₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: . . . you've been here a while yet you seem to make some of the more asinine posts in this section with admirable frequency.

Thats really funny.

Enigma: 1. An atheist is simply a person who lacks belief in god(s). Fine, then to that extent he is in the same category as a dog, a cow, a monkey etc.

To the same extent that you are in the same category as a dog, cow or monkey in that you eat food.

debosky: Furthermore, I disagree with the superficial assertion that atheism recognizes 'no standards' - that isn't the case, it simply doesn't recognise any standards as 'absolute' or 'divine' - that doesn't stop individuals or groups of individuals from setting their own standards as they deem fit - it may not be homogeneous among all atheists, but that isn't a requirement either.

Nothing to add here!

To Anony, you will soon cease to surprise me.

debosky: you attempt to enforce your own blanket definition on all atheists.

Makes it quite easy to live with themselves

Ihedinobi: If, say, each of seven billion people decide what they call right and wrong, on what basis will one moral code submit to another?

Are all religions harmonic on morals ?

musKeeto: When theists can agree on one God and one set of morals, please call me.

Just saw this.

!!!!

Deep Sight: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! !

Its not a small something

musKeeto: Lmao.. Although I'm forced to ponder what led you to that page

To be honest, I dont quite remember how I got there. Its a long time ago and I'm surprised the link still works.

I was reminded of this by a retarded tweet I saw and I thought I might share this for laughs.

The following is a reprint from The Madison Institute Newsletter, Fall Issue, 1894:


INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE On the Conduct and Procedure of the Intimate and Personal Relationships of the Marriage State for the Greater Spiritual Sanctity of this Blessed Sacrament and the Glory of God by Ruth Smythers beloved wife of The Reverend L.D. Smythers Pastor of the Arcadian Methodist Church of the Eastern Regional Conference Published in the year of our Lord 1894 Spiritual Guidance Press New York City

INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE
FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE

To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex.

At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.

On the other hand, the bride's terror need not be extreme. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it.

It is useless, in most cases, for the bride to prevail upon the groom to forego the sexual initiation. While the ideal husband would be one who would approach his bride only at her request and only for the purpose of begetting offspring, such nobility and unselfishness cannot be expected from the average man.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness, and headaches are among the wife's best friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering also prove very effective, if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction.

Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying and discouraging the amorous overtures of the husband. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week by the end of the first year of marriage and to once a month by the end of the fifth year of marriage.

By their tenth anniversary many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. By this time she can depend upon his love for the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home.

Just as she should be ever alert to keep the quantity of sex as low as possible, the wise bride will pay equal attention to limiting the kind and degree of sexual contacts. Most men are by nature rather perverted, and if given half a chance, would engage in quite a variety of the most revolting practices. These practices include among others performing the normal act in abnormal positions; mouthing the female body; and offering their own vile bodies to be mouthed in turn.

Nudity, talking about sex, reading stories about sex, viewing photographs and drawings depicting or suggesting sex are the obnoxious habits the male is likely to acquire if permitted. A wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness. Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands. These should be donned in separate rooms. They need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.

Once the bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights, she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sign of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always the hope that he will stumble and incur some slight injury which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.

When he finds her, the wife should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion on her part could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband.

If he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he attempts to kiss her hand, she should make a fist. If he lifts her gown and attempts to kiss her anyplace else she should quickly pull the gown back in place, spring from the bed, and announce that nature calls her to the toilet. This will generally dampen his desire to kiss in the forbidden territory.

If the husband attempts to seduce her with lascivious talk, the wise wife will suddenly remember some trivial non-sexual question to ask him. Once he answers she should keep the conversation going, no matter how frivolous it may seem at the time. Eventually, the husband will learn that if he insists on having sexual contact, he must get on with it without amorous embellishment.

The wise wife will allow him to pull the gown up no farther than the waist, and only permit him to open the front of his pajamas to thus make connection. She will be absolutely silent or babble about her housework while he's huffing and puffing away. Above all, she will lie perfectly still and never under any circumstances grunt or groan while the act is in progress.

As soon as the husband has completed the act, the wise wife will start nagging him about various minor tasks she wishes him to perform on the morrow. Many men obtain a major portion of their sexual satisfaction from the peaceful exhaustion immediately after the act is over. Thus the wife must insure that there is no peace in this period for him to enjoy. Otherwise, he might be encouraged to soon try for more.

One heartening factor for which the wife can be grateful is the fact that the husband's home, school, church, and social environment have been working together all through his life to instill in him a deep sense of guilt in regards to his sexual feelings, so that he comes to the marriage couch apologetically and filled with shame, already half cowed and subdued. The wise wife seizes upon this advantage and relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely her husband's desire for sexual expression."


http://www.cyberdespot.com/jesustricks/christian-sex.html

http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?jesustricks/christian-sex.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html

Enigma: By the way, I can't believe this!!!!

I got the spelling of 'corollary' wrong in that old post!

Cant believe it either, and I quoted you, gbagaun and all.

You take yourself too seriously.

brokoto: me?

Not you bro.

A certain fellow who claimed that " . . . immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism "

enilove: To start with ,it was not a sin in those days for someone to marry his or her brother.

*shrug*

Logicboy03: Dont mind Anony, he is just lying.

He may not be oh.

He just might need ancient texts and threats of eternal punishment in the "afterlife" to refrain from inhumanity. Same as the other fellow.

brokoto: Let me say this: I don't think religion is necessarily a bad thing. People need it as a form of solace and comfort in this our difficult country. Most people need it as a sort of moral compass in their life. These people don't need to be told that their life is false, it will kill them.

jayriginal: You know, religion isnt always such a bad thing.

For instance, Anony needs religion to refrain from killing stealing and r.aping. Now would you want an "atheist" Anony on the loose ?

I know I wouldnt.

Another fellow says that " . . . immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism "
https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/10#14364222

Now, we wouldnt want these type of people without religion since that is apparently all that holds them in check.

EDITED:
I put in the correct link

*In yoruba accent*

Aaaaaahhhhh !!!

Logicboy03: Was kidding about the trap thing bro! I argued on this thread because Davidylan put my quote in the op.


What is the book about? Se.x?

Theres a lot of se.x in it but its mainly about a macDaddy ( ) who travels abroad for studies and he boinks the ladies who are curious about him. Its a fad for them.

That was my first encounter several years ago with him. But later, I got to know he was somewhat steeped in mysticism. He is on facebook. You can look him up.

Logicboy03: f4ck you

You chose to tell me that it was a trap 1,541 f4cking comments later?



LMAO!




Okay, so who is this Osahon guy?

Im not here every day dude, and you shouldnt need me to tell you its a trap. It was quite obvious.

Naiwu is a pan africanist. He isnt quite an atheist but he is interesting and that book I mentioned is fun.

Logicboy03: But there is leo igwe

There is the case of ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES HAVING ENDEMIC CASES OF ATHEIST DISCRIMINATION (EG AMERICA, INDONESIA, TURKEY, ETC)

There is the case of constant atheophobia here on Nairaland

There is the personal case of many atheists here and their families giving them problems over atheism

There is even the case of a thread here where a woman had an atheist boyfriend who she clearly described as a saint. The christians associated many evils to the guy despite the description and claimed that she shouldnt marry him based on religion.
--------------------------------





Christians on this thread living in denial!!!

Does any one here know Naiwu Osahon ?

Who has read " Se.x is a Nigge.r " ?

Interesting book, interesting author. I will recommend his works to paganNaija

As to the topic, LB, this thread is a trap.

Thats all.

davidylan: but of course anyone can come up here and make up stories... its interesting that he just refuses to substantiate his claim. I could also claim to have been slapped by someone who happened to be an atheist too. So what has that proved?

You're right. Thats my point and I wanted to make it much earlier but I refrained.

No one knows anyone here (with some exceptions) so anyone can claim anything and anyone can reject those claims. How is anyone to prove anything ?

deezle may very well have been attacked, but how do we verify ?

See what I'm driving at ?

deezzle: I have had someone wish death upon me. I have been physically attacked but I prevailed .

davidylan: But of course we cannot substantiate this can we?

Can we close the thread now ?

striktlymi: Still "thoughting"??

I've "thoughted" away

Logicboy03: Sorry, It may seem like that but it was only metaphorical

I was kidding man. I know you werent referring to me.

striktlymi: Stop "thoughting"

Ah well, I "thought" so.

See ya!

Logicboy03: Put me and the devil to shame. answer the question

Hey stop calling me the devil

Lol.

striktlymi: Good evening,

You really don't know the explanation I would have given. Its advisable not to think for people.

Well I "thought". I didnt state. Theres a difference.

Care to give me the answer? (Cos I'm pretty sure my "thought" is on the money ).

The question is again,

jayriginal:

Who then gets to decide which is literal and which isnt ?

When two people disagree on a passage/issue (two notable examples being tithing and trinity disputes on nairaland) who is correct ?

You know, religion isnt always such a bad thing.

For instance, Anony needs religion to refrain from killing stealing and r.aping. Now would you want an "atheist" Anony on the loose ?

I know I wouldnt.

Another fellow says that " . . . immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism "
https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/10#14364222

Now, we wouldnt want these type of people without religion since that is apparently all that holds them in check.

EDITED:
I put in the correct link

striktlymi: Good evening Jay,

I would have loved to answer your questions but this would take a very long time to explain and I really want to spare you a lengthy theological discussion.

Thanks!

Hi bro,

I dont think it would have taken that long to answer.

I think you would have mentioned the holy spirit as an aid to understanding. That line wont work though if thats where you wanted to go.

striktlymi: Wrong! Not every word in sacred scriptures is meant to be taken literally. An understanding of it is very important! This is why those who want to use it as a basis to explain creation, the geography of the earth etc will always get it wrong.

Who then gets to decide which is literal and which isnt ?

When two people disagree on a passage/issue (two notable examples being tithing and trinity disputes on nairaland) who is correct ?

cyrexx: LOL,

You no well o. You can be so funny atimes.

On a lighter note , I'm a married man. I don't even qualify to be a regular boyfriend, let alone assistant boyfriend

You're an atheist. Therefore you are naturally and logically immoral. Stop denying your immorality.

Somewhere on this thread

Enigma:
. . .immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism.

And you know the various punishments for immorality.

Miss Ope: Seriously... Logic boy and the likes... Deserve being hanged to death....

Yup, another one since Frosbel suggested death for atheists.

Genius!

Deep Sight: Virtual particles do not emerge from nothing because the quantum vacuums in which they are observed are not nothing. They contain low gaseous pressure. That is not, and cannot be nothing. Aside from this, no perfect vacuum has ever been observed anywhere. Never ever. Check it out.

Subtle word play going on here. Lets make some substitutions.

Virtual particles do not emerge from nothing (which is what you said).
Virtual particles do not emerge in nothing (which I'm sure is what you mean)
Virtual particles are uncaused (which is what you are questioning).

The best kind of vacuum obtainable still has low gaseous pressure and virtual particles pop in and out of existence with no apparent causse. Its not the same thing as saying that the low gaseous pressure is the cause of the virtual particles.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Well let me try to clarify the question a little.

- Does a perfect, omniscient and omnipotent God, who has set out the laws of his creation from the dawn of time, need to intervene within the said creation at the behest of his creatures to set this or that right? Ought not the laws of creation already be sufficient for all purposes in light of the perfection of God?

Beretta92: I suppose that a perfect god would make a perfect world,ergo,the need wouldn't arise to ask anything of him since his creation is also perfect.

Assuming god and assuming perfection unto god, I see no reason why it cannot make an imperfect world, provided that that was its intention to begin with.

Say for amusement.

I think the only logical assumption to be made is that a perfect god would execute its intentions perfectly and not that all its creations must be perfect.
My two cents.

Purist: Indeed, there may be more to life. Something might have created this world quite alright. But I'm bloody damn sure nobody knows whatever this thing or things are; we all just speculate. And some speculations are far more ridiculous than others.

You have a way of speaking my mind.

Enigma: . . .immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism.

Oh lawd.

Ihedinobi: You lost your wager. I've known debosky's a Christian since last year.

I'm not really sure about the seeing red part. I don't have much patience for futile discussions, they bore me so I generally stay away. I only used to get upset when I began debating atheists last year because I had pretty high expectations of you guys out of my naivety. But now, I don't think you can talk about me seeing red like I have some vested interest in atheist-theist arguments that I must protect by winning. I care much less about the scoreboard here than the people in the game and how everyone walks away from the engagement.

Bully for you then.

The evolution quote is because its very common on this board to find " evolution = atheism" or "atheism = evolution" and the like.

As for high expectations, well lets not go down that road.

As for seeing red, it does seem a lot that if one person takes a position, another feels honor bound to take the opposite, in gross violation of common sense. One cant agree all the time but some things are really quite clear.

Purist: lol... you caught me there. How are you doing bro?

I'm great oh. Good to hear from you.

[quote author=Bélla3]There is a big difference between 'indifference' and 'atheism'.[/quote]You didnt answer my question, but like I said,

jayriginal: Regardless of your answer, I will put one thing to you.

An atheist isnt one who asserts there is no god, an atheist is one who doesnt believe in god. Its not the same thing if you think about it.

Purist !!!!