viaro:

This is not 'ID' ('intelligent design') argument. . . but I'm tempted to ask: 'designed' - by who/what? No bother, just ignore that - I was thinking aloud.

I see a set of differences even in the way you've just described. For one, the bird is not like a device with a botton to be pressed for flight as in the case of the craft; for second, the craft could do nothing if it 'sees' danger; besides, thirdly, birds (for the purpose of this analogy) take to flight for very many reasons of their own experiences, whereas a craft does not have an experience of its own that informs its decision for any particular flight. There's more. .  but just observing that there are indeed differences (please consider them carefully).

Agreed.

Okay, I understand your context now (although I disagree) - and I think that answers my question initially:how does that 'ability to fly' become an 'attribute'?. Thanks.

Though these are valid reasons but please bear in mind what i'm talking about is the ability to fly not how it does it, why it flies or when it flies.

They both have that capability -that is what i'm trying to establish-how its elicited is inconsequential.

Mavenb0x:

Superb!

Postscript: Kolaxy, I was just about to say that!

But, Justcool, I have a problem with where you defined Christ's genes as a formative consequence of strengthened genes in Joseph and Mary as opposed to Mary, when the entire purpose of Christ's coming would be negated if the birth was not immaculate. I think that should read "Mary's genes" alone. Cheers.

kolaxy:

@ Mavenb0x,

I concur

@ Mavenb0x and Kolaxy
Thanks for your kind words.

I will address your concerns about Jesus having a biological father.

Jesus indeed had a biological father. God created nature and nature demands that a woman must be impregnated (procreation) for a pregnancy and a child to result. The laws of nature are also the laws of God. Nobody can override the laws of nature, you'll have to stronger than God to be able to do this. We have to accept the boundaries of nature and live within it because nobody can change it. Therefore every pregnancy(Including Mary's) was a result of procreation. Jesus (like everybody) had a biological father.
Jesus had to fulfill all the laws of God which includes the laws of nature. Hence, "I have come to fulfill the laws of my Father not overthrow them." However, Jesus is the son of God because he carries inside him a part of God, His innermost core is divine. Unlike we humans, our innermost core is spirit(the breath of God and not a part of God Himself).

God Himself cannot override the laws of nature because these laws issue out of the will of God which is perfect. Hence the laws of creation or the laws of nature are perfect, and perfection precludes changeability. God does not change, neither do His law change. They are perfect from the beginning and will forever remain perfect, and therefore cannot be improved upon. God is perfect so are his laws, which includes the laws of nature.

But the conception of Jesus was immaculate. Immaculate conception means a conception done out of love as opposed to a conception done out of lust or infactuation. When pure love for each other awakens in the hearth of a man and a woman, physical intimacy between such a couple is pure and done out of love. Such a conception is immaculate conception. It is a pity that man has replaced love with lust; therefore making physical intimacy a mire of lust and passion, this is a sin.

Only the purity of such a conception can pave a path for the Jesus who is Divine love. Divine love only travel in the ray of purity.

The purity and love in the hearth of Mary and the biological father of Jesus prevented sinful lust from interfering with their copulation. This is immaculate physical conception, which preceded the immaculate spiritual conception, or incarnation of Jesus. Incarnation takes place during the middle of pregnancy. And when it was time for Jesus to incarnate, instead of the incarnation of a spirit which may have already defiled itself in previous lives, an immaculate Divine part of God incarnated. This is immaculate incarnation.

All these were done with the power of the holy spirit. Like I said earlier Mary and Jesus' biological father were prepared both physically and spiritually. They were prepared even before their incarnation. They were chosen because they had the prerequisites needed for the mission, they were already servants of God even before their incarnation. The purity of the power of the Holy Spirit guided them and filled them, this allowed their spirits to achieve a purity that stiffled all baseness and lustfulness during their copulation.

This does not mean that the Holy Spirit copulated with Mary. The Holy Spirit is a divine part of God like Jesus, and it is impossible for a Divine being with a Divine body to couplate with a physical body.

Also the strange assumption that it was angel Gabrail that copulated with Mary is wrong and impossible. Angels without physical bodies cannot couplate with the physical body of Mary.

Copulation or sexual intercourse can only be done with physical bodies; it is only an earthly thing, it cannot be done in the higher planes.

I draw my spiritual knowledge from a book called "In The Light of Truth: The Grail Message." In-other to be clearer on this issue of immaculate conception, I advise you to read the Grail Message yourself.

The idea of people not having biological fathers is older than Christianity. The ancients believed that Alexander the great was the son of a god, the Romans taught that Julius Caesar was begotten of a lion. Ancient kings used these rumors to make the gullible and ignorant masses respect them and worship them. The early Christians adapted this concept too and attributed it to Jesus. It made it easier for the superstitious Romans to accept Jesus and worship Him.

Also consider, part of Jesus mission is to show mankind that one can live righteously and without sin on earth. If His earth life was changed in any way or made different from the earth life of mankind, then mankind can accuse God of partiality or favoritism.
I will give an analogy: If I set up a school with rules, and the students are not doing well. Now if I decide to show them that one can do well in that school, I may enroll in the school to show them that one can get an A in that school. If I change the rules of the school just for me, then I have defeated the purpose. In other to be fair I will not change any rule just for me, I have go through what other students go through and achieve an "A"

Another example; If I set up rules for a game, I cannot change the rules just for me, to make me win the game. I cannot change the rule for my son, my wife, and etc. This will only be unfair. The fairest thing for me to do is to followe the rules that I set up for everybody.

Likewise God did not change any of the laws of nature for Jesus. By living sinlessley on earth, Jesus showed us that one can achieve righteousness on earth.

I hope this helps. Thanks and remain blessed

@Justcool: I read your reply, but I maintain my views. Conception involves the fertilization of an egg by at least one spermatozoon. With the science of fertilization today, if a lab tech can cause fertilization with no humans present, why cant God do it by causing Mary to produce a self-fertilized egg? Or do you know the exact dynamics by which ova are created, since science does not yet know 4 sure? I dont buy that Grail gist. Cheers.

Mavenb0x:

@Justcool: I read your reply, but I maintain my views. Conception involves the fertilization of an egg by at least one spermatozoon. With the science of fertilization today, if a lab tech can cause fertilization with no humans present, why cant God do it by causing Mary to produce a self-fertilized egg? Or do you know the exact dynamics by which ova are created, since science does not yet know 4 sure? I dont buy that Grail gist. Cheers.

@Mavenb0x
Thanks for your reply. You are entitled to your opinion, in no way do I wish to persuade you or quarrel with you over your views. If what you wrote above fills your void, then stick to it. Eventhough I completely disagree with you, I still respect you and your views.

One should always be allowed the freedom to express one's views.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Mavenb0x:

@Justcool: I read your reply, but I maintain my views. Conception involves the fertilization of an egg by at least one spermatozoon. With the science of fertilization today, if a lab tech can cause fertilization with no humans present, why cant God do it by causing Mary to produce a self-fertilized egg? Or do you know the exact dynamics by which ova are created, since science does not yet know 4 sure? I dont buy that Grail gist. Cheers.

@ mavenbox
Do you even know what a spermatozoon is? Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon
Science has never been able to cause fertilization without the sperms(except in cloneing). No lab tech has eve been able to cause fertilization withou humans present. Lab tech are humans. Science knows the dynamycs of feritlization and it is impossible to create a self fertilized human egg. Are you telling us that mary went to alab tech and did invitro fertilization. Even in invtro fertilization, the sperm is needed.
Please reserach more before posting

Seeklove, you need to read me properly and understand my perspective before responding, maybe next time. I never said spermatozoa was not needed for fertilization, my point is Can the creator of the spermatozoa not skip that step and bring about a pre-fertilized egg? the same way i am the creator of my words and i can say two statements crafted in two different ways YET yield the same meaning? So why can the Creator not bring about a pre-fertilized egg? Have you ever heard of scientific anomalies in nature?

And when I said with no humans present, my point was that the spermatozoa giver and the ovum donor do not have 2b there, and yet the baby is produced. Thus, they have skipped the s.ex stage. So if MAN can skip the s.ex stage and still get the baby made, how do you know that God cannot create ONE ase.xual OVUM to divide and bear his Son?

This is the problem i think i often have here. If i speak few words with deep and complex info embedded, i guess many people who dont see the point immediately will see the (f) beside my name and assume I must be talking onions. They dont bother to ruminate over my post before replying. And when I make a detailed post so that everyone will understand, my detractors will scream that my posts are long. Man's reach always exceeds his grasp and no one is ever satisfied. Cant please you all.

Mavenb0x:

Seeklove, you need to read me properly and understand my perspective before responding, maybe next time. I never said spermatozoa was not needed for fertilization, my point is Can the creator of the spermatozoa not skip that step and bring about a pre-fertilized egg? the same way i am the creator of my words and i can say two statements crafted in two different ways YET yield the same meaning? So why can the Creator not bring about a pre-fertilized egg? Have you ever heard of scientific anomalies in nature?

And when I said with no humans present, my point was that the spermatozoa giver and the ovum donor do not have 2b there, and yet the baby is produced. Thus, they have skipped the s.ex stage. So if MAN can skip the s.ex stage and still get the baby made, how do you know that God cannot create ONE ase.xual OVUM to divide and bear his Son?

This is the problem i think i often have here. If i speak few words with deep and complex info embedded, i guess many people who dont see the point immediately will see the (f) beside my name and assume I must be talking onions. They dont bother to ruminate over my post before replying. And when I make a detailed post so that everyone will understand, my detractors will scream that my posts are long. Man's reach always exceeds his grasp and no one is ever satisfied. Cant please you all.

@ mavenbox
Sorry, I didnt intend to get you upset. It has nothing to do with being female, it just that what you said was wrong.

The only way a woman can get pregnant without sex is through invitro fertilization, any other way will invlove changing the laws of nature. A spermatozoa must meet and egg, this is how nature made it for humans. I am sure that the case of Mary was not invitro, it hasnt been invented yet and God does not do invitro.
And the bible, christians and molesems never said that mary got pregenent by a spermatozoa, even if the father was not present like you claim. They simply say that mary got pregnant without fertilization, ie the holy spirit came upon her and she concieved, others say it was angel Gabrail that impreganated her. Whether it was the holy spirit or angel Gabrail, the bottom line is that no physical spermatozoa was involved. So the laws of nature was overided by God.
And if you claim that God can do anything, why did Jesus have to be born at all. Why didnt he come from heaven as a grown man. Why did he start like a baby just like other natural babies, why did he grow just like others, why did he hunger, thirst, and got tired just like others. How come in other areas He obayed the laws of nature like everybody but when it comes to His birth, God changes the laws of nature?
I dont beleive in that crap of fertilization without sex, being born of a god is ancient roman, babylonian and greek myth which somehow got incoporated into christianity and somhow found its way into the bible. Please tell me why the bible traces Jesus genealogy through Jeseph. Not that I am saying that Joseph is His biological father for sure, but I am sure that He had a biological father. God does not play magic, why would God send His son the same way that the anceint babylonians belive that thier god was sent.

Mavenb0x:


Seeklove, you need to read me properly and understand my perspective before responding, maybe next time. I never said spermatozoa was not needed for fertilization, my point is Can the creator of the spermatozoa not skip that step and bring about a pre-fertilized egg? the same way i am the creator of my words and i can say two statements crafted in two different ways YET yield the same meaning? So why can the Creator not bring about a pre-fertilized egg? Have you ever heard of scientific anomalies in nature?

And when I said with no humans present, my point was that the spermatozoa giver and the ovum donor do not have 2b there, and yet the baby is produced. Thus, they have skipped the s.ex stage. So if MAN can skip the s.ex stage and still get the baby made, how do you know that God cannot create ONE ase.xual OVUM to divide and bear his Son?

This is the problem i think i often have here. If i speak few words with deep and complex info embedded, i guess many people who dont see the point immediately will see the (f) beside my name and assume I must be talking onions. They dont bother to ruminate over my post before replying. And when I make a detailed post so that everyone will understand, my detractors will scream that my posts are long. Man's reach always exceeds his grasp and no one is ever satisfied. Cant please you all.

SeekLove:


@Mavenbox

Sorry, I didnt intend to get you upset. It has nothing to do with being female, it just that what you said was wrong.

The only way a woman can get pregnant without sex is through invitro fertilization, any other way will invlove changing the laws of nature. A spermatozoa must meet and egg, this is how nature made it for humans. I am sure that the case of Mary was not invitro, it hasnt been invented yet and God does not do invitro.

And the bible, christians and molesems never said that mary got pregenent by a spermatozoa, even if the father was not present like you claim. They simply say that mary got pregnant without fertilization, ie the holy spirit came upon her and she concieved, others say it was angel Gabrail that impreganated her. Whether it was the holy spirit or angel Gabrail, the bottom line is that no physical spermatozoa was involved. So the laws of nature was overided by God.

And if you claim that God can do anything, why did Jesus have to be born at all. Why didnt he come from heaven as a grown man. Why did he start like a baby just like other natural babies, why did he grow just like others, why did he hunger, thirst, and got tired just like others. How come in other areas He obayed the laws of nature like everybody but when it comes to His birth, God changes the laws of nature?

I dont beleive in that crap of fertilization without sex, being born of a god is ancient roman, babylonian and greek myth which somehow got incoporated into christianity and somhow found its way into the bible. Please tell me why the bible traces Jesus genealogy through Jeseph. Not that I am saying that Joseph is His biological father for sure, but I am sure that He had a biological father. God does not play magic, why would God send His son the same way that the anceint babylonians belive that thier god was sent.

@Mavenb0x & SeekLove

FYI
Recognise
HEAVEN is the honeymoon of Christ and the church. Yall coming back down to Earth - Matthew 5:5 :-)
Posts: 990
Offline Offline

Re: Does The Holy Spirit Have spermatozoa? « #90 on: April 05, 2009, 01:49 PM »

Soface (m) on: July 09, 2007, 05:33 PM:


The reason why I ask this question is that in the Bible, it is said that it is through Holy Spirit   

Mary Conceived. So am confused.

Does Holy Spirit Has spermatozoa?

Pls, Nairaland guys both ladies and men,

I need u guys views on this.

Snippet of Recognise's response

<snipped>

The Holy Spirit does not have a spermatozoa.

The Holy Spirit and spermatozoa are two entities that are distinct as is a sweetener and a cup of tea

Sample this crude illustration:

</snipped>

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-64928.64.html#msg3691317

@Tiatma: Thanks for https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-64928.64.html#msg3691317. I perfectly agree with Recognize. This is the second time I will see something he/she wrote. I really wish I met that person on these Religion boards. Kinda sounds like me, sef.

@seeklove: I have nothing more to say on this matter. God is not on trial here for the methods he used in achieving his intents.

Mavenb0x:

@seeklove: I have nothing more to say on this matter. God is not on trial here for the methods he used in achieving his intents.

Thanks, I have nothing more to say to you either. Only dont atribute that fairy tale to God, God never said that He used the holy spirit to impregnate Mary niether did He say that Jesus was concieved without sperm. Its funny how we humans write things and attribute to God. God did not write the bible, God did not write the koran. Both are books simply written by man, both are filled with a lot inacuracies.

Mavenb0x:

Seeklove, you need to read me properly and understand my perspective before responding, maybe next time. I never said spermatozoa was not needed for fertilization, my point is Can the creator of the spermatozoa not skip that step and bring about a pre-fertilized egg? the same way i am the creator of my words and i can say two statements crafted in two different ways YET yield the same meaning? So why can the Creator not bring about a pre-fertilized egg? Have you ever heard of scientific anomalies in nature?

And when I said with no humans present, my point was that the spermatozoa giver and the ovum donor do not have 2b there, and yet the baby is produced. Thus, they have skipped the s.ex stage. So if MAN can skip the s.ex stage and still get the baby made, how do you know that God cannot create ONE ase.xual OVUM to divide and bear his Son?

What is the essence of se.x if not to deliver sperms to the ovum for fertilization.

Whichever way you wanna produce a kid the spermatozoa has to meet the ovum either through the sex organs or via a pipette.

This is the problem i think i often have here. If i speak few words with deep and complex info embedded, i guess many people who dont see the point immediately will see the (f) beside my name and assume I must be talking onions. They dont bother to ruminate over my post before replying. And when I make a detailed post so that everyone will understand, my detractors will scream that my posts are long. Man's reach always exceeds his grasp and no one is ever satisfied. Cant please you all.

What the HELL is this?

The first time I noticed you on NL religion board was when you accused krayola of being a sexist just because he exposed you for the fraud that you are. That was my first impression of you as someone who screams and accuses people of being discriminatory against women when they disagree with you.

Now here again you're accusing us of Sexism and victimizing you because you are female. . . .you are indeed a very stupiid idio.t!! I take being labelled a sexist as bad and evil as  Racism, Anti-semitism, Tribalism and being homophobic. You might as well call us Nazi's.

Accusations as this a very difficult to defend and in most cases dent the reputation of the accused whether guilty or not. I can only imagine how many peoples lives this lying jezebel has destroyed with such allegations.


There are several females on this forum including the likes of Jesoul, pilgrim, lady and others who engage in debates with males and females alike. We agree and disagree yet NOT ONCE has any of them called us sexists. Infact here on NL the males tend to speak to the females alitte more cautiously and respect than they do with their male counterparts.


I notice that the foolish people who are quick to allege discrimination against them based on sex or race are the ones with low-self esteem and zero self worth.
Are you insecure about your body, maybe too fat with stretch marks on every open surface? How are your tit.ties. . . very tiny? Any problem with your se.x life, are you frigid or a victim of female genita.l mutilation? Were you rap.ed by your priest extended family or family friends? Are you a lesbian? and to hide your urges decided to throw yourself into religion? If your problem stems from any of these go see a bleeping shrink or better still Do us all a favour, if you don't like who or what you are jump off a bridge and die then we can have some peace.

Who are your 'detractors' ? If you cannot convey your ideas in simple clear terms what then is the guarantee you'll do so when given 20 pages. Truth is when your ideas are totally rubbish dragging it out to 100 paragraphs wouldn't make it sensible it just makes it 100 paragraphs of undiluted  crap.

The lady pilgrim1 you've heard so much about regularly makes long posts but i myself who dislike such hardly find myself complaining. Why? Because even though we disagree she makes so much sense and not ONCE did she ever bore anyone. Her posts have a way of pushing you to read on till you get exactly what she wants to put across.

You on the other hand have received complaints as to the boring nature of your posts. Ever wonder why? Well yes, its because deep down they carry no substance and will induce sleep even in a dead man.

Instead of going back to the drawing board to think how you can better relate your ideas to the wider population on NL you're here mouthing-off about people being your detractors and labelling us sexists.

I have bad news for you. . . .you obviously would like to think yourself as an important entity with many 'detractors' but like everyone else you're an insignificant dot here. Nobody here is important! if you're gone today everybody moves on. Now if this revelation stirs up your low self-esteem and drives you to commit suicide so be it.

Let this be a warning,The next time you accuse us here of sexism against women on NL you wouldn't get off so easy. . . You're such a pissy little bitc*h for accusing us of such bigotry!! . . . .this shiit is so annoying! No sensible right standing man would accept such travesty!

Well its strange that someone so insignificant and boring as MAVEN could have elicited from you by far the longest post i have ever seen you make Tudor.

P.s: Men who call women bitches are low life skunk.

And that my friend, is what you have always been. You always come out strongest when insulting women. I am beginning to think you had a Freudian problem with your mother, since you admitted she steered you to atheism by proclaiming you the reincarnation of Christ at a young age.

What the hell is that "f" still doing beside your name?

Juvenile.

Deep Sight:

Well its strange that someone so insignificant and boring as MAVEN could have elicited from you by far the longest post i have ever seen you make Tudor.

P.s: Men who call women bitches are low life skunk.

And that my friend, is what you have always been. You always come out strongest when insulting women. I am beginning to think you had a Freudian problem with your mother, since you admitted she steered you to atheism by proclaiming you the reincarnation of Christ at a young age.

What the hell is that "f" still doing beside your name?

Juvenile.

A woman who goes around accusing people wrongly of bigotry deserves no respect.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you because several times you've admitted to being a sex addict even advocating for sex on the alter so you can worship your oneness of infinity. To you communication and fellowship with your creator is best done by pounding a woman dog.gy style in prayer. . .geez what a perverted freak!

Its obvious what you're after is to plant your tiny pickle in them to give yourself some self-worth and no prizes for guessing most of them come out unsatisfied laughing at your limpy match stick.

Is it any wonder why you dare not speak against mavenbox? Infact point to me one NL female on this board you haven't made a pass at. Others do it with an element of joke but when I read yours I can't help but be concerned at the seriousness and sinful hope for a score mirrored in yours.

Real men don't make too much noise about se.x. . .its the empty ones who do all the talking and boasting. Hint: viagra works.

I don't insult real women on this forum. And why is the f on my profile bothering you? It shows anything female you begin thinking with your privates. . .so much for respect for women. What a pathetic jerk-off.

Leave those of us who don't think with our pen.ile cap when it comes to women to handle issues when men are insulted the rest like deep sight can be silent in hopes of scoring some a$$ in the future cos thats all they live for.

Men who call women bitches are low life skunk.

Period.

MEN who regard women as sexual objects and tools for worship are PIGS
ce fini.

You're such a pissy little bitc*h

This is from you Tudor, to Maven who did not insult or call you names. Granted she wrongly assumed that being female is a rational public minus, but i cannot see how that justifies your tirade in calling her a b.itch.

Truth is: not much need be said: it is glaring to the world what sort of man would use this language on a woman in a public forum for literally no reason.

And look at your post to me, full of vulgar sexual insults fit only for juveniles in a ghetto high school.

Men, i tire for you o.

No class at all.

Deep Sight:

This is from you Tudor, to Maven who did not insult or call you names. Granted she wrongly assumed that being female is a rational public minus, but i cannot see how that justifies your tirade in calling her a b.itch.

Truth is: not much need be said: it is glaring to the world what sort of man would use this language on a woman in a public forum for literally no reason.

And look at your post to me, full of vulgar sexual insults fit only for juveniles in a ghetto high school.

Men, i tire for you o.

No class at all.

You are indeed far gone! Worse than I expected.

Wrongfully accusing the male population of sexism is what you belittle by labelling it public minus?

I've seen GOOD men go down for silly 'assumptions' (as you put it). I had a supervisor who was accused of being racist though wrongfully. The whole thing was blown out of proportion and the company had to let him go to save PR. This has ruined his career.

My cousin who had a relationship with a white girl while in school in the UK was accused of rape after he broke up with her. He was able to strike a deal that ended in him being deported no he's in CU starting life allover again. Several times i've seem women play the sexism card and got what they wanted to the detriment of the guys.

Tell me, do you know the implications of these false accusers on the real victims of racism, sexism and rape? They in every way undermine their ordeal as they would hardly be taken seriously.

You don't go around even in public forums accusing people of these crimes. . .its never right. People who do should be thrown off a cliff before they get to destroying lives.

Like I said i've seen people close to me affected by this. I am very passionate about this subject and will NEVER stand for it!

If you deep sight don't like it, go mess yourself over and over again as i've told you several times i don't give a crap what you or anyone else thinks of me. Capische?

Carry your so called 'class' on your head and send it to your mother. I don't give a damn, disgusting freak!

Deep Sight link:
And look at your post to me, full of vulgar sexual insults fit only for juveniles in a ghetto high school.

Men, i tire for you o.

No class at all.

I can't help but laugh at this.

This is from a self-proclaimed sex maniac who wants us to incoporate sex in our worship of god.

It's obvious you know your ideas and urges are synonimous with animals in the jungle.

Apologies, everyone

[Original post has been removed]

Tudor -

I am certain that many people may at one time or the other make mistakes or overshoot themselves. I firmly believe it is possible to call one another to order or point out wrong asumptions without resorting to vulgarities.

The mind that is only able to communicate through vulgarities is abysmally low, unschooled, unrefined and ranking certainly with motor-park touts and plebians of the most infantile description.

There remains no justification for your calling people “b.itches.” This does nothing but show the poverty of your background, and the complete absence of the fibre of class, which of course is a concept alien to your unschooled mind, if at all the word “mind” may be applied to pedestrian loutish persons such as yourself. 

Whatever may be the case, whatever the issues that you may have with the next man, your responses call you out as a person of inferior and untrained manners and cast a huge shadow of doubt over your education and exposure.

It is apparent to my mind that a man who will not hesitate to bandy words such as “bi.tch” about at the slightest, or no provocation is absolutely puerile in his thinking.

If you have studied psycology, you will be aware that such appellations are actually an affrirmation of the view that a man has of the female members of his own family. I can only conclude therefore, that family matters are not in an altogether salutary state for you: especially as regards your female relatives.

As far as the "Sex at the Atlar" thread is concerned, i cannot apologize for the richness of my imagination, or the deep historical, cultural and philosophical issues raised there: nor can i regret the profound contributions of Jesoul, M_Nwankwo and Tayotoyin to understanding the philosophical aspects of the Positive and Negative aspects of Duality inherent in divinity and how those abstract concepts relate to sexual spirituality.

However, it would be idiotic of me to expect that a person whose favourite pastime is insulting females, would apprhend the issues in the dialectics.

Or the humour and sarcasm denoted, either.

See wetin infidel cause

Deep Sight:

Tudor -

I am certain that many people may at one time or the other make mistakes or overshoot themselves. I firmly believe it is possible to call one another to order or point out wrong asumptions without resorting to vulgarities.

The mind that is only able to communicate through vulgarities is abysmally low, unschooled, unrefined and ranking certainly with motor-park touts and plebians of the most infantile description.

There remains no justification for your calling people “b.itches.” This does nothing but show the poverty of your background, and the complete absence of the fibre of class, which of course is a concept alien to your unschooled mind, if at all the word “mind” may be applied to pedestrian loutish persons such as yourself. 

Whatever may be the case, whatever the issues that you may have with the next man, your responses call you out as a person of inferior and untrained manners and cast a huge shadow of doubt over your education and exposure.

It is apparent to my mind that a man who will not hesitate to bandy words such as “bi.tch” about at the slightest, or no provocation is absolutely puerile in his thinking.

If you have studied psycology, you will be aware that such appellations are actually an affrirmation of the view that a man has of the female members of his own family. I can only conclude therefore, that family matters are not in an altogether salutary state for you: especially as regards your female relatives.

*hiss*

Female members of my family don't go around accusing strangers of bigotry just because somebody knocked down their cup of garri.

Deep Sight:

As far as the "Sex at the Atlar" thread is concerned, i cannot apologize for the richness of my imagination, or the deep historical, cultural and philosophical issues raised there: nor can i regret the profound contributions of Jesoul, M_Nwankwo and Tayotoyin to understanding the philosophical aspects of the Positive and Negative aspects of Duality inherent in divinity and how those abstract concepts relate to sexual spirituality.

However, it would be idiotic of me to expect that a person whose favourite pastime is insulting females, would apprhend the issues in the dialectics.

Or the humour and sarcasm denoted, either.

Debasing the worth of women by upholding them as sexual objects and tools for worship is what you refer to as richness of the mind? I'd call that Sickness of a perverted mind. Shior

@Tudor & DeepSight: Hey!!! Let's bury the hatchet. After all, I and seeklove do not have any problems, why should you (both) forge ahead with such unbridled rage? In view of the below Nairaland rule and respect for Seun Osewa, if I cannot appeal by anything else, let's stop this abeg.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PUBLIC FIGHTS
Nairaland is a discussion forum, and it is inevitable that disagreements with crop up from time to time. Please be nice and respectful to other members at all times and do not resort to personal attacks, false accusations, name-calling, and other unproductive forms of communication. If you are upset with another member of the forum you must settle the fight outside the forum. You must not carry out any 'fights' on the open forum. 'Fights' are not allowed.

Mavenb0x:

@Tudor & DeepSight: Hey!!! Let's bury the hatchet. After all, I and seeklove do not have any problems, why should you (both) forge ahead with such unbridled rage? In view of the below Nairaland rule and respect for Seun Osewa, if I cannot appeal by anything else, let's stop this abeg.

Na when war don start na you dey beg lol

God exists today, tomorrow and forever.

well well well i have being reading your post and wap really fascinated by how jesus was born but before i start on this i want us to bear this point in mind what was Jesus purpose of coming to earth.Remember it was as a result of Adam's sin that lead to all there events and also bear in mind that he was perfect before he sinned.It is of no suprise to us that the blood of sheep and bulls was not enough to cleanse us of that sin

@barondavil: If you really read through this entire thread, you must have multiple headaches by now. Please get some rest.

sorry for the break as i was saying that the blood of bulls wap not enough to cleanse us one and for all time reason being that it was not equal to the perfect state Adam was meaning that something perfect was still required to balance the equation.PERFECTION WAS NEEDED TO UNDO WHAT PERFECTION DID.No human was able to do this because Romans5:12 ans just as through one man sin entered the world, because they had all sinned.

Thumbs up, BaronDavil!

i support you. . . . .