₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: Lol. The prophet placed the mark at 2000 years ago.

Lolol....I didn't know ancient Romans couldn't count to 1000.

frosbel: Two things :

1. Jesus Christ is a god not GOD
2. You are yet to show us where in the bible mention is made explicitly referring to 3 gods =1 , until you can do that your position remains elusive.

1. Lol so Jesus is another god who who answers prayer and receives worship from human beings and angels? I hope you are realizing that it is you who is going into polytheism

2. That condition is not necessary as long as I can show and have shown the bible referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as God.

tbaba1234: It really doesn't matter whether he knows his 'onions'. The truth is that he can not debate everyone that requests for a debate. Many of these guys do it for cheap popularity, they should work on their popularity themselves without riding on the back of dr zakir.

But I'll argue that Zakir too is seeking popularity. Else he won't be requesting that there must be a crowd of 20,000 people present.

^^^he conveniently forgot M=1000 adding up to 1666

Boomark: Hahaha. I don set question for jamb before in 1875. Even from the definition of trinity, i can set questions that will make to redefine trinity after each question. May be you need to study more before you attempt the questions...no problems.

SMH. Did you read the op at all?

cashflowpc: 


The question in bold was actually the initial question. It was just asked in another way.

It's obvious, there is no reasonable answer to your question strictklymi...All that has attempted to answer you were just beating around the bush! 

Religion is pure dogma and you must know that the mind is one powerful tool, it will make you experience whatever you have chosen to believe and such experiences will futher strengthen your beliefs!


Actually it isn't. Stiktlymi asked about the possibility of humans sinning in Heaven. We have settled that as a No.

The second question is about the possibility of angels revolting in the future to which I have answered I don't know

Your comment about religion can apply to anything you choose to believe really. Besides, it isn't true.

SNCOQ3: I believe a monadic God loving himself will self-destruct. The idea of Family is a projection of the trinity.

That's not even the issue. The problem with people who clamour for a monadic God is that they fail to see that once you do that, God can no longer be omniscient because it will mean that at the time before God created, God did not have any relationship with any person therefore whatever relationship God now has with other persons, He would have to learn it.

siddiq202: @Bold
I guess this is the first time you are hearing of Dr Zakir Naik.

Nothing much to add really, Probsolver has answered you.

Lol, I've known of Zakir Naik before now and I'm not impressed.

probsolver: Its clear u dnt know dr zakir naik. He use to have a million audience when he giv talks.yes u heard me well 1million. He is frm bombay, indian. He gathered more than 20,000 in abuja. Do u think he's a small personality. He is no more looking for any popularity. Whoever among your pastors that want to debate with him and d he is nt a world renowned he will debate with one of his studnts. Zakir naik is a world renown comparative scholar. He defeated one of ur best christian scholar in year 2000 dr william campbell. So he can nt waste his time by just any call to debate. Type dr zakir naik in google u will see nothing less than 9million results tell any of your pastor with such and let them debate.

Watch him on peace tv, its a free tv on joy tv, u will see crowd.

Lololol, I actually know Zakir Naik. I'm quite familiar with his arguments. I also know he has turned down arguments from many Christian apologists and even some Hindu apologists.

Since you claim he is not looking for popularity, why then is he making the condition that there must be 20,000 spectators?
I know a Pastor James White who offered to debate him on TV but he still declined.

I have no idea who Dr Campbell is. Amongst Christian apologists, I wouldn't classify him as "world renown"

My point is that if he is more interested in truth than his popularity, he won't be demanding 20,000 people to show up before he can defend the truth that he believes in

frosbel: You are yet to show us ONE verse in the bible that explicitly confirms that GOD is 3 . There is no biblical support for your Polytheism.

It is so sad that all you do these days is avoid and deep study of scripture while throwing strawmen all over the place. Frosbel let us have a bible study: What do you say to the verse presented where Christ is clearly called God?

siddiq202: I know Isang and Korede will definitely be there.

I like the condition Dr Zakir Naik gave him because he's a wanna be apologist

Does it matter if Isang is an apologist or not? What matters is the Truth. If Zakir Naik has it he should be willing to defend it instead of giving irrelevant conditions.

Any i[color=#000000]di[/color]ot can impress people who are already converted. To test whether he really knows his onions, he should debate against some unbelievers formally.

This is the reason why I have much more respect for people like Shabir Ally than Zakir Naik

probsolver: This question and answer is very hot. The non muslims are asking questions now.

One of d non muslims Evangelist Isang said dr zakir shd come for debate and he said he is very ready on d condition that the pastor is a world known person and can gather at least 20,000 people. So challenge to non muslim dr zakir challenge u to debate him.

Lol, the same Zakir Naik that is notorious for dodging debates against pastors and theologians now wants someone to debate him and advertize his market to 20,000 customers!

If what he is saying is true, then the number of spectators shouldn't matter. He should be more concerned about defending his position to unbelievers regardless of the number rather than impressing already converted muslims who know no better.

frosbel: Stop confusing yourself !!

Start reading your bible

Lol, Zakir Naik

frosbel: so God speaking to himself again , a sort of pretend child's play.

SMH.

Is that what your bible teaches you? Or does your bible tell you the Father speaks to the Son and vice versa referring to each other as God?

frosbel: How about Revelation 1:1 , God gave Jesus a revelation, does this now mean God gave God a revelation.

In the same way God gave glory to God in Hebrews 1:8-12

fellis: because you made generalizations!
Wow, lol.
I don't expect you to admit it though, but the fact remains that you made a generalization when you said AAUW blamed the 7% gap on negotiation.

This is just silly. So if I made the general statement that human beings are bigger than dogs, you would have heard "All human beings are bigger than all dogs"?

And also, let me get you clearly once and for all.
Are you saying there are absolutely no cases of women getting paid less because of gender or
are you saying there are cases like that but they aren't the norm? What side are you on biko?

I am saying that in a general sense, women are not paid less than men because of gender discrimination.

But Mr anony, you didn't know me so well before, how did you decide that I am well behaved and not capable of sinking so low?

Well, we've spoken a few times before and once on phone and from those conversations I just assumed you were quite reasonable. If you really aren't a rational person then please pardon my mistake. Just know that what a person thinks of you usually determines how they treat you.

fellis: So why were you saying I rejected "the official report" when both findings were not even gotten from the same type of research? One of them is an average statistical report and the other seeks to find the amount and cause of wage gaps.

Lol, did it really seek to find the cause of the wage gap? or did it merely seek to find "discrimination against women"?

No I didn't miss it, the part in red states that there isn't much room left for discrimination. It doesn't say there is absolutely no discrimination taking place. That red text does nothing to negate my point.

I never said anything about absolutely no discrimination either. I just pointed out that 6.6 cents is too small to make a discrimination case.

I have read that article so I don't see why you decided to quote the entire page for me. I pasted a part of that article here that mentioned that there was evidence of discrimination against women in the workplace and for that reason, the gap would probably never be covered. That part of the write up was what was important to this conversation because I believe your reason for putting the link there was to show me that the wage inequality had nothing to do with gender discrimination against women.

Lololol, so even after posting the entire passage for you, you still didn't get it. Nowhere does the article make the argument that "the wage gap will probably never be zero because women are being discriminated against". Read it in context. Read the paragraph preceding it. Understand the argument first. Stop quote-mining and reading your views into it.

That 6.6% gap is partly due to discrimination. Your link said that.

No it didn't. It pointed out all the reasons why the 6.6% gap is not even accurate and could be much smaller. In fact it specifically argued that such a small gap is not enough to justify "discrimination" as the reason.

I just tire for you. I don't even know what point you are arguing again. First you say that there are cases of gender discrimination against men and women in the workplace but it isn't the norm in this post:

now it appears you are suggesting that the 6.6% gap has nothing to do with discrimination because it is negligible or because there cannot be completely equal payments.

Yet your link and my AAUW research placed gender discrimination as part of the reason for that gap.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing gender bias with discrimination, Also you are failing to understand the causal relationships expressed in the articles. let me see if I can help you

1. Gender bias is preferring on gender over another.
2. Discrimination is actually depriving one gender of their rights because of a gender bias
3. The first link that you provided showed the AAUW arguing that women earned as low as 77% of what men earned and it was due to gender discrimination
4. I argued that the 23% pay gap was not due to gender discrimination and I cited factors such as hours worked and experience.
5. You produced another study from the AAUW citing a 6.6% gap. Which you also blamed on gender discrimination against women.
6. I produced an article criticizing the research showing that the AAUW took averages between the earnings of male lawyers and female librarians amongst other mistakes they made. Besides the 6.6% is such a small number to claim discrimination over.
7. You are now claiming that the article I posted argues that the tiny gap is because of discrimination.

The way you are going, even if it was a 0.0000001% gap you will still blame it on gender discrimination. For instance, do you know that male clerks earn 4.8% less than their female counterparts? While in the food preparation industry, females earn 11% more than their male colleagues? Are we justified in saying that the reason for this is due to gender discrimination against men? I need you to try and think carefully.

frosbel: You meant to say , anony's bible disagrees with frosbel

My bible is 100% aligned with ONE God , not 3-gods which the Muslims rightly refer to as the Polytheism.

Lol, So Revelations 1:8 is not in your bible? What about Revelations 2:8? Jesus Christ is busy claiming to be God all over your bible. Closing your eyes and ears does not save you.

SNCOQ3: ^ explain love with logic.

NICE! POWERFUL QUESTION. I was going to ask DeepSight this question at some point but the conversation did not come around to it. A monadic God simply cannot be a God of Love.

frosbel: The Trinitarians can shout, Jesus is Almighty GOD for all eternity and until they are blue in the face, fact remains he is not and their position is false. Logic is not their friend this time around.

Hahahaha, your bible disagrees with you on this one sir.

fellis: But you were changing positions now. . . .na wa o. You said one thing in one post then said something else later. Then you were saying something about wage discrimination not being the norm as if I ever claimed it was the norm.

I have not changed position anywhere. You are the one adding absolute qualifiers like "entirely" and "dfinitely" to my comments.

By the way its good to know you think so highly of me.

Am I mistaken?

fellis: Next time try to express your point clearly. You should have said AAUW blamed part of the 7% on inability to negotiate, instead of saying AAUW blamed the 7% on inability to negotiate becausd the latter is a general statement. You don't have to include the word 'entire' in it to make it a generalization.

Interesting. Why then did you think it was necessary to include the word "entirely" in order to make your point. Surely you know that saying something in a general sense is not the same as saying something in an absolute sense.

striktlymi: It's quite an interesting read...

The underlying theme of the article for me is basically that Angels were created good but still have a choice to decide whether they remain all good or delve into the depth of badness.

According to the article there is nothing like being partially good or bad for Angels, just like it is for man because of the dictates of the flesh. An Angel becomes all good if it chooses to be good and all bad if it decides to be bad.

Though I still do not get what is meant by an Angel going below it's 'Estate' and 'habitat' as revealed in Jude's letter but I see two possible scenarios to this: 1) Some Angels chose to leave heaven for probably a place like Earth as revealed in Sacred scriptures; and 2) The Angels decision to disobey God, hence prompting the dismissal from it's abode.

Now, one thing the article failed to reveal is whether or not an Angel who chooses to be good, still has the capacity to say NO to God some time in the future.

Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to bring out here.

I'm afraid I am unable to answer the question in bold. It is beyond my knowledge

thehomer: Why didn't you simply answer "Yes" initially rather than answering some other question you set for yourself? Now how do you know that it is physically possible for it to be different?

Urhm, have you been paying attention at all or are you just unwilling to clarify what you mean by "physically possible".

Well let me continue answering what I think your question means: If you mean how do I know it is possible for space time and matter to behave differently? My answer is we know this because the physical constants that define the universe do not exist necessarily. For instance: The speed of light i.e. the speed of a photon moving in a vacuum can be different because we see particles moving at different speeds all the time and in different directions too. Another example is the rate of expansion of the universe. How do I know it can be different? Because I see things expanding at different rates all the time. There is nothing that stops the universe from expanding slower or faster than it currently is. So yes it is very possible to have an entirely different universe than we currently observe.

Energy can become matter and matter can become energy so under certain conditions, you can have energy without matter such as the early state of the universe.

Lol, really? and how do you know that it is energy that exists without matter? Did you measure it? or did you just label it "energy"?

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out to you that even the city that you're using as an example is actually designed since it has complex parts acting in a certain way. Or do you want to change your conception of design?

Lol, really? Have you ever been to a proper ghetto with buildings sprawled all over the place? Can you point out a specific pattern which the ghetto buildings follow?

I don't want to ask that. I want to know how one can make a decision without time as you say your "person" did.

Seriously? It appears you are not ready for any serious discussion then. To make choices, one needs alternatives. The fact that time is an alternative to timelessness as evidenced by the fact time itself has a beginning is proof that choice is possible outside time.

No you're not wrong because surprise surprise, you've not encountered a person without a body before. You can show that it is possible for a person to be a person without a body by just presenting an example of such a person. Sure you don't hold that a person needs a body but then my point is that such a belief isn't really justified. So, does the will exist before the person or does the person exist before the will?

Lol, this is interesting. You are saying that I am not justified to deduce the existence of a person based on ability to make choices because I haven't come across a material body. So I am not justified in thinking you are a person neither are you justified in thinking I am a person. The question of which exists first is irrelevant in my opinion. . .unless you are about to tell me why it is important to know which came first in order to know if a person has a will?
Secondly, because a will is attribute of person, your question kinda sounds like "Which came first liquid or wetness?" or "Which came first a circle or roundness?" Basically, your question is pretty meaningless to me but of course you can always explain why you are asking.

That's all I need to make my point here. Other features include sapience, social intelligence, memory etc. My point remains that they need a body and need to process intelligence in time. You seem to think otherwise so please show why you think otherwise.

My point is simple, it is the intelligence and the will that tells me that I have encountered a person and not a material body. It is the very same principle I am operating by in my conversations with you.

This is just another attempt at obfuscation. This does nothing to address the problems with your idea of being a person. All the people whether fictional or historical had fictional or actual bodies and made decisions in fictional or actual time. The person you're proposing neither has a body nor made a decision in time. Unless you think you're a metaphor, I see no reason why this list of people helps you.

No it isn't. The purpose I am asking you that question is because you claim that I am not justified in saying that person does not depend on the presence of a body. You also claim that God is only a metaphor used to explain nature i.e. a personification of events.
Since you cannot show that all the examples are indeed persons responsible for certain actions in history by showing their bodies, how do we know they aren't just metaphors used to explain historical/archeological stuff?
Secondly, you talk of fictional persons and fictional bodies. How do you know they are not merely metaphors used in story telling? How was it that you were able to tell the difference between persons in stories and other parts of the story that are not persons? Let me guess: the presence of willful actions perhaps?

Stop dancing around my friend.

striktlymi: Good morning Anony,

Thanks for keeping your promise...I guess I would have bugged you about it but didn't cause I followed that thread for a while and a lot of the questions I had were answered on that thread which proved to be quite insightful after the 'run around' with Thehomy.

Now, the only question that is left unanswered is: Why did the 'morning star' (Lucifer) commit sin? Image has provided an interesting perspective to the discourse....he believes that Lucifer did not sin in heaven but somewhere outside the divine majesty's abode i.e not inside heaven.

I was not satisfied with Image's perspective for two reasons: Angels live in heaven before the great battle and it was stated categorically in the book of Revelations that the 'battle' took place in heaven...

You and the others have provided plausible explanations to why man will not sin when he makes heaven i.e the flesh that is prone to sin will be discarded and the glorified body will be God's gift to man.

This is understandable in the sense that the flesh is Earthly and so is its desires while the glorified body is heavenly and so will be its desires.

But in the case of Angels there is no flesh to lead them to sin but Lucifer sinned all the same. What assurance do we have that what happened to Lucifer will not happen to some other Angel sometime in the future?

Sorry I decided to go back to my former id

It's good to have you back. The argument I'll make here is that we as humans are not the same kind of being as angels. I'll link you to an article here:

http://www.learnthebible.org/the-free-will-of-angels.html

Give it a read and let us discuss further.

fellis: That pleep is gay. I have never in my life seen a male do so much cheer leading and praise singing for another man.

fellis: Wow, I didn't even know it was so bad. The guy is simply unbelievable with the switching and twisting

and his boyfriend pleep is always there to support him regardless of what rubbish he writes.

This is just low coming from you.

In my experience, people usually begin to attack an opponent's character instead of his points when they start finding it difficult to make a rational argument.

Logicboy03: I have told you time and time again that Anony is a skilled liar. Dubious to the core.

The points have been made

1) Women did receive less payment for doing the same job as men due to gender
2) Lily ledbetter was discriminated against because of her gender and paid less.

The guy is just trying to lie his way out of the false position he took on women

Lol ad hominem has started showing up again. Someone's rational tank is beginning to run on empty. Go and read the post i linked you to. And please be sure to investigate the links provided.

My points have also been made

1. Women do not receive less payment for doing the same job as men due to gender
2. Lily's case is an outlier just as the Ventura case where it refused to hire male salespeople
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-18-11b.cfm

fellis: You DID say it. You said AAUW blamed the entire 7% gap on women's unwillingness to negotiate.

I did not say it was "entirely" the reason. Contrary to your accusation

fellis: Official report on what exactly? It was a report that showed average labour statistics. It wasn't a report on the size and cause of wage disparities in both genders so I don't know why you say I "reject the official report" as if that report and AAUW research were done for the exact same reason.

My point exactly. A research that sets out to find a specific result usually finds the the result it set out to find. I would rather trust a report that has no initial agenda in the matter.

You just keep bringing up links that don't make any difference in what we're saying. Sorry if it sounds like I am dismissive of your attempts to help but seriously. . . .
This is an excerpt from your link
Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination.

This is what happens when you look at things from your biased glasses and quote things out of context. Did you miss the part in red?

Even the author of your article said there is evidence of bias against women in the workplace and this is the reason why that wage gap may never go away.

What have you been smoking? I think I'll have to quote a longer passage here because it is either you don't understand what you are reading or you simply being dishonest.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

"In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. [size=14pt]The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers.[/size] Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

So basically the question I ask you is this: Are you seriously suggesting that a gap as small as 6.6 cents per dollar is really due to discrimination? Will you call it discrimination too if men earned 6.6 cents less than women? Or is equality to you only present if everyone earn the exact same amount? Please get realistic my friend.

The point you are also missing in your amnesia is that you started this wage gap discussion, pages back, by saying you had never seen a case where women got paid less because of gender and that women earning less was due to factors like unequal work hours, unequal risk taking and so on. I brought my AAUW finding up and told you that I was bringing it up because you said you had never seen cases of women getting paid less because of gender. Nowhere did I say I wanted to prove it was the norm, rather you were the one saying women were'nt getting less because of gender and now you've changed gears and you've started saying they get paid less because of gender but it isn't the norm.
Be consistent man.

I am being very consistent here. Women are not getting paid less because they are women. Isn't it interesting how the deeper we explore factors that actually affect pay, the more the so called wage gap shrinks?

basra: i know right, pleep is a dirty boy

So far the only dirty one I'm seeing is you. Anyway, I'm out of your business.

basra: pleep N i have u settled buisness. Plz stay out of it


i am gonna stick my joy stik in pleeps lips as they have been trained to swell up at the site of cokkk

Yuck!