₦airaland Forum

I'd like to know what the different e-banking services are that Nigerian banks offer. The purpose is to fully manage the accounts from abroad with a reasonable level of security (e.g. using digipass technology - www.vasco.com - or something similar).

There will be accounts in different denominations (Naira, Euro, USD) and moving money between these accounts should incur as little transaction costs as possible. I am also interested in the possibilities concerning Internationals transfers using the SWIFT system.

Are there any banks that offer that possibility in their online banking offers?

Hi RhodaRose,

I will answer to your post in detail, but I need some time to gather all my source material.

Regards

RhodaRose:
nferyn,

Bigot is associated with "by God" and "intolerance" which is a characteristic of God so I would be in good company...

I would not want to associate with anything intolerant. I tolerate all behaviour, as long as it is not harmful to anyone else.

RhodaRose:
I mostly responded with Scripture and I am sorry if it sounded hateful to you, it was not my intention. Please accept my sincere apology.
You have shown no hate toward me but toward my Creator and Father. I try always to honor my Father and defend His good Name, which I can't apologize for...

I accept your graceful apology. And I still do not understand how I have shown any hate toward God. You contradict yourself when you say:

RhodaRose:
My God is not imaginary in my mind but very real.
Yes, you are correct that you can not hate something you think is imaginary.

As for the fact that I believe, if there were a supreme being, it would be impossible to picture or understand for us with our limited cognitive capabilities (we already have big problems thinking in more than 4 dimension).

RhodaRose:
Why couldn't it be the Word of God just because it is rewritten and translated in "human" language?

Humans could not possibly understand the divine if there would be a supreme being. Even if you say:

RhodaRose:
No, our minds of flesh can not understand the divine, that is why the Holy Spirit of Truth was sent, as out Teacher of the Divine Truth of our Creator.

You are unfortunately engaging in self serving projection. How can we, with our limited abilities even think that the spirit (as a manifestation of the divine) is real. there is no way for us to know, except by relying on our own limited abilities

RhodaRose:
You have low expectations if you think this is "all there is" and there "ain't no more"...

No, there is just nothing that concretely points me to anything else. The divine is in the mere existence, which is already wonderfully improbable, we absolutely do not need to resort to anything else. When I meditate in a natural surrounding (e.g. on a mountain) , I can reach a state of absolute peace and tranquility that is immensely fulfilling. I become one with my surroundings and feel the divine (that's why I do have a pantheistic religious feeling, although it does not include an entity external from the natural world, it is [/b]the natural world)

RhodaRose:
This is just the "proving ground", this "planet", and the mere existence here is but a grain of salt in all the oceans of this earth compared to eternity.
The most important relationship we can have while on this earth is with our Father, the one and Only Creator of All.

Isn't that realisation wonderful enough in itself? Where's the need for an external force?

RhodaRose:
Jesus said:

Joh 20:29
... because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: [b]blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I have seen many miracles and many I have not seen but I am Blessed knowing they happen without my seeing them... HalleluYAH

That's exactly my problem. Following God as [i]revealed [/i]in the Bible would mean that I have to suspend my critical thinking, logic and cognitive abilities. I cannot in good conscience do that. If God gave me free will and he is all powerful, all seeing and perfectly good, he would damn me, even though I live a good and conscientious life, this is contrary to his properties.
In short: either God is all of the above and will accept me or he is not all of the above.

RhodaRose:
How can we discuss without imposing our belief on others?
and what is wrong with imposing our comfort on others?
This is love to comfort others...

You can, very easily. [i]layi [/i]for example does not impose anything on others. He defends his beliefs with vigour, but I have not ever seen him unappreciative of others or looking down on others. He has even shown me where I was almost descending to the level of insults and graciously accepted my apology. Since then I try to package my understanding in a non aggressive way.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against you trying to spread your message, as long as it is not force fed to others who are unable or unwilling to accept it. I am in no need of your comfort, but I do appreciate your concern. Just try to accept that fact and focus on the ones that are receptive. But do not tell me that I should not express my understanding or refrain from engaging in a debate.

RhodaRose:
Yes, believing does have a lot of explanatory power to explain things that have no natural explanation...so why do you expect us to explain and prove to you things that have no natural explanation? You won't believe until we prove it to you but there is no way to prove it to you because it defies natural explanations, therefore "Only Believe"

RhodaRose

I was talking about the psychological comfort the belief in a supreme being can offer. People ultimately need focus and purpose to get on with life. The fact the there ultimately is no such thing in the universe is discomforting and troubling to many. For these people, belief can help them keep sane. It can be hard for children to hear that Santa Clause does not exist and that there are no elves on the North Pole. I have the same feeling regarding theistic beliefs as parents have for their children's beliefs in Santa Clause.

Actually, I'm very serious. Get your pictures taken by a professional photographer and send your album to some agencies. You'll never know what happens.

Why do they always call Atheism a religion. It is no such thing. It is only a lack of belief in a God, nothing more, nothing less.

Queenzy, you must be a model. The camera loves you

Goodguy, my burden of evidence is simple and clear. Give me evidence that can withstand scientifical scrutiny and I will believe. If your story is true, then this is a miraculous healing. I'm not aware of anyone that healed from a broken spinal cord. How did those doctors confirm his spinal cord was broken. Have there been X-rays of his spinal cord to prove this?

Anyway, I am not telling anyone they should not believe. It obviously gives you people a lot of comfort and as long as you do not want to impose your belief on others, all is well. I am happy for you that you can believe, because that belief has got a lot of explanatory power for things that have no natural explanation. I can only say that I don't know in face of these things.

goodguy:
Nice talk, donnie.

If the Bible can be proven to be true, I believe that's enough proof to show that God exists. The story about the ark of Noah which was written thousands of years ago has actually been proven to be true. Traces of the same ark have been found by archeologists on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Goodguy, the story about the ark is blatantly false in all it's aspects, unless of course God decided to use the mechanism of evolution on steroids to come to our current biodiversity on earth (and then trick us into believing that the genetical clock points at millions of years of evolution instead of a few hundred years). He would also have had to temporarily suspend about any law of nature in existence to make the engineering of the ark (out of wood - there are not enough trees on earth to make that possible - and it could still not be structurally sound, actually no material is in existence to make such an ark possible) and the climatological conditions (more water available on earth that all of a sudden just disappeared after the flood) of the great flood at all possible.

The story of the ark is also present in very similar format in most of the religions of the Middle East (among them Mithraism of ancient Persia), this indicates that the flood was a local catastrophical event that happened about the time that a breach occurred between the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean and that for the communities on these shores, it looked as if the world is coming to an end (think about it as Katrina X 10.000 without our current technological protections)

So yours is a religion of fear?

donnie:
I actually gave you the Word- definition of 'fool'. If you want further explation, clarification, or references, simply say so.

You indeed gave your particular definition. This definition is not universally accepted, though.

donnie:
You had better look for another exclamation to use before you get into trouble for calling God's name in vain. He is no respecter of persons.

I shall see then. But as I have no bad or evil intent in what I'm doing, I need not fear.

donnie:
How can you call for an explanation of God saying you want logical answers and not quotes from scripture?

There have been people in the past (e.g. St. Augustinus & Thomas Aquinas) who claimed that they could logically prove the existence of God without resorting to scripture. On a metaphisical level, with the right assumptions, you can logically prove the existence of God. Obviously you need to share the same assumptions if you want to believe that..
See:
http://www.existence-of-god.com/
http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/ontological.php
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

and
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm (but this is just making fun of the proofs, not to be taken serious)

donnie:
Do you think you know more logic than God who gave you the brains that you have?

This is starting from the assumption that God exists and gave me brain. I do not follow that assumption, as there are more plausible, evolutionary explanations for the existence of my brain.

donnie:
Anyway, it takes God to reveal himself to you. If He hasnt yet done that its a pity 'because no amount of logical reasoning will.

To be carnally minded (sense ruled) is death (spiritual blindness and seperation from God). You cannot percieve the living God with your senses.

So in essence, you can neither prove nor disprove God. You can only disprove or prove a particular instance of God through study of his properties and comparing them with what's happening in the world.

layi:
How then do u proove the supernatural with logic? Its a worthless venture. Logic is a system of reasoning within the confines of nature. Supernatural is BEYOND nature and are events that puts us in awe. Logic can only explain a naturally occurin phenomenon. Only experience can proove the supernatural.

No it is not confined by the natural. You can apply logic to supernatural presmisses as well. There is nothing that can prove the supernatural as it operates outside our sphere of natural enquiry. It is very well possible that what is considered supernatural actually is very natural. the supernatural on the other hand is by definition outside the scope of natural evidence. Experience cannot prove anything. It can give you clues, but it cannot prove anything.

donnie:
It is the fool who says there is no God. God's definition of the fool is 'one who despises Godly councel'.

Putting a claim on the definition of the word [i]fool [/i]in the name of the Lord, are you? I do not despise Godly council. I do not and cannot despise what I do not believe to exist.

donnie:
I remember the testimony of Jessy Duplanatis. He said he was on board a plane some time ago and happened to be sitting next to an etheist. He tried sharing the gospel with him and he just wouldnt accept saying,"i don't believe in God"

Anyway, not too long after, the wings of the aircraft caught fire and there was consternation in the plane. Suddenly the etheist guy began to shout "oh God!". Jessy turned to Him and said, "shhh, don't call him, he dosnt exist; just relax and enjoy your death."

What a show of compassion. This is really metaphorically turning the other cheek, isn't it.
Anyway, I regularly use Jesus and God as an exclamation for surprise when I speak English, that does not make me a believer.
By the way, it's atheist, not etheist.

thx for your contribution, Donnie. You really helped the debate forward. Assertion is no evidence

sage:
I agree with you. Nigerian roads are much worse. Thieves, potholes, accident causing damaged cars left on the road for months,........................................ can't continue to name them.

When coming to Nigeria, I will [b]not [/b]drive myself. Even though I consider myself a reasonably good driver, I fear my instincts and habits would work against me on Nigerian roads.

Vongauche:
i find it hard to difficult to understand why people say there is no God. of course, there is an answer-the devil.

Your frame of reference is your religion. Step outside these boundaries, leave your passion and feelings for the subject behind. Only use logic to approach the evidence and you will understand.
Bringing in the devil is using a scapegoat for the failings of your own religion. The concept is just as meaningless as God, you only need it to reinforce your worldview. Otherwise God could not possibly be good.

Vongauche:
do u believe u just happened to be?

What are you trying to say here?

Vongauche:
evolution itself is a theory and therefore cannot be accepted wholeheartedly. Science justifies the existence of God.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact because populations of species changed over time. There is plenty of evidence for that.
A scientific theory is something very different from a theory as we use it in every day language. It is not a hunch in the least.

Stephen Jay Gould put it much more eloquently than I ever could:

n the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Vongauche:
Science justifies the existence of God.

How so?

@ wendytilda

Hey, countrywoman

I am not saying there is no possibility of a God, only it is not the God described in the Bible. If there is a God, he/she would never be so wicked and limited. The Bible is written to give the feeble minds of humans an understanding of the divine and is written, rewritten, translated, ... in human language, it cannot possibly be the word of God. It would be arrogance to the highest degree to even assume that our minds can understand the divine.

The divine is in the mere existence, in the relationships we have with each other and with this planet.

Vongauche:
Q: Do aliens really exist?

A: NO!


my question is why do they only seem to appear to westerners or people in developed countries?

How do you know for sure?

As an answer to your question: for the same reason that Nigeria is full of witches: the irrational ignorance of the population at large needs some sort of outlet

Vongauche:
But on a more serious note, what is the reason for your above-mentioned surgery? If there was a seemingly logical explanation and i was still a baby then why not? Unfortunately, I willnot be able to share "post-operative findings" with u as I will have no recollection of the event!

But then when you reach puberty and early adulthood, you see all your buddies enjoying themself tremendously with the girls, while you yourself always ask: what's the fuss about? Wouldn't you miss something?

Vongauche:
nferyn

1)
exactly, there are none. and there are no controlled test which prove that FEMALE CIRCUMSISION does decrease libido. Hence, my assumption of "no effect".

You cannot possibly make that assumption. The best you can do is say that you don't know. And as I put it in my last post:

Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy

Vongauche:
To pacify people who are still steeped in culture (and there are many) it can still be done provided the conditions I stated earlier are met.

Slavery also used to be steeped in culture. That does not make it something on which you should compromise. As I stated earlier:

Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy

Vongauche:
2) sensation: circumcised and uncircumcised women both have heightened sensation during intercourse. The question of who has more, is impossible to answer as it subjective.

You can operationalise this if you use a large enough sample in the population and normalise for other external influences. It is inter-subjective and thus you can have a meaningfull debate about it.

Vongauche:
3) analogy: there has to be at least some partial similarity between the parts described for it to be an analogy. it could be identical and or the same. the clitoris and the ear have no similarity whatsoever.

There is sufficient similarity, both are organs of perception, for which decreased ability does not render them useless.

Vongauche:
4) YES! we are both arguing using the same stick. You say I haven't brought evidence to the fact that libido is not affected. And I also say that you have not broought evidence to the fact that libido is affected except the fact that assumption that it has "millions of nerve endings" and the assumption that libido must therefore be affected.

1. I wasn't talking about libido here. I was talking about the physical pleasure one derives from sex., which [b]is [/b]affected by the practice.
2. I do not need to bring evidence. As I stated earlier:

Harming the integrity of the human body needs strong positive indicators for the good. In the absence of these indicators, inaction is the correct strategy

Vongauche:
5) much more than libido: with my earlier stated "OK conditions", trauma is non-existent because the girl is a baby. hygiene has also been dealt with. at this point in time, i cannot see any other factors which need to be considered. an extremely male approach to the question? maybe, afterall, I am male. Yes so are you but forgive me as i'm not blessed with your open-mindedness. as for pleasure, I have already dealt with that at the beginning of this post.

So you are not interested in the pleasure a women gets from sex? I do not see where exactly you have dealt with that.

Vongauche:
6) "but why?": I have not ignored IAH and goodguy's comments. I responded to both even if tacitly. The most you can accuse me of is skirting around. And i will answer the question directly; the purpose, form the eyes of those for it i.e. those who hold strong cultural beliefs is that it discourages promiscuity. I WILL NOT go into whether it is effective or not. My concern is preserving the culture beliefs of such people while not debasing womanhood. Finis!

So that's a strong enough reason for you to continue with this? Harming the bodily integrity of women, of baby girls, just to satisfy an imaginary need? A need of whom exactly? On top of that, you would need to show evidence that it is not debasing womanhood.

Vongauche:
PS
I know that there are others on here who are not wholly against female circumcision. please give your opinions. I don't need re-inforcements you give the impression to the indifferent observer that those against female circumcision are right. Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction!

If you could show me a significant proportion of the educated females that are in favour of this practice, then you might have an argument. After all, it's the women that need to decide about themselves, not the men deciding for them.

Kismat, I must say that I always appreciated the input of the few muslims on this board. At least you bring the debate on an intellectual level and do not have to use insults to bring your point of view to the table. I am currently reading an introductory book on the history and doctrines of Islam to increase my knowledge of your religion.

May peace be upon you

@ RhodaRose

Apparently you have no problem being a bigot or am I misreading you?

Please indicate to me where I have shown any hate? Why do you have to respond to my [i]perceived hate [/i]with real hate yourself?
Time after time again true believers need to call anyone who does not agree with their position as hating God or Jesus. I do not hate God, just as I do not hate the tooth fairy. Both are imaginary creatures from my point of view and even mentioning the word hate is ridiculous, hate is nowhere to be found in my mind.

@ RhodaRose

You know what I find remarkable. I can have an honest, open, courteous and friendly debate with layi, who is also a strong believer, while you have to use the lowest of rhetorical tricks to approach my debating points. I would very much like to get to know [i]layi [/i]personally when I will be visiting Nigeria, as we - despite our differences - can probably be friends. I have no illusions of the venom you would throw at me if we were to meet

Think about is, who personifies the spirit of Jesus more, [i]layi [/i]or you?

You're at insulting people again and thinking you're doing God's work?

RhodaRose:
Gods' definition of "fool"

Ps 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

1. How do you decide that God said that?
2. How are they corrupt? Define corrupt and point to the instances at which they are corrupt
3. What abominable works? Describe them. Why are these works abominable?
4. How do you know that they did no good? What do you define as good and how do you conclude that none doeth good?

RhodaRose:
God even said it twice so you would hear:

Ps 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good

Ps 92:5-6
O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.

A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.

Need I say more...

RhodaRose

5. brutish: how so? Describe the instances of being brutish?

Your debating style is not conductive of intelligent discourse. It's a lot of assertions, backed up by no real evidence, wrapped in insults and refusing any questioning of it's basic premises. It is the debating style of an ignorant biggot.

Both my parents were raised as Roman Catholics, but they left the church and both are weak atheists. I have never been raised in a religious home and never felt the need for any origin story that is not firmly rooted in evidence. I'm absolutely puzzled by the fact that intelligent human beings can believe in a supreme being as described in any of the holy books by the 3 main monotheistic religions. You can logicly arrive at the possible existence of a first mover (deistic position), but a theistic deity is a logical and scientifical impossibility.

How come you assume that I'm delusional. What evidence do you have that you are not the one deluding yourself? Have you ever honestly pondered on that possibility?

I take the only possible logical position by assuming that before believing in a God, I need firm, conclusive evidence of his existence.

If you're addressing me, I'm still open to your arguments.

Now, assuming there is an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God that gave me free will. Why would that God give me the cognitive abilities to interpret the world around me, not leave me any solid evidence of his existence and allow countless bad things to happen to the world?
Considering these premisses, being limited in my abilities, living life to the best of my abilities, doing good when I have the opportunity, I do not see anything that conclusively leads to evidence of his existence.
Why would that God not accept me, why would he lead me to the torment of hell?

If God would allow me to go to hell, he would be self-contradictory.

layi:
Methinks those 2 quotes are contradictory. First you would believe if there was proof of an external force intervening. Yet u still say , in such instance, we shoulnt attribute them to an external force but such say we don't know. What proove do you need them? You want to see GOD face to face?

No, they're not contradictory. in the first instance, I would not exclude the possibility of an external force intervening. This would be a first step toward proof.
Now if you want to know whether or not a God exists, you need to start by defining the attributes of God and from these attributes, you define the attributes (or combination thereof) that uniquely defines God. Evidence to these unique attrutes is evidence of the existence of God.

layi:
I meant- Is there any scientific finding that suggest that there was no beginnin of existence (animate or inanimate). Do science believe in existence ad infinitum (FROM INFINTY)?
If life according to some scientists evolve from inanimate objects on d 2nd and third plane (atoms, particles etc), where do this objects originate from? Someone Triggered existence and thats GOD who lives outside Time.

Beginning or existence are just concept that our feeble minds use to describe events in the space-time continuum. We see things linearly, because our mind is conditioned to do so. We just don't know, people are trying to twist reality to fit their perceptive or cognitive framework. E.g. it is hard for us to imagine how bats see using sound. Our sensory organs are not equiped to do so and our cognitive pathways are not equiped to model it..
You could also say that existence just is. And if you're pushing this linear thinking to it's logical conclusions, what then created God. If nothing did, you're just adding another layer of redundant noise to your understanding of things.

babagana:
nferyn, the question still remains- why is it that safety measures are not taken seriously when it comes to flying in Nigeria? the authorities concerned are not taking it seriously, the passengers are denied the right to even have knowledge of what state the planes they are embarking on are, untill some thing happens and their relations are told stories ranging from cows in the runway to missing blackbox. do you understand now why flying in Nigeria is a bit different?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the lack of maintenance. But even given these problems, flying is still by far the safest mode of transportation.

layi:
U expect a human to walk through a wall to believe in GOD. Is the human GOD? GOD isnt a clown. His actions albeit supernatural are usually rational because its always to better someones life not some useless circus or magical shows.

No, I just give an example of something that is so improbable that it would lead me to conclude that a force exists that escapes natural laws, i.e. a God.
Just give me examples of these rational actions that you can uniquely attribute to a God (absence of evidence to the contrary does not count, I'm talking about positive evidence)

layi:
Science discoveries only show how GOD made us. Scientists are yet to proove that there was no beginning.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, layi. Can you explain?

layi:
I have seen a woman without a womb give birth. A lot happen even in the medical field (where i belong) that are beyond doctors. Read books by 1 of the world's best Neurosurgeons- Ben Carson and u'll be more enlightened. The fact remains that most athiests explain out the existence at every instance. A lot are irrational about their rationality. Even if i show u a scan of the woman's reproductive viscera, you'll probably waive it off as a faulty machine or that d womb is probably somewhere or some other organ took over the function. You just wont believe.

No, layi, I will believe if you show me positive, conclusive evidence. How come no skeptic to date has been convinced? The burden of proof they expect is not insurmountable, it is exactly what you would expect of scientific evidence. Anecdotes are no evidence.

One thing more about the medical field: it is applied science. It's relation to biology is similar as that between engineering and physics. Fundamental knowledge from biology gets applied in medicine. The further our biological knowledge reaches, the more we can explain phenomena doctors have to deal with. And, as the Russion theologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

It is indeed a fact that some organs (I use the term loosely here) are readopted to perform a function they did not evolve to perform before. there are countless examples of that in people with brain damage, where certain parts of the brain are re-adapted to perform the function of the part of the brain that got damaged. Obviously this can only happen to a certain degree. I cannot see a woman without a womb giving birth to a healthy child.

layi:
There are numerous cases of such happenings around but u see them only if u want to because people believe only what they want to believe. JUST A VISIT FROM GOD WOULD CHANGE UR THINKING. He prolly hasnt paid that visit because he knows you wont acknowlegde him as GOD.

This is circular reasoning. I'm open to all experiences as long as they meet the burden of proof you would require for scientific findings. In general ascribing a phenomenon you cannot otherwise explain to a divine intervention is sloppy reasoning. You should just say that you don't know. This [i]God of the gaps [/i]argument is losing more and more appeal, as more and more of these gaps are being filled with scientific knowledge. the God of the gaps is an ever shrinking being.

Swish:
you ladies are want to be at par with men but that wasn't how it was meant to be. Supportive role: that the role of women...

Make a convincing argument for this ridiculous statement. If you cannot, you are nothing but an ignorant biggot. But obviously intelligence is not something you value very much.

Swish:
hehe ...yeh i will divorce my wife but that'll be if all methods of persuading her to change her mind on that has failed. And no i'm not threathened by smart woman...but a woman has no place in government

If that is your position, you are not worth marrying a woman, any [/i]woman for that matter. Again it seems that you are incapable of presenting a coherent argument in support of your statement that [i]a woman has no place in government