Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

God is love

with 29 comments

A picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words. Yet, we can only understand images (and suggestions and gestures) by relying on words, even if certain images leave us speechless.




Written by Nathan Bond

October 2, 2008 at 12:47

29 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. But I’m not in shit, Hans Matthysen, constantly or otherwise. Rationlise that one away, but note that “Satan” is an answer alone in your warped world.


    August 7, 2009 at 21:25

  2. Ek ken die verskil Hans. Die Liefde bevry, all round, sex vir eie gebruik, maak almal om jou seer.


    August 7, 2009 at 21:05

  3. Nathan, as liefde God is, hoekom noem ons dit nie God nie? As waarheid God is, …. As lig (verstaanbaarheid) God is, …. As gees God is, ….?

    Hans Matthysen

    August 6, 2009 at 20:33

  4. Kat, daar is ‘n verskil tussen liefde en sex. Jy blyk nog onvolwasse en verward te wees. Jy is op een ding reg en dit is, dat jy maar nog opleiding benodig.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 6, 2009 at 20:28

  5. Con-Tester, should you not answer to that call, daily, you are referring to, you will constantly be in shit.
    The call I am referring to also happens to be daily.

    Hans Matthysen

    August 6, 2009 at 20:21

  6. Dankie, Daan. Is ons nie maar almal, net ‘n bietjie goddeloos nie, jy weet, sonder Liefde op tye nie…hiehie

    In die afdeling van die Liefde, kan die pot nie die deksel verwyt nie. Een leef mos maar net in ‘n bietjie meer dankbaarheid as die ander een…hangaf wie lê bo in die pottelaai.


    August 5, 2009 at 20:42

  7. Kat! More.

    Goed om jou hier tussen al die goddelose bliksems raak te lees.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    August 5, 2009 at 08:12

  8. Yes, I do, not as well as you, but I admit I am in training.

    God is love to me. Therefore, Love is God to me.

    I need God to be able to love. I will never claim you need God to love. I don’t know what you need just to love.


    August 3, 2009 at 13:22

  9. I see you distort words too.

    Distort this: If God is love, why do we call it “God” and not love and why do we need “God” if “God” is no more than love?

    Nathan Bond

    August 3, 2009 at 12:52

  10. Hiehie..thank you. We might become very humorous reading to others. Sorry, I have one ability, to destort any topic. I shall try again and concentrate on the topic in hand, from now on: God IS love.


    August 3, 2009 at 09:17

  11. Pleased to meet you. I’m a cartoon with an acid punch line.


    August 3, 2009 at 08:44

  12. “Answering a call makes one chosen? That’s the kind of comic illogic that makes believers so funny.” wrote Con- Tester

    I am a comic strip with a touch of pawn into me.

    What are you?


    August 3, 2009 at 08:02

  13. I feel a call of nature coming on, one that I am inclined to answer. Yay me! For I am chosen!



    August 1, 2009 at 21:06

  14. Answering a call makes one chosen? That’s the kind of comic illogic that makes believers so funny.


    August 1, 2009 at 21:02

  15. Fredericke, not so, as we are called and those who answer His call, becomes chosen. We therefore have a choice to become chosen. Just answer His call.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 30, 2009 at 20:41

  16. Hans, no we do NOT have the choice “who’s will stays or who’s will go”. As I have it, your god has decided and knows that – even long times before anyone’s birth, not so?

    Fredericke Adonis

    July 24, 2009 at 16:07

  17. Surely you joke, Hans Matthysen! The only thing you have shared with me is unverifiable nonsense and fantasy which you have yet to substantiate.


    July 24, 2009 at 08:28

  18. Fredericke, yes, we all have the choice to who’s will stay’s and who’s will go’s, in our lives. God’s will is that no soul is lost and that we do unto others, as we would do unto ourselves.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 23, 2009 at 21:16

  19. Con-Tester, your argument is based on what others claim, who themselves do not know God. Rather base your argument on the things I have shared with you.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 23, 2009 at 21:10

  20. Hans
    Your comment implies that we have free will! God/omniscience and Free Will are contradictory. One of them must go – and I’m afraid it is God!

    Fredericke Adonis

    July 23, 2009 at 12:37

  21. Hans Matthysen, read what I wrote (November 27, 2008 at 11:19 pm) again and try to understand it because it is not that hard to follow: “Your god’s culpability is a matter of logical necessity.” To deny this is to live in a world of dreams. Oh, wait a minute…


    July 22, 2009 at 08:48

  22. By the way, who created the situation? Should man live according to the will of God, the mentioned tragedies would not have been. Man must take responsibility for their own actions, as only fools blame others.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 21, 2009 at 21:33

  23. As your and that of many believers, perception of God is incorrect. It is understandable that you would come to an incorrect conclusion.
    When a lion kills a buck for a meal, for the buck, it is a tragedy and yet, that is nature.
    We are all going to die, as that is nature, so don’t confuse yourself because of an incorrect perception.
    For you it may be a tragedy to die, as you don’t believe in the afterlife. That is a tragedy.
    I wouldn’t base my debate on what others claim.

    Hans Matthysen

    July 21, 2009 at 21:23

  24. I also try my best, Nathan. I also don’t claim to be a god. I just try to live what I believe in: Love is my God.


    July 20, 2009 at 18:08

  25. As much as we can, I hope! But then again, I do not claim to be a “loving ‘God'”.

    Nathan Bond

    July 20, 2009 at 17:14

  26. And what did you and I do to stop evil in this world, Nathan?


    July 20, 2009 at 10:40

  27. Hans Matthysen wrote (27 Nov 08 at 7:46 pm):

    You are sugesting that God cauesed the above tragedies. Kindly tell me, how do you come to that conclusion?

    Assuming for argument’s sake that your god exists and has the properties and attributes believers claim, the answer goes thus: “Simple. When an omnipotent and omniscient uncaused-first-cause creator-god sets about making the world, whatsoever happens in the resulting world is inescapably that creator-god’s fault.” In short, your god’s culpability is a matter of logical necessity.

    The fact that your god must have known (because s/he’s omniscient, see?) how things were going to turn out but made things that way anyway (because s/he’s omnipotent, see?) casts doubt on his/her benevolence. Or maybe it’s just one or more of play-play omnipotence or play-play omniscience or play-play benevolence. Or maybe s/he only exists as a figment of believers’ imaginations. Yup, I like the last option most ’cos it’s the simplest.


    November 27, 2008 at 23:19

  28. I’m not saying “God” caused the tragedies… I’m saying the tragedies happened on the watch of the “God” of believers. Clearly, the bastard didn’t do anything to avert the tragedies. Some “God”! Some “shepherd”!

    Nathan Bond

    November 27, 2008 at 20:53

  29. You are sugesting that God cauesed the above tragedies. Kindly tell me, how do you come to that conclusion?

    Hans Matthysen

    November 27, 2008 at 19:46

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: