Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Absolute proof of absolutely nothing

with 98 comments

Antony and Cleopatra I.i.34. O excellent! I love long life more than figs.

As You Like It I.iii.42. Unregarded age in corners thrown.

Coriolanus IV.i.1. The beast with many heads butts me away.

Cymbeline II.ii.37. On her left breast a mole cinque-spotted, the the crimson drops I’ the bottom of a cowslip.

Hamlet I.i.77. This sweaty haste coth make the night joint-labourer with the day.

Julius Ceasar I.i.1. Is this a holiday?

King Lear IV.i.27. So long as we can say, ‘This is the worst.’

Love’s Labour’s Lost I.i.152. I am forsworn ‘on mere neccessity.

Macbeth II.1.4. Their candles are all out.

Measure for Measure II.1.81. And hug it in my arms

The Merchant of Venice I.ii.43. He doth nothing but talk of his horse.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream I.ii.16. Masters, spread yourselves.

Othello III.i.8. O! Thereby hangs a tail.

Pericles, Prince of Tyre I.i 12. See where she comes apparell’d like the spring.

Romeo and Juliet V.i.24. Is it even so? then I defy you, stars.

The Tempest IV.i.221. I do begin to have bloody thoughts.

Timon of Athens III.vi.96. Uncover, dogs, and lap.

Titus Andronicus IV.1.34. And so beguile thy sorrow.

Troilus and Cressida IV.ii.72. How my achievements mock me!

Twelfth Night I.iii.90. I am a great eater of beef.

The Two Gentlemen of Verona II.ii.71. Much is the force of heaven-bred poesy.

The Rape of Lucrece 1.1611. And now this pale swan in her watery nest begins the sad dirge of her certain ending.

Written by Nathan Bond

February 21, 2010 at 08:42

Posted in Religion must go!

98 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Should man live as God willed, the world would be a better place.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 21, 2010 at 18:21

  2. Welkom terug, Hans. Hoe was Griekeland? Het jy so ‘n bietjie opgelees oor die griekse gode? Dit is ‘n lekkr jolly spul. Dis by hulle waar die mens geleer het om jou buurman se vrou te naai, die ander buurman dood te maak, en dan tot die gode te kla as jy op jou moer kry. Baie beter spul gode as Jesus, sy pa en die spook waaraan julle glo. Miskien moet julle upgrade.

    Savage

    July 7, 2010 at 08:02

  3. Hi there, been lurking around here a few times and have found it very informative. I know its very naive in a sense but XTC summed it up quite clearly for me.

    Dear god, hope you get the letter and…
    I pray you can make it better down here
    I don’t mean a big reduction in the price of beer
    But all the people that you made in your image
    See them starving in the street
    ‘Cause they don’t get enough to eat from god
    I can’t believe in you

    Dear god, sorry to disturb you but…
    I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
    We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
    And all the people that you made in your image
    See them fighting in the street
    ‘Cause they can’t make opinions meet about god
    I can’t believe in you

    Did you make disease and the diamond blue?
    Did you make mankind after we made you?
    And the devil too!

    Dear god don’t know if you noticed but…
    Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
    And us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look
    And all the people that you made in your image
    still believing that junk is true
    Well I know it ain’t, and so do you
    Dear god
    I can’t believe in
    I don’t believe

    I won’t believe in heaven or hell
    No saints, no sinners, no devil as well
    No pearly gates, no thorny crown
    You’re always letting us humans down
    The wars you bring, the babes you drown
    Those lost at sea and never found
    And it’s the same the whole world ’round
    The hurt I see helps to compound
    That father, son and holy ghost
    Is just somebody’s unholy hoax
    And if you’re up there you’ll perceive
    That my heart’s here upon my sleeve
    If there’s one thing I don’t believe in

    It’s you

    Herman

    July 6, 2010 at 12:44

  4. Hans, you are blind to perfectly legitimate questions. You are also blind to your own blindness.

    Con-Tester

    July 6, 2010 at 11:48

  5. Con-Tester, you are rich in the knowledge of man and is probably the cause of you blindness to the everlasting.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 6, 2010 at 11:02

  6. Hans, that’s all very, um, Christian of you, but how does it address the fact that you’re living, to borrow a phrase, in a bubble of delusion brought on by mistakenly taking your so-called “holy” book as more than just a bunch of old fairytales?

    Con-Tester

    June 13, 2010 at 11:52

  7. Con-Tester, I accept you as one who is confined to that which is carnal, due to your carnal mindedness. I shall never hold it against you as you are still a fellow soul and a soul, is worth more than all the riches of this world. The riches I refer to are not only gold, silver ect.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 12, 2010 at 19:33

  8. Hans, the bible really, really is a book of fairytales. It’s only believers who are too pigheaded to see it. To see it, you don’t need to be an authority or have a “spiritual (minds) eye” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to be). All you need to do is look at the world and the broken thinking of believers such as you.

    Con-Tester

    June 7, 2010 at 21:10

  9. Con-Tester, so you admit you do not have a spiritual (minds) eye, yet you deem yourself the authority, to lable the Bible as a book of fairy tales.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 7, 2010 at 20:53

  10. Hans, you are not capable of having a debate on anything other than your so-called “holy” book. In particular, you are not capable of recognising that it is filled with fairytales because you think that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t know how to read those fairytales “spiritually” – whatever that may mean. In short, you’re whole repetitive presentation is complete and utter nonsense.

    Con-Tester

    May 25, 2010 at 20:22

  11. Con-Tester, you are not capable of having a debate in regard to the contents of the Bible.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 25, 2010 at 20:17

  12. The sum total of your “reaction” to 400+ contradictions, Hans, is to make up exactly two lukewarm fairytales that everyone can see are total bullshit. Try again, Hans.

    Con-Tester

    May 19, 2010 at 21:18

  13. Con-Tester, one must be as a child, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and I have already reacted on your 400+ so called contradictions.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 19, 2010 at 20:51

  14. Hans, take note, those 400+ contradictions remain because your ability to make stuff up as needed (instead of, just for example, providing compelling argument) is hardly in question. And your childish repetition of, “No contradictions!” is about as convincing as your dim-witted approach that, summarised, goes thus: “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book. You can’t prove me wrong.” Well, Hans you can’t prove you’re right and you are apparently unable to grasp that you have the burden of proof. This has been pointed out to you many, many times, yet you obstinately carry on doing the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result. The usual definition of such behaviour is “lunacy.”

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2010 at 10:23

  15. Con-Tester, take note, no contradiction.
    Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2010 at 09:22

  16. Hans, you presume wrong. So, according to you, he was justified by faith that led to pious actions. But the other verses say he was justified by his deeds. Nowhere does your so-called “holy” book speak of an interdependence of faith and action in Abraham’s case. That’s something you just made up to escape the obvious: the either-or contradiction that remains.

    Just like the other 400+.

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2010 at 00:03

  17. Con-Tester, you live according to what you believe, so your faith has deeds, that justifies what you believe.
    Abraham was therefore justified by his faith and therefore he had justifiable deeds. I presume you have the intellect to grasp the above. Still no contradiction.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 6, 2010 at 22:47

  18. Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 21:49):

    Con-Tester, again, no contradiction because at the time Abraham was to offer Isak, he was the only son, at that stage.

    But Hans, the one chapter of your so-called “holy” book speaks of justification through faith alone, while the other speaks of both together as essential. “No contradiction,” you say. “Explain it,” I say. “Blah, blah, wibble, wobble, yadda-yadda, bullshit, kafuffle,” you say. “Bullshit,” I say. And then you go off and say, “Ha, you can’t prove me wrong.” Well Hans, that’s true. Nor am I interested in proving your nonsense wrong because nonsense is in most cases self-evidently nonsense. But if you took the trouble to make sense, I’d take the trouble of taking your arguments more seriously, feeble as the ones are that aspire to a semblance of sense. As it is, there are none of them.

    Now answer the question, please: Was Abraham justified by sacrificing his son (as commanded by your skydaddy) or because he acquiesced (never mind the horror of killing your own son) in the full acceptance that it was what your skydaddy wanted?

    And don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is your god testing you, see? Because if it were, it would raise some grave dilemmas concerning your god’s morality.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 21:49):

    This is surely just a wast of time and trouble.

    Only in your imagination, Hans. It goes towards your ability of presenting a coherent defence of your beliefs. So far, all we’ve seen is a series of transparent kak.

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2010 at 22:22

  19. Con-Tester, again, no contradiction because at the time Abraham was to offer Isak, he was the only son, at that stage.
    This is surely just a wast of time and trouble.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 30, 2010 at 21:49

  20. Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 17:41):

    Con-Tester, I have dealt with no. 1…

    Only in your imagination, Hans.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 17:41):

    Read from verse 17 to 26, of James 2 and it is clear, no contradiction.

    Only in your imagination, Hans.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 17:41):

    Read also further than verse 2 of Romans 4 and you will find that there is no contradiction.

    Only in your imagination, Hans.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 17:41):

    One’s faith is the cause of things one does.

    Only in your imagination, Hans.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (April 30, 2010 at 17:41):

    This is just a wast of time and a lot of trouble.

    Only in your imagination, Hans.

    But maybe if you took the trouble of explaining all of it in your own words, Hans, we could get somewhere. Because, so far, you haven’t explained anything. All you’ve done is deflect and make stuff up and hoped that nobody would notice. It’s time for some honest reflection, please!

    defollyant

    April 30, 2010 at 19:54

  21. Con-Tester, I have dealt with no. 1, on the so-called contradiction list and here is no. 2:
    Rom. 4 v 2 and Jam. 2 v 21. Read from verse 17 to 26, of James 2 and it is clear, no contradiction.
    Read also further than verse 2 of Romans 4 and you will find that there is no contradiction.
    One’s faith is the cause of things one does.
    This is just a wast of time and a lot of trouble.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 30, 2010 at 17:41

  22. Screw-tin-eyes, die Bybel is vir die teenwoordige tyd geskryf en het niks te doen met, wat mense daardie tyd geweet het en wat ons nou weet asook wat mens in die toekoms sal weet.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2010 at 22:38

  23. Hans, om te dink is vir jou skynbaar onnodige baie werk. As jy nie die nodige moeite wil doen nie, dan wees eerlik genoeg om op te hou met dwaas kak praat.

    Maar net vir jou omdat ek ’n geduldige mens is, hier’s hulle vir jou. Weereens. (Net ingeval jy verbyster is, die blou teks is ’n skakel. Klik daarop.)

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2010 at 22:37

  24. Con-Tester, ek wil nie daarna teruggaan nie, want dit is vir my onnodige baie werk.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2010 at 22:31

  25. Op sy ou ramkiekie met nog net een snaar
    Speel Hans in ‘delusional bliss’ aanmekaar

    As ons almal hom aanhoor – so getik
    Brabbel hy voort, so in sy skik

    Wat gee hy tog om as ons sê hy is mal
    As ander hom aanhoor op die wal

    Al ons ou atties wat nooit sal verstaan
    As die sterre hom toeknik in sy maan

    Op sy ou ramkiekie met maar net een snaar
    Speel hy in die maanskyn deurmekaar

    Met erkenning en apologie aan die liedjieskrywer, Leipoldt.

    screw-tin-eyes

    April 6, 2010 at 06:33

  26. Hans, jy en Johannes – soos ek al voorheen gesê het = ‘peas in a pod’ ‘delusion’ bly nou maar ‘delusion’.

    Hans, jy is magteloos en onkapabel om jou geloof in jou God te verduidelik omdat dit nie kan sin maak nie. Jy probeer nou al vir hoe lank vir ons verduidelik jy glo, omdat die ou saamgeflanste oer-boek so sê.

    Maar verstaan jy dat ons nou baie meer weet as wat mense in daardie tyd geweet het, wat bewys het dat die Bybel ‘n klop strontstories is, opgestel deur mense wat gesamentlik baie minder geweet het as wat een enkele mens op sy eie vandag weet.

    Shit, man, daardie Bybelskrywers (of is dit jou alwetende God) het geglo die aarde is plat, die aarde draai om die son, ens. En jy is bereid om eerder dit te glo as wat bewys word in die wetenskap, wat die Bybel uitwys as mensgeskryfde ‘nonsense’.

    Jy is seker die mees ‘gullible-ste’ mens wat ek nog teëgekom het op ‘n blog.

    Wonder of jy in die daaglikse lewe ‘n ‘push-over’ is as jy so maklik geflous word.

    screw-tin-eyes

    April 6, 2010 at 06:05

  27. Hans, gaan eerder terug na die kommentaar waar ek jou ’n skakel gegee het as om verskonings te maak.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2010 at 23:12

  28. Con-Tester, haal jy eerder die sogenaamde weersprekings aan, wat jy wil hê ek eerste vir jou moet oplos en so kan ons stap vir stap deur al 400 gaan, as jy wil.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 22:28

  29. Hans, jy skuld nog so 400+ verduidelikings. So vêr, het jy net een mislike poging, ’n rits leuens en ’n klomp ontduikings op die tafel gesit.

    Toe nou man, bewys my verkeerd.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2010 at 22:26

  30. Savage, ek gee erkenning vir jou deeglike navorsing en neem tog kennis, dat baie ander kerke se predikers getoude mense is. Daar sal die persentasie heelwat verskil. Dit bevestig ook, dat dit nie ‘n goeie gedagte is, om Gay predikers aan te stel nie. Al ondersteun ek nie die RKK nie, is die grootste gedeelte van hulle goeie mense (90+%).

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 22:21

  31. ErickV, daar is ‘n lewe in Christus ook, ‘n ewige lewe.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 22:11

  32. Screw-tin-eyes, moet my tog nie verwar met Johannes nie, asseblief! Julle verstaan blykbaar ook nie wat ek vir julle verduidelik nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 22:10

  33. McBrolloks, julle adiote, het seker ook nie ‘n liggaam waaraan julle verbind is nie aangesien dit blyk, dat jy nie eers so ‘n eenvoudige saak kan verstaan nie. Ek wonder wie is nou eintlik die malletjie?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2010 at 22:06

  34. Hans, ek het die gedeelte vir jou lekker aangehaal. Loer gerus vir my kommentaar van Maart 22, 2010 om 9:00 nm. Die aangehaalde gedeelte wat jy Maart 22, 2010 om 8:18 nm. geskryf het, is ’n blatante leuen. Eintlik twee leuens in een sin.

    Jy kan versoening vir dit doen om my te onthaal met jou patetiese pogings om nog so 400+ bybelweersprekings te “verduidelik.”

    Con-Tester

    April 1, 2010 at 09:05

  35. Hans, jy skryf “..een gelowige uit ‘n miljoen doen ‘n slegte daad.”, en toe ek jou op jou onsin wys, skryf jy “Savage, wanneer het jy sensus gedoen om die teendeel te bewys?”

    Hans, jy doen nie juis veel moeite om feite te bekom nie, nè? Hier is een van baie ondersoeke wat gedoen is oor die verkragting van kinders deur die RKK.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex20.htm#sur

    4% van die priesters in die ondersoek is/was kinder verkragters. Dit beteken 40,000 uit 1 miljoen, Hans, nie 1 uit 1 miljoen nie. Laat ek dit vir jou uitspel: veertig duisend uit een miljoen! Om van de kots. En jy lag die hele tragedie af want “.. een gelowige uit ‘n miljoen” is mos nie te bad nie, nè? Hoekom skiet jy so uit die heup uit, Hans? Ek sal ook ‘n skoot uit die heup waag: omdat jou onontwikkelde intuïsie jou nie toelaat om sulke afskuwelike dade aan gelowiges wat die Christen God aanbid, toe te dig nie.

    En laat ek jou verder skok, Hans. Die 4% word baie hoër geskat want die feite oor kinderverkragters se gruweldade kom nou die laaste twee dekades maar eers uit. Die verslae wat ek gelees het is ook baie skepties oor die syfers, want baie mense wil nie die gruwels wat hulle aangedoen is weer herleef nie, en bly maar liewerste stil.

    Sjoe, Hans, jy sê jy ondersteun nie die RKK nie, maar julle maak “interesting bed fellows” uit met jou gebrek aan feite navorsing oor hulle euwels.

    Savage

    April 1, 2010 at 08:45

  36. Hans, Hans, Hans, klim uit jou “evangelie” kokon uit! Daar is LEWE daarbuite!!!

    ErickV

    April 1, 2010 at 07:11

  37. Dieselfde geld vir jou Hans, Jy verstaan nie wat ons vir jou verduidelik nie.

    Ek is nogal kinderlik uitgelate en verras dat jy in hierdie draad nie een enkele bybelversie gebruik het nie. Daar is hoop🙂

    Jy’s okay nê ? Jy’t nie uit jou beswyming uitgeval of iets nie🙂

    screw-tin-eyes

    April 1, 2010 at 06:31

  38. Hans, is dit die versie waarvan jy praat?

    “(1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik.)”

    Ek moet erken, dit is fokken moeilik om dit te verstaan.

    Wie is die “julle”?

    Wat is die “lede”? Sy bene en arms?

    En wat de fok beteken hierdie mumbo jumbo?

    Jou jesus, as hy werklik bestaan het, was net ‘n gay hippie wat 2000 jaar gelede rond geswerf het en gefilosofeer het oor klomp goed. Big deal.

    Toe besluit ‘n ander klomp malletjies om hom of uit te dink, of ‘n god te maak, en ‘n hele nuwe geloof is daaruit gebore.

    Ha-ha, dis fokken snaaks, en jy en jou broers eet hierdie kak op asof dit koek is. He-he!!!!!!!!

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2010 at 23:35

  39. Con-Tester, wys my waar het ek gelieg?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 23:31

  40. McBrolloks, geloof het evolusie ondergaan en is nie van iets anders gesteel nie. Ek glo ook in evolusie en is glad nie teen die Wetenskap nie en die Bybel ook nie. Jy verstaan duidelik nie waaroor die Bybel se boodskappe gaan en ek wonder of jy werklik, dit ooit wil verstaan?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 23:29

  41. ErickV, jy het nog nooit die waarheid van die Evangelie deelagtig geword nie en was maar net blootgestel aan dogma’s. Die wat daardie boeke geskryf het, waarna jy verwys, is, of was, in dieselfde bootjie as jy. In die land van die blindes is ‘n een oog koning.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 23:15

  42. Screw-tin-eyes, die Bybel is juis die plan waarvolgens Christenne behoort op te tree en dit is juis omdat hulle buite die Bybel optree, dat misbruik van die naam van Christus plaasvind. Bush is nie deur die Heilige Gees gelei nie en jy weet self wie was sy raadgewers. Bush het nie in die naam van Christus of Jesus die oorlog aangesit nie, maar wel in die naam van menseregte en vryheid of miskien ander duistere redes.
    Die Romeine het reeds Jesus en die Apostels probeer uitwis en die RKK tot stand gebring, dus is geen oorlog wat die RKK gevoer het van Jesus of Christus. Baie oorloë is moontlik onder die dekmantel van Christendom gevoer en is strydig die voorbeeld wat Jesus en die Apostels daar gestel het. Ek reken jy is die een wat baie kak kwyt raak.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 23:07

  43. Savage, wanneer het jy sensus gedoen om die teendeel te bewys? Kom tog met ‘n realistiese teenstelling, as daar so iets sou bestaan of erken nou maar my punt, asseblief man.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 22:47

  44. Screw-tin-eyes, ek het al, vele maal, bybelversies (nie langes nie)aangehaal en jou het nog nie my verstaan daarvan, verkeerd bewys nie. Die laaste wat ek aangehaal het, het geen sinvolle reaksie van enige van julle uitgelok.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2010 at 22:41

  45. Hans
    Ek sal dit opreg waardeer indien jy jou kennis ‘n bietjie meer sal verbreed (indien jy kan) deur die volgende na te slaan (google):
    “The Age Of Reason” (1794) deur Thomas Paine en ook Voltaire (1694 – 1778) se skrywes te bestudeer.
    Dit het my ook tot my sinne finaal laat kom.
    Maar ongelukkig het jy net een boek van fabels beskikbaar en het geen ander kennis nodig nie en weier om die oogklappe af te haal. Jy luister net na die brommers in jou kop.

    ErickV

    March 23, 2010 at 12:20

  46. Hans skryf: “Screw-tin-eyes, Jesus and his Apostle’s clearly never preach a gospel of destruction as some Moslem’s do.”

    Dis nie die punt nie. Mense doen dit egter in sy naam, want sy boodskap word so opgeneem.

    Duidelik is jou wêreld baie klein en jou leesstof uiters beperk. Waar wil jy hê moet mens begin met die oorloë wat in Christelike geloof gevoer is ??

    Kom ek gee vir jou een wat jy seker kan onthou. Die oorlog deur Amerika teen Irak. George Bush het ‘n direkte opdrag van God (Jesus, HG) gekry om hierdie oorlog te voer, volgens hom. Jy kan hom nie verkeerd bewys nie, Hans.

    Meer mense is in die naam van Jesus gedood as in enige ander naam in die geskiedenis.

    Crusades, Franse oorlog tussen RKK en Christene, 30 Jarige oorlog, ens.

    Die OT is deurspek met oorlog en bloedvergieting.

    Begin bietjie lees buite jou Bybel. Jy doen jouself nie ‘n guns deur sulke onverdunde k@k te praat nie.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 23, 2010 at 07:16

  47. “..een gelowige uit ‘n miljoen doen ‘n slegte daad.”

    Hans, wanneer het jy hierdie sensus gedoen? Of is dit “more lies for Jesus”? Die pous en al die kardinale en biskoppe wat hierdie kinderverkragters vir eeue beskerm het (en self lekker meegedoen het aan) en dit nog steeds doen, is net so skuldig as die perpetreerders. Maar in plaas van beskaamd te staan vir jou mede Christene se euwels, praat jy dit ligtelik af asof die nie juis bestaan nie. Sjoe, jou redenasies bly verstommend!

    Savage

    March 23, 2010 at 07:06

  48. Hans skryf: “Screw-tin-eyes, of course I can prove that your understanding of the Bible is incorrect.”

    Doen, be my guest, as-joe-blief, maar die voorwaarde is om nie lang bybelversies aan te haal nie. 🙂

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 23, 2010 at 07:03

  49. Screw-tin-eyes, Jesus and his Apostle’s clearly never preach a gospel of destruction as some Moslem’s do.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 21:08

  50. Jammer Con-Tester, maar dis deel van die goeie werk wat mense soos Hans moet uitrig, op ‘n daaglikse basis.

    Dit staan bekend as:

    “Lies for jesus”

    McBrolloks

    March 22, 2010 at 21:07

  51. Hans Matthysen skryf (Maart 22, 2010 om 8:18 nm.):

    Ek het reeds ‘n paar verkeerd bewys, waarop ek geen reaksie van geen een gekry het nie.

    Hans, hou op om so vreeslik te lieg, man. Jy doen jouself geen gunste nie.

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2010 at 21:00

  52. Savage, een gelowige uit ‘n miljoen doen ‘n slegte daad, nou is al die gelowiges skuldig. Julle redenasie is maar primatief vir sogenaamde belese mense.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 20:55

  53. Screw-tin-eyes, of course I can prove that your understanding of the Bible is incorrect.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 20:50

  54. Hans, Hans, Hans……………

    Wat goed is dit om te glo jy verstaan die bybel beter as iemand wat glo dis alles ‘n klomp kak. Savage en die ander verstaan dat die bybel ‘n ou boek is wat deur ‘n klomp ignorant bok herders geskryf is.

    As die bybel jou handboek van die lewe is, voel ek baie jammer vir jou en die mense om jou.

    Jou gode is in elk geval gesteel van gelowe wat baie ouer as christendom is. Jesus en al sy stories was duisende jare voor christendom deur ‘n ander klomp mense vertel. Dis maar net aan geneem en hernu, om ‘n nuwe geloof te pas.

    En die apostels en die ander narre wat die nuwe testament geskryf het was maar baie bygelowig en heentemal die klits kweit.

    Hoe de fok enige iemand kan se hy verstaan die bybel weet die vader alleen. Dis ‘n klomp kak wat deur ‘n klomp dom poesse geskryf is. En deur nog ‘n klomp dommer mense geglo word, in vandag se wereld. Dis eintelik baie kinderagtig vir groot mense om in sulke kak fairy tales te glo.

    En moet nie eers praat van al die moord en verkragtings en slawerny en kanibalisme wat in god se naam direk gepleeg word in die bybel nie. Jy moet regtig siek in die brein wees om so ‘n boek as jou redding te volg.

    But then again, mense wat so glo het ‘n virus in hulle breine, wat julle kritiese denk vermoens stadig verwoes en dit onmoontelik maak om enige redelike optredes van julle af te verwag nie.

    So, jy kan maar glo jy verstaan daardie ou boek beter as enige iemand anders, maar dit gaan ons nie oortuig dat jy reg is nie. Jy sien, ons het nie die intelektuelle tekortkominge om in sulke kak te kan glo nie. Die dag wat ek weer bid, is die dag wat ek weet ek moet vinnig gaan hulp soek iewers, want daar is nou groot fout met my brein.

    McBrolloks

    March 22, 2010 at 20:46

  55. Savage, I believe in the beginning of my existence and that is what the Bible is about, so don’t confuse it with the Big Bang. All you know, in your life, since your beginning, has come about by the word.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 20:44

  56. Hans
    Dis juis jou nederigheid en objektiewe versugting na kennis wat jou so bemind (endearing) maak.

    Nathan Bond

    March 22, 2010 at 20:36

  57. Savage, it is a fact that I understand the Bible better than any of you.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 20:33

  58. ErickV, ek wil nie oor gelowe praat nie en eerder oor wat in die Bybel geskryf staan.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 20:25

  59. Con-Tester, the measures you refer to only ascertain whether your life is still in your body or not.
    I think you are missing out on a whole new world and that is a shame.
    Nog jy, nog ander gelowiges, is in staat om my verstaan van die Bybel te weerlê.
    Die 400+ sogenaamde weersprekings is vals omdat julle nie verstaan wat julle lees nie. Ek het reeds ‘n paar verkeerd bewys, waarop ek geen reaksie van geen een gekry het nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2010 at 20:18

  60. Never maaind hoe hulle nog in die RKK bly.

    Hoe, met al die media berigte van die vergrype, kan ouers in hulle ‘right mind’ nog hulle kinders toelaat om ‘choir boys en girls’ word.

    Mens sou dink die rede sal seevier bo die ge-‘brag’ dat hulle kinders altaarknapies/meisies is.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 21, 2010 at 17:43

  61. Wel, nonne kan darem nog tevrede gehou word as hulle in die kloosters se komkommerlande kan werk; dis die katoolse priesters wat onder die idiotiese selibaatsregulasie vou wat ekstra werk vir hulle hande soek.
    Godsk!, wat ‘n fôkkin siék spul is die katole nie!
    Hoe bly ‘n ma en ‘n pa van ‘n gemolesteerde kind nog deel van dié vrotsleg kerk? Vrees vir die hel!?
    Godiote! Hulle laat my kots.

    Nathan Bond

    March 21, 2010 at 09:06

  62. Ek mag dalk nou my boeke op-mix, maar was dit in ‘Sewe Dae by die Silbersteins’ (Etienne le Roux) waar die jong meisie ‘n blik-broeks met ‘n slot moes dra.

    Ek sien dit is ook vir Barbie Visser aanbeveel as sy tronk toe gaan.

    Kan dit werk vir die nonne en dan hou die ‘choir boys’ die sleutel.

    That would be a good turn of events🙂

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 21, 2010 at 08:48

  63. Thanks, Con-Tester, horror story upon horror story. (Is this how Christianity developed to the present dislocated, in-fighting, child-raping monster?) Perhaps today the RCC should adopt a law to castrate all prospective priests (as poor old Saint Ignatius had to experience as a child) to stop the child-raping. (Not too sure what to do about prospective nuns though.)

    Savage

    March 21, 2010 at 07:52

  64. Ek kyk een oggend CNN en hulle het ‘n onderhoud met ‘n meisie wat vertel hoe haar ouer broer (Moslem-terroris) haar sussie forseer het om ‘n bom om haar lyf vas te maak, in die kar met hom te klim en die verwoesting te gaan saai wat nou allerdaags vir ons is. Hoe die 9 of 10 jarige dogtertjie aan haar ma geklou het en nie wou gaan nie, en hoe die ma niks kon doen om te keer nie.

    Die ander storie wat iemand onder my aandag gebring het was van ‘n moslem paartjie, ongetroud, wat die meisie toe swanger geraak het. Hulle het geglo dat hulle deur dit met haar ouers te bespreek, hulle dinge sou kon uitwerk.

    Lang storie kort, pa het na die mufti (of wat hulle leier ookal is) gegaan en die ‘kerk’ het toe besluit sy moet gestenig word. Met ‘n wit rok aan is die vonnis voltrek van die arme meisiekind.

    Sulke goed op sy eie vertel my net: daar is geen God, daar is geen kerklike morele oordeel nie, daar is geen geloof wat kan sin maak nie. Geloof is net ‘n groot klomp kak.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 20, 2010 at 10:36

  65. But Savage, don’t you see? Child-raping Roman Catholics aren’t Real Christians™® (℗ & © 325 CE*).

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――
    * 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 CE. et seq.

    Con-Tester

    March 20, 2010 at 09:46

  66. Jys reg, screw-tin-eyes, hierdie ouens verwar my sowaar. Baie mense se redenasies verwar my totaal. Lees ‘n bietjie die redenasie van ‘n ene David Brown wat die Roomse Katolieke Kerk se kinder verkragting verdedig omdat, volgens hom, hulle niks slegter as ander is nie want daar is baie ander kinder verkragters. Maar Greta Christina vat hom aan en in geen onseker taal was sy die vloer met hom.

    http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/03/andrew-brown-catholic-child-rape.html

    Sy skryf regtig goed en noem Brown ‘n “.. fucking moral imbecile.”

    Die kak wat die gelowiges aanjaag is verstommend, maar somehow kry hulle dit reg om hulle optredes te regverdig. Hulle is almal “fucking moral imbeciles” in my oë. Maar soos jy tereg sê, in die oog van die aanskouer is hulle tog te heilig; alles in die naam van Jesus.

    Savage

    March 19, 2010 at 11:44

  67. Savage, jy verwar die twee delusionals, Hans (meme infected) en Johannes (2011 crack-pot) – but I can’t blame you. They are evolved-different birds of a feather, not flocking together anymore🙂

    Hans skryf: ‘Julle is ook nie in staat om my verstaan van die Bybel te weerlê nie’

    I have given Hans (and the like, because I know there are more like him) some thought. However, I don’t think someone who is this far gone into the delusion of religion can be helped.

    It’s not about us not reading the Word of God right, nor understanding the Word of God right.

    It’s all about a very subjective claim that we can’t proof, viz. the way Hans understands the Bible.

    It’s like the young man in love with a very ugly maiden. In his eyes though, she is beautiful because he is blinded by love. There is no way to ‘proof’ that she is not the beauty he perceives her to be.

    Hans jy kan ook nie bewys dat my verstaan van die Bybel verkeerd is nie.

    I think we are flogging a dead horse, but it’s fun 

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 19, 2010 at 10:31

  68. “The trouble, I think, is mostly that the premises on which believers like Hans base their arguments, they take to be self-evident and unassailable truths, whereas to us it is those very foundations themselves are flimsy for being ramshackle to the core.”

    Not so. You do not read what is written in The Word, do you Con-Tester?

    The Word was God, and God made The Word (or the other way round; chicken and egg problem. (God was a scientist, you can all see that now. (Big Bang and what happened before that.))) The argument is simple; God was first; or was it The Word? Shit Hans, you have me confused now.

    But come 2011, all will be clear; no mirrors will be there to reflect any doubt; we’ll see all the riddles as clear as mud.

    Savage

    March 18, 2010 at 19:54

  69. Savage wrote (March 18, 2010 at 4:44 am):

    Well, don’t you understand all the proofs Hans regularly dish up, Con-Tester?

    Savage, allow me to give a forthright answer because there’s a better-than-even chance that your sarcasm will be overlooked in certain quarters. I understand those “proofs” only too well – which is exactly why I reject them as woefully inadequate.

    Savage wrote (March 18, 2010 at 4:44 am):

    The Bible has proof for everything; perhaps too abstruse for us mere mortals to understand, but Hans I’m sure will explain when asked.

    If only Hans would furnish explanations instead of the perplexities and obfuscations that are meant to pass for them. The trouble, I think, is mostly that the premises on which believers like Hans base their arguments, they take to be self-evident and unassailable truths, whereas to us it is clear that those very foundations themselves are flimsy for being ramshackle to the core. In practice, this manifests as a huge disparity in the standard of proof that each side deems acceptable. Much of the rest of the trouble is many believers’ apparent inability to appreciate this point properly – I suspect that if they did, they’d soon enough stop being believers.

    Savage wrote (March 18, 2010 at 4:44 am):

    I’m sure we are not paying enough attention to Hans’ explanations…

    Evidently, he’d agree with you on that sentiment. I, on the other hand, wonder if we’re not paying exorbitant sums of attention to them, relative to their meritless banality…😛

    Con-Tester

    March 18, 2010 at 10:59

  70. “Hans, you can’t really be that obtuse about what it means to prove something, can you?”

    Well, don’t you understand all the proofs Hans regularly dish up, Con-Tester? The Bible has proof for everything; perhaps too abstruse for us mere mortals to understand, but Hans I’m sure will explain when asked.

    “No, Hans it is not a fact. If you think it’s a fact, you had better put some hard evidence on the table.”

    I’m sure we are not paying enough attention to Hans’ explanations by using endless Bible verses.

    Savage

    March 18, 2010 at 04:44

  71. Hans
    Soos Nathan (en nou ek ook) vir jou vra:
    AAN WATTER “GELOOF” (SEKTE) BEHOORT JY?
    Shit, dit is ‘n eenvoudige vraag, is jy ‘n moroon?

    ErickV

    March 17, 2010 at 18:29

  72. Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    Con-Tester, you try and discredit what you don’t want to understand.

    No, Hans. Once again: I discount what I understand to be dangerous nonsense, and what you’re pushing is unfounded nonsense that is dangerous because you think it’s all about love but has more to do with what you want to be true than what is demonstrably true.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    You will never receive proof of the spiritual as you don’t really want to.

    On the other hand, you will always receive it because you already “know” it to be true. Hans, you can’t really be that obtuse about what it means to prove something, can you?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    Spiritual objects are what one becomes aware of, that is not tangible and is observed by the minds eye.

    Right, so that tickle in my left palm and my dream house areboth spiritual.😆

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    The life in your body is not tangible…

    Tosh, Hans, utter tosh. There are objective measures for deciding whether I am alive or not, same as for everybody else, and including other organisms of a certain minimal complexity.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    Ask any person who has lost a limb and they will confirm, that they still feel the existence of that limb.

    Nothing “spiritual” about that. Read Ramachandran’s book Phantoms in the Brain for a basic understanding of how the brain conjures up such “ghost limbs.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    Should one lose one’s whole body, there are those whom feel, or observe with the minds eye, the existence of one.

    That’s called “wishful thinking.”

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 17, 2010 at 7:31 am):

    This is a fact and has been recorded by all mankind on earth, over generations.

    No, Hans it is not a fact. If you think it’s a fact, you had better put some hard evidence on the table. The fact that similar experiences pervade humanity across times and cultures can be taken as a sign of common psychological propensities, not proof of the existence of some fairytale mystical realm. But you believers simply can’t conceive of the possibility that you’re reading too much into things you don’t understand.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (Maart 17, 2010 om 7:31 vm.):

    Jy kan nie bewys, dat hoe ek die Bybel verstaan, verkeerd is nie. Verduideliking en redenasie sal volg sou jy iets kon weerlê.

    Weereens ontduik jy maar net die punt. Jou verstaan van die Gristelike Babbel is net belangrik vir jou. Jy’t geen objektiewe maatstaaf gegee hoekom jou opvatting verkieslik is bo enige ander, waarvan baie met joune bots. Hans, jy herhaal net heeltyd dieselfde bankrotte kakstorie en jag jou eie stert.

    Be-fokken-laglik.

    Hans Matthysen skryf (Maart 17, 2010 om 8:13 vm.):

    Con-Tester, jy kan nie eers een of twee versies weerlê nie, wat nog ‘n hele hoofstuk.

    Hans, jy’t van die 400+ weersprekings vergeet. Gesamentlik is dit ’n reeks weerleggings van al die onsin wat jy uit jou ou boek spuit. Die keer is dit net ’n bietjie meer volledig. So nou is dit jou beurt om dit te weerlê, hoor?

    Con-Tester

    March 17, 2010 at 09:47

  73. Nathan, jy het nou niks wat betekenis het gesê en daarom kan ek niks daarop sê.
    Jy sou graag wou weet aan watter geloof ek behoort.
    (1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik.)

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2010 at 08:13

  74. Con-Tester, jy kan nie eers een of twee versies weerlê nie, wat nog ‘n hele hoofstuk.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2010 at 08:07

  75. Screw-tin-eyes, ek will niks in die Bybel weerlê hê nie. Volgens my is daar juis geen “contradictions” in die Bybel nie. Julle is ook nie in staat om my verstaan van die Bybel te weerlê nie.
    Tensy jy word soos ‘n kind, sal jy die Koninkryk van God nie be-êrwe nie. So ja, dit wil dus voorkom of die Bybel in ‘n taal geskryf is, wat kinders kan verstaan en die wyses van hierdie wêreld verwar.
    Christus is in ‘n krib gebore, dus as jy dink daar is baie strooi in my kop, dan is dit die plek waar die wysheid van God weer gebore is.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2010 at 08:04

  76. Nou aan watter “godsdiens” behoort jý, Hans!?

    Nathan Bond

    March 17, 2010 at 07:54

  77. Savage, the religion I belong to, is unchangeable and has never been guilty of killing, as our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the evil principalities of the air.
    The existence of many new religions, is a money making business, of which the religion I belong to, is not a part of.
    Our understanding of the Bible, does not crash with science, in any way.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2010 at 07:46

  78. Natuurlik kan jy nie oortuig word dat jou verstaan van die Bybel verkeerd is nie, Hans.
    Godsk!, dis juis die fôkkin punt!
    Dis is die valsifiseerbaarheid van teorieë wat die wetenskap onderlê! Die res is feëverhaaltjies – soos dooies wat weer lewendig word en ruimtereise in ‘n laken en sulke almalweetwatte.
    Jissis, ek raak bemoerd as ‘n idiotiese oortuiging voorgehou word as ‘n standaard. Godsk!, ons mense moet kan beter doen as godsdiens. As daar ‘n “god” was sou sy dit van ons verwag het.
    Raait. Nou’s ek klaar geskel. Vir eers.

    Nathan Bond

    March 17, 2010 at 07:38

  79. Con-Tester, you try and discredit what you don’t want to understand. You will never receive proof of the spiritual as you don’t really want to. Spiritual objects are what one becomes aware of, that is not tangible and is observed by the minds eye. The life in your body is not tangible, yet it is in existence. Ask any person who has lost a limb and they will confirm, that they still feel the existence of that limb. Should one lose one’s whole body, there are those whom feel, or observe with the minds eye, the existence of one. This is a fact and has been recorded by all mankind on earth, over generations.
    Jy kan nie bewys, dat hoe ek die Bybel verstaan, verkeerd is nie. Verduideliking en redenasie sal volg sou jy iets kon weerlê.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2010 at 07:31

  80. screw-tin-eyes skryf (Maart 10, 2010 om 8:39 vm.):

    Hans, maak asb. een stelling uit die Bybel wat jy graag weerlê wil hê.

    Nee wat, Hans maak nie stellings uit sy sg. “heilige” boek nie. Hy gooi net een of twee versies uit soos wat dit vir hom bedoelend lyk en laat lekker kry. Hy lewer niks ontleding of verduideliking of redenasie nie. Dan verwag hy mens moet dit weerlê asof hy nou iets betekenisvols aangevoer het.

    Belaglik.

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2010 at 11:28

  81. Hans, maak asb. een stelling uit die Bybel wat jy graag weerlê wil hê.

    Kyk jy dus met dieselfde ‘geestelike oog’ na die Bybel as wat jy na Alice in Wonderland kyk.???

    Hoe het jy agtergekom Kersvader en die Tandemuis is denkbeeldig en wat het jou laat besluit jou God van die Bybel is nie. ???

    En dan, bewys vir my dat al die blerrie stront wat in jou kop aangaan wel ‘n regdenkende mens se gedagtes kan wees.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 10, 2010 at 08:39

  82. “’The time has come.’ the Walrus said
    “To talk of many things:”

    Not true, the dotted angel said
    Our Script is all there is
    His Word is there to go on by
    And others loose their heads

    Not so, the Queen of Red replied
    I am the one who orders
    If heads must roll then I’m the one
    To say and give the order

    Savage

    March 9, 2010 at 19:30

  83. The religiosities’ disagreeing with the meaning of The Bible has no repercussions- except starting a new church and/or kill each other. (But these killings do not resolve the differences in “understanding” the Lords’ Word.)

    Not understanding science, or the language it speaks in, usually results in disaster. The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into Mars because scientists, who should have worked together, did not understand their co-worker’s language. But, after the mishap, they got together, identified the problem, and rectified it.

    What methods do the religiosities’ have to stop forming new churches, and killing, and raping children? Will they ever understand the Lord’s Word?

    Savage

    March 9, 2010 at 18:41

  84. Hans Matthysen wrote (March 9, 2010 at 6:49 am):

    Con-Tester, you chose to ignore what you don’t understand…

    No, Hans. I discredited what I understood to be nonsense. No choice was involved, just a pressing need for coherence.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 9, 2010 at 6:49 am):

    … and therefore you will never understand.

    😀

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 9, 2010 at 6:49 am):

    You will remain in darkness as you have no comprehension of the “Light”.

    😀

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 9, 2010 at 6:49 am):

    Just because spiritual experiences are not tangible, it does not mean that they are not spiritual objects.

    For the umpteenth time, Hans, do please explain the following for the benefit of us oh-so-slow people: What exactly is a “spiritual object”? And if “spiritual experiences are not tangible” how can you demonstrate that you’re not kidding yourself?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 9, 2010 at 6:49 am):

    I am sorry, as I forgot, that these things are above your limited comprehension.

    No need to feel sorry because surely my alleged “limited comprehension” is mostly the result of your singular and ongoing ineptitude in providing a compelling account of that which you would have me believe.

    Con-Tester

    March 9, 2010 at 12:44

  85. Bewilderbeast, jy ken nie die verskill tussen ‘n geloof en ‘n sprokiesverhaal, tog het ek nog hoop vir jou, naamlik; ashoop.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2010 at 07:07

  86. Screw-tin-eyes, wat ek hier vir Nathan skryf is vir jou ook.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2010 at 06:55

  87. Nathan, julle bly nie instaat om my te weerlê, in die Bybel en kan dus nie met authoriteit daaroor praat of skryf nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2010 at 06:53

  88. Con-Tester, you chose to ignore what you don’t understand and therefore you will never understand. You will remain in darkness as you have no comprehension of the “Light”. Just because spiritual experiences are not tangible, it does not mean that they are not spiritual objects. I am sorry, as I forgot, that these things are above your limited comprehension.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2010 at 06:49

  89. Nathan skryf: “live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.”

    Vir my is dit rooiwyn = rougephoriaism🙂

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 6, 2010 at 18:02

  90. Bokononism! My favourite religion so far has been pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pesto be upon him), but I’ll look into this and maybe convert (are there prizes to lure me?). One of the cool things in pastafarianism is you get to speak like a pirate. YoHoHo!

    bewilderbeast

    March 6, 2010 at 14:51

  91. Nathan, jy praat amper in tale😉

    Hans, ek is verbaas dat jy dit nie verstaan nie, want dit behoort so in jou kraal te wees – ontbloot van logika, sonder enige sin en totaal onverstaanbaar, soos die aanhalings wat julle so graag uit die Bybel haal.

    screw-tin-eyes

    March 3, 2010 at 18:32

  92. Hans Matthysen wrote (March 2, 2010 at 6:58 am):

    Con-Tester, what you don’t regard as personable evidence, I and others like me have experienced objective, repeatable, consistent, coherent, and in concordance with other of its kind.

    Yes, that’s what you keep saying ad nauseam without actually showing any such evidence. And I suggest you look up the meaning of “objective” because its above usage is considerably at odds with your “personable” [sic] evidence.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 2, 2010 at 6:58 am):

    It is a shame that the new heaven and new earth has not descended from heaven for you and Nathan.

    No Hans, not a shame. For me at least, it’s a very great relief to have been able to see through and to reject the nasty, manipulative fairytale that is heaven and hell.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (March 2, 2010 at 6:58 am):

    These things are not observed with two natural eyes and rather with a single spiritual eye as these things are not of this world and appears to be above your comprehension.

    Yes, that’s what you keep saying ad nauseam without actually being able to prove any of it. And what’s not above my comprehension is that you’re still stuck in the tired track that goes, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I know better than you do and you can’t prove me wrong. I can show you an old book.”

    Con-Tester

    March 2, 2010 at 08:57

  93. Con-Tester, what you don’t regard as personable evidence, I and others like me have experienced objective, repeatable, consistent, coherent, and in concordance with other of its kind. It is a shame that the new heaven and new earth has not descended from heaven for you and Nathan. These things are not observed with two natural eyes and rather with a single spiritual eye as these things are not of this world and appears to be above your comprehension.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2010 at 06:58

  94. Hans, it’s clear that you completely missed the point that Nathan tried to make in this post, even after he went to the trouble of amplifying his intent.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (February 24, 2010 at 7:06 am):

    [T]here appears to be a difference between personal proof of the unseen or the spiritual, and scientific proof of this material world.

    Yes, the first relies on a thing called “special pleading” and “rampant subjectivity,” whereas the last requires “evidence” that is objective, repeatable, consistent, coherent, and in concordance with other of its kind. As the rest of your silly riposte shows, you have of the former verily bucketsful, and of the latter not an iota.

    You doggedly persist in seeking to assert the “reality” of your own personal conception of some ill-defined “supernatural realm” without realising the elemental self-contradiction contained by that errand. In the (approximate) words of Wittgenstein, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one pass over in silence.” Your so-called “holy” book is not exempt from that caveat, and your desperate attempts to make it so, though vaguely amusing, are futile. Hans, the sum total of your “argument” is still, as it always has been and will surely remain, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I know much better than you do. I can show you an old book.”

    Con-Tester

    February 24, 2010 at 10:31

  95. Nathan and Con-Tester, there appears to be a difference between personal proof of the unseen or the spiritual, and scientific proof of this material world. It appears that some people realise this and others don’t. The Bible is about the unseen or spiritual and should you not acknowledge this, you will never see daylight in this regard. It is like an alcoholic that does not want to acknowledge that they have a problem.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 24, 2010 at 07:06

  96. More like in my favourite religion, Bokononism.

    Based on the concept of foma – harmless untruths – the primary tenet of Bokononism is to “live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.”

    Nathan Bond

    February 21, 2010 at 21:06

  97. As in The Gospel of Will as it appears in The Bardle, the holy text of Bardianity?😉

    Con-Tester

    February 21, 2010 at 20:05

  98. For believers who might not “get” this posting… I am simply indicating that quoting from old texts – inspired as they may or may not be – is ineffectual.

    Nathan Bond

    February 21, 2010 at 19:48


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: