Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Japan 20110311

with 621 comments

13 Maart 2011. Ek het alles wat ek oor natuurrampe wil sê, net na die 2004-tsunami gesê – klik hier.

Maar steeds het hierdie yswoorde, van ene Carel van Renen (27), ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse onderwyser in Tokio, oor Vrydag se verwoestende aardbewing in die see naby Japan, my sprakeloos gelaat: “Ek prys die Here vir ‘n mooi sonskyndag…”

Terwyl waarskynlik derduisende mense gesterf het (op Van Renen se “mooi sonskyndag”) en dermiljoene dakloos gelaat is, sonder krag en water.

Godgelowiges…

Wel, kom ek bly liefs maar “sprakeloos”.

Of nee, tog dié vergelyking: Dis soos ‘n Jood in Dachau wat Hitler heimlik prys omdat hy toegelaat word om sy blaas langs sy bed leeg te maak.

Walglik.

Written by Nathan Bond

March 13, 2011 at 08:35

Posted in Religion must go!

621 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Kan ek net dit se, die dag as die wegraping gekom het en julle het agter gebly, weet net dat julle verkeerd was(is) en maak julle storie reg met die Here. M.a.w moenie die merk van die dier vat nie.

    blue

    February 3, 2014 at 13:06

  2. Gerhard, vertel my ‘n bietjie wat dit my gaan baat om te glo as ek “uitverkies” moet word.
    As ek nie uitverkies is nie gaan ek mos braai, of ek glo en of ek nie glo nie.
    Klink dit vir jou regverdig?

    Shazee

    June 20, 2012 at 18:02

  3. There, you see? Another infallible Holey Babble expert crawls out from under a rock, six months delayed. With all this infallible Holey Babble expertise around, it’s a mystery how their various renditions invariably disagree with one another.

    You morons should settle this in the boxing ring with a round robin tournament. That way you’d provide better entertainment for the onlookers.

    Con-Tester

    June 20, 2012 at 08:26

  4. Nee die naam mag nie aan almal gegee word nie, dis net vir mense wat uit verkies gaan word. Daarom is dit my werk om daardie mense te gaan soek. Hoe doen ek dit, ek moet eers die geeste toets of hulle uitverkies is. Johannes se mond is stil gemaak. Hy het soveel skrifte aan my gegee nadat ek vir hom gese het jou skrifte wat jy gee beteken iets anders. Maar wil nie luister nie. Ek het vir hom die regte antwoorde gegee maar hy dink en praat twak. Mense moet nie met my stry wat ek se nie, ek ken my bybel beter af enige prediker of geleerder. Wat ek, let daar op.

    Gerhard.

    June 20, 2012 at 07:49

  5. Gerhard, nouja, gee ons die naam sodat ons ook almal gered kan word?

    Hans Matthysen

    January 4, 2012 at 22:38

  6. Ek was toe reg dat daar geen wegraping gekom het nie. Johannes wil my nie eers antwoord nie. Daar sal ook nie in die jare wat kom enige wederkoms of wegraping kom nie, omdat dit nie skrif is nie. Ek het nuus vir die Christendom. Daar is nie so ding as ‘n wedergebore christen nie, omdat hulle onder valse afgods name vas hou en nog nie die weg van die waarheid gevind het nie. Hulle is vas gevang deur die duiwel wat hulle vader is, en dis niks anders as die predikers vandag nie. Hulle is vas gevang in leerstelinge van mense wat nie werklik wedergebore is nie. Daar was nog nooit so geloof as die christen geloof nie. Dit het eers 324 n.m sy ontstaan gekry. Nou wil hulle die messiah met ‘n valse geloof besmet. Ek wonder of enige iemand my kan se in watter geloof het hy aan behoort as die naam christus nog nie daar was nie. Die naam christus kom eers 324 n.m eers tot stand. Die roomskatolieke het die naam christus in gebring. Die messiah kon onmoontlik nie ‘n roomskatoliek gewees het nie. Almal noem vandag die messiah christus. Hoe kry hulle dit reg om hom na ‘n roomse naam te noem. Die naam christus kom van Grieks. In Grieks is dit cristos. n’ Vals gesalfde. Die naam Jesus is ook ‘n vals naam wat van Rooms af kom. In Grieks was dit Isous omdat daar nie ‘n letter “J” in Grieks voor kom nie. Hulle het die messiah ‘n valse Grieke naam gegee wat vandag bekend staan as Jesus. Die God van die Grieke. Dis tyd om wakker te word, die mens is in ‘n diepe slaap. Geen wonder daar is so baie spotters en so baie kerke. Elkeen hoop hy of sy is op die regte weg. Dis net waar die mens sy fout maak. Daar is net een ware geloof wat jy moet vind. Jy moet dit gaan soek met alle erens want die tyd is besig om uit te loop vir die mens dom. Ek weet in watter geloof die messiah was en hy was beslis nie ‘n christen. Wys my enige plek in die ou testament dat die naam christen daar voor kom. Daar moet twee getuienise wees. Een in die ou testament en een in die nuwe. Wat was die messiah se wedergeborte se gees se naam na sy opstanding (geestelike opstanding, dis die dag toe hy wedergebore is.). As hy volgens Heb.1:vers 4 het hy ‘n nuwe naam ontvang, hoe kan dit dan wees dat hy nog die naam Jesus dra, hy het dan ‘n ander naam ontvang, hoe staan die saak dan ? Almal wat die nuwe naam dra is die Vader se kinders. Nou kom ‘n ander vraag waar pas die christendom en die res van die ander gelowe dan nou in, as hulle nie eers weet wat daardie naam is nie. Dan is hulle mos nie deel van die koninkryk nie maar van die duiwel. Ek weet die antwoord. Dis sal net gegee word wie erenstig is en belangstel. Die spotters en mense wat nie wil uit kom onder afgods name (kerk mense) sal dit dit nie ontvang nie omdat hulle nie uitverkies is nie.

    Gerhard

    January 4, 2012 at 13:36

  7. ErickV, jy kon nog niks weerlê wat ek al verduidelik het, aangaande wat in die Bybel geskryf is nie. Dus wil dit voorkom of jy nog meer onnosel is as wat ooit kan wees. Dit wys dus dat jy nog nooit wakker was.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 31, 2011 at 20:43

  8. Ai, Matthysen, hoe onnosel kan jy nie wees nie?
    Jy is maar een dom donner tussen al die 40,000 Christelike denominasies (of sal ek se DOMinasies)
    wat almal verskillend is!!!!!!!!
    Word vir ‘n slag fokken wakker!!!!!

    ErickV

    May 24, 2011 at 06:27

  9. Erick, jy kannie baie slim wees as jy nie kan agter kom dat Johannes en myself verskil hemelsbreed oor wat in die Bybel geskryf is.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 23, 2011 at 22:28

  10. Hello Daan!
    Moenie worry nie. Ek gaan ‘n moerse partiekie vir die oorgeblewenis in Polokwane reel.
    En ek gaan ook probeer om sosaties te maak!!!🙂🙂

    ErickV

    May 20, 2011 at 05:22

  11. Erick!!! Naandsê.

    “Shit, ek moet saam met haar wees as die wegraping gebeur!!!!”

    Is ook weer waar. Ons gaan jou mis.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 19, 2011 at 19:36

  12. Hallo Daan!
    Ongelukkig moet ek Polekwane toe vir die naweek. Ek moet vir ‘n slag by my huis en vrou uitkom! Dis maar moeilik vir ‘n mens as ‘n mens op die Wesrand werk en vroulief is nog in Polokwane. Gelukkig trek sy ook hierheen teen die einde van die maand. Ek sal dan definitief ‘n plan sien om julle te ontmoet indien daar weer ‘n “Sinode” is!
    Shit, ek moet saam met haar wees as die wegraping gebeur!!!!🙂🙂🙂

    ErickV

    May 19, 2011 at 08:36

  13. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Kom jy Saterdag saam kuier. Komaan Erick!! Pret onbeperk!!!

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 19, 2011 at 06:37

  14. Hans,
    Jy en Johannes is twee kante van dieselfde munt! Ewe dilusional!

    ErickV

    May 19, 2011 at 05:23

  15. Hanswors, that’s what you keep saying and then, as is typical fundie behaviour, you comment anyway if only to say how not worthy of comment my comments are, thus contradicting yourself. I’m beginning to suspect that you have no understanding whatsoever of Mickey Mouse. Am I right, or what?

    Con-Tester

    May 18, 2011 at 22:39

  16. Con-Tester, not worthy for comment.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 18, 2011 at 22:31

  17. Johannes, ons sien uit om van jou te hoor wanneer die nonsens op 21 Mei 2011, tot ‘n einde kom.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 18, 2011 at 21:56

  18. Yes Hanswors, but I’ve told you a few times already that appearances can often be deceiving. And you’re still resisting the deep messages of our toothy redeemer Mickey Mouse. Shame, you’ll never be saved without him. You’ll never know what you’re missing. For example, you would see parody and irony much more clearly should you accept Mickey Mouse as your personal saviour.

    Con-Tester

    May 18, 2011 at 21:54

  19. Daan, ja, vir my is die boodskappe wat ek daarin kry betroubaar en dus kan ek met jou stelling saam stem, in die lig waarna jy daarna kyk.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 18, 2011 at 21:52

  20. Con-Tester, it appears you have fallen asleep as mental handicap has caught up with you. You appear to have fallen back into your childhood days as you keep repeating Micky Mouse ect. Shame!

    Hans Matthysen

    May 18, 2011 at 21:44

  21. Johannes

    Ek doen so bietjie kommunikasiewerk… en ek probeer myself indink hoe ek jou sou verteenwoordig van die 22ste af.

    Hoe verduidelik ek namens my kliënt dat hy fokkin stoepit is?

    Jy skuld my dúúr wyn, Johannes. Chateau Petrus is dúúrrrrr.

    Hóékom, Johannes? Hóékom jou naam só gat maak!?

    Nathan Bond

    May 15, 2011 at 10:00

  22. Nathan hierdie waansinnige nonsens kom alles ten einde op 21 Mei 2011, minder as ‘n week dude byt net vas.

    johannes coetzee

    May 15, 2011 at 09:45

  23. Hans!! Dagsê.

    Dankie vir jou antwoord. Ek verstaan presies wat jy sê, maar my punt bly dat die historiese korrektheid van die evangelies, veral dit wat Jesus sou gesê het, nie geloofwaardig en daarom nie betroubaar is nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 15, 2011 at 06:18

  24. Erick!! Dagsê.

    Hier bo skryf Johannes op 12 Mei, 14:26
    “Diegene wat die wereldwye aardbewing wat met sonsondergang op 21 Mei gaan plaasvind, oorleef sal dan weet dat hulle weet…!

    Johnny Korze sryf op Kletskerk op Donderdag, 12 Mei, 7:41 nm
    “Diegene wat die wereldwye aardbewing wat met sonsondergang op 21 Mei gaan plaasvind, oorleef sal dan weet dat hulle weet…!

    hmmm…. Ek sien jou punt.

    Dit gaan so COOL wees as jy saam met Willem na die zaksatiepaartie toe kom. Ek sien moerse uit daarna. Ons gaan lekker kuier en as jy nog nie ‘n zaksatie geëet het nie, is jy in vir ‘n treat.

    Money-back guarantee.🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 15, 2011 at 06:14

  25. My púnt, Johannes?

    Dat hierdie einde van die wêreld-storie ‘n pot kak is.

    Ek gaan nie eens vir jou lag op 22 Mei nie. Ek gaan nie eens die berigte lees wat Neels Jackson en Johannes de Villiers oor jou en jou waansinnige nonsens gaan skryf nie.

    Ek soek net my wyn.

    Nathan Bond

    May 14, 2011 at 16:30

  26. Nathan en jou punt is , next caller please.

    johannes coetzee

    May 14, 2011 at 16:26

  27. Yeah Hanswors, appearances can be deceiving, especially when you view them in a mirror that you’re too blind to see. Then again, mental handicaps also tend to rub off if you don’t constantly guard against this. But I see you haven’t yet been able to accept Mickey Mouse into your life as your one true personal saviour. You don’t know how sad it is that you can reject the Real Eternal Truth™ of Mickey Mouse without even bothering to look into it.

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2011 at 10:52

  28. Daan, jy is reg, een sal nie elke keer, as een bid, dit aan ander meedeel en tog sommige keer sal een wel.
    Ek kan my afsonder deur weg te beweeg en ook sonder om weg te beweeg.
    Geskiedenis kan alleenlik my lewe beinvloed sou ek lesse daaruit kan vind en dit is eintlik my punt daar.
    Vertrou jy verstaan my beter in die saak.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2011 at 09:47

  29. Johannes

    Nes Noag, soek ek net my wyn. Ek voel fôkol vir jou oordeelsdagkak.

    Ek soek my wyn.

    Wil jy ‘n kas verwed?

    Nathan Bond

    May 14, 2011 at 09:24

  30. Con-Tester, dit wil vir my voorkom of jy in een of ander opsig gestremd is. Siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2011 at 09:22

  31. Nathan op 22 Mei is hier groot moeilikheid vir mense wat nog op aarde is.

    Net soos in die dae van Noag was daar spotters en dwase wat die woord van God afgelag het . (Gen 6-9)
    Die diere is al reeds besig om in die ark te loop , en die wolke is besig om swaar en donker te word.
    (Gen 6:5) Toe die Here sien hoe groot die verdorwenheid van die mens op aarde is en dat hy sy lewe lank net slegte dinge bedink
    (Gen 6:7) Die Here het gesê: “Ek sal die mens wat Ek geskep het, wegvee van die aarde af; mens en dier, ook dié wat kruip, en die voëls, want Ek is bedroef daaroor dat Ek hulle gemaak het.”
    (Gen6 :22) Noag het alles gedoen presies soos God hom beveel het.
    Nog net 7 dae bru , dis tyd om berge toe vlug .
    Lees ons spesiale bybelstudie vir die laaste 7 dae by http://www.familyradio.com

    Hierdie boodskap het die uithoeke van die aarde bereik.” Now you know”

    Mag God julle almal genadig wees.

    johannes coetzee

    May 14, 2011 at 09:19

  32. Daan,
    Nog ‘n ding. Ek bly in dieselfde omgewing as Dom Willem en is in dieselfde beroepsveld as hy.
    Hier noem ons net Grandpas Shift Boss Sherbet!

    ErickV

    May 14, 2011 at 08:50

  33. Daan,
    By the way, ek sal probeer om volgende Saterdag daar te wees.

    ErickV

    May 14, 2011 at 08:45

  34. Hello Daan!
    Hier bo skryf Johannes op 12 Mei, 14:26
    “Diegene wat die wereldwye aardbewing wat met sonsondergang op 21 Mei gaan plaasvind, oorleef sal dan weet dat hulle weet…!

    Johnny Korze sryf op Kletskerk op Donderdag, 12 Mei, 7:41 nm
    “Diegene wat die wereldwye aardbewing wat met sonsondergang op 21 Mei gaan plaasvind, oorleef sal dan weet dat hulle weet…!

    So, dink jy nog die twee is aparte persone???!!!

    ErickV

    May 14, 2011 at 08:43

  35. Johannes

    Ek soek net my wyn op die 22ste. Jy het my nommer; bel my enige tyd na middernag op die oordeelsdag, dis dan in elke geval al laat in die dag in Oz.

    Watter onbevange kák kan mense darem nie glo nie.

    Godsk!

    Nathan Bond

    May 14, 2011 at 08:33

  36. Ek dink nie dit is te veel gevra om 7 dae te wag om te sien dat julle verkeerd was nie.
    Net 7 dae bru, net 7 dae DV.
    Mag God elkeen van julle genadig wees.

    johannes coetzee

    May 14, 2011 at 08:15

  37. Yup, Johannes Coetzee: The fucked-up worldview that is religion instantiated. Sure, it’s his right to believe and say what he likes. Sure, it’s his right to flush his own life down the toilet. Sure, it’s his right to decide the course of his own inconsequential existence. Sure, it’s his right to pursue the things he thinks will give meaning to his existence. Sure, all of those things he has an inalienable claim to.

    But here’s the part you bible-thumping fuck-ups refuse to get:

    You do not have the right to foist the fallout of your brain-dead folly onto the rest of humanity, especially your own kids. And fallout there inevitably will be.

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2011 at 22:52

  38. 🙂🙂🙂 Jy moet verstaan Soois, dat Johannes al baie jare hierdie 21 Mei 2011 stront op hierdie blog verkondig. So baie manne hier sit oorgehaal om hom na 21 Mei baie kak te vertel.

    En hy het met almal, selfs ou Hans wie, soos jy weet, ‘n goeie en besadigde man is, vasgesit.

    Shit, maar ons het al vir hom gelag. Vir my persoonlik was die snaakste daai “God het al in 1988 die kerk en sy strukture uit sy mond uitgespoeg”- lyn.

    Een van die snaakste poste was van DW wie deesdae skaars is hier:

    “Johannes, jou kop raas nie. Jy is fokken mal man! Skaam jy jou nie om sulke kak onder jou naam te skryf nie?!”
    🙂🙂🙂

    Ek het dit op goeie gesag dat Johannes tot so 6 maande terug ‘n suksesvolle professionele man was, en die tragiese is dat hy sy loopbaan gelos het. Hy lewe tans van sy spaargeld. Gelukkig is al sy kinders reeds selfversorgend.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 13, 2011 at 21:39

  39. Naandse Daan.

    Hel, hy mag mal wees, maar na sy pos het die blog ewe skielik weer lewe gekry.

    soois

    May 13, 2011 at 20:50

  40. Erick!!! Naandsê.
    🙂🙂 Nee, ek twyfel baie sterk of ou Johnny Mes Johannes Coetzee is.🙂🙂

    Maar natuurlik gaan ek volgende Saterdag Zaksaties eet! Ek (en Kat agter die skerms) het die ding gereël. Dit gaan vet pret wees en nee, ek en ou Dom Willem gaan mekaar nie regtig bliksem nie. (Fok! Ek hoop nie so nie. Tensy hy baie kleiner as ek is.)

    As jy minder as 400 kilometer van Pretoria af bly moet jy ASSEBLIEF ook kom.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 13, 2011 at 19:42

  41. Toemaar, ou Soois. Jy mis niks. Arme ou Johannes is so mal soos ‘n kakhuisrot.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 13, 2011 at 19:32

  42. Hello Daan!
    Daar het julle Kletskerkers dit! Johannes Coetzee is toe al die tyd Johnny Kotze!!!

    ErickV

    May 13, 2011 at 12:52

  43. Nathan, en my mede volksgenote. Dit is met bittere pyn dat ek sien hoe julle jul rûe op die waarheid van die Bybel draai. Die tyd om “berge” toe te vlug is min. Ek sien julle is ook almal “uit tyd. ”

    Num 22:28-30 Maar die HERE het die bek van die esel geopen, en sy sê vir Bíleam: Wat het ek jou gedoen, dat jy my nou al drie maal geslaan het?

    Daarop antwoord Bíleam die esel: Omdat jy die spot met my drywe. Was daar net ‘n swaard in my hand—dan het ek jou sekerlik doodgeslaan.
    En die esel sê vir Bíleam: Is ek nie jou esel waar jy jou lewe lank op gery het tot vandag toe nie? Was dit ooit my gewoonte om so met jou te doen? En hy antwoord: Nee.
    (1Th 4:16) Want die Here self sal van die hemel neerdaal met ‘n geroep, met die stem van ‘n aartsengel en met geklank van die basuin van God; en die wat in Christus gesterf het, sal eerste opstaan.
    (1Th 4:17) Daarna sal ons wat in die lewe oorbly, saam met hulle in wolke weggevoer word die Here tegemoet in die lug; en so sal ons altyd by die Here wees.

    Op 21 Mei 2011, in minder as 9 dae , gaan die moeder van alle aardbewings die aarde tref as Jesus en sy engele triomfantlik en met glorie sy volk oproep tot die wolke. Vir die wat agtergelaat word sal die grootste verdrukking vir die volgende 5 mnde tot 21 Oktober 2011 die voorland wees.

    Nathan, ek is bewus dat daar elemente van satan probeer om my ministry en die blye verkondiging van “Judgement day” op 21 Mei 2011 DV skipbreuk te laat ly. Gen 3; 16. Dit is niks nuut, die oorwinning is in (Eze 39:22) En die huis van Israel sal weet dat Ek die HERE hulle God is, van dié dag af en verder.
    die nasies van die wereld sal weet…
    (Eze 39:27) As Ek hulle terugbring uit die volke en hulle versamel uit die lande van hulle vyande, sal Ek My in hulle as die Heilige laat ken voor die oë van baie nasies.
    Mag God jou genadig wees.

    (Gen 9:12) En God het gesê: Dit is die teken van die verbond wat Ek sluit tussen My en julle en al die lewende wesens wat by julle is, vir ewige geslagte:
    (Gen 9:13) my boog gee Ek in die wolke; dit sal ‘n teken wees van die verbond tussen My en die aarde.
    (Gen 9:14) As Ek dan wolke oor die aarde bring en hierdie boog verskyn in die wolke,
    (Gen 9:15) dan sal Ek dink aan my verbond wat daar bestaan tussen My en julle en al die lewende wesens, in alle vlees. En die waters sal nie meer ‘n vloed word om alle vlees te verdelg nie.
    (Gen 9:16) As die boog dan in die wolke staan, sal Ek dit aansien om gedagtig te wees aan die ewige verbond tussen God en al die lewende wesens in alle vlees wat op die aarde is.
    (Gen 9:17) En God het vir Noag gesê: Dit is die teken van die verbond wat Ek opgerig het tussen My en alle vlees wat op die aarde is.

    In 1988 het God letterlik die kerk en sy strukture uit sy mond gespoeg. Jy oë is verblind want die waarheid sal jy nie in die kerk kry nie.
    God se kalender is nie die Gregoriaanse kalender nie .Julle is nog vasgevang in die leuens van die hoer van Babilon.
    Matt 24;37,Soos dit in die dae van Noag was, sal dit ook wees by die koms van die Seun van die mens.
    38,In daardie dae voor die sondvloed het hulle soos gewoonlik geëet en gedrink en getrou tot op die dag dat Noag in die ark ingegaan het
    39,Hulle het nie besef wat aan die gang was nie, totdat die sondvloed gekom en hulle almal weggesleur het. Net so sal dit gaan by die koms van die Seun van die mens

    My bede is dat God julle almal genadig mag wees.

    johannes coetzee

    May 13, 2011 at 12:42

  44. Hello Daan!!
    Gaan jy ook volgende Saterdag Zaksaties eet?
    Ek hoop nie jy en en daai anner ou gaan nog daarna faait nie!!!🙂🙂🙂

    ErickV

    May 13, 2011 at 12:31

  45. I’d love to know what a person does in the last nine days of his life? If Johannes REALLY believes Harold’s prediction, what is he doing differently these last days? I sure hope he isn’t torturing his kids with threats n kak! My guess is that both Johannes and old Harold (who, at 89 is actually right when he says “The End is Nigh”) are actually hard at work writing their NEW, IMPROVED prediction which they will roll out on 22 May. They’re crafty conmen. Enough speculation. What would I do with nine days? Bliksem! Dunno, really. Pack up the car and head off to a game reserve and sit for hours at a waterhole with good grub, good binocs, good field guides and good wine, maybe.

    bewilderbeast

    May 13, 2011 at 12:10

  46. I’ve been away, and I’m very worried! Where is Johannes (it was Johannes, wasn’t it?) and his rapture day stuff? I do hope he and Harold Camping are not going to hide as May 21 approaches? Has he sold his earthly goods? Has he donated them, as money won’t have any worth? So many questions. Jo-ha-nnes?! Waar’s jy en Family Radio, ou swaer?

    bewilderbeast

    May 13, 2011 at 11:48

  47. Hey soois, instead of concocting banal messages whose real intent is to show just how studiously you’re ignoring me, why don’t you tell your rapt audience whether you agree with Johannes Coetzee’s (actually, that nutcase Harold Camping’s) prognostications about 21 May, the end of the world and your bohemian hero’s second ejaculation. Oops, silly me, second coming. You could explain why you agree or disagree and stun everyone with your deep insight. I mean, both of you pride yourselves on how well you understand your virgin-raping skydaddy & unhinged bastard son Jeeeeeeebussssst!’s special book — so much so that you’d lecture everyone else on it and cook up wonky rationalisations to “support” your views.

    Quickly now, ’cos there’s just over a week left.

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2011 at 22:37

  48. Hallo Daan!

    Net toe ek dink ek gaan darem ook met die beroemde, of is dit nou berugte?, Johannes Coetsee gesels, toe raak hy sowaar weer weg.

    Nou ja, so is die lewe.

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 21:42

  49. In other words, you can’t present a coherent argument and aren’t prepared to concede my point. Intellectual honesty, indeed. Didn’t you get your insubstantial skydaddy’s memo about bearing false witness and such?

    Oh well, it’s hardly unexpected. With or without your permission, I’ll read your juvenile comments anyway — or at least as much of them as mirth permits. If, as is typically the case, they fail to make sense, I’ll be sure to point it out, okay? I’ll do that so that you might one day “learn and broaden your knowledge,” despite the extreme unlikelihood of that ever happening. As for having a “discussion, or argument” with you, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated the sheer impossibility of that.

    And if you’re offended by my deriding your precious invisible skychum Jeeeeeeeebusssssst!, then that’s your problem. But it’s a safe bet that you’ll not bother to ask yourself why that is. Get over yourself already, ’cos it says much about how secure your beliefs really are. If you actually had any kind of case at all, you could just present it and you wouldn’t need to have “had it with [me] … mocking [your] saviour,” now would you?:mrgreen:

    Ignore away, McSoois, ignore away. Let’s see how long you can keep it up this time.

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2011 at 19:48

  50. Erick!! Naandsê.

    Fok!! Ek het nou my gat afgelag toe ek jou pos lees.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 12, 2011 at 19:29

  51. ErickV.

    Ek wonder self oor daardie sonsondergang. Hoewel my Bybel se dat die son onder sal gaan gedurende die dag. Nou gaan jy vra:, “wie se dag, ons s’n of Amerika s’n?”

    Nogal ‘n tameletjie daardie een.

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 19:19

  52. You know, I’ve had it with you. A discussion, or arguments, is one thing I am happy with. You mocking me is also quite ok, but you keep on mocking my Saviour, despite the fact that I pointed you out as a “scoffer”.

    From this moment I will actually ignore you. You can do the same, or if you want, but if you want to learn and broaden your knowledge, please go on and read my posts.

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 19:09

  53. At round about the time (May 12, 2011 at 07:39) you posted a batch of four comments about scoffers during the End Times instead of addressing the points made. That’s usually the kind of avoidance tactic you get from someone when they decide to ignore you, provided that someone’s brain is more or less functional.

    But yes, I can see all the refusing that’s going on, and so can everyone else. Specifically, the latest bout of refusing involves either presenting any kind of plausible scenario, or conceding the point that it’s unambiguously reported of your airy-fairy hippie china Jeeeeeeeeeebusssssst! that he commanded extreme violence should be done to his enemies on his behalf by his “peacekeepers”. Was he maybe making a sick joke and nobody got it, ya think? Or was your skydaddy’s dictation to his scribes a bit garbled perhaps and they wrote it down wrong? Or are you going to start, as is usual with you fundies, trying to feed me a load of smelly horse apples about “context” now?

    Come, come, a proper explanation is needed here, seeing as it’s your claim that this all came from your perfect, supernatural, omni-everything skydaddy.

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2011 at 15:56

  54. My Fok, ou Johannes, leef jy nog? Ek dag jy is al weggeraap!
    Ek sien elders op ‘n ander blog dat jy en Bakoor Camping albei bevordering gekry het! Veels geluk!!!
    Ek sien jy is nou ‘n “Pastoor” of ‘n ding en ou Camping is nou ‘n “Doktor” of ‘n ding! Het jy darrem koeldrank proppies gekry om op jou lappelle te dra?
    Ek sien jy voorspel nog steeds, het jy ooit geld oor na jou rondgeryery?
    Jy se dat daar groot kak gaan kom met sonsondergang!
    Nou watter sonsondergang? Ons sn of Amerika sn?

    ErickV

    May 12, 2011 at 15:46

  55. CT, and when exactly did I start ignoring you???
    I told you to stop addressing me, and you refused. You suggested that I should ignore you, which I also refused.

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 15:08

  56. Groete aan jou, Johannes.

    Het al baie van jou op die blog gehoor, maar nog nooit die geleentheid gehad om met jou te gesels nie.

    Groete

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 15:04

  57. Johannes! Jy skuld my ‘n bottel baie duur rooiwyn op die 22ste! Moenie vergeet nie! Ek kom haal vir jou daar annerkant die pêrelpoorte!

    Nathan Bond

    May 12, 2011 at 14:30

  58. Nog nege dae dan vernietig die Skepper alle dwaasheid finaal. Matt24;23

    My mense, diegene(die wat lewe en die wat oor die afgelope 13023jaar gesterf het) wat op 21 weggevoer word die lug in die HERE tegemoet sal verseker weet.

    Netso sal diegene wat gaan agterbly ook weet dat hulle agter gebly het weet dat hulle weet, diegene wat die afgelope 13023 ongered te sterwe gekom het sal vir ewig nooit weet nie, want die loon van die sonde is die dood…vir ewig.

    Diegene wat op 21 Mei nog lewe en wat nie weggevoer word nie sal binne die daaropvolgende 153 dae (tot en met 21 Oktober) die dood in die gesig staar. Diegene wat die wereldwye aardbewing wat met sonsondergang op 21 Mei gaan plaasvind, oorleef sal dan weet dat hulle weet…!

    Daar is natuurlik diegene wat vandag nog onder hulle kerke se gesag vasgevang is wat sal verkondig dat GOD hulle genadig sal wees, maar helaas. Hul “prediking” sal vir diegene rondom hulle soos die steek van ‘n skerpioen wees.

    Genadiglik sal GOD se genade oor hulle op 21 Oktober kom wanneer Hy hierdie heelal met vuur verteer, want GOD is ‘n veterende vuur.

    As daar ‘n tyd is om onder die “hearing” van GOD se Woord te kom en om Sy genade te smeek is dit nou…en hierdie laaste 15 dae.

    Mag GOD elkeen van julle genadig wees.

    johannes coetzee

    May 12, 2011 at 14:26

  59. Predictably, a bunch of typical fundie drivel that dodges the point: Your friend Jeeeeeeeebussssssst! commands violence, no matter how you wanna twist it. But you’re too thick or too dishonest to acknowledge it. Maybe both.

    So yes, “dumbass” and “numbskulls” are perfectly apt descriptions.

    [I] have corrected my errors, and every time I was wrong I admitted it. (May 11, 2011 at 13:17). Yes indeed, here’s a blinding example of it for all to see.

    Oh, and welcome back, total twaddle notwithstanding. It didn’t take you long to stop ignoring me, eh?😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2011 at 13:43

  60. This answer from someone else, and it does make sense:

    “The killing of the “enemies” in verse 27 appears to me not to refer to the servant (whose fate is to miss out, for the time being anyways, on even bigger opportunities) but to be a reference to the end-times, when Satan and evil and death are to be destroyed by God.

    I disagree with those who read this as somehow advocating violence by Christians against non-Christians; this would go against all other New Testament teaching, e.g. “turn the other cheek” and “Peter put away your sword” in Gethsemane. I don’t even think the passage is talking about God’s own violence on non-Christians, who don’t recognize that Jesus is the King (consider Luke 23:34, “Father forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing”). The enemies in the parable are those who know who the King is and hate him anyway.

    To answer your question, I suppose this doesn’t reconcile with Christ being 100% “peaceful”. Christ never claims to be that way (He even says so: “I come not to bring peace but a sword”). He asks *us* to be peacemakers amongst our fellow people, but His own mission is not the same as ours. He is fighting a battle with demonic forces to reconcile a fallen world to Himself, and His enemies are going to be destroyed in the process.”

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 13:27

  61. “dumbass” “numbskulls”??? Maybe I should explain it differently so that the real dumbass numbskull can understand.

    If you actualy study the Bible and more importantly, Luke 19, you would realise (given the possibility that you actually have a brain) that this is the end result of those that reject God, and refuse to know Him, even though He gave them their chance in verse fourteen, calling them citizens at that time. But by verse twenty seven they now are enemies at their own choosing.

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 13:22

  62. You can bend it whichever way you want to, see? You’ll not get past the clear fact that your so-called “holy” book describes your hero Jeeeeeeeebussssst! commanding the slaughter of those people who reject him as ruler — in blatant violation of this figure of abiding peace, love and tolerance you’d like to paint him as. Your dumbass “explanatory” quote even repeats it: “One day the Lord will return … destroying his enemies…,” which explains precisely nothing. Nor is this the only instance of your Jeeeeeeeebussssst! showing sociopathic paranoia, making it obvious that Mickey Mouse is morally a far superior redeemer. But I guess it’s all part and parcel of your skydaddy’s exceedingly intricate and masterful plan and his mysterious ways, all of which only a few numbskulls on earth are privy to…

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2011 at 10:27

  63. “…my enemies…” = “scoffers” (guess what is in the furure for some!?

    And I quote: “The background of this story is civil war. Some of the king’s subjects refuse to acknowledge him. As he tries to consolidate his kingdom in absentia, he discovers among his own servants one who seems more influenced by the rebels than by the loyal subjects. Like the kingdom in the story our world is in a state of civil war. Some people are loyal to God, their king in Heaven; while others refuse to acknowledge his Lordship. Even among God’s servants, people can be found who act more like enemies than loyal subjects. One day the Lord will return to put an end to the civil war by destroying his enemies and recreating the earth.” End of quote

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 08:58

  64. Oh yeah, that’s brilliant. Really ace, man. First talking crap and then predicting that there will be those who’ll laugh at the crap you’re talking. No mortal could’ve possibly worked that one out. Yay, at last some real proof that the so-called “holy” book is of divine origin! It’s just a real pity about that unfortunate Luke 19:27 business. Oh, but you have to read it “symbolically…”🙄

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2011 at 08:23

  65. Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

    “3:1-4 The purified minds of Christians are to be stirred up, that they may be active and lively in the work of holiness. There will be scoffers in the last days, under the gospel, men who make light of sin, and mock at salvation by Jesus Christ. One very principal article of our faith refers to what only has a promise to rest upon, and scoffers will attack it till our Lord is come. They will not believe that he will come. Because they see no changes, therefore they fear not God, Ps 55:19. What he never has done, they fancy he never can do, or never will do.”

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 08:05

  66. Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible

    Knowing this first – Considering this in an especial manner, that those prophets predicted the coming of false teachers: and their being now in the Church proved how clearly they were known to God, and showed the Christians at Pontus the necessity of having no intercourse or connection with them.

    There shall come – scoffers – Persons who shall endeavor to turn all religion into ridicule, as this is the most likely way to depreciate truth in the sight of the giddy multitude. The scoffers, having no solid argument to produce against revelation, endeavor to make a scaramouch of some parts; and then affect to laugh at it, and get superficial thinkers to laugh with them.

    Walking after their own lusts – Here is the true source of all infidelity. The Gospel of Jesus is pure and holy, and requires a holy heart and holy life. They wish to follow their own lusts, and consequently cannot brook the restraints of the Gospel: therefore they labor to prove that it is not true, that they may get rid of its injunctions, and at last succeed in persuading themselves that it is a forgery; and then throw the reins on the neck of their evil propensities. Thus their opposition to revealed truth began and ended in their own lusts.

    There is a remarkable addition here in almost every MS. and version of note: There shall come in the last days, In Mockery, εν εμπαιγμονῃ, scoffers walking after their own lusts. This is the reading of ABC, eleven others, both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and several of the fathers. They come in mockery; this is their spirit and temper; they have no desire to find out truth; they take up the Bible merely with the design of turning it into ridicule. This reading Griesbach has received into the text.

    Scoffers – In Jude Jde 1:18 the same Greek word is rendered “mockers.” The word means those who deride, reproach, ridicule. There is usually in the word the idea of contempt or malignity toward an object. Here the sense seems to be that they would treat with derision or contempt the predictions respecting the advent of the Saviour, and the end of the world. It would appear probable that there was a particular or definite class of men referred to; a class who would hold special opinions, and who would urge plausible objections against the fulfillment of the predictions respecting the end of the world, and the second coming of the Saviour – for those are the points to which Peter particularly refers. It scarcely required inspiration to foresee that there would be “scoffers” in the general sense of the term – for they have so abounded in every age, that no one would hazard much in saying that they would be found at any particular time; but the eye of the apostle is evidently on a particular class of people, the special form of whose reproaches would be the ridicule of the doctrines that the Lord Jesus would return; that there would be a day of judgment; that the world would be consumed by fire, etc. Tillotson explains this of the Carpocratians, a large sect of the Gnostics, who denied the resurrection of the dead, and the future judgment.

    Walking after their own lusts – Living in the free indulgence of their sensualClarke’s Commentary on the Bible
    Knowing this first – Considering this in an especial manner, that those prophets predicted the coming of false teachers: and their being now in the Church proved how clearly they were known to God, and showed the Christians at Pontus the necessity of having no intercourse or connection with them.

    There shall come – scoffers – Persons who shall endeavor to turn all religion into ridicule, as this is the most likely way to depreciate truth in the sight of the giddy multitude. The scoffers, having no solid argument to produce against revelation, endeavor to make a scaramouch of some parts; and then affect to laugh at it, and get superficial thinkers to laugh with them.

    Walking after their own lusts – Here is the true source of all infidelity. The Gospel of Jesus is pure and holy, and requires a holy heart and holy life. They wish to follow their own lusts, and consequently cannot brook the restraints of the Gospel: therefore they labor to prove that it is not true, that they may get rid of its injunctions, and at last succeed in persuading themselves that it is a forgery; and then throw the reins on the neck of their evil propensities. Thus their opposition to revealed truth began and ended in their own lusts.

    There is a remarkable addition here in almost every MS. and version of note: There shall come in the last days, In Mockery, εν εμπαιγμονῃ, scoffers walking after their own lusts. This is the reading of ABC, eleven others, both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and several of the fathers. They come in mockery; this is their spirit and temper; they have no desire to find out truth; they take up the Bible merely with the design of turning it into ridicule. This reading Griesbach has received into the text.

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 07:48

  67. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

    “Knowing this first – As among the first and most important things to be attended to – as one of the predictions which demand your special regard. Jude Jde 1:18 says that the fact that there would be “mockers in the last time,” had been particularly foretold by thom. It is probable that Peter refers to the same thing, and we may suppose that this was so well understood by all the apostles that they made it a common subject of preaching.

    That there shall come in the last days – In the last dispensation; in the period during which the affairs of the world shall be wound up. The apostle does not say that that was the last time in the sense that the world was about to come to an end; nor is it implied that the period called “the last day” might not be a very long period, longer in fact than either of the previous periods of the world. He says that during that period it had been predicted there would arise those whom he here calls “scoffers.” On the meaning of the phrase “in the last days,” as used in the Scriptures, see the Acts 2:17 note; Hebrews 1:2 note; Isaiah 2:2 note.

    Scoffers – In Jude Jde 1:18 the same Greek word is rendered “mockers.” The word means those who deride, reproach, ridicule. There is usually in the word the idea of contempt or malignity toward an object. Here the sense seems to be that they would treat with derision or contempt the predictions respecting the advent of the Saviour, and the end of the world. It would appear probable that there was a particular or definite class of men referred to; a class who would hold special opinions, and who would urge plausible objections against the fulfillment of the predictions respecting the end of the world, and the second coming of the Saviour – for those are the points to which Peter particularly refers. It scarcely required inspiration to foresee that there would be “scoffers” in the general sense of the term – for they have so abounded in every age, that no one would hazard much in saying that they would be found at any particular time; but the eye of the apostle is evidently on a particular class of people, the special form of whose reproaches would be the ridicule of the doctrines that the Lord Jesus would return; that there would be a day of judgment; that the world would be consumed by fire, etc. Tillotson explains this of the Carpocratians, a large sect of the Gnostics, who denied the resurrection of the dead, and the future judgment.

    Walking after their own lusts – Living in the free indulgence of their sensual appetites.”

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 07:43

  68. As Peter sayd in 2 Peter 3:3

    New International Version (©1984)
    First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

    New Living Translation (©2007)
    Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.

    English Standard Version (©2001)
    knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,

    International Standard Version (©2008)
    First of all you must understand this: In the last days mockers will come and, following their own desires, will ridicule us

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    First, you must understand this: In the last days people who follow their own desires will appear. These disrespectful people will ridicule [God’s promise]

    King James Bible
    Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    American King James Version
    Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    American Standard Version
    knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,

    Bible in Basic English
    Having first of all the knowledge that in the last days there will be men who, ruled by their evil desires, will make sport of holy things,

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    Darby Bible Translation
    knowing this first, that there shall come at the close of the days mockers with mocking, walking according to their own lusts,

    English Revised Version
    knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Knowing this first, that there will come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

    Weymouth New Testament
    But, above all, remember that, in the last days, men will come who make a mock at everything–men governed only by their own passions,

    World English Bible
    knowing this first, that in the last days mockers will come, walking after their own lusts,

    Young’s Literal Translation
    this first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on,

    soois

    May 12, 2011 at 07:39

  69. Hey Hanswors, where are you? It’s time you showed up again to give your inane input and support your brainy and evidence-free intellectual equal. He’s wanting your support. But tell me, have you checked what’s up with Mickey Mouse lately? What a mouse he is, a real hero, n’est-ce pas!? Much more ducky than that goofy fiction of a man Jeeeeeeebussss!, eh?

    Go on, prove me wrong about that.

    Please.

    Con-Tester

    May 11, 2011 at 22:17

  70. 😆 I see no reason to stop pointing it out when you spout kak (which is just about always), and lots of reasons to do so. Plus, you don’t get to make the rules here. If you think you do, that’s just more of your fanciful invention that pervades all that you write.😆

    Of course, you’re always within your rights to ignore me, funny man.

    Con-Tester

    May 11, 2011 at 16:58

  71. Stop addressing me, fullstop.

    soois

    May 11, 2011 at 16:44

  72. You don’t know what “a grown-up conversation” is. Until you show yourself prepared to engage properly, I’ll keep pointing out your absurdities. If you want me to start addressing you as am adult then stop talking such unadulterated kak.

    Con-Tester

    May 11, 2011 at 13:49

  73. “Instinct vs. experience is something new to science described in your fairytale book!? ” “What century are you living in, hmm?”

    Then tell me. Obviously you consider me an idiot centuries behind, and yourself this well informed character. Then why do you not simply indulge me with an answer? I tell you why, because once again you do not have one, and hence return to the old tactic of redicule etc. etc. etc…

    You are running in circles. Please stop addressing me if you are not interested in a grown-up conversation. There are others here who have come with actual arguments, and have corrected my errors, and every time I was wrong I admitted it.

    soois

    May 11, 2011 at 13:17

  74. As expected, more ducking and dodging. It’s you who’s putting forward preposterous nonsense as though it was real, not me. You. That means you have the burden of proof, which you’ve shirked by adding ever more preposterous nonsense as though it was real.

    I’ve already pointed out several times the grave flaw in your use of “theory” as “wild guess” or “hunch” in the context of science. Still you just carry on regardless.

    Instinct vs. experience is something new to science described in your fairytale book!? 😆😆😆 What century are you living in, hmm?

    Clearly you have no case. Nor any plausible “FACTS”.

    Con-Tester

    May 11, 2011 at 09:43

  75. By the way, you keep on asking for one piece of evidence regarding science not yet discovered by scientistes. If you were not dodging the facts I have already posted, you would have seen that I threw in there “instinct (animals) versus experience (humans). You are the one dodging an answer, a scientific answer that is, on how evolution decided that humans should know from experience? Why should there be pain? Why should you feel cold and heat? We all know why, but how did evolution decide on these matters? Why not merely gave us a thick skin with fur etc?

    No, CT, you are the one dodging questions. I said it before. The best defence is to attack, and that is what you do. You do not give straight answers, but hammer on questions, and as you have decided that you are a god yourself, you also decided that the answers will not be satisfactory, while you own half-hearted attempts are supposed to suffecient.

    soois

    May 11, 2011 at 08:26

  76. “It’s a good thing that real science is considerably more stringent in this regard otherwise we’d still be living in much darker times — which you’d no doubt prefer…” Real science???, like the pastor called Darwin who could’t prove evolution. You should watch “Theory-busters on Top TV. Very interesting.

    O, and the only reason I am doing the trouble of trying to prove the Bible, is because you kept on asking for it.

    For the rest, it is merely very interesting FACTS, not thumb in the ass THEORIES, FACTS…

    soois

    May 11, 2011 at 08:17

  77. soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 18:36):

    [M]y point was not to prove the Bible as a scientific book, but merely argued that many things were known by people years before being discovered by modern scientists…

    Nonsense. Your intention is to prove the supposed divine provenance of your old fairytale book by any means possible, no matter how stupid or preposterous. Your intention is also to dodge legitimate objections. You’ve been doing that all along, and you’re doing it again here. Your intention is decidedly not any kind of impartial inquiry. I’ll repeat: What are a few of these “many things [that] were known by people years before being discovered by modern scientists” that scientists have not yet discovered? Go on, name just one. You cannot answer me, can you? And you are unable to understand what your inability to answer actually means for your ideas, aren’t you?

    soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 18:36):

    … suggesting that a superior being was involved…

    And how on earth, pray tell, does this follow, exactly!?

    soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 18:36):

    … but as a scepting [sic] whome [sic] sees a half empty glass rather than a half full glass, I guess it is very difficult to grasp.

    Not at all. What’s hard to grasp are your atrociously poor standards concerning evidence, proof, argument, etc. It’s a good thing that real science is considerably more stringent in this regard otherwise we’d still be living in much darker times — which you’d no doubt prefer…

    soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 18:36):

    You are one of those who ask [sic] for proof, and when I actually try to indulge you…

    Yes, I do, and no, you have never indulged me even remotely satisfactorily because you don’t know what “proof” means. Here’s a hint: You won’t find any in an old book by making postdictions based on drawing ridiculous and feeble parallels that say hugely more about your easy credulity than they do about what you wish were true. The “proofs” you’ve so far offered are the usual drawn-out fundie joke: contrived as hell and short of a punchline. Plus, almost all of them are repeated from cretinist and IDiot sources, which are hardly trustworthy to begin with, given their agenda.

    soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 18:36):

    … you go on to redicule [sic], rather then [sic] to argue against, and then you have the nerve to call your posts “arguments”?!

    The fact that you are not capable of comprehending or addressing the points I make doesn’t make them any less of an argument. It does, however, invite one to ridicule you for your unwillingness to engage properly and to dish out your typical tu quoque twaddle. Nerve, indeed!

    soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 18:36):

    Just to indulge you further, the following taken from another site.

    Yeah, those are really impressive barrel-bottom scrapings. If what you maintain were true, don’t you think scientists would be much more interested in studying your so-called “holy” book very carefully to get inspiration for new science!? But they don’t, those dof blerrie bliksems. It doesn’t occur to you to consider this. Or to address it properly. So, once more: Name just one scientific thing that the bible describes but of which science is presently still unaware. Go on, surprise me and give it a shot. Just one, that’s all.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    May 10, 2011 at 22:23

  78. Die Hemel is ‘n werklikheid

    “Hemelse Vader, dankie dat U my toelaat om te getuig. Halleluja!”

    “Ek is sedert 1992 ‘n Christen, toe ek regtig so lief geraak het vir Jesus nadat ek ‘n paar maal kerk toe was en toe ek elke area van my wese aan Hom wou gee vir die res van my lewe. “

    “Ek wil kortliks gesels oor ‘n boek met die naam van “Die Hemel is ‘n Werklikheid”. Die Here Jesus Homself het my Hemel toe geneem op sewentien verskillende geleenthede met my getransformeerde liggaam, soos ek gelyk het toe ek omtrent 15 of 16 jaar oud was.”

    “Voor dit, het Hy alles vir my stap-vir-stap voorberei. In 1994 het Hy my hele liggaam gesalf met die Heilige Vuur, toe omtrent ‘n maand later, het hy aan my verskyn toe Hy met Sy sigbare teenwoordigheid by die kerk gedurende ‘n lofprysingsdiens was.”

    “Toe in 1995, op Paas Sondag, het Hy my bewende liggaam gesalf en van toe af bewe my liggaam gedurende kerk en ook gedurende my bidtyd. Soos jy kan sien – beweeg my liggaam so heen-en-weer op die oomblik, Indien ek dit nie doen nie, word my maag geweldig gespanne, en dit voel of dit kan ontplof; dis hoekom ek so heen-en-weer beweeg. So moet asseblief nie dink dat daar iets fout is met my liggaam nie. Dis die Heilige Gees wat dit doen, terwyl ek oor Jesus praat.“

    “En toe, na dit, het Hy my met die Heilige Gees gedoop, met die spreek van nuwe tale, hemelse liedjies en ‘n heilige gelag. En ek was so onder die invloed van die salwing, dat ek vir drie ure buite aksie op die vloer was. Ek kon nie opkom nie omdat die salwing só kragtig was.”

    “Na dit, ‘n paar maande later, het pastoor Larry Randolf oor my geprofeteer. Hy het vir my gesê dat God my op so ‘n spesiale manier wil gebruik.”

    “Al sy profesieë het bewaarheid geword, ‘n duisend maal, of selfs meer.”

    “Na dit, in Januarie 1996, het die Here Jesus my besoek met Sy sigbare teenwoordigheid by my. Hy het my 10 maal besoek daar om vir my te sê dat Hy my gaan gebruik, en het Hy al Sy planne met my gedeeel, soos wat in die boek staan.”

    “Maar Hy het nie vir my aanvanklik gesê dat Hy my Hemel toe gaan neem nie. So, na 10 besoeke by my, op 19 Februarie 1996, het Hy begin om my Hemel toe te neem, in my hemelse liggaam. Soos wat Sy Geestelike liggaam was, was my liggaam ook gewees.”

    “Elke keer voor Hy my Hemel toe neem, het Hy my eers na `n Aardse strand toe geneem. Die heel eerste maal voor Hy my Hemel toe geneem het, het Hy my na een deel van die strand toe geneem en aan my ‘n klein stukkie met kristal helder water gewys. Daarna het Hy my ‘n reusagtige tonnel gewys. En na dit het Hy my hemel toe geneem.”

    “Na ons deur die tonnel gegaan het, het ek en die Here met die pad langs geloop wat van die heuwel af gekom het. Ons het uiteindelik by ‘n reusagtige wit hek gekom wat voor ‘n groot wit gebou was. Ons het deur die hek geloop en verder gegaan na die wit gebou toe.”

    “Ons het in gegaan en in ‘n lang gang afgeloop oppad na ‘n baie groot vertrek toe, wat ons toe betree het. Toe ek afkyk ondertoe, besef ek vir die eerste maal dat ek toe ‘n ander kleed aan gehad het as toe ek op die strand was, en ek kon voel dat iets swaar op my kop gerus het.”

    “Ek het my hande uitgesteek en ontdek dat ‘n pragtige kroon op my kop gesit was, sonder dat ek dit besef het. Dis tóé dat ek direk na die Here gekyk het.”

    “Hy het op ‘n troon gesit en Hy het ‘n glansryke mantel en ‘n goue kroon gedra. Ander was daar saam met my, al knielend op die vloer en hulle het hulself uitgestrek voor Hom. Die mure van die vertrek het bestaan uit groot skitterende stene wat gegloei het. Die veelkleurige stene het aan die vertrek ‘n warm en vrolike effek verleen wat terselfde tyd ook geheimsinnig was.”

    “Toe, net so vinnig as wat ek teen die berg op begelei is en in die wit gebou in gegaan het, het ek myself weer op die strand bevind.”

    “Die heel eerste keer het Hy my net Sy troonkamer gewys. Daarna het ons van die hemel af gekom en het ons weer op die aardse strand gesit.”

    “En toe het Hy begin praat. Hy het gesê dat ons nou so pas na die Koninkryk van die Hemel toe was. Die enigste persone wat soontoe sal gaan is die wat gehoorsaam en rein van hart is. “

    “En Hy het gesê “Verkondiging van die evangelie is baie belangrik.” en toe het Hy ‘n rukkie gewag. Hy het gesê dat dié wie nie hulle tiende gee nie, ongehoorsame Christene is.”

    “Dit was die laaste woorde aan my wat Hy gesê het tydens Sy eerste besoek.”

    Choo het daarna die Hemel op nog 16 geleenthede besoek, en in elk van hierdie besoeke skryf sy:

    “In my getransformeerde liggaam het ek saam met die Heer op die strand gestap. En dan het Hy my na die Hemel vergesel. Ons het deur die pêrelhekke gestap en na die wit gebou gegaan om ons klere te verander. Na ons verkleë het, het ons oor die goue brug gestap.”.

    “Dit alles het so natuurlik vir my begin word. Elke gelowige, ek is seker van dit, sal deur dieselfde prosedure gaan wanneer hy of sy hemel toe gaan.”

    “Na dit het Hy my nog 16 maal hemel toe geneem. Elke keer as Hy my soontoe geneem het, het Hy aan my verskillende dinge uitgewys. En wanneer Hy my spesiale dinge gewys het, het Hy altyd gesê “Ek het dit vir My kinders voorberei. Ek weet waarvan hulle hou.”. Soos die keer toe Hy my die strand gewys het, het Hy gesê “Sien jy dogter hoe pragtig hierdie strand is? Ek weet My kinders sal van die strand. hou.” en Toe het Hy my geneem om te gaan visvang. Hy het gesê: “Ek weet My kinders hou daarvan om vis te vang, dis waarom Ek soveel dinge waarvan hulle hou vir hulle voorberei het.””

    “En ek het besef dat dit ‘n duisend keer mooier in die Hemel is as op Aarde. Maar daar is ook baie dinge soos op Aarde, byvoorbeeld paaie, geboue, bome, bosse, rotse, blomme, ongerepte gedeeltes buite die Koninkryk.”

    “Daar is net soveel dinge daar; maar hulle is net ‘n duisend maal mooier as die Aardse dinge, net te pragtig.”

    “Die prag van die Hemel is onbeskryflik, ek kan nie eers beskryf hoe mooi hulle is nie, dis net eenvoudig pragtig.”

    “En toe het ek besef hoe lief Jesus vir elkeen van ons is. Die manier waarop Hy met my gepraat het en vir my gesê het: “Jy sien hoe lief is Ek vir my kinders en Ek het alles vir My kinders gedoen.””

    “Dit is hoekom Hy my soontoe geneem het, om vir my te wys wat Hy vir Sy kinders voorberei het, sodat elkeen van ons weet wat in die hemel vir ons wag. Dus, voor Hy kom, wil Hy hê dat die Christene hiérdie dinge moet weet, sodat hulle opgewonde kan wees om sóóntoe te gaan. Dit is hoekom ek dink waarom Hy aan my hierdie dinge gewys het.”

    “Hy het nie alles aan my deeglik uitgelê en verduidelik nie, jy weet, Hy het net sekere definitiewe dinge aan my uitgewys.”

    “Hy het in baie min woorde, slegs die noodsaaklikste woorde met my gesels.”

    “Dit is die Liefdevolle God wie Hy is. Prys U Here!”

    Buiten om die Hemel te ervaar, is Choo ook op twee geleenthede die Hel gewys. Hieroor skryf sy:

    “Ek kon dampe en donker rook sien opstyg uit ‘n baie diep put.”

    “Dit was soos die krater van ‘n vulkaan gewees.”

    “En binne-in kon ek vlamme sien wat ‘n menigte mense verskroei terwyl hulle skree en huil op `n manier soos wanneer persone marteling ervaar as hulle verbrand word.”

    “Die mense binne in die krater was naak, sonder enige hare en het naby aan mekaar gestaan, al wriemelende soos wurms, terwyl vlamme hulle liggame verskroei en gebrand het.”

    “Daar was geen ontvlugting vir dié wie in die put was nie – sy mure was te hoog vir hulle om uit te klim en die warm kole van die vuur was reg rondom, aan al die kante gewees.”

    “Al het die Here dit nie aan my gesê nie, het ek geweet ek staan op die rand van die Hel. Alles wat Hy my ookal andersins in die Hemel gewys het was sulke opwindende en ontsagwekkende dinge gewees, maar daarna het Hy my die hel gewys. Hy het my hel toe geneem. Die eerste ding wat ek binne-in gesien het was die vuur, alhoewel dit ‘n eindelose diep, donker gat was.”

    “Mense was naak en sonder hare. Hulle het geen hare en geen klere aangehad nie, almal was kaal. Hulle het so naby aanmekaar gestaan. Dit het gelyk of hulle teen mekaar gestaan het omdat hulle van die vuur af wou wegkom. Elke keer as hulle beweeg, het die vuur hulle gevolg, heen-en-weer, heen-en-weer, die hele plek was vol vuur, hierdie mense het so naby aanmekaar gestaan.”

    “Hulle was in soveel pyn en het so ongelukkig gelyk. Ek kon nie help om so baie oor hulle te huil nie. Toe die Here my ‘n tweede maal soontoe geneem het, het ek dieselfde mense weer `n keer weer gesien.”

    “Toe het ek stemme gehoor en in daardie rigting in gekyk. Daar was so baie Oosterlinge daar. En hierdie een dame, sy het na my gewaai en geskree dat dit so warm is, so warm. Ek het na haar gekyk en ons oë het mekaar ontmoet.”

    “Dit was my moeder. Toe ek besef dat dit my Ma was het my hart ineen gesink en ek het begin huil.”

    “Ek het nog nooit soveel pyn ervaar nie, net pyn. So pynvol, dat ek nie geweet het wat om te doen nie. Sy het net bly sê dis warm, so warm, en sy het aangehou om vir my te waai.”

    “Terwyl ek dit gesien en beleef het, wou sy gehad het ek dat ek moet afgaan in die krater in om haar te probeer uithelp.”

    “Toe kyk ek na ander mense en daar was my Pa, my Stiefma, my jong nefie. Hy is baie jonk oorlede. En ook twee vriende wat ek geken het.”

    “Ag, dit was sulke pynvolle herinneringe dat ek net aanhou huil en huil het, toe het die Here Jesus my gesê “Dogter, Ek het ‘n goeie rede dat ek jou hierdie dinge wys. Ek kry meer seer as wat jy kry.”

    Ek sê toe vir Hom: “Here, my Moeder, sy is vroeg dood, sy was siek vir ‘n baie lang tyd. Ek dink nie sy was ‘n slegte persoon nie.”

    Hy sê toe: “Dit maak nie saak oor hoe goed mense was nie, maar dié wie My nie ken nie, dis al plek waarheen hulle gaan…”

    Maar in my hart het ek gesê: “Hoekom wys U dit vir my deur my op hierdie manier so seer te maak?”

    “Ek het daaraan gedink, maar ek kon nooit kwaad wees vir Hom nie. Ek kon nie Sy gesig sien nie, maar ek het geweet Hy huil saam met my. Ek het dit bloot gevoel. Hy het so ongelukkig gelyk, toe het Hy aan my kop geraak het en toe my hand gevat. Ons het daar uitgeloop en ek het die hele tyd gehuil terwyl ons loop. Wel, in die boek deel ek dié, besonderhede. So, toe, met die volgende besoek het Hy my nog ‘n ander tragiese ding gewys.”

    “Dit was geaborteerde babas. Hy het my na hierdie een plek geneem. Dit was ‘n reusagtige gebou. Dit het na ‘n pakhuis gelyk amper. Toe ons instap het ek net babas oral gesien. Kleine, kleine kaal babatjies wat langs mekaar gelê het. Toe het ek begin huil. Here, hoekom was daar soveel babas?”

    “Hy het gesê dat hulle geaborteerde babas was. Ek het gesê: “Wat gaan U met hulle doen?” Hy het gesê dat as hulle ma’s gered word en hulle kom hemel toe, dan kan hulle hulle babas terug neem.“

    Tydens haar 17de uitstappie Hemel toe, het Jesus aan Choo gesê dat dit haar laaste besoek sou wees na die Hemel vir die tydperk wat sy nog op Aarde gaan bly.

    Hieroor skryf sy:

    “Sy woorde het my diep geroer. My hart het eintlik gepyn met al die liefde vir my Here. Hy het opgestaan en ek het geweet dat dit tyd was om te gaan. Ek het voortgegaan om te huil, maar my hart was opnuut verseker met die wete dat ek vir ewig saam met die Here sal wees en dat Hy altyd by my op die aarde ook is.”

    “By die kleedkamer, het ‘n engel van die Here my omhels. Dit was so verfrissend om in ‘n plek te wees waar soveel liefde is, en waar medelye en begrip altyd teenwoordig is.”

    “Namate ek ander klere aangetrek het, het ek vermoed dat beide Abraham en die engel daar geweet het dat dit my laaste besoek aan die hemel sou wees vir eers.”

    “Toe ek uit die aantrekkamer loop, het die engel my weereens gedruk. Hierdie engel het blonde hare gehad, met `n vloeiende, wit mantel en met ‘n warm, saggeaarde gesig. Die engel het vir my geglimlag terwyl ek na die Here toe gestap het.”

    “Toe die Here Jesus my die 17de keer hemel toe geneem het, het Hy aan my wolke gewys. Dit was die einde aan my hemelse besoeke.”

    “Die Here Jesus het aan my gesê: “Dit is die laaste keer wat jy hier is. Ek sal jou nie hiernatoe bring voor die laaste dag nie.””

    “Ek het gevoel dat ek dit reeds geweet het dat dit die laaste dag was.”

    “En ek het begin huil, want ek wou nie van daar af weggaan nie. Ek het Sy arm vasgehou en gevra: “Heer, asseblief, moenie my laat gaan nie. Ek wil nie gaan nie, want ek wil oor en oor hierheen terugkom.””

    “Dit was baie, baie hartseer vir my dat ek nie meer soontoe kan gaan nie.”

    “Elke keer as ek saam met Hom Hemel toe was, het ek soms treurige dinge aanskou, maar aan die ander kant was daar ook die vreugde en vrede wat ek wat ek saam met Hom ervaar het, wat werklik onbeskryfbaar is.”

    “Selfs toe ek ongelukkig was, het ek steeds die vreugde in my hart gehad, en ook die vrede. Daar was soveel liefde, ek het menige dae oor dit gehuil wanneer ek terug gedink het. Die Bybel praat van `n dag wanneer Jesus Christus weer sal terugkom vir Sy Kerk.”

    In 1 Tessalonisense 4:16 staan: “Want die Here self sal van die hemel neerdaal met ‘n geroep, met die stem van ‘n aartsengel en met geklank van die basuin van God; en die wat in Christus gesterf het, sal eerste opstaan. Daarna sal ons wat in die lewe oorbly, saam met hulle in wolke weggevoer word die Here tegemoet in die lug; en so sal ons altyd by die Here wees.”

    “Dit staan bekend as “Die Wegraping””

    “Na al hierdie dinge, omtrent twee weke later, het die Here Jesus my saam met hom na die strand geneem in terwyl ek in my geestesliggaam was. Ons het op ons gewone plek gesit en vir ‘n rukkie gesels. Hy het gesê: “Ek wil jou iets wys.””

    “Die oomblik toe Hy dit gesê het, het ek my visioen-stem gehad. Elke keer wanneer Hy my iets spesiaals gewys het, praat ek in my spesiale visioen-stem. Dit kom diep uit my liggaam, uit my maag uit. Dit was so hard en hierdie visioenstem het vir ‘n lang ruk by my gebly.”

    “Ek kon geluide hoor, sulke harde, harde geluide, Ek het gevoel of die hele wêreld ineen tuimel, sulke harde geluide, net aaklige geluide. Toe ek kyk was die hele lug wit gewees met mense in wit togas wie oral heen gevlieg, hulle het van oral oor gekom dan verdwyn en dan weer uitgekom, die lug was gevul met mense.”

    “Ek het toe besef dis die Wegraping! Ek het gelag, gehuil, geskree, was so opgewonde!”

    “En toe het ek my kleindogter gesien. Sy was, toe ek die visioen gehad het net tien maande oud, sonder enige hare.”

    “In die visioen het sy skielik deur die venster gevlieg soos vanuit die kamer uit. Toe, met wit klere aan en met haar hare wat toe op haar skouers gehang het. Jy kan dink hoe opgewonde ek was.”

    “Die volgende oomblik het ek my ander kleindogter gesien, Sy was eintlik in werklikheid net vier maande oud tydens die visioen in die werklike lewe en tyd en sy ook het nie hare gehad nie. Maar in die gesig het sy net soos die ander kleindogter by die venster uitgevlieg met haar wit klere wat sy aangehad het. Ook haar hare was skouerlengte gewees.”

    “Ek het geskree, gehuil, gelag, ek was so opgewonde. Ek was nog nooit voorheen so opgewonde gewees nie, net opgewonde, ek is seker die hele huis kon dit hoor.”

    “Dit was eintlik goed dat my man nie by die huis was toe ek die gesig gesien het nie. As hy daar was sou hy sekerlik gedink het dat daar iets fout is met my.”

    “Na dit het God my ‘n ander toneel gewys. Hierdie toneel was baie tragies. Dit was aaklig. Die Bybel praat ook van ‘n tyd van groot verdrukking, kort na die Wegraping In Matteus 24: 21-22 sê Jesus: “Want dan sal daar groot verdrukking wees soos daar van die begin van die wêreld af tot nou toe nie gewees het en ook nooit sal wees nie.”

    “Dit staan bekend as “Die Groot Verdrukking””

    “Wel, na dit, het die Here Jesus my ‘n ander visioen gewys. Dit was oor die mense wie agtergebly het. Ek glo dat tussen hulle ‘n groot hoeveelheid Christene was. Dis hoekom hulle gehardloop het, reg? As hulle nie Christene was nie sou hulle nie gehardloop het nie, jy weet. Maar die polisie was oral, mense was oral en hulle het net gehardloop, bang met paniekbevange gesigte, oppad motors toe, oppad bote toe, hardloop berge toe.”

    “Hulle het nie geweet waarheen om te gaan nie, net soos wanneer hulle deur ‘n monster of iets gejaag word , jy weet. So bang, jy weet, aaklig, dit was ‘n aaklige toneel.”

    “En na dit het die Here Jesus aan my gesê, “Dit wat jy nou gesien het, is geensins so erg eers soos wat dit gaan wees as dit werklik gaan gebeur nie, wanneer daardie spesifieke dag sal aanbreek nie.””

    “Na dit het Hy vir my gesê: “Wanneer al my mense weggeraap is Hemel toe, sal Satan die wêreld oorneem en hy sal vereis dat almal klein en groot sy nommer wat 666 is ontvang. En almal wat weier om dit te kry, sal onthoof word.”

    “So enige een wat nie die merk van die dier, die getal 666, ontvang nie, hulle moet hulle harte vir Jesus gee, want hulle wil saam met Hom vir ewig en ewig wees. Openbaring 20:4 “En ek het trone gesien, en hulle het daarop gaan sit, en aan hulle is die oordeel gegee; en ek het die siele gesien van die wat onthoof is oor die getuienis van Jesus en oor die woord van God, en die wat die dier en sy beeld nie aanbid het nie, en die merk op hulle voorhoof en op hulle hand nie ontvang het nie; en hulle het geleef en as konings geregeer saam met Christus die duisend jaar lank.””

    Choo Thomas

    soois

    May 10, 2011 at 20:56

  79. Con-Tester,
    my point was not to prove the Bible as a scientific book, but merely argued that many things were known by people years before being discovered by modern scientists, suggesting that a superior being was involved, but as a scepting whome sees a half empty glass rather than a half full glass, I guess it is very difficult to grasp. You are one of those who ask for proof, and when I actually try to indulge you, you go on to redicule, rather then to argue against, and then you have the nerve to call your posts “arguments”?! Just to indulge you further, the following taken from another site.

    ” The Bible has told details of scientific fact long before mankind through science discovered they were true.

    The Bible unlike any other writing is unique in the fact that is surpasses mankind’s abilities. The prophecies in the Bible that have already been fulfilled are what most point to for the Bible actually being the word of God. No man has ever been able to predict the future with the detail and accuracy that the Bible has shown. However the Bible is in no way limited in providing evidence to the fact that it is indeed the word of God. Another area that can be pointed to for the authenticity of the Bible is science.

    Most informed Christians will readily admit the Bible is not a text book on science. You cannot prove the Bible to be the word of God based solely on science. Then again science does not refute the Bible either. Some people think of it as Religion VS Science. Well the fact is the Bible has never been proven scientifically wrong. The same cannot be said about some theories proposed by scientist. Science and the Bible are in harmony in areas where they do meet. However the Bible was written to reveal God to mankind. The Bible was not written to teach anybody about science.

    I want to give you a few of the many examples where the Bible mentions scientific facts that today we know are true. Yet what is amazing about these examples is that the Bible declared them as fact long before mankind discovered they were true!

    Job 26:7 “He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing.”

    Keep in mind that Job lived almost 2000 years before Christ. This idea that the earth was suspended on nothing was not even thought of by scientist for thousands of years after Job. Now with our satellites and trips into space we know this to be true. But that was not known in Job’s day. The Egyptians declared the earth rested on pillars. The Greeks said it was carried on the back of Atlas. People believed many things but they did not come close to what we know to be true today, and what Job declared a few thousand years ago. How did Job know this was true when science had not yet discovered it?

    Job 28:25 “When He imparted weight to the wind, and meted out the waters by measure,

    Does air have weight? In 1643 a mathematician named Evangelista Torricelli performed an experiment to learn if air has weight. His experiment is what led to the making of our barometer.

    The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

    Nasa.gov tells of an experiment that kids can do to verify this fact in school. Simply make a scale that pivots and balances correctly. Hang two empty balloons on each side and balance it out. Then remove one balloon and blow it up then hang it back in the same place. The side with the blown up balloon will go down because it has the weight of the air inside it.

    Here again we find that air has weight discovered in the 16th century however Job lived almost 2000 years before Christ. The book of Job told us air has weight before science discovered this was true.

    Lev 17:11 ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’

    During George Washington’s time, the practice of blood-letting to treat various kinds of illnesses was common. This practice is actually what killed him. The understanding of this verse could have spared his life. In today’s world it is common knowledge that blood circulation is vital for our survival. William Harvey is accredited for being the first to introduce the importance of blood circulation in 1616. Yet all critics will agree that the Book of Leviticus was written a few thousand years ago. Any year that falls in B.C is long before 1616 and William Harvey.

    William Harvey (1 April 1578 3 June 1657) was an English physician who was the first to describe correctly and in exact detail the systemic circulation and properties of blood being pumped around the body by the heart. (wikipedia.org)

    So we learn that the life of the flesh is in the blood in Leviticus long before science discovered the details of this truth.

    Job 36:27-30
    27 “For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist,
    28 Which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly.
    29 “Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thundering of His pavilion?
    30 “Behold, He spreads His lightning about Him, and He covers the depths of the sea.

    This bible reference clearly describes evaporation and its cycle which we now refer to as the hydrological cycle. We also see that the context includes the sea. However the Greeks thought that spring water came from the oceans and was purified in the ground somehow making fresh water.

    The understanding that it was through the evaporation process as described in the Book of Job was not discovered and understood until the 17th century. Yet Job was written long before Jesus was even born.

    I have personally found the knowledge of this process very comforting when hiking in back country. Using this principle and a clear sheet of plastic a person can obtain purified water from anywhere. Most survival manuals teach this concept in the making of a solar still.

    Here is a short related quote you may find interesting.

    Brief historical overview of the hydrologic cycle
    ” Before the 17th century, many natural philosophers accepted the Greek theory (proposed by people who lived in a semiarid climate on limestone hills) that rainfall was insufficient to feed springs and rivers. It was thought that spring water was purified sea water from deep within the earth (reverse osmosis?).
    However, in 1580, Bernard Palissy proposed the theory of the hydrologic cycle. Pierre Perrault (16081680) made careful observations of rainfall and streamflow in the Seine River basin, confirming Palissy’s hunch and thus began the study of modern scientific hydrology”

    Chapter 11 of the 1999 NGWA Press publication, Ground Water Hydrology for Water Well Contractors.
    (ngwa.org)

    Here in Job we find the Bible describes the hydrological cycle long before science discovers the reality of it.

    Job 38:16
    “Have you entered into the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep?

    Think how this must have sounded to Job. There is no way that anybody in his day that could know there were springs in the ocean. It is not like anybody went deep sea diving or any other type of underwater exploration in his day.

    Today we find that hot springs or hydrothermal vents coming from the ocean floor. Scientist first discovered these in the 1970’s. How could Job possibly know there were springs of any kind on the ocean floor?

    Eccl 1:6
    Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north, the wind continues swirling along; and on its circular courses the wind returns.

    A study of Jet Stream & Trade Winds will show you that the wind does go in the circular course as described in this verse that was written in between 930-970 BC.

    Jet Stream was discovered during World War 2.
    The Trade Winds were discovered during the time of Christopher Columbus 1451-1506
    (earthguide.ucsd.edu & Wickipedia.org)

    How did Solomon know about this in 900 BC?

    Isa 44:24
    Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself, and spreading out the earth all alone,

    There are a number of Bible references speaking of the stretching out of the heavens. Isaiah is not the oldest reference, but it was written about 746-680 BC.

    With the discoveries found with the Hubble Telescope and studies of redshifts most scientists today will agree that the universe has expanded. This is something that has just been discovered in our life time, but the Bible declared the heavens were stretched out in about 17 different passages several thousand years ago.

    When we look at the Bible there is no other document rather it be religious or non religious that has this kind of credentials or uniqueness. In prophecies we see the Bible tell world history in advance and much of it has already happened. So the sincere student can check out if the Bible really can foretell the future by looking to see if it was accurate on predictions in the past. Well it does not end there. As you can see here the Bible also had knowledge of scientific details long before they were discovered by mankind. How is that possible? Well perhaps it is because it is what exactly what it claims to be; the written word of God!”

    soois

    May 10, 2011 at 18:36

  80. soois wrote (May 10, 2011 at 09:02):

    En CT, as dit nie was dat daar nog ouens was wat wel bereid is om vrae te vra en vrae te beantwoord op hierdie blog nie, het ek die blog verlaat en nie my tyd verder gemors soos jy se nie. Totdat net breindood ouens soos jy hier skryf, of totdat Nathan my so beveel, sal ek aanhou skryf.

    😆 Ho hum, there you go, avoiding and dodging the question again, as expected. The fact remains that I have enough brain function to poke gaping holes into your puerile nonsense. Repeatedly. And you may well be correct about me being brain-dead. If so, it shows how crappy your so-called “arguments” are. Your list and “explanations” of modern scientific knowledge this so-called “holy” book of yours supposedly anticipated are so ridiculous as to invite a bray of well-deserved laughter. Your criteria are so childishly loose that any vague metaphor is adequate “proof” for you. Moreover, you cannot meet my challenge of giving even just one single example of the “Many, many, many” (your words, now prove them) as-yet unknown pieces of scientific knowledge your fairytale book allegedly contains. Plus, most of your “answers” to Daan’s objections are a study in inconsequent blather for the sake of appearing clever. The only one you’re kidding is yourself.

    It’s becoming ever more clear that you wouldn’t recognise a coherent argument if it bit you on the nose with T. Rex teeth. But don’t let that stop you making a complete idiot of yourself. It’s very amusing, you know. Please continue in the same vein.😆

    Con-Tester

    May 10, 2011 at 11:09

  81. Daan, Hallo daar.

    Mag ek my opinie lig oor ‘n deel van jou pos aan Hans? As ek mag, die volgende.

    Jy skryf: “Kom ons wees dus realisties. Hoeveel mense ken jy wie vir ander mense vertel wat en hoe hulle gebid het? Gebed is tog ‘n persoonlike saak. Vertel jy as ‘n reël vir jou vrou en kinders wat en waaroor jy elke keer bid?” In my geval is die antwoord, ja!, baie beslis, veral in ‘n ernstige situasie waar ek my lewe gaan verloor en waar ‘n swaar taak op my wag. In Jesus se geval het hy nie ‘n vrou of lewensmaat gehad nie, maar sy getroue volgelinge, Sy dissipels.

    Nou by jou pos aan my. Nee, ek glo nie Allah is ‘n afgod nie. Sover my kennis strek is Allah en my God een en dieselfde. My bewoording moes gewees het,: “Allah (moslem vir God) en Muhammed (een van hulle profete)”. My bedoeling was dat ek nie ‘n Moslem is nie en dus nie daardie name gebruik nie, net soos ek nie Joodse name en benamings gebruik nie, terwyl ons tog dieselfde God aanbid.

    En CT, as dit nie was dat daar nog ouens was wat wel bereid is om vrae te vra en vrae te beantwoord op hierdie blog nie, het ek die blog verlaat en nie my tyd verder gemors soos jy se nie. Totdat net breindood ouens soos jy hier skryf, of totdat Nathan my so beveel, sal ek aanhou skryf.

    soois

    May 10, 2011 at 09:02

  82. Soois!!! Dagsê.

    Jy verwys na Allah, Arabies vir “God”, as die Moslem god. Moet ek hieruit aflei dat jy Allah as ‘n afgod beskou?

    Dis juis toe ek so drie jaar terug die ander twee Abrahamitiese gelowe, Judaisme en Islam, begin navors het, dat die eerste krakie in my fundamentalistiese Christelike geloof ingetree het.

    Ek is seker jy sal saamstem dat die Opperwese wie deur die Christene en die Jode aanbid word, die Skepper van alles, almagtig, alwetend en alomteenwoordig, dieselfde Wese is.

    Het jy geweet dat die Moslems presies dieselfde eienskappe aan Allah toedig? Het jy geweet dat die Moslems glo dat Maria wel ‘n maagd was toe sy aan Jesus geboorte gegee het? Iets wat selfs deur sommige hoogsgeleerde Christen teoloë verwerp word!

    Soos Hans hierbo sê, ons moet altyd realisties wees wanneer ons geloof en die Bybel oordink.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 10, 2011 at 05:55

  83. Hans!!! Naandsê.

    Wat betref jou eerste pos aan my, ek het geen probleem met jou siening dat jy die Bybel as die lewende woord lees en inspirerend vind nie.

    Ongelukkig kan ons nie sê dat geskiedenis die verlede, en daarom dood is nie. Wat ons by jou tweede pos bring.

    Jou siening omtrent Jesus se afsondering en die drie dissipels wie aan die slaap geraak het, kan eenvoudig nie staan nie.

    In Mattheus en Lukas, soos in my pos aangehaal, staan daar dat Jesus die drie dissipels aangesê het om te wag, en dat hy ‘n entjie verder gestap het om te gaan bid.

    In Johannes staan daar dat hy homself van die drie dissipels afgesonder het, so ver as wat ‘n klip gegooi kan word.

    En ja, soos jy vra, wie sê dat Jesus nie vir hulle later vertel het, wat hy gebid het nie?

    Inderdaad! Wie kan dit sê of ontken? Maar soos jy tereg sê, mens moet realisties wees wanneer mens dit wat in die Bybel staan, oordink.

    Kom ons wees dus realisties. Hoeveel mense ken jy wie vir ander mense vertel wat en hoe hulle gebid het? Gebed is tog ‘n persoonlike saak. Vertel jy as ‘n reël vir jou vrou en kinders wat en waaroor jy elke keer bid?

    Ek sal dit baie moeilik glo, Hans.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 9, 2011 at 19:51

  84. 😆 soois, in that case I strongly recommend that you immediately stop wasting your time on this silly blog here and start revealing all this wonderful as-yet undiscovered science that your so-called “holy” book contains. Just imagine what a positive difference to humanity you can make that way! But that’s not all! If you apply yourself right now, your revelations and discoveries of new science from the bible will be a very, very powerful argument in support of your other contentions, which means you’d start winning lots of people for your Jeeeeeeeebusssss! Just imagine, you’d literally be doing your god’s work, just as your book commands! And, while it’s not really important, you’d also become instantly famous. So what’s stopping you, boyo!?😆

    Con-Tester

    May 9, 2011 at 17:12

  85. “Who knows what other scientific knowledge it contains that we have yet to discove!?”

    Many, many, many. Just today my wife and I spoke about the neccessity of pain to teach us that certain things are harmfull, the ability to feel cold and heat, so that we can dress accordingly. Why would nature develop such things? Animals work mostly on instinct, while humans work from experience. Nope, nothing but an intelligent being was responsible for this.

    soois

    May 9, 2011 at 16:17

  86. Hallo Daan.
    Jy is heeltemal reg, ek het Allah (die Moslem god) met Mohammed (die profeet) verwar. Gebeur as ‘n ou nie daardie spesifieke godsdiens navolg nie.

    O ja, die boelie storie was darem net ‘n grappie. Ou Hans het ‘n manier om my baie alleen te laat voel en dan een maal ‘n week kom vat hy almal weer ‘n slag aan.

    Groete,
    Soois

    soois

    May 9, 2011 at 16:08

  87. Soois!! Dagsê.

    Nee, ek het nooit gesê die Bybel beteken vir my niks nie. Die boek Openbaring is darem mos nog lank nie die hele Bybel nie.

    En jy is heeltemal verkeerd wat betref die wese van Allah wat natuurlik niks anders as “God” in Arabies beteken nie. Die Islamiete glo dat Muhammed, na Jesus, die grootse en finale profeet van God (Arabies: Allah; Spaans: Deo; Duits: Gott, Sotho: Moddimo; Frans: Dieu; Zoeloe: Nkosi; Amerikaans: Ghud, behalwe in New York, waar hulle sê Gawd) was.

    Google gerus “islam”. Jy sal verbaas wees oor wat en hoe die Moslems glo, en hoeveel kwaadwillige kakstories oor hulle versprei word.

    Wat betref jou pos oor die Bybel en die wetenskap kan ek maar net sê dat dit jammer is dat die Bybel nie van die begin af dit duidelik gestel het dat die aarde rond is en NIE die middelpunt van God se skepping is nie.

    Dit sou voorkom het dat manne soos Giordino Bruno, ‘n goeie, gelowige en AKADEMIES eerlike wetenskaplike, koelbloedig deur die kerk op die brandstapel vermoor is.

    Ek hoop nie jy vertolk dit wat ek vir jou skryf as “boelie” nie.🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 9, 2011 at 02:45

  88. Yeah, with all that magnificent evidence of how the Crushtian bible anticipated modern science, it’s a great fucking mystery how it hasn’t become a mandatory standard science textbook. Jeez, those dumb blerrie scientists! Who knows what other scientific knowledge it contains that we have yet to discove!?😳

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2011 at 23:50

  89. Ou Daan,

    Kom laat ek nou maar probeer om die Bybelwaarheid wetenskaplik te bewys, m.a.w hoe die Bybel reeds die wetenskap jare vooruit was.

    Astronomie:-
    Die Bybel verwys na die sterre in die hemelruim. Hier volg twee voorbeelde:
    Genesis 22:17 “Ek sal jou vrugbaar maak en jou nageslag so baie maak soos die sterre aan die hemel en soos die sand van die see. Jou nageslag sal die stede van sy vyande in besit neem.”
    Jeremia 33:22 “Ek sal die nageslag van my dienaar Dawid en dié van die Leviete wat in my diens is, so baie maak soos die sterre wat nie getel kan word nie, en soos die sand van die see waarvan die hoeveelheid nie bereken kan word nie.”
    Die interessantheid hier is dat net sowat 3000 sterre met die blote oog gesien kan word, terwyl die WETENSKAPLIKES sovêr skat dat daar 10 tot die mag 21 moet wees, hoewel selfs hulle erken dat hulle nie seker is nie. Dieselfde WETENSKAPLIKES het bepaal dat die sandkorrels op aarde se strande ongeveer 10 tot die mag 25 is. Sal nogal interessant wees as hulle nog sterre ontdek en dieselfde getal as sandkorrels opmaak.
    Die Byble sê ook elke ster is uniek:
    1 Korinthiërs 15:41 “Die glans van die son is anders as dié van die maan of dié van die sterre. Ook verskil die een ster se glans van dié van die ander.”
    Ons weet vandag elke ster verskil, maar ‘n person 1 AD kon dit nie weet nie.
    Die Bybel beskryf hoe die aarde in die hemelruim aan niks nie hang:
    Job 26:7 “God sprei die hemel uit oor die leë ruimte, Hy laat die aarde hang waar niks is nie.”
    Die Bybel beskryf die presisie van beweging in die hemelruim:
    Jeremia 31:35-36 “So sê die HERE wat die son gee tot ’n lig oordag, die ordeninge van die maan en van die sterre tot ’n lig in die nag; wat die see in beroering bring, sodat sy golwe bruis, HERE van die leërskare is sy Naam: As hierdie verordeninge voor my aangesig sal wyk, spreek die HERE, dan sal die nageslag van Israel ook ophou om ’n volk te wees voor my aangesig vir altyd.”

    Meteorologie:-
    Die Bybel beskryf die beweging van die winde:
    Prediker 1:6 “Die wind gaan na die suide en slaan om na die noorde, gaan altyddeur rond, en die wind keer na sy kringloop terug.” Nog beter, die Bybel beskryf dat lug massa het:
    Job 28:25 “Toe Hy vir die wind die gewig bepaal en die waters met die maat afgemeet het,”
    Die wetenskap het eers 300 jaar gelede ontdek dat lug inderdaad massa het, en hoe die relatiewe massas van lug en water belangrik is vir die funksionering van die hidrologiese siklus, wat nodig is vir die onderhoud van lewe.

    Biologie:-
    Die Bybel beskryf biogenese (die ontwikkeling van party organismes vanaf ander organismes) en die stabiliteit van verskeie organismes:
    Genesis 1:11-12 “En God het gesê: Laat die aarde voortbring grasspruitjies, plante wat saad gee en bome wat, volgens hulle soorte, vrugte dra, waarin hulle saad is, op die aarde. En dit was so. Die aarde het voortgebring grasspruitjies, plante wat saad gee volgens hulle soorte en bome wat vrugte dra, waarin hulle saad is, volgens hulle soorte. Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”
    Genesis 1:21 “En God het die groot seediere geskape en al die lewende wesens wat beweeg, waar die waters van wemel, volgens hulle soorte; en al die gevleuelde voëls volgens hulle soorte. Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”
    Genesis 1:25 “En God het die wilde diere van die aarde gemaak volgens hulle soorte en die vee volgens hulle soorte en al die diere wat op die grond kruip, volgens hulle soorte. Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”
    Let op die herhaling “volgens hulle soorte”, wat die reproduktiewe integriteit van elke spesie benadruk.
    Dit is ‘n bewese feit dat geestesgesondheid en liggaamlike gesondheid hand aan hand gaan. Koning Salomo het dit reeds 950 VC geweet:
    Spreuke 12:4 “’n Deugsame vrou is die kroon van haar man, maar een wat skande maak, is soos ’n verrotting in sy gebeente.”
    Spreuke 14:30 “’n Rustige hart is die lewe vir die vlees, maar hartstog ’n verrotting vir die gebeente.” Spr 15:30 “Stralende oë verbly die hart; ’n goeie tyding maak die gebeente vet.”
    Spreuke 16:24 “Vriendelike woorde is soos ’n heuningkoek: soet vir die siel en ’n genesing vir die gebeente.”
    Spreuke 17:22 “’n Vrolike hart bevorder die genesing, maar ’n verslae gees laat die gebeente uitdroog.”
    Levitikus (voor 1400 VC geskryf) beskryf die waarde van bloed:
    Levitikus 17:11 “Want die siel van die vlees is in die bloed, en Ek het dit aan julle op die altaar gegee om vir julle siele versoening te doen; want die bloed bewerk versoening deur die siel.”
    Bloed dra water en voedsel na elke sel toe, en verwyder afvalstowwe uit die selle. Die bloed dra ook suurstof vanaf die longe na die hart en die res van die liggaam. William Harvey het in 1616 ontdek dat boedsirkulasie die sleutelfaktor is vir lewe, wat net bevestig wat die Bybel 3 000 jaar vroeër al beskryf het.
    Die Bybel beskryf die chemise samestelling van die liggaam:
    Genesis 2:7 “En die HERE God het die mens geformeer uit die stof van die aarde en in sy neus die asem van die lewe geblaas. So het dan die mens ’n lewende siel geword.”
    Genesis 3:19 “In die sweet van jou aangesig sal jy brood eet totdat jy terugkeer na die aarde, want daaruit is jy geneem. Want stof is jy, en tot stof sal jy terugkeer.”

    Antropologie:-
    Ons het grotverfkuns en ander bewyse dat mense grotte bewoon het. Die Bybel beskryf ook grotmense:
    Job 30:5-6 “Uit die samelewing word hulle weggejaag; die mense skreeu oor hulle soos oor ’n dief. In die afgryslike klowe moet hulle woon, in gate in die grond en in rotse.”
    Let op dat hierdie nie aapmense was nie, maar vlugtelinge uit Babel wat verjaag is deur die sterker stamme. Toe het hulle om die een of ander rede verstandelik agteruit gegaan. Interessant genoeg sien jy hierdie tendens vandag nog in die agterbuurtes van dorpe en stede.

    Hidrologie:-
    Die Bybel gee ‘n redelike volledige beskrywing van die hidrologiese siklus.
    Psalm 135:7 “Hy laat die wolke opkom oor die horison, Hy maak die weerligstrale vir die reën en bring die wind te voorskyn.”
    Jeremia 10:13 “Wanneer Hy sy stem laat hoor, druis die water in die hemel; Hy laat die mis opstyg van die eindes van die aarde af, Hy laat die weerlig slaan wanneer dit reën, Hy laat die wind uit sy voorraadskure uitkom.”
    Uit die verse kan jy verskeie fases van die hidrologiese siklus waarneem – die wêreldwye prosesse van verdamping, luglangs sirkulasie van vogdraende wolke, kondensasie met elektriese ontlading en uiteindelik reën.
    Job 36:27-29 “ Hy trek vog op uit die see, Hy haal reën uit die groot waters uit, dan giet die wolke water uit, laat hulle dit op al die baie mense val. Kan iemand verstaan hoe die wolke beweeg en hoe die weer dreun daar in die woonplek van God?”
    Die Bybel beskryf die hersirkulasie van vog:
    Prediker 1:7 “Al die riviere loop in die see in, maar die see word nooit vol nie. Die riviere hou aan om te loop na die plek toe waarheen hulle altyd geloop het.”
    Jesaja 55:10 “Die reën en die sneeu kom uit die hemel uit en dit gaan nie daarheen terug nie maar deurweek die aarde en laat die plante bot en vrugte dra, sodat daar saad is om te saai en brood om te eet.”
    Die Bybel beskryf die ongelooflike massa vog wat in die lug gedra kan word:
    Job 26:8 “Hy versamel die water in die wolke, en hulle skeur nie onder die las nie.”
    Job 37:11 “Hy laat die wolke swaar word van vog, Hy stuur sy weerligte in die wolke in.”
    Hidrotermale luggate (hydrothermal vents) word in die Bybel 1 400 VC beskryf. Dit is 3 000 jaar voor die wetenskaplikes dit ontdek het:
    Genesis 7:11 “In die seshonderdste jaar van die lewe van Noag, in die tweede maand, op die sewentiende dag van die maand, op dieselfde dag, is al die fonteine van die groot watervloed oopgebreek, en die sluise van die hemel is geopen;”
    Job 38:16 “Het jy gekom tot by die bronne van die see? En het jy rondgewandel in die binneste diepte van die wêreldvloed?”

    Aardrykskunde (Geologie):-
    Die Bybel beskryf die aarde se kors:
    Jeremia 31:37 “So sê die Here: As die hemel daarbo afgemeet kan word en as die fondamente van die aarde daaronder vasgestel kan word, sal Ek die hele nageslag van Israel verwerp oor alles wat hulle gedoen het, sê die Here.”
    Let wel, hoewel sommige wetenskaplikes beweer dat hulle die heelal se grootte bepaal het, het alle pogings tot dusver om deur die aarde se kors na dieplastiekmantel daaronder te boor, gefaal.
    En ja, die Bybel het reeds die aarde se sferiese vorm beskryf eeue voordat die mens dit ontdek het:
    Jesja 40:22 “God het sy troon bokant die hemelkoepel, die aardbewoners is vir Hom soos sprinkane. Hy span die hemel oop soos ‘n tentdoek, oop soos ‘n tent vir die mense om onder te woon.”
    Die word “hemelkoepel” is uit Hebreus vertaal vanaf hulle word “chuwg”, wat beteken sirkel of kompas (afhangende van die konteks). Dit dui iets rond, series of geboë aan – nie iets wat plat is nie.
    Die boek Jesaja is tussen 740 en 680 VC reeds geskryf, dit is ten minste 300 jaar voordat Aristotel die moontlikheid van ‘n sferiese aarde in sy boek, “On the Heavens”, beskryf het.
    Dit bring my by ‘n belangrike geskiedkundige onderwerp. Jy is dalk bewus van die konflik tussen Galileo en die Roomse Pous, Paul die vyfde. Nadat Galileo sy werk, “A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World”, gepubliseer het, is hy na Rome ontbied waar hy geforseer is om sy bevinginge te herroep. (Gedurende daardie tyd het “teoloë” van die Rooms Katolieke Kerk, volgehou dat die aarde die middelpunt van die heelal is en om anders te dink absurd was)
    Nêrens in die Bybel word die aarde as plat, of die middelpunt van die heelal beskryf nie. Hierdie konflik was gedurende die groot vervolging en deel van ‘n magstryd. Die gevolg is dat wetenskaplike en Bybelse kennis verlore gegaan het, ‘n hartseer saak wat vandag nog gevoel word.

    Fisika:-
    Die Bybel stel moontlik kernkragprosesse voor wat kernwapens kon beteken. ‘n Konsep wat sekerlik nie 67 NC al verstaan kon word toe petrus die volgende geskryf het nie:
    2 Petrus 3:10 “Maar die dag van die Here sal so onverwags soos ‘n dief kom. En op dié dag sal die hemel met ‘n groot gedruis verdwyn, die hemelliggame brand en tot niet gaan, en die aarde met alles wat daarop is, vergaan.”
    Televisie is ‘n praktiese instrument wat van elektromagnetiese golwe gebruik maak. Die Bybel beskryf iets soortgelyks – iets wat kan maak dat almal ter gelyke tyd dieselfde gebeurtenis kan sien:
    Matthéüs 24:30 “Dan sal die teken van die Seun van die mens in die hemelruim verskyn, en al die volke van die aarde sal verslae wees. Hulle sal die Seun van die mens op die wolke van die hemel sien kom met groot krag en majesteit.”
    Openbaring 11:9-11 “Mense van al die volke, stamme, tale en nasies sal hulle lyke drie en ‘n half dae lank daar sien lê en nie toelaat dat hulle begrawe word nie. Die bewoners van die aarde sal bly wees oor hulle dood en hulle daaroor verheug. Hulle sal vir mekaar geskenke stuur. Hierdie twee profete was immers vir die bewoners van die aarde tot ‘n teistering. Ná die drie en ‘n half dae het daar egter asem en lewe van God af in hulle gekom. Hulle het opgestaan, en groot vrees het almal oorval wat hulle gesien het.”

    Paleontologie:-
    Volgens my word daar na Dinosourusse verwys op verskeie plekke in die Bybel. Die boek Job beskryf twee. Die een word in Job 40 vanaf vers 15 beskryf en die ander in Job 41 vanaf vers 1. Ek dink een en ‘n halwe hoofstukke is genoegsaam. Probeer om die ou 1953 vertaling te lees.

    Die stuk is nie geskryf om die Bybel as ‘n wetenskaplike boek voor te hou nie, maar om die konstante bevestiging of ooreenkomste tussen wat in die Bybel beskryf word en baie later ontdek is, te wys. Daar is baie dinge in die Bybel wat die wetenskap nog nie kan verduidelik nie, maar sou God as almagtig en goddelik beskou kon word as alles wetenskaplik verduidelik kon word?
    In die laaste eeu en veral die laaste dekade het wetenskaplikes al baie bewyse van die akkuraatheid van die Bybel gekry. As mense net met soveel erns na die positiewe bewyse gaan soek as wat hulle na die teendel soek, sal hulle wondelik verras wees. Ongelukkig Daan, vind ek dat mense eerder na moontlike teenstrydighede gaan soek as na die waarhede.

    Groete daar,
    Soois

    💡

    soois

    May 8, 2011 at 23:33

  90. Ah yes, it’s Sunday night and Hanswors puts in the obligatory clowning.

    So Hanswors, did you watch Mickey Mouse this morning? Can you see that your Jeeeeebusss! isn’t half the saviour Mickey Mouse is? Go on, prove me wrong if you can.

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2011 at 22:05

  91. Daan, so terloops oor die 4 Evangelies wil ek die volgende sê; Vandag terwyl ek in die kerk was, het ek my ook “afgesonder” en tog was ek omring met mede lidmate. Sou ‘n leerling nie oplet in ‘n klas, dan sê een maklik dat hulle in die klas “slaap”.
    Wie sê dat Jesus nie vir hulle later vertel het, wat Hy gebid het? Alles wat in Jesus se lewe gebeur het en wat Hy gesê het, is sekerlik nie opgeteken nie. Verder sal geen 4 mense wat ‘n gebeurtenis bywoon, presies dieselfde beleef en weergee. Hulle sal elk weergee wat vir hulle uitgestaan het en wat hulle onthou het. Mens moet dus realisties wees wanneer mens dit wat in die Bybel staan, oordink. Dit is maar hoe ek na die saak kyk.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2011 at 22:00

  92. Hans,
    lekker om van ‘n gelowige te sien skryf. Ek word erg geboelie jong.

    soois

    May 8, 2011 at 21:55

  93. ErickV, sien wat ek vir Daan hierbo geskryf het.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2011 at 21:06

  94. Daan, geskiedenis is die verlede en is dood, dus lees ek die Bybel as die lewende woord, wat vir my boodskappe bevat vir die teenwoordige tyd.
    Voorbeeld: Gal 4:24 Dit is sinnebeelde, want dié vroue staan vir twee verbonde: een, van die berg Sinai afkomstig, wat vir die slawerny kinders baar—dit is Hagar;

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2011 at 20:57

  95. Con-Tester, sorry, my mistake and don’t check your TV Gide, rather look at the program.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2011 at 20:48

  96. Haai daar Daan.

    As die Bybel vir jou niks beteken nie, sal ek vir jou niks van betekenis kan vertel nie. Ek is juis tans besig om ‘n langerige dokument op te stel waar die Bybel reeds dinge geweet het van ons moderne wetenskap, op amper elke gebied van die wetenskap, maar as ek my tyd gaan mors moet ek dit dalk maar los. Ek is juis nou klaar met Astrologie.

    O ja, Allah is ‘n profeet volgens die Moslem geloof, nie God nie.

    soois

    May 8, 2011 at 20:39

  97. Soois!!! Naandsê.

    Dit help nie ek lees Openbaring nie, want dit wat daar staan sê vir my niks.

    Weet jy wat tiekkel my ook nog meer van die Christelike geloof? Dat hulle ander gelowe belaglik vind maar blind is vir die absurditeite van die Christelike geloof. Een voorbeeld:

    As die Moslems glo dat God (Allah) vir Muhammed gesê het om na ‘n grot te gaan sodat Gabriël vir hom die Q’ran kan dikteer, sê die Christene hy is ‘n bullshitter.

    Maar as Jesus met Paulus vanuit die hemel praat, dan is dit faain.

    Nou vra ek jou, wat is nou die verskil?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 8, 2011 at 18:55

  98. En nee,
    die antichris hoef nie ‘n kerk te he nie, maar waar is dit makliker om mense te mislei as in ‘n kerk? En nee, nie die satanskerk nie, want dit is mos obvious, nee, hy wil Christene mislei, nie die siele wat reeds aan hom behoort nie.

    soois

    May 8, 2011 at 17:57

  99. Daan,
    gaan lees Openbaring. “Jy sal in jou plekke van aanbidding mislei word.” “Valse profete sal kom en se dat hy die jesus is.” “Die antichris sal kom en die wet verander (tweede gebod waar afbeeldings gemaak sal word en aanbid word soos in die RKK), hy sal tye en tyd verander” (Sondagaanbidding of die dag van die Here die “sabbat” noem. Ook die RKK, daarom praat ons oumas nou nog foutiewelik van Sondag as die sabbat. Ook ‘n RKK instelling). Die kinderdoop. Ek kan aangaan en aangaan.

    En nee, die RKK is oudste “formele kerk”, maar direk na Jesus se hemelvaart het die eerste kerk van die Here onstaan. Hoe dink jy wie is al die gemeentes aan wie Johannes en Paulus so geskryf het?

    soois

    May 8, 2011 at 17:50

  100. soois wrote (May 7, 2011 at 11:43):

    Just because a philosopher create an analogy like Russel’s [sic] Teapot, does not make it law. If I decide the burden of proof lies on the scientist, and give it a name like “Soois’s ass”, does not make it the rule…”

    As usual, your understanding is as impressive as it is deep. The burden of proof always rests on those who make positive claims. As they say so succinctly in Afrikaans, Wie beweer, moet bewys.” There’s a very good reason for that rule, which no doubt is lost on you. Nevertheless, see if you are able to figure out why. By the way, “Soois’s ass” is a very fitting name seeing as that’s where all of your “arguments” originate.

    soois wrote (May 7, 2011 at 11:46):

    You’re correct “last Paragraph” comes to mind in both cases, evolution theory and Christianity.😆 ”

    Okay, so you do admit that when it comes to fact, logic and evidence, Crushtianity distorts, misunderstands, ducks, dodges, evades, sweeps aside, ignores, or covers up with inventions of half-arsed hooey. Then you go on to demonstrate it by claiming that evolutionary theory does the same. It seems we may be making some slight progress, as fleeting as it may be, and all too soon to be replaced by more of the same old same old.

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2011 at 11:28

  101. Hoekom beskryf jy die RKK as die kerk van die antichris? Dis die oudste Christelike kerk. Onthou, hulle glo en bely dat hulle sondes hulle vergewe word op sterkte van Jesus se kruisdood. Dit maak van hulle Christene en is dit, volgens die Bybel, nie vir jou om hulle te oordeel nie.

    Moet die antichris ‘n kerk hê? Daar is geen gesag in die Bybel vir so ‘n stelling nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 8, 2011 at 09:50

  102. Ek dink ek het reeds die RKK as die kerk van die antichris beskryf.

    soois

    May 7, 2011 at 22:05

  103. Soois!!! Naandsê.

    Ek het nog nooit in my lewe enige gesag in die Bybel gekry wat jou aanname dat dit daardie tyd “die gebruik was om na God uit te roep” ondersteun nie. Daar staan ook nêrens in die aangehaalde tekste dat Jesus gewaak het nadat hy gebid het nie. Hy het, na hy gebid het, na die drie teruggegaan en hulle aan die slaap gekry.

    In Mattheus en Markus word geskryf dat Jesus ‘n end verder gestap het en toe gebid het. In Lukas word geskryf dat hy honself so ver soos ‘n klipgooi weg afgesonder het. Hoe kon daardie drie dissipels hom gehoor het?

    Wat meer is, as die dissipels hom gehoor het, kan ek nie glo dat hulle aan die slaap geraak het nie. Daarvoor was die woorde van die gebed net te dramaties en sensasioneel.

    Google gerus “jesus seminar”. Lees daar wat manne met doktorsgrade in Nuwe Testamentiese Wetenskap oor die kanonieke evangelies te sê het.

    En hulle is manne vir wie ek my hoed afhaal. Hulle is akademies eerlik. Hulle skroom nie om te sê waarheen hulle navorsing lei nie. Al is hulle bevindinge soms in stryd met die Christelike geloof.

    Ten slotte Soois. As jy dink dat Christene by definisie eerlik is, maak jy ‘n groot fout, tensy jy nie aanvaar dat die Rooms Katolieke Kerk ‘n Christelike kerk is nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 7, 2011 at 18:37

  104. You’re correct “last Paragraph” comes to mind in both cases, evolution theory and Christianity.
    😆

    soois

    May 7, 2011 at 11:46

  105. Just because a philosopher create an analogy like Russel’s Teapot, does not make it law. If I decide the burden of proof lies on the scientist, and give it a name like “Soois’s ass”, does not make it the rule, nor if I decided the burden should be on the non-believer and call it “Believer’s belly”.

    soois

    May 7, 2011 at 11:43

  106. Like I said, last paragraph…🙄

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2011 at 11:42

  107. Argument from incredulity
    “…The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future…” One may be discovered in the future. So you say, because it just might be discovered in the future, it is therefore true?

    Please go to the same link and read:
    Argument from ignorance
    Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true.

    soois

    May 7, 2011 at 11:33

  108. soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 18:27):

    Jou laaste sin sinspeel dat Christene nie earlike [sic] en openhartige feite sal gee nie. Ek gaan daardie een ignorer [sic], want as Christen is eerlikheid juis een van my sterk punte, al wil ou CT anders glo.

    That’s just too precious! It’s not a matter of what I want to believe; it’s a matter of what you believers keep demonstrating, namely a complete disdain for any kind of intellectual honesty. I’ve told you before that a lie does not have to be a conscious, deliberate distortion; it just has to fail to accord with the truth. Typically, that’s just ignored. I’m sure you truly believe the things you say — but so does the committed flat-earther.

    The facts are put before you. The arguments are laid out for you. The objections are brought to your attention. Prevailing knowledge is spoonfed to you. Things that militate against your beliefs being true, in some cases compellingly so, are carefully explained to you. And what do you go and do, hmm? You duck, you dodge, you evade, you sweep aside, you ignore, and you invent half-arsed hooey to try covering up the factual, logical and evidential frailty of your beliefs. What you never do is either present a cogent counterargument that actually addresses the point, or admit that your beliefs are on very shaky ground or that you do not know. It appears that you simply can’t recognise the weakness, shiftiness, unsoundness of your position and/or you don’t have enough respect for your challengers to do any of those decent things, and instead you just continue pretending that it’s all hunky dory.

    And that’s called “intellectual dishonesty” in anybody’s book.

    Now, I have little doubt that the above will again be distorted, misunderstood, ducked, dodged, evaded, swept aside, ignored, or covered up with an invention of half-arsed hooey. If on the off chance that you do understand what I’m saying, you can start with a coherent defence of you ongoing evolution denial with something more than an argument from incredulity. But I won’t be holding my breath.

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2011 at 11:09

  109. ErickV

    Knoop Den Vogel? Skerp. Ek wonder hoe het kletskerk daai een ge-“laaik”.

    soois

    May 7, 2011 at 08:38

  110. Dagsê daar Daan.

    Jou eerste vraag is; “waar is Mattheus dan?” Uiteraard was Mattheus duidelik nie een van die drie wat saam met Hom gegaan het nie, en jou tweede vraag was basies: “hoe het hulle geweet wat Hy gebid het as hulle aan die slap geraak het?”

    Ou Daan, jy moet onthou dat Hy eers gebid het, moontlik hardop uitgeroep na God soos dit die gewoonte daardie tyd was om tot God te bid, en toe nog ‘n ruk lank gewaak het voordat hy teruggekeer het na sy dissipels toe. Hulle kon na Sy gebed eers aan die slaap geraak het toe hulle veronderstel was om saam met Hom te waak. Daarna kon hulle dit oorvertel het aan onder andere Mattheus. Dit is ook moontlik dat Jesus self die verhaal oorvertel het. Ek weet dit is blote spekulasie van my kant af, maar die weglating van sekere feite maak die verhaal nie noodwendig onwaar nie.

    As ek kan terugkeer na my vergelyking van my en my twee broers wat ons gesamentlike lewensverhaal in ons ouerhuis neerpen. As ek dinge skryf van ons kinderdae, gaan ek oorvertel alles wat ek weet, deels uit eie ondervinding en deels wat my broers aan my oorvertel het van dinge waar ek nie by was nie. Onthou, ek skryf ‘n lewensverhaal, nie ‘n geregshof dokument nie, dus vertel ek dinge oor met die verstandhouding dat die leser my woord vir die verhaal sal aanvaar sonder om allerhande onnodige bewyse en feite by te werk vir geloofwaardigheid.

    En ja, die twee “links” is na Christelike webtuistes. Daar is egter honderde ander, maar jy moet onthou, en gaan doen gerus navorsing, teenbewyse sal kom van nie-gelowige webtuistes en nie-gelowige wetenskaplikes, terwyl bewyse dat die evangelies waar is sal kom uit Christengeledere. Wat kan ek maak? “n Ateïs gaan nie bewyse wat strook met die Bybel gee nie.

    Jou laaste sin sinspeel dat Christene nie earlike en openhartige feite sal gee nie. Ek gaan daardie een ignorer, want as Christen is eerlikheid juis een van my sterk punte, al wil ou CT anders glo.

    Ek wil van die punt afdwaal en weer terugkeer na die woord “teorie” of liewer “wetenskaplike teorie”. Het nou die dag gaan vlieg en later die middag met my heuningbeie gewerk, toe val die ding my op. ‘n Wetenskaplike teorie beteken in plein boere-afrikaans dat daar sekere wetenskaplike beginsels is, wat as jy hulle saamvoeg ‘n sekere resultaat behoort te verkry. Dit is die teorie. Wanneer die eksperiment suksesvol gedoen is, dan is dit ‘n feit. Ons praat nie van die teorie van lugvaart nie, maar van die beginsels of feite van lugvaart. Eens op ‘n tyd was dit ‘n teorie dat die vorm van ‘n vlerk, of die vlerkprofiel (airfoil), waar lug wat van voor af beweeg bo-oor die vlerk ‘n langer pad moet beweeg teen dieselfde snelheid as die lug wat onderdeur moet beweeg. Gevolglik word ‘n lae druk bo-oor die vlerk veroorsaak en aangesien die wetenskaplike beginsel sê dat materie van ‘n hoë druk na ‘n lae druk beweeg, behoort die vlerk nab o te beweeg. Die teorie is bewys en lugvaart is nou ‘n feit. Maar die wetenskaplike teorie sê dat heuningbye nie behoort te kan vlieg nie. Hulle lyfies is te vet en swaar en hulle vlerkies te klein en swak. En boems, hier kom hulle en gooi die wetenskap heeltemal omvêr.

    Jy sien ou Daan, alles is nie altyd swart of wit nie, daar is skakerings van grys tussenin. Die wetenskap is “great” en beteken soveel vir die mens, maar so tussenin gooi God ‘n draaibal net om te sê; “Ek is nogsteeds in beheer”.

    Groete daar

    soois

    May 7, 2011 at 08:28

  111. (After several failed attempts to post this as “Con-Tester”, I am now trying it as “defollyant”.)

    Here’s one more instance of people reading from the same hymn sheet but singing entirely different tunes: “Jesus was a communist.”

    The latest incident … really oversteps the boundaries of responsible theology, the responsible use of the Bible…

    (Emphasis added.) So says the sparkplug church’s Ben du Toit. The man is clearly a consummate comedian.

    defollyant

    May 6, 2011 at 20:27

  112. Erick!! Dagsê.

    Jy is reg. Ek is nie ‘n Christen nie.

    Ja, ek en ou DW operate heavy op KK.🙂 Ek was ‘n tyd terug redelik lank nie daar nie. Moet wees dat Knoop den Vogel toe daar bespreek is. Ek onthou dit regtig nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 6, 2011 at 16:01

  113. Daan,
    Ek sien jy is erg besig op “Kletskerk”!
    Ek is nou ongeveer ‘n jaar ‘n roofkyker daar omdat ek nie graag wil deelneem nie. Ek is maar bang ek slaan my naam soos gewoonlik met ‘n plank!
    Daar is ‘n klomp skerp mense daar.
    My een skuilnaam wat ek gebruik het om ‘n ruk gelede iets in Beeld se blogs te skryf, is al op “Kletskerk” bespreek.
    Die skuilnaam was “Knoop Den Vogel”🙂

    ErickV

    May 6, 2011 at 10:35

  114. CT
    Daar moet ek natuurlik met jou ook saamstem.
    Dit is hoekom daar mos ongeveer 40,000 registreerde denominasies is!

    ErickV

    May 6, 2011 at 10:29

  115. Daar moet ook nog bygevoeg word dat hulle eintlik net belang stel as die andere se sienings ooreenstem met hul eie s’n. Indien nie, word dit onmiddelik as dwaalleer verwerp.

    Con-Tester

    May 6, 2011 at 09:57

  116. Hello Daan!
    Jy’s reg, net te vinnig geskryf sonder om, soos gewoonlik, te dink!
    Ek sien jou in elk geval glad nie meer as ‘n Christen nie, nie eers ‘n bietjie nie!
    Jy sien, daar sit ek jou in ‘n box, of is dit ‘n verkeerde box?

    ErickV

    May 6, 2011 at 09:51

  117. Erick!! Dagsê.

    Jy maak ‘n fout. Kan ek jou sin hierbo refraseer?

    “FUNDAMENTALISTIESE Christene stel net belang in die siening van ander Christene>”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 6, 2011 at 05:31

  118. Christene stel net belang in die siening van ander Christene, punt.

    ErickV

    May 6, 2011 at 05:19

  119. Soois!!! Naandsê.

    As jy sê jy stem nie met my saam oor die evangelies nie, verstaan ek jou reg dat jy die waarheid van dit wat ek hierbo as 5 feite noem, betwis? Ou soois, dit kan mos nie. Die son kom elke oggend op in die ooste. Dis ‘n feit. Om daaroor te stry is absurd.

    Kom ons neem argumentsonthalwe net feit 4 hierbo:

    Mattheus 26:37 tot 40: “Hy het vir Petrus en die twee seuns van Sebedeus saamgeneem. Toe het hy bedroef en beangs geword en vir hulle gesê: “Ek voel doodsbenoud. Bly hier en waak saam met My.” Hy het ‘n entjie verder gegaan en daar gekniel met die gesig teen die grond en gebid: “My Vader, as dit moontlik is, laat hierdie lydensbeker by my verbygaan. Moet nogtans nie doen soos ek wil nie, maar soos U wil.” Daarna kom Hy na die dissipels toe terug en kry hulle aan die slaap. Hy sê toe vir Petrus: “Kon julle nie eens een uur lank saam met my waak nie?”

    Ek sit hier met twee probleme wat GEEN Christengelowige vir my kan verduidelik nie:

    1. Die drie dissipels saam met Jesus is Petrus en die twee seuns van Sebedeus. Volgens Mattheus 4:21 was Sebedeus se seuns Jakobus en Johannes. Nou vra ek, waar was Mattheus dan?

    2. Jesus het “‘n entjie verder gegaan” voor hy gebid het. Hy was dus tydens sy gebed alleen. In elk geval, al was hy binne hoorafstand van die drie, hulle het tydens sy gebed aan die slaap geraak. Nou vra ek, hoe weet die skrywer van die evangelie wat Jesus se woorde was terwyl hy gebid het? Volgens die evangelie self was hy alleen, en niemand het hom dus hoor bid nie.

    Ek hoop jy hoor wat ek vir jou probeer sê. Geen man wie bereid is om eerlik en objektief hierna te kyk, kan glo dat elke woord in die evangelies volkome geloofwaardig is nie.

    Jy vind basies dieselfde woorde in Markus 14:33 tot 37.

    Lukas 22:41 maak die probleem nog meer ingewikkeld:

    “Hy het hom toe van hulle (die dissipels) afgesonder omtrent so ver as ‘n mens met ‘n klip kan gooi. Daar het hy gekniel en gebid.”

    Nou ja. Ek is ‘n ou man. Maar ek kan steeds ‘n klip verder gooi as die hoorafstand van enige man, maak nie saak hoe goed sy ore is nie. In elk geval, die dissipels het hier ook tydens Jesus se gebed aan die slaap geraak.

    In die evangelie van Johannes, is hierdie gebed en dit wat daarmee gepaardgaan, nie opgeteken nie.

    So ek herhaal my probleem: Hoe weet die skrywers van die evangelies wat die inhoud van Jesus se gebed was, as niemand by hom was om dit te hoor nie?

    Jou eerste link is na ‘n Christelike website: “christians.co.za/help/bybelvraebus/guidancemessage.asp?entry=2187&ref=2172”

    Jou tweede link is na die website van die Bybelgenootskap.

    Vir beide hierdie websites is dit noodsaaklik dat die Christelike geloof inderdaad geloofwaardig moet wees. Geen mens kan mos verwag dat hulle eelike en openhartige feite moet gee nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 5, 2011 at 19:40

  120. Daan,
    sorry dat my “links” so onvolledig is, maar anders word hulle summier ge-“spam”. Ek wonder hoekom!?

    Dus moet jy hulle fisies gaan intik as jy belangstel.

    Cheers

    soois

    May 4, 2011 at 18:09

  121. Jis Daan,
    Ek het inderdaad jou verkeerd verstaan. Wat die evangelies betref, stem ek nie saam nie.
    “…daar is sterk en duidelike getuienis van die eerste Christenleiers van wie ons briewe en geskrifte het, dat hierdie vier persone wel die skrywers van hierdie Evangelies was. Van hulle was twee ooggetuies, Matteus en Johannes. Markus word genoem die “seun” van Petrus, (1 Pet 5: 13) dws iemand wat vir Petrus baie goed geken het. Lukas wat duidelik sê dat hy nie ’n ooggetuie was nie, verduidelik watter bronne hy gebruik het voordat hy geskryf het. Ons kry dit in die eerste paar sinne van sy Evangelie.

    Daar is ook binne in elke boek aanduidings van watter agtergrond en doelwit die skrywer gehad het met die opstel van sy verslag, maar dit is ’n hele studie op sigself…” christians.co.za/help/bybelvraebus/guidancemessage.asp?entry=2187&ref=2172
    “Die Evangelies is deur vier van Jesus se dissipels geskryf. Die skrywers beskryf almal dieselfde gebeurtenisse, maar elkeen vanuit sy eie, besondere perspektief” bybelgenootskap.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=28&lang=af

    Groete

    soois

    May 4, 2011 at 18:03

  122. Less than three weeks to go ’til doomsday and the doomsayers are on a Camping trip, performing circus tricks. And damaging their children’s critical faculties. The End of the World is Almost Here! It begins on May 21, 2011. The Bible guarantees it! More of that, um, religious “knowledge” on display here.🙄

    Con-Tester

    May 4, 2011 at 10:28

  123. Sooisman!! Dagsê.

    Ten eerste, jy verstaan my verkeerd. Die feit dat ek die 4 evangelies as ongeloofwaardig verwerp, beteken nie dat ek die Bybel in sy geheel verwerp nie. Nie eers amper nie.

    Ek het inderdaad die program oor die 10 plae in Egipte op Discovery gekyk. Moer interressant. Ons moet egter onthou dat alles wat op Discovery aangebied word, nie noodwendig korrek is nie.

    Vat byvoorbeeld daardie program oor die wêreld wat op 22 Desember 2012 gaan vergaan. Ek hoop jy het daarna gekyk. Daar is wetenskaplikes wat dit glo en daar is wetenskaplikes wat sê dis snert.

    En ek sê weer, ek het nog nooit bewyse gesoek vir die bestaan van God of die regverdiging van die Christelike geloof nie. Ek sê weer: Daar bestaan GEEN sulke bewyse nie. Ons glo dit of ons glo dit nie.

    Maar kyk nou wat skryf jy hierbo oor die 4 evangelies:

    “Dit is juis die verskille in die vier evangelies wat my oortuig het in die begin, dat Die Bybel nie sommer maar net deur ‘n slim ou geskryf was nie, maar deur vier persone wat werklik dieselfde lewe saam met Jesus geleef het.”

    Kom ons kyk na die feite:

    1. Die 4 Evangelies is nie deur 4 enkel persone geskryf wie saam met Jesus gelewe het nie. Oor hierdie feit stry nie eers die domste, mees konserwatiewe predikant in enige kerk nie.

    2. Marcus, die oudste evangelie, is op die vroegste 50 jaar na Christus geskryf deur ‘n onbekende persoon/persone.

    3. Die (onbekende) skrywer(s) van die Mattheus en Lukas Evangelies het vry gebruik gemaak van die inhoud van Marcus en platant plagiaat gepleeg.

    4. Daar word in minstens 1 van die Evangelies verwys na Jesus waar hy in die tuin van Getsemane ALLEEN gebid het voordat hy gearresteer is. As hy alleen was, hoe weet die skrywer(s) die inhoud van Jesus se gebed?

    5. In alvier evangelies word baie van dit wat Jesus sou gesê het aangehaal, terwyl Jesus dit nooit gesê het nie.

    Hierdie is feite, ou Soois, feite wat soos ‘n paal bo water staan. As jy jou geloof met hierdie feite kan versoen, faain. Hierdie feite negeer egter die fondamente van die Christelike geloof.

    Dit beteken natuurlik dat elke Christengelowige blindelings en naief glo, en nie bereid is om eerlik met hom/haarself te wees nie.

    Sterkte.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 4, 2011 at 10:27

  124. Hello Daan!
    Jy weet, daar is ‘n ding wat my al baie lank pla.
    Die sogenaamde “Eerste Gebod” se mos nou vir ‘n mens om nie afgode of beelde daarvan te aanbid nie!
    Die “God” wat die Tien Gebooie daar gestel het, het mos gese dat Hy die enigste “God” is. Daar is net een!
    Nou wil ek net weet, hoekom aanbid die mense vir “Liewe Jesus” (drie in een “God”) en die kruis se afbeelde? Dit alleen vertel my die mense gryp na strooihalms en daardeur probeer hulle al die belaglikhede in die Bybel te regverdig!
    Volgens my is die kruis ‘n wreede simbool van hoe die Romeine hul vyand op ‘n barbaarse manier tereg gestel het! Al die kruise op die kerke is afbeelde van iets boos en wreed!
    Maar nou ja, jy gaan nou al die verskonings hoor!

    ErickV

    May 4, 2011 at 09:33

  125. Hans,
    Kom ek probeer ‘n bietjie rasioneel my siening van die Bybel gee. LW, PROBEER!
    Geskiedkundig het Salomo bestaan, raait? RAAIT!
    Geskiedkundig het Daniel bestaan, raait? RAAIT!
    Geskiedkundig het Jesus bestaan, raait? RAAIT!
    Geskiedkundig bestaan jy, raait? RAAIT!
    Geskiedkundig bestaan ek, raait? RAAIT!
    DAAR IS GEEN BEWYS VIR DIE BESTAAN VAN GOD NIE, RAAIT?
    RAAAAAIT!!!!!

    ErickV

    May 4, 2011 at 08:53

  126. Haai daar Daan!

    Jesus, Heilige Gees, God. Almal deel vand die Drie Eenheid. As ek jou per foon bel, het jy met my gepraat, nie met die foon nie, dus as Jesus Homself aan my openbaar deur Die Heilige Gees, is dit nogsteeds Hy. Ek het self gedink mense vat dit te ver as hulle se God praat met hulle, maar weet nou dit is waar. CT wil nou allerhande draaie loop en is seker te dof om my punt te verstaan, maar ek kan werklik se, EK WEET. As jy Hom nog nooit gesoek het nie, sal jy Hom nie vind nie.

    Terloops, ek het vier twee broers wat saam met my groot geword het. As jy ons drie afsonderlik gaan vra om ons lewens in ons huishouding van kleintyd tot skoolverlaat te laat neerpen, gaan jy dieselfde basiese verhaal kry, maar ek gaan dinge neerskryf wat vir my die belangrikste was terwyl hulle dalk iets anders gaan belangrik ag. Ek gaan dinge vergeet het wat hulle dalk onthou, m.a.w dieselfde verhaal met tog fundamentele verskille. Dit is juis die verskille in die vier evangelies wat my oortuig het in die begin, dat Die Bybel nie sommer maar net deur ‘n slim ou geskryf was nie, maar deur vier persone wat werklik dieselfde lewe saam met Jesus geleef het.

    As jy soek ou Daan, waarborg ek jy sal meer bewyse as Die Bybel vind. Een voorbeeld, so ‘n rukkie terug was daar op Discovery ‘n program oor die Tien Plae wat volgens historiese rekords en wetenskaplike navorsing wel plaasgevind het. Volgens hulle het die een plaag die volgende plaag veroorsaak, m.a.w hulle het die plae ‘n natuurlike oorsaak gegee. God is uit die situasie gehaal sonder om te oorweeg dat Hy die natuur gebruik, aangesien Hy dit geskep het. Punt is, natuur of God, Die Bybel het ‘n historiese gebeurtenis weergegee voordat vandag se slimmes dit kon bevestig. So is daar baie ander.

    Ongelukkig moet jy eers in Die Woord glo en Hy sal jou al die feite gee. Ek het dit vantevore gese, as jy eers bewyse gaan soek, gaan jy dit nie kry nie en verlore gaan.

    Sterkte en groete. Ek wens uit my hart ek kon ‘n rits bewyse vir julle ouens hier neerpen juis omdat ek nie wil he iemand moet verlore gaan nie, maar ongelukkig werk dit nou een maal nie so nie. Jesus wil he ons moet Hom soek, Hy gaan hom nie aan ons opdring nie. Nou is ek maar opdringerig en irriteer sommige ouens grensloos.

    soois

    May 4, 2011 at 06:29

  127. Hans!!! Dagsê.

    Dankie vir jou kommentaar.

    Kom ons begin met die erfsonde. Kan dit wees?

    Kom ons aanvaar dat Adam en Eva inderdaad historiese figure was en dat Satan hulle tot ongehoorsaamheid aan God verlei het.

    Volgens die Bybel het God hulle as tugmaatreël uit die paradys gegooi nadat hy gesê het die man gaan elke dag swoeg vir sy brood en die vrou gaan in pyn kinders baar.

    Maar dit spel mos nie die sogenaamde erfsonde nie?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 4, 2011 at 05:48

  128. Well see, ou Hanswors, that stunning bit of reasoning of yours is just as incisively brilliant as your standard refrain about having proof that you have yet to produce. Rather stick with Mickey Mouse. You don’t have to fabricate as hard.

    Con-Tester

    May 3, 2011 at 23:51

  129. Daan, jy noem ‘n paar goeie punte op waaroor mens nogal lekker sal kan gesels.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 3, 2011 at 23:49

  130. Cool, ou Hanswors, it’s a date. Then we’ll see if you can prove me wrong about anything concerning Mickey Mouse’s deep and abiding legacy.

    There’s just one teensy problem with your proposal. SABC 2 on Sundays features Jakkals Jol from 06:00 to 06:30 AM, and Nuus from 06:00 to 06:30 PM, so you’ll need to inspect the programme schedule a bit more carefully. Mickey Mouse features on SABC 3 from 06:30 to 07:00. This carelessness on your part suggests that you’re not taking Mickey Mouse very seriously. In turn, this means that you are living an unfulfilled life.

    Con-Tester

    May 3, 2011 at 23:44

  131. ErickV, ek weet minstens waarvan ek praat wanneer ek oor dit wat in die Bybel geskrywe is, praat.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 3, 2011 at 23:39

  132. Con-Tester, you are just fooling yourself by saying that the Christian God of the Bible does not exist, as you spend so much time fighting the God of the Christian Bible.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 3, 2011 at 23:31

  133. Con-Tester, tune in on TV2 Sunday’s at 06H15 to 06H30 and you can see Mickey Mouse and maybe we can then discuss him.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 3, 2011 at 23:23

  134. Soois!! Naandsê.

    Nee, ek het nog nooit enige bewyse gesoek vir die bestaan van God en die fondament van die Christelike geloof nie. Ons altwee weet mos dat, buiten die Bybel, sulke bewyse nie bestaan nie.

    Wat ek wel besef, is dat daar konklusiewe histories verifieerbare feite is wat onomwonde aantoon dat die 4 kanonieke evangelies in die Nuwe Testament hierdie historiese feite nie korrek weergee nie, en is die inhoud daarvan nie geloofwaardig nie.

    Dit volg dus logies dat daar nie eens in die Bybel bewyse bestaan wat die maagdelike geboorte, die opstanding en hemelvaart ondersteun nie. Om van die sondeval en sogenaamde erfsonde nie eers te praat nie.

    Ek moet sê dat ek jou stelling dat Jesus homself aan mense openbaar, vreemd vind. Volgens die Christelike geloof is dit die Heilige Gees, en nie Jesus nie, wie mense oortuig van onder andere die gesag van die Bybel en Jesus se goddelikheid.

    Sterkte.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 3, 2011 at 20:40

  135. You clearly have your evidentiary obligations all in a muddle. If you claim that I’m gay then you have the burden of proving that I am. It’s not up to me to prove the contrary even though I conceivably could do so by producing a few witnesses who will testify to my heterosexuality, which, on a balance of probabilities, will seriously undermine your case.

    More importantly, you’re still dodging the essential issue using more bad analogies, slippery semantic hopscotch and even worse reasoning. The analogy is bad because we’re not dealing with private mental states when you claim that Jeeeeeebusssss! exists in a proper sense that is independent of you and your mind. We’re dealing with supposedly objective facts, so demonstrate them. If you want to redefine what it means “to know” something then submit your thoughts to the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They’ll listen to you if you present a strong enough case. Really, they will because they must. But until you do that, don’t try and bullshit the readership here about what you “know.”

    Now you say it’s a case of “he’s here in spirit” — another transparent ruse. If by that you mean to say that you are following the example you think Jeeeeeebusssss! set, then you’re following an ideal that exists in your head by way of a brain state, but for which no real-world correspondent is either evident or necessary. For all the reality it imparts to him, you could just as well follow Superman’s example. Or Mickey Mouse’s. If on the other hand you’re saying that this “spirit” is itself real and is the thing that makes Jeeeeeebusssss! real, then demonstrate this “spirit” thing to me. Demonstrate it so that it is objectively certain that you haven’t just tried to defend fantasy with yet more fantasy.

    Because, much as expected, it looks exactly like you’re just going to carry on making up new piss-poor fairytales to disguise the old ones with. And until you address the actual point that you’ve been presented with, you’re just stamping your feet while spouting desperate excuses and dismissing the arguments before you with no more than a hand wave.

    Very respectful of you. Very convincing, too.

    Con-Tester

    May 3, 2011 at 17:40

  136. Daan,

    Nou het jy die lig gesien. Welkom!

    Satan

    May 3, 2011 at 17:30

  137. Daan,
    ek is jammer Jesus het Hom nie aan jou ge-openbaar nie. Dalk omdat jy “bewyse” by die verkeerde plek gaan soek het?

    Nietemin, ek bid vir jou.

    Groete,
    Soois

    soois

    May 3, 2011 at 13:46

  138. You can prove or disprove the excistence of a wife yes, but not what is within. Jesus does not walk among us, he is here in spirit, is within, that is my point. I could have used other examples. If I said you were gay, and you know that you aren’t, how do you prove it? You can abstain from relations from other men, but I can still go on and say that that in itself is no proof and that you are lying. You will KNOW FOR A FACT that you are not gay, but you cannot prove it, because it is a fact within.

    You can however prove the oppsite, by going into gay relations, as I can prove the opposite, by tearing up the Bible and de-nounce my Christianity.

    soois

    May 3, 2011 at 13:42

  139. Here we go with the underhanded deflections, irrelevancies and non sequiturs again. Even you should be able to comprehend the very simple fact that I can demonstrate my love for my wife through the things that I do and through other things that I refrain from doing. Sure, you can always turn around and profess doubt about me loving her, no matter what demonstrations and avowals I might provide.

    But that’s hardly what we’re talking about. Nor is it germane. If I don’t actually have a wife, my demonstrations of affection would be mere shadow chasing, wouldn’t they?

    Now, I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person exists who is also my wife. Read that again, please, because it’s the crux of the matter. Ergo, I properly know that I in fact have a wife. Since it’s provable, you can properly know it too, and so can anyone with a certain minimum of cognitive function. Moreover, there is nothing remarkable about a man having a wife and loving her. These little details lend considerable a priori plausibility to most claims I may make about my wife, including that I love her, and they are the key issue and the key difference. It’ll do you no good trying to dodge the essential point with bad analogies and semantic tricks, no matter how hard you stamp your feet and claim that you know Jeeeeebusssss! exists because you don’t actually know this. All you have is a strong belief, a conviction that, by your own admission, you cannot justify and whose truth is already questionable to begin with. And, once again, if it cannot be justified (and if its truth is highly dubious), it just ain’t knowledge.

    Consequently, you have two choices. You can either provide the proof that is sufficient to establish these remarkable claims of yours as fact, or you can understand, accept and admit that you do not properly know what you claim you do. Either option is fine with me. When you decide on one of them, perhaps we can start having a fruitful discussion.

    Con-Tester

    May 3, 2011 at 12:14

  140. Soois!! Dagsê

    Nee, ek het wel oor die afgelope 5 jaar heelwat vrae gehad rondom Jesus en die Christelike leërstellings soos deur die kerk verkondig, maar op bykans al hierdie vrae het ek bevredigende antwoorde gekry.

    In die lig hiervan glo ek nie langer dat:

    Die mens van nature ‘n sondaar is nie;

    Maria ‘n maagd was toe Jesus gebore is nie;

    Jesus die seun van God en self God is nie;

    Jesus na sy kruisiging uit die dood opgewek is en na die hemel opgevaar het nie;

    Jesus weer gaan terugkom nie;

    daar ‘n hiernamaals is waar alle mense, van die begin tot die einde, of in die hemel gaan wees, of in die hel nie;

    In kort, ek verwerp die Christelike geloof in totaal, want daar bestaan geen gronde om hierdie geloof op te baseer nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 3, 2011 at 11:52

  141. Can you prove that you love your wife? Can you prove it to me? But if you do love her, you KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. I cannot come and call you a liar and say that you do not love her, that “you DO NOT KNOW”, because you could not verifyably prove it. It is something personal between you and her. You know and she knows. It is a FACT, albeit impossible to prove to me.

    I do know for a fact that Jesus exists and that we have a relationship, an existing relationship. He has proven Himself to me over and over again. Therefore I have the “knowledge” that He exists.

    soois

    May 3, 2011 at 10:35

  142. Here we go with the pseudo-validations again. Try to follow this, soois because it’s not really that hard.

    “To know” is to “have knowledge.” It is generally agreed among philosophers that “knowledge” consists of “justified true beliefs (that remain true even should circumstances change slightly)*.” In the case of an existence claim, i.e. a claim that says something exists, this means that if you cannot prove the claim, you cannot justify the belief that your claim is true. If you cannot justify it, you cannot rightly call it knowledge. Therefore, if you cannot prove it, you cannot claim to know it.

    Also, you agreed in the past that the human brain can be fooled in all sorts of ways. If you cannot prove your claims as you state them, you also cannot prove that your brain is not being fooled about them. All you really have is an endless repetition of, “But I DO KNOW, I DO, I DO!” Should it ever come to pass that you fundies begin to understand and openly recognise the essential epistemological problems with your beliefs, then that will be a good-sized step forward for you.

    ————————

    * While this definition can become questionable in certain contrived situations, it is clearly applicable to the situation at hand because it deals with an absolute.

    Con-Tester

    May 3, 2011 at 08:51

  143. Daan/Con-Tester,

    Glad to see that things have been sorted out and wrong doings forgiven.

    Perhaps CT’s words, “…admit that you DO NOT KNOW”, is true for Daan as he himself said, “…ek sal seker maar agnosties doodgaan”. This indicates that Daan is a believer in the sense that he was brought up that way, and still struggles to find Jesus. Skuus Daan, as ek verkeerd is vra ek om verskoning, maar dit lyk asof jy baie vrae en kwellings rondom Christenskap kan he.

    CT, if however you said to me, “…admit that you CANNOT PROVE”, I would have responded with, “aye, I cannot prove”, but if you said to me, “…admit that YOU DO NOT KNOW”, my response would be and IS, “Oh, but I DO KNOW, i’ve been trying to tell you that all along.

    When you have met Jesus, no one, I repeat, NO ONE can take that away from you.

    Greetings to you all and peace be with you.

    soois

    May 3, 2011 at 07:39

  144. Con-Tester.

    You wrote:

    1. “Daan Van der Merwe wrote (May 1, 2011 at 12:19):

    “Dit is verkeerd.”
    Well, obviously that’s where we part ways.”

    If that is your position, so be it. But please read my post under discussion again. I clearly said that it is my PERCEPTION that you classify all believers as fundamentalists. In my view, that is wrong. Period.

    Your remark towards the end of your post, “The bottom line is that you’re not entirely correct. It’s not that I classify every believer as a fundie. It’s only those who attempt to defend their religious belief by trying to masquerade it as somehow reasonable”, shows that my perception is wrong.

    That was all I wanted to hear: “Not all believers are fundi’s.”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 2, 2011 at 16:27

  145. Erick sê:

    “Jy weet, ek gaan toe mos vanmore na Boerevryheid se webwerf toe om iets te plaas. Bliksem, maar soveel van enggeid het ek lanklaas gesien!
    http://www.boerevryheid.co.za
    🙂🙂🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 2, 2011 at 16:11

  146. Daan Van der Merwe wrote (May 1, 2011 at 12:19):

    Dit is verkeerd.

    Well, obviously that’s where we part ways. In effect, you’re defending the view that it’s okay for people to be unreasonable to some degree, whereas I’m saying that all unreasonableness is to be shunned. My problems with your stance are several. First of all, religion in all its manifold guises has always arrogated for itself some kind of special unassailable rank in human affairs, and continues to do so. “You may not challenge me and my traditions! it says. “If you do, the consequences for you will be dire.” That in itself is already a fundamentalist approach because it cannot defend itself by reason and evidence. It’s a complete subversion of rationality.

    Next, it’s a slippery slope. Where exactly do we draw the line between what is acceptable unreasonableness and what is unacceptable? To reply that one must consider the (potential) harm is merely to defer the question because, again, where is the line to be drawn between harm that is acceptable and that which isn’t? Teaching people that it’s okay to believe in unsubstantiated fairytales simply because they are comforting or pacifying is already harm done. You seem to think that’s okay; I do not. Moreover, in practice, it’s all too often the case that specific irrational views are defended by appeal to other, perhaps lesser ones. “It’s okay to cull rats and rabid dogs and feral cats, so let’s class those unbelievers as subhuman. There, now we can cull them too.” Think I’m joking? I’m not.

    Finally, it’s not that I’m selective in my condemnation of unreason, as you seem to think. I’m just as disdainful about tarot readers, astrologers, medical quacks, psychics, UFO dopes and the whole range of deluded twits/charlatans parading their gumball notions as Great Truth™. That, incidentally, also includes many self-interested drivel-peddling politicians. Religion just happens to be the most popular form of nonsense, and the primary focus of this blog.

    The bottom line is that you’re not entirely correct. It’s not that I classify every believer as a fundie. It’s only those who attempt to defend their religious belief by trying to masquerade it as somehow reasonable. Far more honest, accommodating and ultimately productive, I say, to simply admit that you DO NOT KNOW.

    Con-Tester

    May 2, 2011 at 12:44

  147. Daan,
    Jy weet, ek gaan toe mos vanmore na Boerevryheid se webwerf toe om iets te plaas. Bliksem, maar soveel van enggeid het ek lanklaas gesien!
    http://www.boerevryheid.co.za

    ErickV

    May 2, 2011 at 09:21

  148. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Goed om weer van jou te hoor.

    Nee wat. Ek dink nie dis nodig om die Rubicon oor te steek nie. Wie het Gaius Julius Caesar in elk geval gedink wie is hy? Fok hom.

    Nee, ek sal seker maar agnosties doodgaan.🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 2, 2011 at 08:19

  149. Daan,
    Hies ek ok weer vir ‘n slaggie!
    Ek sien jy en CT is amper al by “we agree to disagree” episode! Dinge begin ‘n bietjie beter lyk!
    Maar ongelukkig wat ou Hans aanbetref – geen salf te smeer nie!🙂 (oops!)
    Inelk geval. Daan ek het jou nog nooit as “fudamenteel” gesien. Ek dink jy kort nog net een groterige tree om die Rubicon oor te steek.
    Groetnis.

    ErickV

    May 2, 2011 at 07:36

  150. Con-Tester

    Apologies accepted. Let by-gones be by-gones.

    Net twee sakies:

    Jy sê: “I trust that this part of the argument is clear enough.”

    Die histories korrektheid van die kanonieke evangelies was NOOIT deel van die argument nie. Soos jy tereg opmerk, het ek by verskeie geleenthede my bedenkinge daaromtrent uitgespreek.

    So ook in my pos aan Soois. Daarin verskyn niks wat as fundamentalisties aangemerk kan word nie. Inteendeel. Alles wat ek daar sê, Jesus se gewaande goddelikheid en plek van geboorte, werp juis kritiek op die fundamentalistiese: “Jesus is God want die evangelies sê so.” En “Jesus is in Bethlehem gebore want die evangelies sê so.”

    Dis hoekom ek de bliksem in geraak het toe jy daarna verwys as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, etc.”

    Wat my by die tweede sakie bring.

    My persepsie van jou is dat jy ALLES wat na geloof lyk of ruik, as fundamentalisties afmaak. Dat volgens jou, enige gelowige by definisie fundamentalisties (‘n fundi) is.

    Dit is verkeerd.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    May 1, 2011 at 12:19

  151. Oopsie, formatting errors:
    … does not exist*. (You yourself…

    … that never was*. I trust that…”

    And

    “————————
    * Read ‘does not exist’…”

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2011 at 18:13

  152. Well Daan, there you have it. That’s all it took: an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Thank you for that.

    From my side, permit me to offer you an unconditional apology for the abusive words that I have directed at you. If it is at all possible to justify them, it would be that they were prompted by the enormous letdown of discovering what we all now know. Such protracted disingenuousness was among the last of things I would have credited you with, despite our very many heated differences in the past.

    Now, to address those questions of yours. Firstly, I was describing the whole conversation as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, etc.” and not, as you seem to think, the specific aspects alone which you raised. Just have a look where and when my challenge occurs in relation to all the other topic-relevant comments by you and our resident guru of the inconsequent that preceded mine.

    Second, the god of the Chrustian bible does not exist

    *

    . (You yourself have expressed similar strong doubts on a few occasions in the past.) Therefore, Jesus’ alleged divinity is necessarily hogwash. But Jesus’ divinity is absolutely central to the four gospels (among other books of the Chrustian bible). Consequently, the four gospels cannot be historically accurate; they assert a divinity that never was

    *

    . I trust that this part of the argument is clear enough. Assuming that it is, it is then logically inescapable that any “discussion” that attempts to sidestep or soft-pedal this vital and salient point is little else besides “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, etc., plus underhanded farce and folderol.” Why? Because it’s exactly analogous to, and just as preposterous as “discussing” the practical merits of using the Flat Earth Society’s navigational aids for airline pilots: the details don’t matter because the overall narrative is fundamentally flawed.

    ————————

    *

    Read “does not exist” to mean “so extremely improbable as to be readily discounted” — à la Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot.

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2011 at 18:00

  153. Beste Nathan.

    Ek het nie besef dat ek jou in ‘n verleentheid stel nie, en was dit nooit my bedoeling om jou te na te kom nie.

    Ek kan net sê dat ek baie jammer is, en vra ek jou hiermee nederig en opreg om verskoning.

    Ek vra ook al die ander deelnemers, Con_Tester ingesluit, om verskoning.

    Daan Van der Merwe.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 30, 2011 at 14:02

  154. Oh Hanswors, thank you so much for the recognition you accord me and for that splendid “proof.” I am deeply touched by it all — but clearly not as touched as you. It’s not, of course, a book by itself that can damage humanity; it’s the doings of others with it and in its name that’s the hazard, often a toxic one. But this has been put to you many times in the past, so your surprise and straw man caricature of the issue are failures.

    Equally unfortunately for you, you still resist discussing Mickey Mouse or following the example he set or dedicating your life to his four-colour service. All of these things comprise proof of your extensive incompleteness.

    Con-Tester

    April 29, 2011 at 08:08

  155. Con-Tester, it would appear that you should be on Walt Disney’s blog and not this one. (worthy comment)
    You believe a book can damage humanity? The fact that you don’t believe in the example Jesus ect. revealed, is proof that you are damaged.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2011 at 22:57

  156. Dok, ja, Jesus was die seun van Maria.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2011 at 22:35

  157. Yes, those responses are stunning in their breadth and — especially — their remarkable originality. While it would be fair to point out for the sake of the casual reader that these responses were abducted from prompts for answers to an endless succession of dodged questions and replies devoid of any substance, it is perhaps more apt to ask that it be noticed how thoroughly they address the point. The first video completely blows Don Boys’s asinine cretinist/IDiot contentions away (albeit that it does so with amusingly contentious verve) — unless, of course, you happen to hold the opinion that 1,999 out of every 2,000 specialist scientific experts in the earth and life sciences are deluded, and that only the remaining one in each 2,000 is correct. That’s quite apart from the many facts directly relevant to biological evolution that the video mentions.

    The other two videos are satirical takes that highlight the absurdity of religious belief, with particular reference. Again, there’s nary a relevant response within light-years of them.

    So, no surprises there at all, just the habitual pretensions to superior wisdom.

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 19:07

  158. “My, my, what desperate hoop-jumping you do! In itself, this says much about your willingness to face the obvious”😆

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 18:10

  159. Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 17:53

  160. Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 17:47

  161. Con-Tester/defollyant/?? will keep this one for a little longer,

    You have posted this amusing little video before. “Repeating the same braindead horse apples”. “You will remain in the oblivious funk you are in at present”. “How about instead of perpetuating this unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense of yours, you take a stab at addressing” Don Boys’s “contentions. That is, if you’re up to that task because ignoring them won’t magically make them disappear. Maybe we can elicit a passably intelligent comment from you after all”.

    Most of above post was taken and reworked from the “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense” written by Con-Tester.

    😆

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 17:41

  162. Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 17:29

  163. “Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position…Science means “to know” and “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.” It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don’t “know.” Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests…And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.

    (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

    The college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” So a book about origins does not deal with origins! Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?…Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is also taught.”

    Copyright 1997, Don Boys, Ph.D.

    www. cstnews.com/ Code/FaithEvl.html

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 16:40

  164. Golfer Charl Schwartzel really likes Angus Mashbrain — but not quite as much as the ever-breathtakingly-brilliant Fundie Brain Trust likes contrived self-serving gibberish. Angus occurs only in fifth place on the Schwartzel list of facts. By comparison, the preference for contrived self-serving gibberish appears right at the top of the Fundie Brain Trust list of facts.

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 11:27

  165. “…what you’re really saying is that you’ll lie to prove you’re not lying. According to you, clever intellectual giant with the huge balls that you so clearly are, it’s not a blatant lie when you wrote, “I looked back into the past and saw that you did in fact not point out to others that Con-Tester and Defollyant are one and the same.” This is called “provocation”. Look it up in the Dictionary. The purpose to get a reaction or prove a point. It is a method of doing things, albeit a lie in the same sense that the following is a lie: Con-Tester March 19 11:01 lie “Turn to Mickey Mouse instead. Your life will become immeasurably richer, and when you die, you’ll spend eternity in Disneyland (US or France, your choice) – but only if you accept Mickey Mouse as your life guide. Otherwise you’ll spend eternity with thousands of people who are exact copies of you”.

    Rediculous I know, just as rediculous as your arguments concerning lies and deception.

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 10:28

  166. Actually on second thoughts soois, henceforth you’re welcome to amuse yourself on this particular topic of who is and who isn’t a liar. Just post whatever infantile dross jumps into your vacant cranium, see? You do that anyway. I’ll just watch and be amused, okay?

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 10:18

  167. Sheesh, is it really possible that someone’s reasoning abilities can be that defective!? soois, where — exactly now, please — did I accuse you of lying about having a sock puppet, hmm? Do you understand the question? Is it plain enough? Have you noted and absorbed the emphasis?

    Now be a good little moron and answer it.

    Because soois, what you’re really saying is that you’ll lie to prove you’re not lying. According to you, clever intellectual giant with the huge balls that you so clearly are, it’s not a blatant lie when you wrote, “I looked back into the past and saw that you did in fact not point out to others that Con-Tester and Defollyant are one and the same.

    Yeah, we get that kind of thing a lot from fundies, usually wrapped in a bundle of tu quoque folly. It’s endlessly amusing to watch how they trip all over their own inanities.😆😳😆😳😆

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 09:59

  168. Exactly, I put down what I did to prove a point. “When CT defends himself, it should, be quite acceptable, but when Soois has exactly the same defence, he is a liar”.

    Jip, let’s give the reader the chance to decide. I am still awaiting Nathans investigation results eagerly, but as he pointed out himself being very busy right now, I guess we will have to be patient.

    I do not know how many readers you fool by your use of language, but I am not fooled or intimidated. You see, you reckon that by using Latin or, lately French, you can demonstrate your education (I know people with low self-esteem tends to try and glorify themselfes while demoting others), and hiding the fact that you do not have real answers by intimidating and confusing them. As an ex military man I know the best defence is to attack, hey CT. That is why you sing the old song over and over again. If you can convince yourself that I am lying, so be it.

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 08:45

  169. soois, go try to peddle your lies somewhere else. Maybe they’ll believe you.

    First, check out the “defollyant” post of April 5, 2010 at 11:53 in the “On being a Kafir. Proudly.” thread. Now check out the “Con-Tester” post immediately following it about 20 minutes later at 12:14. Read what it says. What does it say, please?

    Next, check out the “defollyant” post of April 5, 2010 at 20:54 on this blog’s homepage. Now check out the “Con-Tester” post immediately following it about two minutes later at 20:56. Read what it says. What does it say, please?

    Now, check out the “defollyant” post of July 13, 2010 at 19:37 in the “Angus is right” thread. Now check out the “Con-Tester” post immediately following it about eight minutes later at 19:45. Read what it says. What does it say, please?

    Finally, you yourself have already pointed out the “Con-Tester” post that follows about four minutes after the “defollyant” of April 26, 2011 at 18:40 in this thread. It speaks of “a different login” and requests that Nathan remove the first copy of my message. Why would I worry about that if I intend to deceive, hmm? The direct and obvious implication for those among us who are sorely deficient in understanding is that, yes, I myself wrote it!

    All of the above demonstrates that soois is a desperate little liar or that he has the attention span of an amoeba with commensurate cognitive skills, and quite possibly both. I’ll let the reader decide which it is.

    As for the rest of his deflective little tu quoque rant, it’s just as convincing.

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2011 at 07:59

  170. Con-Tester/defollyant/??

    Seems that you were one of those little boys who were naughty together with the other boys, but as soon as you realized that you and your little friends were about to get caught and punished, you turned around, exposed them and distanced yourself from any wrong-doing. Remember what I said about “he who stands behind the door”? You will go on about lies, being the liar yourself, you will go on about rationalising things away while doing it yourself, you will go on about questions not being answered while not answering them yourself. You remind me of a politician.
    😆

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 07:28

  171. Above should read, contrary to your belief, I am an honest person.

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 07:12

  172. You now my friend, I looked back into the past and saw that you did in fact not point out to others that Con-Tester and Defollyant are one and the same. If I did not expose it, who knows?

    Oh, and if you look back you would see that I did not hide the fact that Believer and Soois are one and the same. I for instance used “Believer’s” ID when I struggled to get links through on my “soois” ID and afterwards said so. Nathan rapped me over the fingers and told me that the Internet is busy due to the “KKNK Kunstefees” and that I should be more patient. I apologised afterwards for submitting the same stuff more than once. I see that he has removed that, but as an honest person I’m sure he can vouch for that. You will also note that I used b”soois” and sometimes “believer” on my gay piece.

    Still I have decided to tell you guys about the connection last night without being exposed by you or anyone else, simply to make sure there are no misunderstandings and because I am contrary to popular, no, your belief.

    I also await Nathan’s follow-up. I hope he will publish his findings here on the opeb blog and not just merely e-mail it to his “maatjies”.

    soois

    April 28, 2011 at 07:10

  173. Or is that “maatjies”?😉

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 22:51

  174. No. For verifiable truth’s sake. That’s a concept entirely alien to you and your kook matjies.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 22:38

  175. Ahw for gawd sake…

    soois

    April 27, 2011 at 22:12

  176. soois wrote (April 27, 2011 at 21:36):

    I humbly apologise for actually throwing you a lifeline…

    You call your ongoing failure to read carefully with appropriate attention and then levelling an entirely unfounded and unsustainable accusation of deliberate deception against me “actually throwing [me] a lifeline”!? 😆 Fuck me gently, the depths of your delusion have yet to be properly plumbed.😆

    soois wrote (April 27, 2011 at 21:36):

    [I] maintain my stance regarding Doc/Daan. I truly belief [sic] this was done to make things interesting.

    Yeah, that’s a re-e-e-a-a-lly plausible scenario, a deeply satisfying one, even — if you’re a delusional fundie.

    soois wrote (April 27, 2011 at 21:36):

    Sure Nathan is not CT/Defollyant???

    One question: On which side of the fence exactly has all of the trickery taken place so far, hmm?

    soois, one swallow, as the saying goes, does not a summer make. If that’s too obscure for you, one agreeable Julius Malema criticism does not validate fundie drivel.

    Be that as it may, Nathan, this lamentable fiasco is hardly your doing or your responsibility. It’s a direct consequence of what passes for fundie rectitude. Still, I await your follow-up with keen interest.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 22:04

  177. Pity for the “sooise” part, but I for one will be more than happy when the truth be revealed.

    soois

    April 27, 2011 at 21:55

  178. Gentlemen

    I have to admit that I am currently wholly committed to an election campaign that demands my every moment.

    I had this blog run on automatic for rather too long, I fear. I scan WordPress’ e-mail alerts, but I have not read most of the comments with the attention they deserve. I admit to a predilection for Con-Tester and Savage and McBrolloks and certain other contributors and that I have not paid too much attention to the sooise of this blog.

    I happened to check on the comments this evening to find a rather messy business.

    I apologise for this débâcle.

    I do recall receiving an email some time ago about a double blog ID.

    I admit that I have, obviously erroneously, assumed that the reader would be circumspect and not connive to conceive.

    I am rather disgusted by what appears at first sight to be a reprehensible betrayal of my trust, such as my trust may be worth.

    The situation also smacks of preposterous puerility.

    I will investigate this matter and compare IP addresses and report back to all my valued and long-suffering readers soonest.

    For the time being I apologise profusely for this rather embarrassing breach.

    Drewan

    Nathan Bond

    April 27, 2011 at 21:48

  179. Seems the only thing myself and Defollyant/Con-Tester will actually agree upon is our standing regarding Julius Malema (I enjoyed what you had to say regarding him). Gosh, now CT is going to fall in love with Malema just to differ from me in opinion.

    soois

    April 27, 2011 at 21:40

  180. Con-Tester wrote April 26, 2011 at 18:44
    “Hmm, just a different login and WordPress is suddenly happy”.

    This is why I just made Hans aware of this fact as he was adressing Con-Tester and Defollyant seperately. At no time did I suspect you of purposefully trying to deceive. Your comment at 19:23 ending with and I quote, “I and every other contributor to this blog in the past few months was at the short end of a fraud that was continued far beyond the point of redemptions”, was I guess mistakenly understood by myself as you admitting to wrongdoing.

    I humbly apologise for actually throwing you a lifeline and therefore retract my comments regarding you, but maintain my stance regarding Doc/Daan. I truly belief this was done to make things interesting.

    As for me (soois) being another mouthpiece for Doc/Daan, Nathan is more than welcome to check. Sure Nathan is not CT/Defollyant???

    soois

    April 27, 2011 at 21:36

  181. The real question is, is this soois another one of DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig’s slimy little mouthpieces? I wouldn’t put it past the lying little turd. Nathan, can you properly vouch for us not being victim of another disgraceful little sham perpetrated by desperate fundies?

    For now, I’ll proceed on the assumption that you can.

    soois wrote (April 27, 2011 at 20:33):

    I could really enjoy this and rub Con-Tester’s face in it, calling me a liar and a plagiarist, while being guilty of deception himself.

    What deception do you think I am guilty of, hmm? If you mean the “defollyant” thing, I’ll happily prove you wrong. Four times. So do yourself a courtesy and get your factual ducks in a row before spouting demonstrably wrong rot.

    soois wrote (April 27, 2011 at 20:33):

    Secondly, where I was guilty of plagiarism…

    You repeatedly tried to make light of it, to deflect from it and to dismiss it as unimportant (as you still do) rather than admit it, revealing a strong propensity for typical fundie dishonesty. That’s the point, dufus.

    soois wrote (April 27, 2011 at 20:33):

    I cannot enjoy Con-Tester/Defollyant’s situation, nor can I blame him or Doc Einstein/Daan Van der Merwe as I truly believe in both instances deception or fraud was not the goal.

    I never deceived anyone about “defollyant”. I wrote earlier: “There are three prior instances where I used my “defollyant” account to post on this blog. In each case, I revealed within minutes and explicitly that it was a “Con-Tester” comment. Ditto in this thread, albeit by direct implication.” What part of this do you not grasp? Would you like me to list the threads and posts where I immediately stated that a “defollyant” comment is actually a “Con-Tester” comment? If you want to call a matter of a few minutes “deception or fraud” you go right on ahead and do so, see? Maybe you’ll find a few desperate people who’ll believe you.

    In contrast, DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig perpetrated his shameful con over a period of several months, and the only reason it was revealed is because he accidentally cocked it up, not because he felt any twinges of conscience. Now he doesn’t even have the honour or balls to face his exposure squarely like a man.
    😆 The bottom line is that you fundies just keep fucking up again and again, which everyone can see but you. I am endlessly amused by your abilities to make shit up that’s supposed to cover it up.😆

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 21:15

  182. I could really enjoy this and rub Con-Tester’s face in it, calling me a liar and a plagiarist, while being guilty of deception himself. However:
    First the facts:-
    Firstly, I have not lied about myself, my brother being a non-believer turned believer due to this blog etc.
    Secondly, where I was guilty of plagiarism, my intent was not to deceive, but merely to make a point or ask a question, with other words I was not seeking credit or acclaim, but possibly due to my own language restrictions, decided not to change statements or questions too much or at all. As for my latest f…up, I was truthfully discussing a book which was mentioned by myself and being discussed between myself and Doc/Daan, and henceforth I was confident that the person/s involved in this discussion was/were aware that I was using material borrowed from mentioned book, “Jesus, the man behind the myth”.
    Now some more facts:-
    I cannot enjoy Con-Tester/Defollyant’s situation, nor can I blame him or Doc Einstein/Daan Van der Merwe as I truly believe in both instances deception or fraud was not the goal. I think it was merely to create more characters with equal and opposite opinions.
    And fimally:-
    Also not with fraud or deception in mind, but merely because I was aware of myself being a pest to certain members partaking on this blog, I myself created another “person” who wrote a couple of times on this blog.
    I am sorry guys,
    Your’s truly
    Soois/Believer.

    soois

    April 27, 2011 at 20:33

  183. Nathan, I had intended to write you privately but after some reflection, I’ve decided to put the following on public record for what it’s worth:

    I harbour no ill feelings towards you even if what DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig has asserted about you being in the loop is completely true. His artifice doubtlessly put you in an awkward quandary and you need to remain true to your stated code that you would never reveal a confidence.

    I unconditionally respect that, even though I and every other contributor to this blog in the past few months was at the short end of a fraud that was continued far beyond the point of redemption.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 19:23

  184. You have my answer, DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. It’ll do you no good to ignore it, and we can go in circles until doomsday if you want.

    Here it is again: You can carry on pretending that you’re above board and what a sharp brain you are. However, until you sober up to some upstandingness, you can kiss my arse, you stupid, deceitful, pretentious fundie fuck-knuckle. Practise now: *Mmmmpwaaaah!* *Mmmmpwaaaah!* *Mmmmpwaaaah!*

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 16:54

  185. Con-Tester.

    Ek kan nie glo jy het ‘n vriend wat kan Frans praat nie. En ek dink die hele tyd jy het nie vriende nie. Net ‘n paar grootoog, fundamentalistiese athëis-kennisse. Wys jou…

    “Maybe then I’ll be vaguely inclined to address your latest spurt of ill-considered and hate-blinded distortion.”

    Nee. So maklik kan jy nie wegkom nie. Verduidelik eers waarom jy dit wat ek hierbo geskryf het as “ill-considered and hate-blinded distortion” klassifiseer.

    En antwoord dan my vrae. Of erken maar net dat jy soos ‘n normale fundamentalistiese athëis kak gepraat het.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 27, 2011 at 16:50

  186. So you told Nathan about your dishonesty and he knew about it all along, DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. Ho hum. *Yawn*. Please, please, please try that one in a court of law. That’s somehow supposed to make it any less despicable and more palatable? That absolves you? Exactly what weird planet do you come from where complicity exonerates deceit?

    Millions of people wouldn’t believe you, but I do…🙄

    You really should try to live in the real world some time, you know.

    The fact is that for months and months on end, you carried on your duplicitous little lying game. Moreover, you have the barefaced hypocrisy and self-righteous temerity to lecture me on acceptable protocol after first becoming abusive yourself and then to crow loudly about how I’m supposedly guilty of the very thing you yourself do, and which was revealed only because you fucked up, not because you are honest? Go on, try pulling the other one, you funny little genius you! There are three prior instances where I used my “defollyant” account to post on this blog. In each case, I revealed within minutes and explicitly that it was a “Con-Tester” comment. Ditto in this thread, albeit by direct implication. Then you crown it all with the now-bankrupt lie that you don’t take me seriously, revealing that you are so full of your own self-important horseshit and so desperately intent on trying to discredit me at any cost that you remain blind to these facts.

    So now who exactly is and who isn’t culpable here, DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig?

    Be honest now. Maybe then I’ll be vaguely inclined to address your latest spurt of ill-considered and hate-blinded distortion. Apart from the brief answer already given (and which unsurprisingly is totally meaningless to a mendacious fundie twit), all I’ll say on the matter is that, predictably, you completely disregard the sequence, progression and history of what has gone on here in this thread.

    You can carry on pretending that you’re above board and what a sharp brain you are. However, until you sober up to some upstandingness, you can kiss my arse, you stupid, deceitful, pretentious fundie fuck-knuckle. Practise now: *Mmmmpwaaaah!* *Mmmmpwaaaah!* *Mmmmpwaaaah!*

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, DoktorEinstein (😳😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 16:23

  187. Con-Tester

    Pas de faux pas. Pas de tout. J’ai le dit Nathan. Il sait que je suis “Doktor Einstein” aussi. Tout les temps. Donc, je ne suis pas culpable.

    Ek vra jou weer. Antwoord asseblief die volgende:

    “Dis faain. Ons almal maak foute. Kan ek dan uit hierdie “fout” van jou aflei dat jy ‘n gesprek oor die gnostiese evangelies (wat juis die FUNDAMENTALISTIESE Christelike idees weerlê!!!!) NIE as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense” NIE?

    Verder sê jy:

    ““Doktor” Einstein ( ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    “2. Om die historiese korrektheid van die kanonieke evangelies van Mattheus en Lukas te bevraagteken, is dit “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?”

    Yes.”

    So as iemand aan die hand van die gnostiese evangelies verklaar dat hy, NIE soos FUNDAMENTALISTIESE Christene glo NIE, dat

    1. Jesus NIE in ‘n stal in Bethlehem gebore is NIE, maar in sy ma se huis in Nasareth, dan beskou jy dit as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?

    2. Jesus NIE God is NIE, maar ‘n gewone, sterflike mens, dan beskou jy dit as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?!?!?!?!?!”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 27, 2011 at 15:37

  188. Well, well, well, what do you know!? The real subterfuge and sockpuppetry is revealed, and with it the arrogant dishonesty and pompous hypocrisy of the standard-three, argumentum-ad-ignorantiam-loving fundie.
    😈 You can be sure that this little faux pas will be milked in perpetuity for all it’s worth. Lecture me on acceptable protocol, will you? Go on, knock yourself out.😈

    So, DoktorEinstein (😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig, I thought you don’t take me seriously!

    Here’s a pinch of seriousness though: A discussion that ostensibly deals with the topics you raise would be fine, wonderful, heartening, informative, etc. (add your own superlatives). Where it becomes “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense” plus underhanded farce and folderol is where you fail to challenge your opponent on his repeated and transparent evasions, and then — get this! — promote your “discussion” as somehow intelligent. What a sad little joke you are.
    :mrgreen: But now that you have fucked yourself in the arse with your dual identities, DoktorEinstein (😆 )/D’anus-booi Van der Moerig, the world can see you for the reprehensibly dishonest little fundie creep that you are.:mrgreen:

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 14:30

  189. Con (🙂 ) Tester (🙂 )

    Jy vra:

    “Where did I claim that it is? (unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense)”

    Dis wat ek aanvanklik vir Soois geskryf het:

    “Die TV program het 3 temas gehad.

    1. Jesus se plek van geboorte. Bethlehem of Nasareth?

    2. Jesus se gedrag in die tempel toe hy die geldskieters en handelaars aangevat het.

    3. Die ontdekking van die 11 gnostiese evangelies by Nag Hammadi in 1945.

    Die inhoud hiervan plaas ‘n ernstige vraagteken oor die historiese korrektheid van die 4 kannonieke evangelies en ook oor Jesus se goddelikheid.

    Dit wat jy in jou laaste pos skryf, is mos maar deel van die ortodokse Christelike leërstellings.”

    Dit was jou reaksie:

    “Hey soois and “Doktor” Einstein ( ), how about instead of perpetuating this unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense of yours,”

    Jy verwys dus na die ontdekking van die gnostiese evagelies en die implikasies daarvan vir die ortodokse, fundamentalistiese Christelike geloof as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense.”

    En nou vra jy my: “Where did I claim that it is?”!!!

    Dis faain. Ons almal maak foute. Kan ek dan uit hierdie “fout” van jou aflei dat jy ‘n gesprek oor die gnostiese evangelies (wat juis die FUNDAMENTALISTIESE Christelike idees weerlê!!!!) NIE as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense” NIE?

    Verder sê jy:

    ““Doktor” Einstein ( ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    “2. Om die historiese korrektheid van die kanonieke evangelies van Mattheus en Lukas te bevraagteken, is dit “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?”

    Yes.”

    So as iemand aan die hand van die gnostiese evangelies verklaar dat hy, NIE soos FUNDAMENTALISTIESE Christene glo NIE, dat

    1. Jesus NIE in ‘n stal in Bethlehem gebore is NIE, maar in sy ma se huis in Nasareth, dan beskou jy dit as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?

    2. Jesus NIE God is NIE, maar ‘n gewone, sterflike mens, dan beskou jy dit as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?!?!?!?!?!

    Ek sien uit na jou antwoorde.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 27, 2011 at 14:03

  190. Hanswors, you are evasive about Mickey Mouse. I have told you many, many times that I view your so-called “holy” book as a collection of fairytales and that debating it would be pointless, but you are not able to absorb that message. Gregory S. Paul’s article is based on demonstrated empirical facts, not feel-good confabulations and loose opinions — not that you and your kind would know the difference. Now, try to say something worthwhile about Mickey Mouse.

    What I believe in, Hanswors, is that your fairytales are damaging to humanity and its future. Ergo, I am spending time on something I believe in but your reasoning abilities are obviously too stunted to see that. Now, once again, do try to make worthwhile about Mickey Mouse.

    ------------------------------

    DoktorEinstein (😆 ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    Ek het geen probleem met Gregory S Paul se artikel nie. Tewens, dis ‘n uitstekende artikel.

    So you say, yet you feel no twinge of discomfort in loudly admiring and applauding believers’ resolve — twice, nogal. That would be believers’ resolve (more accurately: pigheadedness) in sticking to their roundly discredited beliefs even in the face of devastating facts and obliterating arguments that they are incapable of countering. Personally, I must be too thick to get that because I fail to see anything laudable about maintaining, for example, that the Earth is flat or that madness is caused by demon possession; in my limited view, it would be much more accurate to deride the unreasonable clinging to something untenable as “idiotic.”

    DoktorEinstein (😆 ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    Waarmee ek wel ‘n probleem het, is dat jy na my en Soois se gesprek as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense” verwys.

    Yes, well, it’s obvious that you would have a problem with it, being the accommodationist drivel-spouter that you are.

    DoktorEinstein (😆 ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    Terloops, om in te meng in ‘n gesprek tussen twee mense, veral as dit met beledigende aantygings gepaard gaan, is swak maniere en getuig van ‘n swak opvoeding.

    It’s obviously escaped your magnificent observational talents that this is an open forum. Also, you conveniently forget that you yourself once made such a big thing about having a private e-mail exchange with our clown-in-chief. Finally, you seem to think that what I do isn’t justified, even as a quid pro quo, which again reveals your inability to observe and to comprehend basic ideas that I grow weary of explaining to you and those you like to pretend you’re have “intelligent” exchanges with. What a fuckin’ hoot.

    DoktorEinstein (😆 ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    1. Is die ontdekking van die Nag Hammadai evangelies “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?

    Your phenomenal language skills are showing. Where did I claim that it is? See, you are so desperate to bend over backwards for these religious numbskulls that you miss their obvious ruses and evasions.

    DoktorEinstein (😆 ) wrote (April 27, 2011 at 07:13):

    2. Om die historiese korrektheid van die kanonieke evangelies van Mattheus en Lukas te bevraagteken, is dit “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?

    Yes. Perhaps you would like to lead the floor with a discussion of the historical accuracy of the canonical gospels of Goofy Dog and Minnie Mouse, hmm?

    ------------------------------

    Well, D’Anus-booi Van der Moerig, that just goes to show how unobservant you are — just like a fundie. I’ve never made any secret that “defollyant” is my WordPress account — in fact, I revealed it the very first time I used it here. But if it makes you happy to think of me as a frustrated egomaniac then that’s a reflection of your meagre cognitive abilities as much as of your own distorted apprehensions. Now let the grown-ups talk and go play with your brother but keep your hands off his body, you naughty booi you.

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2011 at 10:48

  191. Soois jou doring!!!
    🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 Natuurlik is Con Tester en Defollyant dieselfde persoon!🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 Ek kan nie glo dat ek dit nie lankal opgemerk het nie.🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 Seker maar omdat ek hom lankal nie ernstig opneem nie.🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 Nou hoekom sal hy ‘n persona fictivo skep?🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 Maar natuurlik!!🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 Om sy kwynende ego ‘n hupstoot te gee!!🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 27, 2011 at 09:54

  192. Hans, dankie vir jou insig ou maat, jy sien, ons kan almal by mekaar leer.

    Ek hoop nie ek het jou of die kerk beledig nie, want ek is nie uit beginsel teen die kerk gekant nie. Was maar net al teleurgestel deur die kerk, of liewer sommige lidmate wat nie die pragtige boodskap weerspeel nie.

    O ja , Con-Tester en Defollyant is een en dieselfde bleeksiel.

    Groete aanm jou en Dok.

    soois

    April 27, 2011 at 09:33

  193. Hans.

    Weereens dankie vir jou antwoord. Verstaan ek jou reg dat jy tevrede is dat Jesus van Nasareth ‘n gewone, sterflike mens was?

    Doktor Einstein

    April 27, 2011 at 07:16

  194. Con(🙂 ) Tester(🙂 )

    Ek het geen probleem met Gregory S Paul se artikel nie. Tewens, dis ‘n uitstekende artikel.

    Waarmee ek wel ‘n probleem het, is dat jy na my en Soois se gesprek as “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense” verwys.

    Terloops, om in te meng in ‘n gesprek tussen twee mense, veral as dit met beledigende aantygings gepaard gaan, is swak maniere en getuig van ‘n swak opvoeding.

    1. Is die ontdekking van die Nag Hammadai evangelies “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?

    2. Om die historiese korrektheid van die kanonieke evangelies van Mattheus en Lukas te bevraagteken, is dit “unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense”?

    Ek sien uit na jou antwoord op altwee hierdie vrae.

    Doktor Einstein

    April 27, 2011 at 07:13

  195. Con-Tester, I have no great war against Mickey and rather enjoy watching him. You are the fool fighting something you supposedly don’t believe in, instead of spending time on that which you believe in.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2011 at 23:53

  196. Defollyant, I don’t think I am evasive on how I understand what is written in the Bible and Gregory S Paul also appears to have an opinion. Are his views thus also not opinion based?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2011 at 23:45

  197. Hanswors, you keep saying that as if it was somehow meaningful. You are incapable of contradicting me in regard to Mickey Mouse and in acknowledging that exactly the same set of rules applies to the ponticology of Mickey Mouse. Unless your are willing to broaden you horizons, you will remain in the oblivious funk you are in at present.

    By the way, a weevil is in the bread of the beholder.

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 23:26

  198. The Good Book — Tim Minchin

    Life is like an ocean voyage and our bodies are the ships
    And without a moral compass we would all be cast adrift
    So to keep us on our bearings, the Lord gave us a gift
    And like most gifts you get, it was a book

    I only read one book, but it’s a good book, don’t you know
    I act the way I act because the Good Book tells me so
    If I wanna known how to be good, it’s to the Good Book that I go
    ‘Cos the Good Book is a book and it is good and it’s a book

    I know the Good Book’s good because the Good Book says it’s good
    I know the Good Book knows it’s good because a really good book would
    You wouldn’t cook without a cookbook and I think it’s understood
    You can’t be good without a Good Book ‘cos it’s good and it’s a book
    And it is good for cookin’

    I tried to read some other books, but I soon gave up on that
    The paragraphs ain’t numbered and they complicate the facts
    I can’t read Harry Potter ‘cos they’re worshipping false gods and that
    And Dumbledore’s a poofter and that’s bad, ‘cos it’s not good

    Morality is written there in simple white and black
    I feel sorry for you heathens, got to think about all that
    Good is good and evil’s bad and goats are good and pigs are crap
    You’ll find which one is which in the Good Book, ‘cos it’s good
    And it’s a book, and it’s a book

    I had a cat, she gave birth to a litter
    The kittens were adorable and they made my family laugh
    But as they grew they started misbehavin’
    So I drowned the little fuckers in the bath
    When the creatures in your care start being menaces
    The answers can be found right there in Genesis!
    Chapter 6, Verse 5-7!

    Swing your partner by the hand
    Have a baby if you can
    But if the voices your head
    Say to sacrifice your kid
    To satisfy your loving God’s
    Fetish for dead baby blood
    It’s simple fate, the Book demands
    So raise that knife up in your hand!

    Before the Good Book made us good, there was no good way to know
    If a thing was good or not that good or kind of touch and go
    So God decided he’d give writing allegoric prose a go
    And so he wrote a book and it was generally well-received

    The Telegraph said, “This God is reminiscent of the Norse.”
    The Times said, “Kind of turgid, but I liked the bit with horses.”
    The Mail said, “Lots of massacres, a violent tour de force.
    If you only read one book this year, then this one is a book
    And it is good, and it’s a book!”

    Swing your daughter by the hand
    But if she gets raped by a man
    And refuses then to marry him
    Stone her to death!

    If you just close your eyes and block your ears
    To the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years
    Then morally, guess what? You’re off the hook
    And thank Christ you only have to read one book

    Just because the book’s contents
    Were written generations hence
    By hairy desert-dwelling gents
    Squatting in their dusty tents
    Just because what Heaven said
    Was said before they’d leavened bread
    Just ‘cos Jesus couldn’t read
    Doesn’t mean that we should need
    When manipulating human genes
    To alleviate pain and fight disease
    When deciding whether it’s wrong or right
    To help the dyin’ let go of life
    Or stop a pregnancy when it’s
    Just a tiny blastocyst
    There’s no reason why we should take a look
    At any other book
    But the Good Book
    ‘Cause it’s good
    And it’s a book
    And it’s a book
    And it’s quite good!

    Good is good and evil’s bad
    And kids get killed when God gets mad
    And you’d better take a good look
    At the Good Book

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 23:18

  199. Con-Tester, you are incapable of contradicting me in regard to the Bible and in acknowledging that another set of rule’s apply for the spiritual. Unless your are willing to broaden you horizons, you will remain in the grove you are in at present.
    By the way, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2011 at 23:17

  200. There, you see? Another brilliant slice of Hanswors! Note, though, how neither Mickey Mouse nor Gregory S. Paul feature in the comment. Not even tangentially. Ergo, it’s total fiction.

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 22:59

  201. Soois, Jesus het Sy tradisioenele kerk verlaat en ‘n nuwe kerk tot stand gebring. Hierdie nuwe beweging het natuurlik afgewyk van die tradisionele gebruike.
    God het deur Hom ‘n ewige hoëpriesterskap tot stand gebring en hulle het onderlinge byeenkomste. Die genoemde priesterskap bestaan dus vandag nog. Ek weet dat die kerk litmate is en nie die gebou nie. Jesus het dus die byeenkomste daargestel en ook bygewoon, soos wat vandag nog die geval is. Die kerkgangers wat die byeenkomste bywoon, is natuurlik sondaars wat nie perfek is nie. Petrus het teen hulle swakhede vas gekyk, soos baie van ons vandag en moes maar ophou kritiseer, en slag, en eet. Vandag nog, laat ons blindes sien en dooies opstaan en mens moet die Bybel reg lees, en nie vleeslike bedink wanneer ons dit lees. (Rom. 8 v 5 ens.)
    Every time one speaks to another, one breaths upon another.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2011 at 22:50

  202. Eliciting a passably intelligent comment from Hanswors is empirically not possible, so he won’t have anything rational to say about Gregory S. Paul. It’s also why he so obstinately avoids debating Mickey Mouse with me…:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 22:33

  203. Dok, as ek die volgende lees, dan wil dit voorkom of Jesus self erken, dat Hy nie God is nie en in Hom is God, ‘n gawe.
    Joh 4:10 Jesus antwoord en sê vir haar: As jy die gawe van God geken het en geweet het wie Hy is wat vir jou sê: Gee vir My water om te drink, sou jy Hom gevra het en Hy sou vir jou lewende water gegee het.
    Jes. 9 v 5, sien ons ‘n kind is gebore (Jesus die mens) en ‘n Seun is gegee (Christus, die krag en wysheid God, ‘n gawe).
    Die nuwe vertalings, dink ek, val hier uit die bus uit en neig na dogma.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2011 at 22:14

  204. Hey soois and DoktorEinstein (😆 ), how about instead of perpetuating this unsustainable fundie drivel, hooey, poppycock, baloney, twaddle, horse apples, tosh, claptrap, balderdash and general nonsense of yours, you take a stab at addressing Gregory S. Paul’s contentions. That is, if you’re up to that task because ignoring them won’t magically make them disappear. Maybe we can elicit a passably intelligent comment from the two of you after all.👿

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 22:06

  205. Dok Einstein

    Nee jong, ek het na die boek verwys, maar daarna na die bloed verwys, wat eintlik my eie terloopse opmerking was. Nietemin, nou is daar ‘n boek en ‘n film met dieselfde titels. Wonder wie is nou die ou wat plagiaat gepleeg het daar.

    Kyk, die feit dat ek godsdiens skei van Christenskap beteken nie ek het my Bybel of die kerk summier verwerp nie, maar dat godsdiens “bind” en “veroordeel” terwyl Jesus “vergewe” en “bevry”. In die boek word die korrektheid van baie kerklike gegewens en selfs Bybelkorrektheid wel bevraagteken.

    Moontlik is die film nie op die boek gebaseer nie of andersom.

    Groete

    soois

    April 26, 2011 at 21:41

  206. Soois

    Ek dink nie die program wat ek gekyk het en jou boek gaan oor dieselfde aspekte nie.

    Die TV program het 3 temas gehad.

    1. Jesus se plek van geboorte. Bethlehem of Nasareth?

    2. Jesus se gedrag in die tempel toe hy die geldskieters en handelaars aangevat het.

    3. Die ontdekking van die 11 gnostiese evangelies by Nag Hammadi in 1945.

    Die inhoud hiervan plaas ‘n ernstige vraagteken oor die historiese korrektheid van die 4 kannonieke evangelies en ook oor Jesus se goddelikheid.

    Dit wat jy in jou laaste pos skryf, is mos maar deel van die ortodokse Christelike leërstellings.

    Doktor Einstein

    April 26, 2011 at 20:39

  207. Hmm, just a different login and WordPress is suddenly happy. Weird. Satan’s meddling, no doubt.

    Nathan, please remove the first copy of the above comment. It contains a formatting error.

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 18:44

  208. Gregory S. Paul wrote an excellent article titled The Science of Religion. It’s an article that the religious boneheads will neither read nor take seriously, nor offer anything but sugar-coated bollocks in response to. It starts off very well and just gets better from there:

    Unlike science, which goes where the evidence and analysis indicate and is anti-mythical in nature, religion is inherently dogmatic and opinion based, with myths being integral to the system. One of these myths, widely held by nearly all theists as well as many skeptics of the supernatural, is that science cannot be used to address and answer many core issues of religious belief. In this view rational, objective science and faith-based religion are separate magisteria that are equally legitimate thought systems, and that cannot profoundly comment upon one another. As popular as this view is – in part because it offers a politically correct means of avoiding awkward conflict between the scientific and religious realms – it is demonstrably false.

    (Emphasis added.)

    It’s what I’ve been saying all along, so it’s nice to have it seconded. Inevitably, this will provoke wounded howls of “Just a theory!” or some other facile bunkum from the godbefoktes. But note that Paul has published empirical studies in respected journals to back up these ideas.

    There is a … need to reset the rules [of public or academic debate on religion] so that those who wish to engage in the debate over these matters are required to be more rigorous and analytical in their arguments and methods.

    Take heed, godsquad. This means that you are urged to sharpen up your arguments instead of offering the same stale and casually evasive manure that you habitually vomit up.

    The publication of a scientific investigation of the moral nature of the hypothesis of a monotheistic moral creator in a theological journal directly proves the ability of science to test the truth of faith-based claims.

    It is literally impossible for a moral, powerful and competent creator deity to exist, and for core Christian doctrine to be correct. … The host of theological absurdities that result from the failure of a creator to protect the innocent children further wrecks Christian doctrine.

    ’Nuff said.

    For most people religiosity is a superficial psychological response to a dysfunctional and insecure socioeconomic environment in which invented gods are petitioned for aid and assistance. … [R]eligious devotion and activities are easily cast off when the middle class feels sufficiently secure in their prosperity.

    The corollary is that if you’re religious, you probably don’t feel entirely secure in your socioeconomic environment. Most likely, that’s the main reason why most religious traditions make such a big point of discouraging material aspirations. Wealth, comfort and security threaten religious precepts. The upshot of Paul’s findings is that ridding society of religions’ mind-deadening scourge is then not a matter of pitting good secular arguments against tired and threadbare religious ones, but rather one of striving towards widespread wellbeing through success.

    defollyant

    April 26, 2011 at 18:40

  209. Gregory S. Paul wrote an excellent article titled The Science of Religion. It’s an article that the religious boneheads will neither read nor take seriously, nor offer anything but sugar-coated bollocks in response to. It starts off very well and just gets better from there:

    Unlike science, which goes where the evidence and analysis indicate and is anti-mythical in nature, religion is inherently dogmatic and opinion based, with myths being integral to the system. One of these myths, widely held by nearly all theists as well as many skeptics of the supernatural, is that science cannot be used to address and answer many core issues of religious belief. In this view rational, objective science and faith-based religion are separate magisteria that are equally legitimate thought systems, and that cannot profoundly comment upon one another. As popular as this view is – in part because it offers a politically correct means of avoiding awkward conflict between the scientific and religious realms – it is demonstrably false.

    (Emphasis added.)

    It’s what I’ve been saying all along, so it’s nice to have it seconded. Inevitably, this will provoke wounded howls of “Just a theory!” or some other facile bunkum from the <abbr title="Those with god-addled, ergo non-functional grey matter."godbefoktes. But note that Paul has published empirical studies in respected journals to back up these ideas.

    There is a … need to reset the rules [of public or academic debate on religion] so that those who wish to engage in the debate over these matters are required to be more rigorous and analytical in their arguments and methods.

    Take heed, godsquad. This means that you are urged to sharpen up your arguments instead of offering the same stale and casually evasive manure that you habitually vomit up.

    The publication of a scientific investigation of the moral nature of the hypothesis of a monotheistic moral creator in a theological journal directly proves the ability of science to test the truth of faith-based claims.

    It is literally impossible for a moral, powerful and competent creator deity to exist, and for core Christian doctrine to be correct. … The host of theological absurdities that result from the failure of a creator to protect the innocent children further wrecks Christian doctrine.

    ’Nuff said.

    For most people religiosity is a superficial psychological response to a dysfunctional and insecure socioeconomic environment in which invented gods are petitioned for aid and assistance. … [R]eligious devotion and activities are easily cast off when the middle class feels sufficiently secure in their prosperity.

    The corollary is that if you’re religious, you probably don’t feel entirely secure in your socioeconomic environment. Most likely, that’s the main reason why most religious traditions make such a big point of discouraging material aspirations. Wealth, comfort and security threaten religious precepts. The upshot of Paul’s findings is that ridding society of religions’ mind-deadening scourge is then not a matter of pitting good secular arguments against tired and threadbare religious ones, but rather one of striving towards widespread wellbeing through success.

    defollyant

    April 26, 2011 at 18:38

  210. Nathan, I’ve tried to re-post my vanished comments, even going to the trouble of making several non-substantive, compositional and layout changes. It is a mystery why WordPress rejects them without so much as a diagnostic peep.

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2011 at 18:05

  211. Ou Doc,

    Soos jy seker kan agterkom het ek die boek weer begin lees. Nadat ek dit hier genoem het, het ek ‘n behoefte gehad om dit weer deur te lees.

    Interessant hoe die Bybel geskryf is en Homself herhaal na ‘n periode van honderde of selfs duisende jare tussenin.

    As ‘n ou nou kyk na die Bloed van Jesus. In die ou Testament het die volk van God opdrag gekry om elke gesin ‘n lam te slag, ‘n volmaakte lam sonder gebrek, ‘n manlike lam. Hulle moes die lam se bloed aan die deurkosyne smeer sodat die doodsengel by hulle sou verbygaan, en die lam se vleis heeltemal opeet. Hulle kon nie van die vleis oorlos nie. As daar vleis oorgebly het, moes hulle dit verbrand, maar daar mag niks oorgebly het nie. Die volgende dag moes hulle ten volle geklee en gereed om te reis wees, want Moses sou hulle uit Egipte uitlei.

    Kyk die simboliek, want in die nuwe Testament het God die volmaakte lam, manlik sonder gebrek gegee en ons moet Hom opeet en Sy bloed drink (nagmaal) en ten volle gereed wag sodat Hy ons uit die hierdie lewe kan uitlei na die ewigheid.

    Halleluja!

    soois

    April 26, 2011 at 07:26

  212. Here’s yet another “not-a-Real-Chrustian”. The Real Crushtians™ will be full of lukewarm rationalisations, of course, without seeing through to the underlying preposterousness and bankruptcy of their ridiculous storytelling.🙄

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 22:39

  213. soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 22:08):

    [N]ot that I have adressed [sic] you to begin with.

    Exactly! Now you’re getting it even if only by fluke. That’s because you can’t. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no reasoning. You don’t even have the common courtesy (or savvy) to pay due attention to what is right before your nose (e.g., posts directly addressing your fanciful horse apples, or the final paragraph of your latest fairytale). All you have is contrived bullshit and evasion.

    As for my “childish nonsense with one goal, to discredit [you],” you are not able to follow a straightforward line of argument and you have repeatedly shown how you try to dodge facts (e.g., your plagiarism), so you have only yourself to thank for being discredited.
    😆 So much for your “Last words” — another testament to your consistency and reliability.😆

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 22:27

  214. If I made a clever statement or used a fancy saying from someone else I could understand your childish reaction, but I posed a question with the idea of making you wonder about it. If I copied it into Afrikaans word for word I would be ok, because GOOGLE would not pick it up, unless the book was already translated, which I would not know unless I checked first. Nope, do not bother to answer CT, I am giving up on getting answers from you, not that I have adressed you to begin with. As usual you came barging into a discussion, not with answers, but with childish nonsense with one goal, to discredit me and hide the question posed in the first place. I say again, without the French;

    I do not know whether it is you or the devil who has this absolute fear of Christianity. You simply cannot disprove it and you cannot shy away from it. Your only defence is to attack the believer. By trying to find his mistakes and shortcomings you feel content, because in the end you do not say much.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 22:08

  215. Yeah, let’s try to change the subject again. You are as guilty as your proverbial sin of plagiarism. It’s as plain as day and still you won’t acknowledge the fact. The point is that your blunt refusal and laughable attempts to evade to see what is evident to everybody else; this behaviour of yours is typical of the believer’s intellectual fraud and symptomatic of his/her willingness to face facts.

    In any case, I have already addressed this taking-Jeeeeeebusssss’s!-name-in-vain drollery of yours — and that’s another fact-dodging ruse of yours to claim that I haven’t.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 21:57

  216. The point is that I was the one who referred you to this e-book in the first place. I pointed out an interesting question mentioned in this book and was going to do a a few more from the book. In Afrikaans we have a saying: “‘n goeie begrip het net ‘n halwe woord nodig”. I reckon book knowledge does not guarantee intelligence. Hence a question was turned into an argument about something else. Cannot answer a question or have a grown-up discussion about it, so let’s change the subject, hey CT?

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 21:53

  217. Have you ever wondered why there is only one name that is taken in vain? Only the name of one God is taken in vain: Jesus. You don’t hear people scream in pain and say, “Oh, Buddha, I stubbed my toe,” or “Oh, Mohammed, I jammed my finger.” You don’t see people hit their thumb with a hammer and say, “Oh, Confucius!” They always use the name of Jesus. Even the worst sinner uses the name of Jesus. Why? The devil knows only Jesus’ name has authority and power and he tries to get people
    to disrespect that name by using it as a curse. But he finds himself in big trouble when believers, washed in the blood, find out that he has no defenses against that name!” – A 128-word, five-sentence, no eight sentence paragraph. Google turns up three exact matches.

    Unfortunately no answer from CT. Has no answer, Let’s rather argue about plagurism.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 21:47

  218. Maybe you should learn to comprehend what you pretend to read. You published a long succession of words that weren’t your own without attribution.

    My, my, what desperate hoop-jumping you do! In itself, this says much about your willingness to face the obvious.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 21:42

  219. Must I draw out every piece of the definition?
    Here goes:

    wrongful appropriation

    close imitation

    purloining and publication

    language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 21:38

  220. Maybe you should learn to read.

    Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 21:33

  221. Oooh, lookee here, Con-Tester miscounted, and quite badly too! Well, how about that!?😉 It should be an “eight-sentence paragraph.”

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 21:32

  222. :mrgreen: There, you see? My serious doubt was totally justified.:mrgreen:

    Mickey Mouse is friends with everyone” – An actual six-word sentence (subject + verb + object). Google turns up no exact matches for it.

    rubber-duck brigade” – A three-word phrase. Many Google matches. Common. Original source unknown, so attribution not practicable. Not surprising, really.

    malevolent or benevolent hand of one or other deity” – A nine-word phrase. Google turns up no exact matches for it.

    abysmal signal-to-noise ratio” – A five-word phrase, containing a common three-word signal processing/electronics term. Quite a few Google matches. Fairly common. Original source unknown, so attribution not practicable. Not surprising, really.

    Theologians say the damnedest things” – An actual five-word sentence (subject + verb + object). Google turns up no exact matches for it.

    Everyone loves a winner” – An actual four-word sentence (subject + verb + object). Google turns up many thousands of exact matches for it. A very common saying. Original source unknown, so attribution not practicable. Not surprising, really.

    head-in-the-sand buffoonery” – A five-word phrase containing a four-word adjectival phrase. Google turns up two exact matches for it.

    etc
    etc
    etc – Yesssss, aaaand…?
    ❓😈 soois, blatant desperation is quite ugly, especially when cloaked in another hopeless tu quoque blunder. Didn’t anybody ever tell you that? When you decide to raise an actual argument, we can have a conversation. It’s your choice, see?😈❓

    Have you ever wondered why there is only one name that is taken in vain? Only the name of one God is taken in vain: Jesus. You don’t hear people scream in pain and say, “Oh, Buddha, I stubbed my toe,” or “Oh, Mohammed, I jammed my finger.” You don’t see people hit their thumb with a hammer and say, “Oh, Confucius!” They always use the name of Jesus. Even the worst sinner uses the name of Jesus. Why? The devil knows only Jesus’ name has authority and power and he tries to get people
    to disrespect that name by using it as a curse. But he finds himself in big trouble when believers, washed in the blood, find out that he has no defenses against that name!
    ” – A 128-word, five-sentence paragraph. Google turns up three exact matches. Clearly, unattributed, statistically nigh-impossible copy. That’s plagiarism.

    The funny dreamscape that believers inhabit is something to behold, isn’t it just!?

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 21:20

  223. MMmm, seems my links were removed. O well, just GOOGLE abovementioned for yourselves. He who lives in a glass house …

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 20:46

  224. Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

    March 14, 2011 at 08:32 “Mickey Mouse is friends with everyone” – http://www.squidoo.com/meet-my-friend-mickey-mouse-2010
    March 14, 2011 at 09:56 “rubber-duck brigade” – http://www.last.fm/group/Rubberduck+Brigade
    March 15, 2011 at 10:25 “malevolent or benevolent hand of one or other deity” – http://uni-bonn.academia.edu/RitaLucarelli/Papers/355418/Demons_Benevolent_and_Malevolent_
    March 19, 2011 at 11:01 “abysmal signal-to-noise ratio” – http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpfaq.html
    March 19, 2011 at 16:29 “Theologians say the damnedest things” – http://www.thehighcalling.org/146/junior-theologians
    March 21, 2011 at 17:28 “Everyone loves a winner” – http://gawker.com/#!5372061/glee-everybody-loves-a-winner/gallery/
    March 21, 2011 at 19:50 “head-in-the-sand buffoonery” – http://fareastcynic.com/category/feminist-buffoonery/

    etc

    etc

    etc

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 20:19

  225. soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 18:27):

    Last words…

    I seriously doubt that.

    But I see that the plagiarism thing still eludes you. Had you included the source of the cited material in your inopportune post (April 25, 2011 at 08:32), there’d be no cause to moan. All you needed to do is to write at the beginning or at the end something along these lines:

    (Source: Howard-Browne, RM. 1999. The Man Behind the Myth)

    But no, that little bit of intellectual uprightness is just too much to ask for from a believer.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 19:05

  226. soois, you can carry on these idiotic fundie ruses of making as much stuff up as you like. The fact is, as everyone can plainly see, that you cannot mount any cogent argument to address the objections I and others have put before you. Ignoring them won’t make them disappear. Repeating the same braindead horse apples won’t magically make them come true. Dodging demonstrated facts doesn’t make them any softer.
    😆 By the way, you haven’t corrected anything. You have just put your ignorance and preference for fantasies on display. Yet again.😆

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 18:49

  227. Last words, you can call me liar, plagiarist, storyteller, whatever as often as you like, as it is the only defence you have and it makes you feel better about your own shortcomings.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 18:27

  228. No CT, I merely showed you your rediculous use of tu quoi que rejoinders (hows that for rectifying your mistakes) when you have absolutely bugger-all to say. Secondly, it is the only way I can in fact say something that might not show up if GOOGLED and henceforth making myself a plagiarist (maybe I should find another word, b’cause it belongs to Con-Tester?).

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 18:19

  229. soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 15:36):

    You have proven that you did not read the book by the “link” you supplied. Your link refered directly to GOOGLE search and not the e-book.

    There you go again, making self-serving shit up. All I’ve proved is that you are a plagiarist. Google is merely the evidence. But you keep showing how dishonest you are with these pathetic attempts to avoid facing up to a manifest truth.

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 15:36):

    Secondly, for the umptienth [sic] time, I simply repeated an interesting question, without changing words just to please you.

    And for the umpteenth time, citing a passage wholesale without proper attribution is called “plagiarism” (look up the word because evidently you don’t know what it means). And once more: It’s very revealing that your plagiarism doesn’t seem to bother you and that you keep on making up excuses to try and defend it.

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 15:36):

    Thirdly, nothing has been disproved in English and Afrikaans.

    Yes, it has. You’re just not mentally capable of absorbing that fact.

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 15:36):

    [W]hy not go through [sic] the trouble of supplying me with the link to the so-called proof.

    Because I’m not going to do your homework for you. The blog is right in front of you. Read it. It has many easy-to-click links, nogal. In any case, chances are you’ll just invent more bullshit to try cover up your ignorance, something you have so far done almost without fail, so why should I waste my time, hmm?

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 15:36):

    And finally, and off course I quote for f sakes…

    There you go, making up fairytales again. How in your agued imagination does this make a defence of Buddhism!? The only thing it says is that Buddhists are less likely to be as brash and full of self-serving horse apples as certain self-anointed Crushtians are. Buddhists are just as guilty of propounding evidence-free hooey as you are. Their narrative is just a bit different and they are more circumspect about it, that’s all. I explained the reasons for that, but you feel so hard done by that you have to go and invent a whole new myth. It’s all just too precious for words.

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 16:07):

    I do not know whether it is “vous” or “diable” who has this absolute fear of “Chrétienne”. You simply cannot “refuter” it and you cannot “affût” from it. Your only “defence” is to attack the “croyante”. By trying to find his “failblesse” and “se tromper sur” you feel “content”, because in the end you do not say much.

    A host of French grammatical errors aside, this is, to you, saying much, presumably? The reason you want to claim that I don’t say much is that what I do say is so damaging to your nonsense that you have no coherent reply for it, otherwise you’d address the arguments instead of trying continuously to evade them by changing the subject. I’m not afraid of Crushtians and believers, nor is it the devil driving me, as you imply. That would be as absurd as asserting that I’m being driven by a leprechaun. What I am afraid of is that your kind of stupidity and non-thinking is both alarmingly widespread and dead-set on dragging humanity forcefully back into the Dark Ages.

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 16:07):

    I feel sorry for you.

    Oh, rubbish. Don’t try that pious crap on me, see? It just makes me laugh harder at you. You’re feeling sorry for yourself because you cannot offer anything besides fabricated feel-good fantasies in defence of your fairytales, and because you know that I can see right through you.

    An unsolicited bit of advice: Do try not to overdo the tu quoque rejoinders. They do you no favours at all. Instead, try to construct an actual argument for once.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 17:16

  230.  😀  😮 😯 😕 8) 😡 😛 :l 😉 😆 😳 😥 👿 😈 🙄 ❗ ❓ 💡 ➡ :mrgreen:

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 16:18

  231. You know CT,
    I do not know whether it is “vous” or “diable” who has this absolute fear of “Chrétienne”. You simply cannot “refuter” it and you cannot “affût” from it. Your only “defence” is to attack the “croyante”. By trying to find his “failblesse” and “se tromper sur” you feel “content”, because in the end you do not say much.
    I feel sorry for you.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 16:07

  232. You have proven that you did not read the book by the “link” you supplied. Your link refered directly to GOOGLE search and not the e-book. The others can follow the link if they think I am lying.

    Secondly, for the umptienth time, I simply repeated an interesting question, without changing words just to please you.

    Thirdly, nothing has been disproved in English and Afrikaans. If you want to do that, why not go through the trouble of supplying me with the link to the so-called proof.

    And finally, and off course I quote for f sakes”The thing about Buddhists, though, is that they’re by far the most tolerant of other deities and their attendant cultures. In fact, the central teachings of Buddhism don’t even address the question of a deity at all because the concept is, quite sensibly, held to be properly ineffable and far beyond any mortal’s ability to comprehend or articulate. That is also why a Buddhist is unlikely even to come here and start evangelising, unlike the more childish religions…”

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 15:36

  233. soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 15:18):

    Nee , Buddhiste, Muslims ens. gaan hulle nie aan jou opdring of jou irriteer nie, want eintlik wil hulle hulle godsdiens vir hulleself hou. Hulle stel nie belang om ander te werf en die goeie boodskap aan hulle te bring nie, want hulle gode red nie. As hulle glo hulle gode red, wil hulle die redding vir hulleself hou.

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .
    :mrgreen: You really are an ignoramus. And clearly proud of it, too.:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 15:34

  234. soois, your presumption is showing. On several fronts. First, you presume that I haven’t read what you recommended. You know this how, exactly? Because you’re making convenient shit up again.

    Second, unattributed citations are more commonly called “plagiarism.” It is telling that this doesn’t seem to bother you in any way.

    Third, your point has been disproved — in English and Afrikaans — so no gratitude on your part is required. (An acknowledgement would make a change, though.) It is your comprehension that repeatedly fails, and you then go and make up stories of what you think is being said rather than what was, in fact, said. Exactly how I allegedly “immediately follow up with proof of what [you] said by defending Buddhism” is a profound mystery known only to those like you who just love torturing self-serving meanings from others’ words.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 15:23

  235. Rick,
    Nee , Buddhiste, Muslims ens. gaan hulle nie aan jou opdring of jou irriteer nie, want eintlik wil hulle hulle godsdiens vir hulleself hou. Hulle stel nie belang om ander te werf en die goeie boodskap aan hulle te bring nie, want hulle gode red nie. As hulle glo hulle gode red, wil hulle die redding vir hulleself hou. Christene is opdringerig en irriterend, want hulle wil die blye boodskap aan almal bring, hulle liefde strek sover dat hulle almal deur Jesus gered wil sien. Jy wil my word “godsdiens” wat sonde is blykbaar bespot. Weet jy wat is godsdiens? Buddhisme, Mohammedanisme, Satanisme, aanbidding van Ra sowel as Ou Testamentiese vormgodsdiens is almal godsdiens. Godsdiens bind en veroordeel, Jesus nie. Hy red.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 15:18

  236. Dankie, CT en Rick.

    My punt bewys in Afrikaans en Engels.

    Groete

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 15:05

  237. Con-Tester, I did not pretend anything, but simply used an interesting question as posed in the e-book I begged you guys to read. If you did in fact read it, I would be totally head over heels in love with you right now, but alas, CT simply GOOGLE’d the word again. What a shame.
    As for my statements about Muslims etc. not getting as much kak on this blog, I humbly apologise if I were wrong, but then it will be an exception to the rule, as I was writing out of previous and general experience. Off course you immediately follow up with proof of what I said by defending Buddhism.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 15:01

  238. So….

    Soois: “Jesus verlos. Hy soek nie armoede nie, maar welvaart vir die mens, Hy soek nie siekte nie, maar gesondheid vir die mens, Hy soek nie oorlog nie, maar vrede vir die mens, Hy soek nie rampe nie, maar voorspoed vir die mens. Ons veroorsaak ons eie gemors, want ons wil Hom verwerp, en die wat wel glo, klou aan die Ou Testament vas, wat veroordeel en straf, en dit is godsdiens, nie Christenskap nie. Godsdiens is sonde.” 😯 😯 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 !

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 14:43

  239. Brilliant!🙂

    Thanks, Tester.

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 14:39

  240. Rick, refer to this page. Remember to separate each smiley from surrounding text (or other smileys) by putting at least one space before and after it.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 14:29

  241. Rick:

    “Jy is al in die verlede aangeraai om eers hierdie blog deur te lees voordat jy lukraak kommentaar lewer. Ek weet nie of jy dit raad gevolg het nie, maar lees weer en jy sal sien dat die paar Moslems wat hul snert hier probeer verkondig het met dieselfde bespotting hanteer is.

    Wat die Moslems en Boediste betref: Soois, ek het eintlik nie ‘n saak nie, want die hele lot glo uiteindelik in verskillende vorms van onverklaarbare gode. Vir Islam het ek min tyd. Boedisme is eweneens onjuis, maar hulle is darem baie meer hanteerbaar is as die barbaarse Moslems en soms barbaars/meesal pyn-innie-gat Christene. Ek woon die afgelope drie jaar in Korea en nog nooit het ‘n Boedis my wakker geklop om sy kak aan my te verkoop nie. Raai watter geloof het wel?”

    Tester:

    “Your persecution complex is showing, as is your appetite for making shit up. Obviously, you haven’t read much of this blog. Muslims have been challenged here just as vigorously as any Chrushtian, so you’re demonstrably talking kak again. No Buddhists have put in an appearance here yet, but if they did and started spewing forth the kind of nonsense we keep seeing here, they’d get it just as much. The thing about Buddhists, though, is that they’re by far the most tolerant of other deities and their attendant cultures. In fact, the central teachings of Buddhism don’t even address the question of a deity at all because the concept is, quite sensibly, held to be properly ineffable and far beyond any mortal’s ability to comprehend or articulate. That is also why a Buddhist is unlikely even to come here and start evangelising, unlike the more childish religions…”

    Daar het jy dit, Soois. In Afrikaans en Engels.

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 14:25

  242. Ag fok, ek het probeer om daardie smileys (‘n hele string van hulle!) na Soois se aanhaling te plaas. Dis al wat daardie kommentaar verdien het.

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 14:08

  243. “Jesus verlos. Hy soek nie armoede nie, maar welvaart vir die mens, Hy soek nie siekte nie, maar gesondheid vir die mens, Hy soek nie oorlog nie, maar vrede vir die mens, Hy soek nie rampe nie, maar voorspoed vir die mens. Ons veroorsaak ons eie gemors, want ons wil Hom verwerp, en die wat wel glo, klou aan die Ou Testament vas, wat veroordeel en straf, en dit is godsdiens, nie Christenskap nie. Godsdiens is sonde.” …………….

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 14:06

  244. Ooopsie, broken link. Here it is again (I hope).

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 14:01

  245. “Ek kan jou waarborg dat ‘n Mohammedaan of Buddhis nie soveel teenkanting op die blog sou kry soos ons Christene nie”

    Stront, Soois. Jy is duidelik te verwaand en behep met jou eie geloof. Dat die meeste kritiek op hierdie blog teen Christene is, het weereens niks met gode, duiwels en bloed te doen nie, maar te doen met die voor-die-hand-liggende rede dat die meeste gelowige bloggers op hierdie blog Christene is.

    Jy is al in die verlede aangeraai om eers hierdie blog deur te lees voordat jy lukraak kommentaar lewer. Ek weet nie of jy dit raad gevolg het nie, maar lees weer en jy sal sien dat die paar Moslems wat hul snert hier probeer verkondig het met dieselfde bespotting hanteer is.

    Wat die Moslems en Boediste betref: Soois, ek het eintlik nie ‘n saak nie, want die hele lot glo uiteindelik in verskillende vorms van onverklaarbare gode. Vir Islam het ek min tyd. Boedisme is eweneens onjuis, maar hulle is darem baie meer hanteerbaar is as die barbaarse Moslems en soms barbaars/meesal pyn-innie-gat Christene. Ek woon die afgelope drie jaar in Korea en nog nooit het ‘n Boedis my wakker geklop om sy kak aan my te verkoop nie. Raai watter geloof het wel?

    Weereens. Soois, is daar ‘n eenvoudige, rasionele antwoord vir die rede hoekom Christene meer bespot word as ander. Maar jy verkies om dit te vermy en blameer eerder die duiwel omdat die duiwel bedreig voel deur die ware god, nl Mick…, ag ek bedoel “God, Jesus die Here”.

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 14:01

  246. soois pretends to have written (April 25, 2011 at 08:32):

    Have you ever wondered why there is only one name that is taken in vain? Only the name of one God is taken in vain: Jesus.

    And this, no doubt, is taken by Crushtians as proof that theirs is the One! True! Faith!™, rather than, say, an artefact of Chrushtianity’s popularity, itself a product of violent endeavours by that religion over most of its history to insert itself everywhere all over the world. You know, to convert heathens by sword, musket, fire and, of course, through liberal applications of fear and intimidation. Or as proof that Satan is constantly at work.
    😆 If this is the standard of evidence that believers find compelling, one can only marvel at the laxity of their yardstick. Then again, were they more stringent about it, this nonsense would never have taken hold as firmly as it has.😆

    Rick, you are a Rare Scholar and a True Disciple of Mickey Mouse! The parables of Cosplay feature centrally in ponticology of Mickey.

    soois wrote (April 25, 2011 at 12:31):

    Ek kan jou waarborg dat ‘n Mohammedaan of Buddhis nie soveel teenkanting op die blog sou kry soos ons Christene nie.

    Your persecution complex is showing, as is your appetite for making shit up. Obviously, you haven’t read much of this blog. Muslims have been challenged here just as vigorously as any Chrushtian, so you’re demonstrably talking kak again. No Buddhists have put in an appearance here yet, but if they did and started spewing forth the kind of nonsense we keep seeing here, they’d get it just as much. The thing about Buddhists, though, is that they’re by far the most tolerant of other deities and their attendant cultures. In fact, the central teachings of Buddhism don’t even address the question of a deity at all because the concept is, quite sensibly, held to be properly ineffable and far beyond any mortal’s ability to comprehend or articulate. That is also why a Buddhist is unlikely even to come here and start evangelising, unlike the more childish religions…🙄

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2011 at 13:57

  247. Het jy gesien hoe ver het hulle “Cosplay” of “Manga” al gevat?

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 12:53

  248. Skuus Rick, het jou vorige nou eers gesien. Dit is juis wat ek bedoel, dat selfs die wat niks met Jesus te doen het nie, Sy Naam misbruik, terwyl die wat niks met Buddha of Mohammed te doen het nie, hulle name uitlos. Natuurlik omdat hulle name vir die duiwel geen gevaar inhou nie. Kry FOX doodsdreigemente as hulle deur “Family Guy” of “The Simpsons” met Jesus spot? Nee, want die aanslag teen Jesus is so vel dat mense dit maar aanvaar. Jesus vergewe mos maar weer.

    Die geloof in Mohammed en Buddha is soos Christene en/of ongelowiges wat aan die Ou Testament van Die Bybel vasklou, waar die doodstraf vir alle sondes aan die orde van die dag was. Jesus verlos. Hy soek nie armoede nie, maar welvaart vir die mens, Hy soek nie siekte nie, maar gesondheid vir die mens, Hy soek nie oorlog nie, maar vrede vir die mens, Hy soek nie rampe nie, maar voorspoed vir die mens. Ons veroorsaak ons eie gemors, want ons wil Hom verwerp, en die wat wel glo, klou aan die Ou Testament vas, wat veroordeel en straf, en dit is godsdiens, nie Christenskap nie. Godsdiens is sonde.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 12:42

  249. Ek het nou die voorbeeld van Sy Naam misbruik gebruik, maar ek kan ook ander voorbeelde gebruik.

    Ek kan jou waarborg dat ‘n Mohammedaan of Buddhis nie soveel teenkanting op die blog sou kry soos ons Christene nie. Julle sal natuurlik nie hulle geloof deel nie, maar respek vir hulle kultuur uitoefen. Hulle geloof is juis niks anders as kultuue nie. Maar Christene kry hier en orals waar ateiste betrokke is, geweldige teenkanting. Hoekom? Want die ware God, Jesus die Here is vir die duiwel ‘n bedreiging. Nie Mohammed, Buddha, Piet Pompies of Darwin nie, maar die ware Skepper en Verlosser.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 12:31

  250. Ja beslis! ‘n Medium om die Woord van Mickey Mouse te verkondig. Hallelujah! Mickey het darem spoedig ‘n invloed op Japanse kultuur uitgeoefen. Kyk net hoe “Cosplay” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay) befok is hulle!

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 12:20

  251. Pop-culture, nog ‘n medium… ek kan aangaan en aangaan en aangaan…

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 12:07

  252. Soois, dis presies wat ek bedoel. Die meeste het nie ‘n saak met Jesus nie, maar hulle misbruik soms steeds sy naam. Hoekom? Want hulle is beinvloed deur pop culture. Dit het niks met gode, duiwels en bloed uit te waai nie.

    “Dit is hulle streng gedissiplineerde kultuur”

    Interressante opsomming. Ek krap nie jou gat nie, maar sou jy hulle ook ‘gedissiplineerd’ genoem het as iemand na aan jou die Mohammad-spotprenttekenaar was wat tallose doodsdreigemente die afgelope paar jaar ontvang het?

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 12:01

  253. Verder maak jy nog ‘n punt, Jesus is genade en vergifnis, maar mohammed nie, vandaar die doodstraf as sy naam misbruik word.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 11:55

  254. Dok,
    ek dink ek het soort van die vraag beantwoord. Jy sien, mohammed en buddha en so aan is net gode deur mense gesep en hulle name hou geen gevaar vir die duiwel in nie, maar die Here Jesus se Naam wel, daarom probeer hy Dit belaster deur die mens Dit gte laat misbruik.

    Nee Rick, as jy boontoe lees sal jy sien dat ek verbonde is aan ‘n sending-groep in Japan en selfs daar is dit Jesus se naam wat misbruik word. In ons eie land is daar baie mohammedane en jy is reg, hulle gebruik nie mohammed se naam verkeerd nie, maar ook nie Jesus s’n nie. Dit is hulle streng gedissiplineerde kultuur. Ja, films het baie te doen met die misbruik, want films is een van satan se gunsteling mediums.

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 11:48

  255. Soois

    Voordat jy dit as nog ‘n ‘teken’ aanvaar, net die volgende oor godslastering:

    Die invloed van veral die VSA. In watter land word die meeste films gemaak waarna ons kyk, en in watter land word die meeste “Oh my Gooooood” gesê? Go figure…

    Hoekom nie Mohammad nie, vra jy? Want in ‘Mohammad-lande’ mag jy nie eers ‘n donerse teddiebeer Mohammad noem nie, wat nog die man sleg sê?! Godslastering en die verwerping van jou geloof verdien vir jou die doodstraf.

    Verder dink ek maak jy ‘n gevaarlike aanname oor godslastering in ander gelowe. Verstaan jy miskien Koreaans of Chinees dat jy so seker is oor jou saak?

    Dus, ondersoek die invloed van pop culture voordat jy gode, duiwels en bloed hierby betrek.

    Rick

    April 25, 2011 at 11:09

  256. Goeie vraag, Soois. Ek het self al baie daaroor gewonder.

    Doktor Einstein

    April 25, 2011 at 09:50

  257. “…godly-works-according-to-the-example-set-by-Jeeeeeebusssss!,…”

    Have you ever wondered why there is only one name that
    is taken in vain? Only the name of one God is taken in vain:
    Jesus. You don’t hear people scream in pain and say, “Oh,
    Buddha, I stubbed my toe,” or “Oh, Mohammed, I jammed my
    finger.” You don’t see people hit their thumb with a hammer and
    say, “Oh, Confucius!” They always use the name of Jesus. Even
    the worst sinner uses the name of Jesus. Why? The devil knows
    only Jesus’ name has authority and power and he tries to get people
    to disrespect that name by using it as a curse. But he finds
    himself in big trouble when believers, washed in the blood, find
    out that he has no defenses against that name!

    soois

    April 25, 2011 at 08:32

  258. Hanswors wrote (April 23, 2011 at 22:43):

    Ek is, in elk geval, elke dag besig met God se werke, volgens die voorbeeld wat Jesus daar gestel [sic] het.

    Yes, and this blog is overflowing with your godly-works-according-to-the-example-set-by-Jeeeeeebusssss!, but it seems you don’t feel even the faintest twinge of embarrassment when talking such pungently putrid and eminently self-serving tripe.
    😯 The extent of the conceited fancy that believers are capable of never ceases to boggle the mind.😯

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2011 at 11:03

  259. Hanswors wrote (April 23, 2011 at 22:54):

    Con-Tester, the fact that I still make comment’s [sic] on your comment, still does not make you worthy for comment or haven’t you figured that out yet?

    No, I haven’t. But then I’m just a dumb, irritating little Moffy [sic] with only wors on his brain, so please explain that woefully tortured bit of reasoning to a dumb, irritating little Moffy [sic] with only wors on his brain. I mean, it’s plainly self-contradictory to say that I’m not worthy of any comment or attention and then to give attention anyway by commenting. Then again, no plain contradiction has ever seriously bothered any religious numbskull, so I guess it makes perfect sense that it wouldn’t bother you either.

    Hanswors wrote (April 23, 2011 at 22:54):

    You would like me to leave this blog because you know I have a superior insight, in regard to the Bible, than yourself and you can’t take it.

    😆😆😆 And from what particular orifice of yours did you pull that fairytale, hmm?😆😆😆

    What I’d like you to do — and I’ve told you this several times before — is to provide some minimal signal that you actually understand the arguments I and others have put in front of you countless times in many different ways, and that you are willing to contemplate them on their merits rather than fabricating bullshit to hide them under. If you actually talked some sense, then that would be the first tiny step towards your claimed “superior insight” as to what is wrong with your so-called “holy” book and with your belief system as a whole. But no, you’re simply not capable of that, and just carry on playing the same brain-dead, laughable fundie drivel and poppycock over and over and over, just like a lobotomised froot loop in an asylum. I suppose punting chimeras is what you have to do when it’s the only thing you’ve got…😈

    And by the way, you still haven’t managed to say even just one intelligent or properly informed thing about Mickey Mouse. That’s because of your inferior insight.:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2011 at 10:15

  260. Kom ek gee vir jou ‘n uittreksel uit die boek sodat jyself kan sien hoe radikaal Jesus werklik was en hoekom ons kerke ook soos die tempels van ouds Hom waarskynlik sou wou uitgooi.

    Jammer vir die engels, maar ek gaan nou nie als vertaal nie.

    1. He was constantly with sinners and was accused of being a
    gluttonous man and a winebibber (a drunk). (See Matthew 11:19.)
    2. He healed on the Sabbath day. (See Luke 13:14-17.)
    3. His disciples did not wash their hands when they ate, which
    was against Jewish law. (See Matthew 15:2.)
    4. His disciples did not keep the traditions of the elders. (See
    Mark 7:5.)
    5. He and His disciples harvested food to eat on the Sabbath. (See
    Matthew 12:1.)
    6. He walked on water when He could have taken a boat. (See
    Matthew 14:25-32.)
    7. He went over to the country of the Gadarenes and cast demons
    out of a man, which resulted in a whole herd of swine running
    down a hill into the sea and drowning. The local people, who
    made their living by raising pigs, then begged Him to leave their
    country. (See Mark 5:1-20.)
    8. When they needed tax money, He told His closest followers to
    go fishing and get the money out of the fish’s mouth. (See
    Matthew 17:24-27.)
    9. He stopped a funeral procession and raised a boy from the
    dead. (See Luke 7:12-15.)
    10. He spat in the ground, made clay; put it on a blind man’s eyes,
    and told him to go wash in the pool of Siloam. (See John 9:1-7.)
    11. He called a Syrophenician woman a dog. (See Mark 7:25-30.)
    12. He got angry and cursed a fig tree. (See Mark 11:12-14, 20-
    21.)
    13. He got angry in the temple, overturned the moneychanger’s
    tables, and beat the moneychangers with whips. (See Matthew
    21:12-13.)
    14. At one of His meetings, His followers got out of order and
    ripped the roof off a house to lower a crippled man down through the hole — and He didn’t mind! (See Mark 2:2-5.)
    15. He made strong statements like, “Unless you eat of My flesh
    and drink of My blood you have no life in you.” (See John 6:53.)
    16. He told a man who wanted to follow Him — when he wanted
    to go home and bury his father — “Let the dead bury the dead.”
    (See Matthew 8:21-22.)
    17. He stood by the offering, watched it being taken up, and
    called His disciples to come and observe. (See Mark 12:41-44.)
    18. He allowed people to go walking and leaping and praising
    God in His services. (See Luke 19:37-40.)
    19. He allowed a woman to pour expensive perfume on His head
    when the money could have been given to the poor. (See Matthew
    26:7-13.)
    20. He didn’t show up to attend the funeral of Lazarus, a dear
    friend, and waited four days before raising him from the dead.
    (See John 11:1-45.)
    21. He called respected religious leaders the “blind leading the
    blind,” (see Matthew 15:12-14) and “white-washed sepulchres of
    dead men’s bones” (see Matthew 23:27). He called them a “generation
    of vipers” (see Matthew 23:33) and said they were of
    “their father the devil” (see John 8:44).
    22. He caused unclean spirits to cry out with loud voices in the
    synagogue. (See Luke 4:33-34.)
    23. He let a woman, who was caught in adultery, go when she
    should have been stoned. (See John 8:1-11.)
    24. He offended a rich young ruler by telling him to sell all he
    had and give it to the poor. (See Luke 18:18-23.)
    25. He forgave a man of his sin and healed him — then said that
    both were easy. (See Matthew 9:2-6.)
    26. He accepted people just as they were. (See Luke 19:2-10;
    John 8:1-11; 4:7-30.)
    27. He breathed on His disciples and said, Receive ye the Holy
    Ghost. (See John 20:22.)
    28. He spat on His hands, touched a deaf boy’s tongue and ears,
    and healed him. (See Mark 7:32-35.)
    29. He was not polite enough to His mother when He said,
    Woman, what have I to do with thee? (See John 2:4.)
    These methods would get Him kicked out of most churches
    today, He would not be accepted in the religious world.
    Jesus was radical.

    soois

    April 24, 2011 at 08:38

  261. Dagsê Hans,
    Jong, as jy sê my hoop vir jou is ashoop, is ek nie regtig seker wat jy bedoel nie, want ek het eintlik na die nie-gelowiges verwys. As jy verwys na my hoop dat julle die TV program sou kyk of die boek lees, dan is die verlies joune. Dit is tragies as ateïste nie na programme oor Christenskap wil kyk of na gelowiges se getuienisse wil luister nie, maar wanneer gelowiges weier om dit te doen is dit eenvoudig net hartseer en pateties.
    Betreffende die kerk. As jy reg gelees het, sou jy sien date k wel nog kerk toe gaan omdat die predikant wel soms ‘n goeie boodskap gee, maar dat ek vind dat min kerkgangers die Christenboodskap uit dra. Die sogenaamde “lofgesange” word met stroewe gesigte sonder lof en emosie gesing. Lees die boek en jou Bybel en jy sal sien dat Christene “straal” en behoort te “leef”, waarlik te leef. Dit is Jesus se wil vir ons. Godsdiens, oftewel “vormgodsdiens” is deur mense gemaak, met sekere reëls en tradisies. Vormgodsdiens is sonde.
    Ja, Jesus het na die kerke toe gegaan, omdat Hy baie mense daar sou kry en hulle die regte pad kon wys. Daar het Hy gou die Fariseërs en skrifgeleerdes die donner in gemaak deur hulle sabbatsreëls te oortree. Lees gerus die boek Johannes asook die ander boeke van die evangelie (Matt, Mark en Luk). Hoekom dink jy wou hulle Hom doodmaak?
    Verder het Jesus gesê;
    Hoe kan ‘n ooreenkoms tot stand kom tussen die tempel van God en afgode? Ons is immers die tempel van die lewende God. Dit is soos God gesê het: “Ek sal onder hulle woon en wandel, en ek sal hulle God wees en hulle sal my volk wees”. (2 Kor 6:16)
    Jy sien Hans, die kerk is eintlik ons gelowiges, nie ‘n gebou nie. Hy woon in ons. ‘n Kerk is net ‘n gebou waar “gelowiges” saamkom, en Hy is slegs teenwoordig as daar Christene teenwoordig is. Hoekom dink jy het die tempel se voorgordyn in twee geskeur en is die priesterdom tot ‘n einde gebring met Jesus se kruisiging?
    Nee ou maat, ek sal nooit iemand weerhou om kerk toe te gaan nie, maar ek vind baie meer ware Christene buite die kerkgebou.

    soois

    April 24, 2011 at 08:31

  262. Baie dankie vir jou antwoord, Hans. Wat dink jy van die Gnostiese Christene wie nie glo dat Jesus God is nie?

    Doktor Einstein

    April 24, 2011 at 04:54

  263. Daan, terloops, ek geniet nogal ‘n grappie, al is dit vir volwassenis. Mooi!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2011 at 22:57

  264. Con-Tester, the fact that I still make comment’s on your comment, still does not make you worthy for comment or haven’t you figured that out yet? You would like me to leave this blog because you know I have a superior insight, in regard to the Bible, than yourself and you can’t take it.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2011 at 22:54

  265. Dok, jammer maar my DSTV het ek laat afskakel omdat ek nie waarde kry vir wat ek moet betaal nie. Ek is, in elk geval, elke dag besig met God se werke, volgens die voorbeeld wat Jesus daar gestel het.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2011 at 22:43

  266. Soois, jy ken my en my lewe nie en dus is jou hoop aangaande my, ashoop. Die voorbeeld wat Jesus gestel het is, dat waar hy by ‘n plek aangekom het, dan het hy na die tempel (kerk) toe gegaan.
    Mat 16:18 En Ek sê ook vir jou: Jy is Petrus, en op hierdie rots sal Ek my gemeente bou, en die poorte van die doderyk sal dit nie oorweldig nie.
    Neem kennis, dat gemeente in die engelse Bybel is “church”.
    Heb 10:25 en laat ons ons onderlinge byeenkoms nie versuim soos sommige die gewoonte het nie, maar laat ons mekaar vermaan, en dit des te meer namate julle die dag sien nader kom.
    Volgens bostaande, blyk dit dat een kerk toe behoort te gaan en moontlik het jy nog nie by die byeenkomste uitgekom waarna verwys word. Moontlik was jy nie by die regte byeenkomste nie?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2011 at 22:37

  267. O ja, die e-boek is 457 bladsye lank, jammer, maar dit is kort bladsytjies.

    soois

    April 23, 2011 at 10:13

  268. Goeiemôre Doc,
    Ja-nee, wat jy sê is ongelukkig ten koste en verleentheid van vandag se kerke waar. Ek ondervind dat baie mense vandag na jarelange kerkgang eers op die waarheid kom en dan uit die kerk bedank. Ek weet van ‘n dominee wat jare na sy aftrede eers tot bekering gekom het.
    Ek hoop ook Hans en ander het die program gekyk, of lees ten minste die e-boek.
    Geniet jou dag verder ou Dok man en laat weet maar as jy van ander interessante TV programme ens hoor.

    soois

    April 23, 2011 at 09:13

  269. Soois, jou bielie! So bek moet jam kry!!!

    In kort kyk die program na spesifiek twee aspekte wat die Calvinistiese Christelike geloof verkondig.

    1. Is Jesus in Bethlehem of in Nasaret gebore?

    2. Is Jesus God die Seun en so deel van ‘n Drie-Enige God?

    Wat betref vraag 1.

    Volgens die evangelies van Mattheus en Lukas het keiser Octavius (Augustus) gelas dat al die Jode na hulle dorpe van herkoms moes gaan om getel te word (sensusopname) en belas te word.

    Volgens Dominic Crossan, ‘n befaamde Bybelhistoriekus en “fellow” van die “Jesus Seminar”, is daar geen historiese data wat so ‘n sensusopname ondersteun nie. Hoekom sou Octavius in elk geval so ‘n bevel uitvaardig? Dis mos baie makliker en baaaaaie goedkoper om die Jode te tel net waar hulle is.

    Wat meer is, volgens voormelde evangelies was Maria se swangerskap in ‘n hoogsgevorderde stadium. Daar was nie daardie jare medikasie, verdowingsmiddels en ginekoloë nie. Hoe is dit haalbaar dat ‘n 8 maande swanger meisie van hoogstens 14 jaar oud op ‘n donkie 130 kilometer vêr reis?

    Die antwoord is eenvoudig: Jesus is in Nasaret gebore. Maar as Jesus die Messias was, wat maak dit saak waar hy gebore is? Betlehem, Nasaret, Askelon of Joppe. Wat’s die big deal ênnieway?

    Weereens is die antwoord eenvoudig. Jesus MOES in Bethlehem, die stad van Dawid, gebore word om so die professië van die Ou Testament te vervul. Wat natuurlik ‘n verdere vraagteken plaas op die histories korrektheid van voormelde evangelies.

    Wat betref vraag 2.

    In 1947 by Nag Hammai (of soiets) in die suide van Egipte, is die oorspronklike geskrifte van 11 gnostiese evangelies, onder andere die evangelie van Thomas, in ‘n verseëlde houer opgegrawe.

    Die eerste vraag wat dadelik ontstaan is, hoekom is hierdie evangelies onder die sand en nie in die Bybel nie? En weereens is die antwoord baie eenvoudig.

    Hierdie evangelies is in stryd met wat die kerk verkondig het. Nêrens word verwys na ‘n wederkoms en word geloof vereis en as beloning vir geloof, ‘n ewige lewe in die hemel nie. Hierdie evangelies beklemtoon kennis en nie geloof nie.

    In spesifiek die evangelie van Thomas staan daar NIKS wat die goddelike natuur van Jesus ondersteun nie.

    Wat net weereens bewys dat die kerk oor al die jare, nog net so korrup en oneerlik is soos vandag. En ek praat oor die kerk van vandag uit persoonlike ondervinding.

    Ek hoop regtig Hans het na die program gekyk en ek sien uit na sy kommentaar.

    Doktor Einstein

    April 23, 2011 at 09:00

  270. Ek sien daar is baie artikels oor die boek waarvan ek gepraat het op die internet. Hier is die Pdf e-boek “link”

    http://www.turkishrevival.org/Resources/TheManBehindTheMyth.pdf

    Lees dit asseblief ouens, julle kan dit weer uit mekaar trek agterna as julle wil, maar lees dit net eers. net 48 bladsye.

    😆

    soois

    April 23, 2011 at 08:14

  271. Doc, hallo daar.

    Ek is ongelukkig een van daardie ouens wat nie DSTV het nie en TOP TV se discovery het nie daardie program gewys nie, maar ek het die boek, “Jesus, the man behind the myth”, geskryf deur Rodney M. Howard-Browne gelees en ek vermoed die TV program is ‘n verwerking hiervan.

    Die skrywer vertel hoe hy Jesus ontdek het deur die evangelie oor en oor te lees en al hoe meer agter gekom het dat Jesus inderdaad deur ons mense so “heilig” gemaak is dat Hy die Jesus van die kinderbybel geword het, terwyl die ware Jesus eintlik nie in vandag se kerke welkom sou wees nie, omdat vandag se kerke nie die ware Jesus verteenwoordig nie, al dink hulle so. Hy vertel verder dat omdat Jesus nie meer leef nie, die enigste manier is on Jesus te ken is deur na ware Christene se lewens te kyk, hoe hulle net “anders” is. Hoe jy na so ‘n ou se lewe kyk en net weet, “iets” werk in daardie ou se lewe en laat hom “skyn”. Daardie iets wat maak dat jy wil wee twat in sy lewe anders is. So ‘n person sal dink: “Daardie ou ken Jesus en ek wil Hom ook ontmoet”.

    Jy sien Doc, dit is waarmee ek so “struggle” op hierdie blog. Ongelukkig straal die kerke ‘n beeld uit wat veroorsaak dat ek die meeste ongelowiges nie kan kwalik neem as hulle my so baie spot nie. Ek self gaan maar min kerk toe, juis omdat ek self sien hoe mense die kerkbanke vol sit, maar Maandag weier hulle om speelgoed vir die kleuterskool te skenk omdat die skool vol swart kinders is. Jy sien, as jy by die kerk begin, gaan jy waarskynlik ‘n skewe beeld kry van wat Christenskap is, omdat daar om die waarheid te sê, bitter min Christene in ons kerk is. As jy eers Jesus deur Die Bybel ontdek, Hom in jou lewe kry en dan kerk toe gaan, (jy hoef nie kerk toe te gaan nie, ek gaan soms omdat ek tog daar ook ‘n boodskap kry tot nadenke) sal jy ‘n beter kans hê.

    Ek hoop julle ouens het die program gekyk, al is dit net uit nuuskierigheid, of lees die boek . Die prentjie wat meeste van julle oor Jeus het is heeltemal vertroebel deur sogenaamde Christene, en ek weet nie hoe, of het nie die regte woorde om julle te oortuig van Sy waarheid nie. My gebed vanmoggend is dat ‘n ware Christen in elkeen van julle se lewens sal inloop, sodat julle die verskil kan sien en ook sal dink: “Jong, iets anders, iets wat e kook wil ken, is in die ou se lewe aan die werk”.

    soois

    April 23, 2011 at 08:05

  272. Why should anybody give a fuck?

    “Pope to make call to space

    http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Pope-to-make-call-to-space-20110422

    McBrolloks

    April 23, 2011 at 06:12

  273. Hans en Soois.

    Ek weet dis paasnaweek maar ek versoek julle om more oggend 6h00 na Discovery te kyk. Soois, skaapboere staan mos by definisie vroeg op.

    Die program se naam is “Jesus: The Man Behind the Myth”.

    As julle werklik ernstig is oor julle geloof MOET julle hierna kyk.

    Ek verneem graag wat julle van die program dink.

    Doktor Einstein

    April 22, 2011 at 18:43

  274. Hmm, my posts are being relegated to the spam bin again. Must have a serious word with Akismet.

    Con-Tester

    April 22, 2011 at 11:18

  275. Oh, and another really funny thing, ou Hanswors, is how you keep saying that my comments aren’t worthy of a reply and how I’m not worthy of your attention. The real joke is that you do reply and attend to me — repeatedly — without seeing the naked contradiction between your words and your action. I suppose you have to be religious to reconcile that particular disconnect.

    So do carry on just like that, ou Hanswors. It illustrates just one of my many points.

    Con-Tester

    April 21, 2011 at 22:54

  276. Hanswors, I see that your understanding of Mickey Mouse is as limited as your understanding of reality. Are you more homophobic than clueless, or vice versa? Because it’s hard to tell.

    Con-Tester

    April 21, 2011 at 22:43

  277. Con-Tester, ek het nou die oggend ‘n Mickey Mouse cartoon op TV gesien en moet toegee, dit was baie meer waardig vir my aandag as wat jy seker ooit kan wees. Dit wil vir my voorkom of jy ‘n ernstige moffy is omdat jy wors op jou brein het en jy koppel my blykbaar met wors. Dit wil voorkom of jy ‘n ernstige sielkundige knou weg het. My innige simpatie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 21, 2011 at 22:13

  278. Sorry CT, dit was Daan wat kwaai was oor die “bolletjies”.

    Hallo Daan, ek en my “Tsunami” gaan hoeka vanaand die kaggelvuur aansteek en ‘n glasie rooiwyn geniet.

    ErickV, jy is reg hoor, ou CT het eintlik te veel verstand, die dat hy soms vergeet om ‘n bietjie af te kom aarde toe en dinge uit ‘n ander perspektief te sien. Toemaar CT, ek laaik om soms so ‘n bietjie kak te soek met jou. Geen kwade bedoelings nie.

    Groete daar.

    soois

    April 19, 2011 at 18:02

  279. Wat is die ooreenkoms tussen ‘n vrou en ‘n tsunami?

    As hulle kom is hulle wild en nat.

    As hulle gaan vat hulle die huis en die kar saam.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 19, 2011 at 16:35

  280. Ag dankie, ErickV 8) . Maar weet, jy gaan ’n moerse tyd hê om verskeie fundies van dit te oortuig. As jy naais praat met hulle dan spoeg hulle in jou oog met hul dikkoppige onredelikheid en weier om jou ernstig op te vat. As jy hulle skel dan doen hulle presies dieselfde, behalwe dat hulle jou skellery ten minste ernstig neem.

    Dis alles net te flippen snaaks vir woorde.

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2011 at 14:55

  281. Soois,
    Nee wat, ou C-T is orraait. Ek het nie kak met hom nie. Inteendeel, ek dink sy kop is reg aangeskroef.
    Dis myne wat partykeer nie so lekker is nie. Dit is wanner ek iemand in sy moer in vloek!

    ErickV

    April 19, 2011 at 14:16

  282. soois wrote (April 19, 2011 at 12:09):

    (CT laaik nie dat ons van bolletjies praat nie)

    😈😆:mrgreen:😆👿 And where’d you conjure that particular bolletjie from, hmm? No doubt, the usual place where all your other dippy fantasies originate. Clearly it has escaped your flimsy attention that it was in fact D’anus-booi Van der Moerig who carped about overdoing it on the bolletjies.👿 :lol::mrgreen:😆😈

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2011 at 13:57

  283. Hallo ErickV.

    Dankie, was juis omdat hy so kwaai was dat ek my avatar ‘n bolletjie gemaak het (CT laaik nie dat ons van bolletjies praat nie).
    😆 🙂 😮

    soois

    April 19, 2011 at 12:09

  284. Soois,
    Die paaie is seker nie goed genoeg vir jou Mercedes nie!🙂
    Ek laaik jou avatar bolletjie! Ek hoop net nie ou Daan gaan jou uitkak nie!🙂

    ErickV

    April 19, 2011 at 10:08

  285. Goeie more almal. Lekker sonskyn buite, seker vir net so ‘n rukkie. Hoop my paaie gaan ook reggemaak word. Kan deesdae net met die bakkie ry.

    Geniet julle dag.😆

    soois

    April 19, 2011 at 07:31

  286. Currently reading a very good book. I can highly recommend it:

    And the Greatest of These is Freedom – Hege Storhaug

    McBrolloks

    April 17, 2011 at 16:48

  287. Kon dit self nie beter stel nie.
    Groete

    soois

    April 17, 2011 at 14:38

  288. Soois, ditsem ou maat! In ‘n noodsituasie is die saak sonder twyfel belangriker as betrokke individue se geloof. So kleinlik is ek darem nie! Feit is, daar is oorgenoeg projekte om te ondersteun, baie van hulle wat hulp bied maar nie in die proses snert aan die mense verkoop nie…en snert en vals hoop is die laaste wat daardie mense tans benodig.

    Rick

    April 17, 2011 at 14:17

  289. ErickV dagse daar,
    ja jong, as daar ‘n ateis is wat moor, bly ons stil, maar as die ou wat moor rondloop onder die “christenvaandel” is daar baie vrae. Die kruis moet ons maar dra.

    O ja, die armoede waarvan die gedig praat, is geestelike armoede. Die meeste ryk ouens wat ek ken glo glad nie in GOD nie. Die Bybel praat van jou Hemel klaar hier op aarde besit.

    Rick, ek is betrokke by ‘n organisasie wat reeds voor die gebeure in Japan daar betrokke was en nou ook met die gebeure daar ondersteuning bied. Ongelukkig is dit ‘n Christen-organisasie, een van my persoonlike “charities” wat sendingwerk al baie jare daar doen, dus sal jy seker nie van hulle gebruik wil maak nie. Maar sterkte en ek hoop jy kry die regte organisasie om ‘n donasie aan toe te vertrou, een waarmee jy gemaklik voel. As dit by liefdadigheid kom, gaan dit oor die saak, maak nie saak wat jou geloof is nie.

    Groete aan julle almal.

    soois

    April 17, 2011 at 13:30

  290. Cheers Tester, thing is I’m currently not based in SA, but actually in Korea until Aug, 2011. I thus don’t want to donate to an SA organisation. I had a look at your recommendation the other day and it seems like a sound option.

    Rick

    April 17, 2011 at 12:42

  291. Rick, unfortunately it’s difficult to donate directly to a South African organisation towards relief for Japan. The Red Cross groupons were sold out within a day. However, you can start with the info here. We have donated to the International Medical Corps.

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2011 at 12:29

  292. I recall a post from Nathan on another blog a few years ago. It was soon after the 2004 tsunami and believers across the world were trying their utmost best to decipher God’s reasoning behind the catastrophic event. Of course, most believers argued that the tsunami was a message from God, varying from rubbish like it’s God’s way of showing his power to God punishing the world for accepting gays. Amidst all the various opinions, Nathan Bond posted something along the lines of the following, “Moenie bid nie, stuur geld!”

    I know many believers have prayed to their God, the same God that allowed this natural disaster to occur, to assist in the aftermath of the disaster in Japan. Not only do I regard it as absolutely pointless, but I also refuse to beg for mercy from this omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent doos that watched with folded arms us this disaster unfolded.

    So, seeing that I’m not going to pray I reckon the best I can do is to donate money to the disaster fund and let them decide what to do with it. (I recently read online that one bloke in the USA had organized a container filled with socks to be shipped off to Japan!) Problem is, however, that I’m no expert in the field of disaster relief and hence uncertain who to donate to. Could some of the other bloggers perhaps recommend reputable organizations? I’d also like to get other bloggers’ opinions on monetary donations to Japan. Seeing that they have the third strongest economy in the world, are they really in need of donations?

    Rick

    April 17, 2011 at 12:12

  293. As usual, Hanswors, you haven’t thought very carefully about what you’re saying and have therefore vomited up a spurt of drivel and poppycock, as per the fundie formula. See, turds are very useful for fertilising fallow ground and ensuring new growth. That would be fallow ground as found, for example, in the vacuous crania of standard three, argumentum-ad-ignorantiam-prone religious retards, including those with pretensions to pandeism. New growth is, of course, something you dimwits resist with all your puny, farcical rationalisations.

    There, now that the picture is a bit clearer, would you care to discuss the Eternal and Immutable Truths™ of Mickey Mouse — you know, the ones you can’t refute?

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2011 at 11:41

  294. 😡:mrgreen:😆 Quite well summed up there, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. Now where have I read that before? Unfortunately, you forgot something rather important, namely:

    6. You’ve got it all figured out (without being able to present any kind of argument or evidence) for your childish contentions, and no counterargument is sufficient to prompt you to engage your brain so as to examine your beliefs critically. In short, your open-mindedness is phenomenal.:mrgreen:😆😡

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2011 at 09:04

  295. Hans!!!! Dagsê.

    Jy is natuurlik reg. Die irriterende klein moffie kan nie ‘n doos wees nie.

    Weet jy wat is jou en Soois se probleem? Laat ek dit in Engels uitspel:

    1. Everything you write is fundie twaddle, amply seasoned with great gobs of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    2. Your infantile, standard three argumentii ad ignorantiam prove beyond any doubt that you suffer from delussion to a degree that borders on a state of grave deficiency of grey matter in the cranium corpi.

    3. You just carry on vomiting up new versions of the same old poppycock.

    4. You’re desperately trying to validate those childish ideas of yours that you can neither let go of nor see for the folly that they are.

    5. You’re seeing a pattern that exists only in your and other believers’ fevered imagination.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 17, 2011 at 06:41

  296. Soois, ek stem.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2011 at 23:00

  297. Nathan, oor sekere dinge sal julle atiëste ook saam stem en tog oor ander sal julle ook verskil.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2011 at 22:58

  298. Daan, ek verskil met jou want doos verskaf heelwat genot en daarom dink ek drol is meer paslik.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2011 at 22:54

  299. :mrgreen:😆 Oh, don’t be so hard on yourself, ol’ D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. Easy as it is, getting your goat is my pleasure.😆:mrgreen:

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 16, 2011 at 21:39

  300. Soos ek gesê het, uitputtende, irriterende klein doos.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 16, 2011 at 20:59

  301. :mrgreen:😆 As expected, a truly impressive response for its originality and xyresic insight. But okay, whatever your monumentally over-inflated sense of self-worth says, ol’ D’anus-booi Van der Moerig.😆:mrgreen:

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 16, 2011 at 19:24

  302. Ag, gaan kak, man.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 16, 2011 at 19:14

  303. :mrgreen: And unlike Nathan, Savage, McBrolloks and ErickV, we have that D’anus-booi Van der Moerig is a brainless, vaguely amusing twat with a penchant for churlish violence and standard-three, fundie twaddle, amply seasoned with great gobs of argumentum ad ignorantiam. He’s too dense to figure out why I irritate him — or too much of a lying hypocrite. That would be because I keep poking gaping holes into his stupid “arguments.”:mrgreen:

    Remember that you started this shit-flinging, D’anus-booi Van der Moerig. You can stop it anytime should you suffer a moment of lucidity, as unlikely as such an event might be. Until you do though, I’ll carry on playing on your terms.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 16, 2011 at 11:24

  304. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Fok!! Maar ek het slae gekry op die kindslaan-draad!!🙂

    Dankie dat jy nie een van die gatskoppers was nie. Ek was nogal verbaas dat ‘n paar ouens my support het.
    🙂🙂 Nee, ek is nie bang vir C-T nie. Nie eers amper nie. Anders as jy, Nathan, McBrollocks en Savage, irriteer hy net sewe kleure kak uit my uit.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 16, 2011 at 10:31

  305. Soois,
    “Without the gospel……….”
    Shit, geen wonder ek is finansieel in die kak en so onnosel nie!
    The poepol South African killer in America is full of gospel according to McBrolloks link!
    Now what!

    ErickV

    April 16, 2011 at 07:36

  306. SA man killed by serial killer in US

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/SA-man-killed-by-serial-killer-in-US-20110414

    “According to Ohio police, Madonda, who studied theology at a Georgia seminary after arriving in the US in 2008, confessed to the slayings in order to clear his conscience.”

    “Victor Browne, who lived with Hilder, said Madonda was a quiet, religious man who attended church every Sunday, reported the Beacon Journal.”

    McBrolloks

    April 15, 2011 at 15:41

  307. Bad news fundies:

    World won’t end in 2012 – expert

    http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/World-wont-end-in-2012-expert-20110415

    and jesus is not going to come crashing into earth riding a giant meteorite either……sorry!

    McBrolloks

    April 15, 2011 at 15:37

  308. ❓ Bolletjies, I’ve been sent to limbus spamum😡😥😛

    Con-Tester

    April 15, 2011 at 15:16

  309. Net ‘n gedig deur die een of ander “Calvin”, nie Calvyn nie, geskryf.

    soois

    April 15, 2011 at 14:40

  310. Joe, het seker ‘n tikfout gemaak, kyk net die lelike groen mannetjie, sal maar nie weer bolletjies gebruik nie, netnou kry ek ook raas.’

    soois

    April 15, 2011 at 14:36

  311. Without the gospel

    everything is useless and vain;

    without the gospel

    we are not Christians;

    without the gospel

    all riches is poverty,

    all wisdom, folly before God;

    strength is weakness, and

    all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God

    soois

    April 15, 2011 at 14:31

  312. By the way Daan,
    Ek dink ou C-T tik baie meer bolletjies as ek!
    Hy gebruik net verskillende bolletjies!
    Hoekom raas jy nie ook met hom nie? Is jy bang vir hom?

    ErickV

    April 15, 2011 at 13:30

  313. Soois,
    And without the gospel?

    ErickV

    April 15, 2011 at 13:25

  314. “Without the gospel

    everything is useless and vain;

    without the gospel

    we are not Christians;

    without the gospel

    all riches is poverty,

    all wisdom, folly before God;

    strength is weakness, and

    all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God.

    But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made

    children of God,

    brothers of Jesus Christ,

    fellow townsmen with the saints,

    citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven,

    heirs of God with Jesus Christ,

    by whom

    the poor are made rich,

    the weak strong,

    the fools wise,

    the sinners justified,

    the desolate comforted,

    the doubting sure, and

    slaves free.

    The gospel is the Word of life.” Calvin

    soois

    April 15, 2011 at 11:07

  315. Daan,
    Ek dink in elk geval jy moet maar liewers by Kletskerk bly!
    Daar pla ek jou ten minste nie!

    ErickV

    April 15, 2011 at 09:39

  316. Daan,
    My fok, jy het my dan geleer🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

    ErickV

    April 15, 2011 at 09:36

  317. Er, that should be “carbonaceous shales,” not “carboniferous.”

    There, you see? Con-Tester can make a mistale. (And correct it, too!)

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 20:59

  318. Oukei, Erick!! Ons weet almal jy kan smileys tik. Moet dit nou nie fokken oordoen nie!!!!

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 14, 2011 at 19:41

  319. Thanks CT,
    Like I said, I know the basics but also did not bother to get more technical with ou Soois.
    Anyway, I agree with everything you said.

    Soois,
    Ons kan more weer gesels, ongelukkig het ek nou anner dinge om te doen en moet nou my kompoeter afsit

    ErickV

    April 14, 2011 at 15:26

  320. ErickV, if you mean minerals consisting of (almost) pure carbon then those are diamond, graphite, coal and carboniferous shales (plus a few rarer kinds), and the origin of this carbon is from organic sources. But carbon atoms also occur in various carbonate minerals (—CO₃), which usually comprise sedimentary rocks. The origin of the carbonate is microscopic crustaceans and in some cases atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) dissolved in water acting as an acid on other minerals.

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 14:52

  321. No soois, you come on. It is hardly my shortcoming that you are not able to follow a straightforward line of reasoning or to address properly the facts and arguments presented to you, and you’ll just carry on vomiting up new versions of the same old poppycock. If you’re going to insult everyone’s intelligence by not taking seriously what they put before you and dismiss it with a wave of the hand, then mockery and ridicule and not being taken seriously is what you deserve. As said before, I’m just a lot more open and honest about it than you are.

    So you’re still talking kak. In buckets and spades.

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 14:36

  322. Kom ons neem aan dat GOD bestaan, net vir arguments onthalwe. Nou gebeur daar die allerverskriklikste dinge en mense kry seer. Nou moet on seers GOD as Hemelse Vader vergelyk met my en jou as aardse vaders.
    Ons maak ons kinders vir +- 18 jaar groot en dissiplineer daardie kinders met liefde om hulle voor te berei vir die volgende 70+ jare van die volwasse wereld. GOD maak ons met liefde groot en dissiplineer ons vir ons hele aardse lewe om ons voor te berei vir die ewigheid. Wanneer ons kinders klein is, kan ons hulle beskerm, as hulle tieners is, raak dit moeiliker, en as hulle grootmense is, maak hulle soos hulle wil en ons kan hulle nie keer nie, maar ons kan saam met hulle deur die pyn en beproewing gaan wat deur hulleself veroorsaak is omdat ons hulle liefhet. GOD prober ons keer om die dinge te doen wat onsself vernietig soos oorlog, maar op die ou-ent is dit on swat nie luister nie en ons wat veroorsaak dat kindertjies sonder ledemate sit en so voorts. HY kan ons nie keer op ons selfvernietigende pad nie, maar HY kan uit liefde saam met ons deur die pyn en verwoesting gaan. GOD is nie wreed nie, ons is.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 14:07

  323. 😛

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 13:45

  324. ErickV
    kiemberlite = Kimberley?

    Jis ou maat, baie interessant. Bliksem, ek is dan ‘n stuk steenkool? Nee, ernstig, jy sien, lekker om vrae te vra en kennis uit te ruil. Jy besit kennis waarvan ek niks weet nie.

    Jong, jy moet eers in GOD glo om HOM wreedaardig te noem.

    Dankie vir jou antwoord.

    :p

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 13:44

  325. Oh come-on CT,
    Take a look at your previous posts, you would rather attack me than answer questions, you would rather remind me of my own stupidity and lack of education than to answer questions, you would rather ask questions instead of answering questions, you would rather tell me that you were working on a “lengthy response to what I’ve posted” and then not post it than to answer questions, you would rather attack me than to answer questions, you would ask me questions rather than to answer questions…

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 13:36

  326. Soois’
    Raait, hier gaat ons!
    Jy is reg as jy se dat carbon in gestolde magmas voorkom. Die magma word Kiemberlite genoem en dit wat in daardie magma voorkom is……..DIAMANTE!!!!
    Jy weet natuurlik dat diamante gevorm word as gevolg van magma wat met ‘n moerse spoed en druk na die oppervlak opgestoot is. Op sy pad boontoe het die magma steenkool (wat van plante af kom) teegekom en met die druk en hitte is diamante gevorm. Carbon kom slegs in diamante voor, NIE IN ANDER GESTEENTES NIE.
    Maw, gewone sand of stof bevat geen carbon nie tensy daar steenkoolstof teenwoordig is.
    Daar is ook twee soorte diamante. Een is die tipe soos wat ek beskryf het wat van onder afkom en dan is daar die tipe wat van bo af kom. Dit kom van meteore van die buitense ruimte af en is gewoonlik swart met min of geen waarde. Jy kan maar “Black diamonds” gaan google.
    Nou kom ons by wat ek eintlik wou se.
    Indien jy iets weet van “carbon dating” (ek bedoel nie nou uitgaan met ‘n ousie nie :)) weet dat die datering slegs op plantaardige goed of oorskot van mense gedoen kan word. Dit is akuraat tot ongeveer 90,000 jaar oue fossiele, ens.
    Vir fossiele ouer as dit word radiometriese datering op die rotsvormasies waarin die fossiele voorkom gedoen. Gaan google gerus “carbon dating”.
    So, jy sien Soois, as ons van stof afkom moes God ons met steenkool gemaak het!🙂🙂🙂🙂
    Vra maar as jy nog iets van die aarde wil weet. Ek sal probeer help waar ek kan met my geringe kennis.
    Ek moet ook maar nog google as ek iets wil weet en daar is nog baie.
    Al wat ek ook definitief weet is dat die sogenaamde “God” glad nie meer vir my sin maak nie. Ek stel in elk geval nie belang in ‘n wreedaardige God nie.

    ErickV

    April 14, 2011 at 13:32

  327. 😆 Yeah, just like all my other posts where I “have no answers…”🙄😆

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 13:13

  328. I reckoned that you have no answers. Good day to you sir.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 12:54

  329. soois, I started writing a lengthy response to what you’ve posted. I stopped because it’s obvious that you are not able to follow a straightforward line of reasoning or to address properly the facts and arguments presented to you, and you’ll just carry on vomiting up new poppycock.

    
    
    
    

    So here’s my short response to you: You’re talking kak. In buckets.

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 12:38

  330. CT

    Yoy wrote : April 14, 2011 at 10:23 “…the very different proportions in which chemical elements occur in the human body versus in dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth…”

    My point is that the human body consists out of elements taken from earth, we do not have a single unique element in our bodies. The Bible says we are from the earth, thus we consist of elements from the earth. The ancient Bible writers could not have known unless told so by GOD.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 12:10

  331. Ek lees koolstof kom voor in gestolde magma. Dus kom dit seker in vulkaniese rots voor?

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 11:55

  332. Kom ek benader my denkwyse anders.
    Tot dusver het ek die evolusieteorie probeer ter syde stel omdat mense geneig is om daar vas te haak. Hulle glo of swart of wit, maar nie grys tussenin nie. Anders gestel, ons kom of d.m.v evolusie of uit die “skepping”. Min mense vra die vraag of evolusie nie God se manier van skep was nie, m.a.w, my problem is eintlik nie by evolusie nie, maar by “natuurlike seleksie”. Ek glo dat natuurlike seleksie nie kon veroorsaak dat daar soveel verskillende spesies tot stand gekom het nie en dat die natuur so pragtig is dat ‘n intelligente wese ‘n hand daarin moes he. Ek praat dus van “intelligente seleksie”
    Kom ek bring nog ‘n voorbeeld uit die Bybel wat my laat regop sit het. “In die begin was die aarde woes en leeg, en GOD het die waters van die aarde en die land geskei.” Duisende jare terug geskryf en vandag wee tons die kontinente was eers teenaan mekaar, maar het oor miljoene jare uit mekaar gedryf. Toevallige raaiskoot? Ek dink nie so nie.

    😉

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 11:50

  333. 😳
    Nee dit reen nie, maar Donderdae is tuinwerk dag, en nee, ek werk nie self in die tuin nie, dus pas ek my vrou en huis op, want ek moet al die hekke en goed ooplos vir die werkers en deesdae is boerwees net so gevaarlik soos polisieman wees.
    Ek kan seker jou vraag gaan GOOGLE, maar ek is seker jy sal my kan vertel waar koolstof voorkom.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 11:39

  334. soois

    April 14, 2011 at 11:34

  335. Soois
    Jong, ek weet darrem ietsie van geologie. Ek is ten minste in die mynbedryf betrokke.
    Soos ek dit verstaan word stof en sand deur die verwering van rotse en klip gesteentes veroorsaak.
    Nou wil ek jou vra:
    In wat se klip kom koolstof (carbon) voor?
    Toemaar, jy kan maar voor jou rekenaar sit, dit reen seker weer!🙂

    ErickV

    April 14, 2011 at 11:34

  336. Exactly, the legionaire stuck a spear into Jesus to kill Him if he was not dead yet, and water came out of Him. This was written as observed by the writer, who did not know the meaning of the water. Today we know that asphyxiation was the probable cause. It only demonstrates The Bible as a factual telling of what happened.

    O, and roman crucifiction was used way before the crucifiction of Jesus.
    History, Facts and Information about Roman Crucifixion
    Roman Crucifixion was a gruesome form of capital punishment used by several ancient nations, especially the Romans. Crucifixion was incredibly painful, hence the term excruciating. The content of this article provides interesting history, facts and information about life in Ancient Rome including Roman Crucifixion.

    Death by Roman Crucifixion
    Death by Roman crucifixion was a result of the whole body weight being supported by the stretched arms. When nailed to the cross there was a massive strain put on the wrists, arms and shoulders often resulting in a dislocation of the shoulder and elbow joints. The rib cage was constrained in a fixed position, which made it extremely difficult to exhale, and impossible to take a full breath. The victim would continually try to draw himself up by his feet to allow for inflation of the lungs enduring terrible pain in his feet and legs. The pain in the feet and legs became unbearable and the victim was forced to trade breathing for pain. The length of time required to die from crucifixion could range from hours to a number of days.

    Roman Crucifixion – The Cause of Death
    The main cause of death by Roman crucifixion was due to asphyxiation. Asphyxiation results from lack of exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide due to respiratory failure or disturbance, resulting in insufficient brain oxygen, which leads to unconsciousness and death. The execution method of Roman Crucifixion could produce death from a number of other causes, including physical shock caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion shock from the process of being nailed to the cross, dehydration or exhaustion.

    💡

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 11:33

  337. 😈:mrgreen: Goodness me, what a sterling bit of razor-sharp insight there, soois! I am simply floored by this most powerful of all arguments you make.:mrgreen:😈
    😳 Of course, the Romans had never crucified and stabbed someone before your supposed Bebeh Jeeeeeeebussssss, so up until the moment that a misbegotten legionnaire stuck his spear into him, it is undeniably impossible that they could have known about the fluid in body cavities, given their medical knowledge. This proves that the bible reveals what wasn’t known at the time it was written.😳

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 11:13

  338. ErickV,
    nee jong, ek is die ou met die klein brein en is male sonder tal ook daaraan herinner. My ou, ek weet nie, maar Dok Einstein het ‘n interessante stukkie “van sterstof tot sterstof” April 13, 2011 at 19:31, gegee. Ek weet juis nie alles nie, eintlik weet ek min, daarom al my vrae. Sal graag jou siening wil hoor, solank jy my net nie weer uitkak omdat ek voor my rekenaar is nie.
    :mrgreen:

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 11:11

  339. Soois,
    Jy sien, ek is ‘n ou met ‘n klein brein!
    Ek wil jou graag ‘n paar vragies vra. Ek sal dan my siening ook gee.
    Eerstens: Waar kom “stof” vandaan en wat het dit veroorsaak?

    ErickV

    April 14, 2011 at 10:55

  340. HE apparently made man out of the dust of the earth, but here is another interesting story. HE made a mate for this man, out of a bone from man’s rib cage. He called this mate, woman. Why did GOD do this? Because this woman was not supposed to be a seperate entity, but part of the man, like his arms and legs. God made not another man, therefor HE dislikes homosexuality, and he made her from his body, thus she is part of him, and therefore GOD hates divorce and adultery.

    😳 Please, not intended to start the homo- thing again, just showing the unlikely way the Bible was written by “ordinary” people.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 10:44

  341. Let me use a more recent event in The Bible. When we read the story of the crucifiction of Jesus, we must first go and read up on the ways the ancient Romans used to crucify people.
    When they crucified a person, they first nailed the poor victim’s hands to the cross-bar. Then they tied the cross-bar to the upright bar. After this they nailed the victim’s feet to the upright bar. Now they lifted the whole cross and let it slide into the hole that was dug for this purpose. Usually the person on the cross’s own body weight would dislocate his shoulders once the cross came to an aprupt stop in its hole. If this happened the victim could only breathe while pushing himself upward with his legs, as his dislocated shoulders meant that his arms were useless. When his legs became too weak to support his body weight, he will no-more be able to breathe and actually smother to death. When one dies due to lack of oxygen, a large amount of water accumulates in the heart chambers. Now, according to the story, once Jesus was dead, one of the soldiers stabbed Him in his side to make sure that He was in fact dead and a large amount of water came out of the wound, thus confirming that Jesus did in fact smother to death on a cross. Ancient “Bible writers” did not have today’s medical knowledge, thus another example of “Bible truth” that made me think.
    Con-Tester wrote April 9, 2011 at 23:11 “In your so-called “holy” book, you can find a passage to suit just about any situation.” Does it not make you wonder how this “fairytale” book can have answers for just about everything? Does it not give this book at least a fair chance, at least as fair a chance as you give modern scientists who only now confirm a lot of thing known to the writers of this “fairytale” book? I mean, the ancient people did not have the science, but still knew a lot of things only recently discovered. Truth is, they did not know, they only wrote what they observed, and that makes it truthfull. They did not have the knowledge or science to fabricate stories, stories confirmed by our modern science.
    🙄

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 10:32

  342. soois wrote (April 14, 2011 at 09:32):

    You see CT, I am not trying … to find answers.

    Yes, that’s obvious enough. You’re desperately trying to validate those childish ideas of yours that you can neither let go of nor see for the folly that they are. You’re seeing a pattern that exists only in your and other believers’ fevered imagination. You still totally ignore the two telling aspects that demolish the idea that the bible writers knew, even unconsciously, about chemistry and physics. Those two aspects are, first, the very different proportions in which chemical elements occur in the human body versus in dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth, and second, the huge difference between a bunch of separate chemical elements and the chemical compounds they make up — a difference that is analogous to that between the disorder in a pile of sand and the order of a carefully crafted sand sculpture. (Now don’t go interpreting that as some kind of teleological argument for your “god” as a sculptor, okay? Because sand sculptures don’t replicate themselves with slight variations.)

    The bible writers did not know where humans (and life) came from so they made up a convenient fable involving a supernatural agent, a story that sounded plausible to them because they couldn’t come up with any better explanation and this one sounds magical, suggesting that this supernatural agent can do what no human or animal can do. They don’t bother to explain where the dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth came from (except to hint earlier that this “god” of yours made it from nothing), probably because dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth is so common. Neither do they address the glaring inconsistency of why this “god” of yours should need to use dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth to make people when he supposedly managed to make just about everything else from nothing. Nor do they reveal why dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth isn’t directly instrumental in making new people, i.e. babies. These discrepancies reveal that your smoked-up Bronze Age goatherds weren’t inspired by anything other than wild fantasies and that you’re clutching at straws in an attempt to salvage this ridiculous fairytale you hold so dear.

    It’s not any “god” that’s revealed himself to you; it’s your basic human nature of wanting answers that you are leading astray with this wishful thinking. But of course, once again, there is just no way you can be wrong about this, is there?

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 10:23

  343. CT,
    Excellent, you have actually tried to answer my question, albeit rather focussing on my “mistakes” rather than the question at hand. I purposefully grabbed the number 14 out of the sky to see your reaction. Now let me give my less “ignorant” and “dumb” or “stupid” version.

    There were 94 elements discovered on earth so far. Apparently a total of 114 elements have been observed by 2007. However, the human body does in fact consist of 59 elements, but 99,4% of the body consist of only 6 elements, oxygen (61,43%), carbon (22,86%), hydrogen (10%), nitrogen (2,57%), calcium (1,43%) and phosphorus (1,11%). The other 53 elements is found in only 0,6% of our body mass.

    Genesis 2:7 says: “… the LORD GOD formed man from the dust of the ground”. The 59 elements from the human body came from the 94 elements from the ground. My question is, once again, how these “Bible writers” knew that the human body comes from dust if they have not discovered the element by then? Good guess, or did GOD in fact create man and told the Bible writers that HE created man from dust?
    😆

    You see CT, I am not trying to belittle, to confuse, to ridicule or to find answers. I am merely showing you one of the questions I had, and there are many, that made me sit up and take notice. It made me go back to the Bible and to give HIM a chance if HE existed. I found HIM, because true to HIS WORD, HE did reveal HIMSELF to me once I seeked HIM truthfully.
    😆 😆

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 09:32

  344. soois you just keep on revealing more and more that your ignorance innocence of science is inexhaustible. You obviously don’t know (or choose to ignore) that all stable matter that we know of is made up of the same few chemicals (around 100) and that there is an enormous difference between a bunch of chemical elements on their own and the molecules they comprise. All of this matter was cooked together in stars and supernovae by thermonuclear (fusion) processes from hydrogen and helium. This origin is what prompted Carl Sagan to muse that we are “star stuff contemplating star stuff” (or something along those lines).

    The human body does emphatically not consist of the same 14 elements in the proportions they are found in dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth. The human body consists of around 60 chemical elements — more than four times your ex recto figure — most of which are tied up in molecules, starting from simple ones like water through to complex proteins consisting of tens of thousands of atoms. This stupid dumb foolish notion of yours that somehow the bible writers supposedly were inspired to say that man was created from dirt/ sand/ soil/ dust/ mud/ earth because it shares a few common chemical elements with flesh is as ludicrous and unconvincing as saying that plastic is made from wood because they are both very rich in carbon and hydrogen.
    😆 But you’re entirely shut to reason anyway, so please carry on amusing us with your pigheaded inanities.😆

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2011 at 08:44

  345. 😆

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 08:14

  346. By the way, Doc gave an interesting little piece of info regarding my question.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 07:51

  347. Tester,
    I ignored your question simply because your question was given in ignorance to my question. So who is doing the ignoring? In case you missed it, my question was, put simply, according to the Bible man was made from dust, and today we know that man’s body is in fact made of that same elements found in dust. I wanted to know how the so-called “Bible writers knew this.

    soois

    April 14, 2011 at 07:45

  348. Hey soois, you haven’t answered my latest question, just like most of the others before. You ignoring me again, old toff?😆

    There’s a response to your latest bit of daffy goofiness that’s been waiting for you since yesterday evening but Nathan needs to release it. See, you’ve been telling us lies again and my response exposes them. I can’t wait to see what sort of tawdry ex recto fables you’ll regurgitate once you’ve read it.

    Con-Tester

    April 13, 2011 at 22:19

  349. Dok,
    dankie. Dankie ook vir jou interessante bydrae oor die oerknal.
    [ ]:lol:[ ]

    soois

    April 13, 2011 at 20:40

  350. Soois.

    Ek stem wat jou geloof betref, met baie dinge nie saam nie.

    Ek het nie lank terug nie ‘n seminaar bygewoon waar ‘n Proffie (ek kan nie onthou of hy ‘n bioloog, dierkundige, geoloog of palaentoloog was nie) vir ons ‘n lesing gegee het onder die titel “Van Sterstof tot Sterstof”.

    Was moer interressant. Hy het onder andere gesê dat na die oerknal die heelal vol sterstof was en dat die elemente waaruit die menslike liggaam bestaan, almal in hierdie stof teenwoordig was.

    Hy het gesê dat hy persoonlik nie die hand van enige bo-natuurlike in die oorsprong van die mens sien nie. Hy het ook bevestig dat hy persoonlik nie ‘n gelowige is nie.

    Myself? Ek weet nie of “God” die mens uit hierdie stof “geskep” het nie, en ek gee ook nie om nie.

    Ek salueer jou vir jou bereidwilligheid om, ten spyte van kritiek, bespotting en belediging, by die moed van jou oortuigings te staan.

    Doktor Einstein

    April 13, 2011 at 19:31

  351. ErickV
    Jy’s reg, plante bestaan ook uit dieselfde elemente, weereens staan dit ook in die Bybel (alle lewe uit stof). Verder bewys jy my punt verder, die Bybelskrywers het nie geweet nie, jou eie woorde, “hulle was te onnosel”, hulle “dof voorvaders” het dit geweet, hoekom? Omdat God dit aan hulle oorgedra het. Dit was juis my hele punt dat hulle dit nie vanself kon weet nie. Boerdery is ‘n besigheid, ‘n besigheid word bestuur. Ek is die bestuurder. Wanneer die weer nie saamspeel nie, is ek ongelukkig in die huis vasgekluister en kan dan lekker met julle-ouens gesels. En ja, dit gaan sommer baie goed met my boerdery.
    Groete

    soois

    April 13, 2011 at 16:38

  352. Soois
    Jy se:
    “Kom ek maak dit eenvoudig sodat selfs jy dit verstaan. Stof bestaan uit 14 elemente, die menslike liggaam bestaan uit dieselfde 14 elemente.”
    Kom laat ek jou ook goed verstaan. Ek is nie dof en eenvoudig soos wat jy dink nie.
    Plante bestaan ook uit dieselfde elemente, so what?
    Dit is nog geen bewys dat ‘n “God” die oorsaak was nie!! Dit is gevolg van die funksie van die NATUUR EN GEEN GOD NIE!!!!!!!!
    Dan se jy nog:
    “Hoe het die ou “bybelskrywers” dit geweet?”
    Dit is juis die punt. Die bliksems het dit nie geweet nie! Hulle was te onnosel daarvoor. Hulle het slegs geskryf wat hulle dof voorvaders deur al die geslagte oorvertel is en wragtig, as jy DIT nie eers weet nie, moet jy maar liewers by jou boerdery hou!
    Al wat ek ook weet is dat jy nie te kak vaar met jou boerdery nie al sit jy heeldag agter jou rekenaar!🙂

    ErickV

    April 13, 2011 at 10:21

  353. Okay, the penny drops. It’s those 14 elements, n’est-ce pas? That’s yet more cretinist/IDiot horse apples, this time served with thick slices of pig shit. The human body consists of a bit more than 14 chemical elements. Not unexpectedly, the chemical composition of dirt/sand/soil/dust is fairly widely variable. Carbon is abundant in the human body but would have been extremely scarce in dirt/sand/soil/dust before any life existed, there being no carbon-rich organic molecules available, only mostly carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and some in calcium carbonates. Silicon, aluminium and magnesium occur richly in dirt/sand/soil/dust but are extremely scarce to non-existent in the human body. The only element that is plentiful in the human body and dirt/sand/soil/dust is oxygen, and that’s because of its chemical properties, not because some skydaddy decreed it so.

    Trust a brain-dead cretinist/IDiot to make up this kind of crap that is just like saying that because bread and compost contain many of the same chemical elements, bread is made from compost. Just when you thought they’d reached the bottom of the idiocy barrel, they manage to pull one more brainfart kicking, screaming and reeking from the dregs. It’d be fuckin’ hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Con-Tester

    April 12, 2011 at 19:16

  354. soois wrote (April 12, 2011 at 18:14):

    juis, hoe het die sogenaamde bybelskrywers dan geweet?

    What asinine tosh are trying to fabricate here? What did the “so-called ‘bible writers’” allegedly know, according to this malformed thinking of yours? Has anything at all that I said actually penetrated or are you clueless about what it means, as per usual?

    Con-Tester

    April 12, 2011 at 18:38

  355. Con-Tester wrote : “Carbon is nowhere near the most abundant…” – juis, hoe het die sogenaamde bybelskrywers dan geweet?

    soois

    April 12, 2011 at 18:14

  356. ErickV
    Kom ek maak dit eenvoudig sodat selfs jy dit verstaan. Stof bestaan uit 14 elemente, die menslike liggaam bestaan uit dieselfde 14 elemente. Hoe het die ou “bybelskrywers” dit geweet?

    Ek gaan nie eers my tyd verder met julle mors nie. Dit reen lekker op die plaas. Ek gaan ‘n pot maak, liefde met my vrou maak, more as die weer opklaar ‘n ent gaan vlieg en my boerdery geniet. Ek het ‘n klomp lammers on te verkoop en my kallers is vet. Wat de fok maak ek hier by julle!?

    soois

    April 12, 2011 at 18:11

  357. ErickV, tik soos volg en sit ’n enkele spasie net waar jy “[spasie]” sien, nêrens anders nie:

    [spasie] : l o l : [spasie]

    defollyant

    April 12, 2011 at 17:56

  358. 🙂🙂🙂🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 12, 2011 at 17:04

  359. CT
    Shit, hoe laat ek die bliksemse bollietje lag?
    Daan waas jy??!!!

    ErickV

    April 12, 2011 at 13:54

  360. Soois,
    Weet jy dat die heelal (universe) vol carbon is?
    Die carbon op die aarde se oorsprong is deel van die heelal?
    Weet jy ooit dat daar meteoriete op die aarde gevind is met die boustene van alles wat lewe op hierdie aarde?
    Jy sien, jy stel nie belang daarin nie want jy het ‘n ou boek, geskryf deur skaap herders gedurende die brons tydperk, wat vir jou die teendeel bewys!!!!
    Sorry ou boet, ek val nie meer vir daai een nie!
    Al wat dit is, is lagwekkend. :)) :)) :)) :))🙂🙂

    ErickV

    April 12, 2011 at 13:52

  361. soois wrote (April 12, 2011 at 09:17):

    [A]t least I have tried reasonic…

    Another good one! Your so-called “reasonic” is a cute little joke. It goes something like this: Con-Tester says something. soois replies, “You too! You too! Nyah nyah nyah-nyah nyah!” — except that it takes him upwards of three posts to do so, and at least one them consists of screeds of creationist/IDiot hogwash.

    soois wrote (April 12, 2011 at 09:17):

    When we read [how “god” supposedly created man from dust]

    “Reason and think” that away please man. One of many examples of questions cleverly sidestepped by you.

    That’s because you have the attention span of a goldfish. There are two answers up there for all to see but you ignored them. Here’s a few more: Your “theory” is not scientific because it lacks verifiable details. It is a fairytale force-fitted to the presently known facts by adding post hoc embellishments. It is in conflict with many known facts, for example, that man didn’t suddenly appear on the scene without any prior trace. Carbon is nowhere near the most abundant chemical element in the ground (dust); oxygen, silicon and aluminium are, making up many of the minerals found at or near the Earth’s surface. And so on. If you were truly interested, Google is your buddy who will help you locate credible sources, like Wikipedia, academic domains (“-.ac.-”) and peer-reviewed scientific organisations. But you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not interested in anything except validation for your immature, unsophisticated horse apples. Anything that conflicts with those horse apples is crumpled up and swept under the mat.

    Your so-called “holy” book contains a wide assortment of factual errors (besides many internal contradictions) but you are too dishonest and too uninformed to acknowledge that there are huge problems with it. Instead, you’d rather keep fabricating transparent and laughable excuses to hide that fact because your “god,” as hugely unlikely as it is that he exists, cannot in your view be other than perfect. You ignore at all costs the logical absurdities inherent in your “god” concept and make up lots more kakstories that fail entirely to address the point. You won’t read what is in front of you. Your understanding of science and the methods by which it accumulates knowledge is virtually non-existent and still you refuse to learn. You want to draw everyone else to your own level of pitiful ignorance and pride yourself on your supposed ability to work things out for yourself. You think a scientific theory is like a wild guess and you reject biological evolution as being a wild guess, citing the contrived and ignorant drivel you find on creationist/IDiot websites as “proof.” The sheer unmitigated absence of knowledge is awe-inducing. Well, guess what? Evolution is a scientific theory that has been established and refined over time with the same evidential rigour and impartiality as quantum mechanics, general relativity and the germ theory of disease, yet I don’t see you shooting your stupid mouth off about how your computer/cell phone/GPS/antibiotics don’t work.

    Would you like to discuss the universal relevance and irrefutable profundity of Mickey Mouse now, or are you going to continue being an unenlightened, obtuse moron?

    Con-Tester

    April 12, 2011 at 10:40

  362. You know, you have brought many theories etc. from other people forward as have I, but at least I have tried reasonic, albeit “ridiciled and mocked” by you.

    I bring forward again, “”When we read “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” it means that the base element of organic matter is carbon, which is found in the ground. But when the Bible was written we were not advanced enough to understand that, so at the time God told us a simplified version of the story, and the Bible was perfect for us at that time””.

    “Reason and think” that away please man. One of many examples of questions cleverly sidestepped by you. As I said before, the one standing behind the door…
    >:-D

    soois

    April 12, 2011 at 09:17

  363. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .

    Good one, soois! We can all see your and Hanswors’ brilliant “thinking and reasoning abilities” spread all over these pages, for example in that latest post of yours.
    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆 .

    Con-Tester

    April 12, 2011 at 08:12

  364. ErickV, ons stem oor sekere dinge nie saam nie, want ons twee kan darem nog redeneer en dink ook, anders as die wat almal soos ‘n klomp “klone” dieselfde “dink” en voel. Ou Tester praat en die ander volg soos ‘n klomp skape in sy spore. Hulle dink hulle het nie ‘n god nie, maar “guess what?” ou Con-Tester dink hy is ‘n god en sy maatjies volg hulle god blindelings.

    Tester en Nathan is hulle almal se intellektuele meerdere en hulle is bang hulle maak hulle name gat as hulle te veel se. Ek en Hans is egter nie bang om ons menings met ons beperkinge en al te lig nie, want ons is in God en ons broers en susters se oe gelyk. Net HY is ons meerdere.

    soois

    April 12, 2011 at 07:48

  365. Hansie Slim
    Jy se “ErickV, die Bybel is nie belaglik maar wel sommige wat dit gebruik.”
    Yep, soos jy en Soois!
    Hoe kan ‘n mens julle tweetjies ernstig opneem? Julle stem dan nie eers saam oor sekere Bybel aspekte nie!!🙂🙂🙂🙂

    ErickV

    April 12, 2011 at 05:37

  366. Oh, before I forget, Hanswors, you can’t refute the Great Truths of Mickey Mouse. You’re too scared even to try, just like your intellectual clone. If you want childish, just have a look in a mirror.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 22:50

  367. Godsk!

    Hans en soois tesame.

    En nie ‘n argument in sig nie…

    Berge val op ons; heuwels bedek ons!

    Nathan Bond

    April 11, 2011 at 22:49

  368. soois and Hanswors — the brains trust of believers. Let that Eternal Truth™ roll, boys!

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 22:45

  369. ErickV, die Bybel is nie belaglik nie maar wel sommige wat dit gebruik. Hulle verstand is nie geopen om die skrifte te verstaan nie.
    Luk 24:45 Toe open Hy hulle verstand om die Skrifte te verstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2011 at 22:33

  370. Ek is doodseker ou Hansman, maar eintlik was ek nou aan jou kant man.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 22:32

  371. Soois, dit maak wel saak want julle vee baie dinge eerder onder die mat en verkeer dus in duisternis. In Joh. 17, bid Jesus nie vir die wêreld nie, maar net vir die wat God Hom gee uit die wêreld uit. Hoe seker is jy dat Hy vir jou gesterf het?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2011 at 22:26

  372. Ou Hansman, ou Tester sien nie antwoorde raak nie jong. Hy is net kinderagtig nie, maar boonop nog blind ook.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 22:22

  373. Con-Tester, dit wil voorkom of jy baie kinderagtig is en dit is nogal verstommend om te dink, dat jy so baie grade agter jou naam het. Moontlik is dit so, dat jy nog nooit werklik die skool verlaat het om volwasse te word in die werklike lewe.
    Ek het vir jou gesê, dat die lewe in jou, is jou siel en dit is jy.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2011 at 22:15

  374. Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 19:06

  375. soois wrote (April 11, 2011 at 14:06):

    No answer regarding my question to disprove the Bible.

    You have repeatedly proven to the point where it’s become nauseating that you are not able to comprehend anything but the most simpleminded answers, so a carefully constructed argument (which has been presented numerous times in these pages should you dare to seek them out) would be entirely lost on you. Not that you really want one, now do you, old chap?

    soois wrote (April 11, 2011 at 14:06):

    Swell old boy.

    Glad you liked it, old fruit.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 18:45

  376. Het die avatar-ding getoets vir die snaaksigheid. Die aardbol wat brand is seker ‘n bietjie “grim”. Johannes Coetsee kan dit dalk gebruik. Die nuwe een is dalk volgens julle-ouens meer gepas vir my. Hoop julle het daren ‘n sin vir humor.

    Groete

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 14:06

  377. Soois, jy het nog níks kwytgeraak wat nie reeds op hierdie blog uitgewys is as onsin nie.

    Doen ons almal ‘n guns en lees wat al reeds hier gesê is, en kom dan met argumente, nie wolhaarstories nie.

    Nathan Bond

    April 11, 2011 at 13:47

  378. Nathan, miskien onkundig oor die spesifieke onderwerp, ek lees ook maar net dit wat die “kundiges” skryf, maar dit lyk eerder vir my asof jy, net soos Tester, eerder kyk waar ek fouteer as om antwoorde te gee. Kry die aandag weg van die lesers af sodat hulle nie ook wonder nie?

    Tester wrote:, “The “god” it talks about is a fairytale”. No answer regarding my question to disprove the Bible. Just “The “god” it talks about is a fairytale”. Swell old boy.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 13:36

  379. soois wrote (April 11, 2011 at 12:10):

    However, Darwin’s theory was in fact not proven and the absence of his own predictions that the “missing link” would be found did not happen and to be frank, his theory was proven a lot off bull…

    .:lol:😆😆😆😆.
    .:lol:😆😆😆😆.
    .:lol:😆😆😆😆.
    Your ignorance really is pitiful — almost as pitiful as your deliberately opting to remain ignorant and telling lies for Jesus.

    soois wrote (April 11, 2011 at 12:19):

    THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY
    MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED

    I can give many, many examples of Darwin’s theory disproved.

    Yeah, I can see the headlines already: “World-renowned Biologist soois Shocks World’s Experts with Final Truth.”

    soois wrote (April 11, 2011 at 12:19):

    Please give me one disproving the Bible.

    The “god” it talks about is a fairytale.

    soois wrote (April 11, 2011 at 12:39):

    Like me, God is real.

    You mean “real dippy,” surely.

    soois, please keep the hilarious creationist comedy rolling, old boy. But whatever you do, avoid at all costs actually studying biological evolution, ’cos that comedy’s too precious for words.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 13:24

  380. Jy ís en jy’s wélkom, moet net nie my en my lesers se tyd mors nie.

    As jy hier, byvoorbeeld, die flagellum-enjin as argument wil gebruik, gaan jy uitgelag word. Dit dui aan dat jy absoluut onkundig is.

    Nathan Bond

    April 11, 2011 at 13:23

  381. Miskien is ek besig om my tyd te mors.
    Groete

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 13:18

  382. Soois, lees wat op hierdie blog oor evolusie geskryf is en hou op om ons almal se tyd te mors.

    Ek het nog tyd, nog lus om jou in te lig.

    Nathan Bond

    April 11, 2011 at 13:07

  383. Jammer oor die spelling. Antwoord liewer die vrae en los die verkleinering ens. Dit is die manier van die wat nie antwoorde het nie.

    naudef

    April 11, 2011 at 13:04

  384. Godsk! Ma’ ‘n mens kan mos nie oor sulke jammerlike onkunde bekhou nie – hoe hard ‘n mens ook al probeer!

    Soois, assebliéf man!

    Los die flagellum (korrekte spelling), toe. Jy is besig om so ‘n verleentheid te word dat selfs ék vir jou begin jammer voel.

    Nee man! Ai!

    Nathan Bond

    April 11, 2011 at 12:46

  385. Let’s take an example from the Bible:

    When we read “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” it means that the base element of organic matter is carbon, which is found in the ground. But when the Bible was written we were not advanced enough to understand that, so at the time God told us a simplified version of the story, and the Bible was perfect for us at that time.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 12:41

  386. One can not disprove God because for that to happpen, one would need ALL the evidence, which is impossible, as well as the fact that carbon dating has been proven inaccurate. Scientists took a 3 day old dead sheep and did carbon dating on it. Apparently it died 1500 years ago. Wow, this accurate, not to mention the fact that athieism proves God, because anytime there is authority there is rebellion. The more logical religion would agnostic, or if you are strong enough, Christianity. Like me, God is real. Let’s look at our universe. Something called um…constant expansion? Well if we reversed time, would we not find that eventually there was nothing at all? Hmmmm, shocking, or maybe irreducible complexity? Maybe you know what a rotary motor is? If you take away one part of it, it doesn’t work at all. Or a mouse trap. Or, hey, maybe even a flaggelum, a cell in the human body that can’t have evolved because it can’t be reduced. Maybe a laminin, the protein that holds a cell together? It’s a CROSS. A 17 year old knows more about God than you. Sad but true.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 12:39

  387. THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY
    MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED
    “…”Evolution is not to be accepted until proved.” It is not yet proved and never will be…”
    http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html Read it if you will. It is a long document and Nathan has rapped me over the fingers for taking up space. I can give many, many examples of Darwin’s theory disproved. Please give me one disproving the Bible.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 12:19

  388. soois

    April 10, 2011 at 18:26 Darwin’s theory ridiculed and mocked.

    Con-Tester

    April 10, 2011 at 20:17 “…bunch of lukewarm fairytales like that…”

    Who is evading what? Who is the liar? Who is telling fairytales? The God creation could not be proven true, but also not false. As it could not be proven authentic, we “must assume it to be bull”. However, Darwin’s theory was in fact not proven and the absence of his own predictions that the “missing link” would be found did not happen and to be frank, his theory was proven a lot off bull, but he is to be believed? I wander who is the lamebrain here??

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 12:10

  389. Boo-hoo, poor soois, beset on all sides by da eebil ateists who can’t understand! You and your kind simply do not have an argument but you’re evidently not capable of seeing that. You think you know something valuable and aren’t afraid of putting your deep ignorance on public display. I think it’s a right royal scream. Meanwhile, I’m just exploiting what you yourself provide. You’d rather shoot your mouth off than engage properly with arguments and facts. Over and over and over again. Then you pull out the old tu quoque as though that somehow validated your inane pronouncements. As for me evading your questions, that’s another one of your mounting pile of little lies – just like your transparent dodgem game concerning homosexuality. Increasingly, it looks like you can’t even distinguish between truth and lies anymore when it comes to defending your hooey. That’s not hard to see, actually, given that it’s all lies.

    You can call my hand-grenade reply whatever you want to, see? It’s clear as daylight that you can muster no adequate reply, only more evasion and pathetic hogwash, as we’ll shortly see no doubt. Yes, your “god” made the (figurative) hand grenade and gave it to his children because he made everything — with his all-powerful and all-knowing hands, nogal. He knew better, what with all that unlimited power and wisdom, but still he fucked up Big Time. But your brain’s too cooked in religious stew to be able to follow a consequent argument to its logically inescapable conclusion.

    Once again, all you’ll have are piss-poor excuses and lamebrain “reasoning.” It’s really quite amusing to watch the torrent of balderdash constantly issuing from believers.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 11:20

  390. Tester, you are one to talk of evading questions. You have quite cleverly evaded quite a few of mine.

    As to the idiotic hand grenade reply, who built it, God?

    Ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an argument.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 10:23

  391. Yup, I should have known better than to think that a godiot will contribute anything worthwhile to the debate — just the customary evasions, question-begging and dimwitted fundie twaddle. So soois, thanks for confirming once more that it is not possible to have an intelligent conversation with your kind.

    I guess it’s back to ridicule and mockery, then.

    How about I give your kids a hand grenade to play with and sternly warn them not to pull the pin. Then they go and blow themselves up. It’s their fault, not mine, because they didn’t listen to me.

    Yeah, right.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2011 at 08:29

  392. God het boggerol met bg tragedies te doen. Lees my stukkie aan Tester oor mense se wreedheid en God se genade. Ons praat van Christendom, nie fundamentalisme nie. Dink jy as een of ander hoogaangestelde predikant vir my vra om my vliegtuig in tuinhuis vas te vlieg sodat ek ‘n “ereplek” in die hiernamaals te kan he, sal ek dit doen? Nee, ek sal hom in sy moer in stuur en weet hy is ‘n valse profeet. My Bybel en my Here vra nie dit nie en geen een gaan ‘n beter plek “verdien” hier op aarde nie.

    Koebaai Nathan.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 08:16

  393. Godiote! Godsk! Koebaai, soois!

    Nathan Bond

    April 11, 2011 at 08:04

  394. Nathan

    “Srebrenica, 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Gujarat, Beslan, Ossetia, Pantai Jimbaran, Jos…” – Wat het dit met my vraag oor menswaardigheid gekoppel aan geloof te doen?

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 08:00

  395. I have not made up a single story, maby you are the one making up stories, a question of who is behind the door himself??

    Because I presumed that you never accepted Jesus as your saviour, I am a liar? I know I.m right because you do not even refute that assumption and tell us you were once a true Christian, and because I know as a Christian that you could have been nothing but a lukewarm “maybe” bliever at best, other-wise you would not be an atheist today. Am I lying again? You use words like “fruitcake” and un-“corroborated” when referring to a ex-atheist. How about the list I gave above? tear them apart and make each and everyone of them a liar.

    On the question of homosexuality. You are correct, I did say those things. My God will forgive murderers, thieves, rapists, homosexuals etc., once they have accepted Jesus as saviour, repented these sins, changed their ways and stopped doing these things. You do not get that sort of “humanity” amongst people. Still you drivel on how bad God is, if He does exist, to allow all the bad things happening on earth, notwithstanding the fact that most of the bad things were caused by ourselves.

    Grim? What is going to happen to me? The word “grim” is one I would rather not use if I were in your shoes.

    soois

    April 11, 2011 at 07:40

  396. soois, why do you feel the need to make up a bunch of lukewarm fairytales like that if you’re such an honest, upright person? Are you not able to follow a relatively simple line of reasoning, just like all the other religious twits who come and vomit their nonsense all over this blog?

    Where exactly have I made out a converted atheist to be a liar? Come on now, give a proper reference. Are you not able to comprehend that I seriously doubt your account that you gave because you keep shuffling the details around? Are you able to get it into your head that I have no problem accepting that atheists and agnostics can become believers? But when a fundie fruitcake like Lee Strobel claims to have been an atheist and this claim has never been corroborated, I choose to doubt his word, given how tatty his arguments are? Can you wrap your stunted comprehension around this simple line of reasoning?

    And how do you know that when I studied the bible I hadn’t accepted your “god,” hmm? Didn’t I caution you against making just such laughable, presumptuous and just plain wrong assertions? So why do you make up new lies about it?

    As for homosexuals, didn’t you say on April 7, 2011 at 16:49 that in your view homosexuals are as low as paedophiles when they express their tendencies (“aberration” in your own words)? Didn’t you say on April 8, 2011 at 13:39 that living out a homosexual tendency is wrong just like living out a tendency to steal, murder, rape, commit pederasty, and so on? How is the wrongness of homosexuality different and not subject to your god’s condemnation when you yourself lumped these crimes together? Or is theft and murder and rape and child molestation okay with your god?

    Are going to read that link I posted on March 22, 2011 at 14:42 describing what a scientific theory is, or are you going to continue putting your ignorance of science on display here by posting creationist drivel?

    Can you even talk sense? Because it’s looking ever more grim for you.

    Con-Tester

    April 10, 2011 at 20:17

  397. I like this: But how is a 47,000,000 year old lemur like creature” a direct connection between “us” and anything? “We” (Homo sapiens) did not exist for another 46,800,000 years after this creature.

    Maybe the name of our species should be changed to Homo hypeans.”

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 18:27

  398. Ek wonder wie se “geloof” is die grootste klomp snert.
    Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.
    But how are we supposed to respond to this, when science journalism almost every week presents us with a new finding which it tells us has “overturned everything we thought we knew”? If everything we thought we knew was overturned just last week, what is there left to overturn? Such is life in liberal society, in which there is no truth, but there must always be a truth to overturn.
    If the fossil is real, it demonstrates that an ape-like creature tens of millions of years ago had certain human-like features. It does not demonstrate THAT human beings evolved from that creature, not does it demonstrate HOW human beings evolved from that creature. Darwin’s theory of evolution does not concern the fact that more complex species have succeeded less complex species on earth; it concerns HOW this evolution occurred. As always, the Darwinian establishment dishonestly conflates the general fact of evolution, which everyone except Young Earth Creationists accepts, with the Darwinian explanation of evolution, which is not proved, using the accepted truth of the former to “prove” that the latter is also true.
    But according to the Darwinian theory of evolution, we are not only descended from primates, we are descended from bacteria, since all life on earth is descended from a single cell. Therefore, by the Darwinians’ logic, it would be just as accurate to say: ‘okay we are bacteria, show us the link’. But they don’t say that, do they?
    Note that the expression “missing link” has always been very confusing. A link, as in a link in a chain, denotes a single link in a linear series of links, so that the expression “missing link” suggests to the most people that humans are directly descended from apes, and that a species coming between our ape ancestors and ourselves is missing. But that is not the idea at all. What is really meant by the expression missing link is the missing common ancestor of apes and humans. (However, I may be wrong about that. See below discussion between Gintas and me about the meaning of missing link.) In any case, if this new species is the missing link, in the sense of transitinal form, how can it be the missing link between animals and man if it lived 43 million years before the earlier man-like creatures? Every person who calls this fossil the missing link, should immediately be asked, “what is it a missing between?” They’ll be cut short, not knowing what to say, because they have simply been repeating phrases without thinking about what the phrase means or if it makes any sense in this context.
    Let us recall that in the Age of the Dinosaurs, the only mammals were small, rodent-like creatures. The dinosaurs and many other speces were wiped out in the Cretaceous extinction about 65 million years ago. Now, if within 15-18 million years of the extinction of the dinosaurs, mere rodents had evolved into whales, horses, and even primates, then that was almost as rapid and amazing an appearance of new life forms as occurred in the Cambrian explosion of 600 million years ago, when all the marine invertebrates popped into the fossil record–out of NOTHING–within five million years. Mice evolving into whales and primates with opposable digits in 15 million years doesn’t sound like agonizingly gradual Darwinian evolution by random accidental mutation and natural selection to me, it sounds like … but I tremble at using the “C” word.
    Hurum evidently means that Darwin said that if no transitional species were found, then his theory would be disproved, and therefore Darwin would be very happy about the discovery of Ida.
    Please note, throughout the Darwinian literature, the inappropriate emotionalism and enthusaism of these supposed scientists when expressing their feelings about evolution, giving away that Darwinism is not for them a search for scientific truth, but a means of emotional fulfillment, indeed a religion. I was just reading the leading biologist and founder of sociobiology E.O. Wilson’s 1998 book Consilience last night, and in his first chapter he makes it embarrassingly clear how Darwinian evolution was a more fulfilling substitute for the Suothern Baptist religion of his youth.
    It’s the final piece of Darwin’s jigsaw! Nothing more remains to be discovered! The scientific apocalypse has arrived.
    And the proof that man is descended from apes is–what? That this 47 million year old creature had “human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes.” In other words, any resemblance between some past creature and humans proves that humans were descended from that creature. But the latter doesn’t necessarily follow from the former. It is sheer assertion. There are insects with wings. Does that prove that birds are descended from insects? Analogous organs have re-appeared over and over again in unrelated life forms. What that proves is that life uses similar structures over and over, not that the various life forms are related to each other by descent.
    Any project that involves David Attenborough–a brainlessly fanatical promoter of Darwinism–has already discredited itself.
    “serious people note that it is a ‘theory,’ one that has remarkably strong predictive power but without a proof.” This is not true. As circumstances and self-advantage dictate, the Darwinian promoters constantly veer back and forth between saying that Darwinism is just a theory with high predictive power but not proved, and saying that Darwinism is the established truth and that anyone who disagrees with it has shown that he is intellectually incompetent and even insane. In the present circumstances, you’re are seeing just the Darwinian good cop. But the Darwinian bad cop is always there as well.
    Even after having the read the New York Times article, you don’t seem to realize that the hype came from the scientists themselves. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that a scientific discovery advanced by means of such hype is already deeply suspect and compromised.
    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013227.html

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 18:26

  399. Betreurenswaardig, maar seker waar.

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 18:09

  400. Ek sluk ook maar swaar aan dié “bekerings” – honderde, duisende, gevalle is in elk geval maar ‘n verdwynende klein voorkomspersentasie.

    Nathan Bond

    April 10, 2011 at 18:04

  401. Nathan, die lys van name was nie bedoel om te bewys dat ek reg is nie, maar dat daar wel ateiste is wat tot bekering kom, hetsy uit wysheid of gekheid. Tester het die neiging om my as leuenaar uit te maak of om betrokke getuienisse as leuens uit te maak omdat hy eenvoudig nie kan, of wil glo dat ‘n ateis van mening kan verander nie.

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 17:56

  402. Soois

    Dit is futiel; niksseggend… So what!?

    Daar is geen sweempie getuienis vir die bestaan van ‘n bonatuurlike wese nie – ongeag wie wát “glo”.

    “Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.” (Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, quoted by James A Haught in “Honest Minds, Past and Present”.)

    Nathan Bond

    April 10, 2011 at 17:51

  403. List of Liars
    Mortimer J. Adler – Philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World. Agnostic convert to the Catholic Church.[3][4]
    Steve Beren – Former member of the Socialist Workers Party (United States) who became a Protestant conservative politician.[5]
    Anders Borg – Sweden’s Minister for Finance.[6]
    Paul Bourget – French author who became agnostic and positivist at 15, but returned to Catholicism at 35.[7]
    Ferdinand Brunetière – Rationalist and freethinking writer who became a Catholic.[8][9]
    Julie Burchill – British journalist and feminist.[10]
    Kirk Cameron – An American actor best-known for his role as Mike Seaver on the television situation comedy, Growing Pains, as well as several other television and film appearances as a child actor. Today he is a Protestant Evangelical. Recently, he portrayed the lead roles in the Left Behind film series and in the 2008 drama film, Fireproof.[11]
    Whittaker Chambers – Former Communist turned conservative writer.[12][13]
    Francis Collins – Geneticist who was an atheist until age 27, but then converted to Christianity.[14]
    Larry Darby – Holocaust revisionist and former member of the American Atheists.[15][16]
    Joy Davidman – Poet and wife of C. S. Lewis.[17]
    Avery Dulles – A Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was raised Presbyterian, but was an agnostic before his conversion to Catholic Christianity.[18][19]
    Dawn Eden – Rock journalist of Jewish ethnicity who went from an agnostic to a Catholic writer, who was particularly concerned with the moral values of chastity.[20][21]
    André Frossard – French journalist who was atheist, but converted to the Catholic Church in 1935.[22]
    Eugene D. Genovese – Historian who went from Stalinist to conservative theist.[23]
    Bo Giertz – Atheistic in youth he became a Lutheran bishop and writer.[24]
    Simon Greenleaf – One of the principle founders of Harvard Law School, professor of law at Harvard University and president of the Massachusetts Bible Society.[25]
    Tamsin Greig – British actress.[26]
    Nicky Gumbel – Raised atheist and became an Anglican. He is known for his work with the Alpha course.[27]
    Nina Hagen – German punk musician.[28]
    Keir Hardie – Raised atheist and became a Christian Socialist.[29]
    Anna Haycraft – Raised as a member of Britain’s Comtist and atheistic “Church of Humanity”, but became a conservative Catholic Christian in adulthood.[30]
    Ammon Hennacy – Initially an atheist labor activist he became a religious pacifist in the Atlanta Penitentiary.[31]
    Peter Hitchens – Journalist who went from Trotskyism to Traditionalist conservatism, and estranged brother of outspoken anti-theist and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens.[32][33]
    Paul Jones – Musician, of Manfred Mann. Previously atheist and in 1967 he argued with Cliff Richard about religion on a TV show.[34][35]
    Mary Karr – Memoirist and poet who switched from agnosticism to Catholicism in 1996.[36]
    Ignace Lepp – French psychiatrist whose parents were freethinkers and who joined the Communist party at age fifteen. He broke with the party in 1937 and eventually became a Catholic priest.[37]
    Félix Leseur – Doctor turned Catholic priest. His conversion, in part, came by efforts of his wife who was declared a Servant of God by the Catholic Church.[38]
    C. S. Lewis – Writer who became an atheist as a young man, later paradoxically describing himself as being “very angry with God for not existing”. He later returned to Anglicanism and wrote many books about his faith.[39]
    Arnold Lunn – A skier, mountaineer, and writer. As an agnostic he wrote Roman Converts, which took a critical view of Catholicism and the converts to it. He later converted to Catholicism due to debating with converts, and became an apologist for the faith, although he retained a few criticisms of the faith.[40]
    Gabriel Marcel – A leading Christian existentialist. His upbringing was agnostic.[41]
    Alister McGrath – Biochemist and Christian theologian. Founder of ‘Scientific theology’ and critic of Richard Dawkins in books like Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life and The Dawkins Delusion?[42][43]
    Claude McKay – Bisexual Jamaican poet who went from Communist atheist to a devout Catholic Christian.[44]
    Czesław Miłosz – Poet who won the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature.[45]
    Nina Karin Monsen – A Norwegian moral philosopher and author who grew up in a humanist family, but later convert to Christianity through philosophic thinking.[46]
    Malcolm Muggeridge – British journalist and author who went from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.[47][48]
    William J. Murray – Son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair who became a Born again preacher.[49]
    Bernard Nathanson – A founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America who dubbed himself a “Jewish atheist”, but later became a Pro-life activist within the Catholic Church.[50]
    Marvin Olasky – Former Marxist turned Christian conservative, he edits the Christian World Magazine.[51][52]
    Giovanni Papini – He went from pragmatic atheism to Catholicism, also a Fascist.[53][54]
    Joseph Pearce – An anti-Catholic and agnostic British National Front member who became a devout Catholic writer with a series on EWTN.[55][56]
    Charles Péguy – French poet, essayist, and editor. He went from agnostic humanist to a pro-Republic Catholic.[57]
    Rosalind Picard – Director of the Affective computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab. She was raised atheist, but converted to Christianity in her teens.[58]
    Enoch Powell – Conservative Party (UK) member who converted to Anglicanism.[59]
    George R. Price – Geneticist who became an Evangelical Protestant and wrote about the New Testament. Later he moderated his evangelistic tendencies and switched from religious writing to working with the homeless.[60][61]
    Gerald Priestland – News correspondent who discusses having once been the “school atheist” in Something Understood: An Autobiography. He became a Quaker after an emotional breakdown.[62]
    Michael Reiss – British bioethicist and Anglican priest.[63]
    Dame Cicely Saunders – Templeton Prize and Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize winning nurse known for palliative care. She converted to Christianity as a young woman.[64]
    E. F. Schumacher – Economic thinker known for Small Is Beautiful, his A Guide for the Perplexed criticizes what he termed “materialistic scientism.” He went from atheism to Buddhism to Catholicism.[65][66]
    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn – Nobel Prize-winning dissident author who converted to Russian Orthodoxy.[67]
    Edith Stein – Phenomenologist philosopher who converted to the Catholic Faith and became a Discalced Carmelite nun; declared a saint by John Paul II.[68]
    Peter Steele – Lead singer of Type O Negative.[69]
    John Lawson Stoddard – Divinity student turned “Scientific humanist” turned Catholic. His son Lothrop Stoddard remained agnostic and would be significant to Scientific racism.[70]
    Lee Strobel – Writer, Christian apologist, a former journalist and megachurch pastor.[71]
    Lacey Sturm – Vocalist and lyricist for alternative metal band Flyleaf.[72]
    Allen Tate – American poet, essayist and social commentator, and Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress.[73]
    Evelyn Waugh – British novelist who converted to Catholicism from agnosticism.[74]
    Simone Weil – Raised by agnostic Jewish parents, and a Marxist for a time, she became a religious mystic.[75]
    Fay Weldon – British novelist and feminist.[76]
    A. N. Wilson – Biographer and novelist who entered the theological St Stephen’s House, Oxford before proclaiming himself an atheist and writing against religion. He announced his return to Christianity in 2009.[77]
    John C. Wright – A science fiction author and libertarian atheist[78] who later converted to the Catholic Faith.[79]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 17:41

  404. By the way Tester, this almost slipped me:, “Yes, you are. By your own narrative, your stance is now that, yes, you were exposed to religion but it’s rather a question of degree. You believers always would rather make up new kak to slither past the truth than face it” – I take it you have not been exposed to religion, that you are an atheist because you’ve never heard of God before? If I was exposed to religion and an atheist, I am ok, but if I have been exposed to religion, but say I did not believe until recently, I am a liar? Great, now I understand a whole lot better.

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 17:27

  405. Tester

    “It’s called “confirmation bias.” Look it up. It’s also amply helped along its slippery way by much interpretive elbow room. In your so-called “holy” book, you can find a passage to suit just about any situation.” – True if I was looking it up. However, as I said, I just opened the bible and was given an answer, not once, not twice, but hundreds of times. By the way, look at your own words again, “…In your so-called “holy” book, you can find a passage to suit just about any situation…” – Brings me back to one of many questions I have asked without being answered: “show me the “man” that could have written such a book, one that has ‘a passage to suit just about any situation”?

    “…rabbiting on about all these alleged atheists…” – rather than trying to convince me and other readers about these converted persons being fools or whatever, you once again revert to making me/them out to be liars. Seems to me if you have no better answer, you revert back to your liar theory. Apparently you may “link” me/us to other atheists, and I/we must take their words as gospel, but the people I “link” you to are all liars.

    “The difference is that I studied it without rose-tinted glasses covering my eyes” – No, you could have studied the Bible and read it ten times throuhg, but you would never understand it unless you have accepted God. I know this, because dumb or not, I understand the Word without a days study behind me. I know a dominee who only truly found God and truly started understanding the Bible three years after his retirement (guess I will me made out a lier again).

    “…then how can your “god” possibly condemn them when he made them that way to start with, hmm?…” – Who says God will condemn homosexuals?? Homosexuals, thieves, murderers, adulterers etc. were all condemned in the Old Testament. The New Testament tells of Jesus who came to save us. Everybody would have been condemned if not for Him.

    Nathan,
    jy en Tester is goed belese manne en ek respekteer julle kennis, glo my. Ekself is maar ‘n eks Lugmagvlieenier en nou ‘n boer, maar my menswaardigheid was nog net deur ateiste aangetas, nog nooit in die geloofswereld nie. dus is dit moeilik vir my om daardie stelling in te sien.

    soois

    April 10, 2011 at 17:03

  406. soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:43):

    First of all, I am not telling lies.

    Yes, you are. By your own narrative, your stance is now that, yes, you were exposed to religion but it’s rather a question of degree. You believers always would rather make up new kak to slither past the truth than face it.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:43):

    Problem is when I seek answers and then my “brain” responds by saying “open your Bible and you will get the answer”, whereupon I do open my Bible and miraculously find the answer to my problem right there. Suddenly the brain being fooled idea does not wash anymore.

    It’s called “confirmation bias.” Look it up. It’s also amply helped along its slippery way by much interpretive elbow room. In your so-called “holy” book, you can find a passage to suit just about any situation. Part of your mental disorder is that you see that as a virtue.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:43):

    Nonetheless, is it really that important whether I became a Christian out of an atheist backround or whether I became a Christian after seeking God?

    Not so much to me. I think it’s tragic the one way and completely idiotic the other. But it’s you who seems to think it’s important because you keep rabbiting on about all these alleged atheists who supposedly turn to your god.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    Let us leave my “kak” comments there.

    No, let’s not. Let’s expose how kak they are.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    I am wise enough to know I am not all that intelligent and probably quite dumb by your standards.

    And yet, ostensibly recognising that, you just won’t engage seriously with what I bring to your attention. You just keep on making up new kak as a distraction. Very, um, admirable of you.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    I keep on trying to give other peoples testimony for the simple reason that my testimony are made out to be lies.

    But your testimony is a pack of lies. A lie doesn’t have to be a conscious deceit to be a lie. It just has to fail to accord with reality. Your “god” fails to accord with reality. Ergo, it’s a lie, no matter how hard you believe it or how prettily you dress it up.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    The best proof of the truth is the Bible itself.

    No, it isn’t. That’s another one of your funny fantasies. The best proof of the truth is the truth itself, as evidenced by testable reality.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    I am often reminded that you guys actually gnow the Bible, but have you ever actually studied it?

    Yes. The difference is that I studied it without rose-tinted glasses covering my eyes.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    The way it was written over centuries, referring to the future, other times to the past, cross referencing etc.

    More of that confirmation bias and assorted other cognitive misalignments showing through there, sport.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 14:51):

    Show me the man that could [write] such a book and I will show you God.

    If you like, I could show you a drawing of a bunch of smoked-up Bronze Age goatherds with vivid imaginations.

    soois wrote (April 9, 2011 at 10:28):

    My meaning was that some homosexuals were born that way and that it is in fact not a curable disease.

    Okay, then I took the wrong meaning from your comment.

    soois wrote (April 9, 2011 at 10:31):

    As for raping facts, youre telling me people choose to be homosexuals?

    No, that’s the meaning I took from your comment. But here’s a question for you: If you agree that homosexuals have the sexual preferences they do because those preferences are part of their nature like their eye colour, then how can your “god” possibly condemn them when he made them that way to start with, hmm? Do try to give a cogent answer here because I will vigorously pursue this point with you. I strongly recommend that you think very carefully before throwing some made-up BS out there because you will be called on it.

    soois wrote (April 9, 2011 at 11:31):

    The main thing is however, does God exist or not?

    There is scarce evidence that he does. There are masses of evidence that indicate not.

    soois wrote (April 9, 2011 at 11:31):

    [W]e cannot proof His existence.

    Yes, we can, at least in principle. Define him functionally and he becomes a testable/falsifiable hypothesis. But it’s a valuable stunt in the believers’ bag of tricks that they will never give such a functional definition so that we can also never know what we’re really talking about, and that the believers can keep shifting the goalposts. It’s just another humdrum facet of their intellectual shenanigans. While they think it makes them very clever, in truth it makes them even more of a joke than they would otherwise be.

    soois wrote (April 9, 2011 at 11:31):

    You are the ones that can gain or lose.

    Oh, please. Do try not to use fear and intimidation as a motivator. Instead, try to address the arguments that have been put before you — not with biblical quotes, not with unproven assumptions, not with what you’d like to be true, not with standard three confabulations, but with demonstrable facts and/or consequent, logical reasoning based on such facts.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2011 at 23:11

  407. Srebrenica, 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Gujarat, Beslan, Ossetia, Pantai Jimbaran, Jos… Wil jy perdalkies nog ‘n verskoning vir ‘n straaltjie piepie, soois?

    Nathan Bond

    April 9, 2011 at 15:20

  408. Menswaardigheid??? Fok, ek dog ek het met intelligente mense te doen. Nietemin, ek het my straaltjie gepiepie,

    groete aan almal.

    soois

    April 9, 2011 at 14:51

  409. Godsk! As ek Pascal’s Wager nog een maal moet teëkom!!

    Is godiote oor absoluut niks anders as die bepaalde Palestynse mitologie kundig nie!?

    Kom ons glo sommer in al die derduidende gode wat ooit was – as hulle nie bestaan nie, wat verloor ons?

    Wat verloor ons?

    Heelwat.

    Menswaardigheid is ‘n enkele slagoffer.

    Nathan Bond

    April 9, 2011 at 11:37

  410. Anyway, there are lots of subjects within Christianity that we can discuss or “debate” over.

    The main thing is however, does God exist or not? The atheist reasons that he/she needs proof, therefore God must reveal Himself or the poor Christian must try to proof God’s existence. The sad truth is that, and I believe the atheists will for once agree with me, we cannot proof His existence.

    The reason however is simple and in His own words: “Seek Me and I will reveal Myself to you”. I reckon His thinking is, quite human actually, “I created you, and therefore you shall seek Me, not Me you”.

    I have found this to be true. Make me a liar if you will, I say again, I have nothing to lose or gain by convincing you. You are the ones that can gain or lose. Funny thing is, if you actually seek Him and He does not exist, you have lost nothing, but if you chooese not to try and find Him, and He does exist, you have lost everything.

    soois

    April 9, 2011 at 11:31

  411. As for raping facts, youre telling me people choose to be homosexuals? References? Any qualified psychologist.

    soois

    April 9, 2011 at 10:31

  412. Tester, I must have missed your part about homosexuality. Maby my word “klinies” was the wrong one (I am unfortunately not a walking dictionary). My meaning was that some homosexuals were born that way and that it is in fact not a curable disease. My apologies for my poor choice of words.

    soois

    April 9, 2011 at 10:28

  413. wright should be write (my spelling sucks)

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 17:20

  414. Let us leave my “kak” comments there. I am wise enough to know I am not all that intelligent and probably quite dumb by your standards.

    I keep on trying to give other peoples testimony for the simple reason that my testimony are made out to be lies.

    The best proof of the truth is the Bible itself. I am often reminded that you guys actually gnow the Bible, but have you ever actually studied it? The way it was written over centuries, referring to the future, other times to the past, cross referencing etc. Show me the man that could wright such a book and I will show you God.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 14:51

  415. First of all, I am not telling lies.

    As for your comment on the fact that the human brain can be fooled. Totally true. Problem is when I seek answers and then my “brain” responds by saying “open your Bible and you will get the answer”, whereupon I do open my Bible and miraculously find the answer to my problem right there. Suddenly the brain being fooled idea does not wash anymore.

    No, my parents were not atheists, but I did not grow up religiously. As a grown up I never went to church or read the Bible or even think of religion. I simply did not believe. Nonetheless, is it really that important whether I became a Christian out of an atheist backround or whether I became a Christian after seeking God? Seems to me that we are argueing for the sake of not agreeing, rather than having a discussion about a very interesting subject.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 14:43

  416. soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 13:16):

    I do not doubt His existence even a little, as I have written before and you might have missed it, I have met Jesus personally and have an ongoing relationship with Him. How can I have doubts?

    I didn’t miss it, but see, that’s exactly where the problem lies: As far as you’re concerned, it is utterly impossible that you can be mistaken. Yet, there is no end to the list of things about which the human brain can be fooled about. As Nietzsche said, “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith is evidence of nothing” (or something like that). Still, you, along with every other believer, steadfastly maintain your Absolute Truth That Cannot Be Wrong™. There is no evidence that can possibly persuade you of even the possibility of a misapprehension on your part. How pathetically arrogant of you! At least atheists make room for the possibility that they might be wrong, and will readily change their minds given adequate reason and evidence.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 13:16):

    … I did not grow up religious … I grew up without [religion] and then embraced it.

    So your parents were all atheists, were they? And religion didn’t feature in your formative years, did it? And you later found “god” all by yourself, did you? The balance of probabilities weighs very heavily against you on this. Not that it should bother you in any way, of course, but I think you’re telling lies again.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 13:16):

    [S]adly, the evidence only comes into ones life after you have given your heart and soul to Him.

    Yeah, I know. That’s what all delusionals say about their own favourite delusion: “You have to believe it to see it.” It’s a splendid thing, then, that science and jurisprudence don’t work along the same lines, otherwise we’d still be living in very much darker times.

    soois wrote (April 8, 2011 at 13:16):

    You actually “spoke” to me albeit with a few belittleing comments.

    I’ve been speaking to you all along, albeit with a few belittling comments. It’s like that only in response to something else you believers are evidently not able to see, namely that your ongoing avoidance of properly and seriously engaging with any atheist’s arguments is the initial and more subtle belittlement. Thus, it is actually believers who start with the belittlement, though it is directly implied rather than overt. Having heard all of your stale, putrid “arguments” before, I’m just more open and honest about calling it what it really is than any believer ever was, that’s all. As said in an earlier comment, you offer no cogent argument or reason or evidence to defend your position. Nor can you. You can only make up new stories and compound your kakstories in an attempt to deflect attention away from just how shaky your position is, and that insults everyone’s intelligence, not least your own.

    I’ll say it again: When you decide to start talking sense, I’ll start responding more politely. It’s up to you.

    Con-Tester

    April 8, 2011 at 14:21

  417. Matt 19:12 Daar is mense wat nie kan trou nie omdat hulle van hulle geboorte af so is, ander is deur mense so gemaak, en ander het self so gekies ter wille van die koninkryk van die hemel.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 13:45

  418. Wat jou Ted Haggard verwysing betref. Lees weer my gedeelte oor homoseksualisme. Daar is en was nog altyd homoseksualisme, en om die neiging te he is opsigself nie verkeerd nie, maar die uitleef daarvan is verkeerd, net soos die uitleef van ‘n neiging om te steel, ‘n neiging om te moor, ‘n neiging om te verkrag, ‘n neiging om kinders seksueel te sien ens. ens. Hoekom was so baie ooms en tannies in die ou dae oujongkerels en oujongnooiens? Omdat hulle die homo-drange gehad het, maar daardie jare was dit taboe, het hulle dus maar alleen gebly. Trouens die Bybel verwys op ‘n vraag oor die huwelik: “dat dit vir party mense beter is om ongetroud te bly, omdat dit in hulle aard is, of omdat hulle so gemaak is deur ander”. Dus is daar baie Christene wat ook homoseksueel is, maar nie mag toegee aan daardie drange nie. Party swig en val. Is hulle verlore? Natuurlik nie, mits hulle hulle sondes berou, belei en vergifnis vra. As jy dink ek dink ek is rein, maak jy ‘n groot fout. Ek moet gereeld versoening met Hom doen.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 13:39

  419. Terloops Rick, jy verwys na “moffies”, ek verwys na “gays” Wie is sonder respek. Ek of jy?

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 13:27

  420. Rick,
    so nekrofiele (mense wat met lyke of diere seks het) is oraait, want hulle verwoes nie lewens nie. Dink jy dit is normaal om met jou eie geslag te verkeer?

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 13:23

  421. Tester wrote: “skydaddy up there with a scorecard ” – you cannot score points, but you can reject the everlasting life He offers, “diminishes uncertainty and responsibility” – uncertainty yes, responsibility no, where a non-believer has only himself to answer to, the believer has God from whom he cannot hide, “believers are absolutely petrified that their fantasy is indeed a fantasy — so much so that they’re not even honest enough to admit the possibility that they just might just be wrong and go on to tell any number of lies to avoid facing that prospect” – I do not doubt His existence even a little, as I have written before and you might have missed it, I have met Jesus personally and have an ongoing relationship with Him. How can I have doubts?, “You grew up being spoonfed this hooey from infancy and it is inconceivable that your parents sold you a line, just like their parents did them, and so on” – not true, I did not grow up religious, ““Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – sadly, the evidence only comes into ones life after you have given your heart and soul to Him. Extraordinary evidence also seems absent in many so-called scientific beliefs.

    Must say, I enjoyed this last response from you more. You actually “spoke” to me albeit with a few belittleing comments. Seems you grew up with religion and abandoned it, while I grew up without it and then embraced it.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 13:16

  422. soois wrote (April 7, 2011 at 16:49):

    Die sielkundiges het bevind dat homoseksualiteit klinies of aangeleer is.

    (Presumably, ‘klinies’ — clinical — in this context means that homosexuality is like a curable disorder, or a syndrome.)

    It is not unexpected that we are faced with such a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. No reference is provided. No, psychologists haven’t found any such thing. Not even remotely. Cooking up such lamebrain fables is what faith does to avoid the truth. Repeatedly. And it feels no shame at all about raping the facts.

    Con-Tester

    April 8, 2011 at 11:56

  423. Ja Soois, en jy is klinies heteroseksueel, so what?! Waarom is gelowiges altyd so gepla met moffies? Dalk omdat daar nog ‘n hele paar Ted Haggard’s onder julle geledere is?

    Die moffie kla nie oor jou sekslewe en leefstyl nie, wat’s jou probleem met syne? Moerse, moerse arrogant en disrespekvol van jou om ‘n gays as ‘laag’ te bestempel!

    ‘n Pedofiel, ongeag sy redes of motivering, is gevaarlik en verwoes lewens. Wat doen gays aan jou?

    Wat Hitchens betref: Natuurlik glo hy nie in God nie, maar in sekere gedeeltes van sy boek spreek hy God aan asof hy bestaan en beeld dan uit hoe absurd (en immoreel!) dit is om in hierdie God te glo.

    Rick

    April 8, 2011 at 10:46

  424. soois, so you’re saying that the word “soul” describes a combination of a certain minimum intellect together with a subset of the behaviours we learn from our parents and our peers that contribute towards setting humans apart from most animals, namely caring for one another, a sense of right and wrong and seeking this “god” thing (whatever that might be). I can live with that and I am heartened to see that you don’t encumber the word with silly notions like immortality or transcendence or immanence, etc.

    Typically and predictably, however, after that promising start, you totally misrepresent the atheist position. This is the result of not reading what is right in front of you, i.e. this blog’s entries and their comments. It is not atheists who are afraid of the truth; it is believers. As an atheist, I would be deliriously happy to find that there really is a skydaddy up there with a scorecard and some stern love looking after me and that there’s life after death, and I’m reasonably sure that most other atheists feel the same way about this fantasy. I would be happy to find that out for certain because it diminishes uncertainty and responsibility. On the other hand, believers are absolutely petrified that their fantasy is indeed a fantasy — so much so that they’re not even honest enough to admit the possibility that they just might just be wrong and go on to tell any number of lies to avoid facing that prospect. You grew up being spoonfed this hooey from infancy and it is inconceivable that your parents sold you a line, just like their parents did them, and so on.

    Like most of the atheists posting on this blog, I was once a believer, albeit in a different, older and more widespread tradition than yours. (If numbers count for anything, then your beliefs are already dead in the water.) Now don’t go saying shit like, “You were never a True Believer™ to start with” or, “You never knew god/the holy spirit/whatever,” or something similarly asinine, see? While it may make you feel good to think like that, it’s laughable, presumptuous and simply wrong. I believed as much then as you obviously do now. Then I grew up. I read and studied and thought and learned. I read more and studied more and learned more and thought some more. And the funny thing is that the more I engaged in those activities, the clearer it became just how absurdly ridiculous this whole personal creator god idea really is. I eventually rejected it for the childish fable that it is.

    Carl Sagan said it best: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” There is no claim — none, zip, nada, zilch, nary a one — more extraordinary than the existence of a personal creator god who is omnipotent, omniscient, supremely benevolent and all the other wonderful perfections believers usually ascribe to this proposed entity. It is in fact a fundamentally incomprehensible idea ab initio because it is fraught with nonsense and internal contradictions. But you believers cannot muster any evidence whatsoever to substantiate this most remarkable of all claims. You cannot marshal any convincing argument whatsoever that establishes your beliefs as fact. Instead, you have your so-called “holy” book, your “mysterious ways,” your testimonials and anecdotes, your pretences to solemn profundity, your endless repetitions, your ad populum and your ad ignorantiam excuses. All too often, your kind claims to respect science, yet you fervently punt the single most antiscientific ideas mankind has ever been faced with, and in the most antiscientific ways, too. You cherry-pick those facts that readily lend themselves to being distorted towards your own ends, and regularly do this with ignorant abandon. You are incapable of recognising that if things were as simple and straightforward as you make them out to be, we would not be having this little talk because we would all be convinced and in agreement.

    In short, you believers have no case at all and nor do you have the balls or the honesty to face that reality, and that is why you are all such a dangerous joke.

    Con-Tester

    April 8, 2011 at 10:22

  425. “Vreet stront. ‘n Duisend vlieë kan nie verkeerd wees nie.” ~ Breyten

    Nathan Bond

    April 8, 2011 at 08:34

  426. By the way, abovementioned pieces has “links”, www rationalchristianity net/testimonies/ as well as www answersingenesis org /docs/304 asp, but everytime I posted with them included I got the following message: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 08:34

  427. I can go on and on about atheists who through actually doing research found the Bible truth, like:

    Hard-core atheists/anti-Christians
    1. G. Zeinelde Jordan – Conversion of an active atheist and member of American Atheists
    2. Josh McDowell
    3. A.S.A. Jones – A “devout atheist for over twenty years” finds there is worth in the Bible
    4. Rev. R. G. Rindfuss – Atheist who tried to “free people from religious slavery” goes to church and later becomes a minister.

    Everytime Tester will doubt whether these atheists were in fact atheists. I can come up with at least 21 great scientist who believe the Bible to be true

    Tester will probably tell me that they were not real scientists.

    You see, Tester does not want the truth, he wants religion to be a hoax, because he is afraid of the truth. I too had a choice before I found GOD (yes, Tester is going to say that Soois was always a believer), I could try to find God or I could disregard the possibility of His existence. I gave Him a chance and I found Him, therefore nothing said on this blog can make my faith die. If I did not have a personal relationship with Him, I guess it would be easy not to believe.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 08:27

  428. What is it that makes us different than animals? Apart from our superior intelligence that makes us figure things out and give us the ability to make life easier etc?
    What is it that give us morality, that prevent us from being cruel (yes, many human beings are cruel, but the majority have morals)? What is it that makes most humans seek some or other god or godly figure? Even savages on remote islands create gods to worship. Animals do not seek gods. I guess that is our souls, everything that makes us different from animals.

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 08:21

  429. Yeah, bring on the testimonials, that old fallback when reason and evidence fail to establish what the proponent wishes were true. More of that impressive “expert substance.”

    What is a “soul,” soois? Can you give a rigorous functional definition of this thing so that we can reliably establish its presence or absence? I’ve asked Hanswors the same question several times before but his “expert substance” deserted him every time. Maybe you can clear up the meaning of this word that believers just love to bandy about but which has no clear real-world referent. Go on, give it a shot at least.

    Con-Tester

    April 8, 2011 at 08:11

  430. I became a Christian again during my last year of college. After years of wrestling with God and doubting his existence, I had an intense, spiritual epiphany that seemed to change my life instantly. The following day, though it sounds hokey to say so, the grass looked greener, the sky bluer. Ordering coffee that day from a complete stranger, I nearly burst into tears. This is another child of God! I thought to myself. What a shame I’m handing her cash instead of praising God with her.

    That moment was unlike any I’ve ever since experienced. Suddenly, and without words, I knew that God had said to me, I AM. Nothing more, just I AM. With those words, God told me that he cared enough about me to reveal just this little bit about himself. I AM. It answered none of my questions and gave no explanation for God’s five-year absence in my life. But those words were enough. I could say with Peter, “You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

    There were a number of people through whom God worked before that revelation. Yet the biggest influence on my spiritual journey was the novels and philosophy of Albert Camus, a French existentialist of the 1940s and ’50s—and an atheist. C. S. Lewis warned, “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” Camus should have been safe territory for me, but as I like to say now, I was saved by an atheist.

    Atheist Morality

    “If there were no God, there would be no atheists,” said G. K. Chesterton. My own period of doubt came not because the idea of God or miracles seemed wrong, but because God himself wronged me. That’s how I saw it, at least. Though atheists may argue that the existence of a supreme being is impossible, their arguments often reveal a belief that God just doesn’t behave as they think he should. In a debate, Christopher Hitchens complained about war and killing in the Old Testament. He said he wrote his book God Is Not Great in response to the murders in Muslim countries that followed the publishing of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. None of these are arguments against God’s existence, but rather arguments against how God and especially his followers act.

    That is why traditional atheism is a highly moral philosophy, and one worthy of respect, even while we strongly disagree with it. In his book The Twilight of Atheism, Alister McGrath describes the atheism that emerged during the Enlightenment as “one of the greatest achievements of the human intellect, capable of capturing the imagination of generations.” Lewis shared the same respect for this godless tradition. Introducing one of his tutors, Kirkpatrick, in Surprised by Joy, Lewis calls him an atheist, but hastens to qualify the description: “He was a ‘Rationalist’ of the old, high and dry nineteenth-century type. For Atheism has come down in the world since those days.” In his science fiction novel That Hideous Strength, Lewis developed a character based on Kirkpatrick and included him among a small group working to save the world from evil. Maybe Lewis simply harbored fondness for his teacher, but I suspect he saw some spiritual hope in the old man’s atheism.

    Such hope is not misplaced. Timothy Larsen, professor of history at Wheaton College and author of Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England, says he has come to see doubt as a way in which we take our faith seriously: “If you haven’t doubted, you haven’t re-owned your faith.” Many Victorian atheists, Larsen discovered, converted back to Christianity. “Some actually are really trying to answer questions. That’s why they sound so angry,” he says. “They’re in a struggle for their own soul.”

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/august/28.40.html

    soois

    April 8, 2011 at 07:25

  431. Don’t bother watching the video soois linked to. Lee Strobel is a creationist, a pastor and a biblical literalist, which means, as a matter of course, that he’s completely out of touch with reality and easily prone to all sorts of fantasies. All we have is his own word that he was an atheist. Nowhere in his video does he present anything even approaching credible evidence for his BS. It’s just the same stale, brain-dead nonsense we’ve seen regurgitated by believers time and time again.

    soois, owing to their extreme confabulations, the rest of your comments are worthy of the following brief reply:
    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2011 at 22:34

  432. Ateïste is geneig om te aanvaar, of om voor te hou, dat die gelowige mens om die een of ander rede minder van die lewe kan geniet, of ervaar, as die nie-gelowige of ateïs. Waar kry hulle daardie idee? Wat is daar wat die gelowige nie kan of mag geniet nie? Die enigste dinge waarvan ek bewus is wat vir die gelowige taboe is, is in elk geval immorele dinge wat ek glo selfs vir die nie-gelowige onaanvaarbaar is, soos diefstal, moord, bedrog, m.a.w misdaad.
    Die enigste “plesiertjies” wat ek kan bytel wat vir die gelowige ondenkbaar is, is seksuele losbandigheid, let wel, “losbandigheid”. Dit weerhou nie die gelowige om wel seks te geniet met die een wat hy/sy liefhet nie, mits daardie een van die teenoorgestelde geslag is. Dit bring my by homoseksualiteit. Die sielkundiges het bevind dat homoseksualiteit klinies of aangeleer is. Klinies deurdat die persoon so gebore is, of aangeleer weens gebeure in so ‘n person se verlede. Dieselfde sielkundiges het ook bevind dat pedofiele daar is weens kliniese of aangeleerde redes. Klinies, deurdat hulle van nature so is, of aangeleer weens molestering in hulle verlede. ‘n Pedofiel is ‘n lae gemene gemors wat in die tronk hoort as hy/sy ‘n kind sou molesteer, maar ‘n homoseksueel mag maar sy/haar afwyking uitleef. Wat my aanbetref is albei gevalle ewe laag in die gemeenskap, nie deurdat hulle die afwyking het nie, maar wanneer hulle die afwyking uitleef.
    Wie is die person/persone wat ons met godsdiens mislei, en wat kry hulle/hy/sy daaruit? Hulle/hy/sy moet dieselfde standaarde handhaaf in ruil waarvoor? Deur as ateïs voor te gee dat daar “Iemand” is wat voordeel trek, is om te erken dat daar ‘n God is. Wie anders kan voordeel trek uit ‘n wêreldwye Christendom?
    Ek as Christen vind dat ek nie minder uit die lewe kry as nie-gelowiges nie, trouens, ek dink ek het meer uit die lewe. Dit wat nou is en die vooruitsig van ‘n lewe hierna. Ek wonder waarvoor vrees julle wat nie glo nie? Hoekom so baie moeite doen om oortuiging te verkry dat HY nie bestaan nie? Wie wil julle oortuig, my, of julleself?

    soois

    April 7, 2011 at 16:49

  433. Terloops, ek glo nie een van julle ateiste het die moeite gedoen om my “link” te volg en die video te kyk nie. Te bang die ou se dalk iets wat julle nie kan weerle nie, maar dit is die tweede geval in ‘n kort tydjie waar ek gevind het as ‘n ongelowige “actually” die moeite doen en navorsing doen, hy tot die waarheid kom. Meeste van julle is egoiste en te kak bang julle was dalk verkeerd. Ignoreer dus maar liewer die “links” en so aan.

    soois

    April 7, 2011 at 16:05

  434. Ek weet nie ou Rick, jy kan met GOD debatteer as jy wil. Gaan jou gat sien, maar probeer maar. Ek is baie gelukkig waar ek is.

    Groete

    soois

    April 7, 2011 at 16:02

  435. Soois, dink jy nie hierdie ‘feit’ dat Jesus gesterf het, sommer so weer opgestaan het, opgevaar het na die hemel en aan God se regterhand gaan sit het, en dat diegene wat in hierdie boskak glo gered sal word en diegene wat dit verwerp ewige hel gaan ervaar, óók oop vir debat behoort te wees nie?? Enige regdenke persoon behoort mos hierdie storie met ‘n knippie sout te vat voordat hy/sy dit wyd en syd as feit verkondig, of hoe?

    Rick

    April 7, 2011 at 15:42

  436. Hardcore atheist turns Christian after 2 years of research and undeniable evidence!! WOW!! MUST SEE!!!

    IF YOU DARE

    http://www.viddler.com/explore/Jude3/videos/11/

    soois

    April 7, 2011 at 15:02

  437. Still the “expert,” I see, only now with added powers of fabrication and a liberal sprinkling of wisdom ad populum. “Substance,” indeed! It’ll make your eyes water.😆

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2011 at 14:32

  438. ErickV,
    dankie vir die “link”.
    Tonnelvisie is die eerste woord wat by my opkom.

    soois

    April 7, 2011 at 12:31

  439. Rick, miskien het jy my verkeerd verstaan, of miskien het ek myself verkeerd uitgedruk.
    As ek se dat iets debatteerbaar is, dan se ek as Christen dat daar baie daaroor gepraat kan word en dat daar baie sienswyses is wat interessant is, en dat ek geensins dink my afleidings is noodwendig die korrekte nie, maar dat dit nie ons redding bepaal nie. Wat ons redding bepaal is dat Jesus vir ons gesterf het en is vir enige gelowige ‘n feit. Nie my besluit nie, maar algemeen onder gelowiges.

    soois

    April 7, 2011 at 12:19

  440. Soois, ek stem saam met Tester hier.

    Jesus se wederkoms is oop vir debat, maar daarteenoor is dit ‘n feit dat hy vir ons sonders gesterf het en dat diegene wat in hierdie boskak glo gered gaan word.

    Hoe bemagtig jy jouself om te besluit wat debatteerbaar is en wat feit is?

    Rick

    April 6, 2011 at 14:40

  441. soois, everything you say in your first paragraph about my comments applies just as much to yours. As for having the last say, if that’s what you think this is about then that’s another symptom of your juvenile delusions. It’s about opposing this stream of utter drivel you believers keep spouting by pointing out its daftness. As long as you keep talking the dim-witted kak we have come to expect from you, I’ll comment on it. When you decide to start talking sense, you can start expecting my support. Moreover, you clearly want to have the last say on the issue at hand.

    As for the rest of your comment, you display the believer’s oh-so-common knack for misunderstanding or distorting what was written. On the one hand, you bemoan that your infantile brethren put themselves forward as “experts” on this or that childish notion. In the very next breath you do exactly the same thing you profess to disdain by proclaiming — with considerable put-on authority — what the important things are that matter. Either you are not capable of seeing your own presumption or you wish now to deny it, adding hypocrisy to your sorely deficient reasoning capacity. Logic just isn’t your strong suit, is it?

    Con-Tester

    April 6, 2011 at 11:12

  442. Soois/Hans

    Gaan kyk na die volgende:
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

    Daar sal julle sien hoe belaglik die Bybel is!
    Hier word die King James vertaling gebruik.

    Ek wonder nou net wat se verskonings gaan julle gebruik oor al die teenstrydighede en ander belaglikhede!

    ErickV

    April 6, 2011 at 10:58

  443. Con-tester,
    Unless you did not notice, I have ignored your comments of late as they are without substance and I became aware of the fact that you are the tipical “I want to have the last say” kind of person.

    However, on your latest comment the following:
    For an obvious self-proclaimed language expert you have a disturbing knack for either misunderstanding what was written in Afrikaans, or simply bending whatever was meant. If you in fact did understand Afrikaans, you would have noticed that I did not put myself out there as an expert, instead I said that Christians have a tendency to believe that they are the experts regarding the Second Coming of Christ. Also, I said that this is a nice subject for debate, but is not as important as the fact that Jesus did pay for our sins and that this means that everyone accepting Him as Saviour will be saved.

    soois

    April 6, 2011 at 10:48

  444. soois wrote (April 6, 2011 at 09:18):

    Christene verskil … want elkeen reken dat hy die “expert” … is.

    That was going along really splendidly right up until this bit of folderol : “Wat saak maak is dat dat Jesus vir ons gesterf het en dat die wat Hom as Verlosser aanneem, wel gered is.

    Notice please how it blatantly contradicts that which the cited assertion implies. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves yet another self-styled “expert.” I ask that you kindly welcome him with a warm round of applause (and try to ignore your smarting hands from all this clapping). It’s like a pandemic: more “experts” than you can shake a crossed stick at! Consistency, coherence and rigorous reasoning are again shown not to be among faith’s more prominent characteristics. But whatever. The abovementioned still means that four out of five people on Earth are fucked in the hereafter and that the fifth will struggle to find agreement with his counterpart in a different quintet.
    😆 Once more the juvenile “logic” of believers is revealed for the ridiculous farce that it is.😆

    Con-Tester

    April 6, 2011 at 09:52

  445. Hans,
    ek kan seker jou per e-pos kontak, maar dan sit ons weer net met nog ‘n debat. Christene verskil oor die wederkoms, want elkeen reken dat hy die “expert” in die verband is. Soos ek en Daan reeds saamgestem het, dit maak eintlik nie saak nie. Wat saak maak is dat dat Jesus vir ons gesterf het en dat die wat Hom as Verlosser aanneem, wel gered is. Punt.

    soois

    April 6, 2011 at 09:18

  446. Hanswors, you can’t refute anything I say about Mickey Mouse. You’re missing out there, you know. You aren’t even able to see the message I’m giving you. All you can do is carry on like a stuck record with the same lame story.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2011 at 21:25

  447. Nathan, I also do agree with you that certain idea’s of many so called Christians are idiotic.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2011 at 21:22

  448. Clearly religion deprives you of “writes,” Hanswors, specifically the correct ones. Skip your so-called “holy” book and let’s discuss Mickey Mouse instead. Let’s see if you can refute what I say about him. Let’s see if you can read it “spiritually” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be).

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2011 at 21:18

  449. Con-Tester, you can’t refute anything I say about the Bible.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2011 at 21:16

  450. Soois, ek stel voor, dat jy my e-pos adres by Nathan kry en dan kan ons oor ons verskille, per e-pos gesels. Daar heers groot verwarring onder Christenne oor die Wederkoms.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2011 at 21:15

  451. McBrollocks, the religion Christ brought about does not deprive woman of writes, but of course you would not understand that as the Bible is still a mystery to you and also to many so called Christians.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2011 at 20:57

  452. Quite.

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2011 at 20:49

  453. Godsk!

    Nathan Bond

    March 31, 2011 at 20:16

  454. Nee-wat Nathan, jy gaan my geen guns doen om my goed genoeg te ag vir ‘n geselsie nie. Ek is die een wat jou en jou gevolg ‘n geweldige guns wou doen deur met julle te kommunikeer. Soos ek reeds gespreek het, jy kan ‘n perd…

    soois

    March 31, 2011 at 20:10

  455. Soois

    Jy nog baie leeswerk voor ons kan praat. Verskoon my arrogansie, maar ek is gatvol dieselfde paadjie loop met elke godioot wat hier op TART aankom.

    Nathan Bond

    March 31, 2011 at 17:49

  456. I hate to say, “I told you so,” but…

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2011 at 13:33

  457. Skuus, “vaticinia” is seker die meervoudsvorm.

    Groete

    soois

    March 31, 2011 at 13:16

  458. En o ja Nathan, ek dink jy bedoel “vaticinium ex eventu” wat beteken om na die voorval reeds gebeur het dit te voorspel. Feit is, die “storieboek” is duisende jare gelede reeds geskryf. Selfs jou slim wetenskaplikes weet dit.

    soois

    March 31, 2011 at 13:14

  459. Bliksem, dan het die ouens wat daardie “storieboek” geskryf het, raak geraai. Ek glo liewer in dit as onbewysde teoriee.

    soois

    March 31, 2011 at 13:11

  460. No need to involve word-of-mouth here, Nathan. They wouldn’t believe you or their dominee / pastoor / leraar / primary caregiver anyway, and will just make up more fairytales to try covering up the fact that it’s fairytales all the way down (to adapt an old lady’s saying) — even if you do point them at an impeccable source. As I said, it’s good that they don’t get paid for spouting these floods of unsustainable and uninformed drivel.

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2011 at 09:56

  461. Soois

    Daar bestaan nie iets soos “professie” nie.

    Vra jou dominee / pastoor / leraar / “primary caregiver” na die term “vaticinia ex eventu”.

    Soois, die Bybel is net ‘n storieboek. ‘n Pragtige sorieboek, maar nét ‘n storieboek.

    Nathan Bond

    March 31, 2011 at 09:36

  462. Iets interressants het my opgeval.
    Party ouens kom met teoriee wat wetenskaplik teoreties korrek behoort te wees, maar nog nie bewys is nie, en glo daarin asof hulle lewens daarvan afhang. Dan kom die gelowige ou, hy noem voorbeelde waar dinge in die Bybel voorspel is en wel toe later gebeur het (ons het die luukse dat baie dinge wat toe die Bybel geskryf is nog in die toekoms was, in ons tyd die geskiedenis is en dus geboekstaaf kan word), maar dit word as nonsens afgemaak. Sover ek kan vasstel, word daar aanmekaar bewyse gevra, maar die enigste ouens wat iets kon bewys, was die Christene.
    Wys jou, jy kan ‘n perd tot by die water bring, maar jy kan hom nie maak drink nie.

    soois

    March 31, 2011 at 09:18

  463. Jirre, it’s a bonus that we don’t pay believers for talking their kak, hey? If we did, we’d very soon bankrupt the country.

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2011 at 08:25

  464. Note:
    Abovementioned piece was copied directly from a piece written by Harold Camping of Family Radio. I do not believe in his mention of the date May 21, 2011, but that gay pride is one of the signs of the times, is a fact.

    believer

    March 31, 2011 at 07:27

  465. Signs of the times

    The world-wide success of the Gay Pride/Same Sex
    Marriage movement is a dramatic sign provided by God to warn
    the world that the world is on the threshold of Judgment Day.
    In the Bible God has given a number of signs to warn the
    world that Judgment Day and the end of the world are very close.
    For example:
    1. The nation of Israel was destroyed by the Romans in
    the year 70 A.D. As a consequence, for more than 1,800
    years it did not exist as a nation. Nor did it have its own
    homeland. But then in 1948, almost miraculously, it
    became a nation with its own homeland. God planned
    this event for many reasons. One was to demonstrate that
    the world is getting near its end (Matthew 24:32,33).
    2. The rise of the Charismatic Movement, that began
    several decades ago and has spread like wildfire throughout
    the world into so many churches (Matthew 24:24;
    Revelation13:13,14), is another sign that God has given
    that indicates we are very close to the end.
    3. The great spiritual decay that can be seen in most
    churches (1 Peter 4:17, Jeremiah 25:28,29) is another sign
    that God has given.
    4. Another sign is given by God’s words in 1
    Thessalonians 5. There God warns that there will be a time
    when there will be true believers who will know from the
    Bible the time of the Day of Judgment. But a great many
    others who have the Bible will insist He will come as a
    thief in the night – that is, we cannot know the time.
    In our day if any person who is a member of a
    church is asked, “Do you know when Christ is coming?” the
    answer that will usually be given is, “The Bible says we
    cannot know. Jesus is coming as a thief in the night.” If the
    questioner then asks, “Are you ready to meet Him whenever
    He comes?” the usual answer that is given is, “Yes, I
    am saved. I am ready to meet Him whenever He comes.”
    Effectively they have said, “Christ is coming as a thief in the
    night but I am safely at peace with God because I am
    saved.
    This response is exactly the sign God has given in
    the Bible that assures us that Judgment Day is almost
    here. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-6 God warns:
    For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the
    Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they
    shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction
    cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with
    child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are
    not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as
    a thief. ye are all the children of light, and the children
    of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
    Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us
    watch and be sober.
    For those who are not watching Christ gives the
    frightening warning that He will come as a thief. Sudden
    destruction will come upon them (the Day of Judgment).
    In Revelation 3:3 God informs us:” …If therefore, thou
    shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and
    thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon
    thee.” To watch means to search through the Bible to
    learn from God when He is coming. This is the way we
    have learned that He is coming on May 21, 2011.
    This sign gives the terrible warning that those in
    the churches who believe that we cannot know the exact
    day of Christ’s return and that He will come as a thief in
    the night (but that they themselves are saved) will for
    certain enter into Judgment Day to endure the wrath of
    God. How awful!

    THE GAY PRIDE SIGN
    But no sign is as dramatic and clear as the phenomenal
    world-wide success of the Gay Pride movement. In the Bible God
    describes His involvement with this dramatic movement. Remember,
    each and every word in the original languages of the
    Bible came from the lips of God.
    In the Bible God instructs us that about 4,000 years ago
    there were four cities that were abruptly destroyed by God
    because of their wickedness . The key city was named Sodom
    (Genesis 19).
    In Sodom lived a man named Lot who was a believer in
    the God of the Bible. God came to warn Lot to immediately leave
    Sodom because of its imminent destruction due to its great
    wickedness. God came to Lot’s house appearing as two very
    distinguished holy men.
    The men of Sodom, both young and old, had seen these
    distinguished visitors enter Lot’s house. They demanded that they
    be allowed “to know them.” “To know them” is Biblical language
    that means that they wanted to have sex with them. They were so
    demanding that they were ready to tear down the door of Lot’s
    house. Finally God blinded them so that they could no longer find
    the door.
    The next morning after Lot and his two daughters were
    safely out of Sodom, God completely destroyed it and the three
    neighboring cities by fire and brimstone (Genesis 19:24,25).
    SODOM’S DESTRUCTION ILLUSTRATES JUDGMENT DAY
    In Jude verses 6 and 7 of the Bible God instructs us that
    the destruction of Sodom is revealed to us as an example of the
    Day of Judgment. Fire is to burn up the whole world when God
    destroys it (2 Peter 3:10). God declares in Jude 6 and 7:
    And the angels which kept not their first estate, but
    left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting
    chains under darkness unto the judgment of
    the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the
    cities about them in like manner, giving themselves
    over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are
    set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of
    eternal fire.
    In many citations the Bible informs us that there will come
    a time when the whole world will experience the wrath of God.
    God speaks of this as Judgment Day. Judgment Day is typified by
    the destruction of Sodom.
    As has been noted above, the sin which was occurring in
    Sodom just before its destruction was homosexuality. In Jude 7
    God speaks of this sin as “going after strange flesh.” That dramatically
    relates to today’s world.
    To understand this we should look at some more information
    God gives us in the Bible. We will learn that the Gay Pride
    movement would successfully develop as a sign to the world that
    Judgment Day was about to occur.
    In Romans 1 of the Bible God prophecied about a future
    time when homosexuality would become very important in the
    world. Almost 2,000 years ago God declared in Romans 1:24-27:
    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
    through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour
    their own bodies between themselves: who changed
    the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
    the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
    ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile
    affections: for even their women did change the
    natural use into that which is against nature: And
    likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
    woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
    with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving
    in themselves that recompence of their error
    which was meet.
    Never in the history of the world before the present time
    have we seen the fulfillment of this prophecy. Throughout the
    history of the world, homosexuality was a sin that was present to a
    small degree, particularly as part of the worship of idols. However,
    in the history of the United States, for example, it was always seen
    as an exceedingly shameful act. We used the phrase, “It was kept
    in the closet.”
    But in the last 20 years or so it has increasingly become a
    major success story. Not only in the U.S. but all over the world it is
    being accepted as an alternative lifestyle. Rather than being
    hidden, it is proudly and loudly displayed. The title of the movement,
    “Gay Pride,” has been very accurately chosen.
    The Bible has clearly warned that such activity is sinful, just
    as murder, adultery, stealing, and lying are sinful. God warns very
    plainly in Leviticus 18:22:
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
    it is abomination.
    In the United States, for example, this is the way it has
    always been regarded.
    A GREAT CHANGE IN THE MORALITY OF THE WORLD
    But something drastic has happened to the morality of
    the world. God tells us what has happened in the Bible verses
    which are written in Romans 1: 24 and 26:
    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
    through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour
    their own bodies between themselves…For this
    cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
    their women did change the natural use into that
    which is against nature.
    We took the liberty of underlining the words “gave them
    up,” which could also be written, “gave up them.” This phrase
    “gave them up” is tremendously important. In the original Greek
    language of the Bible the words “gave up” are written as one word.
    It is the Greek verb paradidomi. It is normally used as a judicial
    word meaning to “deliver up.”
    For example in Mark 15 we read “The chief priests…with
    the elders…bound Jesus…and delivered Him to Pilate.” (Mark
    15:1). Pilate…delivered Jesus…to be crucified (Mark 15:15).
    The verb paradidomi is also translated “betrayed.”
    For example, “…the Son of man is betrayed (delivered) into
    the hand of sinners” (Mark 14:41).
    Thus in Romans 1:24 and 1:26 God is declaring that God
    planned to deliver up the world to gross homosexual and lesbian
    activity.
    How strange! Why would God do this? Insofar as we can
    know God has normally restrained this particular sin. Lying,
    stealing, adultery, hatred, and murder are sins that are common
    throughout the world’s history. But the sin of homosexuality that
    was going on so greatly and so publicly in Sodom at the time it
    was destroyed has normally been kept hidden because of its
    shame. We have already called attention to this conclusion as we
    view the history of the United States.
    Remarkably, the Gay Pride movement of our time is
    presented very proudly to the entire world. This matches what
    was happening in Sodom at the time of its destruction. We read in
    Genesis 19:4,5:
    But before they lay down, the men of the city, even
    the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both
    old and young, all the people from every quarter: And
    they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the
    men which came in to thee this night? bring them out
    unto us, that we may know them.
    Remember, the words “to know them” is Biblical language
    that means they wanted to have sex with them.
    God calls our attention to this boldly public behavior in
    Isaiah 3:9: “…they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it
    not…”
    DOES THIS MAKE GOD RESPONSIBLE FOR SIN?
    But how can a Holy God deliver up a world to gross sin?
    Doesn’t this make God responsible and accountable for sin? This,
    of course, cannot be.
    We must realize that mankind is by nature in complete
    rebellion against God. Thus by nature he is ready to disobey each
    and every law that God gives to the human race.
    But sin is very destructive. God gave mankind laws to live
    by so that we might have a good and happy life on this earth. In
    the measure a person obeys God’s law, in that measure he ordinarily
    will find that he can have a happier and more fruitful life.
    Because the nature of mankind is to break every law of
    God, God in His wonderful mercy has done several things to assist
    mankind to be more obedient to these laws of God. For example:
    1. When God created man He placed in every person’s
    personality an awareness that there is a God that each
    person must answer to. This is why by nature every person
    is a religious being.
    2. The law of God to some degree has been written on the
    heart of every person. In Romans 2:14,15 God declares:
    For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
    nature the things contained in the law, these, having
    not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show
    the work of the law written in their hearts, their
    conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
    the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.
    3. God actively restrains sin in the lives of natural man so
    that God’s purposes in the world will be achieved (Genesis
    20:6). However, God can also remove these restraints. God
    can do this if that person’s sins will help Holy God achieve
    His purposes in the world.
    For example, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (that
    is, removed the restraints on the normal sinful character of
    Pharaoh) at the time that Israel was to be set free from
    Egyptian bondage and be allowed to return to their own
    land (Exodus 8:19, 32, etc.) God did this “…to show in
    thee (Pharaoh) My power and that My name may be
    declared throughout all the earth” (Exodus 9:16).
    Another example is given in connection with God
    preparing all the people in all the churches of our day for
    entrance into the Day of Judgment. God declares in 2
    Thessalonians 2:11,12:
    And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
    that they should believe a lie: That they all might
    be damned who believed not the truth, but had
    pleasure in unrighteousness.
    These verses are teaching that God can remove a person’s
    consciousness or sensitivity to sin so that that which is actually
    very sinful will be looked upon as no sin. This is why many sinful
    acts of our day, including that of homosexuality are increasingly no
    longer looked upon as sin.
    Thus we can learn that it is God’s mercy that normally He
    restrains the natural tendencies of mankind to be extremely
    sinful. God, in His loving patience and kindness, restrains sin so
    that mankind can possibly live a reasonably happy life.
    Because of what God teaches us in Romans 1:24-27 of the
    Bible, we can know that the present day phenomenon of the Gay
    Pride movement is a result of the fact that God has removed His
    restraints on sin. As a result an otherwise shameful and unique sin
    such as homosexuality has become widely practiced and accepted
    by mankind.
    Thus we learn that God has planned today’s situation of
    Gay Pride and same-sex marriages to show the world that it is on
    the threshold of Judgment Day. He has shown us that an obviously
    parallel situation exists between Sodom, when it was on
    the threshold of destruction, and the world of our day, which is on
    the threshold of destruction.
    Both have the public unique sin of homosexuality (going
    after strange flesh) loudly and proudly displayed. That is why in
    Jude 7 God emphasizes:
    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about
    them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication,
    and going after strange flesh, are set forth for
    an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
    Therefore we can know that by means of the continuing
    worldwide successes of the Gay Pride, same-sex marriage movement,
    God has given convincing evidence that the world is on the
    threshold of Judgment Day.
    This conclusion is not offered because it is the opinion of
    some Bible scholar. It is said because this is what God teaches in
    the Bible. This dramatic sign which increasingly is in evidence all
    over the world fits perfectly with the solid Biblical teaching that
    May 21, 2011 will be the first day of the Day of Judgment.
    The only hope any human being has to escape that terrible
    Day of Judgment is that he humbly pleads with God for His
    mercy. Even though no one deserves God’s mercy, God is still
    saving many people. Therefore, as a person humbly begs and
    implores God for His undeserved mercy, God might save that
    person before that awesome first day of Judgment Day, May 21,
    2011.

    believer

    March 31, 2011 at 07:10

  466. Hey Doc, ek weet nie of jy nog hier lees nie, maar dit sal jou so bietjie op cheer:

    Advocate swears at High Court judge

    “According to the court transcript, Ballem told the judge: “Jou ma se poes, man, fuck you!””

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Advocate-swears-at-High-Court-judge-20110330

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2011 at 01:18

  467. Check this out:

    Ex-Blue Bull axe accused Christian, joker

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Ex-Blue-Bull-axe-accused-Christian-joker-20110330

    “Sauls said the man is a Christian and a man of integrity.”

    Imagine if he wasn’t a xtian. They would have called for an immediate execution.

    McBrolloks

    March 31, 2011 at 00:15

  468. The world-wide success of the Gay Pride/Same Sex
    Marriage movement is a dramatic sign provided by God to warn
    the world that the world is on the threshold of Judgment Day.
    In the Bible God has given a number of signs to warn the
    world that Judgment Day and the end of the world are very close.
    For example:
    1. The nation of Israel was destroyed by the Romans in
    the year 70 A.D. As a consequence, for more than 1,800
    years it did not exist as a nation. Nor did it have its own
    homeland. But then in 1948, almost miraculously, it
    became a nation with its own homeland. God planned
    this event for many reasons. One was to demonstrate that
    the world is getting near its end (Matthew 24:32,33).
    2. The rise of the Charismatic Movement, that began
    several decades ago and has spread like wildfire throughout
    the world into so many churches (Matthew 24:24;
    Revelation13:13,14), is another sign that God has given
    that indicates we are very close to the end.
    3. The great spiritual decay that can be seen in most
    churches (1 Peter 4:17, Jeremiah 25:28,29) is another sign
    that God has given.
    4. Another sign is given by God’s words in 1
    Thessalonians 5. There God warns that there will be a time
    when there will be true believers who will know from the
    Bible the time of the Day of Judgment. But a great many
    others who have the Bible will insist He will come as a
    thief in the night – that is, we cannot know the time.
    In our day if any person who is a member of a
    church is asked, “Do you know when Christ is coming?” the
    answer that will usually be given is, “The Bible says we
    cannot know. Jesus is coming as a thief in the night.” If the
    questioner then asks, “Are you ready to meet Him whenever
    He comes?” the usual answer that is given is, “Yes, I
    am saved. I am ready to meet Him whenever He comes.”
    Effectively they have said, “Christ is coming as a thief in the
    night but I am safely at peace with God because I am
    saved.
    This response is exactly the sign God has given in
    the Bible that assures us that Judgment Day is almost
    here. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-6 God warns:
    For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the
    Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they
    shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction
    cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with
    child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are
    not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as
    a thief. ye are all the children of light, and the children
    of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
    Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us
    watch and be sober.
    For those who are not watching Christ gives the
    frightening warning that He will come as a thief. Sudden
    destruction will come upon them (the Day of Judgment).
    In Revelation 3:3 God informs us:” …If therefore, thou
    shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and
    thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon
    thee.” To watch means to search through the Bible to
    learn from God when He is coming. This is the way we
    have learned that He is coming on May 21, 2011.
    This sign gives the terrible warning that those in
    the churches who believe that we cannot know the exact
    day of Christ’s return and that He will come as a thief in
    the night (but that they themselves are saved) will for
    certain enter into Judgment Day to endure the wrath of
    God. How awful!

    THE GAY PRIDE SIGN
    But no sign is as dramatic and clear as the phenomenal
    world-wide success of the Gay Pride movement. In the Bible God
    describes His involvement with this dramatic movement. Remember,
    each and every word in the original languages of the
    Bible came from the lips of God.
    In the Bible God instructs us that about 4,000 years ago
    there were four cities that were abruptly destroyed by God
    because of their wickedness . The key city was named Sodom
    (Genesis 19).
    In Sodom lived a man named Lot who was a believer in
    the God of the Bible. God came to warn Lot to immediately leave
    Sodom because of its imminent destruction due to its great
    wickedness. God came to Lot’s house appearing as two very
    distinguished holy men.
    The men of Sodom, both young and old, had seen these
    distinguished visitors enter Lot’s house. They demanded that they
    be allowed “to know them.” “To know them” is Biblical language
    that means that they wanted to have sex with them. They were so
    demanding that they were ready to tear down the door of Lot’s
    house. Finally God blinded them so that they could no longer find
    the door.
    The next morning after Lot and his two daughters were
    safely out of Sodom, God completely destroyed it and the three
    neighboring cities by fire and brimstone (Genesis 19:24,25).
    SODOM’S DESTRUCTION ILLUSTRATES JUDGMENT DAY
    In Jude verses 6 and 7 of the Bible God instructs us that
    the destruction of Sodom is revealed to us as an example of the
    Day of Judgment. Fire is to burn up the whole world when God
    destroys it (2 Peter 3:10). God declares in Jude 6 and 7:
    And the angels which kept not their first estate, but
    left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting
    chains under darkness unto the judgment of
    the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the
    cities about them in like manner, giving themselves
    over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are
    set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of
    eternal fire.
    In many citations the Bible informs us that there will come
    a time when the whole world will experience the wrath of God.
    God speaks of this as Judgment Day. Judgment Day is typified by
    the destruction of Sodom.
    As has been noted above, the sin which was occurring in
    Sodom just before its destruction was homosexuality. In Jude 7
    God speaks of this sin as “going after strange flesh.” That dramatically
    relates to today’s world.
    To understand this we should look at some more information
    God gives us in the Bible. We will learn that the Gay Pride
    movement would successfully develop as a sign to the world that
    Judgment Day was about to occur.
    In Romans 1 of the Bible God prophecied about a future
    time when homosexuality would become very important in the
    world. Almost 2,000 years ago God declared in Romans 1:24-27:
    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
    through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour
    their own bodies between themselves: who changed
    the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
    the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
    ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile
    affections: for even their women did change the
    natural use into that which is against nature: And
    likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
    woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
    with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving
    in themselves that recompence of their error
    which was meet.
    Never in the history of the world before the present time
    have we seen the fulfillment of this prophecy. Throughout the
    history of the world, homosexuality was a sin that was present to a
    small degree, particularly as part of the worship of idols. However,
    in the history of the United States, for example, it was always seen
    as an exceedingly shameful act. We used the phrase, “It was kept
    in the closet.”
    But in the last 20 years or so it has increasingly become a
    major success story. Not only in the U.S. but all over the world it is
    being accepted as an alternative lifestyle. Rather than being
    hidden, it is proudly and loudly displayed. The title of the movement,
    “Gay Pride,” has been very accurately chosen.
    The Bible has clearly warned that such activity is sinful, just
    as murder, adultery, stealing, and lying are sinful. God warns very
    plainly in Leviticus 18:22:
    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
    it is abomination.
    In the United States, for example, this is the way it has
    always been regarded.
    A GREAT CHANGE IN THE MORALITY OF THE WORLD
    But something drastic has happened to the morality of
    the world. God tells us what has happened in the Bible verses
    which are written in Romans 1: 24 and 26:
    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
    through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour
    their own bodies between themselves…For this
    cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
    their women did change the natural use into that
    which is against nature.
    We took the liberty of underlining the words “gave them
    up,” which could also be written, “gave up them.” This phrase
    “gave them up” is tremendously important. In the original Greek
    language of the Bible the words “gave up” are written as one word.
    It is the Greek verb paradidomi. It is normally used as a judicial
    word meaning to “deliver up.”
    For example in Mark 15 we read “The chief priests…with
    the elders…bound Jesus…and delivered Him to Pilate.” (Mark
    15:1). Pilate…delivered Jesus…to be crucified (Mark 15:15).
    The verb paradidomi is also translated “betrayed.”
    For example, “…the Son of man is betrayed (delivered) into
    the hand of sinners” (Mark 14:41).
    Thus in Romans 1:24 and 1:26 God is declaring that God
    planned to deliver up the world to gross homosexual and lesbian
    activity.
    How strange! Why would God do this? Insofar as we can
    know God has normally restrained this particular sin. Lying,
    stealing, adultery, hatred, and murder are sins that are common
    throughout the world’s history. But the sin of homosexuality that
    was going on so greatly and so publicly in Sodom at the time it
    was destroyed has normally been kept hidden because of its
    shame. We have already called attention to this conclusion as we
    view the history of the United States.
    Remarkably, the Gay Pride movement of our time is
    presented very proudly to the entire world. This matches what
    was happening in Sodom at the time of its destruction. We read in
    Genesis 19:4,5:
    But before they lay down, the men of the city, even
    the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both
    old and young, all the people from every quarter: And
    they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the
    men which came in to thee this night? bring them out
    unto us, that we may know them.
    Remember, the words “to know them” is Biblical language
    that means they wanted to have sex with them.
    God calls our attention to this boldly public behavior in
    Isaiah 3:9: “…they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it
    not…”
    DOES THIS MAKE GOD RESPONSIBLE FOR SIN?
    But how can a Holy God deliver up a world to gross sin?
    Doesn’t this make God responsible and accountable for sin? This,
    of course, cannot be.
    We must realize that mankind is by nature in complete
    rebellion against God. Thus by nature he is ready to disobey each
    and every law that God gives to the human race.
    But sin is very destructive. God gave mankind laws to live
    by so that we might have a good and happy life on this earth. In
    the measure a person obeys God’s law, in that measure he ordinarily
    will find that he can have a happier and more fruitful life.
    Because the nature of mankind is to break every law of
    God, God in His wonderful mercy has done several things to assist
    mankind to be more obedient to these laws of God. For example:
    1. When God created man He placed in every person’s
    personality an awareness that there is a God that each
    person must answer to. This is why by nature every person
    is a religious being.
    2. The law of God to some degree has been written on the
    heart of every person. In Romans 2:14,15 God declares:
    For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
    nature the things contained in the law, these, having
    not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show
    the work of the law written in their hearts, their
    conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
    the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.
    3. God actively restrains sin in the lives of natural man so
    that God’s purposes in the world will be achieved (Genesis
    20:6). However, God can also remove these restraints. God
    can do this if that person’s sins will help Holy God achieve
    His purposes in the world.
    For example, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (that
    is, removed the restraints on the normal sinful character of
    Pharaoh) at the time that Israel was to be set free from
    Egyptian bondage and be allowed to return to their own
    land (Exodus 8:19, 32, etc.) God did this “…to show in
    thee (Pharaoh) My power and that My name may be
    declared throughout all the earth” (Exodus 9:16).
    Another example is given in connection with God
    preparing all the people in all the churches of our day for
    entrance into the Day of Judgment. God declares in 2
    Thessalonians 2:11,12:
    And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
    that they should believe a lie: That they all might
    be damned who believed not the truth, but had
    pleasure in unrighteousness.
    These verses are teaching that God can remove a person’s
    consciousness or sensitivity to sin so that that which is actually
    very sinful will be looked upon as no sin. This is why many sinful
    acts of our day, including that of homosexuality are increasingly no
    longer looked upon as sin.
    Thus we can learn that it is God’s mercy that normally He
    restrains the natural tendencies of mankind to be extremely
    sinful. God, in His loving patience and kindness, restrains sin so
    that mankind can possibly live a reasonably happy life.
    Because of what God teaches us in Romans 1:24-27 of the
    Bible, we can know that the present day phenomenon of the Gay
    Pride movement is a result of the fact that God has removed His
    restraints on sin. As a result an otherwise shameful and unique sin
    such as homosexuality has become widely practiced and accepted
    by mankind.
    Thus we learn that God has planned today’s situation of
    Gay Pride and same-sex marriages to show the world that it is on
    the threshold of Judgment Day. He has shown us that an obviously
    parallel situation exists between Sodom, when it was on
    the threshold of destruction, and the world of our day, which is on
    the threshold of destruction.
    Both have the public unique sin of homosexuality (going
    after strange flesh) loudly and proudly displayed. That is why in
    Jude 7 God emphasizes:
    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about
    them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication,
    and going after strange flesh, are set forth for
    an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
    Therefore we can know that by means of the continuing
    worldwide successes of the Gay Pride, same-sex marriage movement,
    God has given convincing evidence that the world is on the
    threshold of Judgment Day.
    This conclusion is not offered because it is the opinion of
    some Bible scholar. It is said because this is what God teaches in
    the Bible. This dramatic sign which increasingly is in evidence all
    over the world fits perfectly with the solid Biblical teaching that
    May 21, 2011 will be the first day of the Day of Judgment.
    The only hope any human being has to escape that terrible
    Day of Judgment is that he humbly pleads with God for His
    mercy. Even though no one deserves God’s mercy, God is still
    saving many people. Therefore, as a person humbly begs and
    implores God for His undeserved mercy, God might save that
    person before that awesome first day of Judgment Day, May 21,
    2011

    believer

    March 30, 2011 at 21:06

  469. A video (~80 MB, ~1hr ). Ray Comfort — yes, he of the god-designed banana — epitomises the thick intransigence of the dim, wanton doos. Everything that is wrong with the slippery arrogance of the ignorant, self-affirmed “thinker” is represented here. The dim, wanton doos will nod in sage agreement with Comfort’s stupidity; the questioning atheist will wonder at the undue patience of the presenters.

    Con-Tester

    March 30, 2011 at 20:22

  470. Besides non-belief and uncertainty, there’s a number of other reasons for laughing at believers. It is telling that a believer can only come up with those two possibilities, as if those exhausted the list. How about that the content of religious belief is intrinsically nonsensical? Or that the very idea of taking evidence-free belief as factual is absurd, even touching on the insane? Or that the factual, logical and evidential hoops believers are required to jump through to preserve their silliness is like a lukewarm circus act? Or how about that believers’ so-called “holy” book tells them to stick to their popguns no matter what and how this completely closes their minds to the merest possibility that they’re talking voluminous kak?

    But hey, it’s their right to choose being dim, wanton dooses.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2011 at 22:20

  471. If, in the face of zero evidence for it and masses of countermanding evidence against it, you still want to believe in a personal creator skydaddy, then you’re a dim, wanton doos. I respect your right to choose being a dim, wanton doos — but that’s as far as my respect stretches.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2011 at 22:03

  472. Still, as a believer I have to endure humiliation and I do so as best I can. Question is, “do non-believers have the urge to humiliate out of non-belief, or out of uncertainty”?

    A very good night to you and God bless.

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 21:58

  473. You have me there my friend. Quick, sharp, accurate response.

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 21:51

  474. Humiliate? Humiliation is in they why of the believer.

    Nathan Bond

    March 29, 2011 at 21:48

  475. Only you can answer truthfully. If believers views are not fit for consideration, why search for reasons to humiliate? I am glad if you are not angry or hurt. As a Christian I do not wish hurt or anger upon you.

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 21:44

  476. What kind of “atheist” would yours truly be, Soois?

    I am not looking for reasons not to believe – I just don’t think there’s any reason at all to suppose fairies at the fish pond.

    Also, I do not respect the views of believers – certain ideas are so idiotic that they do not deserve consideration.

    And to top it all: I’m not angry at anything and I’ve not been particulary hurt in life either…

    Ye gods! What am I!?

    Nathan Bond

    March 29, 2011 at 21:15

  477. In the end you get:

    1. The Christian = He/She believes and does not try to convince him/herself that Christianity is true or false. He/she knows the Gospel is true. He/she tries to convince non-believers of Jesus and His Gospel. Why? He/she is not going to earn points or get a better place in the new Jerusalem. He/she does it out of love because he/she wants his/her brother/sister to be saved as well.
    2. The false christian = He/she wants people to believe according to his/her prophecy. You have to abide by strict rules or forever be banished.
    3. The atheist = He/she does not believe in a god or a life after death. He/she respects the view of others, but stick to his/her beliefs.
    4. The false atheist = He/she does not believe in God etc., but seeks reason not to believe. Why???

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 21:08

  478. Sooisman!! Naandsê.

    Baie dankie vir jou antwoord. En natuurlik is jy geregtig op jou eie oortuigings en om te glo wat jy wil.

    Al wat ek weet is dat Openbaring hom leen tot vele teorië wat op die einde van die dag nie regtig saak maak nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 29, 2011 at 18:29

  479. O ja,
    die onsedelike vrou, of moeder van alle hoere, is volgens my die magtige VSA. Onthou, hulle sowel as die meeste groot lande kyk op na die Vatikaan en die pous, al sou hulle dit nooit erken nie. Die dier is nog nie verslaan nie, maar die 1260 jaar van vervolging is verby. Nietemin, net my straaltjie interessandheidshalwe. Juis die verskillende vertolkings en sienswyses van mense wat my maar versigtig maak om voorspellings te maak.
    As ek reg onthou was dit juis uit nuuskierigheid oor Johannes Coetsee se voorspellings dat ek per ongeluk op die blog beland het.

    Groete daar.

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 15:58

  480. Hallo Daan.

    Jy sien, daar is die dinge wat ek “weet”, soos dat God bestaan, soos dat Jesus gekom het om ons te verlos en dat Hy weer kom eendag. Die res is dinge wat ek “glo” uit my afleidings. My rede hoekom ek glo die RKK is die antichris en dat hy reeds gekom het, is genoemde redes asook die feit dat die RKK die Christene vir 1260 jaar verdruk het (die Bybel praat van 1260 dae, maar soms is 1 dag = 1000 jaar) asook die feit dat hulle die Wet aangepas het en tye en tyd verander het (die Christene het die dag van die Here, Sondag, aanbid, terwyl die Jode die sabbat, Saterdag aanbid het. Toe kom die RKK en noem Sondag die sabbat. Maar dit bly afleidings, nie “gospel” nie, dus is ek heel waarskynlik verkeerd oor die RKK en baie dinge.
    Wat egter feit bly en die eintlike belangrike ding, is om die Evangelie en redding deur Jesus te verkondig en glo.

    Groete daar,
    Francois

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 15:49

  481. Soois!!! Dagsê.

    Dis baie gevaarlik om uit die RKK se leuse af te lei dat dit 666 spel en dat die RKK bygevolg die anti-Chris is.

    Google gerus 666 en jy sal merk dat die name “Bill Gates” en selfs “Ronald Reagan” ook 666 spel. Ook die Roomse keiser, Nero.

    Ek persoonlik glo dat ons ons tyd mors deur te wag vir tsunami’s en aardbewings en die sesde bak en die sewende trompet.

    Ek glo dat Openbaring geskryf is vir die Christene van die eerste eeu om hulle aan te moedig om sterk te staan in hulle geloof teen die Romeinse vervolging.

    Gepraat van die vervolging van Christene, dis natuurlik ook wat in Openbaring as ‘n teken van die einde aangegee word; nie net natuurrampe nie. Kan die Christene ooit erger vervolg word as in die tyd van Nero? Ek kan dit nie glo nie.

    Wat meer is, volgens Openbaring het die dier, die ou met die drie sesse, die onsedelike vrou aan die brand gesteek. Die onsedelike vrou is die stad Rome vanwaar al die vervolgings van Christene beplan en uitgevoer is. Dis interressant dat alles daarop dui dat dit juis Nero self was wie Rome destyds aan die brand gesteek het!

    Sou die drie sesse dus inderdaad na Keiser Nero verwys, is alle voorspellings gegrond op Openbaring, met die dood van Nero reeds vervul.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 29, 2011 at 11:20

  482. 😆 soois, that you “so-called Christians attack one another” is a small but admittedly important part of why atheists laugh at you lot. It’s true that it’s highly amusing how you clowns can’t even agree among yourselves on many of the details of what you believe and then argue over it with not one shred of proof or evidence anywhere to be seen. However, the main reason you’re so hilarious is that you are incapable of separating reality from feel-good fairytales, and when challenged with hard facts, you go and compound your conceit by making any old shit up, just so long as it seems to excuse your ridiculous beliefs.

    It’s like an ongoing reality-TV comedy show.😆

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2011 at 08:33

  483. Yes ou Hanswors, that’s what you keep saying — “Not worthy of comment” — all samey-samey like a tired, worn-out old music box. Funny thing, though, is how you keep commenting. That means you haven’t taken your pills and you continue to ignore my challenge to you to debate all Mickey Mouse’s deep and meaningful wisdom with me. That’s because you can’t refute anything I say about Mickey Mouse.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2011 at 08:06

  484. Terloops, ek lyk dalk deurmekaar ou Hans, maar ek ken nogal my geskiedenis, veral as dit by Godsdiens kom.

    Die woord evangelie is die verhaal van Jesus en die redding wat Sy kruisiging bring. Jesus en ons redding is al wat Christene onder mekaar behoort te getuig en verkondig.

    Om te debatteer oor die dinge is vir die ongelowiges bedoel, sodat hulle ook gered kan word. Wanneer sogenaamde christene begin stry het jy ‘n geval van “my geloof of my kerk is reg en joune verkeerd” geval, en ek belowe jou, as dan moet jy maar weer mooi na jouself gaan kyk.

    Groete, Soois

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 07:24

  485. Hans, genoeg geraas.

    Ek verstaan nie wat jy spesifiek bedoel met die tydelike en die ewige nie.
    As jy praat van die dood as die ewige, “fine”, maar die dood is nie die ewige nie, die hiernamaals is die ewige. Openbaring praat van die Wederkoms en dat die grafte wat sal oopgaan en dat die wat dan nog lewe en die wat reeds gesterf het, gelyktydig Hom sal tegemoet gaan. Daarom glo ek nie daarin dat mense wat nou doodgaan reeds Hemel of hel toe gaan nie. Albei moet nog kom.

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 07:13

  486. Ou Hans,
    jy is nou ‘n goeie voorbeeld van wat ek vroeer gese het. Ons sogenaamde Christene val mekaar aan, geen wonder die ateiste lag vir ons nie.

    Daan sal my teregwys as ek dalk ‘n fout begaan, en ek sal my fout dan regstel, maar ‘n ou wat sy mede-gelowige dadelik as deurmekaar uitwys, wys vir my dat so ‘n ou nie kop af gat van Christenskap uitmaak nie.

    soois

    March 29, 2011 at 07:05

  487. Mac
    Hoe kan jy se dat hulle god nie van doos hou nie?
    Wil jy nou vir my se dat hy fokkol van homself dink nie?
    Ek vra maar net.

    ErickV

    March 29, 2011 at 05:50

  488. Hans, moet nie kom kak praat nie. Kyk hoe moes vrouens baklei vir hulle basiese regte. Kyk hoe word hulle nog steeds in gelowige gemeenskappe onderdruk.

    Julle verander die reels soos dit julle pas. Julle bybel se nogal wrede goed oor wat mans met vrouens mag doen as hulle nie luister nie. Die Koran ook.

    Julle god hou nie van doos nie.

    McBrolloks

    March 28, 2011 at 23:28

  489. Soois, die Wederkoms is wanneer een die tydelike met die ewige verwissel, want ons kan hulle wat reeds die tydelike met die ewige verwissel het, nie voor wees nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 28, 2011 at 23:27

  490. MacBrollocks, any woman whom has a husband who loves her will willingly submit. You should read what is written in the full context and not try and distort what is written.
    I treat my wife as a queen and therefore she treats me as a king. You seam to be missing out so change your attitude.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 28, 2011 at 23:11

  491. Con-Tester, geen kommentaar waardig.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 28, 2011 at 22:56

  492. Daan, ek stem saam, dat Erick die kleingoed moet geniet en homself nie met ander twak versuur nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 28, 2011 at 22:51

  493. Rick, wie sê jy moet my glo? Ek daag jou uit om dit te weerlê wat ek vir jou geskryf het, aangaande hoe ek die Bybel verstaan? Jy en die ander atiëste kon dit tot nou toe nie reg kry nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 28, 2011 at 22:40

  494. Rick, ek glo in die wetenskap en die bewyse van dinge, tog kan een nie die reëls van toepassing op die verganklike toepas op die ewige/geestelike. Julle is maar beperk met een stel reëls.
    Daardie evangeliste waarna jy verwys, het hulle die ware evangelie besit? Ek bedoel, neem nou Soois hierbo wat lekker deurmekaar blyk te wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 28, 2011 at 22:34

  495. A good superstition quickly gets lonely all on its own. This page is replete with examples of it.😉

    Con-Tester

    March 28, 2011 at 18:44

  496. Prayers for Japan at 3 Mile Island

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/Prayers-for-Japan-at-3-Mile-Island-20110328

    This will help and solve all the problems.

    McBrolloks

    March 28, 2011 at 16:55

  497. Oh come all ye faithful!!!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12878811

    “A BBC reporter says the queues to see him stretch for 26km ”

    “Local media report that about 52 people have died while waiting to see him.”

    “Some of these have died before seeing him, while others are reported to have died after taking his concoction.”

    McBrolloks

    March 28, 2011 at 16:45

  498. Terloops, Die Openbaring het voorspel dat die antichris tye en tyd sou verander en ook Die Wet sou verander. Gaan soek ‘n bietjie die Latynse leuse van die RKK op. Verander dan elke letter na die romeinse syfer en tel die getalle bymekaar. Kyk dan wat is die totaal.
    666

    soois

    March 28, 2011 at 12:14

  499. Mac, I cannot fault your theory as to our National sports teams. Ah, that word again, “theory”. In this case “fact”.

    ErickV, Martin Luther was ‘n Rooms Katoliek wat agter gekom het die RKK was besig om mense nonsens te voer. Hulle het nie Latyn verstaan nie, en daarom het hy Die Bybel in Duits vertaal sodat die gewone mens self die Bybel kan lees en nie die priesters blindelings volg nie. Hy was kwaai vervolg en het weggebreek vanaf die RKK. Soos ek reeds gese het, ons blankes se voorouers was juis of protestante, wat van die begin af nie die RKK aanvaar het nie, of Lutherane wat besef het die RKK mislei hulle. Hulle het vanaf die RKK gevlug na Suid Afrika, sodat hulle hulle Christendom kon uitleef.

    Ongelukkig het Luther ‘n paar RKK instellings behou, soos die kinderdoop en om na Sondag as die sabbat te verwys. (Die RKK het tye en tyd verander deur Sondag die sabbat te noem, hulle het die wet verander deur die 2de gebod ‘n bietjie te verander en die deel wat se dat jy geen beelde mag maak van dit wat in die hemel is of wat op die aarde is en dit nie aanbid nie, weg te laat en hulle het die kinderdoop ingestel). Daarom dat ons oumas na Sondag as die sabbat verwys.

    soois

    March 28, 2011 at 12:10

  500. Soois
    Ag nee wat, dit help nie om met jou te debateer nie! Jy is ook maar net so deurmekaar as Hans Sielsiek en Johannes Wegraap.
    Martin Luther het van die ROOMS KATOLIEKE KERK weg gebreek in die jaar 1517. Hy was ook betrokke by die brandstapels van daardie tyd. So, hy was glad nie so ‘n engel soos party dink nie!
    Die enigste anti chris is ouens soos ek wat nie daaraan glo nie!
    So, skrik vir ‘n slag, al is dit net wakker!
    Speel jy ook nie dalk vir die Proteas nie?

    ErickV

    March 28, 2011 at 10:23

  501. Soois, I would have wanted NZ to bat first. I would have expected our boys to get them out for a lowish total.

    What I predicted was that if we went on to loose, it would be because we thought we had the game in the bag.

    And wha-la! 108/2, and we buggered it all up. Just like we did against England.

    Now to me that shows a total lack of brains and leadership. We stumble to defeat once again, all by our own doing, after just about any bookie in the world would have backed us heavily.

    How do we do it? I have a theory.

    We pick weak leaders for starters. Idiots like Smitty should not be made class captain of a grade 1 class, never mind our national cricket team. The guy has a huge opinion of himself, when it is quite clear he is not very bright. But he believes in himself, and with his stubbornness, not much good will come from his leadership. Then our management also back weak people and they only have their “pals” around themselves.

    I must say, that book Hershel Gibbs wrote talked about these things quite a bit, and now it all comes to light. Hershel wasn’t making it up at all. He had some very good points.

    As long as we Afs keep picking weak leaders and backing the wrong people, we will not be hoisting any trophies.

    As for the Boks, I have been calling for international help for years before the last World Cup. The gods answered, when Eddy Jones helped the Bulls win the Super 14, and Snake White got him to help with coaching the Boks for the 2007 WC. We played much better rugby, and we won the tournament. Even though at the same time, we wouldn’t let Jones wear the Springbok blazer. Just shows you what a bunch of wankers we are. The players protested, but they were disciplined. Once again proof of how we pick a bunch of demented fuckwits to run the show.

    As for this years World Cup, we are so fucked. Things are so bad right now. And our coach and the management and the politicians all have their heads up each others arses. We are going to get humiliated, and nobody is going to take any blame. They are just going to jockey for position to stay on the gravy train. RIP Springbok Rugby!!!

    McBrolloks

    March 27, 2011 at 23:04

  502. “Smith dumbfounded by defeat” – News 24

    Smitty picked the right word there, that’s for sure!

    McBrolloks

    March 26, 2011 at 17:23

  503. Ja, the gods totally let us down. And we are one of the most religious country in the world. And we have other faiths in the team as well. The gods are angry. Or the gods have a great sense of humor.

    McBrolloks

    March 26, 2011 at 17:16

  504. They should sack Amla and Tahir. After all, those two aren’t Crushtians…

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2011 at 10:54

  505. It’s not that the Proteas are kak. They just didn’t pray hard enough, that’s all. Umpires god and sonny-boy, and third umpire holey ghostey weren’t sufficiently convinced of their unwavering faith to grant them victory. But, as Smiffy keeps saying, they’ll “learn from this.” Exactly what they’ll learn is debatable.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2011 at 10:47

  506. Yes McBrollocks, the media calls it choke. The person that first associated that word with the Proteas should’ve copyrighted it, could’ve been a multi millionaire by now. In Laymans’s terms, however, the word ‘kak’ will undoubtedly suffice.

    Rick

    March 26, 2011 at 04:30

  507. Ja, ons is maar net plain kak. Ons het nog nooit in amper 20 jaar se wold cups enige uitklop games gewen nie. Nie eers een nie. En in die laaste 3 toernooie was ons die gunstelinge. Ons is maar net plain kak.

    McBrolloks

    March 26, 2011 at 00:03

  508. Off course you predicted that if NZ batted first and we took them as a pushover, we would sink. Guess that is exactly what happened.

    soois

    March 25, 2011 at 18:07

  509. Nee Mac,
    die gode het na jou gebede geluister en toe neuk ons ouens wragtig nogsteeds op.
    Wys jou, ek moes liewer gewerk het.

    soois

    March 25, 2011 at 18:04

  510. Net ‘n regstelling,
    Keiser Constantyn het in 313 tot bekering gekom en die opperheerser van die kerk geword. In 325 het hy Sondae as vakansiedag verklaar sodat Christene kon kerk to gaan. Slegs landbouers is toegelaat om op Sondae te werk. In 538 is die RKK aangestel om die enigste erkende kerk te wees en het die vervolging van 1260 jaar begin.

    soois

    March 25, 2011 at 17:31

  511. Erick,
    Konstantyn het tot bekering gekom in 325, die RKK en die pousdom het 538 onstaan en geregeer namens die Romynse Ryk tot 1798, 1260 jaar soos die Bybel beskryf (1260 dae van die antichris, maar 1 dag 1000 jaar). Napoleon het die pous in 1798 verslaan en toe het die Romynse ryk tot ‘n val gekom. Meeste van ons blanke Suid Afrikaners se voorouer was vlugtelinge wat wou ontvlug van die brandstapels. Die RKK is niks anders nie as die anticris waarvan die Bybel praat.

    Enigiemand wat dink die RKK is ‘n Christenkerk is dof.
    Groete

    soois

    March 25, 2011 at 17:20

  512. Soois
    “Valse Jesusse”, “valse Messiasse”, “valse profete”,
    “Satan”, “jy moet glo soos ‘n kind” is alles deur die RKK in die jaar 325 uit gedink omdat hulle besef het dat as die mense begin twyfel, gaan hulle vir hulself
    begin dink en dan as gevolg daarvan gaan hulle lidmate verloor en daardeur ook geld.
    Dit gaan tot vandag toe nog so. Dit is hoekom daar al reeds 40,0000 “besighede” (denominasies) in die wereld is en hulle is almal “chritelik”.
    As jy DIT nie besef nie is jy rerig dof!
    Maar nou ja, breinspoeling is breinspoeling en deindroktonasie is deindoktronasie.
    Daar word gese dat daar nie ‘n meer blinde persoon is as die persoon wat glad nie WIL sien nie!

    ErickV

    March 25, 2011 at 13:18

  513. As said: “That way you can simply rationalise away the carton of egg all over your face.”

    If, as alleged above, the Second Coming will occur only when it is not expected, that means it will never occur until everyone without exception has rid themselves of this ridiculous notion because there is always someone, somewhere who is expecting it.

    I have just one question. Is there any inanity a True Believer™ won’t say in defence of these absurdities?

    Con-Tester

    March 25, 2011 at 08:52

  514. (Matt. 24:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:6-10; Op. 13:11-14) In al die stukke word ons reeds gewaarsku dat daar valse “Jesusse” of “Messiasse” sal kom asook valse profete. Julle raak verblind en dink dit is Christenne wat hierdie dinge voorspel en as dit nie gebeur nie, wil julle met Christenne die spot dryf, maar dit is die antichris wat julle sowel as sommige gelowiges mislei. Dit is juis hoekom Sy wederkoms so onverwags gaan wees, want wanneer nie die ongelowige of die gelowige enigsins meer ‘n Wederkoms verwag nie, gaan Hy kom. Dit kan more wees of dit kan na ons dood wees.

    soois

    March 25, 2011 at 07:02

  515. Oh dear, a bunch of butt-clenching embarrassments:

    Failed/unfulfilled religious predictions — “Ja, but you have to read it spiritually.”
    Dates for the Rapture — “Ja, but I read that wrong.”
    End Times by sect — “Ja, but those other okes don’t understand it right.”
    Second Coming predictions — “Ja, but those okes in the past were talking kak, but just wait, ours is right.”
    Messiah wannabes — “Ja, but those okes are obviously nuts.”
    Jesus wannabes — “Ja, but those okes are sick in the head.”

    How wonderful to be a True Believer™. That way you can simply rationalise away the carton of egg all over your face. Then again, maybe Japan 2011 is it

    Con-Tester

    March 24, 2011 at 14:06

  516. Anyway,
    ek dink Nathan het iewers genoem dat dit nie ‘n kwessie is van “wanneer” die wegraping sal plaasvind nie, maar “of” dit enigsens “ooit” gaan plaasvind.

    Nou wonder ek soms so tussen ons ou gelowige paartjies: “Glo ons in die wegraping, maar wil nie glo dat dit dalk in ons eie leeftyd kan plaasvind nie, want ons het aanvaar dat ons eers moet sterf voor dit gebeur, of glo ons dalk nie regtig so sterk in die wegraping nie, maar hoop eerder dat so-iets sal plaasvind na ons dood”.

    Weereens hoekom die ongelowiges so ‘n “royal time” het en ons so terg. In plaas van om nog gelowiges te werf, baklei die “christene” onder mekaar oor wie nou eintlik goed genoeg is om gered te word. Natuurlik is dit vaar die valse profete inkom, om ons ouens so te verwar, dat ons nie weet watter kant toe nie.

    soois

    March 24, 2011 at 12:54

  517. Geen wonder Nathan en sy trawante bespot ons Christene so nie. Jy mag nie ‘n ongelowige wees nie, want dan is jy verdoem. Jy moet gelowig wees, maar moet dit nie waag om na ‘n Christenkerk toe te gaan nie, dan is jy ook verlore. Belaglik! Die feit dat die kerkera blykbaar in 1988 geeindig het, beteken net dat nuwe Christene na 1988 buite die kerk verwerf sal word, maar nie dat alle gelowiges nou die kerklewe moet los nie. As dit so is, is ek seker ook in my moer.

    Die SDA kerk verwys natuurlik ook na ons ouens as Baalaanbidders.

    soois

    March 24, 2011 at 12:46

  518. Ek het die volgende e-pos van iemand gekry. Hy noem homself “Kennis is Mag. Ek weet werklik nie wie dit is nie, maar ek sien Johannes Coetzee se hand hierin:

    “Jy is verlore dude. Jy en al die infidels wie hulleself in die kring van die spotters begeef. Daar is vir julle geen hoop nie. Vergelyk Rut 14:8 en Habakuk 2:26.

    Almal wie nog deel uitmaak van die kerk en sy strukture, aanbid die hoer van Babilon en hulle name sal uit die boek van die lewe uitgetippex word. Ja, waarlik, daar sal ‘n geween en ‘n gekners van tande wees. Daniël 14:8 tot 15. Vergelyk ook Openbaring 26:18.

    Ek sê weer, God het solank terug as 1988 die hoer uit sy mond uitgespoeg. Soos die walglike, weersinwekkende insek wat sy is. En op 21 Mei 2011 sal die Woord en die profete volbring word, en sal die moeder van alle aardbewings die aarde en die beskawing soos ons dit ken, uitwis.

    En dan sal die regverdiges weggeraap word en sodoende die woede en toorn van God ontkom. Maar wee hulle wat agterbly. Hulle sal die sewe sirkels van die hel in al sy afgryse ervaar. Alle dronkaards, hoereerders, dobbelaars, gierigaards, tollenaars, deelsaaiers en al diegene wie ‘n ergerlike lewe lei. 2 Kotinthiërs 14:7. Sien ook die apokriewe evangelie van Thomas hoofstuk 9:23 tot 27.

    Mag God julle almal genadig wees.

    2011 Groete.”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 24, 2011 at 08:54

  519. Sorry mate, in this case God, or the gods as you say, will have nothing to do with the outcome. I mean, see His dilemma, we pray to win and NZ pray to win. How will He decide?

    Genoeg oor die gode. Ek het klaar my straaltjie gepis, al was dit teen die wind. Kom ons geniet saam die wereldbeker krieket. Ek dink darem ons gaan deurdruk Vrydag. Sterkte daar.

    soois

    March 24, 2011 at 07:30

  520. Cool. I just hope we don’t have broken hearts on Friday evening.

    If there is a god or gods, please don’t let Smitty have to make any difficult decisions. Please please please, to any and all the gods out there. And maybe Van Wyk can hurt his ankle or something and miss the game. Please please please. (just in case)

    McBrolloks

    March 24, 2011 at 01:53

  521. As a farmer I have the luxury of taking time off from work. I guess we both will be glued to the TV on Friday.

    Cheers

    soois

    March 23, 2011 at 18:21

  522. Soois, that would depend on a couple of things.

    If Smitty, our captain does not have to make any strategic decisions, and if they can keep that retard Van Wyk out of the game in some way, or that we just won’t have to count on him in a pinch.

    We can go to the finals. But that will be a real game.

    NZ shouldn’t give us much trouble. I say we send them in to bat first. I just hope our boys don’t think it is going to be a pushover, because that will sink us, like many times before in the past.

    Maybe the gods will be on our side this time. We have believers of many faiths in our team. Well rounded and balanced on all fronts of theology.

    McBrolloks

    March 23, 2011 at 17:46

  523. Mac,
    I,ve noticed that you are quite a sports fan, especially cricket.
    How about Friday? Are we going to the semis?

    soois

    March 23, 2011 at 17:38

  524. “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” – Carl Sagan

    McBrolloks

    March 23, 2011 at 17:03

  525. Erick.
    🙂 Jip. Dis die spasie daai!🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 23, 2011 at 15:57

  526. http://meermin.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/getuienis-wow-die-here-is-almagtig/#comment-6107

    Goeiedag aan almal.
    Laat ek myself voorstel. My naam is Francois (sommige noem my Soois) en ek is ‘n volwaardige Christen wat leef vir Jesus. Dit is so lekker om die getuienisse van my broers en susters te hoor en graag wile k ook ‘n bydrae lewer.
    Eintlik kan ek baie getuienis lewer, soos die verhaal van my bekering en so voorts, maar die besondere getuienis wat ek wil lewer is vars en na aan my hart.
    Na my bekering so ‘n paar jaar gelede het ek begin om baie ernstig vir my kinders, ouers en broers te bid sodat hulle ook hulle lewens sal regkry en meer en meer vir Jesus sal leef, maar my een broer, was my grootste bekommernis, want hy het beweer dat die Bybel onwaar is en het in God en Sy skepping getwyfel.
    Sowat 9 maande gelede het ek en hy stry gekry hieroor, veral rondom die evolusie-teorie en daarna het hy nie meer met my gekommunikeer nie. Dit was so erg dat hy en sy gesin nie kans gesien het om verlede Desember vir my op my plaas te kom kuier nie.
    Gedurende Januarie het ek per ongeluk op ‘n blog afgekom wat aan ‘n ateis behoort en verskeie ateiste het hulle opinie daarop gelewer. Sommige het God en Jesus openlik gevloek op die blad. Dit was vir my skokkend en in plaas daarvan date k die blog vermy, het e kook my opinie daarop gelig. ‘n Oor-en- weer gestryery het onstaan, en sommige ouens het my en my geloof gespot en verkleineer.
    Dit was nie lank nie, of die evolusie-teorie ding het opgekom en veral een ou het nogal baie te se gehad. Op die ou-end het ek my broer ge-e-pos, hom verskoning gevra dat ek hom pla, en hom die “link” na die ateis blog gegee. Dit was eintlik ‘n tong in die kies sarkastiese optrede omdat die besondere ou baie soos my broer geklink het. Daardie aand het ek gebid en die Here gevra goekom ek so bly teruggaan na hierdie blog toe en hoekom ek nou boonop my broer moes betrek.
    Hy het sowaar daarop gereageer en vir ‘n paar dae het hy en die ou op die blog geredekawel oor evolusie en of daar ‘n skepper was wat vir alles verantwoordelik is. My broer het al hoe meer en meer soos ‘n gelowige geklink en na ‘n paar dae het hy die blog gegroet en vaarwel toegewens, want hy het gereken hy sal geen hond haaraf maak nie.
    Die aand ontvang ek ‘n lang e-pos van hom af waarin hy my bedank vir die “link” en vir my vertel dat hoe meer hy navorsing moes doen, hoe meer het hy besef dat daar wel ‘n skepper is en dat God bestaan. Hy het sy hart vir die Here gegee en sy lewe verander. Sowat 2 weke gelede het ek hom besoek om te sien hoe dit gaan en kon nie die verandering in hom glo nie. Toe ek hom vra hoe dit gaan, vertel hy my dat die oomblik toe hy sy hart vir Jesus gegee het, het hy wonderlik gevoel, maar sy besigheid het oombliklik agteruit begin gaan. Ek het aan hom gese hy moet nie sy geloof nou verloor nie, want dit is God wat hom toets om te sien hoe waar en sterk sy geloof in der waarheid is. Ek het ook vir hom gese dat die onmiddelike verandering, al is dit negatief, ‘n bewys is dat Iemand almagtig aan die werk is.
    Ek het baie gebid en God mooi gevra om my broer nie te lank te toets nie, want ek was bang hy verloor sy geloof. Raai wat! Gister het hy my gebel om te vertel dat sy verskaffers uit Frankryk hom gekontak het en aangebied het om hom die alleenverskaffer van hulle produk in Suid Afrika te maak. Soos hy self se, hy het ‘n “hambyrger” bestel en toe kry hy ‘n sappige “steak”. Hy moes nou wel ‘n bietjie langer daarvoor wag, maar dit is 10 keer beter. Halleluja.
    Sien julle die ironie? Die optrede van ‘n ateis op ‘n ateis blog het my ateis broer het hom die nuutste Christen aan my bekend, gemaak. Dit was dus hoekom God my na die blog toe gestuur het.
    Prys die Here!!!

    soois

    March 23, 2011 at 15:44

  527. http://meermin.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/getuienis-wow-die-here-is-almagtig/

    — Die Here Is Groot – GETUIENIS

    Dit laat mens snik na jou trane om weereens te besef wat ‘n WONDERLIKE GOD
    ons dien!
    Mag jul NOOIT twyfel aan Sy krag en almag nie!

    Lees die storie van Dries hieronder en besluit vir julle self.

    Hierdie was die man wat ons in die rystoel gesien het toe ons die LNA
    presentations gaan doen het by Customs in Zeerust. Hy het ‘n virus
    opgedoen toe hy ‘n trok vol beeste wat by Kopfontein oor die grens
    gaan ondersoek het om te sien of daar geen onwettige smokkelary aan die gang
    is nie. Hy het daardie dag (drie jaar terug) ‘n virus vanaf die beeste
    gekry wat sy spierhegtings gevreet het totdat hy nie sy spiere kon gebruik
    soos ‘n normale mens nie.

    Ek onthou hoe siek hy gelyk het toe ek hom in die rystoel gesien het en hoe
    jammer ek vir hom was toe hy vir my vertel het dat hulle medies niks vir hom
    kon doen nie. Op daardie stadium het hy baie pyn verduur.

    ‘n Wonderwerk het met hom gebeur. Sy getuienis:

    Ek kan nie vertel hoe goed Jesus vir ons is nie. Die Here het elke gebed
    van my verhoor. Dit is lekker om te kan loop. Jy moenie op my trots wees
    nie, want dit is nie ek wat dit laat gebeur het nie. Ons moet Jesus dank,
    wonderwerke gebeur daagliks en ons loop met oogklappe aan.

    Ons het op 5 Junie ons Pinksteraand gehad, Ek doen die musiek in die
    Kerk op die rekenaar. Ek het Agnus Dei van Michael W Smith gespeel en die
    Lied was amper klaar gewees.

    My regterhand wat die muis vasgehou het, het ewe skielik begin opwaarts trek
    en dit het gelyk of ek ‘n kramp in my hand gekry het. Terwyl my hand so
    opwaarts trek het ek ‘n naalde- en speldegevoel in my hand gekry wat deur my
    lyf begin trek het

    Ek het toe weer Agnus Dei gespeel en ek het voorentoe gegaan en vir die
    dominee gevra “Izaan bid vir my, ek wil vanaand uit hierdie stoel uit wees.”

    Die dominee. het net gesê: “Sjoe”, en seker vir 3 minute lank stil gestaan
    en seker maar “gedink”. Hy. het sy hande op my gelê en begin bid. Ek kon
    die Heilige Gees voel vloei binne in my. Ek het toe probeer om myself uit
    die stoel uit op te druk, maar die dominee het gewys dat ek moet wag.

    Na omtrent so 30 sekondes het dit gevoel of iemand my uit die stoel
    uit optel en toe ek weer sien toe staan ek. Dominee het my hande gevat en
    gesê ek moet saam met hom loop. Daar het my voete begin beweeg. Cynthia
    en ek het so gehuil van blydskap. Die hele Gemeente het saam met my
    getjank.
    My kinders was in die moederskamer gewees en een van die vrouens het
    vir my kinders gaan sê hulle moet kom kyk ek loop.

    My oudste dogtertjie, Bèhanke (8) het in die paadjie afgehardloop en al wat
    ek kon hoor is dat sy sê “Dankie Liewe Jesus, dankie” My vrou was so geskok
    gewees sy het gehuil en kon nie beweeg nie. Die tweeling het ook gehuil,
    maar hulle was nog te klein om te kon onthou dat ek voorheen wel geloop het.

    Die Here het mense se oë laat oopgaan. Ek kan nie genoeg dankie sê vir die
    Here wat Hy gedoen het nie. Die 3 jaar was vir my en my vrou baie moeilik
    gewees, maar Jesus het ons verlos en ons smeekgebede verhoor.

    Ek het geen pyn meer in my bene of my heupe nie. Die fisioterapeut en die
    dokter
    was verstom gewees. My spiere is net baie styf en as ek ‘n ver entjie gestap
    het is ek verskriklik moeg en lam in my bene.

    Die Here gee my elke dag krag om verder en verder te loop. Ek vertrou op die
    Here, want sy werking met my is nog nie klaar nie. Dit het die medici
    verkeerd bewys, want hulle het gesê ek sal nooit weer kan loop nie, maar
    geloof in Jesus maak alles reg!!!!!!

    Jy kan besluit wat jy met die e-pos doen sodat almal kan sien dat die Here
    nog steeds wonderwerke verrig.

    Lekker dag en onthou die seëninge van Jesus is met jou.

    soois

    March 23, 2011 at 15:09

  528. Angus Buchan, Mighty Men, April 2011. R 100 per ticket in exchange for the whole weekend at camping site, free cool drinks, study material, cd’s etc. Ablution facilities with toilet paper etc. etc. He is going to make millions!!!

    soois

    March 23, 2011 at 14:45

  529. Daan,
    My seun gaan op ‘n kaai werk waar hy onderhoud op die hyskrane gaan doen.
    Ek wonder hoe byt die vis daar?!!🙂
    Moenie worry nie, die klein mannetjie sal as Blou Bul grootgemaak word!!!!
    Spasie se jy?

    ErickV

    March 23, 2011 at 13:33

  530. Check this out!!
    http://www.beeld.com/wereld/nuus/almal-in-die-hemel-het-vlerke-en-vlieg-maar-jesus-sweef-20110322
    ‘n 11 Jarige seun het dit blykbaar beleef toe hy ‘n blinde derm operasie in Amerika ondergaan het.
    Wat my opgeval het is dat Mnr. Burpo snr, ‘n pastoor in ‘n kerk in Amerika is. Is dit dalk ‘n geval van breinspoeling?
    Wil Burpo snr dal meer lidmate lok?
    Pa en ma Burpo het nou ‘n boek daaroor geskryf waarvan nou al 500,000 eksemplare verkoop is!!!
    Maak nie saak hoe hulle dit aan al die zombies wil voorle nie, in al die gevalle is daar GELD betrokke!!
    Ala Anchus Buchan, ala Ray McCaulley, ala Fred Mae, ens, ens,ens
    Millions For Jesus!!!!!!!
    And for my own pocket, naturally!!!
    What a lot of arseholes.

    ErickV

    March 23, 2011 at 13:26

  531. Con-Tester, if you keep this up, you are going to go down as a martyr for these fundies. he-he!!!

    McBrolloks

    March 22, 2011 at 17:06

  532. He-he, I agree. I was just taking the piss a bit.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

    McBrolloks

    March 22, 2011 at 16:08

  533. Oh no, McBrolloks, I think you misunderstand. It doesn’t annoy me at all. I’m way past any annoyance with these brainless dopes. They’ve proved it time and time again that their minds are shut tighter than a duck’s arse. I’m just pointing out how feebleminded their so-called “reasoning” is and how pigheadedly they choose to remain ignorant by making stuff up to protect their washed-out, floundering beliefs. Do you see how slippery and desperate these okes become when you challenge their nonsense? With every word soois writes, it becomes clearer how these people are incapable of separating fact from fiction.
    😆 I think it’s a fuckin’ hoot!😆

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2011 at 15:59

  534. A bunch of grownups who believe their imaginary friends can hurt them if they don’t follow their orders to a tee. Neurotic.

    A bunch of grownups who believes that there is a devil out there, the source of all evil in the universe, who is planning and planning to destroy them, but he just hasn’t gotten round to it quite yet. But he does do little things around the world that causes people hurt. He just can’t get all his shit together and finish the job. Oh, and jesus won’t stop him someday, jesus will just save the ones who “let him into their hearts”.

    Soois, talk about bullshit theories. You guys have the best ones, by far. Nothing can touch your fairytales.

    McBrolloks

    March 22, 2011 at 15:48

  535. Con-Tester, you are taking your conversion too hard. Don’t worry. They set you up. If you show them that it annoys you they win. It’s check and mate!!!!!!

    Look on the bright side. God owes you one. You sent a young man running back to his arms screaming for salvation and forgiveness. You are like the wolf and you scared a lost sheep right back to the shepherd.

    As for Soois, it is funny how these nuts truly believe there is a devil out there who wants to get them, like a predator, and only little jesus can save them, but they must ask him in the right manner, or their arses are grass. What a crock of shit. Now that is neurotic.

    McBrolloks

    March 22, 2011 at 15:44

  536. Burger did not come to religion because of what you said, but because you basically forced him to surf the web and to do recearch about evolution etc. Hence he found more and more proof of the existance of GOD. But like I said. No skin off my behind.

    soois

    March 22, 2011 at 15:36

  537. La-di-da… and so on and so on. The song continues…

    soois

    March 22, 2011 at 15:33

  538. soois, I don’t believe word one of what you’ve said about Br’er Burger’s alleged persuasion back to your god due to what I wrote. There’s no evidence whatsoever for that here on the blog, and fundies don’t change their tune. They just make up ever more preposterous shit to defend their ridiculous beliefs. For example, we now have someone called “Satan” coming to besiege us with trouble and strife, which only certain “chosen” individuals are able to see, and we must fall to our knees and implore Jeeeeebusssss! to save us. What a crockless pile of infantile bunkum.

    About the 60 days, you can ask Johannes Coetzee if he shows his elusive self around these pages again one of these moribund days.

    It’s also abundantly clear that you are completely clueless about, among many other things, what constitutes a scientific theory. It’s considerably more than some arbitrary, ignorant, feel-good guess that has gathered much cultural momentum over time, for example like religious beliefs…

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2011 at 14:42

  539. O, and for believing in only that for which there is good and sufficient reason and evidence? Please!! You believe in theories given, not proven, by great minds of their time.

    Don’t bother to start a new string on evolution, the big bang etc. We’ve gone through that hogwash already.

    Cheers,
    Soois

    soois

    March 22, 2011 at 13:07

  540. Con-tester,
    I meant whether you believe in my truthfullness concerning my brother. As for the rest, it is up to you.

    God is not the approaching danger my friend. Satan is. Jesus is there to save you, but you have to ask for His help.

    As for the 60 days, I’m not so sure. I am to dum or maybe ignorant to understand the so-called Bible calendar. I do however believe that the day of the new beginning is coming, sooner or later.

    soois

    March 22, 2011 at 13:01

  541. Potato blight survivor marshals his chips, mash, rösti and fritters – Mighty Spud and the Starchy Army – all of whom are “Dying to Serve,” but evidently not in Japan. They all got hessian-bagged together near Paarl on a farm called, oddly, “Elohim.” I’d’ve thought “Tuber” more apt.

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2011 at 10:04

  542. Erick!!! Dagsê

    Jammer om te hoor jou kinders vat die man Australië toe. Solank hy net nie eendag vir die Brumbies of die Reds teen die Bulle speel nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 22, 2011 at 09:27

  543. No soois, I do not believe whatever pleases me. That’s you godbots’ speciality. I myself am constantly vigilant to believe only that for which there is good and sufficient reason and evidence.

    But I’m intrigued that you see yourself as some sort of guardian at the city’s gates, having posted yourself there as a sentry to warn us of an approaching enemy in accordance with this confabulated duty of yours. It’s funny that you see your god as the approaching danger or enemy – but not as funny as that this danger (or enemy) lives entirely in your fevered imagination.

    We’ve only got just 60 days to the start of Camping’s Armageddon.

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2011 at 08:45

  544. Daan,
    Dankie vir die geluk wensing. Ek het hom in die hospitaal besoek hierdie naweek. Wat ‘n fris bullietjie van 3.5kg!!
    Net jammer dat hulle emigreer na Australie in ‘n maand se tyd.
    Maar die ligpunt is dat sy naam nou Josua Erick Samuel is!!!

    ErickV

    March 22, 2011 at 08:19

  545. Con-Tester, believe wahetever pleases you if it makes you feel bettter. No skin of my hide.

    Nathan, my pleasure.

    Mac, my brother is a young man. Damn, there goes your theory about the aged getting religious.

    Nonetheless guys, I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose by giving my testimony. I do this out of love to my fellow man. GOD showed me the passage that sais:
    “A guard is put at the gate of the big city. When he spots the enemy far off, it is his duty to warn the occupants of the nearing danger. If they listen to his warning and save themselves, bless this man, but if they choose to ignore his warning and get slaughtered, he still did his duty. However, if the guard notices the enemy and flee, he deserves to die”.

    I guess I felt it my duty to warn you guys, because I promise you, the enemy is upon us.

    Nathen, I guess I just gave you and Connie and Mac some more laughter material. Like I said to Vick, laugh all you like.

    soois

    March 22, 2011 at 07:15

  546. I think we should start an organization that helps people prepare for the lack of an afterlife.

    We can call it something like:

    Live Now Sleep Later Club

    or

    The Bucket List Club

    or

    99 Bottles of Wine on the Wall Club

    or

    Get Even Before You Die Gang

    or

    Life is Short, Live it Now Club

    or

    Live Now Die Later

    or……..

    We charge a fair membership amount. We publish a news letter weekly about cool things to do while you are alive. Where to get good life insurance and estate planning. Where are cool places to go on holiday where you won’t bump into religious nuts. Where to get good wine and meat. Etc etc etc. Helpful advice for those who are not afraid to live or afraid to prepare for death, in a sensible and clear manner.

    McBrolloks

    March 21, 2011 at 23:23

  547. He-he, I like that expression. Pity they are preparing for an exam in fear driven bullshit that shows how desperate they are now.

    McBrolloks

    March 21, 2011 at 23:14

  548. Nathan, I’m afraid it’s not that easy. I mean, fuck, I’m just floored about losing Burger to the other side, never mind that he was never with us to begin with. The thing, though, that most perturbs, even disappoints me in this whole schlamassel is that bro’ Burger never bothered to thank me for turning him back to soois’ god. There’s a significant discourtesy in said omission.

    McBrolloks, it’s bet-hedging at its best. As Mrs Con-Tester likes to say, those old people are cramming for their finals…

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2011 at 22:13

  549. Speaking from my own experience, I see people that I have know for decades all of a sudden become more and more religious, the older they get. The closer they come to the final curtain, the more fear starts to strangle them. They have no choice but to go back to the ghosts they know, who promise them an afterlife. It is a great con. Pity they also start to teach their children this stupid dogma, because without support it would be very hard for them to believe this crap.

    McBrolloks

    March 21, 2011 at 21:49

  550. God, she works in mysterious ways!

    I had a busy day and this little commedy really helped me unwind.

    Thank Soois!

    A frozen waterfall did it for Antony Flew; “Burger” needed Con-Tester… All druggies have a reason for abusing some substance.

    What a hoot.

    But stop batting for the dumbwits, Con-Tester! Damn it, you’re a senior officer here!

    What a belly laugh!

    Nathan Bond

    March 21, 2011 at 21:46

  551. 😆 Oh please, soois, do try to pull the other one. Your friend Burger is as much a “realist” as I am a sparkplug-church dominee. I had as much to do with his “conversion” to your god as Koo baked beans have to do with the worries about Fukushima. He’s as ill-informed about reality as you are.😆

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2011 at 21:18

  552. Nathan is more than welcome to contact “Burger” himself if yo need convincing.
    Nonetheless, I personally do not care what you believe or do not believe. I just wanted to thank you, not convince you.

    Mac, he was not sent back to GOD, you can only be sent back to GOD if you have left HIM. He did not believe until a couple of months ago. Burger happens to be my brother and he did not believe like I do. In fact, a few years back even I did not believe.

    Anyway, thank you and all the best.

    Francois aka Soois

    soois

    March 21, 2011 at 21:08

  553. McBrolloks, the ‘realist’ “friend” went back most likely because this god upgraded from telepathy to Telkom…

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2011 at 21:06

  554. Con-Tester, will you please stop converting “realists” and send them running back to the arms of god.

    But then again, maybe god owes you one now.

    But what could have sent this guy back to god? Maybe he wasn’t really a “realist”. Maybe you showed him his “reality” was just delusion. Too much work reading books and trying to understand how the universe works. The bible is much easier, because you can make it all up as you go.

    McBrolloks

    March 21, 2011 at 20:47

  555. 😆 That’s a wonderful fairytale, soois – much like most everything else you believe. Score plus one for your god. Still, it’s just too precious how your ‘realist’ “friend” didn’t put in an appearance all of his/her own, even after your god phoned you. Maybe it’s because Nathan can see IP addresses and sockpuppetry is easy to identify. Maybe I should get a few of my own ‘realist’ “friends” to pay this blog a visit so that they can also have a good laugh at the contrived bullshit you believers are capable of inventing. 😆

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2011 at 20:38

  556. Con-Tester,
    I want to personally thank you for your contribution to the saving of a once lost soul.

    A while back I directed a very good friend of mine who happened to be a “realist” (he hated the term atheist) at the time, to this blog, because I reckoned he would enjoy corresponding with you.

    I had no idea what was to follow. Apparently, the more he had to do research to react to your writings, the more he realised that GOD does in fact excist.

    I asked GOD several times why HE brought me to this blog and why I kept on returning to it in spite of everything said on it, but when he phoned me to say thank you and to tell me he gave his heart to GOD, I knew the answer to my question.

    It is ironic, but an atheist writing on an atheist blog in fact was solely responsible for another soul saved.

    soois

    March 21, 2011 at 20:03

  557. Rick,
    natuurrampe is met tot 400 persent op die laaste twee dekades. Hier volg net twee uittreksels deur ander geskryf:

    Natuurrampe word meer én feller, wys navorsing
    Liana Mocke
    Orkaan Katrina se volle uitwerking op die korttermyn-versekeringsbedryf wêreldwyd kon nog nie bo alle twyfel vasgestel word nie.

    Tans wil dit egter lyk of Suid-Afrikaanse polishouers nie té bekommerd hoef te wees oor verhogings in premies weens die natuurlike ramp nie wat, volgens die nuutste aanduidings, meer as $100 miljard (sowat R631 miljard) se skade aangerig het.

    Ontledings van Risk Management Solutions (RMS) wys Katrina kan die versekeringsbedryf omtrent $35 miljard kos.

    RMS hanteer die skade wat orkaan Katrina gesaai het as twee afsonderlike gebeure – die regstreekse impak van die wind en storms en dan ook die vloed in New Orleans. Die polishouers in Suid-Afrika sal, volgens Hollard Insurance en Santam, nie regstreeks geraak word deur die gevolge van Katrina nie. En as dit wel ‘n uitwerking op premies hier het, sal dit minimaal tot byna niks wees nie en dan heel moontlik eers volgende jaar.

    “Versekeraars herverseker hulself teen groot verliese by internasionale herversekeraars,” sê mnr. Richard Heilig, Hollard Insurance se hoofbestuurder vir risiko en herversekering.

    “Die herversekeraars sal moet pa staan vir die kostes van eise ná orkaan Katrina.

    “Die koste om rampe te dek, sal wêreldwyd toeneem en die plaaslike versekeringsmaatskappye raak wat ‘n aansienlike deel van hul herversekering oorsee koop.

    “Die bykomende koste sal opgeneem word in die versekeraars se pryse en kan daarom ‘n onregstreekse invloed op Suid-Afrikaanse verbruikers en ondernemings hê.

    “Ons is gelukkig om in ‘n land en streek te woon waar natuurrampe nie op dieselfde skaal as in ander dele in die wêreld plaasvind nie. Die vloede verlede jaar in die Kaap, die Mosambiek-vloede van 2000 en dan ook die KwaZulu-Natalse vloede in 1987 wat die versekeringsbedryf meer as R500 miljoen gekos het, is van ons bekende uitsonderings.”

    Volgens Heilig is mense wat in Suid-Afrika hul persoonlike besittings, soos huise, motors, juweliersware en meubels verseker, gewoonlik gedek teen alle vorms van natuurlike rampe soos aardbewings, orkane, tornado’s en storms.

    Hy sê die plaaslike korttermyn-versekeringsbedryf is gesond, onder meer omdat versekeraars wetenskaplike merietemodelle gebruik en gevorderde risiko- en onderskrywingsbestuur toepas. Mnr. Steffen Gilbert, uitvoerende hoof van Santam, sê die uiteindelike effek van Katrina op die Suid-Afrikaanse verbruiker sal min tot niks wees nie en met geen wesenlike prysstygings in polispremies gepaardgaan nie.

    Hy het egter gewaarsku rampe in die afgelope jaar benadruk hoe baie skade aangerig kan word deur iets wat mense dink net met ander gebeur.

    “Groot versekeraars wêreldwyd het wetenskaplikes in hul diens wat hoëvlak-navorsing doen oor klimaatsverandering. En daar is wel gevind dat natuurrampe meer gereeld en in erger vorms voorkom.

    “In die eerste ses maande van 2004 was daar een natuurlike katastrofiese gebeurtenis wat 59 persoonlike eise tot gevolg gehad het en vanjaar het ons reeds nege gehad wat tot 4 046 persoonlike eise gelei het. Dit sluit in vloede begin vanjaar, die aardbewing by Stilfontein en erge haelstorms in Johannesburg.”

    Hy sê die tsoenami in Desember het nie die versekeringsbedryf eintlik geraak nie omdat dit die armste van die armes was wat getref is.

    Katrina, daarenteen, het ‘n land getref waar mense wel versekering het, al is baie van hulle arm.

    “Daar was ‘n toename in die aantal mense wat vra vir versekering teen sulke gebeure en dit moet die publiek aanmoedig om seker te maak hul versekeringspolisse bied genoeg dekking om te verhoed dat bykomende finansiële druk op hul lewe geplaas word tydens traumatiese gebeure,” het Gilbert gesê.

    Outsurance sê hy dra die meeste van die risiko self en het daarom nie groot herversekeringsprogramme nie.

    “Ons verwag ons koste sal daarom styg met die toepaslike inflasie-marge,” sê mnr. Trevor Devitt, kommunikasiehoof van Outsurance.

    “Enige ramp van die skaal van die tsoenami in Asië en die orkaan Katrina sal altyd die versekeringsbedryf wêreldwyd raak as gevolg van herversekeringskostes. Maar maatskappye en kliënte sal verskillend geraak word en dit sal afhang van versekeraars se herversekering. Ons dek kliënte vir die hele spektrum van skade deur aardbewings, vloede, wind, weerlig, storms, hael en sneeu.”

    Santam en Hollard Insurance is dit eens dat polishouers seker moet maak hul bates is nie onderverseker nie en moet ook gereeld hul polisse hersien.

    “Versekering kan bates vervang, maar nie herinnerings nie. Maak dus seker dat jy liewer ‘n tas pak met die waardevolste goed soos erfstukke wat nie vervang kan word nie wanneer jy gewaarsku word teen ‘n dreigende natuurramp,” het Gilbert gesê.

    Onderskrif: Mnr. Lou Stavery help om beskadigde goedere te dra uit ‘n vriend se huis wat deur orkaan Katrina en die vloede daarna beskadig is. Foto: Charles W. Luzier

    (NaturalNews) The number of natural disasters around the world has increased by more than four times in the last 20 years, according to a report released by the British charity Oxfam. Oxfam analyzed data from the Red Cross, United Nations and researchers at Louvain University in Belgium. It found that the earth is currently experiencing approximately 500 natural disasters per year, compared with 120 per year in the early 1980s. The number of weather-related disasters in 2006 was 240, compared with 60 in 1980.

    At the same time, the number of geologically related natural disasters has held steady. Oxfam has attributed the increasing disaster rate to global warming

    “We are talking about some very unusual floods in West Africa, very unusual floods in East Africa, extraordinary floods in Mexico and parts of Central America, and heat waves in Greece [and] eastern Europe,” report author John Magrath said.

    “This is no freak year,” said Oxfam director Barbara Stocking. “It follows a pattern of more frequent, more erratic, more unpredictable and more extreme weather events that are affecting more people.”

    Between 1985 and 1994, Oxfam found that 174 million people were affected by disasters each year. In the following decade, this figure increased by 70 percent to 254 million people per year.

    The increasing disaster rate has disproportionately affected the poor, the report noted. Although rich countries tend to distribute aid primarily in the event of high-profile emergencies, the increase over the past two decades has been mostly in small to medium disasters.

    But it is precisely these smaller disasters, when they follow quickly upon each other with no opportunity for recovery, that can destroy poor communities’ abilities to support themselves.

    Magrath noted that those least responsible for causing global warming are being hardest hit by its effects.

    “There is a basic global injustice in this,” he said. “It seems to us that the rich nations of this earth have the historical responsibility to act first and fastest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to show an example and to lead the way.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023362.html#ixzz1HG2IPfp6

    soois

    March 21, 2011 at 19:51

  558. 😆 And the cognitive biases just keep rolling. If this be the rapture of head-in-the-sand buffoonery then peck on wild ostrich, peck on!😆

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2011 at 19:50

  559. Rick,
    ek is bly oor jou reaksie rondom oorloee. Ek het gewag dat een van julle my daar “reghelp”, jy sien, Die Openbaring praat juis van die oenskynlike vrede wat heers wereldwyd net voor die wederkoms.
    Ek stem nie saam oor die rampe nie. Hou maar die nuus vorentoe dop.

    soois

    March 21, 2011 at 19:35

  560. Daan,
    Johannes het inderdaad Die Openbaring geskryf nadat die engel deur Jesus gestuur dit aan hom geopenbaar het op Patmos, en nie Paulus soos ek geskryf het nie. Ek is geneig om die twee apostels om te ruil.
    Punt bly egter dat Johannes nie die toekoms voorspel het nie, maar GOD self…

    soois

    March 21, 2011 at 19:33

  561. Daan,
    Johannes het inderdaad Die Openbaring geskryf nadat die engel deur Jesus gestuur dit aan hom geopenbaar het op Patmos, en nie Paulus soos ek geskryf het nie. Ek is geneig om die twee apostels om te ruil.
    Punt bly egter dat Johannes nie die toekoms voorspel het nie, maar GOD self.

    soois

    March 21, 2011 at 19:30

  562. Nee, Mac.

    God het niks met die Bulle se kak vertonings te doen nie. Morné Steyn en veral Fourie du Preez jaag net verskriklik kak aan.

    Eh… Soois… Die Openbaring is deur Johannes geskryf en NIE deur Paulus nie. Dis nou die apostel Johannes, nie Johannes Coetzee nie. Al lyk dit partykeer so.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 21, 2011 at 17:42

  563. Yeah, never say that this god doesn’t play the odds. Everyone loves a winner, especially god and sonny-boy Jeeeeebussss.

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2011 at 17:28

  564. “God is on the side of the big battalions”, said Napoleon…

    Nathan Bond

    March 21, 2011 at 17:11

  565. God het die Bulls verlaat

    http://blogs.sport24.co.za/Unicorn007/entertaining-hugh

    “Almost as funny but not quite was the Bulls Bible brigade doing their thing again before the kick off. Very large forwards going down on one knee with heads respectfully bowed in a Rodin The Thinker like position to ask providence for a victory. The message did not get through. The big boss was probably watching the Ireland/England match at the time and enjoyed the English humiliation so much that there was not time to switch over to see how the Bulls were going.”

    McBrolloks

    March 21, 2011 at 17:05

  566. Soois

    Glo my, ek dink baie nugter, of ek probeer altans. Hoe hard probeer jý werklik?

    Jy skryf: “Kyk hoe volg wereldwye rampe en oorlog al hoe meer gereeld.”

    Bogenoemde word deesdae wyd en syd sommer so aanvaar, maar ek stem eenvoudig nie daarmee saam nie. Ek dink ons lewe in relatiewe vrede en verdraagsaamheid wat voorheen ongeken was.

    “Some of the evidence has been under our nose all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution—all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.” (Pinker, S 2007. The History of Violence. The New Republic).

    Myns insiens is daar ook nie meer rampe nie. ‘n Toename in wêreldsbevolking en beter nuusdekking skep dalk die indruk dat meer rampe deesdae plaasvind. Agv. Klimaatsverandering kan ‘n mens argumenteer dat die impak van nutuurrampe meer wesenlik is. Maar ‘n toename in rampe omdat God ons teen die eindtyd wil waarsku? Ek twyfel.

    Die ‘end timers’ is dus lief om die vermoedelike toename in rampe en oorloë uit te beeld, maar hierdie aanname moet skepties benader word.

    Rick

    March 21, 2011 at 15:00

  567. Ou Rick,
    eerstens die feite rondom Paulus. Hy het net mooi niks voorspel nie. God het aan Jesus die toekoms geopenbaar, wat op Sy beurt dmv. ‘n engel aan Paulus “gewys” het wat gaan gebeur. Daarom beskryf Paulus dinge op ‘n snaakse manier. Hy praat bv. van skerpioene so groot soos perde en so voorts. Jy moet onthou, hy het +- 2000 jaar gelede die dinge gesien en nie goed soos motors, oorlogsvoertuie en vliegtuie geken nie, en het dus dinge beskryf volgens sy kennis en vermoeens. Die dinge sou ook nie eers 2000 jaar later gebeur nie, maar direk na Die Openbaring sou dit begin, daarom dat rampe reeds 2000 jaar gelede reeds begin gebeur het, maar sou volgens Hom al hoe meer gereeld gebeur hoe nader ons aan die einde kom. Kyk hoe volg wereldwye rampe en oorlog al hoe meer gereeld. Japan is nog vars en nou gebeur Libie wat vandag fisies aangeval is en net die begin van nog ‘n oorlog.

    God gee die tekens vir ons op ‘n skinkbord, nou wil ons nog spesifieke datums he? Onthou, Hy het vir ons die presiese datum gegee wanneer die sondvloed met Noag-hulle plaasgevind het (17de dag van die tweede maand in die Joodse kalender, of 21 Mei in ons kalender: Genesis 7:11). Hoekom het Hy dit gedoen? Dalk omdat daardie datum, of liewer 7000 jaar na daardie datum die belangrikste datum vir ons behoort te wees, sodat ons die grootste ramp naamlik die ewige verderf kan vryspring??

    Spot maar, terg maar, verkleineer maar (Openbaring praat ook van die spotters naby die einde), doen julleself net een guns, dink nugter hieroor. Moenie my woorde summier aanvaar nie, nee, maar moet dit ook nie summier verwerp nie.

    Groete, Soois

    soois

    March 20, 2011 at 19:21

  568. Soois, as Paulus spesifieke datums en landsname genoem het sou ek dalk regop gesit het. Enige poephol kan droogtes, reën, aardbewings ensomeer voorspel omdat dit eenvoudig deel is van ons natuur. Ek voorspel: Oor die volgende tien jaar gaan daar in die Kaap gemiddeld meer reen in die winter as in die somer val, die suidooster gaan hoofsaaklik in die somer blaas terwyl die noordwester meestal in die winter sal waai. Is ek Nostradamus? Nee, eks ‘n gewone Jan Alleman met common sense…net soos Paulus waarskynlik was.

    Rick

    March 19, 2011 at 16:39

  569. From Gender-neutral bible draws critics (McBrolloks’ link):

    … drawing criticism from some conservatives who argue the changes can alter the theological message.

    (Emphasis added.) Theologians say the damnedest things. This kind of contrived hooey pervades theology. It is why the subject is such a pathetic joke and why it will remain one.

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2011 at 16:29

  570. Chaos because some people want people with a vagina to be given equal mention in the bible. The heresy!!!! God doesn’t like vaginas, except Mary’s, but that was just a one night stand.

    Gender-neutral bible draws critics

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/Gender-neutral-bible-draws-critics-20110318

    “Before the new translation even hit stores, it drew opposition from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organisation that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.”

    The Angus Buchan crowd will go ape-shit over this. So will the RCC. Dammit!!!! Will someone please tell these new age theological hippies that a womens place is pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen! It is written in several places in the bible god dammit!!! Even some of my friends from school agrees with that. Them as well as their obedient wives. The holy spirit must be strong with those women.

    McBrolloks

    March 19, 2011 at 14:01

  571. Hanswors, there are pills for your kind too. Unfortunately, they aren’t legal. Turn to Mickey Mouse instead. Your life will become immeasurably richer, and when you die, you’ll spend eternity in Disneyland (US or France, your choice) – but only if you accept Mickey Mouse as your life guide. Otherwise you’ll spend eternity with thousands of people who are exact copies of you. Then you’ll have nothing to do or to talk about. It’s a gentler kind of Gehenna.

    soois, it is truly rare to find writings with such an abysmal signal-to-noise ratio as yours. It provides much amusement. Thank you.

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2011 at 11:01

  572. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Baie geluk met jou eerste kleinseun. My eerste kleinseun word volgende maand agt en sy boetie Juliemaand vyf.

    Hulle is twee naais outjies en verskaf aan my baie plesier.

    Vergeet van sy name en van godsdiens en geniet hom!🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 19, 2011 at 10:46

  573. boonop vergeet julle dat meeste van hierdie rampe deur die mens self veroorsaak word.
    Jesus se God waarsku en waarsku, maar ons mense wil nie luister nie. Hy gaan ons nie elke keer uit die gemors wat ons self veroorsaak het uithaal nie, maar Hy sal self saam met ons daardeur gaan.

    Sterkte vir julle.
    Groete,
    Soois

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 10:27

  574. Ag asseblief tog.

    Nathan Bond

    March 19, 2011 at 10:25

  575. Jy sal dit nie doen nie, want jy het nie die mag om hulle ‘n nuwe beter lewe te gee nie.
    As jy twee seuns bv gehad het, wat jou volg en liefhet, en jou twee dogters het afgedwaal weg van jou af en jy kan hulle red en terugkry deur daardie twee seuns te offer, en jy het die mag om daardie seuns ‘n beter lewe daarna te gee, wat sal jy doen??

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 10:20

  576. Soois

    Elke maal as daar ‘n nuwe godioot op hierdie blog begin skryf moet daar wéér om dieselfde blok met hom of haar geloop word.

    Ek is gatvol daarvoor.

    Lees die artikels en die kommentare op hierdie blog, of nie.

    Maar tog net dít:

    Ek is die pa van twee godin-dogters.

    Daar is NIKS – níks, soos in fôkol – wat hulle OOIT sal kan doen wat hulle my ewige toorn op die hals sal haal nie.

    Ek sal nie hulle bene breek of hulle laat honger ly of hulle brand of water van hulle weerhou nie. Ek sal nie hulle kamers laat wegspoel of saam met hulle besittings tot pulp skud nie. Selfs nie as hulle my verwerp en nooit weer met my praat nie.

    Soos pappas gaan is jou “god” über-kák! Die Welsyn behoort die bliksem toe te sluit.

    Nathan Bond

    March 19, 2011 at 09:50

  577. Nathan
    Want God wil he dat ons Hom opsoek en vir dinge vra. Ek weet nie of jy ‘n pa is nie, maar ek is, en ek wil graag he dat my kinders my opsoek en ook dinge vra. Ek is nie die soort pa wat net gee sodat my kinders onder my voete uitbly en my nie pla nie.

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 09:17

  578. Ja Nathan, en het dit gelees en net soos ek reeds gese het, sal jy dit as die natuur toeskryf. Het jy opgelet hoe hierdie dinge eers duisende, toe honderde, toe elke +- jaar en nou jaarliks plaasvind? Weereens het die Bybel dit so voorspel. Die aardbewings in Tahiti en die vulkaniese uitbarstings wat Europa se lugvaart weke lank lamgele het. Hierdie rampe gaan meer en meer en meer op mekaar gebeur.

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 09:14

  579. Soois, oor jou invloed op die weer agv jou besonderse verhouding met die bomenslike: dit sal altyd weer reën. Bid, soos Angus op George nie so lank gelede nie, wanneer dit op die droogste is en… Dit gaan reën.

    Soos op Beaufort oor die afgelope weke…

    Hoekom moet jou “god” altoos herinner word dat sy arme skepsels iets nodig het: kos, water…

    Nathan Bond

    March 19, 2011 at 09:06

  580. Rick skryf dat Christene ver sal gaan om hul god te regverdig, maar hoe ver gaan die ongelowige om die teendeel te bewys. Ek lees dat die aarde se as met 17cm geskuif het en dat die dae nou blykbaar met amper ‘n minuut verkort is. “Toevallig” beskryf Paulus ook in Die Openbaring van die aarde wat verskuif het agv bogenoemde aardbewing. Die “mense” wat die Bybel “geskryf” het, het darem raak geraai.

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 09:06

  581. Snert, Soois.

    Lees my artikel oor die 2004-tsoenami; die skakel is in hierdie artikel.

    Nathan Bond

    March 19, 2011 at 08:58

  582. Nie so vaag nie. Net een voorbeeld hoor, daar is nog baie meer. Baie meer akkuraat 2000 jaar gelede as vandag se tegnologie wat net kan wys daar is so-iets moontlik oppad. Die instrumente kan net akkuraat voorspel as dit reeds te laat is om almal te waarsku.

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 08:55

  583. Nathan, in Januarie het jy gekla oor sentraal Suid Afrika wat in droogte gehul is. Ek het vir jou gese ek sal bid en dat jy die weer maar kan dophou. Ek het dit met oortuiging gese, en nie net maar gesit en duim vashou dat die een of ander gelukkie my sou tref nie. Nou is sentraal SA amper verspoel van al die reen, maar jy sal dit aan toeval toeskryf, of die een of ander natuurverskynsel, sonder om te besef dat God verantwoordelik is vir daardie natuurverskynsel. Nee wat, my ou. Jy kan my verkleineer en bespot soveel as wat jy wil, dit maak aan my niks, want ek weet God is met my en almal wat Jesus aanneem. Dit wil nie se dat iets vreesliks my nie kan tref nie. As Hy dit goeddink om my te neem om daardeur aan ander ‘n boodskap oor te dra, dan sal Hy dit doen, maar vir my wag daar ‘n heerlike hiernamaals.

    Waarvoor is julle bang? Dat die Woord dalk waar is en julle bekende wereldjie gaan verander? Vrees vir die onbekende of so-iets?

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 08:53

  584. Hopeloos te vaag, Soois, hopeloos te vaag!

    Ongelooflik hoe ver Christene sal gaan om hul God te verdedig en te regverdig.

    Rick

    March 19, 2011 at 08:40

  585. Ooooooo!

    Hoekom het iemand my nie laaaaaankal gesê die Bybel is só betroubaar nie!

    Nathan Bond

    March 19, 2011 at 08:37

  586. Een voorbeeld: “Op daardie oomblik was daar ‘n groot aardbewing, en ‘n tiende van die stad het inmekaar gestort. Seweduisend mense het het in die aardbewing omgekom, en die ander het bevrees geraak en aan die God van die hemel die eer gegee:” Openbaring 11:13

    Dit klink ongelooflik erg dat God so-iets kan doen, maar die Christen sien daarin eintlik genade, want dit is God se manier om die mensdom weereens te waarsku en te soebat dat hulle Jesus sal aanneem as verlosser en sodoende ook gered sal word.

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 08:33

  587. Soois

    As jy nie omgee nie, maar kan jy dit asb vir ons aanhaal?

    Rick

    Rick

    March 19, 2011 at 08:24

  588. Assssefokkinbliéftog!

    ‘n Liefdevolle “God” voorspel eue der eeue gelede: “Ek gaan julle oooooópfok! Pasooóp!”

    En vir 2 milleniums wroeg die liefdevolle “God” hieroor en hy dink oor hóé hy, in sy goddelike regverdigheid, die kinders van die kinders van die kinders… van die kinders van die mense wat hom so afgepis het se lewe hel gaan maak.

    En toe, op ‘n dag: “Kom Gabriëlkie, skud daai blougroen rots neffens Mars.”

    Wat ‘n dóós!

    Nathan Bond

    March 19, 2011 at 08:24

  589. “Ten minste weet ons die ramp was net die gevolg van die dinamiek van ons planeet – geen “gode” was betrokke nie.

    Hoe weet ons? Wel ons kon die aardbewing méét.”

    Snaaks hoe mense in moderne tegnologie glo, maar nie in die feit dat hierdie ramp reeds 2000 jaar gelede in Openbaring voorspel is nie. As jy nie wil glo nie, sal jy nie. Sterkte ouens, sterkte…

    soois

    March 19, 2011 at 08:11

  590. En ou Hans yl nog steeds!

    ErickV

    March 19, 2011 at 07:38

  591. Bogenoemde skrywe is aan Hans gerig.

    Rick

    March 19, 2011 at 04:44

  592. ‘Onkundig’ se jy? Goed dan…

    Sien CT se skrywe hierbo oor die evangelie van Mickey Mouse. Ek glo jy is bekend met Mickey Mouse. Maak dit jou outomaties ‘n Mickey Mouse gelowige? Natuurlik nie, dis bloot nie so eenvoudig soos hoor en glo nie! Sien jy die dilemma?

    Verstaan mooi, groot dele van die wereld, veral Asie, voel ‘n absolute fok vir die Christelike geloof. In Korea het ‘n Koreaan my onlangs genader met ‘n boek waarin daar verwys word na ene ‘Jesus’. Sy wou by my weet of ek weet wie Jesus is.

    Verder wil ek graag weet? Wanneer het iemand nou genoeg van die Christelike geloof gehoor voordat God se geduld met hom/haar opraak? Maw, het die Japanse ouma wie onlangs in die aardbewing omgekom het, wie 20 jaar gelede onder evangeliste deurgeloop het, genoeg gehoor om die ‘regte’ besluit te neem?

    jLaastens, jou fokken arrogansie kan maar end kry. Dat jy rondloop met ‘n 2000 jaar oue boek en vir almal vertel dat hulle lewe leeg is sonder die boek, is arrogant verby. Sodra iemand met jou verskil is dit omdat hulle kwansuis nie die Bybel verstaan nie. Omdat jy nie ‘n man van bewyse is nie, hoekom moet ek nou juis jou interpretasie van die Bybel glo??

    Ek hoor graag!

    Rick

    March 19, 2011 at 04:43

  593. Friends

    Today I do not know whether I must cry or laugh.
    Yesterday my first grandson was born and the name given to him by my bible bashing son is….Joshua Sameul!!!!

    ErickV

    March 19, 2011 at 04:33

  594. Irma Kroeze, ek het seker bedoel om vir ‘n kleuter te skryf.
    Jou persepsie van God blyk foutief te wees en daarom jou sogenaamde logika in die verband ook.
    My van word gespel met twee “t’s” en een “s” en om dit makliker te onthou, dink aan twee tiete en een stroompie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2011 at 22:42

  595. Doktor E, kyk maar wat ek vir Rick geskryf het en die laaste sin is nie op jou gemik nie.
    Ek stem saam met jou tweede gedeelte.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2011 at 22:29

  596. Rick, een wat nog nie die ware evangelie gehoor het nie, is nie ‘n ongelowige nie maar wel ‘n onkundige. Jy sal moonlik kan besef, dat daar wel ‘n verskil is.
    Kyk maar weer na wat ek geskryf het en dink wat jy lees.
    Die punt van my geloof is, dat daar ‘n teenswoordige liggaam van Jesus Christus kan wees, wat uit baie lede bestaan, waardeur hulle redding kan ontvang.
    Ek dink nie jy is regverdig in jou beoordeling van die Bybel aangesien dit duidelik is, dat jy die Bybel nog nooit verstaan het nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2011 at 22:23

  597. Con-Tester, daar is medikasie vir mense wat stemme hoor soos jy.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2011 at 21:51

  598. On the upside, while many see the malevolent or benevolent hand of one or other deity at work in this disaster, nobody’s seen Jeeeebusss, gawd! and/or Satan faces in the explosion plumes of Fukushima power station yet. Judicious application of image processing is sure to address this alarming lapse of divine omnipresence in the near future…

    Con-Tester

    March 15, 2011 at 10:25

  599. Hi

    Die boek word gepubliseer deur Aardvark Press. Maar ek het dit by Exclusive books gekry.

    Nog een: Sam Harris The Moral landscape. Waarin hy bewys dat moraliteit wetenskaplik begrond kan word en nie godsdiens nodig het nie.

    Die “gaps” vir die “god-in-the-gaps” word al hoe kleiner….

    Irma Kroeze

    March 15, 2011 at 08:35

  600. Ai Erick!! Onthou die spasie!!!! Een spasie.🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 14, 2011 at 15:39

  601. Irma
    Vir iemand soos jy kan ek nie kwaad word nie:)
    Waar kan ek daardie boek aanskaf?

    ErickV

    March 14, 2011 at 14:41

  602. Merkwaardig hoe mense dink ateisme (of rasionalisme) is ‘n onlangse verskynsel ….

    BTW sopas fantastiese nuwe boek ontdek: Open minds, closed minds and christianity deur Colin Bower. Suid-afrikaanse skrywer en een van die beste, vernietigendste ontmaskerings van christenskap ooit. ‘n Moet-lees vir almal.

    Irma Kroeze

    March 14, 2011 at 11:12

  603. @Irma

    Epicurius – sedert die 3de eeu VAE reeds onbeantwoord…

    Nathan Bond

    March 14, 2011 at 10:03

  604. Irma Kroeze wrote (March 14, 2011 at 09:31):

    Logic is kind of irrefutable, ain’t it?

    Nah, just ask any member of the rubber-duck brigade floating around here. Logic just bounces right off ’em, leaving ’em as unsinkable as ever. Now, if only they’d turn to Mickey Mouse

    Con-Tester

    March 14, 2011 at 09:56

  605. Ek stem saam, Dok. Alhoewel ek ‘n Christengelowige is, is ek lankal nie meer godsdienstig nie en glo ek tans dat alles van God afkomstig is, en dat alles na God terugkeer.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 14, 2011 at 09:48

  606. Thought I would let Epicurus (long before the birth of “god”) say it all:

    Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both willing and able?
    Then whence comes evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him god?

    Logic is kind of irrefutable, ain’t it?

    O ja, Hans Mathyssen, die Afrikaans is “kluts kwyt” nie “klits” nie. Tensy jy dit in die “klits vir kleuters” sin bedoel? Min-of-meer op die vlak van jou argumente …

    Irma Kroeze

    March 14, 2011 at 09:31

  607. Hans.

    Ek moet met Rick saamstem. Volgens die Christelike geloof gaan net wedergebore Christene hemel toe en die res word in die hel gesmyt.

    As daar ‘n God is, wat ek deesdae al hoe meer betwyfel, het Hy net so min iets met die ramp in Japan te doen, as wat hy iets te doene gehad het met die astroiede wat 65 miljoen jaar gelede die dinosaurusse uitgewis het.

    Doktor Einstein

    March 14, 2011 at 09:30

  608. But Mickey Mouse is friends with everyone (except maybe crooks), even with dullards like Hanswors and Vicar with their insulting I-know-important-shit-that-you-don’t-and-never-mind-that-I-can’t-prove-a-word-of-it superiority. Why, just this morning Mickey Mouse spoke to me. He told me that okes like Hanswors and Vicar must go to Japan as a matter of urgency to spread their god’s loving message to the disaster victims – the message being that it has all happened for a reason, that it’s not their god’s fault and that their god won’t reject them. The victims will be much comforted and relieved by that message. Many of them will say, “Well, that’s okay, then.” but in Japanese, not Afrikaans or English.

    Con-Tester

    March 14, 2011 at 08:32

  609. Hans

    “Wie se God gaan hulle verwerp?”

    Jou Bybel waarin jy so onverbiddelik glo ‘sê’ so: “Ek is die weg en die waarheid en die lewe; niemand kom na die Vader behalwe deur My nie.”

    Jy sien die Bybel is so ‘n los, aangelapte boek dat daar vir feitlik enige iets (massamoord en rassisme om maar twee te noem) ‘n teks ter ondersteuning is.

    En Hans, indien God hulle nie gaan verwerp nie, wat dan is die punt van jou geloof? Hoekom wil jy jou as ‘n Christen klassifiseer as almal uiteindelik dieselfde lot beskore is?

    Nee Hans, laat ek raai: Jy is ‘n Christen omdat jy bogenoemde aanhaling uit Johannes glo en omdat jy nie saam met die ongelowiges, oa die Japanners, wil brand en gemartel wil word nie.

    Koms, sê dit soos dit ís! Dit staan immers in die Bybel geskrywe en jy as Christen behoort dit te glo, nie waar?

    Rick

    March 14, 2011 at 08:11

  610. Vicar
    “maar dit is nog steeds nie God se oorsaak nie, alles gebeur vir ‘n rede”
    Jy weet, toe ek dit lees slaat ek amper bemelakiesie van woede! Hoe de fok!!
    Ek dag dan jou fokken got is almagtig!
    Ek dag jy het ‘n fokken liefdevolle got!
    Ek dag dan jou fokken got doen alles met ‘n doel!
    Dan wil jy nog fokken se alles gebeur met ‘n doel!
    Nou, wat se fokken doel???!!!
    Jy is fokken siek in jou fokken kop net soos jou fokken medegelowiges!!!
    Jou fokken moer en jou fokken got se fokken moer man!!!!
    Ek is sommer nou hoog die bliksem in!!!
    Genoeg is nou fokken genoeg!!!

    ErickV

    March 14, 2011 at 06:12

  611. Hanswors, clearly you don’t understand the message of Mickey Mouse comics. Mickey Mouse never kills anybody but crooks never know when they’ll get bliksemed. Open your eyes to Mickey Mouse’s wonderful message of gentle persuasion. It’s miles better than plagues and locusts and killing firstborns and stuff.

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2011 at 22:42

  612. Soos gewoonlik het julle die klits weer kwyt en weet julle blykbaar nie, dat ons elkeen die lewe gaan verlaat en die hoe en wanneer, is nie ter sake nie.
    Rick jy ken en verstaan duidelik nie die Bybel nie. Wie sê God gaan hulle verwerp?

    1 Kor. 15:29 Anders, wat sal hulle doen wat hulle vir die dode laat doop, as die dode geheel en al nie opgewek word nie? Waarom laat hulle hul nog vir die dode doop?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 13, 2011 at 22:36

  613. That the English ever win anything – anything! – is conclusive proof that there is no god. Sport has its place among the theological disciplines.

    Nathan Bond

    March 13, 2011 at 20:32

  614. On another note, the Cricket World Cup is another tournament where the gods battle it out to prove which gods are the strongest.

    No wonder the disaster happened in Japan. The gods are all in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh watching cricket and supporting their players.

    Sport can be such a distraction.

    McBrolloks

    March 13, 2011 at 20:28

  615. Vicar wrote (March 13, 2011 at 14:11):

    … maar dit is nog steeds nie God se oorsaak nie…

    Yeah, ‘cos that would be of a similar order of asininity to blaming the tooth fairy for caries.

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2011 at 18:06

  616. Behoede die mense wat die ramp oorleef het!

    Kyk net wat het “Jesus” Vrydag “toegelaat” om met die land en sy mense te gebeur – “Jesus” is die lááste snaar wat náby Japan en die Japanners toegelaat moet word!

    Ten minste weet ons die ramp was net die gevolg van die dinamiek van ons planeet – geen “gode” was betrokke nie.

    Hoe weet ons? Wel ons kon die aardbewing méét.

    En ons weet mos darem al oor die “gode”…

    Nathan Bond

    March 13, 2011 at 17:09

  617. My niggie wat nog op hoërskool is skryf op Facebook:

    “Kan net bid vir al die mense in Japan en omliggende gebiede!! Asb Jesus wees met hulle!”

    McBrolloks

    March 13, 2011 at 16:59

  618. Vicar, moenie vir die gestorwenes bid nie. Hulle is reeds dood. God het reeds besluit om hulle te kom haal, op sy unieke en liefdevolle manier soos jy op CNN kan sien. Probleem is, die meerderheid Japanners is nie Christene nie. Dus, eers laat God toe dat hulle op so ‘n dramatiese wyse te sterf, en dan verwerp hy hulle in die hiernamaals.

    Gelukkig ‘gebeur alles vir ‘n rede’. Wat ‘n troos!

    Rick

    March 13, 2011 at 14:43

  619. Die keer stem ek saam julle, maar dit is nog steeds nie God se oorsaak nie, alles gebeur vir n rede daarom bid ek vir alle mense wat hul lewe verloor het daar in Japan

    Vicar

    March 13, 2011 at 14:11

  620. Na afloop van die aardbewing in Haiti het Pat Robertson gesê Haiti ‘had it coming’ weens ‘n ooreenkoms wat die land met die duiwel aangegaan het.

    Ek wonder of Japan soortgelyke kommentaar kan verwag? Dalk het daardie dominee wat so teen standbeeldjies en wierook waarsku ‘n punt gehad…of dalk nie.

    Gelowig of ongelowig, dis uiters hartverskeurend om na die beeldmateriaal op televisie te kyk. Hoe die gelowige egter weer na God kan draai na so ‘n fokop/speletjie/les/pakslae van Hom laat mens inderdaad ‘sprakeloos’.

    Fokken siek!

    Rick

    March 13, 2011 at 12:14

  621. But it’s mostly pagans and heathens whose lives have been disrupted. Anyway, this is just a taste of what’s waiting for all of us in less than ten weeks’ time…😛

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2011 at 11:43


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: