“Post-kritiese naïwiteit” Wát!? | Nathan Bond's TART Remarks
Religion: Respect? Ridicule! “Post-kritiese naïwiteit” Wát!?
Saterdag. 12 Februarie 2011. 12h46. Renier Holtzhausen haal Marcus Borg só aan in vandag se By (Twee sienings oor betekenis van Jesus): dat ons die Bybel in ‘n staat van “post-kritiese naïwiteit” moet lees.
Geloofsapologete… Wat is “post-kritiese naïwiteit”!?
Volgens Borg, volgens Holtzhausen, is dit “verby die naïwiteit van kinders en die kritiese denkwyse van grootmense”.
Dink ‘n mens só oor die Bybel, aldus Borg-Holtzhausen, “word die verhale van die Christelike tradisie weer as werklike stories gehoor en besef jy dat hoewel die feite nie noodwendig geskiedkundig waar is nie, dit simbolies waar kan wees”.
Hoe is iets “simbolies waar”; nie eenvoudig “nie vals” nie? Is dit Orwelliaanse geloofspraak vir “leuen”?
“Jammer my vrou, daar was nie melk in die winkel nie. Dis simbólies waar… ek het bietjie vergéét om melk te koop.”
Hierdie sg “nuwe manier van oor ‘God’ dink” is (met apologie aan Leonard Krishtalka vir sy tersaaklike analogie oor intelligente ontwerp) maar net om die tradisionele ‘God’ uit te vat in ‘n goedkoop, geléénde, aandpak. ‘n Aandpak wat na sweet ruik, en met ou vetkolle op die lapelle en iemand anders se droeë bloed op die kraag.
Dis gewoon twak.
En soos André P Brink iewers in die sewentigerjare al gesê het, twak is tog so ‘n láng woord.
Written by Nathan Bond February 12, 2011 at 13:01
« “Die evolusie van ‘God'”
Om te lag oor 21 Mei 2011 »
Ja, nee, I know the drill, especially the part about the privileged revelation.
March 6, 2012 at 13:54	Why old white men can’t toyi-toyi (with a supplement to the Ten Commandments). According to the author, the spark-plug church must carry most of the blame.
March 6, 2012 at 09:53	Hanswors, you should rather study Mickey Mouse seeing as you haven’t rendered a single worthy comment about it yet. Again you show that one would be justified in thinking that Mickey Mouse is beyond your capabilities.
April 26, 2011 at 22:12	Con-Tester, rather stay on the subject of Mickey Mouse as the Bible is above your comprehension.
April 26, 2011 at 21:54	Hmm, I missed this one. Hanswors, you should reflect a little more deeply on exactly who’s getting stuck in which rut, and where reasoning has come adrift. You have nothing that even comes close to the solemn majesty of Mickey Mouse because it is way beyond your grasp. You can’t disprove anything I say about it and you know it, so you won’t debate me. You keep going back to your own inferior book because of your poor insight into Mickey Mouse.
That’s how I live with myself: By showing up believers’ crap for what it is.
April 26, 2011 at 18:01	Con-Tester, jy hak nou al weer vas. Hoe leef jy met jouself?
Your vast knowledge has confused your reasoning.
March 18, 2011 at 22:52	No Hanswors. The more you post here, the easier it is to see how damaged your “reasoning” is. Wouldn’t you rather have a debate about a Mickey Mouse comic? It’s just as profound as your so-called “holy” book and you’ll not be able to refute my interpreatations.
March 6, 2011 at 20:47	Cont- Tester, jy sou graag wil hê dat ek van hierdie blog moet weg bly omdat jy nie in staat is om met my debat te voer oor die Bybel weens jou gebrek aan insig in verband daarmee. Terwyl jy kans sien om my geloof aan te vat, moet jy maar met my sit. Met jou geleerdheid kon jy jou tyd baie meer nuttig gebruik het tot voordeel van die mensdom.
March 6, 2011 at 20:19	Post-critical naïveté parodied! Tim Minchin is a balm for the weary champion of reason. He’s a nerve-hitter, and a cunning linguist to boot. So cunning, in fact, that godiots don’t even know they’re being rightly ridiculed.
This is dedicated, if I may presume to make so bold, to all the stupid, arrogant cunts out there. You know who you are.
March 3, 2011 at 23:32	Unmatched HTML tags embolden me…😛
March 2, 2011 at 21:59	Funny, Hanswors, that’s what you say more and more, yet you keep commenting.
March 2, 2011 at 21:49	Erick V, as een nie weet hoe om te bid, is dit seker waar. Ek sie hulle wat by die altaar van Baal gebid het, het dieselfde probleem ervaar.
March 2, 2011 at 21:37	Con-Tester, nie komentaar waardig nie.
March 2, 2011 at 21:34	C-T
Buchan is at it again!
Sheck this kak out, I cannot believe that there are still people that fall for this shithead!
March 1, 2011 at 09:17	C-T
Ek het die berig gelees. Dit is regtig pateties hoe die gelowiges rond skarrel maar ten minste is daar winde van verandering wat besig is om te waai.
Dit vat net te fokken stadig!
Ek het in elk geval ook kommetaar daar gelewer, die arme sotte!
March 1, 2011 at 08:46	Now it’s time to rethink prayer, too. The slipperiness of these people’s rationalisations is something to behold.
March 1, 2011 at 08:30	Hanswors, I can tell that you’re preaching, not talking. You preach just as soon as your fingers make contact with your keyboard. It’s only you who can’t see the difference between talking and preaching.
February 23, 2011 at 22:17	Con-Tester, you don’t seem to know the difference.
February 23, 2011 at 21:17	No, Hanswors, you’re not talking to me. You’re preaching at me.
February 20, 2011 at 22:43	Con-Tester, ek praat met jou en het nie nodig om van jou te praat nie.
February 20, 2011 at 22:35	Sorry, the full one is:
February 18, 2011 at 09:11	Check this out
February 18, 2011 at 09:02	Geloofsapologete… Wat is “post-kritiese naïwiteit”!?
Dis soos om melk met kak te meng en dit ‘n milkshake te noem.
Kan hierdie morone nie iets beters uitdink nie? Fok my!!!!!!
February 18, 2011 at 04:38	Hanswors, I was talking about you, not to you, in relation to how you fit the “post-kritiese naïwiteit” bill, despite never having reached the “kritiese” bit. Even a superficial reading would have made that clear. And I still think that despite the missing chunk, you are a rather good example that illustrates that notion.
February 15, 2011 at 22:53	Con-Tester, ek is nie ontwykend nie en gee my regte naam wanneer ek iets skryf. Jy is ontwykend en die feit dat jy ‘n skuilnaam gebruik, bevestig dit.
February 15, 2011 at 22:09	So by my kool!!! Jy is reg. Ek onthou vir John Dominic Crossan en natuurlik, ons eie Andries Van Aarde.
Ek het nou weer “jesus seminar” gegoogle, en ja, Borg is inderdaad ‘n big wig daar.
En ja, dis inderdaad baie ontstellend. Ek het juis in die laaste tyd die meeste van my sienings omtrent Jesus op hulle uitsprake gebaseer.
February 14, 2011 at 09:13	More “post-kritiese naïwiteit”, perhaps?
February 14, 2011 at 08:52	Nathan Bond asks (February 12, 2011 at 13:01):
“Geloofsapologete… Wat is “post-kritiese naïwiteit”!?”
I’m hardly an expert in matters of the Newspeak of apologetics but if I were to hazard a guess, I’d say it’s a fancy term for “switch off your brain and be dazzled in cheap wonderment.” Probably the best-qualified regular contributor to these pages who could shed light on the question would be Hanswors – though more by way of illustrative example than elucidation. However, in his case it’s the never-present “kritiese” aspect, post- or otherwise, that renders the illustrative value a little dubious.
February 14, 2011 at 08:51	Maar Daan, dís wat my so ontstel: Borg is júis ‘n voorbok in die Jesus Seminaar!
February 14, 2011 at 08:09	Dit hang natuurlik af welke gesag as die meer betroubare aanvaar word.
Wat betref die histories korrektheid van die Evangelies, aanvaar ek persoonlik eerder die uitsprake van die Jesus Seminaar as baie meer gesaghebbend, en kan die Borg/Holtzhausen-sindroom bygevolg nie staan nie.
February 14, 2011 at 08:06	Leave a Reply Cancel reply	Enter your comment here...