Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Shut up already, Angus!

with 104 comments

Angus Buchan knows not the Bible if he is able to make idiotic statements such as “give your children a good hiding when they are naughty because the Bible says so”.

There is no Biblical justification for hitting a child!

Even the director of the SACC’s public policy liaison unit Keith Vermeulen, decalared as much at a Cape Town media briefing on the Children’s Amendment Bill.

The God of the Bible is the worst child molester in history, but once one gains sufficient insight to realise that “God” is nothing but a fictional character, the Bible can be enjoyed for what it is – a not completely bad bit of historic literature. For all its flagrant contradictions the Bible at least does not justify corporal punishment.

If Buchan wishes to declare on the Bible, he should familiarise himself with the Canon. If he does not “get it” he should not “speak it”. And he should not rely on some “Holy Spook” to make things clear to him. The Spook’s message is so inconsistent as to be non-existent, judging by the many churches in Protestantism alone. He should put in the effort to study the Bible and not randomly misquote it.

I am sick and tired of this farmer revealing his complete lack of Biblical insight. Bullshit indeed baffles brains. Buchan should go back to growing spuds, boet. Of the Bible and exegesis he knows alarmingly little.

Written by Nathan Bond

September 13, 2008 at 10:01

104 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is for all those who are non-believers of the Word of God…Nathan, especially you…
    Be carefull how you mock God, how you mock the Holy Spirit, how you mock Christianity, how you mock the teachings of God!
    YES, the Word of God, the Bible, says you must punish your child. This does not mean you must attack you child and beat them untill they bleed, for example, but you must be in control of your child’s upbringing.

    And spanking, quite frankly, IS what God meant. The problem today is that we have too many “parents” who want to believe that spanking is inhumane, and to say “no” is nonsense..bla bla bla, but listen dear friend, these very same parents are playing a part in bringing their children up to do what they want, to get what they want,and you know what?..the end result is going to have children who don’t want to hear “no” one day when they’re older, so they are the ones who will start killing for to get what they want, because to them it is right to get something if they want it. These children will turn out rebels when it comes to subordination, adhering to laws, etc.
    There’s much more to say on this subject, but i hope this will at least make you guys out there think a bit.

    Jurie Palm

    October 9, 2010 at 09:46

  2. Con-Tester, I may look foolish in the eye’s of man but that is not important and maybe you are right, maybe it could not be possible, for me to look increasingly foolish.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 26, 2009 at 21:47

  3. Once again, agreed: you did not say so explicitly but your every response simply screams it by implication.

    I have evidence but you must go find your own” plus “Seek and ye shall find” = “It’s true because I say it’s true.”

    Citing bible verses = “I can show you an old book.”

    Denying the above just makes you look increasingly foolish – if that is even possible.

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2009 at 20:23

  4. Con-Tester, I never made such a statement as; “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” It appears to be one of your favorites.
    You want evidence, seek and ye shall find.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 21, 2009 at 22:00

  5. I never claimed that the evidence does not exist. You claim it exists, and I have repeatedly asked you to show it to me and others on this blog. You have never done so. Never. You have merely avoided the question with bullshit, and continue still to do so. “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” That’s the extent of your argument.

    Now, where is your evidence?

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2009 at 11:18

  6. Con-Tester, I have the evidence and therefor I have no need for convincing arguments. Just because you haven’t any evidence and you have restricted yourself in obtaining such, does not mean that it does not exist.The evidence of God’s existence is not obtained by arguments.
    I have no intention of trying to prove anything to anyone. As I have already said, it is for one to obtain proof for oneself.
    I have answered a lot although it is not what you want to hear.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 14, 2009 at 21:15

  7. But Hans Matthysen, don’t you see? No, I think you do not. All you’ve proved is that you have absolutely no idea what the concept “evidence” means. Your own feelings and perceptions are not evidence of anything other than that you can feel and perceive. They may convince you but as convincing arguments they are utterly useless. And so you have answered exactly nothing. Please feel free to try again.

    Con-Tester

    August 1, 2009 at 21:04

  8. Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

    Jesus did exist and was born with the gift of God.
    Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

    Christ the gift arose in a body consisting of many members, as Jesus promised. The evidence is His church of today.

    When I used to throw darts, I saw the dart hit the trip twenty, before I even threw the dart. I was not tricking myself. I don’t play tricks on myself.
    I went to pray for a man, who was in a coma for more than a month. As I entered his room, he sat up, eyes wide open, lifted one hand and addressed me by name. His family were astound, as was I and that is evidence for me and his family, not you. He fell back into the coma and passed away, a couple of days later.

    I was definitely not mistaken and you don’t have to believe it, as it is not your evidence. That was only one incident and there are many more.

    1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    One can choose to ignore, should one use the wrong measures. I have my evidence, not the evidence of others.

    I don’t think I know the true God, I know I know the true God. (John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.)

    We are the donkey, connected to our traditions and what our forefathers believed. We are not of use until we become servants to the measure of the gift of Christ, as that is grace.

    There are many things I still don’t understand and with a bit of faith, I may come to understand.

    You the one that comes short of evidence as you have confined yourself to one set of rules.

    You mention a sky daddy. That is my evidence, that you have an incorrect perception of God.

    I choose to believe in God, you don’t have to.

    My perception of God is correct according to what is written in the Bible.

    Your “objective criteria” is from other books you have read. You prefer them, as you don’t understand the Bible and that I can understand.

    I place a challenge when I say your perception of God is incorrect. I am not accusing anybody of heresy and you prefer not to debate the perception issue, which is obvious why.

    Maybe you haven’t heard yet; God is love.

    One who doubts must seek and shall find. Only one who has found the truth (light) and rejects it, can land up in Hell. Those who are still in darkness cannot land up in Hell. (Read Psm. 49)

    I don’t confuse the earthly with the spiritual and therefore I do look beyond “indoctrinations”.

    As I have mentioned before, I have plenty of evidence and it is you that has a lack thereof.

    Go to the graveyards, dig up the bones and see if you will find anybody home.

    Who said making a profit is a bad thing. It is the means and with what, that is not according to what the Bible prescribes.

    My evidence is my life experiences. I have heard the word and put it into deeds and have experienced the results.

    I don’t expect you to understand as you have a lack of spiritual understanding.

    I would, if you were interested.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 30, 2009 at 23:21

  9. Final Mighty Misogynists to be held next year. What will Moses Potatohead and his minions do if their grumpy old codger of a god doesn’t speak to him then?

    Con-Tester

    July 30, 2009 at 18:17

  10. Die Bybel het kopie-reg op vir DWASE soos jy wat heelmoontlik jou eie weergawe sal opdis vir jou siek familie en hulle dit maak glo. Nie dat Kopie-reg jou tipe sal keer om dit te doen nie.Ek sidder om te dink uit watter tipe verwronge tradisie jy en jou gevolg kom.

    Ek glo jy het slapelose nagte oor jou siening, maar ons bid vir mense soos jy. Ongelukkig het ek nou vir ‘n wyle na jou siek vlak gedaal.

    S

    July 24, 2009 at 07:19

  11. Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    Con-Tester, what I am saying, is, that the Bible is a book of messages, in a symbolic form. (Baie van die dinge het nie letterlik plaasgevind nie.) Take the ten plagues for instance or water turning into wine. What about five loaves and two fishes to feed a multitude.

    So, which parts of your so-called “holy book” are symbolic and which are historical? How do you distinguish? For example, did Jesus really exist? Was he your god’s progeny? Did he get up after being dead for three days? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    The minds eye is very powerful and is not only confined to what one has previously experienced.

    Where did I say that it was? You can imagine things you know are not true, can’t you? How do you know you’re not tricking yourself? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    The chances are just as high that one is not mistaken.

    Really? Are they now? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I regard Jesus as the author of my faith and I have the highest regard for the power and wisdom, invested in the members of His body, of today. I worship no man.

    Is that right? How do you know your perceptions and your path are the right ones? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    Experiences can be regarded as misperceptions or misinterpretations should one chose to ignore them.

    But I wasn’t talking about “[choosing] to ignore them,” was I? I was talking about examining the strong possibility that one’s beliefs for which no proper evidence exists are actually based on misperceptions or misinterpretations, wasn’t I? And you say otherwise, not so? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    And there’s also just no way there can not be any mistake, I suppose. So you see, you just assume it must be a mistake as you chose to ignore the proof.

    Why do you just skip over the parts you can’t answer instead of deflecting? Why don’t you face up to the fact that you have no proof? But you think you do, don’t you? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    You have never had the correct perception of the true God and therefore, your comment in this regard, is uneducated.

    So I’m the ignorant one now, am I? Did you even understand the meaning of my comment? Just because you think you know “the true God” doesn’t make it so, does it now? But you think you do, don’t you? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    There is no such thing as a donkey that can talk and it is clear to me, that you don’t understand the message, in that passage of the Bible.

    So why did you bring it up? What is its proper meaning? Can you prove it to be so? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I only believe in what I understand. What I understand, came about, by the word preached and that is how I received faith.

    That much is clear enough, isn’t it? So do you think that there might be things that are true that you can’t understand? Will you believe in them? Would you believe it if it is preached? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I am not shifting the goalposts, I am only changing the angle.

    And that answers the point, does it? I mean, you say this “spiritual realm” is real, don’t you? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    Maby you do understand “too” well.

    But you don’t think so, do you? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I don’t believe in a sky daddy and that is why your perception of God is incorrect.

    That’s a bit too convenient, isn’t it? “Incorrect,” you say? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    To be positive of course will be for your benefit, even should you not believe in God.

    So why believe in a chimera? Why “even should [I] not believe”? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I do agree with many things Richard Dawkins has said and I also realize, that his perception of God, is also incorrect.

    How do you know your perception is correct? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    The doctrine that Jesus and the Apostles preached is the most accurate.(1 Kor. 12:31 Maar beywer julle met die oog op die beste gawes; en ek wys julle ‘n nog uitnemender weg.)

    And these are what you consider objective criteria? The bible is objective and a basis for resolving questions about its own objectivity? Really? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I don’t accuse others of heresy.

    Really? So according to you, accusing somebody of never having had the correct perception of your god (as you have done above) doesn’t constitute heresy, does it? And your perception of what is heresy, and what isn’t, is correct, is it? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    If you think we are all wrong, you are defying the law of average.

    Excuse me while I laugh, will you? Do you even know what you are saying? “Defying the law of average,” am I? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    The difference is, that you confine yourself to materialistic substance.

    You like jumping randomly to a completely unrelated track, don’t you? On the mere suggestion of a word, not so? You say there is more than material substance, do you? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    To teach children to love one another and to do unto others as you would like done to yourself, does not seem harmful at any age.

    So why can’t you give them that message without the fairytale wrapper? How does putting your god into the picture make the message more believable? Is your god even necessary in this message? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    For children and youth to question, is the best way to serve God with understanding and not to be fooled by a “Simon the sorcerer”. I don’t see doubt as punishable.

    But doubting your god is punishable, isn’t it? In the most extreme way imaginable, not so? Eternal damnation in a fiery lake, isn’t it? “Serve or burn,” is it? Where is the “understanding” in this? And anything that challenges you god is a “Simon the sorcerer,” isn’t it? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    What you see as shackles, I see as freedom and therefore it is only ones perception.

    Perceptions? But we were talking about people looking beyond their indoctrinations, weren’t we? You have never walked that path, have you? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    Again your poor perception of God, draws you to the same stupid argument you constantly repeat. Your vision is only as far as the materialistic is concerned.

    But you’ve never actually met my “stupid argument,” have you? Maybe it’s not so stupid after all, don’t you think? And how do you know that your vision of my vision isn’t totally blurred? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    We are all going to die (pass out of our flesh) and the how, where and when is of no significance. Kindly accept that reality.

    Why should I simply accept what you say? Especially as reality? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    In regard to the power station matter. Most Churches are organizations for making profits, yet you do have the exceptions.

    How is this non-answer relevant to my power station question? How is making a profit a bad thing? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    What is so difficult to understand about “God” the Word, put into deeds. The Word becomes flesh and is among us namely the “Son”. The Word (God) put into actions (Son) causes certain results that bring comfort (”Holy Spirit”). They are all one.

    How does this explain anything? How do you know this is what happened? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    God is Spirit and your soul is spirit and should you be able to put souls of different races, mail and female together, which is mail or female or which soul is white, black or yellow? You would not be able to tell the difference. The image has therefore got nothing to do with our physical bodies.

    And this makes sense to you? This is what you believe makes up reality? Where is your evidence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (July 23, 2009 at 12:05 am):

    I don’t think you really understand what the Old Testament is about.

    So why don’t you explain it to me? But you can’t do that, can you? Because you have no evidence, do you? Where is your evidence?

    Con-Tester

    July 23, 2009 at 22:32

  12. DW, net so terloops, Salomo stel voor die hoof van die kerk en die baie vrouens, is maar net die baie gemeentes onder sy beheer.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 23, 2009 at 21:40

  13. Nee kyk , hierdie poppie wat die mans wil salf het ‘n punt beet.

    Ek het al lankal so by my self gedink dat ek die regte kandidaat is om gesalf te word. Dalk het Salomo ‘n punt beet ( of is dit dalk ‘n stywe een ) gehad met daai 1000 vroue.

    Voor sy die tannies leer hoe om die olies op te vryf dink ek sy moet eers vir al die potensiële Olie Vryf Tannies vir ‘n paar weke na Loly se parra-dys toe suur om die nodige bewegings om ‘n paal aan te leer.

    Dit is egter belangrik om ‘n reguit paal beet te kry. Die dikte en lengte van die paal speel ook ‘n rol. Dalk is daar baie oompies wat weer ‘n goddelike liefde in pale – dik en reguit kan ontwikkel.

    Ek sien die poppie sê ook dat die olie vryf goed is vir die huwelik , – ek wonder net hoeveel gaan op die paal wees na ‘n paar olie vryf sessies.

    Dalk kom sy eendag nog met ‘n nuwe Wii speletjie uit –Stywe Paal Olie Vryf Wiid op Wii.

    Ek sal voorstel dat Moreletapark NG kerk professionele dames ( bel vir Lolly )kry om met die olie salwings tegnieke en stywe paal toertjies te help.

    Wat sal nou mooier lyk as ‘n dosyn of meer pale in die voorportaal van Moreletapark NG kerk. Dalk kan hulle ‘n Kersfees konsert hou en demonstreer hoe die Heilige Gees jags geword het en vir Maria en haar goddelik bevrug het na ‘n Olie Vryf en Paal sessie.

    Ek hoop nie hierdie is die voorland van Poppie Wiid se Olie Vryf Stywe Paal tannies nie.

    http://www.break.com/index/home-made-pole-dance-mishap.html

    DW

    July 23, 2009 at 09:21

  14. Great Shakes!!!

    Nobody is answering my inflamatororical rhetorics – sheesh!

    Come on people and give me your best shots.

    Nee boet , ek like Johannes se kak pratery meer .

    Anyway , ek is bly om te verneem dat daar geen Big Mac’s en Coca Cola in die Bybel Belt is nie.

    Ook nie dikgat kinders en dikgat priesters nie.

    DW

    July 23, 2009 at 08:48

  15. Con-Tester, what I am saying, is, that the Bible is a book of messages, in a symbolic form. (Baie van die dinge het nie letterlik plaasgevind nie.) Take the ten plagues for instance or water turning into wine. What about five loaves and two fishes to feed a multitude.

    The minds eye is very powerful and is not only confined to what one has previously experienced.

    The chances are just as high that one is not mistaken.

    I regard Jesus as the author of my faith and I have the highest regard for the power and wisdom, invested in the members of His body, of today. I worship no man. (Luk 18:18 En ‘n sekere owerste vra Hom en sê: Goeie Meester, wat moet ek doen om die ewige lewe te beërwe?
    Luk 18:19 En Jesus antwoord hom: Waarom noem jy My goed? Niemand is goed nie behalwe een, naamlik God.)

    Experiences can be regarded as misperceptions or misinterpretations should one chose to ignore them.

    And there’s also just no way there can not be any mistake, I suppose. So you see, you just assume it must be a mistake as you chose to ignore the proof.

    You have never had the correct perception of the true God and therefore, your comment in this regard, is uneducated.

    There is no such thing as a donkey that can talk and it is clear to me, that you don’t understand the message, in that passage of the Bible.

    I only believe in what I understand. What I understand, came about, by the word preached and that is how I received faith.

    I am not shifting the goalposts, I am only changing the angle.

    Maby you do understand “too” well.
    1 Kor. 1:20 Waar bly die wyse? Waar bly die skrifgeleerde? Waar die redetwister van hierdie eeu? Het God nie die wysheid van hierdie wêreld dwaas gemaak nie?

    I don’t believe in a sky daddy and that is why your perception of God is incorrect. To be positive of course will be for your benefit, even should you not believe in God.

    I do agree with many things Richard Dawkins has said and I also realize, that his perception of God, is also incorrect.

    The doctrine that Jesus and the Apostles preached is the most accurate.(1 Kor. 12:31 Maar beywer julle met die oog op die beste gawes; en ek wys julle ‘n nog uitnemender weg.)

    I agree.

    I see that the Apostles encountered the same problem as described by Luke. (Hand. 24:14 Maar dit erken ek voor u dat ek volgens die Weg wat hulle sekte noem, so die God van my vaders dien, terwyl ek alles glo wat in die wet en in die profete geskrywe is,)
    I don’t accuse others of heresy.

    If you think we are all wrong, you are defying the law of average.

    The difference is, that you confine yourself to materialistic substance.

    To teach children to love one another and to do unto others as you would like done to yourself, does not seem harmful at any age. For children and youth to question, is the best way to serve God with understanding and not to be fooled by a “Simon the sorcerer”. I don’t see doubt as punishable.

    What you see as shackles, I see as freedom and therefore it is only ones perception.

    Again your poor perception of God, draws you to the same stupid argument you constantly repeat. Your vision is only as far as the materialistic is concerned. We are all going to die (pass out of our flesh) and the how, where and when is of no significance. Kindly accept that reality.

    In regard to the power station matter. Most Churches are organizations for making profits, yet you do have the exceptions.

    What is so difficult to understand about “God” the Word, put into deeds. The Word becomes flesh and is among us namely the “Son”. The Word (God) put into actions (Son) causes certain results that bring comfort (“Holy Spirit”). They are all one.
    (Hos 11:9 Ek sal my toorngloed nie laat geld nie, Ek sal Efraim nie weer te gronde rig nie; want Ek is God en nie ‘n mens nie, die Heilige in jou midde. En Ek sal nie kom in grimmigheid nie.)

    God is Spirit and your soul is spirit and should you be able to put souls of different races, mail and female together, which is mail or female or which soul is white, black or yellow? You would not be able to tell the difference. The image has therefore got nothing to do with our physical bodies.
    I don’t think you really understand what the Old Testament is about.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 23, 2009 at 00:05

  16. Somebody has seen a new opportunity to make money out of the womenfolk. Be patient as someone will see the opportunity to make money out of the gay’s.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 21, 2009 at 21:50

  17. Sadly, I neglected the “Gracious Gays.” A true Gaudian slip, perhaps?

    Aah, Dirk Gently. Great satire.

    Con-Tester

    July 16, 2009 at 21:38

  18. “United Eunuchs”; “Audacious Androgynes”; “Temperate Transsexuals”… náááis!

    I’ve started Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams again this evening. It features Electric Monks – an electric monk is a labour saving device that believes things for one, saving one the bother of believing things. I think I shall appoint Angus Buchan my electric monk – he can believe shit for me, so I don’t have to bother.

    Nathan Bond

    July 16, 2009 at 21:01

  19. For our English readers: Looks like we’re going to get an Agnes Buchan as well, ministering to “Worthy Women.” This, in delayed-but-nonetheless-understandable reaction to Angus Buchan’s “Mighty Misogynists.”

    Now who, please, will rise up to minister to the “United Eunuchs,” the “Audacious Androgynes” or the “Temperate Transsexuals?”

    Con-Tester

    July 16, 2009 at 10:27

  20. Geagte lesers

    In vanoggend se Die Burger lees ek van Gretha Wiid wat ‘n Worthy Women byeenkoms wil reël. Laasgenoemde spruit natuurlik uit Angus Buchan se Might Men byeenkomste.

    Wiid word onder andere die volgende aangehaal:

    “Sy verduidelik waar die Bybel sê ’n vrou is haar man se helper, beteken dit eintlik sy is sy stryder. Sy is die sterker een in ’n tyd van nood; sy is sy beskermer.”

    Ek wil rerig weet hoe sy by hierdie punt uitkom. Enige chauvinistiese man kan presies dieselfde teks in die Bybel gebruik en daarmee argumenteer dat die vrou onderdanig en gevolglik moet maak soos hy sê.

    “Wiid het gesê onderdanigheid werk net as ’n man se verhouding met God reg is. Onderdanigheid van ’n vrou en die hoofskap van ’n man maak seer as dit los van God beoefen word.”

    Kak storie. God se teenwoordigheid of afwesigheid het niks te make met die toepassing van onderdanigheid nie. Onderdanigheid bly onderdanigheid. Punt.

    “Daar is ook ander aspekte daaraan, soos dat sy vroue gaan leer om hul mans te salf. Die vroue gaan ’n spesiaal gemengde salf kry waarmee hulle dit kan doen.”

    Nou toe nou! Hierdie byeenkoms mag dalk net insiggewend wees!

    Rick

    July 16, 2009 at 06:00

  21. Nou sê asb. vir my Sias, hoe gaan díe kamstige knie-buig ding presies werk? Ek meen, volgens jou god se eie reëls kan daar mos geen vergifnis wees vir godslastering teen die heilige gees nie, en dít is ’n “oortreding” wat ek self al talle kere gepleeg het. (In geval daar enige twyfel dáároor bestaan, die heilige gees is ’n gewetenlose maagdverkragter en, nes sy papa, ’n pes op die mensdom se dinkvermoëns.) Gaan jou god my vrye wil terug trek en my dwing om sy/haar genade te smeek? Of hoe?

    En jou god se sg. “genade” het niks met my bestaan te doen nie, en alles met jou illusies in díe verband.

    Con-Tester

    July 15, 2009 at 11:30

  22. Nathan ek herhaal…

    Jyt een byeenkoms vergeet dis

    Wederkoms van die Messias op 21 Mei 2011 – 200 000 000

    Die “stadion” staan gereed….!

    (Openb 9:16) En die getal van die leërs van perderuiters was twee maal tien duisend maal tien duisend; en ek het hulle getal gehoor.

    Dis 500 Simon & Garfunkel, Central Park byeenkomste…!

    johannes coetzee

    July 15, 2009 at 10:05

  23. Sias
    En is jy nie gepla oor hoe ek die Moslems verguis nie?

    Nathan Bond

    July 15, 2009 at 07:58

  24. Wees verseker dat jy ook eendag die knieg gaan buig voor GOD en dan sal jy moet antwoord oor die 60 000 dom d**se. Wees verder verseker dat 60 000 mans vir een dom mens bid, wat GOD duidelik dringend in sy lewe nodig het.

    Die feit dat jy asemhaal is ‘n genade geskenk van GOD af.Die feit dat jou geliefdes nog by jou is en jy by hulle, is genade van GOD af.

    Ek hoop jy het al op jou kniee gegaan en vir GOD omverskoning gevra, oor hoe jy SY Christene beledig.

    Sias

    July 14, 2009 at 07:44

  25. Dear Turbomouse

    I am bowled over with your real name- TURBOMOUSE. Is your name Turbo or are you a new evolved mouse? Maybe – a common ancestor with a chicken or an evolved god?
    Please advice, your real name is mind boggling. Do you have DNA ?

    DW

    July 7, 2009 at 13:15

  26. ¿Que? What exactly is “tasteless” in the above-referenced comment by DW because I don’t see it. Maybe it’s a language thing. Or maybe it’s a certain immunity to these mind cancers.

    Con-Tester

    July 6, 2009 at 18:08

  27. Turbomouse

    What is more despicable… the odd “tasteless” comment – spawned by some religious idiocy, or the worship of some “God” profoundly unable to give a straight answer and utterly disassociated, allowing the most horrific evils to befall his kin?

    Next to “God”, DW is a pussycat.

    Nathan Bond

    July 6, 2009 at 16:40

  28. DW….

    I despise your outlook and tastleless comments. So, keep hiding behind your screen name!

    Turbomouse

    July 6, 2009 at 15:39

  29. Where is you English?

    This is English posting board – and nobody are speaking English – they says stuff like “Wat Weet Jye Mens” – how kind of English is that? are you all Stupid ?

    Donald Buchan

    April 27, 2009 at 20:52

  30. Great Shakes!!!

    Nobody is answering my inflamatororical rhetorics – sheesh!

    Come on people and give me your best shots.

    I know by your silence you understand how I am greater than you, by maybe physical and definately spiritual and mental intelectually brighter and stronger than you.

    I was in an University Mental Sparring team -this means like debating for the Americans out there.

    I was the chamption – “the big cheesy” as you westerners say – I can deflate your debate, and squash your kosh, and belittle your twittle, and make small you balls – I clever because I strength my mind with daily excercises

    Whilst many eat Big Macs for breakfast and lunch and even dinner and tea (even I have seen men taken their new girlfriends out for Big Macs when they even leave their wifes and kids at home with just quarter pounder with cheese or happy meal) -you with no guilt in you.

    Hypocrites – teach your children that it is fine to glutton on Big Macs and Coca Cola – the epitome of the capitalist world, but we, the intelectuals, we will feast daily on salad burgers, and chicken Mc Nuggets – we do not need Big Macs – that is for you weaklings of the mind – we have option of sauces – sweet and sour (it is poetic) – curry (it is diverse) – or tomato (from Italio)…

    Shame on you, you hipocrates. Just because you know we all lust for Big Macs doesn’t mean you should tempt us all the time for the Big Macs – no good.

    I have finish now (too much brandy)

    Donald.

    P.S.
    I wish there was a McDonald’s here – I could murder a Big Mac now – maybe 2…

    Donald Buchan

    April 27, 2009 at 20:48

  31. One last point…

    I’ve been thinking (hey, don’t faint!!!) – seriously…

    The namby-pamby limp-wristed Yankee Doodle liberals never smack their kids, no matter what they do… But, the South Africans do.

    Result?

    U.S.A. – Most kids are overweight, and always get what they want (mostly 10 Big Mac’s per day and 4 litres of CocaCola) and many have guns which they run around with and mostly or sometimes shoot their classmates (serious – I heard it happened a lot)

    South Africa – Most kids play sports such as rugby so they are fit not fat, they get treated well but they have respect for their elders (i.e. not 10 Big Mac’s per day) – Many have guns which they use for hunting, but not their classmates and teachers. Serious.

    I think it might be to do with the music that the Americans listen to – it’s all heavy metal and evil stuff like taking about the Devil and blood and stuff – yuk. In South Africa they have lovely must like Gospel and Christian music which is much better for the soul (not to mention the ears).

    My opinion?

    The proof of the pudding is in reading my stats in this blog post – if your kids make you cross, beat them with sticks and planks. Make them listen to wholesome music and they will grow up fine, but if you let them do what they want all the time, and give them all the money they want and let them listen to evil music like Sharon Osbourne and Def Leppard etc, then they will get guns and kill people fairly often.

    Thanks for listening – and I hope my wisdom will help save a soul or a life.

    P.S.
    Thought for the day:
    Why speak in platitudes? I’d much rather speak in plongitutdes.

    Donald Buchan

    April 27, 2009 at 13:53

  32. Just one addition – you also must understand that Angus is South African – and the Afrikaaners are more old fashioned and conservative than most.

    To an Afrikaaner, a whack on the arse for a naughty child is fine – but not to someone in Europe or the U.S.A.

    Food for thought.

    Don

    P.S.
    Speaking of food – “I’ll not be beaten” shouted the overly optimistic egg to his hard-boiled brother.

    Donald Buchan

    April 27, 2009 at 13:18

  33. There are many references in the Bible which indicate that it is right to chasten your child (a few examples below).

    Regarding the use of violence or ‘corporal punishment’ – there is no doubt that Solomon metered out beating upon Balrahobim and Meserech, his two sons which are not mentioned in the Bible, but what does this prove?

    I think you should ask your children before beating them – some may enjoy a good beating and some may not – it is personal taste.

    However, if your child actually enjoys being beaten, then it will obviously cease to be a punishment. Rather take away their liquor allowance or limit them to one pack of cigarettes a day for a week – something like that.

    Here are the Bible verses:-

    Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently).”
    Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”
    Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
    Prov 23:13: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”
    Prov 23:14: “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel).”
    Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”
    Hebrews 12:6-7: “…the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?”

    Hope this helps, and keep up the good works.

    Donald

    Donald Buchan

    April 27, 2009 at 13:11

  34. Ray skryf :”We are all sinners”

    Jou hol op ‘n tol. Ek het geen sonde nie. Dit is net moroon gelowiges soos jy wat foking sonde het.

    Laat jou foking 3 gotte wat 1 is maar 3 is wat een 1 jou foking sonde vergewe.

    DW

    March 27, 2009 at 12:55

  35. PATHETIC!

    We are all sinners, not even Angus is perfect and he admits this, come on people how pathetic to raise such a news post.

    Ray

    March 27, 2009 at 04:48

  36. Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    I would not say they are natural and would rather say, there are spiritual messages behind them. My understanding in this regard, differs from the traditional Christian religions.

    But you said that the bible doesn’t proclaim anything supernatural, yet each of the items in the list I gave is clearly supernatural. Whether there is a message behind them, spiritual (whatever that might be) or otherwise, isn’t relevant unless you’re saying that those things didn’t actually ever happen and that they are purely allegorical narratives.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    When I see Durban in my minds eye, I am not imagining that which is non-existent.

    That would be because you know independently that a city called “Durban” exists. No doubt, you’ve had some prior experience of Durban, perhaps direct or from an article or photos or word-of-mouth accounts.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    One can sense things only to be proven later, yet not unto others, but unto one self.

    If one can only prove such allegedly objective things to oneself, they are by definition subjective and the chances are high that one is mistaken.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    By following Jesus, one receives evidence that causes one to keep the faith.

    The same can be said of any of a large number of other man-gods people have managed to conjure up over the ages. Plus, it isn’t evidence one receives. The proper name for it is confirmation bias – viz. counting the hits and studiously ignoring the misses.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    One who sees the spirit of those who have passed, are not emotionally disturbed, and I am not referring to drug related visions.

    Did I say that people who claim to have such visions are emotionally disturbed and/or under the influence of hallucinogens? Please point out where because all I can find is the following: “I’d rather entertain the idea that these things were the result of misperceptions or misinterpretations than that they hinged on some mystical effects because the former is a much more plausible explanation…” in respect of some of my own experiences. But notice please that, instead, I could very easily have taken them as ironclad facts and proof of something along the lines of what you’re punting. Entertaining such doubts as I have described is not a sin, contrary to what many flavours of religious doctrine hold to be the case.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    Their similar description, of the one known to one of them and me, was confirmation and proof to me.

    And there’s just no way there can be any mistake, I suppose. Besides the aforementioned “confirmation bias,” I think you should also investigate the topic of subjective validation.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    Don’t believe me, as there are avenue’s you must discover yourself. God’s presence and power is also to be discovered.

    Yes, and those avenues also include some very large and prominent highways of well-established cognitive science that you apparently choose simply to ignore, while your god’s presence and power are still entirely a matter of indiscriminate conjecture and unfounded supposition.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    Can you believe it, a donkey that can talk?

    I will resist the temptation to answer in line with my first thought. Your bible also mentions such a marvellous creature.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    It is a choice for one to believe, or not to believe, what I claim. The proof in what I claim, lies in the understanding thereof.

    A choice that should really be driven by the balance of evidence-based probabilities. I’ve said it several times before, and I’ll say it again: it’s a circular argument (technically, begging the question), one of many types of fallacious reasoning, to say that you first have to believe it before you can see the proof for it. If you were wrongly accused of a crime and the prosecutor argued that one must first believe you to be guilty before one was able to see the proof of your guilt, you would, I think, very strenuously object (quite apart from the fact that no sane judge would accept such an argument).

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    In regard to the Bible, I have required, through experiences, proof of the existence of what I claim.

    I’m afraid to say that you’re shifting the goalposts here. Your claim was that to read or to hear words, to understand things, to experience love and to know truth aren’t fantasies, and are thus proof of the reality of a “spirit” realm (whatever that might be), an argument that is hardly convincing for the reasons I gave.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    It could also be that you just don’t understand.

    Or maybe I understand all too well.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    One’s belief, prayer and positive attitude, will make good times better and bad times easier to face.

    And if I merely nourish a positive disposition without praying to some imagined skydaddy, I’ll save myself some time (and maybe some frustration, too) and still be able to enjoy the good times and to face the bad times just as readily.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    It has nothing to do with God punishing one as we are all subject to nature.

    You do realise that Richard Dawkins could easily have written that sentence, and that I agree fully with it. It only remains to answer the question of why, then, we should even bother with this god thing.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    [T]here is a time to pray and there is a time to do. When one must do, then it is not time to pray and when one cannot do, then one can pray.

    Once again, it seems that you are attempting to sidestep the issue. I asked for some objective criteria that would allow a person to decide which particular religious doctrines are accurate and which are not. Praying, presumably for guidance, is hardly an objective criterion.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    By debating, we find the truth, within ourselves.

    Perhaps so sometimes, but more importantly, we are exposed to alternative and different views that prompt us to think along other lines.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    To make an accusation, is not always to say that it’s true. It is not “my version of Christianity” but rather, what I have received, by grace.

    Whether you believe that you have “received [it] by grace” or constructed it wholesale from spare parts is irrelevant. The fact remains that you have in effect claimed, and elsewhere openly admitted, that your conception of Christianity is different from most other people’s and, by implication, much superior to theirs. I am saying that many Christians make exactly the same ultimately ridiculous claim about others’ conceptions. In short, many believers just love accusing one another of heresy, hence the diversity of sects and denominations, not to mention unnecessary violence and bigotry.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    A particular version can be the actual one as we can’t all be wright and we can’t all be wrong.

    Sorry, no. We very much can all be wrong.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    You also differ with me, so you also imply that I am wrong and you are wright.

    With the essential difference that I am not putting forward positive claims without due substantiation.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    I would rather say, that to brainwash children and others, is not good and is harmful. Yet, to give them understanding of what I believe, is not harmful.

    I’m pleased to read the first sentence, above. The second one concerns me deeply because children only acquire sufficient cognitive ability to understand certain things beyond a certain (mental) age. What you label “[giving] them understanding” is actually brainwashing if the children are too young adequately to process and filter the information. Moreover, there’s something of an ongoing social taboo, especially around the young, on questioning these things in any meaningful way (because doubt is a punishable sin, see?) which tends to reinforce the ostensible truth of these fairytales.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    I myself grew up in traditional Christian religions and I questioned a lot, without success. I kept on seeking, until I found answers, that make sense and a more excellent way.

    That’s great, and much the same as most devotees of any of hundreds of other sects and denominations that they grew up with would claim. The number of those who manage to escape their religious shackles altogether is depressingly low.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    What we ask in our own name, we will not receive and what we ask in His name, we will receive. In other words, we must ask with understanding, to the glory of God and not after our own lusts and condemnation of our own souls or that of others.

    What use does an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity have of glorification by us? Surely, our limited capacities are as nothing when compared to all this omni-ness, and granting someone’s altruistic wish for relief from suffering for others, for example stopping the horrific deaths of children in many places in the world, should be the simplest thing for such a powerful overlord. Such a request does, in fact, glorify your god because it says that we are entirely at his/her mercy. Or maybe s/he’s really sensitive and perceives such requests as veiled criticism along the lines of, “Hey you, Mr Creator, you cocked it up now do us all a favour please, and fix it.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    [T]he power station question, was not a stupid one.

    That’s basically what I thought. Maybe now you will answer it for the benefit of this blog’s readership, which includes me.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    I can’t remember seeing your comment on the “water, ice and steam” in relation to Father , son and Holy Ghost, so I am in the dark, in regard to you reaction about it.

    I wrote (10 Oct 08 at 10:42 pm): “There are objective measures that allow us to distinguish and classify water, ice and steam even though they are chemically identical. But we know this only because each phase can reliably and repeatedly be coaxed into one of the others through a suitable manipulation of the pressure and temperature. Your god is not that easy to pigeonhole and apprehend…” In other words, we understand well the physics of water’s phase transitions, but hardly those of going from a pan-universal, omni-everything creator-god to his/her own flesh-and-blood son, and thence to an intangible ethereality, and back again. That’s why it’s a bad analogy and quite probably an invalid one, too.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (29 Dec 08 at 9:31 pm):

    I, of course disagree and urge you to prove it to me.

    Man was allegedly created in the image of your god, meaning that there’s a more-than-passing physical resemblance. Your god’s Old Testament persona and conduct show all the hallmarks of a human – a not very nice human, but a human nonetheless. Your god’s son allegedly came to humanity as a human. Your god and his/her son thus carry very strong anthropomorphic overtones.

    Con-Tester

    December 30, 2008 at 12:27

  37. Con-Tester 5 Dec 08 at 12:53 pm
    “Really? So all this talk about creation ex nihilo, global floods, immortality, ghosts, assorted miracles, talking animals, Immaculate Conception, resurrections and so forth is natural?”
    I would not say they are natural and would rather say, there are spiritual messages behind them. My understanding in this regard, differs from the traditional Christian religions.

    “Yes, it’s known as “imagination.” But the mind’s eye is not evidence of any kind of immanent “spirit.””
    When I see Durban in my minds eye, I am not imagining that which is non-existent. One can sense things only to be proven later, yet not unto others, but unto one self. By following Jesus, one receives evidence that causes one to keep the faith. One who sees the spirit of those who have passed, are not emotionally disturbed, and I am not referring to drug related visions. I have known of two persons, who have described seeing the same departed spirit (person), yet the one person was not aware of the other person and also did not know the deceased. I had felt the departed in my presence and approached them separately. Their similar description, of the one known to one of them and me, was confirmation and proof to me. Don’t believe me, as there are avenue’s you must discover yourself. God’s presence and power is also to be discovered.

    I am also like a donkey, that was tied to the tradition of my ancestors and one came to set me free, so that I can be transportation for Christ. Can you believe it, a donkey that can talk?

    It is a choice for one to believe, or not to believe, what I claim. The proof in what I claim, lies in the understanding thereof.

    “True enough in each case, but none of these experiences either prove or require the existence of what you’re claiming.”
    In regard to the Bible, I have required, through experiences, proof of the existence of what I claim.

    “Misperceptions or misinterpretations”
    It could also be that you just don’t understand.

    In regard to the farmer; One must act with understanding and knowledge, and one will have good times and bad times. One’s belief, prayer and positive attitude, will make good times better and bad times easier to face. It has nothing to do with God punishing one as we are all subject to nature.

    In regard too, the “objective criteria”.
    What I meant is; there is a time to pray and there is a time to do. When one must do, then it is not time to pray and when one cannot do, then one can pray.

    By debating, we find the truth, within ourselves.

    To make an accusation, is not always to say that it’s true. It is not “my version of Christianity” but rather, what I have received, by grace.

    A particular version can be the actual one as we can’t all be wright and we can’t all be wrong.

    You also differ with me, so you also imply that I am wrong and you are wright. I think this point is irrelevant to our discussion as nobody would then debate anything.

    I would rather say, that to brainwash children and others, is not good and is harmful. Yet, to give them understanding of what I believe, is not harmful. I myself grew up in traditional Christian religions and I questioned a lot, without success. I kept on seeking, until I found answers, that make sense and a more excellent way.

    As God is in us and knows what we want, it is for ourselves, that we express it in words, as God is the word (Joh. 1 v 1). What we ask in our own name, we will not receive and what we ask in His name, we will receive. In other words, we must ask with understanding, to the glory of God and not after our own lusts and condemnation of our own souls or that of others. I agree, that we cannot pray, then sit back, and not do the possible.

    Gods church is not a business and should you read 2 Kings 12, you will understand, that those who serve, should not take the tithes for themselves. I apologize, as in the light of your understanding, that churches are a business, the power station question, was not a stupid one.

    I can’t remember seeing your comment on the “water, ice and steam” in relation to Father , son and Holy Ghost, so I am in the dark, in regard to you reaction about it.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    “God en Christus is nie persone nie, maar wel wysheid en krag en die Heilige Gees is die resultate daarvan.”

    As already indicated earlier, your bible indicates otherwise.
    I, of course disagree and urge you to prove it to me.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 29, 2008 at 21:31

  38. My apologies – for some reason I seem to have missed your reply of 8 November.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Die Bybel verkondig nie “super natural” nie. Dit is ‘n persepsie wat by mense ontstaan.

    Really? So all this talk about creation ex nihilo, global floods, immortality, ghosts, assorted miracles, talking animals, immaculate conception, resurrections and so forth is natural?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Gees is onbeperk omdat jy in jou gedagte (geestes oog) die heelal kan sien, in ‘n oogwink, of jy kan Durban se strand sien, in ‘n oogwink.

    Yes, it’s known as “imagination.” But the mind’s eye is not evidence of any kind of immanent “spirit.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Ek kon nooit ‘n dier uitvra oor enigeiets.

    You don’t have to. Observation alone can reveal quite a lot. Plus, if you have to ask an animal about this “spirit” thing, chances are it’s wholly subjective and therefore very likely bogus.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Die Koninkryk van God is nie vam hierdie wêreld en daarom kan jy hierdie dinge, nie meet, met maatstawe vantoepassing tot hierdie wêreld nie.

    So you keep saying, but in the absence of any concrete proof, why should anyone believe word one of what you’re claiming?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Wat ek van tewete gekom het en ervaar het, en nog ervaar, is nie ‘n fantasie nie.

    So you keep saying, but in the absence of any concrete proof, why should anyone believe a word one of what you’re claiming?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Om woorde te lees of te hoor, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om dinge te begryp, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om liefde te ervaar, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om ‘n waarheid te ken, is nie ‘n fantasie nie.

    True enough in each case, but none of these experiences either prove or require the existence of what you’re claiming.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Ek het nie verwys na die wêreld daarbuite nie, maar wel na die wêreld in jou.

    Speaking for myself, I try as far as possible to entertain the possibility that my internal world, wherever it clashes with observable reality, has a high likelihood of being fanciful. Like most everyone, I’ve seen several things that I simply cannot explain. However, I’d rather entertain the idea that these things were the result of misperceptions or misinterpretations than that they hinged on some mystical effects because the former is a much more plausible explanation given the paucity of reliable evidence for the latter.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    “n Boer hou nie op boer; verwys na die vergelykenis van die saaier Mat. 13.

    That doesn’t address the question. The question was why a farmer who is completely loyal to his god should have any bad harvests, and if he does, whether that means he got a slap on the wrist from this god for doing something bad. Also, whether his requests to this god for a good harvest can make any difference to how his harvest will turn out.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 12:49 am):

    Die “objective” kriteria is daar, ek het jou reeds op een gewys.

    I must have missed it. Please point it out again because I can’t find it.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    [D]ie waarheid is in elke mens…

    Apparently not. If it was so, we wouldn’t be debating.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    … en baie kies eerder die norm of wat populêr is of hul sien nie kans vir die waarheid nie.

    So what? Are you saying you’re different? Everyone can make that accusation with equal conviction about anyone else, and people generally do what’s in their interests, just as you are punting your version of Christianity because you believe it’s the one and only true one.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Dit gaan nie oor my nie, dit gaan oor, wat die waarheid is.

    It’s about your particular version of the truth versus what the actuality is.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Ek gee nie voor (sujest), dat net ek het die waarheid. Ek sê hoe en wat ek verstaan en waar en hoekom ek met ander verskil.

    Indeed, but if you take a step back, you should easily see that the idea that your thoughts are closer to the truth than those of people you disagree with is implicit in that approach.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Om ander te oortuig is nie my doel nie omdat oortuiging lê in elke mens self.

    I’m not so sure about that. I think it’s much more often a case of prejudice than one of proper conviction; prejudice that has been acquired through social conditioning, rather than rational and impartial appraisal. The vast majority of lifelong believers are inducted into their faith from their earliest age onward, and this conditioning of young minds is almost impossible to undo later because it is integrated into the most basic referential framework of thought. That is why religion is deeply harmful, why people keep denying this, and why I feel religion must, as a matter of urgency, be kept from children until they reach the age of consent.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Om te bid , is om ook eer en erkenning te gee aan hoër gesag en dit lei ook na posetiewe denke.

    But if your god knows your (and everyone else’s) heart and mind, there’s no good reason to externalise such veneration through ritual and prayer. As for positive thinking, I would have thought that unanswered prayers, which vastly outweigh the answered kind, are good cause for negativity. Better to go out there and do something much more proactive.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Om ‘n atoomkragstasie te bou, is om verkope te doen om rykdom as loon te kry. Dit is besigheid en nie liefdadigheid nie.

    But that is true of every enterprise, including churches and other edifices of organised religion. But your take is entirely one-sided and ill-conceived. The fact that some people realise a pecuniary profit from running a power station only adds to the contention that many people more generally benefit from its proper operation.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Ek sê nou sommer vir jou reguit, dit is ‘n dom vraag, die oor die kragstasie, glo en bid.

    You can say it whichever way you like but that won’t change the fact that you haven’t given a single good reason why it is a dumb question.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    Water, is iets anders as ys en hulle is iets anders as stoom, en tog is hulle dieselfde.

    I’ve already covered this and why it’s a bad analogy to the father/son/holy spirit triumvirate.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 11:19 pm):

    God en Christus is nie persone nie, maar wel wysheid en krag en die Heilige Gees is die resultate daarvan.

    As already indicated earlier, your bible indicates otherwise.

    Con-Tester

    December 5, 2008 at 12:53

  39. Con-tester, om verder aan te gaan; die waarheid is in elke mens en baie kies eerder die norm of wat populêr is of hul sien nie kans vir die waarheid nie.
    Dit gaan nie oor my nie, dit gaan oor, wat die waarheid is. Ek gee nie voor (sujest), dat net ek het die waarheid. Ek sê hoe en wat ek verstaan en waar en hoekom ek met ander verskil.
    Om ander te oortuig is nie my doel nie omdat oortuiging lê in elke mens self. Ek gee maar net my oortuiging vir ander en as ek met ‘n ander verskil, sê ek hoekom.
    Om te bid , is om ook eer en erkenning te gee aan hoër gesag en dit lei ook na posetiewe denke.
    Om ‘n atoomkragstasie te bou, is om verkope te doen om rykdom as loon te kry. Dit is besigheid en nie liefdadigheid nie. My oorlede skoonpa het altyd gesê; daar is ‘n tyd om te bid en om te glo, maar as die vyand kom, is dit tyd om te skiet. Ek sê nou sommer vir jou reguit, dit is ‘n dom vraag, die oor die kragstasie, glo en bid.
    Water, is iets anders as ys en hulle is iets anders as stoom, en tog is hulle dieselfde. God, die woord is iets anders as wanneer die woord vlees word, want dit is die Seun (van dade of woord wat sigbaar word) en hulle is anders as die Gees (die resultate) wat vreugde ens. meebring, en tog is hulle dieselfde.
    God en Christus is nie persone nie, maar wel wysheid en krag en die Heilige Gees is die resultate daarvan.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 4, 2008 at 23:19

  40. Baie dankie!

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 8, 2008 at 21:39

  41. Welkom terug, Daan!

    Nathan Bond

    November 8, 2008 at 15:36

  42. Nathan!!!

    My verskoning dat ek so lank weg was. Dis lekker om weer hier te wees.

    DW!!!!!!!! Middag.

    Jammer ek antwoord nou eers. Ek sien jy is nog net so kwaai en Johannes 2011 Coetzee nog net so mal.

    Nee, om die warheid te sê, geen Moslem Imam het ooit by my kinders se skole iets geopen of afgesluit nie. Tot 1994 was hulle in Christelike skole en net Christen dominees het daar ge-operate.

    Ek het nog net een seun op skool, maar sedert 1994 word geen godsdiens in ons plaaslike skool toegelaat nie.

    Rick, dis lekker om weer van jou te hoor.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 8, 2008 at 14:29

  43. Con-tester, dankie en ja, lekker vakansie gehou.
    Die Bybel verkondig nie “super natural” nie. Dit is ‘n persepsie wat by mense ontstaan.
    Gees is onbeperk omdat jy in jou gedagte (geestes oog) die heelal kan sien, in ‘n oogwink, of jy kan Durban se strand sien, in ‘n oogwink.
    Ek kon nooit ‘n dier uitvra oor enigeiets.
    Heb. 12 v 1 (Ou Vertaling), verwys na so ‘n geestelike wolk.
    ‘n “spirit” of “medium” is iets anders, wat ook onsigbaar is vir die mens se vleeslike oë. Dit is gees in ‘n ander konteks.
    Ek is nie beperk tot wat is “fashionable” of “firmiliar” of die “zetetic approach nie. Die onsigbare is nie supra-natural en is seker supra-spiritual. Die Koninkryk van God is nie vam hierdie wêreld en daarom kan jy hierdie dinge, nie meet, met maatstawe vantoepassing tot hierdie wêreld nie.
    Wat ek van tewete gekom het en ervaar het, en nog ervaar, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om woorde te lees of te hoor, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om dinge te begryp, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om liefde te ervaar, is nie ‘n fantasie nie. Om ‘n waarheid te ken, is nie ‘n fantasie nie.
    Die Gees sal altyd deurspek wees, met die vrug van die Gees; nl. waarheid, liefde, verdraagsaamheid ens.
    Die Skrifgeleerdes en Fariseërs kom met “apologies” en nie hulle, wat deur die Heilige Gees gelei word.
    Ek het nie verwys na die wêreld daarbuite nie, maar wel na die wêreld in jou.
    Ek glo aan die wetenskaplike onstaan van die aarde en Gen. 1 en 2 gaan nie daaroor nie. Jy moet dus my skrywe nie lees asof ek ‘n “creationist” is.
    Om dinge te bevraagteken verg ‘n “enquiring mind” en nie ‘n “attacking mind”.
    “n Boer hou nie op boer; verwys na die vergelykenis van die saaier Mat. 13.
    Die “objective” kriteria is daar, ek het jou reeds op een gewys.
    Dit is nou laat, dus sal ek ander dag aangaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 8, 2008 at 00:49

  44. Welcome back, Hans Matthysen. I hope you had an enjoyable leave.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Gees is ‘n gesindheid, ‘n toestand, ‘n visioen en sou ek na ‘n skare mense kyk, kan ek hulle sien as ‘n “wolk van getuies”, hier in my gedagtes.

    As far as I can tell, that doesn’t say anything meaningful beyond indicating that you empathically feel a common identity with other people (as do other people with you), which is hardly remarkable or in any need of a supernatural account. Does this “spirituality” extend to animals? If yes, to what degree and why? If not, how come?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Die woorde wat ‘n mens praat, kan jy nie sien, raak of proe en tog kan jy, in jou gedagte, dit waarneem en begryp.

    Unless you’re advocating a naïve form of Cartesian dualism, it is hard to see how our ability to share intangible concepts (as conveyed by words) requires any kind of “spirit” for its mediation. It’s unfashionable to say that matter and energy are both primary and sufficient in themselves, i.e. philosophical materialism, and that the “fifth essence” is redundant. But consider that (a) nothing that we are familiar with can manifest in the absence of matter and energy, (b) the scarce-to-non-existent evidence for any transcendent supra-natural realm, and (c) that the zetetic approach requires rejection of insufficiently supported contentions, and one has some very powerful reasons for demanding significantly more convincing evidence, variously reasons, to accept such a proposal as yours.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    God is ‘n gesindheid (Gees) wat: insig (lig) bring, ewige vrede bewerstellig, waarheid openbaar, liefde, ens. en dit veroorsaak ‘n ewiglike toestand.

    Which, sans evidence, is an entirely hollow claim, indistinguishable from a fantasy. How can one know (as a justified, true belief) any of this?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Gees is die onsigbare en ewiglike wat vir die natuurlike denkende verberg is.

    Another hollow claim, I’m afraid. But even if it were so, and I repeat myself, what functional criteria can be used to decide between the presence or absence of “spirit”?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Elke deel in die Bybel aangaande God, sal in die regte konteks, bewys…

    But that’s exactly the problem with citing your bible as evidence: you can “prove” just about anything by manufacturing an appropriate context, which is the same as saying that that your bible cannot be relied upon as evidence. Moreover, “context” is the new watchword of apologetics. Every apologist has their own favourite frescoes of “contexts,” which in toto do nothing more than underscore the complete subjectivity of the whole sordid enterprise.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Die bestaan van die geestelike, is in elke mens self en dit bepaal en afekteur die wêreld waarin elke mens self lewe.

    That’s not consistent with observed reality. Sure, a person’s thoughts can affect their behaviour but there’s no substance to the idea that it can directly affect the world. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, if “spirit” affects the world, it is de facto detectable. How can it be otherwise? Yet, there’s no proof at all supporting any of these claims.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    … God besluit nie wie gaan waar. … Elke een kies dus self.

    That doesn’t address the argument. You cannot have an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely benevolent personal spirit god who created everything (and who incidentally can and can’t affect the world), and still retain any kind of authentic free will. The two notions are logically incompatible. That’s the point. If you’re saying that your god is beyond logic, then your endeavours to defend him/her cannot resort to logic, either. That, in turn, means you have to resign yourself to the fact that you have no cogent defence for your assertion, and they can be dismissed as no more than interesting baubles. That is the essence of the dilemma you are shouldered with.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Om God met verstand te dien, is om als te bevraagteken, wat nie verstaanbaar is nie, nie met arrogansie nie, maar wel met ‘n nuuskierige gesindheid.

    That’s just way too glib for my taste. It means that as soon as we face something requiring any real and concentrated effort to understand, we throw up our hands and say, “Hallelujah, goddidit, amen!” Far more courageous and fruitful to say, “I honestly don’t know, but I’ll do my damnedest to find out,” and proceed from the assumption that your god had nothing whatever to do with it so that we are not tempted to deny our ignorance by means of artifice.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    ‘n Boer hou nie op boer, as hy een slegte oes kry.

    But why should a farmer of the cloth (so to speak) suffer even just one poor harvest? If he does, would that mean he was somehow bad? Can his imprecations to this “spiritual supremo” make any difference to the outcome of his agricultural efforts? If not, what’s the purpose of positing such an entity except as a universal placeholder for the things beyond his ken?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Dit is Jesus en die Apostels se weergawe wat ek besit … Ons word in die Bybel gewaarsku, dat daar baie verleiers uitgegaan het en ons moet hulle op die proef stel … om hul eie dogma weer te gee.

    Again, these are interpretive issues. Were the situation as clear as one might expect given your gods supremacy in all domains, such issues would never have arisen in the first place, and all Christians should be in harmony with each other over questions of doctrine. Any rational appraisal of the manifest divergences must regard the situation with deep suspicion if for no other reason than that there appears to be no set of objective criteria by which to settle the question of who is right. Far better, then, to reject them all as bogus.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Rabin Miller’s se toets is buite konteks wat Christus en die Weg betref.

    Undoubtedly so, but it refutes your point that only the truth can point up falsity.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    By die waarheid is daar nie “verbeelding” en ‘n fantasie geloof nie, soos wat jy reeds by baie bespeur het.

    If I understand correctly, this suggests again that you have the truth and that whoever differs from you must be wrong. Sorry, but I’m not buying any of it without any substantiation.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Uit dankbaarhid vir die “Lig” wat ek ontvang het, gun ek ander ook die vreugde, wat ek ervaar, omdat ek daar was, waar ander nog is. As ek my “oog” net kon uit pluk en vir ander gee, sal hul vreugde en dankbaarheid, my nog meer vreugde verskaf.

    I’m afraid that that’s just a gently emotive way of saying, “I know better than you.” It lacks any real persuasiveness.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Die Koninkryk van God is nie van hierdie wêreld nie en om ‘n Kernkragstasie te bou, deur bid en sim-salle-miem, is dus on van pas.
    God het nie behae in vlees en bloed nie, maar wel in sielle. Trouens, dit is waaroor alles draai.

    Quite beside the obvious absence of any evidence for any transcendent, eternal and intangible “soul” mapped into each individual, there’s the looming question of what the purpose of prayer and ritual is if your god’s concern stops at these “souls” and does not extend into the real world. After all, these rites and appeals are geared towards effecting divine interference in the ordinary caprices of the world to the benefit of s/he who practices the prayers and ritual. Implicit therein, too, is that your god is actually capable of interfering in the day-to-day operations of the world. Taken a step further, if your god is concerned only about “souls,” what is the point of belief or faith as long as one’s intentions (but not necessarily one’s conduct) are in accord with the appropriate rules? Or, in reverse, if someone decides to build and run a nuclear power plant for the benefit of his/her fellows, that surely constitutes an intent that must meet with your god’s approval because it upholds the essence of the Christian message. What possible explanation, then, that your god remains distant from such a project? Thus, the question of why building and running a nuclear power plant on faith and prayer alone is a dumb suggestion, remains unanswered.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (10 Oct 08 at 1:05 am):

    Die drie is een en dieselfde soos wat water, ys en stoom een en dieselfde is. Dit is dieselfde ding in verskillende fases.

    I’m afraid that won’t do. There are objective measures that allow us to distinguish and classify water, ice and steam even though they are chemically identical. But we know this only because each phase can reliably and repeatedly be coaxed into one of the others through a suitable manipulation of the pressure and temperature. Your god is not that easy to pigeonhole and apprehend, unless you mean to say that, like Johan Swarts, on no credible basis, you have superior knowledge of this god – knowledge that has eluded two thousand years’ worth of biblical scholars who have had direct access to relevant texts that you very likely have not had. And to top it all, you say yours is a single god when your bible clearly intimates that three god-entities are involved, as per the passage I cited. Your bible speaks “of the Father, and of the Son,” indicating separate identities which are both very clearly anthropomorphic, i.e. warts’n’all personages. Only “the Holy Ghost” fails the latter criterion.

    Con-Tester

    October 10, 2008 at 22:42

  45. Daan jy skryf aan aventer

    10 uit 10!! Sien gerus my bydraes onder “‘n Huldeblyk aan Charles Darwin” waar ek dieselfde bepleit.

    aventer(kan ons nie eerder in vrede met mekaar leef as MENSE nie.)

    Daan

    Sê ‘n bietjie vir my , hoeveel keer het ‘n Moslem Imam al by jou kinders se skool die opening en afsluiting behartig , en kom vertel hy ook vir die kinders by die skool van Allah en Mohammed , soos die Christelike dominees vryhand in skole het.

    DW

    October 10, 2008 at 08:05

  46. AVENTER SKRYF “Hoekom moet ons mekaar beledig. Jinne mense…as ons dan nie in ons verskillende gelowe kan saamleef nie, kan ons nie eerder in vrede met mekaar leef as MENSE nie.

    Op die ou eind van die dag is almal net MENSE wat dieselfe aarde bewoon en dieselfde lug inasem. Nie een MENS is verhewe bo ‘n ander MENS nie.

    So what as ons baklei…moet ons ooit baklei? NEE!!! Almal wil tog op die ou eind net in vrede en liefde saamleef AS MENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Venter ,

    As gelowiges hulle gotte in hulle huise en kerke dien is dit reg so.
    Die oomblik as gelowiges hulle gotte in die openbare medium kom propageer verander die speletjie.
    As Stefan Joubert kak praat in die Beeld moet hy aangespreek word . As die skoolhoof sy gotte idee op die skoolkinders afdwing en hulle bang maak vir die duiwel en hel dan moet hy ‘n briefie kry.

    Jy sê dat jy in vrede en liefde met jou naaste lewe . Sê ‘n bietjie vir my , hoeveel keer het ‘n Moslem Imam al by jou kinders se skool die opening en afsluiting behartig , en kom vertel hy ook vir die kinders by die skool van Allah en Mohammed , soos die Christelike dominees vryhand in skole het.

    DW

    October 10, 2008 at 08:00

  47. Con-Tester,
    Gees is ‘n gesindheid, ‘n toestand, ‘n visioen en sou ek na ‘n skare mense kyk, kan ek hulle sien as ‘n “wolk van getuies”, hier in my gedagtes. Jesus sê, waar twee of drie in Sy naam vergader, daar is Hy. Die woorde wat ‘n mens praat, kan jy nie sien, raak of proe en tog kan jy, in jou gedagte, dit waarneem en begryp. Daar is seker nog baie wat mens kan sê oor gees en die bewys daarvan.
    God is ‘n gesindheid (Gees) wat: insig (lig) bring, ewige vrede bewerstellig, waarheid openbaar, liefde, ens. en dit veroorsaak ‘n ewiglike toestand.
    Gees is die onsigbare en ewiglike wat vir die natuurlike denkende verberg is.
    Die verklarende woordeboeke gee nog aspekte gees.
    Metode van bewys, is hoofsaaklik deur waarnemingsvermoë op te skerp of ingesteldheid.
    Elke deel in die Bybel aangaande God, sal in die regte konteks, bewys dat God nie ‘n mens is, met arms en bene, soos baie mense se foutiewe persepsie.
    Die bestaan van die geestelike, is in elke mens self en dit bepaal en afekteur die wêreld waarin elke mens self lewe. Jy lewe in jou wêreld en jou gesindheid teenoor ander en alles het ‘n uitwerking op jou lewe. Ek het dus nie, wat jy geimpliseer het, dat God die wêreld sal verander, maar wel my wêreld, waarin ek lewe, a.g.v. die goeie waardes waarin ek glo, deur my geloof in God en Sy seun, wie Hy, in heden se tyd, gestuur het.
    Soos ek reeds gesê het, God besluit nie wie gaan waar. Een wat die “waarheid” vind en daarin wandel, het die ewigelewe. Een wat die “waarheid” vind en dit nie wandel nie, sal deel wees van die geweën en kners van tande. Een wat nog in duisternis verkeer, sal in ewige duisternis bly. Elke een kies dus self.
    Om God met verstand te dien, is om als te bevraagteken, wat nie verstaanbaar is nie, nie met arrogansie nie, maar wel met ‘n nuuskierige gesindheid. Daar in nie verborgenhede, wat Godsaligheid betref, vir die volk van God en daarom in ons beperkte vermoëns irrelefant.
    Op RSG het ek vandag weer gehoor, as dit nie op sekere plekke reën nie, gaan die Boere nie ‘n goeie oes hë nie, so kom ons bly by realiteit en die saak van geloof (faith) erken.
    Wat goeie en slegte resultate betref, as die saad tussen die dorings, of in die pad val en nie op kom (goeie resultate lewer) nie, is dit nie die einde van die wêreld nie. Daar sal baie meer goeie resultate (oeste)wees, as slegtes. ‘n Boer hou nie op boer, as hy een slegte oes kry.
    Dit is Jesus en die Apostels se weergawe wat ek besit en nie die van huurlinge nie. Wat ek ontvang het, het ek verniet ontvang en gee dit dus verniet. Ons word in die Bybel gewaarsku, dat daar baie verleiers uitgegaan het en ons moet hulle op die proef stel en daarom is daar so baie, wat hulle eie weergawes het en selfs anders vertalings van die Bybel laat druk, om hul eie dogma weer te gee.
    Christus is die meer uitnemende Weg en as almal nog op sy verskyning wag, op watter weg is hulle tans?
    Rabin Miller’s se toets is buite konteks wat Christus en die Weg betref.
    Met bevooroordeling gaan ‘n mens nie ‘n regverdige opinie tot gevolg hê. By die waarheid is daar nie “verbeelding” en ‘n fantasie geloof nie, soos wat jy reeds by baie bespeur het.
    Uit dankbaarheid vir die “Lig” wat ek ontvang het, gun ek ander ook die vreugde, wat ek ervaar, omdat ek daar was, waar ander nog is. As ek my “oog” net kon uit pluk en vir ander gee, sal hul vreugde en dankbaarheid, my nog meer vreugde verskaf.
    Die uitstaande vraag; Die Koninkryk van God is nie van hierdie wêreld nie en om ‘n Kernkragstasie te bou, deur bid en sim-salle-miem, is dus on van pas.
    God het nie behae in vlees en bloed nie, maar wel in sielle. Trouens, dit is waaroor alles draai.
    Wat die Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees betref, wil ek die volgende weereens sê; God is die Woord (Joh. 1 v 1) en wanneer ons die Woord lewe, het die Woord vlees geword (Joh. 1 v 14) en is ons deel van die liggaam van Christus (1 Kor. 12 v 27 en Kol. 1 v 24). Die resultate is dan die Heilige Gees, wat in ons lewenswyse sigbaar word. Die drie is een en dieselfde soos wat water, ys en stoom een en dieselfde is. Dit is dieselfde ding in verskillende fases. Daar is dus nie drie Gode nie en ek hoop dit is duidelik dat, om net die Woord te hoor, nie goed genoeg is nie, want ons moet dit lewe, sodat ons die krag en vrede daarvan kan ervaar.

    Hans Matthysen

    October 10, 2008 at 01:05

  48. Johan

    “Dis doktrine wat bygekom het”.

    Ditsem! So het verskeie ander ‘doktrines’ met verloop van tyd ook bygekom wat vandag as feite aanvaar word. Verskeie mites is deur mense bygevoeg om die ‘voorspellings’ van die ou testament lyf te gee. Met deeglike ondersoek besef ‘n mens dat hierdie aangelasde stories presies is wat dit se: Aangelasde, vals stories. Dit laat my skielik dink aan ‘n karakter wat kwansuis gekruisig is om almal te ‘verlos’, ene Jesus van Nasaret….

    Rick

    September 25, 2008 at 11:46

  49. Aventer!

    10 uit 10!! Sien gerus my bydraes onder “‘n Huldeblyk aan Charles Darwin” waar ek dieselfde bepleit.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 25, 2008 at 11:04

  50. Maybe you, Johan Swarts, should follow your own snide advice and “try actually reading the text under discussion.” I cited, for your benefit mainly, the appropriate passage. That passage directly refers to three god entities. Whether they are as one or not is actually beside the point.

    But perhaps others on this blog are unaware of your debating history. Shall I remind you of it? Until then: try keeping your arrogance-steeped bullshit off these pages.

    Con-Tester

    September 25, 2008 at 08:39

  51. Hoekom moet ons mekaar beledig. Jinne mense…as ons dan nie in ons verskillende gelowe kan saamleef nie, kan ons nie eerder in vrede met mekaar leef as MENSE nie.

    Op die ou eind van die dag is almal net MENSE wat dieselfe aarde bewoon en dieselfde lug inasem. Nie een MENS is verhewe bo ‘n ander MENS nie.

    So what as ons baklei…moet ons ooit baklei? NEE!!! Almal wil tog op die ou eind net in vrede en liefde saamleef AS MENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    aventer

    September 25, 2008 at 01:36

  52. Lees weer mooi wat ek sê: daar staan nêrens in die Bybel enigiets van ‘n drie-eenheid nie. Dis teologie wat met jare bygekom het – en natuurlik subscribe massas mense aan daardie teologie.

    Bring gerus vir my die oorspronklike Grieks met “trinity” of “drie-eenhied” of “godhead” (in Grieks, obviously), dan praat ons weer. Tot dan: try actually reading the text under discussion.

    Johan Swarts

    September 25, 2008 at 01:27

  53. In addition, these people will disagree with you, making “[d]ie Almag en Oppergesag van die Drie-enige God” (emphasis added) their very first founding principle.

    The short of it is that the divine trinity is a central and solidly entrenched part of the mythology to which you subscribe, and if you want to start advocating for biblical literalism, you’re going to run up against insurmountable difficulties.

    But I think you know this already, so your comment is ill advised.

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2008 at 22:30

  54. Well, Johan Swarts then I submit you are faced with a rather large obstacle that you will have some trouble obviating: seventeen hundred years of dogma, backed by quite a bit more than a billion followers, or as much as three quarters of all believers who attach the label “Christian” to themselves.

    But there’s Matthew 28:19-20:

    “19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

    (Emphasis added.) But I guess by your reckoning Jeeeeebus must’v’e dropped some bad acid shortly before saying it, so he wasn’t being entirely truthful.

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2008 at 22:10

  55. Nee-nee, hokaai Con-Tester. Ek wil nie aan hierdie gesprek begin deelneem nie, maar wil net uitwys dat geen karakter in die bybel – insluitende Jesus of God, na ‘n drie-eenheid verwys nie. Dis doktrine wat bygekom het. Laat vaar gerus die “which of the three god guises one is speaking of”-argument, daarvoor is daar geen gronde nie.

    Op die ander vrae, reken ek, kan Hans gerus antwoord.

    Tjirs😉

    Johan Swarts

    September 24, 2008 at 15:16

  56. Hans Matthysen, I am tempted to point out that, judging by appearances, you haven’t read my earlier response carefully enough because your reply manages to skirt each of the issues raised therein. If that is a language issue, I have no problem if you would rather reply in Afrikaans as long as you don’t object to my using English.

    Nevertheless…

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    Con-Tester, the God I serve is spirit and I serve Him in spirit and truth.

    What is “spirit” and by what verifiable process or method does one establish its presence or absence?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    Others perceive Him to be a person, with arms and legs and that is contradictory to the Bible.

    That depends on several underlying factors, not least of which is the particular part of the bible one consults and which of the three god guises one is speaking of.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    I don’t think I implied all the things, you say I do.

    Which ones, specifically? Is my summary – that on one hand you claim the existence of a spiritual realm that can affect ordinary reality, yet on the other that realm is by ordinary means undetectable, i.e. unprovable – somehow incorrect? If so, what exactly is wrong with it?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    God does not decide who has got the truth and who has not.

    So how does s/he decide whom to consign to hell and whom to heaven, assuming s/he exists at all?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    We must serve God with understanding, not blindly.

    What use does an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity have of servants? And surely our limited capacities are as nothing when competing with all this steroid-laden omni-totality, so how can one even plausibly talk of “understanding?”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    A farmer sowes seeds with faith, that the rain will come and that he will have a good crop.

    That’s one ignorant farmer. The modern farmer sows seeds with knowledge – verifiable knowledge, nogal – of soil, seasons, seed varieties, meteorology, crop rotation schedules, fertiliser and other purely secular notions learnt from the real world.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    With faith, I do what I understand and that good results will follow.

    And when bad results follow, it’s not your god’s fault but someone else’s. Maybe the devil’s, yes? But your god allegedly made everything, didn’t s/he? And “everything” includes evil, so ultimately, whichever way you slice it, your god is still the root cause of everything, no matter how unpleasant or inconvenient.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    Fistly, it’s not my version and any body is welcome to debate with me, so that we can come to the unity of faith.

    Whose version is it then? And why are so many other versions of your god all in competition with one another? As I indicated, they all stem from the same source materials, so the differences must be the result of alternative interpretations. But if your god is such a pan-multiversal powerbroker, such differences are, to say the least, oddly dissonant. Moreover, elsewhere, you clearly stated thus: “Con-Tester, you are correct, as my account of God does differ from most and I am impressed that you have noticed it.” (Emphasis added.)

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    As Apostle Paul said; “and I will show you a more exelent way of salvation”.

    …which “more excellent way,” once again, is subject to an assortment of different interpretations. What makes yours the correct one? How does one assess this?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    You can only prove the fals against the truth. If you have not the truth, you cannot prove the fals.

    Not so. I can prove, using the Rabin-Miller test, the falsity of the proposition that “15 is a prime number” without having the truth of the number 15’s prime divisors.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    I think it is a matter of opinion and I have already given an answer on this, at a previous occasion.

    Opinions come in two flavours: objectively provable and subjective point-of-view. The latter class is the domain of movie reviews, while the former is where religious beliefs pretend to hold sway. If they didn’t thus pretend, there’d be little cause for concern.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    I have never insisted that, what I beleave, would have an effect on this world, however, I know it has an affect on my world, that I live in.

    That is not what I wrote or implied. The point was that you claim your god is “spirit” (whatever that might actually be) and that you can and do know him/her from experience, which is logically inconsistent. If “spirit” can affect the world even if only by producing an experience in a person, then it must be capable of detection because personal experience is always coupled with detectable material processes. But never mind such lofty ideas. If what you say is so, why then try so hard to get others to see “the light?”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Sep 08 at 1:15 am):

    If you would be so kind as to repeat the question, in question, I will see what I can do.

    Okay, you wrote, “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..” My question to you is why you think the suggestion is dumb.

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2008 at 13:04

  57. Pieter, wat is jou punt oor hoeveel kinders ek het en ek beledig nie God nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 24, 2008 at 01:27

  58. Dw, jy is nie heeltemal korrek t.o.v. wat ek en Angus glo.
    Hoe ek God die Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees sien, verskil met hoe Angus dit sien en so ook al die ander punte wat jy genoem het. Jy moet eerder baie van die ou onderwerpe op Nathan se blog lees en moontlik sal jy dit agterkom, dus is jou “botom line” gevolgtrekking foutief.
    Die Bybel wat ek lees weerspreek nie dieself nie. Dit is sekerlik hoe jy dit lees, wat veroorsaak dat daar weersprekings is.

    Con-Tester, the God I serve is spirit and I serve Him in spirit and truth. Others perceive Him to be a person, with arms and legs and that is contradictory to the Bible. I don’t think I implied all the things, you say I do. I would be fals, should I not beleave that Jesus “is” the Christ. (present tense) Others say He was and one day, shall be. (1 Joh. 5 v 1)
    God does not decide who has got the truth and who has not. You accept the truth, or you reject the truth.

    We must serve God with understanding, not blindly. A farmer sowes seeds with faith, that the rain will come and that he will have a good crop. With faith, I do what I understand and that good results will follow.

    It is curious that many would similarly label you a false prophet. Curious, because you all proceed from the same source materials. If your god, as you imply, is a pan-universal, even trans-universal, absolute, then such vastly different interpretations should not even be possible. So, how is the impartial observer to decide who has the truth? More important, how is the impartial observer to decide whether all these different versions are uniformly delusional?

    Fistly, it’s not my version and any body is welcome to debate with me, so that we can come to the unity of faith. As Apostle Paul said; “and I will show you a more exelent way of salvation”.

    You can only prove the fals against the truth. If you have not the truth, you cannot prove the fals.

    I think it is a matter of opinion and I have already given an answer on this, at a previous occasion.

    I have never insisted that, what I beleave, would have an effect on this world, however, I know it has an affect on my world, that I live in.

    If you would be so kind as to repeat the question, in question, I will see what I can do.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 24, 2008 at 01:15

  59. Pieter

    Ek dink Nathan het hierbo vir jou geantwoord oor kinders.

    Hier is my antwoord aan jou.

    DW

    September 23, 2008 at 14:44

  60. Pieter

    Hoekom wil jy weet? Hoeveel kinders ek het? As ek net een het, of vyf, sal dit die regeverdiging al dan nie om hulle fisies aan te rand as hulle my vrugte steel, beïnvloed?

    Nathan Bond

    September 23, 2008 at 11:45

  61. Dit is nou al Dinsdag en nog nie een van julle ouens het my laat weet hoeveel kinders jul het,

    As ek my nie misgis nie was die hele debat oor Angus wat sê ons moet ons kinders bietjie foeter,

    maar julle praat aanhoudend al om die punt beledig mekaar, en GOD,volgens julle hoogere woorde lyk jul nogal inteligent en ouens met die vermoe om n ou n ding of twee te wys met die tong,

    Maar ek wag nog steeds vir julle outjies, om my te sê hoeveel apies julle voort gebring het?

    Ek wag maar weer?

    Pieter Nortje,
    Jeffreysbaai.

    Pieter Nortje

    September 23, 2008 at 11:20

  62. Daan… jy’s ‘n Christen. Think about it.

    Nathan Bond

    September 23, 2008 at 06:22

  63. Ja-nee, as ek so baie tyd tussen mal ouens deurbring, sal ek ook seker so baie kak prat.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 23, 2008 at 05:43

  64. Daan Van der Merwe said, on September 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
    Sam Harris is ‘n siek bliksem en hoort in ‘n gestig.

    Daan

    lekker man lekker , as jy nie van Harris hou nie sal die een meer sin maak. (‘n baie duidelike en beleefde manier om oor X-tinskap te praat.)

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 21:40

  65. Nice one, Daan! Harris is ‘n neurowetenskaplike en ek meen hy spandeer heelwat tyd in gestigte.

    Nathan Bond

    September 22, 2008 at 21:09

  66. Sam Harris is ‘n siek bliksem en hoort in ‘n gestig.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 22, 2008 at 20:55

  67. Daan Van der Merwe said, on September 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
    Nunuche

    Jy klink na ‘n goeie ou, maar hou asseblief net kop. Ek is nie baie slim nie maar ek dink graag dat ek ‘n helderdenkende Christengelowige is.

    Kom ons kyk wat se Sam Harris van jou sg. helderdenkende idees.

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 17:39

  68. Ja , vat jou paai en waai , gaan prys vir liewe Jeeeeeesus en die ander 2 gotte van jou.

    Hierdie argumente is sag en in vergelyke met jou Christelike uitsprake van haat moord en verderf.
    Dit is so jammer dat jy te stupid is om jou eie geloof te ondersoek .

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 17:34

  69. Haai ou johannes coetzee: Watse agterlosige (alswetende) got is dit wat vergeet om vir 5 800 000 000 van haar mense “invitations” te stuur vir haar konsert, huh?

    Onthou dit: Die primitiewe mense wat daai nommer van jou geskryf het 4000jr gelede het gedink dis n moerse groot nommer. Hulle sou nooit kon dink of uitwerk dat daar dertig maal meer mense lewend sou wees op jou “verjaarsdaggie” in 2011.

    Maar moenie sleg voel nie, hulle het ook gedink daar’s n allermagtige got wat van braaivleis reuk hou, en hulle’t gedink al die diere in die wereld bly binne loopafstand van Noag se huis.

    Hulle ook gedink jy moet mense fisies bymekaar kry om met hulle te praat (so ook die aartappel leuenaar). Hulle’t nie geweet van sms, of telepatie of (haai!) hoe werk “allermagtigheid” nie.

    bewilderbees

    September 22, 2008 at 17:08

  70. Hoe maklik is dit nie om iemand sleg te se en sy manier van glo af te jak,soveel makliker as om iets goed te se,nog nooit in my lewe het iemand so lelik met my gepraat nie en dit maak my diep seer.Ek bid jy verander en as vrou hoop ek jy trou nooit want duidelik sal jy nie repsek he vir enige een behalwe jouself.Met spyte het ek afgekom op die gemors argumente waarmee julle anthichriste julle besig hou ek sal nooit weer die fout maak om jou of enige ander een van die blad enige moed of hoop probeer in praat nie.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 15:18

  71. Jy is een van daai wat ander moet sleg se om jouself beter te laat voel.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 15:13

  72. Dis so jammer dat jy so voel.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 15:11

  73. Nunuche

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 15:02

  74. Nunuche

    Jy klink na ‘n goeie ou, maar hou asseblief net kop. Ek is nie baie slim nie maar ek dink graag dat ek ‘n helderdenkende Christengelowige is. Ek het reeds elders op die blog (ek kan nie onthou watter draad nie😦 ) my opinie omtrent Angus Buchan gegee.

    As ek so op die kantlyn staan, kan ek nie besluit wie maak die grootste gekke van hulleself nie: Die happy clappers wat alles wat Buchan sê, soos soetkoek opeet, of die atties wat alles wat Dawkins sê, soos soetkoek opeet.

    En die snaakste van alles is die atties sê Angus praat kak en die happy clappers sê Dawkins praat kak.

    Sterkte!

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 22, 2008 at 14:56

  75. Nunuche

    Jy weet , jy is nou besig om breindood kak te praat.
    Ek respekteer jou geloof . Ek het nog geen Kerk afgebrand , kerklike byeenkomste uit mekaar gejaag nie of Christene verbrand nie.

    Maar as julle Christene in die openbare media soos malles tekere gaan , dan oefen ek my regte uit.

    As Angus oor die Radio kak praat , of wyd en suid sy awesome kak adverteer , of Elna Meyer oor RSG vertel hoe sy die stem van god kan hoor , of die skoolhoof in die skool die kinders bang maak oor die hel , of Christene in SMS ‘e of per e-pos en vertel van Jesus se liefde , of pastore wat Benny Hinn se shows bywoon en dan kapsie maak teen die baie geld wat hy invorder , of as Cassie Aucamp , Ben du Toit en Dirkie vd Spuy kak praat oor die radio is dit my volste reg om hulle aansprake te bevraagteken.

    Met god gelowiges is daar geen respek te betoon nie . Iemand wat stemme van gotte hoor en in duiwels en engele glo is plein fokking onnosel.

    Jy is te gewoond aan die tyd van die verlede waar die Christendom verhewe was bo kritiek .

    Jou god is net so min ‘n god van liefde as wat die maan van kaas gemaak is. Volgens jou god gaan almal hel toe wat nie in Jesus glo nie, toe jou dom poepol gaan verkoop jou liefde aan ‘n Moslem – toe man.

    Al wat jy weerspieël is die onnoselheid wat jy het betreffende jou eie geloof .

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 14:34

  76. Jou groot pratery staan my nie aan nie hoekom is dit vir jou so belangrik om te bewys dat die ware God nie bestaan nie.Wat pla dit jou as ander Hom aanbid is jy jaloers omdat jy nie daardie ware gevoel van geloof kan ervaar nie.Ek is regtig jammer as ek jou verkeerd verstaan maar ek glo daar sal verandering in die land kom as almal net na God sal draai en Hom sal aanbid,ek gaan nie met jou verder redeneer nie want die help nie jy is a lost case vir my maar nie vier God nie,ek is jammer as ek vir een oomblik gedink het jy is my tyd werd.Kan jy nie sien hoeveel mense jou probeer reghelp nie en laat verstaan wat aangaan nie weereens God is n God van liefde en al hierdie mense wat kommentaar gelewer het op n positiewe manier teenoor God bewys dit deur en deur in watter ander geloof sou mense so geraak gewees het met die feit dat jy heeltemal van die pad af is,en sou regtig omgegee het om jou reg te help.God het my al deur baie duister dinge gehelp en ek getuig vir Hom deur om vir jou te se Hy lewe en Jesus het aarde toe gekom vir die sondaars en heidene en dis ook hulle wat Hom aanvaar het,nie die gelowiges nie so oppas wat jy se,Hy mag dalk net jou hart verander.Ek hoop jy het n lekker dag verder en ek sal positief bly maak nie saak wat jy se nie.Ek weet wat ek weet.Jesus est vivant.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 14:30

  77. Wat weet jy n eenvoudige mens wat in n oomblik soos damp verdwyn,as ek hoop het vir hierdie land hoe selfsugtig is jy nie om dit vir almal onsmaaklik te wil maak nie ek dink jy het te veel tyd op jou hande en het nie geselskap nie dis hoekom jy mense pla met jou vrot aanmerkings sodat jy n bietje geselskap kan he.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 14:20

  78. Onsin?????????? Wie is jy dan om te maak of jy alles weet

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 14:17

  79. Nunuche

    Watter hoop? Vals hoop is altyd erger as selfs wanhoop. En die liewejiesis-hoop is absolute onsin.

    Nathan Bond

    September 22, 2008 at 13:44

  80. En nog n ding hoe durf julle probeer om hoop van iemand af weg te vat ek kan dit nie verstaan nie dis die enigste ding wat ons nog oor het vir die land hoekom dit onplesierig maak vir ander as jy nie daarmee saam stem nie of daaraan glo nie daar word so dikwels op Christene gepik ons geloof word sleg gese,as jy nie belangstel nie hou jou mond as jy nie iets goeds te se het oor ander nie,julle klink soos n klomp vrouens met nat broeke soos julle sit en kla.Lag bietjie vir n slag en geniet weer die goeie.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 13:38

  81. Wow ek kan nie glo dat mense sulke dinge kan sit op n webtuiste nie, in alle eerlikheid dink ek dit gaan oor respek vir mekaar en n ander se geloof as jy nie daarin glo of belangstel nie hoekom die moeite doen om daaroor te lees te skryf of te baklei, nog iets interesant wat ek agter gekom het is dat daar nie eenkeer verwys na Jesus as iemand wat dood is nie.As iemand van Hom praat sleg of goed praat hulle van Hom as n lewende God, dit is so waar.Ek dink nie enige van julle was al in omstandighede wat jou ver genoeg gedryf het om na Hom te draai nie,jou toets sal nog kom.God is n God van liefde en genade hoekom sal Hy wil he jy moet jou kind mishandel.Obviously is nie een van julle getug op n jong ouderdom nie want kyk al die goed wat julle kwyt raak,waaroor gaan die lewe rerig nie oor wie is reg of wie het die meeste geld nie ,wanneer sal die mense wakker skrik en besef waaroor die lewe en geloof rerig gaan,ek kan nie kritiseer nie ek is nie sonder sonde nie,maar dit maak my hartseer om so n klomp negatiewe aanmerkings te lees,dit is hoekom dit so sleg gaan in ons land aanmerkings soos die ,waar is die goeie heen en waar is die glimlagte heen,wanneer laas was jy dankbaar vir wat jy het,wanner laas het jy opgelet na die natuur om jou of die onskuld in n kind se oe,God se ons moet soos kinders wees,hulle sien altyd die positiewe in elke situasie raak hulle vergewe en vergeet in n oomblik hulle is nederig en onskuldig as julle nie op n goeie wyse groot geword het nie of kwaad of deppresief is hoekom maak ons nie n verskil in ons land deur om te kyk na onself en waar ons foute le en ons maak dit n beter plek vir die kinders van hierdie land hulle is ons toekoms,doen my n guns asseblief kom ons kyk net n bietjie na onself en sien mense raak soos Jesus hulle sien,nie net uiterlik nie maar na die goeie probeer net vir n slag iets positiefs vir iemand anders se jy sal verbaas wees watter verskil dit maak in jou lewe kom ons respekteer mekaar wees lief vir mekaar en maak Suid Afrika weer heel.

    Nunuche

    September 22, 2008 at 13:34

  82. Pieter Nortje said, on September 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
    Julle ouens begin skryf oor kinders pak slae gee,dan raak dit weer n groot debat of Mnr Angus dit gesê het of hy dit kwoteer uit die WOORD , en hoekom GOD so iets sal toelaat, en blah-blah.

    Pieter

    Loer sommer ook in ek kyk na die links hierbo.

    Sorry man , ek het die sabbat gerus – dis nou Vrydag- aand /Saterdag.

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 13:26

  83. johannes coetzee said, on September 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Jyt een byeenkoms vergeet dis

    Wederkoms van die Messias op 21 Mei 2011 – 200 000 000

    Die “stadion” staan gereed….!

    .
    Hi Johannes

    Hoe gereed is jou stadion ?
    Hier is ‘n outjie wat mooi praat met julle godidiote , luister hom , toeman !!

    En dan kan jy ook sien hoeveel respek Dawkins vir godidiote het — (te veel na my sin.) Kyk hier –

    DW

    September 22, 2008 at 13:23

  84. Julle ouens begin skryf oor kinders pak slae gee,dan raak dit weer n groot debat of Mnr Angus dit gesê het of hy dit kwoteer uit die WOORD , en hoekom GOD so iets sal toelaat, en blah-blah

    Hoeveel van julle outjies het kinders,(Nathan,DW, Con-tester,ens) en hoeveel, en hoe oud is hulle?

    Maak gou, Vrydag is amper verby!

    Pieter Nortje,
    Jeffreysbaai.

    Pieter Nortje

    September 19, 2008 at 13:54

  85. Hans Matthysen wrote (September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm):

    Con-Tester, you are correct, as my account of God does differ from most and I am impressed that you have noticed it. Many fals prophets have gone out, resulting in the different messages.

    It is curious that many would similarly label you a false prophet. Curious, because you all proceed from the same source materials. If your god, as you imply, is a pan-universal, even trans-universal, absolute, then such vastly different interpretations should not even be possible. So, how is the impartial observer to decide who has the truth? More important, how is the impartial observer to decide whether all these different versions are uniformly delusional?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm):

    Addiction to religion, is for those who follow blindly yet I rather serve God with understanding, as one is warned against fals prophets. When one understands, then one is in the light and when one follows blindly, then one is in darkness. Good reason is possable, because of understanding.

    I see. Everyone else whose version differs from yours is mistaken because they are in the dark and lack understanding. While that would be amazingly convenient for you, I don’t believe you.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm):

    Why do you feel the need to point out the error, according to your perception, of believer’s ways?

    To cite Voltaire, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Besides, unfounded belief is functionally indistinguishable from false belief, and I doubt that very many people are keen to hold false beliefs.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm):

    I differ from others, in what I believe and should one contradict that, then debate is needed, so that we can come to the unity of faith.

    That’s exactly the problem, this “unity of faith.” We need to understand that persuasion must come from reason, evidence and objectivity, not blind belief. “Faith” is a dangerous vice that religion has contrived to turn into a virtue, which has resulted in what believers call “debate” becoming a laughable travesty.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm):

    God’s kingdom is not of this world (or universe for that matter) and God is spirit and should be served in spirit and truth. Spiritual things, cannot be proven or messured, by the same rules, as the meterial things of this universe. Any one, with a bit of interllect, should realise that.

    If it’s not of this world, you face a grave ontological problem, namely what world is it of and how did it come about. It hardly helps to say that your so-called “spiritual things” cannot be proven or measured by the same means as the material things. On the one hand, presumably, you insist that they are real and have a real effect in this world, but on the other you insist they cannot be proven or measured by any normal means. That’s a blatant contradiction. Anyone with a bit of intellect will see that. And since the evidence is so scant and shoddy to the point of completely vanishing, we are obliged for the sake of sanity and consistency to reject it. Otherwise, we can believe anything for no reason other than that it pleases us.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm):

    Pertaining to your question;…

    The answer you gave is not to the question I asked. The “here” part in the earlier comment is underlined (just as it is here), meaning that it is a link to the relevant comment.

    Meanwhile, god commands that Angus Buchan must sermonise at East London’s Absa Stadium. At least, that’s what his toadies would have you believe.

    Con-Tester

    September 18, 2008 at 10:28

  86. Hans Matthysen said, on September 17th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
    DW, ek is nie ‘n voorstander van Anges en glo heelwat anders as hy.

    Hans jou koppie fluit

    Maar jy glo saam met Angus in God , Jesus as God en die Heilige Gees as God.
    Jy glo saam met Angus in sonde , die verderf en hel.
    Jy glo saam met Angus in die wederkoms.
    Jy glo saam met Angus in die maagdelike geboorte , opstanding /hemelvaart.
    Glo jy saam met Angus dat Jesus die wêreld ‘n beter plek kan maak?

    Hans , jou bottom line en Angus se bottom line is presies dieselde foking ding , waaroor julle mag verskil is oor banaliteit soos bv. om nagmaal uit kelkies of groot beker te drink , besprinkeling of onderdompeling .

    Angus kwoteer uit die selfde Bybel as jy , so ook die Apestole , die Doppers , die NG , die Southern Baptiste , en elkeen van die narre het ‘n ander boodskap.

    Dalk moet jy eerder ‘n bietjie kyk hoekom daar so baie teenstrydighede in jou Bybel is wat die soveel kakpraat moontlik maak.

    DW

    September 18, 2008 at 09:02

  87. DW, ek is nie ‘n voorstander van Anges en glo heelwat anders as hy. Daar is ook niks om reg of verkeerd te bewys, wat jou draaiboek gedeelte betref.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 17, 2008 at 23:23

  88. Con-Tester, you are correct, as my account of God does differ from most and I am impressed that you have noticed it. Many fals prophets have gone out, resulting in the different messages.
    Addiction to religion, is for those who follow blindly yet I rather serve God with understanding, as one is warned against fals prophets. When one understands, then one is in the light and when one follows blindly, then one is in darkness. Good reason is possable, because of understanding.
    With new evidence, sceintist come to believe new possabillities and by following their belief’s, of the new possabillities (hypotheses), they prove some.
    Why do you feel the need to point out the error, according to your perception, of believer’s ways? I differ from others, in what I believe and should one contradict that, then debate is needed, so that we can come to the unity of faith.
    God’s kingdom is not of this world (or universe for that matter) and God is spirit and should be served in spirit and truth. Spiritual things, cannot be proven or messured, by the same rules, as the meterial things of this universe. Any one, with a bit of interllect, should realise that.
    Pertaining to your question; loving parents should decide, when a child needs to be chastised. I have three boys and none of them, had more than three spankings, during their childhood days. Mostly, one talks to them or you punish them by way of suspending privileges. Spank them on the buttocks and this should not become a regular habbit, for then you know that, that method is not yeilding the desired results, therefore alternative methods, as I have mentioned, may be successful.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 17, 2008 at 23:16

  89. DW, jy weet nie veel betreffende; God, die Bybel en Gees. Ek moet sê, jou vreemde tale is nogal vreemd, waar mense debat wil voer, op die blog.
    Jy behoort ‘n draaiboek vir die TV te skryf, met die stories wat jy so maklik uitdink.

    Hans
    Hoe de fok kan jy sinvol met mense praat wat in spoke en gotte glo , en dan nog hulle stemme ook hoor?

    Ek staan by alles wat ek gesê het , bewys my verkeerd – asseblief – toe man .
    Jy Hans -jy weet fokkol van jou eie tradisie , sy oorsprong en geskiedenis af .
    Kom ek vra vir jou ‘n simpel vraag , hoekom het jou Bybel kopie- reg in ?

    DW

    September 17, 2008 at 14:07

  90. Hans sy naam is Bond…!

    Nathan E Bond…!

    Jy sal uit “hulle” praat agterkom dat hulle gedagtes uit een “hart” afkomstig is…!

    Die krake is duidelik sigbaar…!

    (Mat 12:25) Maar Jesus het hulle gedagtes geken en vir hulle gesê: Elke koninkryk wat teen homself verdeeld is, word verwoes; en elke stad of huis wat teen homself verdeeld is, sal nie bly staan nie.

    johannes coetzee

    September 17, 2008 at 09:42

  91. Hans Matthysen wrote (September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 pm):

    Con-Tester, from Genesis to Revelations, God has led his flock, by way of using man, as His servant and that is how God speaks to us, face to face,…

    Bulldangle. Doesn’t it strike as odd, if not deeply suspicious, that your account of your god is different from that of others, even if only slightly so? And if your god “speaks to us, face to face,” s/he must surely mumble because everyone comes away from the interview with a different message.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 pm):

    … so stop conning and test yourself.

    I have done both, but in the reverse order. The con is that religion overtly seeks by edict to ban doubt and probing of its subject matter. The test is whether you think there’s a good reason for doing so once it is brought to your attention.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 pm):

    Jy is nie ‘n con-tester nie maar wel ‘n spotter en neem kennis dat wetenskaplikes werk ook op geloof, totdat hulle die bewys ontdek het.

    More self-serving bulldangle. You should familiarise yourself with some basic epistemological texts. I suggest you start with The Web of Belief by Quine and Uillian before delving into The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by Burtt. Besides Popper, give Chalmers’ What is this thing called Science?” a whirl, and cap it off with Moser’s Knowledge and Evidence. If you actually read these books (which I doubt you will because, after all, you have in your god’s so-called “holy” book everything you need), you’ll soon see just what a crock you’ve ejected above. If you don’t read them, the gist of it is that science is self-correcting, it adapts to new and discordant evidence, it tests hypotheses against reality, and everyone can contribute, at least in principle. Religion, in contrast, is in the truest sense pontifical. Why else would you continually feel the need to point out the error of others’ ways?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 pm):

    Ek sien dat daar heelwat van julle is, wat nog nie, ‘n bewys van God, ontdek het nie. Wetenskaplikes soek en vind die bewys van waarin hulle glo en so ook gelowiges.

    Yet more deception. Science consistently deals with evidence that is consistent, objective and repeatable. If it fails any of consistency, objectivity or repeatability, it’s not evidence. Religion, in contrast, holds up so-called “miracles” as alleged evidence. Their habitual subjectivity aside, by their very nature such claims fail the scientific litmus test for evidence.

    Religion and faith are a premise. Atheism is a conclusion.

    (BTW, Hans Matthysen, you still haven’t answered the question I posed you in the first paragraph here. Please do so because I’m keenly interested in your reply.)

    Con-Tester

    September 17, 2008 at 09:05

  92. Nathan, although I am not a follower of Anges, I find many verses in the Bible in regard to chastise (tugtig)
    Heb 12:7 As julle die tugtiging verdra, behandel God julle as seuns; want watter seun is daar wat die vader nie tugtig nie?
    Jy is blykbaar nie ‘n voorstander van die patriargale stelsel en ek moet dus aflei, dat jy dan die matriargale stelsel, verkies. Moontlik het jy nie ‘n goeie Patriargale rolmodel gehad as kind.

    Con-Tester, from Genesis to Revelations, God has led his flock, by way of using man, as His servant and that is how God speaks to us, face to face, so stop conning and test yourself.
    Jy is nie ‘n con-tester nie maar wel ‘n spotter en neem kennis dat wetenskaplikes werk ook op geloof, totdat hulle die bewys ontdek het. Ek sien dat daar heelwat van julle is, wat nog nie, ‘n bewys van God, ontdek het nie. Wetenskaplikes soek en vind die bewys van waarin hulle glo en so ook gelowiges.

    DW, jy weet nie veel betreffende; God, die Bybel en Gees. Ek moet sê, jou vreemde tale is nogal vreemd, waar mense debat wil voer, op die blog.
    Jy behoort ‘n draaiboek vir die TV te skryf, met die stories wat jy so maklik uitdink.

    Hans Matthysen

    September 16, 2008 at 22:56

  93. If I were God, I’d consider legal steps against Angus Buchan
    8:40AM, Thursday, 11 Sep, 2008
    http://albums.24.com/Personal/ViewImage.aspx?id=ab6e5361-ddd0-4601-ba89-a3b2400ba84f

    I read in this morning’s paper that Angus Buchan, the potato preacher, is hiding somewhere in the platteland, deep in prayer, waiting for a message from God to pass on to the people at the huge forthcoming Christian meeting at Newlands.

    Of course, I cannot speak for God – I am not on such buddy-buddy- terms with Him as the potato farmer – but I nevertheless have a strong hunch what God MIGHT say to Angus, should God chose to reveal Himself to Angus while Angus is in prayer.
    I imagine the following conversation.

    GOD: Angus! Fear not. It is Me. God.

    ANGUS: Yes, Lord. I have been expecting Thee.
    GOD: Angus, let’s cut to the chase. You are starting to irritate Me.

    ANGUS: Thou canst not be serious!!! Why?
    GOD: Well, Angus, I really liked you in the beginning, and that’s why I gave you that mighty potato harvest. I really blessed you, you know. I blessed your book and your promotion campaign and also because I really liked your hat! But lately, you have been saying things which really make Me uncomfortable, you know. I am afraid you are starting to give Me a bad name on Earth.

    ANGUS: Ah, come on, God. Calm down. What did I say that was wrong?
    GOD: Really, Angus, I don’t wanna be funny, but when you go around saying things like “women should be obedient to their husbands”, or “the Dalai Lama is going to hell”, I’m not so sure if I like you any more. Surely you know that’s a lot of rubbish! You might not realise this, but I happen to know the Dalai Lama personally. How am I going to explain my backing of your campaign to him if he should hear about the nasty things you said about him?

    ANGUS: But, God, hold Thy rocks! I said those things because I interpret the Bible literally. What’s wrong with that?
    GOD: So, any moment now, you are going start saying I created the universe in six days, gays are sinners, the earth is flat, people should throw stones at adulterers, etc! Please, Angus, get a sense of perspective! The Bible is a book of great spiritual subtlety and many shades of meaning! It’s not Kook en Geniet.

    ANGUS: Oh, Lord, I’m so sorry. What doest Thou want me say on Newlands, then?

    GOD: Just go back to your farm, Angus, and go look after your potatoes. I will feel much safer if you do that…

    DW

    September 16, 2008 at 13:06

  94. Nathan

    Jyt een byeenkoms vergeet dis

    Wederkoms van die Messias op 21 Mei 2011 – 200 000 000

    Die “stadion” staan gereed….!

    (Openb 9:16) En die getal van die leërs van perderuiters was twee maal tien duisend maal tien duisend; en ek het hulle getal gehoor.

    Dis 500 Simon & Garfunkel, Central Park byeenkomste…!

    johannes coetzee

    September 16, 2008 at 10:13

  95. More Buchanesque bullshit, this time from Newlands, Cape Town.

    Con-Tester

    September 16, 2008 at 08:18

  96. mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    If it could save your child’s life I say do it!

    What’s the relevance? Is your child ill or injured? If so, I’m sorry to hear it, but I suggest you consult with a medical professional rather than Angus Buchan. He’s a potato farmer with delusions of importance, fostered by a horde of uncritical minions who are seeking a common identity by gravitating towards someone like Buchan. Surely their individual and group identity should not need such artificial shoring up, considering that their lives, by their own admission, are already defined and fulfilled by their god. Why do they feel the need to gather around someone like Buchan? Do they think he has a special red telephone connecting him to their god? If so, doesn’t that thought strike them as absurd? Isn’t it more likely that most if not all of this behaviour is accounted for by a herd mentality that is being fed what they want to hear?

    mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    If you guys dont believe in God or Jesus Christ please dont make comments you know nothing of.

    Well, if you stay around a while (which, personally, I think is not likely), you will discover that there are some pretty knowledgeable people around here. With a bit of effort, it should also become clear what is required in order that one may legitimately make a claim to “knowledge.” Faith doesn’t quite make the grade on that one.

    mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    Who else can bring 60000 people to a staduim and change there mindsets about life and South Africa?

    Why, any number of tin-pot dictators can do that!

    mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    YOU then why dont you.

    Because I feel little need to bolster my ego by accumulating uncritical followers.

    mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    if you dont have anything good to say please dont say anything.

    Why shouldn’t one criticise the lame and unsustainable beliefs of a large portion of humanity, especially when they are so often deployed in defence of the indefensible? Should we stop warning people of the hazards of dangerous activities like smoking?

    mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    If you are not for God you are against him!

    Not so. As an entity on its own I couldn’t in truth care any less about your god. What concerns me is the harm resulting from widespread belief in this fairytale.

    mauritz wrote (September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm):

    “Fictional Character” I hope you can change your life soon, remember you are only Human, clay in Gods hands…

    I’m not convinced. If I’m “clay in Gods hands” then it’s his/her fault whichever way you cut it. In any case, as a blasphemer there can be no forgiveness for me, according to your god’s own rules, so I’m fucked regardless.

    Con-Tester

    September 15, 2008 at 16:07

  97. Jean-Michel Jarre, Moscow’s 850th birthday bash – 3,500,000
    Rod Stewart, Copacabana Beach – 3,500,000
    Jean-Michel Jarre, Paris La Defense – 2,500,000
    New York Philharmonic, Central Park – 800,000
    Garth Brooks, Central Park – 750,000
    Steve Wozniak’s 1983 US Festival – 670,000
    Summer Jam, Watkins Glen – 600,000
    Isle of Wight Festival – 600,000
    Simon & Garfunkel, Central Park – 500,000
    Toronto SARS Benefit – 450,000
    Woodstock, 1969 – 400,000
    Blockbuster RockFest, 1997 – 385,000
    Heavy Metal Day, San Bernadino, 1983 – 375,000




    Angus Buchan, Doftus – 71 000

    So much for the pulling power of “God”.

    Nathan Bond

    September 15, 2008 at 15:45

  98. mauritz said, on September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
    Who else can bring 60000 people to a staduim and change there mindsets about life and South Africa?

    Nee fok , dit moet seker massahisterie wees . 60 000 is fokol invergelyke met Mecca . Dalk is Allah die ware god volgens jou hipotese .

    Nee , dit was eerder 60 000 dom doose , is jy ook een van hulle?

    DW

    September 15, 2008 at 15:31

  99. mauritz said, on September 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    If you guys dont believe in God or Jesus Christ please dont make comments you know nothing of.

    Jou dom doos , dis juis dat ons die 3 gotte van jou wat een is maar 3 is so goed ken dat ons die comments maak.
    Fok tog , is jy nie ernstig oor jou geloof nie!!!

    DW

    September 15, 2008 at 15:26

  100. Mauritz

    60 000 people in agreement on some Bronze Age myth proves only one thing: people are fucking stupid!

    Bennie Dick (the xvi) drew 500 000 at a Sydney race track a few weeks ago. No big deal. It’s easy to give sweets to children. Nothin’ to it!

    Nathan Bond

    September 15, 2008 at 15:14

  101. If it could save your child’s life I say do it! If you guys dont believe in God or Jesus Christ please dont make comments you know nothing of. Who else can bring 60000 people to a staduim and change there mindsets about life and South Africa? YOU then why dont you.

    if you dont have anything good to say please dont say anything. If you are not for God you are against him! “Fictional Character” I hope you can change your life soon, remember you are only Human, clay in Gods hands…

    mauritz

    September 15, 2008 at 12:11

  102. From the mouths of future leaders:– “Country needs good leaders,” say pupils:

    Leaders such as Helen Zille, Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and Angus Buchan were named as great role models.

    Perkins and Bolzli said Buchan had changed himself first.

    Buchan is a great leader because he changed his own attitude before he tried to change other people’s attitudes. If only we could all learn to change ourselves first, our world would be a better place.”

    (My emphasis.) One is tempted to despair for want of hope.

    Con-Tester

    September 14, 2008 at 20:56

  103. The thing about a “pak slae” is simply that it is a violent act! (Administered in godly love, of course. How Orwellian can things be!?)

    The godly heads of households perpetuates violence, sexism and superstition under the influence of the Reverend Spud.

    Angus Buchan’s teaching has absolutely no contribution to make to 21st century South African society. The Reverend Spud’s message is undermining and unsophisticated. Frankly, it is ridiculous. And pray, how is South Africa a better place since Spud has started his campaign?

    Nathan Bond

    September 13, 2008 at 11:11

  104. Angus Buchan said (on or about 08 September 2008):

    Ek sê nie mishandel jou kinders nie, maar ek sê as jy hom ’n pak slae moet gee, gee hom ’n pak slae.

    Who decides the “moet” part? On what grounds? And where is the line between “mishandel” and “’n pak slae?”

    What I find both quite intriguing and very revealing about the believer’s mentality in this Angus Buchan phenomenon (and countless similar ones, past and present) is that it belies believers’ desperately clinging to an earthly leadership figure, no matter how essentially mundane and artificially inflated that figure might be. One would have thought that their god and their Jeeeebus would be more than sufficient in the way of a leadership figure, but evidently, this isn’t so.

    I wonder why that might be…

    Con-Tester

    September 13, 2008 at 10:45


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: