Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

In defence of religion

with 40 comments

I am currently discussing my beligerent approach to religion on the Afrikaans thread ‘n Dun draadjie – about believers knowing that their faith hangs by the merest thread (dun draadjie).

During the discussion it struck me that so many atheists are asked – forced, even – to defend their positions. That atheists are expected to justify their criticism and rejection of “God”, of faith, of religion. And although I have always argued aggressively against religion, I too have regularly fallen into the trap of jusitifying my stance.

I challenge believers to justify religion. To provide benefits accruing from belief.

A contibutor, Johan Swarts, suggested “brotherly love”. I responded that 9/11 and Gujarat and Beslan, for instance, indicate the absence of brotherly love in religion. As do Evangelical and Reformed and Catholic attitude to gays, for instance.

No, suggested Johan, such manifestations – of hate – are not brotherly love. Indeed! Discrimination is rife – both within religion and outside of it. Brotherly love can therefore not be claimed as a salutary effect of religion.

What makes religion worthwhile?

Written by Nathan Bond

October 7, 2008 at 07:42

Posted in Religion must go!

40 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    “Jy sien self hoe dwaal die egte wêreld”

    I come in late, but I think this needs to be said:
    Our world in 2009 is a BETTER place than the world of old. Hard to believe sometimes, but true. When people want you to buy their bulldust they sell you a story ending in “You agree, right?!??) and you (often) nod because you don’t want to get into a long argument.

    HOWEVER:
    In every objective way the world is a better place because of human advancement (and despite religious bullshit).
    As a whole, the world is better off today healthwise, sanitary-wise, longevity-wise, education-wise, gender-wise, sexual preference-wise, peace of mind-wise, knowledge-wise, tolerance-wise, and almost any other -wise you care to think up.

    Sure, you could argue specific cases (are girls in Afghanistan today any better off than they were pre-Taliban, or under the Taliban? Is AIDS a worse epidemic than the Black Plague was? Is the greed we see in big banking worse today than ever before? Was Bush worse than Nixon? etc).
    But taking an average individual’s experience of his life on earth and measuring objectively, there can be little doubt he/she is better off on average than 100, 200, 300, 1000 etc years ago.

    BUT of course, that doesn’t make a good story if you’re trying to scare someone into buying the bulldust written by shepherds and “prophets” 2000yrs ago. When they invented a “god” who liked the smell of burning goats and decreed that fathers “owned” their daughters and could sell them in the marriage market. And who communicated through burning bushes and took a stroll on the surface of some sea.

    If that’s what you’re after (and the “tithing” – read robbery – that goes with it) then you have to keep saying what a terrible state the world is in (and what a terrible sinner you, by the way, are!).

    Same as taxis in SA: Terrible, ne? Except what’s bad about getting an inexpensive ride to within 50m of your workplace when you used to (under a “better” system, remember?) catch a crowded train, then a crowded bus which dropped you off MILES from work – and took much longer to do so?

    No, we have to say “Things are bad” when we’re wanting people to do stupid things. How people still fall for “Pay me (now) and I’ll give you everlasting life (later)” is astounding. But Agnes Mazambaan Buchan will line them up again – and again.

    bewilderbeast

    March 26, 2009 at 13:02

  2. Hmm, soms is dit moeilik om te sien wanneer daar gek geskeur word. ’n Smiley is nie noodwendig ’n betroubare aanduiding nie want dit word soms gebruik in ’n poging om ’n vraag of ’n stelling ietwat te versag, maar ek sien nou jou punt.

    In elk geval, na ’n bietjie verdere gedagte val dit my by dat betekenis 2.b. van induct eintlik ook van toepassing is want daar word mos dikwels oor “Christ’s army” of “god’s army” gebabbel…

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2009 at 08:35

  3. Dankie Con-Tester vir die verduideliking, maar ek was nie ernstig dat ek nie verstaan nie – you missed my🙂 !
    Ek kon net nie die “seduction” weerstaan nie!
    The religion thing is the biggest con trick pulled on mankind – soooooo good that “intelligent” humans still cling to it hoping to find the gold at the end!

    Fredericke Adonis

    March 18, 2009 at 20:10

  4. in•duct (ĭn-dŭkt’)
    tr.v., -duct•ed, -duct•ing, -ducts.

    1. To place ceremoniously or formally in an office or a position; install: a service to induct the new president of the university.

    2.a. To admit as a member; receive.
    2.b. To admit to military service: a draftee waiting to be inducted into the army.
    2.c. To introduce, as to new experience or knowledge; initiate: She was inducted into the ways of the legal profession.

    3. Physics. To induce.

    From the above, it should be fairly clear that I mean senses 2.a. and 2.c.

    se•duce (sĭ-dūs’, -dyūs’)
    tr.v., -duced, -duc•ing, -duc•es.

    1. To lead away from duty, accepted principles, or proper conduct. See synonyms at >lure.

    2. To induce to engage in sex.

    3.a. To entice or beguile into a desired state or position.
    3.b. To win over; attract.

    Here, meanings 3.a. and 3.b. would apply, although a cynic could also make a case for 2. because once converted, you’re basically fucked…

    Ek gebruik die SA Skeptics skakel net as ’n advertensie vir die webwerf. Dit is eintlik net ’n gunsie vir ’n goeie vriend wat redelik gereeld daar pos want hulle is altyd op soek na nuwe lede. Ek self loer nou en dan daar in maar ek’t nie die tyd (of die geneigdheid) om voltyds daaraan moeite te bestee nie.

    En vriend Hans is vir my ’n pretvolle sosiale eksperiment. Ek stel belang om uit te vind hoe vêr en hoe dun ’n gelowige bereid is om snert uit te rek ter wille van sy geloof. Nogtans, dit lyk my hy’t min of meer sy einde bereik want daar is omtrent niks nuwe argumente nie, net dieselfde ou slap ding oor en oor.

    Con-Tester

    March 18, 2009 at 18:22

  5. Sorrie Con-Tester, ek wou ook nog sê los vir Hans – hy sal weggaan!

    Fredericke Adonis

    March 18, 2009 at 14:42

  6. Con-Tester: You wrote “They have inducted many more people into Christianity than you have …etc” Ek verstaan nie engels so mooi nie, maar het jy die woord “inducted” reg gebruik? Is dit nie eerder “seducted” nie?🙂 …En verder die “consent by silence” ding: “And if I do understand that they have shown me bullshit then I’ll jolly well say so in order to warn others that so-and-so is either deluded, deeply stupid or a charlatan. That’s because not issuing such a warning would be basically immoral. “Consent by silence” and all that, you dig?” Ek sal ernstig moet begin “warn”! (BTW waar pas jy in by http://skeptic.za.org/ )

    Fredericke Adonis

    March 18, 2009 at 14:39

  7. Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Con-tester, I speak of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, that is…

    Yet again: show me the evidence. Without it, your claims are indistinguishable from a childish fantasy.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    …and there is nothing ancient about that.

    That would depend on how one defines “ancient” and how glued to the idea one has become that people near enough 2,000 years ago knew things we don’t.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    I don’t fantasize, as I know the one and only true God and His son, whom He has sent.

    Yet again, you say you “know.” Sorry, but you do not “know” because you can’t show any evidence, and without it, your claims are indistinguishable from a childish fantasy.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    The 39,000 Christian sects are not all part of the body of Jesus Christ or did you not understand what I wrote?

    Since I cannot read your mind, I have to rely on the standard and/or usual meanings of the words you commit here. Okay, so now you have clearly said that not all of the ±39,000 flavours of Christianity are part of this “one body of Christ.” Jolly good. Excellent. You have also lectured me on this True Vine™® (℗ & © 2009 A.D., amended as needed) thing and how both Protestants and Roman Catholics are not (and never were) part of it, thus excluding more than 80% of those who call themselves “Christian.” Jolly good. Excellent. Now, seeing as you weren’t there yourself at the time, how can you possibly claim to be part of your True Vine™® (℗ & © 2009 A.D., amended as needed)?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    In regard to those who are not baptized, read the following:…

    The point being what, exactly? You haven’t answered the question.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    There are not only 144,000, read the following:…

    The point being what, exactly? You haven’t answered the question. Tell me, can you actually follow a simple argument? Don’t you get it? There are believers who work from exactly the same source material you do, yet none of you can agree on such basic questions. You say they are wrong and they say you are wrong. Neither of you can present any plausible evidence for your respective positions, and so it becomes a matter of taste and cultural momentum, nothing more. A dispassionate and reasonable person will then reject all such claims as unproven, if not entirely ridiculous. Has the objection finally sunk in?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    What is written in the Bible is unchangeable as God.

    That’s a joke, right?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    The deficiency is yours…

    That may be so if asking for evidence can be classified as a deficiency. However, reading “deficiency” with its more usual meaning in mind, it’s your evidence that is severely deficient – as is your ongoing insistence that you, Hans Matthysen, actually have adequate evidence yet are evidently incapable of producing it.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    … as you maybe should have avoided me.

    No way! I’m having far too much fun poking holes in this farce you present and no doubt think of as “reasoning.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    I don’t think you understand what is written in the old book.

    I don’t think you do either. Do you think that maybe the RC pope does?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    As Iemand jou nie wys nie, hoe sal jy verstaan?

    And if I do understand that they have shown me bullshit then I’ll jolly well say so in order to warn others that so-and-so is either deluded, deeply stupid or a charlatan. That’s because not issuing such a warning would be basically immoral. “Consent by silence” and all that, you dig?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Miskien soos jy, wil ek nie verstaan nie.

    Wrong. I do want to understand but you keep feeding me a line of because-I-say-so bulldangle. Your ongoing childish refusal (or inability perhaps) to consider the validity of my objections makes it seem that you yourself are guilty of such a tack.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    …Jesus en sy groep was maar altyd in die minderheid.

    That obviously applies to every religious group. There is no majority in that regard.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Ek dink nie peper is hier ter sprake, want ons wat Christus volg, is die sout van die aarde.

    Nice pun, but misguided.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    En dan is daar natuurlik ook die moontlikheid, dat byna als wat ek sê hemelse waarheid is, wat nie met aardse denke sigbaar is nie.

    Yes indeed, but that would require that you command the ability to apprehend things that cannot be grasped through “earthly thinking” (whatever that might be). Now, please feel free to prove that you are such a remarkably gifted individual.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Ek het natuurlik “water” gedrink, wat my nie laat dors na ander “waters” nie. Sou ek iets beter vind, as wat ek het, sal ek dit gaan beoefen.

    You’re trying to dodge, duck and dive past the argument again. Go back and read what I wrote (several times, actually), but this time with a bit more care.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Ray McCauley, Angus Buchan oh yes and Johannes Coetzee, are waiting for Jesus Christ to come on the clouds, so how can they be building His body, that has not arrived yet? They are serious of making money.

    Does that mean you don’t believe there’s going to be a Second Coming? Besides, so what about some of them making money from spreading the word? It’s all in a good cause after all and it helps them continue to spread the message. They have inducted many more people into Christianity than you have and they keep feeding those people’s religious needs much more than you do. So how can you say that they aren’t serious about their religion the way you are, especially when the sum total of your claim is merely that they are making money and therefore they cannot be serious about their religion? Since when is making money antithetical to spreading the word?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    A fig tree does not bloom before producing fruit. I other words, one must not make promises and the fail to keep them. One must do what is to be done when the time is at hand.

    That hardly explains or justifies an overt act of violence such as cursing a fig tree into eternal sterility. If you think failure to deliver on a promise deserves such treatment then go ahead and report to your nearest clinic for radical castration because you have repeatedly failed to deliver evidence for just about everything you’ve claimed while repeatedly promising that you have it.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    I could not serve a God of imagination anymore and found a more excellent way of salvation.

    So you say. Again and again and again. Now prove it please. Objectively, I mean. Not your usual because-I-say-so or you-have-to-believe-it-first-before you-can-see-it gobbledegook.

    Hans Matthysen wote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    I do not draw any “monetary advantages” from the church I am a member of, as we live according to what is described in 2 Kings 12 and are subjected to give tithes.

    You’re trying to dodge, duck and dive past the argument again. I never said anything about any “monetary advantages.” You invented that. Go back and check. Also, check what I actually asked you so that you might provide a coherent and consequent answer.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Spirit, word, love, light(understanding), truth, wisdom are not tangible.

    You cannot deny the existence of the aforementioned.

    “Spirit,” you say? If it merely means something like “determination” or “pluck” or “heart” then I won’t disagree with you. If, however, you mean an independent and autonomous supernatural living entity that can meaningfully affect reality then I very much can and will deny its existence unless you can show proof for it. Objective proof, I mean. Not your usual because-I-say-so or you-have-to-believe-it-first-before you-can-see-it gobbledegook.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    As I have written earlier tonight, not even one, in the “Body” that I am a member of, partook in that survey and therefore it is irrelevant.

    Read the thing first before so obviously inserting all of your feet into your mouth at the same time. It wasn’t a survey. It was scientific research.

    Hans Matthysen wote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Die geloof waar jy was, word deur huurlinge bedryf, wat nie die volle waarheid het nie.

    And you know this exactly how? See, you keep telling me all about how superior your wisdom is but you have yet to give any persuasive demonstration that these claims of yours have any factual merit. In point of fact, scrutinising them strongly indicates that you’re trying to bullshit your way out of the intellectual corners you keep painting yourself into. Not that that behaviour in the least surprises me, but it’s a hoot to watch.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Mar 09 at 1:16 am):

    Jy is nogal skerp ja, drie silinders nl. Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees.

    No, the sharpness is all yours. About the three-cylinder thing, I mean. Still, you haven’t answered my question. Is your faith like a Daihatsu? Or more like a trundle-toy?

    Con-Tester

    March 18, 2009 at 12:51

  8. Con-tester, I speak of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, that is and there is nothing ancient about that. I don’t fantasize, as I know the one and only true God and His son, whom He has sent.
    The 39,000 Christian sects are not all part of the body of Jesus Christ or did you not understand what I wrote?

    In regard to those who are not baptized, read the following:
    1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

    There are not only 144,000, read the following:
    Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

    What is written in the Bible is unchangeable as God.
    The deficiency is yours, as you maybe should have avoided me.

    I don’t think you understand what is written in the old book.

    Jy het seker die storie vergeet, van die ou wat op sy wa, besig was om die wette en profete te lees. As Iemand jou nie wys nie, hoe sal jy verstaan?

    Miskien soos jy, wil ek nie verstaan nie.

    Dit is goed dat ander ook na ons skrywes kyk. Hulle kan ondersoek en die goeie behou. Almal stem nie noodwendig saam met jou nie en Jesus en sy groep was maar altyd in die minderheid. Ek dink nie peper is hier ter sprake, want ons wat Christus volg, is die sout van die aarde.

    En dan is daar natuurlik ook die moontlikheid, dat byna als wat ek sê hemelse waarheid is, wat nie met aardse denke sigbaar is nie.

    Ek het natuurlik “water” gedrink, wat my nie laat dors na ander “waters” nie. Sou ek iets beter vind, as wat ek het, sal ek dit gaan beoefen.

    Ray McCauley, Angus Buchan oh yes and Johannes Coetzee, are waiting for Jesus Christ to come on the clouds, so how can they be building His body, that has not arrived yet? They are serious of making money.

    A fig tree does not bloom before producing fruit. I other words, one must not make promises and the fail to keep them. One must do what is to be done when the time is at hand.
    Christ the light (understanding) caused division between myself and my religion (father) and between myself and my community (mother) I belonged to. I could not serve a God of imagination anymore and found a more excellent way of salvation.

    I do not draw any “monetary advantages” from the church I am a member of, as we live according to what is described in 2 Kings 12 and are subjected to give tithes.

    Spirit, word, love, light(understanding), truth, wisdom are not tangible.

    You cannot deny the existence of the aforementioned.

    As I have written earlier tonight, not even one, in the “Body” that I am a member of, partook in that survey and therefore it is irrelevant.

    Soos ek hierbo gesê het; “You cannot deny the existence of the aforementioned.”

    Ek voel nie geboelie nie, want ek kan my man staan.

    Ek verwys nie na balspel nie en gebruik net ‘n metafoor. Sukkel jy alweer om die boodskap te kry?

    Soos ek hierbo gesê het; “You cannot deny the existence of the aforementioned.”

    Ek het nie vergeet dat jy eens op ‘n tyd gelowig was nie. Die geloof waar jy was, word deur huurlinge bedryf, wat nie die volle waarheid het nie.

    Jy is nogal skerp ja, drie silinders nl. Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 15, 2009 at 01:16

  9. Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Con-tester, I have the while truth within although I have not discovered it all yet…

    I’d say you haven’t discovered any of it and choose instead to cling to a bunch of ancient feel-good fantasies.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    There is only one body of Christ and not many different bodies. We as members are one, not we as different denominations re one.

    All ±39,000 Christian sects are one, you reckon? So, what’s your take on limbo/purgatory for those who died unbaptised? What about Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation? How about there being only enough space for 144,000 souls in heaven? Or any of at least thirty other doctrinal questions that distinguish the different sects? Your “Christian unity” is just as illusory as the rest of the Christian story.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    The way you understand the Bible, only tells you, it is behind times. Your understanding thereof, is therefore sooo behind time.

    In other words, the meaning of the bible changes over time. Thanks for confirming that. It puts a rather large dent in your Eternal and Immutable Truth™® (℗ & © 325 A.D., etc.).

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    You have not met all or any, of the many, that understand as myself.

    You may be right in this, but that would be because I usually try to avoid engaging with people who would convince you that they have special knowledge of the unintelligible. It speaks of a deep-seated cognitive deficiency.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Repentance and the winning of souls are the cost for forgiveness…

    Well, see, that “winning of souls” bit can only work if “souls” actually exist. Then again, yours is still in my freezer, so it seems you’ve actually lost one rather than won any. Really. It’s true because I say so. Would you like to see an old book that proves it?

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Jy het al vele male bewys, dat jy nie die Bybel verstaan nie. Ek stry nie oor die Bybel nie en wys net ander wat daarin staan.

    Ek het dit bewys? Nee, nou jok jy. Soos al die ander bog wat jy my wil wysmaak, sê jy net aanhoudend vir my dat ek nie jou storieboek verstaan nie. Al sê jy dit hoeveel keer, sal dit dit nie waar maak nie. Maar hoekom voel jy verplig om andere in te lig oor wat in jou storieboek staan? Mense kan mos self lees. O ja wag, ek’t vergeet: jy verstaan dit dan beter as enige ander mens wat nie met jou saamstem nie.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Ek het geen gesnede beeld van liefde, waarheid, woord, lig(verstaanbaarheid), gees ens.

    Gaan lees weer ’n slag wat ek geskryf het want jy’t duidelik niks daarvan verstaan nie.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Ek is maar net een van baie, wat bereid is om met jou gesprek te voer, al loop dit op die ou end op niks uit.

    Watse “gesprek” voer jy!? Jy peper my heeltyd met opgemaakte, onnosel, onverdunde onsin, en omtrent niks wat ek sê het enige betekenis vir jou nie. Jy dink nie eers daaroor nie. Maar hou gerus so aan want ander mense sien jou manier ook raak en jy is daardeur besig om my saak vir my bymekaar te sit.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Ek mag moontlik daaraan skuldig wees, dat ek nie duidelik en breedvoerig genoeg verduidelik. Daar is ook die moontlikheid, dat daar niemand so blind is, as hy wat nie wil sien nie.

    En dan is daar natuurlik ook die moontlikheid dat byna als wat jy sê ongegronde stront is wat jy wil hê moet waar wees.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Nee werklik, jy besef seker nie, dat ek internet het en inligting oor alle gelowe bekom.

    Weereens, lees mooi: Jy het dan self vroeër gesê dat ’n mens homself eers in ’n gegewe geloof moet inleef voor dit oortuigend kan wees. Dus, die inligting oor ander gelowe wat jy op die Internet kry is nie jou eiehandse ondervinding nie. Die gevolgtrekking uit jou eie beginsels uit is dat jy altyd te min sal weet oor ander gelowe tensy jy jouself eers vir ’n tydjie heeltemaal in hulle ingeleef en hulle so ervaar het. Hoekom doen jy dit nie? En moenie asb. vir my daai “more excellent way” twak voer nie want jy kannie weet dat dit ’n “more excellent way” is nie as jy nie eers al die ander gelowe ’n slag met volle oortuiging geprobeer het nie.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    You must know very little, of what is written in the Bible, if you think, that I reckon this and I reckon that. I think Ray and Angus are in for the money…

    Yes, so you keep saying about my allegedly defective knowledge, over and over and over. Still, you wrote that being serious about one’s religion involves “building up the body of Christ (the Church)” and playing an active role “in spreading the gospel and doing the works of the ministry.” Your words, not mine. When I point out that by that same standard, Ray McCauley and Angus Buchan are considerably more serious about their religion than you are, you get all defensive and shifty and slippery, inventing an excuse that impugns those people’s motives. That’s really very moral and upstanding of you, I must say, but then religion nurtures some deeply strange notions of what integrity means.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    You clearly are missing the message of the fig tree and also Math. 10 v 34.

    And you are clearly missing a coherent account of those passages. You say you gave an explanation earlier. I’m asking you to point it out to me because I can’t find your explanation.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    Religion is only redundent to one who is incapable of understanding its great advantages, so that’s ditto to you.

    See, there you go again, accusing your detractors of being “incapable of understanding” the “great advantages” of religion. Nice. You automatically reject any possibility that irreligious people repudiate religion because they understand its “great advantages” all too well. Anyway, does what you say apply to religions generally, Hans Matthysen, or only to yours? And are you a believer for utilitarian reasons, i.e. because you draw “great advantages” from it? If so, doesn’t that go against the idea of faith for faith’s sake?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    It is because “you say”, that God does not exsist and now I must believe you…

    No, not because I say so. I’ve pointed this out to you before but obviously the principle hasn’t sunk in. You’ve got the wrong end of the epistemological stick. The default position is to reject a positive claim for which there is no tangible, repeatable, reliable evidence. You claim your god exists. Excuse me, but that’s unequivocally a positive claim, yet you can show no evidence for it. In fact, there’s other physical evidence that strongly suggests that your god is nothing more than a product of wishful thinking.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    … although I have ample proof…

    Show it to me then, and all this bickering will come to a sudden end.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (5 Mar 09 at 11:19 pm):

    How can one, who does not understand the Bible or what God is, write a book of that nature.

    You obviously haven’t read it because it’s not a book. It’s an article in a respected popular science magazine about some research in cognitive studies. That blue underlined text is a hyperlink. Put your mouse cursor on it and it’ll turn red. Now click on it with your mouse and it will take you to the article. It’s not that long and if you read it, you might just learn something new.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:24 pm):

    [E]k … wil net my man staan, teen hierdie mense, wat wil voorgee dat hul alwetend is…

    In die eerste plek is jou “man staan” ’n lekker ou grappie maar jy kry hom net nie. In die tweede plek, is dit julle gelowiges wat voorgee om alwetend te wees – julle het mos al die antwoorde al klaar, en rede is vir julle heel en al betekenisloos. Watse idiotiese redenasie is dit om te sê dat as iemand jou vir bewyse vra dan is hy of sy besig om alwetendheid voor te gee? Komaan, span bietjie in jou brein, man.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:24 pm):

    Hulle wil net ons Christenne boelie.

    Ag sjame, ou. Voel jy geboelie? Weet jy, niemand dwing jou om hier te kom lees en skryf nie. Jy doen dit uit jou eie keuse, en as jy dit nie laaik nie, is jy altyd vry om te skoert. O, en dis nie net Gristene wat gespot word hier nie. Jy sou dit egter agtergekom het was jou ogies nie heeltemaal toe nie.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:39 pm):

    Con-tester, jy kan nie rugby speel en sokker se reëls wil toepas.

    Waar maak ek só? In elk geval, die beginsels van balspel bly dieselfde, of het jy dit al weer vergeet?

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:39 pm):

    Jy ontken wat baie ervaar en bewys van het omdat jy ongebonde wil bly.

    Nee, ek ontken dit omdat daar geen oortuigende bewyse is nie. Duidelik kan jy dit nie insien nie en dus hou jy aan om net te sê dat daar bewys is in plaas daarvan om uit te haal en te wys.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:39 pm):

    Dit is jou keuse en omdat jy nie die Bybel verstaan nie, is dit in elk’geval ‘n oningeligte keuse.

    Raait, so nou’s ek weer te stjoeput om jou feetjieverhaal te verstaan. Jy vergeet dat ek ook op ’n stadium gelowig was. Die verskil is dat ek die onsin erken het vir wat dit is, nl. onverdedigbare twak, en dit gevolglik verwerp het.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (5 Mar 09 at 11:39 pm):

    Sou jy ‘n voertuig besit en niemand het om dit te bestuur nie, sal dit vir jou “useless” wees.

    Beteken dit dat jou god en jou geloof soos ’n voertuig is? Drie silinders, sekerlik. Daihatsu dan.

    Con-Tester

    March 6, 2009 at 13:02

  10. Con-tester, jy kan nie rugby speel en sokker se reëls wil toepas. Dit sal nooit die gewensde uitwerking hê nie. Jy ontken wat baie ervaar en bewys van het omdat jy ongebonde wil bly. Dit is jou keuse en omdat jy nie die Bybel verstaan nie, is dit in elk’geval ‘n oningeligte keuse.
    Sou jy ‘n voertuig besit en niemand het om dit te bestuur nie, sal dit vir jou “useless” wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2009 at 23:39

  11. Daan, ek stem met jou saam en wil net my man staan, teen hierdie mense, wat wil voorgee dat hul alwetend is, en dat ons Christenne dom is. Ek is nie bereid om terrug te staan, vir een wat ander wil boelie. Hulle wil net ons Christenne boelie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2009 at 23:24

  12. Con-tester, I have the while truth within although I have not discovered it all yet, due to the short lifespan of one individual.

    There is only one body of Christ and not many different bodies. We as members are one, not we as different denominations re one.

    The way you understand the Bible, only tells you, it is behind times. Your understanding thereof, is therefore sooo behind time.

    You have not met all or any, of the many, that understand as myself.

    Repentance and the winning of souls are the cost for forgiveness and the tithes are for another matter and purpose as you would have seen, should you have read 2 Kings 12.

    Jy het al vele male bewys, dat jy nie die Bybel verstaan nie. Ek stry nie oor die Bybel nie en wys net ander wat daarin staan.

    Ek het geen gesnede beeld van liefde, waarheid, woord, lig(verstaanbaarheid), gees ens.

    Ek is maar net een van baie, wat bereid is om met jou gesprek te voer, al loop dit op die ou end op niks uit.

    Ek mag moontlik daaraan skuldig wees, dat ek nie duidelik en breedvoerig genoeg verduidelik. Daar is ook die moontlikheid, dat daar niemand so blind is, as hy wat nie wil sien nie.

    Nee werklik, jy besef seker nie, dat ek internet het en inligting oor alle gelowe bekom.

    Ek het al te doene gekry met al die Christen gelowe en met ander nie Christen gelowe op die internet.

    You must know very little, of what is written in the Bible, if you think, that I reckon this and I reckon that. I think Ray and Angus are in for the money, as you can read about their kind in Acts 8 from vers 9.

    You clearly are missing the message of the fig tree and also Math. 10 v 34.

    Religion is only redundent to one who is incapable of understanding its great advantages, so that’s ditto to you.

    It is because “you say”, that God does not exsist and now I must believe you although I have ample proof and you have none.
    How can one, who does not understand the Bible or what God is, write a book of that nature.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2009 at 23:19

  13. Daan Van der Merwe skryf (5 Feb 09 at 4:38 pm):

    Hans, jy en Con sal NOOIT mekaar oortuig van julle onderskeie oortuigings nie.

    Jy’s al weer besig om met veronderstellings te werk wat niks werklikheid bevat nie. Ek beoog nie om Hans Matthysen van enigiets te oortuig nie. Dit is in elk geval onmoontlik. Ek sê dit weereens: ek wys sy belaglike redenasies uit terwille van ander lesers van die blog wat dalk belang stel en as ’n goeie voorbeeld van hoe slinks en gekronkel gelowiges hul geloof probeer verdedig en bevestig.

    Daan Van der Merwe skryf (5 Feb 09 at 4:38 pm):

    Con baseer sy ongeloof op wetenskaplike teorieë…

    Jy’s al weer besig om met veronderstellings te werk wat niks werklikheid bevat nie. Ek baseer my ongeloof primêr op ’n ontologiese ondersoek van die gevolge vir jou god – veral die veragtelikheid van jou god en sy gedrag teenoor sy skeppings – teen die onversoenbare agtergrond van sy beweerde eienskappe – alles natuurlik onder die aanname dat jou god wel bestaan. Die wetenskap verskaf hoofsaaklik die metode van ondesoek, naamlik verwerping van ’n onhoudbare hipotese, maar ook realistiese alternatiewes wat jou god in onnodigheid laat verdwyn.

    Daan Van der Merwe skryf (5 Feb 09 at 4:38 pm):

    … wat nie bewys kan word nie.

    Jy’s al weer besig om met veronderstellings te werk wat niks werklikheid bevat nie. Kan iemand se skuld of onskuld in ’n hof bewys word, ja of nee? In dieselfde sin is wetenskaplike teorië bewysbaar, of dan nie. Die groot verskil is natuurlik dat wetenskaplike teorië uit hulle aard uit vervalsbaar is, maar nie jou god nie. Dus verklaar jou god niks nie en vergroot ook nie menslike wete nie. Kort gestel, is hy in alle opsigte useless.

    En jy wil seker hê ek moet geloof vir dit respekteer. Dink weer ’n slag.

    Con-Tester

    February 5, 2009 at 21:28

  14. Manne, manne, manne!

    Hans, jy en Con sal NOOIT mekaar oortuig van julle onderskeie oortuigings nie.

    Con baseer sy ongeloof op wetenskaplike teorieë wat nie bewys kan word nie. Jy baseer jou geloof op God wie se bestaan eweneens nie bewys kan word nie. Sela. Amen.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 5, 2009 at 16:38

  15. Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    It is not possible for an individual to know the whole truth, as our lifespan is to short.

    And you, presumably, are an individual. There, you see? You have just implied your own incapacity for knowing the Whole Truth™® (℗ & © 325 A.D.*), yet you choose to wax profound on it with great solemnity and conviction, berating such as I for our alleged self-imposed blindness. Good one, Hans Matthysen, good one! Now try pulling the other one.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    The whole truth is in the body of Jesus Christ that consists of many members.

    But obviously not those members, e.g. RCs, with whom you happen to disagree on doctrinal issues. Then again, maybe you’re using “members” in the sense of “limbs of a body” like arms and legs, in which case your observation about the composition of Jaycee’s body is, of course, trivially true.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    The Bible is not a book for history, but always a book for the present time.

    Funny. It’s just sooo behind the times, really. Must be because people keep being browbeaten into cowed subservience with it from their earliest age onward.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    There is no such thing as Matthysenologists.

    There is at least one. He’s a regular contributor on this blog.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Forgiveness is not free, as it requires repentance and should you read 2 Kings 12, intensively, you will understand what is to be done with the money.

    Oh, so now there’s a cost attached to forgiveness? You seemed to imply otherwise earlier, though I might have misunderstood your meaning. Still, it seems that your kind of forgiveness comes at the cost of one’s cognitive faculties…

    Hans Matthysen skryf (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Dit is juis hoekom mense verskil, want daar is die wat meer verstaan as ander.

    Inderdaad. Dan is daar natuurlik ook ’n groot hoeveelheid mense wat net glo dat hulle meer verstaan as ander sonder dat hulle geldige redes kan wys vir hulle oortuiging. En boonop gedra hulle hulself dan asof hulle oortuiging in díe hinsig waar is wat dan ook hulle vermoë om rêrig te verstaan belemmer. Dan wil hulle daaroor ook nog stry.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Verwys jy nou na ‘n beeld of ‘n gesnedebeeld? God (waarheid, liefde, verstaanbaarheid ens.) is onbeperk.

    Ek kom nou agter dat ek nooit daardie gedeelte klaar geskryf het. Jammer. Jy’t gevra of mens ’n gesnede beeld kan maak van sekere abstraksies. Sekerlik ja as sy uitvoering met symbole gedoen kan word. Baie kunstenaars strewe juis na sulke uitdrukking. Die punt is dat terwyl so ’n beeld mag help, is dit glad nie benodig om die onderliggende idees of te verduidelik of te verwerklik nie. Dus, ’n beeld is nie noodwendig gekoppel aan iets wat werklik bestaan. Om die oorspronklike argument na te kom, jy het ’n sekere beeld (dalk ’n gesnede een want dit word deur fisiese neurone vasgehou) van god in jou brein, al is dit net met ’n reeks van sy/haar eienskappe saamgestel. Jou brein se beeld sal verskil van elke ander mens s’n al is die verskille nog hoe klein. Verder, bly jou brein se beeld van god nie konstant dieselfde nie want jy dink blykbaar baie daaroor na. Daarom is dit – en bly dit – jou god, en niemand anders s’n nie.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Ek dien God met verstand, nie soos baie, wat blindelings, konings volg met een oog.

    Ag ja, jy’t al hoeveel keer dit duidelik gemaak dat jy een van die klein minderheid mense is, dalk selfs die enigste een, wat die Ewige en Onveranderlike Waarheid™® (℗ & © 325 A.D.**) magtig is.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Ek het ook al dinge belaglik wat ek nie verstaan het nie.

    Die implikasie synde dat ek en ander wat jou stellings bevraagteken dit nie verstaan nie, of hoe nou? As dit wel jou bedoeling is dan moet jy seker jouself daarvoor skuldig reken weens ’n gebrek aan ordentlik verstaanbare, breedvoerige verduidelikings.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Ek het groot geword in ‘n ander geloof en is dus nie onkundig wat ander betref.

    Een ander geloof, Hans Matthysen? Een!? Sekerlik dan ook nog ene wat op die Gristelike bybel berus, of hoe? En díe ondervinding verwyder jou onkunde? Dit is asof jy my nou wil wysmaak dat jy ’n spesialis seël versameler is omdat jy twee verskillende seëls van dieselfde land goed ken.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Die vereistes is nie myne nie.

    Dit is wel jou vereistes. Jy het mos gesê dat ’n mens homself met al sy krag en vermoëns in ’n geloof moet inleef om die bewyse daarvoor te kan raaksien. Moet ek gaan rondkrap om jou presiese woorde vir jou aan te haal? En om “in gesprek [te wees] met ander gelowe,” soos jy dit stel is duidelik nie dieselfde ding nie as om jouself met alles in die ander gelowe in te leef so dat jy die bewyse daarvoor kan kry. Sien, Hans Matthysen jy maak sommer ’n klomp onsinnige stellings en dan probeer jy die implikasies daarvan te ontduik as dit jou nie pas nie.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    They are not very faithful, in building up the body of Christ (the Church), as few play an active roll, in spreading the gospel and doing the works of the ministry.

    And this is what it means to be serious about one’s religion, you reckon? In that case, vocal evangelists like Ray McCauley and Angus Buchan are clearly miles more serious about their religion than you are.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Concerning Math. 10 v 34, I have already answered you in one of our newer discussions.

    Hardly with proper rigour. You gave me “context,” the mot nouveau of apologetics that is supposed to explain everything but normally only succeeds in making the whole thing more risibly contrived. “Context” won’t hide the fact that your proxy-god’s words were words of violence. If I visit you and tell you that I’m there to fuck you and your family up, the only possible context that would make my words vaguely excusable is if I’m having you on in some way, i.e. it was an act. But your proxy-god was obviously not joking, which is evident from the selfsame “context” that pleases you so. Then also, there’s that fig tree thingy. To curse a fig tree into everlasting sterility is about as spiteful as one can get (assuming that the curse actually works), apart from being an act of unjustifiable aggression that deprives every future hapless wanderer of a possible meal.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    Prayer has more a mental effect that extends to the physical…

    Yes, just like intentionality produces in me a realisation that I need to perform certain actions in order to bring about a certain state of affairs. But that hardly addresses the point of either the need for prayer or its supposed effectiveness in doing good deeds. The point then stands that religious ritual is redundant ritual. For that matter, ditto your god.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm):

    [T]here is a difference between God’s wisdom and knowledge and that of man.

    Yes, a claim that has been repeated here ad nauseam with nary a sign of any cogent explanation, just a dizzy repetition that goes in effect, “It’s true because I say so.” Go on, try actually proving it. Realise, however, that you need to prove your god first before you can start crediting him/her with wisdom and knowledge of any kind.

    Meanwhile, you might want to take a break from your book of fairytales and read something more tangible, say about Born believers: How your brain creates God, as published yesterday by NewScientist. It would, I expect, be too much to hope that this material will give you even the slightest pause to think.

    ____________________________
    * As amended 381, 431, 449, 451, 553, 680-681, 692, 754, 787, 869-870, 879-880, 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, 1245, 1274, 1311-1312, 1341-1351, 1409, 1414-1418, 1423-1424, 1431-1445, 1512-1514, 1545-1563, 1672, 1870-1960, 1962-1965 Anno D et seq.

    ** Soos hersien 381, 431, 449, 451, 553, 680-681, 692, 754, 787, 869-870, 879-880, 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, 1245, 1274, 1311-1312, 1341-1351, 1409, 1414-1418, 1423-1424, 1431-1445, 1512-1514, 1545-1563, 1672, 1870-1960, 1962-1965 Anno Dominee/Dom Min Nie et seq.

    Con-Tester

    February 5, 2009 at 12:55

  16. Con-tester, Jesus ect. were also outnumbered by the Romans (later Catholics) in His time, so it is nothing new.

    It is not possible for an individual to know the whole truth, as our lifespan is to short. The whole truth is in the body of Jesus Christ that consists of many members.

    The Bible is not a book for history, but always a book for the present time.

    We have been violate, yet never have we resorted to violence.

    There is no such thing as Matthysenologists.

    Forgiveness is not free, as it requires repentance and should you read 2 Kings 12, intensively, you will understand what is to be done with the money.

    Dit is juis hoekom mense verskil, want daar is die wat meer verstaan as ander.

    Ek het mense kennis en waarheid sekerlik in ‘n baie mindere mate as jy, moet ek toe gee. As dit by goddelike kennis en waarheid kom, nouja.

    Verwys jy nou na ‘n beeld of ‘n gesnedebeeld? God (waarheid, liefde, verstaanbaarheid ens.) is onbeperk.

    My vryheid is in Christus, die kennis, wysheid en krag van God. Ek dien God met verstand, nie soos baie, wat blindelings, konings volg met een oog. Jou vryheid is in die kennis, wysheid en krag van die mense en daarom verdien jy die lof van mense, daarvoor minag ek jou nie. Ek het ook al dinge belaglik wat ek nie verstaan het nie.

    Ek het groot geword in ‘n ander geloof en is dus nie onkundig wat ander betref. Die vereistes is nie myne nie. Jesus het gesê “volg My” en 12 uit die 72 het, en die wat Hom bly volg het, het die krag en wysheid van God deelagtig geword.

    They are not very faithful, in building up the body of Christ (the Church), as few play an active roll, in spreading the gospel and doing the works of the ministry.

    Concerning Math. 10 v 34, I have already answered you in one of our newer discussions.

    Prayer has more a mental effect that extends to the physical and I am not referring to these “Simon the sorcerers” who do tricks to make money. In a paragraph above, I have pointed out, that, there is a difference between God’s wisdom and knowledge and that of man.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2009 at 23:02

  17. Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Con-tester, as I have said before, the RCC hi-jacked Christianity and are not part of the true vine.

    Roman Catholics will disagree with you on that, possibly to the point of starting a war if history is any guide. Plus, worldwide they outnumber the remainder of Christian flavours about three to one. So, who’s kidding whom here? More importantly, with all of these different voices clamouring about how they are of the “true vine,” who is the disinterested inquirer to believe? You have yet to give even one vaguely plausible reason why your rendition is in some way – any way – superior to any other.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Most Christians repeat what they have heard and just haven’t got the whole truth.

    And you, presumably, are one of the select few who has the “whole truth”™, n’est-ce pas? Sorry, but that’s just too damn convenient.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    The Historians would never believe what I am saying, so, no need to worry about them.

    They are historians but you know much better than they do despite their dedicated study? Sorry, but that’s just too damn convenient.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    We all know that the RCC have been very corrupt in the early days…

    So what’s changed in regard to their take on the real world? And how does it differ in essence from any other religion’s take on reality, including yours?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    I should think the RCC and Protestants would be offended, at what I suggest, as they have all become a bussnes and are making money for self enrichment.

    And if everybody suddenly became Matthysenologists your tune towards your own sect would be indistinguishable from that of the more established ones towards their own. The deep irony of your above statement has obviously escaped your attention.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Bible is the document of proof, as we are warned against the hireling’s. How can you pay an amount, as penalty, to the church, then your sin is forgiven.

    Ignoring – just for argument’s sake – the very extensive slew of numerous, varied and entirely indefensible assumptions in the above argument, if “forgiveness” (whatever that might actually be besides a device for making people feel better about their own deficiencies) is free then it is de facto worthless. And you people feel the irrepressible need to promote “god’s work” and giving money, whether voluntarily or within a regimented framework, absolves you of a need for direct involvement.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Die waarheid, in konteks met die Bybel, is lig, m.a.w. verstaanbaarheid. Duisternis is onverstaanbaarheid. Jy kannie stry teen dit wat vir jou verstaanbaar is nie, anders stry jy teen jou eie gewete.

    Dit neem aan dat die ding waarna “verstand” verwys ook ’n feitlik bewysbare werklikheid het. Dit is juis die aanname waaroor ons verskil.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Ons moet groei in die waarheid en kennis.

    Op díe kan ons ten minste saamstem, maar ons definisies van “waarheid” en “kennis” is onversoenbaar blyk dir my.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Kan ek ‘n gesnede beeld maak van Liefde, of Gees, of Lig (verstaanbaarheid), of die Woord, of die Weg?

    Jy kan seker ’n simboliese beeld van die abstraksies maak maar dit is mos nie nodig om na die onderliggende idees te strewe nie. En die afwesigheid van so ’n beeld verhoed nie

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Ons moet net instrumente wees, sodat God ons kan gebruik, vir Sy dienswerke en Jesus het ons gewys, wat Sy dienswerke is.

    Maar nogtans wil jy glo dat jy vrye wil het? ’n Stomp instrument met vrye wil wat kan oorgee aan die werksmeester se wil of dan nie? Dit is ’n belaglikle weerspreking.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Omdat ek nog altyd met evangelisasie betrokke is, is ek in gesprek met ander gelowe. Ek sal dus weet as ek iets beter vind.

    O nee, dit is nie só maklik nie. Jy het self gesê dat ’n mens homself eers ordentlik in ’n geloof moet inleef voor hy die bewyse sal kan raaksien. Nou is jy “in gesprek met ander gelowe.” Haai, jy’s nou besig om jou eie vereistes te ignoreer.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    [Y]ou must take in account, that about 85% of Christians are not even involved in their local communities or are very serious about their religion.

    Define for me please in practical terms what being “serious about [one’s] religion” means. Because this claim reeks to me of unutterably rank presumption.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    Jesus did not commit or instigate any atrocities, accept for those who were trading in the temple, so I can’t understand how you could not agree, that He taught us to be humain.

    Really? Matthew 10:34. Besides, the actual point is that Jesus wasn’t the first (or the last) to preach peace and harmony for all mankind. Nor have these preachings and teachings had any noticeable effect on humanity’s conduct except maybe for making it easier to defend committing atrocities.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (20 Nov 08 at 11:57 pm):

    I don’t think practising the frute of the Spirit … could be a bad habit or singing in the chior, or praying for the sick, or helping the needy, or attending a service, or comforting others, or growing in Gods knowledge and wisdom and having fairytales become reality.

    Besides the telling questions of (a) prayer’s effectiveness in bringing about physical changes to the status quo and (b) the viability of using “god,” “wisdom” and “knowledge” in the same sentence, none of these activities requires a god (or even a belief in such a thing) for its accomplishment.

    Con-Tester

    November 21, 2008 at 22:22

  18. Johannes

    My geld is op jou om eerste die lig te sien…alhoewel dit eers na 22 Oktober mag wees.

    Hopelik sal jy dan begin kyk na die kak jy om jou nek gehang het.

    DW

    November 21, 2008 at 13:22

  19. Hans

    Nathan en Kie sal nie met my saamstem nie maar ek reken dis nou die mees sinvolle comments wat ek jou nog ooit sien lewer het….direk uit die mond van God soos dit vir ons aangeteken staan in Sy Woord die Bybel. Dankie ek sal dit gewis lees.

    *ek herkaal maar net ingeval jy my comments by ‘n vorige artikel nie raakgesien het nie.

    *Ons verskil van mekaar en beide van ons is deeglik bewus daarvan. Totdat ek of jy of beide van ons tot ‘n ander oortuiging kom gaan enige gesprek tussen ons vrugteloos en ‘n mors van tyd wees.

    Kom ons aanvaar dit so respekteer mekaar se standpunte todat een van ons die “lig” sien.

    Vir solank jy jouself onder die gesag van enig kerkstruktuur bevind sal jy blootgestel bly aan die “krag van dwaling” wat deur die God(e) van die Bybel Self gestuur word.

    Tot dan toe gaan ek nie weer op enige van jou vrae of opmerkings reageer nie. Wanneer jy hopelik voor 21 Mei 2011 dalk agterkom dat die God van die Bybel wat die Ou en Nuwe Testamentiese kerkstrukture ingestel het, hulle ook afgebreek het en dat die kerk-era finaal vir ewig verby is, sal ek dalk weer meer sinvol met jou kan praat. Die kerk-era het amptelik op 21 Mei 1988 ten einde geloop… soos ‘n dief in die nag.

    God het begin om Sy laaste oes deur die monde van Sy “ewige kerk” (die bruid) in Sy koninkryk in te bring, steeds deur middel van Sy Woord (die Bybel), maar buite die afvallige institusie van die kerke en kerkstrukture (wat almal maar net besig is met hul eie do-it-yourself gospels).

    Mag God elkeen van ons genadig wees.

    johannes coetzee

    November 21, 2008 at 10:59

  20. Hans skryf.
    …the RCC hi-jacked Christianity and are not part of the true vine. Most Christians repeat what they have heard and just haven’t got the whole truth.

    We all know that the RCC have been very corrupt in the early days, and so is their recorded history. Paul and his followers were perscuted by the Romans and Jew’s.

    Hans ,
    Wat jy hier skryf t.o.v. die RCC , Paul ,en Christianity is ‘n bewys van jou eendimensionele protestantse indoktrinasie.

    Het jy nog nooit gewonde hoekom eers na 1300 jaar en miljoene moorde later jou gotte die weg vir o.a. Luther en Calvyn oopgemaak om nog meer mense in die naam van geloof te kom doodmaak nie.

    En dan Paulus ,hoekom moes Paulus ‘n nuwe boodskap , slegs 15-20 jaar na die gotte Jesus hier op aarde was, kom gee .

    Die RCC is die franchise houer van die Christelike geloof . As dit nie vir hulle was nie het jy heelmoontlik vandag vir THOR aanbid. (Maar ja Christene is te foking vlak om hulle eie geskiedenis te lees, want julle word mos van kindsbeen af geleer om net te foking GLO )

    Kom Hans , vertel ‘n bietjie vir my van die regte kerk – Die WARE KERK , (dis nou die protestante – kyk na die NGB art 28 en 29) en verduidelik vir ons hoekom het die ware kerk vroue as hekse verklaar en hulle laat verbrand , en ook hoeveel boere deur Luther vermoor is .

    Vertel ook sommer vir ons hoe het Calvyn die mense na die ware Kerk laat kom het .

    Die WARE KERK is waar geen foking gotte en kakpraters is nie.

    DW

    November 21, 2008 at 08:46

  21. Con-tester, as I have said before, the RCC hi-jacked Christianity and are not part of the true vine. Most Christians repeat what they have heard and just haven’t got the whole truth. The Historians would never believe what I am saying, so, no need to worry about them.
    We all know that the RCC have been very corrupt in the early days, and so is their recorded history. Paul and his followers were perscuted by the Romans and Jew’s.
    I should think the RCC and Protestants would be offended, at what I suggest, as they have all become a bussnes and are making money for self enrichment. The Bible is the document of proof, as we are warned against the hireling’s. How can you pay an amount, as penalty, to the church, then your sin is forgiven. Jesus whipped those who did trading in the temple (church). 2 Kings 12 shows us what the tithes are for.
    Die waarheid, in konteks met die Bybel, is lig, m.a.w. verstaanbaarheid. Duisternis is onverstaanbaarheid. Jy kannie stry teen dit wat vir jou verstaanbaar is nie, anders stry jy teen jou eie gewete. Ons moet groei in die waarheid en kennis.
    Ons mag geen gesnede beeld van God hê. Kan ek ‘n gesnede beeld maak van Liefde, of Gees, of Lig (verstaanbaarheid), of die Woord, of die Weg?
    Ons moet net instrumente wees, sodat God ons kan gebruik, vir Sy dienswerke en Jesus het ons gewys, wat Sy dienswerke is.
    Dit is hoekom ons God met verstand moet dien, ja, ons moet dink.
    Ek was nog altyd ernstig oor godheid en daar was altyd meer vrae as antwoorde. Ek het nou antwoorde en daarom dors ek nie verder na ander.
    Omdat ek nog altyd met evangelisasie betrokke is, is ek in gesprek met ander gelowe. Ek sal dus weet as ek iets beter vind.
    You are right about the fact, that many didn’t protest against the RCC’s atrocities, yet you must take in account, that about 85% of Christians are not even involved in their local communities or are very serious about their religion.
    Jesus did not commit or instigate any atrocities, accept for those who were trading in the temple, so I can’t understand how you could not agree, that He taught us to be humain.
    I don’t think practising the frute of the Spirit
    (Gal 5:22 Maar die vrug van die Gees is liefde, blydskap, vrede, lankmoedigheid, vriendelikheid, goedheid, getrouheid, sagmoedigheid, selfbeheersing.) could be a bad habit or singing in the chior, or praying for the sick, or helping the needy, or attending a service, or comforting others, or growing in Gods knowledge and wisdom and having fairytales become reality.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 20, 2008 at 23:57

  22. Johannes, onwetend sondig nie, hulle beland nie in die Hel nie, maar is ewig in die dooderyk.
    Psa 49:1 Vir die musiekleier. Van die kinders van Korag. ‘n Psalm. (49:2) Hoor dit, alle volke, luister, alle bewoners van die wêreld,
    Psa 49:2 (49:3) geringes sowel as aansienlikes, tesame ryk en arm!
    Psa 49:3 (49:4) My mond sal louter wysheid spreek, en die oordenking van my hart is net verstand.
    Psa 49:4 (49:5) Ek sal my oor neig tot ‘n spreuk; ek sal my raaisel verklaar by die siter.
    Psa 49:5 (49:6) Waarom sou ek vrees in dae van onheil, as die ongeregtigheid van my onderkruipers my omring—
    Psa 49:6 (49:7) die wat vertrou op hulle vermoë en hulle beroem op die grootheid van hulle rykdom?
    Psa 49:7 (49:8) Niemand kan ooit ‘n broer loskoop nie; hy kan aan God sy losprys nie gee nie
    Psa 49:8 (49:9) (want die losprys van hulle lewe is te kosbaar en vir ewig ontoereikend),
    Psa 49:9 (49:10) dat hy vir ewig sou voortlewe, die vernietiging nie sou sien nie.
    Psa 49:10 (49:11) Want hy sien: wyse manne sterwe, die dwaas en die onverstandige kom tesame om en laat hulle vermoë aan ander na.
    Psa 49:11 (49:12) Hulle binneste gedagte is: hul huise sal vir ewig wees, hul wonings van geslag tot geslag; hulle noem die lande na hul name.
    Psa 49:12 (49:13) Maar die mens wat in aansien is, hou nie stand nie; hy is soos die diere wat vergaan.
    Psa 49:13 (49:14) Dit is die weg van die wat op hulleself vertrou, en van hulle volgelinge wat in hul woorde ‘n behae het. Sela.
    Psa 49:14 (49:15) Soos skape word hulle bestem vir die doderyk; die dood is hulle herder, en die opregtes heers oor hulle in die môre; en hulle gestalte is daar vir die doderyk om te verteer, sodat daarvoor geen woning meer is nie.
    Psa 49:15 (49:16) Maar God sal my siel loskoop van die mag van die doderyk, want Hy sal my opneem. Sela.
    Psa 49:16 (49:17) Wees nie bevrees as ‘n man ryk word, as die rykdom van sy huis groot word nie;
    Psa 49:17 (49:18) want by sy dood sal hy van alles niks saamneem nie; sy heerlikheid sal nie neerdaal agter hom aan nie.
    Psa 49:18 (49:19) Al ag hy homself gelukkig in sy lewe—en prys hulle jou, omdat jy aan jouself goed doen—
    Psa 49:19 (49:20) tog gaan sy siel na die geslag van sy vaders; tot in ewigheid sal hulle die lig nie sien nie.
    Psa 49:20 (49:21) Die mens wat in aansien is en geen verstand het nie, is soos die diere wat vergaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 20, 2008 at 22:01

  23. Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    [Y]ou refered to the main religions of which Jesus and His dissiples were never part and that is the relevance.

    (Emphasis added.) I see, so either Christianity is not a major religious denomination (and never has been one), or just about all of those who ever called themselves “Christian” have lied. Historians will be very surprised indeed to learn of this.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    When he became Paul, he changed sides, so you are wrong to thank Paul for the RCC’s ill deeds.

    How so? After all, he founded the RCC and gave it all the power and weapons it would need to persecute others, didn’t he?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    The Protestant’s were never part of the true vine.

    Then, by implication, nor were the Catholics from whom they split. All of them will be astonished, maybe even offended, by your suggestion. They will want to know how you know this to be a fact. Do you have access to source documents that others don’t?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    Mens is net verdoem, as jy die waarheid geken het en nie daarvolgens gelewe het nie. Christus is die waarheid en buite dit is duisternis, nie verdoeminnis nie.
    God is die waarheid ens. en behoort aan almal wat die waarheid aanneem.

    Die begrip “waarheid” kom saam met ’n reeks vereistes, hoofsaaklik dat dit wel as feitlik bewys kan word. Maar die “waarheid” wat jy noem is dan juis dit wat ek bevraagteken. Om dit net sommer so te verklaaras die waarheid is dus heeltemaal onvoldoende.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    Daar is nie so iets soos, my God of jou God, maar wel afgode. Of my geloof is uit die waarheid gebore, of nie.

    Ek skat nie weens ’n gebrek aan oortuigende bewysstukke. En ek is oortuig dat jou beeld van die god van wie jy praat in geen geval heeltemaal sal ooreenstem met iemand anders s’n, al is die verskille baie klein, en dus bly dit jou god.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    [M]et werke, kom die oortuiging wat regverdiging meebring.

    Net as jy van vooraf al klaar besluit het wat die dryfkrag agter die werke is so dit kom dan weer op ’n sirkelagtige redenasie neer.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    Jy sien self hoe dwaal die egte wêreld.

    Ek sien eintlik meer hoe mense honderde, selfs duisende jare terug al daardie argument gebruik het en tog is ons nog steeds hier in ’redelike toestand. Ek dink dit is eerder ’n uitspraak wat hulle vrees vir veranderings oordra, maar die wêreld kan wel ’n beter plek wees as mense net eers wil begin dink.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    I have found a more exelent way of salvation, after trying a few.

    But which ones have you tried? And have you tried them in the sense you indicated earlier of truly believing so that you can find the right justification?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    I don’t have to try further, as my thirst has been quenched.

    But then you don’t know that there maybe isn’t one that’s even better, do you?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    No referendums were held by all the members of the RCC, Protestants or others, that caused some of the ill wrongs of the past and to generalise, is not a true account thereof.

    It’s true enough that they didn’t all jump up at the same time and say, “Hey, let’s go torture and maim and kill and burn some heretics!” Collective action never works that way. But the instigators knew they could count on the ready participation of just about everyone else because if anyone protested they’d immediately become a target. Plus, everyone was convinced they were doing their god’s work, but if everyone had protested simultaneously as one might expect them to do on the assumption that they had taken to heart their god’s teachings, as given to them by his/her son, then the instigators would have had good cause to stop for a quiet rethink of their policies regarding dissidents. In short, “I was only following orders” was always a reprehensible excuse but religion has, by its own standards, turned it into a virtue, and thus a generalisation is warranted.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    So I take it, that you agree, that Jesus taught us to be humain and I never implied, that He was the first or only one.

    No, I don’t agree that he taught us anything considering the atrocities that have been and that continue to be committed in his name.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (14 Nov 08 at 12:02 am):

    Maybe if you practised the same, you would realise it’s no fairytail to.

    I used to but I gave it up as a bad habit. Maybe if you took your own hopes and fears out of the equation and examined it more closely, you would realise that it is a fairytale.

    Con-Tester

    November 14, 2008 at 11:06

  24. Hans

    Jou woorde “Mens is net verdoem, as jy die waarheid geken het….”

    Beteken dit dat diegene wat nie die
    Woord van God (die Bybel) gehoor het nie, nie verdoem is nie…?

    johannes coetzee

    November 14, 2008 at 09:41

  25. Con-tester, you refered to the main religions of which Jesus and His dissiples were never part and that is the relevance.
    Paul was of the Romans, while he was stil Saul and under the Romans banner he persecuted Gods people. When he became Paul, he changed sides, so you are wrong to thank Paul for the RCC’s ill deeds.
    The Protestant’s were never part of the true vine.
    Mens is net verdoem, as jy die waarheid geken het en nie daarvolgens gelewe het nie. Christus is die waarheid en buite dit is duisternis, nie verdoeminnis nie.
    God is die waarheid ens. en behoort aan almal wat die waarheid aanneem. Daar is nie so iets soos, my God of jou God, maar wel afgode. Of my geloof is uit die waarheid gebore, of nie.
    Geloof sonder werke, is dood en met werke, kom die oortuiging wat regverdiging meebring. Jy sien self hoe dwaal die egte wêreld.
    I have found a more exelent way of salvation, after trying a few. As Jesus said to the woman at the well; “and I will give you water and you will never thirst again”. I don’t have to try further, as my thirst has been quenched.
    No referendums were held by all the members of the RCC, Protestants or others, that caused some of the ill wrongs of the past and to generalise, is not a true account thereof.
    So I take it, that you agree, that Jesus taught us to be humain and I never implied, that He was the first or only one. He was the auther of our faith and what I practice, is no fairytail. Maybe if you practised the same, you would realise it’s no fairytail to.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 14, 2008 at 00:02

  26. Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    Con-tester, Jesus and his followers, were never part of one, of the main religions. They were persecuted by the Romans, who later became, the Roman Catholic Church.

    Please explain the relevance of this because I fail to see any. Are you suggesting that the persecution and subsequent absorption into Roman culture of Jesus to yield the RCC is what turned the RCC on to committing atrocities more generally? If so, then we have in effect only Paul to thank for the RCC’s ill deeds, and Paul was one of Jesus’ favourites, no? Then, too, there are the Protestant persecutions of Catholics and heretics that fail to accord with that picture.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    As ons lewe volgens Jesus se voorbeeld, kan ons nie werklik geoordeel word nie en ons handel en wandel, regverdig (justifies) dit waarin ons glo.

    Maar dieselfde kan gesê word as ons lewe volgens die Gautama Boeddha se voorbeeld (wat nou eintlik nog meer vreedsaam is). Maar, nee, dit moet jou voorbeeld wees andersins is ons al klaar verdoem nog voor ons ’n enkele treetjie vat, of hoe? Watse stront is dit?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    Elke geloof (religion)
    behoort beproef te word, om te kyk of hulle uit God gebore is.

    Sien, dit is juis waar die probleem lê: watter of wie se “god” meen jy? As dit jou eie is, is dit duidelik bedrog om dan te sê dat hy/sy jou geloof om goedkeur. Dit sal eerliker wees om te sê, “Ek glo want dit laat my lekker kry.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    Dit is hoekom ek nie somer enige geloof aanneem.

    Maar, soos ek hierbo aangedui het, is jou regverdigings nie juis oortuigend nie. Dit kom daarop neer dat jy eers moet glo voor jy die geloof kan regverdig. Die egte wêreld werk nie so nie.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    To receive justification for a relogion, one must be involved.

    Apparently so, yes, but that still doesn’t give us any means for favouring one over all the others. How many different major denominations have you tried? I mean “tried” in the sense you indicate above of truly believing so that you can find the right justification. If you simply say you’ve examined (any of) them from the outside, you’re breaking your own rules because you weren’t sufficiently interested to fully pursue their justifications and so aren’t properly qualified to comment on their validity or otherwise.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    I don’t think history refutes me.

    In other words, it’s your view that over most of its near enough 2,000 year history, the enormities sanctioned and done by the RCC and later also by Protestants and assorted other Christian sects are the work of extremists? Then the extremists were always in the majority, not the minority as you claim. The other, less palatable option is that such bloody work is not that of extremists. I’m not sure which alternative is the more crudely offensive to any sane 21st century human.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Nov 08 at 11:34 pm):

    Christian religion teaches us to do good to others.
    Jesus taught us to be humain towards others and didn’t bring us fairy tales.

    Just like many other religions do. That living guideline was in any case neither novel nor unique to Christianity. And Jesus didn’t bring you fairytales because he’s the main character in one.

    Con-Tester

    November 12, 2008 at 14:48

  27. Con-tester, Jesus and his followers, were never part of one, of the main religions. They were persecuted by the Romans, who later became, the Roman Catholic Church.
    As ons lewe volgens Jesus se voorbeeld, kan ons nie werklik geoordeel word nie en ons handel en wandel, regverdig (justifies) dit waarin ons glo. Ons geloof is dus onderworpe aan regverdiging (justification) en tog maak ons handel en wandel, ons vry van oordeel, wat dan ons geloof regverdig. Elke geloof (religion)
    behoort beproef te word, om te kyk of hulle uit God gebore is. Dit is hoekom ek nie somer enige geloof aanneem. To receive justification for a relogion, one must be involved.
    I don’t think history refutes me.
    Christian religion teaches us to do good to others.
    Jesus taught us to be humain towards others and didn’t bring us fairy tales.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 11, 2008 at 23:34

  28. Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 10:22 pm):

    Con-tester, just because you say, it is a bad analogy, is not to say that it is a bad one.

    Absolutely correct, which is why I went to some length in explaining why it’s a bad analogy. Perhaps you missed that part.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 10:22 pm):

    You can’t contradict my point made, and that seems to be the bad about it.

    I can. And I did. Please read my prior post more carefully. It boils down to the idea that it isn’t just one brother who’s a thief; it’s all of them, and you want to quibble over the morality of stealing, say, a packet of sweets versus a television set.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 10:22 pm):

    If you don’t find anything justifying in religion, then don’t be religeous.

    Exactly. But just as you might feel it a valid endeavour to oppose child pornography while its practitioners don’t, I feel it justified to oppose religion and faith-based thinking because it is a clear danger in the 21st century.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 10:22 pm):

    It is only the religious extremists, that are far in the minority, that go to the extreme.

    History refutes you.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 10:22 pm):

    Should an induviduel step out of line, it is not the religion, so don’t kid yourself.

    Perhaps not as a general rule but religion is more often than not a factor because it makes it easy to justify doing bad things to others. Just look at the disproportionate number of religious believers in US prisons.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 10:22 pm):

    Never expect any induvidual to be perfect, after all, you are not perfect. How could you ever learn to forgive, if everyone was perfect?

    Nobody is expecting that. Rather, the expectation is that people apply humanism, logic, reason and empiricism in their lives instead of a bunch of outdated and unsustainable fairytales they learned from their parents and peers.

    Con-Tester

    November 9, 2008 at 12:40

  29. Con-tester, just because you say, it is a bad analogy, is not to say that it is a bad one. You can’t contradict my point made, and that seems to be the bad about it.
    If you don’t find anything justifying in religion, then don’t be religeous.
    It is only the religious extremists, that are far in the minority, that go to the extreme. The mutch greater majority are good people.
    Followers of Jesus and his Apostels are afflicted on, yet they afflict not. So you see, I can only speak of that religion i.r.o. affliction.
    Should an induviduel step out of line, it is not the religion, so don’t kid yourself.
    I do set an example, yet I also sometimes fail. Never expect any induvidual to be perfect, after all, you are not perfect. How could you ever learn to forgive, if everyone was perfect?

    Hans Matthysen

    November 8, 2008 at 22:22

  30. Hans Matthysen wrote (6 Nov 08 at 11:02 pm):

    Dit is natuurlik ‘n fout, aan julle kant, byvoorbeeld, as jou broer iets steel, maak dit nie jou hele familie uit, as diewe nie en tog dit is hoe julle redeneer.

    It’s a bad analogy because the issue is not the ability of the specific content of any one particular faith being used to procure evil; the issue is that a faith-based approach itself is the problem because it simply dodges the need to justify itself and thereby facilitates such procurement. Whether it actually obtains or not is a somewhat peripheral matter except that all major religions have shown themselves capable of inflicting horrors on their opponents. Thus, that is in any case not how people here who disagree with you reason, and it comes down, once again, to the age-old excuse, “Yes, but that’s not my religion.” Don’t kid yourself: your faith is just as capable of atrocities as all of its competitors.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (6 Nov 08at 11:02 pm):

    I can only justify my religion, according to what I have experienced and you can only go through similar experiences, by following me or doing what I do. If you are not childlike, the mistries of God’s kingdom, shall not be revealed unto you.
    When you have experienced righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, you will find religion in Christ, justified.

    Interesting. Assuming that you have found all of these marvellous things, I find it strange that you should seek to defend them here with such obvious passion, rather than, say, living as an example to others. A picture, after all, is worth a thousand revelations.

    Con-Tester

    November 7, 2008 at 10:43

  31. Ek kan nou ongelukkig nie, namens alle gelowe praat nie en ek sien julle wil alle gelowe, onder dieselfde kam skeer. Dit is natuurlik ‘n fout, aan julle kant, byvoorbeeld, as jou broer iets steel, maak dit nie jou hele familie uit, as diewe nie en tog dit is hoe julle redeneer.
    I can only justify my religion, according to what I have experienced and you can only go through similar experiences, by following me or doing what I do. If you are not childlike, the mistries of God’s kingdom, shall not be revealed unto you.
    When you have experienced righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, you will find religion in Christ, justified.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 6, 2008 at 23:02

  32. net so, praat jy wat tanne in jou bek het!

    pieter.

    Pieter Nortje

    October 27, 2008 at 15:23

  33. Jy is reg Pieter , die kerk verkondig verdoemenis en sonde . Die boodskap kry hulle uit die bybel.
    Dis wat die wese van jou geloof is .

    DW

    October 27, 2008 at 15:10

  34. So gaan dit maar in die lewe you loose some and you win some,

    Verlaat hulle die kerk deur af te sterwe?

    Terg net!!LOL,

    Ek glo jou, die probleem lê by predikers,dominees, pastore ,evangeliste, gemeente lede,sekte leiers, wat die vinger wys en vir almal verkondig dat GOD jou gaan straf as jy sondig ens ens,dit dryf duisende mense uit die kerk,

    Groete,

    Pieter.

    Pieter Nortje

    October 27, 2008 at 12:43

  35. Nee wat, Pieter. Jy kan maar ophou juig. Ek het statistieke wat aandui dat ‘n klein bietjie meer mense die kerk verlaat as wat bykom.

    “Alles het skielik sin gemaak”!?

    Die kabouter in die lug laat alles sín maak!?

    Ag, ja.

    Nathan Bond

    October 27, 2008 at 10:18

  36. NOU WAT Sê JUL NOU HIEROOR!!!

    VAT SO!!! ONGELOWIGES!!!!

    Ds. Rajesh Kumar oor sy soektog na God: “Alles het skielik sin gemaak. Dié God wat sê jy moet die ander wang draai, was die God tot wie ek gebid het!”

    Onder vier oë: Van baie en g’n tot één God

    Pieter Nortje

    October 27, 2008 at 09:34

  37. Well, yes, that’s much the point of my tentative phrasing. The whole enterprise of self-assessment is one large blob of murky goo – a veritable dartboard for all kinds of criticism. Psychometric techniques can only go so far in obviating subjective and percipient bias, but ultimately there’s no objective basis for concluding that, when you say, “I’m very happy” and I say “I’m very, very happy,” I am properly happier than you are.

    I think the initial claim is unjustifiably overblown, if not wholly wrong, because the studies that support it do a lousy job, if any, of correcting for other differences, whether personal or demographic. A group of young, enthusiastic clerics fresh out of ecclesiastical training cannot help but report a different happiness index to that of a bunch of middle-aged evolutionary biologists, thwarted their whole working lives by the deep problems attending, say, gene expression.

    Con-Tester

    October 7, 2008 at 17:23

  38. Con-tester: “It has been claimed that religion makes, overall, for people who are happier and more serene than the irreligious. Then again, so do a whole range of other distractions, many of them harmful.”
    True.
    But the initial claim is wrong, anyway. Religious people tend to call anyone bad “irreligious”, and then make their wrong conclusions. It’s a prejudice thing.

    I believe the claim might also stem from people “finding religion” then SAYING “Ah, I feel much better, more serene now” and once again, making their wrong conclusions from there on.

    bewilderbeast

    October 7, 2008 at 16:33

  39. Bru Nathan en bru Johan Swarts

    Daars niks wat enige godsdiens die moeitewerd kan maak as juis die God(e) wat gedien word, dit nie die moeitewerd maak nie. Die mens is nog altyd opsoek die ware God(e).

    Die mens is in sy diepste wese opsoek na die waarheid. Die waarheid oor sommer alles. Wat is dit wat jou byvoorbeeld dryf om jou “gelowige” of “ongelowige” broer (se siening) dood te maak…?

    Bru vs bru (Kain-geloof vs Abel-geloof)

    Vandag op hierdie 7de dag van die maand Oktober van die jaar van onse liewe Heer 2008 (13020jaar vanaf die jaar 11013 VC toe Hy hierdie heelal geskep het) is dit steeds bru vs Bru.

    Whats new bru, whats new…?

    Gedurende 21 Mei 2011 tot 21 Oktober 2011 behoort ons die Lig te sien of nie…!

    Tune vannaand om 19h30 op AM 1197khz en luister na die radio uitsending OPEN FORUM van Family Radio in, asseblief bru! Die boodskap word tans wereldwyd verkondig. Dis soos toe ou Noag die ark gebou het ten aanskoue van die hele destyds bekende wereld.

    Dis nie net godsdiens wat aan ‘n dun draadjie hang nie (inteendeel die draadjie is al vir die kerke en kerkstrukture geknip) maar die hele wereld….!

    Het ons Bru dit nie vir ons alles mooi netjies “geskrywe” nie…?

    (1Pe 4:7) En die einde van alle dinge is naby; wees dan ingetoë en nugter, om te kan bid.

    (1Pe 4:8) Maar bo alles moet julle mekaar vurig liefhê, want die liefde sal ‘n menigte sondes bedek.

    2011-groete

    johannes coetzee

    October 7, 2008 at 10:39

  40. At best, religion makes no discernible difference to the common practice of brotherly love. However, the very fact that conflict, often of the most brutal and violent kind, can and has been prompted by disputes over competing religious dogmas itself indicates that religion, contrary to its professed intent, goes a long way towards facilitating the doing of violence to those who differ. After all, one of religion’s more prominent features is that it paints the world monochrome. No greyscales allowed.

    And the onus of proof does not rest on the atheist. That onus rests like a chainmail wetsuit on the proponent. Were it otherwise, the law would operate on the principle that one is “guilty until proven innocent,” and scientists would never get anything useful done for investigating all manner of idiotic claims. Nonetheless, atheists can (and have) marshalled a large array of logical, evidentiary and ontological objections that militate against the existence of a personal god. The conclusion that the probability of such a god’s existence is vanishingly small. Believers tend to read “vanishingly small” as “around 50:50.”

    It has been claimed that religion makes, overall, for people who are happier and more serene than the irreligious. Then again, so do a whole range of other distractions, many of them harmful.

    Con-Tester

    October 7, 2008 at 09:52


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: