ISSN 1995-5928Ingesluit LitNet Akademies
Tuis > SêNet-briewe

Menslike brandoffers aan God

Chris Dippenaar 2012-03-23
  • 6
Shares0Pin0Print0LinkedIn0

Menslike brandoffers kom voor op verskeie plekke in die Ou Testament. In 2 Konings 3, 16 en 21 word hierdie ritueel spesifiek beskryf as iets boos wat God vervul met afgryse. Ons kan egter nie te gou vryspreek nie. Die volgende verse uit Eksodus maak dit baie duidelik dat menslike brandoffers eers nie deel was, dan weer deel, en dan weer nie, van offerhandes aan God:

Ex. 13:2 Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the Israelites, of human beings and animals, is mine....12 you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the
firstborn of your livestock that are males shall be the LORD’s. 13 But every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every firstborn male among your children you shall redeem.

Ex. 22:29 You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

Ex. 34:19 All that first opens the womb is mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep. 20 The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.

Die uiteindelike afkoop van menslike brandoffers maak net sin as dit oorspronklik anders sou wees. As hierdie offers van menslike eersgeborenes nooit plaasgevind het nie, hoekom dit dan eers noem? Die volgende verwysing uit Esegiël 20 maak dit baie duidelik dat hierdie gebruik deur God self voorgeskryf was:

25 Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. 26 I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the LORD.

Dan is daar natuurlik die tragiese storie van Jefta (Rigters 11)wat sy dogter offer aan God na ’n ondeurdenkte belofte. Anders as met Isak en Abraham keer God nie hierdie vader nie.

Dit bring ons by die ’held’ van Genesis, Abraham, wat in ’n hewige argument met God betrokke raak as hy pleit vir die inwoners van Sodom se lewens (Gen. 18). Almal, behalwe Lot en sy familie, totale vreemdelinge vir hom. Wanneer God hom beveel om sy eie seun te offer sê Abraham nie ’n woord nie. Weet hy dalk dat hierdie dag een of ander tyd sou kom? Het hy dalk gehoop dat God niks sal sê nie, of dalk selfs sou vergeet het dat die eersgebore seuns geoffer moet word? Het hy gehoop God sal hierdie enigste seun aan hom beloof in sy oudag vryskeld?

Op die laaste oomblik keer God hom....of dalk nie: "19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham lived at Beer-sheba." Het die redigeerder wat die teks verander het nagelaat om Isak te noem met die aftog van die berg af? Wat het geword van Sarah? Abraham gaan woon in Berseba en sien haar eers weer nadat sy dood is.

Kon sy hom nie vergewe vir wat hy gedoen het nie?

Hoe kan jy ooit ’n god soos hierdie een volmaak en goed noem? Moenie dat woorde soos ’Abraham op die proef gestel’ (Gen 18:1) jou mislei nie. Hier is een rede hoekom die God van die Bybel, al het hy bestaan, nie mense se aanbidding verdien nie.

Ns. Ek verkies die NSRV omdat ek kan ’cut & paste’ uit hom. Ek het onlangs ’n Nuwe Vertaling gekoop by ’n tweedehandse boekwinkel, maar was te lui om uit dit aan te haal.

Chris Dippenaar

Shares0Pin0Print0LinkedIn0
  • 6

Kommentaar

  • Johan Wiese

    Ja nee kyk, toe hulle begin praat oor kindertjies wat gestenig moet word, het ek alle belangstelling in die boek verloor. Die Grimm-broeders se stories is minder grusaam as die Bybelse fabels.

    Reply
  • Kobus de Klerk

    ’n Goddeloos-onnosel mens is ’n gruwelike ding- en jý is so ’n affêre, Chris (julle is eintlik almal só).

    Jou kommentaar op jou aanhalings is só absoluut skokkend insigloos –

    ‘Consecrate’ beteken nié om te brand nie, maar om te wy, heilig, konsekreer, toewy, ens. – sprekende voorbeelde is Simson en Samuel wat vir God se diens gewy (consecrated) is. Exodus 22:29 het ooreenstemmende betekenis, waar God sê “you shall give to Me”.

    Esegiël 20:25 praat nié daarvan dat God van die spul verwag het om hulle kinders te verbrand nie, maar sê uitdruklik juis dat hulle God vertoorn met daardie gebruik (in daardie stadium het volk afvallig geraak en baie van hulle het die Ammonitiese  afgod molog gedien wat kwansuis kinder offerandes vereis het - dit was juis ’n heidense gebruik wat God die volk absoluut verbied het) – as jy enigiets weet en besef van wat jy lees, sou jy die Engels kon verstaan vir wat dit is, sou jy besef dat God sê “25 “Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the Lord.”

    Trouens, God het ’n verskriklike oordeel (make them desolate) oor hulle uitgespreek oor hulle daardie gruwelike heidense gebruik beoefen het. God laat mense wat opsetlik afvallig van Hom lewe, aan hulle eie begeerlikhede oor en dié vernietig hulle mettertyd  - daarom dat julle so valslik ‘vry’ voel om teen God te rebelleer – maar as julle nie tot besinning en bekering kom nie, sál julle einde gruwelik wees, want julle leef in die oog van die storm wat julle weens julle Goddeloosheid omring...

    Terloops, as jy dan verkies om ’n Engelse Bybel te gebruik, gebruik ten minste een wat nie misleidend is nie, soos die NKJV.

    Nog net een aspek, want jy mors tyd – dié van Isak en Abraham. Jou snert daaroor is gruwelik.

    In die tyd van Abraham, was die gebruik van al die heidennasies in die omgewing waar Abraham was, juis om kinders van hulle aan afgode te offer - maar nie God nie. Toe God aan Abraham sê om Isak te gaan offer, het dit Abraham sekerlik geskok, want hy het vir wie weet hoe lank uitgesien na die geboorte van Isak op God se belofte, sy Verbond seun, maar uit respek vir en gehoorsaamheid en onderdanigheid aan en geloof in God het Abraham gegaan om dit te doen. Dit was egter duidelik dat hy God vertrou (n sterk geloofsdaad) het vir ’n ander uitkoms – hoewel God hom geen sodanige indikasie op pad gegee het, nie -

    Maar toe die niksvermoedende Isak na die offerdier uitvra, het Abraham sy vertroue en geloof in God se goedertierenheid en getrouheid verwoord met die woorde “8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” Uiteraard is Isak nié geoffer nie.

    Daardie gene vir geloof in God, dié van Abraham, maak dat daar vandag biljoene gelowiges is én dat Abraham bekend staan tot in lengte van dae, as die Geloofsheld van  die Christendom. Dit daardie gene wat ons het – waar's joue? Het jy dit ook vir 'n bottel drank aan 'n aap verkwansel? – jy moet dus maar by ’n aap gaan soek en nie vind nie.

    Jou ander snert, is te sinneloos om mee te handel. Daar word nie elke keer gesê dat ’n man sy hele trek saamneem wanneer hy trek, nie. Dit word as vanselfsprekend so aanvaar. Jy is darem verskriklik insigloos.

    Ja, Jefta hét ’n ondeurdagte gelofte aan God gedoen en hy moes sy gelofte nakom – God kom Sy geloftes na en verwag ook so van die mens – hier is die waarskuwing van God: “3As jy aan God ’n gelofte gedoen het, moet jy nie versuim om dit te betaal nie. Hy hou nie van ligsinnige mense nie. Wat jy beloof het, moet jy betaal. 4Dit is beter dat jy nie belowe nie as dat jy belowe en nie betaal nie. 5Moenie dat jou mond jou laat sondig sodat jy vir ’n priester moet sê: “Ek het my vergis” nie. Waarom sal jy God laat kwaad word oor wat jy gesê het en Hom jou handewerk laat vernietig?”

    Jy, Chris, is waarlik nie in jou huidige staat, die Woord waardig nie. As jy maar net kon besef hóé nodig dit vir jou is om tot besinning te kom.

    Terloops, ek weet hierdie is ’n poging om my aandag van darwinisme af te trek – maar allermins.  Hierdie snert van julle herinner my net hóé mislei en nutteloos julle geword het, as gevolg van julle drekreligie.

    Kobus de Klerk

    Reply
  • Chris Dippenaar

    Kobus, die volgende uit jou reaksie: "‘Consecrate’ beteken nié om te brand nie, maar om te wy, heilig, konsekreer, toewy, ens. – sprekende voorbeelde is Simson en Samuel wat vir God se diens gewy (consecrated) is. Exodus 22:29 het ooreenstemmende betekenis, waar God sê 'you shall give to Me'", is heeltemal belaglik. Die konteks is spesifiek offerhandes en daar is géén onduidelikheid nie. Jou verwysing na Samuel en Simson is 'n woordspeletjie wat nie werk nie.

    Ek sou verwag dat jy my tereg sou wys deur Esegiël 20:25, 26 in Afrikaans aan te haal. Hoekom dan in Engels? Die aanhaling uit die Nuwe Vertaling maak dit duidelik:

    25 Ek het vir hulle voorskrifte gegee wat nie goed was nie en bepalings waardeur hulle nie in die lewe kon bly nie. 26 Ek het hulle onrein laat word deur hulle offergawes waarin hulle al hulle eersgeorenes verbrand het, Ek wou hulle skrikbevange maak sodat hulle sou besef dat Ek die Here is.

    So kan jy gaan na verskeie vertalings, en nie een van hulle lees soos die NKJV wat jy aanhaal nie. Spesifiek die frases in die vers wat jy vir ons beklemtoon. In ander vertalings kom die onreinheid kom van God self! Hier is 'n paar voorbeelde van Esegiël 20:

    King James Version - 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

    New International Version - I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts-the sacrifice of every firstborn-that I might fill them with horror so that they would know that I am the LORD.

    American Standard Version - 25 Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live; 26 and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through ‘the fire’ all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.

    New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - 25 And I myself also let them have regulations that were not good and judicial decisions by which they could not keep living. 26 And i would let them become defiled by their gifts when they made every child opening the womb pass through the fire, in order that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am Jehovah.

    Wat God hier doen aan die Israeliete herinner aan wat hy doen aan Faro in Eksodus:

    9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

    10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, 2 and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them — so that you may know that I am the LORD."

    10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

    10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was unwilling to let them go.

    11:9 The LORD said to Moses, "Pharaoh will not listen to you, in order that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt." 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.

    En dan ook aan Saul in 1 Samuel:

    19:9 Then an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, while David was playing music. 10 Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear; but he eluded Saul, so that he struck the spear into the wall. David fled and escaped that night.

    Hierdie is enkele voorbeelde van 'n god wat mense manipuleer, wat hulle lewens verwoes, net sodat hy vir hulle kan wys wie baas is.

    Hoeveel Bybels moes jy deurgaan voordat jy afgekom het op die oneerlike vertaling van die NKJV wat jou pas. Demonstreer dit nie pragtig jou oneerlikheid wanneer dit kom by die gebruik van aanhalings nie. Hoe pateties is jou oppervlakkige lees van die Bybel waarmee en waaruit jy die 'waarheid' vir almal wil voorskryf.

    Reply
  • Wouter
    Hello, 
     
    Natuurlik is jy nie "’n goddeloos-onnosel mens" nie net soos "almal" nie so is nie. 
     
    Hierdie is die gewone nie-kreasionis-kreasionis De Klerk se retoriek wat verby kookpunt is. 
     
    Soos gewoonlik is daar die oorvloed van onmoontlike stellings uit De Klerk se hand, soos hierdie een, waarvan hierdie 'n voorbeeld is. "Jou kommentaar op jou aanhalings is só absoluut skokkend insigloos". 
     
    Natuurlik is dit nie "skokkend insigloos nie", maar 'n bevestiging van jou kant af, van 'n geskiedenis wat nie kan ontken word nie en hierdie brief spreek dit aan. 
     
    Met 'n vorige geleentheid is Philip Jenkins met goedkeuring deur De Klerk hier aangebied met die se boek oor globale Christenskap, terwyl Jenkins se "Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years" die werk van 'n sekulêre antagonis is. 
     
    Die vraag is natuurlik hoekom is dit doodgewoon nie, " one of America’s best scholars of religion” (The Economist)". 
     
    Philip Jenkins, het nou 'n nuwe boek uit getiteld, "Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses [Kindle Edition]". 
     
    Neem kennis ek het nog nie die boek aangeskaf nie, maar is redelik bekend met die argument, aangesien Jenkins met vorige geleenthede hierdie onderwerp bespreek het. 
     
    Alhoewel, Henn, dit het dat ek my verwysings hier kom afdwing, is dit nie die geval, hierdie is doodgewoon van wat ek beskryf as "my argiewe" wat artikels oor die jare ook insluit en soos die geleentheid voordoen soms hier sal plaas, ten spyte van die "spoeg en plak" beskuldigings. 
     
    Met dit uit die weg, word die volgende spoeg en plak aangebied. 
     
    Die eerste verwysing is 'n artikel deur Jenkins in Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-jenkins/priests-of-phinehas_b_1253395.html, 
     
    Die opskrif: What To Do About Violent Biblical Texts?:
     
    If the founding scriptures are so vicious and so abhorrent, it literally is not possible to reform the religion founded on those sinister foundations. Although these arguments are common enough, they should be strictly off-limits to anyone who claims religious roots in the Bible, which of course has more than its fair share of extraordinarily violent texts. 
     
    But in the whole catalogue of biblical horror stories, one tale in particular cries out for attention as a driving force in contemporary violence and bigotry. Before attacking Islam, Christians and Jews need to think carefully about one name in particular, which is that of Phinehas, the patron saint of hate crime.Most modern Christians are never likely to hear his name in church, as the text containing his mighty deeds (Numbers 25) is simply not included in the cycle of readings used by virtually all mainstream congregations. 
     
    But it is quite a story. The children of Israel have intermarried with Moabite women, so that the two peoples begin to share in worship. God furiously commands that the chiefs of Israel be impaled in the sun as a means of quenching his anger; Moses commands his subordinates to kill anyone who has married a pagan; a plague kills 24,000 Hebrews. 
     
    Fortunately, Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, takes decisive action to preempt the worst of the catastrophe. 
     
    He slaughters a mixed-­race couple, the Hebrew man Zimri, who had married a Midianite woman. Mollified, God ends the plague and grants Phinehas a "covenant of peace."
     
    An obvious reading of that sacred text is that if your neighbors are doing something that egregiously violates God's law, you can and must take up arms and launch a vigilante action against them, to the point of murder, and that God will bless the crime.
     
    Through history too, Phinehas has inspired Christians to fight for what they think of as God's cause, even when that means going outside the law, or defying overwhelming majority opinion. 
     
    Reformation-era prophets and theologians called for modern successors to Phinehas who would assassinate Catholic monarchs. When England's Oliver Cromwell justified the execution King Charles I, an extreme act that drew international condemnation, he drew the obvious analogy: 
     
    "Perhaps no other way was left. What if God accepted the zeal, as he did that of Phinehas, whose reason might have called for a jury!"
     
    And if we think that nothing like that can happen in our own time, the experience of the American ultra-right tells a different story. 
     
    In 1990, Richard Kelly Hoskins used the story as the basis for his manifesto Vigilantes of Christendom, which advocated a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas [sic] Priesthood. Over the next decade, a number of sects assumed this title, claiming Old Testament precedent for terrorist attacks on mixed­race couples and abortion clinics. 
     
    Opinions vary as to whether Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh himself was a Phineas Priest, but he was close to the movement. 
     
    While the Priesthood seems to be defunct today, no observer of the neo-Nazi scene would be amazed if the name reappeared in the near-future.Like haredi vigilantes, Christian white supremacists represent only a tiny fringe of their respective religions, and we can learn nothing from their acts about the mindset of the vast majority of ordinary believers, who know nothing of Phinehas or his acts. 
     
    But that ignorance is in itself an interesting comment on the role of scriptures in shaping religions. 
     
    If the founding texts determine the whole later course of a faith, then it should be impossible for Christians and Jews to live their faith without the genocidal violence and racial segregation that so abounds in their holy book -- yet most believers do just that, and have done so in most eras of their history.
     
    Die artikel is beskikbaar in sy volledigheid in teenstelling met die selektiewe aanhalings wat die norm is om die sogenaamde "dispuut" in biologie en evolusie te probeer aanblaas as 'n werklikheid. Waar sal die kreasionis werklike kwessies in biologie, evolusie aanspreek?
     
    Die onderhoud wat die mees onlangse artikel voorafgaan is 'n onderhoud met Philip Jenkins deur National Public Radio se  All Things Considered en kan die onderhoud hier gevind word:
     
     
    Uittreksels van die gesprek word nou hier aangebied: 
     
    Mr. JENKINS: Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.
     
    HAGERTY: It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites:Unidentified Man #2: And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
     
    HAGERTY: When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
     
    Mr. JENKINS: In other words, Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians, not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not.
     
    HAGERTY: Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed. But Jenkins says, even though the Bible is violent, on the whole, Christianity and Judaism today are not.Mr. JENKINS: What happens in all religions, as they grow and mature and expand, they go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call this a process of holy amnesia.
     
    Soos gesien kan word met die "Consecrate" wat nou skoon gewas word onder De Klerk se holy amnesia. 
     
    Die gesprek kom tot die volgende slotsom: 
     
    Mr. JENKINS: The scriptures are still there. They are dormant, but not dead.
     
    HAGERTY: And can be resurrected at any time - for example, by white supremacists who cite the murderous Phineas when calling for racial purity or by a conservative Christian when shooting a doctor who performs abortions.In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether.
     
    Omsigtigheid is aan die orde van die dag dus en moet daar altyd tred gehou word van hierdie komponenent in godsdiens. 
     
    Die oorsprong van hierdie boek, en gesprekke is egter alreeds in 2009 deur Jenkins in Boston Globe Ideas gepubliseer en vorm net soos bogenoemde deel van my argiewe. 
     
    Die artikel in sy volledigheid kan hier gevind word. 
     
     
    Hier word die verhaal van Phineas die eerste keer bespreek. 
     
    Hierdie is hoe die gelowige graag sy tekste wil sien: 
     
    "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."
     
    Die realiteit is egter soos volg: 
     
    Tales of war and assassination pervade the four books of Samuel and Kings, where it is hard to avoid verses justifying the destruction of God's enemies. In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings, beheadings, and rapes.
     
    The richest harvest of gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, as they take over their new land in Canaan. These events are foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42). 
     
    We then turn to the full orgy of militarism, enslavement, and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18).
     
    Joshua, Moses's successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). 
     
    Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: 
     
    They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines.In modern times, we would call this genocide. 
     
    If the forces of Joshua and his successor judges committed their acts in the modern world, then observers would not hesitate to speak of war crimes. They would draw comparisons with the notorious guerrilla armies of Uganda and the Congo, groups like the appalling Lord's Resistance Army. 
     
    By comparison, the Koranic rules of war were, by the standards of their time, quite civilized. Mohammed wanted to win over his enemies, not slaughter them.Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. 
     
    According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul's undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs.
     
    Jenkins se slotsom: 
     
    Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . . all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized.
     
    Whether they are used or not depends on wider social attitudes. 
     
    Die oorsprong en die tekste is daar, daar kan gepoog word om dit te probeer ontken, maar dit is die probleem met die historiese verloop, dit is wat dit is, en nie wat daar gehoop word dit moet wees nie. 
     
    Daarom is 'n persoon soos Jenkins se studies waardevol, wat beide die bloedige oorsprong uitlig en die latere debat oor die aard van Jesus wat ongeveer 600 jaar geneem het, geen wonder die eindelose gekarring nou weer met biologie, evolusie en Darwin nie. 
    Reply
  • Chris Dippenaar

    Terloops, Kobus, ek probeer nie jou aandag aftrek van Darwinisme nie. Angus, Wouter, Stephan, Kleinkoos en ander wat baie meer as ek weet van evolusie het jy hard aan die knaters beet. Hulle het nie my hulp nodig nie.

    Jy het nou al 'n paar keer aanmerkings soos, "[h]et jy dit ook vir 'n bottel drank aan 'n aap verkwansel?", dat ek dalk die volgende gou met jou moet deel. So vyftien jaar gelede het ek myself, met die hulp van my broer,  by 'n kliniek van die NG-Kerk vir alkoholiste ingeboek. Ek was nie gelowig toe en is hulle baie dankbaar dat hulle my gehelp het sonder om eers die Bybel in my keelgat te probeer afdruk. Dit het egter nie van die ander suiplappe daar verhoed, met hulle Bybeltjies styf geknyp onder hulle arms, om vir my te probeer vertel dat ek nooit sal ophou drink sonder God se hulp. Ek het hulle afgelag en vandag dink ek nie eers aan drank nie. Baie van hierdie 'prekers' is vandag dood aan suip of drink net so baie soos altyd.

    Voel egter vry om jou 'gesprek' in te kleur met beledigings. Van 'n Christen soos jy verwag ek niks minder nie.

     

    Reply
  • Wouter

    Sjoe! - Is dit hoe laag De Klerk nou weer gegaan het met:   "[h]et jy dit ook vir 'n bottel drank aan 'n aap verkwansel?"

     
     
     
    Reply

    • Reageer

    Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Kommentaar is onderhewig aan moderering.


     

    Top