Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Jós-sis!

with 29 comments

You can read the sorry story in the The New York Times.

People are killing each other in Jos, “a picturesque city set on a verdant plateau in central Nigeria”. At least 400 bodies have been recovered as I write and about 7,000 people had fled the most violent neighborhoods for shelters. (1,000 people died in Jos in religious riots in 2001.)

Elections have not been held in Jos for years, in part because of fears that the political parties would split along religious lines, which is in fact what happened.

Why are people killing each other in Jos?

Because they believe different things about absolute bloody nonsense.

Say what? I, we, should be tolerant of religion?

O, go fuck yourself!

Written by Nathan Bond

December 1, 2008 at 07:29

Posted in Religion must go!

Tagged with ,

29 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hans
    Dit het jou fokken lank gevat om C-T te antwoord. Kyk ‘n bietjie op ‘n ander onderwerp op hierdie blog wat my antwoord was op jou bo-genoemde stelling.

    ErickV

    January 27, 2010 at 06:07

  2. Baie meer as net gesê, Hans: onophoudend gedemonstreer.

    Con-Tester

    January 26, 2010 at 22:16

  3. Con-Tester, soos ek al gesê het, “small things amuse small minds”.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2010 at 21:14

  4. What, pray tell Hans Matthysen, has that to do with the price of “souls”? Obviously, the joke went way over your head.

    Con-Tester

    March 17, 2009 at 22:17

  5. Con-tester, voor ek vyf jaar oud was, het ek lankal my eerste 121 woorde gesê en daarom kan ek nie met jou verskil nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 14, 2009 at 15:26

  6. DW, kyk in ‘n konkordansie onder “liggaam” sodat jy kan weet waarna en waar jy kan soek. Kol. 1 v 24, mag dalk van hulp ook wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 14, 2009 at 15:23

  7. But DW, don’t you see? “[T]he body of Christ is still today” because — near enough 2,000 years later — he’s most assuredly a stiff.

    Con-Tester

    March 3, 2009 at 20:48

  8. Everything you say is convincing and true Hans Matthysen. Everything, that is, except the first 121 words.

    Con-Tester

    March 3, 2009 at 19:58

  9. hans skryf :”but the body of Christ is still today”

    Die een verstaan ek nie . Waar kan ek die body sien ?Help tog asb Hans.

    DW

    March 3, 2009 at 14:28

  10. Con-tester, Paul, Peter and Jesus of Nazareth my be dead, after the flesh, but the body of Christ is still today, as well as the gift of Christ (Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ).
    They spoke clear enough, yet not everybody is listening.
    With that attitude, you will never find the “true vine”.
    With that attitude, you clearly don’t want to find the “true vine”.
    Jesus and His followers were only a few, in regard to the population of His time. Today in Africa we are about 1,6 million.
    You are in a similar situation, concerning those who agree with you and those who you agree with.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2009 at 23:28

  11. Fredericke Adonis, so jy sal eerder een ernstig opneem, wat so toe is, soos tupperware? Dit is seker jou eie reg.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2009 at 22:31

  12. Hans Matthysen wrote (18 Feb 09 at 11:03 pm):

    Con-tester, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles have never changed

    That makes sense, seeing as they’ve been dead these past couple of thousand years. Still, it’s the interpretation thereof that keeps changing, which strongly suggests that they should have spoken more clearly.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (18 Feb 09 at 11:03 pm):

    Dogma of Churches have changed, yes but not that of the true vine.

    There you go once more: You know the True Vine™® (℗ & © 325 A.D.*). Well, good for you.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (18 Feb 09 at 11:03 pm):

    Maybe you should define what is your perception of a “few”, in regard to this discussion.

    Obviously only those who agree with you and those with whom you agree.

    _____________________
    * 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 A.D. et seq.

    Con-Tester

    February 19, 2009 at 09:38

  13. Hans, ek haal jou aan:
    “I have been granted clarity of sight, as it is not something that could be mastered by man, for man to boast about.”
    Ek is geneig om mense wat sulke goed kwytraak nie ernstig op te neem nie. Sterkte met die VOORuitsigte!

    Fredericke Adonis

    February 19, 2009 at 08:25

  14. Con-tester, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles have never changed. Dogma of Churches have changed, yes but not that of the true vine.
    Maybe you should define what is your perception of a “few”, in regard to this discussion.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2009 at 23:03

  15. Hans Matthysen, you really do seem totally incapable of following a coherent line of argument, or to respond to it rationally or consequently. That must come from being one of the very few Chosen People who know the One Eternal and Immutable Truth™® (℗ & © 325 A.D.*) which turns them into rubber ducks.

    _____________________
    * 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 A.D. et seq.

    Con-Tester

    February 3, 2009 at 08:37

  16. Nathan, you have just written words of wisdom, as God is not a graven image. God is the Word, Love, Light (understanding), Spirit and is opposed to hate, darkness (not to understand) and the lack of Word, is a lack of power. The spiritual is detectable with a spiritual eye (understanding) and not with a eye of flesh or a carnal eye.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 2, 2009 at 22:39

  17. Con-tester, in regard to the OT, it is not for us to decide, but rather, it is for to understand.

    I have been granted clarity of sight, as it is not something that could be mastered by man, for man to boast about.

    Again you don’t want to acknowledge the truth and so you make up unfounded lies. About family members against each other, I have already clarified that in the context it was written/said. Again, division is not violence.

    I do agree with you, that far to many are missing the point and are therefore not getting the correct message. It is not only my view as I am certain you don’t believe a snake can talk either.

    Not one of us live strictly according to our roll model, although we strive to and that doesn’t mean, we are automatically condemned to hell. I am therefore not dodging anything and it is also not for me to judge anyone.

    I just stated a fact, so please tell me, where or how am I denying anything? Scientists differ at times, Geologists, Family, Chefs, Politicians ect. Should all then be opposed?

    In the eye’s of all religions, evidence on this blog favours the idea, that atheism is a bucket of manure.

    Many verifiable truths are born out of imaginings. You are just not willing to verify testimonies about the truth with the applicable measures.

    I am thankful for the insight I have, in regard to the Bible. My main aim, is to share it with others, so that they also can be as thankful as I and I find nothing arrogant about that. I may feel more privileged than others, yet I don’t regard myself superior to others. My prayer is that all would become more advanced in these matters.

    Your understanding of God is depraved, inconsistent and it would appear, that you have studied yourself into confusion, in regard to Him.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 2, 2009 at 22:15

  18. “… the OT is symbolic and has many messages…”

    If the Prodigal Son’s a parable, and if Adam and Eve are metaphors, then maybe God is just figure of speech.
    ~ Former preacher and co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker.

    Nathan Bond

    January 27, 2009 at 13:04

  19. Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    Con-tester, the OT is symbolic and has many messages…

    That symbolism makes it all alright then. I mean the horror and slaughter and bloodshed and gratuitous violence. The genocide and infanticide. The admonitions, on pain of death, against certain behaviours. All of that’s alright because they are, after all, only symbolic. It’s hard to decide whether the OT itself or that view of it is more offensive.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    … you would have got the message.

    Clearly, my denseness precludes the clarity of sight that you have mastered. Please explain the message to a limited mortal such as I.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    About violence following Christians; it would appear that Jesus encountered the same problem and the cause thereof was not His doing.

    Yes, it was his virgin-raping dad’s doing. Still, your proxy-god spoke of himself as bringing not peace but a sword, to pit people and family members against one another – i.e. clearly promoting violence – all so that people would be scared into loving him. Nice.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    Pertaining to common sense; a snake cannot talk (Gen. 3) and should someone think otherwise, I would think that they are missing a point.

    Trouble is, there are far too many people who do, according to your view, “missing a point” by taking this crap literally. More, they’ll say you are the one missing the point. So who’s right? Yet more, your view that these things are symbolic and subject to common sense shelters the more literal-minded contingent by saying it’s okay to believe in these fairytales’ symbolism. Even more, there are no indications in your so-called “holy book” to signify which parts should be read symbolically and which literally.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    I didn’t condemn, I only stated a fact and what you read in that, is not what I said.

    Come now, Hans Matthysen, this dodging isn’t honest. Within the framework of your beliefs, the implications of your statement that Irish Christians “are not acting according to the example set by Jesus” are clear: they are not proper Christians, therefore heretics, therefore they’re going to hell – eternally – unless they convert to your high-fidelity view. That’s condemnation in any usual meaning of that word.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    I am not brushing anything under the carpet and even said, that they are not following the roll model.

    Are you denying that Christians are at one another over questions of doctrine? Or are you once again presuming to know better than all of those Christians who disagree with you? Because so far every time a different take on said doctrine is brought to your attention, your response has been that those whose interpretation differs from yours are in error for not following the True Teaching™. And that’s nothing less than attempting to sweep the differences under the carpet. Clearly, you think that you cannot be wrong on any of those issues. That’s the essence of the problem with all religious believers: they leave no room for doctrinal errors. That’s why religion will always, by its very nature, promote violence. That’s why it must be opposed.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    Verifiable evidence; just read this blog as it is evidence plenty.

    By far the preponderance of verifiable evidence on this blog favours the idea that religion is a bucket of manure sans the bucket.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    You asked a question and I gave you a true answer or do you prefer that I tell you lies.

    No, I’d prefer that you tell verifiable truths, not what you imagine the truth is. There’s a difference.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    How can that be arrogant, as I have never boasted in/of myself.

    It is arrogant by direct implication. To borrow and adapt slightly an analogy of Carl Sagan’s, if I tell you that I have a green, fire-breathing dragon in my garage but can offer no credible evidence for it, and then tell you that you can’t experience him in any way because you aren’t sufficiently advanced in these matters, I’m being arrogant. Supremely so. And that’s just what you’re doing with your god.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (26 Jan 09 at 11:40 pm):

    Evil is in the eye of the beholder…

    Indeed: as beheld by you, opposing your god and his/her depraved, inconsistent conduct is evil.

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2009 at 12:54

  20. Con-tester, the OT is symbolic and has many messages and should you remember what Jesus said, about Abraham’s wives, you would have got the message.
    About violence following Christians; it would appear that Jesus encountered the same problem and the cause thereof was not His doing.
    Pertaining to common sense; a snake cannot talk (Gen. 3) and should someone think otherwise, I would think that they are missing a point.
    I didn’t condemn, I only stated a fact and what you read in that, is not what I said. We are judged by the “word” and by the “truth” and not by man. You should also take in consideration, that forgiveness is also possible. I am not brushing anything under the carpet and even said, that they are not following the roll model.
    Verifiable evidence; just read this blog as it is evidence plenty.
    You asked a question and I gave you a true answer or do you prefer that I tell you lies. How can that be arrogant, as I have never boasted in/of myself. (My roem is in Christus) Evil is in the eye of the beholder and that was the cause of the Scribes ect. to persecute Jesus ect.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2009 at 23:40

  21. Hans Matthysen wrote (23 Jan 09 at 4:19 pm):

    Con-tester, you quoted verses out of the Bible, trying to imply, that Christianity preaches violence. I proved you wrong and you seem not capable of acknowledging the truth.

    No, I cited bible verses that clearly call into question the claim that your proxy-god was an unequivocal figure of peace. That is not the same thing as implying that your religion preaches violence. The fact is that the OT does preach violence, that Jaycee is the output of the same god found in the OT and that violence seems to follow Christianity whenever it meets something not to its (arbitrary) liking. I presented some evidence and you seem not willing to see what it indicates.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (23 Jan 09 at 4:19 pm):

    On the basis of common sense, I can say, that I understand the message correctly

    So everyone who has a different understanding to yours is deficient in common sense. Besides, there’s no common sense that I can see in believing in something for which no evidence exists. Quite the opposite, actually.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (23 Jan 09 at 4:19 pm):

    I never condemned anybody and you have deviated from the point.

    You condemned Irish Christians of various denominations by stating that they “are not acting according to the example set by Jesus,” implying that they are therefore not proper Christians and will furthermore not be rewarded with “eternal life.” The point is that Christians are going at one another, something you try to brush under the carpet by simply saying, “Not true Christians!” If anyone here is deviating from that point, I think everyone can clearly see who that really is.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (23 Jan 09 at 4:19 pm):

    What is obvious to me, are the outrageous lengths and the tortured contortions of reason, that atheists will marshal, in attempting to attack religion. There seems to be a lot you don’t realise and the “low tactic”, well, we need to descend before we can ascend.

    Plagiarism, eh? Pointing out my deficient mental acuity and some tired old folk clichés aside, do you have anything verifiable with which to substantiate any of the above? Otherwise, one might be tempted to think that you just made all of that up.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (23 Jan 09 at 4:19 pm):

    As Jesus opened the minds of His Disciples to understand the scriptures, on the same basis, I have received the same privilege.

    And yet once more, if anyone disagrees with you, they are not as “privileged” as you. Have you any idea how ultimately arrogant that stance is?

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2009 at 18:46

  22. Con-tester, you quoted verses out of the Bible, trying to imply, that Christianity preaches violence. I proved you wrong and you seem not capable of acknowledging the truth.
    There is no contradiction, Christianity does not preach violence or is there some other point under discussion?
    On the basis of common sense, I can say, that I understand the message correctly?
    I never condemned anybody and you have deviated from the point.
    What is obvious to me, are the outrageous lengths and the tortured contortions of reason, that atheists will marshal, in attempting to attack religion. There seems to be a lot you don’t realise and the “low tactic”, well, we need to descend before we can ascend.
    As Jesus opened the minds of His Disciples to understand the scriptures, on the same basis, I have received the same privilege.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 23, 2009 at 16:19

  23. Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:18 pm):

    Con-tester, verdeeldheid tussen partye is nie noodwendig oorlog nie.

    Nor did I claim any such thing.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:18 pm):

    Toe ek van my tradisionele geloof…

    Your story illustrates the point very well: completely unnecessary familial friction over some illusory nothing that pretends to promote peace, love and harmony. Can’t you see the contradiction? The absurdity?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:18 pm):

    [D]it is dus net die boodskap wat nie reg verstaan word nie.

    But on what basis can you imply that you understand the message correctly?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:18 pm):

    It should be clear to you, that the people in Ireland are not acting according to the example set by Jesus.

    See, there you go again, presuming to speak for JC, condemning those who would very probably do you harm for impugning their faith. I suggest you take a trip to Belfast and have a good look at what belief in your proxy-god can do to people.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:18 pm):

    Christianity is therefore not to blame and I would think that with your vast knowledge, you would be able to realize that.

    Please don’t attempt to butter me up. I consider it a low tactic. I realise no such thing. What is obvious to me are the outrageous lengths and the tortured contortions of reason that people will marshal in attempting to defend the indefensible.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:18 pm):

    Christianity started from the N.T., showing us how to live as the great roll model, J C. The wars in the O. T. are symbolic and bear messages for us, yet it is clear, few understand them.

    And once again, on what basis can you imply that you understand the symbolism, both that of your role model and that of the OT wars, correctly? In any case, the OT symbolism of an allegedly loving god commanding and visiting a smorgasbord of horrors on various peoples smacks of a tyrannical, “Fear me, or else!” message.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2009 at 09:04

  24. Con-tester, verdeeldheid tussen partye is nie noodwendig oorlog nie. Toe ek van my tradisionele geloof waarin ek groot geword het, verander na waar ek nou is, het daar verdeeldheid ontstaan tussen myself en van my familie. Ons is nog almal lief vir mekaar en is net verdeel wat ons geloof betref. “Violence” is dus nie hier ter sprake nie en dit is dus net die boodskap wat nie reg verstaan word nie.
    It should be clear to you, that the people in Ireland are not acting according to the example set by Jesus. Christianity is therefore not to blame and I would think that with your vast knowledge, you would be able to realize that.
    “Actually, if you had thought about it, you’d’ve realised that Christianity needs no help from me to run it down. It does a sterling job all by itself.”
    I can agree on this sentence, but the rest I think is manure.
    Christianity started from the N.T., showing us how to live as the great roll model, J C. The wars in the O. T. are symbolic and bear messages for us, yet it is clear, few understand them.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 22, 2009 at 22:18

  25. Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Jan 09 at 10:36 pm):

    However, my point remains, that Christianity does not teach violence.

    Is that so? Then you are ignoring most of your chosen religion’s history and your so-called holy book, too. Even your central hero-figure isn’t the complete innocent you paint him to be. See, for example, Matthew 10:34-39 and Luke 12:49-53.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Jan 09 at 10:36 pm):

    Those Christians defending [sic] themselves against violence, are not doing it in the name of Christianity and are rather following their natural instinct of survival by defending [sic] themselves.

    Really? And what of those Christians on the offensive? By your rationale, they don’t qualify as Christians but still they’ll fuck you up even just for raising that possibility. Perhaps also, you’d care to provide us with cogent accounts of certain violent frictions occurring in various places across the globe where different versions of Christianity are the pivotal issue. Maybe you can start with the situation in Ireland.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Jan 09 at 10:36 pm):

    The story above is therefore a distortion you are trying to use to down run Christianity.

    Actually, if you had thought about it, you’d’ve realised that Christianity needs no help from me to run it down. It does a sterling job all by itself. I just occasionally point it out to those apparently too enamoured with its precepts to see that the only difference between religion and a bucket of manure is the bucket.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (15 Jan 09 at 10:36 pm):

    If you new what is written in the Qur’an… Only those with the lack of faith in Christ and knowledge in this regard, would take your vendetta seriously.

    I do know of several suras in thequr’an advocating direct and bloody vengeance on the infidel – very similar, in fact, to the Christian OT sky-tyrant-cum-warmonger. And have you heard of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? You’ve just emitted a variant thereof.

    Con-Tester

    January 16, 2009 at 11:12

  26. Con-tester, I can agree with you and maybe I still have much to overcome. I will however in many instances, when in conflict with others, including my superiors, rather be the least, in other words, back off although I may be right or not guilty.
    However, my point remains, that Christianity does not teach violence. Those Christians defending themselves against violence, are not doing it in the name of Christianity and are rather following their natural instinct of survival by defending themselves. The story above is therefore a distortion you are trying to use to down run Christianity. If you new what is written in the Qur’an, you would know, that we are regarded as “infidel’s” (non-believers of Islam) and we are to be wiped out. Only those with the lack of faith in Christ and knowledge in this regard, would take your vendetta seriously.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 15, 2009 at 22:36

  27. Hans Matthysen, I think you’re being a bit self-contradictory. On the one hand, you claim to be following The One True Message Of Christianity™(℗ & © ±300 A.D.), which consists in “not defending oneself” and “resisting violence,” as per Jaycee’s example. On the other hand, you say that if someone poses a threat to you in your own house, you will defend yourself and your family, which indicates a willingness to not resist violence, contrary to the aforesaid Christian message.

    Also, you indicate that your reaction would be one born of nature rather than religious conviction. The vast majority of living creatures have instinctual self-preservation, known colloquially as the “fight or flight” response. But if the “fight” part is contrary to your god’s message, why would s/he insert that particular element in said instinctive response in the first place?

    Con-Tester

    January 15, 2009 at 12:45

  28. You both are missing a point; Jesus did not defend Himself and was an example in resisting violence. That is the message of Christianity, as also in the Old Testament, Psm. 23. He spread the table before me in front of my enemies, why, so that we can seek a solution through dialog. Many wars have taken place that have nothing to do with religion, so your point in running down Christianity is irrelevant. If someone breaks into my house and is a threat to me, I will defend myself and my family and it would not be a war of religions, but rather a response of nature.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 14, 2009 at 23:07

  29. But once again, it’s the fault of all those other heathens, hecklers and heretics, not us! Never us! I mean, we know the truth and we’d never… No, never us.

    Yeah, right.

    Con-Tester

    December 1, 2008 at 22:40


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: