Die “Heilige Gees” kuier vlugtig by vyf hoë Hervormdes | Nathan Bond's TART Remarks
Religion: Respect? Ridicule! Die “Heilige Gees” kuier vlugtig by vyf hoë Hervormdes
“By the way, Apartheid is sonde”, sê die Heilige Gees
Neels Jackson berig in verskeie Afrikaanse dagblaaie dat proff. Andries van Aarde, Yolanda Dreyer, Johan Buitendag, Ernst van Eck en Jimmy Loader sê dat die “Heilige Gees ‘n oomblik van waarheid op hul harte gelê” het en dat hulle derhalwe besef het dat Apartheid sonde is.
Dis 15 jaar nadat ‘n demokratiese regering in Suid-Afrika verkies is en meer as 20 jaar nadat FW de Klerk die Suid-Afrikaanse politieke en sosiale landskap vir ewig verander het. Wáá val die “Heilige Gees” nóú uit!?
Na dekádes van Apartheid kom die “Heilige Gees” nou, in 2009, met ‘n óómblik se “waarheid”!?
Wáár, o waar, was die “Heilige Gees” oor die eeue heen? Wáár die afgelope 20 jaar?
En hoe kan “iemand” wat so stadig van insig is oor enigiets vertrou word?
Hierdie “oomblik van waarheid” is tekenend van die onbeskryflike naïwiteit en plein dom-onnoselheid van gelowiges.
Is die “Heilige Gees” dalk uit sy slaap wakker geskud omdat die Wêreldbond van Gereformeerde Kerke onlangs bepaalde lidmaatskapseise gestel het? Liewe land, het die professors geen skáámte nie? Dink die professors kerkbankers is idiote!?
Hierdie “oomblik van waarheid” is lagwekkend. Dit oortuig my andermaal van die veragtelike aard van godsdiens.
Written by Nathan Bond March 14, 2009 at 16:13
On being hacked… and unhacked. And something about TRUTH »
Die Here is nie in ‘n bepaalde kerk nie – ons as mense wil God aan ‘n kerk koppel. Jy en jy alleen in jou hart en in jou siel moet die Here soek. Jy moet Jesus aanneem as jou Verlosser en weet dat Hy deur Sy dood en opstanding jou bevry het uit die greep van satan en jou daardeur die reg gee om ‘n kind van God die Vader te wees. Jy moet die Heilige Gees erken en Hom in jou lewe en in jou gees verwelkom om jou te lei en te versterk. Sterkte – sal vir jou bid vir sterkte, insig en die wil. Mooi Loop.
July 4, 2009 at 17:36	Gepraat van geld – ek dink jy moet At Janov gaan sien en jou geld terugvra.
July 4, 2009 at 17:23	Hans nou wonner ek net hoekom Jesus diegene wat tempels gebou het en wat daarin ge-operate het as die “addergeslag” uitgewys het….?
Vandag gebeur presies wat in die dae van Jesus gebeur het. Ons leer uit die Bybel dat God diegene wat kerke bou en vandaar operate die “addergeslag” is. Die God van die Bybel is klaar met kerke en godsdiens maar met Sy Woord geld die volgende steeds…
(Mat 5:18) Want voorwaar Ek sê vir julle, voordat die hemel en die aarde verbygaan, sal nie een jota of een titteltjie van die wet ooit verbygaan totdat alles gebeur het nie.
My advies aan die kerkgaande “hanse” van die wereld is dat julle daaruit moet vlug… dis een ma se hoere nes sodat selfs diegene wat niks met die Woord van God uit te make wil hê nie dit raaksien…. Sy (die kerke en kerkstrukture) is die moeder van die hoere…en wel ooreenkomstig dit wat God in die volgende Skrifgedeelte verklaar:
(Openb 17:1) En een van die sewe engele met die sewe skale het gekom en met my gespreek en vir my gesê: Kom hierheen, ek sal jou toon die oordeel van die groot hoer wat op die baie waters sit,
(Openb 17:2) met wie die konings van die aarde gehoereer het, en die bewoners van die aarde het dronk geword van die wyn van haar hoerery.
(Openb 17:3) En hy het my in die gees weggevoer na ‘n woestyn, en ek het ‘n vrou sien sit op ‘n skarlakenrooi dier, vol godslasterlike name, met sewe koppe en tien horings.
(Openb 17:4) En die vrou was bekleed met purper en skarlaken en versierd met goud en kosbare stene en pêrels, en sy het in haar hand ‘n goue beker gehad, vol gruwels en die onreinheid van haar hoerery;
Vlug hansie… vlug grietjie… want die voëls van die hemel het julle broodkrummels opgevreet…julle het verdwaal. Vlug berge toe….!
May 21, 2009 at 16:00	Dankie Hans , nou weet ek waar om heen te gaan om Ware Christene te vind. Volgens wat jy hier skryf is is die katolieke Kerk die Ware Christelike Kerk.
May 21, 2009 at 07:46	Tja, hierdie “glo soos ‘n kind” is die finale bewys dat geloof in God vir die onkritiese en ondenkendes… laat ek dit nou maar sê: vir die dommes is.
May 21, 2009 at 06:26	“[S]oek met ’n kinderlike gesindheid” maak perfek sin vir my, Hans Matthysen. Dis die enigste manier om goed te vind wat glad nie bestaan nie.
May 20, 2009 at 20:24	Con-tester, soek, met ‘n kinderlike gesindheid, na die Koninkryk van God en jy sal dit vind asook die bewyse van God se bestaan.
May 19, 2009 at 21:56	DW, ‘n ware Christen, is een wat God ken en Jesus Christus, wie Hy gestuur het.
‘n Ware Christen, glo nie om een dag na God se Koninkryk te gaan en glo, dat hul reeds deel het, aan die Koninkryk van God.
‘n Ware Christen, bou ook kerke (Tempels) soos wat mens in 2 Kon. 12 kan gaan lees.
‘n Ware Christen kan nie gehuur word, om die Woord te verkondig.
God se wil is, dat geen siel verlore gaan en daarom is jy ook uitverkore. Soek met ‘n kinderlike gesindheid, na die Koninkryk van God en jy sal dit vind.
May 19, 2009 at 21:54	Ag ja, ou Hans Matthysen, jy’t al talle kere jou ontsaglike onkunde en jou amper onuitputbare onvermoë om ’n logiese argument te volg, duidelik gemaak. Jy hoef dit nie oor en oor en oor vir my te wys nie, hoor?
You tell me I don’t understand the utter rubbish you’re peddling. I ask you for proof. You say I must seek it myself. I say that I used to walk a path similar to yours and I haven’t found any proof. You still say I must find it myself and that I understand nothing of the old book from which you take the utter rubbish you’re peddling. I say that you’re full of shit. You get uppity and tell me that all that you say is true. I ask you where your proof is. You say I must find it myself. Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum in a dizzying, Kafkaesque spiral of absurdity that is a sad joke to everyone but you. Even your deluded friend Johan has deserted you.
I’ve told you before that you can end all of this very, very easily: just show me your proof and I’ll leave you alone. I’ll even apologise for daring to challenge you. Until you do so, however, you’re full of shit and will remain so because you’re still just insisting, “It’s true because I say it’s true.” If you can’t see the connection, you’re even more full of shit than appearance would suggest.
Now, bring me your proof please instead of writing ream upon ream of laughable, useless crap.
May 17, 2009 at 19:40	Hans skryf :” that you are evasive where the Bible and true Christian religion is concerned, “
Jy skryf die heel foking tyd hoe jou siening van die Christelike geloof die ware en regte mite is .
Kan jy asseblief presies vir my sê wat ‘n “ true Christian” is . Dalk was dit my fout , ek was deurmekaar met die valse Christene . Waar kry ek die snare en in watter kerk aanbid die duds, of vergader julle onder bome en dra blourokke?
Het julle uitverkore A1 Jeeeeesus mannetjies ‘n manifes of road map na saligheid wat ek kan gaan lees.
Jy weet mos dit is jou sendingsopdrag om heidene te bekeer . In die naam van jou 3 gotte kom vertel nou vir my wat is jou spesiale weergawe van jou WARE geloof en hoe verskil dit van die valse Christene.
May 14, 2009 at 09:07	Con-tester, the reality is, that you are evasive where the Bible and true Christian religion is concerned, as you were misguided, at the time, you where a believer. I wouldn’t think you are forward for what you think, I would think you ignorant. The challenge is, to understand what is written in the Bible.
“It’s true because I say it’s true.” I have already addressed this stupid statement you enjoy repeating, when you don’t seem to know what to say. You appear to fail in engaging your brain for a worthy response.
It just came to my mind, that you might be sulking because of the fact, that you where misguided, at the time you believed.
You keep repeating the freezer thing, yet you don’t know what my understanding is, in regard to that part in the scripture as you have only known the misguided version thereof.
It is true as you are evasive again.
I expected you to show some intelligence and because of your failure in doing so, I will have to be more explicit. Jesus disproved of the stoning and so do all true Christians.
Who knows? To be carnally minded, is to think of the sun you have in mind.
You chose to avoid the point in question, as you are afraid to converse about the Bible, due to your previous, misguided understanding thereof.
You don’t know my reasoning as you chose to avoid discussions on topics in the Bible.
“very good idea of how you understand”
Please don’t talk shit.
“It’s true because I say so.” Your favorite incorrect assumption.
If that’s your reasoning, then you must be very confused.
Of course I can’t expect you to understand, you will have to see it for yourself.
A science book is about science and the Bible is about God and Christianity. Please don’t confuse yourself because of your previous misconception of the Bible.
May 13, 2009 at 22:39	Hans Matthysen wrote (April 23, 2009 at 11:36 pm):
“Con-tester, I beg to disagree on the understanding issue.”
No need to beg. We quite obviously do disagree.
Hans Matthysen wrote (April 23, 2009 at 11:36 pm):
“You have a misguided perception of what is written in the Bible.”
And you have a misguided perception of reality.
“If you knew the first thing about spiritual logic and God, you would understand and respect this. ”
So, Hans Matthysen, you have now made it clear that in the wonky world of “spiritual logic and God,” it is up to me to disprove the very things upon which it is premised. Would it be forward of me to say that that must surely be one of the most absurd things ever to issue from the fevered brain of a believer?
“To find proof of the God of the Scriptures, you need someone to show you the way.”
And to find their silliness, you need to engage your grey matter.
“You should put challenges that are relevant to the Scriptures and not misguided challenges.”
Which, you seem to forget, I have done, only to receive bullshit and self-serving evasion in reply. Still, you should stop dismissing those challenges as “misguided” whenever you can’t meet them, and actually try to understand their significance to start of with.
“I don’t expect anyone to just believe in what I say, as the “truth” is in everyone and one would recognize the truth within one self, when heard.”
This is yet another in a growing line of the believer’s insulting presumptions: imposing their perceptions on another and then writing them off as “blind” (or something like it) when they point out the frailties. This still comes down to saying, “It’s true because I say it’s true.” Engage your brain, man!
“If you are not sulking, the rather try and find this truth I am writing about.”
Tell me, is there any line of argument you are not prepared to distort? First, look up the word “sulk” to see whether it applies. Second, engage your brain. Third, reread (and try actually following) what was said above. Fourth, think about it. Finally, realise the banal inconsequentiality of the above-cited response.
“The evidence will never arrive, you have to seek it.”
Mostly, that’s true. And I have sought. In earlier times, I have sought by myself and found nothing compelling. These days, I seek through asking believers like yourself to show me the evidence. The problem is that not one of you can provide it, and you then always duck and dive by passing the buck back to me. BTW, your soul is still cluttering up my freezer. It’s true, I promise. You’ll see the evidence when you believe me.
“You have never reasoned about any text I have given you from the Bible.”
Not true, if one ignores the obvious question about how one might “reason” about reality from a fairytale.
“Why do you think that Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, if you have no sin, throw the first stone?”
Because he was feeling irritated and bossy?
“In regard to the virgin birth, I can think of logical ways a virgin can become pregnant, …”
I’m sure you can, which illustrates your self-imposed ignorance of some basic facts of procreation.
“… yet on the other hand, maybe someone is missing the message.”
What message? The one about you having to lie to dupe the credulous?
“It depends on the Sun you are referring to.”
The one that we can see in the sky on a clear day during daytime. That sun.
“Should you read gen. 1 v 1, correctly, you will find, that heaven and earth was made before time (day and night) existed, so the six day suggestion is incorrect.”
And should you read a basic science book correctly, you will find that what you claim above is unadulterated nonsense.
“My reasoning pertaining to the Bible is spiritual.”
I know. You keep telling me. It is what allows you to ignore facts and to invent fairytales with which to bolster other fairytales. It is what makes your “reasoning” circular and faulty.
“So you judge me as a Christian, yet you have no idea how I understand, as I am not part of the main stream, that believe in ridicules things.”
No, but since you imply the question, I judge you as a delusional crackpot who’ll say anything to save his ridiculous hallucinations from critical, fact-based scrutiny. In this, you are the mainstream. And contrary to what you claim, I do have a very good idea of how you “understand.” After all, I was in much the same place myself at one time but I outgrew it.
“I think your implication issue is perhaps applicable to many Christians, yet due to you generalizing, you are wrong.”
Try to follow a sequential argument, please. I was talking directly, unambiguously and explicitly about you and your incessant implication of “It’s true because I say so.” In fact, the second half of the above citation is itself yet another instance of it.
“The Bible does not contradict itself as it is your incorrect understanding thereof that is contradicting.”
Well, that answers everything, doesn’t it?
“So I am correct, as I could not think, that you were reasoning.”
Yes, you are evidently correct in that you can’t think and that I was reasoning…
“Again you judge me as a Christian, yet you don’t know what or how I understand.”
No, again I judge you as an evasive, mindless sucker who seems to think that his mental hopscotch is anything more than a sad joke.
“I am not in it for the money and about the “letter that kill’s”. I have reacted to it on a later request.”
And, quite as usual, entirely inadequately so.
“Read Rom. 8 v 1 – 8, and you may see that the “spirit gives” spiritual life.”
Read a science book and you may see that you’re talking unsustainable feel-good rubbish.
April 24, 2009 at 11:55	Con-tester, I beg to disagree on the understanding issue.
You have a misguided perception of what is written in the Bible.
If you knew the first thing about spiritual logic and God, you would understand and respect this.
To find proof of the God of the Scriptures, you need someone to show you the way.
You should put challenges that are relevant to the Scriptures and not misguided challenges.
I don’t expect anyone to just believe in what I say, as the “truth” is in everyone and one would recognize the truth within one self, when heard.
If you are not sulking, the rather try and find this truth I am writing about.
The evidence will never arrive, you have to seek it.
You have never reasoned about any text I have given you from the Bible.
Why do you think that Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, if you have no sin, throw the first stone?
In regard to the virgin birth, I can think of logical ways a virgin can become pregnant, yet on the other hand, maybe someone is missing the message.
It depends on the Sun you are referring to.
Should you read gen. 1 v 1, correctly, you will find, that heaven and earth was made before time (day and night) existed, so the six day suggestion is incorrect. My reasoning pertaining to the Bible is spiritual.
So you judge me as a Christian, yet you have no idea how I understand, as I am not part of the main stream, that believe in ridicules things. I think your implication issue is perhaps applicable to many Christians, yet due to you generalizing, you are wrong. The Bible does not contradict itself as it is your incorrect understanding thereof that is contradicting.
So I am correct, as I could not think, that you were reasoning.
Again you judge me as a Christian, yet you don’t know what or how I understand.
I am not in it for the money and about the “letter that kill’s”. I have reacted to it on a later request.
Read Rom. 8 v 1 – 8, and you may see that the “spirit gives” spiritual life.
April 23, 2009 at 23:36	Hans Matthysen wrote (April 18, 2009 at 11:07 pm):
“Con-tester, it would appear that you do not understand my answer and also not the scripture.”
I understand both of them well enough to see their intellectual bankruptcy. Hans Matthysen wrote (April 18, 2009 at 11:07 pm):
“You even appear afraid when the scripture is quoted as you are not knowledgeable in the understanding of it.”
“Afraid,” you say? That’s your best joke yet. Don’t go attributing your irrationalities to me, see? Especially on such flimsy grounds as your misguided perceptions. No, it is evidently you who fails to grasp the essential point, which is that I find your bible as convincing on questions of reality as you would a Mad magazine on questions of religion.
Hans Matthysen wrote (April 18, 2009 at 11:07 pm):
“You also chose not to see the relevance of things I mention, because you cannot prove their non-existence.”
But it’s not up to me to prove any non-existence because it a philosophical impossibility to do such a thing. It’s up to you to prove the reality of what you claim – and you still haven’t done so. If you knew the first thing about logic, epistemology and science, you would understand and respect this.
“I have no intention of convincing you of anything and it is for you to seek and find conviction, however, I may be of help.”
That’s another fine joke of yours, but not quite up to the standard of your “afraid” one earlier. Why on earth do you think I keep asking you these questions? Hmm, could it possibly be that that I am seeking so that I may find conviction and think that maybe you could be of help?
“I have only implied, that I have a better understanding of what is written in the Bible and you love using it to put me in a bad light.”
No, you do that all by yourself because you are not able to meet the challenges I put before you. Is that how you aim to deceive me with your “ek staan my man”?
“You may be very knowledgeable in various fields, yet their will always be someone more knowledgeable than you, in one or other field, so, accept it.”
When have I not accepted it? Oh, you mean I must simply accept that you know more than I do about the true meaning of your fairytales. See, that’s where we differ because you keep telling me how wise and informed you are, yet you can’t answer the simplest questions. And now you want me to take you seriously, based purely on your say-so? That must rank as one of your feeblest jokes yet.
“You don’t have to sulk because others know a truth you have not found.”
”Sulk,” you say? I suggest that you look words up before using them.
“Hasn’t it occurred to you, that maybe it is you that still doesn’t get it.”
Yes, it very much has occurred to me. But I reject the hypothesis, pending the arrival of some actual evidence in its favour.
“You are afraid to reason, when it is in regard to the Bible.”
There’s that word “afraid” again. What exactly do you think I am afraid of reasoning about in regard to the bible?
“You cannot prove the Bible wrong, by reasoning outside the Bible.”
Really? There’s your error right there: is it right or is it wrong to stone disobedient children and homosexuals? Is virgin birth physically possible? Can the sun stand still in the sky? Was the universe created in six literal days?
“Your privileged to reason is therefore one dimensional.”
No, your reasoning is faulty for being circular.
“Did you ever ask me to explain anything that is written in the Bible, as I see it?”
You’ve been doing that unprompted all along, so what would be the point of my asking for such a thing?
“I have never made the following statement to you as it appears to be something you favor; “It’s true because I say it’s true.””
Not explicitly, no. But every post of yours here oozes the implication. You can’t supply a single solitary shred of proof, and still you insist that what you say is true without the slightest doubt. That’s hardly different from saying, “It’s true because I say it’s true.”
“You have also failed to contradict anything I have explained, in regard to what is written in the Bible.”
Your so-called holy book contradicts itself often enough. Still, what would you like me to contradict?
“If you call your third last comment reasoning, then it would appear, that you are incapable of reasoning.”
No, I call it “taunting” and “ridicule” in the hope that the basic point might sink in. So far, it’s been entirely futile.
“Do you then believe what you don’t understand?”
No, I take no position on things I don’t understand. But you claim to understand stuff that is actually beyond comprehension and when asked to explain it, you offer evasion and your own sad delusions of authority as arguments.
“In regard to your “as amended”, you still don’t get it. 2 Cor. 3 v 6.”
No, you don’t get that it is what is called a “footnote.” You should look up what it means sometime. But please, do show me the evidence for this “spirit that gives life” and the “letter that kills” because a person could make a mint with such novelties. Oh wait, someone’s already done that…
April 20, 2009 at 16:13	Con-tester, it would appear that you do not understand my answer and also not the scripture. You even appear afraid when the scripture is quoted as you are not knowledgeable in the understanding of it. You also chose not to see the relevance of things I mention, because you cannot prove their non-existence. I have no intention of convincing you of anything and it is for you to seek and find conviction, however, I may be of help. I have only implied, that I have a better understanding of what is written in the Bible and you love using it to put me in a bad light. You may be very knowledgeable in various fields, yet their will always be someone more knowledgeable than you, in one or other field, so, accept it.
You don’t have to sulk because others know a truth you have not found.
Hasn’t it occurred to you, that maybe it is you that still doesn’t get it.
You are afraid to reason, when it is in regard to the Bible. You cannot prove the Bible wrong, by reasoning outside the Bible. Your privileged to reason is therefore one dimensional. Did you ever ask me to explain anything that is written in the Bible, as I see it? I have never made the following statement to you as it appears to be something you favor; “It’s true because I say it’s true.” You have also failed to contradict anything I have explained, in regard to what is written in the Bible.
If you call your third last comment reasoning, then it would appear, that you are incapable of reasoning.
Do you then believe what you don’t understand?
In regard to your “as amended”, you still don’t get it. 2 Cor. 3 v 6.
April 18, 2009 at 23:07	Hans Matthysen skryf (April 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm):
“Con-tester, I don’t believe in the appearance of the spirits of dead animals.”
But, once again, you’ve simply dodged my question with irrelevant drivel. And do you really think that quoting scripture at me will convince me of anything other than your ongoing inability to reason?
Hans Matthysen skryf (April 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm):
“I believe what I have experienced, that which coincides with what is written in the Bible.”
Yes, you’ve told me many, many, many times how wise you are and, by implication, how blindly materialistic I am and how you can show me an old book. Pity, then, that these assertions are totally unconvincing except maybe to those who believe as you do.
“There are Christians who believe otherwise, due to their lack of insight.”
Yes, all those other stupid dumbasses always screw things up for those of us who know the Eternal and Immutable Truth™® (℗ & © 325 A.D.*).
“Should you seek proof of God’s existence, you shall find proof of God’s existence, as it is not for others to supply you with proof.”
You still don’t get it, do you? Your soul remains trapped in my freezer. It’s true because I say so. Honestly. Come have a look. I can show you an old book. Really.
“Others can only testify of what they have found and only by following, you may have that privilege.”
So why not follow those who testify that what you believe in is a crock of s#1t for a change? Then maybe you’ll find an even greater privilege called “reason.”
“You, like the Jehovah’s witness, do not understand what the “soul is in your blood” is about.”
That’s because whenever I ask you to explain it, you dredge up some stale and cheesy argument that makes you feel clever and makes me laugh at its unmitigated asininity. C’mon and face it: all you can do is say, “It’s true because I say it’s true.” You can’t prove the first thing about what you defend so dearly.
“I new [sic] all along what you where implying and it is clear that when you read the Bible, you read is with a carnal insight.”
No, but you don’t understand. My freezer is a very special one. Honestly, I promise. It won’t let your soul escape. I can show you an old book. Really, it’s true.
“I only believe what I understand.”
“Any scientific project starts and ends with scientists conversing (spoken word) with one another. What is more logic than that.”
Try sticking to the topic at hand for a change, see?
April 18, 2009 at 10:44	Con-tester, I don’t believe in the appearance of the spirits of dead animals.
Job 4:12 Verder is ‘n woord op geheimsinnige wyse na my gebring, en my oor het ‘n gefluister daarvan opgevang,
Job 4:13 by die gedagtespel, uit naggesigte gebore, wanneer diepe slaap op die mense val.
Job 4:14 Skrik het oor my gekom en siddering en het my hele gebeente laat bewe.
Job 4:15 Toe skuif daar ‘n gees voor my verby; die hare van my vlees het opgerys.
Job 4:16 Hy bly staan, maar ek kon sy gedaante nie herken nie—’n verskyning voor my oë! Ek hoor die gefluister van ‘n stem wat sê: I believe what I have experienced, that which coincides with what is written in the Bible. There are Christians who believe otherwise, due to their lack of insight. Should you seek proof of God’s existence, you shall find proof of God’s existence, as it is not for others to supply you with proof. Others can only testify of what they have found and only by following, you may have that privilege.
You, like the Jehovah’s witness, do not understand what the “soul is in your blood” is about. I new all along what you where implying and it is clear that when you read the Bible, you read is with a carnal insight. I only believe what I understand.
Any scientific project starts and ends with scientists conversing (spoken word) with one another. What is more logic than that.
April 16, 2009 at 21:38	Hans Matthysen wrote (April 15, 2009 at 9:59 pm):
“Con-tester, there are plenty of records in every tribe, creed or nation, in regard to those whom have passed and the appearing of their forefathers.”
How is this in any way relevant? If you believe them, you’re supporting pagan beliefs, contrary to the admonitions of your so-called “holy” book.
Hans Matthysen wrote (April 15, 2009 at 9:59 pm):
“You just choose to ignore it, as it is not measurable by the scientific rules.”
No, not “ignore.” “Disbelieve.” Just like I disbelieve the nonsense you tell me about your god because you talk and talk and talk endlessly, when all that is needed is an objective bit of proof. Buy you can’t supply that, can you?
“In regard to “my soul trapped in your freezer”, you appear as dump [sic] as a Jehovah’s witness.”
Just like you with your god, then. At last, you’re finally starting to get it! I’d almost given up hope. Still, your soul is in my freezer. It’s true because I say it is so. You had better believe me.
“By exchanging words, as the word is God, understanding is brought about and so all things are created. It is so simple, that you can understand it, yet, you choose not to. Maybe your expectations are clouding your insight?”
How is this in any way relevant to your demonstrably erroneous claims about believing “in Science and logic”?
April 16, 2009 at 09:15	Con-tester, there are plenty of records in every tribe, creed or nation, in regard to those whom have passed and the appearing of their forefathers. You just choose to ignore it, as it is not measurable by the scientific rules.
In regard to “my soul trapped in your freezer”, you appear as dump as a Jehovah’s witness.
By exchanging words, as the word is God, understanding is brought about and so all things are created. It is so simple, that you can understand it, yet, you choose not to. Maybe your expectations are clouding your insight?
April 15, 2009 at 21:59	Pat, dit is nie my skuld dat jy nog so onkundig is en hopenlik sal tyd jou nog leer.
April 15, 2009 at 21:33	Just like others’ “experience” of, say, speaking with the spirits of dead animals cannot just not exist, Hans Matthysen?
And, as usual you forget a few things. First, just because you wrote what you did equally doesn’t make what you say true. Second, you once again conveniently ignore the burden-of-proof issue concerning positive claims that sits squarely on your shoulders. Your soul is still trapped in my freezer. Believe me, it’s true because I say it’s true and I can show you an old book.
You say you “believe in Science and logic” but you’re either deluded or a liar. Science and logic demand, as a matter of principle, that we reject unproven hypotheses. You have yet to prove your idiotic god-hypothesis and yet you continue to hold forth on its unshakeable truth.
April 9, 2009 at 09:44	Hans Matthysen, jou antwoord maak vir my geen sin nie.
April 9, 2009 at 09:14	Pat Van Niekerk, what I know and what I have experienced, cannot just, not exist, because of what you have written above. There are life experiences that you cannot learn at a University, not even with all the Masters degrees you can obtain. I am a Christian and I believe in Science and logic and I also know wat the Bible is about.
April 8, 2009 at 20:38	DW, weereens bewys jy, dat jy nie vreeslik intelegent kan wees, as jy nie kan sien, dat die huis van God of tempel, die kerk is. Ek het daarem nog hoop vir jou, ashoop.
April 8, 2009 at 20:21	With permission, I would like to write about something – which I hope, in my humble opinion – will add another important and crucial dimension to the debates and discussions re pro- and anti-belief systems.
As atheists, we can clearly observe the incredulous mindset of those who cling to such a myriad of ungrounded and unscientific belief systems and we find ourselves asking why this is so. Why are they like that? Why can’t they accept logic? Why the need to believe in such utter childish nonsense? I draw attention to the writings of Dr. Arthur Janov who, in 1969, stumbled upon a fundamental reality
about human beings and has since written about 15 books on the subject. He is a scientist, medical doctor,
psychiatrist, psychologist and compassionate human being. (arthurjanov.com)
Researchers today agree and accept the reality that the human foetus can be subjected to intra-uterine damage at any time during the gestation period right up to and including birth. A protracted or complicated birth will do damage, and so will physical, emotional or intellectual abuse and neglect at later stages in the child’s life. The foetus, the baby, the toddler or the young child does not have well-developed defence mechanisms, and neglect and abuse cause a very deep imprint, i.e. a memory which will remain in the body.
However, evolution in its wisdom, gave us all some tools with which to rid ourselves of such pain and trauma. Arthur Janov has written extensively about this. (Primal Healing; Prisoners of Pain; The Feeling Child;
Primal Man; amongst others.
Arthur Janov denotes physical pain and emotional trauma as Pain, with a capital P. Given the right circumstances, an adult or a child or even a newborn baby will expel the Pain, using this wonderful gift we received from mother nature, which is emotional release of Painful Feelings e.g. crying, anger, etc. If this does not happen, the human organism is doomed to live with Pain for the rest of its life. The brain, in its wisdom, then does something to prevent John Citizen from feeling all that Pain at once, lest it kill him. It renders John neurotic. By being neurotic, John will be unaware of all the Pain which was imprinted into his being. However, his body will keep trying on a 24/7 basis to get rid of all that Pain, always through the emotions.
Most of us are victims, of victims, of victims, many generations back. We suffer, says Art Janov ,from a most prevalent and insidious disease called Neurosis. And so, Mary and John Citizen become unconscious and unaware of their Pain by acting-out. They can do it in so many hundreds of ways, either figuratively or literally or both. Examples of literal acting-out are: Chain-smoking; Heavy drinking; Drugs; Painkillers; Constant talking; Overeating; Non-Stop Sex; Endless partying; Fighting; Screaming; Arguing; Dumping on others; Physical illnesses, e.g. High Blood Pressure; Migraines; Bodily Rigidity; Impotence; Insomnia; and the list goes on and on. In other words, one will sense a sort of disconnected energy there, the energy of being driven by their Pain. Or they can become severely intellectual persons, with ideations and ideologies, EMBRACING BELIEF SYSTEMS; Fearing all sorts of things, Real and Imagined; Fearing everything; (Phobias); Developing Paranoia; Worrying; Racing Mind; Constant Thinking; Schizophrenia; Psychosis, or a mixture of some of the above and others not mentioned here.
Isn’t it ironic that the alcoholic and the believer are both sufferers from trauma, yet the believer will condemn and curse the alcoholic to hell. CAN YOU SIMPLY TELL AN ALCOHOLIC TO STOP DRINKING? Of course not! . By the same token, you cannot simply tell a believer to give up his belief system, because his Pain might hit him like the proverbial brick shit-house.
Art Janov tells us that the only CURE for Pain, is to be able to go back inside of ourselves in a controlled and systematic process and, in effect, ‘re-live’ those traumatic incidents. It is a slow ‘reverse’ journey to the deepest traumas. This is what he does at his Institute in Los Angeles in the USA. He has helped thousands of people since, including yours truly.
Conventional ‘talk-and-analyze-and-provide-insights’ therapy is failing us all. And one has to avoid most, (if not all) those many crazy and dangerous practices that are proliferating out there, THE WORST OF WHICH IS
April 7, 2009 at 17:23	Hans skryf:”
2 Kon. 12, wys vir ons duidelik wat moet met die kerk se geld gebeur.”
Jammer maar ek sien nie in die hoofstuk iets van ‘n kerk nie. ( In daai tyd waarna die teks verwys was God nog net die tokolosie God van die Israeliete. Hoekom wil jy nou vir die foking God geld gee. Is jy ‘n foking Israeliet of Jood?)
Het jy nie dalk God se bankdetails nie , ek wil vir hom ‘n paar Rand in sy rekening sit. Dit lyk dit gaan maar broekskeur met die een-God wat later 1 God geword het wat 3 is maar 1 is wat 3 gotte is wat 1 gotte is.
Ek hoop God vat Rande …..want ek hoor hy stel ook nie meer belang in Zim Dollars nie.
March 27, 2009 at 13:08	:::Maar fok weet, ek sal nie vir myself so kan lieg nie. Om Sondag na Sondag vir mense te jok gaan eenvoudig vir my te moeilik wees. ::;
Ja , fok dis ‘n taai een die.
March 27, 2009 at 12:37	Nathan sit in London vas en het geld nodig, miskien moet julle vir hom geld stuur.
Ek sien julle verwys eintlik na die “Huurlinge” en die “Simon die towenaars” en hulle is nie die ware Christenne nie. 2 Kon. 12, wys vir ons duidelik wat moet met die kerk se geld gebeur.
March 26, 2009 at 21:44	Bewilderbeast
Weet jy ek het al by verskeie geleenthede aan jou plan gedink, nl om n kerk te stig. Dis waarskynlik die maklikste manier om geld te maak. Bowendien gaan jy meer geld maak in tye wat die ekonomie maar broekskeer gaan, want dis juis in hierdie tye wat die gelowiges meer desperaat raak! Maar fok weet, ek sal nie vir myself so kan lieg nie. Om Sondag na Sondag vir mense te jok gaan eenvoudig vir my te moeilik wees. Daarom ‘preek’ ek maar eerder in Nathan se blog. Ten minste voel ek eerlik en gemaklik met wat ek hier kwytraak.
rick (aka Mustardandflint)
March 26, 2009 at 11:32	mustardandflint
Ek is nie heeltemal oortuig dat die charismatiese kerke aan snert glo nie. Ek dink hulle glo terdee en geheel en al en harstogtelik in GELD. Hulle is slim bliksems. Ek dink ons moet n kerk stig. Hoekom is ons so dom? Wat se rondneuk met al hierdie “waarheid” goed wat niks betaal nie?
March 26, 2009 at 09:39	DW en Daan asseblief nie die geld gee vir die Lotto nie! Ek het n idee oor Lotto geld en dit gaan so (enigeen wat meer weet, laat weet asb):
Uit elke R100 wat op die Lotto weggegooi word, gaan:
– R2 aan liefdadigheid (en onthou, liefdadigheid beteken ook sokkerspanne, netbal velde, and troetel-projekte, ens);
– R20 aan pryse (maar wie weet wie wen dit nou eintlik – dalk die “insiders” se families?);
– R2 aan die “vreeslik etiese” rekeningkundiges wat die ding oudit;
– R76 in die sakke van die wat die ding bestuur – die Lotto Firma!! (OK, hulle moet hier en daar n omkoop doen, maar dalk gebruik hulle prysgeld daarvoor).
Hulle is amper so sleg soos kerke (wat nie eers belasting betaal nie, die diewe).
So sloop gerus die kerke, maar gee asb die geld aan sekere – versigtig gekose – NGO’s.
March 26, 2009 at 09:32	Daan Ek hoor jou. Die charismate is ongetwyfeld n snaakse lot. Deesdae tref ek nie juis meer n onderskeid tussen tradisionele kerke en die meer moderne charismate nie. Die feit bly staan, almal glo in snert!
Of jy konserwatief, liberaal, oud-modies of modern is, as jy ‘n Christen is glo jy steeds in onsin soos pratende slange, dogters wat hul pa verkrag en dan nie eers te praat van maagdelike geboortes nie.
Dis egter die day light robbery wat dikwels in charismatiese kerke geskied wat my totaal befok maak.
March 26, 2009 at 04:19	Rick! More.
Ek het nog nooit van die Charismate gehou nie. Jy sal onthou dat dit juis my kritiek op die Happy Clappers verlede jaar in Augustus was, waaroor jou potensiale vriendin, Chantelle, haar kwassie in ‘n krul gewip het en hierdie blog met die hand gegroet het.🙂
March 25, 2009 at 09:50	Nathan, die Heilige Gees was nog altyd daar en party mense neem net langer om die gees van waarheid te aanvaar, as ander. Daar is natuurlik hulle wat dit nooit aanvaar nie.
March 23, 2009 at 21:25	Gelukkig hoef ons nie meer opgeskeep te sit met hierdie ou, uitgediende kerke soos hierbo genoem nie. Daar is nou juwe kerke, fokken cool kerke, kerke waar jy mag hande klap en glimlag, dans, kots, op en af spring, ens ens.
Hierdie cool kerke wil egter ook jou geld he! En die doners is nie eers skaam daaroor nie. Hier adres sal jou na Oasis kerk se webtuiste neem. http://www.disciple.co.za/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=73
Het hierdie mense geen skaam nie? Dat daar nie minder as VIER bank rekening besonderhede op die hoofbladsy is nie laat my ruk ruk van kots. Wat my uiteindelik tot kots dryf is nie die paar pastoors wat hulself ryk preek nie, maar die duisende wat toelaat dat hulle daagliks so bedonerd word. Nee man!
March 23, 2009 at 18:20	DW!!!! Middag.
“Yolanda was mos van Nelspruit …..”
Inderdaad. O fok!! Jy bedoel nie ……… !!!!!!
“Dink jy sy kan die stem van God hoor ? Het die Heilige Gees haar help besluit in Nelspruit.”
“Ek dink eerder die Kerke moet die mense omverskoning vra vir al die kakpraat , hulle deur toemaak , die geboue afbreek of omskep in iets nuttigs of die eiendom op veilig sit en die opbrengs vir die Lotto gee om te verdeel onder kinderhuise in SA .”
March 18, 2009 at 15:01	Daan , Yolanda was mos van Nelspruit …..
Dink jy sy kan die stem van God hoor ? Het die Heilige Gees haar help besluit in Nelspruit. Jy skryf :”Hierdie 5 dose moet uit die Hervormde Kerk gegooi word.”
Ek dink eerder die Kerke moet die mense omverskoning vra vir al die kakpraat , hulle deur toemaak , die geboue afbreek of omskep in iets nuttigs of die eiendom op veilig sit en die opbrengs vir die Lotto gee om te verdeel onder kinderhuise in SA .
March 18, 2009 at 08:48	Nathan!! More.
Ja, dit is ‘n baie slegte dag vir my. Ek, Yolanda Dreyer en Andries Van Aarde was in die vroeë 70’s saam studente aan UP. (Ek het nie teologie geswot nie).
Ek en Andries was saam op die kerkraad van die Hervormde studentegemeente, Philadelphia. Yolanda se gewese man, Kallman Papp, (ook ‘n predikant) en ek was as studente baie goeie vriende.
Jimmy Loader was al die jare die liberale in die Hervormde Kerk. Johan Buitendag was die voorsitter van die vorige Kommissie van die Algemene Kerkvergadering. Dit was onder sy voorsitterskap tydens die sitting van die Algemene Kerkvergadering in 2007 toe daar gepoog was om gat te kruip by Allan Boesak en die World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Gelukkig was die meerderheid van die afgevaardiges (onder andere “yours truly”), nog nugterdenkend, en is Buitendag se mosie verwerp.
Ek moet vandag toegee: Hulle aanspraak op ‘n besoek van die Heilige Gees is inderdaad lagwekkend. Net soos DW se boesemvriendin, Elsa Meyer, wie God se stem kan hoor.
Hierdie 5 dose moet uit die Hervormde Kerk gegooi word.
March 16, 2009 at 08:34	Leave a Reply Cancel reply	Enter your comment here...