Monsieur Milton locked onto France
1 Feb 2008
There is a strong possibility that Cliff Milton will be playing for France in the near future.
The former Bulls lock spent the majority of his career in South Africa watching from the wood or the stands as Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha played yin to the other’s yang. A star at national U21 level, Milton is held in high regard in South Africa, and was expected to make the step up to Test rugby.
However, a prodigious talent like Milton would inevitably become frustrated at being continually overlooked, even though he realised that competing against the world’s best lock pairing was always going to be a big ask. And when that frustration met the opportunity to trade pastel blue for the shocking pink of Stade Francais, the 22-year-old saw a future that involved significantly less splinters.
Even at this early stage of his career with the Paris-based giants, and with limited game time, Milton’s performances are causing quite a stir. He’s occupied prime position in France’s leading rugby publications, and many respected European rugby personalities are convinced that his international future lays in a blue shirt, not a green and gold one.
“There have been a few influential people mentioning me as an option for France in a couple of years and the French public seem to want me to stay and play a part with the national side,” he told keo.co.za.
“It’s certainly an option and I will consider playing for France when that time comes (in two years). To play for the Boks will always be my goal but, again, if France approach me the choice will be pretty simple.”
“The reality is that there are probably guys ahead of me in the queue. At least I think in the selectors’ mind there will be,” he said. “So I’ll just have to keep grafting and hopefully make it really hard for them to ignore me.”
With Matfield and Botha set to be entrenched as the lock pairing for the foreseeable future and others like Johann Muller, Albert van den Berg, Barend Pieterse, Ross Skeate and Andries Bekker lining up to succeed them, Milton could be hanging around for a while before realising his dream of playing for the Springboks. France, conversely, have a shortage of quality locks, making it a far more viable option for Milton if he hopes to play Test rugby.
Milton, who played under Springbok coach Peter de Villiers in the World Championship winning U21 side in 2005, says their relationship is “good”. He is, however, a realist and is not expecting De Villiers to come calling when he meets with some of the European-based players in February.
Asked what he thought of De Villiers’s appointment ahead of his former Bulls mentor Heyneke Meyer, Milton said: “Peter has taken a lot of unfair criticism. He is a very good coach with huge potential. If he’s given the freedom to select the side he wants without any political interference, I think he’ll be very successful.”
For a self-confessed farm boy, Milton has taken to Paris with surprising ease. He spends his free time sampling French cuisine at Paris’ numerous restaurants. “I love the fact that every restaurant has a unique aura about it. You don’t get many franchises over here, so eating out is always a great experience,” he said, adding that former Cheetahs lock and Stade team-mate Boela du Plooy is a constant companion.
“I like the cheeses and I’m getting into rabbit, and it goes without saying that the wines here are some of the best in the world. I’m also becoming more interested the whole art scene,” the 2m, 105kg Nelspruit-born bruiser continued. “Boela and I went to see a Vincent van Gogh exhibition recently and it was amazing to see pieces of artwork I’ve only ever seen on television right in front of me.
“Paris is a great city. The people here are really laid back and not too concerned about material things, although they love their fashion. I’m still catching up in that department.”
Bakkies Botha’s five-year contract extension in late 2007 sealed the deal in Milton’s mind. Stade Francais it was.
“I feel more appreciated here,” he conceded. “All I wanted was a chance to prove my worth and I never got that. At one stage I was so desperate to play that I joined up with Pretoria Police Rugby Club so that I could get some game time and that was a great experience because I was out there doing what I loved instead of watching from the bench.
“Then I got a chance in the Currie Cup and I think they [the Bulls] realised my value so they made an offer. I wanted nothing more than to stay, but Bakkies had a long term deal so it didn’t make sense to sign.”
Botha could of course be a Toulon player soon. That’s got to be frustrating? “No not all,” he counters. “I have no regrets.
“God taught me a valuable lesson while I was here. He made me realise how big the world really is. My frame of reference was always confined to Pretoria, but being able to spend an hour or so on a train and be in Belgium or Spain has made me hungry to see and learn more about the the world. He [God] taught me that money was a finite thing and that the rat race was one sporting event I didn’t want to be involved in. The experiences you have and memories you make have enduring value.
“I wouldn’t trade those lessons for anything.”
By Ryan Vrede
130 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
1 Feb 2008, 17:34 pm
100# JL
Ja, Clyde was alreeds weg toe die tenspoed sy ouma getref het.
Jake het spesiaal oorgevlieg om hom te probeer terugwin.
Maar waar is hy nou? Beseer?
Daai ou sou beslis vir SA uitgedraf het.
Ek dink hy was SA O/21 kaptein gewees, dan nie?
1 Feb 2008, 17:36 pm
Cab
The Selfish Gene is nothing new to me.
I’m not debating the veracity of evolution here. Assume we are indeed all just randomly evolved biological entities. Why then should we hold ourselves accountable to any moral or ethical standard?
In the end, what is good or bad will always just be a reflection of the views held by the current majority of these randomly evolved pieces of meat.
And what’s then to say that one perspective is any better than another? If humans have no souls, they are no different from animals. And if you can kill an elephant, or a whale or a cow, why should you not be allowed to kill a human? Because it has a slightly larger brain-to-body-mass ratio?
No, take away the soul, and everything else falls apart. 99.99% of all species that have ever existed became extinct, according to evolution. And we are urged to view this in the bigger scheme of things, as part of the evolution of the larger universe. Why then should any extra value be attached to the fortunes or misfortunes of any one individual human?
Atheists may hold ethical views, but that is their choice. There is no universal directive that requires them to do so, and there is no justifiable reason for them to frown upon the behaviour of anyone else, be it Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung. It’s all just part of natural selection. Get it?
1 Feb 2008, 17:38 pm
Atheist are really blank personalities, they tend to be really non emtional people living for nothing and then nothing excites them
1 Feb 2008, 17:40 pm
cab
You relaxed now?
Your views on mankind remain interesting. However, the most iconic statement of the whole debate remained with Tacitus… “he would rather save his drowning dog than a drowning human”…
Thats something I can relate to… Never, ever thought I would concur with ol’Tac on anything.
1 Feb 2008, 17:41 pm
Cliff Milton at 4 and Francoise van Schouwenburg at 5?
1 Feb 2008, 17:47 pm
Jl1
Hy was klaar in Aussie toe die gewapende rooftog by sy familie in Toti gebeur het – dit het seker n rol gespeel in sy besluit maar ek dink hy sou in elk geval daar gebly het.
Pietman, ek is seker Pretoria oos is die gevaarlikste plek in SA en n mens kan net juig as daai crims gevang word.
1 Feb 2008, 17:53 pm
Anyway cheers people, a good weekend to all.
1 Feb 2008, 17:55 pm
Bob
Pta-Oos is sleg man.
Ek het lank in WaterkloofGlen gewoon, en het later verkoop vir veiligheidsredes.
In een jaar is daar drie keer by my ingebreek, helder oordag, en die huis leeggedra.
Dit is n lekker area om te woon, maar Constantiapark/WGlen/Garsfontein/
Moreletta en daar rondom is n teikengebied, die kriminele dink dis ryk mense wat daar woon.
Kyk hoe slaan hulle toe daar in Selebi en die diplomate se buurt op die ‘Rif’!
Nee, ek sal maar in die S-Kaap woon, dis beter.
1 Feb 2008, 17:57 pm
Pietman
I am taking a trip down towards your hometown tomorrow…
1 Feb 2008, 17:57 pm
Cheers Bob.
Sien jou in die vallei volgende week.
1 Feb 2008, 17:58 pm
102 Tacitus,
fair enough, there is nothing to hold us to any ethical standard, but the selfish gene does provide a biological explanation for it.
Good or bad are morals which as you say are virtually impossible to answer, often determined by cultural beliefs and also at a particular time. Religion might be a way to control such ethical standards, but its not the only way, and since it is a supernatural belief system (since its based on faith not proof) one needs to question whether the ethical standards it proclaims are good or bad.
One perspective might not be better then any other, but at least those different perspectives should be tolerated. if someone voices their belief in god, then it follows that others can voice their non-belief.
I have a question for you. What is the soul and how do you know animals dont have one?
1 Feb 2008, 17:58 pm
109# Bod
Postpone ’til next week please, you are three days early!
1 Feb 2008, 18:01 pm
Pietman
Ek het familie daar en geniet dit baie om daar te kuier maar hulle het onlangs erg deurgeloop in n gewapende rooftog – skrikwekkend, maar gelukig was niemand ernstig beseer.
Cheers all.
1 Feb 2008, 18:01 pm
Bod 104,
been relaxed all along, sorry perhaps it came accross otherwise. just questioning the physical superiority stuff and then okes started interpreting darwin in an unusual way. just giving my pon point of view.
anyway enjoy the pinting session.
1 Feb 2008, 18:02 pm
Pietman
I cant… I have a small apointment with the small white ball at Royal Caledon
Enjoy your flight and we’ll see you on the 16th…
Ciao
cab
Very good question… I was about to ask it
1 Feb 2008, 18:03 pm
Bod
The main road is Voortrekker, follow it through town past that big white church, where the road splits.
But go straight on, Van Oudtshoorn Rd, at the first three point stop I am on your immediate right, next to the caravan park, the house with the cocky Maltese and the angry Labrador at the gates!
1 Feb 2008, 18:08 pm
Pietman
Ek sal hom uittjek…. hopefully you have some spunky housesitter at home??
1 Feb 2008, 18:11 pm
Yes Bod, 16th, Groote Schuur Primary School, just follow the smoke trail and sausage smell, I will be at the end of it, the oke with his eyes transfixed on the mountain and a bottle in his hand …..
1 Feb 2008, 18:15 pm
117# Hah! No, only my mother, but she is ok, and always ready with the melktert and homemade chicken pie, so just drop by.
It is an open house.
There is a B&B opposite, ‘Braeside’, belongs to Chris Taylor, the lawyer who was poisoned by that dentist from Oudtshoorn, nice ou.
1 Feb 2008, 18:18 pm
Bod
Btw, jy nie by Ig se party nie?
2 Feb 2008, 10:26 am
# 99 and # 111
Dear Cab,
I do not want to fight you friend.
Let me put something straight: I do believe in change and diversity in creation. Thus, you get different kind of peoples, even ‘races’. But the word ‘race’ is man-created and refers to our so-called skin-color. The scientific fact actually is, that ALL people have the same pigment (the stuff we call ‘skin color’) but some are ‘ligther’ and some are ‘darker’. It is a difference in degree, not sort. Now I also agree that different peoples adapt better to different climates, environment, etc. and for different historical, social, political but also ethical reasons, develop differently.
No problem with differences: you get small people (Chinese, Bushmen, Luke Watson
) and big people (Afrikaners, Zulus, Kroatians, Bakkies 
). But they are all people, even oll’ Luke !
The same with animals, for example, you get small dogs and big dogs, etc. But they are still dogs.
Thus, I have no problem with change, diversity and adaption because of different ‘natural process’ through nature and history. If this is what you call ‘evolution’, then I am in agreement.
Unfortunately that is not what Darwinian evolutionism teaches and implies, no matter or the ‘scientific jargon’ that surrounds it. Especially not due to the fact that this is actually a faith and worldview teach that man must not BELIEVE there is supernaturalism involved in the universe.
BTW, modern science as we know it today, were the combined fruit, not of naturalism/evolutionism, but of the Renaisance (14th/15th century) and the Reformation (16/17th century). It was the great Isaac Newton, a man of faith that set the stage of great science that were the follow. Unfortunately some of his followers tried to seperate his ‘natural science’ from his his ‘supernatural believe’ in a Creator … the consequences:
- darwinistic evolutionism: no creator, no standard/ethics, no sin.
- rejection of the Bible: no truth, no Saviour, no hope.
- secular humanism: man becomes god.
The result: the bloodiest century in the history of man, the 20th century, with all it’s war’s and hate … and the 21st is following …
If Darwinism teaches that man evolve from an ape, it then also is a (blind) faith and not a proven fact. Science is something to be proven by experiment, done or obeserved repeatedly.
Now, where are the prove for man evolving from animals, apes ? If the evolution of man takes millions of years, who were there to observe it ? There are none, zills, nothing, nada prove … it is nothing but a theory, a blind feardriven idea to replace the Creator Judge with Man and/or Nature as their new god.
Atheism, evolutionism’s father, is a radical faith. Why ? Because no atheist has seen the whole of the universe and can prove that God does not exist. They believe it passionately, it is dogmatism to the core, a really very sad lost false faith with no hope and only despair. No comfort, I really feel sorry for all atheist. To be so sure of nothing !
When the first (atheist) Russian who orbited the earth, I forgot his name, returned, one of his first (sarcastic) remarks were something like this: “I orbitted the earth … but saw nooooo God!” … to which a small girl replied:
Yes, but ***** said: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall SEE God.”
Cab, we must become children agains to really see the facts of life, whether it is the facts of faith or science.
Credo ut intelligum !
2 Feb 2008, 10:34 am
# 94
Hallo Pietman,
Dankie vir die woorde. Die rede waarom ek rugby so kan geniet, is omdat ek dit juis sien teen die lig van die werklike sin en betekenis van die lewe. Dit is ‘n mooi spel wat waardeer en geniet kan word … alhoewel baie mense baie meer daarvan maak as wat dit behoort te wees.
Ja, as die evolusieteorie waar was, dan sou ons nie rugby kon speel en geniet het nie.
Hoekom nie ?
Want as ‘n mens konsekwent ‘n evolusionis is, dan beteken dit dat daar geen orde en reëls is nie, en alles bloot toevallig is en oorgelaat word aan hulself. Geen spel sal dan kan plaasvind nie, want alhoewel daar baie ‘toevallighede’ in sport is, kan die ‘toevallighede’ nie plaasvind as dit nie binne ‘n bepaalde orde, struktuur en reëls plaasvind nie.
Dit gesê, lyk dit vir my asof hierdie nuwe reëls deur ‘n evolusionis uitgedink is, want dit veroorsaak net meer chaos en wanorde !
2 Feb 2008, 12:25 pm
Alf,
Your post at 121 is mind boggling in its bias towards your personal beliefs. So much so that it makes a mockery of your argument. So allow me to off this retort….
First up, Evolution is not a faith, Christianity is a faith.
Evolutionary science is a process of discovering the human races origin and depending on ones beliefs, one can either acknowledge that there are some pretty good FACTS to go with the theory and that it is well at the very least plausible…or one can go with the belief that only a Christian god created the world
in six days and like all good employees slacked off on the 7th.
At this point if i had a siren i would set it off.
Religions which include a story of creationism, Christianity unless i forgot to read between the lines, claim to be the oldest religons.
Since according to your good book the world began with a Christian god.
The only problem is there are other religions in existence today that predate both of todays dominate religions – Christianity and Isalm, formed respectively 30 EC and 610 CE.
Hinduism has beliefs dating somewhere around 1500 BCE, Judaism has its origins long before Christian teachings even existed. So your beliefs
which you mark clearly, lack fact, but one should be very careful of insisting your faith is FACT
“…and worldview teach that man must not BELIEVE there is supernaturalism involved in the universe.”
This statement is also incorrect, Darwinism does pay any heed to supernaturalism as part of its theory because its impossible to prove. Its sticks
to what it can prove.
“the consequences:
- darwinistic evolutionism: no creator, no standard/ethics, no sin.
- rejection of the Bible: no truth, no Saviour, no hope.
- secular humanism: man becomes god.”
This above is not even worth commenting on, it is nothing more than your faith applied to the world through your eyes. Which are as i have pointed out based on your faith not fact.
“The result: the bloodiest century in the history of man, the 20th century, with all it’s war’s and hate … and the 21st is following …”
You clearly turn a blind eye to well known Christians who contributed just as Atheists did to the horror the world has endured in terms of human life. Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco,Charles Taylor, François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, EfraÃn RÃos Montt, hell you can add Mugabe, George Bush and lets not forget our very own Apartheid government who did just about
everything in the name of ******.
And lets be honest what predates the 20th Century isn’t that great either for your faith – the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition etc etc .
One shouldn’t be so blinkered. If you want to have credibility you need to acknowledge both sides of the story something science has the potential do, more than i can say about Christianity.
“If Darwinism teaches that man evolve from an ape, it then also is a (blind) faith and not a proven fact. Science is something to be proven by experiment, done or obeserved repeatedly. Now, where are the prove for man evolving from animals, apes ? If the evolution of man takes millions of years, who were there to observe it ? There are none, zills, nothing, nada prove … it is nothing but a theory, a blind feardriven idea to replace the Creator Judge with Man and/or Nature as their new god. ”
Thats a very basic view of science you offer. Science is wholly more than “something to be proven by experiment, done or observed repeatedly”
“Atheism, evolutionism’s father, is a radical faith. Why ? Because no atheist has seen the whole of the universe and can prove that God does not exist.”
And which Christian has? Radical faith, again you turn a blind eye to those in your own flock who are or could easily be considered fundamentalist to the extreme, David Koresh, The Rev jim Jones and so on and so.
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other…..thats quote from another source and sums it up rather well.
The first Russian was….Yuri Gagarin
Now, its important to note, i don’t care if you believe in God,the teletubbies or Frans Ludeke, this is not an attack of the Christian faith, its just pointing out that your opinion is so dominated by
YOUR beliefs that it makes you look blind and quite frankly a fundamentalist.
2 Feb 2008, 13:32 pm
Dilligaf,
1. Please define your use of the word ‘faith’ ?
2. Your writing basically prove my main point (thanks): whether your are a ateist or a believer, all of us see life via certain unproven (but not necesarily untrue!) propositions.
Your preposition is that science (man’s brain) can give us truth about the origin of man, mine is that man must use his brain but needs revelation from the Creator to know and understand truly and fully. Man must think God’s thoughts (as revealed in the Bible) after Him.
Now, why are your pressuposition better than mine ?
All this **** about ‘faith vs science’is a hoax, some old story of the by gone days of a modernist worldview. Scientists have always and MUST BELIEVE, have faith in something to even do science itself. They BELIEVE in order to understand. The debate is about wrong beliefs and presuppositions, not that one view beliefs and the other not.
I do not disagree that I also believe and have my presuppositions, that is a given, but I strongly disagree with the view (faith!) that Darwinism or evolutionism is so called ‘science’. No, it is a worldview or faith with certain UNPROVEN assumptions, which they most try and cover under the mantra of “we only do science”:
- their cannot be a God of the Christian Scripture
- the Bible cannot be true
- everything must have evolved over millions of years. Why ? because the rocks says so … wow ! God says somethings but it CANNOT be believed, but hey, some rock and plants ‘speaks’ to us and say: “Mr. Scientist, I am 1 123 4567 millions of years old. BELIEVE me ! Today is my birthday, give me a kiss!”
- somewhere, somehow, something burst into something (big bang?) and then something evolved into something and then into someone … and then we have a blob … and, uhhmm, we do not know how … but, somehow it started living, and then become a plant, and wow ! … look at those legs, it walks, wait, wait .. it can run … its an ape … wait it is MAN evolving … and finally the WP team …
From the goo, to the zoo, to YOU !
What utter nonSENSE is this fable, it is even far, far more worse than the false belief in teletubbies, santa claus, or whatever story there can be.
Yes, atheistic evolutionism is science … science fiction ! Up their with father chrismass and the toothfeary.
How can people who call themselves ‘intelligent’ even belief in such fables and myths ?
It makes much more sense to belief, like all the big religions in the world, that God created, revealed, saved, etc.
You are also as much radical and blind to your humanistic faith as I am about my Christian faith. Let us agree on that.
Therefore the evolusionist-ateist-humanistic faith and worldview is as ‘radical’ ‘biased’ and ‘dogmatic’ as any other world religion on earth.
Your sharp rejection of my writing proves this very clearly.
I, for one, will never deny all the sins and problems of christians (even those who are that only in name) are guilty of. The same is true in all other religions.
But you make one big mistake, to use a rugby example, and that is, that because some WP supporters are bad spectators, therefore all must be.
Thus, because some Christians do wrong things, therefore everything is wrong with Christianity, and even with their God.
No, we must finally judge God and the truth of Christianity according to its standard, the Bible, and then you will see that the Bible itself condemns wrong beliefs and deeds of its followers.
I will agree that their are some Bull supporters that gives the Bulls camp a bad name, but will I then reject in toto the Bulls camp. No ! I will look at what the staff, players, etc does to see if I can support such a team.
Back to the faith: you must go into conversation with God Himself and His revelation, to find the truth … and then the Truth (the ******) shall set your free from wrong beliefs and presuppositions, to belief Him, who is the Truth Himself. And He, who gives all Wisdom, will give you understanding to see all of life as it really is.
Lastly, where we definitely differ, is that I DO CARE what you belief. I do belief that is it is wrong to belief in teletubbies, evolutionism, Ludeke, darwinism, or anything else.
What we believe in, is of utter consequence of our eternal life.
Only belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the Father of the Lord ***** ******, the Son of God – is the only way to know and live truly, not only in terms of our final destination, but also in terms of understanding where life comes from, the origin of the universe, meaning of life, doing real science, etc.
Christianity as explained in the Bible, makes sense.
Evolutionism, atheism and humanism is NONsense.
2 Feb 2008, 13:44 pm
Alf,
There might be a god and there might not be one, but since there’s no proof either way and since their are a whole bunch of competing religions claiming their own god(s) and ethical standards, any questioning person must wonder if there really is a god and what the ‘true’ faith is.
Disagree with you that there is no observable proof for Darwinism. Its been validated by genetic markers, archaelogical finds and lab experiments. In fact, at the time of the theory Darwin used the word ‘inheritance’, cos the science of genetics had not yet developed and has become the basis for all modern biology.
There is a possibility that Darwinism is incorrect or inaccurate, but since there’s overwhelmingly more proof for it then there is for a god imo, that is my belief. Darwin never denied the existence of a god and felt it possible to believe in evolution (from apes) and in a god.
Agree that science has its limits and can’t explain how exactly the universe began (i.e. in the moments preceding the big bang) or how life on earth began. If you want to call the unexplained God then perhaps there is one, until maybe science progresses far enough to explain those questions too. But even if the unexplainable is god, which one is it? Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
2 Feb 2008, 14:13 pm
#125
Dear Cab,
I really try to understand you, but how can you ‘believe’ science but not in a eternal personal Creator God ?
In all honesty, is it because you cannot ‘see’ God ? Please give me THE reason why you cannot believe in God creating everything ?
Thanks for your answer.
2 Feb 2008, 14:41 pm
Dear Alf,
Imagine a medeival person found himself in modern times.
He looks at a modern man talking into a little wireless box making noises called a cellphone and talking to someone nowhere in sight and yet there is no link between the two. How is this possible? the communication is not observable.
To the medieval chap it simply is not comprehensible that someone has such powers of communication and god must be involved. Its not that the medieval chap is less intelligent then the modern man, but simply cannot explain it any other way since no scientific explanation has been offered.
which god must i believe in?
2 Feb 2008, 16:31 pm
Cab, communication is thus real, although Medieval Man could not observe it.
God is real although you cannot observe Him.
So, since you sound intelligent, why would you stay a Medieval Man, because YOU cannot give a ‘scientific explanation’ of God ?
What god must you believe ?
Believe the one true God that exists and made all ‘communication’ possible in and through the revelation in His Son, ***** ******, whether it is some people talking face to face with each other, or over the cellphone, or even between us to:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” -Colossians 1
The more scientific explanations are offered through history, the more it testifies of the existence of a personal Creator God.
But, to know the truth, one must believe in Him who created everything and upholds everything.
God has communicated with man in ****** ***** His Son.
Will we be like medieval man and say I will not listen because I cannot observe Him ?
God does not need to ‘proof’ Himself, because He Himself is the highest standard and source of truth and reality. We must through faith listen to Him as He speaks to us in His Word, the Bible.
A good place to start to listen to God’s communication, is Genesis and the Gospel according to John.
2 Feb 2008, 18:59 pm
Alf,
you say:
“What god must you believe ?
Believe the one true God that exists and made all ‘communication’ possible in and through the revelation in His Son, ***** ******…”
But what of the Hindus, the worlds oldest religion who worship vishnu and krishna? Or the billions of muslims who worship allah?
Since the bible says do not worship false idols this means that half the people in the world are not worshiping the ‘true’ faith. But surely if you are brought up as a muslim or hindu you believe your’s is the true faith and the christians are wrong.
What proof is there to believe in ***** over Vishnu or Allah other then the faith that you have been taught to believe?
2 Feb 2008, 22:03 pm
Alf 124,
one other thing, before am off.
“everything must have evolved over millions of years. Why ? because the rocks says so … wow ! God says somethings but it CANNOT be believed, but hey, some rock and plants ’speaks’ to us and say: “Mr. Scientist, I am 1 123 4567 millions of years old. BELIEVE me ! Today is my birthday, give me a kiss!â€
LMAO…the rocks do in fact speak to us, science uses radioactive carbon dating to meaure the nuclear decay of elements of the rock. Its proven to be pretty accurate clock which is also used to date fossils to find the rates of evolutionary change (Darwinism).
So for the medieval man, when asked to believe that we can talk to someone in outer space via invisible signals, that the rocks can tell us their age and that humans evolved from apes or even plants — the medieval man will say don’t be ridiculous thats crazy.
you are obviously not the medieval man, but just as you have your beliefs, others have there’s too and what seems impossible is explainable. The difference with God is that he/she/it is not explainable, it must be believed on blind faith.
You can say, but look at the universe, ***** must have created that. What about Allah or Vishnu or the Big Bang?
Why i choose to believe in science is that its provable, whereas religions are imo just ancient entrenched fairytales each with different gods proclaiming to be the ‘true’ faith but where none offer any proof for this and can’t ALL be the true faith.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.