Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Die kerk is “verwonderd”

with 83 comments

Ek het die besigheid oor die moderator van die NG Kerk se uitsprake oor evolusie nie gevolg nie.

Ek luister nie juis na die man wat elke Donderdag in my tuin werk se menings oor kernfisika nie. Hy gee my relevante politieke insig en sy idees oor die ekonomie is nodig om te oorweeg, maar hy kan nie met enige mate van oortuiging oor kernfisika gesels nie.

Piet Strauss oor evolusie?

Ag nee wat; laat staan maar.

Maar as Piet wil praat – oor evolusie; oor watôkal – laat hom dan maar praat!

Wat my hardop van die lag laat uitbars het toe ek dit in my gunsteling koffiekroeg gelees het, is die NG Kerk se stelling dat wat ook al gebeur het – met die totstandkoming van die mens en die uiteenlopendheid van die lewe – (G)od het daarin ‘n rol gespeel (sûrpraais, sûrpraais!)… en die kerk is “verwonderd” daaroor.

Assefôkkinblieftog!

"Man! Wát 'n Gód!"

“Verwonderd”.

Watter suikerstroopsnert!

Verwonderd is wat Rooikappie was toe sy by ouma se kothuis opgedaag het.

En raai, Rooikappie het lont geruik! Rooikappie het vrae gevra! Rooikappie het nie net “verwonderd” rondgestaan om verslind te word nie – Rooikappie het gedínk!

“Hóékom is ouma se ore so groot… hoekom is ouma se oë so groot… hoekom is ouma se neus so groot… hoekom is ouma se tande so groot?”

“Natuurlik het ons net ons eeue-oue voorwetenskaplike begrip van ons oerouers se verklaring van dit wat hulle nie kon verstaan nie en wat ons vandag nog te lui en te bang is om te probeer verstaan om ‘n kosmiese skepperwese te veronderstel, maar só ‘n wese ís inderdaad betrokke – ís, ís, ís… en ons is verwonderd daaroor.”

Ek het alle belangstelling in die godsdiens se idiotiese ongegronde veronderstellings en “gesaghebbende” uitsprake daaroor verloor.

Dat sogenaamde akademici na járe se toegewyde studie van antieke letterkunde verwonderd kan wees omdat hulle te dom, te lui of te bang is om te probeer om te verstaan waarmee wetenskaplikes worstel en “verwonderd” voorstel dat dit eintlik alles met rook en spieëls gedoen word is gemoedsbekakkend en verstandsverstommend.

Wie op enige uitsprake van teoloë – oor enigiets! – ag slaan, is per definisie onnoseler as dié wat die snert kwytraak. Ek sou voorheen nog toegegee het dat teoloë darem iets oor antieke letterkunde te sê het – en ek ken ‘n paar wat wel kán en mág, maar die oorgrote meerderheid is pseudo-intellektueles wat uiteindelik meen dat die antieke letterkunde ons finale gesag oor die oorsprong van lewe en die bestaan van spesies is. En dat die antieke letterkunde ons die toekoms met aapsolute sekerheid beskryf.

Watter ensiklopediese snért!

“Die kerk is verwonderd.”

Nè!? Nogals. My fôk.

Written by Nathan Bond

August 8, 2010 at 09:08

Posted in Religion must go!

83 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yes, it was, even if it is I myself who agrees with you on that point. It is a reply that is entirely fitting to the utterly brilliant comment that provoked it, in fact.

    Now see if you can outdo yourself with more of that denial and delusion amidst a flood of nonsense. It is most instructive.
    😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 21:57

  2. Yes, it was, even if it is I myself who agree with you on that point. It is a reply that is entirely fitting to the utterly brilliant comment that provoked it, in fact.

    Now see if you can outdo yourself with more of that denial and delusion amidst a flood of nonsense. It is most instructive.
    😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 21:57

  3. Excellent answer. Did not expect any better. Good night and sleep tight.

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 21:31

  4. There, you see? Denial and delusion amidst a flood of nonsense.

    Con-Tester

    August 2, 2011 at 11:17

  5. Nee Erick, ek het jou vraag beantwoord, maar miskien verwar ek julle met ‘n te lang antwoord. Die kort weergawe is dat ons nogsteeds “geinspireer” word. Wat dink jy is my en soveel ander Christene se getuienis anders as die getuienis wat Johannes en Paulus ensovoorts in die Bybel geskrywe het? Ons las nogsteeds aan, daagliks.

    soois

    August 2, 2011 at 10:10

  6. Sorry,
    Dit is fondasie en nie vondasie nie. Dit klink soos ‘n mens se gat!

    ErickV

    August 2, 2011 at 07:56

  7. Soois,
    Nee wat, daardie tipe van verduideliking klou nie.
    Daar is en sal nooit enige “getuienis” wees wat my siening se vondasie kan skud nie.
    Dit is dat Moeder Natuur die sogenaamde “God” is. Al die natuurwetenskappe is daar om dit te bewys.
    Daarin is daar geen plek vir geen ander “God” nie!
    Na jare se soeke na sin het ek dit eendag besef en jy kan nie glo wat se gewig en bagasie ‘n mens afgooi met daardie besef nie!
    Jy moet tog ook eendag mooi besin daaroor. Daardie feit is eintlik voor die hand liggend.
    Die feit is daar maar niemand sien dit raak nie!

    ErickV

    August 2, 2011 at 07:53

  8. Yep, C-T I tend to agree with you in that Christians like to duck and dive when being asked some tricky questions.
    I call it “hap na pap”.

    ErickV

    August 2, 2011 at 07:44

  9. Oy vey. The Sage revealeth all. In particular, the Sage revealeth that he won’t answer the questions posed. Typical. Can’t trust these sages and oracles to give a comprehensible answer.:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    August 1, 2011 at 18:40

  10. Nee Jesus het opgevaar, maar toe is die verhaal van die skepping tot Jesus se koms, Sy kruisiging en Sy hemelvaart mos voltooi. Daarna is nog Boeke geskryf deur Johannes, Paulus ensovoorts wat die verhaal van die eerste Christene neergepen het, onthou, die Christendom het eers na Jesus se hemelvaart ontstaan. Daar is nog geskiedenis daarna, soos Calvyn ensovoorts, maar dit is in ander geskiedenisboeke opgeteken, maar die verhaal is nog nie verby nie. Dit sal eers by Sy Wederkoms voltooi wees.

    soois

    August 1, 2011 at 16:37

  11. Soois,
    Jy se dat God die skrywers van die Bybel “geinspireer” het.
    Nou waar is daardie God die avgelope 2000 jaar? Hoekom inspirer hy niemand meer om by die Bybel te las nie? Het die Bybel verhaal dan 2000 jaar terug gestop? Hoe het hy die skrywers “geinspereer”? Het hy met hulle gepraat? Indien wel, hoekom praat hy nie meer nie? Waar kruip hy nou weg?
    Sorry, ek het vergeet. Hy het mos 2000 jaar terug “opgevaar” hemel toe net om weer een of ander tyd terug te kom!

    ErickV

    August 1, 2011 at 08:01

  12. The propositioned drive to coin science and rationalism for the ‘our side’ group could turn out successful. Imagine, with the opium of the masses, if studying science became like coming out of the closet to say you are gay…

    Ballanced Truths

    July 29, 2011 at 20:58

  13. ❓❓❓ And if you’re so deliriously happy, why do you feel the need to post your collywobbles here among a bunch of atheists? “Defending the faith” won’t wash because you have yet to provide any argument or evidence whatsoever in support of your childish fundie twaddle. You think maybe your stratospheric happiness might not speak for itself, hmm?❓❓❓

    Con-Tester

    July 29, 2011 at 17:14

  14. 😀😀😀 Now be a good godiot and try to have the last say. C’mon, I dare you.😀😀😀

    Con-Tester

    July 29, 2011 at 15:32

  15. 🙄🙄🙄 Yeah, that’s it! Give us more of that close attention, diligent scrutiny and profound insight of yours. It’s so enlightening that in your headlong rush to jump to conclusions, it hasn’t occurred to you that there might be another explanation. That is the typical behaviour of a juvenile religiot.🙄🙄🙄

    Con-Tester

    July 29, 2011 at 15:30

  16. Maybe you should read into the past, recent and not so recent. Look at the chit-chat between you. No my friend, you are reassuring each other post after post, but don’t let it bother you any more than it already does, oh, and as per usual, let’s have you have the last say little boy. Cannot have you lying awake tonight now, can we?

    soois

    July 29, 2011 at 15:05

  17. 😛😛😛 Omniscient? Me? Ha ha, not even close. The difference between us is that I bother to do some basic homework first and don’t simply pull shit out of my arse continuously, pretending it smells like roses. But hey, if you like to think of me that way, that’s fine too. The rest of your indescribably stupid post shows yet again how carefully you pay attention: (1) It’s not atheists’ intention to convince how unhappy you are. That would be like trying to convince an elephant not to be heavy. (2) This is an open forum. If you want to talk horseshit privately without interference from me, then don’t post your horseshit here. Confine yourself to talking sense (if you even can) and you won’t get any flak from me. I promise. (3) The atheists here don’t need convincing that your skydaddy doesn’t exist. You mumbo-jumbo merchants have the burden of proof but you keep denying and dodging it. (4) You baloney peddlers don’t look for evidence because you don’t know what that word actually means since you ignore whatever doesn’t fit your nonsense, and twist whatever you can to make it look like it fits your delusions. (5) A brilliant answer on my part would be entirely wasted on you, since your addled godiot brain isn’t capable of recognising it.😛😛😛

    Con-Tester

    July 29, 2011 at 11:53

  18. Ou Erick,
    daar het jy dit nou. Buddhiste glo nie in ‘n god nie, maar is verdraagsaam teenoor alle gelowe, terwyl die Hindoes blykbaar ‘n paar honderd het. Lyk my ek was darem nie so verkeerd oor die Moslems nie, anders sou ou “ya-know-it-all” my seker daar ook reggehelp het. Jy moet hom maar in die toekoms vra, want hy is alwetend, tipies van gode, hulle weet als, en bytendien druk hy sy neus in elke geselsie waar ek betrokke is.

    Dit het my nogal weer laat dink. Hoekom wil ateiste hulleself en ander probeer oortuig hoe ongelukkig ons Christene moet wees, terwyl ek weet ons klomp lewe in vreugde en oorvloed? Ons vertel mekaar van die wonders wat God vir ons doen en het nie nodig om mekaar te oortuig van Sy bestaan nie. Die ateiste het ek op hierdie einste blog ontdek kan nie ophou om mekaar te probeer oortuig dat Hy nie bestaan nie, en het nodig om by mekaar die versekering te kry en “bewyse” uitruil dat Hy nie bestaan nie. Hulle is gedurig opsoek na bewyse, bewyse vir die bestaan of teendeel. Hoekom? Is dit omdat hulle sulke onsekere en ongelukkige lewens het dat hulle gedurige gerusstelling van hulle makkers benodig?

    Ek wonder maar net. Is doodseker CT sal vir jou ‘n “briljante” antwoord kan gee.

    soois

    July 29, 2011 at 11:22

  19. 😆😆😆 Fuck yeah, Hinduism with between one and several hundreds of gods, and Buddhism with its zero gods and perfect tolerance of all gods, both tell the same story as the Crushtians’ Holey Babble. This very close similarity is further reinforced by the polar opposition in which those three religions’ concepts of heaven and hell stand to one another.😆😆😆
    .
    .😆😆😆 The amusing bullshit these ignorant morons concoct is priceless — almost as priceless as their palpable conscious avoidance of the facts and not bothering to do even the most basic research.😆😆😆
    .
    .😆😆😆 In short, another stunningly brilliant and well-informed response.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    July 28, 2011 at 19:47

  20. Ou Erick, ek se weer, ek kan net uit my eie ervarings antwoord. Die Hindoes en veral Muslims het eintlik dieselfde verhaal as ons Bybel (wat jou juis nog meer moet laat regop sit), minus Jesus en Sy verlossing van ons oortredinge natuurlik, daarom is hulle rituele baie streng soos ons eie Bybel in die Ou Testament. Dit is “godsdiens”, terwyl Christenskap juis wegbreek van die bande van die sonde en wat ons vrymaak van die Ou Testamentiese wette en oordeel. Die Hindoe-geloof glo baie erg aan re-inkarnasie, wat se dat die mens weer gebore word en weer lewe, soveel keer as wat nodig is totdat hy van “god” te hore kom en die kans het om te glo of nie. Ek wonder self baie daaroor, want Die Bybel se dat Jesus eers weer kom wanneer almal op aarde die kans gegun is om van Hom te hoor en Hom aan te neem of te verwerp. Nou is die vraag. Wat van die mense eeue gelede wat nog nie van Jesus gehoor het nie? Is hulle verlore, of word hulle ge-re-inkarneer totdat hulle wel van Hom gehoor het? Van Budhisme weet ek maar min, moet ek bieg.

    soois

    July 28, 2011 at 17:21

  21. Soois,
    Nou wat van die Hindoes en Budhiste se geskrifte?

    ErickV

    July 28, 2011 at 10:05

  22. howdy contesser,
    ah dun seen evvis stroling downe duh sidwalk an’ he mite culda bin sinning jaylhowse rocck, y’know,
    an’ ah swere t’god he dun gret me an’ he sayd howdy pardner an’ he smild wit his geetahr over hiss
    sholler an’ ah tell ya ya culdda noccked me over ah swere it was hym……..now don’ ya belief evvis is stil bing hear wid us i cant belief ya contesser

    verifanie

    July 26, 2011 at 20:02

  23. Yeah, and because lots and lots of people over many years have babbled incoherently about seeing Elvis and UFOs, we must sit up and wonder: Does Elvis live in a UFO?😆

    Con-Tester

    July 26, 2011 at 14:53

  24. Ou Erick,

    as ek myself herhaal, dan vra ek om verskoning, maar ek het al voorheen geskryf dat Christus Homself aan my geopenbaar het en dit nogsteeds gereeld doen. Dus sou ek moes toegee dat die feit dat daar ‘n Byb el geskryf is opsigself nie beteken dit is waar nie, maar die feit dat ek Hom die voordeel van die twyfel gegee het en Hom gevind het, maak dat ek nie anders kan as om dit as feit te vat nie. Die Bybel is natuurlik deur honderde mense geskryf oor duisende jare. Die feit dat honderde mense oor duisende jare met dieselfde trant dieselfde boodskap bring, die feit dat mense in die Ou Testament reeds Nuwe Testamentiese dinge voorspel het en die feit dat Nuwe Testamentiese skrywers na Ou Testamentiese dinge verwys het lank voordat die Ou Testamentiese geskrifte ontdek is, is juis ‘n bewys dat al hierdie honderde skrywers deur een Entiteit beinvloed moes gewees het, en dit behoort jou te laat regop sit en wonder. Daarom se ons dat die Bybel nie deur God geskryf is, of deur enkele persone nie, maar dat God die skrywers geinspireer het om hulle wedervaringe neer te pen.

    Nee, God het nie in tale gepraat nie. Verskillende tale het eers na die toring van Babel gekom, vandaar die idioom, “‘n Babelelse verwarring”. Indien jy na tale verwys omdat baie sg gelowiges se ‘n mens moet in tale kan praat, kan ek net se dat sulke persone weer die Woord moet gaan lees, dan sal hulle sien sommige mense kan in tale die Here aanbid en loof. Die Here praat nie met die mens in tale nie.

    soois

    July 26, 2011 at 14:45

  25. But it’s totally clear that our cerebrally handicapped tjaaina hasn’t the first clue about how to distinguish between reliable information and fabricated horseshit. That’s why he takes his vague feel-good intuitions as ironclad fact. That’s why he’s a believer. That’s why I wrote that he shouldn’t use words he doesn’t know the meaning of. Equally clearly, that admonition was lost on him, as evidenced by his subsequent perplexity re, among others, flattery, sarcasm and ridicule.

    Con-Tester

    July 26, 2011 at 14:41

  26. Soois,
    Ek lees hierbo jy skryf die volgende vir Con-Tester:

    “Will it become fact just because someone else wrote it? Ag please man! Think for a change…”

    Jong, ek wil nou nie snaaks wees nie maar ek dink jy het jou voet self in jou mond gesit!
    Die aanname dat ‘n God die bybel geskryf het is die grootste leun in die menslike heugenis.
    Dit is deur mense geskryf, punt. So, hoekom moet jy dit nou aanneem as “facts”.
    Jy sien, die gelowiges doen presies dieselfde!

    Gaan na http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-algorithm-sheds-light-bible-163128454.html

    Daar sal jy sien dat met nuwe tegnologie is bevind dat Genisis deur verskillinde MENSE geskryf is!
    Maar daar is nog steeds mense wat hap na pap deur te verduidelik dat God in “verskillende tale” gepraat het!

    Nou wil ek jou net ‘n vraag vra: Wat sou met die mensdom gebeur het indien daar geen Bybel was nie?

    ErickV

    July 26, 2011 at 10:41

  27. 😳😳😳 Yeah, you’ve said all of that before ad nauseam. Child, indeed. Make-believe world, indeed. Battle, indeed. Last say, indeed. Still, these very obvious facts remain, and are blindingly clear to everyone: (1) you cannot conduct a rational debate; (2) you don’t even know what that means; (3) you’re constantly projecting with all of those things you pull out of your arse to accuse me of; (4) as long as you keep talking crap as you do 99% of the time, I’ll be there to rub your nose in it; and (5) I keep getting under your skin (the truth hurts, eh?) and that’s why you’ll keep on responding. Go on, deny it now.😳😳😳

    Con-Tester

    July 25, 2011 at 17:35

  28. Tell you what old chum. As you are repeating your behaviour of having to have the last say (typical child behaviour), let’s have you have the last comment after this one, and make you happy by playing make-believe and say that you won.

    Bye-bye my friend (At least until you intervene in me and someone elses discussion I guess)

    soois

    July 25, 2011 at 17:18

  29. Jip, just proven my point, god CT at work. He even thinks he is winning a battle. Well, what can you expect from a child? A make-believe world. I guess it keeps them sane, in a way.

    soois

    July 25, 2011 at 16:59

  30. 🙄🙄🙄 Oh dear, this is just like shooting candy from baby fish in a barrel. The sum total of your repertoire is, “You too, you too! So nyah!” Even originality escapes you totally. You’re getting funnier by the minute. And no, I’m much more like that other non-existent oke you believe in. You know, the hoofy, horny one that fucks you up at every turn. 🙄🙄🙄

    Con-Tester

    July 25, 2011 at 16:46

  31. Verifanie,

    Onthou jy wat ek geskryf het op 22 Julie 16h07? Gaan lees dit en dan kyk jy hierbo. Nogal humoristies. Nou word ek glo ook getoets? Nou wonder ek wie toets my? Die God “wat nie bestaan nie”, of CT, wat dink hy is ‘n god, want hy moet of ‘n god wees, of my meerdere, en dit is hy nie, sy intellek is te beperk daarvoor.

    soois

    July 25, 2011 at 16:24

  32. 😆😆😆 You haven’t followed a single word of what I wrote now, have you? It must be really comforting to have this big, fluffy blanket made of arrogant, I-know-it-all ignorance to pull over your head whenever things get a little tough for that fucked-up non-functioning mess you call a brain — which happens constantly. I think you’re a prime example of everything that illustrates all the riotously funny shit that’s wrong with religiots and godiots, made all the more comical by how you repeatedly show just how closely you actually follow the teachings of your hero-what-got-nailed-to-a-pair-of-planks-for-pretending-to-be-divine Jeeeeeebussssst!. Your daft funnyman routine is even more droll for this spiel you’ve got going that, as per your Holey Babble, you mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t ever, ever, ever lose your faith no matter how hard it gets tested. (Note that I’m being excessively generous here in assuming that you are at least capable of recognising that you’re being tested.) Now let’s have more of the same, please! 😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    July 25, 2011 at 09:55

  33. Flattery, sarcasm, I guess it takes some intelligence to differentiate between the two? Convince yourself of the first if it helps to please your god (ego).

    soois

    July 25, 2011 at 08:31

  34. You shouldn’t use words you don’t know the meaning of. Words like “think”.

    Oh, and imitation is supposedly the sincerest form of flattery. So flatter me some more, boyo, flatter me some more.

    Con-Tester

    July 24, 2011 at 20:59

  35. Why, to read drivel written by brain-dead morons like yourself? Will it become fact just because someone else wrote it? Ag please man! Think for a change…

    soois

    July 24, 2011 at 20:35

  36. Try to read a book before spouting such hilarious kindergarten drivel as though it was somehow fact. I mean something besides your fairytale book.

    Con-Tester

    July 24, 2011 at 19:35

  37. Drugs are things that we get addicted to. You cannot get addicted to something “that does not exist”. Children do not get addicted to worshipping, reading the Bible or going to church. They actually find it boring in most cases, and sooner or later they will leave religion, or embrace it (only if they discover the existence of God). We all leave the effects of our beliefs on our children, whether it is Christianity or atheism. We send our small children to bed at 9 o’clock. Are we abusive sending this 7 yo girl to bed although she believes that she is not tired, or are we caring parents who know that she will go to school groggy and tired the next day and might even fall behind in her school-work?
    What will be the most awfull, to teach your small child about Jesus, allowing him/her to find that Jesus does not excist, or to bring him/her up without religion, and he/she finds out that Jesus does excist, but finding out too late? The truth of the matter is that a child that grew up with religion will investigate it sooner or later, but a child that grew up without religion is very unlikely to investigate it. Who do you think gave his/her child the fairest choice??

    soois

    July 24, 2011 at 18:17

  38. Why do I talk about intra-uterine damage to a foetus, a painful birth, post-natal neglect, unfulfilled needs for a baby or any child, suppression of feelings, not allowing babies and children to cry or throw “temper tantrums”, physical punishment to a child, and not allowing children to question anything, when this is a website for the discussion and debate of religious belief vs. atheism?

    It has to do with asking a simple question…..i.e. “Why are so many people on earth addicted to some or other belief system, philosophy, school of thought, eastern “wisdoms”, numerology, astrology, Indian gurus,
    fortune telling, tarot cards, homeopathy, smoking, heavy drinking , painkillers, drugs, etc?”.

    ….And the list goes on and on.

    Why indeed? What is lacking? Why can’t we just go through life without having to indulge or subscribe to any of the above?

    When we have suffered some traumatic experience, (and we all have to some degree, although many will deny it) we hurt badly before we even turn twenty-one. The few things I mentioned above are indeed traumatic. There are many more ways that we can suffer emotional and physical pain. Even being in a serious car accident, or undergoing major surgery, will create a memory of pain somewhere in our body or psyche.

    That memory of trauma to ourselves, will stay with us till the day we die. Most of us will die without having had all our needs met, without having cried all our pain out, and without having re-connected to the child in us.

    Our beings do not like pain. We are forever running away from it. And mercifully, even our brain helps out tremendously and in fact, it plays the biggest role in preventing us from feeling all that pain. What our brain does to help, is to disconnect us from our bodies, by making us less aware of our bodies. In other words, we do not “feel” with our bodies as much as we should, as desired by the evolutionary continuum. The continuum is the evolutionary line of expectations, i.e. things that should happen in a certain way, at a certain time. We do not walk when we are a few days old, but we need to be fed and bathed, etc.

    The evolutionary continuum also decides that emotionally and intellectually, things should happen at a certain age. We are born with a number of needs that must be met at different times, such as being breast-fed, being nurtured, being held, being allowed to cry, (whilst being held, not locked in a room). Later on, we need to be able to express our feelings, by crying, getting angry, looking sad, hurt, etc., or expressing them verbally. These feelings and emotions should never be suppressed. A parent should not shake or shush a baby when it is crying its pain out.

    But, we are victims of victims…..and things have gone wrong. Many years ago.

    If our parents are neurotic, they will render us neurotic as well. If our needs were not met, we will suffer, and in doing so we will spend the rest of our lives feeling that something is missing. We will search for that missing something. We will want to feel “fulfilled”. Or “loved” by someone, or something. We will project or symbolise our needs onto others, even onto a creature who is long gone or has not lived at all. We have “Jesus loves me”, or God, Allah,………… you fill in the blanks.

    Why religion is worse than drug addiction? Many people will argue that a religious belief cannot be that harmful to humans. After all, it is only a matter of worshiping some god or deity, isn’t it? Can it be more harmful than, let’s say drug abuse? Of course it can. Nobody condones drug abuse in any way shape or form.
    Do you see many buildings dedicated to the cause of drug abuse? Do you see widespread literature promoting the use of drugs? Is there a “bible” of drug abuse? Of course not. Drug abuse is condemned by most sane,
    level-headed people. And religion?

    That such wishful thinking, or extreme imagination is actually condoned by the majority of humans on this planet, is mind-boggling. Children are indoctrinated into this far-fetched fantasy, so that they grow up believing all of the total and awful, horrible bullshit that is being propagated. They in turn become victims.
    And maybe turn to drugs? Child abuse has many forms. Indoctrinating your child into some or other religion
    is simply child abuse, because you are not allowing your child to think for herself and to consider all things.

    verifanie

    July 23, 2011 at 18:31

  39. 😆😆😆 Yup, as expected. Stupidity and evasion, as usual.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    July 22, 2011 at 18:51

  40. Who the fuck made you god?? I don’t care flying fuck about you, your self-rightiousness or to try impress you or get your approval.

    soois

    July 22, 2011 at 17:51

  41. 😆😆😆 Just when things started looking a tiny fraction off abysmal, you go and fuck it all up again with a fistful of assertions you have no intention of proving. If you can tell me what I’m referring to, I’ll sit up and pay a bit more attention. Meanwhile, it’s obvious that your inability to be rational and consequent doesn’t bother you in the least.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    July 22, 2011 at 17:42

  42. CT, this specific topic started with the NGK being blamed for everything, and I repeat that I am a Christian, who does not belong to the NGK or any specific denomination. As I mentioned, the Chaplains were from several religious groups.

    It saddens me however to admit that we grew up in a country where it was bragged that we had “freedom of religion”, which off-course was a farse as everything was opened with “skriflesing en gebed”, where “godsdiens” was a subject in our schools and where on Sundays in the SADF we had to choose to which church we were going. Staying in the bungalow was not an option. I never thought about it, but I guess for an atheist it must have been uncomfortable. I off-course was not an atheist, nor a Christian, but as someone who was taught religion I guess I was more open for such things and I could see my girlfriend at church on Sundays. Quite recently off-course, as I have tried to explain, I found Jesus and became Christian, but let us not ride that horse again.

    Anyway, the point I tried to make in the beginning was that just because Oom Pik (I mistakenly referred to PW previously, while it was in fact Pik Botha that flew with us and met the Pope at the time) was probably a NGK man, does not mean the NGK ran this country, just as I cannot just assume that the Roman Catholic Church ran it just because of certain meetings I know about (although the bloody RCC runs most of the world).

    soois

    July 22, 2011 at 16:24

  43. Nee oraait ou Verifanie, lyk my jy steek vas by die godsdiens ding.

    Ek het probeer om diensplig en godsdiens te skei, maar tevergeefs. As ‘n ou se verstand nou een maal by ‘n ding vasgesteek het, is dit verby.

    Soos ‘n motiveringspreker eendag gese het, meeste ouens dink 93% van die tyd net aan dieselfde ding en het net 5 reaksies op dinge wat gese en gedoen word deur ander. Jy leer gou ‘n spesifieke ou se reaksies. So weet ek al presies hoe ou CT sal reageer op dinge wat gese word en veral as ek iets skryf. Ek en die ouens hier geniet hom nogal. En ou Verifanie het by die poese (ook Christene genoem) wat hom so afpis vasgesteek. Hy se ook dat die ouens waarvoor jy die kwaadste word is die ouens wat dieselfde foute as jyself maak. ‘n Mens sien jou eie foute raak, maar wil dit nie erken nie, dan word jy vir daardie ou de moer in, veral as daardie ou met sy foute wegkom.

    Al daardie goed wat jy noem is sonde, maar dit is godsdiens wat dit veroordeel, nie Christenskap nie, want Jesus het juis gesterf sodat ons nie te veel hoef te worry as ons ‘n foutjie maak nie. Beteken nou nie ons kan maar aangaan en sondig nie, maar ons is mos maar net mense, of hoe?

    soois

    July 22, 2011 at 16:07

  44. Soois,
    Ja, die trots, die “beste” weermag, die regering, die swartes, Malema………

    En so nou het ons weereens bewys dat daar werklik “iewers” ‘n plek is met die naam hemel en daar binne in die plek is daar got(te) en jesussie, en heilige spoke (drie in een; een in drie;) engeltjies en wie nog?

    Ook dat daar ‘n plek is met die naam hel, en daar kry jy die satan, sy engeltjies ook, ‘n moerse groot vuur of braaiplek, miljoene mense wie almal skreeu van die pyn, en hulle gaan daar wees vir ewig en ewig en ewig amen.

    En so het ons ook bewys dat Jonas in ‘n walvis se maag was, dat water in wyn verander was, dat Lazarus opgestaan het nadat hy gevrek het, dat Moses die see laat oopgaan het, een sterk ou vir honderde ander sterk ouens morsdood gemoer het met ‘n kakebeen en wat nog?

    Ons moet ook nou verstaan dat om een of ander onverklaarbare rede het die chief got(te) besluit om al hierdie dinge te doen net gedurende ‘n sekere tydperk sowat twee duisend tot vyf duisend jaar gelede, en nooit weer nie.

    Ons moet ook verstaan dat jesussie gesterf het aan die kruis sodat al, let mooi al, ons sondes vergeef is, maar……….ons moet nie nou sondes pleeg nie want dan gaan ons in elk geval hel toe.

    Terloops, sondes word geklassifiseer as volg:

    *) As jy ‘n vrou is en jy dra nie ‘n hoed in die kerk nie. *) As jy ‘n vrou is en jy dra langbroeke. *) As jy ‘n ducktail is of lang hare het. *) As jy lipstiffie dra. *) As jy op ‘n sondag sport speel. *) As jy sekere woorde gebruik. *) As jy nie elke dag op jou kniee is nie. *) As jy nie elke sondag in die kerk is nie. *) As jy rook.
    *) As jy drink. *) As jy na rock-musiek luister. *) As jy nie GLO in al hierdie kak nie. *) As jy nie die regte naam gebruik vir jesussie of die got(te) nie. *As jy jou buurman se vrou aankyk met ‘n stywe piel.
    *) As jy homoseksueel is. *) As jy selfmoord pleeg. *) As jy ‘n aborsie ondergaan. *) As jou pa ‘n groot poes is en jy vertel hom dit. *) As jy dit net waag om selfs te dink aan een of ander sonde pleeg. Daar is so baie dat ek nie die plek of tyd het om die hele spul hier te noem nie.

    Ons verstaan ook dat al hierdie bg. sondes van tyd tot tyd verander en aangepas word, soos die tye verander.
    Ons verstaan dat moontlik is vandag se sondes ‘n bietjie of heelwat anders as wat dit 50 jaar gelede was.

    verifanie

    July 22, 2011 at 08:44

  45. Hey, whaddaya know!? Some actual facts at last. It’s true that chaplains were a corps of their own and that a chaplain’s rank was always equal to the highest rank in the room, so to say. When you write, “They were equal to the CO and yet not above rifleman, airman whatever” it just reveals the idiotic doublespeak and fatuously vapid concepts so beloved by you religiots. But that’s just my point: a corps of godiots was officially extended lots of special privileges for the sole reason that they could talk reams and reams of sternly-intoned kak, privileges enjoyed by no other unit in the defence force. This policy was of course seized and wholeheartedly pushed by the self-righteous, mostly NGK dooses whose self-interests it served. I don’t believe for one moment that these intellectual poltroons really had the country’s or their people’s best interests at heart. All they did was to frame their bullshit in those terms, just compounding pre-existent bullshit with more of the same.

    See, when you stick to the facts rather than your habitual fabrications and fantasies, we can indeed find tiny bits of common ground. Your turn.

    Con-Tester

    July 22, 2011 at 08:36

  46. In my days the Chaplain could be NGK, SDA, Anglican, Jewish, Roman Catholic etc etc. They all held the same rank. They were equal to the CO and yet not above rifleman, airman whatever. It was not a rank at such. It was a corps all of it’s own.

    Still my friend, I guess we will never agree.

    Keep well

    soois

    July 21, 2011 at 20:37

  47. In other words, you expect everyone to follow uncritically your “Rah-rah, yay us!” nonsense, just as you expect everyone to fall down on their knees and praise all the stupid crap you think you know but don’t know at all. Ho hum, how fuckin’ original. To adapt Samuel Johnson’s words: “Appeal to patriotism is the last refuge of the bullshit artist.” Among many other things, it explains the Christian National Education policy, of which you are a product by the way, that was so zealously pushed by the NGK apartheid knuckleheads. It also explains why in every SA military camp or base, the chaplain, almost always some NGK buffoon, necessarily held the same rank as the commanding officer. Can’t have the one ordering the other one around now, can we? I mean, just what sort of “best defence force” would it be where there wasn’t some gibbering mumbo-jumbo expert trying to keep the troops all nice and deluded about how the insanity was all sanctioned and approved from beyond the here and now!?

    Jeeeeeeebussssst!, you religiots can string together some godawfully laughable piles of baloney, hey?

    Con-Tester

    July 21, 2011 at 12:42

  48. Let me spell it out for you differently. Look at the future man. Don’t look back, but if you feel you have to look back, try to visualize the good things, not the bad. How in whatever name do you expect to build a prosperous country if you look at the sordit past rather than a brighter future? How do you expect the opressed to carry on if the opressors (forced or not) cannot carry on. Just for the record, I was one of the guys who voted “yes” in the referendum allowing people of all races to vote, because I was against apartheid my whole life. I had immense respect for our guys in 32 battallion (men of colour who fought for this country voluntarily). In fact I am only now becoming slightly racist when arse-holes like Malema and his like are trying to demolish everything that was built up during these years. A little poepsnuiter who never tasted the effects of “apartheid”.

    soois

    July 21, 2011 at 09:25

  49. No Verifanie,
    you miss the point. The subject was whether the NG Kerk was responsible for the bush war or not. The subject evolved to the fact that by blaming the NGK the writers also condemned the Bush war. I merely wanted to bring back a little National pride, because my point was that yes, in fact the old govt has a lot to answer for, but it was not all bad, and not only can I brag a little about flying for the (at that time) one of the best Defence Forces in the world, but that in fact you, and CT and everybody else who participated, whether freely or forced, were serving in one of the best defence forces.

    soois

    July 21, 2011 at 09:07

  50. Isn’t it just typical of the severely stunted intellect of religiots to defend with such breathtaking illogic the curtailing of everyone’s civil liberties!? Hell, without the NGK’s obsessive-compulsive Calvinism, there’d have been no apartheid, no bush war, no rooi gevaar, no swart gevaar, enige kleur gevaar, no conscription. But that obvious and elementary concept is simply too far beyond the cerebral grasp of the drivel-spouting fundie hordes with their delusions of competence. As ever, it’s just too funny for words.

    Still and all, our intrepid one-time-ace-fighter-pilot-and-now-genius-farmer-who-sees-god-around-every-corner is right about one thing: If I’d really had a choice, I’d’ve skipped national service. Why? Because, unlike him, I won’t voluntarily be part of defending a clearly brain-dead, sterile, bankrupt political agenda, as dictated by a bunch of self-important religiots that even a halfwit could see for what it is. If this makes me a chicken in his estimation, that’s okay because his opinion is as asinine and ill-considered as everything else he utters. Dissent is neither sedition nor treason. Besides being incapable of many things, including conducting a rational and consequent argument, religiots are also evidently incapable of making that distinction.

    Con-Tester

    July 19, 2011 at 19:27

  51. Soois,
    You’re on an ego trip here. You’re trying to show off, and it shows. We all did our bit, myself included.
    We do not sit around and brag about it. Go and tell your war stories to some young bimbo who will think
    you are a hero.

    Now, after all your trumpet blowing, does that mean there is a god? This blog is about: you believe there is a god or gods and holy spooks and others don’t.

    Once again, every single idiot who believes that there is actually a place somewhere called heaven, with a god, a jesus, or a holy spook, also a devil, and a hell, falls under the category of doos.

    Btw, just in case you didn’t know, no-one here thinks you are brave and strong and smart and a war hero.
    Mix that in with a bit of skaapkak and smoke it.

    verifanie

    July 19, 2011 at 18:53

  52. Shit, so that’s what it means to be a Real Man™: The wholesale fabrication of complete nonsense and then calling it something else. 🙄

    Con-Tester

    July 19, 2011 at 16:26

  53. As for the NGK being segregated (there was a black- and coloured wing of the NGK ass well), yes they were, as were toilet facilities, the Kine movies etc etc. Government constituted this and it would have been against the law to allow people of colour into the same church.

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 15:34

  54. O, did the RCC and the Pope really play a big role in our previous government? I honestly don’t know, but according to your own way of judgement, I must assume all these meetings between Oom PW and the Pope must have been politically motivated, just as his NGK membership automatically meant that they were running the government.

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 15:17

  55. You make my point. You did not have a choice, if you did you yellow bellied arsehole would have skipped National Service. I made the choise to serve after first completing 8 months of National Service. And you do not know anything about me except that I am a Christian. For your information, I am not in the NGK. The problem is that you would blame anything that irks you on religion. Just go ahead and read the previous posts. Whenever a disaster of some-kind happens, you concentrate on the role and deeds of Christians, rather than adressing the disaster at hand. At least the Christians try to help and assist, but apparently their involvement ensures that you would rather let people suffer than to join the Christians in relieving these poor people’s suffering. No, you will rather sit back and blame evrything and anything religious for this.

    No CT, the reason you blame the NGK is because this previous government, which I do not deny, did a lot of things wrong, happened to be consisting of mainly balding Afrikaans speaking omies whom must have been in the NGK. If they said they were all in SDA, you would have blamed the SDA. These omies made everything begin with “skriflesing en gebed”, hence your hatred for the NGK. What you apparently do not know, was the role the RCC and the pope played in our government back then. I know of several meetings between the pope and Oom PW back then. Old PW flew with us on several occasions in one of the HS125’s for meetings with abovementioned. Off course now you will reply with the RCC being a religious organisation again, and I agree, but the fact is that they are not the NGK.

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 15:12

  56. .:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
    .

    You really should at least attempt to establish and accurately represent the facts first before spewing forth such ridiculously unwarranted, emotional, NGK-like inference and innuendo, especially when you haven’t the first clue about what I do, past and present. I was already an atheist when I got drafted. As you well know (and now apparently choose to ignore), the only acceptable grounds for conscientious objection were religious. Your friendly mind-raping NGK cassock-pissers made sure not only of that, but also reserved for themselves the right to approve or decline specific applications. As you further know (and now apparently choose to ignore), I had a choice: two years of grin and bear it or four years of DB plus a criminal record plus losing my livelihood.

    Some fucking choice, thanks to your favourite jumped-up blackmailing NGK liars! Have they adopted the Belhar Confession yet? I honestly don’t remember, but if they have, it took a while; if not, well, that speaks for itself.

    So you can keep your childishly smug superiority where the sun doesn’t shine, okay? Now stop trying to change the subject, see? In case you forgot, the subject is your beloved NGK’s leading role in the darkest parts of SA’s economic, political and social history. The fact that our present government leaves much to be desired is not at issue here. (Nor is anyone denying that things could be significantly improved.) That point is wholly irrelevant so your repeated tu quoque deflections just won’t wash. However, you are of course free to carry on making a complete doos of yourself.

    .
    .:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    July 19, 2011 at 13:25

  57. I served the SA Air force with pride for 13 years, which meant I served because I was proud of SA and I served voluntary, not for 2 years as a poor forced little lame sack.

    By the way, where were all of you back then? Why do you suddenly crawl out of every crack and hole? At least there are those who want to accept that they were wrong and tries to apologize for it. Unlike those who were misteriously silent back then with their little satin white skins and who now want to put blame on the church and whoever else they feel should be blamed. How the hell do you expect the people of colour to forgive and start a new beginning, 17 years after the fact, if you with your lily white skins cannot forgive and carry on building a new SA?

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 12:21

  58. Oh, and I was there too. The difference is that I didn’t buy the SADF’s NGK-supported bullshit. Not even for one second. Your pride is laughable.

    Con-Tester

    July 19, 2011 at 12:08

  59. .😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
    Yes, that’s just the kind of half-baked quasi-factual account woven into a self-serving distortion of the actuality you’d expect from self-important religiots. The only one here suffering from propaganda overload is you, namely the propaganda your precious NGK wanted you to swallow.

    And boy, did you ever swallow!
    .😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    July 19, 2011 at 11:57

  60. O and the Zambezi should be the Okavango.

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 11:32

  61. What a surprize!
    No my man, you are uninformed, or rather, informed on the propaganda history which our present government whant you to believe. Why do you think “history” was first removed from the schooling cyllabys and later replaced with their version of history. My kids were not even allowed to take history books from the library after 1995. The old govt made a lot of mistakes, of which apartheid was one, but I was there and I know how the bush war was started and on request from whom.
    The USA asked us to assist their ally, the then rebel Jonas Savimbi, against Fidel Castro’s puppet country, Angola. They did this because they knew that SA considered SWA (Namibia) as its 5th province and would do so with pleasure. At the time we were still considered with respect by the USA after our assistance to them in the Korea war. We were supplied with weapons and arms by them, the French, Germany, Britain and even Italy. Our apartheid regime however caused pressure and embarrassment to them and we were asked to withdraw, which we refused. Our country “was like an old Ford car, easy to start, but damn hard to stop”. Soon they refused us arms and planes, causing us to develop better weoponry etc of which many today are credited to the US and Russia. We faught a damn good war and surprized the rest of the world. I even today have friend in America and England who says that back then they had respect for SA despite its apartheid govt. Today they laugh at us. It irks me when guys that were swimming in the Zambezi and laughed at the Migs, taunting them to try and shoot at them because they were proud to be South African soldiers, guys who saluted us when we flew over with our “Miracles” (Mirage F1 az’s and cz’s) and shot the hell out of the enemy because of National pride today want to tell how they were forced into the war and how a part of their lives were taken from them because of 2 years National Service. What happened to that pride? It irks me even more when spineless bastards that refused to serve and joined the ECC (end conscription campaign) on the principle that they refused because it was…….wait for it….., against their religious beliefs to fight in a war, today want to blame religion for this war. I agree with Balanced Truths, hate the NG Kerk or the Roman Catholic Church or whoever you want, but blame the right people for their deeds. Blame the old govt for their atrocities if you want, but for fuck sakes, get a sense of pride and salute your country for its achievement as well.

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 11:25

  62. It comes as no surprise that you’re as uninformed about history as you are of science generally. Your meddlesome sparkplug church inveigled its fetid, pontifical self into virtually every aspect of SA life: education, politics, business, social. Today, SA is a liberal constitutional democracy, and any attempt to equate its situation today to that of yesteryear is as disingenuous as it is moronic.

    Con-Tester

    July 19, 2011 at 10:45

  63. Jip, the NG Kerk happened to be behind the leaders of the time. Today the Desmond Tutus and the Allan Boesaks are behind the present government who are in fact running this beautifull country right into the mud. Does that mean that the Desmond Tutus and Allan Boesaks are responsible for the mess?

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 10:21

  64. The Pope runs the whole world.

    soois

    July 19, 2011 at 10:08

  65. And the Pope still runs Europe!

    ErickV

    July 19, 2011 at 08:19

  66. Balanced Truths, you miss the point. Your beloved NG Kerk who, like all kerke, believed they had the only real moral high ground and the only church who interpreted the bible correctly, and the only volk that followed god’s orders correctly.

    Now while the whole shit-show of Afrikaner Nationalism was going on for decades, the NG Kerk was 100% behind the NP Party and the generals and politicians etc etc etc. They didn’t allow people of color into their churches. They weren’t worthy of worshiping jesus and god and the other ghost together. They were treated like savages.

    I just wonder how they explained their change of heart. Did jesus tell them to?

    McBrolloks

    July 19, 2011 at 03:20

  67. Wait for the next big earthquake, the next tsunami, the next act of terrorismt, the next hurricane and read this blog afterwards. It is the “christians” who are responsable. It is “god” who is inhumane. If in South Africa, it is the NG church’s fault. I for one faught in the war which began on behalf and on request from the USA against Angola under leadership of Cuba, their arch enemy of the time. Get the facts if you want to blame.

    soois

    July 18, 2011 at 20:32

  68. “The SA Reserve Bank, Absa Group, Sanlam, Rembrandt (now Remgro), KWV and even the Dutch Reformed Church “

    And the silence on the topic by the NG Kerk. How they preached that their flock was god’s chosen people to take Africa as their own and to tame the godless savage. To take the rich of the land for their own. To oppress anyone in their path. And also to build a huge army and invade Angola.

    Of course, the NG Kerk was in charge of the financial institutions, they deliberately instituted the high banking costs to fund the secret soldiers that came out of Sunday school to grip their R1 rifles with zealous hands, they also made sure that the economy took enough of a dive to be able to justify the decision that all those annuities would pay out less than they received over all those lifetimes. Thousands of old people are eating dog food thanks to Sanlam. No, it definitely wasn’t our Capital Vices, our greed, pride, lust and our wrath that lead to our politicians’ directives, oh no, it was the NG Kerk.

    I honestly don’t give a flying fuck what you want to blame the NG Kerk for but when you skip over the real culprits that have been in charge of almost all of humanity’s misery just to justify your hate of all things religious…

    It irks me that the ‘Broederbond’ still gets the blame for everything, when the Army was getting ready for a blood bath they would easily have pulled off, one that would have made Hitler look like an amateur, it was the Broederbond that realised that we would never survive the inevitable judgement day, it was the Broederbond responsible for putting the right people in place to defuse the biggest bomb by releasing Mandela and giving up.

    It was, in short, the also religious leaders of our country that stood up to their own brothers and stopped the corruption, the greed, the wrath that would have lead to hell, a very real hell, right here in your back yard, while the rest of the culprits you choose to ignore shouted for blood and money.

    That they paid some of their ill gotten gains to the NG Kerk to appease their consciences, sure, but to insinuate that the NG Kerk was the masterminds to blame is either pure stupidity or a political agenda that suits your cause.

    Balanced Truths

    July 17, 2011 at 12:14

  69. If you want to know all and everything about us humans, why we do certain things, why we have belief systems, why we tell lies, why we deny our past, our history and why we live in total denial of it all, here is a link that will open up another world for you.

    http://www.arthurjanov.com

    Note that this blog is not only for those who suffer from all kinds of emotional and mental problems, but it provides immense insights into human beings per se. You will find absolute and incredible input about the everyday problems that beset all of us sometimes, such as relationships, marriage, physical illnesses, etc., no matter how “sane” you believe yourself to be. It is about growing, something all of us should do without stop in our daily lives. The bottom line is, we are all neurotic to a greater or lesser degree and if you are honest with yourself, then you will admit that there is perhaps something about you that is not all hunky dory. Find the answers at this blog. Good luck!

    verifanie

    July 11, 2011 at 09:08

  70. Ja swaar. Ek verstaan. Ek wonder net, as so baie hulle deuntjie verander het, hoekom hoor ons nie so paar van hulle wat dalk ietsie te se het nie. Ek soek ver en wyd na iemand wat so bietjie kan praat oor die goeie ou dae toe die boer hand aan hand met sy spoke die land regeer het. Dit is moeilik om so kak spul onder die mat in te vee. Dis soos ‘n klomp honde wat in die kombuis gekak het, en die mense maak asof hulle dit nog nie raak gesien het nie. In tussen ruik die plek soos ‘n kakhuis, en jy moet mooi kyk waar jy loop. Maar hulle fok voort en gaan aan asof niks ooit gebeur het nie.

    McBrolloks

    July 10, 2011 at 18:01

  71. Ja McBrollocks… Myns insiens is daar twee redes vir die stilte: Die lot is eenvoudig net te skaam, of, daar is bloot net nie meer baie NG volgelinge nie. Want sien, ‘n groot getal van die verkramptes het mos skielik hier tydens die 90’s en 00’s uiteindelik die ware lig gesien, of soos die Ingelsman se, “ge-enlightened”! Die lot sit mos deesdae in die karismatise kerke, want deesdae is dit mos nie meer cool om grumpy te wees en permanent swart pakke te dra nie. Veral na ’94 is almal so bietjie cooler! Hel, sommige aanbid selfs saam oor die kleurgrense!

    Rick

    July 10, 2011 at 10:28

  72. And the silence on the topic by the NG Kerk. How they preached that their flock was god’s chosen people to take Africa as their own and to tame the godless savage. To take the rich of the land for their own. To oppress anyone in their path. And also to build a huge army and invade Angola. But it was all god’s will. God knew that what they were doing was for the good of the Africans.

    Now?

    Silence. ……………

    As if they never spoke those words, never followed that policy, never spread their gospel through our schools and all through the government. Never had a hand in apartheid.

    But hey, I can still remember. Funny how so many others that still remembers it too are also silent…………..

    McBrolloks

    July 9, 2011 at 10:52

  73. SA’s Dutch Reformed Church allegedly involved in theft, which should leave no one very much “verwonderd”:

    The plunder [of SA’s Treasury during the closing years of apartheid], involving various companies and prominent businessmen, relates to numerous alleged illegal transactions amounting to as much as R200bn.

    The SA Reserve Bank, Absa Group, Sanlam, Rembrandt (now Remgro), KWV and even the Dutch Reformed Church have apparently been named in a confidential report, which was compiled by a British forensic investigation firm and handed to the South African government in 1999.

    Source: New probe into apartheid era plunder.

    It wouldn’t surprise me one little bit if these sanctimonious violators of everything decent are guilty as charged. They were instrumental in the establishment of Apartheid and they always pick and choose which of their supposed god’s laws they can break in any given situation before fabricating a bunch of pseudo-rationales to “defend” their crooked actions.

    Con-Tester

    July 7, 2011 at 09:38

  74. These guys all sound the same. Another bat shit crazy loon talking about the gospel, while the congregation happily cheers along. So I guess whether it is the NG Fokken Kerk or the Mormons, they are all full of shit to the max.

    Like Hitchens said when Jerry Falwell died: “If you give Falwell and enema, you could bury him in a matchbox”

    McBrolloks

    October 5, 2010 at 16:29

  75. McBrolloks

    Mooi opgesom .

    DW

    October 5, 2010 at 09:02

  76. Ja, fok, die NG Kerk was maar nog altyd lekker deur die kak. Hulle het die afrikaner se skuld gevoelens mooi gemaseer sodat mense nie sleg gevoel het tydens apartheid nie. Hulle het mooi vir almal verduidelik dat ons god se gekose volk is. Dat ons die swartejies mag opfok, want dis vir hulle eie bes, and dat ons dit alles met die bybel as ‘n gids doen. Fokken klomp poesse. Ek onhou mooi in my kinder dae hoe fokken deur die kak daardie omies en tannies was wat so gelowig was. Alles gedoen wat die dominie se, alles geglo wat die dominie se, en nooit enige vra gevra nie. Daardie ou fokkers met hulle snorre wat elke sondag voor in die kerk sit. Dan gaan naai hulle die bediende as vroulief by die werk is, en as hulle lekker sit en brandewyn drink saam met hulle tjommies, dan praat hulle van die k****rs en hoe sleg hulle is. ‘n Baie goeie voorbeeld van sulke fokkers was sekerlik 9 uit 10 van my onderwysers op skool. ‘n Regte klomp varke wat kinders fisies gemoer het met rottangs. Daar was 5 seuns wat selfmoord gepleeg het met wie ek saam op skool was in my 12 jaar, en dit was omdat party van hulle gemolesteer was deur daardie onnies, en ook omdat party van hulle so gemoer was met rottangs, dat hulle heentemal gecrack het. En daardie fokken onnies het elke dag die klas in gebed gelei, baie van hulle het maandae oggende op die skool verhoog die godsdiens gehou, en hulle het nooit ‘n kans gemis om die ou vlag te huis en die kinders wat kak aanjaag op perade uit te trek en goed te moer met hulle rottangs nie. Wys jou hoe hou hulle defence dat geloof en godsdiens vir jou morele waardes gee. Ha-ha!!!!! Fok die fokken poes NG Kerk en die fokken dom poes konte wat die show daar run. Hulle is ape met breine wat lankal weg gevrot het. Hulle glo is spoke, en hulle gee verlossing en vergifnis vir mense wat regte varke is. En ek sal weer apartheid noem en wat hulle fokken rol was om die volk die “regte” idiologie te laat volg.

    McBrolloks

    October 5, 2010 at 00:22

  77. Ek is bly jy sê die stryd weer aan, Nathan. Ek sien op verkeie blogs raak van die eienaars met tye moedeloos en uitgeskryf (so sê hulle) en vat dan ‘n blaaskans. Maar gelukkig is die afwesigheid van korte duur, want as jy na al die klomp stront moet kyk wat die fundies kwytraak, kan mens maar nèt nie stil bly nie. (Jason Rosenhouse van EvolutionBlog is een.)

    Daarenteen is die fundies diè met onuitputbare bronne van strontstrooi; jy kry hulle net nie stil nie.

    Savage

    August 9, 2010 at 12:31

  78. Personally, I particularly identify with Krauss’ closing paragraph in the article linked to in my earlier comment:

    Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.

    In truth, the same holds for any and all kinds of irrationality. It just so happens that religious irrationality is by far its most rampantly popular form.

    Several of the commentators take issue with Krauss’ suggestion that religious leaders should be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs. Their stock defence is that science also has held and probably does hold certain beliefs that are false. You don’t need to be a genius to see that this kind of tu quoque deflection does not and cannot ever excuse clinging to outmoded bullshit ideas about which we very clearly have far superior knowledge. It is just such obstinately blind conservatism that deserves hardly more than mockery and ridicule.

    Con-Tester

    August 9, 2010 at 11:51

  79. Savage
    Thank you for the timely motivation! I am so revolted and grossed out and churned up by the idiotic offerings of theologians and so-called church leaders lapped up by infantile member minds that I was about to abandon my efforts at exposing the useless twonks.
    I is re-motivated now, I is sah!

    Nathan Bond

    August 9, 2010 at 11:29

  80. Yes, Lawrence Krauss has a monthly column in Scientific American. He had this to say in the August 2004 SA.

    “This becomes so tiresome [fighting the fundies] that you just want to say, “Forget about it, go on.” But then you realize that this is exactly what Philip Johnson, this lawyer who first proposed the intelligent-design strategy, proposed when he said something like, “We’ll just keep going and going and going till we outlast the evolutionists.””

    So that is why we cannot let up fighting these assholes.

    Krauss also said: “I’m not against faith-based ideas in religion classes; I’m just against teaching them as if they were science.”

    This is where the fundies’ brains are so scrambled that they think science is what their book of fairytales tells them.

    Savage

    August 9, 2010 at 11:09

  81. …and some welcome symptomatic relief. More of the same, please!

    Con-Tester

    August 9, 2010 at 10:19

  82. Jamen. Solank bog van diè aard ernstig geneem word en respek verwag, solank gaan ons in die moelikheid bly.

    Con-Tester

    August 9, 2010 at 10:02

  83. Ja, gemoedsbekakkend is dit beslis (die wetenskaplike “insig” wat teoloë het). Ek het ‘n soortvan “vriend”, wat nogal ‘n PhD in die teologie het, aan wie ek die DNA bewyse vir die feit dat almal van ‘n common ancestor afstam veduidelik het. Of liewer, probeer verduidelik het. Na ‘n paar minute kom ek agter diè ou het so ‘n glasige uidrukking in sy oë; die ligte was aan maar daar was niemand tuis nie. Ek vra hom toe, “wat het ek nounet gesê?” Hy antwoord toe verleë dat hy nie geluister het nie. Ek vra hom toe of hy nie wòù luister nie en òf hy nie eens hierdie eenvoudige begrippe onder die knie kon kry nie. Hy wip toe sy gat en loop weg, en ek het seker vir 6 maande nie van hom gehoor nie.

    Ek is oortuig daarvan dat fundies baie min van hulle verstand gebruik om te dink; werklikwaar te dink. Hulle spoke dink vir hulle en so voed hulle ook hulle kinders op. Wat ‘n gemoedsbekakkende (baie mooi woord) situasie is dit nie.

    Savage

    August 9, 2010 at 09:13


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: