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
1 Feb 2008, 12:53 pm
Everyone is leaving – we have an environmental ****** in Parliament !!
1 Feb 2008, 12:56 pm
And here I was thinking Francois Schouwenberg was the more talented of the lock bench boys.
1 Feb 2008, 12:57 pm
Sounds like a huge loss for SA but a great gain for this Milton chap.
1 Feb 2008, 12:58 pm
Shaka it is going to be okay.
Zuma was quoted in the press today, saying the ANC have achieved what no other organization in the world has achieved and that the ANC are unique in this regard.
He is right!!
1 Feb 2008, 12:59 pm
Then again above average South African players who aren’t even considered for Springbok selection are always raved about in Europe. Just look at Jake Boer, Shaun Sowerby, Liebenberg etc.
1 Feb 2008, 13:00 pm
So that’s how the French will develop their national team with so many foreign players: Let them qualify to play for France
1 Feb 2008, 13:15 pm
yin yang
not ying yan
1 Feb 2008, 13:27 pm
With Matfield and Botha set to be entrenched as the lock pairing for the foreseeable future and … Albert van den Berg … lining up to succeed them.
Surely not???
1 Feb 2008, 13:29 pm
Any1 know where i can get hold of the 6nations team sheets for this weekend?
1 Feb 2008, 13:34 pm
There’s nothing the Bulls could have done in this case.
I just have to wonder, out of a 60 million population, where are all the Gallic 2m-tall giants? Why do they need to gobble up the offerings from a tiny 4 million strong gene pool at the southern tip of Africa?
Statistically they should have loads of Miltons, Matfields and Botha’s running around in Gaul. And those guys certainly won’t be of suitable build to play soccer. Rugby is really the only option for them. So where are they?
1 Feb 2008, 13:35 pm
OK, if he is serious about the Boks and getting game time, why didn’t he try go to another SA franchise that has a lock shortage, like the Sharks for instance?
1 Feb 2008, 13:36 pm
9.
bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/default.stm
Has quite a bit of info.
1 Feb 2008, 13:49 pm
not sure i can see it, perhaps in the mould of matfield as opposed to bakkies. french have some good locks, but suppose ageing. If you want a tough lock that cleans out at rucks, you dont get much better then their new captain for the 6N, Nallett.
1 Feb 2008, 13:49 pm
“a tiny 4 million strong gene pool at the southern tip of Africa”
Would that be white Europeans only, Tacitus?
1 Feb 2008, 13:51 pm
wooden spoon…the answer is…money.
andries bekker ? come on…
1 Feb 2008, 14:00 pm
WP Till I die
It would be the gene pool that is supplying all the international quality locks for South Africa. So yes.
Feel free to correct me once that changes.
1 Feb 2008, 14:19 pm
I haven’t seen enough of Milton to pass judgement on his potential, but Peter de Villiers should start capping SA qualified players who are overseas. We don’t have silly rules against it like the Convicts and Kiwis.
Imagine the outrage from the English if we had capped Nick Abendenon! That would have taught them a lesson.
Anyway, he’s still behind Boela du Plooy and Pascal Pape at Stade Francais so he’s still got some way to go.
1 Feb 2008, 14:27 pm
Tacitus,
I thought it was more than 4 million – aren’t there about 6 million whites in this country?
Or is there really 2 million living in London, Perth and Auckland?
Since you mention it, most of our international quality locks are Afrikaners. That makes the gene pool even smaller, doesn’t it?
Must have something to do with survival of the fittest and helluva lot of red meat, hey?
1 Feb 2008, 14:34 pm
All I’m saying is why are even our 2nd rate locks outplaying the French homegrown talent in their competitions.
When that argument is made in the NZ context, in relation to the over-representation of Polynesians in NZ rugby, the point is quickly made that they are genetically suitable for the game of rugby.
However, don’t dare make that argument in relation to white South Africans and the physical requirements of especially forwards in the game of rugby, because then you are immediately branded as prejudiced.
Strange, isn’t it.
1 Feb 2008, 14:34 pm
Simon Shaw was bigger then any of the bok locks.
1 Feb 2008, 14:35 pm
Sheridan dwarfs any of our props both in size and strength.
1 Feb 2008, 14:41 pm
….the french foreign legion 15
1 Feb 2008, 14:44 pm
Way to go Cliffie.
By the way, God didn’t teach you those things, you taught yourself. I have a confirmed sighting of him in Mogadishu at the time.
1 Feb 2008, 14:45 pm
Weet iemand hoe laat speel die Bulle en die Leeus more teen mekaar ?
1 Feb 2008, 14:47 pm
Reserve Naartjie
I’m tempted to tell you to go #$%* yourself, but that would kind of defeat the object.
How about using your reserve brain and refraining from mocking the guy’s religion. He’s not forcing you to share his beliefs. But it would be nice if you respected them, at least.
1 Feb 2008, 14:47 pm
Guys I’m afraid, You can’t disagree with Tacitus.. It’s a fact Afrikaners generally are tall and big(just like the Dutch from whom they descend). People in Holland are on average taller and bigger than people from France. It’s as simple as that. So yes Afrikaners genetically are well made for rugby. They are not the only ones though..
1 Feb 2008, 14:48 pm
Alf
17.00.
1 Feb 2008, 14:51 pm
Tac
Thats because in SA it fuels centuries-old Darwinistic racism that holds that whites are genetically superior to blacks.
Which is rubbish.
But, yes the Afrikaans boys as an ethnicity are in my view similar to black americans. A MIXED RACE that have strong physical traits from many areas. Hence their domination of contact sports.
However, black people are by no means inferior.
Much has to do with nutrition.
Look at all the athletes, boxers etc.
Moreover, last time I checked we cliamed rugby as the greatest game on earth because it was a game for all shapes and sizes.
Makes you think, doesnt it?
1 Feb 2008, 14:55 pm
How many black swimmers do we have?
1 Feb 2008, 14:58 pm
Oh, here we go.
Come now WPTID…
How many ‘black schools’ have swimming pools?
1 Feb 2008, 15:01 pm
Tacitus, don’t just be tempted, go for it champ. In this instance I might just have faith in you. Tell me what you think i should do and in all likelihood I will ignore you and continue to do the same.
It’s the net, it’s a blog and it was mild joke.
1 Feb 2008, 15:01 pm
Dieselboys
Don’t worry, I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate
Fact of the matter is, not everyone are similar – for example, Indians in this country have a higher average IQ than whites. Blacks tend to have better endurance, e.g. marathons.
We need to realise where strengths lie. We can’t all be the same, unfortunately and fortunately.
Let’s celebrate our diversity!
1 Feb 2008, 15:04 pm
Pirlet
yes, perhaps there is something about the genetics, but sheridan is stronger then anything we have and Shaw taller so that puts pay to our size and strength claims quicksmart. also, europeans aint nothing compared to polynesians. Spies is probably the closest thing to them and yet no-one is close to produce a Lomu or Tuigamala, etc.
1 Feb 2008, 15:09 pm
afrikaners aren’t even close to black americans, how many of our lot does one see in the 100m, NFL or heavywight boxing. lol, get serious, gerrie coetzee. hell a quick scan accross the loftus stands should put pay to any superior genetic claims. I’d pick at random 50 jamaicans or nigeians in britain who are bigger.
1 Feb 2008, 15:09 pm
I dont agree at all.
Race is the most irellevant variable to determine anything. Its just a skin colour, thats all.
Socialisation determines most, and genetics some, particularly when its physical.
There are black spinters and white sprinters.
Black scientists and white scientists.
Its all just about opportunity.
I will not buy for a second that Indians have higher IQs.
Its all about exposure.
So no, race is a useless variable.
Also there is nothing to say that blacks have greater endurance than whites in marathons. Kenyans dominate running cause they train at high altitude and their nutrition.
Asian people kick *** in science and technology because of their work ethic, not their race. Its cultural and social, not about skin colour.
Naartjie, I took the joke as sarcasm? Mogadishu is a mess, and the question begs. Where is God? No I am not nailing anyone’s religion before you all start.
1 Feb 2008, 15:10 pm
#19 very true Tacitus.
Strange place we live in.
1 Feb 2008, 15:14 pm
Cab
I meant, Afrikaners are not soley of Dutch origin. There was lots of miscegenation going on as well as intermarrying across nationalities. But you could say the strongest of northern european descent. But definately not the ‘super Aryan’ race that people like to think.
My comparison with black americans was exactly that. They are descendants of slaves from all over Africa.
On a lighter and more childish note…
Mixing, thats the key to the world’s health problems.
Just shag race away and you’ll also have stronger fitter and healthier people.
1 Feb 2008, 15:20 pm
The trick is for a few of our recently-naturalised West African gentlemen to befriend, court, date, bed and impregnate a few big Afrikaans ladies. Sweet lord, 20 years from now we’ll be unstoppable.
1 Feb 2008, 15:22 pm
Diesel,
i dont believe it, the dutch and english are taller then white south africans imo. what we do have is a diet full of protein which results in some fairly rotund specimens and some large ones, not unlike the US, but the old kiwi teams used to say it wasn’t so much that the boks were so strong just heavy. we dont dominate any sport in athletics. Our rugby players stats are average in the professional era, the french are small but far better conditioned.
1 Feb 2008, 15:24 pm
38, lol
1 Feb 2008, 15:29 pm
I was looking through the french pack before the RWC, we had on average about 10kgs on each of their forwards, yet they absolutely destroyed our scrum and Os was lifted backward in Cape Town.
the english have been outmuscling us up front for the last 10 years at twickenham, until JW stressed what was needed to do the job.
1 Feb 2008, 15:32 pm
#28 Dieselboys writes: “Thats because in SA it fuels centuries-old Darwinistic racism that holds that whites are genetically superior to blacks.”
The (very) sad but true FACT is that in the so called ‘New’ SA Darwinistic evolutionism, which is nothing else than a century old faith and THE foundation of racism, are being introduced into the public schools as official teaching and so called ‘science’.
What bitter irony ?
In die so-called ‘racist’ old apartheid SA, it was not taught and believed in our public school system, but now that we are so-called ‘free and non-racial’, we have fallen back to Darwinistic racism for our children.
We teach them that they all are a bunch of apes .. and some have evolved better than others !
This Darwinistic evolutionism is also the foundation of all the crime, murder and hate in our country, especially the slaugtering of all babies (in the mother’s womb) of all peoples in our country.
If you think our politics and sport are sick, it is only because we are such a sick people !
We warn people, esp. young children how dangerous it is to smoke (whooaaa!) … but, hey … you can have a ‘safe’ abortion and have ‘safe’ *** !
Ha, what a lie our children are falling into, with bitter concequences.
I really love rugby and sport, but I think we are ‘drugged’ by sport so that we cannot think what life is REALLY about.
As a nation, we have lost our soul
May God have mercy on us.
1 Feb 2008, 15:33 pm
katman
Spot on.
Watching Bafana try and compete with the West Africans (ermmm… lets make that the rest of Africa)… is a sure case of boys against men
1 Feb 2008, 15:35 pm
Dieselboys
Race, to a certain extent, determines culture. I take your point, and agree to some degree, but in a lot of cases race is so closely related to cultural and social characteristics that it’s hard to distinguish.
The reason African-Americans are such excellent athletes is a perfect example of Darwinian evolution – “survival of the fittest”. With more than half of the slaves dying on the ships before even arriving – the weakest going first – and then generations of back-breaking labour, African-Americans were almost “bred” by the circumstances to be physically superior.
1 Feb 2008, 15:35 pm
Well said alf!
1 Feb 2008, 15:37 pm
alf
Sheesh, brother – calm down. You’re beginning to sound like Ray McCauley.
Oppas vir die rooi gevaar.
1 Feb 2008, 15:40 pm
# 46
WP, jy klink soos ‘n darwinistiese evolusionis.
Pasop vir die ras gevaar.
so terloops, ek het nie veel respek vir McCauley en sy charismatiese chaos nie.
1 Feb 2008, 15:41 pm
Alf, Darwinism never started any wars, religion on the other hand…
Like Tacitus just proved, be blatantly prejudice and it’s fine, but question religion and there’ll be hell to pay.
1 Feb 2008, 15:44 pm
Comment by alf : February 1, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Jeez, alf, now that’s how you get a few issues off your chest.
But let me point out that the bit about “evolving better than others” is your own creative interpretation of Darwinism. Different is not necessarily better.
Also not sure what you mean by Darwinistic evolution being the “foundation of all the crime, murder and hate in our country, especially the slaughtering of all babies (in the mother’s womb) of all peoples in our country.” You don’t expand on this but I’m sure you have it all worked out in your head.
1 Feb 2008, 15:46 pm
katman
He’s clearly opposed to abortion. I wonder if he’s seen unwanted children, or struggling teenage mothers.
1 Feb 2008, 15:48 pm
I get that bit, WPTID. I just don’t get the connection to Darwinism.
1 Feb 2008, 15:50 pm
alf,
u are a very knowledgable rugby supporter, but thats crazy talk. May god have mercy on us all if ppl still believe that.
the afr claims to superioity stem out of their religion as the supposedly chosen ppl, not unlike other systems were supremacy over other races was tried to be justified. Bad sciece or darwinism is often misinterpreted to suit those conditioned beliefs.
Genetics does mean that groups will have minor differences, but the afr is a very averagely sized european imo, but not in the same physical ballpark as certain black or polynesian groups.
1 Feb 2008, 15:56 pm
I saw unwanted children and struggling teenage mothers before abortions were legalised..
I still see unwanted children and struggling teenage mothers now that abortions have been legalised…
I am confused.
1 Feb 2008, 15:57 pm
Folks, lets not go down this road, take it easy.
1 Feb 2008, 15:58 pm
It’s amazing what a diverse range of opinions are exhibited here on keo.
1 Feb 2008, 16:00 pm
On a lighter note – arent you Cape Town based bloggers going down to the pub to say cheers to Ig.
1 Feb 2008, 16:00 pm
darwinism is good science, its well established, it becomes bad when hijacked to suit certain arguments. the belief in darwinism does not mean an end to ethics, families will still teach their children that. but at least give your children the choice between darwinism, god and the tooth fairy and let them decide who they want to believe in.
1 Feb 2008, 16:02 pm
Whatever you do dont take this topic into the pub with you if you are on yoour way there.
1 Feb 2008, 16:06 pm
Dylan
Are you headed for the Firemans??
1 Feb 2008, 16:11 pm
Man, after last night I don’t want to smell a beer, never mind see one.
And it still feels like a pack of penguins **** in my mouth. My teeth feel all furry.
1 Feb 2008, 16:12 pm
58# Bob
Jip, good advice.
Not in the pub, even here it is a wee unpleasant.
1 Feb 2008, 16:15 pm
Bod,
are u going to phuza with Ig?
1 Feb 2008, 16:16 pm
AAaaaag guys its not that blacks are not capable its because most are lazy or selfish. They wont from thier own community sponsor a talented sportsman. I my schooldays we had to get sponsers to go to certain sporting events, do you see some of these fat cats getting involved in sport?
Lazy is when a guy dont work harder to get into a team, but rather blame the system. Sepaka comes to mind. There are many more, and strangly enough i know of a hell off a lot more lazy whitties , who had all the potential but were plain lazy.
Tell me is there any of these black players willing to drive 30 km to a club practice, well some of the old Springboks did just that.
1 Feb 2008, 16:18 pm
Bod
No, unfortunatly I cant make it – Im actually thinking of phoning in and ordering a round, on Keo’s account of course.
Are you going to make it?
1 Feb 2008, 16:22 pm
Yep, I see the party started early.
1 Feb 2008, 16:23 pm
And here I thought Darwinism was the dreadful stuff folk got up to on a Saturday night up in that godforsaken north-Australian town.
“Northern Territory, Australia – In the early hours of Sunday morning seven highly intoxicated men and a woman were arrested at the local municipal dump on charges of Lewd Public Darwinism and released on warnings.”
1 Feb 2008, 16:27 pm
Cab re no. 57.
This thread is radically heading off topic – I guess my post was to blame for that so I apologize – but I am driven to respond to your above post.
You say Darwinism does not make ethics obsolete.
Well, speaking for myself, if I learned for a fact that humans in fact have no souls and that we are all just randomly generated forms of carbon running around trying to outcompete one another for proteins, then I would feel no compunction against treating any strange human being like an animal. In fact, if I had to choose between saving a human and a dog from a raging river, I’d probably go for the dog, because I love dogs.
If humans have no souls, why should we treat them any differently than animals? Whether we murder a person or not, it is no different from cutting down a tree, then. They are all just carbon based life forms, random clusters of atoms.
It is my religion that drives my ethics. If that were to fall away, why should altruism be valued any higher than narcisism or even nihilism?
Surely it would all then be relative.
In fact, ANY viewpoint can then be justified, seeing as there is no absolute truth. Cannibalism, for example, would then merely be one way of life, as justifiable as any other.
So I disagree. Darwinism in the context that you use it (meaning a refutation of religion) would indeed mean the end of ethics. Note that I do not necessarily see Darwinism and religion as being mutually exclusive, but that is a topic for another debate.
Anyway, back to Cliffie Milton now…
1 Feb 2008, 16:27 pm
One day when I’m big (and loaded) I’ll buy an island and let all these unhappy-with-their-opportuniy players come and play there. We’ll get a flag made up, proclaim the land as a state of some sorts and take on the world ala barbarian style. of course halve the team will be made up of South Africans. By then I’ll have come up with a name. For now I’m thinking along Stealth Plan Island or something suitably confidential.
1 Feb 2008, 16:32 pm
well, in a way most of the first sentence already true
1 Feb 2008, 16:34 pm
63 – Well done, your choice of grammar perfectly matches the content of your post.
1 Feb 2008, 16:37 pm
are you trying to be whittie katman?
1 Feb 2008, 16:38 pm
i’m sure dawn will be happy with all this talk about her
1 Feb 2008, 16:41 pm
the silent r
1 Feb 2008, 16:44 pm
keeping up with the Keo’s
1 Feb 2008, 16:45 pm
Guys I’m off to the Firemans Arms now.
Welcome to the weekend.
I’ll be wearing a bright Ndebele shirt. I’ve met Ig before so that shouldn’t be a problem.
1 Feb 2008, 16:46 pm
superbul
Jannie Engelbrecht used to drive to Stellenbosch twice a week for practice, and then again on weekends. For a club game!
Mannetjies Roux drove from Victoria West to Kimberley, same routine!
And these boys even had to pay for some of their their Springbok kit, like boots.
1 Feb 2008, 16:51 pm
Jinx, I’ll also be there, I’ll be wearing a bulls hat with kudu horns, ostrich feathers, a gunbelt around my waist and crocodile skin shoes, just in case some-one else have the same I’ll have my skateboard pads on my knees (my mode of transport) and tjoopie around my waist. look out for me >>
1 Feb 2008, 16:52 pm
actually it’s a polly otter
1 Feb 2008, 16:55 pm
If you believe people evolved from animals, then you can deal with people like animals.
Darwinism rejects the believe in the supernatural, and that we, esp. us men, must one day answer to a Creator who will judge everything we do.
Thus, if people are only apes, you can deal with them like apes, like animals: kill them.
BTW, do you know what the subtitle is of Charles Darwin’s main book: ‘Origin of Species’ are ?
No, I quess not.
Here is the full title: “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the preservation of Favoured Races”
Yes, mr. Racist himself. So it is is a sad irony, some would call it a joke, to be against ‘racism’ and still be a Darwinist or evolusionist.
I myself reject both racism and darwinism/evolutionism, but on biblical grounds.
1 Feb 2008, 16:57 pm
Pietman hulle het dit vir die liefde van die spel gedoen en al is dit nou n geldspel is dit nog steeds die manne wat lief is vir die spel wat sal slaag, al is dit in n ander land.
Waar is Rathbone deesdae ek sien daai slot van SA wat vir Aus gespeel het is in Frankryk(naam ontwyk my).
1 Feb 2008, 16:58 pm
i dont (really) know where I came from and I don’t know where I’m going. that is the only thing all humans have in common
1 Feb 2008, 16:59 pm
Tacitus,
you are normally very calm, but threq wobble at religion despite airing some pretty controversial physical superiority claims before that.
You champion ‘civilization’ over the garlic-eating AIDS preventers and theory being they are uninformed since we have science. That is, the triumph of secular rational thought or the scientific method over superstition. Darwinism is fundamental to science and thus forms part of any decent informative education system.
When ppl get sick where to they run to? The doctor. Why, cos he is medically trained, steeped in the scientific method. They might turn to god, but they go to the doctor. Science works, we know it cos we see it proven every day. So why is science in the form of Darwinism discarded. can only be one reason, it clashes with deeply held religious beliefs.
As for ethics, plenty atheists with a better ethical system then the fundamental muslims or christians around. On altruism, there’s a scientific theory for it, read a bloke called Dawkins who expands on Darwinism. You might not believe it, but thats up to you.
1 Feb 2008, 16:59 pm
superbul, stem jy saam met my plan by nr 68?
1 Feb 2008, 17:03 pm
are you saying we are komodo dragons?
1 Feb 2008, 17:04 pm
The problem with those conducting biblical arguments is that they normally reject any other points of view and the believer expects the entire debate to be conducted within the constraints of his belief. Needless to say this doesn’t make for a stimulating debate and quite understandably ends up in damnation from the one end and ridicule from the other. It’s a no-win situation.
1 Feb 2008, 17:06 pm
82 – Well put, cab.
1 Feb 2008, 17:08 pm
Sjoe Pietman nou net die laaste bal gekyk wat SHAUN POLLOCK op Kingsmead geboul het, baie emotionele tonele daar ekself het n traan uit die oog gevee. Ons gaan hom mis, hy was n yster.
1 Feb 2008, 17:09 pm
Alf
Well said
1 Feb 2008, 17:12 pm
“Natural Selection or the preservation of Favoured Racesâ€
What does the “or” mean…it means it’s the same?
equating that one race is more naturally inclined to survive nature, not each other, seeing we are not the same nature as nature.
1 Feb 2008, 17:12 pm
i am saying in your distant past, your ancestors might have been komodo dragons, and in my case my ouma is the splitting image of one.
1 Feb 2008, 17:16 pm
90, lol
1 Feb 2008, 17:16 pm
super
Clyde Rathbone is nie weg oor die geld nie maar die kukspul van die misdaad wat SA vreet soos ‘n kanker
Die ander ou is Daniel Vickerman wat geleentheid gekry het in Engeland om by Cambridge te studeer, nie oor die geld nie aangesien hy rugby los vir besigheid
Baie van hulle skuld wel rugby abie want rugby het hull gemaak
1 Feb 2008, 17:18 pm
laughter 101. cheers i away >
1 Feb 2008, 17:19 pm
superbul
Vickerman?
Ja, ek kan dink Polly se laaste bal moes iets besonders gewees het.
Die laaste van die Pollocks?
Heng, klink amper ongelooflik.
Alf
Ek lees aandagtig wat jy se, en ek moet se, ek stem 110% saam.
Jy ken jou evolusieteorie boet, dis verseker.
Dit was regtig leersaam, die argumente wat jy aanvoer, en ek kan sien jy is n ou wat ernstig oor hierdie dinge peins.
1 Feb 2008, 17:20 pm
Clyde Rathbone is nie oor geweld weg nie, hy is weg omdat die Aussies hom finansiel en medies gedra het tydens sy lank herstel proses.
1 Feb 2008, 17:26 pm
In the real world I normally release me rabid canine when assertions of humanities pending damnation come a knocking on me front door. Now that Ig The Virtual Pitbull has quit, what is one to do ….
1 Feb 2008, 17:27 pm
92# JL
Ja, Clyde se ouma is ernstig aangerand daar op Empangeni.
Die misdaad maak ons land erg seer.
Maar ek sien hulle het daai dikgat en twee makkers gevang wat solank al daar in Pta-Oos roof(fotos gister se ‘Beeld’).
SDtoppelbaard Minister van Veiligheid (ek het die makmo#r se naam vergeet) wat heeltyd net witmense verjaag, beter sy vinger uit sy gat trek, of hy kan vergeet van WBS 2010, daarvoor sal ek jou n brief gee.
Dit sal nou vir jou n skande wees, as die wereld te bang is om in SA te kom sokker te kyk…
Heng, selfs ek kies al my vlugte sodat ek nie in JHB hoef te land nie!
Te bang hulle steel my klere.
1 Feb 2008, 17:28 pm
After Fido Dog Biscuits, Jehovah’s Witness is me dog’s favourite snack
1 Feb 2008, 17:29 pm
yessus not sure where you get darwin as being a racist.
its a simple theory, survival favours those species (races) who are best suited to their specific environment.
Every living organism undergoes random genetic mutations, some of these help an organism to survive and so over the generations that gene becomes dominant.
Environnents differ. So while an eskimo might be superior in arctic conditions, the bushman is superior in baking conditions. Its not racist, its how they have adapted, and its not racist in the sense of proclaiming absolute superiority over the others, it depends on the environment.
1 Feb 2008, 17:30 pm
Bob
Nee hy was toe al daar, kyk na sy comments, Jake het nog hom probeer terug bring
Selfde as Uli Schmidt hy sit ook al daar
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.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.