eyes are open, yet they see, what I sometimes feel, namely the presence of conscientiousness. Maybe it is a dimension of which you are not aware of. Many are still confined in some ways. God is spirit and we serve Him in spirit and truth.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 24, 2008 at 18:17

  12. Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    Con-tester, I agree that plants, animals ect. have souls yet the difference to man is, that man has a conciense.

    Conscience does seem to be one of the more prominent attributes that distinguishes a human from other animals – I assume that you mean “conscience”: the ability to reflect on the morality of one’s actions. But conscience is adequately explained as emerging from sufficient self-consciousness in conjunction with a set of ethical norms acquired from one’s parents and peers. No immaterial “soul” required unless “soul” is just another word for “conscience.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    We don’t only have instinct, we also have intelect.

    And what of it? So do chimpanzees and other primates, as do other animals, even if the proportions of instinct and intellect are much different. No immaterial “soul” required unless “soul” is merely another word for “intellect,” in which case we are left with the curious notion that the less intellect an creature has, the less of this “soul” thing it has.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    Ghost limbs and ghost’s are not to be understood, but rather something to be aware of.

    Regardless of how convincing a case brain scientists can make that the brain constructs these sensations? I’m afraid that such a strategy to suppress understanding constitutes no less than a wilful drive to keep oneself and others ignorant. In fact, that’s exactly what religions frequently do because knowledge and inquiry is inimical to them.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    One whom can see ghost’s, see’s them in their minds eye (spiritual eye)and not with their two eyes. I personally feel them and occasionally have smelt some.

    One who can see/feel/smell ghosts with whichever organ should seriously consider the possibility of being mistaken. Perception is in very many cases constructive, colouring what is perceived with preconceived notions and prior experience.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    You must have a negative aura, if you have never experienced these things, or there is no reason, that they would want to make you aware of their presence.

    What’s my “aura” – another evidently fanciful notion – got to do with anything? Anyway, there’s a much simpler explanation: these things exist only in the minds of the deluded.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    As there is no “evidence”, according to you, how can the “evidence” sujest the opposite?

    You misunderstood my point. There’s no evidence in support of the idea that consciousness can exist independently of matter but other evidence that we have strongly points towards the idea that consciousness requires matter for its existence. After all, wherever we observe consciousness, invariably there’s a functioning brain quite close behind.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    I see and understand the sence and logic of what I experience and what I read in the Bible.

    Then we use the terms “sense” and “logic” very differently.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 9:49 pm):

    I look at spiritual things spiritually and at natural things naturally.

    But I have repeatedly asked for a functional definition of this “spirit” thing you keep talking about so that you or I or anyone else can reliably and independently establish its presence or absence in any given case. So far, you have apparently not been able to provide such a definition so it’s still safe to conclude that this “spirit” is a figment of your imagination.

    Con-Tester

    December 5, 2008 at 12:50

  13. Con-tester, I agree that plants, animals ect. have souls yet the difference to man is, that man has a conciense. We don’t only have instinct, we also have intelect.
    Ghost limbs and ghost’s are not to be understood, but rather something to be aware of. One whom can see ghost’s, see’s them in their minds eye (spiritual eye)and not with their two eyes. I personally feel them and occasionally have smelt some. You must have a negative aura, if you have never experienced these things, or there is no reason, that they would want to make you aware of their presence.
    As there is no “evidence”, according to you, how can the “evidence” sujest the opposite?
    I see and understand the sence and logic of what I experience and what I read in the Bible. I look at spiritual things spiritually and at natural things naturally.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 4, 2008 at 21:49

  14. Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Oct 08 at 2:06 pm):

    Con-Tester, every person, to me, is a soul and the word soul, as I see it, is the life in a body. The soul, to me is a spiritual being.

    I’m afraid that that’s just restating your belief. To say that “the soul … is the life in a body, … a spiritual being” is an essentially vacuous statement, a mere re-labelling of something no one yet understands properly. Giving it another name doesn’t address or illuminate anything useful. Also, as stated, it applies equally to animals, plants, sponges, bacteria and so on, wouldn’t you agree? In order to establish the plausibility of what you are suggesting, there needs to be a set of objective criteria (or perhaps a single such criterion) that can reliably and repeatably be fulfilled, in principle by anyone, with which to judge the presence or absence of “soul” or “spirit,” as distinct from “life.” This requirement remains neglected.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Oct 08 at 2:06 pm):

    I new a man, who had lost an arm and he said, he could still feel his arm.

    Yes, ghost limbs are an interesting and perplexing psychological phenomenon, a poorly understood one at that. I wholeheartedly recommend reading Ramachandran’s Phantoms in the Brain for an overview of recent thinking and research in this fascinating area of study.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Oct 08 at 2:06 pm):

    When one looses one’s whole body, should it be different?

    Because there is no functional brain left to process anything, let alone construct misperceptions, and we have no evidence at all that consciousness can exist separate from matter. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Oct 08 at 2:06 pm):

    I am with you, on the sell issue. I don’t “sell”, what I don’t understand and what does not make sence or logic, to me.

    Ditto, which is why I am asking you to make sense and logic of it for my benefit and that of other blog readers.

    Con-Tester

    October 13, 2008 at 14:45

  15. Con-Tester, every person, to me, is a soul and the word soul, as I see it, is the life in a body. The soul, to me is a spiritual being. I new a man, who had lost an arm and he said, he could still feel his arm. When one looses one’s whole body, should it be different?
    “As appearances are deceiving” I don’t suspect you of hiding anythig, yet appearances can be decieving.
    We will never be to old to learn and I am always open therefore.
    I am with you, on the sell issue. I don’t “sell”, what I don’t understand and what does not make sence or logic, to me.

    Hans Matthysen

    October 11, 2008 at 14:06

  16. Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 11:54 pm):

    The Bible is for the inner man (soul), so what has building a nuclear power plant, got to do with prayer?

    The existence of which soul is pure conjecture, most likely an artefact of a volatile mixture of wishful and dualistic thinking, and is conveniently ensconced as a concept within the bible itself, and thus we’re back to circular reasoning on that one. Nonetheless, people almost invariably pray for real, concrete things to happen in their lives, which is nothing less than an opportune petitioning of their god manually to adjust the present flow of reality in order that it may be more to their liking. In any case, my original comment was intended to show up just how risible and ridiculous is the suggestion that revealed authority-based “knowledge” has equal validity and relevance to that acquired by science’s zetetic approach. So, not so dumb after all, methinks.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 11:54 pm):

    Aah, so you are hiding something, maybe acknowledgement.

    You need to explain this apparent non sequitur.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 11:54 pm):

    I can only complement you, on your vast knowledge and vocabulary, of the English language. My apology if I was out of line.

    Thank you, and no apology is necessary, as long as we keep learning.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 11:54 pm):

    What I have, is not for sale and what I recieve freely, I give freely.

    The “sell” thing is a metaphor, a figurative manner of speaking.

    Con-Tester

    September 25, 2008 at 12:58

  17. DW, iets sinvol van jou sal nogal ‘n verassing wees.

    Ek sien jy het baie te sê oor Moses en ander. Jy weet nie waaroor dit gaan nie en jy wil ook nie werklik weet nie. Jou verwronge idee daarvan, is ‘n bewys van ‘n ondergemiddelde intelek.
    DW, dit klink vir my, die ateïste het jou denke verkrag.
    Johannes, dankie vir die komplement. Onthou, wanneer ek die Bybel lees, dan lees ek wat daar staan en nie wat daar nie staan nie.
    Ek is van mening, dat hulle wat besny is, is van die oor tot die hart van verstand, besny, deur die woord en tog is hulle nie besny, na die vlees.

    Con-Tester, Your question “And why, please, was my suggestion “dumb” in your view?”
    The Bible is for the inner man (soul), so what has building a nuclear power plant, got to do with prayer?

    Your comment;Appearances can be deceiving – just like unfounded beliefs can.
    Aah, so you are hiding something, maybe acknowledgement.

    I can only complement you, on your vast knowledge and vocabulary, of the English language. My apology if I was out of line.

    Sorry, can’t help you with a recording of these Babylonian matriarchs and no need, just listen to yourself.

    Your comment; Obviously, I’m not impressing you because far as I’m concerned, you have just revealed your propensity for postulating the preposterous before attempting to sell these assumptions as cast-iron facts.
    What I have, is not for sale and what I recieve freely, I give freely.

    Nathan, on a previous subject on your blog, I have already explained the coming of Christ, as I understand it and it is defenitly not, as the story you have heard. I also don’t remember you commenting on my explenation.

    Your comment; God fucks us every waking moment…
    Dit wil voorkom, of jy nou skielik glo dat God bestaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 24, 2008 at 23:54

  18. Fisiese verkragting of hoerery is opsigself ‘n gruwel…!

    Daarom gebruik God dit in Sy Woord as “picture” van hoe Sy Woord geestelik gesproke “verkrag” word deur die “hoereerders” (kerke en kerkstrukture) om hulle “diy-gospels” te bevorder.

    Ou Testamentiese Israel het as uitverkore volk gehoereer agter die gode van die nasies aan, en dieselfde sou met Nuwe Testamentiese uitverkore volk (kerke en kerkstrukture) gebeur…!

    Nuwe Testamentiese Jerusalem (kerke en kerkstrukture) is op 21 Mei 1988 deur God as die moeder van die hoere (die mystery Babilon) verklaar. Van toe af het die kerke en kerkstrukture sonder die meewerking van die Heilige Gees funksioneer, die afvalligheid van die kerke en kerkstrukture raak daagliks toenemend sigbaar….!

    Daarom beveel God Sy volk (die ware gelowiges wat aan die Woord van God getrou bly) om “uit haar uit te gaan”…

    (Openb 18:4) En ek het ‘n ander stem uit die hemel hoor sê: Gaan uit haar uit, my volk, sodat julle nie gemeenskap met haar sondes mag hê en van haar plae ontvang nie.

    (Openb 18:5) Want haar sondes reik tot aan die hemel, en God het haar ongeregtighede onthou.

    En is die plae nie besig om op “haar” neer te kom nie…!

    (1Pe 4:17) Want die tyd is daar dat die oordeel moet begin by die huis van God. En as dit eers by ons begin, wat sal die einde wees van die wat aan die evangelie van God ongehoorsaam is?

    (1Pe 4:18) En as die regverdige nouliks gered word, waar sal die goddelose en die sondaar verskyn?

    johannes coetzee

    September 15, 2008 at 09:44

  19. Ja , jy reg openbare verkragting in die naam van die gotte wat sy onderdane aanhits daartoe.

    DW

    September 14, 2008 at 21:16

  20. Ma’ DW, ons skrýf dan júís oor erotika op hierdie blog:

    God fucks us every waking moment… and even in our sleep. People fuck each other in the name of some god – over and over and over again.

    Nathan Bond’s Tart Remarks: It’s all about non-stop fucking!

    Nathan Bond

    September 13, 2008 at 11:14

  21. Johannes

    Hierdie is nou ‘n lekker pragtige stukkie verbale spuitkak wat jy so elegant aanbied. Jissis Johannes , ken nie net vir die gotte baie goed nie , jy weet sommer hoe die 3 gotte dink . Jirre Jissis , ma jy ken hulle.

    Weet jy Johannes , alle mense is nice , die meerderheid moet net die gotte uit hulle koppe kry , fok dan gaan hulle foking nice wees.

    Dink nou net as ons eerder oor die erotika hier op die Nathan se blok kon geskryf het i.p.v oor die fokking gotte wat nie bestaan nie , jisses – die wêreld sou soveel beter gewees het .

    DW

    September 13, 2008 at 10:55

  22. DW

    Dis juis wat die God van die Bybel so absoluut mindboggling onverstaanbaar maak… dat Hy Sy lewe gegee het om te betaal vir die sondeskuld van sommige swendelaars soos Dawid, Daniël en daai anner dudes, en natuurlik swendelaars soos ek en dalk jy wat die ewige dood verdien vanweë ons natuurlike geneigdheid tot swendelary (sonde)…! Aangesien jy nie glo dat daar so iets soos sonde is nie, wat laat jou tot die gevolgtrekking kom dat daai klomp “foking swendelaars” wel ‘n swendelaars is?

    Wat ek egter nie verstaan nie is hoekom die God(e) van die Bybel voortgegaan het met hierdie heelal wetende dat swendelaar op swendelaar selfs sy broer in die rug sou steek, en uiteindelik Hom ook in die rug steek toe Hy Sy Seun gestuur het. Hoekom opgeskeep sit met ‘n klomp sondige swendelaars, dit terwyl Hy ons maar soos ‘n mier of ‘n muggie kon uitgewis het. Hoekom het Hy 13000jaar ons swendelary opgeskeep gesit? Hoekom het hy ons nie maar net afgeskryf en voor begin nie….?

    Dit tikkel my dude, dit tikkel my. Een of ander tyd moet Hy begin gatvol raak vir hulle? Eie aan my en jou natuur sou ek nooit soveel stront van so baie swendelaars opgevreet het nie. Ek dink nie ek sou 13 jaar gehou het nie…! Ek dink ek sou sommer tot ou Kain sy broer Abel plat geslaan het ‘n einde aan hulle gemaak het…!

    My twee tiener seuns het my gelukkig nog nie sover gepush nie maar ek het al baie naby daaraan gekom om hulle soms met die vuiste by te kom so kwaad het hulle my al gemaak. Maar ek bly lief vir hulle…!

    Dis maar seker hoekom die God(e) van die Bybel so geduldig met ons is…!? Hy kan dit seker nie oor Sy hart kry om sulke nice ouens soos ou Daan en Nathan en Hans net eenvoudig gelyk te maak nie..!

    Maar een of ander tyd is genoeg genoeg, dan moet daar ‘n einde kom… aan hierdie klomp swendelaars…!

    Dis presies wat op 21 Mei 2011 gaan begin gebeur…! Die stront gaan spat as ek sien wat in Jeremia staan…(Jer 9:22) Sê dit: So spreek die HERE: En die lyke van die mense sal neerval soos mis op die oop veld en soos gerwe agter die maaier sonder dat iemand dit versamel.

    (Jer 9:23) So sê die HERE: Laat die wyse hom nie beroem op sy wysheid nie, en laat die sterke hom nie beroem op sy sterkte nie, laat die ryke hom nie beroem op sy rykdom nie;

    (Jer 9:24) maar laat hy wat wil roem, hom hierop beroem dat hy verstaan en My ken, dat Ek die HERE is wat goedertierenheid, reg en geregtigheid op die aarde doen; want in dié dinge het Ek ‘n behae, spreek die HERE.

    (Jer 9:25) Kyk, daar kom dae, spreek die HERE, dat Ek besoeking sal doen oor almal wat besny is, wat nogtans onbesnede is:

    Uit die laaste vers wil dit vir my voorkom of diegene wat dink hulle is “besnede” (die christene wat God maar net met hulle lippe en nie met hulle harte dien nie) maar toe al die tyd nie “onbesnede” is die hardste gaan brul…! Dit lyk my die geskiedenis wat in die dae van Jesus afgespeel het, homself herhaal. Gaan die mens dan nooit leer nie. Selfs ‘n donkie stamp nie sy kop twee keer nie…!

    johannes coetzee

    September 12, 2008 at 15:38

  23. Religion makes exploitation easy. It always has. So, what else is new?

    Now, let’s prepare ourselves for the inevitable flood of disclaimers à la “But… but… but that’s not my religion!” Perhaps not, but please don’t kid yourself that your religion isn’t equally capable of such excesses.

    Con-Tester

    September 12, 2008 at 12:24

  24. Nathan Bond wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am):

    I cannot but wonder at the fact that general, untestable Biblical pronouncements are readily accepted: “Jesus will come again”, for instance.

    For the same essential reason, I expect, that apologetics simply had to be contrived as an “area of study,” viz. to prevent the entire belief system from falling bodily through the extensive network of ever-widening cracks in its foundations. In turn, such lengths in clinging to the unreasonable that people go to, often to the point of almost total unreason, is, I think, the upshot of their being fed these fables as, er, sacrosanct fact from the earliest age – well before they acquire a minimum facility with reason, objectivity and weighing up of evidence. When the latter challenge this prior “knowledge,” it will usually survive the challenge simply by virtue of having been instilled earlier and thereby being more difficult to dislodge.

    What is perhaps even more mystifying is that some of us actually manage to effect upon ourselves a cure for these continually metastasising mind-cancers.

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2008 at 17:31

  25. 1. DW
    Buiten God(e) (die Vader, die Seun, die Heilige Gees) wat ek en jy nie kan verstaan nie. Wat van ouens soos Dawid, Moses, Gideon, Simson, Noag, die seuns van die donder, Petrus en sy broer, Maria, Maria Magdaléna, Debora… om maar net ‘n paar te noem. Ek dink nie daai manne en vroue wat “sissies” of “pissies” nie my bru…! Vra maar vir daai Fillistyne…! Noem vir my een klooster koek waarvan jy in die Bybel lees….?

    Johannes

    Hoekom verstaan jy dan nie jou gotte nie , Johannes . Ek verstaan hulle dan so mooi –dis alles net stories , sommige stories van die gotte is mooi , ander is minder mooi en ander stories van hulle is fokking sleg — lees jy dan nie Bybel nie Johannes.

    Daai pisgesig outjies waarvan jy praat is — niks beter , meer werklik , of sterker as Johnny Bravo nie, fok vir Dawid en Goliat – het jy al van Staal Burger gehoor , daardie man was nou ‘n yster,,, even JR Ewing was ‘n groter bliksem as hulle almal saam.

    Fok vir Dawid , hy het rondgenaai hy was Bi- het vir Jonathan in die hol gespyker en sy manskappe se vrouens .

    Simson was ‘n takhaar – Die Bybel se mos :” of leer die natuur julle dan self nie dat as ‘n man langhare dra dit vir hom ‘n oneer is . Hoe lank was Jesus se hare ?

    Moses was ‘n moordenaar .

    Noag , hy het lekker dronkgat en kaalgat langs sy boot gelê . (dan het hy ook kakgepraat oor sy bootjie)

    Moeder Maria is verkrag op die ouderdom van 13 nogal deur god – god die heilige gees -self , vandag sal die gotte tronk toe gaan oor verkragting . Aangesien Jessssuuuus deel van die 3 eenheid is , het hy sy eie ma gespyker , want die gotte is mos een god(te), so hy is a motherfucker.

    Petrus moes by die Grieke en Egiptenare oor die gotte gaan leer .

    Debora en Maria Magdalena was hoere .

    Nee jy reg , hulle was nie kloosterkoeke nie. Hulle was foking swendelaars.

    DW

    September 11, 2008 at 15:07

  26. Hans Matthysen said, on September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am
    DW, mens moet jou maar altyd met ‘n teelepel voer, anders volg jy nie. Hierdie lewe is te kort vir enige mens, om by die volle waarheid uit te kom. Namate ‘n mens se kennis en ondervinding toeneem, groei die waarheid en daarom is dit ‘n lewenstaak.
    1 Kor. 13 v 12 Want nou sien ons deur ‘n spieël in ‘n raaisel, maar eendag van aangesig tot aangesig. Nou ken ek ten dele, maar eendag sal ek ten volle ken, net soos ek ten volle geken is.

    Hans

    Shame !!!!

    Jy het te veel goddelike kak op jou teelepel .

    Jy god (gotte) is of hulle issie , vir wat wil jy deur ‘n spieël kyk. waneer is jou eendag , werk die HG dan nie met jou nie?

    DW

    September 11, 2008 at 14:39

  27. Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    “However, I have to agree with you on the 2011 issue.”

    Con-Tester replied (September 11th, 2008 at 8:57 am)”

    “Well, that’s a start at least, isn’t it?”

    Indeed!

    I cannot but wonder at the fact that general, untestable Biblical pronouncements are readily accepted: “Jesus will come again”, for instance.

    But “Jesus will come again – on 21 May 2011” is not generally accepted.

    The more “testable” the claim, the less acceptance there appears to be for it. But “Jesus will come again” is every bit as ludicrous as “Jesus will come again on 21 May 2011”.

    Perhaps, if we can get people to reject specific unrealistic claims we can eventually get people to reject all unrealistic claims.

    Therefore I agree with Con-Tester: It’s a start!

    Nathan Bond

    September 11, 2008 at 11:27

  28. Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    Con-tester, in regard to what is written in the Bible, you demonstrate total ignorence [sic] with your dumb suggestion…”

    That’s because I consider your god’s so-called holy book to be little more than a collection of mildly deranged rants. Its only evidentiary value is as an instance of a rather blunt instrument with which to string along a sizeable fraction of humanity for many centuries with still no sign of any relief. And why, please, was my suggestion “dumb” in your view?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    You appear to be more pigheaded than most.

    Appearances can be deceiving – just like unfounded beliefs can.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    With all the fancy words you use, perhaps expecting us not to understand what you are saying…

    There’s a thing called a “dictionary.” It exists for a purpose and is easy to use. Just like the words I use exist for a purpose, namely to be used. And I choose them with care to avoid confusion and misunderstanding as far as possible.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    … you sound like a smoked up bunch, take note “bunch” of matriarchal Babelonians [sic] and herder of filthy men.”

    Actually, I do this all by myself and without any extrinsic chemical assistance. And do you perhaps have a recording of these Babylonian matriarchs? Because I’m damned if I know what they might sound like.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    I don’t know who you are trying to impress, but as far as I am concerned, you have just revealed your ignorance, in regard to the spiritual.

    Obviously, I’m not impressing you because far as I’m concerned, you have just revealed your propensity for postulating the preposterous before attempting to sell these assumptions as cast-iron facts.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 11th, 2008 at 12:56 am):

    However, I have to agree with you on the 2011 issue.

    Well, that’s a start at least, isn’t it?

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2008 at 08:57

  29. Hans jyt seker ‘n tikfout met 11 Mei 2011 gemaak… dit moet 21 Mei 2011 wees. Ek wag nie vir 21 Mei 2011 nie, ek leef, eet, drink, slaap 21 Mei 2011 elke kosbare aardse sekonde… Die boodskap moet uit…! Vir my is die lewe Christus en die sterwe wins…

    Ek moet bieg soms is ek ietwat bevooroordeeld teenoor jou. Maar daars egter een ding wat vir my baie nice is van jou, jy verwys deurlopend na die Skrif te ondersteuning van jou standpunt. Al is jou siening soms ‘n ewigheid van die Waarheid verwyder.

    Hans die Heilige Gees is nie net “slim” nie Hy is Alwys, Hy Almatig, Hulle is Wysheid…!

    johannes coetzee

    September 11, 2008 at 08:49

  30. DW, mens moet jou maar altyd met ‘n teelepel voer, anders volg jy nie. Hierdie lewe is te kort vir enige mens, om by die volle waarheid uit te kom. Namate ‘n mens se kennis en ondervinding toeneem, groei die waarheid en daarom is dit ‘n lewenstaak.
    1 Kor. 13 v 12 Want nou sien ons deur ‘n spieël in ‘n raaisel, maar eendag van aangesig tot aangesig. Nou ken ek ten dele, maar eendag sal ek ten volle ken, net soos ek ten volle geken is.
    Terloops, wetenskaplikes het al baie waarheid, wat die natuur betref, uitgevind entog is daar nog baie wat nog verborge is.
    Shame, as jy niks het om te sê, dan hak jy by 3 vas.

    Bewilderbeast, the rules of proof, of God’s existance, is in the Bible and you have just not found one, who can explain them to you. On the other hand, you need to follow the rules faithfully or the mistries concerning God shall not be reveald unto you.

    Johannes, jy slaan die bal mis en als op Wikapedia is nie geloofwaardig nie, omdat daar soms nog baie inligting ontbreek, of hulle bronne van inligting, nie altyd oorspronklik is nie. Johannes, die Heilige Gees is “slim”.
    1 Joh. 5 v 11 En dit is die getuienis: dat God ons die ewige lewe gegee het, en dié lewe is in sy Seun.
    Johannes, jy wag nog vir 11 Mei 2011, en ek het die ewige lewe reeds, so tot ‘n mate stem ek met jou saam, behalwe dat ek nie ‘n kaartjie nodig het nie. Die geheim is natuurlik, dat ek dit moet behou.

    Con-tester, in regard to what is written in the Bible, you demonstrate total ignorence with your dumb suggestion, that one must demonstrate their ability, say, to build and operate a nuclear power plant using prayer and divine assistance alone. You appear to be more pigheaded than most.
    With all the fancy words you use, perhaps expecting us not to understand what you are saying, you sound like a smoked up bunch, take note “bunch” of matriarchal Babelonians and herder of filthy men. I don’t know who you are trying to impress, but as far as I am concerned, you have just revealed your ignorance, in regard to the spiritual. However, I have to agree with you on the 2011 issue.
    It is also clear to me, that you and Nathan, do not understand what Jesus said, when He said “Verily I say unto you, ect.
    Dennis Siebrits, die Bybel blyk ‘n berg van onbekende vir jou te wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 11, 2008 at 00:56

  31. Nee bru…

    dis waar baie die fout maak

    Daai Swaard was nog nooit stomp nie, inteendeel Hy is nou skerper as ooit…

    Lees Hom deur en kyk wat gebeur, wees tog net versigtig soms kom ‘n mens eers agter jy is raakgesny as jy omkyk en bloeddruppels sien…

    Net omdat diegene(kerke) aan wie die Swaard toevertrou was nie geweet het hoe om dit met omsigtigheid (soos die swaardmanne van ouds) te handle nie beteken dit nie dat die Swaard niks werd is nie. Allermins

    Goliat het sy kop verloor met sy eie swaard, maar toe was hy al dood…. van net een van die vyf gladde “klippe”. Maar ek wil jou nou nie “verveel” met ‘n gebeurtenis wat jy ken nie.

    johannes coetzee

    September 10, 2008 at 15:15

  32. That would be the same librarians and bookshops that insist on filing Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics, Gary Zukav’s The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Richard Milton’s Alternative Science and Jonathan Eisen’s Suppressed Inventions under the “Science” rubric. Some habits are just too deeply ingrained to be relinquished easily, but we’re working on it. Watch this space…

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2008 at 15:02

  33. Heh-heh, nice one, Johannes! Tog het die eeue – en rede – dié ou swaardjie maar stomp gemaak.

    Nathan Bond

    September 10, 2008 at 13:30

  34. Nathan julle het swaarde nodig bru… ‘n mes kan net aan die eenkant gebruik word, die anderkant is useless.

    (Heb 4:12) Want die woord van God is lewend en kragtig en skerper as enige tweesnydende swaard, en dring deur tot die skeiding van siel en gees en van gewrigte en murg, en is ‘n beoordelaar van die oorlegginge en gedagtes van die hart.

    johannes coetzee

    September 10, 2008 at 13:22

  35. Dennis

    Jy sê dat volgens jou, boeke oor godsdiens onder fiksie in biblioteke hoort. Soos jy sê, dis volgens jou.

    Ongelukkig vir jou word die wêreld, met sy biblioteke, beheer deur mense wat nie boeke oor godsdiens as fiksie beskou nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 10, 2008 at 09:01

  36. Héérlik om jou hier raak te lees, Dennis! Hoe meer skerp messe, hoe dieper kan ons sny!

    Nathan Bond

    September 9, 2008 at 22:27

  37. Biblioteke skei boeke wat deur lesers uitgeneem en teruggebring is in twee kategorië – fiktiewe stories en nie-fiktiewes – in aparte rakke. Ongeveer elke 3rde boek in die nie-fiktiewe rak wat teruggebring is, is een van ‘n godsdienstige aard. Hierdie boeke word na my mening verkeerdelik daar geplaas want hulle gaan oor ’n fiktiewe onderwerp – gode en spoke van die verbeelding. Ek sou hulle in ’n rak vir ’duimsuig stories’ plaas, by boeke soos dié van Erik von Daniken en sulkes wat vertel dat hulle deur wesens uit die buitenste ruimte ontvoer is en nou weer terug is by ons. Dames wat vertel dat hulle in ruimteskepe ontvoer is, ge-impregneer en daardeur ‘n ou kleintjie in die lewe gebring het maar wat teleurstellend genoeg baie soos ons gewone mense lyk. Geen liggies aan sy vingerpunte nie, geen volstruiseier-koppe met skrefiesogies nie. Hulle weier ook volstrek om ‘n DNS analise te laat doen. Die ou kleintjie kan moontlik nog na die buurman trek ook.

    Sigmund Freud, die skepper van die term psige vir die ’innerlike mens’, het dit uit die Griekse mitologie ontleen. Hy sê dat ’geluk is slegs die vervulling van ’n wens uit mens se kinderdae’. Ek skat dit is heeltemal reg. Moontlik is dit hoekom volwassenes die ’vervulling’ najaag wat aan hulle beloof is in hulle geestelike vormingsjare ipv om te kyk na die allerdaagse werklikhede. ’n Roomse priester het gesê ”Gee my ’n kind vir sewe jaar en daarna kan jy hom kry” – maw dan is sy psige onder beheer en vir goed ook’.

    Duisende wetenskaplikes wy hulle lewens aan die ontgogeling van die onbekende in ’n poging om meer soliede grond te voeg by ons eilandjie van kennis in ‘n magtige see van onkunde. As voorbeeld – die ontrafeling van die menslike genoom wat begin by Watson en Crick en wat gelei het tot sy huidige uitleg. T-sel navorsing lyk as gevolg daarvan baie belowend. Gebede en versoeke wat die lug ingestuur word lewer duidelik geen konkrete resultate nie behalwe moontlik vertroosting vir dié wat alles maklik glo – soos ewige lewens byvoorbeeld.

    Mens moet egter nie toelaat dat die agorafobia van onkunde jou intellektueel bedwelm nie. Slaan liewers ‘jou oë op na die berge van die onbekende wat nog geklim moet word.’ Vroeër of later, met baie bloedsweet, sal hulle wel afgeplat word, maar beslis nie met behulp van legendes en spookstories van duisende jare gelede nie.

    Dennis Siebrits

    September 9, 2008 at 22:10

  38. Quite true: They all lied. (Further down the linked-to website, more links are provided to lies told of pre-millennial end times.)

    Con-Tester

    September 9, 2008 at 17:40

  39. Jesus ben Carpenter was probably the first Common Era predictor of “The End” when he confidently declared, “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16.xxviii)

    Then there was Bernard of Thuringia in the 900’s; John of Toledo in the 1100’s; Joaquim of Flore (with a rather spectacular calculation) in the 1200’s; Nicolaus Peranzonus de Monte Sancte Marie in the 1500’s (there were plenty “Ends” in the 1500’s); Rabbi Sabbati Zevi in the 1600’s; Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa in the 1700’s (quite a few “Ends” in the 1700’s too); William Miller in the 1800’s; numerous crackpots in the 1900’s… and even some idiots in the first decade of the 21st century.

    They all lied.

    Nathan Bond

    September 9, 2008 at 16:00

  40. It is hardly unreasonable to suppose that prognostications of relatively imminent Armageddon are far less the product of a rational and carefully considered appraisal of the facts than they are a reflection of the secret and fevered wishes of the prognosticator. Finding the world jarringly out of line with how it ought to be according to the self-serving fantasies concocted a long time ago by a smoked up bunch of patriarchal herdsmen, the prophet of doom finds it considerably more expedient to wish annihilation upon the world than s/he does to question the origin of the incongruities. The latter are simply ascribed to the mounting and voluminous “iniquities” perpetrated by everyone bar the prophet and his/her proponents.

    But here’s my (contingent) prophecy: Come late October 2011, the excuses will be arrayed in neat, ready-to-deploy ranks, and “I based my prediction on unsustainable premises” will not be among their number.

    Con-Tester

    September 9, 2008 at 15:16

  41. DW

    Buiten God(e) (die Vader, die Seun, die Heilige Gees) wat ek en jy nie kan verstaan nie. Wat van ouens soos Dawid, Moses, Gideon, Simson, Noag, die seuns van die donder, Petrus en sy broer, Maria, Maria Magdaléna, Debora… om maar net ‘n paar te noem. Ek dink nie daai manne en vroue wat “sissies” of “pissies” nie my bru…! Vra maar vir daai Fillistyne…! Noem vir my een klooster koek waarvan jy in die Bybel lees….?

    O ja en dan moet ons nie vir ou Daan en Hansie slim vergeet nie… hulle is self “manne van naam”… reuse bru reuse…! Hulle tickets is volgens hulle kerke gebook, ringside seats…!

    johannes coetzee

    September 9, 2008 at 15:03

  42. Nee Johannes

    Jy sê:

    “Aan die eenkant vry jy my om op te hou om berekeninge te maak, aan die anderkant het jy duisende vrae wat daarop gemik is om my uit te lok om die Woord van God (die Bybel) te verloën…. wat ek weier om te doen.”

    Jy besef natuurlik dat die eerste gedeelte van jou pos ‘n blatante, lasterlike publikasie is. Ek plaas op rekord dat ek ten sterkste ontken dat ek jou vry, nie aan die eenkant of aan die anderkant nie. Ek is gekrenk en in my eer aangetas en ek behou al my regte voor. En moenie dink die feit dat homoseksuele verhoudings nou wettig is, dit ‘n goeie verweer is nie. Jy het hierdie kwaadwillige publikasie gedoen met die nodige animus iniuriandi.

    Verder het ek jou nie duisende vrae gevra nie. Net twee. Laat ek dit herhaal:

    1. Hoe versoen jy 21 Mei 2011 met Jesus se woorde dat net Sy Vader wat in die hemel is, die tyd en die uur van die wederkoms ken?

    (Let wel, ek vra nie ‘n verduideliking vir die 21 Mei berekenings nie. Wat ek wil weet is hoe is dit moontlik dat die Bybel enersyds die inligting gee om die noukeurige (tot op die dag) berekening vir die wederkoms te maak, en andersyds by monde van Jesus sê dat net God die Vader die tyd van die wederkoms weet?)

    2. Indien die wederkoms nie op 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 of selfs 26 Mei 2011 plaasgevind het nie, waar sal jy dan op 27 Mei 2011 staan met betrekking tot God se Woord en God se kerk?

    Met hierdie vrae lok ek jou mos nie uit om die Bybel te verloën nie. Tensy jy natuurlik nie so seker is van jou saak soos jy graag voorgee nie.

    Ek verneem graag van jou.

    Groete.

    (nie liefdegroete nie!!!!!!!!! Ek hoop vir jou part julle het goeie prokureurs in Nelspruit)

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 9, 2008 at 14:44

  43. Lekker Johannes

    Hoe lekker het jy nie vir ou Daan gesê nie , vat hom – ek sê, vat hom – die fokking doos is reguit oppad hel toe man ?

    Jissis Johannes , ek weet nie so mooi van daardie hemelse afspraak van jou nie , nee fok daar is nette veel kloosterkoeke en vaak Japies daar bo inni jimmil. Ek like dit hier op die aarde, en ooooooo hoe sien ek nie uit na die 23 Oktober nie. Ek belowe jou , op die 23 de Oktober nooi ek jou uit vir ‘n lekker bellydaans in Lollie Jackson se paradys. Glo my – dis nou ‘n werklike parra-dys daai.

    Jy weet ou Johnny , dit wat jy oor die kerk sê is nie ver van die kol af nie , dat die kerk wel ‘n vergader plek van kakpraters is , is gewis. Maar daardie radio stasie van jou , jou kerk – daar word nou behoorlik kak gepraat.

    Jissis Johannes , jy is amper daar , dis nog net die 3 gotte wat jy uit jou kop moet kry .

    DW

    September 9, 2008 at 14:31

  44. Daan jou vraag en antwoord aan my is ietwat teenstydig… en ek haal aan “O ja, en hou op berekenings maak. Jy maak elke keer net ‘n groter doos van jouself.”

    Aan die eenkant vry jy my om op te hou om berekeninge te maak, aan die anderkant het jy duisende vrae wat daarop gemik is om my uit te lok om die Woord van God (die Bybel) te verloën…. wat ek weier om te doen.

    21 Mei 2011 tot 21 Oktober 2011 is Judgement Day. Ons het deur deeglike Bybelstudie (wat deur jou gekontroleer kan word) tot hierdie gevolgtrekking gekom. As jy wil vasklou aan dit wat jou kerk jou leer is jy welkom…ek het nie die vermoeë om jou van hierdie eindtyd “berekeninge” te oortuig nie. Dit is God se “besigheid”….

    johannes coetzee

    September 9, 2008 at 10:47

  45. Johannes

    Waar is my antwoord? Praat van “vrae wat kunstig ontwyk word”, eh?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 9, 2008 at 09:47

  46. DW daars natuurlik ‘n ander manier hoe ons dalk ons “afspraak” sal kan bybring. Dis as jy ook saam die Ewigheid in is…! Wie weet…? Van dit wat ek vanuit my gesprek met Daan kan aflei is sy “plekkie” gewaarborg (soos onderskryf deur sy kerk natuurlik). Hy sukkel nou net om te glo dat hy 21 Mei 2011 weggevoer gaan word die lug in….!

    johannes coetzee

    September 9, 2008 at 09:22

  47. DW

    Die X-telike godsdiens is maar net die resultaat van dit wat die mens van die Bybel oor 2000jaar gemaak het. Dieselfde het maar met jou Zeus gebeur…!

    Sal jou ongelukkig nie 23 Oktober 2011 kan sien nie dan is ek al 5maande “weg” die Ewigheid in….

    (Mat 23:36) Voorwaar Ek sê vir julle, al hierdie dinge sal oor hierdie geslag kom.

    (Mat 23:37) Jerusalem, Jerusalem, jy wat die profete doodmaak en stenig dié wat na jou gestuur is, hoe dikwels wou Ek jou kinders bymekaarmaak net soos ‘n hen haar kuikens onder die vlerke bymekaarmaak, en julle wou nie!

    (Mat 23:38) Kyk, julle huis word vir julle woes gelaat!

    (Mat 23:39) Want Ek sê vir julle: Julle sal My van nou af sekerlik nie sien nie totdat julle sal sê: Geseënd is Hy wat kom in die Naam van die Here!

    johannes coetzee

    September 9, 2008 at 08:35

  48. Hi Johannes ,
    Lekker om jou pos te lees , mooi man mooi , ons gaan mos almal hemel toe , ja man ja 777x 7

    Nee Johannes , dit het die mensdom nie 13.7 miljard geneem om geloof uit te sort nie . Jou Joods- Christelike baster geloof is maar ‘n nuweling op die toneel. Ek het baie meer respek vir Zeus as vir -die 3 gotte van jou wat 1 is ,maar 3 gotte is ,maar 3 in 1 is maar 1 is in 3 gotte .

    Ek wonder net soms , as jou gotte gaan kak sit hulle op een toilet of is daar aparte toilette , of is daar een moerse toilet wat soos 3 lyk maar een is , dalk gebruik jou gotte nog die long-drop . Wie vee wie se gat af , of word die 3 gotte se gatte met een slag afgevee , en as net die een god gaan kak moet die ander 2 gotte saamgaan, nog erger , het die 3 gotte een gat.

    Jy weet , eers met Paulus , 15 jaar nadat liere Jeeeeeeus kwansuis soos ‘n rocket opgeskiet het hemel toe, moes liewe Jeeeeesus sy deuntjie verander sodat almal in hom te kan glo. (Fok – waar is bo en waar is onder Johannes.)

    Jy glo ook seker nog dat die son opkom en sak in die aand- want die Bybel sê mos so. Johnny , kan die son opkom en dan weer sak ? Hoe de fok kan die son opkom?

    Ek moet egter bieg , en ook met ‘n rooi gesig , dat dit my meer as 35 jaar geneem het om agter te kom dat die X- telike geloof ‘n potkak is.

    Wat kak julle X tine so teen evolusie , is dit ‘n bitter pil om te sluk. As jy regtig ernstig is oor jou geloof , sal jy agterkom hoe jy vir ‘n sukker gevang is. Los eers evolusie uit , dit is ‘n bietjie ver verhewe bo die vlak van indoktrinasie waarin jy tans verkeer.

    Mooi man mooi , ons gaan almal hemel toe , ja man ja .

    Sien jou op 23 Oktober 2011 , ja man ja .

    DW

    September 8, 2008 at 20:50

  49. To intimate that the epistemology of science and the “revealed wisdom” of religion are equally plausible is a no less than an act of wilful, pigheaded ignorance. Either that, or seditious deception. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to demonstrate their ability, say, to build and operate a nuclear power plant using prayer and divine assistance alone.

    Con-Tester

    September 8, 2008 at 19:39

  50. Is dit onkunde as iemand kan agterkom hy is nie ‘n afstammeling van ‘n aap nie, of is dit onkunde as hy wel tot die oortuiging kom dat hy wel van ‘n aap afstam…?

    Ek dink daars regte volbloed ape wat te skaam sal wees om selfs te erken dat hulle die “voorvaders” kon gewees het van sekere Darwiniete…!

    Na 13,7 miljard jaar se kopkrap ontdek die vader van die Darwiniete dat sy voorvader aap ‘n wind gelos het. Hy val terug op sy oerinstink en volg sy hoogsontwikkelde reuksintuig en vind hy onweerlegbare bewyse (met ‘n paar minor onnoeminswaardige aannames) dat hy deur sy eie gat (blackhole) geval het. Net omdat hy dit die oerknal “gedoop” het glo ‘n paar hoogsopgeleide oerknolle hom en word die grondslag gelê vir die eerste sinsnedes van die DGB….

    Geen lidmaatskap word vereis aangesien enige mens wat homself as ‘n aap sien outomaties deel is van die godsdiens wat nie ‘n godsdiens is nie, en waar die 3 gotte wat 1 gotte is wat nie 3 got is nie sake geensins my die Bybel bemoeilik nie….

    Problem solved, onkunde uit die weggeruim, geloof uit die weggeruim, … Dit het 13,7 miljard jaar geneem om geloof uit te sort, nou bly daar nog net oor “hoop en liefde”… the night is only but a puppy …. ?

    (1Kor 13:13) En nou bly geloof, hoop, liefde—hierdie drie; maar die grootste hiervan is die liefde.

    johannes coetzee

    September 8, 2008 at 15:30

  51. Nee.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 7, 2008 at 17:32

  52. Daan

    Kan jy nou sien wat Nathan met onkunde bedoel.

    DW

    September 7, 2008 at 11:50

  53. DW

    Ek weet nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 6, 2008 at 15:17

  54. Daan

    Jy se: “se Jesus dat nie Hy of die engele die tyd en die uur van die wederkoms ken nie, “behalwe my Vader wat in die hemel is.” Hoe verklaar jy 21 Mei 2011 in die lig hiervan? ”

    Hoe moet ek die 3- eenheid hiervolgens verstaan ?

    Dalk is Johannes reg , die HG praat met hom – dus die 3 gotte wat 1 is maar 3 is wat 1 is praat met hom.

    DW

    September 6, 2008 at 09:56

  55. Johannes

    Dit het regtig ‘n week of wat gelede gelyk of jy tog rasioneel kan dink en kommunikeer, maar helaas! Maar dan, in al die kak wat jy hier kwytraak is dit duidelik dat jou IK daagliks met tussen 8 en 12 punte val.

    Vir jou informasie: Ek is nie op ‘n pelgrimstog nie. Ek sou vir jou verduidelik het wat ‘n pelgrimstog is, maar ek weet nou al jy sal nie verstaan nie so ek gaan nie my tyd mors nie.

    Ek is nie ‘n Bybeliet nie. Ek lees wyer as die Bybel om meer kennis op te doen. Ek het geen ambisie om al die 1.5 miljoen websites te lees nie. Dit is jammer dat jy nie dieselfde doen nie, Johannes. Want as jy net ‘n bietjie verder lees as Time has an End, sal selfs jy met jou beperkte intelletuele vermoens, insien dat Harold Camping totaal en al befok in sy kop is.

    Dankie vir die link na Wikipedia, wie se inligting objektief, en daarom betroubaar is. Hans Matthysen sal dit net so geniet. Wat jy hier lees endoseer hoegenaamd nie die stront waarmee Camping te koop mee loop nie, maar gee net die feite rondom hierdie waansinnige idioot. Ten minste verstaan ek nou beter hoe en waar jy aan al die ongelooflike kak kom wat jy hier kwytraak.

    Moet jou nie oor my bekommer nie. Wees eerder bekommerd oor jouself. Vir die hoeveelste keer, gooi jou radio weg. As jy dit nie doen nie, gaan hierdie man Camping jou emosioneel, finansieel en geestelik in minder as 3 jaar verwoes.

    Jy is baie vinnig om my te beskuldig dat ek jou vrae vermy. Kyk na my antwoord onder “‘n Nuwe Rol vir die Kerk” en antwoord sommer my vraag ook. En terwyl jy dit doen, antwoord ook sommer die volgende vraag: (wat ek ook al drie keer gevra het)

    Erens in Mattheus (synde ‘n Bybeliet sal jy presies weet waar) se Jesus dat nie Hy of die engele die tyd en die uur van die wederkoms ken nie, “behalwe my Vader wat in die hemel is.” Hoe verklaar jy 21 Mei 2011 in die lig hiervan?

    O ja, en hou op berekenings maak. Jy maak elke keer net ‘n groter doos van jouself.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 6, 2008 at 00:42

  56. Ek het uitgewerk dat jy daagliks ongeveer 1500 websites sal moet besoek om deur al 1,5 miljoen te werk voor 21 Mei 2011….! Dit everage so 63 websites per uur….!

    Sterkte bru… sterkte.

    Fok dit Johannes , kyk eerder porn .

    DW

    September 5, 2008 at 21:42

  57. It means, Bewilderbeast, that when the archaeologists at first failed to find the ruins of those cities, those who refused to accept the Genisis version of creation, smugly declared that those ruins would never be found, because they only existed in Hebrew mythology.

    Hence the triumph.

    I invite you to read my post again. You will note that I never suggested that this proves creation. Not even remotely.

    You mentioned scientific prove and the rules to be observed. I sincerely hope that you are not referring to those clever guys who sometime in the past declared the Coelacanth to be extinct for 2 million years, only to be caught of the coast near East London in 1938. And more remarkable, without any sign of evolution after 2 million years!

    Again, Bewilderbeast, that does not deny certain established scientific facts.

    You may find my reasoning unlogical. Be assured that I will not cry in my double Bells I’m enjoying right now. (No, I’m not drunk! The bottle is not even half yet! Check my spelling. And in English to boot!)

    If you mean by “no bloody hope”, that faith and religion will never be eradicated, I am very, very happy to agree with you.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 5, 2008 at 19:18

  58. Daan in jou 1,5 miljoen lees pelgrimstog behoort jy op hierdie website ook af te kom. Ek wil jou die moeite spaar en gee sommer vir jou ‘n kortpad na iemand wat die waarheid beet het. As jy egter die langpad wil loop kan niemand jou keer…! Time is egter min en ek wil jou dit spaar…!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

    Ek dink Hansie slim wat lief is vir sy wikipedia site sal dalk nie baie hiervan hou nie…!?

    Ek het uitgewerk dat jy daagliks ongeveer 1500 websites sal moet besoek om deur al 1,5 miljoen te werk voor 21 Mei 2011….! Dit everage so 63 websites per uur….!

    Sterkte bru… sterkte.

    Kyk wat in die Bybel “geskrywe” staan aangaande die verskil tussen die twee eras. Hoofstuk 3 van die Boek “Time Has An End” by http://www.timehasanend.org

    Lekka naweek. Slaan daai website search engine bru… slaan hom.

    Wie was daardie wise guy….? Ek sou graag self wou lees

    johannes coetzee

    September 5, 2008 at 14:56

  59. There are times when I think there’s no bloody hope. Not only the poll results, but the anti-logic. Look at this rubbish:
    “Elke mens het een keuse. Of hy baseer sy geloof op ‘n Bonatuurlike Mag wat nie bewys kan word nie, of hy baseer sy ongeloof op wetenskaplike teorieë wat eweneens nie bewys kan word nie.”
    No, actually. You have the choice to want proof or not. (Jou keuse is OF jy’t bewys nodig of NIE.)
    If you need proof you have to set rules. If you set rules (eg: the basis of scientific proof) you have to abide by them.
    If you don’t need proof, that’s OK, but why not just invent your own god – you could be really important in your religion, then (and save tax).
    Or choose a fun one: the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may pesto be upon him) is so much better as a god, and you get to speak like a pirate. And there’s no hell and damnation.
    And the “logic” ends triumphantly: “Yay, they found Babylon!” WTF beteken dit, Daan??
    The combination of twisted “logic” and a deliberate refusal to carefully study what evidence there is of evolution is what sometimes makes me say “no bloody hope”.
    No wonder we get the politicians and “leaders” we do.

    bewilderbeast

    September 5, 2008 at 11:58

  60. Soos DW sê, hierdie kwessie is goed gedebatteer op ‘n ander draad. Gerieflikheidshalwe herhaal ek weer my standpunt:

    Elke mens het een keuse. Of hy baseer sy geloof op ‘n Bonatuurlike Mag wat nie bewys kan word nie, of hy baseer sy ongeloof op wetenskaplike teorieë wat eweneens nie bewys kan word nie.

    Ek stem met Hans saam. Op advies van Nathan is ek al meer as ‘n maand besig om elke vrye oomblik te gebruik om oor evolusie en veral die eeue oue debat van skepping/ evolusie te lees. DW, jy kan my glo of jy hoef my nie te glo nie, maar ek KYK nie eers na godsdienstige websites nie. Daar is meer as 1.5 miljoen websites en ek lees hulle van ‘n kant af. Die ironie is, die meer ek lees die sterker word my geloof. En weereens, glo my of glo my nie, ek lees alles KRITIES.

    So wil die manne wat nie die bestaan van ‘n Bonatuurlike Mag kan aanvaar nie, (waarvoor ek volkome begrip het), graag die boek Genisis diskrediteer. So beland ek op ‘n website waar verduidelik word dat die argeoloë op ‘n stadium mal gegaan en gegrou en gegrawe het op soek na die antieke stede, Babilon en Ninivé.

    Hulle het gegrou en gegrawe soos springhase, en al wat ‘n goddelose blikslaer was, het vir hulle gelag. Toe kom een of ander wise guy agter dat die Babiloniese rekords 6 000 jaar van die Egiptiese rekords verskil, en nie lank daarna nie, word beide hierdie stede opgegrawe, en nogal deur twee verskillende argeoloë!

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 5, 2008 at 08:27

  61. Hans MatthyseN said,

    sal bly soek na die waarheid van die skepping,

    Ek dog jy het die waarheid – (sien ander draad)

    DW

    September 5, 2008 at 06:57

  62. Nathan, enige medium wat verkeerd aangewend word, deur gebruikers, maak nie dat die medium verkeerd is nie. Enige denkende Christen, sal bly soek na die waarheid van die skepping, in die Bybel, wat nog vir so baie verborge is, terwyl hulle evolusie en die wetenskap aanvaar.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 4, 2008 at 22:09


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: