Anti-Gaga protests flare up in Cape Town
2012-11-16 16:07
Getty ImagesA picture of the group of protesters was posted by eNCA news reporter Paula Chowles on Twitter.
The receptionist at Big Concerts’ offices in Cape Town, who wished to remain unnamed, told Channel24 that protesters arrived at approximately 10:30 on Friday morning.
“There are about 30 protesters. They did notify us that they will be coming,” she said.
According to her, this was the first time they had encountered protesters at their offices, and Big Concerts COO John Langford’s personal assistant had gone down to meet with the protesters.
Exponential growth of Satanism
The protesters used placards to show their anger towards Lady Gaga touring South Africa at the end of November and December, adding to the strong stance the South African Council of Churches have taken on Lady Gaga’s pending tour.
A peaceful march was held on Friday 9 November to the department of Arts and Culture in Pretoria, where the South African Council of Churches handed over a written request to have Lady Gaga banned from South Africa.
Heat magazine reported on Twitter that the request was signed by the chief director of Arts and Culture, Duduzile Nchoba.
Reverend Mxolisi Sonti, secretary of the youth forum, told the daily newspaper Beeld they are afraid of the extent of Satanism in South Africa at this time, and that Gaga’s visit could lead to an exponential growth in Satanism.
McBrolloks 
Their lack of brain power shows. Look at their posters. How unoriginal!
LikeLike
Nee kyk, die vrou is op die beste van tye steeds heeltemal versteurd. Jig 😦
LikeLike
Ja, the one with the placard at the front on the right in the blue polka dot apron looks really dotty.
LikeLike
It’s very clear to me that you don’t have any children, and judging by your comments, probably not many friends either.
LikeLike
What you think of me is none of my business, godiot.
LikeLike
Stupid bitch. Who wants to be friends with someone like Anal – fa.
LikeLike
Na, Analfa, I don’t hate you. I just hope your next period happens in a shark tank.
LikeLike
That will take a small miracle 🙂 Tell me something, at what age would you allow kids to listen to and watch Gaga?
LikeLike
I would rather educate children to watch out for paedophiles and murderers than worry about Lady Gaga.
LikeLike
Agreed. I teach my children what is right and then I trust them to make their own good decisions regarding Gaga, etc.
LikeLike
Do you need help to recover from the illusion of religion? Then read this:
http://recoveringfromreligion.org/pages/JerryDeWitt
LikeLike
Ja, wys jou nou maar net weer… Skynheiligheid in die ergste graad. More, of oormore, dan sing hy weer ‘n ander deuntjie – hang af van waar hy dink hy die meeste geld kan maak. Ek hou daarvan hoe die ouens geen ruggraat het nie – na 25 jaar sien hy steeds nie die Lig nie – dis jammer.Oja, sy nuwe geloof se naam is maar net “Atheism” en “Humanism” – wat de hel humanism ook beteken. En nou’s hy kwansuis maar net weer “sendeling” vir die nuwe geloof. Kan julle verstaan hoekom ek ape soos hy nie ernstig kan opneem nie?
LikeLike
Here I have to agree somewhat with Analfa. The guys was a pentecostal for 25 years, which is the most bullshit, money grubbing form of Christianity of all, and then he wants to make money out of telling people how not to be a pentecostal. He won’t be getting ay $$ out of me.
LikeLike
It is true that many ppl pretend to be Christians, but in actual fact they’re on the other side and there goal is always a financial one. For instance, take Ray McCauley – and I’m not saying he’s not a Christian, but I have some serious doubts about that – just that he has a financial motive, and that is very wrong. You get these ppl everywhere, also in the churches.
LikeLike
Typical bored housewives without any dress sense. Have you seen Die Antwoord’s send up of Lady Gaga? Hilarious.
LikeLike
Yes, they really took her to town. I love Die Antwoord! I never miss an oppertunity to see them live. They are awesome!!!!
LikeLike
LikeLike
Lady Gaga demons take one look at Johannesburg, go back to Hell
As South African Christians brace themselves for Lady Gaga’s concert in Johannesburg tonight, her entourage has revealed that there is no cause for alarm. “Yes, we opened a portal to Hell when we did sound-checks this morning,” confirmed a spokesroady. “But the demons took one look at Joburg and went straight back to Hell. They’ll take damnation over Dainfern any day.”
Christians have been vocal in their opposition to the tour by the pop icon, saying that she would unleash a wave of satanic, satanistic and satanicalist activities amongst the youth.
“Truly, it was prophesied in the Book of Cheryl, transcribed by her daughter, the Prophet Mandy, who could type fast because she went to secretarial college,” explained protestor, Candy McTwitchy.
She said that she and her fellow-believers were delighted that Gaga’s “backing doo-wop girls of sin” had fled back to their fiery home, and said it was vindication of their aesthetics.
“We’ve always had a theory that certain kinds of architecture and urban planning pleases God and frightens demons,” she said. “Basically, if you make your houses and your neighbourhood look like something from the Holy Land – face-brick, paved yards, short palm trees standing in dead yellow grass – it makes God feel at home, and makes demons poep their broeks.”
Asked what kind of urban environment demons liked, she answered, “New York, Cape Town, and anywhere else where homosodomites are allowed to flaunt their buttocks in public.”
According to one of the demons that had fled shrieking back to the Abyss, there was nothing specific about Johannesburg and the greater Gauteng region that they had found diabolical.
“It’s just more of general impression of overwhelming, soul-destroying kakness,” it said. “Yes, the architecture is horrible – if it’s not depressed, shabby-genteel 1950s blah, it’s nouveau riche McMansions with rent-a-tree ‘gardens’ in permanent shade from the 10-foot high walls – but it’s also the highways, the billboards, the traffic, Midrand…”
Meanwhile, Lady Gaga says she is grateful to the founding fathers and city planners of Gauteng, “and everyone else who worked so hard to make this region so incredibly ugly”.
“It’s going to be such a nice change not to have demons flapping around my face and getting tangled up in my wig during my set,” she enthuses. “Plus, they’re always in my trailer, crouched upside-down on the ceiling, growling Aramaic curses at me, which is a total buzz-kill. So thanks, Christians and aesthetic Philistines of Gauteng! I love you guys!”
LikeLike
Ek dag dan in ‘n heilige koei “demokrasie” mag mens protesteer, en mens mag hulle kritiseer, en ek mag ook kritiek op die kritiek lewer, maar daars geen kritiek gelewer nie, net die gevoels uitbarsing van Mcbrolloks uhhmmm du hulle is dom. . . seker weer dham datsmen, rokspaaiders, vrot pananas waarvoor ek my so skaam. . .
LikeLike
Imagine being married to one of these dowdy bores. I bet their husbands go to hookers.
LikeLike
En wat doen jy nou Johannie?
LikeLike
Danku Savage, ek dink ek sou ook die RR (recover from religeon) aanbeveel vir McMal.
En Die Antwoord, is lekker om te kyk, ek het die chappie rok veral geniet en moet ek sê as sy so swart geverf is en sy – yolandi – gaan so tekere dan kan ek sien ons stam af van die bobejane, maar na so 2 of drie keer se kyk begin dit ook proe soos ou gekoude tjappies
LikeLike
“… as sy so swart geverf is … dan kan ek sien ons stam af van die bobbejane …” Racist as well as a religious nutjob. But then, the NG Kerk said apartheid was ordained by God and Jirre Jisses.
LikeLike
Exatcly Holy, and these guys have the odacity to preach to me about their o-so-precious morals. Brain-dead morons these godbots.
LikeLike
I have neighbours who are godbots. When we first moved in they pretended to be oh so friendly and helpful. Then the slander started. Turns out they did this to the previous owners. Not all religious people are two-faced. You get people of faith who are scrupulous not only in their practice of their faith, but in their behaviour towards others. Godbots are always splattered in shit like the statute of Paul Kruger in Church Square.
LikeLike
Statue.
LikeLike
holyshmoly, hoe het jy by rassisme uitgekom, of dink jy dat die europeër van wit bobbejane afstam? Waarna verwys die woord Rassis vir jou? Wat is ‘n rassis . . .of is jy te “slim” om so n dom vraag te antwoord?
LikeLike
Here we go. I take it you’re a creationist?
LikeLike
Don’t forget the world ends today, so keep your CPR skills handy, you’ll be needing them for scenes like these.
LikeLike
Oh sorry, that’s a month from now, according to the Mayan calendar. Forewarned is forearmed.
LikeLike
No-one knows the date and time of the end of the world – it’s very clear from the Bible. Like you, Christians also don’t take any of these “theories” seriously. Next year there’ll be another theory.
LikeLike
Creationist . . .? – if you thinking in the lines of abrakedabra then I would like to understand what your “consept god” is. . . but if you thinking in the lines of what is the difference between man and animal then it becomes a interesting trip. . .
Even the Mayan believe the teh atom consist of
1. Material
2. Consciousness
3. Energy
LikeLike
I mean “concept god” Do you think that your concept of god is something that no-one, including yourself, can’t believe in?
LikeLike
Holyshmoly, you will first have to explain the meaning of the word “creationist” to this moron. Thick as a brick, this oke, as his comment above regarding the Mayans proves. Who gives a shit what the Mayans thoughts were a thousand years ago? Or for that matter, whatever idiot from biblical times?
Guys like Johann are the most dishonest, hypocritical morons one will ever find on planet earth. They will continue spewing utter rubbish, while insisting to be taken seriously – they do this merrily while enjoying the advantages of modern science. Dumbwit Johann for example, does not understand the first thing about scientific method, but will use Mayan wtritings in his argument (presumably because he does understand that). The mind boggles at the degree of stupidity of these godiots.
LikeLike
” .. use Mayan wtritings in his argument (presumably because he does understand that).”
He does not understand fuck, Malherbe. Hy is soos ‘n ou wat ek in Port St. Johns ontmoet het so paar jaar terug. Sy hele lewe en argumente was geskooi op die Mayan hiërogliewe. Dit het natuurlik nie lank gevat om hom in ‘n blik te druk nie, maar soos Gebroeders JOAL hier, het hy net die feite gesystap en weer begin by punt een (of minus een).
Hierdie fokken brein-dood ape is ‘n wonder om te aanskou.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Hiers ‘n dinamiet-brief uit Die Burger. Gebroeders JOAL, antwoord asb. en dan stuur ons dit sommer vir die koerant. (Alhoewel ek twyfel of hulle julle geprewel sal plaas, wat nog verstaan.)
“Kan die een of ander geleerde here wat hulle so gereeld gesaghebbend in die rubriek Godsdiens Aktueel uitlaat, aan minder geleerde lesers soos ek antwoorde ten opsigte van die onderstaande verstrek? Wat is die verskil tussen ‘n gees en ‘n god?
“Daar is verskillende geloofsoortuigings in die wêreld, bestaande uit ‘n swetterjoel geeste en /of gode of ander beweerde heiliges.
“Om net een voorbeeld te gebruik: In die VSA is meer as 100 miljoen mense wat aanhangers van ‘n bepaalde gees is. Op hul geldnote verskyn diè woorde: “In God we Trust.” By geleentheid verklaar hulle of spreek hulle diè wens uit: “God bless America.”
“As diè land nie steier van ‘n Katrina tot ‘n Irene of ‘n Sandy nie, word ‘n kwart van Kalifornië of Colorada deur ‘n brand verwoes. Dan is daar die gereelde sneeu- of draaistorms. Los Angeles wag vir ‘n aardbewing om hom te tref. Tienduisende Amerikaners sterf jaarliks gewelddadig op paaie, weens misdaad of in oorloë.
“Sodra ‘n ramp hulle tref, vat hul gees egter die pad of staan arms gevou en toekyk. Hy (ons speel-speel hy bestaan werklik) en pres. Jacob Zuma behoort goed oor die weg te kom, want albei bly gewild ten spyte van hul onbetrokkenheid en nutteloosheid.”
Jan Theron
Bloubergrand
McBrolloks, ek weet van die “Poephol van die week” toekennings, maar hierdie Jan Theron verdien ‘n Batgod toekenning. Miskien kan jy so ‘n toekenning skep. Ons kan dit vier met ‘n braai en lekker rooiwyn. Malherbe, siende dat jy nader aan Batgod beweeg as ek, wat dink jy sal hom tevrede stel? Die offer van ‘n lekker bottel Rum ( nadat dit natuurlik eers lekker deur ons genuttig is – Hy sou dit so verkies).
LikeLike
Dit is ‘n goeie ding ou Verwoerd, Vorster of PW is nie meer aan bewind nie, anders was Die Burger se redakteur gefire. En nou kla almal dat die ANC die pers wil muilband! Afrika jong, Afrika! Hier praat net die grootste knopkierie.
LikeLike
Jy is welkom Savage, se net waar en wanneer. Ek sal n paar krewe saambring (een v my passies is kreefduik en die seisoen tans oop). Wat Batgod betref hoef ons nie te worry oor offerandes nie – hy “practises what he preaches”. Ons hoef niks vir hom te los nie; behalwe miskien n kreefdop want lg maak lekker rook, wat Minerva skynbaar in n amoreuse luim sit en onse Batgod weer laat score… Hy noem terloops dat ons vir gebr JOAL moet waarsku teen die drie-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is, want hulle is mensgemaakte afgode.
LikeLike
“Science and religion are both concerned with the search for truth, attainable through well-motivated beliefs. The aspects of reality they investigate are different – in the case of science, the impersonal, physical world; in the case of religion, the transpersonal reality of God”
(Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS”
“The aspects of reality they investigate are different..”
Yes, totally different. Science uses Nature and religion uses illusions. Science gives us Energy while religion gives us darkness. Science gives us medicine and religion gives us death. And Gebroeders GOAL glo nog steeds in geloof.
“.. well-motivated beliefs.”
Beliefs that their god must torture you if you don’t believe in him?
JOAL, julle ouens is besig met ‘n absolute self-bedrogspul.
LikeLike
Savage dis eintlik ongelooflik dat mense eerlikwaar die kak glo.
-Die gotte innie lug gaan jou martel indien jy nie in hul glo nie. Hierdie marteling sal plaasvind nadat jy vrek is…..want jy vrek nie werklik nie, o nee, jy leef vir altyd. Hoekom? Want die gotte seg so in ‘n stokou boek wat terloops deur gewone mense geskryf is wat (volgens hulle) deur die gotte geinspireer was. Ergste van alles is dat die gotte hul eie skepsel straf/martel vir hul onvolmaaktheid. Die gotte is egter perfek volmaak, desnieteenstaande die feit dat hul ‘n onvolmaakte wese geskep het. Per definisie maak dit die gotte dus onvolmaak maar skynbaar pla dit geen godioot nie. Ens ens ens.-
Hoedehel enige iemand hierdie kak kan glo sonder ‘n groot skeut oneerlikheid, of dofheid …of albei, is werklik laf en tragies.
LikeLike
Die gronboontjie gallery het weer voorraad bone gekry wat hulle weer fisiologies gestimuleer het en dan spat die ontlasting weer, so reg in hul kraal. . .
En die ou Jan se statistiek wys net weer dat met syfers kan jy dinge draai om daardie onderligende houding (gees) te pas. Die moorde in SA per jaar is dieselfde as Amerika 16 duisend of so, motorongelukke in SA so 40 /dag, verkragtings 52 /dag wat aangemeld word. En ons brand sommer alles self af wat ons nie van hou nie, skole, plase, wingerde, myne, en glo die pressident sommer aan voorvader geeste wat baie is, gaan seker terug na ou dingaan of shaka (Ek weet malherbe is so kenner op die gebied van “africans” , miskien kan hy ons vertel hoevêr terug gaan die voorvader geeste. . . tot daar by die ape of wat.)
“Science gives us medicine and religion gives us death.” “Death of what?. . . . That is the question”. . . .obgeblaaste e-go(d)jies.
LikeLike
“gotte innie lug gaan jou martel indien jy nie in hul glo nie. Hierdie marteling sal plaasvind . . .” Malherbe hoveelkeer moet ek dit nog vir jou vertel jou konsep is verwronge. . .om dom te wees – soos jy sê ek is – is anders as om “blind” te wees, as jy nie uit die gees gebore is nie, kan jy nie “sien” dat jy in ‘n kleurlose wêreld lewe nie, en as jy wil weet waarvan ek praat maak net die geloofsprong en dan kan ons saam gesels, daar is mos niks wat jou keer om dit te doen nie, behalwe jou konsep van God wat jy in elkgeval verweerp het. . .
LikeLike
Johann, hoekom maak jy nie die geloofsprong na Batgod nie? Jy wil he ek moet “spring” na iets waarvoor daar geeen bewyse is nie. Niks. Op watter basis het jy jou gotte gekies?
En onthou tog asb dat ek gelowig was. Dat ek dieselfde gotte as jy aanbid het. Dat ek vas geglo het… Nes jy. Dat ek egter die oneerlikheid raakgesien het. Ek herhaal: wanneer jy verstaan hoekom jy nie in Batgod glo nie, sal jy verstaan hoekom ek nie in jou gotte glo nie. Eenvoudiger kan ek dit nie stel nie. En ja, jy is inderdaad donders onnosel en blind en waarskynlik doof ook….’N duidelike illustrasie en bewys van jou gotte se nie-bestaan. Slim gotte sou hul kader beslis van meer ammunusie voorsien het en nie lamlendige “argumente” soos “geloofspronge” nie.
LikeLike
Weereens stel jy nie terleur nie ou Johan met 2 “enne”. As my skrywes ontlasting is, is joune vergelykenderwys die bakterie op kreefkak. Genugtig ou perd, jy kan nie eens spel nie, wat nog te se van twee samehangende sinne aanmekaars string. Lees bietjie jou gebrabbel en vergelyk dit met ander ouens se skrywes (selfs Analfa sit jou ore aan). Eerlikwaar vrind, jy is die laaste een wat van ontlasting kan praat.
En terloops, daar is geen verskil tussen jou gotte en Zuma se voorvadergeeste nie. Beide is bloot ‘n figment van mensekind se verbeelding. Ek daag jou uit om hierdie stelling verkeerd te bewys.
LikeLike
Jy sien, Malherbe, dis op die eenvoudigste vlak waar jy die punt heeltemal mis. Zuma se “voorvadergeeste” verskil hemelsbreed van God. Enige “aap” kan die verskil sien…
Dis amper soos as ek vir jou sal sê daar is geen verskil tussen ateisme en buddhisme nie. Kop jy? Seker nie, maar in elk geval, al is daar baie ooreenkomste is daar ook ooglopende major verskille.
LikeLike
Apes don’t pray to the ancestors, but if they are as smart as you think they are they would be able to see that praying to someone you are directly related to makes more sense than praying to someone you don’t know from a bar of Sunlight soap.
LikeLike
Analfa skryf: “Zuma se “voorvadergeeste” verskil hemelsbreed van God. Enige “aap” kan die verskil sien…” OK Analfa, dan is ek seker ‘n aap. Kan jy asseblief so gaaf wees om jou stelling te bewys? Verduidelik asseblief vir hierdie aap waar die verskil lê, want ek sien vele ooreenkomste. Kom ek noem hulle:
1) Beide is deur die mens geskep
2) Vir beide is daar zero bewyse
3) Beide word deur idiote aangehang ….wat bereid is om te glo sonder bewyse.
4) Beide het te doen met ‘n sg “lewe na die dood” – jou gotte beloof vir jou ewige lewe en voorvadergeeste is “geeste wat voortleef nadat die persoon sterf”.
5) In beide gevalle eis die outjies wat glo in die gotte en/of geeste dat ek respek vir hul lawwe gelofies moet betoon.
………………..en so kan ek aangaan.
En dan Analfa se laaste vergelyking tussen Buddhisme en ateisme. Nee, Analfa, ek “kop nie”. Hoeveel keer moet ek nog vir jou daarop wys dat ateisme gelykstaande is aan ongeloof? Daar is zero ooreenkomste tussen die twee. Weereens – hoekom staaf jy nie die stelling met sg ooreenkomste (soos ek hier bo gedoen het) nie?
Jy en Johann is soos twee seuntjies wat teen die wind pis en dan wonder hoekom jul voete nat word. Julle maak stellings sonder enige stawing. Geen bewyse en geen konkrete voorbeelde. Maar ek verwag dit van julle want hierdie oneerlikheid is “part-en-parcel” van godiotisme.
LikeLike
Gaan lees maar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism – ek’s nie lus om jou te spoonfeed nie. Anyway, jy sal seker nog steeds nie verstaan nie, shame.
Jy verstaan nie veel van die verskillende gelowe nie, dis hoekom jy nie insien dat ateisme ‘n geloof is nie – en Buddhisme is ‘n ateistiese geloof, ou pel.
LikeLike
He, he, spoonfeed? Daars nou vir jou ‘n ding.
Hoekom lewer jy nie eerder sinvolle kommentaar op my redes hoekom jou gotte en voorvadergeeste in dieselfde kategorie val nie? En hoekom lees jy nie self die link wat jy verskaf met aandag deur nie, sodat jy die insig kan kry rondom die belaglikheid van jou stelling,.
Maar nee, hol eerder terug na die grot. Ek kan julle godiote nog op ‘n manier verdra maar jul huigelary en lafghartigheid is n steen des aanstoots.
LikeLike
All you get from Anal f all is snide remarks and ad hominem attacks when your attempts at reason fail to leave an impression on her carapace.
LikeLike
Quite so Holy, but did you not know that if you could reason with religous people, there would be no religion?
LikeLike
Correction, the snide remarks mostly come from the Atheist section of the blog – sometime I respond likewise because I’m not going to take your nonsense.
LikeLike
Kyk hier, ek redeneer nie heeltyd oor dieselfde ou goed nie. As jy nie my argumente aanvaar nie, dan goed so, maar moet my nie heeltyd vir dieselfde “antwoorde” vra nie – dis embarressing, man, dat jy nie luister nie. Dit laat my dink jy kan/wil nie lees nie.
Die sinvolle kommentaar was dat ateisme en buddhisme nie dieselfde is nie, maar as ek jou “kinder”-logika toepas waardeur jy beweer God is dieselfde as ‘n spook, dan kan ek maklik die tipe gemors kwytraak dat dit is. Net om vir jou uit te wys hoe stupid die strooi is wat jy uitdink.
Jy sien, dis hoekom ek nie meer vir antwoord op meeste van die gemors stellings wat jy maak nie, want jy’s nou maar ongelukkig net te onnosel om sinvol debat mee te voer.
As jy regtig in my opinie belangstel, gaan lees my vorige posts – en daar’s bykans ‘n jaar daarvan. Maar as jy enige NUWE vrae het, vra gerus.
LikeLike
Dit sal nou interessant wees om te weet of toe jy kastig ‘n “gelowige” was of jy daar gekom het na jy die geloofsprong gemaak het. Dit klink so asof jy weet wat ‘n geloofsprong is, maar jy kan soms mense fop maar nie al die mense nie.
En dankie vir jou eksperties op afrika kultuur, dit laat my dink dat “verbeelding” ook dan aan die “bonatuurlike” behoort. . . of hoe Malherbe?
LikeLike
Ek sien jy’s te veel van ‘n lafaard om my uitdaging te aanvaar. Te verwagte natuurlik.
LikeLike
Ja Johann, Malherbe was definitief nog nooit ‘n gelowige gewees nie – dis duidelik hy het nog nooit verstaan waaroor geloof gaan nie. Hy’t nog nooit geglo nie – net ‘n gerieflike ou storietjie wat hy hou van om te vertel – jy weet, om homself te probeer uitmaak as ‘n kenner op die gebied van geloof. Hy’t so halwe begrip van ‘n paar goedtjies, maar oor die algemeen tas hy maar in die duister rond…
LikeLike
Komende van n agnostikus soos jy, Analfa? Soos hulle op Ingels sou seg, “don’t you think that’s a bit rich?”
LikeLike
‘n Agnostikus? Waar val jy uit, bra?
LikeLike
Off topic, but I heard an Afrikaans expression the other day that I don’t understand. “Is die vliegtuig al oor?” What does, “Is die vliegtuig al oor?” mean?
LikeLike
Comes from way back in the day. When commercial flights were few and far between, lets say, just one going between major destinations in the afternoon, the farmers would tell time by looking at when the daily flight will pass over the farm, hence they set their drinking time to that clock, as in, until the plane has gone over, it is still too early to gooi ‘n dop.
LikeLike
Luckily there are planes that pass overhead at 10 in the morning on Saturdays and Sundays and the drinking can start without feeling guilty.
LikeLike
Dis nou interessant. I’ve been living in the countryside for a few years and loving it. You come across these quaint expressions and advice to start planting only after the first full moon in August.
LikeLike
Dit beteken as jy wil suip, dan dink jy vinnig ‘n verskoning uit 🙂 hehehe
LikeLike
I need no excuse to drink. I drink the finest single malt whisky with sparkling mineral water. No dooswyn for me. 🙂
LikeLike
Eat, drink, and leave your liver to the ANC.
LikeLike
Die vliegtuig is gegrond. Discovered my husband was drinking the Glenmorangie twice as fast as me so none left.
LikeLike
Dit is baie lekker om te sien die koerante het minder respek en vrees vir die godbots – lees hierdie brief in BY:
“Gerhard Bothma van Brackenfell en sy apologete (byvoorbeeld ene J.K.) reageer met tipiese arrogansie op alle wetenskaplike kritiek teen hulle geloof in die een of ander Onsigbare Absolute.
Kan Bothma asseblief vir ons ‘n lys van wetenskaplik geverifieerde, empiriese feite en argumente verskaf waarmee hy sy posisie verdedig, sodat ons wat deur eerlike selfondersoek en eie ervaring ‘n intellektuele en geestelike tuiste in die dinamiese relativisme gevind het, opnuut selfondersoek kan doen?”
(Rudi van Potchefstroom)
Gebroeders JOAL, julle is mos van hierdie apologete – help asseblief vir Rudi uit.
LikeLike
Ja Savage.het dit ook gelees. Die “By” doen nogal moeite met. Insiggewende artikels deur ingeligte skrywers. Die Afrikaner is uiteindelik besig om te ontwaak en vrae te vra. Mens moenie die jongmense onderskat nie. Die rasionele ingeligtes onder hulle hanteer gottediens met die minagting wat dit verdien.
LikeLike
“wetenskaplik geverifieerde, empiriese feite en argumente verskaf waarmee hy sy pos”
Whaou ‘n “real man” onwrikbaar en vol self vertroue dat hy gaan uitvind vir homself wat agter alles sit . . .whow man van staal. . . . natuurlik weet ons dat daar net een manier is om die geestelike wêreld te betree en dit is om ‘n geloofsprong te maak, soos Malherbe altyd uitblaker. . .. .”Dis so eenvoudig”, maar as jou afgode intellegensie, rasionalisasie, logika en al die baie gode is dan gaan die “nugtere denke” jou daarvan weerhou en jou vryheid steel, maar om nou nie soos “daai gelowiges” te wees nie kan jy nie die vryheid neem en die geloofsprong doen nie. . .
As Malherbe ons nou kan uithelp deur ons te vertel of hy toe hy die dogmatiese gode probeer dien het daar gekom het deur kondisionering en/of hy daar gekom het deur die geloofsprong, sal dit help om die punt te illustreer.
LikeLike
Circular argument. Who can tell where conditioning ends and schizoid thinking begins?
LikeLike
I’ve ask Malherbe that same question many times, (waar begin bonatuurlik en waar eindig natuurlik? ) and he does’nt know, and so does’nt McSav. . .But why you call this a circular argument I’m not sure? Are you saying that that the point going over from conditioning to schiozoid is a “relative” point and can differ for everyone?
LikeLike
Johann, you revert to the position of “geloofsprong” as if there is something commendable in believing in something you cannot objectively prove. People who go to church but don’t really “believe” have been conditioned to obey the dictates of religion to fit in socially, whereas those who have had the “geloofsprong” do “believe” in whatever it is they have been led to believe. Both are bullshit positions except that the latter is worse than the former. You would have us believe that the conditioned are the sort of people who later become atheists – as if they ever believed in the first place. So yours is a circular argument in that you constantly revert to your own self-perceived position as believer in the unprovable.
LikeLike
Christians, especially evangelists, don’t know how ridiculous and simultaneously threatening they appear to others. The New Testament is riddled with lies. There was no person such as Judas. Judas was invented by Roman Christians wanting to place the blame for the crucifixion on Jews. So what do we get? Christians and Jews polarised for two thousand years just by inventing Judas. Then we get Saint Paul, who said the husband is subordinate to Christ and the wife subordinate in turn to the husband, who alone may give the wife religious instruction. Christ said a divided house will fall. You cannot worship your spouse or anyone or anything else as a proxy for god. Thousands of “witches” got burnt at the stake – they still do – so the church could confiscate their property. The bullshit continues to this day and, frankly, some of us are tired of it.
LikeLike
OK here’s the thing – to just deny that Judas existed – how to you prove that? Why would Julius Caesar have existed, but not Judas. Provide proof first before reaching a conclusion, please. Looking forward to your proof.
LikeLike
Well of course Julius Caesar existed – not at the time of Christ, however, that was Augustus Caesar. The gospels were written quite a while after Christ had died, so the stories were undoubtedly embellished upon.Judas is named after Judah, meaning Jew. The Christians needed to spread their faith among the Romans, and if they had blamed the Romans for the crucifixion they might have met with less success. To invent a Jewish scapegoat was therefore a convenient lie. I am not alone in this supposition. A lot of historians believe this too.
LikeLike
History is very important, definitely, although not something I’m very passionate about.
holyshmoly, by your own admission here, you are making an assumption, and since your atheist religion is based on, let’s call it “the pillar of scientific proof”, you’re sketching yourself as a hypocrite here. Because if you don’t require proof that Julius Caesar existed, why do you require proof that Judas existed?!? To put it this way, you need a way of discrediting the historic facts recorded in the Bible, otherwise your atheistic beliefs will fall apart.
Your atheistic agenda is very clear to me. You try to turn your belief that Judas didn’t exist into a fact and expect gullible people to just take your word for it, because you’re apparently some sort of historian.
I’m not being unreasonable in demanding proof of this (it is after all a favorite atheist past-time to ask for proof for everything, so today I’m returning the favor). You can’t simply state that one historically recorded fact is true, while another is not – you need to provide proof. The fact that you’re “not alone in the supposition” means less than nothing. I’m not alone in mine either. It only means there are a couple of other okes believing the same nonsense. (And Malherbe, if you mention one word about “the onus is not on the atheist to provide proof”, I’m really going to bliksem you – get over that nonsense).
moly, I can respect you for being a historian, for being a human that was created in God’s image, etc. But sorry, no respect for assumptions dished up as facts because of an atheist agenda.
This is the typical “conspiracy theory stuff the internet is full of. You know, apparently mankind never landed on the moon, there’s some or the other “face” on mars, checking us humans out. I really enjoyed the series Stargate – you should watch it, if I were to believe that as fact, then most historic people are actually aliens…
LikeLike
No Analfa, I can see that history is not something you would be passionate about. Anyone who reads anything other than the Bible and Huisgenoot must be a historian.
LikeLike
I bet you R 100 you read You magazine or any other magazine in the category, and if you do (which I know you won’t admit to), then the joke’s on you 🙂 I do not read Huisgenoot, but keep guessing. But yes, I read the Bible – I can also recommend it to you. I am sure that you have not read through it – it’s a pity.
LikeLike
Now I understand your real problem for the first time Analfa. You were born without a bulshit filter. You gobble up all information and then merriliy chants “everything goes”. To you the stuff you read in the bible or dubious internet sources or peer revieved studies, are all the same. So get youself a bulshit filter Analfa. Some people call it rationality, others common sense.
LikeLike
Jy klink nou soos ‘n sielkundige. Nee, by my is dit nie “everything goes” nie. Interessant, dat dit juis is hoe ek jou perceive. Jy’t geen opinie van jou eie nie en jy staan ook op vir niks. Ek hou meer van mense met karakter en integriteit.
LikeLike
Boohoo, Analfa, die agnostikus hou nie van my nie. Boohoo, hy se ek het nie integriteit nie….snik, snik…
LikeLike
Analfa, lees bietjie wat seg die geskiedkenners o.a rakende Judas se bestaan. Hierdie vrou geniet internasionale erkenning as geskiedkundige. Onderstaande uit een van haar seminare.
http://edge.org/conversation/-the-book-of-revelation-prophecy-and-politicsedge-master-class-2011#.TtPxtAMih_U.email
LikeLike
Judas Did Not Exist
Some people might be disturbed at the suggestion that Jesus did not exist, but surely all good people would be happily hopeful were they to hear an argument that very symbol of anti-Semitism has been nothing more substantial than an unhappy fiction. After reading Bishop John Shelby Spong’s Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes some years ago I was naive enough to conclude that most biblical scholars (of the nonfundamentalist variety) were well aware of the evidence that Judas was nothing more than a literary creation. I would still like to think that is the case, and that those scholarly works that speak of Judas as a real person of history who in fact did betray his master really are an aberrant minority in the current field of Gospel scholarship.
Don’t misunderstand, though. By no means does John Shelby Spong deny the historicity of Jesus.
Is there then no literal history that is reflected at the heart of the Christian story? Yes, of course there is; but it is not found in the narrative descriptions of Jesus’ last days.
But who was Judas?
Was he a person of history who did all of the things attributed to him? . . .
Or was there but a bare germ of truth in the Judas story, on which was heaped the dramatic portrait that we now find in the Gospels? Can we identify the midrashic tradition at work in the various details that now adorn his life? . . .
Or was he purely and simply a legendary figure invented by the Christians as a way to place on the backs of the Jewish people the blame for the death of Jesus?
The rest of the post follows Spong’s argument that Judas was created by “Christians [who] made Jews, rather than the Romans, the villains of their story. [Spong] suggest[s] that this was achieved primarily by creating a narrative of a Jewish traitor according to the midrashic tradition out of the bits and pieces of the sacred scriptures and by giving that traitor the name Judas, the very name of the nation of the Jews.”
It may be possible to quibble over Spong’s use of the term “midrash”, which some scholars define as something that is known among the Dead Sea Scrolls but not quite found in the Gospels. But regardless of the term used, the identification of the details of the Judas narrative in the Hebrew Scriptures remains a telling argument that Judas was a literary creation of the Gospel authors.
The post is in two parts. The first part here outlines the main argument for Judas being a late fictional creation and reflecting a mounting anti-semitism within the Church. The second part looks in more detail at the inconsistencies with which the different Gospels present the Judas narrative.
The Meaning of “Iscariot”
It has been suggested that Iscariot refers to Kerioth, a town presumably of Judas’s origin.
But Spong writes that “today [published 1996] the weight of scholarship leans toward the [option that the name derives from sicarious, which means a political assassin].” (p. 259)
From here: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/judas-did-not-exist/
LikeLike
“you revert to the position of “geloofsprong” as if there is something commendable in believing in something you cannot objectively prove.” Very well put. . .so I take it that you’ve done it (The leap of faith?) And also that conditioned “believers” turn out to be Atheist, – Malherbe wil be a classic case. . .I’ve done that too. . . tried to believe in a concept of god that I had. . . and when I try to talk about it with “McMalSav” and it is as if they don’t have the “retrospeksie” (retrospection?) ability to look within, much easier for them to jump on the bandwagon an come up with stories about how wrong the “chuches” are (Which quite frankly, I don’t care about )
The “circular argument” in that you constantly revert to your own self-perceived position . . .touché. But let me think about that one for a while.
LikeLike
Get hold of this book, Hallucinations, by neurologist Oliver Sacks.
“Hallucinations don’t belong wholly to the insane. Much more commonly, they are linked to sensory deprivation, intoxication, illness, or injury. People with migraines may see shimmering arcs of light or tiny, Lilliputian figures of animals and people. People with failing eyesight, paradoxically, may become immersed in a hallucinatory visual world. Hallucinations can be brought on by a simple fever or even the act of waking or falling asleep, when people have visions ranging from luminous blobs of color to beautifully detailed faces or terrifying ogres. Those who are bereaved may receive comforting “visits” from the departed. In some conditions, hallucinations can lead to religious epiphanies or even the feeling of leaving one’s own body.”
From here: http://www.amazon.com/Hallucinations-Oliver-Sacks/dp/0307957241 You can download to your Kindle.
LikeLike
“Hallucinations?” I thought that’s what we all doing, and just maybe we can manipulate our own hallucinations and get out of it what we want or change it to make life less of a struggle and more full of laughs or do we have to stick to the rules ? Rule #1: believe only in somethiing that can be proven to you – a very sterne voice. Rule#2: Evolusion explain why you are here and why you gonna die – so loosen up and jump over the fence and skrew rule#1.
Rule#3: Always tell everyone that does’nt agree with you that they are stupid – which wil place you in a position further on the evolusion ladder and give you a better chance to keep your gene’s longer in the run and it wil make you feel better about the self you refer to when jou talk about yourself.
How many rules are there if you want to be a atheist?
LikeLike
Evolution has been proved as fact, just as it has been proved that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. There is only one rule for the theology sceptics: if science contradicts scripture, scripture is wrong or our interpretation of scripture is wrong. That is a rule Moses Maimonides advocates in his Guide for the Perplexed. Johann, I have not said that you are stupid, but if you think I make you feel stupid – not my doing, what you think is based on your own perception of me – then do something to improve your knowledge base.
LikeLike
Uhm, no, evolution has NOT been proven as a fact. There’s still a huge amount of disagreement around it. However, it has been proven that the earth is “round”, yes, although not a perfect circle. Yes, it has been proven that the earth revolves around the sun. If evolution is proved correct today, it does not in any way contradict the Bible – I’m still amazed at how ppl reach that conclusion. Life in outer space has not been proven, although I’m certain it’s just a matter of time before it will be. That also does not contradict scripture. How does any of this possible contradict scripture?!? These misunderstandings come from the fact that us humans do not completely understand everything, we misunderstand science and we misunderstand scripture – there is no reason to believe that they contradict each other.
Scientists should focus on science – to improve the lives of human beings. That’s one of the primary reasons mankind pursues science – to invent new things to improve our lives. Unfortunately, there are other reasons as well, such as to oppress other humans, etc. 😦 Scientists are very ill-equipped to give opinions of a religious nature – they are entirely out of there depth. And Christians should also not be against science, only against religious speculation by scientists. Such a pity that ppl, in this day and age can still not see that science has boundaries and that it’s not a religion.
To build an atheist religion from science… what a poor imitation of the real thing. But ja, that’s a known tactic of the devil – imitates everything.
LikeLike
Here we go again. Rehashing items where he has been previously shown to be incorrect.
– evolution is indeed a fact. The vast majority of scientific community agrees with this. The fact that they might disagree with certain inner workings/aspects of evolution is irrelevant and does not disprove the fact of evolution. As with the theory of gravitation or the building blocks of an atom, we still have a lot to learn about evolution.
– evolution do not disprove the bible? Perhaps, according to Analfa, but many religiousminded people will vehemently disagree. It is religous people trying to ban evolution from schools. Why do they do this if not a threat to their dogma? Analfa?
– “scientists should focus on science” – Exactly, and that’s what they generally do. You won’t find scientists running into a church telling everyone their skydaddy does not exist. Do godiots extend the same courtesy? No, they will forever stick their noses into areas that they typically know very little of.
– “scientists are completely out of their depth regarding religious matter”: Agreed. Scientists focus on items that can be proven empirically. Since the existence of fairies, unicorns and skydaddies cannot be proven, science ignores these. However, if godiots cannot show some restraint and keep their grubby little paws from science through the usage of dogmatic arguments, they should not expect any mercy from scientific minded people in treating their dogma with the disdain it deserves.
– atheism is not a religion – I have on many an occasion explained why.
– the devil does not exist: as with god, he only exists in the heads of godiots.
LikeLike
What agenda does it serve to belief in avenging gods and devils? It can only be from anger and out of a need for revenge and control on the part of the godiot. I go to have my tyres changed and the lady behind the counter says, “I will pray for you”. Wtf? I am just there to have new tyres put on the car, I wasn’t going around saying Jesus is a cunt, I didn’t provoke anything. I go to have my hair cut and decide to have a pedicure as well while I’m at the salon. The godiot doing the pedicure says, “How’s your relationship with Jesus?” Wtf? I’m here for a pedicure. How does one handle this, day to day?
LikeLike
Holysmoly, I usually just tells them I’m Muslim. That stops then in their tracks. Strangely, godiots finds it comforting that one also prays to some god, albeit the “wrong” one. To them, some god is better than none. Also, they have no way to prove their skydaddy is the real deal. Its a strange phenomenon, but works like a charm in shutting them up.
LikeLike
Analfa, you are a bullshitter of note. Here you say evolution has not been proven. I quote another comment of yours: “Aaaaaaaag no man, not again, how many times do I have to say it? I don’t know if it’s true or not and it makes no difference. Micro-evolution is a fact, it has been observed – no-one will doubt that. Macro-evolution, I’m not sure of that. And again – it matters absolutely NOTHING to me.”
You regurgitate what you find on Wikipedia and pretend to know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Molly, die probleem is jy’s te veel met die “stupid-stok” geslaan toe jy nog op skool was. Nou’s jy te dom-astrant (met die klem op dom… en op astrant), dat jy nie kan uitfigure wat ek skryf nie. Wikipedia is ‘n goeie bron van kennis, net dom astrante mense sal dit beledig. Maar in elk geval: nee, ek het ‘n opinie van my eie. Jy confuse my met Savage en Malherbe wat elke tweede stuk stront wat hulle lees vir soetkoek opeet en nie die ruggraat het om te staan by hulle oortuigings nie – dis nou te sê as hulle enige oortuigings het.
Ek hoop jy kan my Afrikaans verstaan – evolusie is nog nie bewys nie, dus kan niemand verseker weet of dit reg of verkeerd is nie. Heel waarskynlik is dit ‘n onvolledige teorie (soos alle ander wetenskaplike teoriee). Of dit 0%, 50%, of 100% waar is, maak GEEN verskil nie. Dis regtig nie moeilik om dit in te sien nie. Keep and open mind.
I’m not going to explain again – please put some effort in when reading ppl’s comments – try to understand what they are saying. Otherwise you make yourself look really bad.
LikeLike
Holy, no point in attempting a sensible debate with this religiot. Too stupid to know when he has painted himself into a corner. His only fall-back position consists of extremely weak circular arguments. He is indeed the type that gives religion a bad name.
LikeLike
Sad, isn’t it. There was a program on National Geographic last night that showed how our universe could well have been started as the result of two universes colliding. There is an infinite number of universes out there. And you get muppets who still believe in desert religions.
LikeLike
Yip, they would rather listen to a potatoe farmer with a silly hat telling them (the males) to be the “head of the house”, than to succumb to that pesky little thing called reason. They would rather go blindfolded and close-minded through through life than consider the possibility that a dogma with its origins in the bonze age could possibly erroneous. Far easier for a lazy brain to stick to the copout position of “goddidit”. I honestly feel sorry them – brains infected with the godvirus.
LikeLike
True, Malherbe. All those Born Again Christian women should beware that the men who go to their churches are just trying to get into their pants. That’s if they can get them to shut the fuck up. Pathetic Born Again Tea Partyer Victoria Jackson on one of her rants.
LikeLike
“….that the men who go to their churches are just trying to get into their pants.”
I have seen this happen so often. Bible bashers cheating on their wives but sitting with holier-than-though faces in the front benches. People that are quick to damn me to eternal hell simply because I do not believe in their bulshit dogma, but then go ahead to pinch the cat in the dark. I sometimes wonder if a case for a correlation between dishonesty and religiots exists. Cheat and steal in the week and on Sunday little jesus washes my sins away. Hipocrisy and christianity walks side by side.
LikeLike
From Urban Dictionary dot com:
Born-again Christian A synonym for pathological liar
(as dubbed by Sarah Silverman)
“You remind me of my friend Debbie! We’re not friends any more though.. she was a.. what do you call it? Not born-again christian…. oh yeah! pathological liar!”
LikeLike
A priest says to a rabbi, “See that altar boy over there? Want to fuck him?” And the rabbi says, “Fuck him out of what?”
LikeLike
Holysmoly, your posts are excellent. Stated with clarity and to the point. However, your hope is misplaced if you expect a clear answe from Johann. He will contort, convolute and distort to create some wriggle-room for his excuses for arguments.
LikeLike
The idea that buddhism is atheist explains why the previous owner of our house was slandered and trashed by my godiot neighbour already mentioned. She told me about it after the sale, although she never resorted to legal action. She does reiki, some new age stuff, but not involving anything witchy. So the Christard neighbour would not stop prying into her life and saying nasty things about her. Christards start out by trying to appear well meaning and normal but you will notice some peculiar things about them right from the start. Like their religion. You will try to overlook their religion, but that becomes as easy as trying to step over a huge tree that crashed outside your doorstep after a hurricane. Legal action in the form of warning letters followed by restraining orders are good measures to take against Christards. Being gossips and rumour mongerers, they can’t stand it when they might be exposed for what they simply are.
LikeLike
You’re right holyshmoly you never called me names and I’m sorry, I was referring to the peanut gallery in general and yes the evolution theory sure is convincing. . . and it proves that. . .it proves that. . .I really can’t remember now. . . or is it suppose to prove something. . .
LikeLike
“if science contradicts scripture, scripture is wrong or our interpretation of scripture is wrong”
That is sure a bold statement and if it is the only thing I have to do to call myself an athiest then it should be easy, or maybe not so easy, if the scriptures “says” : “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” then I’m thinking what does that mean? (What is “the Word”, what is “God”, “flesh”, “grace”
, “Truth”).
After so many years scientists haven’t prove or disprove a statement like that. . . it somehow does’nt fit into the clinical, cold, factfinding, sphere. . . and I have to “live” my life in the meantime. . .
LikeLike
Not everything should be taken literally. Read Maimonides. In order to live your life in the image of God, it is advisable to show greater curiosity in what goes on around you than a doorknob.
LikeLike
“if science contradicts scripture, scripture is wrong or our interpretation of scripture is wrong.”
This is not scientific reasoning here, and Malherbe, Savage as well as McBrolloks won’t have the integrity to admit to it. You’re not considering all possibilities.
Also, why do you quote Moses Maimonides – I’ve never heard of him before, but did a quick scan on Wikipedia. Why does someone that like, who wasn’t an atheist, influence your thinking?!? Seems he was a philosopher of some sort. Ask Malherbe what he thinks of philosophy? I’d like to read his “politically correct” version, and maybe after that I’ll quote some of his uncensored comments. Ja-nee…
LikeLike
ANALFA THE AGNOSTIC
Over the past months Analfa has persisted in labelling atheism as a religion. This, notwithstanding my efforts to explain to him that non-belief, by its pure definition does not equate to belief/religion. Amongst the arguments I used to explain to him the error of his rationale (if you could call it that) was that calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair colour, or the non-playing of golf a sport. This analogy was obviously above his mental capability, because in the absence of any rational counter-argument he persisted in his erring, albeit comical ways.
Another argument presented was the fact that surely Analfa does NOT believe in fairies or leprechauns or unicorns or Farther Xmast, etc. Following Analfa’s crooked way of thinking, one may therefore assume that these are all non-belief positions that he holds. From this we may deduct that our friend Analfa has numerous belief systems and therefore gods. I am not sure what one will label someone with many supernatural beliefs, but it seems that agnostic is the closest. (If someone knows of a more fitting definition, feel free to let me know.)
In short: If Analfa can call atheism a religion, he is in effect stating that he is an agnostic. Welcome to our circle, Analfa!
LikeLike
Aaai jaaai jaaai – my mond hang wawyd oop 🙂 Gaan kyk eers gou die definisie van agnostic op (dictionary.com)… Verder kan ek maar net lag. As jy nie weet wat ‘n agnostic is nie, weet jy dan hoegenaamd wat ‘n atheist is? En weet jy wat is die verskil? Savage, asb. man verduidelik vir die ou.
LikeLike
Het jy n definisie vir iemand wat vele gelowe aanhang Analfa? Ek is heeltemal bereid om die agnostic label te verwyder indien jy my hier kan uithelp. Tot dan sal jy maar gelief moet neem met jouself as agnostikus. Nogmaals welkom – jy maak vordering.
He he, lekker om jou eie medisyne te sluk, he Analfa? Alweer vas in die hoek geverf.
LikeLike
Lees maar gou http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100723121420AAhgiJ9. Obvious antwoord is dat dit nie moontlik is nie – kom ek verduidelik vir jou in bietjie meer wetenskaplike terme – jy kan nie glo dat die aarde plat en rond is nie. Kop jy? Dis maar dieselfde met die verskillende gelowe. Jy’t seker iewers iets gelees van Ramakrishna.
LikeLike
Miskien kan jy sommer nou hulp kry om die betekenis van ateisme aan jou te verduidelik Analfa? Hou in gedagte dat ek JOU metodiek gebruik het om jou as agnostikus te klassifiseer. Jy is sekerlik bewus dat ek nie saamstem met jou metodiek nie?
Donker daar onder in die gat Analfa?
LikeLike
Jou geheue is kort, het dit lankal vir jou punt vir punt verduidelik en foute uitgewys in die ateisme geloof. Gaan lees maar so paar maande terug se comments, asb. Jou laaste twee drie vrae is oorbodig en bietjie desperaat van jou kant af. Ek verstaan al jou comments, hoor, aai jaai jaai….
LikeLike
Caling atheism a belief system is a contradiction in terms. That’s what Malherbe is trying to convey to you. But because you can only base your arguments on your “geloofsisteem” in other words, stuff that you can’t prove, now you want to argue that non-belief is a belief?
LikeLike
An agnostic can perhaps be seen as someone who doesn’t believe in anything, as they feel the truth is beyond human comprehension. An atheist, however is one of you most fervent “believers” you’ll ever get. They believe in mankind’s ability to understand the universe via science. Utter stupidity, at best.
LikeLike
Even the Catholic Church has accepted that evolution is true. And you say it isn’t. Is everyone stupid except the fundamentalists?
LikeLike
Aaaaaaaag no man, not again, how many times do I have to say it? I don’t know if it’s true or not and it makes no difference. Micro-evolution is a fact, it has been observed – no-one will doubt that. Macro-evolution, I’m not sure of that. And again – it matters absolutely NOTHING to me.
Scientists are not stupid. If they stick to science, all is well. When they do act stupid, stubborn, crazy or whatever, is when they try to use science to prove or disprove God. These things I’ve made clear many a time on this blog. And what’s even worse is when ppl who are not scientists, like the threesome on this blog, try to use science to disprove God – it’s really makes me laugh, actually, so pathetic is it.
Just remember, science is a tool that we use to improve our lives. Whether or not the theories are true or false (and they are often disproved decades later by other scientists) is irrelevant – as long as it’s accurate enough to help us come up with more useful theories to improve our lives.
Really, it’s about time you guys start to understand what science is and what it’s limits are and the fact that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with proving or disproving God’s existence.
LikeLike
And another thing. Let me just explain.
“Fact” A. Is it true or false?
If it has been proven -> it’s true.
If it has been disproved -> it’s false.
If no-one has been able as yet to prove it -> It’s either true or false.
So if I say something has not yet been proven, it leaves 2 possibilities – either true or false. You’re wrong in assuming that I maintain it is necessarily false because it hasn’t been proven.
LikeLike
He? I thought Analfa was a woman?
LikeLike
hahahahaha – I noticed. It was quite amusing!
LikeLike
Analfa, I thought you were a woman because I was wondering where your tiny brain must be when you need to pee so I assumed you must sit down to be able to do so.
LikeLike
You crack me up, man 🙂 hahahahaha
LikeLike
ja Analfa praat met my ook in ‘n vroue stem. . maar nie jy nie Holy.
En so gaan die argumente aan en aan om en om. . . en ek dink aan die arme joodjies shame foeitog fok, hulle behandel die Palesteine soos die lokale europeer die “africans” behandel, soos minderwaardige mense en dan probeer hulle die simpatie in hul rigting draai deur stellings soos “You force us to kill your children”, en natuurlik ou Hitler se manewalus, en eintlik is dit so die jode is verder op die evolusie
leer en die en dit moet ook vir hulle swaar wees om saam met sulke agtergeblewendes te leef
LikeLike
Aha, the Jew envying anti-Semite stands revealed from behind the narcissistic “Christian” facade! Yes, I do think the Jews are smart. I admire them.
LikeLike
Sadly, I am not Jewish myself. Not even quarter Jewish, like Helen Zille. At least, so my mother told me.
LikeLike
You’re a paradox, you know that right? Actually Malherbe is too. In his case however, his “belief” in his “Batgod” is false and to tell you the truth, downright childish and irritating at best. Guess him and I just don’t share the same sense of humour.
But you, you seem to genuinely admire Jews and Judaism – which, of course nothing abnormal about that, I suppose, but coming from an atheist it is very surprising. Unless, of course, you’re not an atheist and believe in some sort of religion after all, or secretly wish you were Jewish so you could be part of Judaism.
Can you clear up the air here and state your exact beliefs and feelings about religion and whether or not you’re an atheist. (And please state it unambiguously – Malherbe has serious trouble understanding the terms atheist, agnostic, religious and Christian)?
One last thought, it amazed me how ppl battle to accept who they are – you wish to be Jewish, for the life of my I can’t think why, and Malherbe wishes he was black – being such a big supporter of racist policies like BEE, etc.
I’ve come to accept myself for who I am. And yes 🙂 I’m male and I love it, and if you confuse me for a female, then that’s also cool – hahahaha.
LikeLike
I’m agnostic, but don’t take that to mean you can twist my arm the other way. I’ve seen too much crap caused by religion to be gulled. Just because I admire Jews it does not follow I’m into Judaism. I like Jews because they don’t take crap.
LikeLike
Very interesting. You respect ppl with backbones – so do I.
It reminds me in some way of this passage in the Bible (maybe you’ll relate to it): “Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. ”
And it might surprise some people, but a lot of Christians have backbones and don’t condone every second thing, like my old buddies Malherbe, Savage and McBrolloks loves to do. They just “go with the flow”, “undercover atheists”, “closet atheists”, etc. You know, it’s the easy way…
You label yourself an agnostic, and I agree, you are probably one, based on your comments here. Therefor you’re not an atheist. But are you agnostic because you believe it’s impossible for mankind to know God, because you’re just indifferent to whichever religion is the true on, or because you just really dislike God? No-one can know God through his own knowledge or that of others (ie. science is not the correct instrument if you want to have a relationship with God), God has to reveal Himself to us. And I don’t think you’re indifferent to religion. Which makes me believe that you had very bad encouters with religious ppl and decided therefor that religion is bad. Just guessing, would really like to have some more info.
LikeLike
I’m agnostic because it’s impossible to know who or what “god” is, but we can live worthwhile lives without assuming the existence of a god. If I dislike religion it’s because religious practitioners preach that we should put our life on hold or be beholden to some agenda of their own for some bogus reward in the hereafter. That’s pure manipulation and it’s utterly evil.
LikeLike
Totally agree with ths guy. The Forgiveness Card irritates me the most – the “Jesus forgave me, I am not free to do my shit all over again” trick.
Why Born Again Christians Disgust Me
There is a major misconception that people may have regarding how I view Christians in general versus the holy roller / born again type Christians. A lot of times when I write and speak I don’t draw a distinction between the holy roller / born again type of Christian and the kind that believe in a God but are also normal people simply living their lives. I realize this can give people / Christians a false impression of what I am really about.
I make no bones about the fact that i am a take no shit kind of guy. I am not one to kiss the ass of anyone and I am not one to take shit from anyone. If someone has a beef with me my attitude is, confront me with it. If I am wrong or you can explain your position / perception / attitude in a way that I understand what you are saying and agree that you have a point I will do the best I can to correct myself. However if I have a different point of view I’m not going to back down and try to keep peace just for the sake of having everyone like me. By the same token what I say to your face is the same thing I would say behind your back. If I don’t like someone I will let them know it.
All of this having been said, I do want to clarify something for everyone. That being most times when I use the term Christian I am thinking about the holy roller / born again type. To me these are the most vile and self serving people on the planet. With most of them I can see a degree of Narcissism in how they are thinking that frankly disgusts me. Honestly I feel there is no way that a person can think and act in the manner these people do and not be suffering from a type of narcissism if not fully blown narcissism or worse mental illnesses like delusional disorder or sociopathic behavior.
I do realize these are serious mental illnesses that I am directly linking to fundamentalist Christians. However I do not say this just to be as insulting as I can. I do have very real reasons why I have reached this conclusion. Unlike some Atheists I am one that grew up around Christianity and had these ideas programed into my mind at a very young age. This is definitely a type of brainwashing that is still permitted in our society but one that I see as having very real effects on the way a person will view reality as they grow up. Perceptions of reality that are very much unrealistic and potentially destructive not only to their life but to their interaction with other people.
Here is a break down of my major beefs with Fundamentalist Christianity.
1. Unrealistic Expectations on other people / The Forgiveness Card – This one is based on the idea that if the holy roller / born again Christian does something that hurts someone else or is just not nice that all they have to do is say they are sorry / repent and magically everything is forgiven. This is madness for this simple reason. Just because you can mouth words of how sorry you are doesn’t mean the pain / damage you caused is magically removed. There are times in life that after you do something no amount of I’m Sorries or Please Forgive me can make up for it. Some examples of this are as follows.
A. The Murder / Taking the Life of any other person
B. Rape
C. Child Molestation
D. Child Abuse
E. Abuse against another person
F. An Affair / Cheating on ones partner
G. Betrayal of a Friend, Relative, Partner, or even Co Worker / Boss
There are others but these give an idea of what I am talking about. A person can be genuinely sorry for what they have done and sincerely mean it when they say they will never do it again. However expecting the ones you hurt or their family or friends to just forgive you because you ask is honestly unrealistic. There are times that no amount of I’m sorry or words of any sort can change the damage you have done.
To say you’re sorry or asking for forgiveness and be well if they don’t forgive me it is on them. That you have done all you need to by simply mouthing the magic words of I’m Sorry or Please Forgive Me. This is self centered bullshit not showing where you are actually sorry about anything.
No one is under any obligation to accept your apology or to forgive you when you have done something that hurts them. If they choose to that is their choice but this still doesn’t remove your obligation to correct your behavior. In some cases there is a social price that must be paid to the society and that is completely separate from if someone else can forgive you. I’m sorry doesn’t bring back someone you killed. It doesn’t make the raped woman unraped. It doesn’t make the Molested Child innocent again. and so on. Your actions have consequences and your being sorry doesn’t mean shit. You should be sorry but being sorry simply isn’t enough.
2. The I Turned My Life Over To Jesus Claim – This is nothing short of making a bullshit claim to which the only thing your doing is finding ways to justify / excuse your behaviors with the bible. There is no evidence the Jesus of the bible actually existed. Even if there would’ve been a Jew in the First Century that did what this one is claimed to doesn’t mean that it could magically take over your screwed up life.
Additionally this type of mindset means you no longer have Freewill but that you are a mindless puppet to the whims of this Jesus. Turning your life over to another being doesn’t mean you get to continue having the same self serving behaviors and just be, Oh I need to repent. This is not turning your life over to anything or anyone. No Christian Born Again or otherwise really wants to have something outside them-self completely possessing them and forcing them to make the choices this other being would want. So stop fucking saying you turned your life over to anything when you are wanting to have your Freewill and continue to make your own choices!
3. Claiming to Base Your Behaviors on the Bible – This is a common bit of Christian Bullshit that gets uttered but these people don’t really do this. What they do instead is look to justify / excuse how they behave based entirely upon how they Cherry Pick or Twist what is in their bible to suit their agenda. These Christian’s don’t actually go by what is in the bible because the Bible advocates stoning disobedient Children, Having Slaves – how much you can Beat them, Killing someone for picking up Sticks on the Sabbath, treating a wife as property & women as being inferior / lesser and so much more.
4. Claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus – This is nothing short of complete delusional disorder because it is impossible to have a personal relationship with a fictional character from a story. It doesn’t matter if you regard the story as being holy or not. You can only have a personal relationship with someone that you personally know and personally knows you. This means that you have at least met the person to whom you claim to have a personal relationship with. You simply can’t have a personal relationship with a thought or an idea. If Christians want to claim there are hundreds of proofs of there Jesus having existed the first obligation they have is to provide the evidence to support that claim. Your claim is not true just because you say it.
Additionally your claim is not true just because Christians made fraudulent writings in books like that of Josephus’s book Antiquities of the Jews Volume 18 Chapter 3 Section 3. This has been proven to be fraud and not actually written by Josephus because of the following reasons.
A. “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man” Why would it even be in question if such a person existed as to wither or not it would be lawful to call him a man? The idea that this Jesus was the son of God is a Christian claim not something a Jew would say!
B. “He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.” The only place in the Entire book that the word Gentiles is used is in this section. While there are 14 times the word Romans is used in this book. Why would Josephus switch from using the word Romans to using the Christian word Gentiles in Chapter 3 section 3 then in Chapter 4 switch back to using Romans?
C. “He was [the] Christ.” No Jew would make such a claim as the word Christ is not a last name but a title meaning the Messiah!
D. “And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross” There is no mention of this from any Jew or Roman Historian from 33 AD about this so called event. So the only way Josephus could’ve known of this was from Christian claims not from any witnesses.
E. “those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;” This is just down right false even going by the bible account. The Jewish day goes Evening to Morning. The story goes that this Jesus was put in the tomb on Friday Evening. Friday Evening to Saturday Morning is One Day. Saturday Evening to Sunday Morning is Two Days. If this Jesus Rose from the Tomb on Sunday that is Two Days not Three! A Jew like Josephus would clearly have known this.
F. “as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” This is writing not from the way a Jew would be talking but a Christian. Additionally if there would’ve been Ten Thousand other wonderful things why didn’t Josephus mention even one of them? He spends a lot more time in section 4 talking about a sex scandal then he does on this God man Jew?
G. “And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” And this should be a given since if Christians wouldn’t have been around there would be no point in babbling about this Jesus figure. This doesn’t mean the Christian claims are true just because they were still around.
5. The Claim that those who don’t believe in Jesus burn in Hell forever – This one is simply showing how sadistic and purely evil these Christians really are. To base an afterlife, assuming such even exists, on nothing more then the beliefs one has in their life is nothing short of thought crime. While putting your “Sins” on a Jesus is nothing short of Scapegoating. It is not actually being interested in justice or facing the consequences of your choices and actions. This is simply giving a loophole for people to do any evil and vile thing they want then say, “Jesus Forgive Me” and poof magically it is all wiped away.
Additionally the claims of Heaven & Hell are based entirely on the physical pleasure or pain of the location. If this is as Christians claim a “Spiritual” place then physical pleasure or suffering wouldn’t be relevant. Simply put you must make up your mind is this afterlife a physical place or something “Spiritual” / an Energy form. You can’t have it both ways.
From here: http://mrgoodnkinky.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/why-born-again-christians-disgust-me/
LikeLike
Typo: “Jesus forgave me, I am NOW free to do my irritating shit all over again.”
LikeLike
You really believe that?!? It doesn’t work that way.
LikeLike
Well I’ve seen it in “born agains” on numerous occasions. “I’ve prayed to Jesus about it, so the slate is clean again on my side. If Jesus has forgiven me, so will you. And now I want to tell you what a miserable sinner you are for not being born again like me.” Also: throwing money at the church in the expectation of getting your money back sevenfold in some or other mysterious way. I knew a pawnbroker who dealt with Ray McCauley. All jewellery donated to “Jesus” was sold on to this guy, but not anything with emeralds because Linda McCauley (wife number two) loooved emeralds.
LikeLike
Sadly, there are many like Ray McCauley – he does a tremendous amount of damage – and is 100% right to speak out against that. Still, you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You understand right? Because I’m sure you know there is a distinction between God and men, and the acts of men do not define who God is – especially when there is so much reason to believe that those kind of ppl are not in fact born-again Christians. And nowhere will you find, if you read the Bible, that forgiveness gives anyone carte blanche to keep on sinning. Just some food for thought, not picking an argument with you …
LikeLike
*sniff*
LikeLike
Very intellectual comment from you there…
Rather just go talk to your beloved cats, and refrain from engaging in conversations with ppl of higher intellect than you, please.
LikeLike
Cats? Who’s being catty now?
LikeLike
Johann, Analfa, you are both so stupid, you are … who cares what you are.
LikeLike
Maybe so, but at least we’ve never commented *sniff* Perhaps you were just in a hurry, but man, it really made me think you’re stupid, or very bored is another option – not interested in the truth, right?
LikeLike
Why does it bother you that I don’t believe in your belief system? Does it affect you in any way? If it doesn’t affect you, let it go. But if a bunch of fundies try to hit me with their bible in my own house, then I will retaliate with my sjambok.
LikeLike
You’re free to choose what to believe in or not. What irritates me though, is this kind of blog where ppl insult Christianity, yet they know nothing of it – which is very clear from the comments here. In that way it affects me, and I don’t take that kind of nonsense from anyone.
I’ll make you a deal, speak with respect about Christianity and I will disappear – but ja, that won’t happen. For some reason you guys hate Christians, God and anything else to do with religion. Start a private Facebook group or something – as long as this is an open blog, I have the right to post here. But I restrain myself from sinking to the level of profanity, etc. that you guys love so much.
LikeLike
Why should I respect Christianity, God or religion? You people are narcissists. You’ve got one life on this earth – which you do your best to stuff up – and then you expect to have it better in an afterlife with all the non-believers roasting in hell because we think you guys are losers? Get out of it.
LikeLike
Jislaaik, you have a twisted image of Christianity, my friend. I’ll suffice to say that we do not stuff up our lives, but we the eternal afterlife will be much better. You only say these things because you do not have an understanding of the religion. And for the part you mention of hell – that is between God and yourself, not for me to decide.
LikeLike
“You’re free to choose what to believe in or not. What irritates me though, is this kind of blog where ppl insult Christianity, yet they know nothing of it – which is very clear from the comments here. In that way it affects me, and I don’t take that kind of nonsense from anyone.”
Holy fucking shit Analfa!!!! You still don’t get it. The reason this blog exists is because you and your brethren piss on the human rights of others in the name of your imaginary friends.
You already read this and commented on it. Go and check it out again:
So as long as you and your crushtians fuck people over who don’t give half a shit about your bat-shit-crazy beliefs, people like me will point out your injustices and we will ridicule you and your crazy beliefs.
You are a dangerous bunch when you are given any power.
Not to mention completely fucking crazy too!!!!!!
LikeLike
“I’m offended” does not equal “It’s offensive.”
LikeLike
Hey Mac, seems the Ozzies have problems with fundie neighbours too. Schefflera hedges do the trick in South Africa, very fast growing, create a lekker thick hedge. Fundie neighbours get very frustrated at not being able to see into your front garden and not knowing what time you get up in the morning or whether you fetch the morning newspaper in your dressing gown. They can’t give you filthy looks because you’ve got a much nicer garden than theirs. Out of sight, out of mind.
LikeLike
Ag, McBrollosk, jy’s paranoid man.
Jou favorite quote is seker: “I’m only paranoid because everyone’s out to get me!”
LikeLike
Moenie weggaan nie Analfa. Die vermaak wat jy bied is te kostelik. Maar respek vir jou selfgeskepte gotte? Nie maklik nie.
LikeLike
Thanks for letting us see something of you, and what are inside your mind. It’ll take some time to read through everthing and “see” it from you reference point (self-precieved potition?). About the “jews”, how do they “see” non-jews? Can they treat non-jews like sevants – lie to them cheat them exploit them because they are just “things”. Is it true that they believe everthing on earth and underneath the earth belong to them.
LikeLike
Ha ha ha! Johann does not see the irony in worshipping a dead Jew from two thousand years ago!
LikeLike
Ok I can see the irony, from your point of reference ha ha ha, but what on earth does “worship” mean and “dead”. . .?
(If I think that I can’t smoke the word tobacco but that to which the word points, that I can put in my pipe and light up. )
So “worship” – something- heavy word for some one that does’nt “do it” (consciously anyway)
LikeLike
. . .siende dat dit weer stil geraak het hier. . .
En dan is daar ‘n woord wat dikwels gebruik word in Moly se balhaar verklaring, – “verhouding” of in ingels “relationship” baie betekenisvolle woord, maar wat sou dit beteken?
Kan mens bv ‘n verhouding hê teenoor ‘n idee. . . soos Moly skryf dat “ek maak geen bene daarvan dat ek ‘n geen k@k ou is nie”, kan mens ‘n verhouding hê met so ‘n stelling. . . kan ek ‘n houding inneem teenoor die stelling?
Sou graag wou geweet het wat is moly se verhouding met die stelling is. . How do you, Smoly relate to this statement?
LikeLike
Johann kan darem maar baie niksbeduidende kak praat.
LikeLike
Jip!!!! Dis ou Jahann die filosoof. Meeste filosowe praat niks behalwe ‘n klomp kak wat hulle self nie eens kan verstaan nie. Dis altyd snaaks as twee of meer filosowe aan die gesels raak. Dis soos ‘n klomp vreemdelinge wat ‘n kerk saam begin. Dis nie lank nie voor hulle lekker aan die baklei raak en dan weer in hulle eie rigtings in spat.
Johann het ‘n kas Johnny Walker vir krismis gekoop en ek dink hy meng dit met sy medesyne.
LikeLike
Johann is a nutcase of note. I think he writes his mails from some far-off mental institution….over teatime when they take the straght jacket off and after wiping the foam from his cheeks.
Off point (if there exists any point in conversing with these clowns), I wonder if Johann and Analfa is getting ready for the end of the world on 2e Des.
LikeLike
Ek het nogal gehoop een van julle tenminste sal moontlik dalk insig hê om uit jul onbewuste slaap wakker te word, maar nouja julle is reaksioniste (as daar so woord is) en julle reageer teenoor jule eie konsepte in jule eie gedagtes wêreld en dink naruurlik dis die naaste aan die werklike realiteit. . .
LikeLike
Ek hou van Iron Maiden se musiek! Veral the number of the beast. 666 The one for U and me! Of wat van daai liedjie ” Bring your daughter to the slaughter” of wat van two minutes to midnight, the hand that threatens doom, two minutes to midnight to kill the unborn in your womb! Daars ‘n klomp christene wat in hulle broeke gaan kak.
LikeLike
Nou dat kaktrapper Analfatjie nie hier is nie! Analfa is ‘n aap, ‘n Hominid spesifiek! Haar ancestors het op die African plains geloop 160 000 jaar gelede. Daardie ancestors se ancestors was Homo Heidelbergensis. Homo Heidelbergensis se ancestor was Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster se ancestor was Homo Habilis. Homo Habilis se ancestor was Austraulopithecus Africanus. Ek werk hom so terug! As mens die Sjimpansee se evolusie ook so volg soos ons Analfa sn gevolg het dan sien ons beide Analfa en ‘n Sjimpansee deel ‘n gemeenskaplikke voorouer wat so 4 miljoen jaar gelede in Afrika gewoon het. Dis die utter truth!
LikeLike