Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,127 members, 7,953,487 topics. Date: Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 05:12 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nferyn's Profile / Nferyn's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 96 pages)
Religion / Re: How Did You Become An Atheist by nferyn(m): 12:02am On Nov 25, 2010 |
mrmayor:Been busy (haven't we all ;-)) mrmayor:Thanks for the re-welcome. Everything's fine in our family. We didn't have twins before, but now we do. Our house is becoming too small with all the children |
Religion / Re: How Did You Become An Atheist by nferyn(m): 10:19pm On Nov 23, 2010 |
when did you become an atheist?I always was, as far as I know please share your story of how you became ansee above what prompted you to make that decisionI don't think you can ever choose to believe something. belief is a consequence of exposure to information and the social context in which it is received. do you come from a family of atheists - (no insults meant here)yes, for as long as I lived at least. My parents are ex-catholic. which religion do you particular find repugnant?Religions that suppress or actively avoid free inquiry which religion do you find - nearly acceptable if youUnitarian Universalism or maybe the original Budhism what are you views on :Inevitable. The end of existence. pre/post marital sexOk, as long as it is between 2 consenting adults and no emotional deceit is involved. stealingwrong (in most cases) lyingdepends, in most cases to be avoided murder wrong afterlifedeath many views on the above subjects are influenced by religion.unfortunately, they are, indeed. without religious injunctions the actions become amoral.and why would that be? |
Religion / Re: Announcing: The Temple of the Sacred Coconut by nferyn(m): 1:50am On Nov 23, 2010 |
bump |
Religion / Re: Please Answer This! by nferyn(m): 1:49am On Nov 23, 2010 |
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence(Ch. Hitchens) |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Belgium To Split; Why Cant Nigeria? by nferyn(m): 6:02pm On Oct 06, 2007 |
ono:Good to hear from you too. Apart from the acknowledgment that Belgians are discussing the split up of the country, yes, we are. ono:the only way a centralized state can continue to exist peacefully is by forced assimilation of their minorities (like what happened in France). The cultural identities of the minority cultures need to be crushed in a centralized state. ono:Even though this is currently a problem, it doesn't need to be. The lack of accountability of politicians is the problem and indeed, a highly centralized state leaves far more opportunities for unaccountability |
Religion / Re: Atheism Is An Act Of Ignorance , True Of False Or ? by nferyn(m): 5:49pm On Oct 06, 2007 |
ricadelide:It was never my intention to correct anyone. The only thing I wanted to do was clarifying that atheism does not necessarily imply the active rejection of deities and that you can be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. ricadelide:You're implying a lot of things here without saying very much. My contention is that the common (let's call it 'dictionary') definition of atheism is determined by the perception of theists. In a culture that is mainly theistic, the general population will attach a lot of unwarranted connotations to the atheist label and because of that some atheists really are afraid to call themselves atheists. This isn't very much so in Europe, but in the US and definitely in Nigeria, that's definitely the case. ricadelide:That's exactly my problem: others define what atheism is. most explicit atheists (and definitely contemporary atheist philosophers) will go for my definition. ricadelide:Possibly, but whether or not it is 'safe' is irrelevant. It is a correct definition ricadelide:Which logical inconsistencies? ricadelide:Sorry but I'm not follwing your train of thought. ricadelide:See, once more it's me that 'redefines' things. You don't seem to understand that an active denial implies the conceptual validity of what is denied, which would mean that our simpleton OLAADEGBU is right and that by definition true atheists cannot exist. ricadelide:I could have been more precise and called it the lack of belief in the existence of God(s), but that really doesn't matter all that much. Epistemologically, it definitely is not equivalent to an active denial of God. I can actively deny or disbelieve in the existence of a specific God, but not the amorphous, ever changing God of the apologists. ricadelide:You could, indeed. Your cat is an implicit atheist. I on the other hand am an explicit atheist and so are all the people that call themselves atheists. ricadelide:No it isn't vague at all. (a)theism deals with belief, (a)gnosticism deals with knowledge and you can both be agnostic and atheist. ricadelide:I have already clarified my position. Belief in here means belief in the existence of. ricadelide:I wasn't correcting him at all, I was just trying to bring more clarify to the terminology used. there is no axis that goes from atheism over agnosticism over pantheism over deism to theism. ricadelide:You seem to be unwilling to understand that I do not say that atheism equals agnosticism, both deal with different aspects of the God-question. ricadelide:Epistemologically there are significant, qualitative differences between the two positions, but as far as practical consequences are concerned, they amount to the same thing, yes. What you should understand is that, when dealing with the truth value of a proposition, your epistemological position is paramount in determining the validity of your argument. Equivocating the two is simply dishonest. ricadelide:As I said, I wasn't correcting but clarifying. I do not disagree with dtw_sola's and to be frank, your implication of dishonesty on my part is uncalled for. ricadelide:Your concern is quite charming and as you should know by now, I really want to understand your position, but assertion and smug disregard for my position isn't going to bridge the gap between us. At the very least you are respectful enough to have a real conversation. Something that cannot be said about people like OLAADEGBU . |
Sports / Re: How Many Are Interested In Cycling? by nferyn(m): 10:09am On Oct 06, 2007 |
Good to find some Nigerians that are interested in cycling. I used to race a long time ago (when I was 16) and still try to ride my bike as much as I can. If you want taste tough racing in the espoir category, Belgium's the place to come to. If you have any test results (VO2Max, power output, TT results), I could pass them on to some team coaches. |
Foreign Affairs / Re: Belgium To Split; Why Cant Nigeria? by nferyn(m): 10:04am On Oct 06, 2007 |
ono:We're not discussing splitting up Belgium at all. there's a stalemate in the negotiations over forming a government, but only a few fringe groups are really thinking about splitting up the country. Belgium doesn't really have distinct ethnic groups, but rather linguistic groups. There's very little cultural difference betweens Flemish and Walloon people. it's a language issue. The different language groups have very different ideas on how to govern the country, but, because of the federal structure of Belgium, this hardly impacts the functioning of the country, it's mainly an image issue (and the complete misunderstanding that foreigners have when it comes to Belgian politics, we're really not on the verge of civil war ) ono:There isn't any break-up scenario on the table, these are only negotiations over forming the next federal government, the two aren't really comparable ono:Another reason why the two cannot be compared; Belgium doesn't have any natural resources at all. The only thing Belgium has is it's highly educated multilingual population, it's geographical position within Europe and the excellent infrastructure. ono:And this makes the proposition to reintroduce genuine federalism probably the best way to keep Nigeria united in the long run. Without federalism, Belgium most definitely would have split up by now. |
Religion / Re: Atheism Is An Act Of Ignorance , True Of False Or ? by nferyn(m): 10:29am On Sep 30, 2007 |
dtw_sola:Quite a lot of people are reluctant to categorise themselves as atheists because of the - very successful I must say - campaign by theists to define atheism as an active rejection of God, which is only one type of atheism. You can make a typology of belief systems on two axes: knowledge (of the existence of God) and belief (in the existence of God). On the belief axis, you have: * atheism: the lack of belief in (a) deit(y)(ies) * deism: the belief in an impersonal, first mover god * pantheism: belief that the divine is embedded in the very fabric of the Cosmos * theism: the belief in a personal God who interacts with the universe On the 'knowledge' axis, you only have: * agnosticism: position whereby you declare that you [b]cannot [/b]obtain knowledge about the (non)existence of deit(y)(ies) * gnosticism: position whereby you declare that you [b]can [/b]obtain knowledge about the (non)existence of deit(y)(ies) If you combine the two, you get a pretty good view on the belief position of a person, e.g. I am an agnostic atheist. Now it's pretty clear that a classification on these two axis doesn't tell you anything about the philosophical postion of a person. There is as much variety among atheists (perhaps even more) than there is among theists. You have secular humanist, epicurean, stoic, Marxist and objectivist and even satanist atheists and they are far more different in their philosophy and ethics than Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hinduists, Buddhists and animist theists are. The idiotic lumping together of all secularists by our friend OLAADEGBU just shows how ill informed he really is and one thing that should be perfectly clear is that you shouldn't let the theists (especially the more closed-minded variety) define what you really are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the label atheism. |
Religion / Re: Atheism Is An Act Of Ignorance , True Of False Or ? by nferyn(m): 10:55am On Sep 29, 2007 |
OLAADEGBU:Ah reasoning by analogy, don't you love the accuracy and precision of the Christian apologist' arguments?Why don't you first establish that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. You empty assertions are no replacement for evidence, my dear friend.The building is the evidence that there was a builder, and with the same logic the fact that you as a complex human being with all your faculties and ability to think and type on the keyboard is all the evidence I need to know that there is a more intelligent creator. Why do you infer a creator when no such creator is necessary to explain the appearance of 'design'? Natural selection is perfectly capable of arriving at immensely complex adapted structures without any use of intentional design. The evolution of the camera-lens eye, which happened multiple independent times in evolutionary history is only one such an example. OLAADEGBU:Now you tell me what my spirit is used for and that it is a dead part of me, but you're not one step closer at explaining what it actually is or how we can detect it. You like to define things into existence, don't you?Give me some evidence for the existence of that so-called soul, then you may have the beginning of a point.Your spirit is the part of you that you can use to relate to God but since your spirit is dead in tresspassess and sin the communication line has been broken. OLAADEGBU:Your definitions don't bring us any closer to actually getting a grasp of what a soul is. If it is only the combination of those characteristics, then you have no reason to infer the properties of that so called 'soul' described below as these properties cannot possibly be detected. You're defining things into existence again, an external verification of your concepts is nigh impossible. OLAADEGBU:Your analogy - the favorite theist' rhetorical trick - is inapplicable, as the referents are non-existent or have to be established first. Music is an emergent property of the instruments and the intentions of the people using them, all of which can be empirically detected. No such luck though for your soul, spirit and God. OLAADEGBU:I'm quite sure no dictionary defines conscience as 'the police man of the soul', you're defining things into existence again. OLAADEGBU:This is where you're wrong, some do, albeit to a lesser extent than humans. Dolphins and bonobos have engaged in intentional, reflective behaviour. By the way, why do you think that humans don't act on instinct as well. Instinct determines our behaviour to a large extent, even though we try to rationalise our behaviour after the fact. OLAADEGBU:Oh dear, you now have reshaped conscience from the stance that directs your intentionality into ethical behaviour to include the 'knowledge' that God exists. Could that possibly be to only include theists in your definition of conscious people. Very sly trick indeed. If your definition were true, theists would objectively be morally superiour to atheists, something that flies in the face of the empirical evidence. there is not a single finding that establishes that atheist behaviour is less moral that theist behaviour, on the contrary, there are e.g. proportionally far moer theists in prison than atheists, also Evangelical Christians have higher divorce rates than liberal Christians, who then still have higher divorce rates than atheists and agnostics. So much for your moral superiority OLAADEGBU:Another inept analogy. Why don't you keep your analogies for the children in Sunday class, they've just just reached the level of intellectual maturity at which these kind of arguments make an impression. I urge you to give deductive and inductive logic try OLAADEGBU:Maybe you're just projecting your own shortcomings on others. I am in no need for the fear of retribution and punishment from a celestial dictator to guide my ethics. I'm quite capable of maintaining my own moral standards without fear for divine intervention, unlike many of our theist friends who seem to believe that they only behave morally because of their skydaddy and his carrots and sticks (forgive me the use of analogy here, i thought it was fitting for the situation ). OLAADEGBU:Or so you think. Which evidence, my dear Watson, which evidence? OLAADEGBU:It's quite difficult to put so many conjectures and misconceptions in one sentence. The very least I can say is that you try 1. which philosophies? 2. TOE: conjecures: how? 3. TOE: no facts: how? 4. opinions without proof: why? Why use the word proof? 5. formed on slight or defective evidence: explain why it is slight or defective? 6. none at all according to chambers dictionary, explain? Are we talking about a uniquely 'Christian' dictionary here? 7. philosophy needs more faith to believe in that in the existence of God the creator, why? Lots of assertions, no substance. OLAADEGBU:I wasn't referring to death but rather our implication that the 'soul' and the body separate after dying.And how do you know that? Because some ancient text penned by down by a bunch of semi-literate bronze age herders tells yo so?I am surprised that you find it difficult to believe in the fact that everyone born of a woman except for two people has died or would die sooner or later in life. Death is a certainty. OLAADEGBU:Which you state as being factual without even the tiniest bit of evidence. Your hubris never ceases to amaze me. OLAADEGBU:Let me just pick out of few of your isms as an example. It really is good to know that fascism, racism and nazism are atheistic philosophies. Maybe you can take a time-machine and go and tell that to the devout Catholic Hitler and Franco, who carried out their policies with the blessing of the 'Holy Mother the Church'. Or maybe you can transport yourself even further back in time and talk to the slaveholders in the old US and say that their baptist defense of Slavery based on the Bible really was an atheist philosophy? Your attempt at reasoning really is patently simplistic and factually wrong. But I didn't expect anything more, I'm affraid. OLAADEGBU:A statistical statement based on a sample size of 1, how wonderful. OLAADEGBU:Your point? OLAADEGBU:Throw everything in one big basket, add some false statements and implications, stir and you get one emotional diabetre. OLAADEGBU:Pray tell me, dear friend, could you point out a few monstrosities carried out by secular humanists and compare them with the rivers of blood that have been shed in the name of the Most High? You can even correct for their proportions in the population. OLAADEGBU:And obviously your omnipotent God was incapable of doing anything about it? OLAADEGBU:Good to know that Christians are always the exemplary specimens of the human species, unfortunately that couldn't be deducted from their earthly behaviour. Or maybe they're no true Scotsmen? OLAADEGBU:You mean the ones that God himself regularly asks to violate, such as in Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.". Please continue to live in your woo-woo fantasy land. OLAADEGBU:It's always heartwarming to find out that you have a preponderance of hard evidence behind you to establish those wonderful facts, isn't it? [SNIP] OLAADEGBU:No, it doesn't prove anything at all, it asserts a lot without any evidence, that's all. OLAADEGBU:Your contributions here are really beyond the pale. So much talk, so little substance and above all so much deceit. If you really want to converse with others, the very least you can do is try to understand your opponents position, but I guess that wasn't your intention, you're here to preach, aren't you? |
Religion / Re: Atheism Is An Act Of Ignorance , True Of False Or ? by nferyn(m): 11:24pm On Sep 24, 2007 |
OLAADEGBU:Great, now it's up to the theists to determine what atheism is Your whole Ray Comfort 'test' is one fallacious argument based on false premises and a complete lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is (as well as missing an elementary grasp of deductive logic). KAG dealt with it quite satisfactorily already, so I'll leave it at that. Anyway, please answer the following question so that I can determine whether or not you are a genuine Christian: When did you stop beating your wife? 1. Yesterday 2. 2 weeks ago 3. I still beat my wife regularly Failure to answer my question will result in the your inevitable classification as a fake Christian. OLAADEGBU:Something like that, yes. |
Religion / Re: Atheism Is An Act Of Ignorance , True Of False Or ? by nferyn(m): 8:51pm On Sep 24, 2007 |
OLAADEGBU:Why don't you first establish that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. You empty assertions are no replacement for evidence, my dear friend. OLAADEGBU:Give me some evidence for the existence of that so-called soul, then you may have the beginning of a point. OLAADEGBU:Oh yes it can. Sociopaths an psychopaths don't have any conscience at all. Before you ramble about 'what God programmed in us', why don't you establish the existence of your God first. OLAADEGBU:Right and could you translate that into coherent English? OLAADEGBU:And how do you know that? Because some ancient text penned by down by a bunch of semi-literate bronze age herders tells yo so? OLAADEGBU:Contrary to your fairytales, gravitational forces have been confirmed empirically over and over again, but I guess understanding the scientific method is most likely a bridge too far into unchartered intellectual territory. OLAADEGBU:Which makes it untestable, how convenient, isn't it? OLAADEGBU:And some more "hocus-pocus" follows OLAADEGBU:I knew somehow that Christianity had to be some cult of death, thanks for confirming my suspicions. OLAADEGBU:Isn't it wonderful to be able to be judgemental and self-centered while at the same time covering yourself under a cloak of modesty? How 'Christian' of you. |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 10:24pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
siege:And why should I be held down? |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 5:27pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
ricadelide:I guess you couldn't help but laughing (if the joke's funny that is). Maybe you'd feel guilty for laughing afterwards, though. I really liked the atheist and the bear one. Do you have any more good atheist jokes? ricadelide:Don't worry, I won't be throwing any stones |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 5:21pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
Seun:I'm not the author of the joke, Seun |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 5:20pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
ricadelide:That's why I explicitly said that it was a joke for Catholics (or at least for people familiar with a Catholic frame of reference). I once told the exact same joke to someone in my family that was a nun and she found it funny. ricadelide:I understand your point, but shouldn't [b]every [/b]Catholic 'get it' in this case? |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 5:16pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
ricadelide:If anyone thinks that I was serious about Mary being a murderer, then then need to have their head examined, I even added the atheist joke for that reason. ricadelide:re you implying something here, perhaps? ricadelide:ricadelide, be careful or I might think you're (literally) suffering from a God-complex Your mum, you said? ricadelide:As far as I'm concerned, there's little off bounds when it come to humour, except when done with the explicit intention of hurting people, which is definitely not the case here. |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 5:09pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
Seun:And Protestants will? Anyway, it's a joke people, a joke |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 4:59pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
Maybe we can extend this thread to a discussion on the ontological status of Jokes When is a joke funny? |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 4:54pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
Seun:The moment you try to make a joke more politically correct, it stops being funny. Either you think it's funny or you don't 1 Like |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 4:38pm On Sep 23, 2007 |
mopegirl:Alright, I'll give it a try, but beware, once you explain a joke, it's no longer funny. 1. based on a well known parable with the moral content: only judge if you're beyond reproach, boiling down to (as none of us are perfect): don't judge. 2. Catholic doctrine states that there is only one woman free from original sin: Mary, the mother of Jesus 3. As Mary is without sin, the saying "Let the one without sin cast the first stone" applies to her 4. So she stones the woman (to death) 5. This invalidates the moral content of the parable 6. Of course, to be funny there needs to happen something unexpected: Mary, blessed among women throwing a stone and killing the woman outright should qualify as unexpected 7. hence, the reason why the above qualifies as a joke. Please note that to 'get' the joke, you need to know: 1. the special status of Mary among Catholic believers 2. the parable on which this is based 3. that Jesus was trying to make a point with this parable and didn't mean it to be take literally 4. which in itself is a wink to our protestant Biblical literalists 5. which makes this joke somewhat 'friendly' to our Catholic friends 6. and is a jab at those calling themselves Catholic that want to take the Bible literally (you know faith and works, scripture and tradition ) |
Religion / Re: Atheism Is An Act Of Ignorance , True Of False Or ? by nferyn(m): 10:26pm On Sep 22, 2007 |
jerrymania:First define miracles. I guess I don't but that depends on your definition of miracles. jerrymania:Do supernatural occurrences exist? Possibly, but none have been established so far, so I don't hold my breath. Anyway, please be aware that something that currently doesn't have a natural explanation yet not necessarily can be ascribed to the supernatural. Almost everything that used to be attributed to the supernatural in the past now has a natural explanation and I'm fairly confident that the remaining gaps in our knowledge will be plugged in due time. jerrymania:And what is your purpose? |
Religion / Re: Are Humans Spirit? by nferyn(m): 6:14pm On Sep 22, 2007 |
Jen33:Good to find out that courtesy isn't dead yet in this world Jen33:In your overactive imagination perhaps. Repeating the same pre-packaged claims ad nauseum doesn't constitute a 'victory' in my books Jen33:Of course it doesn't, just like the germ theory of disease doesn't in itself negate the idea that disease is God's punishment, it just makes makes a 'spiritual' explanation entirely unnecessary. Jen33:It is not manifested as a chemical reaction, it is [u]caused [/u]by it, a very different thing. Jen33:It is an emergent property of specific brain configurations and states among 'higher' animals. The most developed level of consciousness (3rd level temporal self-awareness) is currently only established among humans. It is directly linked to the complexity of the wiring in the brain, for example infants do not exhibit consciousness. Jen33:Really? Care to establish that 'fact'? Jen33:Another argument from personal incredulity. [b]You [/b]cannot imagine that NDE's have a purely materialistic cause, ergo they must be supernatural Jen33:Give me one instance of an independent peer reviewed study that establishes an ability or knowledge that is beyond the possible for those people Jen33:Pardon me, but I'm not going to take your word for it. Do you have any evidence? Jen33:Explain what? I think you better establish you primary premise first: give some evidence that there is such a thing as the 'spiritual'. |
Religion / Re: Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters by nferyn(m): 8:52pm On Sep 21, 2007 |
Seun:Makes perfect sense for an all-loving God Especially when the punishment is meted out indiscriminately, targeting the weak and the poor more than the evil ones. |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 8:37pm On Sep 21, 2007 |
Migines:I guess Benny Hill is more your kind of humour. Well, can't please everyone |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 8:34pm On Sep 21, 2007 |
badgood:Ah the self righteous ones, how wonderful Did you even stop to wonder which parable the joke was based on? badgood:This is probably a prime contender in the contest "how many fallacious and idiotic arguments can you put in one sentence". 1. What does this have to do with porn? 2. anti christ? Definitely not. I'm not anti-fairy either. 3. cannot show my level of atheism? Where did you get that idea? Run away fast from this forum, as the owner is an atheist as well badgood:You're not obliged to laugh or to find it funny. Your reaction shows you're a closed minded bigot though. |
Religion / Re: Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters by nferyn(m): 5:26pm On Sep 21, 2007 |
From your link: rof-lmao: Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.Apparently human free will is responsible for natural disasters. Someone really has to explain that one to me. |
Religion / Re: Are Humans Spirit? by nferyn(m): 4:26pm On Sep 21, 2007 |
Of course not. Spirits are inventions of our over active human imagination. Near death experiences or Out-of-body experiences are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. |
Jokes Etc / Re: A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 4:23pm On Sep 21, 2007 |
Apparently for some their sense of humour goes out of the window the moment it touches on their most cherished beliefs Anyway, let's be fair and balanced, shall we? We should be able to mock all and everything: here's a little joke at the expense of atheists: The Atheist and the Bear! An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!", he said to himself. As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing. He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him. At that instant the Atheist cried out "Oh my God!, " Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving. As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?" The atheist looked directly into the light "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?" "Very well," said the voice. The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed. And then the bear dropped his right paw , brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful, AMEN!" 3 Likes |
Jokes Etc / A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 11:10pm On Sep 20, 2007 |
Jesus was with his disciples walking through Jerusalem when they came upon a crowd that was going to stone a woman to death for adultery. He jumped in front of the woman and said, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Suddenly, from out of the crowd, a rock flew toward the woman's head. It struck her square in the temple, killing her instantly. Jesus said, "Mother, I was trying to make a point!" 1 Like |
Jokes Etc / A Little Joke For Our Catholic Friends by nferyn(m): 11:05pm On Sep 20, 2007 |
Jesus was with his disciples walking through Jerusalem when they came upon a crowd that was going to stone a woman to death for adultery. He jumped in front of the woman and said, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Suddenly, from out of the crowd, a rock flew toward the woman's head. It struck her square in the temple, killing her instantly. Jesus said, "Mother, I was trying to make a point!" |
Religion / Re: Was Jesus Married And Did He Fake His Death? by nferyn(m): 6:53pm On Sep 19, 2007 |
$$Rhino:Please get off the internet, you silly Luddite. Go and live in a hut with your Bible and refrain from using modern technology ever again. PS: this may seem harsh, but if you don't understand what I'm writing here, I urge you to get an education in something different from a madrassa or it's Christian equivalent |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 96 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 165 |