Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

The year of the Atheist?

with 683 comments

Brandon G. Withrow asks this provocative question in The Huffington Post today: Will 2012 Be The Year Of The Atheist?

Methinks not.

Homo sapiens sapiens is not prepared to live in the absence of incarnate goodness and evil. “God” and “Devil” remain safe.

Atheism requires a dapper, dauntless intelligence most humans are not prepared to exercise.

Another year of fairy tales and conjoined violence await the parasites on this third rock from a small star.

Ho-hum.

Written by Nathan Bond

December 31, 2011 at 07:17

Posted in Religion must go!

683 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. But Hanswors, you keep telling me how “dum” I am, so how am I going to figure anything out? Besides, that is, that you’re dodging the question again with your usual tosh and piffle. So there’s nothing new there. I figured that out too, Hanswors. All by myself, nogal. ’Cos you’re such a superb teacher, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 21:01

  2. Con-Tester, we will leave it for you to figure it out.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 25, 2012 at 20:51

  3. But Hanswors, it doesn’t take a genius, let alone one of your impressive magnificence, to figure out that you are continuously talking delusional kak, so why should anyone pay anything more than cursory attention to you, hmm?

    Byt the way, which “albei” are you addressing with your latest tosh and piffle, Hanswors?

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2012 at 22:58

  4. Julle is albei so verstrengel in julle eie gedagtes, dat julle nie kan fokus op wat ander sê, dus. kom ons laat dit maar daar.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 24, 2012 at 22:53

  5. Waaraan is jy onskuldig Hans?
    Is jy onskuldig daaraan dat jy glo dat die waarheid aan jou onthul is, en dat almal wat nie presies soos jy glo nie, nie hemel toe sal gaan nie?

    Shazee

    April 24, 2012 at 04:02

  6. Oh, tosh and piffle, Hanswors. If you believe in a personal creator skydaddy, you’re against science by the very nature of your beliefs. So you can stop telling such tall ones, see?

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 23:20

  7. Shazee, ek is onskuldig in dit wat jy hierbo nie kan onthou nie en ek glö in die wetenskap.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 23:13

  8. Nee Hans man, ek het nie regtig penis op die “brien” nie, en ek is jammer jy dink ons mishoop “strink” so.
    Maar vertel my; het jy al gehoor van die pot wat die ketel swart noem?
    Ek kan nie onthou waar een van ons op die mishoop al vir julle vertel het dat ons die enigste mense is wat die waarheid in pag het nie. Ek kan nie onthou waar ons al vir julle vertel het julle moet ons woord aanvaar dat die waarheid aan ons onthul is, en julle gaan in die hel brand as julle nie ons woord daarvoor wil aanvaar sonder enige bewyse hoegenaamd nie.
    Ek kan nie onthou waar ons gerespekteerde wetenskaplikes se navorsing summier afgemaak het as irrellevant waar dit ons onthulde waarheid weerspreek nie.

    Wie is nou eintlik arrogant? Wie dink nou eintlik hulle is beter as die res?

    Shazee

    April 23, 2012 at 12:23

  9. Yes Hanswors, you have taught me something, and I have never denied it. Specifically, you have taught me just how much godiot/religiot/apologiot/crediot/bibliot crushtians are prepared to lie, to deceive, to manufacture bullshit, to evade and dodge, to be pigheadedly impervious to reason, evidence and logic, and to claim all sorts of fanciful horseshit. That is what you have taught me, and the lessons are ongoing, Hanswors. I mean, who could fail to learn these edifying lessons from an infallible teacher like you with your unmatched expertise re your skydaddy and your Holey Babble!? Before I encountered you, I thought it would be possible to have a mutually beneficial debate but your methods, tactics and approach soon set me right on that score.

    So yes, about godiots/religiots/apologiots/crediots/bibliots you have taught me much that is valuable, and I am deeply humbled by, and grateful for your eminent selflessness in that regard, Hanswors…

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 10:53

  10. Shazee, geen wonder julle dwaal so, julle verbeel julle, julle is beter as ander en die mishoop waarop julle, julle so verhoog, strink. Dit wil voorkom of jy “penis” op jou brien het en dus wonder ek of jy ooit regdenkend kan wees?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 10:37

  11. Con-Tester, it appears that I have taught you something and although you have tried hard to convert me to become an atheist, you can never wipe away the non tangible.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 10:28

  12. Well, in days gone by for more than two years, I tried to have a halfway decent interaction with this brainless drolkop. Without fail, he just shat his usual runny poo all over everything with the same monotonous stupidity, occasionally claiming that he proved this or that. The only thing he has proved, and the proof is ongoing, is the mind-numbing and mind-numbed obduracy of the typical godiot.

    As far as his particular flavour of godiocy is concerned, he’s a Matthysenist, which he of course has also denied when I pointed it out some years ago.

    Now I just ridicule him at every available turn. The funny and revealing thing is that he still thinks he’s having a debate. No sleep for the whacked.

    Con-Tester

    April 22, 2012 at 11:09

  13. Yes Con-Tester, you are undoubtedly correct, but hell, he was going to do that anyway.

    The one thing he is brilliant at, is avoiding straight answers and changing subjects.
    I thought my question on the “Religion is like a penis” thread, would stump him at the first go.
    After all, if you don’t believe that jesus died for your sins, why call yourself a christan?

    But this fucker is as slippery as an eel, it took me more than a week to corner him into some kind of an honest admission, and on something that is so central to his faith!

    Shazee

    April 22, 2012 at 08:59

  14. Oh no Shazee, now you’ve done it. Left an opening for Hanswors to change the subject again, I mean. He’ll tell you that a doos can at least provide pleasure and in his mind, with that he’ll have won another round over us dumb atheists without ever having said anything of any substance, value or meaning.

    Of course he’ll conveniently avoid the fact that the proper meaning of doos describes his blockheaded cardboard-box approach quite aptly…

    Con-Tester

    April 22, 2012 at 08:27

  15. En by the way Hans, wat beteken dit om iets “voor jou siel” te weet?
    Ek het nie ‘n “siel” om iets voor te weet nie, net so min as wat jy ‘n “siel” het.

    En op dieselfde trant Hans; se ‘n bietjie vir my of daar diere in die hemel gaan wees? Ek bedoel nou, as diere nie siele het nie, dan kan hulle mos nie hemel toe gaan nie? Gaan wagter saam met Petrus vir my wag die “pearly gates”?

    Shazee

    April 22, 2012 at 05:22

  16. Jy is reg Hans, ek het die verse weer bestudeer.
    Jy weet ek is reg dat daar ‘n weerspreking is en jy weier bloot om “erkentelik” te wees.

    Soos jy sal opmerk Hans, het ek maar tot jou vlak van “redenasie” gedaal. Jy is so ‘n dom doos dat jy dink dit dra iets tot die argument by as jy bloot aanhoudend dieselfde stellings oor, en oor herhaal. As dit waar is, dra my breinlose herhalings seker maar net soveel gewig soos jou breinlose herhalings.

    Shazee

    April 22, 2012 at 05:09

  17. Ha-ha-ha Hanswors, take a look in the mirror, boet. And no, your dimwitted perceptions to the contrary, it’s quite the other way around, as you keep demonstrating time and time again: Dishonesty and onerkentlikheid together with a giant dose of obstinate stupidity are prerequisites for being a godiot.

    Con-Tester

    April 21, 2012 at 22:45

  18. Shazee, die ander boek ontken nie dat hulle eers Egipteland toe gegaan het en soos al julle adiote, is jy nie erkentlik nie. Jy het die verse weer bestudeer en jy weet voor jou siel, dat ek reg is en daar geen weerspreking is nie. Dit wil voorkom of om oneerlik en onerkentlik te wees, is maar ‘n karaktereienskap wat een nodig het om ‘n Adioot te wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 21, 2012 at 22:37

  19. Waarvan praat jy tog Hans?
    Is dit weer een van daardie kere waar jy “mealy broaden the horizon”?
    Ons bespreek die vraag waarom een boek beweer jesus is Egipte toe en die ander boek nie.
    Wat het dit te doen met jou antwoord?
    Jy moet fokus.

    Shazee

    April 21, 2012 at 03:48

  20. Shazee, so jy reken, dat om na die waarskuwing te luister, dit ook saam met al die ander dinge te volbring en dan terug te keer na Nàsaret, is nie volgens die Here se wet nie? (vers 39)

    Hans Matthysen

    April 20, 2012 at 22:36

  21. Soos Mark Twain gese het; “denial aint just a river in Egypt” – nogal gepas in die geval.
    As jy eenvoudig net aanhou ontken dat twee lynreg uiteenlopende weergawes van dieselfde insident nie ‘n weerspreking is nie, kan “een” seker nie verder met jou redeneer nie Hans. Jy weier eenvoudig om “erkentelik” te wees.

    Shazee

    April 20, 2012 at 04:55

  22. Only on Planet Hanswors is there no conflict. Or so the naked emperor claims…

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 22:14

  23. Shazee, die Wysemanne is ook ‘n ander pad huistoe om Herodus te vermy. Josef is in ‘n droom deur God gewasku (Mat. 2 v 12). Hy het dus die wet van die Here volbring (Luk. 2 v 39), deur volgens die waarskuwing, Egipteland toe te gaan en daar te vertoef tot die dood van Herodus en daarna na Nàsaret te gaan. Daar is hoegenaamd geen weerspreking nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 19, 2012 at 22:05

  24. Yes Hanswors, and in your own superbly genius way, you comment anyway.

    That would be so that you can keep your brain-dead yadda-yadda, wibble-wibble, nyaff-nyaff, hap-hap bullshit going. Go on, be honest and admit it.

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 22:00

  25. Con-Tester, (not worthy comment).

    Hans Matthysen

    April 19, 2012 at 21:51

  26. Hans, ek het nie beweer die woord “direk” verskyn spesifiek in enige van die twee tekste nie. Ek gebruik die woord bloot om aan te dui hoe ek die vers verstaan.
    Gestel ek vra jou waarheen jy is toe jy uit Pretoria weg is, en jy antwoord: “Ek is Witbank toe”.
    Sou jy nie se dit beteken iets heeltemal anders as: “Ek is Nelspruit toe waar ek vir ‘n paar jaar gebly het, en daarna is ek Witbank toe”.

    Jy sien die verskil Hans? In die eerste antwoord is jy “direk” Witbank toe, en in die tweede een defnitief nie.
    As twee mense vir my die twee antwoorde oor jou bewegings gee, weerspreek hulle mekaar.

    Shazee

    April 19, 2012 at 00:09

  27. Yes, that’s right in your case, Hanswors. But hey, it’s only in response to your constant inability to present anything of substance and your incessantly asinine yadda-yadda, wibble-wibble, nyaff-nyaff, hap-hap bullshit, Hanswors. So get used to it, see?

    Woof woof, ou Hanswors. Woof woof.😀

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 23:42

  28. Hanswors, your ongoing mimicry of me aside (which is quite flattering, actually), that would be “straight” and “oversized”. Then there’s the rather obvious issue of whether you, Mr Kettle, have met your diametrical kindred, Mr Pot. I ask because it’s rather obvious that you haven’t the first clue what I’m talking about — which doesn’t surprise me, given that you never once had that capability and always dodge by pretending that your flights of fancy are facts.

    And, as a point of order, it was Shazee who asked you. Your “strait question” is not so “strait” and is rather more a very obvious dodging tactic, you funny man, you!

    Oh, and Hanswors? You still can’t prove me wrong about any of all those points I raised illustrating your dishonesty…😛

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 23:36

  29. Con-Tester, jy neem nie deel aan die bespreking nie en is soos ‘n klein brakkie wat net die hele tyd kef-kef omdat jy graag aandag probeer trek, siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 23:28

  30. Con-Tester, you could be some kind of a writer with all the meaningless shit you write. I am just asking Shazee a strait question that you obviously will not be able to answer because of your lack of honesty and over sized pride.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 23:23

  31. Jeeeeeeebusssst!, ou Hanswors, what an amusing pile of crap you have contrived to preserve your illusion that you actually know what you’re babbling about re your allegedly skydaddy-inspired Holey Babble. Sterling job, sir! Highly entertaining.

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 23:15

  32. Jan Swart, die een spreek wat die Gees hom gee en die ander ook, tog is daar geen weerspreking nie. Jy wil graag hê dat daar moet wees en probeer dit so afmaak. Net dwase sal jou glo omdat hulle graag wil. Ek sit in ‘n diens en sien wat die Gees aan my toon en die gene langs my sien ook wat die Gees aan hulle toon. Nie een sal presies honderd persent dieselfde sien wat die ander een sien en sal dus net vertel, dit wat vir hul uitgestaan het. Sorry that I have to burst your bubble.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 23:09

  33. What a funny man you are, Hanswors. Do you really think nobody sees how hard you are avoiding a straight answer to Shazee’s question!? 😛😛😛

    Con-Tester

    April 18, 2012 at 22:59

  34. Shazee, ek het nou gesoek om te kyk of ek die woord “direk” in die gedeeltes kon kry wat jy gemeld het en kon dit nie daar kry nie. Miskien kan jy my daarmee help?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 18, 2012 at 22:56

  35. Hans, die punt is nie regtig waar jesus grootgeword het nie. Die punt is dat die een boek se hy is Egipte toe, en die ander een dat hy direk Nasaret toe is. Dit is ‘n weerspreking, watter verduideliking jy ookal daarvoor het.

    Shazee

    April 18, 2012 at 17:29

  36. Hans, hoe is dit moontlik dat “Lukas nie daarvan geweet het nie” as die Bybel God-geïnspireerd is? Is hierdie uiteindelik nou jou erkenning dat die Bybel mensgemaak is, en nie “die ewige waarheid, onveranderlik en foutloos” is nie. Want as jou stelling is wat ek vermoed dit is, het jy sopas ‘n reuse stap geneem. Baie geluk! “Merely having a belief is no indication of how carefully you’ve thought about something.”

    Jan Swart

    April 18, 2012 at 07:36

  37. Malherbe, ek is geen kwaad nie en wat het jou dan laat dink, ek glo nie in evolusie nie? Ek het Dawkins se boek begin lees en het agter gekom, dat sy kennis van die Bybel ens. is op vleeslike wyse opgeneem en daarom maak daar so baie dinge vir hom nie sin nie. Wie kan hom dus kwalik neem? Beslis nie ek nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 17, 2012 at 22:56

  38. And Hanswors, how do you know that I’m not a writer of novels, hmm? Or are you taking your flights of fancy as ironclad fact again, as is your habit, hmm?

    (That’s another question you won’t answer.)

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2012 at 22:52

  39. Hanswors, it’s clear that you haven’t even read my comment properly. And I was right: You’ve just tried to shift the focus again with a new batch of batshit excuses. That’s not my imagination, ou.

    Oh, and you can’t prove me wrong with the points I have made about your dishonesty. 😛

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2012 at 22:47

  40. Yes Hanswors, your deep, deep, deep understanding of your Holey Babble is obvious to everyone. Pity then that you keep dodging, evading, avoiding and generally bullshitting your way past addressing some of those 400+ contradictions…🙄

    Con-Tester

    April 17, 2012 at 22:41

  41. Con-Tester, I must say, you do imagine a lot of things, so maybe you should become a writer of novels.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 17, 2012 at 22:40

  42. Shazee, lees ook Mat. 2 verse 19, en 23. Jesus was nog maar ‘n kindjie toe hul uit Egipteland na Nàsaret getrek het en Hy het dus in Nàsaret groot geword. Josef hulle is via Egipteland na Nàsaret toe en dit is moontlik dat Lukas nie daarvan geweet het nie, of dit nie belangrik geag het om te noem nie. Daar is geen weerspreking nie al wil jy so graag hê dat daar moet wees.
    Terloops, ek verstaan wat in die Bybel geskryf staan beter as meeste mense ja. Daar is baie wat die Bybel, beter ken as myself en tog verstaan hulle dit nie. Moontlik ken jy ook die Bybel beter as ek en tog die verstaan daarvan het blykbaar agterweë gebly.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 17, 2012 at 22:35

  43. Hans, jy erken dat jy nie Dawkins wil lees nie, want dit is teen jou dogma. Moet dus nie kwaad raak wanneer ek ‘n vergelyking tref tussen jouself en die gemiddelde godioot daarbuite nie.

    Malherbe

    April 17, 2012 at 08:30

  44. Yes Hanswors, I have no problem with the dictionary definition of “dishonest,” something you have blatantly and repeatedly been. You continually lie about certain “knowledge” you claim but you can’t prove it or provide any kind of compelling argument for it. That’s dishonest, Hanswors.

    You have repeatedly dodged questions with bullshit and evasions, and later claimed that you answered them. That’s dishonest, Hanswors.

    You keep trying to turn the tables by giving the most irrelevant crap to say just to draw attention away from your nonsense — just look at your latest comment addressed to me. That’s dishonest, Hanswors.

    You always make up new shit without addressing the old shit. That’s dishonest.

    You keep claiming that others must prove you wrong, implying that if they don’t then you must be right. That’s dishonest, Hanswors.

    You keep happing bubbles and making up excuses for not addressing those Holey Babble contradictions, the link to which I have given several times. That’s dishonest, Hanswors.

    You keep calling others “onerkentlik” while you yourself are the biggest ingrate and fact-denier of them all. That’s dishonest, Hanswors.

    And so on, and so forth. The real fools are the ones who think such tactics are actually honest, and they are even bigger fools if they think that others can’t see through them.

    Now, are you going to be “erkentlik” or are you going to carry on with a new load of bullshit excuses? I know where I’ll put my money.

    Con-Tester

    April 16, 2012 at 08:20

  45. Mattheus 2:14 en Lukas 2: 39. Dit het my minder as ‘n minuut geneem om dit te google Hans. Ek dog jy ken die bybel beter as enigiemand anders? Of is dit nog ‘n ontwyking?

    Shazee

    April 16, 2012 at 06:26

  46. Malherbe, jy maak nou ‘n gat van jouself, want jy skryf ‘n klomp kak, terwyl ek al vir julle gesê het, dat ek in evolusie glo. Julle moet eerder beter oplet wat ek skryf en nie blindelings dink jy weet wat ek geskryf het, dan sulke stront kwyt raak nie. Word wakker want jou koffie is al koud!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2012 at 00:54

  47. Shazee, ek dink weer jy lieg lekker en Con-Tester is nie erkentlik nie.
    Gee maar die hoofstukke en verse van die dele waarna jy verwys. Ek sal dit nagaan en vir jou antwoord want so uit die vuis uit, kan een maklik ‘n fout begaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2012 at 00:48

  48. Con-Tester, I presume you do not agree with what the dictionary says about the word dishonest, as I have not been dishonest or can you perhaps prove that I have? As soon as you cannot prove someone wrong, you revert to try running them down so as to shift the point of focus. Fools fall for your tactic as fools will always follow fools.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 16, 2012 at 00:34

  49. En net om te wys dat die analogie van die kleur van Vader Krismis se kleed nie vergesog is nie. Die gereformeerde kerke is tans besig met die hoeveelste hervertaling van hul heilige boekie. (Waarom dit nodig is om iets wat “tydloos” is oor en oor te vertaal, sal net hulle weet.”) ‘n Gedeelte van die broeders is egter nie gelukkig oor die gebruik van klein letters in Ou Testament wanneer na die toekomstige verlosser verwys word nie. Die oplossing? Maklik – hulle skep TWEE opsies, een met klein letters en een met groetes ( I kid you not). (Gaan gerus na die Kerkbode aanlyn site indien julle hierdie belaglikheid nie glo nie – http://www.kerbode.co.za). Maar steeds is die broeders nie tevrede nie, soos die aanhaling hieronder van ene Danie Haasbroek toon:

    ….”’n NG predikant en vurige voorstander van hoofletters, ds Danie Haasbroek van Pretoria, het by navraag gesê hy is “hoegenaamd nie” gelukkig met die moontlikheid van twee uitgawes nie. “Dit beteken dat die helfte van die Afrikanervolk maar mislei kan word.” Hy sal nie ’n Bybel met hoofletters koop nie, “want dit sal beteken my geld subsidieer die kleinletters”.
    Ds Haasbroek sê hy het “ná jare se studie” vasgestel dat die Katolieke Kerk agter die gebruik van die kleinletters sit deurdat hulle verantwoordelik is vir die Latynse tekste wat volgens hom deur die meeste Bybelvertalers gebruik word. “Daar is twee maal meer Katolieke as Protestante in die wêreld. Daarom neem hulle oor in vertalingskommissies oor die hele wêreld. Hulle leier is kardinaal Mario Maria Martini, wat net gesit en wag het vir só ’n geleentheid.
    “Ek staan vir die eer van Jesus. As jy Jesus nie in die Bybel wil hê nie, staan jy buite die Koninkryk. Skryf dit asseblief en sê: ‘Só sê Danie Haasbroek aan die hele Suid-Afrika!’” – Tobie Wiese

    Eerlikwaar, hoe kan enige christen gelowige van die 21ste eeu verwag om ernstig opgeneem te word? Jy kan hierdie stront nie self opmaak nie.

    Malherbe

    April 15, 2012 at 11:07

  50. Ja, maar watter skakering van rooi? As jy nie glo dit is Ferrari-rooi nie, gaan ek my eie kerk stig. Ek gaan dit die gereformeerde kerk van Vader Krismis noem. As jy nie aansluit en jou tiende getrou betaal nie sal jy nooit weer cool kersgekenke kry nie. Dit is jou straf omdat jy nie “erkentelik” is nie.

    Shazee

    April 15, 2012 at 08:35

  51. Dis rooi. Kom ek wed jou. Ek weet dis rooi want ma en pa en tant Sannie en oom Joop en die dominee het my vertel. En hulle sal mos nooit vir my ’n kakstorie gee nie.😀😉😛😉😀

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2012 at 23:40

  52. Ja Con-Tester, en die grap van als is dat hul meer onder mekaar baklei as met ons goddelose skermunkels. Soos twee kinders wat baklei of Vader Krismis se jas rooi of blou is.

    Malherbe

    April 14, 2012 at 17:50

  53. Malherbe vra (April 14, 2012 om 16:17):

    Kan die ouens nie nuwe argumente uitdink nie?

    Nee, hulle kannie. Dit benodig ’n basiese mate van redenasievermoë en intellektuele opregtheid wat heel en al buite hul bereik lê.

    Behalwe dit het ek lekker jou stuk geniet, Malherbe! Dit gaan natuurlik fokkol verskil maak aan enige godioot/religioot/apologioot/biblioot/geloofioot se gedrag nie want elkeen van hulle weet mos al klaar dat dit net eenvoudig onmoontlik is dat hy of sy dalk verkeerd kan wees…

    Con-Tester

    April 14, 2012 at 16:36

  54. Die probleem met ouens soos Hans is dat hul nie wetenskaplike literatuur lees nie. Hy erken mos dat hy nie Dawkins en Harris wou/kon klaarlees nie. Nee die Hanse lees slegs materiaal wat by hul dogma inpas, maar is dan vermetel genoeg om kommentaar te lewer op wetenskaplike bevindinge …en veral wanneer dit nie lekker klop met hul dogmatiese breinpatrone nie.

    Ek het die afgelope tyd eerstehandse ervaring hiervan gehad. ‘n Amerikaner uit die sg. “Bible belt” sit langs my op ‘n vliegtuig. Vra my hoekom ek nie bid voor ek eet nie. Ek wou eers sê dat ek nie dink dis nodig om die gode te bedank vir die lugredery se plastiek kos nie, maar dog toe dat die ou dalk ‘n punt beet – hy bid dalk ter beskerming teen die lugkos. Toe ek antwoord dat ek nie in sy gotte glo nie, is resultaat die voorspelbare tirade van hoekom ek my na sy gotte moet bekeer. Aangesien ek met ‘n erge graad van uitputtiing geslaan was, was ek allermins lus om my te begewe op die pad van die opvoeding van nog ‘n godioot. Die man het egter geen einde geken nie, en desnieteenstaande die feit dat my kop elke dan en wan in sluimering geknik het, het die perd in pynlike monoloog verval wat selfs ‘n wakker Malherbe aan die slaap sou maak. Ek het hom dus laat begaan. Wat egter opgeval het, was die onoorspronklikheid van die stront wat die man kwytgeraak het. Kan die ouens nie nuwe argumente uitdink nie? Dit kon netsowel Hans gewees het wat langs my gesit het. Op ‘n stadium maak die man ‘n lawwe stelling langs die lyn van “as evolusie waar was, hoekom is die mens nie perfek nie?” (Ja, reg gehoor, en dit was nie die enigste juweel wat die knaap in die loop van die vlug kwytgeraak het nie.) My enigste kommentaar deur sy retoriek was die vraag of hy al ooit enige boek oor evolusie gelees het. Sy antwoord: “No, why should I? All I need is the only truth – my Bible. I am not interested in anything that goes against the word of god.”

    En dit bring my by die aanvanklike punt. Hierdie ouens is egter nie slegs ongeletterd in wetenskap nie, nee, hulle het ‘n stewige skeut oneerlikheid weg saam met hul selfopgelegde ongeletterdheid. Dis alles goed en wel om jou daarop te roem dat jy slegs jou heilige boekie volg, maar deur te doen verbeur jy die reg om kommentaar te lewer op die enige teorie wat jou dogma ongeldig maak. En hierin lê die arrogante oneerlikheid van die godioot van ons tyd. Hy weier volstrek om homself op te voed, maar matig homself die vryheid aan om kommentaar te lewer op dinge waarvan hy kennelik niks weet nie. Hy is die godioot van die 21ste eeu en sy naam is Hanswors. Inderdaad ‘n gepaste naam.

    In die woorde van Christopher Hitchens: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    Malherbe

    April 14, 2012 at 16:17

  55. Hans jy lieg blatant en bewysbaar as jy beweer dit is ons wat van die teenstrydighede weghardloop. Con-Tester het vir jou die link gegee (weereens) en jy het na eindelose versoeke een daarvan probeer verdedig, en toe dikbek geraak omdat ons nie “erkentelik” is nie. Daarna weier jy volstrek enige verdere bespreking, en kom met die een ontwyking na die ander. Net soos jy nou weer (soos ek voorspel het) met ‘n ontwyking kom. Jy is ‘n liegbek Hans.

    Con-Tester het probeer om so regverdig moontlik te wees deur die keuse van watter teenstrydighede jy bespreek aan jou oor te laat, en nou gebruik jy dit as ‘n handige verskoning om die vraag te ontduik.

    Nou maar goed dan Hans, as jy daarop aandring; sommer uit die vuis uit; verduidelik waarom Mattheus se dat Josef het met jesus Egipte toe gevlug en eers na Herodus se dood teruggekeer, terwyl Lukas geen melding van die vlug maak nie, maar vertel dat jesus in Nasaret grootgeword het.

    Shazee

    April 14, 2012 at 06:25

  56. Hanswors babbles incoherently (April 13, 2012 om 22:10):

    As julle nederigheid saai, sal julle by my nederigheid maai en julle was en is in geen opsig nederig wanneer julle oor Christendom gesprek voer.

    Go on, Hanswors, this is the kind of persecution and demonstrably absurd and dishonest crap you regularly vomit up that makes you such funny little godiot, you know.:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    April 13, 2012 at 22:19

  57. Shazee, plaas die sogenaamde tweede tenstrydigheid hier op die blog dan sal ek dit met jou bespreek.
    So terloops, wys my waar het ek gelieg?
    As julle nederigheid saai, sal julle by my nederigheid maai en julle was en is in geen opsig nederig wanneer julle oor Christendom gesprek voer.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 13, 2012 at 22:10

  58. Hanswors, that would be “bevredigend”. Your opinion of me is as irrelevant as your lack of brains and insight are intoxicatingly amusing. The fact that a word appears in a dictionary is no guarantee that the meaning ascribed to it describes something verifiable and/or real. It could just as easily reflect an artefact of the human psychological makeup.

    That’s what you godiot morons don’t get. In any case, argumentum ad populum is not your usual style, Hanswors. You must be getting desperate for more bullshit to spew forth.

    Con-Tester

    April 13, 2012 at 22:07

  59. Con-Tester, nie eers die woordeboek wat deur kundige mense saamgestel is, is vir jou beverdigend en persoonlik dink ek jy is maar net vol kak.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 13, 2012 at 21:59

  60. En terwyl jy daarmee besig is, gee sommer vir my die bybelversie waar jou god jou opdrag gee om soos ‘n tandetrekker oop en bloot, en skaamteloos te lieg.
    Daar moet een wees, want die kakpratery is nogal ‘n algemene verskynsel onder christenne.

    Shazee

    April 13, 2012 at 02:47

  61. Nou ja toe Hans, nie alleen ken jy die bybel beter as enigiemand anders nie, jy het ook ‘n beter insig as wereld-bekende en gerespekteerde wetenskaplikes. Jy glo nie aan nederigheid nie, doen jy?
    Maar toemaar, minstens erken jy dat jy net die bybel lees, en nie veel anders nie. Dit is seker maar omdat jy so wyd belese is dat jy so ‘n wonderlike insig gekry het. Wat weet ouens soos Dawkins en Harris nou eintlik?

    Jy reken dit is ons wat weghardloop van die teenstrydighede in jou sprokie? Jy is bereid om dit een-vir-een te bespreek?
    Kry jy nie skaam om so blatant te lieg nie Hans? Gaan so ‘n bietjie terug op hierdie blog en tel hoeveel keer jy uitgenooi is om selfs die tweede teenstrydigheid op Con-Tester se lys te bespreek.

    Kom ons kyk gou weer; Hans, ek nooi jou uit om die tweede teenstrydigheid op daardie lys te bespreek. Net een Hans. Een-vir-een Hans.

    Wat is die weddenskap jy gaan met ‘n onwyking terugkom?

    Shazee

    April 13, 2012 at 02:37

  62. Hanswors gorrel (April 12, 2012 at 22:24):

    As CT iets waardevol bydrae, kan een hom waardige antwoorde gee.

    Dis boelsjit van voor tot agter, Hanswors, en jy fokken weet dit. Jy kon nog nooit my argumente eeingsins bevredigend aanspreek, jou onnosel drolkop.

    Con-Tester

    April 12, 2012 at 22:47

  63. Jan Swart, ek sou graag die sogenaamde weersprekings in die Bybel, een vir een wou bespreek, tog blyk dit, dat die klomp daarvoor weg vlug. Miskien is hulle nie seker van hulle saak nie?
    Hos 4:6 My volk gaan te gronde weens gebrek aan kennis; omdat jy die kennis verwerp het, sal Ek jou verwerp, sodat jy vir My die priesteramp nie sal bedien nie; omdat jy die wet van jou God vergeet het, sal Ek ook jou kinders vergeet.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 12, 2012 at 22:36

  64. Shazee, Skuus man, ou Sam en Richard het nooit die Bybel verstaan. Ek het hulle boeke begin lees en a.g.v. dat hulle my verveel, weens hulle gebrek aan geestelike insig, het ek dit opgesê.
    Ek het, volgens die Bybel, vir jou gewys dat baie daarvan is sinnebeelde of het jy dit gemis?
    As CT iets waardevol bydrae, kan een hom waardige antwoorde gee.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 12, 2012 at 22:24

  65. Jan,

    Moenie ou Hansie wegjaag nie, man!
    Wat sou hierdie blog sonder die hanswors doen?

    ErickV

    April 12, 2012 at 05:09

  66. Hans, ek lees nou eers jou verwysing na die Bybel as ‘n ‘master peace’ raak. Ek lewer nie gereeld kommentaar op hierdie blog nie, maar volg die gesprekke (en wat as debatte probeer deurgaan, alhoewel mens nie regtig met die muur ‘n debat kan voer nie) al lank. Jou manmoedige en eensame stryd om op ‘n ateïstiese blog te poog (met bitter min skietgoed tot jou beskikking!) om ‘ons’ (en ja, ek weet ‘there is no ‘team’ in ‘I’ LOL) tot ander insigte te bring, is op ‘n sekere vlak seker bewonderingswaardig. Maar op ‘n ander vlak moet ek vir jou sê, “We don’t wish you harm; we wish you mental health.” WANNEER gaan jy die stryd gewonne gee? Wat jy hier in geloofwaardigheid verloor, sal jy nooit kan inhaal nie. Is dit nie tyd om met eer (sic) uit die stryd te tree nie?

    Jan Swart

    April 12, 2012 at 03:14

  67. Ek glo nie jy vind Con-Tester se kommentaar vervelig nie Hans. Ek dink jy vind dit bloot onbeantwoordbaar.

    Shazee

    April 12, 2012 at 02:05

  68. Hans, jy kan mos nie sommer sonder ‘n argument of redenasie bloot beweer hulle het die bybel verkeerd verstaan, en jy verstaan dit reg nie. Op grond waarvan maak jy die bewering?
    Verstaan jy wat ek se Hans? Dit is soos om te se ek is reg en jy is verkeerd, en dit is die einde van die argument: ek is reg bloot omdat ek so se.

    Wie het besluit die bybel is bloot “sinnebeelde” met ‘n boodskap daaragter? Wie dit ookal besluit het, op grond waarvan is die besluit gemaak?

    Jy ontwyk in elk geval my vraag (weereens) – het jy al een van die ouens se boeke gelees? Nie wat iemand daarvan se nie, maar self gelees?

    Shazee

    April 12, 2012 at 01:13

  69. Shazee, ou Sam and ou Richard het ook maar die Bybel verkeerd verstaan en daarom is hulle teen argumente irrelevant. Hulle het nooit gekyk daarna dat sinnebeelde werklike boodskappe meebring. Hulle argument maak sin as een die Bybel natuurlik brobeer verstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2012 at 22:34

  70. Ooops, Hanswors, that would be “avoidance”. I explain this because you obviously need it explained to you.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2012 at 22:33

  71. Ha-ha-Hanswors, you’re a fine one to talk. That besides, is that the best evasion/dodge/avoidane/general bullshit you can come up with?

    Makes perfect sense that it is.

    Con-Tester

    April 11, 2012 at 22:29

  72. Con-Tester, your comments are boring.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 11, 2012 at 22:20

  73. Ja Hans, ek weet jy is ‘n deskundige op die bybel, jy het al dikwels self so gese, en jy haal eindeloos daaruit aan.
    Ek bedoel of jy al dieselfde moeite gedoen het om die argumente vir die teenkant te bestudeer?
    Het jy al ‘n enkele boek van, byvoorbeeld, Sam Harris of Richard Dawkins gelees?
    Het jy al ‘n enkele artikel of boek oor ewolusie wat deur ‘n gerespekteerde en erkende wetenskaplike geskryf is, gelees? Ek weet jy beweer ewolusie is versoenbaar met die bybel, maar dit is regtig nie Hans, in elk geval nie sonder ‘n hele hoop gerieflike simboliese en metaforiese uitleg van daardie ou sprokie nie.

    Shazee

    April 11, 2012 at 02:53

  74. Yes Hanswors, we all know that you can copy others very well. The question is, do you have any intellectual integrity and/or capability whatsoever? Because, so far, the indications are all converging on a massive “No! All I have is evasion, avoidance, dodging and general bullshitting abilities.”

      
    

    And that’s not imagination. It’s just common sense…😛🙄😛:mrgreen:😛😆😛

    Con-Tester

    April 10, 2012 at 21:15

  75. Shazee, vir baie jare bestudeer ek ook die Bybel en ek leer nog steeds nuwe dinge daaruit.
    Joh 4:24 God is Gees; en die wat Hom aanbid, moet in gees en waarheid aanbid.
    Joh 14:17 die Gees van die waarheid wat die wêreld nie kan ontvang nie, omdat dit Hom nie sien en Hom nie ken nie; maar julle ken Hom, omdat Hy by julle bly en in julle sal wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 10, 2012 at 21:09

  76. Con-Tester, you really do imagine a lot. Maybe you should try and write a book or maybe you have.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 10, 2012 at 20:57

  77. Ek het nogal ‘n redelik goeie “idea” wat in die bybel geskryf staan, Hans. Dit is juis waarom ek dit sondermeer as kaf kan afmaak.
    Ek het redelike moeite gedoen om dit wat ek kritiseer te bestudeer, kan jy dieselfde se?

    Shazee

    April 10, 2012 at 06:10

  78. Ek stem weer met jou saam, Hans. Ons lees duidelik nie die bybel op dieselfde manier nie. Ek lees nie simboliek in alles wat geen sin maak nie. Ek probeer nie alle onhoudbare teenstrydighede rasionaliseer nie. Ek is nie desperaat om ‘n primitiewe bygeloof te regverdig nie.

    Shazee

    April 10, 2012 at 05:40

  79. And there you go once more with the arrogant fundie conceits, Hanswors: When you can’t answer or explain something properly, it’s the other person’s fault because they ignore certain things that you are not able to explain.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 22:30

  80. Jessica, interesting!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 9, 2012 at 22:27

  81. Shazee, dit is juis hoekom ek nie die Bybel lees soos jy dit lees. Jy het nie ‘n idea wat daar aangaan omdat jy sekere dinge ignoreer.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 9, 2012 at 22:26

  82. In other words, Hanswors, you’ll just carry on deflecting until you think everyone’s convinced by your bullshit (rather than, say, exhausted by it). And don’t think your dishonest tactics aren’t noticed, see? Because you’re only bullshitting yourself.

    Since you’re trying so hard to dodge the issue, let me repeat it, Hanswors: When you can’t answer properly it’s the other person’s fault because they don’t really want to understand.

    What arrogant little dimwits you godiots are.

    Con-Tester

    April 9, 2012 at 22:24

  83. Con-Tester and you are so bright, that you make yourself blind.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 9, 2012 at 22:18

  84. Nathan you write: “Homo sapiens sapiens is not prepared to live in the absence of incarnate goodness and evil. “God” and “Devil” remain safe.”

    With the majority being uneducated, underdeveloped and generally neglected, it is hardly a surprise. We all break things up into good and bad, usually according to how it affects our own needs. It seems to me most people are not remotely in control of their lives, subject to chance and fate and so on. How is it not a natural outcome to personify these two aspects of everyone’s existence. If you wiped the slate clean of all authoritarian influences without changing the fabric of the universe then I would put my money on incarnate goodness and evil reinventing itself.

    You say: “Atheism requires a dapper, dauntless intelligence most humans are not prepared to exercise.”

    I think the majority is actually incapable of what you propose. Just like we cannot all be Einstein.

    “Another year of fairy tales and conjoined violence await the parasites on this third rock from a small star.”

    How can parasites be any other way, how can humans change their beliefs when it is the incidence of every day’s hopes and fears being squashed or granted by forces unknown that seems so personal and serendipitous?

    Can any of you prove it is not?

    Jessica

    April 9, 2012 at 14:37

  85. Nee Hans, dit is jy wat nie werklik wil (of kan) verstaan wat in die bybel staan nie.
    As jy dit eerlik moet lees, sonder om alles wat nie sin maak nie te rasionaliseer of te versimboliseer, kan jy nie meer glo soos jy doen nie. Jy sal die moontlikheid moet aanvaar dat jy verkeerd is omtrent jou geloof, en dit is jy, letterlik ten alle koste, nie bereid om te doen nie.

    Jy het self al voorheen genoem dat niemand so blind is as iemand wat nie wil sien nie. Ek stem hieroor met jou saam.

    Shazee

    April 9, 2012 at 00:47

  86. Shit Hanswors, so when you can’t answer properly it’s the other person’s fault because they don’t really want to understand.

    What arrogant little dimwits you godiots are.

    Con-Tester

    April 8, 2012 at 22:28

  87. Shazee, want jy wil nie werklik verstaan wat in die Bybel staan en met so ‘n gesindheid, is dit werklik lonend om daaroor gesprek te voer?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 8, 2012 at 22:18

  88. Hou jy nie daarvan dat ek na die huilerige spook verwys nie Hans? Jou voorkeure maak kwalik van my ‘n leunaar.
    As jy verder glo jy het my redenasie ten opsigte van die verse wat jy “henoem” het verkeerd bewys, sal ons moet saamstem om te verskil. Jou opinie (sonder ‘n logiese redenasie daaragter) maak nog minder van my ‘n leunaar.
    Hoekom vat dit my 4 x probeerslae om ‘n antwoord uit jou uit te kry, al is dit wel so ‘n sinnelose een?

    Shazee

    April 7, 2012 at 22:27

  89. Very clever, Hanswors (met of sonder aartappels). Just like all your contributions. We are just so-o-o-o-o lucky to have a drolkop like you to see us all right.

    Con-Tester

    April 7, 2012 at 21:48

  90. Shazee, ek verwys na die spook wat jy genoem het en die feit dat jy nie kan erken, toe ek jou uitwys dat daar nie ‘n weerspreking was, in die verse wat henoem is.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 7, 2012 at 21:21

  91. Con-Tester, ek sien jy het darem iets geleer, want jy het die woord “doos” vervang met “drol”. Dit is posetiewe vordering, baie geluk.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 7, 2012 at 21:15

  92. Hans, ek vra jou nou vir die 4de keer direk; jy het my van lieg beskuldig, watter leun praat jy van?
    Hoeveel keer, en op hoeveel verskillende maniere kan jy ‘n reguit vraag onduik?

    Shazee

    April 6, 2012 at 22:27

  93. Hanswors karring (April 6, 2012 at 22:07):

    Wie wil dus nou met sulke onvolwasse gesindhede opgeskeep sit…

    Duidelik jy, jou onnosele drolkop.

    Con-Tester

    April 6, 2012 at 22:16

  94. More of your usual yadda-yadda, nyaff-nyaff, wibble-wibble, hap-hap evasive horseshit tatics, Hanswors. Address the point, ou. Then maybe you’ll get somewhere.

    Con-Tester

    April 6, 2012 at 22:11

  95. Shazee, julle weier om opreg en verstandig oor die Bybel debat te voer en tog het julle als te sê oor Christenne. Wie wil dus nou met sulke onvolwasse gesindhede opgeskeep sit en met mense wat alleenlik beperk is tot die materialistiese bestaan van die mens.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 6, 2012 at 22:07

  96. Con-Tester, you have convinced yourself, so carry on, you might get somewhere, some day.
    You seem to be an expert when it is about the Bible. An “ex” is a “has been” and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 6, 2012 at 21:57

  97. My liewe donner Hans, maar net as ek dink jy kan nie dommer nie, bewys jy my verkeerd.
    Dit is jy wat impliseer ek lieg, en ek vra jou om die leun uit te wys. Is daardie ou wat vir jou lees op vakansie?
    Jy dink waarskynlik jou opmerkings is slim omdat dit vrae waarop jy nie antwoorde het nie ontduik, maar dit is regtig nie Hans. Dit laat jou net meer en meer soos die stommerik wat jy is lyk.
    Is jy regtig so dom dat jy dit nie insien nie?
    Jy het gese ek lieg, nou vra ek weer; watter leuns verwys jy na?

    Shazee

    April 5, 2012 at 22:45

  98. Yadda-yadda, wibble-wibble, nyaff-nyaff, hap-hap, Hanswors. More of your transparent tactics, Hanswors. Pick a question — any question — of the very many that you have been asked one-at-a-time and which you have repeatedly dodged, evaded, avoided and generally bullshitted your way past, Hanswors. When you have chosen one, answer it clearly and comprehensibly, Hanswors. And try to keep the dodging, evasion, avoidance and general bullshitting to a minimum, Hanswors.

    Or pick a Holey Babble contradiction — any Holey Babble contradiction — and give us a good laugh with your “explanation” of it, Hanswors. Your choice, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    April 5, 2012 at 20:25

  99. ErickV, ek ken baie wat nie met jou sal saam stem nie, dus is dit moontlik dat jy die onnosel een is.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2012 at 20:17

  100. Con- Tester, don’t get carried away as I am not busy with any tactics. From the start I have requested one question at a time and I suspect you understand what that means.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2012 at 20:15

  101. Shazee, sê jy vir my?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 5, 2012 at 20:06

  102. Hansie, niemand kan enige iets sinvols vir jou se nie. Jy is te onnosel daarvoor.

    ErickV

    April 4, 2012 at 05:24

  103. Ok Hansie, watter leuns?

    Shazee

    April 3, 2012 at 21:52

  104. Shazee, ek stem met jou saam, een vergeet gou jou leuns en onthou die waarheid makliker.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 3, 2012 at 21:29

  105. ErickV, gaan jy ooit een dag iets sinvol sê?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 3, 2012 at 21:20

  106. Hanswors, don’t try your idiotic see-through table-turning tactics on me, see? You’re no good at it. The many unanswered questions are there for you. Pick one and stop dodging.

    Goddit?

    Con-Tester

    April 3, 2012 at 21:18

  107. Con-Tester, I didn’t say post many questions. I said post a question or are you dodging to post one?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 3, 2012 at 21:14

  108. Die Ausies doen dit mos. Hulle trek gumboots aan en druk dan die bokke/skape se agterpote in die gumboots sodat hulle nie kan weg hardloop nie.

    ErickV

    April 3, 2012 at 13:52

  109. Hansie, wysemanne seg jy? Was hulle wys omdat hulle die bokke ook gumboots aangetrek het?

    ErickV

    April 3, 2012 at 13:50

  110. Hansie, wysemanne seg jy? Was hulle wys omdat hulle die bokke ook gumboots aangetrrek het?

    ErickV

    April 3, 2012 at 13:48

  111. Watter leuns Hans?

    Shazee

    April 2, 2012 at 22:48

  112. Malherbe, ek neem aan, dat die klem in jou van, val op “Mal”, van Malherbe.
    Dit is drie wysemanne en nie bokherders nie. Dit wil voorkom of jy dien as bewys van Malles.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 2, 2012 at 21:53

  113. Hanswors, answer any one of many that you have dodged, evaded, avoided and generally bullshitted your way past. They’re all here, you know.

    Con-Tester

    April 2, 2012 at 21:43

  114. Shazee, dit klink of jou leuens by jou spook.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 2, 2012 at 21:42

  115. Con-Tester, post a question.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 2, 2012 at 21:40

  116. Miskien het Hans tog iets beet. In ‘n oomblik van swakheid (of moegheid), het Hans se got die leungees geskep. Hierdie leungees (en terloops, aangesien ek weereens deur hierdie gees binnegevaar is, die korrekte spelling van “leuen” is “leun”)is saam met die uitspansel miljoene jare terug (of is dit nou duisende?) geskep.

    Baie jare later trap ‘n vrou wat beweer sy is ‘n maagd oor die tou, maar word toe deur die leuengees oorval. Sy vertel aan iederelk dat die gotte haar swanger gemaak het en dat sy die gotte se seun verwag. Groot is haar verbasing toe 3 bokherders hierdie twak vir soetkoek opvreet en haar nog boonop met geskenke beloon. Die kind word grootgemaak met hierdie leuen (ook bekend as ‘n aangebore leuengees)en ly gevolglik aan ‘n erge graad van grootheidswaan. Ironies, glo die outjie dat hy die mensdom kom bevry van die leuengeeste wat binne almal woon. Hy vertel aan iederelk dat hy die hoofgot se seun is – ‘n infame leuen mooitjies uit die leungees se boek. Die uiteinde is dat ‘n sekere gedeelte van die mensdom nie vir hierdie storie wou val nie en die arme knaap toe martel en doodmaak.

    En die mensdom? Wel, hulle lieg vandag nog steeds lustig voort. Hulle gebruik tans net ander idiote(soos aartappelboere met breërandhoede)instede van maagde om die leuengees lewend te hou. Die enigste rasionele gevolgtrekkings wat gemaak kan word is dat die leuengees sterker is as sy skepper. Die Hansworse van ons tyd dien as bewys van hierdie stelling.

    Malherbe

    April 1, 2012 at 01:03

  117. Presies Shazee. En maak nie saak wat Hanswors se antwoord is nie, feit bly staan dat aangesien sy gotte verantwoordelik is vir die algehele skepping, die leungees sekerlik ingesluit is by hierdie skepping. In welke geval sy gotte verantwoordelik is vir “een” se leuens. Hieruit volg dat die gotte geen rede het om de moer in te raak vir “een” se leuenagtigheid nie.

    Shit, help my, ek voel ek word oorval deur die leungees. Ek staan magteloos! Hier kom die leuen sonder enige keer! -Hans se argumente maak perfekte sin. Hans is glad nie mal nie en ook nie ‘n Hanswors soos die nare Con-Tester beweer nie.- Sorry ouens, geen beheer gehad nie. Die leungees het weereens gewen en een Malherbe ingevaar.

    Malherbe

    April 1, 2012 at 00:18

  118. Ja, ek wonder hoe die spook nou prakties sal werk? Neem hy jou verstand oor en lieg namens jou, of maak hy jou net lekker lus om te lieg?
    Weet “een” dat “een” besig is te lieg terwyl “een” dit doen, of dink “een” dat “een” besig is om die waarheid te praat, “ens,ens”?

    Shazee

    March 31, 2012 at 13:18

  119. I’m impressed, Hanswors: You actually see the fucking obvious.

    You could try something new to stimulate discussion. I suggest answering questions and entertaining us with an “explanation” or two of those Holey Babble contradictions.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2012 at 22:57

  120. Con-Tester, as no discussion is taking place, what is there to say?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 26, 2012 at 22:47

  121. Hanswors, your comprehension of anything and everything appears to be non-existent. That’s why you would rather talk kak, make shit up and evade than answer questions. I reckon that’s part of it being impossible that you could be wrong…

    Con-Tester

    March 25, 2012 at 22:43

  122. Con-Tester, the fact that you differ from what we read in the dictionaries, is your claim on being an expert in the English language. Your comprehension thereof appears to be a bit fuzzy.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 25, 2012 at 22:28

  123. Hanswors, you yourself are a “master peace” (😆😆😆 ) … at dodging questions. On the other hand, your ability to contrive bullshit as “explanations is ripely mediocre. For example, if I asked you to point out exactly where I or anyone else claimed that I was an expert in English, you’ll make up some nonsense that either deflects from the point or that is a non-answer. What you will definitely not do is either answer the question simply and clearly, or admit that you’ve just made up a big ball of horseshit. That means that you’re a good Crushtian and your skydaddy will be proud of you for the lying you do for him.

    Con-Tester

    March 25, 2012 at 01:44

  124. Con-Tester, you yourself have failed dismally, in regard to the English language, even though you are supposed to be an expert therein. The Bible is a master peace in regard to language.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 24, 2012 at 21:59

  125. Hanswors, your habit of twisting what others say is spectacular. Besides dodging questions, it’s your one true talent.

    And when you use the words “knowledge” and “wisdom”, you would do well to remember that it’s bad form to pretend to concepts of which you are entirely ignorant. Rather stick to your brand of “explanation”. It’s entertaining at least.

    Which pretentiousness reminds me:…

    Con-Tester

    March 23, 2012 at 22:09

  126. Con-Tester, If love is bullshit to you, you are then very poor. I know you are a man of knowledge but wisdom has passed you by.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 23, 2012 at 21:54

  127. Hanswors, I acknowledge that you would rather talk shit/bullshit than answer questions. And I don’t know how often it’s necessary to repeat things before they penetrate your skull: Whe you start talking sense, you’ll find me a whole lot more receptive. This Hanswors-shit of “god = love, wisdom, truth ect. [sic]” you’re peddling is another of your transparent dodges that you consistently fail to explain. You may as well say that the Easter Bunny is those things.

    Which overly contrived nonsense reminds me:…

    Con-Tester

    March 22, 2012 at 22:10

  128. Con-Tester, I would rather think that “bullshit” is an expressive word and not a dirty word. So you appear to think that love, wisdom, truth ect. is in the sky as you keep on with this skydaddy thing of yours.
    You are not really interested as you do not acknowledge what you already know.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 22, 2012 at 22:01

  129. Ooh Hanswors look, you used a dirty word! Would your skydaddy approve? Probably, given his dodging ways. I guess that’s who you learned to dodge questions from, yes?

    And you can stop imitating me, see? It means you’ve run out of ideas. Here’s one for you, Hanswors: Answer some questions, especially about how the flesh-and-bone me is different and separable from this other “me” that you keep dodging questions about. Maybe you’ll learn something new. After all, there’s a neat old saying that goes, “If you want to learn, teach.”

    Not that anyone should expect from you anything other than bullshit, excuses, evasions and other Hanswors stock-in-trade manoeuvres.

    Con-Tester

    March 21, 2012 at 22:10

  130. Con-Tester, I am not dodging your question but rather your bullshit.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 21, 2012 at 21:26

  131. That’s not an explanation, Hanswors. Technically, it’s a tautology: “An X is an X”. An empty assertion that has meaning only for brain-dead godiots/bibliots/apologiots/crediots/religiots. In common parlance, it’s called “bullshit”, something you are evidently so saturated with that you can’t even smell it anymore.

    Try again Hanswors because you’re still just dodging my questions with your usual ridiculous excuses and feebleminded crap that nobody but you believes. And it looks like you can be wrong, after all.😀

    Con-Tester

    March 20, 2012 at 21:55

  132. Con-Tester, the life in your body is you, so yes, life is also acceptable. When you pass on, the bullshit will be out of your eye and you will comprehend. The shit is in the eye of the beholder.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 20, 2012 at 21:44

  133. So Hanswors, “soul”/“spiritual body” is just another word for “life”, eh? Or is it just another word for “conscience”? I can’t tell which it is. Please clarify by specifying exactly which it is.

    That would be okay, except where you fuck it all up again by writing this stunning bit of bullshit: “The spiritual being confined to your body until separation takes place.” What is my life or conscience that it can be separated from my body, Hanswors? Explain this funny bit of nonsense for us.

    See how you never explain properly and comprehensibly, Hanswors? See how you always make an ass of yourself by ASSuming things that are not in evidence? See how you smear shit all over the place by failing to speak in unambiguous terms?

    No, I guess you don’t.

    Which obscurantist pile of runny horse apples remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), “yay” or “nay”, dude? Tickety-tockety, old boy.

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2012 at 22:25

  134. Con-Tester, most people on this planet refer to the life in your body as the soul, which is you. The spiritual being confined to your body until separation takes place, when the bodies lifespan ends, due to age, illness or by accident. Your conscience is you, the soul and spiritual body.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 19, 2012 at 21:37

  135. It’s obvious that your visual acuity and discernment is far less excellent than you suppose, Hanswors . What exactly is this “there is more to just flesh and bone, concerning humankind” thing, Hanswors? What is it? Describe it, define it, show that it is real, Hanswors. Explain for us dumb people who have asked you the same question over and over and over again. Explain for us dumbasses who have only gotten evasions, bullshit, flat assertions and excuses in reply, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    March 19, 2012 at 08:10

  136. Con-Tester, the only problem I see, is that you seem dumber than one would expect you to be or you just point blank reject to acknowledge, that there is more to just flesh and bone, concerning humankind.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 18, 2012 at 23:48

  137. No Hanswors. What crap you speak. You want me to believe that there’s more to me than “flesh and bone” when you say shit like, “The day you pass out of your flesh, what you have achieved in this life, will come to naught” (March 13, 2012 at 21:42). When I challenge you to explain this, you talk even bigger shit by saying that the “me” is “the one in that flesh and bone you see when you look in the mirror” (March 17, 2012 at 21:56). So on the one hand there’s a separate “me” from my “flesh and bone” and on the other there isn’t, as it suits your needs, Hanswors.

    Do you see the problem with your inane reply, Hanswors? Do you?

    No, probably you do not.

    Which brain-dead puffery reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 17, 2012 at 22:36

  138. Shazee, ek was ‘n paar dae van lyn af a.g.v. die wonderlike diens wat Telcom aanbied.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2012 at 21:56

  139. Con-Tester, maybe you are having difficulty in understanding English? The “me” is you, the one in that flesh and bone you see when you look in the mirror.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 17, 2012 at 21:52

  140. Ek dink ou Hans is “day of rest” of hy het net nie vir sy nagskof opgedaag nie.

    ErickV

    March 17, 2012 at 05:31

  141. Con-Tester, ek dink jou geld is veilig, maar soos hulle se – hope springs eternal.

    Shazee

    March 16, 2012 at 11:31

  142. Shazee ja, dit sal wees, maar ek is bereid om geld daarop te sit dat jy te veel verwag.

    Hanswors en sy kinderagtige eweknie ou soois sal kortliks weer met presies dieselfde onnoselhede vorendag kom. Dit is nie moontlik om enigsins ’n produktiewe gesprek te voer met ouens wat van vooraf al klaar alles weet en net nie verkeerd kan wees nie.

    Con-Tester

    March 16, 2012 at 08:35

  143. Hans en Soois het verdwyn. Moontlik het Hans eers gaan hulp soek met daai teenstrydighede.
    Sal dit nie cool wees as Hans terugkom en die penny het vir hom gedrop nie?

    Shazee

    March 16, 2012 at 07:33

  144. Soois,

    “die enigste toets wat ewolusie onteenseglik kan bewys, is verkeerd”
    Nou Soois, vertel ons, watter een?
    By the way, ek het nie ewolusie nodig om te weet dat die bybel se inhoud ‘n klomp bedrog en ongeloofwaardig is nie.

    ErickV

    March 16, 2012 at 05:36

  145. Soois, watter bewys wat ewolusie onteenseglik sal bewys is jy op soek na? Die bewyse uit biologie, fisiologie, genetika, argiologie en talle ander takke van die wetenskap is oorweldigend en ondeling ondersteunend ten gunste van ewolusie.
    Dit mag wees dat wetenskaplikes al foute gemaak het, maar as dit gebeur en uitgewys word, soek hulle nie na metaforiese of simboliese verklarings vir die fout nie – hulle gaan soek die rede vir die fout en maak dit reg.
    Soois, se my eerlik; het jy al bronne oor ewolusie wat deur gerespekteerde wetenskaplikes geskryf is bestudeer? Ek praat nie van skeppings webblaaie nie, ek praat van wetenskaplike geskrifte wat “peer reviewed” is.
    Kan jy eerlik se jy het bv “The origin of species” van voor tot agter gelees? Wat van “The blind watchmaker” of miskien “River out of eden”, om maar enkeles te noem?
    Ek kan eerlik vir jou se dat ek die bron van jou geloof (bybel natuurlik) van voor tot agter en van onder tot bo bestudeer het, en in verskeie vertalings. Ek het na “geleerdes” se opinie daaromtrent geluister – tot vervelens toe. Ek het “geleerdes” se ontledings gelees en bestudeer.
    Die punt is natuurlik dat ek begin het as ‘n gelowige, en dat die “bewyse” vir geloof (totale gebrek aan bewyse) my gaandeweg oortuig het dat dit eenvoudig ‘n ongeloofwaardige mite is.
    As jy eerlik vir my kan se jy het dieselfde moeite gedoen om ewolusie te probeer begryp en jy bly by jou standpunt, we will have to agree to disagree. Dan is jy eenvoudig nie oop vir bewyse en logika nie, en is enige logiesie argument met jou hieromtrent sinneloos.

    Shazee

    March 14, 2012 at 10:12

  146. Nee, niemand met ’n werkende brein sal jou glo nie soois want jy is voortdurig besig om loutere kak te praat.

    Maar nou ja, dit is wat gebeur wanneer jy vorgee om die mees beroemde ongepubliseerde bioloog te wees wat wil hê almal moet dink hy weet oneindiglik meer as derduisende spesialiste wat hul lewens aan deeglike studie toegewy het. Daai spesialiste is natuurlik almal deur Satan mislei…

    Maar ek verstaan ook dat sonder jou sotlike arrogansie het jy eintlik fokol.

    Con-Tester

    March 14, 2012 at 10:09

  147. Shazee, ek verstaan wat jy se ingevolge die wetenskaplike toetse en teoriee. Jy is egter verkeerd, die enigste toets wat ewolusie onteenseglik kan bewys, ontbreek. Julle verwag bewyse vir my geloof, maar ek moet tevrede wees met toetse deur tyd, glo my, geen wetenskaplike toets het die tyd van die Bybel oortref nie, en jy kan daardie Boek maar toets as jy wil. Die Bybel weerstaan al duisende jare se toetse.

    O ja, en wetenskaplikes is al mislei met beendere wat hulle miljoene jare gedateer het, wat toe nie so was nie.

    soois

    March 14, 2012 at 09:32

  148. If you say so, Hanswors. You’re the fucking expert on all this bullshit you’re pumping about your skydaddy and Holey Babble. But is that supposed to be some kind of warning, Hanswors?

    And what exactly is this “me” thing that you keep gibbering about that one day will exit my flesh?

    Or are you going to dodge these questions too?

    Con-Tester

    March 13, 2012 at 22:24

  149. Con-Tester, I must say, you are a poor character for one who is supposed to be highly regarded. The day you pass out of your flesh, what you have achieved in this life, will come to naught. You will be without authority, the riches of this world and as one who is found naked and wanting.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 13, 2012 at 21:42

  150. Hanswors, you can agree or disagree with whatever tickles you, see? The fact remains that your dodging of questions is fucking laughable.

    Which sorry joke reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), “yay” or “nay”, what say? Still no answer? Okay, I guess you must be shtupping yourself and got so hot at the thought that nothing else matters.

    Con-Tester

    March 12, 2012 at 22:17

  151. Con-Tester, if my question to your statement is lamebrain, then it must be a lamebrain statement in the first place. I must then agree that you must be a dommetjie to make such a statement.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 12, 2012 at 21:42

  152. Hanswors, I told you that I don’t know the answer to your lamebrain question. I asked to to explain for us since you’re the No. 1 genius and expert re your “god” and your Holey Babble. Do you have a problem with “I don’t know” as an answer? Can’t you explain for us dommetjies? Why are you dodging?

    Which stupid excuses remind me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 11, 2012 at 22:21

  153. Con-Tester, you made a statement and I ask you to explain yourself. You now expect me to explain your statement. It would appear that you are the one with the stupid excuses.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 11, 2012 at 22:08

  154. On second thoughts Hanswors, if you insist on an answer to your lamebrain question of “haw [sic] is the Word, Love, Spirit, Light (understanding), Wisdom ect. [sic]omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely benevolent?”, then it is simply as follows:

    I don’t know, Hanswors. But since it’s not possible that you can be wrong about your “god” and since you are adamant that you understand your Holey Babble better than I or most others do, maybe you should tell us — unless of course you want to go and do more of your usual avoidance.

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 23:00

  155. Hanswors, it would appear that you’re making more stupid excuses. And still dodging questions.

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 22:48

  156. Con-Tester, it would appear that you have avoided answering my question.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 10, 2012 at 22:42

  157. Yes, but do you think Soois in fact accepts that the earth revolves around the sun? The earth is after all the centre of the universe, and humans the crown of creation.

    Shazee

    March 10, 2012 at 12:56

  158. Shazee, all of what you say has been repeatedly brought to soois’ attention, together with the multiplicity of lines of evidence that all converge on evolution being a cold, hard fact. But, as the world’s greatest-ever unpublished biologist, his mind is shut more watertight than a frightened duck’s arse. No doubt, you’ll get a vacuous screed of meaningless and ignorant poppycock cited from a cretinist or IDiot website in reply, since that is all this world-famous unpublished biologist knows how to do (besides, that is, insulting the intelligence and dedicated work and learning of all those hundreds of thousands of evolutionary experts who agree that evolution is as much a fact as that the Earth revolves around the Sun).

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 12:11

  159. Soois, enigiemand kan, in beginsel, vir homself gaan kyk na die onteenseglike bewyse vir ewolusie, wetenskaplike bewyse wat voldoen aan streng wetenskaplike vereistes. Onthou ook, soos Richard Dawkins ons herhinner; ewolusie is niemand se godsdiens nie. Dit is ‘n wetenskaplike teorie wat die toets van die tyd deurstaan het, ten spyte van tallose, gewoonlik oningeligte, pogings om dit te diskrediteer.
    Onthou ook; ewolusie is vervalsbaar, baie maklik vervalsbaar- dit sal net een fossiel wat in die verkeerde stratum gevind word neem om dit te doen. Behalwe vir pogings tot vervalsing, het dit nog nooit gebeur nie.

    Die bybel aan die anderkant, is deurkrenk van geskiedkundige foute en interne teenstrydighede.
    Die proposisie wat julle gelowiges aanhang (‘n alomteenwoordige skepper wat homself met individule lewens bemoei) is nie vervalsbaar nie. Dit is verder gegrond op persoonlike openbaring waarvoor ‘n mens jou woord voor moet neem sonder enige objektiewe bewys hoegeenaamd.

    Shazee

    March 10, 2012 at 11:23

  160. And hey, it’s Saturday, which this godiot/apologiot/bibliot/crediot/religiot evolution denier once insisted was his Sabbath. One is left wondering whether smearing absurd shit and posting ignorant drivel all over atheist blogs is part of his “god’s” commands concerning what one may and may not do on the Sabbath…

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 10:32

  161. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    Well, I never! A godiot/religiot/crediot/apologiot/bibliot evolution denier actually makes a factually accurate statement about evolution! Will wonders ever cease!? Mind you, it shouldn’t surprise anyone really, considering that it’s entirely possible for someone to say something correct occasionally quite by accident even though they haven’t the first clue what they’re prattling about.

    
    

    😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 10:26

  162. Shazee, you must remember that the stories of Darwin & Co draw inspiration from first hand observations and history books, which once again proves that evolution is factually accurate…

    soois

    March 10, 2012 at 09:55

  163. Kolossense 2

    16
    Daarom moet julle nie dat iemand vir julle voorskrywe wat julle moet eet en drink nie , of dat julle die jaarlikse feeste of die nuwemaansfees of die sabbatdag moet vier nie.

    2:16: Vgl. Rom. 14:1-12.
    17
    Dit is alles maar net die skaduwee van wat sou kom; die werklikheid is Christus.

    18
    Moenie dat iemand wat behae skep in danige nederigheid en in die aanbidding van engele en wat voorgee dat hy allerhande visioene gesien het, julle daarmee mislei nie. So iemand verhef hom oor wat hy in eiewaan van homself dink,

    19
    en hy hou nie aan die hoof, aan Christus, vas nie. Uit Christus groei die hele liggaam, ondersteun deur die gewrigte en saamgebind deur die spiere, soos God dit laat groei.

    20
    Julle het saam met Christus gesterwe en is dus dood vir die wettiese godsdienstige reëls van hierdie wêreld. Waarom lewe julle dan nog asof julle aan hierdie wêreld behoort? Waarom gehoorsaam julle allerhande voorskrifte

    21
    soos: “Hieraan mag jy nie vat nie!” “Daaraan mag jy jou mond nie sit nie!” “Daaraan mag jy nie raak nie!”?

    22
    Dit gaan alles oor dinge wat bedoel is om gebruik te word en te vergaan, en dit is maar net gebooie en leerstellings van mense.

    23
    Hierdie leerstellings het wel ‘n skyn van wysheid met hulle selfgemaakte godsdiens, danige nederigheid en streng beheersing van die liggaam, maar dit het geen waarde vir die beteueling van die sondige drifte nie.

    soois

    March 10, 2012 at 09:47

  164. Shazee, you must remember that the stories of Mickey Mouse draw inspiration from real events and everyday experiences, which once again proves that Mickey Mouse stories are factually accurate history books…🙄

    Con-Tester

    March 10, 2012 at 09:30

  165. Shazee,

    nee, die “mites” waarvan jy praat het eintlik hul oorsprong uit ware gebeure, wat weereens bewys dat die Bybel ‘n feitelike Geskiedenisboek is. Onthou, daar is baie gelowe wat dieselfde oorsprong as die Christendom het. Ons praat van godsdiens. Die verskil is net dat ons vir Jesus Chritus as Verlosser het. Al die ander godsdienste het allerhande wette en reels wat gedurig nagekom moet word om “hopelik’ eendag gered te wees, terwyl die Christengeloof die enigste is wat verlos is van allerhande wette en reels. Selfs die ortodokse Jode moet nog die wet van Moses getrou volg (‘n onmoontlike taak) om gered te word, want hulle glo nog nie dat die Messias al gekom het nie.

    soois

    March 10, 2012 at 09:16

  166. Aha, so now, Hanswors, you’re changing your fairytale by implying that your “god”, the alleged creator of everything, is not omniscient, omnipotent and supremely benevolent!? Is that what you are saying? In that case, your “god” is not anything worth being awed about. And in any case, you need very urgently to explain who or what created “the Word, Love, Spirit, Light (understanding), Wisdom ect. [sic]

    Or, for that matter, who or what created this fucked-up world we are faced with.

    Which shifty stories remind me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 9, 2012 at 21:48

  167. Con-Tester, explain to me please, haw is the Word, Love, Spirit, Light (understanding), Wisdom ect. omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely benevolent?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 9, 2012 at 21:38

  168. Soois, Con-Tester het die punt omtrent “first-hand accounts” genoegsaam gemaak om uit te wys dat jy die punt van die argument mis, en ek sal daarmee volstaan, maar ek wil ‘n vraag van my eie vra;
    Jy beweer dat die Christendom ‘n geloof is soos die welreld nog nooit gesien het nie.
    Is dit nie ‘n hoogs aanvegbare stelling nie?
    Is dit nie waar dat feitlik al die mites in die bybel (ou en nuwe testament) ‘n oorsprong het in gelowe wat reeds in die midde en nabye ooste bestaan het nie?
    Die sondvloed, die koning wat sterf en weer opstaan, die wyse manne, die maagdelike geboorte, ens.
    Sal graag wil hoor wat jy daaroor te se het. As hierdie mites nie oorsprongklik is nie, hoe verklaar jy dit?

    Shazee

    March 9, 2012 at 11:29

  169. Hanswors, whether your “god” is a person or not is irrelevant to the alleged facts that s/he is omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely benevolent, and that s/he created a fucked-up world. These are things you have so far completely failed to explain clearly. All you do is dodge with the same small range of bullshit answers. And the things that don’t make sense in my world are mostly the things you religiots//apologiots/crediots/bibliots/godiots keep spouting. That’s because you are apparently incapable of explaining properly or answering coherently, and always vomit up self-serving and vacuous drivel instead.

    Which hollow fabricating reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) what’s da news? None, eh?

    Con-Tester

    March 8, 2012 at 23:14

  170. Con-Tester, you still appear to think that God is a person and you are wrong. Love (God) created man. Word (God) created man ect.
    Does everything in your world make sense to you? I should think not, yet time will tell.
    If anyone is self serving, it would be you

    Hans Matthysen

    March 8, 2012 at 23:00

  171. Retrofitting is a usually carefully thought through and effective thing that is done to keep old technology going or to improve its performance. It doesn’t work so well with old books that speak largely in fuzzy, imprecise language.

    Much more revealing is the hugely more impressive array of Holey–Babble–based predictions that failed to eventuate. And it’s really funny how the more precise the predictions, the more they fail to be fulfilled. Then again, the breathless-with-anticipation bibliot/crediot/godiot/apologiot/religiot can always comfort him/herself with the thought that it might come true tomorrow, or perhaps the day after, or maybe the day after that, or… ad nauseam.

    Con-Tester

    March 8, 2012 at 22:43

  172. Of approx 2500 prophesies of the Bible, 2000 have been fulfilled. Be brave and follow this link: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

    Good night and sleep well guys.

    soois

    March 8, 2012 at 20:54

  173. And where — exactly, please — in that long and tedious screed of onanistic glorification is the first-hand account, hmm? Come now, point it out for us blind folks because otherwise it will strongly suggest that the goofy resident godiots/apologiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots are not only given to false analogy re evolution vs. the Holey Babble, but also have severe comprehension difficulties, or perhaps convenient ones, about the historical fact that the four canonical gospels were written several decades after the event they purport to describe, and were also subsequently embellished and altered.

    First-hand, indeed.

    Con-Tester

    March 8, 2012 at 20:51

  174. It is so easy to refer to the past and and ell people that “this and that” happened in the past, but how many can foretell the future? Let me give you just 10 Bible prophesies that happened just recently:

    “1. Israel will prevail over its enemies

    Bible passage: Isaiah 41:12-14

    Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

    Fulfilled: late 1900s

    In Isaiah 41:12-14, the prophet said God would help Israel during times of conflict with enemies (if the people have faith in God). Isaiah said this during a time when the northern kingdom of Israel had already been conquered by the Assyrian Empire. And the southern kingdom, Judah, was about to be conquered by Babylon. (The Bible explains that Israel and Judah lost their independence because so many of the residents had turned to false religions). But, since 1948 when Israel was re-established, Israel has been attacked by much-larger countries. And Israel has prevailed in each of those attacks. This prophecy has found partial fulfillment; Christian scholars believe that a time will come when all of Israel’s enemies are destroyed.

    Here is Isaiah 41:12-14

    Though you search for your enemies, you will not find them. Those who wage war against you will be as nothing at all. For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you. Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O little Israel, for I myself will help you,” declares the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

    2. The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt

    Bible passage: Amos 9:11, 13

    Written: about 750 BC

    Fulfilled: late 1900s

    In Amos 9:11, 13, the prophet said that God would restore the land of David. (King David ruled Israel from about 1010 BC to about 970 BC). The land of David – Israel – was conquered and destroyed by the Babylonians, Assyrians and Romans. The land has been in ruins for much of the past 2000 years. The Jews, who had been scattered throughout the world, began to return in large numbers during the past 100 years. Since then, they have been rebuilding many of Israel’s ancient cities. Amos also said there would be continuous planting and harvesting. During the past 100 years, the Jews have been using advanced farming and irrigation techniques to turn barren land into productive farmland. Today, Israel is a source of food for many countries.

    Here is Amos 9:11, 13

    “In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be,” … “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills.”

    3. Ezekiel prophesied prosperity for modern-day Israel

    Bible passage: Ezekiel 36:11

    Written: between 593-571 BC

    Fulfilled: late 1900s

    In Ezekiel 36:11, the prophet said that there would come a time when Israel would be more prosperous than it was in the past. The Bible describes Israel as being a prosperous nation during the time of King David and King Solomon about 3000 years ago. But, Ezekiel knew a very different Israel. In Ezekiel’s day (he lived about 2600 years ago), the northern kingdom of Israel already had been decimated by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom (called Judah) was being destroyed by the Babylonians. In the centuries that followed these destructions, Jews rebuilt the city of Jerusalem, but their homeland was destroyed again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago. Since then, a majority of Jews have lived in exile. But during the past 100 years, millions of Jews from around the world moved to Israel and they have been rebuilding the country once again. Today, Israel again is an independent nation, as it was in the days of King David, and it is one of the world’s most prosperous countries. In 1999, Israel had the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product of any nearby country, even though the surrounding countries have many oil resources.

    Here is Ezekiel 36:11

    I will increase the number of men and animals upon you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

    4. Trees again would grow in Israel

    Bible passage: Isaiah 41:18-20

    Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

    Fulfilled: late 1900s

    In Isaiah 41:18-20, the prophet’s talk of a future restoration of Israel coincides with an occurrence in modern Israel – the construction of a vast irrigation system to improve farming. The lack of available water, including rain, is one reason why Israel had been a desolate, unproductive land during much of the past 2000 years. But, during the 1900s, when many Jews returned to their ancient homeland, they built a network of irrigation systems. And during the past century, more than 200 million trees have been planted in Israel.

    Here is Isaiah 41:18-20

    I will make rivers flow on barren heights, and springs within the valleys. I will turn the desert into pools of water, and the parched ground into springs. I will put in the desert the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive. I will set pines in the wasteland, the fir and the cypress together, so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the Lord has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has created it.

    5. Isaiah said Israel’s fruit would fill the world

    Bible passage: Isaiah 27:6

    Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

    Fulfilled: late 1900s

    In Isaiah 27:6, the prophet said Israel would one day blossom and fill the world with fruit. This prophecy has been at least partially fulfilled, literally and symbolically. Today, the land of Israel, which had been barren for centuries, is a leading producer of agricultural products, exporting food to many countries. This prophecy also has been fulfilled symbolically with the worldwide spread of Christianity. Christianity, which began with Jesus in Israel, now has about 2 billion followers worldwide.

    Here is Isaiah 27:6

    In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit.

    6. Jerusalem would become the world’s most important religious site

    Bible passage: Micah 4:1

    Written: sometime between 750-686 BC

    Fulfilled: Today

    In Micah 4:1, the prophet said that the Temple mount in Jerusalem would become the focal point of the world. This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. But, it is interesting to note that Jerusalem is, and has been for centuries, the world’s most important religious site. Christians and Jews regard the city as the world’s most important, and Christians and Jews comprise about one-third of the world’s population. No other city in the world is a religious focal point to as many people.

    Here is Micah 4:1

    In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.

    7. Egypt would never again rule over other nations

    Bible passage: Ezekiel 29:15

    Written: between 593-571 BC

    Fulfilled: 1967, etc.

    In Ezekiel 29:15, the prophet says that Egypt would recover from a desolation (perhaps Babylon’s attack about 2600 years ago), but that it would never again rule over other nations. Up until the time of Ezekiel, Egypt had been a world power for centuries, dominating many nations, including Israel. But for most of the past 2500 years, Egypt has been controlled by foreign powers, including the Romans, Ottomans and Europeans. Today, Egypt is an independent nation again. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, Egypt tried to dominate Israel but was unsuccessful each time, despite the fact that Egypt is 10 times larger than Israel. Since the time of Ezekiel, Egypt no longer rules over other nations.

    Here is Ezekiel 29:15

    It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations.

    8. Zechariah prophesied the Jews return to Jerusalem

    Bible passage: Zechariah 8:7-8

    Written: between 520 and 518 BC

    Fulfilled: 1967, etc.

    In Zechariah 8:7-8, the prophet said God would bring the Jews back from the east and the west to their homeland (Israel) and that they would be able to live in the city of Jerusalem again. This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 2600 years ago, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took many Jews as captives to Babylon. But many Jews later returned from Babylon. The Jews rebuilt Jerusalem but the city was destroyed about 1900 years ago by the Romans. The Romans killed more than 1 million Jews and forced many more into exile. The Jews did not have control of Jerusalem again until 1967 when the Jews recaptured the city during the Six Day War.

    Here is Zechariah 8:7-8

    This is what the Lord Almighty says: “I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God.”

    9. Israel’s deserts will become like the Garden of Eden

    Bible passage: Isaiah 51:3

    Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

    Fulfilled: Being fulfilled now

    In Isaiah 51:3, the prophet said that God will restore Israel and make it a paradise, like the garden of Eden. This foreshadows what is currently happening in Israel. The Jews have been irrigating, cultivating and reconditioning the land during much of the 1900s. Many of the country’s swamps, which had been infested with malaria, have been converted into farmland. And water from the Sea of Galilee has been channeled through portions of the deserts, allowing some of the deserts to bloom. Much work remains, but parts of Israel are blooming again. Although it was described as a wasteland as recently as the late 1800s, Israel is now a food source for many countries. And at least 200 million of trees have been planted there during the past century.

    Here is Isaiah 51:3

    The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing.

    10. Isaiah foretold of the worldwide return of Jews to Israel

    Bible passage: Isaiah 43:5-6

    Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC

    Fulfilled: late 1900s

    In Isaiah 43:5-6, the prophet Isaiah said that the Jews would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. Isaiah lived about 2700 years ago. At that time, the Assyrians had forced many Jews in the northern kingdom of Israel into exile. Those Jews were taken to other areas in the Middle East. Then, about 1900 years ago, the Romans destroyed the city of Jerusalem and killed and exiled hundreds of thousands of Jews. Since then, the Jews have been scattered to virtually every country in the world. But, during the past century, millions of Jews have returned to Israel, from the east, the west, the north and the south.

    From the east: Many Jews living in the Middle East moved to Israel by the early 1900s.

    From the west: During mid-1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the United States) began moving to Israel.

    From the north: The former Soviet Union (Russia) is north of Israel. It refused to allow its Jewish residents to move to Israel. But, after years of pressure from other countries, Russia finally began to allow Jews to return to Israel during the 1980s. So far, hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews have moved to Israel.

    From the south: Ethiopia, which is south of Israel, also refused to allow its Jews to return to Israel. But, in 1985, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia’s communist government to allow the Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. On the weekend of May 25, 1991, 14,500 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel.

    Isaiah’s prophecy was also correct in saying that the north (Russia) and the south (Ethiopia) would have to be persuaded to give up their Jews. Many countries pressured Russia for years before it began to allow its Jews to leave. And Ethiopia had to be paid a ransom to allow its Jews to leave.

    Isaiah’s prophecy was also correct in saying that the Jews would return “from the ends of the earth,” and Isaiah said that many centuries before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, have moved to Israel.

    Here is Isaiah 43:5-6

    “Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up!’ and to the south, `Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth…” http://www.therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm

    So, go ahead, keep on disbelieving in facts and continue believing in theories. If you blieve it to be tha sane thing to do, be my guest, but it hardly reflects intelligent thought.

    soois

    March 8, 2012 at 20:49

  175. Shazee skryf: “Soois, die bronnne wat jy aanhaal is baie indrukwekkend, maar water een is ‘n “first-hand account”?”

    Wel Shazee, die feit dat baie van die skrywers van die Bybel eerstehandse ondervinding opgedoen het, en ek gaan dit netnou vir jou bewys. Die evolusie-aanhangers het egter nie een enkele “first hand account” nie, maar verskeie teoriee.

    In elk geval,hier kom my bewyse en ek gaan aanhaal in engels. Nathan moet maar vasbyt, want ek gaan ‘n lang stuk plaas, want julle ouens gaan nie na “links” toe wat deur ‘n Christen geplaas word nie.

    “Was it just a coincidence?…The writing of the Bible ceased
    During the first century of this era, Jesus announced that he was the fulfillment of scripture. And the writing of the Bible, which had spanned as many as 1,500 years from the lifetime of Moses until the death of John the Apostle, had come to a close.

    Jesus, who is the subject and purpose of the New Testament, proclaimed in Matthew 5:17, John 4:25-26, and in other verses, that he was the Messiah promised by the Old Testament writers. In effect, he was announcing that the process of writing the Old Testament was already finished.

    Why is this significant? Because, if Jesus was not who he said he was then he would have had no way of knowing, for sure, that Malachi would be the last and final book of the Old Testament.

    After all, Malachi never said he was writing the last and final book. And for that matter, none of the Old Testament writers ever said that the Old Testament / pre-Messiah era would come to an end before the first century, or that it would not continue into the first century or beyond.

    The fact is, though, the history of the writing of the Bible reaffirms Christianity:

    • The Old Testament, and its 39 books, were written over a period of time spanning as many as 1,000 years, from the time of Moses through the time of Malachi. Malachi lived about 400 years before Jesus. The Old Testament has hundreds of prophetic verses that spoke of a future Messiah.

    • The New Testament, and its 27 books, were written during the first century, during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. The New Testament was written by people who acknowledged that Jesus is the Messiah.

    • History has never provided us with another messiah or new testament that was ever widely embraced by people over a sustained period of time.

    Was it just a coincidence?

    If Jesus was not the Messiah, or if God was not controlling the writing of the Bible, then we could expect a lot of different scenarios involving the writing of the Bible. For example:

    • If Jesus was not the Messiah who was being promised by the Old Testament prophets, then why didn’t God continue to raise up prophets, as he had already done for many centuries, and let us know who the real Messiah was?

    • If the New Testament was not the true continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament, then where is the real New Testament and why hasn’t it become widely accepted as being the word of God?

    • And if there was no God controlling the writing of the Bible, well, then anything could have happened. We could have dozens or hundreds of competing Old Testaments. We could have dozens or hundreds of internationally, or nationally, or regionally, or locally accepted messiahs, scattered throughout the world, each claiming to be the fulfillment of scripture.

    Christianity was evangelized throughout the Roman world
    During the first century of this era, there were evangelists who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. These people, including Paul and the Apostles, were willing to travel throughout the Roman world, by land and by sea, to evangelize a religion that wasn’t legally recognized by the Roman government.

    Paul, in particular, was willing to travel thousands of miles to evangelize in the name of Jesus, whom Paul claimed to have seen with his own eyes, to people throughout western Asia and southern Europe.

    And, as we learn from the Bible’s book of Acts, he continued to travel and evangelize even after being beaten and flogged, shipwrecked and injured, arrested and imprisoned, pursued by mobs and threatened with death.

    Why is this significant?

    Many of first evangelists were in the unique position of being able to know, because of what they had seen with their own eyes, whether Jesus truly had been resurrected. We can’t interview them today. We can’t interrogate them. And we can’t hook them up to a polygraph test. But, we can look at their actions in the context of history and realize that something incredible must have been motivating them:

    There was a risk in being an evangelist:

    • There was a risk in evangelizing Christianity. It wasn’t legally recognized by the Roman government. We know this from secular history and we know this from Acts 16:20-21, in which Christianity is described from a Roman point of view as “customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”

    • Many of the first evangelists were Jewish, and Jews were sometimes treated with prejudice within the Roman world. We see examples of this within the writings of Tacitus, a first-century Roman historian. We also see two possible examples of prejudice directed against the Jewishness of Paul in Acts 16:20 and in Acts 19:34.

    And there was a risk in becoming a Christian:

    • Christianity, at least initially, was so new that it often meant that converts would be breaking away from the beliefs of their parents, their siblings, their friends, their neighbors, their co-workers and their employers.

    And Christianity was very different:

    • Christianity is inflexible, exclusive, and non-syncretic, whereas the religions of the ancient world were very willing to change, include and combine.

    • The Roman world was full of fertility-cult religions and other practices that grew out of traditions from Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Christianity was very different than what people were accustomed to.

    Despite these and other obstacles, the first-century evangelists were able to promote a religion to people who had never encountered a religion like Christianity before. And these evangelists were able to do this through evangelism, a method of promotion that many people had never encountered before.

    The first-century evangelists provided the foundation on which Christianity later became the first religion to spread to each of the world’s inhabitable continents. Even today with the widespread use of worldwide mediums of television, radio and the Internet, Christianity continues to be the only religion with a truly significant and influential presence on each of the continents.

    With these things in mind, consider the following Bible verses:

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, – Matthew 28:19

    … It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth. – Isaiah 49:6.

    And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations… – Matthew 24:14a.

    Christians were martyred for their beliefs
    The events of the first century began a process by which two words would become uniquely associated with Christianity: evangelism and martyr. The first century provided us with examples of people who were willing to evangelize at the risk of martyrdom.

    Of course, dying for a cause is not unique to Christianity. But what is unique to Christianity is the extent to which the martyr is willing to die for a belief, and for a belief alone, without also seeking to gain some tangible worldly benefit, such as the advancement of a political agenda.

    Consider the example of Stephen, from the book of Acts. Stephen was professing his faith at the time of his death. And it was the act of professing his faith that brought about the events leading to his death. Aside from these details, here are others that distinguish his death:

    • His death did not help his homeland.
    • His death did not advance a political cause.
    • His death did not force others to change.
    • His death did not protect the people he cared about.
    • His death did not harm his enemies.

    While some causes can be extremely noble, the fact is, Stephen’s death did not offer any tangible worldly benefit, of any kind. He died because he was a believer in Christ. Period. And Stephen was not alone in this regard.

    Early Christian historians maintained that several early Christian evangelists died in the name of their faith, including Peter and Paul, who are described as being executed in Rome. Another notable example comes from Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, who wrote that James the Just was executed in Jerusalem.

    In addition to these accounts, there are others from a variety of non-sacred and non-canonical sources, some of which might be reliable and some of which might not be, that claim that nearly all of the original Apostles were martyred.

    The practice of Judaism was forced to change
    During the same century in which Christianity emerged, Judaism was forced to change, to extremes unrealized in previous history.

    During the first century, the people of Israel staged an uprising, a war for independence from the oppressive Roman Empire. The war ended in 70 A.D., about 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Towards the very end of the war, the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, setting it on fire and leveling it to the ground.

    The Temple, of course, was the physical center for Judaism. Without the Temple, Judaism was forced to change some important practices, and it was forced to discontinue other important practices.

    The Romans also destroyed Jerusalem, razing the great city to the ground, killing many of the Jews who were living there and forcing many others into slavery and exile. Jerusalem was not only the capital city for the land of Israel, it was also the anchor city for Judaism. And that meant that Judaism would have to find a new home.

    The Romans, by the way, also destroyed the land of Israel, beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem, leveling many of the towns, villages and settlements.

    Even today, more than 1900 years after the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, it has not been rebuilt. The first century proved to be the most devastating century of all for Judaism in terms of its long-term consequences.

    Was it just a coincidence?

    Was it just a coincidence that Judaism was forced to change in the very same century that Christianity emerged, claiming to be the fulfillment of Judaism? Let’s take a look at the odds:

    • The traditional view is that Judaism has been around since the time of Abraham, roughly 4,000 years ago. If this view is accepted, then Judaism has been around for 40 centuries.

    • That means that the odds that any particular century, such as the first century of this era, would prove to be the most devastating for Judaism would be 1-in-40. In other words, if the fate of Judaism were controlled by random chance, then there would be a 1-in-40 chance that the first century of this era would be the worst of its 40-century history.

    • And, if random chance alone were to select which century, within the 40 centuries of Judaism, that Christianity would emerge as the claimed fulfillment of Judaism, then the odds again would be 1-in-40.

    So, what would be the odds that both events would happen during the same century? To calculate the probability, we multiply 40 times 40, and we end up with an answer that the odds would be 1-in-1600.

    In other words, if random chance were guiding the fates of Judaism and Christianity, then there would be a 1-in-1600 chance that Judaism would suffer its worst century during the same century in which Christianity emerged.

    The pre-Christian sin atonement ceremony stopped working
    From ancient times, up until 70 A.D., Judaism relied on the Temple in Jerusalem to carry out the ceremonies associated with Yom Kippur, a very important holiday during which Judaism symbolically atoned for sin.

    The origins and details of Yom Kippur trace their roots back into the oldest books of the Bible.

    This yearly ceremony, however, hasn’t been carried out in the prescribed manner, with the Temple, since the first century. In other words, the world has not seen a by-the-book sin atonement sacrifice from Judaism during the past 19 centuries.

    Was it just a coincidence?

    During the same century in which Jesus died for our sins, Judaism lost the ability to carry out the yearly symbolic atonement for sin at the Temple.

    In other words, during the same century in which Jesus became the real and permanent atonement for sin, Judaism lost the ability to carry out the symbolic and temporary atonement-for-sin ceremony at the Temple.

    But there is additional information about Yom Kippur that might prove of interest, and it comes from the Talmud, which is a collection of ancient Rabbinical discussions and commentary, often focusing on Jewish law, customs and ceremonies.

    The Talmud was compiled in a written form from about 200 AD to about 500 AD.

    There is a passage in the Talmud that says that the Yom Kippur ceremony stopped working properly 40 years before the Temple was destroyed. Among others things, there was a red piece of cloth that was supposed to turn white, symbolizing the atonement of sin. And, according to the Talmud, the red cloth stopped turning white 40 years before the destruction of the Temple:

    and it has further been taught: ‘For forty years before the destruction of the Temple the thread of scarlet never turned white but it remained red’. – Rosh HaShanah 31b, Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Press Edition.

    In other words, we have a Judaic source claiming that Judaism’s sin-atonement ceremony stopped working properly in or around 30 AD. That of course would be either the same year, or very close to the same year, that Jesus became the permanent atonement of sin.”

    Copyright © About-Jesus.org

    soois

    March 8, 2012 at 20:38

  176. Daan, vir my is sonde, wanneer ek goed kan doen aan ander en ek versuim om dit te doen. Jesus verkondig vergifnis en die ou verbond het deur die wet, sonde daar tot stand gebring.
    Als klink maar vir jou moontlik ingewikkeld en dit is maar net omdat jy nog fleeslike dinge bedink en nie geestelike dinge nie.
    Die doel van my geloof, is om die verganklike met onverganklike te beklee.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 7, 2012 at 21:34

  177. Hans!!!! Dagsê.

    Ek is bly dat jy nie dink dat jou sondes te wyte is aan Adam en Eva se vrugtestelery nie. Ek kan jou verseker dat dit nie so is nie.

    Ek het oor die jare agtergekom dat jy met heelwat Christelike leërstellings nie saamstem nie, wat ook goed is.

    Maar ou Hans, die sogenaamde sondeval van Adam en Eva is die fondament waarop die hele Christelike geloof gebaseer is!! Vat die “erfsonde” weg, en die “sondige” mensdom het nie ‘n verlosser, Christus (die Gesalfde), nodig nie.

    En jy maak alles onnodig ingewikkeld deur allerlei “boodskappe” in die Bybelse simboliek in te lees. As dit egter van jou ‘n gelukkiger mens maak, “knock yourself out”.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 7, 2012 at 04:51

  178. Hanswors, you still don’t grasp the point. I am not the world’s creator. I am neither omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor supremely benevolent. And in case you haven’t noticed, I am trying to change the world in my own small way. Specifically, I am trying to get people to think, really think, about what they believe to be true — except maybe for certain obviously lost causes. But good intentions are rarely enough. I’d’ve thought an infallible skydaddy scientist like you would know that. Accepting things as they are when they are clearly wrong is a weak-minded copout.

    As for your assertion that your “god” is sorry s/he made man, it makes no sense. None whatsoever. S/he knew exactly how it would turn out, so how could s/he be sorry!? How, Hanswors? How? Besides, how do you know this in the first place? Been hearing voices again, have you? Would those be the same voices that told you it’s impossible for you to be wrong about your “god”?

    Which silly self-serving confabulations remind me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 6, 2012 at 23:03

  179. Daan, ek het jou geantwoord op 4 Maart en tog is jou stem still?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 6, 2012 at 23:02

  180. ErickV, skuus man, ek het vergeet dat jy nog blind is.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 6, 2012 at 22:55

  181. Con-Tester, God was sorry that He made man. I myself do always have good intentions but it does not always have good results. If it bothers you, why don’t you change it and if you can’t, then accept it or you will make yourself sick.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 6, 2012 at 22:47

  182. Soois!!! Naandsê.

    Bart Ehrman en Dominic Crossan is heeltemal reg. Daar kan geen twyfel bestaan dat ‘n man genaamd Jesus van Nasaret ongeveer 2 000 jaar gelede gekruisig is nie.

    Wat is jou punt?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 6, 2012 at 20:11

  183. Soois, die bronnne wat jy aanhaal is baie indrukwekkend, maar water een is ‘n “first-hand account”?

    Shazee

    March 6, 2012 at 16:04

  184. Some unobservant moron blathers a lot of irrelevant stuff that entirely misses the point that was made — behaviour that is typical of the brain-dead godiot/bibliot/religiot/crediot/apologiot because s/he always sees what’s not there, never reads anything besides that which feeds his/her biases, and thinks words can mean whatever s/he wants them to mean.

    This is another reason poking these dom dooses is so much fun: You never know what new inanity you’re going to get.

    Con-Tester

    March 6, 2012 at 14:39

  185. Some idiot wrote: “What is remarkable is the total absence of any first-hand accounts attesting to this man’s singular significance in his own time…”

    “Jesus’ crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other contemporary sources, and regarded as a historical event…According to Mark’s Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from the third hour, at approximately 9 am,[4] until his death at the ninth hour, corresponding to about 3 pm.[5] The soldiers affixed a sign above his head stating “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” in three languages, divided his garments and cast lots for his seamless robe. The Roman soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs, as they did to the other two men crucified (breaking the legs hastened the crucifixion process), as Jesus was dead already. Each gospel has its own account of Jesus’ last words, seven statements altogether…In the Synoptic Gospels, various supernatural events accompany the crucifixion, including darkness, an earthquake, and (in Matthew) the resurrection of saints. Following Jesus’ death, his body was removed from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea and buried in a rock-hewn tomb, with Nicodemus assisting”

    “Modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be the two historically certain facts about him, James Dunn stating that these “two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent”.[13] Dunn states that these two facts “rank so high on the ‘almost impossible to doubt or deny’ scale of historical facts” that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[13] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[14] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[15]

    Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

    soois

    March 6, 2012 at 14:15

  186. Hansie Slim.

    “ErickV, jou gesprek is net tot die einde van die aarde (jou aardse bestaan)”
    Wat te donner het dit met my stellings te doen?
    Nou is jy besig om dit heeltemal te verloor!
    Die “wysheid” van god IS vir my DWAAS!
    Hy wil he ek moet voor hom buig en op my knee aanbid anders gaan ek in die hel beland en vir ewig brand?
    Hy kan maar self hel toe vlieg!

    ErickV

    March 6, 2012 at 05:14

  187. Hans, my fout. Ek het jou antwoord aangesien as ‘n antwoord op die laaste pos wat ek op “Religion is like a penis” geplaas het. As jy nog ‘n antwoord op daardie een gaan gee trek ek my woorde terug.

    Shazee

    March 5, 2012 at 23:00

  188. Hans, jy bly wragtig maar ‘n dom donner. Watter stelings van jou moes ek nou weer weerle?
    Ek vra jou waarom jou god ons nie almal oortuig om in hom te glo nie, soos dit volgens jou binne sy mag is om te doen, maar hy verkies blykbaar om dit nie te doen nie.
    Nou kom jy weer terug met so ‘n deursigtig ontwykende en irrelevante antwoord.
    As jy nie ‘n logiese antwoord het nie, se dan so, jy hoef nie kak te praat nie.

    Shazee

    March 5, 2012 at 22:39

  189. ErickV, jou gesprek is net tot die einde van die aarde (jou aardse bestaan). Dit is sekerlik nie my skuld dat die wysheid van God vir jou dwaas is nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 22:08

  190. Hanswors, the “free will” argument is bullshit. If your “god” truly gave us free will and then threatened us with eternal punishment in hell if we choose to disbelieve or to believe in another deity, then your “god” is a psychopathic control freak who can’t stand any competition.

    Your “god” made people capable of doing bad things, Hanswors. S/he also knew ahead of time that they would do bad things. Why did s/he do it that way, Hanswors?

    And it’s obvious that you still fail to get the point about your “god’s” alleged omnipotence and omniscience: Come now, it’s not that hard. Even a ten year old gets it. Your “god” made a world full of flaws and weaknesses. S/he knew how it would work out. And still s/he kept all those flaws and weaknesses.

    You can stop this stupid excuse-mongering and idiotic fucking around of yours with what you think I’m saying, and answer the actual question, b>Hanswors. Why did your “god” make the world as it is, knowing full well that it would all go wrong?

    Which viscous thickness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )…

    Con-Tester

    March 5, 2012 at 22:07

  191. Malherbe, skuus, dit was vir ErickV gewees.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 22:04

  192. Malherbe, jou gesprek is net tot die einde van die aarde (jou aardse bestaan). Dit is sekerlik nie my skuld dat die wysheid van God vir jou dwaas is nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 22:02

  193. Shazee, jy het omtrent ‘n klomp stof opgeskop en tog kon jy niks weerlê wat ek geskryf het. Dit is beter om drie woorde van wysheid te sê as ‘n horde nikseggende woorde.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 21:54

  194. Con-Tester, God is so good, because He did not force His will on man, as He gave man their own will and left His will for man. If man chooses to do bad things, well they must bear the consequences. I am not resisting what God made me, I am seeking His kingdom and righteousness. I am making better choices that are eternal. How my earthly existence ends, is immaterial.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 5, 2012 at 21:47

  195. Hansie Slim,

    Met jou antwoord aan my bewys dit dat jy nie ‘n sinvolle gesprek kan voer nie. Ek het jou ‘n dood eenvoudige vraag gevra maar jy kom weer met ‘n klomp kak uit.
    Hoe oud is jy? 18? 19? 20?
    Jy kan definitief nie ouer as dit wees met jou tipe van denke nie. Maar nou ja, jy sien jouself darem as “kinderlik”.
    Indien jy ouer as dit is, is jy eenvoudig maar net dom, onnosel, sonder breins en ‘n groot doos!!

    ErickV

    March 5, 2012 at 05:41

  196. Hans, jou arrrogansie is asemberowend. Nie net verstaan jy die bybel beter as enige van ons wat op hierdie blog kommentaar lewer nie, maar blykbaar ook beter as enigiemand anders.
    Volgens jou is die waarheid net aan jou onthul, en net jy, en moontlik die klein groepie wat presies soos jy glo, het die lig gesien. Almal anders is blind en onnosel.
    Ek betwyfel of daar in elk geval ‘n noemenswaardige groep mense is wat jou geloof deel. Dit is net te absurd en te vloeibaar om aanklank te vind, selfs gemeet aan die normale standaarde van godiote. Jy is bereid om die mees verwronge redenasies te aanvaar om uit ‘n logies verlore posisie te ontsnap. Jy beskuldig ons dat ons nie die boodskap van die bybel verstaan nie, maar jy is die een wat oneerlik is met jouself. Jy vind die mees arbitrere simboliese of metaforiese verklarings om die bybel te verklaar soos dit jou pas. Hierdie bisarre uitleg van jou volg verder geen logiese of konstante patroon nie. Jy maak dit op soos die situasie vereis.
    As jou uitgangspunt van die begin af is dat dit onmoontlik is dat jy verkeerd kan wees, is dit seker onvermydelik dat jy die metode moet gebruik. Jy kan eenvoudig nie bekostig om op ‘n enkele punt verkeerd bewys te word nie, en met so ‘n metode sal jy ook nie. Dit is net nie rasioneel nie, en ook nie vreeslik eerlik nie.
    Jy het gese dat daar ander is wat ook soos jy glo; wie is hulle Hans, wat noem julle julself?

    Shazee

    March 5, 2012 at 05:17

  197. But Hanswors, your “god” made you exactly as you are. S/he knew how s/he made you and how you would be. So why do you need to fight yourself by changing the way your “god” has made you? I mean, if you like telling dirty jokes and sharing a drink with the boys, then your “god” made you just like that — and s/he did it knowing exactly how you would be. And if you stop telling dirty jokes and liking a dop, aren’t you resisting what your “god” made you?

    What’s the solution to this dilemma that no godiot/religiot/bibliot/crediot/apologiot has ever answered satisfactorily?

    Con-Tester

    March 4, 2012 at 23:38

  198. Malherbe, Pro 17:24 Die verstandige hou die wysheid voor oë, maar die oë van die dwaas is by die einde van die aarde.
    1 Kor. 1:20 Waar bly die wyse? Waar bly die skrifgeleerde? Waar die redetwister van hierdie eeu? Het God nie die wysheid van hierdie wêreld dwaas gemaak nie?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 4, 2012 at 23:13

  199. Daan, ek sien my “hand” wat ek moet af kap, as my handelswyse wat ek van ontslae moet raak en tot niet maak asook dit wat ek praat, my “tong”, dieselfde omdat ek nie vleeslike dinge bedink nie, maar wel geestelike dinge (Rom. 8 v 4 tot 6). In ander se oë mag dit as ‘n verminking voorkom omdat een miskien nie meer vuil grappe vertel of saam met die groep suip ens. Die waarheid is die vuur, wat alle kaf tot niet maak en wat een aan die einde inhaal, sou een nie afgekap het, wat nie nodig was in een se lewe.
    Ek dink nie my sondes is a.g.v. Adam en Eva nie en Jesus het nie vir my sonde gesterf nie, maar wel vir die sonde. Ek moet dus ook saam met Hom sterwe en opstaan in ‘n nuwe lewenswandel.
    Hy is in ‘n wolk opgeneem en in Heb. 12 v 1 (Ou Vertaling), kan ons sien in watse wolk. Ons ontmoet Christus in die lug. Die krag en wysheid van God kom na ons toe deur die gepredikte woord, wat deur die lug van ‘n mens se mond na ons ore toe kom en in ons verstand pos vat (1 Kor. 1 v 24). Dit is tog hoe ons geloof ontstaan.
    Jesus self erken die krag en wysheid van God, naamlik Christus (Gawe) en homself nie as bonatuurlik beskou nie, toe hy met die Samaritaanse vrou gepraat het (Joh. 4 v 10).
    Dit is maar die boodskappe wat ek daarin sien.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 4, 2012 at 23:06

  200. Maybe not so stupid, Hanswors. Why did your “god” make it so that people kill one another at all, hmm? And why do cultural and language differences make it so much easier, hmm? Why are conflicts between nations so much more destructive than they are among people of the same nationality, hmm?

    Maybe not so stupid after all, eh Hanswors? Not that you would ever admit it, ’cos you don’t actually understand very much of any substance.

    And yes, every disaster that befalls humanity is your “god’s” fault, Hanswors. You obviously don’t understand the argument, so here it is one more time: Your “god” made it all. Your “god” knew exactly how everything would happen. Your “god” had the power to make it all in a different way that would avoid all the disasters and suffering. Yet s/he made the fucked-up version anyway. Why!? What is the reason that we, who were made from nothing, and exactly as we are by your “god”, are like we are unless your “god” made things exactly as s/he wanted them to be?

    But you don’t answer the questions put to you because it’s impossible that you might be wrong, eh Hanswors? Dodging the real issues is so much more the style of you and your “god”.

    Con-Tester

    March 4, 2012 at 22:32

  201. Maybe not so stupid, Hanswors. Why did your “god” make it so that people kill one another at all, hmm? And why do cultural and language differences make it so much easier, hmm? Why are conflicts between nations so much more destructive than they are among people of the same nationality, hmm?

    Maybe not so stupid after all, eh Hanswors? Not that you would ever admit it, ’cos you don’t actually understand very much of any substance.

    And yes, every disaster that befalls humanity is your “god’s” fault, Hanswors. You obviously don’t understand the argument, so here it is one more time: Your “god” made it all. Your “god” knew exactly how everything would happen. Your “god” had the power to make it all in a different way that would avoid all the disasters and suffering. Yet s/he made the fucked-up version anyway. Why!? What is the reason that we, who were made from nothing, and exactly as we are by your “god”, are like we are unless your “god” made things exactly as s/he wanted them to be?

    But you don’t answer the questions put to you because it’s impossible that you might be wrong, eh Hanswors? Dodging the real issues is so much more the style of you and your “god”.

    Con-Tester

    March 4, 2012 at 22:30

  202. Shazee, omdat jy en co. nie die boodskappe in die Bybel verstaan nie, is ek nou die een wat iets makeer. Steek hand in eie boesem, jy kan ‘n verassing kry. Julle maatreëls is nie al wat geldig is, in elke aspek van die lewe nie en julle is baie onerkentlik daaroor. Julle oorskat julle eie bekwaamheid en is nie in staat om dit agter te kom nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 4, 2012 at 22:13

  203. Con-Tester, people who have the same language and culture also kill one another, so you have a stupid argument.
    Our earthly existence will end, so accept it as it is part of nature.
    God gave man intelligence to build a train. The train crashes because of human fault and many die. I presume, according to your reasoning, it is God’s fault.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 4, 2012 at 22:04

  204. Malherbe, Con-Tester het Hans se probleem alreeds gediagnoseer. Hy ly aan die Dunning-Kruger effek; hy oorskat sy eie bekwaamheid, maar hy is nie in staat om dit te herken nie.

    Shazee

    March 4, 2012 at 10:29

  205. Bg moet lees: “….ek hoef NIE elke dag hier te wees…”

    Malherbe

    March 4, 2012 at 08:33

  206. Hans, ek hoef elke dag hier te wees, om te weet dat jy ‘n klomp tjol gaan kwytraak nie. Kyk onnosel is een ding, maar wanneer dit na vlakke daal waar die swaap te dom is om te weet hy’s ‘n swaap, wel dan raak redevoering ‘n nuttelose oefening. Behalwe natuurlik vir komiese waarde.

    Malherbe

    March 4, 2012 at 08:29

  207. Con-Tester, Hans is deceiving himself, but he has no other choice open to him. His “unshakeable” believe is built on such a shaky edifice that the slightest admittance of doubt will bring it crumbling down. Once he admits to even the remotest theoretical possibility of being wrong, he will be compelled to actually examine the evidence. At some sub-concious level that is what he fears most. He cannot conceive of a life without his god.

    Shazee

    March 4, 2012 at 07:47

  208. Hans!!! Dagsê.

    Ek is bly dat jy toegee dat daardie gedeeltes van die Bybel wat histories, biologies en wetenskaplik nie sin maak nie, as “simbolies” beskryf, en nie daarop aandring dat dit inderdaad feitlik is nie.

    Heelwat liberale teoloë huldig vandag die mening dat God van mites/fabels gebruik gemaak het om Sy boodskap aan die mensdom oor te dra, wat ongelukkig lei tot geldige vrae wat selfs die mees liberale teoloë nie kan antwoord nie.

    Kom ons kyk weer na die evangelie van Mattheus. Daarvolgens sou Jesus gesê het dat as jou hand, jou tong en/of jou been vir jou ‘n stuikelblok in jou geloofslewe is, kap dit af en gooi dit in die vuur. Dit is vir jou beter om vermink deur die lewe te gaan as om by jou dood in die vuur gewerp te word.

    Nou ja. Selfs die mees ortodokse (fundamentalistiese) teoloë gee toe dat die afkap van ledemate simbolies is. God sal tog nooit van enige mens verwag om homself te vermink nie. Die probleem kom in by daai “in die vuur werp” lyn wat fundamentaliste ongelukkig gebruik as gesag vir die bestaan van ‘n obskure plek bekend as “die hel”.

    ‘n Gelowige wat hierdie gedeelte EERLIK en OBJEKTIEF beoordeel, sal moet toegee dat hierdie “in die vuur werp” dreigement, eweneens “simbolies” is. Vir my persoonlik, deur alle data aldus te beoordeel, ervaar en beleef ek ‘n bevryding wat ek in my mees oortuigde oomblik as belydende en biddende Christen nie naastenby eers ooit gehad het nie.

    Om op te som: Ek kan eenvoudig nie aanvaar (glo) dat ek (of enige mens) die erfsonde vanweë die “oortreding” van mitologiese figure (Adam en Eva) myself onwillekeurig op die hals gehaal het, alleen kan verdiskonteer deur naief te moet aanvaar en bely dat Jesus van Nasaret se kruisiging (politieke straf vir sy bedreiging van vrede en stabiliteit in Judea) en sy verkeerdelik toebedeelde, bo-natuurlike goddelike status, en die uiters bedenklike beriggewing omtrent sy bo-natuurlike opstanding/opwekking en opstyg-in-die-lug, as deel van ‘n voorafbestaande plan deur ‘n triniteit (bedenklik en nie substansieerbaar, veral waar die een substansie ‘n abstrakte/gees is).

    Soos gesê, kan ek dit eenvoudig nie aanvaar nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    March 4, 2012 at 07:26

  209. Shazee, dit is onmoontlik dat Hanswors verkeerd kan wees oor sy “god”. Hy sê dan self so. Twee keer bevestig hy dit, nogal.

    Con-Tester

    March 4, 2012 at 00:04

  210. Hans, dit is aanvaarbaar vir ‘n kind om naief alles te glo wat ‘n gesagsfiguur vir hom vertel, soos byvoorbeeld sy ouers, sy onderwysers en dominies.
    Dit is nie aanvaarbaar dat ‘n volwassene absurde stront klakkeloos aanhou glo wat hy as kind ingeprent is nie. Daar moet ‘n stadium kom waar jy oor die goed begin nadink en waar jy vir ‘n basiese standaard van bewys en logika begin vra.
    Pla dit jou nie dat jy groot dele van die bybel meer en meer simbolies moet begin verklaar om enigsins geloofwaardigheid daaraan te probeer verleen nie? Dit is dele wat jy duidelik self as onsamehangende en kinderagtige onsin begin ervaar, en daarom jou al hoe meer bizarre rasionaliserings daarvan.

    Shazee

    March 3, 2012 at 23:49

  211. Hanswors, your “god” “made our lives interesting” by having humans speak different languages and develop different cultures!? In that case, your “god” is a sadistic bastard. Do you have any idea how many people have suffered and died because of these menial differences? And your “god” knew exactly how things would happen. And that’s why I say s/he’s a sadistic bastard.

    It’s far easier to believe that different languages and cultures developed naturally as a result of sufficient separation and local environmental differences than to think some almighty, all-wise creator with self-esteem issues did it.

    But hey, it’s totally impossible that you can be wrong about your “god”, which you have now confirmed with your “yes” answer.

    Which infallibility reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 3, 2012 at 22:56

  212. Shazee, die HAT verduidelik mooi wat is kinderlik en wat is kinderagtig. Kinders is opreg en vra vrae omdat hulle wil verstaan en nie omdat hulle alles wil verwerp nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 3, 2012 at 22:51

  213. ErickV, sal ek jou dan van nou af dom vent noem?
    Wat die oudste skedel betref, kyk dit op, op die Internet of gaan besoek “Cradle of Man kind” soos wat ek gedoen het.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 3, 2012 at 22:34

  214. Con-Tester, God has made our lives interesting , look at all the different languages.
    Yes.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 3, 2012 at 22:25

  215. Nou wat is die verskil tussen “kinderlik” en “kinderagtig” Hans?
    Kinders is per definisie kinderagtig – kinderagtig beteken om soos ‘n kind te wees.
    As jy bedoel dat ‘n mens naief soos ‘n kind moet wees, en dat jy alle nonsens onnadenkend en onkrities soos ‘n kind moet aanvaar voordat jy die lig gaan sien, ja, dan stem ek met jou saam. Jy moet kinderlik wees om die twak vir soetkoek op te eet, baie, baie kinderlik.

    Shazee

    March 3, 2012 at 11:10

  216. Hans,

    Aangesien jy so slim is en ek so dom, gaan ek jou van nou af “Hansie Slim” noem.
    Raait, kom vertel my nou hoe oud is/was Homo Erectus, maw hoe oud is die oudste skedel wat gevind is en hoe oud is die oudste skedel van Homo Sapiens?
    Kom nou, ek probeer nou ‘n sinvolle gesprek voer.

    ErickV

    March 3, 2012 at 05:14

  217. Okay, so let’s get this clear and definite Hanswors: It is impossible that you can be wrong about your “god”. Is that what you are saying? Again, just a “yes” or a “no” will be sufficient.

    Con-Tester

    March 2, 2012 at 23:19

  218. Oh, you and your forgiveness are such a boon to humanity, Hanswors. But your “answer” to my language question is seriously dodgy. It strongly suggests that your “god” quite deliberately went out of his way to make things tricky and difficult for humanity which he created. Instead, he could just as well have made it so that everybody already comes equipped with “perseverance, patience, forbearing one another in love, show understanding ect.”

    I mean, your “god” can do anything, right? So why make things so that that people have to bash heads to learn all of this stuff?

    Con-Tester

    March 2, 2012 at 23:13

  219. Con-Tester, on your other question; No.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2012 at 23:07

  220. Con-Tester, I forgive you as it should be a quality of one who believes in God and Jesus Christ.
    I would think that having different languages helps one to gain perseverance, patience, forbearing one another in love, show understanding ect. for those are qualities one should obtain should one become part of the kingdom of God. Trust man to take another route.
    Thanks for making it easy for me to locate as I always believed there is good in you also although many may not think so.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2012 at 23:04

  221. Hey Hanswors, seeing as you’re into extreme brevity tonight, here’s a simple question for you. It can be answered with just a “yes” or a “no”.

    The question is this: Is there any possible way, however unlikely, in which you could be mistaken about this “god” stuff you’re pushing?

    Just a “yes” or a “no” will do for now Hanswors, no funny dodging or other avoidances, just a “yes” or a “no”. Clear enough?

    Which childishly uncomplicated task reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), got an answer yet? Or are you still thinking about how to dodge the old auto-shtupping GC&UPOO&TF?

    Con-Tester

    March 2, 2012 at 23:04

  222. Shazee, LW nie kinderagtig nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 2, 2012 at 22:43

  223. Just in case you’d like to verify things and you’re struggling to locate that thread Hanswors, just click here (and then click on the Google hit if the sequence of events is still not obvious).

    Con-Tester

    March 1, 2012 at 23:27

  224. Hanswors, it’s in the Science & Religion thread. See the comments in that thread starting September 7, 2011 at 16:13. (As a mostly irrelevant aside, also have a look at the prophetic last paragraph of my comment of August 13, 2011 at 09:47).

    But okay: I posed the question to you intellectual twin, ol’ soois. I ask your forgiveness for getting the two of you confused, but I’m sure you’ll agree it’s an easy enough mistake to make, all things considered.

    Con-Tester

    March 1, 2012 at 23:14

  225. Malherbe, ek sien jy was ‘n ruk stil en nou dat jy iets kwyt raak, is dit ook nie sinfol wat die gesprek betref.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 1, 2012 at 22:50

  226. Hanswors, I’ll have to hunt for it. Not that you would even acknowledge it if did supply the reference, but I’ll look for it anyway. That’s what people who are genuinely interested in the facts do.

    As for your question, you’re missing the point. Again. Yawn. There’s nothing wrong with different languages and cultures. But why did your all-wise, all-powerful skydaddy make people so that they spoke different languages and developed different cultures, hmm? And why make them, knowing that different languages and cultures would end up in squabbles and rivalries, hmm?

    Now don’t go avoiding these questions, Hanswors.

    Which ham-fisted dodging reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    March 1, 2012 at 22:50

  227. ErickV, is daar dan ‘n reël wat sê dat ek nie aan albei mag glo nie, of is dit jy wat net te dom is om dit te verstaan?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 1, 2012 at 22:46

  228. Ja Hans, baie, baie kinderlik.

    Shazee

    March 1, 2012 at 22:41

  229. Con-Tester, give us date time and under which subject did you pose that question please?
    What is so wrong with different languages?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 1, 2012 at 22:39

  230. Shazee, geestelike denke kan in enige taal gepraat word en daarom is daar redding vir almal.
    Ek moes natuurlik kinderlik word sodat ek geleer kon word.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 1, 2012 at 22:31

  231. ErickV, ek het al baie godiote teegekom, maar Hans vat beslis die koek. Sowat van lieg vir jouself om jou dogma te “laat werk” is eenvoudig verstommend. Al wat Hans hoef te doen om te sien hoe inkonsekwent hey is, is om al sy poste onder mekaar te plaas en dan sin te probeer maak daaruit. Dit is een grote warboel van rondgespringery tussen die “geestelike, figuurlike, sinnebeelde” wat hy wil laat klop met die werklikheid om hom. ‘n Poging om ‘n standbeeld uit mieliepap te bytel, het ‘n beter kans op sukses.

    Malherbe

    March 1, 2012 at 18:42

  232. Hans,

    Ek dink regtig jy het hulp nodig.
    Die een oomblik glo jy aan evolusie (“Cradle of mankind”) en die volgende oomblik glo jy aan simboliese kak uit die bybel.
    Party keer wonder ek of jy nie maar net ‘n eenvoudige donnerse trol is nie!

    ErickV

    March 1, 2012 at 04:32

  233. A while ago I asked Hanswors to explain why, if we are all children of the same “god”, there are so many different languages spoken in the world. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly benevolent creator make a world where it is the norm that people chosen at random can’t easily understand one another? And why supply humanity with his allegedly infallible and eternal word, the Holey Babble, in a tiny subset of just one or two of those languages?

    As with all the other questions, I only got the by-now-familiar babble and bullshit in reply.

    Con-Tester

    February 29, 2012 at 22:41

  234. Hans,
    Ja, ek weet daar is baie verskillende tale, maar kakpraat bly kakpraat in enige taal.
    Vir watter moontlike rede sou ‘n almagtige god, wat vermoedelik enige taal kan praat wat hy wil, dan nou ‘n taal gebruik wat net deur sekere ouens verstaan word?
    Wil hy he dat net die mense, soos jy, wat sy “simboliese” taal kan verstaan gered word?

    Hans, ek weet regtig nie wat jy moes doen om jouself van sulke kinderagtige stront te oortuig nie. ‘N graad eentjie sal kwalik sulke nonsens glo.

    Shazee

    February 29, 2012 at 22:12

  235. Sahzee, hoe dink jy kon ‘n ou drie honderd vrouens gehad het? Ek sou eerder sê dit is die hoof van ‘n kerk groep met drie honderd gemeentes. Daar is maar vir ons boodskappe daarin opgesluit. Onthou, jy is afrikaans en jou taal ook en ‘n ander ou is engels en sy taal ook. God is gees en Sy taal ook.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 29, 2012 at 21:41

  236. Hans, se jy dus dat alle dele in die bybel wat nie sin maak as dit letterlik gelees word, as simbolies gesien moet word.
    Is dit die maatstaf?
    As dit na onsin klink as jy dit verstaan soos dit daar geskryf staan, verklaar jy die onsin bloot simbolies, en die probleem verdwyn?

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 21:54

  237. ErickV, volg jy nie die wetenskap nie. Gaan besoek die “Cradle of Mankind”.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 28, 2012 at 21:31

  238. Shazee, die volgende is ook ‘n verhaal uit die O T; 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;
    Die betekenis van haar seuns se name is die tien gebooie en die betekenis van die name van die twee seuns van Sara, is om God lief te hê bo alles en jou naaste soos jouself, nl. die nuwe verbond.
    As ons dinge letterlik wil opvat, dan is daar baie dinge wat nie sin maak nie.
    Nee, ek het nie dit self uitgedink nie en daar is baie wat soos myself dink, al is ons ‘n minderheid van die Christen wêreld.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 28, 2012 at 21:24

  239. Hans,

    Indien die skeppingsverhaal dan simbolies is, wat is dan die werklikheid? Waar kom ons vandaan?
    Kommaan, wees vir ‘n slag eerlik en fok die geestelikheid.

    ErickV

    February 28, 2012 at 13:27

  240. Hans, dit sal interresant wees om te weet waar jy aan hierdie bizarre interpretasies van die bybel gekom het.
    Wil jy nie so ‘n bietjie uitwei daaroor nie?
    Hoe het jy byvoorbeeld besluit dat die skeppingsverhaal is simbolies, en hoe het jy agtergekom wat simboliek daaragter nou eintlik is?
    Ek kan nie onthou dat ek jou spesifieke interpretasies al voorheen raakgeloop het nie.
    Het jy dit self uitgedink, of het jy dit van erens af gekry?
    Ek is regtig nuuskierig daaroor.

    Shazee

    February 28, 2012 at 08:51

  241. Shazee, ja ek verskil van baie ander omdat ek volgens Rom. 8 v 4 tot 6, handel. Nee, Jesus het hulle wat handel dryf in die tempel gevoeter, dus behoort mens nie die Bybel en geloof te gebruik om geld te maak nie. So ‘n persoon is dan ook eintlik ‘n huurling en jy weet wat staan in die Bybel oor huurlinge.
    Die wette was deel van die ou bedeling en vandag word niemand gedwing nie. Jesus het nie mag nagejaag nie en het juis die wette volbring om genade daar te stel.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 27, 2012 at 23:02

  242. Hans, ek sien jy se as mense nie wil luister nie moet daar strenger opgetree word.

    Beteken dit dat jy nie met Soois saamstem oor hoe toegeeflik julle sal wees as julle die dag die mag kry om vir ons wette te maak. Nie?

    Shazee

    February 27, 2012 at 09:54

  243. Hans, jy en ou Soois is twee narre.

    Dit klink my hy glo wragtig nog letterlik aan die storie van pratende slange wat in jou oor fluister om te gaan appels steel.

    Jy, aan die ander kant, het een of ander filosofie opgemaak in jou kop wat net so dom soos Soois s’n klink, net effens meer “confused”.

    Ek moet jou krediet gee Hans, jou weergawe van die ou sprokie klink vir my, soos jy dit onsamehangend verduidelik, redelik uniek. Hoekom begin jy nie ‘n kerk nie? Jy sal ‘n fortuin maak man. Daar is baie mense wat sal betaal om na jou stront te luister, vra vir die Mighty Moron.

    Soois aan die ander kant, verkoop maar die selfde ou breinlose kak sonder om eers oorsprongklik te probeer wees.

    Shazee

    February 27, 2012 at 06:41

  244. Daan, dit is hoekom ek sê, dat die skeppingsverhaal gaan nie oor Heelal ens. Dit is simbolic en in my begin was die aarde woes en leeg, wat God betref en ek was in die duister as gevolg van die wêreldvloed (mense denke). Die aarde is die saailand van die saaier, soos wat ek dit sien.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2012 at 22:20

  245. Malherbe, as ek kyk hoe julle Jesus Christus, wat net goed gedoen het, probeer drakoniseer, dan is ek geskok oor hoe julle dwaal.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2012 at 22:04

  246. Shazee, ons moet in gedagte hou, dat dit nie in vandag se tye was nie en die wet was moontlik paslik vir daardie tyd. Jou vraag is ongeldig omdat dit nie verkragting was nie en wel egbreek.
    Die Bybel is die letter en die Gees maak lewendig.
    Wanneer mense nie gehoor gee nie, is dit normaal om strenger maatreëls daar te stel en dit is normaal in vandag se tyd.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2012 at 21:57

  247. Yes Hanswors, “probably” as in “it’s very likely”. You have a problem with the idea of a little uncertainty concerning human behaviour? Or that someone in great or mortal fear might be petrified to the point of being unable to react in any considered way?

    And I’m still waiting for one of you funny religiots/godiots/crediots/apologiots/godiots to explain why an all-knowing “god” would (1) need a rape victim to scream in order to avoid death as punishment if this all-wise “god” in any case knows the victim’s mind, and (2) why this poes of a “god” needs other people to punish transgressors when he’s perfectly able to do so himself, what with all this all-powerfulness of his.

    These are yet more pertinent questions you’re dodging, Hanswors.

    Which stupefyingly inane yarn-spinning reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 21:55

  248. Con-Tester, you use the word probably, so you cannot prove it to be so. What can I say? Probably one would put up a fight? I clearly understand what is written in Deut. 22. I have got the message, have you?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2012 at 21:42

  249. soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 20:46):

    Basically yes…

    Okay, so you agree that the idea of “salvation”/“heaven”/“hell” as reward/punishment doesn’t exist in the OT, yes?

    soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 20:46):

    … but since nobody had the ability to live by these strict rules, salvation had to come by a different means…

    Once more: So by your own admission, your psychopathic skydaddy set humanity an impossible bar to live up to, just so he could “sacrifice” himself (by gory, virgin-raping, over-dramatic, blood-drenched proxy, nogal!)

    Explain for us dimwits, how can a supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present creator deity fuck up so badly by not seeing the fucked-up path his creation would follow? If he knew it was going to happen, did he do it that way anyway because he’s a sick poes? If he didn’t know it was going to happen is that because he’s a dof all-wise poes?

    soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 20:46):

    Today … we try to obey His commandments and not to earn points or earn salvation.

    But knowing full well that if we don’t obey, this poes, who made us exactly what we are, is going to make sure that we braai in eternal torment.

    Some fucking choice. What a sick fucking poes this “god” of yours is.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 21:05

  250. Con Tester

    “soois, just to be clear: That would be the OT mentioning “heaven” as a place of eternal life/reward for a good life lived according to your skydaddy’s laws, or “hell” as a place of eternal torment for living your life in defiance of those laws?” Basically yes, but since nobody had the ability to live by these strict rules, salvation had to come by a different means, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Today we are not under these laws, but salvation and salvation only. It is out of love and thankfullness for His sacrifice that we try to obey His commandments and not to earn points or earn salvation.

    Daan, ek het my bedenkinge omtrent die wetenskap se berekeninge rondom die tye wanneer wat gebeur het. Dit was al oor en oor bewys hoe onakkuraat die daterings van wetenskaplikes is, maar jy moet ook onthou dat ons nie God se metode en tydperk van Sy skepping ken nie. M.a.w, al het die ontstaan so lank terug gebeur, hoe weet ons Hy het dit nie laat gebeur nie. Die Bybel praat van “in die begin”, nie 10000 VC of so-iets nie, maar “in die begin”.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 20:46

  251. Your morality concerning rape is a disgusting perversion of all that is good and decent in people. The abominable lengths you will go to to rationalise away a plain instruction and dolly it up into something quasi-palatable is a symptom of your sick, fucked-up mind. Why would your “god” need to instruct other people how to deal with a rapist/adulterer whe your “god” knows everything anyway and is more than capable of dealing with it himself?

    Again you expose the abundantly plain fact that your thinking is as ephemeral and tenuous as your so-called “facts”.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 20:24

  252. Soois!!! Naandsê.

    Ek is bevrees jy is verkeerd. Die Bybel word reeds in Genesis 1 deur wetenskaplike feite (nie teorië nie) verkeerd bewys.

    “In die begin het God die hemel en die aarde geskape”. Faain.

    “Die aarde was woes en leeg”. Faain.

    “En duisternis was op die wêreldvloed”. No way.

    Nadat die aarde 9.5 biljoen jaar gelede (of 11 biljoen of whatever) gevorm is, was hy beslis nie in duisternis gehul nie. Inteendeel. Die sonstrale was so skerp dat geen lewe, nie plante of diere, kon ontstaan en ontwikkel nie.

    Eers nadat die osoonlaag oor miljoene jare om die aarde ontwikkel het, kon plante- en dierelewe op die aarde ontstaan.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    February 26, 2012 at 20:18

  253. soois, just to be clear: That would be the OT mentioning “heaven” as a place of eternal life/reward for a good life lived according to your skydaddy’s laws, or “hell” as a place of eternal torment for living your life in defiance of those laws?

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 20:18

  254. Ne Shazee, gaan lees gerus my pos weer en dan sal jy sien die woord verkrag het ek geplaas as volg; “verkrag” tussen aanhaaltekens juis omdat dit nie verkragting was nie.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 20:14

  255. soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 12:38):

    Generally I do not comment on CT’s posts anymore, but let us make an exeption…

    Maybe you should have kept it that way before deciding to shove both of your feet in your mouth simultaneously. And that would be “exception”, something the world’s greatest unpublished biologist should know.

    soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 12:38):

    I am sorry to disagree with you, but there are in fact 613 commandments, of which the well known ten commandments are well known that was given for humanity to obey if they wanted eternal life.

    So what if there were a billion commandments!? Where — exactly now, please — does the OT speak of “salvation”? Or “heaven”? Or “hell”? Come, come! Giving precise biblical references should be no problem for the world’s greatest unpublished biologist.

    soois wrote (February 26, 2012 at 12:38):

    The Salvation was not given because it was impossible for them to obey all 613 commandments.

    So by your own admission, your psychopathic skydaddy set humanity an impossible bar to live up to, just so he could “sacrifice” himself (by gory, virgin-raping, over-dramatic, blood-drenched proxy, nogal!) There, you see? The utterly incoherent babble you religiots can spout is something else—but not as amusing as your inability to see the gaping holes in your childish narrative, notwithstanding your stature as the world’s greatest unpublished biologist.

    Con-Tester

    February 26, 2012 at 20:06

  256. Soois, dit is jou goeie reg om stilstuipe te kry as jy nie hou van die rigting waarin die gesprek gaan nie.
    Maar net voor jy dit doen, gaan lees net gou wat jy in jou eie woorde vandag om 12:27 geskryf het..
    Jy se in duidelike Afrikaans vir my dat die meisie skuldig is as sy verkrag is omdat sy stilgebly het want sy het dit geniet. Gaan lees dit ou Soois, jy het dit gese, belowe, belowe.
    As jy jouself hoogheilig wil hou, en ander mense beskuldig dat hulle “verstand toegeslaan het”, probeer tog onthou wat jy van die een pos tot die volgende kwytraak. Jy laat jouself net dom klink as jy dit nie doen nie ou Soois.

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 19:53

  257. Nee Nathan, al wat jy kan verloor is die vuur van die hel, maar jy kan die Paradys wen.

    Groete aan jou.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 19:07

  258. Ag nee man, Soois! Die “niks te verloor nie” argument is bitter kak. Ek het iewers hier daaroor geskryf. Soek dit.

    Nathan Bond

    February 26, 2012 at 18:57

  259. Nee, ek gaan nog vir oulaas my tyd mors, net miskien verstaan jy dit die keer. Die meisie wat wel verkrag was, was nie gedood nie, maar wel haar verkragter. Verder moet jy en almal mooi lees. Al daardie wette en reels is nie noodwendig toegepas nie, maar dit was die gebooie en wette wat nodig was as jy sonder Jesus, wat in die Ou Testament nog nie vir ons geboet het nie, moes doen vir redding. Daar was, soos ek reeds gese het, 613 wette en reels hiervoor neergele. Eintlik is daar kortom gese dat redding heeltemal onmoontlik was. Eers met Jesus se koms het ond redding gekom, ‘n redding wat wel vir die mens moontlik is, want al wat jy hoef te doen is om Jesus as jou persoonlike verlosser aan te neem. Shazee, ek volstaan dan nou by die punt met jou.

    Groete daar.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 18:54

  260. Shazee, jy het duidelik nie gelees wat eks kryf nie, of jou brein het toegeslaan. Ek het baie uitdruklik beskryf dat die meisie nie verkrag was nie, maar ek gaan nie my tyd mors om dieselfde ding oor en oor te moet skryf omdat die ateis ‘n tipiese manier het om ‘n ou se woorde te verdraai en dan op daardie “feit” te hamer en hamer nie.

    Sterkte daarmee en groete.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 18:45

  261. Soois, ek voer graag ‘n wederkerige en volwasse debat met volwasse persone.

    Verskoon my as ek sukkel om my afgryse op ‘n respekvolle wyse uit te druk wannneer iemand vir my te kenne gee hy vind dit heel aanvaarbaaar dat ‘n meisie wat nie om hulp geroep het terwyl sy verkrag word nie, met klippe doodgegooi word.

    Verskoon my as ek nie meer respekvol was toe jy my daarop wys dat die rede dat sy met klippe doodgegooi moet word is omdat haar stilswye heel waarskynlik aandui dat sy die verkragting geniet het.

    Verskoon my verder as ek nie vreeslik belangstel in jou onderskeid tussen godsdiens en christenskap nie. Dit is nou ‘n onderskeid sonder ‘n verskil, as daar ooit een was.

    Verskoon my ook, Soois, as ek sidder by die gedagte dat jy, of iemand soos jy, vir my moet wette maak of ‘n oordeel oor my optrede moet uitspreek in ‘n geregshof.

    Ek sal dit haat as my vrou of my dogter vir jou moet verduidelik waarom sy nie om hulp geroep het terwyl sy verkrag word nie.

    Groete vir jou ook

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 18:38

  262. Come-on, do a little reading man. I was given links upon links to try and disprove the existence of God, and the more I read, the more I was reminded and convinced of God as our Creator and Maker of all things. Google the pro-creation and Christian pages for a change. If you guys are so sure of you beliefs, what do you have to lose? Absolutely nothing, but you might just win something, the greatest gift of life itself.

    http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolWhoppers.htm Evolution whoppers and bloopers

    http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Universe.htm How the universe began

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 18:34

  263. The two religions, Evolusionism and Creationism.

    The belief in (macro) evolution is nothing more than a religion. Why do I say so? Simply because the evolutionist, who desperately seeks an answer to where we came from, believe in evolution, which in itself is based on “theories” thought up by scientist based on scientific findings. Look carefully now, the creationist also believe in things written by people, only it was written before scientists found proof thereof. Basically I am saying that the evolutionist thought up evolution as a form of creation only after the findings, while the creationist knows the Bible mentioned scientific facts long before the findings. Whether you want to know it or not, you are the ones blindly believing the writings of man.

    An interesting article, and as I know you guys will not read it if I give the link, here goes.
    http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm
    “The Woodpecker’s Tongue
    The woodpecker catches its food with its tongue which has barbs and a bit of glue on the end, so it can pick up grubs hiding in their little tunnels inside a tree. Circling around behind the head and neck under the loose skin gives the tongue enough extra length so it can shoot out about six inches into Mr. grub’s burrow inside a tree trunk!
    Something or somebody gave the woodpecker’s tongue a unique design. It is long, but instead of dangling down and getting tangled around branches when it flies, the slack is kept under the loose skin behind its neck. Back there, the tiny bones divide into essentially two tongues, coming back together before entering the beak. This design detail no doubt gives greater accuracy as the woodpecker guides its tongue toward a target grub.
    Evolution?
    According to the theory of evolution, every step up from a single cell has been caused by gradually accumulating small changes which have come about through errors in copying the information that directs the construction of living things. These errors, called mutations, are claimed by evolutionists to have come about by accident, that is, with no intelligent direction by God. Errors in copying information don’t make better instructions for making more complex beings. That is why technicians who work with X-rays protect themselves with lead shields or aprons.
    Evolutionists, however, have faith that mutations have gradually made biologists out of bacteria, or Adam from an amoeba. They believe that over millions of years, natural selection has selected the organisms with mutations that add a little to the creature’s ability to survive and leave offspring, while those with harmful mutations die. The reason they believe these changes take lots of time is that most mutations represent chance changes in the commands to make proteins which are the main ingredients of cells. The tiny proteins are long strings of even smaller amino acids. Almost all mutations are harmful, so the organisms which survive are generally those with mutations that just change one amino acid in one protein.
    Since even a simple organ like a tongue is made up of many many proteins, nerve cells, blood vessels, etc. which must be quite perfectly coordinated, it is very difficult to imagine changes of one amino acid in one protein bringing any organ into existence. Why not claim that a big cluster of mutations affected the bone, muscle, nerves, etc. all at once? Because almost all mutations are harmful. If you got a cluster of a thousand mutations, and one of them was helpful, hundreds of them would cause genetic diseases, that would wipe out the organism. In insisting that God did nothing, and that accidental mutations have produced everything, evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner, with no decent way to account for the origin of any complex organ.
    Evolutionists surmise that the woodpecker must have evolved from some other bird with a normal tongue that went straight out of the beak. The mutation scenario, however, could never have evolved a normal bird’s tongue into woodpecker’s tongue. Why? After a normal bird’s tongue had turned around and started growing under the skin toward the back of its head, the tongue would have been completely useless until it had completed the entire circle. Only the last step in the evolution of the woodpecker’s tongue, when it came back out of the front of the beak again would have had survival value.
    After a tongue came out through the nostril and headed backwards behind the head it would have given the bird a great survival disadvantage until the moment the tongue and its bones had grown long enough to go all the way around the neck, back into the base of its beak, and extend far enough out the end to reach food. Since this involved bone, joints, blood vessels, and nerves as well as flesh, it would have required many mutations, presumably spread out over millions of years. Its tongue could not help it catch any food at all for the millions of years that it would take to complete the circle around the back of the head, by changing one amino acid in one protein at a time. Loosing the tongue’s contribution to gathering food would have put the woodpecker at a great disadvantage compared to normal birds in the struggle to survive. Adding two joints and an inch in length, for example, would have added no survival advantage at all as long as it was growing in the wrong direction. Therefore, this kind of mutations would never have been preserved.
    The woodpecker’s tongue must have come all at once, a product of complex design. This would have required an intelligent creator. If the woodpecker’s tongue were not designed, but had formed by chance mutations, only the first mutations which moved its tongue into its right nostril and pointed it backward could have happened. After that it would have starved to death.
    Evolutionists tell us that an organ which goes unused for generation after generation will be eliminated, even if the animals continue to live. If, by some miracle, the woodpeckers themselves had not been eliminated, a tongue which had been useless for many generations, would itself have been eliminated. The woodpecker’s tongue gives strong evidence of being the product of intelligent design and creation, rather than of evolution. Some evolutionists have realized this, and have thought up another story of how it might have evolved. When I was first told about it in an email, it seemed such an impossible suggestion that I was sure that I had not understood, so I kept on asking until it was absolutely clear that it really was what he was saying.
    This evolutionary speculation claims that the woodpecker’s tongue evolved from that of a normal bird: rooted back in its throat and extending straight out through the beak like that of other birds. Then, not the point end of the tongue, but the root end little by little uprooted itself from its normal attachment in the back of the throat, gradually rerooting itself step by tiny step out through the back of the opening of the bill, and taking root ever farther around the back of the head. In this way, according to the story, each little movement was favored by natural selection because the tongues length increased, and the longer the tongue was, the farther it could stretch out into the passageways the grubs had dug in the tree trunks. This would, of course requited two completely different types of mutations which were more or less perfectly coordinated: The mutations which moved the root around the head, would have to have been coordinated with those which increased the length of the tongue. Otherwise, as the tongue moved farther back, less and less of the tongue would have even reached the end of the beak, much less extended out of it. This would have given a survival disadvantage. The fact that more or less coordinated mutations would have been necessary makes this whole story much less likely.
    However, when I had gotten used to this strange scenario, I could see how it might sound possible to an evolutionist who had so much faith in the theory of evolution that he had to believe that everything had come into being by natural selection acting on accidental mutations. After all, if a tongue did extend farther and farther out of the beak, it really could reach farther into the grub’s burrow, and the more grubs it could catch, the more offspring it could bring to maturity.
    Then it hit me! This theory neglects to mention that for the first inch or so the tongues root had to move in the wrong direction! Evolutionists state that the woodpecker’s tongue started out rooted back in the throat, just like other birds because they claim that it evolved from some ordinary bird. The only way the tongue’s root could get to where it could exit from the side of the beak was to move foreword from its spot in the back of the throat. Its first inch or so was moving foreword, not backward! Since, in the scenario they have made up, moving the tongues root backward increases its probability of being chosen by natural selection, then moving forward from back in the throat up to the point at which it could exit through the opening of the back part of the beak would decrease its chance of being chosen.
    If, on the other hand, moving forward put more of the tongue out of the beak and increased its chance of survival, then moving backward would have decreased its chance of survival. The evidence free argument that the woodpecker’s tongue became what it is today by migrating root first around the head is self contradictory and logically unsound.
    It gets worse. After working its way around the neck according to this theory the root jammed itself back into the bill through the nostril. Why would it do that? If lengthening the tongue increased the bird’s chance of survival, the birds with tongues which continued to lengthen by moving under the skin down to the bird’s tummy, tail, or foot, would have been chosen by natural selection. The birds whose tongue evolution stopped half way and jammed the root back into the bill through the nostril would have been eliminated.
    Both the forward and the backward evolutionary scenario lead to absurdities and to elimination by natural selection. The woodpecker’s tongue gives strong evidence of design.
    Other Systems
    The woodpecker’s bill works like a specialized chisel, capable of slicing right into a tree. By hammering on a steel chisel, men can cut into trees like the woodpecker does with his bill. However, as we chisel, our steel blade becomes dull. After we chisel a certain number of holes, we must sharpen our chisels. Otherwise they get more and more dull until they are unusable. God made woodpecker beaks self sharpening. If it were a simple thing that could happen by small accidental changes, some blacksmith, or metallurgical scientist would have figured out how to make self sharpening steel chisels.
    If a man were trying to catch grubs like a woodpecker, no matter how sharp he kept his chisel, he would not know which direction to go to connect with the tunnels which have grubs in them. Until the woodpecker had obtained the complex mechanism for locating and hitting a tiny grub inside a tiny tunnel inside a great big tree, its specialized tongue would have been of no value. Neither would the bug location mechanism been of any value without a tongue long enough to reach the grub. In fact, neither the long tongue nor the location mechanism would have been of any use if the tongue were not equipped to stick to or into the grub to bring it back out of the hole. If any of the three had evolved much before the others it would have been of no use, and would not have been selected.
    If all of the above systems came into place in an ordinary bird, the impact with the tree would kill it; something like taking driving a steel chisel into a tree with the end of your nose. Had it survived the first blow, it would probably have quit trying. The woodpecker, however, not only comes equipped with a strong self sharpening beak and a grub detector, but also a marvelous shock absorbing system that protects its head from damage. The first woodpecker to evolve the equipment for drilling holes in trees would have quit pounding or died young if the shock absorbers were not already in place.
    In addition, compared to other birds: “The tail feathers (especially the central one or two pairs) are stronger in woodpeckers, resisting the wear caused by their use in propping up the bird’s body as it hammers with the bill. The toe structure and associated arrangement of tendons and leg muscles form a functional complex of features enabling the woodpecker to climb tree trunks and to maintain its position while pecking the tree.” (Encyclopedia Britannica CD 98, “Birds: Major Bird Orders: Piciformes, Form and Function”). What good would the stiff tail feathers, the specialized toe structure, the grub detector and the grub puller have been even with the wrap around tongue and the shock absorber if after drilling a few holes the beak had gotten dull and wouldn’t cut any more? When a number of systems must be in place all at once before a thing will work, it is called irreducible complexity and it is an evidence of intelligent design.
    Conclusion
    According to evolutionary theory, any system without a function will be eliminated by natural selection. If one of the woodpecker’s systems evolved much before the other systems that had to be there for it to function, it would have been eliminated. The evidence is strongly against the woodpecker’s special systems having been developed by chance mutations because a number of different systems had to work together. The fact that they are all present and functioning indicates that these various systems were designed and created to work together.
    Since the evidence indicates that woodpeckers could not have been developed by random mutations, why should mutations be considered the universal builders of every part of every living being as most evolutionists insist? It is OK to believe that things were caused by mutations when there is good evidence leads to this conclusion. Most genetic diseases are examples. A slight change in the order of the amino acids in a protein will often change a functioning protein into a disease. But let the evidence be a guide also in cases such as that of the woodpecker where the evidence so strongly indicates intelligent design. Why jump to the conclusion that if mutations cause diabetes, they must also have formed the pancreas, the liver, the fish, the monkey and us? If you see someone knocking down a building with a crane equipped with a wrecking ball, you don’t assume that all of the world’s buildings were constructed by cranes with wrecking balls.
    Unfortunately, for many the evolutionary faith is a part of a total religious structure into which everything must be jammed whether it fits or not.
    Dr. Sunderland, the owner of the skull in the picture, writes, “The woodpecker’s skull has been more effective in convincing scientists of the inadequacies of the evolution theory than perhaps any book in the author’s library. Other birds have hyoid bones also, but it would seem obvious that some sort of miracle would be needed to get them rooted in the right nostril. One prominent evolutionist on the staff of a prestigious scientific magazine confided after examining it ‘There are certain anatomical features which just cannot be explained by gradual mutations over millions of years. Just between you and me, I have to get God into the act too sometimes.'”
    Another scientist, while examining the woodpecker’s tongue bones under a microscope commented, “It is very easy to tell the difference between man-made and God-made objects. The more you magnify man-made objects, the cruder they look, but the more you magnify God-made objects, the more precise and intricate they appear.” (Luther D. Sunderland, Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 12, March 1976, p. 183)”

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 18:18

  264. “Jou selfdienende stellings oor hoe toegeeflik jy en jou soort sal wees met wetgewende mag is uiters ongeloofwaardig. Twee duisend jaar se geskiedenis getuig teen julle.” Jy verwys nogsteeds na 2000 se godsdiens en nie Christenskap nie. Blykbaar verstaan jy nie, of WIL jy nie die verskil tussen die twee verstaan nie. Ongelukkig volg jy die tipiese ateis-patroon, jy voer ‘n gesprek, redelik volwasse en wederkerend, totdat die Christen jou die antwoord gee wat jy nie wou he nie, totdat jy besef dat hy/sy eintlik wel antwoorde het, dan raak jy, so tipies, ook beledigend en afbrekend.

    Sterkte en groete daar.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 17:52

  265. Ja, ek het geweet jy sou nie die “vrye wil” agterdeur kon weerstaan nie.
    As jou god alwetent is moes hy voorsien wat sy skepping met die vrye wil sou doen.
    As hy geweet het dat (volgens jou en jou trawante) miljoene, der miljoene mennse gaan braai omdat hy hulle vrye wil gegee het, wat se dit van hom?

    Jou selfdienende stellings oor hoe toegeeflik jy en jou soort sal wees met wetgewende mag is uiters ongeloofwaardig. Twee duisend jaar se geskiedenis getuig teen julle.
    Jy praat steeds deursigtige kak.

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 14:23

  266. “O, nou het Adam en Eva weer werklik bestaan?
    Ek dag hulle het metafories geraak vandat die skeppings verhaal in jou bybel wetenskaplik onhoudbaar geword het.” En wanneer het ek ooit Adam en Eva as metafories beskryf? Moet my nie met diegene verwar wat God se bestaan probeer bewys nie en julle sogenaamde wetenskaplike “feite” probeer omseil nie. Die wetenskap het die Bybel nog nooit onbetroubaar bewys nie, maar julle glo aan “wetenskaplike teoriee” wat niks anders as dit, teoriee, is nie. Julle wil graag aan die een of ander verduideliking vir die onstaan van alles glo, solank dit net nie God is nie.

    “As hulle “tippies mens” opgetree het se dit nie veel van jou god se insig en alwetenheid nie Soois.
    Hy het mos die mense gemaak en het in sy volkome alwetenheid voorsien het hulle het ‘n onwerpersfoutjie wat hulle “tipies mens” gaan laat optree, net soos hy hulle gemaak het.
    Wie se fout is dit dat hulle so “tipies mens” opgetree het? Hulle s’n of die ontwerper wat die fout ingebou het.
    Kom ek wed jou jy gaan nou iets gorrel van vrye wil” Hoekom wil jy die antwoord self gee as jy dit skynbaar ken? Omdat jy nie die antwoord wil weet nie? Net om dit vir ander uit te spel, God het die mens ‘n vrye wil gegee omdat Hy uit liefde en keuse gedien wou word, nie omdat Hy Sy skepping soos ‘n robot wou programmeer nie.

    “Wat jou stelling betref oor hoe toegeeflik jy sal wees as jy die mag oor die res van ons kry – jy praat nog steeds deursigtige kak” Nee, jy het eenvoudig nie my antwoord verwag nie. As jy my plasings van te vore eers bestudeer het voordat jy my kak vrae vra, sou jy geweet het ek predik Christendom, nie godsdiens nie, en dan sou jy weet my antwoord was eerlik.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 14:00

  267. O, nou het Adam en Eva weer werklik bestaan?
    Ek dag hulle het metafories geraak vandat die skeppings verhaal in jou bybel wetenskaplik onhoudbaar geword het.

    As hulle “tippies mens” opgetree het se dit nie veel van jou god se insig en alwetenheid nie Soois.
    Hy het mos die mense gemaak en het in sy volkome alwetenheid voorsien het hulle het ‘n onwerpersfoutjie wat hulle “tipies mens” gaan laat optree, net soos hy hulle gemaak het.
    Wie se fout is dit dat hulle so “tipies mens” opgetree het? Hulle s’n of die ontwerper wat die fout ingebou het.
    Kom ek wed jou jy gaan nou iets gorrel van vrye wil.

    Wat jou stelling betref oor hoe toegeeflik jy sal wees as jy die mag oor die res van ons kry – jy praat nog steeds deursigtige kak.

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 13:38

  268. “As dit binne jou mag is sal jy dit nie verpligtend maak dat jou bygeloof in elke graad eentjie se keel afgedruk word sodra hy sy voete in die skool sit nie?” Nee, ek sal nie. Maar as ek ‘n Christelike skool stig, is dit mos vanselfsprekend dat die onderwys Christelik gelei sal wees. Niemand word gedwing om daar skool te gaan nie.

    “Jy sal nie al wat ‘n besigheid is sluit op jou “sabbat” nie?” Nee, trouens, my eie vrou se koffiewinkel was oop op Sondae toe dit nog haar winkel was, want sabbatsonderhouding is wetsonderhouding voorgeskryf deur die SDA en Jode, wat nie Jesus se betaling as reddend beskou nie. Dus wil hulle deur wetsonderhouding gered word. Ek mag dalk egter besluit om my winkel nie oop te maak op Sondag nie omdat ek daardie dag uitgekies het as my dag vir Jesus, maar dan is dit uit dankbaarheid en nie plig nie. Gelukkig is elke dag van my vir Jesus, dus sal ek nie kan besigheid ooit doen as ek Sy dag wil uitkies om nie handel te dryf nie.

    “Jy sal nie die verkoop van drank verbied op ‘n Sondag nie?” As ek dit wil verbied, moet ek dit permanent verbied, en ek dink my vorige antwword is ook hier van toepassing.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 13:15

  269. Nee, my liewe goeie fok, Shazee.

    Die punt is eintlik dat die donnerse meisie nie verkrag is nie, dat sy en die man uit wellus alleen opgetree het. Net ‘n paar lyne aan is ‘n man en vrou wat uit liefde opgetree het nie veroordeel nie, maar beveel om te trou.

    Die punt is verder dat daar geweldig baie (geweldige) wette gegee is in die Ou Testament omdat die sondige mense wett en reels wou he vir ‘n lewe met ‘n hiernamaals. God het eintlik dit vir die mens onmoontlik gemaak om gered te word, want Hy het al vir Adam en Eva gese dat hulle sekerlik sou sterf as hulle net die een reel wat hulle gehad het sou oortree. Hulle het so wragtig een maklike ou reeltjie verontagsaam (tipies van ons mense) en gevolglik die mensdom verdoem. God het dus Sy woord gehou en dit eintlik onmoontlik gemaak vir ons om gered te word. Sy genade het egter uiteindelik gewen en Jesus het die boete betaal.

    Ek is trots om uit Sy genepoel te kom dankie.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 13:05

  270. Regtig Soois?
    As dit binne jou mag is sal jy dit nie verpligtend maak dat jou bygeloof in elke graad eentjie se keel afgedruk word sodra hy sy voete in die skool sit nie?
    Jy sal nie al wat ‘n besigheid is sluit op jou “sabbat” nie?
    Jy sal nie die verkoop van drank verbied op ‘n Sondag nie?
    Jy praat deursigtige kak man, en jy weet dit.

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 13:03

  271. My goeie, liewe, fok Soois!
    Luister na jouself – ‘n vrou wat verkrag word en daaroor stilbly omdat sy dit geniet het –

    Ek weet nie eers wat om jou te antwoord op so ‘n stelling nie.
    Jy en jou soort het regtig uit die vlak kant van die gene poel uitgekruip.

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 12:52

  272. Die sooise en hanse sal nie wette maak nie, want wettelike godsdiens is juis net dit, godsdiens. Die Christendom predik die redding wat deur Jesus alleen kom, nie deur wetsonderhouding nie.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 12:50

  273. Our own Bible mentions 67 commandments, just as a matter of interest, but if you consider publications not included in our Christian Bible, 613 commandments were counted.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 12:45

  274. Malherbe, jy moet glad nie te seker wees dat die gruwels wat in die naam van geloof gepleeg word iets van die verlede is nie.

    Buiten die gruwelike menseregte vergrype wat in die moslem lande aan die gang is in die naam van geloof, is daar heelwat ander potensiele teokrate wat bitter graag ‘n geleentheid sal wil he om hulle agterlike bygelofies op die res van ons af te dwing.
    Kyk maar na die “culture wars” wat in Amerika woed.
    Kyk na die kortasem gehyg wat jy in ons eie gedrukte media sien sodra iemand dit waag om uit te wys dat die keiser kaal is wat godsdiens betref.

    Wat dink jy gaan gebeur as die Sooise en die Hanse van die wereld ‘n geleentheid kry om wette vir die res van ons te maak?
    Hoe lank voor ons dan god se “liefde” baie prakties sal ervaar?

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 12:41

  275. Generally I do not comment on CT’s posts anymore, but let us make an exeption just to be fair. CT wrote: “Boelsjit. There was no salvation before Jeeeeeeeeebusssssst! came along. Your own Holey Babble sez so — unless of course that’s another convenient bit of metaphorical blather.” I am sorry to disagree with you, but there are in fact 613 commandments, of which the well known ten commandments are well known that was given for humanity to obey if they wanted eternal life. The Salvation was not given because it was impossible for them to obey all 613 commandments. God knew that He would have to give His own Son to pay for all of His children the price of salvation. Animals, alway male and without blemish, was sacrificed in the Old Testament, as a forerunner of the Lamb, male and without blemish, Who would be sacrificed in the New Testament.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 12:38

  276. “Dit is haar sonde; sy het nie geskreeu nie en die aanname is dan dat sy gewillig was” – nee Shazee, dit is juis my punt dat jy die hele stuk moes lees om die bedoeling te verstaan. Die skrywer het, net soos baie digters, ‘n feit op sy manier van skrywe uit gelig. Hy het eintlik geskryf dat, as ‘n vrou verkrag is, en agterna daaroor stilgebly het omdat sy genot daaruit geput het, sy net so skuldig soos haar “verkragter” was. Hulle gemeenskap was dus nie uit liefde nie, maar wellus. Net ‘n paar verse verder is ‘n vrou en man ook gewillig gemeenskap gehad het uit wederkerende liefde, nie ge-oordeel nie, maar aangese om te trou. Die Bybel is iets wat jy moet leer verstaan voordat jy Dit wil veroordeel.

    soois

    February 26, 2012 at 12:27

  277. Wanneer ek Hans en Soois se skokkende kommentaar lees, bevestig dit maar net weereens my gevolgtrekking dat godsdiens oor die vermoë beskik om andersins goeie mense tot gruwelike lewensuitkyke te oorreed. Indien enigiets, verklaar dit hoe Die Spaanse Enkwisisie en Kruistogte destyds op morele gronde geregverdig was. Die Hanse en Sooise van daardie tyd het net een stappie verder gegaan en hul verwronge lewensbeskouinge in dade omskep. Inderdaad hartseer, maar ook skrikwekkend.

    Malherbe

    February 26, 2012 at 08:41

  278. Hans, ons kan nou maar oor en weer redeneer of dit verkragting is of nie, maar dit mis die punt.

    Ek kan insien dat die redenasie moontlik kon wees dat die meisie gewillig was omdat sy nie geskreeu het nie.
    Persoonlik dink ek dat dit ‘n uiters primitiewe en chauvenistiese aanname is. Daar is geen redelike mens wat vandag so ‘ n gevolgtrekking sal maak, bloot omdat die meisie nie om hulp geroep het nie. Ek glo nie eens jy of Soois sal vandag aanneem ‘n meisie wat beweer dat sy verkrag is lieg, bloot omdat sy nie om hulp geroep het nie.

    Die vraag is hoe julle heeltemal gelukkig is daarmee dat julle god ‘n opdrag gee dat ‘n meisie wat moontlik verkrag is, met klippe doodgegooi moet word.

    As sy wel gewillig is om met iemand seks te he moet sy net die insig he om dit buite die dorp te doen, want dan is sy mos veilig, sy hoef nie te skreeu nie. Baie logies en redelik, ne? Die enigste vraag wat gevra word is net of sy hard genoeg geskreeu het, en of dit op ‘n plek was waar iemand haar kon hoor.

    Ek weet jy redeneer dat die mense barbaars was en dat hulle daarom sulke barbaarse wette gehad het. Ek stem daaroor met jou saam.

    Die vraag is nou of julle god dan ook nog barbaars en onkundig was om sulke opdragte te gee? Dit is mos sy opdrag, is dit nie? Die bybel is mos die ware en onveranderlike woord van god, ne?

    Shazee

    February 26, 2012 at 06:15

  279. Again Hanswors: Why are you addressing this at me? Yet another attention-span failure, eh?

    As for your so-called “point”, it’s as fatuous as we could expect from you: If raped, the woman would probably be in mortal fear and not scream so as to provoke her rapist further. In any case, your “god” knows her mind so no scream from her should be necessary. In fact, just as unnecessary as having other people judge her and her rapist on your “god’s” behalf.

    Once more you reveal the half-baked incoherence of your infantile fairytales in all their soporific glory.

    So maybe you should stick to avoiding questions. That way your moronic, monosyllabic answers make considerably more sense.

    Con-Tester

    February 25, 2012 at 22:47

  280. Shazee en Con-Tester, as sy besig was om verkrag te word sou sy seker geskree het of is julle so toe dat julle dit nie kan sien nie?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 25, 2012 at 22:37

  281. Shazee, die verse dui aan dat sy gewillig saam met die man gemeenskap gehad en nie verkrag is nie. Omdat sy reeds verloof was om te trou is dit egbreek. Ek dink julle moet nie vir my allerhande twak toesnou en eerder in die spieël na julle self kyk.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 25, 2012 at 22:35

  282. That would be “putting on a poor show”, Hanswors.

    But why are you addressing me with this, Hanswors? Another attention-span failure, eh? Maybe you should expend a lot more on your own education so that you might actually answer a few questions. Because so far your performance has been, quite frankly, abysmal.

    Which pathetic avoidance reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    February 25, 2012 at 22:25

  283. Con-Tester, read verse 23 and 24 again, and note she is not being raped, as she lies with the man willingly. That is what the verses are indicating and for one who has studied the English language, you are putting up a poor show. Maybe you should apply for a refund of your study expenses.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 25, 2012 at 22:17

  284. soois wrote (February 25, 2012 at 11:52):

    Die mensdom, of liewer die Jode het losbandig geleef en het God geforseer om streng strawwe te gee vir die wat gered wou wees.

    Boelsjit. There was no salvation before Jeeeeeeeeebusssssst! came along. Your own Holey Babble sez so — unless of course that’s another convenient bit of metaphorical blather.

    
    

    😆😆😆 You godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots/apologiots can’t even get your own fairytales right, even if you’re the world’s greatest unpublished biologist resisting the unwitting minions of Satan!😆😆😆

    
    

    Which disjointed rambling reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or no”? Not enough shtuppie-shtuppie for ya? I’d’ve thought that the onanistic poppycock spouted by your numerous godiot allies would be enough perversity to satisfy even someone of your exacting standards…🙄

    Con-Tester

    February 25, 2012 at 13:43

  285. Ja Soois, ek hoor wat jy se, en ons kan dit redeneer tot diie perder horings kry.
    Die feit bly staan dat sy saam met die man gestenig moet word omdat sy nie geskreeu het nie. Dit is haar sonde; sy het nie geskreeu nie en die aanname is dan dat sy gewillig was.
    Pla iets aan die redenasie jou nie?

    Dit is soos om te redeneer dat ‘n vrou wat verkrag is, gewillig was, omdat sy haar nie teegesit het nie.
    Die volgende aspek wat jou blykbaar nie hinder nie is dat hulle dan gestenig moet word. Dit is met klippe doodgegooi word Soois. Is so ‘n opdrag vir jou aanvaarbaar as dit afkomstig is van ‘n liefdevolle god? Dink jy dit is iets wat ons vandag nog behoort te doen, of was dit net aanvaarbaar en geregverdig in daardie tyd omdat die mense, soos Hans se, nog “barbaars” was?
    Was god dan ook barbaars en het sy morele waardes saam met die res van ons ontwikkel?
    Dit is immers sy opdrag.

    Shazee

    February 25, 2012 at 13:19

  286. Om voort te gaan;

    25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:

    26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter

    27 for he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” – soos ek gese het, die vrou was onskuldig en dus nie gedood nie. –

    “28 ¶ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Hulle moes trou, en is nie gedood nie. Lees hirdie stuk mooi en deeglik Shazee, dan sal dit duidelik word.

    Groete

    soois

    February 25, 2012 at 11:58

  287. Skuus Hans/Shazee, maar laat ek gou Deut 22 aanhaal en verduidelik.

    “22 ¶ If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” – Die vrou en man het albei egbreuk gepleeg.

    “23 ¶ If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

    24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not,…” – bedoelende sy was gewillig en nie geforseer nie – “…being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die” – Die vrou word gespaar want sy is verkrag en het dus nie egbreuk gepleeg nie.

    Die mensdom, of liewer die Jode het losbandig geleef en het God geforseer om streng strawwe te gee vir die wat gered wou wees. Die mensdom se geaardheid en onvermoee om die wette te gehoorsaam het Hom (God) egter laat besluit om sy Seun, Jesus, te gee om namens al ons sondaars daardie swaar strawwe te verduur sodat ons ten spyte van ons dade verlos kan wees.

    soois

    February 25, 2012 at 11:52

  288. Hans, kry weer daardie ou wat vir jou voorlees en vra hom om vers 24 nog stadiger vir jou te lees.
    Daar staan dat die “dogter” doodgemaak moet word omdat sy nie “geskreeu” het nie.

    Waarom moet sy doodgemaak word omdat sy nie geskreeu het nie Hans? As jy beweer dit gaan nie oor verkragting in die versie nie, waarom moes sy dan skreeu?
    Moes sy skreeu terwyl sy gewillig seks het om te wys hoe geniet sy dit?
    Jy moet ophou om so baie pornografie te kyk Hans, dit is nie goed vir jou nie.

    Shazee

    February 25, 2012 at 07:21

  289. Shazee, jy is die dom donner omdat niemand word verkrag in vers 23 en 24 nie. Daar word wel trou verbreek, deur albei, so keer terug na die oorspronklike bewering of wil jy nou ‘n nuwe punt bespreek. Die oorspronklike het gegaan oor vers 28 en 29 en geen vrou/jong meisie wat verkrag word, word dood gemaak. Dit wil voorkom of jy sukkel om begripstoetse te slaag.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 24, 2012 at 22:58

  290. Hanswors, what is “spiritually”? You know, that definition you have yet to supply. Until you do that, you’re just spouting meaningless words to me. Help me understand, Hanswors! And if not me, help the other readers understand! Share your magnificent and limitless understanding of these deep matters with us, Hanswors. Keeping it to yourself is selfish, as I’m sure you’re aware.

    And that would be “everybody”, not “every body”.

    Your magnanimity knows no bounds — except when it comes to answering questions.

    Which reminds me, as ever: …

    Con-Tester

    February 24, 2012 at 22:56

  291. Con-Tester, Oh! sorry, I forgot that you are spiritually blind. I have a wonderful life in Christ and would only want every body to also be part thereof, you included.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 24, 2012 at 22:40

  292. Hans, soos ek voorheen gese het, jy bly maar ‘n dom donner.
    Gaan lees Deut. 22:23 en 24 in Afrikaans of Engels, en in enige vertaling van jou keuse, voordat jy verder kak kom kwytraak.
    As jy sukkel om te lees, vra iemand wat kan lees om dit stadig vir jou voor te lees; dit staan duidelik daar dat die man en die vrou doodgemaak moet word.

    Shazee

    February 24, 2012 at 05:25

  293. Hanswors, one man’s crap is another man’s sustenance. I’d’ve thought that even a godiot/religiot/bibliot/crediot of your impressive calibre would’ve got that by now. As for seeing what you mean, the answer is a resounding “No!” because you are apparently unable to explain yourself. Those “fools” you lament who will believe me are equally a figment of your dull imagination. Those would be the same “fools” who read you like a warning label.

    Con-Tester

    February 23, 2012 at 22:43

  294. Con-Tester, see what I mean, you have written a lot of crap again and some fools will believe you because of your titles, shame.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 23, 2012 at 22:21

  295. Hanswors wrote (February 23, 2012 at 22:09):

    My redenasie bly dus nie onsinnig nie.

    😆 What a joke! Not as funny as your usual deliveries, but chuckle-worthy nonetheless.😆

    Con-Tester

    February 23, 2012 at 22:16

  296. Shazee, jy lees seker ‘n ander Bybel as myne, want volgens Deut. 22 v 25 en 26, moet die man alleen doodgemaak word.
    Wat ek vir jou sê is, die mens het nie altyd vir God geluister nie. Kyk vir Moses, hy moes die rots met sy staf geraak het en toe gaan staan hy en hy slaan die rots. My redenasie bly dus nie onsinnig nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 23, 2012 at 22:09

  297. How terribly convenient that Satan is such a tricksy, sneaky, undetectable deceiver.🙄

    
    

    The same, of course, goes for the skydaddy who created him.

    That would be the same ridiculous dimwit who sits behind the scenes as the designer envisioned by IDiots. Many “designs” in nature are less than suboptimal and even if we accept that a supreme designer/coordinator of the universe is necessary, it’s still an immensely long stretch from there to the Crushtian “god”.

    It’s these huge leaps, no doubt prompted by unawareness, right over pertinent, even crucial questions that makes these believing clowns so hilariously inept.

    Con-Tester

    February 23, 2012 at 18:45

  298. Nog iets Soois; enigiemand wat oortuiig is ID moes erens ‘n “hand in die pie” gehad het is bloot onkundig omtrent evolusie.
    Ek weet nie wat hom tot daardie oortuiging gebring het nie, laat weet maar, seker die onkundige en oningeligte twak wat op ID sites verkondig word.
    Die oorweldigende bewys uit evolusionere biologie is inderdaad dat daar nie ‘n intillegente skepper agter evolusie sit nie.

    Shazee

    February 23, 2012 at 18:15

  299. Ja Soois, noem my agnosties as jy wil, dit maak nie saak nie, solank jy in gedagte hou hoe ek dit gedefinieer het.
    Wat jy egter nalaat om te noem, is die deel waar ek spekuleer omtrent wat dit sal vat om jou van opinie te laat verander. Jy weier om agnosties te wees in n situasie waar dit die enigste redelike posisie is.

    Shazee

    February 23, 2012 at 17:51

  300. Skuus, die tweede deel wat ek aangehaal het mos wees: “Die verskil is dat ek oortuigbaar is dat god wel bestaan, en ek is bereid om my siening te verander sodra daar voldoende bewys daarvoor ontdek en voorgele word”, en my antwoord daarop, “Dus is jy volgens my ‘n agnostiese persoon. Ek self het besluit om “soos ‘n kind te glo” en Hom ‘n kans te gee. Hy het Homself openbaar aan my en nou het ek geen bewyse nodig nie. My broer was agnosties, het die Christendom ‘n kans gegee nadat hy bewus geword het van die mooiheid van die natuur en tereg moes erken dat “intelligent design” ‘n vinger in die “pie” moes he.
    Vandag nog pluk hy daagliks die vrugte.”

    Groete

    soois

    February 23, 2012 at 17:22

  301. Shazee skryf: “Ateiste glo eerstens net so min aan satan as aan god, so ek weet nou nie eintlik vir wie hulle daar wil siele werf nie…” Die Woord, veral Openbaring, waarsku ons dat Satan die mens selfs in hulle Christenkerke sal mislei, dat mense hom (Satan) sal dien sonder dat hulle dit besef. Dink jy dalk Satansaanbidders glo in Satan? Geen regdenkende mens sal self kies om hel toe te gaan as hulle in die hel geglo het nie. Hulle is net nog ateiste wat met die Christendom spot en “die god wat nie bestaan nie” dus uitdaag, natuurlik vas oortuig dat Hy nie bestaan nie en dus nie toerekenbaar is nie.

    “Ateiste glo eerstens net so min aan satan as aan god, so ek weet nou nie eintlik vir wie hulle daar wil siele werf nie” Dus is jy volgens my ‘n agnostiese persoon. Ek self het besluit om “soos ‘n kind te glo” en Hom ‘n kans te gee. Hy het Homself openbaar aan my en nou het ek geen bewyse nodig nie. My broer was agnosties, het die Christendom ‘n kans gegee nadat hy bewus geword het van die mooiheid van die natuur en tereg moes erken dat “intelligent design” ‘n vinger in die “pie” moes he.
    Vandag nog pluk hy daagliks die vrugte.

    soois

    February 23, 2012 at 17:17

  302. Soois,
    Dankie vir jou verduideliking aangaande agnosme, ateisme en geloof.
    Kom ek gee jou my siening daaromtrent;
    Ek noem myself n ateis omdat ek, soos Douglas Adams, na die bewyse gekyk het vir geloof en teen geloof, ek het daaroor gedink en tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat nie een van die gelowe waarna ek gekyk het rasioneel geloof regverdig nie.
    Ek kon myself net sowel agnosties genoem het, in die sin dat ek nie bewyse kon vind dat ‘n god nie bestaan nie, maar, soos Richard Dawkins se, ek is agnosties oor die bestaan van god op dieselfde wyse, en tot dieselfde mate, as wat ek agnosties is oor feetjies wat in my tuin woon.

    Die verskil is dat ek oortuigbaar is dat god wel bestaan, en ek is bereid om my siening te verander sodra daar voldoende bewys daarvoor ontdek en voorgele word. Tot dusver ek ek egter niks teegekom wat my sou noop om my siening te verander nie.
    Nie die bybel met sy onsamehangende teenstrydighede nie, nie die die onsinnige redenasies van gelowiges nie, geen wetenskaplike bewyse wat geloof noodsaak nie, niks hoegenaamd nie.
    Jy aan die ander kant weet jou god bestaan, en daar is niks wat jou van opinie sal laat verander nie. Geen bewys van interne teenstrydighede in jou heilige boek nie, geen onteensegbare bewys dat jou skeppingsverhaal onakkuraat en onmoontlik is nie, absoluut geen bewys of logiese redenasie sal jou oortuig nie, want jy weet jy is reg. Jy sal geen bewys hoegenaamd oorweeg wat jy nie bereid is om weg te rasionaliseer nie.
    Ek kan ook sommer eerlik vertel dat die grootste faktor wat my tot ateisme “bekeer” het was aanvangklik die bybel self.

    Soos ek voorheen al vir Hans ook gese het; die argument is hier nie eens of god bestaan of nie, dit is nie ‘n proposisie wat vervalsbaar is nie, en daaroor sal ek agnosties bly tot die selfde mate as oor die feetjies in my tuin.
    Wat n feit soos n koei is, is dat die god waarin die christene glo (of die moslems, of die hindus, of die jode, of enigeen waarvan ek al gehoor het) nie bestaan nie. Ek betwis dat die god waarin jy en Hans en ou Vic glo bestaan. Ek weet hy doen nie, hy kan nie, in elk geval nie ogv die “bewyse” wat julle voorle nie.

    Ek verstaan ook nie so lekker jou redenasie oor ateiste wat op gelowige forums geblok word om te keer dat hulle verwoesting saai nie. Ateiste glo eerstens net so min aan satan as aan god, so ek weet nou nie eintlik vir wie hulle daar wil siele werf nie. Het jou almagtige god n “site moderator” nodig om hom te beskerm.
    Die enigste ding wat daar verwoesting kan saai is rede en logika, maar dit is natuurlik waarvoor julle bang is

    Shazee

    February 23, 2012 at 16:20

  303. soois prattled incoherently (February 23, 2012 at 13:57):

    Ateïste is nie doodeenvoudig ongelowiges nie, maar persone wat moeite doen om ateïsme te bevorder en Christendom aft e [sic] breek. M.a.w hulle is ook dissipels of apostels, van die duiwel, of hulle dit nou wil weet of nie. Satan gebruik sulke mense om sy saak te bevorder en God s’n te verswak. Daarom dat CT en sy bondgenote so hard veg om gelowiges af te breek.

    [Atheists are not simply unbelievers, but people who make an effort to promote atheism and to pull down Crushtianity. In other words, they are also disciples or apostles of the devil, whether they want to know it or not. Satan uses such people to promote his case and to weaken God’s. That’s why CT and his associates fight so hard to discredit believers.]

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    So now, according to soois, the greatest unpublished biologist who ever lived, atheists are tools of his imaginary Satan and enemies of his equally imaginary skydaddy.

    Ayy, you do tell a few remarkably funny jokes, even unwittingly…

    Con-Tester

    February 23, 2012 at 16:09

  304. Shazee,

    Miskien moet ek maar eers die verskil tussen Ateïsme, Agnosme en Geloof verduidelik.

    Agnoste is diegene wat nie in God glo nie, gewoonlik omdat hulle nie voldoende bewyse daarvoor kan vind nie. Hulle is neutral en sal beide gelowiges sowel as ongelowiges se saak openhartig oorweeg en na die bewyse asook argument van beide partye luister, en nie die een-of-ander bevoordeel nie, m.a.w, as die gelowige ‘n sterk argument voer, sal hy dit respekteer en saampraat, so ook indien die ongelowige ‘n sterk saak stel, maar indien die gelowige nonsense praat, sal hy dit uitwys asook indien die ongelowige dit doen. Party sal ‘n agnos as ‘n draadsitter beskou, maar dit is nie so nie. Dit is doodeenvoudig ‘n persoon wat (ongelukkig) nie sonder genoegsame bewyse Christendom ‘n kans gee nie.

    Ateïste is nie doodeenvoudig ongelowiges nie, maar persone wat moeite doen om ateïsme te bevorder en Christendom aft e breek. M.a.w hulle is ook dissipels of apostels, van die duiwel, of hulle dit nou wil weet of nie. Satan gebruik sulke mense om sy saak te bevorder en God s’n te verswak. Daarom dat CT en sy bondgenote so hard veg om gelowiges af te breek.

    Gelowiges kan opgedeel word in Godsdienstiges ( die wat in wettiese Godsdiens glo, die Ou Testamentiese geloof met wette en reels waarsonder jy blykbaar nie gered kan word nie, die ortodokse Jode, die Moslems ens.), en Christene (die wat Jesus as Redder en Saligmaker aangeneem het).

    Noudat ek dit verduidelik het, kan ek jou beter verduidelik waarom ateïste gewoonlik versper sal word op ‘n Christenblog. As ‘n Agnos op ‘n Christenblog skryf, sal hy nie weggewys word nie, want dit is ‘n person wat vrae vra en daar is hoop vir so ‘n persoon, maar ‘n dissipel van Satan kan nie goedsmoeds toegelaat word om op so ‘n blog sy duiwelswerk voort te sit en Christene, en veral gelowiges wat op die pad na Christendom is, weg te probeer rokkel en sodoende siele te laat verlore gaan nie. Dus sal iemand wat op soek is na die waarheid toegelaat word daar, maar die wat geen belangstelling in die Christendom het nie behalwe om die duiwel se verwoesting te saai nie, mag eenvoudig nie daar toegelaat word nie.

    Hoe gaan Ateïste dit nou regkry om siele te wen vir Satan? Dood-eenvoudig. Laat die Christene wat op die duiwelsblogs wil skryf toe om daar te skryf. “Net miskien kan ons een of twee van hulle wegrokkel”, is die argument by hulle.

    soois

    February 23, 2012 at 13:57

  305. Hans, ek weet nou ongelukkig nie in antwoord op wattter kommentaar van my jy nou weer by die skeppingsverhaal uitgekom het nie.
    Die punt van die gesprek, as ek reg onthou, was die opdrag van god dat die meisie wat verkrag word saam met haar verkragter doodgemaak moet word.

    Jou redenasie oor die mense wat barbaars was, en blykbaar daarom barbaarse wette van god ontvang het, maak ook nie veel sin nie.
    Beteken dit die mense moes eers, sonder god, beskaafd word voordat hulle beskaafde wette van god af kon ontvang?
    Maak vir jou sin, Hans?

    Shazee

    February 22, 2012 at 21:17

  306. Ai, die ou sinnebeelde. Hans, jy is ‘n aartspoephol. Ek hoop nie iemand lees my stelling 2000jaar van nou af en vertel ek het dit as “sinnebeeld” bedoel nie. Jy is werklik so mal soos ‘n haas.

    Malherbe

    February 22, 2012 at 18:01

  307. Shazee, die skeppingsverhaal in die Bybel gaan nie oor die heelal en die aarde nie. Dit is sinnebeelde wat vir ons boodskappe het en dus bots dit nie met die wetenskap nie. Lees maar weer Rom. 8 v 5 en 6.
    Hou in gedagte dat die mens in die tyd van die Ou Testament nog baie barbaars was en die wette op hul tyd was goed. Namate die beskawing gevorder het, is meer toepaslike geboeie ingebring nl. om God lief te hê bo alle en jou naaste soos jouself.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 21, 2012 at 10:58

  308. Concerning how Jeeeeeeebusssssst! viewed the Old Testament, have a look at:
    Matthew 26:54
    Luke 16:17
    John 10:35

    From these passages, the OT emerges as reliable, error-free and always applicable. Of course, there’s always Hanswors to correct any such childish and literal readings of the above-named passges…🙄

    Con-Tester

    February 20, 2012 at 22:54

  309. Ja Shazee, vir my is die ergste dat dit vir jou enigsins nodig is om dit aan Hans uit te wys. Dit is tog voor die handliggend. Woorde kan nie beskryf tot watter mate Hans die kluts kwyt is nie.

    Malherbe

    February 20, 2012 at 22:23

  310. Yes Hanswors, I do try righting a lot of crap, mostly that of godiots/religiots/crediots/bibliots/apologiots and assorted other nincompoops and numbskulls who typically are the ones writing a lot of crap and who don’t read properly (apparently owing to a severe cerebral capacity problem)…

    You natter something incoherent about “the death referred to … is spiritual” in regards to what Luke 19:27 means. But you still haven’t given a proper functional definition of this “spiritual” thing, and so you’re still not answering anything, Hanswors. And how are your barmy buddy Jeeeeeeebussssst!’s followers going to follow the command he gives in Luke 19:27? I mean, explain to us exactly how you would “slay [his enemies before him spiritually]” if that wannabe-god wanker Jeeeeeeebussssst! commanded you to bring his “enemies, which would not that [he] should reign over them, … hither, and slay them before [him]”? What exactly would you do to follow that command, Hanswors? Be specific, please.

    And once again it looks just like you’re happy to eject a stream of idiotic and irrelevant drivel because you are unable to say “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.” You’d rather say any old thing than admit your ignorance or give a decent account of this strange shit you believe.

    Very, um, Crushtian of you. So, once more:

    What is “spirit”/”spiritual”, Hanswors? A functional definition, please. A definition that permits anyone to distinguish reliably, objectively and consistently between the presence and the absence of this thing.

    What is the meaning of Luke 19:27 where your skydaddy’s otherworldly son shows a wicked megalomaniacal and intolerant streak, Hanswors?

    What about those 400+ contradictions in your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Are you going to pick any 40 of them and show us why they aren’t contradictions?

    Why do you keep dodging questions, Hanswors? Do you really think your skydaddy would be proud of your feeble efforts? Wouldn’t you rather swap sides to that of Mickey Mouse where you get some real non-violent moral guidance and you don’t have to fear an eternal braaiing?

    Which blustery buffoonish baloney reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s the what wif you, oke? “Yup” or “uh-uh”? Need more shtuppie-shtuppie, eh? Speak to Hanswors. He’s managed to bottle the stuff.

    Con-Tester

    February 20, 2012 at 18:54

  311. Con-Tester, we that are not carnally minded (Rom. 8 v 6), know that the death referred to in Luke 19 v 27, is spiritual, the same as Lot’s wife, who turned into a pillar of salt.
    I see you still enjoy righting a lot of crap.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 20, 2012 at 11:57

  312. Hans, jou redenasie maak mos nie sin nie.
    Hoekan jy se mense het die kluts kwyt geraak met die wette van die ou testament, en toe moes god iemand stuur om hulle reg te help?
    Die gedeelte wat Malherbe aangehaal het is omonwonde en duidelik. Daar is geen spasie vir interpretasie nie. Dit staan in die ou testament wat die woord van god is. ‘N maagd wat binne die stad verkrag word moet saam met die verkragter doodgemaak word omdat sy om hulp kon geroep het. Geen interpretasie kan dit beter laat klink nie. Dit is god se opdrag, finish en klaar.
    As mense nou die duidelike opdrag van god uitvoer is dit hulle wat die kluts kwyt is?
    As jy se jesus het dit kom verander, wat beteken dit – het god intussen van plan verander? Dit was tog in die eerste plek sy opdrag – het hy nou besef hy het n fout gemaak, dat dit darem ‘n bietjie erg is, ‘n bietjie onredelik en onregverdig?
    Nou stuur hy sy seun om pappa se glipsie reg te maak?

    Shazee

    February 20, 2012 at 11:48

  313. Malherbe, ek lewe onder die nuwe verbond en dit is om God lief te hê bo alle en my naaste soos myself. Kyk maar na die nuwe riglyne ook wat saam met Christendom aanbeveel word; 1 Kor. 7:36 Maar as iemand meen dat hy onwelvoeglik met sy maagd handel as sy oor die jeugdige leeftyd is, en dit so moet wees, laat hom doen wat hy wil. Hy sondig nie. Laat hulle trou.
    1 Kor.o 7:37 Maar hy wat in sy hart vasstaan en nie onder dwang verkeer nie, maar mag het oor sy eie wil en dit in sy eie hart besluit het om sy maagd te bewaar, hy doen goed.
    Lees maar die hele 1 Kor. 7 en neem kennis, Christendom het weggedoen met die gebruike van die Jode en ander. God moes Jesus stuur omdat die mens, die pad heel byster geraak het, met die wette van Moses.
    Die mens is geneig om nie die boodskap van God te sien en dan sy eie wil daar te laat geld.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 20, 2012 at 11:24

  314. Yes, I believe that the compulsion is that strong because I can see the evidence all around me every day of my life.
    What I find hard to credit is the fact that apparently quite intelligent and educated people cannot seem to shake the conditioning later in life.
    The mindblowingly illogical nonsense that you are required to swallow as truth in order maintain the believe must start the bells ringing at some stage, surely?
    However badly I want to believe something; how can I keep on believing in the teeth of evidence and reason?
    I see it happening all the time, but it still does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

    Shazee

    February 19, 2012 at 13:04

  315. Bertrand Russell famously showed that taking a false proposition to be true can be used to prove anything.

    That YEC supporter’s claim about there being no conflict is simply wrong. The idea that a god created the universe 6,000 years ago but arranged it to look like it was almost 14 billion years old is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That is, no evidence can be presented that would show it to be wrong. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is, by its nature, unscientific, and that is exactly where the conflict is. Looked at another way, how does this YEC supporter know that his god didn’t create the universe last Wednesday just after teatime with everything — memories, knowledge, reality — arranged exactly as we think it was then? There is no possible test you can devise to refute or confirm this Last Wednesday Theory of Origin. Moreover, apart from being unscientific, the hypothesis is also barren and fruitless: It explains nothing by “explaining” everything.

    Another aspect of science is Occam’s Razor which says that, as a general principle, the simplest explanation is preferable. The ancient Greeks devised an elaborate system of epicycles and deferents that kept the earth at the centre of the universe. This model remained in place until Copernicus showed that a far simpler model of things resulted from the assumption that the sun was at the centre of things.

    And yes, the need for god-belief is that dominating. Reason doesn’t stand a chance against the shit children have had drummed into their heads from their earliest years when it isn’t in their natures or their abilities to challenge adult and parental authority. The stuff children learn before the age of about six overwhelmingly stays with them for life because it has been made habit in them. God-belief is a bad habit.

    Con-Tester

    February 19, 2012 at 12:25

  316. Ek lees netnou YEC aanhanger skryf dat daar geen konflik is tussen al die wetenskaplike bewyse dat die aarde biljoene jare oud is, en die “realiteit” dat die aarde ongeveer 6000 jaar terug in 6 dae van presie 24 uur geskep is nie.

    Die redenasie is dat die wetenskap wat wys dat die aarde biljoene jare oud is heeltemal korrek en onontkenbaar is, maar dat god dinge so beplan het dat dit “lyk” asof die aarde so oud is.
    Die “realiteit” bly egter dat die aarde 6000 terug geskep is.
    Hoekom? Want die bybel se so!
    Ek wonder of n mens dieselfde rasionalisering sou kon gebruik om te bewys die son draai in werklikheid om die aarde?
    Dit bly verstommend hoe mense wat andersins klaarblyklik by hulle volle positiewe is, alle rede en logika agterlaat as dit by geloof kom.
    Kan die behoefte om ten alle koste en teen alle rede in in n god te glo werklik so kompulsief wees?

    Shazee

    February 19, 2012 at 11:44

  317. Hanswors, in case any further evidence of your plain dementia is required, when you reply “Con-Tester, you are wrong on both accounts so I have nothing to decide” in reference to the choice between you being “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick”, it is clearly not true that I am wrong on both counts. In fact, your response is just more evidence that one of the two options must be true.

    So Hanswors, how many people need to tell you the same thing about yourself before you even start considering the possibility that they might actually have a point? Because it’s been five in the past few days and you’re still just blundering forward as stupidly, incoherently clumsily, and obstinately plodding as a five-year-old lobotomy patient.

    Hanswors, in case any further evidence of you being “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick” (take your pick) should be necessary, when you write about the “verdoem” thing “Ek het [dit] vir almal wat die blog lees se kennisname en toe gaan jy in ‘n tantrim in”, then you are being either “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick” (take your pick). Why? Because firstly it’s “tantrum”, not “tantrim”. Secondly, if you see me throwing a tantrum you’re seeing things that simply aren’t there (which is of course the habit of the fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick religiotard/godiotard/bibliotard/crediotard/apologiotard). Thirdly, if your latest “explanation” for mentioning the “verdoem” thing is to be believed, then it means that you mentioned it (this thread, February 15, 2012 at 23:56) purely as a red herring (which too is your kind’s habit, one that is hilarious once one sees through it) because you weren’t able to come up with an adequate response to one of my earlier points. Like I said, more evidence of “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick”.

    And now you don’t even want to give an explanation of this alleged parable where something possessed your virgin-raping skydaddy’s delusional megalomaniac son JeeeeeebusssssT! to command the slaughter of those who reject him as their leader (i.e. Luke 19:27). You say that “any explanation is clearly out of [my] depth.” Fine, if you say so. But what about the other blog readers who are wondering about this, Hanswors? Do you think they’re also all too damn stupid to understand? Maybe you should explain for their benefit, if not for mine. Wouldn’t that be the Crushtian thing to do, as commanded by your skydaddy, Hanswors? To spread the gospel? If not, maybe you should explain why, Hanswors. After all, since you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ”, it should be a walk in the park to explain this. So why the ongoing avoidance and deflection, Hanswors?

    Maybe you can even teach a few theologians a thing or two about semantic smarminess.

    As for my other questions, which you dodge with a slippery little “you are incapable of asking a meaningful question” and a conceited “poor show for an intellect of your status” (whatever the fuck that ungrammatical snippet is supposed to convey. I thought you said I was too stupid, and now I’m just putting on a poor show.), they also remain unanswered, Hanswors. Again, you might want to consider answering them for the benefit of those other readers who may be wondering about the same or similar things, as well as to spread the word as you are commanded to do, Hanswors. Because lately you are putting up a frightfully poor show, no doubt raising the ire of your skydaddy at your lacklustre performance.

    I think you should start by giving a functional definition of “spirit”/”spiritual”, a definition that will allow anyone to distinguish reliably, objectively and consistently between the presence and the absence of this thing. And don’t say you already did, okay? Because that would be a lie. And don’t say things like “check your dictionary” or “any child can see” or “love” or any of that other stuff you think can’t be detected because that’s just dodging the question, something everyone can in any case see that you do regularly and habitually, however ham-handedly. A straight, concise and useful answer will go a long way.

    Finally, would anyone care to bet that Hanswors will do what is requested above instead of posting his usual inconsequent and muddled babble (and then later claim that he has already dealt with such-and-such)?

    I didn’t think so.

    Con-Tester

    February 19, 2012 at 11:34

  318. Hans, ek is welbekend met di eres van Deut 22. Onder sommer die totale storietjie oor hoe ons ons moet laat lei deur jou heilige boekie.

    Deuteronomy 22 on Marriage Violations
    13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
    20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

    22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

    23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

    25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    Ek vra weer Hans: Stem jy saam met bg? Is dit hoe jy die wetboeke sou herskryf in dien jy die mag gehad het. Jy’s nie lekker nie Hans. Draai vas daai skroewe ou perd.

    Malherbe

    February 19, 2012 at 09:48

  319. Hans, ek het netnou gese ek sal nie vanaand met jou spot nie, en ek sal woord hou.
    So, goeie nag, Hans, maar van more af is alle “bets” weer af.

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 22:26

  320. Shazee, nee ek bedoel nie net die Bybel nie, want dit is die letter. In jou begin tot nou toe, het als deur die woord ontstaan. Die woord het jou geleer dat ‘n boom ‘n boom is ens.
    God is woord en liefde, wat bestaan en is nie net by gelowiges nie so my familie het niks te vrees nie. Woord en liefde bring verstaanbaarheid (lig) en God is Lig. Dit wat jy glo as atiës, het ook deur woord ontstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 21:44

  321. Malherbe, dit wil voorkom of jy ‘n horing kry wanneer jy Deut. 22 lees, want jy fokus nie op wat daar geskryf staan. Lees vanaf vers 25, nadat jy jou draad getrek het sodat jy kan fokus op wat werklik daar staan. Lees dan ook die kJV.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 21:30

  322. In other words Hanswors, you are not capable of either following or presenting a coherent line of argument. Denial, obfuscation and flimsy haphazard bullshit more your style, eh?

    Figures.

    And that would be “write” Hanswors, a skill clearly beyond your abilities. Just like reasoning. Or recognising, let alone answering meaningful questions. Dunning-Kruger is a bitch of a condition. You never know that you have it.

    Come now, be a good little evader and explain the supposed “parable” of Luke 19:27 for us. No evasions, see?

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 21:25

  323. Con-Tester, you are wrong on both accounts so I have nothing to decide.
    Ek het die verdoem saak genoem vir almal wat die blog lees se kennisname en toe gaan jy in ‘n tantrim in. Hoe kinderagtig, siestog.
    I have nothing further to say about the parable or the Skydaddy as any explanation is clearly out of your depth.
    You wright a lot of crap as you are incapable of asking a meaningful question. What a poor show for an intellect of your status.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 21:13

  324. Hans, ek begin bekommerd raak oor jou.
    Jy se daar is moontlik dinge wat vir jou bestaan maar nie vir my nie?
    I reject your reality and substitute my own, tipe van ding?
    As jy daai stemme te gereeld begin hoor stel ek voor jy maak so gou moontlik n afspraak meet n sielkundige.

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 05:17

  325. Hans, ek weet nie waarom wil jy he ek moet vir jou bewys die woord of die liefde bestaan nie, voordat ek kan beweer jou god bestaan nie. Dit is n non sequitur as ek al ooit van een gehoor het.

    Eerstens bestaan die woord wel (ek neem aan jy bedoel die bybel), ek besit self n paar weergawes van die “woord”. Waarom sal ek wil ontken dit bestaan?
    Wat ek wel ontken is dat dit die ewige, onveranderlike en ware woord van n god is. Ek ontken dat dit enige iets anders is as die bygelofies van n klompie antieke bokwagters. Bygelofies wat hulle neergepen het om te probeer sin maak van die wereld voordat hulle van beter kon weet, soos wat jy in die 21ste eeu van beter behoort te weet, Hans.

    Tweedens, waarom sal ek wil ontken dat liefde bestaan? Ek ontken dit glad nie. As jy egter wil beweer ek het jou god nodig om lief te wees vir my vrou, my kinders, my familie en my vriende, moet jy versigtig wees. Netnou noem ek jou weer iets wat net verhoed kan word as die heilige spook my betyds besoek.
    Dit lyk my jou familie moet maar hoop jy verloor nie jou geloof nie, want dan gaan jy ophou om lief te wees vir hulle. Dit is mos by implikasie jou redenasie ne? Hoe fokken pateties.

    Shazee

    February 18, 2012 at 04:40

  326. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version)

    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
    29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    Hans, hoe de moer wil jy bg interpreteer? Ook ‘n “parable”? Bg vertaling kom uit ‘n godsdiens bron. Of het die ouens weer verkeerd vertaal?

    Malherbe

    February 18, 2012 at 01:26

  327. Hanswors, you’re being blatantly inconsistent and inventing a new batch of excuses that is remarkably similar to the old one.

    Either you’re fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick. I’ll let you decide which it is.

    If you deny the whole “verdoem” thing, what did you aim to achieve by bringing it up in the first place? More dodging the point, eh?

    Your skydaddy’s son clearly commanded slaughter in his name, not that a parable be told to hide his hateful orders. That’s just your piss-poor excuse, just like everything else you vomit up: “It’s true because I, Hanswors, say it’s true. I Can show you an old book.”

    In intellectual value, your “proof” of the creator is several notches of stupid below totally idiotic.

    In other words, you’re still making up a big, smelly pile of bullshit, instead of answering the questions that have been put to you.

    Which puerile goofiness reminds me…

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 00:08

  328. Shazee, as jy vir my kan bewys dat woord nie bestaan nie of liefde nie bestaan nie, ens. dan kan jy sê God bestaan nie, anders is jy nie erkentlik teenoor jouself nie.
    Daar is dinge wat jy weet, wat jy nie kan bewys of self bewys het omdat jy dit ervaar of ervaar het. Miskien bestaan dit nie vir my nie en tog bestaan dit vir jou.
    Wat ek weet, is deel van my geloof en tog hoef ek dit nie te glo nie omdat ek dit weet.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 18, 2012 at 00:03

  329. b>Hanswors, you’re being blatantly inconsistent and inventing a new batch of excuses that is remarkably similar to the old one.

    Either you’re fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick. I’ll let you decide which it is.

    If you deny the whole “verdoem” thing, what did you aim to achieve by bringing it up in the first place? More dodging the point, eh?

    Your skydaddy’s son clearly commanded slaughter in his name, not that a parable be told to hide his hateful orders. That’s just your piss-poor excuse, just like everything else you vomit up: “It’s true because I, Hanswors, say it’s true. I Can show you an old book.”

    In intellectual value, your “proof” of the creator is several notches of stupid below totally idiotic.

    In other words, you’re still making up a big, smelly pile of bullshit, instead of answering the questions that have been put to you.

    Which puerile goofiness reminds me…

    Con-Tester

    February 18, 2012 at 00:02

  330. Con-Tester, I never claimed that you said, that I judged you, so what are you making a big fuss about. I stated that I have never judged you. I have never said you are going to Hell, I have said that only those who have known the “truth” and reject it, go to Hell. You have never known the truth as you are still in darkness because you have not seen the light yet. I am satisfied for everything I have said to you, yes!
    I have shown you what the Creator is and you carry on with the sky-daddy thing, so you are a moron in your own right.
    Luke 19 v 27 is about a parable and Jesus did not command his followers to kill. You are talking a lot of shit and it appears that you have a couple of shitheads with you.
    I enjoy Mickey Mouse stories, so don’t try and make Mickey an opponent to Jesus you moron.
    You are such a fool as you appear to think that your opinion is the only one that counts. Wake up! Your coffee is cold.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 17, 2012 at 23:44

  331. Hanswors, I’m going to do this by numbers because you’re obviously not able to follow even the simplest line of reasoning.

    1. On February 15, 2012 at 23:56, you wrote “Con-Tester, ek het julle nog nooit verdoem nie”. Go check. You really did. Honest. Genuine. Have a look.

    2. Are you satisfied that you did write that?

    3. Good. Now, when you deny that you “verdoem” us and address that denial at me, that implies that you think I said that you do “verdoem” us. Clear enough?

    4. Now tell me: Where did I claim that you verdoem us? Give a date and time please where I wrote such a thing. Or suggested it. If you can’t, I suggest you make good for it.

    5. I’ve listed many reasons why your Holey Babble is suspect, as has Shazee. In a nutshell, because of historical and factual inaccuracies, philosophical incoherencies, counter-scientific claims, as well as internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Your Holey Babble was put together by an act of vote almost 300 years after some Romans butt-fucked your alleged skydaddy’s son across a couple of planks.

    6. Every time you are challenged to give some kind of credible reason, evidence or argument that your Holey Babble is worth more than a book of fables, you dodge the issue with one of a rather limited set of inanities.

    7. When you say that you have proven the creator’s existence to me but I’m too blind to see, I must remind you that I have proven to you many, many times that Mickey Mouse is a much better moral teacher than your Jeeeeeebusssst! but you are too dense to see.

    8. For example, Mickey Mouse never commanded his followers to kill anyone. In contrast, your Jeeeeeebusssst! does just that in Luke 19:27, so revealing more than a touch of paranoid megalomania.

    9. So Hanswors, now that it’s been laid out in simple point-form, what’s your next salvo of silliness going to be?

    10. And finally Hanswors, just how dense are you really to think that your non-answers and dodges are not totally transparent?

    Which monotonous inept evasiveness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Do you think maybe that a GC&UPOO&TF will grow tired of the pleasure this auto-shtupping thing gives?

    Con-Tester

    February 17, 2012 at 08:40

  332. Ek sien Hans, jy sien nie kans om jou BOEK op rasionele gronde te bespreek nie, en as jy nie uit die BOEK kan aanhaal nie het jy niks te se nie.
    My redelike versoek dat jy teenstydighede en historiese onakkuraathede in die bybel aanspreek voordat jy verder daaruit aanhaal, beteken noodwendig iets het verkeerd geloop in my lewe??
    Sal ook graag wil verneem waar jy die bestaan van god “bewys” het, behalwe deur na persoonlike ervarings of na die bybel te verwys. Dit is nie “bewys” nie Hans, daar is n verskil tussen bewys en persoonlike geloof, rerig, rerig.

    Shazee

    February 17, 2012 at 07:48

  333. Shazee, wat het in jou lewe ontstaan, sonder die woord?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 17, 2012 at 00:27

  334. ErickV, Het gedink jy lees my antwoorde aan die ander dus gee ek dit weer. Jy is lewe omdat jy ‘n siel is en so ook jou vrou. Uit julle is ‘n nuwe lewe, siel gebore. Die lewe vermenigvuldig en die lewe is van God.
    Vra die teenstrydighede een op ‘n slag en ek sal antwoord.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 17, 2012 at 00:19

  335. Con-Tester, where did I claim that you said such a thing?
    Ask your questions one at a time and I will answer.
    Bewys jy my dat die Bybel onwaar is?
    Ek het lankal vir jou bewys dat die skepper bestaan, maar jy is te blind om dit te sien.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 17, 2012 at 00:14

  336. Kolskoot, Hanswors! Nog ’n atie reg gehelp met jou lawwe kak. Hou so aan, boet. Ek hoop jy kom nooit agter net hoe dwaas, kinderagtig, simpel en fokken belaglik jou idiotiese “redenasies” regtig is. Ons kan nie bekostig om ’n briljante voorbeeld van ’n godioot/religioot/geloofioot/biblioot/apologioot soos jy te verloor nie!

    Con-Tester

    February 16, 2012 at 20:35

  337. Hans,

    Waas jy??

    ErickV

    February 16, 2012 at 20:09

  338. Hans, ek gee op met jou.
    Al wat jy in enige argument kan doen is om na die bybel te verwys.
    Wat dink jy bewys dit, behalwe dat jy glo wat daarin staan? Jy hoef dit nie meer te bewys nie, almal is teen die tyd hartlik oortuig jy glo vas wat in die bybel staan.
    Dit is byna sinneloos om met jou te probeer redeneer aangesien jy enige argument met bybelversies antwoord.
    Jy verskaf geen argumente of bewyse om selfs die egtheid van jou bron te probeer staaf nie, jy hou maar net aan en aan om die bron wat in dispuut is aan te haal.
    As daar teenstrydighede vir jou uitgewys word se eenvoudig dit is nie n teenstrydigheid nie, en weier om dit verder aan te spreek.
    Oortuig my asseblief dat die bybel waar is voordat jy n enkele versie verder aanhaal. Enige bewys hoegenaamd wat nie subjektief is nie: ek wil nie van jou vreugde en geluk hoor nie, dit is subjektief. Ek wil nie van wonderwerke hoor wat jy ervaar het nie, tensy jy dit kan staaf met objetiewe en geloofwaardige bewyse. Enige iets Hans, enige iets wat ookal, solank jy dit kan bewys
    Jy kan ook nie wegkom met die redenasie dat jy niks hoef te bewys omdat ek nie kan bewys jou god bestaan nie. Dit is jy wat beweer hy bestaan en daarom rus die bewyslas op jou. My posisie is bloot dat ek nie jou bewering glo nie.
    As ek beweer dat dat daar feetjies in my tuin woon hoef jy niks daaromtrent te bewys nie want dit is ek wat die bewering maak en ek moet dit dan bewys. As jy my nie glo nie gaan niemand van jou verwag om te bewys ek lieg nie, en as jy nie kan bewys dat ek lieg nie, dan aanneem hulle bestaan wel nie.

    Die argument (met jou spesifiek) gaan nie oor die bestaan van n skepper in die algemeen nie, maar spesifiek oor die bestaan van die god waarin jy persoonlik glo. Niemand kan bewys dat n skepper nie bestaan nie, net so min as wat dit bewysbaar is dat daar nie feetjies in my tuin woon nie.
    Die argument met jou is dat jy in n spesifieke god glo, en dat jy dit glo omdat jou bybel se hy bestaan. (Soos jy self erken het) Die bybel is n dokument, soos enige ander, wat ondersoek kan word vir egtheid en geloofwaardigheid op grond van, onder meer, interne teenstrydighede, en geskiedkundige akkuraatheid na aanleiding van eksterne bronne. Die bybel skiet ver kort op beide voorgenoemde gronde, soos al male sonder tal vir jou hier uitgewys is.
    Dus, voordat jy eers die probleme met jou heilige boek op n redelike en rasionele wyse aangespreek het, moet asseblief nie vir my versies daaruit aanhaal as bewys van enigiets nie.
    Jy kan die probleme ook nie meer bloot ontken nie, jy moet dit daadwerlik aanspreek sonder om die bybel as bewys te gebruik dat die bybel waar is.

    Shazee

    February 16, 2012 at 14:45

  339. You just can’t keep an accomplished kakprater down, especially in the US. The question is, why does Hanswors not farm potatoes and think Mighty Mammon-in-chief is a grubbing heretic? Does that make him stupid?

    Con-Tester

    February 16, 2012 at 10:30

  340. Hans,

    Ek sien jy daag ons uit om die teenstrydighede in die bybel uit te wys.
    Daar is so baie dat ek nie tyd het om almal van hulle te noem nie.
    So, ek stel voor jy gaan google by scepticsannotatedbible.com en sien vir jouself

    ErickV

    February 16, 2012 at 06:18

  341. Hans,

    Ek wag nog op jou antwoord!!!!!!!!!!
    Fokkit, maar jy is ‘n klipkop.

    ErickV

    February 16, 2012 at 06:07

  342. Then, Hanswors, you can get down to the equally serious business of answering those many, many, many outstanding questions that you have forever evaded.

    Which brainless hopscotch reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), still ignoring this GC&UPOO&TF, eh? C’mon, be a sport and give a dog a bone, what say ol’ Fuzzy?

    Con-Tester

    February 16, 2012 at 00:09

  343. And Hanswors, I never claimed that you did such a thing. Go on now, be a good Hanswors and prove this abysmally stupid claim of yours by pointing out where exactly I claimed that you “verdoem” us atheists.

    C’mon ouboet, don’t evade the question now, and show us where!

    Where, Hanswors, where did I claim such a thing!?

    No more evasions, see? Just show us where, okay? Has it sunk in? A simple pointing out of where, Hanswors.

    No more. No Less.

    Con-Tester

    February 16, 2012 at 00:08

  344. Con-Tester, ek het julle nog nooit verdoem nie en dit is nog ‘n rede hoekom ek sê, jy is stupid.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 15, 2012 at 23:56

  345. Malherbe, Christen “dogma” het eers met die geboorte van Jesus ontstaan en dit wat jy in die Ou Testament lees was nog deel van die Joodse “dogma”, so moontlik moet jy weer daaroor dink.
    Die verse waarna jy verwys sê niks van verkragting nie. Jy probeer maar ‘n negatiewe prentjie skulder, so steek maar hand in eie boesem en kry jou gesindheid rein.
    Net soos die Bybel ons van een waarheid na ‘n ander neem, so gaan dit in die wetenskap ook en daarom het ek nie die streke van jou gewese dominee nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 15, 2012 at 23:48

  346. Shazee, kyk maar na my laaste paragraaf van 14 Feb; 22:26, betreffende Carl Sagen se stelling.
    As jy sien ek is ‘n deskundige, onthou net, ek het dit nie gesê nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 15, 2012 at 23:31

  347. … the bottom line being that IDiotology’s front runner for information-theory-proves-god, one Werner Gitt, thinks that Information = Meaning. It isn’t. Information is a statistical measure, whereas meaning is a contextual association between reality and the information as contained in the symbols that represent it. Put in computer terms, the same string of bits (binary digits, 0’s and 1’s) can have different meanings, depending on whether the string occurs in an audio file, an image file, an Excel spreadsheet, a Word document, a SQL record and so on. Since it’s the same binary string, it’s informationally the same, but its meaning depends on the context in which it occurs. Of course, this not-so-subtle-and-rather-obvious distinction is roundly ignored by IDiots.

    Con-Tester

    February 15, 2012 at 22:36

  348. It’s true that overt creationism falls afoul of the First Amendment in the US and that ID was dreamt up mostly in response to this. It doesn’t change the fact that is obvious to anyone with at least a semi-functional brain, namely that IDiotology is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” There are many people in SA who want religion (more precisely, religious indoctrination) back in schools. The motivation is much the same as Hanswors’s — i.e. to save “lost souls for Jeeeeeebusssst! (whatever the fuck that might mean).

    It’s always fascinating to see the straw-clutching that godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots are capable of pulling from their fundamental orifice. They haven’t the first clue what information theory (as established by Claude Shannon in 1948) is actually all about. Ditto the laws of thermodynamics. So they invent some shit they think is scientific and that they think they can twist to shore up their tatty case. It’s simply conveniently contrived bullshit that information theory supports IDiotology.

    Con-Tester

    February 15, 2012 at 22:05

  349. Con – Tester, as I understand it, the ID movement started as a “wedge” strategy to get creationism through the back door of the American education system, as creationism could not withstand the legal challenges.
    I was not aware that this shit has taken root in SA.
    I see that they have at least abandoned the fiction that it has nothing to with religion.
    This dude in the Beeld today waffles something about how the atheist criticism ignores information theory?

    Shazee

    February 15, 2012 at 21:28

  350. Shazee, soos ek al tevore per geleentheid gesê het, ons vriend Hanswors gaan net aanhou en aanhou en aanhou met sy belaglike kak. Hy’s mos besig met sy Jeeeeeebusssst! se werk wanneer hy ons lasterlike heidene en ketters teenstaan, en saak nie maak nie hoe breindood daai teenstand ookal mag wees nie. Duidelik is dit nie genoeg vir hom dat ons in die hel gaan braai nie, hy wil ons “red” seker omdat hy self net so ’n bietjie onseker is en dus voel dat hy die strooi moet verdedig. Die enigste voordeel daaraan om hom aan die praat te hou is om dit al hoe meer duidelik te stel tot watter uiterste mate godsdiens instand is om mense se denkvermoëns op te fok.

    In terme van jou ander noot, IDiote is al lank in SA besig. Nie so lank terug het ’n klomp Shofar IDiote op Stellenbosch rusie gemaak deurdat hulle ewolusie klasse ingeval het en hardop onderbreek het sodat die leeraars nie ’n woordjie kon uitkry nie. Natuurlik as daai IDiote wel ’n glowaardige saak op die tafel kon gesit het, sou hulle sulke taktieke glad nie nodig gekry het nie. Hulle enigste wapen is om die wetenskap aan te val waar dit teen hulle bog idees stamp, in plaas daarvan om ’n argument en/of feite en/of bewyse te bied. Dom dose bly maar dom dose.

    Con-Tester

    February 15, 2012 at 19:12

  351. Ja Malherbe, jy is natuurlik heeltemal reg. Ek weet Hans sal dit sien as n argument ten gunste van sy geloof, die “god of the gaps” agterdeur..
    Wat ek egter aan hom probeer uitwys, is dat dit onlogies en teenstrydig van hom is om te beweer hy aanvaar die wetenskaplike metode as geldig, maar dat hy dan steeds glo hy het die volledige, ewige en onveranderlike waarheid ontdek.

    Op n ander noot; het julle in vandag se Beeld briewe kolom gesien daar is iemand wat sowaar die ID evangelie verkondig. Ek dog dit is net n Amerikaanse sotlikheid.

    Shazee

    February 15, 2012 at 18:41

  352. Shazee, maar kan jy dan nie sien nie? Hans sal die feit dat die wetenskap nooit by ‘n 100% volledige antwoord kan uitkom nie, neem as bewys van sy gotte. Dit is letterlik soos manna uit die hemele vir hom, want sien, Hans voer onkunde aan as bewys van sy gotte. Die blote feit dat ons nooit volledig sal verstaan nie, is vir hierdie ouens oorgenoeg bewys van hul 3-gotte-wat-eintlik-1-is. Kyk na sy antwoord hierbo (as mens dit ‘n antwoord kan noem)aan CT. Hoe meer wollerige wasighede hul kan aanwend, des te beter. Dis ‘n ou truuk wat my dominee toentertyd al goed bemeester het. Al ooit gewonder hoekom dominees so goed aard in politiek? Hierdie ouens is meesters in ontwyking van reguit, pertinente vrae. Kom ek illsutreer aan die hand van ‘n reguit vraag: Hans, Deuteronomium 22:28 – 29 sê indien ‘n man ‘n maagd verkrag, hy verplig is om met haar te trou en ook haar pa 50 shekels moet betaal vir die ou wandaadjie. Verduidelik asseblief.

    Hans se antwoord gaan eenvoudig wees dat ons nie “Die Woord” verstaan nie mdat “Die Gees” dit nie aan ons openbaar het nie. Die feit dat die fokken “gees” oorgenoeg tyd gehad het om my te oortuig ( die beter gedeelte van 27 jaar van my lewe), is skynbaar nie geldig nie. Die feit dat ek op ‘n stadium in my lewe werklik sin probeer vind het in die christendogma, tel ook geen punte nie. Want sien, dis alles my skuld – juis omdat ek deurgaans aangedring het op antwoorde op my vrae. Dit is uiteindelik die aartsonde. Wanneer Hans dus noem dat “Die Woord” nie openbaar is aan ons nie, wat hy eintlik bedoel is dat hy wat Hanswors is, lankal opgegee het om aan te dring op antwoorde. Inteendeel, Hanswors stel glad nie meer vrae nie. Hy het die perfekte lui brein. Toe “Die Gees” hom binnevaar, was die verrottingsproses voltrek.

    Malherbe

    February 15, 2012 at 17:39

  353. Hans, ek het gedink ons kan die standaard van die gesprek n bietjie lig, maar nou ja, die hoop beskaam weereens.
    Ek sien jy is nou n deskundige op die bybel en die wetenskap. Is dit ook deur die genade van got dat jy nou die wetenskap ook so goed ken?
    As die bybel en die wetenskap nie “opponente” is nie; wat se jy Carl Sagen se stelling dat ons nooit die waarheid met absolute sekerheid kan weet nie?
    Dit was die vraag wat ek met aanhaling geimpliseer het ou Hans…….

    Shazee

    February 14, 2012 at 22:42

  354. But Hanswors, you’re not answering any questions, least of all the most important ones. All you’re doing is calling me “stupid”, all the while ignoring your own much greater stupidity that you display with these constant evasive tactics of yours. And don’t think others can’t see it, okay? Just admit that you can’t give proper answers to my questions. Your honesty in that regard would be much more admirable, see?

    Come on ouboet, make some kind of effort if for no other reason than to satisfy the curiosity of other readers.

    Which dodging and ducking reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), got an answer for us yet? Just a “yes” or a “no”? Or do you need a few more GC&UPOO&TF antics to get your creative juices pumpin’?

    Con-Tester

    February 14, 2012 at 22:40

  355. Con-Tester, you are so stupid that you can’t even tell the difference between a parable and reality. Daar is hoop vir jou, ashoop.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 14, 2012 at 22:30

  356. Yes, it is a breathtakingly inspiring book.

    Shazee

    February 14, 2012 at 22:27

  357. Shazee, in verband met bitterheid, verwys ek na die Bybel en geloof in Christus omdat jy duidelik nie die vreugde ken wat ek al mee gemaak het.
    Soos ek ook reeds verduidelik het, dat as jy reken my geloof is ‘n klomp tjol en die Bybel ook, dan behoort jy dit in die Bybel vir my te kan uitwys. Net omdat julle nie die Bybel verstaan nie, het julle daaroor baie te sê maar nee, nou vlug julle eerder vir Bybelverse omdat julle besef julle is nie so flink soos wat julle gedink het.
    Daar is niks fout met die term, dat die man die hoof van die vrou is en julle mans en vrouens wat ‘n probleem daarmee het, verdraai die konsep om dit te laat blyk of die man die baas is en die vrou as minderwaardig beskou word.
    Jesus did not harm a soul and you are missing the message of the fig tree and yes, taking the burning and slaying lit-rely, you are really falling out of the bus. I thought you lot had some commonsense but hell, it sure don’t appear so.
    Jy is lewe omdat jy ‘n siel is en so ook jou vrou. Uit julle is ‘n nuwe lewe, siel gebore. Die lewe vermenigvuldig en die lewe is van God.
    We are certain of all things we understand yet with greater understanding, we are more certain of greater things. No man can ever know all as we are led from one truth to another. Dink jy ek het ‘n probleem met die wetenskap? Nee, sommige wetenskaplikes het ‘n probleem met die Bybel omdat hulle dit nie verstaan nie maar ek verstaan die wetenskap asook die Bybel en die twee bots nie en is nie opponente nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 14, 2012 at 22:26

  358. Shazee, yes, I’ve read that before. Carl Sagan’s The Demon-haunted World (Science as a Candle in the Dark) is one of my favourite books describing the humility of science and its methods compared to the bankruptcy of “other ways of knowing.” The words “aspire”, “conspire” and “inspire” share the same etymology as “spirit”, as do several others. Where the whole thing comes adrift is that religiots/godiots/crediots/apologiots implicitly (and I strongly suspect unwittingly, too) assume that the words they use can mean whatever they want them to mean. Among several others, Hanswors is a blinding example of this, though he’s marginally less accomplished than our postmodern magician, Bollocksed Goofs. These people consistently add two and two, and then feel no disquiet at all when presenting, variously, answers ranging from three to twelve digits.

    It’s what makes them so fucking funny.

    Con-Tester

    February 14, 2012 at 21:40

  359. Con – Tester, I have quote for you too, and from the same source. Forgive my presumption in believing that you will like it better than any answer Hans is likely to give in response to your question; the one that he consistently evades;

    – “spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breath”. What we breath is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking about anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. –

    Shazee

    February 14, 2012 at 21:17

  360. Hans, ek wil vir n slag vir jou aanhaling gee, maar nie uit die bybel uit nie.Die aanhaling kom uit Carl Sagen se – The demon haunted world-
    Ek gee die aanhaling sonder kommentaar, maar ek wil graag jou kommentaar daarop hoor gesien in diie lig daarvan dat jy onwribaar glo jy het die waarheid ontdek, terwyl jy tersefdertyd beweer jy het nie n probleem met die wetenskap nie;

    – Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend; as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science – by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans – teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvements in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymtotic approach to the universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us. –

    Shazee

    February 14, 2012 at 20:57

  361. Ja, goeie punt ErickV, dit laat my dink aan die ou grappie: what do call a man who believes in reincarnation? – a used karma salesman.

    Shazee

    February 14, 2012 at 17:35

  362. Hans,

    Aangesien jy al die wysheid het, vertel vir hierdie oom waar hierdie ou siel was voor hy my liggaam betree het. Was hy in ‘n spens gehou? Het hy dalk in die buitenste ruimte rond geswerf? Of het hy in my vader se saad sak weggekruip?
    Kommaan, julle diep en geestelike wyshere weet mos alles. Die GROOT BOEK het mos vir julle alles vertel!
    Ek soek ook graag van julle kennis. Alles wat ek buite die GROOT BOEK geleer het is mos ‘n klomp stront.
    Asseblef, moet nou nie weer ‘n fokken versie aanhaal nie!

    ErickV

    February 14, 2012 at 13:50

  363. Well, the point’s been made that the New Testament is far more cruel and psychopathic than the Old. In the OT, the skydaddy just kills his enemies, end of story. Only in the NT does hell enter the picture: Enemies get killed and then get to spend eternity suffering unimaginable torment. (The word “enemies” is used in the loosest possible sense.)

    Con-Tester

    February 13, 2012 at 23:26

  364. Yes, and the character of jesus himself is not above reproach either. I mean, what should one make of a man who cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, or reacting hysterically when people won’t do exactly as he commands, even condemning them to burn for eternity (and going on and on about this burning)

    Shazee

    February 13, 2012 at 23:19

  365. …almost as fucking hilarious as saying that a “new commandment” was given, one that implies that the Decalogue is flawed when it classifies women as chattel property of men. It takes a special kind of intellectual slipperiness to argue that a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful deity made a foundational set of ten Eternal and Immutable Laws, which later turned out to be deficient.

    Con-Tester

    February 13, 2012 at 23:10

  366. Looks like Jeeeeebussssst! forgot about John 13:34 when he said (Luke 19:27):

    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

    No doubt there’s a “symbolic” rendering that’s truly sick and contrived to “explain” this away. 🙄 Nonetheless, it’s a telling reflection of Jeeeeebussssst!’s virgin-raping daddy’s fucked-up version of free will: “Accept me as your ruler. Or die.”

    What a fucking joke.

    Con-Tester

    February 13, 2012 at 23:00

  367. Hans, C-T het reeds vir jou verduidelik wat jy bewys met die aanhaal van bybelversies, en sal daarby volstaaan
    Waarop basseer jy jou stelling dat ek nog net bitterheid gesmaak het – ken ek kou van erens af? Ek het ook n baie mooi, intilligente en baie suksesvolle professionele vrou, en ek het al heelwat geluk gesmaak (veral vandat ek my gotsdienstige verwardheid afgeskud het en begin leef het)
    Ek weet ook nie waar jy aan die “minderwaardigheid” storie van jou kom nie – al wat ek gese het is ek glo nie die man is die hoof van die vrou nie. Dit is jy wat die eerste keer in die gesprek die term gebruik het, maar nou ja, wat die hart van vol is loop die mond gewoonlik van oor, ne?

    Shazee

    February 13, 2012 at 22:47

  368. Malherbe, dank die Vader jy het ‘n verskil agter gekom. Dankie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 13, 2012 at 22:20

  369. Shazee, jy neem sommer aan dat ek julle oordeel en jy is verkeerd. Jou oog het dan nog nie eers oop gegaan nie. (Heb 6:4 Want dit is onmoontlik om die wat eenmaal verlig geword het en die hemelse gawe gesmaak en die Heilige Gees deelagtig geword het,) Jy het nog net bitterheid gesmaak.
    Die vrou is in geen opsig minderwaardig net omdat die man die hoof van die huis is.
    Aangaande “met watse oog; 1 Kor. 15:34 Wees nugter op die regte manier, en sondig nie; want sommige het geen kennis van God nie. Ek sê dit tot julle beskaming.
    Wie wil heel nag met julle klets as ek ‘n mooi vrou het om langs te gaan lê?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 13, 2012 at 22:18

  370. But Hanswors, you’re still not answering the question. What is this “me/I” thing you’re gibbering about that supposedly is “confined to [my] fleshly body and one day [I] will depart from that body”? What distinguishes “I/me” from my “fleshly body”? Come now, the functional definition, please!

    And citing Holey Babble verses at me is useless, Hanswors. They prove only that you can cite Holey Babble verses, nothing more. Your obvious twittiness won’t see that, of course.

    Which obtuse half-bakedness remings me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) what’s your answer?

    Con-Tester

    February 13, 2012 at 22:08

  371. Con-Tester, Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (I think your coffee is cold)
    I do not regard woman less than myself even though I am the head of the house.
    You, you twit are a soul, you who in confined to your fleshly body and one day you will depart from that body. Don’t you know who you are?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 13, 2012 at 21:58

  372. Ja, ek ken nou die ouens of hulle “musiek” regtig nie, maar ek hoor hulle vloek lekker.
    Wonder wat oom Piet daarvan dink.

    Shazee

    February 13, 2012 at 19:06

  373. Ja CT, het ook die berig gelees. Interessant dat dominees se kinders dikwels in die teenoorgestelde rigting as hul ouers. Ek het geen probleem met ou Yolandi Vi$$er se waardestelsel nie, maar kan nie help om te wonder wat ouens soos Hans van haar dink nie. Hy en sy ilk vertel ons mos gereeld hoe godsdiens die basis van ‘n waardestels vorm. Beide Yolandi en Francois van Coke (van Fokofpolisiekar en Van Coke kartel) se pappas is predikante. Waaruit mens seker sou kon aflei dat dit die waardestelsel is wat Hans in gedagte het? Hanswors is duidelik meer liberaal as waarvoor ons hom krediet gee.

    Malherbe

    February 13, 2012 at 18:20

  374. Ben du Toit schemes his daughter’s band is kif, ek sê.

    Con-Tester

    February 13, 2012 at 13:55

  375. Hans het nie nou tyd vir antwoorde nie, ek dink hy bid vir ons “siele” wat gaan braai.
    Ek ruik al die fire en brimstone.

    Shazee

    February 12, 2012 at 23:05

  376. Met wat se “oog” moet ek na goed kyk dat ek dit beter kan verstaan, Hans? Is dit weer n geval van interpretasie wat julle godbevanges so lief voor is as iets in julle sprokie nie so lekker sin maak nie, of as julle nodig het om iets wat moreel afstootlik beter te laat klink?

    Shazee

    February 12, 2012 at 22:53

  377. Hans, die jirre weet, maar ek verstaan selde wat jou punt is. Seker oorlat ek nou nie die bybel so goed verstaan soos jou bevoorregte insigte nie.
    Jy se agter elke suksesvolle man staan n suksesvolle vrou?
    Miskien, maar wat het dit te doen met wie die hoof van die huis is, en dat mighty moron beweer got is die hoof van die man en die man is die hoof van die vrou?

    Shazee

    February 12, 2012 at 22:31

  378. Whut niauw, Hanswors? You gonna cum back after 23:30 tonite and post your next load of drivel?

    Or are finally going to actually answer my questions?

    I can guess which.

    Really.

    Which simpleminded predictability reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs, there’s a GC&UPOO&TF “yes” or “no” you owe. Shirking a debt is the habit of a moral poltroon. Or a mental midget. You choose.

    Con-Tester

    February 12, 2012 at 22:10

  379. Yes, Hanswors, there’s a woman with me, whatever the fuck you’re trying to imply with that.

    Okay, so what is a “soul”, Hanswors? Functional definition, please, one that allows reliable and objective detection of it. Or are you going to carry on providing non-answers, Hanswors?

    Con-Tester

    February 12, 2012 at 21:45

  380. Con-Tester, “siel” in English is “soul”, shame? Nobody is as blind as those who don’t want to see, so you are the twit and not me. I have a woman alongside me, have you?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 12, 2012 at 21:41

  381. Hanswors, in your skydaddy’s Holey Babble, women are chattel property. It says so right there in the backbone of Crushtians’ Supreme Moral Code©™, namely the Ten Commandments. Look up the word “chattel”. Learn something new about your skydaddy’s reverence for individuality.

    Con-Tester

    February 12, 2012 at 21:36

  382. Shazee, ek probeer niks op jou afdruk nie en dit is werklik onduidelik hoekom jy nou so dink? Al is ‘n vrou ‘n sterker leier as haar man is, is dit so dat agter elke suksesvolle man is daar ‘n suksesvolle vrou. Ek wys jou maar net in watter konteks, verse in die Bybel geskryf is en dat jy net alles as drakonies wil sien. Die probleem is die “oog” waarmee jy kyk.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 12, 2012 at 21:21

  383. Malherbe asks (February 12, 2012 at 09:38):

    I cannot help wondering why the new SA Consumer Protection Act does not apply to sharlatans like these.

    Because religion always demands special privileges for itself — and confidently expects to get them, too. Also, they’ll swear on a stack of old fairytale books that religion isn’t a consumer item, one that is a tradable commodity, and therefore outside the scope of the CPA. I mean, how the hell are you going to sell Eternal Life©™ or Eternal Damnation©™ or Absolution for Imaginary Transgressions©™ if suddenly you’re required to supply some actual evidence that what you’re selling is indeed real?

    Con-Tester

    February 12, 2012 at 12:49

  384. The above should read “skin rejuvenation”. And “Why do the above principles not….”

    Malherbe

    February 12, 2012 at 09:42

  385. “I see the failed potato farmer (Buchan) have registered the name “Mighty men conference” as a trade mark.”

    Yes Shazee, quite remarkable. I cannot help wondering why the new SA Consumer Protection Act does not apply to sharlatans like these. If you or I want to produce afruit juice stating “kin rejuvenation”, it is expected of us to supply proof of efficacy through peer-reviewed scientific studies associated with the ingredients. If not, the product will be removed from the shelf. The reasoning? – we are misleading the consumer. Nobody will argue against this reaoning, specially not the consumer.

    Why does the above principles not apply to a moron like Buchan? In fact, why does it not apply to religous advertisement in general? They are making claims that cannot be proved and under current law this is illegal. But these loons are somehow allowed the leniency to advertise their dogma to minors in schools. Truly astonishing.

    Malherbe

    February 12, 2012 at 09:38

  386. Shazee, it’s not my intention to confuse Hanswors. It’s not in any case possible to confuse those who already have all the answers, whatever the question might be. Rather, my intention is simply to learn from the know-it-alls how their “explanations” work. It’s fortunate that they aren’t shy about sharing them with the world at large…🙄

    Con-Tester

    February 11, 2012 at 23:38

  387. Con – Tester, please don’t talk to poor Hans about things like “Cartesian dualism”. He clearly already has no clue what you are talking about.
    Jy gaan die arme ou net nog deurmekaarder maak as wat hy alreeds is

    Shazee

    February 11, 2012 at 23:03

  388. Nee Hans, ek het jou nie probeer beledig of skok nie.
    Al wat ek gedoen het was om my walging in jou ongelooflik dikkoppige arrogansie uit te spreek in n taal wat ondubbelsinig my gevoel weergee.
    Jy is die deskundige oor wat letterlik en wat simbolies opgeneem moet word. Ek het aangeneem jy sou besef dat ek dit figuurlik bedoel om n punt te maak.
    My fout dat ek jou insig weereens oorskat het.
    Se my Hans, het jou skool n dak op gehad?

    Moet ook asseblief nie die Mighty moron se filosofie in my keel probeer afdruk nie; waarom moet n man noodwendig die leier en voorbeeld wees. As n vrou toevallig die sterker leier in die verhouding is, as sy die intillegenter een is met die beter insig moet sy volgens jou steeds die man se leierskap en voorbeeld volg net omdat sy sit as sy piepie?

    Shazee

    February 11, 2012 at 22:53

  389. So Hanswors, you can’t actually answer my questions properly, is that it? I never asked you to impress me, but hey, if being laughed at is your thing, who am I to complain? Maybe you should try to explain “what any child can [see].” That way you might look slightly less like an evasive twit. You should probably also try to explain how this “jy wat in jou vleeslike liggaam woon is ‘n siel” hooey of yours actually answers my request for a functional definition. Is any sufficiently self-aware entity a “siel”? Are you trying to resurrect long-dead Cartesian dualism? How can I check if, say, my daughter’s pet rabbit is “siel”? Or must we simply take your hysterically ill-informed word for what is and what isn’t “siel”, hmm?

    And Hanswors, your view of women is nauseatingly disgusting. Sadly for her, it looks like Mrs Hanswors is happy to put up with your self-righteous full-of-yourselfness. More “siel” to you, eh?

    Which smugly pontifical naïveté reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), is that a “yes” or a “no”? We’re still waiting for your sagacious resolution of this question, you know. It’s not professional to keep your audience waiting too long, you know. Especially when there’s a GC&UPOO&TF at stake.

    Con-Tester

    February 11, 2012 at 22:52

  390. En wat is hierdie RRK waaroor jy met Soois saamstem nogal?
    Jy bedoel moontlik RKK, maar nou ja, jy skryf klaarblyklik nog altyd makliker as wat jy dink.
    Dit is nou as jy die slag dink ne?

    Shazee

    February 11, 2012 at 22:30

  391. Shazee, watter vrou sal nie uit haar pad uit gaan om haar man gelukkig te maak as hy haar respekteur, lief het en navolgenswaardig is, dat sy op hom trots kan wees? Die man is die hoof (voorloper) m.a.w. hy is voorbeeldig en glad nie die baas nie. Ek vertrou jy is vir jou vrou navolgenswaardig. As jy ‘n goeie baas by die werk het, is ek seker jy sal die ekstra myl vir hom loop maar nie vir ‘n slegte baas nie. Mens moet wat in die Bybel staan, in die regte konteks lees omdat daar baie wysheid daarin opgesluit. Christus is krag en wysheid, nie ‘n mens nie en dit is wat die man behoort te openbaar. Die krag is ondersteunende krag en nie bullebak krag nie. Dit is vir my duidelik dat julle sekerlik nog nooit die Bybel in die regte konteks gelees het nie.
    Jy het my probeer beledig of skok deur my ‘n poes te noem en jy maai maar net wat jy saai. Die afleiding het ek gemaak op grond daarvan, dat jy ‘n poes as iets sleg wou voorhou om my sleg te sê.
    Ek het niks werklik erken nie, dit is jy wat sotlike afleidings maak.
    Ek moet heelhartig met jou saam stem oor Gay’s en het al jare terug myself bekeer ten opsigte van hulle.
    Ek dink, jy verkies om nie ‘n idea te hê oor wat ek geskryf het aangaande Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 en dit is natuurlik jou reg.
    Jesus het nooit die voorbeeld van ‘n boelie geleef nie so erns het jy die boodskap gemis.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 11, 2012 at 22:19

  392. Nee Hans, jy het die kat aan die stert beet soos gewoonlik. As jy ons maar iets gegee het om oor na te dink sou die gesprek veel meer betekenis gehad het, maar al wat ons van jou kry kry is onsamehangende stelliings en hardnekkige ontwykings. Moenie jouself vlei dat jy iets betekenisvol het om te se nie. As jy het, het ek dit nog nie gesien nie.
    Wat van daardie teenstrydighede Hans?

    Shazee

    February 11, 2012 at 22:16

  393. Con-Tester, jy wat in jou vleeslike liggaam woon is ‘n siel, ag, skuus man. Dit is te ingewikkeld vir jou.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 11, 2012 at 21:24

  394. Soois, ek kan nogal saam stem oor die RRK en ag, ek veg nie eintlik nie maar gee die Atiëste maar net hier en daar iets om oor te dink so tussen alles.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 11, 2012 at 21:21

  395. Con-Tester, I have no intention of trying to impress you as you are incapable of understanding, what any child can. Jy is met die maan gepla because you can’t seem to come away from the sky.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 11, 2012 at 21:18

  396. Ja Soois, verduidelik asseblief waarom jou argument eenkant toe geldig is, maar nie na die anderkant toe nie?
    As jy siele wil red moet jy mos met die ouens praat wie se siele redding nodig het, of hoe?
    As iemand iets se waarvan ek nie hou nie, of nie mee saamstem nie maak ek hom stil en weier om verder met hom te praat. Ek spreek nie sy argumente aan met n logies beredeneerde redenasie nie, ek verskaf nie geloofwaardige bewyse om sy argumente verkeerd te bewys nie, nee, ek maak hom stil en weier om met hom te praat. Baie volwasse, baie doeltreffende manier om siele te red.
    Ek het aan die ander kant nog nie n enkele ateiste blog teegekom wat gelowiges se menings verban of wat nie bereid is om dit te debatteer nie.
    Waarvoor is julle bang? Moontlik n dosis realiteit?

    Shazee

    February 11, 2012 at 11:37

  397. soois prattled incoherently (February 11, 2012 at 09:11)”

    Wat kan die Christen … meer bereik as om dalk ‘n siel te red.

    What is a “siel”, ou soois? Same question I keep asking your juvenile pêl, Hanswors: Provide a functional definition, one that allows consistent, reliable and objective detection of this “siel” thing. Why? Because the dictionary definition is simply inadequate and we need to have (1) a clear idea of what we are talking about, and (2) knowledge that the thing is real, otherwise it’s not at all possible to talk sensibly about it — in fact, just as you and your intellectual twin keep demonstrating.

    And what is the “real number” of children raped by non-believers, ou soois? Come, come, give us the numbers from a credible source, not your fevered imagination.

    When you say that atheists are the antichrist and then go on to say that the RCC was put here by the antichrist, your delusional ignorance becomes obvious. As pointed out before, if it wasn’t for the RCC, your faith wouldn’t exist at all. And the brain-dead absurdity of claiming that the RCC was established by atheists is a source of great hilarity, as is your tortuous and convoluted “reasoning” (yeah, right!) concerning how the antichrist manipulates through the RCC and its priests.

    And then for die koek oppie tjerrie, you go and make an even stupider doois of yourself about how it’s okay for believers to censor atheists but not vice versa. What about this “turn the other cheek” and this “do unto others…” thing you godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots so love to proudly cite whenever it suits your idiotic needs, hmm? And what exactly are we atheists gonna do with all these disciples we’re supposedly gathering, hmm? Individuality an alien concept that is too complex for any godiot/religiot/bibliot/crediot to comprehend, hmm?

    Now don’t go evading these important questions like your kind typically does, see? Because doing so will do nothing to win over any unbelievers to your side or to spread Crushtianity. Avoidance and/or glib bullshit will do just the opposite.

    Con-Tester

    February 11, 2012 at 10:10

  398. Hallo julle. Lanklaas iets hier geskryf. Ek dink die jaar van die ateis was al voor 2012 en sal nog na 2012 aanhou. Dit is juis mos die tekens van die tye wat so raak in die Bybel voorspel is.
    “In die laaste dae sal die antichris sy finale aanval met erns voer…” – losweg aangehaal. Iemand het hierbo iewers verwys na gelowiges wat nie-gelowiges kerk toe probeer skrikmaak. Wat kan die Christen deur genoemde metode meer bereik as om dalk ‘n siel te red. Niks anders nie. Maar dit is die antichris se grootste vrees, dat enigiemand dalk vir die Koninkryk gewen kan word, daarom die aanvalle spesifiek op die kerk. Hierbo word breedvoerig verwys na kindermolestering in die RKK, ‘n vieslike daad en natuurlik die regte manier om gelowiges uit die kerk uit te skok, maar die werklike syfers van hoeveel kinders deur nie-gelowiges verkrag word, word nie genoem nie.
    Die wat al vroeer my plasings gelees het sal natuurlik weet dat ek persoonlik glo die RKK is daar geplaas deur die antichris juis om die gelowige te mislei, soos wat ook heel tereg in die Bybel beskryf is. Hoekom ‘n kerk stig waar die priester mag drink en rook, maar nie mag trou nie, ‘n goeie manier om die “geestelike leiers” onder versoekinge te plaas. Neem sekere voorregte weg, maar plaas hulle in vertrouensposisies waar slagoffers volop is. Dus is dit die antichris wat kinders molesteer en verkrag in die “kerk” en stil-stil menigtes meer buite die kerk.
    Iemand het verwys na Christelike blogs wat antichriste, skuus, ateiste blok om plasings te maak, terwyl ateistiese blogs die gelowige nie blokeer nie. Dit is beslis so, maar vir iemand met ‘n gemiddelde IK tog baie duidelik om te verstaan. Die eienaar van ‘n Christelike blog wil tog Christenskap bevorder en nie die antichris toelaat om verwarring te saai nie, maar andersom wil die antichris graag he dat gelowiges op sy blog bly skryf sodat hy hom kan verkleineer en probeer verwar, hoe anders sal hy dit regkry om “dissipels” te werf as hy net toelaat dat die wat hom reeds dien alleen daar mag deelneem?
    Ou Hans, ek sien jy veg nog onverpoos die geveg. Sterkte ou maat.
    Groete,
    Soois

    soois

    February 11, 2012 at 09:11

  399. Hans, nee jong, ek is nou nie gay nie, ek is baie gelukkig getroud en het kinders om te bewys ek hou baie van daai ding wat ek jou nou die aand genoem het. Soos jy tereg opgemerk het, dit verskaf baie plesier.
    Ek neem aan jy probeer my beledig deur my gay te noem na aanleiding van my “Mighty morons” opmerking.
    Eerstens beskou ek dit nie as n besonderse belediging nie, as ek wel gay was sou ek nie skaam daaroor gewees het nie; wat in privaatheid tussen twee instemmende volwassenes gebeur het niks met my of enigiemand anders te doen nie.
    Tweedens het die oorgrote meerderheid van gay persone wat ek al ontmoet het my veel meer beindruk met hulle medemenslikheid en verdraagsaamheid as Buchan en sy troppie godiote.
    Derdens moet jy nie ongegronde afleidings maak as jy n groot woord sien wat jy nie herken nie, gaan soek dit liewer op voor jy (weereens) n krater van jouself maak.

    Jy vertel ons altyd so trots dat jy nie glo soos ander christene nie maar nou erken jy by implikasie dat jy ook maar die breinlose troppie “Mighty men” soos die ander onnadenkende skapies volg.
    Real men follow jesus, ne? (As daar n sotliker “bumper sticker” is moet iemand my asb laat weet)
    Vrouens moet hulle mans onderdanig wees ne? (Ek wens jy kry eendag die geleentheid om dit vir my vrou te vertel, jy sal waarlik uitvind wat die ” wrath of god” beteken)
    Die man is die hoof van die huis en got is die hoof van die man – assefokkenblieftog – wat se sinnelose stront is dit tog nie. Dit is sulke middeleeuse nonsens wat al die Buchan se “Mighty morons” agter hom aan pappagaai met knikkende koppies sonder n enkele oorsprongklike gedagte daarin. Dit is die regveriging vir die patriargale geboelie wat in vele huishoudings aangaan.
    Dit se veel van iemand se karakter as hy n gediskrediteerde sprokie nodig het om sy vooroordele te regverdig en as n kierrie te dien vir sy onsekerhede.

    Shazee

    February 11, 2012 at 08:42

  400. Eish, Hanswors, you too kleva for me! “[You] function spiritually and [I] don’t and that is reliably objective from a reliable source.” Hau, how does that answer anything, M’na? Did an ox or a tractor plough that into your head? Oh, ’twas your skydaddy, for sure!

    You’ll have to try a bit harder than that if you don’t want to be laughed at, Hanswors.

    Which impenetrable postmodern verbal agglomeration of vaguery reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )…

    Con-Tester

    February 10, 2012 at 23:27

  401. Malherbe, jy moet nog opgevoed word aangaande Christus en die Bybel want jy is nog heel onkundig in die opsig.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 10, 2012 at 23:20

  402. Con-Tester, the functional definition of “spirit”/“spiritual” is, I function spiritually and you don’t and that is reliably objective from a reliable source.
    What makes you think it is better to plow with oxen than with a tractor?
    You still don’t accept the fact that I do not believe in a skydaddy. (Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?)

    Hans Matthysen

    February 10, 2012 at 23:16

  403. Shazee, jammer man, ek het nooit besef jy is gay. Jesus het nie gay’s verwerp nie (Lees Mat. 19 v 12).
    Ag, jammer weer. Ek het jou inteligensie oorskat.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 10, 2012 at 23:03

  404. I wonder if he will object if I register “Mighty morons” as a trade mark?
    Then I can punt my own brand of misogyny and also become rich, surely there are enough morons to go around?

    Shazee

    February 10, 2012 at 12:09

  405. I see the failed potato farmer (Buchan) have registered the name “Mighty men conference” as a trade mark. Ditto for his own name and that of his TV program “Grass roots”

    Can’t let the competition eat into your profits, ne?

    Shazee

    February 10, 2012 at 11:42

  406. Hey, it’s just after 22h00. That means it’s almost Hanswors time!

    Yaaayyyy!

    Con-Tester

    February 9, 2012 at 22:03

  407. Tel my poging om jou op te voed dan glad nie as ‘n goeie daad vir my medemens nie Hans?

    Malherbe

    February 9, 2012 at 10:41

  408. But Hanswors, a functional definition of “spirit”/“spiritual” is still needed”, one that would permit distinguishing reliably and objectively between its presence and absence.

    Why can you not provide such a definition yourself, hmm? Why do you keep relying on unreliable and/or unclear sources, hmm?

    On another tack, Hanswors, and all your other fairytales and evasions op ’n stokkie, if Crushtianity evolved from prior religions as you claim (and, for once, you’re probably more correct than you yourself possibly suspect), what makes you think that Crushtianity is the pinnacle of religions? What makes you think there aren’t even better belief systems ahead, waiting to evolve from current ones? In short, why stop where very clearly you have stopped in your beliefs?

    Now don’t go evading these important questions like you usually do, see? ’Cos that’s just not in line with your skydaddy’s command not to bear false witness and all of that shit, see?

    Which stunted comprehension reminds me:…

    Con-Tester

    February 8, 2012 at 22:04

  409. Hans, gaan lees eers gou weer wat jy daar geskryf het om te sien of dit vir jou sin maak.
    Ek het nie n idee waarvan jy praat nie, nie n clue nie.
    Probeer gou iets skryf wat klink of dit deur n soogdier wat kan dink geskryf is en ek antwoord jou.

    Shazee

    February 8, 2012 at 21:57

  410. Con-Tester, hopefully you can understand what I have written to Shazee above.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 8, 2012 at 21:53

  411. Shazee, dankie man, want ‘n poes verskaf baie plesier maar nouja, jy is ‘n drol, want jy is vol kak omdat jy probeer nie eers luister wat ek sê nie.
    So terloops, wat Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 betref; wanneer daar van wonderwerke gepraat word, dink jy vleeslik en verwag dat een wie se vleeslike oë blind is, weer moet kan sien, as daar vir hulle gebid word. Sou jy nou geestelike dinge bedink, sou jy besef dat jy, wat geestlik blind is, geestelike dinge sal begin te bedink en so begin sien (verstaan).
    Wie is meer arrogant as julle Atiëste? Die Moslems se geloof het ontstaan omdat hulle, die Arebiere, hul nie met die Jode wou versoen en Jesus van Nazareth ‘n Jood was, so daarom het hulle vir hulle ‘n alternatief geskep. Die Hindo is ‘n ou geloof waar Christendom deur evolusie van die ou gelowe tot stand gekom het. Dit is maar soos ons voorvaders wat met osse geploeg het en ons gebruik nou trekkers.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 8, 2012 at 21:49

  412. …A fuck- knuckle cult of epic stupidity… Heh,heh, very funny, I am am envious CT, for a ghastly cunt you do have a way with words.

    Shazee

    February 8, 2012 at 21:41

  413. L Ron Hubbard is reputed to have said:

    Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.

    However, while the sentiment itself rings true its cynicism notwithstanding, it’s contentious whether Hubbard actually said that. Church of Scientology whackheads refute that their prophet ever did (probably in some misguided hope that it will detract from scientology being a fuck-knuckle cult of epic stupidity). IIRC, Martin Gardner cites the quote (or very similar) in Chapter 22 (Dianetics) of the 1957 edition of his book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

    Con-Tester

    February 8, 2012 at 21:27

  414. Wasn’t it L Ron Hubbart who said that if you want to become rich you should start a religion?
    I always marvel at the idiots who keep on giving these charletans money they can hardly afford, even after seeing the Rolex on his wrist.

    Shazee

    February 8, 2012 at 20:50

  415. Wasn’t it L Ron Hubbart who said that if you want to become rich you should start a religion?
    I always marvel at the idiots who keep on giving these charletans money they can hardly afford, even after seeinng the Rolex on his wrist.

    Shazee

    February 8, 2012 at 20:49

  416. For the confused layman: How religions prosper. (In case it’s not clear, by simply demanding special privileges for themselves. That’s how.)

    Con-Tester

    February 8, 2012 at 13:30

  417. For the confused layman: religioconomics explained.

    Con-Tester

    February 8, 2012 at 11:41

  418. Jy se ek sien net n swart spikkel op n wit doek?
    Daardie doek is van bo tot onder bekak ou maat.
    Ek is jammer as ek vir jou n bietjie driftig en oordrewe kllnk, maar ek is nou vinnig besig om my toleransie drempel met die arrogante, stiksienige en opdringerige stront te bereik.

    Jou argument skyn te wees dat daar wel wandade was maar nie alle christene is so nie en dat die gelowiges in elk geval meer goed as kwaad doen. Ek is lus en vloek weer en lelik.
    Het jy die donnerse lys ooit gelees?

    Watse arrogante kak is dit dat almal die tos wat julle uitdink en op die res van ons probeer opdwing moet respekteer? Waarom?
    Wat de donner gee iemand die reg om onsinnige, onlogiese en onbewysbare nonsens wat julle uit julle benewelde verbeeldings uitsuig op ons te probeer afdwing?

    Wat my nog meer die moer in maak is die feit dat julle ( en jy is n prime voorbeeld) so onaantasbaar en onbereikbaar vir rede is in julle asemberowend arrogante onnoselheid.

    Shazee

    February 7, 2012 at 23:31

  419. 😆😆😆😉😉😉 No, no, Shazee, the holey spurt was with you and this god does indeed work in mysterious ways. Hallelujah!😉😉😉😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    February 7, 2012 at 23:08

  420. Hans, jy erken jy glo op dieselfde basis as n hindu of n moslem maar hulle geloof is blind en joune nie?
    Ek is jammer maar die huilerige gees het my nie betyds besoek soos vir Con – Tester nou die aand nie – jy is n arrogante en dom fokken poes.

    Shazee

    February 7, 2012 at 22:44

  421. Malherbe, Wat doen jy uit jou eie uit vir die samelewing en vir jou medemens?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 7, 2012 at 22:19

  422. Shazee, ek glo dit wat verklaar kan word en nie blindelings soos Hindo’s en Muslems nie en daarom is jy verkeerd en daar is nie ‘n probleem nie.
    Jy is weer verkeerd want ek het gesê; “ware Christenne” en dit is nie ‘n verskoning nie. Die waarna jy verwys op die Google netwerk is in elk geval nie eers 1% van al die Christenne (en ek verwys nie net na die ware Christenne nie) van al die eue. Jy is soos een wat na ‘n wit doek kyk en dan sien jy nie die doek raak nie maar net die kleinste swart kolletjie daarop. Jy probeer dan voorgee of die hele doek swart is. Siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    February 7, 2012 at 22:16

  423. Hanswors, it’s obvious that the comprehensional shortcomings are yours. I repeatedly asked you for a functional definition of “spirit”/“spiritual”, one that would permit distinguishing between its presence and absence. I never said the dictionary was wrong, only inadequate. You repeatedly supplied vague evasions, deflections and bullshit, but I s’pose that me finding your “answers” utterly laughable makes me too daft.

    Maybe it’s you who’s too daft to understand anything of any actual substance.

    Which self-satisfied incompetence reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )… well, if you don’t know the refrain by know, I suggest some therapy — not that it’ll really help.

    Con-Tester

    February 7, 2012 at 22:12

  424. Con-Tester, ek het al agter gekom, jy is te dom, want jy sal niks verstaan wat aan jou verduidelik word nie. Die woordeboek is volgens jou verkeerd asook die Bybel.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 7, 2012 at 21:54

  425. Al gewonder waar kom Hans se fiksasie met “een” vandaan? N mens is nie een virus nie. Een kan nie dit of dat doen nie.

    Shazee

    February 7, 2012 at 17:43

  426. “…ware Christen is nie een “virus” nie, want hulle is altyd besig om aan hul naaste goed te doen en dit is die Atiës “virus” omdat hulle niks doen vir hulle medemens want als draai selfsugtig om hulself.”

    Kyk, ek het lanklaas so ‘n breindood stelling soos hierdie teegekom. Weereens ‘n klinkklare bewys dat dit te laat vir Hans is. Die brein is weggevreet, sat, kaput. Al wat oorbly is om iemand te vind om hom drie maal per week nat te lei. Dit is die onselfsugtige ding om te doen.

    Malherbe

    February 7, 2012 at 17:30

  427. Sorry, dit moet lees – “n moerse lot nie – ware christene”

    Shazee

    February 7, 2012 at 07:13

  428. Hans jy se Christene is is altyd besig om goed te doen vir hul medemens?
    Wat n patetiese stelling – gaan google “Christian atrocities” – daar is te veel om op te noem en ek is bang ek word naar as ek probeer.
    As dit is hoe julle goed doen aan julle medemens, mag die jirre ons bewaar as julle die dag besluit om skade te begin doen.

    Ek weet dat die eerste verskoning waarskynlik gaan wees dat die oortreders nie ware christene was nie. Daar was darrem n moerse lot nie- christene deur die jare. Gaan google die “no true Scotsman fallacy”

    Shazee

    February 7, 2012 at 07:09

  429. Hans, ek het ook n wonderwerk beleef! Jy het wragtig n reguit antwoord gegee al was dit soos tandetrek.
    Jy het nou uiteindelik erken dat jou geloof presies dieselfde basis as n Moslem of n Hindu het, nl n geloof in n heilige boek. Verduidelik dan nou waarom jou boek waar is en hulle s’n vals.
    Dit kan immers nie jou geloof wees wat dit waar maak nie aangesien hulle net so toegewyd as jy glo hulle boeke is waar en joune vals.
    Sien jy die probleem Hans? Daar moet een of ander bewys behalwe blinde geloof op die tafel gele word voordat ek kan besluit wie se boek, indien enige, die waarheid bevat.

    Verder sal ek graag meer besonderhede wil he oor die wonderwerke wat jy gesien het. Dit klink baie interresant.
    Was die ou wat uit die dode opgestaan het amptelik deur n onafhangklike geneesheer dood verklaar? Het jy self sy doodsertifikaat gesien? Indien wel, sal ek dit ook graag wil sien en dan met die ou wil gesels. Hoe lank was hy al dood en waaraan het hy gesterf? Is hy byvoorbeeld in n motorongeluk onthoof en sy kop groei toe weer reg voor die CNN kameras aan terwyl iemand vir hom bid? So iets sal die hele wereld bekeer jong! Jy moet dit nie vir jouself hou nie, deel dit asseblief met ons.

    Shazee

    February 7, 2012 at 06:32

  430. Maybe you should explain Rom. 8 v 5 and 6 to me, Hanswors. Then I might learn the secret of your consequent and insightful thinking.

    Con-Tester

    February 6, 2012 at 22:52

  431. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

      
    

    The beeg, baaad atheist. Beware the self-centred monsters!

      
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

      
    

    Which infantile whining reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More shtuppie-shtuppie for you, hmm?

    Con-Tester

    February 6, 2012 at 22:50

  432. Con-Tester, jy is veronderstel om so belese te wees en tog is jy so onnosel, dat jy nie eers Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 verstaan nie. Jy is nie konsekwent nie en kan ook nie insiggewend dink veral as jy die Bybel lees.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 6, 2012 at 22:48

  433. Malherbe, ‘n ware Christen is nie een “virus” nie, want hulle is altyd besig om aan hul naaste goed te doen en dit is die Atiës “virus” omdat hulle niks doen vir hulle medemens want als draai selfsugtig om hulself.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 6, 2012 at 22:42

  434. Maar Hanswors, ’n egte, regte wonderwork sou gewees het ’n ou sonder ’n werkende brein wat skielik begin konsekwent en insiggewend te dink. Sò ’n wonderwork het jy duidelik nog nooit gesien nie.

    Ek ook nie.

    Con-Tester

    February 6, 2012 at 22:40

  435. Shazee, my antwoord is ja en voordat jy stupid gevolgtrekkings maak, dink daaraan om te vra hoekom verskil ek dan met so baie ander sogenaamde Christelike gelowe.
    Ek het al wonderwerke gesien soos bevoorbeeld ‘n ou wat blind was soos baie van julle, het siende geword. Ook ouens wat doof is soos baie van julle het gehoor gekry en so kan ek aangaan. Ek het al ook dooies sien opstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 6, 2012 at 22:32

  436. Malherbe skryf (Februarie 6, 2012 om 15:29):

    Ouens soos Hans doen ons atties eintlik ‘n moerse guns – ‘n beter bewys vir die gekkeparadys waarin hulle voortstrompel, kan mens beswaarlik kry.

    Ditsem! Daar’s g’n ander rede om die Hansworse hierso aan te moedig om hul vervelige en breindooie strooi te aanhou verkondig.

    Shazee skryf (Februarie 6, 2012 om 16:59):

    Die uitdaging en doel van die oefening is egter om Hans sover te probeer kry om vir eens n reguit fokken antwoord te gee.

    Dit het nog nooit tevore gebeur nie, en is dus hoogs onwaarskynlik. Laat ons Hanswors maar eerder vir al die lesers van die blog sy onbevoegdheid verkondig — hoe meer n hoe meer dikwels, hoe beter. Ek sal wed dat daar gelowige lesers is wat groot skaamte voel oor die belaglike bóg wat ons te lese kry.

    Die beste van als is dat ou Hanswors dit als sal ontken met een of ander biblioot verskoning.

    Con-Tester

    February 6, 2012 at 18:56

  437. Shazee, mens moet onthou dat godsdiens ‘n virus is. Dit infiltreer die brein nes ‘n rekenaarvirus ‘n hardeskyf infiltreer en uiteindelik verwoes. Ek is bevrees Hans se “hard drive” is reeds moertoe. “Unrecoverable”. Nie eens skoonvee en herprogrammeer sal help nie want sekere sektore is permanent beskadig. Hans sal dus ongelukkig moet wag vir die dag wanneer die wetenskap breine suksesvol kan oorplant en dan bid hy kry een met meer kapasiteit as sy huidige apparatuur.

    Soos jy al voorheen gevra het: watter data of inligting sal Hansie oortuig dat sy gotte nie bestaan nie? Geen. En hierin lê die sleutel. Ouens soos Hans is onoortuigbaar, maar te oneerlik om dit te erken. So Hans sal aanhou grou aan die gat waarin hy homself bevind, heilig onder die indruk dat dit nie dieper raak nie.

    Malherbe

    February 6, 2012 at 17:39

  438. Ja Malherbe, jy is natuurlik reg dat mens Hans nie ernstig kan opneem nie.
    Die uitdaging en doel van die oefening is egter om Hans sover te probeer kry om vir eens n reguit fokken antwoord te gee.
    Ek begin ernstig vermoed dat dit nie moontlik is nie.
    Het al in jou lewe sulke oneerlike en onwykende kak gelees? Veral omdat Hans moet besef (tensy hy swaksinnig is) dat hy homself in die huidige argument vasgepraat en weerspreek het. Steeds sal hy nie n moer erken hy is verkeerd nie.

    Shazee

    February 6, 2012 at 16:59

  439. Shazee, enige iemand wat stront soos,

    “Die letter is wat jy lees en die gees is die sin agter dit wat geskryf is. As jy die letter nie in die regte sin lees nie, is die boodskap daaragter verlore (dood). Jou geloof is reeds dood omdat jy die letter in die verkeerde sin lees.”

    kan sekerlik nie ernstig opgeneem word nie. Jy kan hierdie kak sweerlik nie opmaak nie. Ouens soos Hans doen ons atties eintlik ‘n moerse guns – ‘n beter bewys vir die gekkeparadys waarin hulle voortstrompel, kan mens beswaarlik kry. Miskien is godsdiens tog nodig vir die mensdom om mal bliksems soos Hans in toom te hou. Wie weet waartoe hy in staat sou wees sonder sy 3-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is. Maller as ‘n kolhaas op tik.

    Malherbe

    February 6, 2012 at 15:29

  440. Hans, se vir my; het jy al met jou eie oe persoonlik n wonderwerk sien gebeur?
    Ek bedoel nou iets soos byvoorbeeld iemand wie se been geamputeer is en dit groei weer voor jou oe aan en die ou staan op en loop daarmee?

    Shazee

    February 5, 2012 at 22:13

  441. Daar gaan jy alweer Hans,
    Die huidige argument gaan nie daaroor of my geloof dood is of nie.(Maar jy is natuurlik reg daaroor,dit is)
    Die argument gaan nie oor wie die regte of verkeerde interpretasie van die bybel het nie.
    Die argument gaan daaroor of jou geloof, soos alle ander gelowe, gebasseer is op jou heilige boek.
    Of ek mis iets, of dit is n bitter eenvoudige vraag wat bitter eenvoudig met n ja of n nee beantwoord kan word.
    Jy het beweer dat jy nie sou antwoord dat jou geloof op jou heilige boek gebasseer is nie (jy onthou mos die hipotetiese situasie?)
    Waarom wil jy nie onomwonde se jou geloof is op die bybel gebasseer nie? Dit is mos,is dit nie?
    Wat se ontwykende gesanik is dit oor “vlees” en “gees”?
    Se net – ja, my geloof is op die bybel gebasseer, of – nee, my geloof is nie op die bybel gebasseer nie.
    Ek gee regtig nie vir die huidige gesprek om hoe jy die bybel lees of interpreteer nie, ek wil bloot n eenvoudige vraag beantwoord he.
    Oukei, kom ek los dit nou voordat ek uit frustasie begin vloek en dalkies n insident by oom Piet trigger.
    Ek wag vir jou antwoord Hans; ja of nee.

    Shazee

    February 5, 2012 at 21:47

  442. Nee wat, ou Hanswors, jy dink net jou “antwoorde” is “eerlik, eenvoudig en reguit.” In werklikheid is jou antwoorde ’n ontwykende, onnosel, belaglike bol tjol. Boonop is jy nes elke ander gelowige: Jy kan niks bewys nie maar dink nog steeds jy weet iets belangriks.

    Be-fokken-laglik.
    😆😆😆 “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.”😆😆😆

      
    

    Which intransigence reminds me:…

    Con-Tester

    February 5, 2012 at 21:34

  443. Shazee, “reguit, eenvoudig en eerlik”, in jou terme, is om antwoorde te gee wat jy graag wil hê ek moet gee en ‘n antwoorde wat jy normaalweg hoor. Ek is eerlik, eenvoudig en reguit met my antwoorde maar omdat die antwoorde vir jou vreemd is, pas dit jou blykbaar nie en dit is nou maar jou probleem.
    Die letter is wat jy lees en die gees is die sin agter dit wat geskryf is. As jy die letter nie in die regte sin lees nie, is die boodskap daaragter verlore (dood). Jou geloof is reeds dood omdat jy die letter in die verkeerde sin lees.
    My geloof is; Rom 10:17 Die geloof is dus uit die gehoor, en die gehoor is deur die woord van God.
    Let wel, nie deur die letter nie.
    Ek antwoord jou meer volledig omdat jy algemene aannames maak en almal sommer onder dieselfde kam skeer a.g.v. jou onkunde wat die Bybel betref.
    Ander mag dink ek is onnosel en dit is goed so, want dit is tot my voordeel en hulle nadeel.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 5, 2012 at 21:16

  444. Hans, watter deel van “reguit, eenvoudig en eerlik” verstaan jy nie?
    Jou antwoord is nie reguit nie, dit is nie eerlik nie en mag moontlik eenvoudig wees, solank jy in ag neem dat “eenvoudig” in Afrikaans meer as een betekenis het.

    Wat presies beteken n antwoord soos – “die letter maak dood en die gees maak lewendig”? Miskien doen dit (in jou kop altans), maar wat daarvan?
    Hoe beantwoord so n stelling op n eenvoudige en reguit wyse die vraag waar jou geloof vandaan kom?
    Watse “letter” praat jy van? As jy daarmee die bybel bedoel is dit n totaal onsinnige antwoord.
    Met ander woorde, jy skyn te se dat as jy die bybel lees gaan jou geloof dood (waarmee ek kan saamstem), maar dan maak die “gees” dit weer lewendig – baie vreemd.

    Jy moet so af en toe n bietjie nadink oor wat jy se Hans.
    Kom ons onthou gou waar die gesprek begin het: ek het gese (in my hipotetiese voorbeeld) dat jy sowel as die ander gelowiges, wat almal verskillend glo, dieselfde antwoord sal gee op die vraag oor waar lulle teenstrydige gelowe vandaan kom, nl uit julle onderskeie en onderling weersprekende heilige boeke.
    Jy het toe beweer dat dit nie die antwoord is wat jy sou gee nie.
    Ek daarop gevra wat die antwoord is wat jy dan wel sou gee.
    Nou, na n paar verwarrende en onwykende antwoorde, se jy hierbo dat jy glo wat jy glo omdat jy verstaan wat jy lees. Waar lees jy die dinge wat jy glo as dit nie in die bybel is nie?
    Jou antwoord is dus presies dieselde as die van ander ouens in my voorbeeld; jy glo wat jy glo (presies net soos hulle) omdat dit in jou heilige boek staan.

    Jy sien wat ek bedoel Hans? Jy moet nadink oor wat jy van die een pos tot die volgende kwytraak. As n mens ontwykende kak wil praat moet jy kophou broer, anders lyk jy net naderhand net verward en onnosel.

    Shazee

    February 5, 2012 at 02:02

  445. Shazee, my atwoord het ek reeds vir jou gegee en dit is, dat die letter is dood en die gees maak lewend. Ek dink nie jy lees regtig wat ek vir jou skry nie. Jy ken die Bybel moontlik beter as myself en tog verstaan ek die Bybel beter as jy en ek is nie arrogant as ek dit sê.
    Ek glo wat ek glo omdat ek verstaan wat ek lees en jy het te veel asse hierbo asof jy nie verstaan wat ek skryf nie.
    Om die Koninkryk soos ‘n kintjie te ontvang, is nie om dom astrant te glo nie. Waaruit bestaan/waar is die Koninkryk? ‘n Kind sou minstens vrae gevra het en dit is gewoonlik hulle vrae wat so moeilik is om te antwoord.
    Terloops, ek is nie al een wat glo soos myself nie omdat daar baie van ons is.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2012 at 22:46

  446. Ooops, flighty fingers, my mistake. That should read: “…from more than 400, Hanswors.”

    Con-Tester

    February 4, 2012 at 22:39

  447. More argument from Hanswors’ personal perceptions, Hanswors? As for not knowing charity, my friends and family are far better judges of that than some faceless Internet godiot/bibliot/crediot/apoligiot. Too bad for you. But you’re right in that I don’t know your god.

    So please educate me, Hanswors. Educate me by answering my questions, Hanswors. Explain to me any 40 bible contradictions of your choice from more than 4000, Hanswors. I mean, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), so why don’t you demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding”, Hanswors?

    Which hypocritical dodging reminds me:…

    Con-Tester

    February 4, 2012 at 22:31

  448. Con-Tester, jy ken nie liefdadigheid nie en daarom ken jy nie God nie en terloops, Die Here verwerp nie Gay’s nie; Mat 19:12 Want daar is persone wat onbekwaam is om te trou, wat van die moederskoot af so gebore is, en daar is persone wat deur die mense onbekwaam gemaak is, en daar is persone wat hulleself onbekwaam gemaak het ter wille van die koninkryk van die hemele. Wie dit kan vat, laat hom dit vat.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2012 at 22:14

  449. Hans, jy se waar ek grootgeword het was ons seker almal “dom astrant” om soos kinders te glo?
    Verklaar dan n bietjie vir my Luk18:17.
    Ons het nou nie almal jou bevoorregte insigte nie en daar is seker n simboliese uitleg wat net tot jou openbaar is.

    Shazee

    February 4, 2012 at 09:52

  450. Hans, net om te probeer seker maak jy gaan nie weer op n “tangent” af nie, net die volgende opklaring:
    My eerste vraag aan julle 4 hipotetiese morone was waarom julle glo soos julle doen.
    Die onvermydelike antwoord wat ek aan julle toegedig het was dat julle glo wat julle glo omdat dit in julle onderskeie heilige boeke staan.

    Jy beweer nou dit sou nie jou antwoord wees nie,en my eenvoudige en reguit vraag aan jou is dan nou; wat sou jou antwoord dan wees?

    Kom ons kyk of jy, hou onwaarskynlik ookal, vir eens n reguit eenvoudige en eerlike antwoord kan gee.

    Shazee

    February 4, 2012 at 08:39

  451. Hans, ek verstaan nou nie mooi nie. Jy se jy sou nie dieselfde antwoord as die ander drie ouens gegee het nie? Verstaan ek reg dat jy dan nou beweer jou geloof het nie sy oorsprong in die bybel nie? Nou se dan asseblief waar jou geloof dan vandaan kom. Jy hou aan se jy glo nie soos ander christenne nie, en as jou unieke insigte nie uit die bybel kom nie moes jy dan seker stemme gehoor het, of wat? Hoor jy stemme Hans? Hoor jy dit laat in die nag of sommer op enige onverwagse tye? Ek kan dink dat dit nogal steurend kan wees as dit gebeur terwyl jy byvoorbeeld bestuur in spitstyd.

    Ek moet saamstem dat uiters arrogant van jou is om aan te neem dat jou dat jy die bybel beter ken en dieper bestudeer het as enigiemand anders. Ek self besit verskeie vertalings van die bybel in Engels en Afrikaans sowel as n engelse vertaling van die koran. Desnieteenstaande beskou ek myself nie as n uitsonderlike deskundige met unieke insigte in die geskrifte nie.
    Wat ek wel gedoen het, was om minstens te probeer verstaan wat ek kritiseer.
    Ek het nie stemme gehoor nie, ek het nie visioene gehad nie, ek het nie vae tekens gekry wat ek moes interpreteer of simbolies verstaan nie. Soos die engelse se; I have applied my mind, en die gevolgtrekking waartoe ek gekom het was dat as daar n god is, hy\sy\dit verseker nie uit een van die twee onsamehangende, primitiewe geskrifte sou kom nie.

    Jou aanmerking dat die ander drie gelowe wat ek genoem het nie werwings aksies het nie laat my egter twyfel aan jou insig. Ek het dit nie beweer nie. Kan jy nie n hipotetiese voorbeeld om n punt te illustreer herken as jy dit sien nie?

    Voor ek afsluit, laat ek dit nou maar ook reguit stel: as jy beweer jou kinderagtige bygelofies kom nie uit die bybel nie praat jy pleinweg kak, en oneerlike, ontwykende kak daarby.

    Shazee

    February 4, 2012 at 07:43

  452. Hanswors kerm pateties (Februarie 3, 2012 om 22:43):

    Jy het nog nooit die moeite gedoen om te probeer verstaan wat ek vir jou sê…

    …Sou jy al hulle boeke gelees het, sou jy sien dat…

    Ons is nie almal so nie en deur geloof het ek baie dinge ervaar en tewete gekom.
    Julle het maar net nog nie hard genoeg gesoek vir die verborgrnhede
    [sic] waarna die Bybel verwys.

    Ampertjies, ampertjies noem ek ou Hanswors ’n “fokken arrogante poes” maar toe besin ek myself en lag eerder vir sy benullooshede. My heroorweging en daarop volgende gesindheidsverandering was nou seker weer die “huilige gees” se liefdadige werkies…🙄

    Con-Tester

    February 4, 2012 at 00:09

  453. Shazee, ek het julle Atiëste nie aangeval nie maar julle het my geloof aangeval, so, my geloof is gegrond op wat in die Bybel staan en daarom praat ons oor die Bybel. Jy sê dit is sprokies en ek sê dit is boodskappe.
    Ek het reeds vir jou gesê, ek behoort nie aan een van daardie gelowe wat ‘n ou volg, wat op ‘n heuwel, tussen bome geloop het en ‘n stem gehoor het, dan daarna ‘n geloof gestig het. Persoonlik dink ek daardie ouens het nie hulle medikasie gedrink nie.
    Jy het nog nooit die moeite gedoen om te probeer verstaan wat ek vir jou sê en met so ‘n gesindheid, sal jy ook nooit verstaan wat ek sê.
    Die drie gelowe wat jy hierbo genoem het, hert nie evangelie (werwings) aksies nie.
    Sou jy al hulle boeke gelees het, sou jy sien dat hulle boeke baie natuurlik is. Die Ko’ran het natuurlik twee boeke wat woord vir woord dieselfde is as twee boeke van die Ou Testament.
    Jy is natuurlik verkeerd met jou eerste vraag want ek sou jou nie daardie antwoord gegee het nie en ook nie met die tweede vraag nie. (2 Kor. 3:6 wat ons ook bekwaam gemaak het as dienaars van ‘n nuwe testament, nie van die letter nie, maar van die gees; want die letter maak dood, maar die gees maak lewend.)
    Waar jy groot geword het, het almal seker dom astrant geglo soos ‘n “kind”. Ons is nie almal so nie en deur geloof het ek baie dinge ervaar en tewete gekom.
    Julle het maar net nog nie hard genoeg gesoek vir die verborgrnhede waarna die Bybel verwys.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 3, 2012 at 22:43

  454. “Safety in numbers” – ek noem dit die tropdier verskynsel. Dit word mooi geillustreer deur bewegings op die effektebeurs. Wanneer die beurs klim, wil almal inklim en koop, wat natuurlik verdere stygings tot gevolg het. Eenvoudige common sense behoort enige mens te laat dink dat ‘n aandeel wat verhandel teen ‘n P/V van 200 totaal irrasioneel is, maar die ouens het in 1998 desnieteenstaande enkele stemme wat teen ‘n “bubble” gewaarsku het, wild en wakker teen hierdie vlakke in IT belê. Hoekom? Want buurman doen dit en ons sal eerder geld verloor saam met buurman as om die risiko te loop om enkelalleen teen die stroom te beweeg. Toe die spulletjie uiteindelik heel voorspelbaar inmekaar tuimel, vind dieselfde verskynsel weer plaas, maar die keer net in die teenoorgestelde rigting.

    Soveel gelowiges glo eintlik op die Pascal’s Wager basis en lg is ‘n variasie op die voorbeeld hierbo.

    Malherbe

    February 3, 2012 at 16:47

  455. Con-Tester, dit laat my dink aan die ou wat gese het – if one person has a delusion we call it insanity, but if many have it we call it religion –

    So, apparently there is not only safety in numbers, but also sanity.

    Shazee

    February 3, 2012 at 13:36

  456. Shazee, die deurmekaarheid van gelowiges gaan nog ’n treetjie of twee verder as net dat dit vir hulle nie genoeg is om binne hulself vas te glo nie. Hoekom soek hulle altyd om diegene wat of anders glo of glad nie glo nie, te oortuig van hoe “goed” en hoe “reg” hul geloof is? Hoekom bring hulle altyd “bewyse” vorendag wat nou kamstig hul bewerings staaf? Hoekom probeer hulle altyd so ywerig om hul kinderagtige stories te verdedig met ewe kinderagtige “redenasies”? Hoekom kan hulle skaars enige kritiek van hul onnoselheid verdra nie? Hoekom is gelowiges, oor die algeheel, so gou bereid om evangelisties hul geloof te versprei?

    Die rede is bloot eenvoudig. Geloof op sy eie is duidelik heeltemaal onvoldoende — en hulle weet dit eintlik. Hulle wil hê dat almal soos hulle glo want dan sal hulle deel van ’n meer homogene en groter groep wees waar hul onderliggende twyfel verminder sal word — dieselfde ding wat leiers en politici beoog. In Engels praat hulle mos so mooi van “safety in numbers”.

    Con-Tester

    February 3, 2012 at 12:41

  457. Jy is reg Malherbe, soos Voltaire gese het “…he who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”

    Dit verstom my altyd dat mense bereid, en selfs gretig is om mekaar wreedaardig te vermoor vir wat die ander ou glo.
    Ek bedoel, wat maak dit saak wat die ander ou glo solank hy dit vir homself hou? As ek reg is in my geloof en hy is verkeerd, gaan hy in elk geval vir ewig braai. Dit behoort mos genoeg te wees, of hoe?

    Shazee

    February 3, 2012 at 10:45

  458. Ja Shazee, die vertrekpunt lê in jou laaste sin: “…begin om vir jouiself te dink…” Die harde werklikheid is dat daar op hierdie planeet perverse ‘n minderheid homo sapiense rondloop wat vir hulself dink. Indien dit nie so was nie, sou die Holocaust, apartheid, en “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnië nooit plaasgevind het nie.

    Malherbe

    February 3, 2012 at 10:06

  459. Hans, het jy al nagedink oor die rede dat jy so onwrikbaar glo dat die bybel die onfeilbare en ware woord van n god is? Ek bedoel nou, het jy al werklik gaan sit en probeer om dit onemosioneel en rasioneel te analiseer? As daar werklik n god bestaan is dit onlogies dat hy jou sal verkwalik dat jy die vestand wat hy jou gegee het gebruik om dit uit te redeneer.

    Gestel ek en jy sit om n tafel met n Moslem, n Hindu en n Boeddis. Al drie van julle probeer om my te bekeer.
    Die eerste vraag wat ek aan julle sal stel is natuurlik waarom elkeen van julle glo wat julle glo.
    Elkeen van julle gaan my presies dieselfde antwoord gee; dit staan in die woord van god.
    My volgende vraag gaan wees waarom elkeen van julle glo dat die heilige boek waarin julle glo die woord van god is.
    Op hierdie vraag sal nie een van julle vir my n logiese antwoord kan gee nie.
    Watse logiese, rasionele antwoord kan n mens op so n vraag gee?
    Dit is deur god self aan die profete onthul – hoe weet jy dit? – want die bybel,koran ens se so.
    Kan jy sirkel redenasie insien Hans? Dit is waar, en ek weet dit is waar, want die bybel se so.
    Ja, maar hoe weet jy dit wat in die bybel staan is waar? – want die bybel se dit is waar, ens,ens.

    Dan gaan ek vir julle vra vir wie van julle moet ek nou eintlik glo aangesien julle drie verskillende en onversoenbare weergawes van die “ware” woord van god het.
    Dink jy nie dat dit hier is waar die storie heeltemal ontrafel nie?
    Elkeen van julle glo n onderling, teenstrydige en weersprekende weergawe van die “ware” woord van god. Elkeen van julle glo dit onwrikbaar en vir presies die selfde redes. Al drie van julle kan tog nie reg wees nie?
    Op grond waarvan kan jy vir die Hindu se hy glo vals? – op presies dieselfde basis as wat hy vir jou kan se jy glo vals; sy heilige boek se so, en joune se weer hy is verkeerd.

    Hans, dink jy regtig dat jy steeds so n stoere Christen sou wees as jy toevallig in die midde-ooste gebore was en in n streng Moslem huishouding grootgeword het? As jou antwoord ja is, is jy oneerlik en as dit nee is moet dit jou aan die dink sit. Is geloof dan n funksie van waar jy toevallig gebore is en watter geloof jy as kind eerste aan blootgestel is?

    Ek kan amper verstaan waarom n mens geloof in n skepper wat in beheer van alles is sal wil he. Dit blyk n universele behoefte van die mens te wees. Dit neem jou verantwoordelikheid vir jou eie lot weg. Dit spreek jou vrees vir die onbekende en vir die dood aan. Dit gee jou n gesag om op te beroep in n onsekere en onvoorspelbare lewe.
    Dit is n kierrie om op te leun, maar dit is nie n logiese of rasionele een nie.
    Iets is nie waar bloot omdat ek dit graag so wil he nie. Dit is nie waar omdat ek dink dit sal goed wees as dit waar is nie. Dit is nie waar omdat ek,of enigiemand anders, nie aan n ander verduideliking kan dink nie.
    Iets is waar omdat dit logies is en omdat daar bewyse voor is. Bewyse wat deur n vervalsbare hipotese of teorie voorafgegaan word en eksperimenteel getoets kan word, en dan aanvaar of verwerp kan word as waar, waarskynlik, moontlik of vals.

    Ek en jy kan vir die res van ons lewens oor die bybel en sy moontlike waarheid\onwaarheid redeneer. Ons kan die beweerde teenstrydighede debatteer tot die koeie huistoe kom. Ons kan sarkasme en beledigings oor en weer slinger totdat dit betekenloos word.
    Dit alles verander nie een jota of tittel van die feit dat n geloof in n opperwese net dit is nie – geloof – en per definisie blinde geloof, gebore uit lewenslange kondisionering en wensdenkery.

    Ek het my geloof verloor toe ek opgehou het om soos “n kind” te glo. Kinderlike geloof is net gepas vir n kleuter wat in kersvader glo, nie vir n volwassene met n gesonde funksionerende verstand nie.

    Komaan Hans, begin om vir jouself te dink sonder die “knee jerk” reaksie om die bybel ten alle koste en rede te wil verdedig.

    Shazee

    February 3, 2012 at 09:47

  460. Hans, ek is bereid om oor enigiets met jou te redeneer of debatteer.

    Wat se jy ons redeneer so n bietjie oor Mickey Mouse, of miskien Rooikkappie.
    Jy dink moontlik ek is ligsinnig en kinderagtig om dit voor te stel, maar ek sien nie juis n verskil tussen jou aandrang dat ek bybelsprokies vir jou uitle en my voorstel om ewe denkbeeldige sprokies te bespreek nie.

    Sodra jy vir my enige rasionele bewys hoegenaamd gee dat daar n verskil tussen my sprokies en joune is sal ek met graagte die meriete van jou sprokie met jou bespreek.

    Dit is natuurlik enige bewys behalwe die stemme in jou kop.

    Shazee

    February 2, 2012 at 22:49

  461. Shazee, wat dink jy van die woordeboek se weergawe van gees en van vlees?
    Jy het byvoorbeeld nou ‘n kak gees en hoe gaan een dit definieer of meet?
    Daardie dat julle nie oor Bybelversies wil gesels nie, is maar julle manier om te ontduik, wat julle nie verstaan nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 2, 2012 at 22:26

  462. Hans, ek is jammer as ek jou nog deurmekaarder gemaak het as wat jy alreeds is.

    Ek dog jy sou verstaan dat ons nie oor n vers in n geskrif kan debatteer as een van ons nie die egtheid van die geskrif erken nie.

    Maar oukei, laat ek jou dan se wat ek dink as jy daarop aandring. Ek dink die gebabbel oor “gees” en “vlees” is hokus pokus. Dit maak vir n normale redelike mens geen sin nie. Wat is gees? Ek weet van niemand wat dit al gesien of gemeet het nie. Ek weet van niemand, jy ingesluit, wat dit al bevredigend gedefinieer het nie. Dit is iets wat die bybel skrywer in n pypdroom uitgedink het. Wat wil jy he moet ek daaroor se? Dit is kak soos die res van jou sprokie. Is. Dit nou duidelik wat ek dink?

    Shazee

    February 1, 2012 at 21:42

  463. Malherbe, as ek my op ‘n kranksinnige pad bevind, is dit omdat ek julle Atiëste daarvan probeer weg kry.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 1, 2012 at 21:18

  464. Ja Malherbe, daar is blykbaar grade van infeksie met die gotvirus en Hans is terminaal.

    Shazee

    February 1, 2012 at 21:16

  465. Shazee, geen wonder jy is so deur die kak. Jy kan nie eers sê wat jy dink nie, nee, jy het hierdie moerse redenasie wat jou op die ou end skoon verward maak. Dit is of julle atiëste nie kan fokus nie omdat julle in julle moer in dwaal en ek wonder of dit julle nie ook “Delusional” maak nie?
    Ek is maar ‘n ongelowige Thomas wat eers moet sien (verstaan) voordat ek glo en het dus nie ‘n blinde geloof nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 1, 2012 at 21:14

  466. “…..maar die sinnelose en redelose drek wat jy kwytraak oorskrei alle denkbare grense.” Pragtig gestel Shazee.

    Die kak wat Hans as antwoord opdis, sou lagwekkend kon wees indien dit nie so tragies was nie. Hans is egter heeltemal korrek wanneer hy die stelling maak “Malherbe, ek sou dink, dat julle al sou agter gekom het, dat ek nie glo soos ander sogenaamde Christenne nie.” Hy het tereg al heelwat verder gevorder op die pad na kranksinnigheid as die gemiddelde Christen.

    Malherbe

    February 1, 2012 at 14:10

  467. Blind faith is an ironic gift to give to the creator of human intelligence (anon)

    Shazee

    January 31, 2012 at 23:35

  468. Soos byvoorbeeld om n paar teenstrydigehede vir ons te verklaar sonder om na simboliek te hap.

    Shazee

    January 31, 2012 at 23:24

  469. Hans, ek weet nie eintlik hoe om jou te antwoord nie.
    Die skrifgedeelte praat van vlees en gees, en het te vertelle dat vlees die dood bedink terwyl gees lewe en vrede bedink.
    Dit is nou alles goed en wel sover as wat dit gaan, maar ek weet eerstens nie wat jy met “gees” bedoel nie en ek dink ook nie jy weet self nie want jy kon dit na verskeie versoeke nog nie bevredigend definieer nie.
    Ten tweede help dit nie om my uit te daag om n gedeelte uit jou heilige geskrif te verklaar asof dit sou beteken jy debats punte wen as ek nie kan nie.
    Dit kan slegs werk as ons beide die bron van jou uitgangspunt as feitlik korrek aaanvaar en ons verskil bloot oor die uitleg daarrvan. Jy verstaaan mos teen die tyd dat dit nie die geval is nie ne? Ne??
    Oortuig my eers uit n ander bron as die bybel self dat dit n geloofwaardige bron van enigiets is voordat jy my uitdaag om dele daarvan vir jou uit te le.

    Shazee

    January 31, 2012 at 23:15

  470. Shazee,aangesien jy die Bybel so goed ken, hoe verstaan jy Rom. 8 v 5 en 6?

    Hans Matthysen

    January 31, 2012 at 21:52

  471. Hanswors, yes, you are trying. Severely. Helping? Not in the least.

    Read Shazee’s reply above. It sums up your position perfectly.

    Now don’t go accusing me of changing the subject, see? My questions to you still stand, as does the challenge of addressing any 40 Holey Babble contradictions of your choice from those 400+.

    Which vacuous avoidance tactics remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )…

    Con-Tester

    January 31, 2012 at 08:20

  472. Hans, ek begin vermoed dat jy besig is om gek te skeer met ons. Ek dink jy geniet die aandag en daarom hou jy aan kak praat.
    Gelowiges is al klaar onredelik en onlogies, maar die sinnelose en redelose drek wat jy kwytraak oorskrei alle denkbare grense.
    Geen mens by sy volle positiewe kan die onsamehangende kak wat jy kwytraak regtig glo nie.
    Daar is net twee moontlikhede: jy glo dit regtig, en dan is jy of kranksinnig of onredbaar onnosel, of jy skeer gek en ons is te dom om dit agter te kom.

    Shazee

    January 31, 2012 at 01:21

  473. Con-Tester, I am trying to help, just read above comment to Shazee.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 30, 2012 at 23:51

  474. Shazee, jy lees van Laserus en dan dink jy vleeslik terwyl Rom. 8 v 5 en 6, vir jou wys, dat jy geestelike dinge moet bedink. M. a. w. wat sy geloof betref het hy gesterwe (in ongeloof verval) en gestink (kwaad gespreek van die geloof, soos wat julle Atiëste doen). Jesus het met hom gaan praat en toe kry hy weer lewe, wat die geloof betref.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 30, 2012 at 23:48

  475. By the way Hans, ek vind dit ongelooflik dat jy my kan vra na watter ongeloofwaardighede ek verwys.
    Hoeveel keer is dit al hier deur veskeie mense tot vervelens toe uitgewys?
    Hoekom begin jy nie sommer met die meer as 400 teenstrydighede waarna CT jou al by herhaling na verwys het nie – ek vind dit ongeloofwaardig
    Maagdelike geboorte – ongeloofwaardig.
    Opstanding uit die dood – ongeloofwaardig. Wonderwerke wat die wette van fisika ophef – ongeloofwaardig.
    Dat die wereldbeskouing van bronstydperk bokwagters meer insig gee omtrent die die ontstaan en werking van die kosmos as wat die wetenskap kan doen – ongeloofwaardig.
    Dat die die wraaksugtige, onregverdige, vroue hatende, kindermishandelende volksuitwissende, jaloerse monster wat in die bybel beskryf word werd is om aanbid te word – ongeloofwaardig en pateties.

    Shazee

    January 30, 2012 at 08:55

  476. Hans, jy se dat dit wat nie logies is nie, is simbolies en dat ons god met ons verstand moet dien?
    In die lig van jou hardnekkige gewoonte om net mooi alles wat wat onsinnig in die bybel is as simbolies te wil verklaar maak so n stelling seker sin (in jou kop ten minste)
    As jy nou god met jou verstand wil dien sal ek graag wil verneem hoe jy besluit het dat dit dit onlogies is dat bome rondloop en praat, maar dat dit logies is vir dooie mense om weer lewendig te word, in een geval waar die lyk al begin stink het?
    Hoe besluit jy dit is minder logies vir bye om in n dooie leeu se bek nes te maak as vir iemand om op water te loop? (As ek nou gedwing word om te kies glo ek self eerder die storie van die bye, dit is minstens in beginsel moontlik)

    Verder weet ek nie waarom jy opgewonde raak as ek iets as “ongeloofwaardig” afmaak nie. Dit is nie werklik vordering in die rigting van jou oortuigings nie. Ongeloofwaardig beteken letterlik “nie werd om geglo te word nie – of – verdien nie om geglo te word nie”

    Wat jy probeer se met jou relaas oor “geskep” en “gevormeer” is vir my totaal duister en ek sal liefs nie daarop kommentaar lewer nie.

    Sal maar vir oulaas vra: wat van daai voorbeelde? Die teenstrydighede wat jy vir ons kan verklaar sonder n beroep op simboliek?

    Shazee

    January 30, 2012 at 08:13

  477. Bullshit = Simbolies

    EricV

    January 30, 2012 at 05:20

  478. Hanswors, you keep dodging questions about your Holey Babble.

    Help us understand, please!

    After all, you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ.” So why don’t you demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding” with us?

    Which evasiveness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Still not enough self-stupration, eh? Oh, we GC&UPOO&TFs have it so hard, what with all you godiots’ and pseudogodiots’ demands!

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2012 at 22:27

  479. Malherbe, ek sou dink, dat julle al sou agter gekom het, dat ek nie glo soos ander sogenaamde Christenne nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 29, 2012 at 22:27

  480. Shazee, dit wil voorkom of ons nou vorder en wat is die ongeloofwaardige waarna jy verwys? Dit wat nie logies is nie, is simbolies en ons moet God dien met verstand.
    Wat die skeppingsverhale betref wil ek jou daarop wys, dat mens, man en vrou “geskep” is en Adam is “gevormeer”. Daar is duidelik ‘n verskil tussen “skep” en “vormeer”.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 29, 2012 at 22:23

  481. Con-Tester, you would like to change the subject because you don’t understand much when it is about the Bible.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 29, 2012 at 22:03

  482. Hans, daar is so baie vrae wat ek in my kinderlike onskuld aan jou wil vra, synde jy die bybel so goed ken en die rêêêêrige, werlike interpretasie vir ons kan ontsluit. As jy egter nie eens kan reageer op Shazee en Con Tester se relatief eenvoudige versoeke nie, gaan ek maar eers wag. My vrae het ek as 17jarige aan Oom Dominee gevra en daarna by verskeie geleenthede aan die sg intelligensia in teologie. Sonder enige sukses. Dis nou as jy die standaard snert van “glo soos ‘n kind” en “eendag wanneer jy vrek sal alles onthul word”, nie as antwoorde reken nie.

    Malherbe

    January 29, 2012 at 14:38

  483. Amper vergeet ek weer, wat van daardie voorbeelde Hans?

    Shazee

    January 29, 2012 at 04:43

  484. Ja Hans, ek weet bome het nie n koning nodig nie en kan nie loop nie.
    Ek weet ook dooies word nie weer lewendig nie, donkies kan nie praat nie, een vis kan nie n menigte voed nie, mense kan nie op water loop nie, mense leer nie oombliklik n klomp tale aan nie, ens, ens.
    Maar wat is jou punt? Waarom kan jy gesonde verstand gebruik om in te sien dat sekere gebeurtenisse nie werklik kon plaasvind nie, maar dan besluit jy dat ander wat ewe ongeloofwaardig is het wel?
    Dit is wat ek bedoel, en dit bly steeds my vraag; op watter grondslag besluit jy dat n ongeloofwaardige of bloot onware gebeurtenis in die bybel bloot simbolies is? Dit kan duidelik nie gesonde verstand wees wat deurentyd logies toegepas word nie.
    Jy gee steeds flou en ontwykende antwoorde.

    Shazee

    January 29, 2012 at 04:31

  485. Hanswors, Google “inversion”. And “projection” as a psychological phenomenon. Learn something new. Please.

    Then maybe you’ll answer some questions, as unlikely as that seems. When you do, you’ll probably find others more receptive to your childish joke of “constructive discussion”.

    Which infantile naïveté reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More auto-stuprating needed? Okay. (Hmm, “stuprate.” Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.)

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2012 at 23:11

  486. EricV, al geestes probleem wat ek het, is, ek spook om ‘n constuktiewe gesprek met julle te voer oor wat in die Bybel staan.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2012 at 21:32

  487. Con-Tester, are you going to engage in constructive discussion or are you just waiting for an opportunity to make yourself look important?

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2012 at 21:28

  488. Shazee, jy en ek weet, dat in Rigters, waar dit praat van bome wat rondloop om ‘n koning te kies, moet simbolies wees. Bome kannie rondloop nie, ook nie praat nie en het ook nie ‘n koning nodig nie.
    Jy en ek weet, dat bye nie in ‘n vrot dooie leeu se kake, nes sal maak nie. Dit kan dus net simbolies wees.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2012 at 21:24

  489. EricV, ek dink jy is reg. Laat ek Mark Twain parafraseer: – suppose you are religious, and suppose you are an idiot, but wait, I repeat myself –

    Shazee

    January 28, 2012 at 16:20

  490. Vriende,
    Wanneer gaan julle besef dat geen ordentlike debat met Hans gevoer kan word nie.
    Soos ek al voorheen gese het is dat Hans ‘n geestesprobleem het. Hy sien al die onverklaarbare dinge in die bulshit boek as “geestellik”.

    EricV

    January 28, 2012 at 07:24

  491. Hanswors, it’s a Hanswors world you live in where insisting on decent and satisfactory answers to important questions constitutes bullying. Funny how you godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots always come up with essentially irrelevant accusations whenever things don’t quite go your way.

    Bottom line: Are you going to answer those questions or are you going to carry on evading? (That’s another on an ever-growing list of questions for ya. Get at ’em, dawg!)

    Which avoidance reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or do we need a bit more of that self-stuprating thingy? You can tell me ’cos I’m game. But are you?

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2012 at 00:09

  492. Hans, om met jou n redenasie te probeer voer is om soos jou kop in n groot marshmellow te druk. Amper vang jy my weer met jou ontwyking – wat van daai voorbeelde wat jy beweer jy het al vir CT opgeklaar?

    Shazee

    January 27, 2012 at 23:14

  493. Ag nee Hans man, tot jy kan insien dat dit n baie flou en ontwykende antwoord is.
    Watse kommen sense? Wie se kommen sense?
    Is kommen sense nie per definisie subjektief nie?

    Hoe definieer jy kommen sense – as dit nie sin maak nie of as daar n teenstrydigheid is, is dit net kommen sense dat dit simbolies of allegories uitgele moet word?

    Jy weet Hans, ek besef dat n debat oor die bybel of geloof met jou sinneloos is, maar ek is tog nuuskierig om te sien hoe ver jy sal gaan en hoe onlogies en absurd jy sal raak om die onverdedigbare te verdedig

    Hel ou maat, wil jy nie vir eenkeer net n oomblik stilstaan en vir jouself dink oor die goed nie?

    Shazee

    January 27, 2012 at 23:07

  494. Con-Tester, Boelsjit is seker goed vir die aarde waarop die saaier saai sodat die saad weelderig kan groei.
    Jy voer nooit ordentlik gesprek, jy probeer maar skok taktiek om ander van styk te bring en dit is boelie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 27, 2012 at 22:24

  495. Shazee, die antwoord is komen sense.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 27, 2012 at 22:18

  496. Hans, dit is nie dat ek iets spesifiek lettelik of simbolies verklaar wil he nie, dit is net dat ek wil weet hoe jy bepaal wat is letterlik en wat simbolies.
    Ek gaan nou vir eers nie vir jou vra om enigiets vir my simbolies of andersins te verklaar nie, al wat ek jou vra is – WAT IS DIE BASIS WAAROP JY BEPAAL WAT IS LETTERLIK EN WAT IS SIMBOLIES???
    Is jy regtig nie in staat om n eenvoudige vraag te antwoord nie? Op hoeveel verskillende maniere moet n mens die vraag vra voor jy die boodskap kry?
    Jy ontwyk die eenvoudige vraag nou al so lank met kak soos n gekerm vir “erkentelikheid” dat jy my nie kan verkwalik as ek dink jy is of onnosel of bloot oneerlik nie.

    As jy regtig nie die vraag wil antwoord nie, of as jy dit nie kan verstaan nie, gee dan ten minste een of twee teenstrydighede wat jy al bevredigend weerle het, assefokkenblieftog man. Wys my jy is nie so dom as wat jy gewoonlik klink nie.

    Shazee

    January 27, 2012 at 00:16

  497. Nee Hanswors, jy lees nie mooi nie. Shazee sê dat dit lyk asof jy kakbang vir my uitdaging is, nie vir my nie omdat ek nou kamstig ’n boelie is volgens sekere Hansworse van die wêreld. Dit is mos dan duidelik dat jy ’n antwoord op alles het, saak nie maak dat jou antwoorde van voor to agter boelsjit is…

    Which prevarication reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )…

    Con-Tester

    January 26, 2012 at 23:16

  498. Shazee, die woorde “wegneem” en byvoeg word in ‘n sekere boek gemeld en is op daardie boek vantoepassing. Die Bybel bestaan uit ‘n hele klomp boeke so wanneer jy iets lees, kyk dat jy dit reg verstaan.
    Paulus het nie die Bybelboeke bymekaar gesit nie en omdat hy met die Gees van God gevul is, is sy persoonlike denke nie ongoddelik nie en is daar dus nie ‘n teenstrydigheid nie. Lees ook 1 Kor. 11 en sien daar is ook dinge om letterlik op te neem daar. Paulus was deur God geinspireerd omdat hy met God se Gees gevul was.
    Ek is geen kakbang vir C-T, want ek is nie ‘n jong student, met geen lewensondervinding, wat hy kan boelie nie.
    Moet nie net iets aanneem nie want jy het iets gevra en ek het dit vir jou gegee en nou soek jy enige verskoning om nie erkentlik te wees nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2012 at 23:09

  499. “Drie,” eh Hanswors? 😆 “Drie”? Regtig, ou Hanswors?

      
    

    Go on, provide some date/time/thread references to those “drie”, ou Hanswors. You’ll be able to provide just one. Guaranteed. And for that one you just pulled some bullshit from your fundamental bodily orifice that fails to get to the point.

    Which is to say, Hanswors, that more than 400 contradictions in your Holey Babble still await your choice of a small subset for you to pick and address — if you can.

    Which unfilled promise reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Surely typing two or three letters isn’t a huge tax on your usual garrulity? Oooops, silly me…

    Con-Tester

    January 26, 2012 at 22:57

  500. Shazee, ek begin dink jy is die moroon omdat ek reeds die teendeel met drie van hulle gewys het waarop arme ou Con-Tester my nie kon weerlê nie. Moontlik was dit bietjie lank terug voordat jy hier aangesluit het dus hoekom kies jy nie een op ‘n slag om te bespreek. Probeer dan ook minsten erkentlik te wees en nie onerkentlik soos C-T.
    Die skeppingsverhale is nie letterlik nie en God gebruik dit wat vir ons sigbaar en bekend is as simbole om vir ons boodskappe te gee. Braak nou maar want jy en ek weet die Heelal is nie ses-duisend-jaar oud nie en as jy dit letterlik wil verklaar, hê dan is jy sekerlik die moroon.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2012 at 22:51

  501. No Hanswors, I don’t know what you are talking about. That’s because what you have just written is a load of incomprehensible babble in dire need of clarification.

    Which gobbledegook reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Some intelligibility would be good.

    Con-Tester

    January 26, 2012 at 22:47

  502. Con-Tester, A so called contradiction still stands, entirely absent.
    God is almighty yet does not force His will on anybody. God is the “Word” and by the spoken “Word” we are transformed. Heaven and earth shall pass but the “Word” not and therefore God is not limited. When you refer to a “Skydaddy” you imply a graven image, so it it clear you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2012 at 22:33

  503. Ag jirre tog Hans, ek probeer nie die gesprek wegstuur van enigiets nie.
    As ek reg onthou het ek jou sover probeer kry om tog net n deel in die bybel te noem waar daar nie n teenstrydigheid is wat sonder simboliek verklaar kan word nie.

    Vind jy geen teenstrydigheid daarin dat Paulus sy eie opinie gee, wat hy duidelik stel nie van god af kom nie, in n geskrif wat veronderstel is om god se geinspireerde woord te wees waarvan niks weggeneem of bygevoeg mag word nie?

    Vind jy geen teenstrydigheid daarin dat hy sekere goed toelaat en dit duidelik stel dat hy dit op sy eie gesag doen en dat dit nie van god af kom nie?

    Ek neem aan jy het hierdie deel gekies omdat jy geglo het dit is die veiligste wat jy kan vind. Miskien is dit, maar as dit is, verstaan ek waarom jy so “kakbang” is vir CT se uitdaging.

    Shazee

    January 25, 2012 at 23:16

  504. Hanswors, just in case it’s too much effort to scroll up a few comments, kry vir jou hier. That’s the link. The blue, underlined text. Yet again. Go clicky-clicky on it. Pick some. As unlikely as it seems, you might yet learn something new about your Holey Babble.

    Which abject lethargy remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? I guess it’s more auto-stuprate for this GC&UPOO&TF…🙄

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2012 at 23:06

  505. Hans, ek begin dink jy is n moroon.
    Het Con -Tester nie al vir jou n link gegee waar jy meer as 400 teenstrydighede kan kry om van te kies nie? Het hy jou nie al herhaaldelik uitgenooi om self n paar te kies wat jy wil bespreek nie?

    Jy rig nou kastig die uitdaging maar jy weier self halstarrig om enige vraag reguit te beantwoord
    Wat gaan aan met jou man?

    Ek se jou wat; ek sal jou uitdaging aanvaar (nie namens CT nie, hy het nie my hulp nodig nie) .
    Verduidelik die twee teenstrydige skeppingsverhale in Genisis, en as jy weer vir my simboliek gee braak ek op my bybel.

    En terwyl jy daarmee besig is verduidelik vir my hoe de donner al die diere op die ark gekom het – onthou – daar was sewe van elke soort, behalwe van die onrein diere waarvan daar net twee was.

    Asseblief Hans, as jy my weer die simboliek kak vertel gaan ek soos n jagse wolf vir die maan sit en tjank

    Shazee

    January 25, 2012 at 22:52

  506. … which stupefying deficiencies remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or must I do more of this stuprate thing? (Hmm, “stuprate.” Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.)

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2012 at 22:49

  507. That you or I can’t fully control how our children will turn out, Hanswors, is obvious and perfectly understandable. After all, neither of us is almagtig, alwetend, alomteenwoordig or oneindig liefdadig. (Then again, you seem to think of yourself as alwetend concerning your Holey Babble.) Because we’re limited, we can’t know or guide our children to be as we wish; indeed, because we’re limited, we can’t even choose what sort of children we make.

    On the other hand, Hanswors, your skydaddy is almagtig, alwetend, alomteenwoordig and oneindig liefdadig — at least if you believe your Holey Babble. That means he’s not limited and can make whatever he wants to and know how it’ll work out. So, your skydaddy fucked it all up, either directly or by proxy. “Evolution” doesn’t really explain anything either. Why would your skydaddy deliberately and knowingly disadvantage prior generations just so he can improve things later? Or for that matter why deliberately and knowingly make an imperfect world to begin with that would later need to change and still not be perfect?

    As for the dictionary, Hanswors, it doesn’t give a functional definition of “spirit”/”spiritual” that distinguishes clearly and unambiguously between the presence and absence of those things as anything other than illusive brain states.

    But you’re right about one thing, Hanswors: I don’t believe in the factual claims of your Holey Babble. That’s because you have yet to furnish even just one vaguely convincing reason for anyone doing so.

    So you see Hanswors, my questions — all of them — still stand, entirely unanswered.

    Will you answer them with greater care and less evasion?

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2012 at 22:46

  508. Malherbe, jy kom baie onvolwasse voor. Is jy al uit die skool uit? Dit klink of jy bederf is om te dink dat jy als in die lewe kan koop.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 25, 2012 at 22:42

  509. Shazee, ek wys jou ‘n hoofstuk wat letterlik vertolk moet word, op jou versoek en jy erken dit nie maar probeer die gesprek daarvanaf wegdraai deur Paulus se inset te bevraagteken.
    Dit was glad nie ‘n pypdroom om die boeke van die Bybel tot stand te bring nie. Ek sien weer goeie waarde in die versies, maar ag, ek het vergeet. Jy is nog blind en daarom is die versies vir jou niksseggend.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 25, 2012 at 22:38

  510. Con-Tester, you nurture your children to become good people, yet if they turn bad when they are grown up, what can you say? I mean, look at yourself! You are well schooled, yet you don’t accept what the dictionary says, what the Bible says or what anybody says. I wonder if you even believe yourself? Your question of why did my Jesus …? Evolution, something you also believe in, maybe?
    Why don’t you mention a so called contradiction so that we can try and have a discussion.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 25, 2012 at 22:20

  511. Halllluuuuujaaaa! Bring die bruilifkleed (sic)sodat die BOEK openbaar kan word. Is hierdie kleed te koop in Pep Stores Hans?

    Malherbe

    January 25, 2012 at 08:31

  512. Why did your Jeeeeebusssst! have to come with a new dispensation, Hanswors? Is it because your hemelpappa fucked it up the first time around, directly or by proxy? (The proxy, of course, being putting humans with free will in the world.) For an almagtige, alwetende, alomteenwoordige hemelpappa, that’s a pretty fucking brain-dead move to make, don’t you think? I mean, if you were an almagtige, alwetende, alomteenwoordige hemelpappa, you’d think a bit more carefully—with every ounce of almagtigheid, alwetendheid and alomteenwoordigheid — about how you’d construct the world, wouldn’t you?

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 23:29

  513. Hans, ek het jou versies gelees en ek sien dit praat van vleeslike en geestelike.
    Ek is amper in die versoeking om vir jou te vra wat vleeslike en geestelike nou eintlik beteken, maar ek is bang vir die simboliese verduideliking.
    Ek en jy het die gesprek al n wyle terug begin en ek wag nog vir jou objektiewe bewys dat die bybel enige iets anders is as iemand (verskeie iemande) se pypdroom.
    Sal ons eers daar begin voordat jy my met die niksseggende en onsamehangende versies van iets probeer oortuig?

    Shazee

    January 24, 2012 at 23:27

  514. Malherbe, die Bybel is op so wyse geskryf sodat as jy nie jou gesindheid (ou kleed uittrek en bruilifkleed aantrek) wil verander nie, jy nie eers die Koninkryk van God sal sien nie, wat nog van ingaan.
    Jy spook nog met die ou verbond (wette van Moses) terwyl Jesus al ‘n nuwe verbond gebring het. Jy vra die vrae van die skrifgeleerdes ens. Vir jou wil ek sê, dat as een nie tyd eenkant hou om God te dien en te verheerlik sodat jy saam kan deel aan Sy heerlikheid. Dan sal jy sterwe, wat jou geloof betref en nie deel aan Sy heerlikheid nie. Dit is die logiese gevolge en paslike straf.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 24, 2012 at 23:20

  515. …which vacuous failure reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 23:15

  516. Romans 8:5-6 (KJV):

    5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

    6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

    Fuck, yeah! That answers everything. If only I’d known. What is “Spirit”, Hanswors? What is “spiritually”, Hanswors? Can you give a functional definition that distinguishes clearly and unambiguously between the presence and absence of these things as anything other than illusive brain states, Hanswors? If yes, please do so, and soon please. Enquiring minds want to know, Hanswors!

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 23:14

  517. Shazee, ek sien jy is nou letterlik en figuurlik deurmekaar wat ‘n atiës nie eers sal kan meet nie.
    God het nog altyd ‘n mens gebruik om tot ‘n ander mens te praat, want God is die “Woord”.
    Ek glo nie in stemme nie, want ek sien daar het ‘n paar sogenaamde Christelike gelowe al ontstaan deur ouens wat op heuwels geloop het, tussen bome en stemme gehoor het. Persoonlik dink ek, hulle het nie hulle medikasie geneem nie en nou volg baie mense skidsofrene, want hulle hoor mos stemme.
    Aangesien jy nou ‘n reël soek, lees Rom. 8 v 5 en 6.
    Ek het nou nie die Bybel se boeke saamgestel nie en tog dink ek wat Paulus daar sê is van pas omdat hy met die Heilige Gees gelei is, in sy denke aangaande die huwelik. Het jy dalk ‘n probleem met wat hy daar sê?
    Ek mis nie jou punt nie en dink net Atiëste kan baie kla en tog doen hulle nie iets vir hulle self nie, om dan net op ‘n vuilishoop te sit en soos leë blikke te raas.
    1Pe 1:9 en die einddoel van julle geloof, die saligheid van julle siele, verkry.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 24, 2012 at 22:59

  518. Daar is natuurlik n doel agter die verwarring omtrent wat letterlik en wat figuurlik in die bybel is.
    Hoe meer verward en deermekaar jy is, hoe nader is jy aan pappa , “sonny boy” en die heilige spook.
    Kyk maar na sy(hulle) self aangestelde gesante op aarde.

    Shazee

    January 24, 2012 at 22:22

  519. Ai Hans, soveel van ‘n geknoop het ek lanklaas teegekom. Al ooit gedink hoe jou argumente in ‘n hof sal klink? Gestel jy was ‘n prokureur wat iemand moet verdedig (vreesaanjaende gedagte)en jy gebruik die tegnieke wat jy deurgaans op hierdie draad so lustig toepas:

    Hanswors: Nee Edelagbare, my klient het dit net simbolies bedoel toe hy gedreig het om die klaagster dood te steek.
    Regter: So hy wou haar eintlik nie steek nie?
    Hanswors: Nee, hy wou maar nie met die mes die.
    Regter: So hy wou haar eintlik verkrag.
    Hanswors: Nee, hy wou haar letterlik dood hê maar slegs teen die agtergrond van die simboliek van sy tradisies.
    Regter: En hoe wou hy dit doen?
    Hanswors: Deur haar te steek. Figuurlike bedoel natuurlik.
    Regter: Natuurlik. So hoekom het hy ‘n mes in die hand gehad?
    Hanswors: Die mes, Edelagbare, is ‘n simbool van manlikheid, want dit gee gewoonlik aanleiding tot ‘n gestekery.
    Beskuldigde: Jo Onah, ek soekie hierie hanswors vir prokarier nie. Gee my daai mes lat ek hom wys wat letterlik betieken.

    Hanswors, hoekom het die skrywers van die bybel dit nie duidelik gestel watter gedeeltes letterlik of simbolies bedoel word nie? Dit sou die verwarring tog sekerlik oplos? Nog ‘n vraag: jou bybel stel dit onomwonde dat houtoptel op Sondae met die dood strafbaar is. Jou liewe jesus stel dit onomwonde dat elke “jota en tittel” van die skrif voltrek sal word, dat “dit vir ewig staan”. Verduidelik asb die simboliek ( my aannname) van die opdrag van doodstraf vir houtoptelopsondag. Tweedens, dink jy dit was ‘n regverdige/gepaste straf vir hierdie “sonde”?

    Malherbe

    January 24, 2012 at 10:37

  520. Hans, jou ontwykendste antwoorde is soms die insiggewenste.
    Jy erken dus nou daar is nie reels omtrent die verklaring van skrifgedeeltes nie, of by implikasie eintlik net een reel: ek kan dit maar opmaak soos ek aangaan.
    Se my, hoe openbaar god sy “wysheid” aan jou om te weet watter dele simbolies is? Is dit n stem in jou kop wat se – “o fok, hulle het al weer n deel gekry wat nie sin maak nie,gou,gryp na nog n onsinnige simboliese verklaring” –
    Se my Hans, hoekom hoor ek nie ook hierdie stem nie? As god my n bietjie insig en wysheid gee kan ek mos ook gered word. O, wag n bietjie, nou onthou ek weer – ek glo nie en daarom wil hy nie met my praat nie – baie volwasse houding vir die skepper van die heelal; ” hierdie fokkers wil mos nie glo nie en nou gaan ek hulle vir ewig braai, dit sal die donners leer! ”

    Jy het in elk geval nie my vraag geantwoord nie. Wat soek Paulus se persoonlike opinie in die bybel? Moet ook nie vir my se hy is n “gesant van god” nie. Hy se uitdruklik dat dit sy eie mening is en hy se uitdruklik dat dit nie van god af kom nie. En verder, as dit sy eie (baie vreemde en verdagte) opinie omtrent seksuele verhoudings en die huwelik is, waarom steur gelowiges hulle daaraan?

    Jy mis ook (soos gewoonlik) my punt oor die putatiewe atteistiese onderwyser. Die punt is dat ons nie werklik n begeerte het om ons siening op iemand af te dwing nie, ons kom bloot in opstand daarteen dat ander hulle self die reg toe-eien om hulle kranksinnige bygelowe op ons en ons kinders af te dwing.

    Laat ek jou sommer nog n vraag vra – as jy nie glo dat Genesis letterlik opgeneem moet word nie, soos jy erken jy nie glo nie, wat is die punt van jou geloof? Kan jy nog tred hou met al die rasionaliserings?

    Shazee

    January 24, 2012 at 03:25

  521. Rather attend to some long-overdue questions, Hanswors.

    Which GC&UPOO&TF’s suggestion reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2012 at 23:03

  522. Malherbe, dit wil voorkom of jy nou bedreig voel, nou dat jy bietjie opdraend kry van een wat in Christus glo en lewe. Siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    January 23, 2012 at 23:01

  523. Hanswors, you really shouldn’t use terms like “constructive debate” the meaning of which you clearly haven’t the first or foggiest idea of.

    Which ignorance reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? There’s a curious GC&UPOO&TFs who can’t stand the uncertainty. Auto-stuprating can only satisfy for so long, you know.

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2012 at 23:00

  524. Shazee, onthou dat Paulus ‘n gesant van God was en was dus maar ‘n instrument, wat die gesindheid van Christus geopenbaar het, al het hy raad gegee aangaande vleeslike belange.
    Mens moet maar insig kry volgens wysheid wat van God is en nie reëls om te weet wanneer die Bybelgedeelte simbolies is of nie. ( Luk 24:45 Toe open Hy hulle verstand om die Skrifte te verstaan.)
    BT moet maar leer om nie Con ernstig op te neem as hy God/ Jesus of ons persoon sleg sê want dit is maar ‘n Atiës se vernaamste wapen as hulle nie konstruktiewe debat kan voer nie of voel hulle kom nou tweede in die debat en hulle is nie bereid om erkentlik te wees nie.
    Het Atiëste dan nog nie hulle eie skool en Radiostasie tot stand gebring nie of mors hulle miskien teveel tyd ens. om Christenne te probeer afkraak?
    Dit kom vir my voor of Atiëste onder ‘n non-god delusion verkeer, wat veroorsaak dat hulle baie kan sê en skryf en tog vir hulle self niks tot stand kan bring. Dink net, jy sou kon skool gee in ‘n Atiëste onderwys hoedanigheid.
    Die doodmaak saak is gladnie wat Jesus ens. verkondig het of as voorbeeld gelewe het nie, dus enigeen wat so optree is nie werklik ‘n Christen nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 23, 2012 at 22:54

  525. So Hanswors, your suggestive and amusing evasion regarding female genitalia aside, will you address my questions? Me repeating myself is merely a reflection of you repeatedly dodging my concerns. So go on Hanswors, give it a whirl. Any 40 of your choice out of more than 400 is a good deal for you!

    Which bargain reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Enquiring GC&UPOO&TFs want to know, auto-stuprating commands notwithstanding!

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2012 at 22:26

  526. Con-Tester, you seem to be getting on in years as you do repeat yourself a lot. I can never regard you as a cunt, as one can give and get much pleasure from a cunt.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 23, 2012 at 22:13

  527. Malherbe, jy slaan die spyker op die kop. Ander mense het die reg om wat hulle glo in jou kind se kop te probeer inprent en jy moet tevrede wees om “damage control” na die tyd te doen??
    Wie redeneer so? Wat is daarin om te moet respekteer met n geballanseerde waarheid?

    Gestel ek is n onderwyser wat elke laaste dag vir die graad 1 klas voor my van my atteistiese lewensbeskouing vertel en dan as die ouers kla redeneer dat hulle vry is om na skool n balans daaraan te probeer gee – kan jy jou dit voorstel? Hoe lank skat jy voor ek doodsdreigemente kry en ontslaan word? Nie omdat ek kinders aanmoedig om gevaarlike en skadelike nonsens te glo nie,nee, bloot omdat ek hulle sou wou leer om vir hulle self te dink en dat n mens nie enige nonsens sonder n bietjie objektiewe bewys hoef te sluk nie.

    Ek gee regtig nie om as iemand glo dat daar kabouters in sy tuin woon nie, maar ek maak beswaar daarteen as hy wil he ek moet die geloof respekteer in die sin dat hy die reg het om my kinders daarmee te indoktrineer of dat hy my (in eksteme gevalle) maar mag minag of selfs doodmaak bloot omdat ek nie sy kabouters wil aanbid nie.

    Shazee

    January 23, 2012 at 11:20

  528. Ja Shazee, meeste van dit wat jy noem, het ek al male sonder tal ondervind. Wonder wat sal gebeur as ek in ‘n gesprek sou noem dat Gert of Piet, so ‘n “goeie ateis is”. Die Krisjuns doen dit heeltyd. Ons moet alewig hoor watter “mooi krisjun” die of daai ou is. “Voete plat oppie aarde” – so asof jy net goed kan wees as jy in gotte glo.

    Malherbe

    January 23, 2012 at 09:32

  529. Con Tester makes a valid point with regard to this blog being an atheist blog, where the religious hansworse are allowed to post their incoherent drivel with no censoreship. This is obviously how it should be, but have you ever tried to post an atheist argument on a religious-inclined site? Good luck with that one. Now why would that be? My question to Mr Balance-on-the-Draad: Why would the intolerance displayed by my example above be any different to the religously-indoctrinated world at large? If they do not allow my viewpoint on their site, what leads you to believe that they would tolerate non-believers in society?

    Do you really think it is fair on a 7-year old child to (as you put it: “….you can also teach your child to exercise the required discretion that will be invaluable in a million other ways throughout his or her life.”) to have to decide between his teacher’s (in many childrens minds a hero)viewpoint and that of his parents. This against the background of the fact that 85% of his classmates will listen to Miss Moron while eagerly nodding heads. You think this is fair? If this is the case, you are not only a Draadsitter, but a cruel one at that.

    Malherbe

    January 23, 2012 at 09:22

  530. Ghastly cunt…heh,heh….fokken snaaks.

    Ja,nee, dit is ongelooflik dat atteiste, nuut of oud, daarvan beskuldig word dat hulle n agenda het wat hulle in ander mense se kele wil afdruk – praat van die pot wat die ketel swart noem.

    Wie is dit wat gereelde rubrieke in die koerante het – goeie nuus,woord onderweg, ens, ens.
    Wie is dit wat die vermetelheid het om vir jou te vertel dat jy moet besef dit is n christelike skool as jy jou kind by n model-c skool inskryf? Wie is dit wat elke dag die skooldag met gebed open?
    Wie het eindelose godsdienstige radio en Tv stasies (ja ek weet ek hoef dit nie te kyk nie, en ek doen ook nie gewoonlik nie behalwe as ek verveeld is en op soek is na entertainment)

    Wie is dit wat my kom vra om asb nie ” The god delusion” op hulle perseel te sit en lees terwyl my kar gediens word nie -het hom by the way in sy moer gestuur.

    Is dit nie so dat daar biskoppe in die Britse parlement sit nie?

    En ek druk my agenda in iemand se keel af?? – my fok!

    Shazee

    January 23, 2012 at 00:05

  531. It’s interesting to examine how “balanced” and “true” is the allegation that among “New” atheists, there is “the emotional need to push the true facts down [believers’] respective throats.”

    At the risk of pointing out the manifestly obvious, this right here is an atheist blog. I must be blind, ’cos I don’t see any atheists being marshalled to adopt a recant-or-die agenda, being sent out on a campaign (or volunteering) to conquer and convert the world by pointing guns at anyone’s head. Everything would be hunky-dory but for the apparently interminable procession of religiot/crediot/godiot/bibliot/apologiot dupes who feel it is their god-given duty to come and smear their childish and empty-headed shit all over this blog (without first bothering to read an appreciable portion of it), in order to try to turn “Da Eeeebil Aytists” away from “Da Parf of Inikwitty.” You don’t have to look too hard to see that vocal atheism is a reaction to an onslaught of brain-dead unreason, or where the proselytisations actually begin.

    Those who are not able to see the above, moreover, surely haven’t experienced the ostracism, the blind contempt or the condescension freely dished out by religious family and acquaintances upon an honest and open declaration of disbelief, which constitutes another reason for opposing religion wherever possible — in fact, it’s exactly the same ostracism, blind contempt and condescension we have witnessed so often here on this blog. The arrogant religiot/crediot/godiot/bibliot/apologiot rocks up here (bullishly invading the territory of another) and presumes to call the shots. Then again, what do I know? I’m just “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck” who should, by all rational accounts, “continue to stuprate himself wholly unhindered by [another]”.

    Oh, and in Japan before and during the war years, the emperor was considered to be a descendent of the gods incarnate. Yes, a descendent of the gods. The “duty” felt by his subjects towards him was therefore patently religious.

    Which neglected facts remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Come, come. Throw “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck” a bone already!

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 23:21

  532. Hans, dit is nie dat ek blindelings glo dat daar niks in die bybel is wat simbolies verklaar kan word nie, dit is net dat ek wil weet op watter basis jy (of enigiemand) besluit wat is simbolies en wat is letterlik. Jy kan seker die verskil insien ne?

    Ek stem saam dat jy persoonlik nie my vyand is nie en ek wens jou geen teenspoed toe nie. Dit is egter nie die punt nie, die punt is dat dit wat jy blindelings en uiters onredelik glo, baie, baie gevaarlik en skadelik is.

    Jy se 1 Kor 7 kan ek maar letterlik opneem?
    Ok – 1 Kor 7:6 – Paulus se dat hy self iets toelaat, en dat dit nie n gebod is nie (let wel, Paulus laat dit toe, nie god nie)
    1 Kor 7:12 – Paulus se dat hy self dit se, en nie die here nie.
    Vergelyk dit nou met 2 Tim 3:16 waar daar staan dat die hele skrif deur god ingegee is.
    As alles in die bybel god se onfeilbare woord is, wat maak Paulus se persoonlike opinie omtrent die huwelik daarin? Waar kom hy dan vandaan om iets toe te laat of nie?

    Terloops; dit lyk darrem asof Con – Tester iets beet het met BT dat hy nou so kleinserig begin raak. N mens se ware kleure kom seker maar onder druk uit ne?

    Shazee

    January 22, 2012 at 23:07

  533. So Hanswors, since you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ,” why don’t you demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding”? I’ve told you that you can pick whichever of those contradictions you want to. Why is this giving you such difficulty? It’s almost as dense as not being to supply a simple yes-or-no answer to a very simple question.

    Why don’t you want to prove me wrong when I say your Holey Babble is a collection of fairytales, Hanswors? Why do you keep saying that nobody can prove you wrong about your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why won’t you, by exactly the same standard, not make an effort to prove those wrong who disagree with you, Hanswors? Why do you keep dodging those contradictions in your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why, in short, won’t you answer anyone’s questions, Hanswors?

    Is it maybe because you also consider me to be “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck,” this being the sort of fanatically-expressed opinion one reserves for those who have your number and who can see straight through you? Would you perhaps also — self-contradictorily, please note — like me to “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you]”?

    Which giggle-inducing rant reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 21:54

  534. So Hanswors, since you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ,” why don’t you demonstrate

    Why don’t you want to prove me wrong when I say your Holey Babble is a collection of fairytales, Hanswors? Why do you keep saying that nobody can prove you wrong about your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why won’t you, by exactly the same standard, not make an effort to prove those wrong who disagree with you, Hanswors? Why do you keep dodging those contradictions in your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why, in short, won’t you answer anyone’s questions, Hanswors?

    Is it maybe because you also consider me to be “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck,” this being the sort of fanatically-expressed opinion one reserves for those who have your number and who can see straight through you? Would you perhaps also — self-contradictorily, please note — like me to “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you]”?

    Which giggle-inducing rant reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 21:47

  535. Malherbe, you appear incapable of contributing an opinion in regard to the subjects under discussion so all you can do, is reveal the crap in your brain. I suppose one doesn’t need to be very cleaver to realize that fact.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 22, 2012 at 21:47

  536. Balanced Truths, I think Atheism is not only a conclusion but also a confusion.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 22, 2012 at 21:36

  537. Con-Tester, I have known people who can quote Bible verse because of their great knowledge of the Bible and when it comes to understanding those verses quoted, they are at a loss. I may not know the Bible as those I have referred to, yet I have a greater understanding thereof and I am not boasting in myself, as it is the Gift of Christ.
    I have no intention of proving anybody wrong or making deals with anybody as I would rather share my understanding of what is written in the Bible with others so you may quote the so called contradiction, one at a time please.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 22, 2012 at 21:29

  538. Ha ha ha Hanswors, what a fuckin’ joke! “[J]y glo blindelings dat die Bybel onverklaarbaar is en jy glo blindelings dat daar nie simboliek in die Bybel is nie.” Where did you get that from!? Shazee is asking you to explain it!

    Which misrepresentation reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 21:17

  539. Shazee, jy glo blindelings dat die Bybel onverklaarbaar is en jy glo blindelings dat daar nie simboliek in die Bybel is nie. Gaan lees ook 1 Kor. 7, want dit is letterlik. Ek stel nie belang in uitdagings nie, want jy is tog nie my vyand nie. Ons verskil maar net in denke van mekaar en ruil maar ons verskillende denke aan mekaar uit. Terloops, ek dink jou geld is veilig as jy liewer nie weddenskappe aangegaan het nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 22, 2012 at 21:08

  540. Bad Con-Tester, bad! Leaving away that verb! Maybe you should take a leaf from ol’ Bollocksed Goofs’ (😆😳 ) book. I mean, for someone who’s such a beacon of reason and enlightenment, he sure likes to put the shine on people.

    Which hypocrisy reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 19:58

  541. Bad Con-Tester, bad! Leaving away that definite article! Maybe you should a leaf from ol’ Bollocksed Goofs’ (😆😳 ) book. I mean, for someone who disdains the ol’ ad hominem, he sure delivers a most amusing barrage of contumely.

    Which inconsistency reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 19:55

  542. Oh dear, the Master Fallacymonger-cum-Chief-Distorter strikes once more. Looks like practice does indeed make perfect.

    Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), some corrections for ya:
    • “straightforward”;
    • “thought”;
    • “Internet”;
    • “led”;
    • “Learner’s”;
    • “postmodern”;
    • Your opinion of me is as hilarious as your reasoning abilities and fragile attention;
    • No, you are only source of postmodern drivel.

    Besides all of which, I can see just how thoroughly he’s “rest[ing his] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [him]”…

    Which source reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 19:44

  543. BT, thank you for wishing me happiness.
    You keep on calling me an atheist (I see I have now graduated to new atheist) as though it is supposed to be some kind of insult – once again, thanks for the compliment.
    You really should try to get it into your head that I regard myself as an atheist openly and proudly, we have been through this before, haven’t we? Jy moet regtig probeer fokus ouboet.

    Would you mind pointing out the specific lies and exaggerations that I have employed in achieving my “political” goals?

    You really should stop suppressing your fundie hankerings, it is making you sound more and more confused as you go along.

    Shazee

    January 22, 2012 at 19:40

  544. MacMillan Dictionary:

    demonise – thesaurus entry

    a British spelling of demonize

    *Synonyms or related words for this sense of demonise*

    To harm someone’s reputation: discredit, slander, taint, bruise, stain, smear, disgrace, cast aspersions (on), blacken someone’s reputation/name/character, knock someone off their pedestal…

    Balanced Truths

    January 22, 2012 at 19:33

  545. de·mon·ize

    de·mon·ize [dmə nz]
    (past and past participle de·mon·ized, present participle de·mon·iz·ing, 3rd person present singular de·mon·iz·es)
    vt
    cause to appear evil to others: to cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others

    Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Balanced Truths

    January 22, 2012 at 19:19

  546. Hi Nathan, hope you are having a splendid Sunday. I am aware that you would most likely not have been endeavouring to join and enjoying the local Church service this lovely afternoon, or evening, whenever they are held, so I though to share with you, as you are a literary genius, something that I found on the internet that I thought was quite interesting, it seems the online Oxford dictionary seems to describe the word Demonise as: “[with object] portray as wicked and threatening. They give the example: “he was demonized by the right-wing press”.

    This amazing discovery was what lead me to investigate another reputable source the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, they had this to say:

    demonize verb (British English also -ise)

    demonize somebody/something
    to describe somebody/something in a way that is intended to make other people think of them or it as evil or dangerous.

    This just blew my mind because apparently according to another participant on this blog whom I, and this is only my personal opinion, think is a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck, that may continue to stuprate himself wholly unhindered by me, came to the preposterous conclusion that the Oxford dictionary is a source of post modern drivel.

    Oh well, just thought I would mention it, as always, thanks for listening.

    xxx

    Balanced Truths

    January 22, 2012 at 19:14

  547. Malherbe

    January 22, 2012 at 11:25

    BT, how the heck can you, after your last post, still call yourself truthful?

    Easily

    Are you blind?

    No

    Do you live on the moon?

    No, the moon has no atmosphere and I have no means to escape earth’s gravity, besides, even if I could, I don’t have a suit.

    Surely it should not be necessary to point out how religion is enforced and impacts (negatively)on society in general on a daily basis?

    Wearing your seatbelt is enforced, where, please, is religion enforced. Have you received any fines, or jail time for not believing?

    Why is it necessary for me to go to a government (secular) school and ask that my child not be taught abut heaven and hell?

    It isn’t really, you can take an interest in your child’s upbringing and counter these naive viewpoints, you can also teach your child to exercise the required discretion that will be invaluable in a million other ways throughout his or her life.

    Are you aware that some companies in SA opens their working week with prayers on a Monday morning?

    Yes, but I have never seen it cause any real harm, deluded as it may be.

    Shazee’s questions are valid and by dodging it with a “atheism is a conclusion” answer, is simply dishonest.

    I don’t see how I dodged that question at all, in fact my answer is pretty straight forward and it remains.

    Nobody stated there is a “theist lurking behind every corner”, but you must be ignorant to the extreme not to see how religion is forced upon society and the consequences for so-called out-of-the-closet non-believers. If this was not true, why is it necessary for many of my friends who diligently uphold the facade of christian belief, to whisper behind their hand that actually they agree with my views, but “keep it between us, because it won’t go down well with the wife or the boss or friends or the hunting club, or, or ….”?

    I beg to differ regarding the first, but, as for the rest, there will always be sensitive demented people to whom you cannot say things that are perfectly logical or absolutely true simply because it will clash with their blind convictions, however, just because they are unreasonable or deluded does not give you the right to act on the emotional need to push the true facts down their respective throats, anymore than you get to slap them in the face without suffering the consequences.
    Religion is not healthy, granted, it is definitely a problem, blind faith is a crutch to the majority of the human race, but, it is not the Demon you try to make it out to be, that is your new atheist version, and a dubious one at that.

    I would like to humbly suggest that you change your name, because you are giving Truth a bad name. Likewise Balanced. May I suggest Apologist Draadsitter? perhaps?

    You may suggest all you like for what good it will do you.

    Balanced Truths

    January 22, 2012 at 18:49

  548. Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) wrote (January 22, 2012 at 09:19):

    Demonise is a term that has nothing to do with whether or not demons exist…

    Nathan, this blog seriously needs a giant LOL emoticon, preferably also readily usable in groups of twelve. The above gem not only precisely explains the etymology of the term, it also is so admirably postmodern as to meet all the usual criteria of “balance” and “truth”…🙄

      
    

    (Remember that postmodernism is the subtle art of making words mean whatever you want them to mean at any given moment because postmodernism holds that the Ding an sich — thing in itself, the real reality — of the world is inaccessible to us, and all we are and can be privy to is the world as filtered by our senses and as coloured by the totality of our prior perceptions.)

    But here is the full and complete dictionary entry (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Sixth Edition, 1976):

    dē´monīze, -īse (-īz), v.t. Make into or like, represent as, demon. [f. DEMON + -IZE]

    Now if “demon” has no precise referent, then “demonise” is an empty term. But the same dictionary speaks only of “evil spirit”, “devil” and “(malignant) supernatural being” in relation to the word “demon”. The existence of those things as anything other than imaginative constructs or delusions is hardly proved, and so “demon” has no clear and proper real-world referent. Thus, “demonise” looks suspiciously like a hollow contrivance.

    Which hollowness and concomitant noisiness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 14:30

  549. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

      
    

    Found out. Once more. By yet another. Too precious. That avatar’s not wearing shades, it’s a blindfold.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 11:45

  550. Shazee, Hanswors is indeed a hanswors and not a very clever one at that. The only question is whether he was born that way or if religion is to blame for the current state of the substance in his cranial cavity. But he certainly has some comic value. Not the Monty Python-type humor though, more like Leon Schuster slapstick. Puts a smile on the face like a monkey in the zoo or the clown slipping on a banana peel. As for Sunday morning entertainment, it certainly beats the hell out of sitting in a church and howling to the gotte.

    Malherbe

    January 22, 2012 at 11:38

  551. BT, how the heck can you, after your last post, still call yourself truthful? Are you blind? Do you live on the moon? Surely it should not be necessary to point out how religion is enforced and impacts (negatively)on society in general on a daily basis? Why is it necessary for me to go to a government (secular) school and ask that my child not be taught abut heaven and hell? Are you aware that some companies in SA opens their working week with prayers on a Monday morning?

    Shazee’s questions are valid and by dodging it with a “atheism is a conclusion” answer, is simply dishonest. Nobody stated there is a “theist lurking behind every corner”, but you must be ignorant to the extreme not to see how religion is forced upon society and the consequences for so-called out-of-the-closet non-believers. If this was not true, why is it necessary for many of my friends who diligently uphold the facade of christian belief, to whisper behind their hand that actually they agree with my views, but “keep it between us, because it won’t go down well with the wife or the boss or friends or the hunting club, or, or ….”?

    I would like to humbly suggest that you change your name, because you are giving Truth a bad name. Likewise Balanced. May I suggest Apologist Draadsitter? perhaps?

    Malherbe

    January 22, 2012 at 11:25

  552. Shazee

    January 14, 2012 at 21:04

    Why is it necessary for an atheist to come out of the closet – I mean, why should he have found it necessary to be in the closet in the first place?

    Atheism is a conclusion, nothing more, just that, the new angry atheist has an urge to force this conclusion on others in the absence of any concrete data or proof that this conclusion is in deed one hundred percent correct for said others.

    Is it perhaps because these harmless eccentrics mean us no harm?
    Why should anybody have to fear to state an unbelieve in anything? Is it because of the tolerance of the religious parhaps?

    I find this preposterous notion that there is a theist lurking around every corner, biding their time to attack a poor innocent atheist just because said atheist has chosen to see through their dogma and blind beliefs, hilarious, really scary stuff that! No one should have to fear to state an unbelief in anything, and as far as I can see no one has to either. I have not read a single article in my local newspaper of anyone being lynched because they did so.

    Someone once said that the term atheist should not even exist, after all, there is no term for someone who does not believe in faeries.

    Quite so, but you will change that for us won’t you, this new atheist movement has already changed that for us.

    An atheist cannot, per difinition, demonise anything as we believe in demons as little as we believe in gods. If by demonise you actually mean that we point out the harm that blind faith causes, then, guilty as charged, and gladly so.

    Demonise is a term that has nothing to do with whether or not demons exist, that should be apparent to anyone, who is willing to be honest, but you seem to be getting the hang of this new atheist way of arguing. No Shazee, be honest, demonise means you whish to cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others, so much so that you are willing to employ lies and exaggerations, political strategies, to achieve your goals. Welcome tot the New Atheist group. May it, against all odds, bring you happiness.

    Balanced Truths

    January 22, 2012 at 09:19

  553. So Hanswors, when you wrote, “I understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), you weren’t boasting of having knowledge of the Holey Babble? What could you have meant? Please explain it to me!

    No Hanswors, you choose your forty. That’s the deal otherwise you’ll later say I’m being unreasonable. If you won’t even make your own choices, it’ll look just like you’re ducking and dodging and diving.

    Once again, it’s a wonderful chance for you to prove me wrong, to stop me from deviating from the subject and shifting the attention away to mistakes you make and acknowledge, and to expose me for the dodgy one so that I can acknowledge my non-existent mistakes.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    January 22, 2012 at 08:09

  554. Hans,Hans,Hans, my goeie fok ou maat, ek begin nou regtig wonder wat jy in plaas van verstand gebruik.
    Verstaan ek reg dat jy my beskuldig dat ek iets blindelings glo?????
    Wat presies glo ek blindelings??

    Het ek jou nie mooi gevra om nie n eenvoudige vraag te ontduik nie? Het jou gotvirus jou verstand so aangetas dat jy nie meer in staat is om vir n oomblik helder te dink nie?

    Ek se weer; jy wil alles wat nie sin maak in die bybel met n simboliese ontsnapklousule ontduik.
    Hoe moet ek die uitdaging eenvoudiger of meer direk stel? Kies jy dan self n hoofstuk in die bybel wat jy as letterlik verklaar en dan debatteer ons dit.
    Die hele bybel is tog seker nie simbolies nie? Ek bedoel, daar is tog sekerlik dele wat letterlik opgeneem kan word, of is daar nie?

    Ek is bereid om groot geld te wed jy gaan weereens die uitdaging ignoreer of met n ontwykende antwoord kom – wat se jy Hans, aanvaar die uitdaging sonder ontwyking en ek kom die wegraping idioot se weddenskap met Nathan namens hom na.

    Shazee

    January 21, 2012 at 22:29

  555. Shazee, jy sien, daar is baie wat waarde uit die Bybel kry omdat hulle nie eenrigtingdenkend is nie. Lees die boek met verstand en moet nie blindelings onverklaarbare dinge wil glo nie. Gees is onbeperk en kan nie met mense mates gemeet word nie. Dit is nie ‘n verskoning nie en is ‘n feit wat Atiëste nie pas nie omdat vrede, blydskap en geregtigheid, in die Heilige Gees, nie gemeet kan word nie. Die boodskap wat ek vir jou verklaar het, kan jy nie weerlê nie en nou reken jy dit is kak wat ek uitgedink het. Wat ‘n flou verskoning is vir een wat nie erkentlik wil wees nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 21, 2012 at 21:34

  556. Con-Tester, I have a better understanding of the Bible and have never boasted of having knowledge of the Bible. I trust you know the difference.
    I leave the choice in regard to the forty, to you and make it one at a time.
    I see you always try to deviate from the subject at hand by trying to shift the attention to mistakes one makes and acknowledges. I am sure everybody can see that you are the dodgy one and acknowledging your own mistakes are non existent by you.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 21, 2012 at 21:13

  557. Ongelooflik, n mens kan skaars glo grootmense dink sulke kak uit.

    Shazee

    January 20, 2012 at 22:28

  558. Well, that puts Mickey Mouse in among some very good company, which is hardly unexpected…

    Con-Tester

    January 20, 2012 at 17:45

  559. Con – Tester, you must be carefull with this Mickey Mouse religion of yours.

    Did you know that there is a Fatwa out on Mickey Mouse, I shit you not?!

    Check out – “Saudi cleric says Mickey Mouse must die”.
    It seems that Sheikh Muhammed al – Munajid, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington, when asked about Islam’s position on mice, said that Mickey Mouse is a soldier of Satan an must die.

    It seems that the Muslims are after you now!

    Shazee

    January 20, 2012 at 16:22

  560. Hans, hoekom probeer jy nie maar regtig om so n paar van die teenstrydighede met logiese redenasie en goed nagevorsde en gefundeerde feite van jou eie te weerle nie?

    Selfs jy moet seker toegee dat al die honderde teenstrydighede wat al uitgewys is nie almal maar bloot deur n aanspraak op simboliek of allegorie verklaar kan word nie.

    Solank as wat jy die agterdeur van simboliek te alle tye oophou is enigiets natuurlik verklaarbaar. Dit is nie bewys nie Hans, dit is nie weerlegging van ongegronde bewerings nie. Dit is bloot blinde geloof.

    Kan jy vir my se op watter basis het wie besluit watter dele van die bybel is bloot simbolies en watter dele is letterlike geskiedenis? Dit is tog n eenvoudige vraag, Hans, en jy wat so vol selfvertroue simboliese verklarings verskaf moet tog self ook weet op watter basis jy dit doen? Sal jy asb net die vraag reguit en sonder ontwykings antwoord?

    Ek het jou al voorheen gevra, en ek doen dit weer; sal bereid wees om n hoofstuk van die bybel, wat ek identifiseer, vooraf as letterlik te bevestig en dit dan daarna te debbateer?

    Shazee

    January 20, 2012 at 07:53

  561. Oh, I understood perfectly well, ou Hanswors. I understood completely that you’re dodging, and so did everyone else.

    But on second thoughts, Hanswors, pick any 40 of those contradictions. That’s less than 10% of the total. If you can resolve them satisfactorily I’ll give the rest to you free and gratis with no further obligation. As Shazee has got you to admit, your knowledge of your Holey Babble is less than perfect. You should look on this opportunity as one to learn about your so-called “holy” book. And since you keep saying that I can’t prove you wrong, it’s also a great opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

    So, what do you say, eh?

    So come now Hanswors, some diligence and effort please. On the other hand, if you have nothing to prove, why are you trying so hard to not prove anything?

    Which again reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )…

    Con-Tester

    January 19, 2012 at 22:58

  562. Con- Tester, you don’t seem to understand what I said in English so I now tried in Afrikaans, yet to no avail. Word wakker, jou koffie word koud!

    Hans Matthysen

    January 19, 2012 at 22:52

  563. Shazee, die tuin stel verskillende senario’s voor, dit kan ‘n huwelik voorstel, ‘n gemeenskap voorstel ens. Wanneer een net begin kwaad sien en kwaad praat, sal een uitgedryf word en dan kos dit harde werk en sweet om weer vrede en geluk weer tot stand te bring. Wanneer een die mooi in alles raak sien en daarop bou, word so ‘n “tuin” ‘n “Paradys” want een ervaar vrede, blydskap en geregtigheid. Dit gaan dus nie oor kompetisie nie want ons almal weet, dat geen mens of gemeenskap is perfek nie. Daar is Gerubs in God se gemeente wat die “Boom van die Lewe” bewaak. Die oostekant is waar die son opkom en dit moet dus altyd lig in ons lewe wees. Die duisternis moet nooit die lig oorweldig nie.
    As een met die verkeerde kleed (gesindheid) by die veesmal is, sal een uitgewerp word.
    Terloops, ek is nou nie ‘n skrifgeleerde nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 19, 2012 at 22:48

  564. Hanswors, I know you think there aren’t any contradictions in your Holey Babble. Yet there they stand, unaddressed. Linked to. Avoided. Evaded. For everyone to see.

    Repeatedly.

    So come now Hanswors, some diligence and effort please. On the other hand, if you have nothing to prove, why are you trying so hard to not prove anything?

    All of which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? In case it hasn’t sunk in yet, I can carry on doing this indefinitely. All it takes from you is a definite “yes” or a definite “no”.

    Con-Tester

    January 19, 2012 at 22:33

  565. Con-Tester, ek gaan nie 400 sogenaamde tenstrydighede deurwerk en vir jou verduidelik en het reeds gesê dat julle een op ‘n slag kan meld en dan kan ons daaroor gesprek voer. Ek het nie nodig om aan jou en kie iets te bewys nie en sal wel vir julle wys dat julle verkeerd is oor die tenstrydighede. Jy het blykbaar die breindood aandrang.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 19, 2012 at 22:20

  566. Hans, die regte antwoord is dat god vir Adam en Eva uit die tuin van Eden uitgedryf het omdat hy bang was hulle eet ook van die boom van die lewe en dat hulle dan soos hy sal word en vir ewig sal lewe …. Dit staan in die bybel,regtig…
    God hou duidelik nie van kompetisie nie.

    Ek wou maar net sien hoe goed jy die bybel regtig ken omdat jy altyd so vol selfvertroue beweer ons ouens sal ook glo as ons maar net die bybel beter ken of verstaan.

    In elk geval, wat is al die pratery oor Gerubs wat aan die oostekant van die tuin gaan bly het? Ek dog dan Genesis is net simbolies?
    Het die Gerubs net simbolies aan die oostekant van die simboliese tuin gaan woon? Van wat sou dit n simbool wees?
    Waarom sou die mens met toestemming van die Gerubs tot die tuin kon terugkeer – die tuin is dan net simbolies, of sou hulle net simbolies terugkeer na n simboliese tuin? (Met simboliese toestemming van die simboliese Gerubs natuurlik)

    Shazee

    January 19, 2012 at 07:50

  567. Ouch Hanswors, I gave you the link often enough. It even appears in this thread. All you need to do is look. “Seek,” as that Holey Babble platitude goes, “And ye shall find.” Except in this case it’s actually there to be found.

    Your brain-dead insistence that it’s up to others to disprove your contentions is absurd. I’ve got your soul in a Jiffy bag here in my freezer. You can’t prove me wrong. Therefore I am right.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )… Even a lethargic intellectual fugue like you should know the tune by now.

    Con-Tester

    January 18, 2012 at 21:56

  568. Con-Tester, dit wil voorkom of jy ook nie altyd als onthou nie dus nooi ek jou om een vir een, sogenaamde tenstrydigheid, per beurt op te noem vir bespreking. Natuurlik was my antwoorde nie vir jou bevredigend nie en tog kon jy nie my antwoorde weerlê nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 18, 2012 at 21:47

  569. Shazee, die Gèrubs het die boom bewaak ja en dit sê nie dat Adam nie kon terugkeer na die tuin nie. Dit is die aanname wat mense maak. Die mens is weggedryf om die grond te bewerk omdat hy gestuur is en natuurlik moet almal eers met goedkeuring van die Gèrubs weer toegang kry. Skuus ja, my fout. Ek moes seker eers weer gelees het voordat ek jou geantwoord het omdat dit die Gèrubs was die wat aan die ooste van die tuin gaan woon het. Ek onthou nie altyd alles presies en sal eerder volgende keer eers weer lees voordat ek so uit die vuis uit antwoord.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 18, 2012 at 21:41

  570. Hans, ek dog jy ken die bybel. Gaan kyk na Gen 3:22 – 23. (Veral die King James vertaling)
    Moet seker maar weer geinterpreteer of simbolies gelees word ne?

    Shazee

    January 18, 2012 at 07:09

  571. Nee Hanswors, ek kan geen enkele voorbeeld onthou waar jy enige bybelse teenstrydighede bevredigend beantwoord het. Ek onthou weld at jy gesê het dat dit nie teenstrydighede is nie sonder om die teenstrydighede te verklaar. Ek onthou ook dat jy my as ’n “onerkentlike” beskryf het (hierdie gespreksdraad, Januarie 15, 2012 om 22:12), wat nou, soos teen die bostaande agtergrond gemeet, vir my vreeslik snaaks is…

    Which also reminds me…

    Con-Tester

    January 17, 2012 at 23:29

  572. Shazee, moontlik sal Con-Tester jou ver terug op hierdie blog van Nathan kan sê waar ek antwoorde gegee het op sogenaamde strydighede.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 17, 2012 at 23:18

  573. Shazee, Adam is in werklikheid uitgestuur om die grond te bewerk waarvandaan hy afkomstig was en is nie regtig uitgeskop nie, want hulle het aan die oostekant van die tuin gaan woon en nie buitekant nie. Hy was uitgejaag omdat hy traag was om te gaan werk. Een van my broers was ook traag om te gaan werk en my Pa moes hom letterlik uitjaag om te gaan werk en nie weggejaag nie. Ek dink die vertaling is misleidend en moes eerder “uitjaag” gesê het as “wegjaag”. In Gen. 4, het Kain weggegaan van die aangesig van die Here en was die Here nie in die Tuin van Eden nie?

    Hans Matthysen

    January 17, 2012 at 23:15

  574. Oh no, Hanswors, it’s not so easy. You’re blatantly avoiding much, much more than that. My questions, for instance, or the slap-in-the-face incompatibility of biblical stories with known fact, or poke-in-the-eye biblical contradictions, self or otherwise. Come now, you religious types just love asserting your diligence, so how about demonstrating some? (In case the question mark leaves any room for doubt, that’s another question for ya.)

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Your avoidances are so transparent that one might grind high-quality lenses from them.

    Con-Tester

    January 17, 2012 at 23:02

  575. Con-Tester, dankie vir die interesante wetenskaplike inligting. I am only avoiding discussions on Mickey Mouse.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 17, 2012 at 22:55

  576. Daan, die vraag is, in watter begin of in wie se begin, want dit is sinnebeelde. In my begin het alles deur die “woord” tot my gekom. Die aarde (waarop die saaier saai) was woes ( van die sienswyse van die mens) en leeg (wat die geestelike betref). Toe dinge vir my begin verstaanbaar word, deur die woord, was daar lig.
    Kyk wat sê Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 (Die King james vertaling stel dit nog vir my beter).

    Hans Matthysen

    January 17, 2012 at 22:48

  577. Volgens ons beste huidiglike wetenskaplike kennis, was daar sowat agt biljoen jaar — 8,000,000,000 — tussen die oerknal en die formasie van ons tuislike planeet. In die Babbel se god se terme, waar ’n duisend jaar soos ’n dag is, is dit omtrent 21,903 goddelikke jare, wat ’n bietjie meer is as een goddelikke dag, soos Genesis se beriggewing dit wil hê.

    In fact, the difference spans six orders of magnitude. You don’t need to be a genius to see that the error far exceeds the estimate, rendering the estimate entirely worthless.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Your estimate, like the Genesis account, is so fuzzy as to have no probative value whatsoever.

    Con-Tester

    January 17, 2012 at 22:40

  578. Hans!!! Dagsê.

    Ek is bevrees die Bybel bots reg van die begin af met die wetenskap.

    Genesis 1:

    “In die begin het God die hemel en die aarde geskape”. Faain.

    “En duisternis was op die wereldvloed. En God het gesê: “Laat daar lig wees!”. Onmoontlik.

    Direk na die Big Bang was daar juis heeltemal te veel lig op die aarde. Soveel so dat die aarde inderdaad “woes en leeg” was. Die son het verhoed dat enige vorm van lewe op aarde kon ontstaan en ontwikkel.

    Eers nadat die orsoonlaag oor ‘n tydperk van miljoene jare om die aarde gevorm is, het plante ontstaan en ontwikkel. So ook lewe in die oseaan in die vorm van eensellige organismes.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 17, 2012 at 05:29

  579. OK Hans, jy het my uitgevang. Jy het nie die woord “versoenbaar” gebruik nie, ek het. Sal jy nou die vraag wat ek gestel het in elk geval probeer antwoord? Hoekom is dit feitlik onmoontlik om n reguit antwoord uit jou te kry?

    As jy al voorheen die teenstrydighede geantwoord het, herhinner my asb waar en wanneer, ek sal dit graag wil lees.

    By the way – kan jy my se waarom Adam en Eva uit die paradys geskop is? – en ek bedoel nou letterlik wat die spesifieke rede was waarom god hulle nie toegelaat het om verder daar te bly nie?

    Shazee

    January 15, 2012 at 22:43

  580. Hanswors, I’ve checked and Mrs Con-Tester says I’m not queer. You’d better believe it because she knows considerably more than any other mortal…

    My questions may seem like nothing to you but they aren’t to me. That’s why I keep asking them. That may make me an “onerkentlike” in your view but that’s because I don’t understand your answers. Maybe you’re right. Maybe they are “above [my] intellect.” Then again, it could be you who’s “avoiding discussion on a subject” and “writing a lot yet saying nothing.” It would be good if you could explain yourself in a clear, unambiguous way, unlike your confounded postmodern maatjie, ol’ Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) over there, who insists, like you do, that certain criteria are met. Maybe you should try to speak clearly with no funny shit, such as unstated assumptions and tortuous lines of “reasoning” lurking in wait for us lesser intellects.

    It would be a great help.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? If you ask me, this “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]” shtick of yours is hardly convincing. Go on, be a demon and give honesty and straightforwardness a whirl. It’s quite liberating, you know.

    Con-Tester

    January 15, 2012 at 22:39

  581. Con-Tester, you are still avoiding discussion on a subject above your intellect writing a lot yet saying nothing. I have now also given you a biblical answer to your question and all you can come up with is to avoid discussion on the subject. You appear to be a very dumb and queer Professor.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 15, 2012 at 22:19

  582. Shazee, jy het blykbaar nie mooi verstaan nie. Wie het die woord versoenbaar gebruik? Ek het gesê dat die Bybel nie teen die Wetensap is nie. ‘n Groot verskil sou ek sê dus lees wat ek skryf en nie wat jy dink ek skryf.
    Daar is geen teenstrydighede in die Bybel en ons kan elke sogenaamde teenstrydigheid induwidueel bespreek. Om vir my vier-honderd te gee en te dink ek gaan nou al vier-honderd beantwoord en dan kyk jy nie eers daarna nie, sal nie gebeur nie. Ek het drie induwidueel reeds behandel en uitgewys dat daar geen teenstrydigheid is nie. Jy het dit nie gelees nie en suig nou die herhaling storie uit jou duim uit. Jy is die een wat soos ‘n donkie gelei word deur onerkentlikes soos Con-Tester.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 15, 2012 at 22:12

  583. But Hanswors, now you’re talking the same kind of impenetrable, inconsequent and illogical horseshit as your verbosely moralising postmodern maatjie, ol’ Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) over there. With your “regte persepsie” and your continued insistence that it’s up to others to prove you wrong, you’ve got the whole world waxed, right? It must be great never to have even the slightest doubt, eh? Then again, your repeated (but awkwardly failed) attempts to demonstrate your wisdom here strongly hint that faith isn’t enough. You seem to feel that you need to prove your fairytales, however ham-fistedly. Now, I wonder why that might be…?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Come now, it’s not that hard, even for a self-important, mostly-incomprehensible-drivel-spouting bonehead of your magnificent splendour.

    Con-Tester

    January 14, 2012 at 23:02

  584. Hans,ek begin verstaan waarom CT jou hanswors noem. Jy is regtig nar wat baie snaakser sou wees as dit nie so tragies was nie.

    As die bybel versoenbaar is met wetenskap, se my hoe verklaar jy evolusie? As ek reg onthou ontken jy nie evolusie nie. Moet asseblieftog nie met die storie kom dat god evolusie as n skeppings instrument gebruik het nie. Jy aanbid mos n almagtige god, ek is seker hy kan beter doen as n multi- biljoen jaar proses.

    Die teenstrydighede in die bybel is al by herhaling aan jou uitgewys. Daar is n menigte, duidelike, onbetwisbare, onwegredeneerbare teenstrydighede. Om steeds soos n donkie aan te dring dit bestaan nie is is of oneerlik of onnosel, trek maar die skoen aan wat jou pas.

    Shazee

    January 14, 2012 at 22:46

  585. Shazee, my brein is nie afgeskakel nie, die Bybel maak vir my sin en bots nie met die wetenskap nie. Julle kan nie vir my ‘n teenstrydigheid wys nie, dus is die vraag; is jy oop vir rede? Wanneer een ‘n verkeerde persepsie het van wat ons moet dink God is, dan moet een eerder die regte persepsie kry.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 14, 2012 at 22:08

  586. BT, if I understand you correctly, you seem to define a new atheist as someone who is actively opposed to religion, as opposed to traditional atheists who was content simply to state his lack of believe in a deity and leave it at that.
    If so, regard this as my coming out. I am actively opposed to religion. I detest blind faith in all its manifestations, in fact, I find it repulsive.
    It is an insult to human intelligence and human dignity. It is harmful and dangerous, as has been proven over and over again.

    I truly and honestly cannot see the point or the benefit in not opposing these dangerous delusions so as not to antagonise the religious, as you seem to be advocating.
    If they kept their insane beliefs to themselves it would have been a diffirent matter, but that is not what is happening. If their delusions had no impact on the rest of us, I would have adopted a live and let live attitute.
    Why is it necessary for an atheist to come out of the closet – I mean, why should he have found it necessary to be in the closet in the first place?
    Is it perhaps because these harmless eccentrics mean us no harm?
    Why should anybody have to fear to state an unbelieve in anything? Is it because of the tolerance of the religious parhaps?

    Someone once said that the term atheist should not even exist, after all, there is no term for someone who does not believe in faeries.

    An atheist cannot, per difinition, demonise anything as we believe in demons as little as we believe in gods. If by demonise you actually mean that we point out the harm that blind faith causes, then, guilty as charged, and gladly so.

    Shazee

    January 14, 2012 at 21:04

  587. “[There] may be a measure of truth in it…”

    Balanced Truths

    January 14, 2012 at 18:54

  588. Shazee, I have not said that you are in the closet regarding your atheism, it is a conclusion you have come to based on fact and reason, that is just, and right. You are in the closet as to your New Atheist status because you seem to be honestly concerned about Theists and not just resigned to calling them names and ridiculing their ridiculous beliefs. The new militant Atheist is politically motivated to eradicate all religion, they hate it with a passion and they ‘demonise’ it. They are prepared to lie and exaggerate to prove their point.

    One can be an honest person, but not an honest Theist, to be a theist you have to subscribe to some level of theism, and that is a lie and requires knowledge of a God they cannot have.

    It is not unfair to ask me what crap I believe in, it is unfair to ask me to come up with the crap I believe in to get me through the day, these things will vary and change from day to day, as it does for all of us.

    Your reasoning is not infantile, quite the contrary, your reasoning is sound, your conclusions, perhaps not, and your willingness to overlook human mistakes that have repeated themselves over human history, always with tragic results, just because they are made by the ‘us’ group is what makes me call you a closet New Atheist. Fundamental, militant, angry atheist always respond in the same way, they are predictable because their belief in their cause requires set responses. These responses are revealing as to the level of their dedication to their cause as oppose to the need to stand by the truth unemotionally.

    George Bush may be a faithhead, as you put it, but his motivations are political, he knows what tools will work for him and he employs them without a care. To blame any of his stupid political decisions on Religion is an attempt to further your cause. Their may be a measure of truth in it but it is not the whole truth, it is not the balanced truth. Some observations are based on an impossible number of influences that cannot be weighed up according to any set of rules and as such a conclusion cannot be reached.

    I will probably never call myself an atheist because I do not have the arrogance to make that conclusion in the face of the complexity of the observation of a feasible interpretation of God.

    If I saw true random action then I would, but this universe could well have a personality, this life could well be a lesson, I do not know this for a fact and I cannot discount it because it could be an explanation for many observations. I do not see why the material world and the fact that we must be able to find scientific explanations for what we observe should subtract from this in any way, it would be unnatural if it was so.

    Balanced Truths

    January 14, 2012 at 18:51

  589. Bt, every time you post you sound more and more confused.
    Once again, I am not a closet atheist,old or new. I am an atheist, quite openly,in the sense that I do not believe in the existence of a deity of any description whatsoever. Is that clear enough for you? If you want to call me an atheist, thanks for the compliment,if you want to call me a new atheist, thanks for the compliment. If you want to call me in the closet about my atheism, what would convice you that I am decidedly not in the closet?

    Your comment regarding my level of ridicule is a bit ambigious; do mean to comment on the quality of my ridicule or are you trying to say that my level of ridicule is indicative of something?

    Yes I do care about the opinions of theists, and yes, I have met honest theists.
    I care about the opinions of theists simply because those deluded,dangerous and harmfull opinions are being foisted on the rest of us, because it influences pupblic opinion, because it is being taught to our children. I care about it in the sense that I see the urgent need to engage with those opinions and to show it up for the pernicious nonsense that it is.
    I believe that many, if not most, faithheads honestly believe exactly what they say they believe, that is what makes it so dangerous. There is a diffirence between honest delusion and willfull dishonesty. It might be pigheaded and unreasonable to hold those believes in the teeth of evidence and reason, but they honestly, and dangerously, actually hold those beliefs.

    You don’t like a question and you cry foul. As I reccall you made the comment that everybody believes some “crap” to get them through their day. Having made that comment, how is it unfair of me to ask what crap you believe in?
    Anyway, “believing” that you will live to see the following day, in the sense that you live your life as though you will probably wake up tomorrow morning, hardly qualifies as a fundamental believe on par with the believe that the invisible man in the sky is coming back for me someday soon. And you call my reasoning infintile?

    About George Bush, a man who made weekly calls to Tedd Haggard regarding national and international policy decicions is not a fundamental faithhead?

    You seem to be just about ready to come out of the closet, be brave and take the plunge.

    Shazee

    January 14, 2012 at 11:12

  590. Hans, jy vra waarom jy sal “wil” twyfel.
    N mens twyfel gewoonlik nie omdat jy “wil” of nie wil nie.
    Twyfel is gewoonlik (vir n redelike en logiese persoon) n funksie van iets wat nie sin maak nie, van n teenstrydigheid, van n bewys wat kortkom of iets wat nie strook met wat waargeneem word in die werklike lewe nie. Al die voorgenoemde laat my ernstig twyfel aan die bestaan van n liefdevolle en almagtige, alwyse skeppergod wat homself bemoei met my of jou lewe.
    As jy n besluit geneem het dat jy nie “wil” twyfel nie is my siening uit die aard van die saak vir jou irrelevant. Jy het jouself dus verwyder na n vlak waar geen rede of bewys tot jou sal deurdring nie.
    As dit jou vrede en gemoedsrus gee, voorspoed daarmee, ek self het nog nie besluit om my verstand af te skakel nie.

    Shazee

    January 14, 2012 at 08:59

  591. Shazee wrote January 9, 2012 at 05:48

    BT,I am not a closet atheist, I am quite open about it, or haven’t you noticed? I don’t, for instance, claim to be a faithhead who is nevertheless sympathetic towards atheism.

    I said you are a closet New Atheist, and that you are, this is evident by the way you are still not entirely versed in the level of ridicule you display, you also still feel the need to really care about the opinions of the theists you engage with. You also seem to think that you still get an honest Theist.

    Thank you for granting me 9/11 and suicide bombers, but if you agree with me here, why do you shortly thereafter say “it is never enough to claim god wants it” ? Seems a bit contradictory.

    No need to thank me, it is what it is. The above phrase is indicative of the need to indoctrinate the person on several levels, building the foundation of the lie and then adding several layers of related manipulations on top, eventually reaching the end goal. To get someone to commit suicide by taking many lives with is something that requires very special indoctrination, this is not basic religious behaviour but requires special circumstances, it is warfare, soldiering in its worst form.

    You claim that blind faith will be hanging around without religion. On what do you base that claim? Blind faith in what? Are you talking from personal experience? What “crap” do you believe to get you through your day?

    An unfair question, but suffice to say you wake up every day with the blind faith that you will see tomorrow.

    You concede that you might be mistaken about George Bush – you are, do the research.

    No, I am not, you do the research, and you can start by trying to comprehend what I actually said.

    I don’t really know what to say about your confusing (confused) claim that I said, or implied something to the effect that you will be unsuccessful if you try to get private information regarding atheists????

    Perhaps you should enlighten me as to exactly where I said, or implied, that, in context if you please.

    And yes, I do prefer an honest faithhead to a closet fundie any day of the week. You say this attitude is revealing….revealing of what?

    It is revealing of your infancy, child, it is revealing that you have only just started the process of challenging this human corruption, you are still leaving yourself largely unguarded when you attack, often displaying the same mistakes you attack.

    Balanced Truths

    January 14, 2012 at 07:39

  592. Ja Hans, ek kan ook nie aan iets dink wat jou sal laat twyfel nie.
    Ek kan aan heelwat dink wat iemand sal laat twyfel as hy oop en vatbaar is vir rede, maar dit is jy duidelik nie.

    Shazee

    January 14, 2012 at 06:50

  593. Malherbe, daar is natuurlik die moontlikheid dat jy breinskade opgedoen het en ek sal jou nie daaroor oordeel of minderwaardig ag nie. Wat die Bybel betref blyk dit of jy verlore is omdat jy nie kan uitmaak wat daarin staan.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 13, 2012 at 23:11

  594. So Hanswors, you’re saying that “spiritual” = “unseen and eternal”. That would mean that, among others, mass and energy are “spiritual”. While I know how to detect and measure both mass and energy reliably and objectively, your “unseen and eternal” definition doesn’t tell me how to detect and/or measure “spiritual” things objectively and reliably. In order to be counted as “real”, such measurement/detection criteria are essential. Can you or your Holey Babble provide them?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still making an awful racket…).

    Con-Tester

    January 13, 2012 at 23:08

  595. Shazee, hoekom sal ek wil twyfel? Ek het vrede, geregtigheid en blydskap in die Heilige Gees. Ek dink nie eers aan iets wat my sal laat twyfel en ek weet nie of daar iets is wat my sal laat twyfel.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 13, 2012 at 23:03

  596. Con-Tester, take note of what is spiritual; 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 13, 2012 at 22:57

  597. Malherbe, ek is bevrees jy is reg. Ek is bereid om goeie geld te wed ek gaan nie n reguit antwoord uit Hans kry nie. Hy kan dit nie bekostig nie.
    Ek voel ook amper jammer vir die arme drommels.
    N mens moet seker breinskade he om so breindood te glo en verkondig wat die ouens doen.
    Die probleem is natuurlik dat hulle vir elkeen van ons sal voorskryf wat om te glo en hoe om te leef, as ons dit onuitgedaag laat.

    Shazee

    January 13, 2012 at 20:21

  598. Goeie punt Shazee en glad nie onbillik om van Hans te verwag om te antwoord nie. Die probleem is dat Hans se brein onomkeerbaar beskadig is. Hy het my opregte simpatie en ek stel dit sonder sarkasme. Wanneer iemand breinskade gedurende bv ‘n motorongeluk opdoen, simpatiseer ons onvoorwaardelik. Die feit dat Hans se breinskade deur sy dogma veroorsaak is, is eintlik irrelevant. Feit is dat dit die skade ongelukkig onomkeerbaar is. Hans is dus (letterlik) verlore. Die antwoord wat hy gaan verskaf op jou baie eenvoudige vraag, sal heel voorspelbaar(weereens) bewys dat my diagnose van sy brein nie ongegrond is nie.

    Insiggewend dat hy reeds in sy vorige “antwoorde” op ongemaklike kwotasies uit sy heilige boekie die standaard godioot antwoorde van “letterlik vs figuurlike” interpretasie asook “buite konteks” gebruik het (gaap, gaap). Komaan Hans, daar is nog: Wat van “lost in translation” of “Jesus het alles vd ou testament verander” of my gunsteling van “ons-verstaan-nie-nou-nie-maar-eendag-sal-ons”?

    Malherbe

    January 13, 2012 at 09:44

  599. Hans, wat sal jou laat twyfel? As daar niks is wat jou sal laat twyfel nie, se dan so.
    Hoe moet mens n vraag stel dat jy dit sal antwoord?
    Ek weet waarom jy die vraag ontwyk – as jy se nee ontbloot jy jouself vir die blinde fundie wat jy is, en as jy n bewys of omstandigheid noem wat jou sal laat twyfel,is jy bang iemand bring vir jou die bewys.
    Julle ouens se motto is mos – I reject reality and substitute my own –

    Shazee

    January 12, 2012 at 23:37

  600. Did we watch the same video, Hanswors? Because it certainly doesn’t look like it.

    And Hanswors, since you see things so clearly, why don’t you educate me by answering my questions?

    That should be no problem for someone who “understand[s] more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…).

    Con-Tester

    January 12, 2012 at 23:36

  601. Con-Tester, I have listened to the above clip and agree with a lot that is said. I do not disrespect Atheist and I do not see Atheists as my enemy. The attitude most of you have towards me, caused by your prejudgment, is what you reap from me. I know that most religions regard Atheists as their enemy, yet you fail to realize that you will always have the exception. Jesus and the Apostles are not guilty of the things many religious people are accused of (also mentioned on this clip) and they showed us the correct example. You and others on this blog, have failed to acknowledge this fact because of your prejudgment.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 12, 2012 at 23:23

  602. Shazee, geen een kan ‘n ander bekeer aangesien om te bekeer, lê by elkeen self. Ek sit nie onder ‘n wonderboom nie en was tot op hede nie ‘n “sucker” vir straf nie. Ek soek nie simpatie nie maar wel eerlikheid.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 12, 2012 at 23:02

  603. Con-Tester

    January 12, 2012 at 17:41

  604. Hans, ek is besig om die bietjie simpatie wat ek met jou gehad het te verloor.
    Jy gorrel onsamehangend oor jou interpretasie van die babbel (see CT, I am getting the hang of the lingo) en ontwyk my vraag nou al vir die tweede keer.
    Ek vra weer, wat sal jou laat wonder of jy dalk net moontlik verkeerd mag wees?
    Ek kan jou se wat my sal laat twyfel of ek reg is – bewyse. As jy vir my bewyse kan gee (behalwe bewyse wat uit jou babbel kom) dat ek verkeerd is sal ek dit erken en jou gelyk gee.

    Hoe is daardie vir n geleentheid, Hans, jy kan n goddelose atteis bekeer as jy jou kaarte reg speel.

    Shazee

    January 11, 2012 at 22:16

  605. But Hanswors, you typically miss the point. Yet again. First off, even if one concedes that that you have a point about the one single contradiction you fabricated some excuse about (and I concede no such thing), you’re still left with more than 400. I don’t need to go through them with you one by one. You do. I gave you the link many times. Do you know how to clicky-clicky? Yes? Well, do so! Then start addressing! Easy, hey?

    And Hanswors, where did I ever mention my “titels,” hmm? If you feel intimidated, that’s your own mind giving you hell.

    Where, dear Hanswors, are these “tantrums” I allegedly “gooi,” hmm? If you feel tantrumised, that’s your own mind giving you hell.

    And Hanswors, why do you keep writing lots of useless words that dodge my questions? Surely, answering them should be a total turkey-shoot for someone like you who “understand[s] more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…)

    Con-Tester

    January 11, 2012 at 21:54

  606. My goeie fok Hans, jy is darem n sucker vir punushment! Jy weet mos al teen die tyd jy gaan geslag word as jy sulke kak praat. Lyk my jy geniet dit op een of ander perverse manier, kan nie wag nie.

    Shazee

    January 11, 2012 at 21:53

  607. Shazee, wanneer jy met my gesels oor die Bybel, dan gaan dit nie oor hoe ander die Bybel verstaan of nie verstaan nie, dit gaan oor hoe ek die Bybel verstaan en of jy my verkeerd kan bewys. Ek verskil met die meerderheid se sienning van die Bybel en dit is ook waar jou verkeerde indruk oor die Bybel ontstaan het.
    Daar is geen teenstrydighede in die bybel wat net in die regte konteks gelees moet word. In die land van die blindes is daar ‘n een oog koning en ek woon nie in daardie land nie hoor.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 11, 2012 at 21:51

  608. Con-Tester, ek het jou al die teendeel gewys in een of twee van die 400 voorbeelde en jy was nie in staat om my te weerlê nie. Ek het jou uitgenooi om elk van die 400 sogenaamde teenstrydihede een vir een deur te gaan en jy sie blykbaar nie daarvoor kans nie. Jy is meer bek as binnegoed omdat jy almal probeer bully met jou titels en sodra iemand jou kan teregwys, gooi jy tantrums om die aandag weg te lei van die feit dat jy onkundig is, wat die Bybel betref.
    I have told you before that I do not believe in a skydaddy, yet some things don’t seem to register and you give thus the impression of one who is retard.
    I have referred you to the dictionaries yet you appear to think you are above that.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 11, 2012 at 21:37

  609. Con – Tester, ek stem saam dat dit gemoedsbekakkend kan word. Ek beleef dit elke dag maar vind steeds soms ongelooflik dat enige persoon by sy volle verstand so doelbewus dikkoppig en onredelik kan wees.
    Maar nou ja, die kak wat die ouens kwytraak kan darem soms “entertaining” wees.

    Shazee

    January 11, 2012 at 13:01

  610. Shazee, ek het al ’n ruk terug herhaaldelik Hanswors se aandag gewys op ’n skakel na ’n dokument wat oor die 400 teenstrydighede beskryf wat in sy Huilige Babbel voorkom. Hanswors sê met groot gerief dat hy dit alles afgehandel het en dat dit nie teenstrydighede is nie. Mens sal natuurlik absoluut nêrens op dìè blog enige bewysstuk kry wat sy bewerings staaf nie, maar nou ja, so’s die galoof…😉

      
    

    Een of ander VSAse kreasionis (dalk William Morris self, maar ek onthou nou nie mooi nie) het ’n paar jaar terug effektiewelik verkondig dat hulle glad nie oop is nie vir enige rede of bewyse of debat nie, en dat hulle met hul onredelikhede net sal aanhou en aanhou en aanhou tot hul oppenente uitgeput is en tou opgee sodat hulle hul godsdienstige agenda’s kan instel. Dit was die eintlike boodskap gewees maar hy het dit ’n bietjie anders gestel. Dit lyk asof b>Hanswors baie deeglik na die man se aanbevelings geluister het en dit ywerig nakom. Dus moet elke ateïs oorweeg of dit rêrig ’n goeie ding is om hul teenstand te staak teen sulke onredelikheid, hoe ontmoedigend en gemoedsbekakkend dit ookal mag wees.

    Con-Tester

    January 11, 2012 at 08:53

  611. Hans, jy is heeltemal reg, die bybel was nog nooit n wetenskap handboek nie, dit was nog altyd die verbeeldingsvlug van n paar ouens wat iets gerook het wat seker wettig was in hulle tyd.

    Die punt is egter nie of jy persoonlik dink die bybel is n wetenskap handboek nie, die punt is dat dit die verskoning is wat gebruik word as iets in die bybel as onwaar bewys word deur wetenskaplike metodes – ditto vir geskiedkundige feite. Is dit nie juis die verskoning waarna jy self blitsig gegryp het nie?

    Daar is in elk geval soveel teenstrydighede in die bybel self dat eksterne bewyse van sy onbetroubaarheid as n handleiding vir enigiets hoegenaamd byna oorbodig is – as jy die stelling oor teenstrydighede betwis, se maar en ek sal vir jou n klompie voorbeelde aanstuur.

    Ek vermoed dat jy in elk geval van die teenstrydighede en onwaarhede bewus is, maar dit maak geen indruk op jou nie. Ek vermoed dat daar absoluut net mooi niks is wat jou sal laat twyfel in wat jy glo nie, ongeag die bewyse, ongeag rede, ongeag logika, ongeag wat ookal. jy sal dit eenvoudig rasionaliseer. Dit is per definisie wat blinde geloof beteken. Dit verstom my eindeloos dat mense met n blinde geloof nie die verleentheid raaksien van wat hulle sonder bewys, en erger nog, teenstrydig met oorweldigende bewyse glo en skaamteloos verkondig nie.

    Ek het al begin wonder of mense soos Con – Tester en die ander ouens op die forum nie al moeg en moedeloos is om dieselfde stront eindeloos val alle hoeke af te moet uitwys vir die onlogiese, kinderagtige snert wat dit is nie.
    Die punt is moontlik dat volwassenes wat sulke stront glo potensieel net te gevaarlik is om dit onuitgedaag te laat.

    Ek vra weer Hans, is daar hoegenaamd enige bewys van watter aard ookal wat jou sal laat wonder of jy net moontlik verkeerd mag wees, of is jy vasberade om te glo, kom wat wil?

    Shazee

    January 11, 2012 at 07:36

  612. But Hanswors, you’re still not seeing what is obvious even to a Grade 2 pupil: Your Holey Babble talks about some sick fucks who are willing to sell their daughters into sexual servitude. I never said your skydaddy commanded it, did I? But your Holey Babble doesn’t say that that’s bad. It reports it as if it is just fine to do so. Assuming that you have a daughter, would you sell her as a sexual slave to some rich fucker? Is that a “no” I hear? Then why does your skydaddy not condemn this practice outright and without any wishy-washy bullshit? Maybe it’s you and your skydaddy who aren’t so bright, no?

    And hey Hanswors, you still haven’t answered properly yet: What is “spiritual”? How does one reliably, objectively and unmistakably detect it? Or is it just some brainfart you pull from your arse every so often so you can act superior and make yourself feel better? Because that’s what it looks like. Will you tell us, b>Hanswors?

    Answering the above quickly and easily should be a breeze for you since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and chirping and…) Would you like me to remind you of the question, maybe? (That’s another simple yes-or-no question, see?)

    Con-Tester

    January 10, 2012 at 22:50

  613. Shazee, die Bybel was nog nooit ‘n wetenskaplike boek nie en daar is mense wat dit graag so wil sien, siestog! Dit wil voorkom of jy my verwar met sulke mense en tog sou ek nou verwag, dat ‘n belese mens soos jy, werklik ‘n verskil sou agter kom.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 10, 2012 at 22:48

  614. Con-Tester, you don’t appear to be very bright as you still have not realized, that God did not command one to sell his daughter.
    The Bible is babble to you due to you not being so bright as you don’t seem to understand the simple-list things written in it.
    You appear a bit retard as you keep repeating certain things or does it amuse your audience. Oh, sorry, I forgot; small things amuse small minds.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 10, 2012 at 22:40

  615. Hans, jy gaan my tot drank dryf.
    Die hemel en aarde was in 6 dae, ongeveer 6000 jaar terug geskep totdat die wetenskap onteenseglik bewys het dit is nie waar nie – toe hou die bybel op om n wetenskap handboek te wees.
    Die bybel was letterlik waar, en die onfeilbare, onveranderlike, ewige woord van god totdat die interne teenstrydighede en geskiedkundige onakkuraathede uitgewys is – toe hou die bybel op om n geskiedenis handboek te wees.

    Ek vra jou met trane in my navy blou oe, hoeveel keer moet iemand vir jou lieg, blatant en onnosel lieg, voordat jy lont ruik?

    Se my, net om my nuuskierigheid te bevredig,wat sal dit vat om jou geloof te laat wankel? Is daar hoegenaamd enigiets wat sal? Wil jy so graag glo jou god bestaan dat jy vir geen rede vatbaar is nie?

    Shazee

    January 10, 2012 at 08:03

  616. Shazee, in die begin was die “Woord” en die “Woord” is God. In jou begin, het alles deur die “Woord” ontstaan. Jy het nie geweet ‘n tafel is ‘n tafel as die “Woord” dit nie vir jou geleer het nie.
    Die doel van die Bybel is nie vir geskiedenis doeleindes nie en is vir alle tye (heden) geskryf. Ek was ook maar ‘n mens wat bestaan het en toe kry ek ‘n nuwe lewe daarom is ek werksaam in God se tuin soos ‘n Adam.
    Die denke van die mens wou my ook oorweldig en die verbond van God, die Ark, het tot my redding gekom anders het die sondevloed my ook oorweldig.
    Daar is geen lont nie, dit is my vuurigheid van Gees wat jy ruik.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 9, 2012 at 22:39

  617. No Hanswors, it’s you missing the point. Your Holey Babble storybook is your skydaddy’s infallible and eternal word. At least that’s what you godiots/religiots/crediots/bibliots/apologiots keep insisting on. Either your Holey Babble is your god’s word, or it’s a bunch of fairytales. If it’s your god’s word, why is it okay with him to sell your own daughter into slavery? If it isn’t your god’s word, why take it seriously?

    You should be able to answer these questions without difficulty since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…)

    Con-Tester

    January 9, 2012 at 22:17

  618. Con-Tester, again you missed the point. It was not on God’s command that one sold his daughter to another for marriage and I do not believe in a sky-daddy, so wake up the coffee’s cold.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 9, 2012 at 22:11

  619. Religious neighbourliness in full flight. This sort of mania is the inevitable outcome of the uncritical hysteria that fanatical authoritarian evidence-free cults of unreason, among which religion is the purest and by far the most common form, inspire.

    Con-Tester

    January 9, 2012 at 19:36

  620. BT,I am not a closet atheist, I am quite open about it, or haven’t you noticed? I don’t, for instance, claim to be a faithhead who is nevertheless sympathetic towards atheism.

    Thank you for granting me 9/11 and suicide bombers, but if you agree with me here, why do you shortly thereafter say “it is never enough to claim god wants it” ? Seems a bit contradictory.

    You claim that blind faith will be hanging around without religion. On what do you base that claim? Blind faith in what? Are you talking from personal experience? What “crap” do you believe to get you through your day?

    You concede that you might be mistaken about George Bush – you are, do the research.

    I don’t really know what to say about your confusing (confused) claim that I said, or implied something to the effect that you will be unsuccessful if you try to get private information regarding atheists????

    And yes, I do prefer an honest faithhead to a closet fundie any day of the week. You say this attitude is revealing….revealing of what?

    Shazee

    January 9, 2012 at 05:48

  621. Oooh, let’s prove to the world just how hard we can “rest [our] case” with Con-Tester and how intensely we can “for the largest part” ignore him. We do this by not letting any of his comments stand without an opportune riposte to another commenter…
    😆:mrgreen:😀😛😀:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😀😛😀:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😀😛😀:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😀😛😀:mrgreen:😆

    Con-Tester

    January 8, 2012 at 23:33

  622. Shazee

    January 8, 2012 at 19:24

    BT, the more I read your postings, the more you sound like a closet fundie.

    No, I abhor fundamentalism.

    You seem to argue that churches are actually harmless clubs of the like minded

    See, that is the them vs. us nonsense right there, I have argued no such thing.

    and that the atheists, by ridiculing their absurd believes, are turning them in to dangerous radicals!

    Quite so!

    I grant you that every idiot is free to believe whatever he or she pleases without interference or comment from anybody, as long as it is being done privately without interfering with anybody or harming anybody. But that is not exactly what is happening, is it?

    So you claim that if I tries to find some information on some coments on on hapenings theists would have had in private then I’s would be unsuccesfull.
    Honestly, that is kinda the problem, in that, both sides to this us vs. them thing would be perpetuating the rivalry. Theists are not keeping their religions to themselves, granted, this is irritating, but the atheist now has to respond with an equal amount of, if slightly less civilised and tolerant, arrogance.

    Very young and impressionable children are being brainwashed into believing this nonsense and it is very effective too – how else do you account for apparently otherwise intelligent adults believing this absurd bullshit?

    Each person gets to make their own choices, I have little to no influence on what my child will choose to believe, no matter how hard I try, as long as I allow them to educate themselves from sources that they can verify themselves, such as Wiki, which our new American politician would like to discredit. Ludicrous, that is, the principle of reading a statement, backed by references from which you can ascertain the identities of the organisations and individuals involved and you can find leads to other studies independently verifying these statements, does not require any belief or faith in any source, it requires a care to know the truth.

    I agree with Richard Dawkins that to teach a child that it is a virtue to believe something without evidence amounts to child abuse.

    Bulshit! It is a basic human survival instinct to believe whatever crap will make us get through the day, none of us are exempt. As with everything there is a Golden Midway, a Balanced Truth, it is not the fact that things are believed without evidence that matters, it is the form, the severity, and the consequences of the belief that matters.

    The “harmless” churches leads to George Bush being able to say that gay people should not be regarded as American citizens.(And to say god told him to invade Iraq)

    I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it, George Bush, does not in my opinion give two hoots about the finer intricacies of Christianity, he is first and foremost, a politician, he speaks what he thinks his people want to hear.

    It leads to 9/11 and suicide bombers. It leads to the trans generational slaughter in Ireland.

    I’ll give you 9/11 and the Muslim danger, but not the Ireland lie, no, that was started for different reasons, it is again human nature and has little to do with the names they chose for “Us” and “Them”.

    As has been pointed out, it is no use pointing to the soup kitchen, church bazaar brand of church member to justify the very real atrocities that blind faith, in its extreme form, eventually leads to.

    Yes it is. Especially since if you did eradicate all knowledge of any God or religious texts, and allowed for several generations to pass, you would still have blind faith floating around, it is a human trait.

    You say that political agendas have corrupted these “harmless” churches? Tell me, how likely is it that anybody would be convinced to wear a belt of explosives had he not been indoctrinated from infancy to believe the absurdities that the “harmless” churches are peddling and corrupting young minds with?

    The Japanese Kamikaze fighters did not require 72 Virgins to motivate themselves, it was merely Giri that made them do it, duty. It is never enough to say God wants it, it is Gods will, no, you would have to justify it, and you would have to be able to lie about what you want God’s will to be well enough for others to believe you. It takes a diabolical mind to achieve this indoctrination, and, it is not the main activity of churches all over the world, it is the main activity of politicians

    There might be a political agenda behind the actual atrocities,but it is blind faith that creates the willingness to commit them

    Yes. On both counts. Two of our most apoplectic human failures.

    I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that a sustantial percentage of the American population would regard a nuclear war as a desirable event, because of their religious believes.

    Sam Harris said: “Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
    Reasonable people seems to be one of these concepts that elude Atheists.

    He also said: “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.”
    This I wholeheartedly agree with.

    Now you call atheists unreasonable? You want us not to speak out against the extreme harm that blind faith can, and actually does cause so as not to antagonise the faithheads?

    Yes, I call you unreasonable in the extreme, no I don’t want you to stop speaking out against blind faith, but, yes, I think it would be better if you didn’t antagonise the religious freaks of the world.

    Reason has been tried, only ridicule remains.

    As I said, reason seems to evade you lot.

    Like I said, you sound like a closet fundie – I prefer an honest faithhead any day of the week.

    Coming from a closet “New” Atheist that insult looses any effect. An honest faithead … revealing.

    Balanced Truths

    January 8, 2012 at 22:02

  623. The argument that many charities are aligned to some or other religious tradition is not an argument for religion. You could just as well argue that we owe education, universities and centres of learning to religion, specifically the RCC in the case of the Western world. Well, it is, on its own terms, true enough — if you choose to ignore that (1) it was done with money extorted from the duped masses; (2) it was done with ad maiorem Dei gloriam first and foremost in mind; and (3) whenever new knowledge threatened dogma, the religious tripped all over themselves in their haste to suppress it. After all, it took them about 400 years to acknowledge that Galileo had a point, and, in a step marked by uncharacteristic alacrity, just short of a century to accept that Darwin did. The plain message is that empirical facts must defer to dogma, even if it means that new dogma must be invented to paper over the cracks.

    Very fucking honourable and upstanding indeed!

    Similarly, the idea that atheists cannot concede that religious precepts have inspired great things is total bullshit. Of course religions have inspired great works! At what cost, though? And were the religious artifices truly necessary to inspire them in the first place? Experience from historically recent secularism (which should not be conflated with the religious zealotry and extremism of Nazism, Socialism, Imperialism and/or Communism) shout a resounding, “No!” Is it any coincidence that theocracies are, from the perspective of the individual subject, indistinguishable in their practical aspects from any other form of absolutism?

    This bloke’s just like Julius Malema, i.e. a fundie of a different sort: The more you poke him in the eye with his own stupid “reasoning”, the more self-righteously he exposes the stupidity of his “reasoning”. It’s all puff and bluster, long on tedium and squat on substance. Hilarious.

    For one among a glut of examples, when he writes, “Just like all questions can be answered with yes and no” in response to the valid criticism that truth needs no balancing, it exposes a stunning depth of insight (quite apart from a few of those pesky logical fallacies that are, by all accounts, so much to be disdained). Then, the idea that “the new Creationist drive to corrupt science is due to [the ‘New Atheists’]” is offered without any reason, argument or evidence whatsoever, and must rank as perhaps the most ridiculously absurd bits of confected bullshit ever to be advanced as an argument against atheism. It is no less than a seditious buggery of historical fact and so obviously in error as to defy classification. “You mustn’t oppose child slavery because it will encourage the slavers to become more clever in hiding their practices.

    But this is the tripe that the self-appointed “Truth Balancers” would feed you. And expect you to swallow.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), your spittle-flecked (Note: it’s “flecked”, not “freckled”, okay?) diatribe has now been addressed for the third time. I guess that you must have missed it (🙄 ), so what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…) Or are you still “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”? Should I perhaps remind you of the question, to which I defy you to point out where you have given an unequivocal “yes” or “no” answer? If your answer isn’t silence, it’ll be evasion. Guaranteed.

    Con-Tester

    January 8, 2012 at 21:14

  624. BT, the more I read your postings, the more you sound like a closet fundie.
    You seem to argue that churches are actually harmless clubs of the like minded and that the atheists, by ridiculing their absurd believes, are turning them in to dangerous radicals!

    I grant you that every idiot is free to believe whatever he or she pleases without interference or comment from anybody, as long as it is being done privately without interfering with anybody or harming anybody. But that is not exactly what is happening, is it?
    Very young and impressionable children are being brainwashed into believing this nonsense and it is very effective too – how else do you account for apparently otherwise intelligent adults believing this absurd bullshit? I agree with Richard Dawkins that to teach a child that it is a virtue to believe something without evidence amounts to child abuse.
    The “harmless” churches leads to George Bush being able to say that gay people should not be regarded as American citizens.(And to say god told him to invade Iraq)
    It leads to 9/11 and suicide bombers. It leads to the trans generational slaughter in Ireland.
    As has been pointed out, it is no use pointing to the soup kitchen, church bazaar brand of church member to justify the very real atrocities that blind faith, in its extreme form, eventually leads to.
    You say that political agendas have corrupted these “harmless” churches? Tell me, how likely is it that anybody would be convinced to wear a belt of explosives had he not been indoctrinated from infancy to believe the absurdities that the “harmless” churches are peddling and corrupting young minds with? There might be a political agenda behind the actual atrocities,but it is blind faith that creates the willingness to commit them

    I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that a sustantial percentage of the American population would regard a nuclear war as a desirable event, because of their religious believes.

    Now you call atheists unreasonable? You want us not to speak out against the extreme harm that blind faith can, and actually does cause so as not to antagonise the faithheads?

    Reason has been tried, only ridicule remains.

    Like I said, you sound like a closet fundie – I prefer an honest faithhead any day of the week.

    Shazee

    January 8, 2012 at 19:24

  625. Irma

    January 6, 2012 at 16:14

    I have a hard time taking Balanced Truths seriously. When your primary source is wikipedia??? Are you kidding me? And yes, if ONE child is being molested in the name of the church then that is one too many. Learn from the feminists.

    I use Wiki when my references are incorrectly labelled as “creationist”. And no, thank you all the same, I would rather not learn anything from the ‘feminists’. There is another organised group of irrational and unreasonable people with emotionally immature political agendas.

    BTW there is no such thing as “balanced truths”. It’s either true or it isn’t. No balancing required. Only required when you are trying to “balance” truth with fiction.

    Just like all questions can be answered with yes and no.

    One more comment to Balanced Truths on most of your posts: TLDR. (Too Long Didn’t Read) Oh yes, also: it’s unbelievably boring. Make your point. Life is too short for this BS.

    Spoken like a true politician, stick around, you will learn a lot from others here, in particular, how to employ logical fallacies to better your position.

    Balanced Truths

    January 8, 2012 at 15:39

  626. Shazee

    January 3, 2012 at 00:49

    BT, no, I don’t condone the fabrication of evidence, but the evidence was not fabricated, was it? It was merely interpreted – sounds familiar?

    No, Shazee, this is just not truthful. Just like scientists are not allowed to interpret statistical analyses into significance, just so, you cannot condone a lie to prove your point, even though you may have a valid argument and cause.

    I cannot agree with you that the churches has a role to play in any capacity whatsoever. What would that purpose be? The perpetuation of superstition and ignorance, of bigotry and the teaching that it is a virtue to believe without
    evidence or contrary to evidence, that is ok to hate anybody who don’t believe exactly as you do for no other reason than their disbelieve?

    It is my experience that few religious organisations preach hate.
    The principles of belief relies heavily on personal experience and the matter of proof is circumstantial and pertains to individual perceptions.
    Just like atheists are forming cell groups, flocking together for communion with likeminded individuals, so it has always been for the religious, and every other human group interest. According to the religious texts, the church is supposed to be like this.
    The corruption that is politics has changed this body into an organised political party that uses fear mongering and dogma to achieve their own selfish and most often financial goals. Be that as it may, most organisations that goes out of their way to sacrifice their own needs to afford help and support to poor countries, communities and troubled individuals are affiliated with churches. As I said, they are not all bad. This is a point you “New” Atheists cannot concede to as it would hamper your cause.

    When has the church ever retreated from a single point of dogma except under extreme duress?

    Many churches have started changing, moving away from the strictest adherence to the dogma in order to allow, for instance, homosexual marriages. Just like governments had to afford changes to allow the legal aspects of this. You don’t often see change happening if there is not a suitable amount of pressure.

    Reasonable and rational people have been respectfull for far too long.

    Reasonable people are so because they are not expecting or demanding more than is possible or achievable, they understand what is acceptable, according to the common sense or normal practice of others that are not like them, and they are tolerant of differences. This is a group you New Atheists are not counted under at present.

    The church, and religion in general, is a destructive and evil construction that should be opposed and stamped out as soon as possible – it is in very real sense us or them.

    I wondered about the feigned ignorance about “New” Atheism, the above is a statement of unreason and spoken like a true politician.

    (Or would you like to introduce me to a priest,vicar,dominee who feels that he would like to explore a balanced truth with me regarding scepticism,atheism or evidence based believes?)

    Unfortunately I would be of little help to you, I don’t know any.

    You seem to argue that atheists are reponsible for the childishly silly ideas of young earth creationists or the dangerous delusions of crazy fundamentalists

    I said no such thing, I said your foolhardy and lofty methods will just strengthen these delusions. I am saying that the new Creationist drive to corrupt science is due to your ignorant and childish group, yes, that I am saying.

    Now it is the fault of reasonable people that these idiots are becoming dangerous

    As I said, you are not reasonable people. And no, they and every other organised group of humans are in a perpetual state of ‘being dangerous’ to someone or something. It is your fault that they are becoming agitated and swept up, because it is your cause to agitate and ridicule, it is your unreasonable angry and offensive approach that is emotionally juvenile.

    Balanced Truths

    January 8, 2012 at 15:25

  627. Hans,jy se Genisis is simboliek?
    As ek reg onthou is die eerste woorde van die bybel – “In die begin het god die hemel en die aarde geskape” – nou se asb vir my, watter deel van die sin is simboliek?
    As ek die sin letterlik opneem het god die heelal geskep en as dit simboliek is, wat de moer beteken dit dan???
    Soos n mens so mooi op Engels se; here’s the rub: as die storie in Genesis net simbolies is, dan het Adam en Eva nooit bestaan nie, en het die sondeval nooit plaasgevind nie – dit is mos net simbolies,reg? – dit sou beteken god het homself laat vermoor (jesus is mos god ne?) Vir n sonde wat nooit werklik plaasgevind het nie (dit was mos net simbolies ne?)

    Hans, my ou mater, ruik jy nie lont nie? As die skeppingsverhaal letterlik opgeneem word is dit duidelik n klomp stront en as dit simbolies gelees word is god n geestesversteurde sado- masogis.

    Shazee

    January 8, 2012 at 06:56

  628. Let’s neaten that up a little.

    Eeeh, but Hanswors, the entire Holey Babble is one huge, drawn-out command from your skydaddy, isn’t it? Or are you now saying it also contains literal descriptions of pious people’s customs that we should read “symbolically”? If so, how do you jump through all these logical and epistemological hoops with such consummate agility?

    I mean, Exodus 21:7—9 clearly talks about selling your daughter to a wealthy man as a sex slave should he wish to take her as such. And the Holey Babble is your skydaddy’s inerrant word, as unfailingly dictated to a few special blokes. Please explain what your skydaddeeeeee meant with all these convoluted complications!

    After all, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Con-Tester

    January 7, 2012 at 23:51

  629. Eeeh, but Hanswors, the entire Holey Babble is one huge, drawn-out command from your skydaddy, isn’t it? Or are you now saying it also contains literal descriptions of pious people’s customs that we should read “symbolically”? If so, how do you jump through all these logical and epistemological hoops with such consummate agility?

    I mean, Exodus 21:7—9 clearly talks about selling your daughter to a wealthy man as a sex slave should he wish to take her as such. And the Holey Babble is your skydaddy’s inerrant word, as unfailingly dictated to a few special blokes. Please explain what your skydaddeeeeee meant with all these convoluted complications!

    After all, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Con-Tester

    January 7, 2012 at 23:18

  630. Dààààààsy! Dis weereens bliksemse “simboliek”! Sò gepraat van “hardkoppigheid,” Hanswors, will you answer my question?

    It should be easy for you since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Con-Tester

    January 7, 2012 at 23:10

  631. Con-Tester, the custom of the people of those days was not a request from God, so I have not ignored anything. You seem to presume that it was the will of God that one should sell ones daughter. See, I am not afraid of Bible verses so sorry to disappoint you.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 7, 2012 at 23:09

  632. Shazee, I wish you free thinking as at present you are under others influence. Genisis gaan nie oor die skepping van die heelal nie maar is simboliek betreffende elke een se begin. Jesus het in vergelykenisse gepraat om aan ons boodskappe oor te dra en so is dit met baie Bybelverhale. Die ramsgesindheid gaan oor hardkoppigheid.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 7, 2012 at 23:02

  633. Hans, ons wil regtig nie alle christene vermoor nie. Laat ek Pat Condell parafraseer – we don’t wish you harm, we wish you mental health.

    Shazee

    January 7, 2012 at 09:31

  634. Hans, ek buig voor jou meerdere kennis van die bybel.
    Ek moet erken, man, hierdie “simboliek” ding kry my so effens onder, nou het ek gewonder; wat daarvan jy (met jou meerdere kennis) vat n hoofstuk van die bybel – se byvoorbeeld Genisis – en se vooraf vir my watter deel is simbolies en watter deel kan ek maar letterlik opneem.
    Daarna debatteer ons hom. Klink dit vir jou redelik?
    Hans, as jy nie die uitdaging wil aanvaar nie sal ek geen keuse he as om met CT saam te stem dat dit eintlik jy is wat “kakbang” is vir n debat oor die bybel sonder die agterdeur van simboliek

    By the way, wat op aarde is “ramgesindheid” ??. Dit klink vir my effens obseen, iets soos n orige bok dalk?

    Shazee

    January 7, 2012 at 04:50

  635. As predicted, you certainly don’t disappoint, Hanswors. You deliberately ignore the plain, clear meaning of Exodus 21:7—9.

    Wie’s nou kakbang vir bybelversies, hmm?

    Con-Tester

    January 6, 2012 at 23:56

  636. Con-Tester, you read things that are not written in Exodus 21 v 1 to 11, as It was the custom of those people to arrange marriages and not a command from God. Simboliek bestaan seker nie in jou beperkte woordeboek dus sal ek maar verder verby hou.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 6, 2012 at 23:36

  637. Nòg “simboliek”. Kry vir jou. En daar’s nog op die horison. Lagwekkend.

    Con-Tester

    January 6, 2012 at 23:03

  638. Jan Swart, dit wys maar net dat as julle atiëste julle sin kon kry, sou julle alle Christenne wou vermoor soos hulle in die ou tyd. Jesus, mens is gekruisig sodat Christus kan lewe en vandag is dit nog so. Dit is dieselfde simboliek wat vir my toon dat ek vir ander moet lewe en nie dat ek selfsugtig moet wees en dat alles net om myself moet draai nie. Lees maar Rom. 6 en moontlik sal jy die boodskap begryp.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 6, 2012 at 22:55

  639. Dààààààsy! Dis weereens fokken “simboliek”…😆😮😆😮😆😮😆

    Con-Tester

    January 6, 2012 at 22:46

  640. Shazee, die storie van Abraham is simboliek en dit dui daarop, dat ek die ramgesindheid in my moet offer en nie wat God aan my gegee het nie. Lees gerus Rom. 8 v 5 en 6.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 6, 2012 at 22:40

  641. Cookies can be tough, the way they often crumble. “All of the people some of the time” vs. “some of the people all of the time” and all those other grave aphorisms.

    What’s needed is Hanswors’ clarification of what went wrong.

    ’Til then, bugger.

    ————————

    Shazee, Google ken die Holey Babble aansienlik fokken beter as ekke. Sulke feite kan redelik maklik opgespoor word as jy weet hoe en waar om te soek. Wat my nogtans pipienatbroek tiekel is hoe godiote/galoofiote/bibliote/relegiote/apologiote altyd en heeltemaal onstelselmatig vir jou sê hoe dìè en dààì gedeelte metafories te verstaan is, en dààì en dìè gedeelte letterlik. Duidelik is die vraag dan, “Fokkit, as jy in elk geval self in elke geval gaan besluit wat reg (die letterlikke gedeeltes) of verkeerd (die metaforiese gedeeltes) is, hoedefok is daai storieboek van énige praktiese fokken nut!?”

    Con-Tester

    January 6, 2012 at 22:24

  642. Con – Tester,, ek is beindruk man, vir iemand wat gaan braai ken jy darem wragtig jou bybel jong.

    Shazee

    January 6, 2012 at 21:55

  643. Ís.

    Nathan Bond

    January 6, 2012 at 20:29

  644. I have a hard time taking Balanced Truths seriously. When your primary source is wikipedia??? Are you kidding me? And yes, if ONE child is being molested in the name of the church then that is one too many. Learn from the feminists.

    BTW there is no such thing as “balanced truths”. It’s either true or it isn’t. No balancing required. Only required when you are trying to “balance” truth with fiction.

    One more comment to Balanced Truths on most of your posts: TLDR. (Too Long Didn’t Read) Oh yes, also: it’s unbelievably boring. Make your point. Life is too short for this BS.

    Irma

    January 6, 2012 at 16:14

  645. It occurs to me now that in this sense, Hanswors is of course correct: There’s clearly plenty of reason to be kakbang of Holey Babble verses. There are enough people, past and present, who take such shit literally and who act on it.

    What’s that you say? “No True Crushtian™”, eh?

    Con-Tester

    January 6, 2012 at 08:58

  646. Or selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11). How about killing your own child because you’ve made a bargain with this “god” (Judges 11:29-40)? “God” sez it’s okay to kill your enemies’ kids (Isaiah 13:16). But if you want to get really gory with your enemies’ children and their unborn, this “god” gives clear commands for what you must do (Hosea 13:16). Then, if you’re still not happy, you can smash children’s heads against rocks (Psalms 137:9).

    Oh, but wait! We must read all of this “spiritually” (whatever the fuck that might be) and “in context” (the new non plus ultra dodge of apologetics). If we’re still confused, we can just sweep it under the “new dispensation” rug (and ignore the pressing question of how it is possible for an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator’s creation to go off the rails).

    Con-Tester

    January 6, 2012 at 08:49

  647. …. of is dit dalk die God wat die bere die kindertjies wat die bleskop ou man gespot het, uitmekaar laat skeur het? Die ironie is natuurlik dat daar van ons verwag word om leiding van God kry oor hoe om ons kinders groot te maak. The same God that sent his own child to earth and put a hit out on him….

    Jan Swart

    January 6, 2012 at 05:26

  648. Hans, is dit nou dieselfde god wat vir Abraham opdrag gegee het om sy seun te slag en op die laaste oomblik gese het hy maak net n grappie? Al gedink hoe die seun wat al vasgebind was en le en kyk het hoe sy pa (in opdrag van god) die mes slyp om sy keel af te sny daaroor gevoel het?
    Is dit dieselfde god wat opdrag gegee het dat kinders wat hulle ouer ongehoorsaam is gestenig moet word?
    Is dit dieselfde god wat sy eie seun wreed laat vermoor het omdat ander ouens vrugte gesteel het?
    Ja, nee, ek kan sien hoe lief hy vir kindertjies is, hy sal hulle nooit, ooit laat mishandel nie.
    Lees jy ooit jou eie bybel Hans?

    Shazee

    January 6, 2012 at 04:19

  649. Verifanie, Jesus het ook nie kindermishandeling verdra nie en dit is volgens die geloof wat God, deur Hom tot stand gebring het.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 4, 2012 at 22:50

  650. Shazee,
    Dankie vir jou antwoord. Dit is vir my ‘n rare ondervinding om, nadat ek iets oor kinders geskryf het op hierdie blog, ‘n bevestiginde antwoord te kry van iemand wie saamstem dat ‘n mens nie kinders moet mishandel nie.

    Die probleem le egter daarin, dat a.g.v. totale onkunde deur mense wie met hulle neuse heeldag in die bybel sit, of net YOU of HUISGENOOT lees, weet hierdie mense nie wat “mishandeling” eintlik behels nie.

    Mishandeling, of mis-hantering, hoef nie noodsaaklik net fisiese aanranding (pakslae) te wees nie. Byvoorbeeld, as ‘n babatjie se behoeftes nie bevredig word nie, is dit pynlik en veroorsaak lyding. As die verwagtende moeder rook of drink, op ‘n streng dieet gaan om haar lyfie te behou, of as sy doelbewus met ‘n keisersnee wil geboorte gee, beskadig dit die foetus al klaar. Deur die ma erg te verdoof met geboorte gee, veroorsaak ernstige en baie nadelige lewenslange nagevolge in die foetus wat nou die lewe gaan sien. Die eerste vyftien minute of so is absoluut krities en nodig dat daar ‘n hegtheid plaasvind tussen die ma en die nuwe baba. Die ma moet wakker wees, nie bedwelmd nie.

    ‘n Babatjie wat erge pyn opgedoen het met geboorte, of selfs voor dit, gaan verskriklik baie huil, en aanhoudend ook. Dalk sal dit eers begin wys as die kind so twee of drie jaar oud is.
    Die meeste ouers skud en shush aanhoudend vanaf die kind se geboorte.

    Ook sommer regdeur sy of haar lewe:

    “Moenie sleg voel daaroor nie” “Hou nou op met jou gehuilery” “Jy is mos nou al groot”

    “Jy gaan nou tekere soos ‘n baba” “Kyk hoe kwaad word jy nou” “Word nou groot, toe”

    “Ek sal jou iets gee om oor te huil” “Moenie terugpraat nie” “Ek is jou ma/pa, jy MOET

    my respekteer” “Moenie jou opruk teenoor my nie” Ad nauseum.

    Geen wonder dat daar so baie godiote op aarde is nie.

    verifanie

    January 3, 2012 at 20:50

  651. Verifanie, ou maat, jy laat my nou klink soos n kindermishandelaar omdat ek gatvol is om geloofskoppies te paai en respek te betoon vir vir hulle dikkoppige bygelofies.
    Om jou vraag te antwoord; nee, ek is nie die tipe ou wat kinders met n belt sal slaan nie, of hulle op enige wyse sal mishandel nie,inteendeel. Ek glo darrem ook nie ek het dit op enige wyse aangedui dat dit is wat ek wil doen nie. Ek is van mening dat daar veel meer probleem ouers as probleem kinders is.
    My verwysing na kinders wat vloermoere gooi is gemik op wat jy die godiote noem. Hulle tree op soos wat jy van kinders sal verwag wat nie van beter weet nie, maar hulle het nie die verskoning dat hulle onskuldige kinders is nie, hulle is grootmense wat weier om hulle verstand te gebruik. Ek weier om hulle te paai en ek gaan nie daarvoor om verskoning vra nie.

    Shazee

    January 3, 2012 at 16:46

  652. Shazee,

    Ek moet jou aanspreek oor jou stelling wat betref kinders wat “vloermoere” gooi. Dit is betreurenswaardig dat so ‘n stelling van jou afkomstig is. ‘n Ou sou dit verwag het van ‘n tipiese godioot. Maar nou ja, of iemand nou die godsdiens kak afgesweer het of nie, wat het so ‘n persoon nou eintlik geleer oor babatjies en kinders? Niks.

    Is jy die tipe ou wat jou belt sal afhaal vir ‘n laitie wat, soos jy dit noem, ‘n vloermoer gooi?
    Indien so, verloor ek alle respek vir jou. Wat ek jou kan verseker, is dat indien jy ‘n kind te lyf gaan met ‘n belt of iets, sal daardie kind eendag as volwassene, na iets aangryp om soos ‘n kruk te gebruik, en dit kan wel godsdiens wees, of enige ander esoteriese kak.

    ‘n Vloermoer, is niks anders as ‘n klein liggaampie wat vir jou wil se dat hy nodig het om ontslae te raak van geweldige frustrasie, wat opgebou het vandat hy as babatjie nie toegelaat was om sy pyn uit te huil nie. Weet jy enige iets van die pyn waarmee klein babatjies gebore word? Ouers wie dit nie weet nie, sal ernstige foute begaan met hulle kinders.

    Dit is waarvandaan godiootheid kom. Klein wesentjies wie nie ontslae kon raak van uiterste pyn in hulle klein liggaampies nie. Dan word daar gegryp na ‘n slaanding en nog meer pyn word toegevoeg, of daar word hard op die kind geskree om stil te bly. Ek wens ek kan mense kry om net so ‘n bietjie te lees van Arthur Janov se werke. Hy verduidelik dit veel beter as wat ek kan, as gevolg van meer as 45 jaar se kliniese navorsing.

    As ‘n babatjie huil, tel haar op en hou haar net vas. Moet nie skud of shush nie. Bly doodstil. Laat sy huil, al vat dit tien minute, of ’n uur of wat ookal. Sy huil omdat daar pyn in haar klein wesentjie is. As sy wil loswikkel, laat haar gaan, maar bly by haar, dat sy weet jy is daar. As sy op die vloer wil huil, is dit ook OK. Bly doodstil. Laat haar alles uithuil.

    Moet NOOIT ‘n kind wat huil in ‘n kamer toesluit nie. Dit is krimineel!

    Laat kinders kwaad word, en laat hulle alle gevoelens en emosies uitleef. Luister net. Moet nie onderdruk op enige manier nie. Beaam die kind se gevoelens, en hy of sy sal nie eendag in feetjies en ander kak wil glo nie.

    Ons probeer mense se opinies oor godsdiens verander, maar die algemene vestiging van pyn wat opgedoen was as kind, word glad nie aangespreek nie. Kinder se gevoelens was, en word nog, onderdruk tot ‘n groot mate. ‘n Mens sien dit elke dag. Hoekom sien ‘n mens op baie van die blogs en webwerwe, “Report Abuse”. Onderdruking van gevoelens is mishandeling. “Pakslae” is mishandeling.

    Doen bietjie navorsing. Google beitjie en vind uit hoeveel kinders daar mishandel word, elke minuut, uur, of elke dag wereldwyd. Jy sal geskok wees.

    As jy se dat jy “genoeg gehad het” van ‘n kind se vloermoere, dan is daar beslis kak in joy wese wat moet uitgewerk word, want dit beteken dat ‘n kind se gehuil of woede jou angstig maak. Die probleem le by jou, nie by die kind nie!

    verifanie

    January 3, 2012 at 11:08

  653. BT, no, I don’t condone the fabrication of evidence, but the evidence was not fabricated, was it? It was merely interpreted – sounds familiar?
    I cannot agree with you that the churches has a role to play in any capacity whatsoever. What would that purpose be? The perpetuation of superstition and ignorance, of bigotry and the teaching that it is a virtue to believe without
    evidence or contrary to evidence, that is ok to hate anybody who don’t believe exactly as you do for no other reason than their disbelieve?
    I also don’t buy your pie in the sky argument that we should persue a common goal of seeking a “balanced truth” together. When has the church ever retreated from a single point of dogma except under extreme duress? The church has proven over and over that it is very willing and capable of suppressing any opinion or fact it does not like by any means (violence if needs be, or even without the need) Reasonable and rational people have been respectfull for far too long. The church, and religion in general, is a destructive and evil construction that should be opposed and stamped out as soon as possible – it is in very real sense us or them. (Or would you like to introduce me to a priest,vicar,dominee who feels that he would like to explore a balanced truth with me regarding scepticism,atheism or evidence based believes?)
    You seem to argue that atheists are reponsible for the childishly silly ideas of young earth creationists or the dangerous delusions of crazy fundamentalists, ag asseblief man, what do you suggest we do – appease them, like Hitler (you seem to be fond of him). I suggest the result of such a polcy would be much the same. Now it is the fault of reasonable people that these idiots are becoming dangerous because it is being pointed out how untenable the superstitions are that they so fondly and tenaciously hold?
    My ou maat, dit smaak my jy wil he ons moet n bederfde kind paai omdat hy vloermoer gooi, doen jy dit maar, ek het genoeg daarvan gehad..

    Shazee

    January 3, 2012 at 00:49

  654. BT, no, I don’t condone the fabrication of evidence, but the evidence was not fabricated, was it? It was merely interpreted – sounds familiar?
    I cannot agree with you that the churches has a role to play in any capacity whatsoever. What would that purpose be? The perpetuation of superstition and ignorance, of bigotry and the teaching that it is a virtue to believe without
    evidence or contrary to evidence, that is ok to hate anybody who don’t believe exactly as you do for no other reason than their disbelieve?
    I also don’t buy your pie in the sky argument that we should persue a common goal of seeking a “balanced truth” together. When has the church ever retreated from a single point of dogma except under extreme duress? The church has proven over and over that it is very willing and capable of suppressing any opinion or fact it does not like by any means (violence if needs be, or even without the need) Reasonable and rational people have been respectfull for far too long. The church, and religion in general, is a destructive and evil construction that should be opposed and stamped out as soon as possible – it is in very real sense us or them. (Or would you like to introduce me to a priest,vicar,dominee who feels that he would like to explore a balanced truth with me regarding scepticism,atheism or evidence based believes?)
    You seem to argue that atheists are reponsible for the childishly silly ideas of young earth creationists or the dangerous delusions of crazy fundamentalists, ag asseblief man, what do you suggest we do – appease them, like Hitler (you seem to be fond of him). I suggest the result of such a polcy would be much the same. Now it is the fault of reasonable people that these idiots are becoming dangerous because it is being pointed out how untenable the superstitions are that they so fondly and tenaciously hold?
    My ou maat, dit smaak my jy wil he ons moet n bederfde kind paai omdat hy vloermoer gooi, doen jy dit maar, ek het genoeg daarvan gehad.

    Shazee

    January 3, 2012 at 00:44

  655. Oh, lest I be accused of lethargy, I’ll let posterity be the judge of whether I demonise religion. To me, the very concept of “demonisation” is absurd, given that demons as abstract supernatural entities are worthy of no more than a horse laugh.

    Yes, I disdain religion, just as I hold in contempt any and all forms of fanatical, dogmatic, authoritarian cults of unreason. If you want to call that “demonising”, then the answer is still “yes”.

    Simple, eh? Clear enough, eh?

    Your turn to answer yes-or-no questions.

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 20:01

  656. Good, so now that you’re talking to me again — not unexpectedly, with much avoidance and evasion, and much incoherence, and four times nogal within a 36-minute period — you still seem compos mentis enough to answer my simple yes-or-no question, Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ). So what’s your answer? Come, come, it’s simple enough.

    Or are you now going to go back into your sulky “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out … for the largest part … ignore[ing me]”?

    But whatever your decision on the above, thanks for substantiating my point that it’s an unctuous little ruse to say that you “can be sympathetic to religion and yet not have any religious convictions” — just as much as your stamp-my-little-feet assertion that you’ll ignore me. You just can’t trust these sycophantic wannabe fence-sitters on anything they say.

    So, what is it: “yes” or “no”, eh?

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 19:24

  657. Which reminds me:

    Thus dear CT,
    Science & Religion: August 31, 2011 at 22:16 and September 1, 2011 at 20:54 (with special reference to my post of September 3, 2011 at 14:36) will have to be addressed with a modicum of honesty before any new issues can be addressed. But thank you for proving my point yet again. Your piss poor answer of September 3, 2011 at 16:33 is, as you say, “a slippery evasion” and my answer of September 3, 2011 at 17:31 clearly addressed your stupid question, if it is not clear enough for your paranoid ego, well then that’s your problem, join verifuktap for counselling.

    I unfortunately have to add a few points to the long list of standing questions you have refused to answer as I would beg you to let our

    Casual-Tosser

    know where ‘[my] idiotic rant has been addressed’ by you.

    Balanced Truths

    January 2, 2012 at 18:54

  658. Do you demonise religion?

    “It’s an easy enough question that can be answered in just two or three letters. At this point, it’s irrelevant who exactly is the egomaniacal and/or soporific mammary around here. What matters is your credibility — or at least it should matter to you, but maybe doesn’t and that’d be revealing, too…”

    “But I guess it’s something of an incentive to engage in such hilarious avoidance tactics when you’re just, just functional enough to know that whichever clear answer you give means that you’re exposed as a total fraud, and it doesn’t help either when a few other contributors have seen straight through you as well.”

    So what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Balanced Truths

    January 2, 2012 at 18:49

  659. Balanced Truths

    January 2, 2012 at 18:22

  660. Google “Wiki Reichskonkordat” and see also the bit above that “Nazi attitudes towards the Church”.

    Balanced Truths

    January 2, 2012 at 18:18

  661. Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) wrote (January 2, 2012 at 15:20):

    It required the “New” Atheist movement to renew the Theistic [sic] fear for [sic] Science [sic], these vehement public attacks giving them incentive to get more organised in order to manipulate and degrade science and inadvertently giving religion, and sadly, in particular, these atrocious attributes you mention above, a revitaliser.

    It would arguably be better for all if we chose diplomatic truthful methods.

    So reinventing history from scratch, as in the first above-cited paragraph, qualifies as “diplomatic truthful methods,” yes? Religiots/crediots/bibliots/godiots were wholly content with evolution until the new atheists (or ‘“New” Atheists’ — take your pick) launched the first evolution-negates-god salvo, yes?

    Sadly, there’s never a LOL icon big enough to do the deceptions, delusions and deliberate distortions full justice.

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and…) Or are you still “rest[ing your] case with [me]” with a healthy dose of “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 17:27

  662. Agreed, Nathan: Very well said by Amisha Jordan.

    ————————

    It has always been this Bollocksed Goofs’ (😆😳 ) habit, well beyond the point of being a characteristic feature, to let loose aimless torrents of perplexing sermonising. He struggles much to render clear speech. This strong penchant for obscurantism and obfuscation is itself revealing, and is all the more evident in self-serving-but-wholly-inopportune comparisons and reinterpretations of history that clearly neglect in toto the big picture.

    As near as I can tell, this shifty specimen’s view is that atheists must cease and desist denouncing religion ASAP. This, for two reasons: First, it upsets believers (to which my response is, “Good. People only change when something compels them to.”) Second, because there might just be some truth to their beliefs (to which my response is, “Maybe so. Then let them stop pretending to be friends of science and rationality, and let them bring adequate proof for their extraordinary claims. And must we now also resist criticising all beliefs, however popular and unlikely, because they ju-u-u-ust might be true?”) Sometimes he seems to object to using the findings and methods of science in the debate (to which my response is, “Good luck to you with that. Clearly, faith alone is not enough for the faithful, who usually drag it into contention in the first place.”) But, as said, owing to a severe communication defect, most of the time it’s not easy to fathom exactly what this joker is getting his knickers in a knot about, except that he sees the “New” Atheism as the New Great Evil™.

    Besides the fact that SA is one of the more religious countries in the world, and besides the plain fact that one evil cannot be used to excuse another, the actual fact is that sexual abuse of children has occurred within the halls and under the stewardship of an authority, namely the RCC, that proclaims itself as the guardian and protector of humanity’s morals and spirituality (whatever the fuck that might be). When, as a worldwide institution, you call yourself such a guardian, you need to be extra sure that there aren’t any blemishes on your record because you will, quite naturally and rightly so, be held up to a stricter standard of morality. Even more, when a blemish is uncovered, you must deal with it openly, quickly and decisively, not sweep it under the rug along with piles of other dirty linen. At this time, we are nauseatingly familiar with the bankrupt morals and hypocrisy, as they were repeatedly exposed through the latter action.

    The impressively self-important reconstructionist rant over Nazi atheism is a total hoot and shows the lengths to which the smarmy “friends of reason” will go to promote their delusions. For one thing, it’s intensely curious how the idea that atheism (rather than, say, a religiously fanatical belief in evidence-free dogma) supposedly was a principal motivation for Nazi atrocities and genocide, how this idea has so far evaded making it into mainstream history. Typically, this is the superficial agenda-laden nonsense one finds at bibliot/crediot/apologiot/godiot/religiot websites (presumably to expose the evils of atheism), and nowhere else. For another, the Vatican gave some legitimacy early on to the Nazis in Germany and remained largely neutral during WWII (Google “Reichskonkordat”; see also the Wikipedia article “Vatican City during World War II”). The issue of the Vatican’s conduct in respect of the Holocaust is not at all clear (see the Wikipedia article “Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust”), but alone the fact that this is a contentious issue is telling: A supposedly moral authority must shield against even the hint of any such equivocations. For yet another, the Nazis first gained prominence in southern Germany (Bavaria) where the population was (and still is) predominantly Roman Catholic, so there was nothing in the Nazi creed that the Germans, as a whole, felt to be inimical to Roman Catholicism. For yet another, the Nazis’ professed atheism was a reaction to an established order that they saw as oppressive to the German people (religion in Germany was, and is, tightly bound to the State). The Nazis did their level best to supplant “god” with an incoherent quasi-religious potpourri of occult/pagan/mystical notions.

    And the idea is utterly laughable that Nazism somehow foreshadows how the current friction between atheism and theism will develop. Where are the atheist storm troopers? The atheist concentration camps? The atheist Luftwaffe? The atheist Gestapo? The atheist national identity? The atheist rallies baying for the blood of its enemies and oppressors? The atheist book burnings? The atheist invasions? Where are these things? No, the historical situation in Europe ca. 1930 to 1945 vividly illustrates what happens when a new, fanatical, dogmatic, authoritarian cult of unreason bashes heads with an old and established one. It wasn’t a conflict between theism and atheism. It was a conflict between rival superstitions vying for dominion over a section of the public. Had the RCC had access to the Nazi’s weapons and technology during the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the conquest of the Americas, what makes anyone think they wouldn’t have deployed them? After all, in those prior instances, they showed no restraint whatsoever in deploying the current state-of-the-art in weapons against heathens.

    In neither case should the RCC need reminding of Galatians 6:7. Nor is it much surprising that the committed closet apologist is unable to see the oh-so-slap-in-the-face distinct parallels between formalised religion and any dogmatic, authoritarian evidence-free creed. You can include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and several lesser autocrats in that, too. Does it really need to be spelled out that all formalised religions began life as dogmatic, authoritarian evidence-free creeds? Does it really need to be spelled out that all formalised religions, once they have achieved a certain minimal level of acceptance, invariably become tools of socio-political manipulation — specifically, manipulating the ordinary person into submissiveness through promise of some great post-mortem reward?

    So, mendacious tactics, indeed. Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and…) Or are you still “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and is this how “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 15:46

  663. Shazee
    January 1, 2012 at 15:18

    I struggle to determine on which side you are on, and please don’t tell me you are a neutral.

    I assume you refer to two sides, ‘us’ and ‘them’ . One of humanity’s more disastrous failings. The concept of sides is found inadequate in the light of a common goal, the truth. Not simply the empirical truth, because the Nazi organisation saw more of that kind of truth than your ‘New’ Atheist side cares to acknowledge. Eugenics is, after all, a valid scientific pursuit, if human morality does not stand in the way. Science does not judge, the data is just data, and the material and methods do not require compassion.
    Perhaps there is a more balanced truth.

    Usually the truth does not win you friends, but it influences people. When you manipulate it to get your way it shows, perhaps not immediately, but it shows sooner or later. James Watson was scientifically correct when he said “[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really”. But was he right in saying it?

    On the one hand you say that the church was dying a natural death as though it would be a good thing (which it would be), and…

    The churches of this world have a place and a function, it would be best if they performed this function where it matters and stayed out of scientific matters and the affairs of government. The church as we know it has been way too powerful, and has been a very convenient tool for evil masters. I would have been very happy to see it slowly evolve into a less powerful opiate.

    on the other hand you highlight “was” as though the atheist movement (and I doubt if it is a movement) is somehow responsable for a revival.

    You can no longer argue against the fact that “New” Atheism is a movement.
    It has been gaining popularity, not so much for promoting science, but due to the public attacks on religious stupidity, it is exhilarating and sensational, however, it is inadvertently moulding its own opposition in the form of a very ugly branch of religious fanatics, Fundamentalists, Young Earth Creationists. Sects that are branding Atheists as Demons. Evolution, for Theists, has suddenly become part of the ‘them’ group and the ‘us’ group has been effectively cut off from it.

    I stand by my comment that it is sickening to try and rationalise or soften the very real abuses of the RCC in any way shape or form by claiming the accusations are exaggerated or was motivated by a political agenda.

    But the motivations was exaggerated, grossly so, do you propose turning a blind eye to that? Would you condone fabricating evidence?
    The fact that this exaggeration is quoted and proselytized only acts to implicate, either by design or opportunity, those purporting it.
    If rape is the problem then attack rape, why pick the RCC if their statistics are so low, why not pick the culture of the South African black population, or are you afraid of going Watson’s way, you surely will.

    As far as I am concerned, almost no tactic short of violence would be unjustified in getting rid of this evil institution.

    Then I suggest you be careful when you form ‘us’ and ‘them’ groups. The institution may be evil due to its powers-that-be but there are also good people, who work for humanitarian reasons, involved. It is a fact that the larger portion of charity organisations has religious connections.

    You say that atheists are trying to appropriate science and to seperate the church from science? I would love you to explain what you mean by that.

    Since Darwin, the church saw a big danger to the literal interpretation of Genesis, this discovery of evolution was seen as an inadvertent attack on their sacred book. The “New” Atheist movement has made it loudly public that Evolution is a counter to Religion, that it somehow proves that there can be no God. It is a manipulative lie that draws science into the battle of Theist vs Atheist and it makes science, by implication, a no-go-area for Theists. It removes the chance of slow gradual change because it removes the influence the scientific truth would otherwise have had. If you demonise something it means you are required to hate it simply because it is acceptable to do so. Hate begets hate, it is not reasonable, extremism never is.

    The church which exists on the strenght of revealed truth and which actively discourages critical examination of its doctrines, the church which teaches that it is a virtue to believe absurdities in the absense of proof, or even better, despite proof to the contrary, needs atheists to seperate it from science???

    The clashes between church and science, like Galileo’s, have proved that the church cannot win arguments with science in the long run and for a long time the churches were losing the authority they once held. It required the “New” Atheist movement to renew the Theistic fear for Science, these vehement public attacks giving them incentive to get more organised in order to manipulate and degrade science and inadvertently giving religion, and sadly, in particular, these atrocious attributes you mention above, a revitaliser.

    Anyway, I was under the impression that the debate was going to be about the inherent evil of the church and not about the alledged political agenda of the “new” atheists.

    With a title like, “The year of the Atheist?”
    The inherent evil of the church is organised corruption, politics, the greatest human failure. It is no different for the “New” Atheist movement.

    By the way, if there is an agenda to get rid of harmfull superstition, of parasitic organisations that exists on human gullibilty, of recruiting grounds for mindless fanatics and of organisations that give aid and comfort to perverted child abusers, please, please, count me in.

    That is where we differ, I am not satisfied with just any agenda. It would arguably be better for all if we chose diplomatic truthful methods.

    Balanced Truths

    January 2, 2012 at 15:20

  664. Well said, Amisha.

    Nathan Bond

    January 2, 2012 at 14:08

  665. I fully expect this to be the year of the atheist, at least in the United States. I don’t think it is about dismantling the church or propegating fears and allegations against the pope. I think this is simply going to be a statement against the opressive influence of Christianity on American law makers. It has come to the point where law makers and presidential hopefuls openly put religious agendas ahead of constitutional liberties. In a country built on freedom of religion, laws are being written to outlaw gay mariage, supress science, teach creationism or intelligent design in public schools, bring prayer to schools, use Christianity as a basis for legal decisions. This is not okay. The atheist movement, as I see it in my small neighborhood of the world, is about making ourselves known as a substantial demographic that wil not sit quietly as the religious right crams there hateful bigotry down our throats and into legislation.

    As far as the fear of ostrecism goes, it is certainly valid, but not the only factor in the muted voice of the average atheist. More than social suicide, what keeps many atheists from speaking out is our disdain for having others push their beleifs on us. I don’t want you trying to save my soul, so I will not try to free you from your dogma. We do not want to mimick the obnoxious behaviors of evangelicals. Most atheists consider themselves free thinkers, and are not inclined to become an organized sect of atheists against organized sects. Creating a church of atheists is much like starting a council of anarchists- how many would come to the meetings? This is changing now out of necessity. The religious right has too strong of a hold on government and public policy for us to continue minding our own business and keeping our beliefs private. It is time to speak up and be heard. The constitution protects freedom of religion which must also include freedom to reject religion. The bible must not be put before our constitutional rights.

    My perspective is obviously painted by the political climate here, but I do look foreward to hearing how this is playing out around the world.

    Amisha Jordan

    January 2, 2012 at 12:03

  666. Jip. Ek vermoed dit gaan nog ten minste twee geslagte vat voor daar dalk sinvol gepraat sal kan word van The Year of the Atheist.

    En in alle billikheid, Irma, dis nie die kerk wat die 21 Desember-apokalips verkondig nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    January 2, 2012 at 06:06

  667. Balanced truths, I struggle to determine on which side you are on, and please don’t tell me you are a neutral.
    On the one hand you say that the church was dying a natural death as though it would be a good thing (which it would be), and on the other hand you highlight “was” as though the atheist movement (and I doubt if it is a movement) is somehow responsable for a revival.
    I stand by my comment that it is sickening to try and rationalise or soften the very real abuses of the RCC in any way shape or form by claiming the accusations are exaggerated or was motivated by a political agenda. As far as I am concerned, almost no tactic short of violence would be unjustified in getting rid of this evil institution.
    You say that atheists are trying to appropriate science and to seperate the church from science? I would love you to explain what you mean by that. The church which exists on the strenght of revealed truth and which actively discourages critical examination of its doctrines, the church which teaches that it is a virtue to believe absurdities in the absense of proof, or even better, despite proof to the contrary, needs atheists to seperate it from science???
    Anyway, I was under the impression that the debate was going to be about the inherent evil of the church and not about the alledged political agenda of the “new” atheists.
    By the way, if there is an agenda to get rid of harmfull superstition, of parasitic organisations that exists on human gullibilty, of recruiting grounds for mindless fanatics and of organisations that give aid and comfort to perverted child abusers, please, please, count me in.

    Shazee

    January 1, 2012 at 15:18

  668. It is dishonest for Christopher Hitchens to say this:

    If you’re writing about the history of the 1930s and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word ‘fascist’, if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with ‘extreme-right Catholic party’.
    Almost all of those regimes were in place with the help of the Vatican and with understandings from the Holy See. It’s not denied. These understandings quite often persisted after the Second World War was over and extended to comparable regimes in Argentina and elsewhere.

    It is dishonest when the truth is that the Nazi party either renounced the church or was merely tolerant of it and that the individual members were largely atheistic. (Laqueur, Walter 1996). Into the early 1930s the German Center Party, the German Catholic bishops, and the Catholic media had been mainly solid in their rejection of National Socialism. They denied Nazis the sacraments and church burials, and Catholic journalists excoriated National Socialism daily in Germany’s 400 Catholic newspapers. The hierarchy instructed priests to combat National Socialism at a local level whenever it attacked Christianity (Cornwell, John October 1999). It is also the truth and perfectly reasonable that the church changed its stance after the Final Solution became a reality, it would clearly have been suicide not to, besides, the organisation is mentioned in many historical accounts to have secretly aided the cause against the Nazi movement.

    Balanced Truths

    January 1, 2012 at 11:36

  669. Shazee

    I don’t believe that “scientific” is a word that should be used in relation to the church or religion in general.

    The word ‘scientific’ should not be used to describe the spiritual nature of the church or religion. There is nothing wrong with using scientific principles to investigate, for instance, how much money is given to the church each year and what percentage is used for humanitarian goals. No, the above reference is valid in the light of the “New” Atheist’s drive to own the scientific industry and all its related virtues for their cause and to separate not only the religious institutions form science but to also cast doubt on the credibility of any religious and/or spiritual scientist.

    It is, at this stage, delusional to turn a blind eye to the knee-jerk reactions the “New” Atheist and “New” Creationist organisations are getting from each other and only fools will deny the grossly distorted manifestations of these two camps this feud is causing.

    To accuse atheists of an underhanded political agenda in relation to the RCC is rich irony.

    No, to do the above while claiming the church, any church, is innocent would be, yes, but that is hardly what I am saying.
    It is however what ‘New’ Atheists like RD and CH would have everyone believe, and it is exactly this relation that Con-Tester would have everyone believe I and the John Gray’s of the world care about in order to push us into the ‘opponent’ camp so that they can discredit us with underhanded political tactics.

    It is these tactics that make it very clear they are trying to win a debate, to push a viewpoint across, to proselytise their requirements and discredit the opposition, even when it is the truth, at all costs, not, sadly, to promote the truth as they say.

    The Roman catholic church hardly needs any help from atheists to be demonised, whatever the tactics used, care to debate that?

    Actually, I would debate that. The church was slowly falling out of favour all by itself, in this new age of technology it is becoming harder and harder to hide the truth from those who care to educate themselves. Unfortunately the largest portion of the billions of humans on Earth don’t care to educate themselves, they are too busy trying to survive, by any means possible. That is exactly why this public battle between Atheists and Theists are going to cause so much trouble. It is evolving into an emotional battle where propaganda, movies, books, lectures and organised groups are being manipulated to stir up feelings and to provoke action, not to promote the truth.

    To demonise the church is a dishonest endeavour wherein its proponents strive to hide and discredit any and all virtues the church might have and not just to highlight all the faults but to carefully manipulate the truth to make religion and spirituality resemble a far more virulent threat than it is. The help of “New” Atheists are required to demonise the church because science would persist with or without theists and atheists and would remain impartial to religion and since the general population does not give two hoots about the truth from one moment to the next.

    No, it requires this movement to incite the masses, and to build momentum, instead of just promoting the truth in all it’s unbiased splendour and letting the superstitions fade away at their own pace, as they surely would have.

    These underhanded tactics will only serve to ensure both sides become progressively further corrupted.

    Balanced Truths

    January 1, 2012 at 11:12

  670. The Roman catholic church hardly needs any help from atheists to be demonised, whatever the tactics used, care to debate that?

    Shazee

    January 1, 2012 at 09:28

  671. I don’t believe that “scientific” is a word that should be used in relation to the church or religion in general.
    To accuse atheists of an underhanded political agenda in relation to the RCC is rich irony.

    Shazee

    January 1, 2012 at 09:20

  672. It would be epistemological to dismantle the church for exactly what it is, it is decidedly unscientific and dishonest to use underhanded political tricks to demonise it.

    Nothing good will come of this “New” Atheist movement, not because of it’s tenets but due to the mendacious tactics this movement employs.

    Balanced Truths

    January 1, 2012 at 08:47

  673. “Why is it worth pointing out these basic facts? Not in order to defend the Catholic Church, which clearly has a sexual abuse problem, or to minimise the suffering of those individuals who ‘only’ suffered being verbally abused, shown dirty photos or fondled over their clothing by Catholic priests – all of those acts are abhorrent and potentially punishable in a court of law. No, it is worth pointing out the reality of the extent of allegations against the Catholic Church in order to expose the non-rationalist, anti-humanist underpinnings of the current fashion for Catholic-baiting amongst the liberal, opinion-forming classes in the US and the UK. The wildly inaccurate claim about thousands of children being raped by the representatives of an institution which actively ‘protected and financed child rape’ suggests that modern-day atheism, this New Atheism, has zero interest in applying the tools of rational investigation and critical questioning to the problem of certain religions’ infrastructure, and instead is hellbent on using the politics of fear to invent a fantastical rape-happy ogre, in contrast to which it can pose as the pure defender of childlike innocence and societal integrity.”

    Balanced Truths

    January 1, 2012 at 08:45

  674. Balanced Truths,
    Jy maak my naar man. Wat is jou argument nou eintlik? Die priesters het nou wel n klompie onskuldige kinders verkrag, maar nie soveel as wat julle beweer nie? Hulle het nou wel die ander seksueel gemolesteer, maar daar was darrem nie penetrasie nie?
    Behalwe dat so n argument fundamenteel siek is, het jy dit al oorweeg dat die bron van die “abuse” kom van n instansie wat julle wil he ons moet respekteer, en respekteer omdat dit iemand se geloof verteenwoordig?
    Dit sulke tipe rasionaliserings van barbaarse gedrag wat my laat voel ons is moontlik nie militant genoeg nie.
    Se my, as die beskuldigings gemik was teen n atteistiese liefdadigheids organisasie, sou jy dit steeds met n “geballanseerde waarheid” probeer regpraat het? Ek weet van bitter min atteiste wat sou.

    Shazee

    January 1, 2012 at 07:40

  675. Very Balanced. Very Truthful. Very non-self-serving. Very deep analyses. Very insightful. Very accurate. All of it. I, for one, am now totally convinced that religion has been and is being unfairly targeted all along. Not a bad start for 2012.

    Who can I repent to? To whom can I confess my sins? Who shall absolve me of my casually blind and tossful stupidity?

    Still, there’s an unresolved issue, Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping…) You know the question, right? Or have you forgotten? Need I remind you perhaps?

    Oh, do forgive my leaky memory! This is you “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”. Clearly, you’re far too wise, mature, balanced and truthful to be baited by such childish tactics as mine…

    Con-Tester

    December 31, 2011 at 23:45

  676. Similarly, many fundamental proselytising Atheist like RD, CH and other Casual-Tossers would have us believe that the Nazi movement was religious, that the church was ultimately the evil behind the scenes, religion is, after all, the biggest evil mankind has ever seen.

    Wikipedia says:
    To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate or impose exclusionary segregation upon “degenerate” and “asocial” groups that included: Jews, homosexuals, Romani, blacks, the physically and mentally handicapped, Jehovah’s Witnesses and political opponents. The persecution reached its climax when the party and the German state which it controlled organized the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews and six million other people from the other targeted groups, in what has become known as the Holocaust.
    Amongst the German academics who planned it, it was known as the Final Solution.

    A closer look at the leaders and brains behind the scenes, in alphabetical order (I only made it to G but I think the common thread is not religion).

    AGunter d’Alquen, primarily a Journalist, his function was as Chief Editor of the SS official newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps (“The Black Corps”), and commander of the SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers.

    Ludolf von Alvensleben, who graduated with a degree in Agriculture and acted as commander of the SS and police in Crimea and commander of the Selbstschutz (self-defense) of the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia.

    Max Amann was and Editor and Head of Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag

    Benno von Arent, a stage designer. He was responsible for art, theatres, and movies in the Third Reich.

    Heinz Auerswald was a lawyer and Commissioner for the Jewish residential district in Warsaw from April 1941 to November 1942.

    Artur Axmann, studied law and was Chief of the Social Office of the Reich Youth Leadership. Leader of the Hitler Youth from 1940 through war’s end in 1945.

    Herbert Backe. He studied at the Tbilisi Gymnasium (grammar school) and studied at the University of Göttingen. He was Minister of Food (appointed 1942) and Minister of Agriculture (appointed 1943).

    Alfred Baeumler. From 1924 he taught at the Technische Universität Dresden, at first as an unsalaried lecturer Privatdozent. Bäumler was made associate professor (Extraordinarius) in 1928 and full professor (Ordinarius) a year later. From 1933 he taught philosophy and political education in Berlin as the director of the Institute for Political Pedagogy. A philosopher who interpreted the works of Friedrich Nietzsche in order to legitimize Nazism.

    Werner Best studied law and in 1927 obtained his doctorate degree at Heidelberg. He was a SS-Obergruppenführer and Civilian administrator of Nazi occupied France and Denmark.

    Paul Blobel studied architecture and practiced this profession from 1924 until 1931. He was a SS commander primarily responsible for the Babi Yar massacre at Kiev.

    Hans-Friedrich Blunck was a jurist and a writer. He was a propagandist and head of the Reich Literature Chamber between 1933 and 1935.

    Ernst Wilhelm Bohle studied political sciences and business administration in Cologne and Berlin and graduated in business management at the Handelshochschule, Berlin, in December 1923. He was the leader of the Foreign Organization of the German Nazi Party from 1933 until 1945.

    Philipp Bouhler studied philosophy for four semesters and in 1921 became a contributor in the publishing house that put out the Völkischer Beobachter. He was Chief of the Chancellery of the Führer of the NSDAP and leader of the Action T4 euthanasia program.

    Viktor Brack was a doctor and the organiser of the Euthanasia Programme, Operation T4 and one of the men responsible for the gassing of Jews in the extermination camps.

    Otto Bradfisch. An economist and jurist and Commander of the Security Police in Lódz and Potsdam.

    Karl Brandt. He became a medical doctor in 1928.- Personal physician of Adolf Hitler in August 1944 and headed the administration of the Nazi euthanasia program from 1939.

    Wernher von Braun – rocket scientist, aerospace engineer and space architect- head of the V-2 rocket program at Peenemunde. Subsequently worked for the US Army and NASA, designing America’s pioneering rockets including the Redstone, Atlas and Saturn V

    Josef Bühler -degree in law- State secretary for the Nazi-controlled General Government in Kraków during World War II.

    Herr Carlton – Noted Nazi Liberal professor of politics.

    Werner Catel – Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry at the University of Leipzig, considered an expert on the programme of euthanasia for children and participated in the T-4 Program.

    Carl Clauberg – Doctor who conducted medical experiments on human beings in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

    Leonardo Conti – Head of the Reich Physicians’ Chamber (Reichsärztekammer) and leader of the National Socialist German Doctors’ League (Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Ärztebund or NSDÄB).

    DKurt Daluege – studied engineering at the Technical University in Berlin, acted as SS-Oberstgruppenführer and Generaloberst der Polizei, as chief of the Ordnungspolizei (Order/uniformed Police); from 1942 ruled the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia as Acting Protector after Reinhard Heydrich’s assassination.

    Richard Walther Darré – attend school in Heidelberg; exchange pupil to King’s College School in Wimbledon, then spent two years at the Oberrealschule in Gummersbach, followed in early 1914 by the Kolonialschule,then to Witzenhausen to continue his studies and complete his PhD in 1929. He was Minister of Food and Agriculture from 1933 to 1942.

    Rudolf Diels -study law at the University of Marburg- was a German politician. A protégé of Hermann Göring, Diels was the first director of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1 April 1934.

    Otto Dietrich -went to the universities of Munich, Frankfurt am Main and Freiburg, from which he graduated with a doctorate in political science in 1921- Press Chief of the Third Reich.

    Oskar Dirlewanger -studied at the university in Frankfurt and obtained a degree in political science in 1922- Commanded the infamous SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger unit made out of amnestied Germans convicted of major crimes.

    EIrmfried Eberl -physician. Eberl graduated from the medical program in 1933 and gained his doctorate a year later. He was Commandant of Treblinka, July to September 1942.

    Dietrich Eckart -studied law at Erlangen, later medicine at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, also a poet, playwright and journalist. He was an important early member of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party and a participant of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.

    August Eigruber -underwent training in geodesy and fine mechanics at the Austrian Federal Teaching Institution- Gauleiter of Oberdonau (Upper Danube) and Landeshauptmann of Upper Austria

    Richard Euringer – Writer- who selected 18,000 “unsuitable” books which did not conform to Nazi ideology and were publicly burned.

    Gottfried Feder. After attending humanistic schools in Ansbach and Munich, he studied engineering in Berlin and Zürich (Switzerland); after graduating, he founded a construction company in 1908,from 1917 on, Feder studied financial politics and economics. He was an Economic theorist and one of the early leaders of the NSDAP.

    Hans Frank -studied law- Governor-General of occupied Poland and involved in perpetration of the Holocaust.

    Roland Freisler -studied law at the University of Jena, becoming a Doctor of Law in 1922- State Secretary of Adolf Hitler’s Reich Ministry of Justice and President of the Volksgerichtshof. He sentenced hundreds of people to their deaths, including Sophie Scholl, and various members of the July 20 Plot. He was killed while returning to collect some files during an air raid on Berlin.

    Wilhelm Frick. Frick finished school in Kaiserslautern. Between 1896 and 1900, he studied at the University of Munich, the University of Göttingen and the University of Berlin and completed his degree in law in Munich. Frick earned a doctor of laws from the University of Heidelberg in 1901. He was Minister of the Interior until August 1943 and later appointed to the ceremonial post of Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.

    Hans Fritzsche – studied briefly at a number of universities before becoming a journalist for the Hugenberg Press – Senior official at the Ministry for Propaganda.

    Walther Funk – studied law, economics, and philosophy at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the University of Leipzig – Minister for Economic Affairs from 1937 to 1945.

    Karl Gebhardt – Head physician – Personal physician of Heinrich Himmler and one of the main perpetrators of surgical experiments performed on inmates of the concentration camps at Ravensbrück and Auschwitz.

    Achim Gercke stated that beside the task of maintaining one’s own blood pure, there was the task of “extinction”, which would obey the great law of Nature to eliminate the bad and so be truly humane. He acted as – Expert of racial matters at the Ministry of the Interior and devised the system of “racial prophylaxis” forbidding the intermarriage between Jews and Aryans.

    Kurt Gerstein-(Finaly someone with ties to the Church). He indulged himself at the University of Marburg for three semesters, he then transferred to the technical universities in Aachen and Berlin/Charlottenburg where he graduated in 1931 as a mining engineer. On 4 September 1937, Gerstein started studying Medicine at the University of Tübingen. He was an SS officer and member of the Institute for Hygiene of the Waffen-SS. He witnessed mass murders in the Nazi extermination camps. He gave information to the Swedish diplomat Göran von Otter as well as members of the Roman Catholic Church in order to inform the international public about the Holocaust. In 1945 he authored the Gerstein Report about the Holocaust. Afterward he allegedly committed suicide while in French custody.

    Joseph Goebbels earned a Ph.D. from Heidelberg University in 1921, writing his doctoral thesis on 19th century romantic drama; he then went on to work as a journalist and later a bank clerk and caller on the stock exchange. He was one of Adolf Hitler’s closest associates and most devout followers, he was known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda throughout the Third Reich and World War II. Named Chancellor of the Reich in Hitler’s will, a position he held for only one day before his own suicide.

    Hermann Göring. In 1933, Göring banned all Roman Catholic newspapers in Germany, not only to suppress resistance to National Socialism but also to deprive the population of alternative forms of association and means of political communication. He was Hitler’s designated successor (until expelled from office in April 1945), and commander of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). As Reichsmarschall he was the highest-ranking military officer in the Third Reich; he was also the sole holder of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. He was sentenced to death by the Nuremburg Tribunal but committed suicide before he could be hanged. He was a veteran of the First World War as an ace fighter pilot, a participant in the Beer Hall Putsch, and the founder of the Gestapo.

    Robert Ritter von Greim – focused on a career in law, and succeeded in passing Germany’s rigorous law exams – German Field Marshal, pilot and the last commander of the Luftwaffe succeeding Hermann Göring in the last days of World War II.

    Walter Groß -physician- was chief of the Racial Policy Office of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). Implicated in the Final Solution.

    Hans Friedrich Karl Günther , he was a eugenicist. He studied comparative linguistics at Albert Ludwigs University in Freiburg, but also listened to lectures on zoology and geography. In 1911, he spent a semester at the Sorbonne, Paris. He attained his doctorate in 1914. In 1919 he started his writing career, with “The Knight, death and the devil: the heroic idea” he advocated “biological nationalism”. He was responsible for Academic, teaching racial theories and eugenics.

    Franz Gürtner – attended the University of Munich where he studied law- Minister of Justice responsible for co-ordinating jurisprudence in the Third Reich.

    Balanced Truths

    December 31, 2011 at 23:09

  677. New Atheism, like Gray said, is very similar to religious politics, complete with propaganda and construing the facts to suit the cause.

    Pope Benedict XVI is the boss of a church that acts as a ‘patron, protector and financier of child rape’, says one secularist writer. Last week the UK Independent reported that in America, ‘over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped as part of this misery-go-round’ overseen by His Holiness and His Lackeys. In Ireland alone, a tiny country of 4.5million people, ‘Thousands were raped in reform schools’, said a British broadsheet headline last year, ramming home the ugly truth of how many kids have been raped by the Catholic Church’s army of paedophile priests.

    But how true is this ugly truth? Were 10,000 children in America and thousands more in Ireland really raped by Catholic priests? In a word, no. Instead, what has happened is that in the increasingly caliginous, almost Inquisitorial mindset of sections of the New Atheist anti-pope lobby, every allegation of abuse against a Catholic priest – whether it involved sex talk or fondling or actual penile penetration – has been lumped together under the heading of ‘rape’, and every allegation has been described as an actual proven ‘rape’ regardless of whether it resulted in a legal trial, never mind a conviction.

    The term ‘paedophile priest’ has become such a part of everyday cultural lingo that most people, when they read in last week’s relatively respectable UK Independent that ‘over 10,000 children have come forward to say they were raped [by Catholic priests]’, would probably think, ‘Yeah, that’s possible’. But it isn’t true. The Independent was referring to a study commissioned in 2002 by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was published in 2004 under the heading ‘The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States’. This study covered the period of 1950 to 2002, and it did indeed find that 10,000 individuals in the US – 10,667, to be precise – had made allegations of sexual abuse against priests (against 4,392 priests in total, around four per cent of the 109,694 Catholic priests active in the US between 1950 and 2002). But this doesn’t mean that these 10,000 ‘[came] forward to say they were raped’.

    The 10,667 made various allegations, ranging from verbal abuse (being forced to indulge in sex talk) to being shown pornography to being touched by a priest over or under their clothing. Then there were the more serious allegations, which included being coerced into mutual masturbation, oral sex and, in some instances, rape. Yet where 3,553 of the individuals claimed to have been touched over their clothing and 3,981 to have been touched under their clothing, a smaller number claimed to have been subjected to what is described in the report as ‘penile penetration or attempted penile penetration’, that is rape or attempted rape; 990 boys and 213 girls made this allegation – a total of 1,203 individuals, not 10,000.

    Moreover, if we are serious about such Enlightened ideals as justice and equality before the law, then we have to accept the fact that not all of these allegations were ultimately proven to be true. Out of the 10,000-plus allegations made against priests in America, 3,300 were not investigated at all because they were made after the accused priest had died (surely even the most riled anti-pope commentator accepts that a man who is no longer around to defend himself cannot be convicted of a crime). Of the 4,392 priests in America who were accused of sexual abuse in the period of 1950 to 2002, 1,021 were investigated by the police, and of these, 384 were charged, of whom 252 were convicted. So around six per cent of all American priests who had allegations made against them were finally convicted. (Of course there are many reasons for this relatively tiny number of convictions: some alleged victims were pressured to keep quiet; some (25 per cent in the US) didn’t make their allegations for more than 30 years after the alleged incident occurred; and in some instances there was just a lack of evidence.)

    So nothing like 10,000 individuals in America ‘say they were raped’ by Catholic priests. In truth, 1,203 made this allegation. And not all of them resulted in a conviction. Every allegation of rape should be treated seriously, of course, but what happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? How did a complex US report about all manner of allegations against priests come to be translated in the words of the Independent into the idea that ‘over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped [by priests]’? Because in the outlook of certain sections of the intolerant New Atheist lobby, everything from sex talk to fondling to being shown a porn flick is ‘rape’ – if it’s done by a priest, that is – and every priest is guilty of what he is accused of despite the question of whether or not he was convicted in a court of law.

    A similarly warped conflation has been made in relation to Ireland, now widely looked upon as a country where crazy priests spent most of their days handing out communion wafers and/or raping children. When the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was published in May 2009 – with its analysis of accusations of abuse made by individuals who had attended Irish reform schools between 1940 and 1999 – the media reported it as if it had uncovered apocalyptic, Caligulan levels of sexual depravity. ‘Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools’, said the Independent. ‘Thousands raped in Ireland’s Christian Brothers schools’, said the Belfast Telegraph. ‘Thousands raped and abused in Catholic schools in Ireland’, said the Guardian.

    So were thousands of children – in particular boys, the main focus of the media reports – raped in Irish reform schools? No – 68 were, allegedly. Two-hundred-and-forty-two male witnesses made 253 reports of sexual abuse against the staff of Irish reform schools at the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse – and of these, 68 claim to have been raped. Once again, not all of the allegations resulted in convictions. Some witness reports involved priests who had died, and out of the 253 male reports of sexual abuse, 207 related to the period of 1969 or earlier; 46 related to the 1970s and 1980s. How did 68 claims of anal rape made against the staff of Irish reform schools over a 59-year period translate into headlines about thousands being raped? Because once again, everything from being neglected to being smacked to being emotionally abused – which thousands of Irish reform-school kids were subjected to – was lumped together with being raped, creating a warped image of a religious institution that rapes children on an almost daily basis. (If it were true that 10,000 Americans had claimed to have been raped by priests between 1950 and 2002, that would have amounted to more than one alleged priest-rape every two days.)

    Why is it worth pointing out these basic facts? Not in order to defend the Catholic Church, which clearly has a sexual abuse problem, or to minimise the suffering of those individuals who ‘only’ suffered being verbally abused, shown dirty photos or fondled over their clothing by Catholic priests – all of those acts are abhorrent and potentially punishable in a court of law. No, it is worth pointing out the reality of the extent of allegations against the Catholic Church in order to expose the non-rationalist, anti-humanist underpinnings of the current fashion for Catholic-baiting amongst the liberal, opinion-forming classes in the US and the UK. The wildly inaccurate claim about thousands of children being raped by the representatives of an institution which actively ‘protected and financed child rape’ suggests that modern-day atheism, this New Atheism, has zero interest in applying the tools of rational investigation and critical questioning to the problem of certain religions’ infrastructure, and instead is hellbent on using the politics of fear to invent a fantastical rape-happy ogre, in contrast to which it can pose as the pure defender of childlike innocence and societal integrity.

    The irony is almost too much. For in the past, of course, it was the Catholic Church, especially during the period of the Inquisition, which viewed being accused as the same thing as being guilty, and which demonised its enemies, on the basis of questionable evidence, as depraved perverts whose mad habits posed a threat to morality and stability. Now, somehow, bizarrely, worryingly, the so-called New Atheists have adopted these very tactics in their drive to depict religion as the greatest evil of our age.

    By Brendan O’Neill (journalist)

    Compare these measly statistics to South Africa.
    Wiki says:
    According to a survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the UN, South Africa was ranked first for rapes per capita. The incidence of rape has led to the country being referred to as the “rape capital of the world”. One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year. More than 25 per cent of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rape; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person. Three out of four of those who had admitted rape indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teens. South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world.
    .
    We far outdid a worldwide organisation’s statistics for over half a century, an organisation in charge of billions, in two years flat, nothing to do with religion.

    Balanced Truths

    December 31, 2011 at 21:52

  678. Unintelligible blather and remarkably uninspired and contrived prattle aside, Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping…) You know the question, right? Or have you forgotten? Need I remind you perhaps?

    Oh, do forgive my leaky memory! This is you “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”. Clearly, you’re far too wise, mature, balanced and truthful to be baited by such childish tactics as mine…

    Con-Tester

    December 31, 2011 at 21:34

  679. I don’t know Nathan, this new militant version of Atheism might very well have its day.

    Especially since in militant -OH! I mean…ahem- “New” Atheism, contradicting oneself in order to take another swing at religion is a perfectly legitimate strategy.

    New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens should follow the example of Marx and Darwin instead of baiting the devout.

    “The struggle for a free intelligence has always been a struggle between the ironic and the literal mind.”
    ― Christopher Hitchens

    Balanced Truths

    December 31, 2011 at 21:04

  680. On 21 December 2012, the Mayan calendar runs out of days. Crediots of several particularly naïve stripes propose that this means the Mayans knew when the world will end and aligned their calendar accordingly, and so the world will end on that day. The situation is in principle no different to saying that we can’t count beyond four digits, and so the world will end on 31/12/9999, i.e. in about 8,000 years.

    Basically, it’s an especially hilarious line of asinine unreason.

    After his previous failed prognostications for 21/5/1988 and 6/9/1994, Harold Camping predicted the return of Jesus to Earth with “The Rapture” commencing on 21 May 2011, culminating in global annihilation on 21 October 2011. Lots of people bought into his lunacy, including many crediot/religiot/godiot/bibliot acolytes here in SA.

    As is now patently obvious, nothing especially noteworthy happened at the appointed time, least of all the sobering up of Camping and his mindless dupes who now insist that in reality a “spiritual judgement” occurred (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean).

    Con-Tester

    December 31, 2011 at 18:38

  681. Thought it was supposed to end 2011, wasn’t it 21 May or something? Or was it 21 September?

    Shazee

    December 31, 2011 at 17:17

  682. Thought it was supposed to end 2011, wasn’t it 21 May or something?

    Shazee

    December 31, 2011 at 17:16

  683. Unfortunately, I have to agree.

    Remember too, that 2012 is the year the world is supposed to end. If you can’t get them to believe by promising eternal salvation, at least you can scare them into church. The end justifies the means.

    But the article also makes clear that many atheists do not “come out” because of fear of ostracism. It’s not just intellectual courage that is lacking, but also moral honesty and a distrust of popular opinion.

    On a frivolous note, as Oscar Wilde said: “Ah! don’t say that you agree with me. When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong”.

    Best wishes for 2012!

    Irma

    December 31, 2011 at 07:41


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: