₦airaland Forum

@tunnytox,

Lol, thank you for attempting to address my concerns. I sense a deep need in yours to defend your own MOG - and I have no problem with that. But you sound more like someone who is doing so at any cost than what is essentially greed and nothing else. Let me show some:

tunnytox:
1. How many people have you given 750 naira today?

This is none of your business, you are arguing out of context

No, I was not arguing out of context - it is my business because the $4.99 is operated openly as a public promotion (p.p.) and not a private practice (p&p). Adeboye and all those helping his merchandising are seeking to promote their greed - and rather than try to defend it, you should be encouraging him to give it out freely. It is not beyond a man who can ride a jet to also provide such material freely to the public.

tunnytox:
2. Is it only when it comes to buying Adeboye's merchandise that N750 is debated?

I welcome constructive criticism but this particular one is baseless

It is constructive criticism I was presenting - that's why I recommended free distribution to interested people for two basic reasons: (a) many people develop free apps - Adeboye's recruits can do the same; and (b) it is not too much or even suicidal for Adeboye & Co. to make such apps free to the public - he rides a jet on other people's money. You only say something is baseless because you cannot deal with it.

tunnytox:
3. Adeboye has a jet already - why does he want to squeeze you dry out of N750?

How do you know this can you give any proof? this is what I am saying if you ppl have a personal score to settle with pastor Adeboye that's fair enough but don't say what you don't know or can't back up with any proof

You want "proof", or you're the only errand town-crier who does not know what his greedy master is doing? Here are a few - knock yourself out:

[list][li][url=http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04//indexn2_html?pdate=250309&ptitle=Pastor%20Adeboye]Guardian Newspapers Online[/url] ::: Pastor Adeboye's private jet[/li][/list]

[list][li]BBC News ::: 'Despite its wealth, his Redeemed Christian Church of God bought for him a jet aircraft to ease his travels in the cause of evangelism only recently.'[/li][/list]

[list][li]ThisDay Online ::: Redeemed Church Acquires N4bn Aircraft (need a subscription to view article)[/li][/list]

I don't have a personal score with Adeboye - and the examples above are a few sources affirming the jet adventures that he is happy to condone.

tunnytox:
4. When has Adeboye thought of giving anything free to the world?
how do you know that Adeboye don't give to people he obviously can't provide for every one even Bill gates can't, don't talk about what you have no idea about

I did not ask him to provide for every one like Bill Gates; and you cannot argue that Adeboye has anything from his own pocket to give anybody. What has he personally from his own pocket bestowed upon any person other than money that he first received from people like you who defend his greed?

tunnytox:
5. Has the Gospel now become a merchandise that you're defending Adeboye's greed?

this is a malicious statement don't describe people as a greed when you obviously have little or no knowledge/information about the person. its called GOSSIPS!!

Oh shat up! Many people who know more than viaro does about Adeboye have exposed him enough already. I'm not being malicious, but after I joined Nairaland and saw how many threads were openned in his 'honour', I started reading up about him from other sources. If you want to know Adeboye - the 'real' Adeboye - please ring my number: you may be shocked about the things I have come to know, and then I want to see how you can defend such kinds of things under the title of 'man of God'.

Krayola:
Wrong cloud? or Closer to madness?

Hehe. .  I'm beginning myself to catch the mad-flu. Need my meds, enjoy.

Krayola:
[quote author=mazaje link=topic=407380.msg5621323#msg5621323 date=1267633479]And what is the origin of morality?

---

www.nairaland.com/attachments/239519_GOD_jpg2552cf400eec4c0228e1dc2248e0b701[/quote]^^ You're getting closer, bro.

mazaje:
And what is the origin of morality?

Everyone has his or her subjective inference to that question - the theist as well the atheist. I believe morality did not originate entirely from matter on its own; and only intelligence in living beings could be responsible for the trace back to origins of any morality. Again, that is just my subjective view - it does not mean it answers the question in its entirety satisfactorily.

davidylan:
err i thot the hadiths where subordinate to the quran?

Well, dave my good man, you know how they put it across between times!
Nothing is static in that worldview, so we may prolly allow 'time' to change everything!

Time is limited.

You won't be seeing me quote that to him, though
. . . afterall, they say that 'procrastination is the thief of _____'. Oh well.

Krayola:
haha. An agnostic, IMO, does not seek to make assertions about the objectively unverifiable. He/she just observes the madness 

My good man, welcome to the madness. There's a saying that if you hang around for long enough, you become part of what you observe!

mazaje:
I will refer to morality as codes of conduct or social and cultural mores that differentiates between right and wrong in every human society. Morality MUST be learnt, it evolved and is still evolving.

The point is that morality didn't come from thin air. The question of morality evolving is a moot point - we all know that no moral ethic remains rigid through history. The basic questions are not the evolving ethics, but their origin.

mazaje:
If you make a claim that you can't prove how then do you expect any body to take you seriously?

So, how do you want anybody to take the atheist who claims there is no God?

Krayola:
An atheists claims "there is no God" because theists can't prove there is one. A more honest and accurate claim, IMO, would be "I don't believe a God exists". For you to go on and make conclusions that you can not show to be correct, IMO, certifies u as DELUDED!! How do you plead?

An agnostic pleads neither here nor there - a most deluded free-lance position, IMO. If you show me the empirical evidence of any free-lancer, you're still pleading delusion. So, how do you plead??

mazaje:
Life is treating me good. Thanks

Good to know.

What do you call some one who believes in things that are not true but keeps saying that they are true?

It all depends - whether what he or she says is either subjective or otherwise untransferable. It is either one has to take their subjective views on the premise of their subjectivity, without trying to argue that their own experience is "not true" simply because we don't want it to be true; or otherwise, realise that their claims are not transferable and so are subjective. I'm only responding in terms of the concerns of your OP.

I KNOW so many theist that really really believe that atheist are immoral and evil(I have argued with them a couple of time before).

Jesoul has helped to contextualise your concerns - and we note that "so many" and "some" does not equate to a default of "ALL". You should be expecting a bill (make it two, mine first before hers, hehe). Anyways, seriously. . . your experience is not peculiar, because I often meet up with some of my atheist friends who have just about the same attitude to theists as you described.

I was once a theist before and I have attended religious programs where clerics openly gloat and encourage people to believe in god because that belief will help them lead moral lives and castigate unbelievers for their unbelief which leads to immoral lifestyle, in fact believers are often advised to stay away from unbelievers because they are walking embodiment of lust, crime and all kinds of wrong doing. There are so many theist who believe that atheist are immoral. That is a FACT and since their beliefs can NOT be supported at all with any evidence, I will not be wrong if I call them deluded, because they really are.

Well, the argument or assertion of a few should not be translated as default with all. I could also enlist the same things and worse coming from atheists, but what use would it be here? The point is that using the arguments of a few for your default position is not quite helpful - others also might use the same type of arguments for the behaviour of atheists: and then where do we go from there?

What else will you call people that keep making conclusions that are wrong and still feel they are right? I call them deluded. And its TRUE. . . . . .

Hehe. . . on both sides of the pitch, we have 'em many deluded, if you ask me. But that does not make it any "true" for either of us, if we are applying across board!

^^ hehe . . . most of us know what an app is, and we know there are so many people who develop different kinds of apps everyday and give them entirely free! It is only Adeboye's app that is defended with a fee - like it would hurt him if he also gave free apps for his merchandise!

DBR:
Really the quran says that?
Wow~~that's deep!
So when pple and moslems included say things like:

-time is not on my side
-your time is wrong
-im runnin out of time
-time is never enough
- your time is bad or
-told u time and time again
-it's a bloody waste of time
-no african time
-time table
-time keepers (must be the closest to alah then)
-lunch time~~or
-just thinking how Time bomb came to be
That wld mean~~~wowwwwww thats some joke there
oNe

Hehe. . . I once asked the muslim guy who told me that Allah is time, whether that is what the Quran says. He did not give me a quranic verse, but pointed me to some verses in the hadith. (of course, I did not refer to 'Time' as "a heck of a time" or "a bloody waste of time", - I just let him say what he had to say. . . and you probably know why).

Hello mazaje, . . how's life treating you?

mazaje:
Why do theist believe that they are more moral than non theist? Is there ANY evidence to show that human's get their morals from any deity?. . . .I say this because theist keep deluding themselves into thinking that they have some moral superiority above non theist. They have this deluded and ridiculous belief that atheism = evil and that being religious= being a good person. I have my reasons for their behaviour but I just want to listen to the opinions of others. . . . . . .

Don't you think that the atheist who thinks others are deluding themselves is himself actually showing his morality? What is morality anyway? How does your morality spring from anything other than atheism?

The way I see it, it does not take a particular worldview to say that others are deluded. Both theists and atheists continue to trade this kind of comments against one another - and at the end of the day, the real issues are not actually looked at. I think everyone is just trying to give his or her position a soothing balm when they slag off others as deluded or ridiculous (and yes, I have seen quite a lot of atheists congratulating themselves on the notion that they are smarter, brighter, better, etc., while theists in their view are all deluded and ridiculous - or even worse). The party never ends.

Hello MyJoe,

Actually, I had signed out of this thread to leave karo93 to believe whatever he wants to believe. My replies are simply out of geniality in deference to you, and that's why anyone would read from me in this thread once more.

MyJoe:
As I tried to make clear in my earlier post, and will do again presently, this is hardly in contention.

Oh there! That simple issue (that Jesus is God) was what I had wanted to deal with - and it is the direct opposite being argued by the OP in his topic in saying: "Biblical Quotes Proving That Jesus Is Not God". If you do not contend that Jesus is God, that should suffice - I have not tried to make Jesus anything other than what is declared in Scripture.

I, too, acknowledged the above as a biblical position. What is in contention, as I understand it, are (1) Whether Jesus is equal with God (2) Whether the holy spirit is a person. 1 is what I have concerned myself with here. He is to be worshipped according to the Bible but not placed on the same level as the Almighty. This is the issue.

I don't suppose I had placed you on the same level with karo93. Besides, I think that any question about (2) has been summarised beautifully in post #31. If you acknowledge that Jesus is God, and hold that as a Biblical position, there doesn't seem to be any further issues that we should get too involved with on that.

This is where the Trinity doctrine gets really murky. My uncle, also named Joe, used to tell me something when I was a kid. Chewing on a piece of kola-nut and emphasising his point with a finger, he would hold my shoulder and go, "You know, MyJoe, if anything is not clear to you, know that there is wayo in it."  Not saying there is wayo here, but just emphasising how muddy this business gets when someone tries to explain it as you do above.

Could I emphasize (without chewing kolanuts like uncle Joe) that viaro's position on the Trinity is as stated earlier: "The Trinity is a mystery that even metaphysics cannot adequately capture in words." There is no (wayo) or whatever in that statement; and because it is a mystery, no "explanation" that I can think of will even come close to capturing its essence in words. This is why I often leave those who want to argue all day on the Trinity (and yet do not know there is a huge difference between that and tritheism). What interests me more is whether Jesus is God, and what the implications in worship would be. If He is not God, then why worship Him?

No, I am not mixing up issues. The issues are as I stated above. And the thread is about Trinity and the Bible.

No sir - the thread is clear: Re:"Biblical Quotes Proving That Jesus Is Not God And The Absence Of The Trinity". On that basis, following my previous entries I then asked: "why do those who argue against the Deity of Christ also acknowledge that He is to be worshipped? Does that even make sense to them in the body of all their arguments?"

I think their problem is that they refuse to accept that anyone is equal to God. In my earlier post I highlighted the fact that Christ is assigned a unique role in the scheme of things in the Bible. In that role, he qualifies for worship but is not equal to God, whom he himself also worships as his God. Let me try again:

Sorry, that is not the Bible you're arguing, lol. I have heard a zillion and one things about this talk of "unique role" and yet not many who appeal to such quips are able to unravel what they mean by such. The two questions are simply these - (a) the assumption of  whether or not Christ was created by God at anytime; and (b) whether worship could be rendered to a created being in the same way as the Father [John 5:23].

Those two questions are still unanswered, and it seems we're looking away from them and veering to other things.

Here is man in relation to Jesus: worship and adoration (though not the same given to the Almighty)
John 20:28 (NIV)
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

And here is an example showing that the very same and equal worship that ALL CREATION render to the Almighty is the same worship that is given to Jesus Christ:

     'And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth,
      and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying,
     Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power,
     be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. "
     (Rev. 5:13).

The TOTALITY OF CREATION renders the same equal worship to both (a) "him that sitteth upon the throne"; and (b) "the Lamb" who is none other than the Son of God.

And here is Jesus in relation to the Father: unqualified worship and adoration
Mark 10:17-18 (NIV)
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
John 14:1 (NIV)
1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God[a]; trust also in me.    (Note: God, then me. Two entities, one superior to the other.)
John 8:42 (NIV)
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
John 20:17 (NIV)
17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I have discussed this issue at some point - see my reply to DeepSight who misquoted Mark 10:18 in this other thread.

Conclusion: Jesus is not equal to God

That concludes nothing. If Jesus is not Deity, then the idea that He is to be worshipped is cosmetic talk.

[quote author=la_vivi link=topic=403867.msg5619625#msg5619625 date=1267618964]lol, i am finding difficult not to believe that jesus is God.[/quote]Don't worry - you will find how he will help you begin to easily deny that one as well.

karo93:
@viaro
You did not get me and i am sorry for not stating it well
i meant that what you chipped in was not there

It does not matter now. To say that it was not there is a denial - and that was why I quoted the verse in whole to show that it is there.

I am sorry, but you penchant to deny what is in front of you is why I no longer wish to take you seriously. No offence, but I have no interest to feed your constant denials.

Joagbaje:
Ignorance is not absennce of knowledge but but willful rejection of knowledge. Since you have decided to stick to your guns by willful rejection of knowledge , there is no point trying to make you see. I cant argue a man into truth.

Ignorance is not the "willful rejection of knowledge", but rather the absence of knowledge. If you were ignorant, it would have been easier for you to understand and grasp the things which have been shown you; but you willful rejection to argue vacantly otherwise shows that you're stuck on your WOF propaganda and not ready to consider anything else.

The truth I shared on nairaland were bible truth. the scriptures are there for you to verify. If you dont understand still, it is not a problem ,but entering the error using abusive words is uncalled for. If you dont agree with it ,study more and review your theology or just leave the matter. Christ is not the second name for Jesus, It means the anointed one.

What I shared came from the Bible - and according to Matthew 24 and 1 John 2:22, you qualify yourself as a deceiver and a liar - words which were used in those texts to describe those who fulfill those things against themselves. Your issue is not with viaro - you can consult the authors who used those words to warn us against those who go about claiming that they are "Christ".

If anyone is trying to be false here , sorry to say , you are. How can you say matt 24 is about the church ,when Jesus clearly said he was talking about tribulation erra. You even deny the bible.

I do not deny the Bible; nor was I being false. I have shown that even the apostles treated His message with all seriousness that they warned the Church with similar teachings. That was why I quoted 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 13-15 and 2 Peter 2:1-3. Did those read to you like I was quoting from outside the Bible?

We should learn to take scriptures fo what it says. I never cease to back up my sayings with the relevant scriptures , Paul himself called the Christian "Christ" .

Please show me where Paul called the Christian "Christ".

Jesus has given us his glory, We are not trying to claim what is not ours. He never taught anywhere that there will be false Christ in the church or to the church , The false christs were for israel as a nation during tribulation of israel. In the Church ,there could only be false apostle, teachers and false brethren .

The teaching of the endtimes cover the Church age as well. Not only did the apostles warned Christians to be on the watch against the sort of damnable heresy you bring, they also took Jesus' warning seriously and reminded us to be constantly on the watch against the sort of things you argue for. That is why in addition to false apostles, false teachers, and false brethren, they also warned us against "deceitful workers" who transform themselves to be apostles of Christ with the message of "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4, 13-15).

Deep Sight:
Of course i fully expect that you should have nothing to say when your hyposcrisy is exposed. . .

Getting all antsy over a non-exclusive claim by the WoF to association with divinity - which is CLEARLY borne out by your own scripture of jewish myths and legends. . .

I was not getting antsy or artsy; and as regards having nothing to say, I already addressed your concerns here. None of the WOF can point to any verse in the Bible showing that they can claim to be "whatever Christ is" - other than affirming themselves to be both deceivers and liars (Matt. 24:4-5, 11 & 24, and 1 John 2:22). If your WOF propangandists would like to stand up to those verses, please give them a call - I'd be quite delighted to smart you and them all up together.

Yet failing to see how COMICAL it is that YOU, the accuser, are guilty of worshipping a jewish man and shamelessly calling him, a proven mere mortal, ALMIGHTY GOD. . .

I did not accuse you of anything, other than wrapping up your fundamentalist attitude to Christian beliefs. You never settle down to discuss anything with any spect of intelligence other than appealing to "any resemblance" that can do your job for you. This is why I guess the resemblance in "deism" should also help us refer to you as a "dark deist", or "deistic taoist luciferian" or yet "satanic deist" - afterall, the resemblance would simply be "deist" and all would be just fine for your small world, yes? You'd be a most rabid hypocrite if you deny that "resemblance", if all you have been doing here is wave your fallacies in our faces.

I am yet to think of a heretical delusion more sinister than that.

Yes, please describe yourself - it adds up to your CV.

karo93:
@viaro
rom.9.5-, christ came,who is over all, not GOD over all

The Bible does not say what you have asserted there in that verse - Romans 9:5 does not say "christ came,who is over all, not GOD over all". Denying what the Bible says is the hallmark of a cultist. I shall only quote the verse Roman 9:5 and leave you to deny it if you want to show yourself to be a cultist camouflaging as a Christian.

[list]'To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.' - [ESV][/list]

[list]'whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen' - [Young's Literal Transl., YLT][/list]

[list]'The forefathers are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen' - [HCSB][/list]

I'm not going to sit here entertaining you denying Scripture and pretending to be seeking any discussion. You already know what you want to believe - so stay on that adventure.

tunnytox:
How much is even $5 in Nigeria context its just about 750 naira tell me what can 750 Naira do for you in Nigeria of today, and obviously people can borrow each other or buy a printed version which is very much cheaper.

It is more blessed to give than receive (Acts 20:35).

1. How many people have you given 750 naira today?

2. Is it only when it comes to buying Adeboye's merchandise that N750 is debated?

3. Adeboye has a jet already - why does he want to squeeze you dry out of N750?

4. When has Adeboye thought of giving anything free to the world?

5. Has the Gospel now become a merchandise that you're defending Adeboye's greed?

6. What is next in the line-up of Adeboye's merchandising?

7. Why do you guys under his 'merchandising spell' never see through his greed?

8. How much did it cost Christ to open the heavens for humanity - $4.99 USD??

9. Will Adeboye lose eternal life if he gives his merchandise free and follow Christ?

10. Who commissioned Adeboye to collect "gate fee" for entrance to heaven?

"The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief" - Job 24:14.

[quote author=la_vivi link=topic=403867.msg5619164#msg5619164 date=1267613653]well you are right, what am saying is there are more clarifed answers than others. Those deductive answers may have some errors either to suite one's interpretation or dogmas. Examples '' my father is greater than me(do we need to apply logic to derive the meaning?) again 'there is one God and mediator than man Jesus. It's simply and clear'. Anyway you are doing a good job.[/quote]True, just as you don't need any logic to understand the plain statements of John 1:1 (the Word was God) and Revelation 19:13 where Jesus' Name is called "the Word of God".

Nor do we need any logic to see plainly that Romans 9:5 specifically refers to Christ as God ("the Christ who is God over all", ESV). Do we need any logic to derive the meaning in that also?

If you want to throw out all forms of reasoning (deductive, logic, etc) then be willing to accept those verses without logic or deductions as well. You cannot argue for logic in some when it suits one side of an argument, and then refuse the same application of logic when it does not suit the argument you like.

Krayola:
haha. Monsieur deepsight. How na? Remember when I said any semblance would do? Now gas to solid = spiritual to physical, abi? or what do u mean by tangible from intangible?

You guys will not kill me with laughter!

InesQor:
I'm sorry, viaro. I was only joking. Take care.

Lol, I knew you were just teasing, so no offences there.

thehomer:
For me the rejection of Werner Gitt's whole information theory project against evolution, by the scientific community as pseudoscience and pseudomathematics is enough for now since I don't have the time now to go digging through his works and digesting them and then start trying to prove him wrong.

The 'scientific establishment', we all know, is highly politicized these days. Anyone may talk about the "scientific community" rejecting this and that as pseudoscience and pseudomathematics - but even in the field of evolution itself, most of the celebrated works are pseudoscientific - an example: memetics. I like the way this is discussed in Wikipedia:

[list]Memetics is an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept that units of information, or "memes", have an independent existence, are self-replicating, and are subject to selective evolution through environmental forces.^[59] Starting from a proposition put forward in the writings of Richard Dawkins, it has since turned into a new area of study, one that looks at the self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics. Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience on several fronts.^[59] Its proponents' assertions have been labeled "untested, unsupported or incorrect"[/list]

The funny thing here is that the "scientific establishment" celebrates such pseudosciences because it helps their politics, not because there is any scientific support for it. But all that is another matter entirely and should not distract us here on the subject of information.

The thing here is for you to show any 'information' that comes from 'non-information'. It has nothing to do with digging up Dr. Werner Gitt's arguments against evolution - that would be as much as appealing to the fallacies of evolution highpriests (like Richard Dawkins) who like to wave their own pseudosciences in a celebrated fashion. Not even Dawkins himself in his memetics of "cultural information transfer" has demonstrated how information comes from non-information - care to dig on that one as well?

All three are used in arriving at scientific facts.

Not all are used in the same way, nor are the results a clone between themselves.

When I say testable by science, I mean phenomena that are observable, testable and/or logical.
So does the God you wish to prove do anything here on earth for/to humans?

It does - I already pointed out that I would like to approach my subject by LOGIC - particularly epistemic logic in propositional logic or metaphysical philosophy. Choose your poison and let's see you discuss your naturalism within the matrix of that kind of logic. You notice I have recently stayed on just this one question offered you by toba about information coming from non-information. I still don't see how you have demonstrated that you know what you want to argue, and that's probably why I feel we should not waste our time arguing back and forth where you don't know how to approach a subject.

Victor Stenger an informed atheist disagrees too. He is also a philosopher.
Check here. http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20020426-9999_mz1c26proof.html

Dude, don't kid yourself. Stenger did NOT discuss anything about metaphysics, nor did he even look in that direction at all. I like the fact that the article summarises for me that he was "like preaching to the choir". What philosophy of reality did he even mention in that article?

Hehehe. . thehomer, you're just quite simply floundering.

thehomer:
In that example, you've been given several other pointers; the referral to Mt. Everest, the measurement given as height, etc.
Now consider that all you were given was "8848". No units, nothing linking it to being a mountain. Would you consider this as data or information?

Yes. Why? Because the link you provided quite clearly said that 'the height of Mt. Everest is generally considered as "data".' It is not the conversions to any form of unit that makes it 'information'; rather, it is still information that is called data - that is why that link notes that the height is generally considered as data. You may have a problem with that - but then you would be arguing against your own link, not mine.

How about "1989" what do you make of it without my adding anything else to it?

It is still data as information at its most basic abstraction.

[table]
[tr][td]

Oh yes discrete data points are meaningless. You need groups of data to make anything out.

Did you thehomer actually say that?!?[/td][td][img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NHvBLj3HoFFpwM:http://1.bp..com/_A2D2m8pAw58/SdqT223dI3I/AAAAAAAAA-U/Bp5k4QkFxYE/s320/irritated.jpg[/img][/td][/tr][/table]

Since you have taken it to a level of applicability (discrete data), let me help bring you round once more in looking at it with a few examples of areas of applications:

(1) Data ~ 'pieces of information, especially those that are part of a collection to be used in an analysis of a problem, such as the diagnosis of a health problem.' - [Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.]

(2) discrete data - A set of data is said to be discrete if the values / observations belonging to it are distinct and separate, i.e. they can be counted (1,2,3,, ). Examples might include the number of kittens in a litter; the number of patients in a doctors surgery; the number of flaws in one metre of cloth; gender (male, female); blood group (O, A, B, AB). [Statistics Glossary]

(3) Other examples of 'discrete data' may include ~

[list][li]property lines and streets (in cartography, [url=http://support.esri.com/index.cfm?fa=knowledgebase.gisDictionary.search&searchTerm=discrete%20data]ESRI[/url]);[/li][/list]

[list][li]types of vegetation (category data), or speed zones (class data) - generally in GIS applications[/li][/list]

All I'm saying here is that "discrete data" is meaningful because of their application types. When you narrow it down to "discrete data points", you are unwittingly distinguishing between examples of category data and class data.

And because "discrete data points" are meaningful, you could use them in such applications as polynomials in mathematical modelling - see this example of '[url=http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~klbooksite/1.01/101.html]Modelling Discrete Data[/url]' (java applet required to see graphical results). Further, it is because discrete data is/are meaningful that analysis could be performed - like in this other example of Inverse Problems of 'stability and regularisation', where 'a general definition of an inverse problem with discrete data has been given and an analysis in terms of singular systems has been performed.'

Dude thehomer, I don't think you have a solid grasp of what you tend to argue. In all these, I don't see how you have demonstrated anywhere that data is not information, not even when you bring it down to its basics of types of data like "discrete data". These are all pointing to information - and as such do not help your arguments about "non-information" one tiny dot.

thehomer:
No it's not.

Yes it is - and solidly so. It is not enough to just deny the clear fact, you ought to also discuss how those other references showing the fact are wrong, if at all. {"Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information"} - please refer.

Data at its lowest level is not information. Sure at some higher levels, what may be considered information would depend on the person's point of view.

Dude, please. It is not "data at its lowest level" we're talking about; but rather "information at its most basic form" which is called data. There is a world of difference between the two, but they both point to the fact that data is information.

Let me explain so that we are very, very clear on this and rather not bandying words about carelessly.

        (a)  "data at its lowest level" {is information}

        (b)  "data is {information at its most basic level}

In your case as in (a) above, "data at its lowest level" points to processed information usually occuring in a series or group as a single unit. As such it is used in any number of applications as logistics and statistical comparisons (e.g., forecasts between periods, or market supply and demand over a period between chain suppliers, etc.); or in computing, where it describes the smallest addresable unit of any operation: "the smallest addressable unit of data is usually a group of bits called a byte (usually an octet, which is 8 bits)" - [Wikipedia].

In the example of computing, we may find such things as mega[i]bytes[/i], giga[i]bytes[/i], tera[i]bytes[/i], etc.; but in this case we know that "data at its lowest level" is the byte - which is defined as information in a series or group taken as a single unit:

[list][li]byte:
- In computer technology, a unit of information made up of bits (often eight bits). ~ [The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company][/li][/list]

[list][li]byte:
- the basic unit of information in computer storage and processing. ~ [Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008][/li][/list]

[list][li]byte:
- a sequence of 8 bits (enough to represent one character of alphanumeric data) processed as a single unit of information[/li][/list]

Thus, when you say "data at its lowest level", you're pointing to any form of information that occurs in a series or group taken as a single unit.


However, to say that ""data is {information at its most basic level}" as in (b) is simply saying that data is the lowest level of abstraction of information - it is "information at its most basic level", whether or not it occurs on its own without reference to any series or group.

In both (a) and (b), data is information - it all depends in how it is considered, nonetheless it is information, whether as a level of abstraction; or as a series or group taken as a single unit. As noted, "Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information" (see again).


In all of this, the point is that you don't have any reference to "information" coming from "non-information". Data is not an example of "non-information", because it is clear that data is information at its most basic level of abstraction.

karo93:
@la_vivi
I am not quitting and as i said earlier My wish is that we all reach a final conclusion on this matter so i wait to answer all problems before going back to laying my points cos my points were being evaded by covering them with other points.

Your points were not being evaded - you have never attended to any points given by others, but just excusing and circling round them.

[quote author=la_vivi link=topic=403867.msg5618665#msg5618665 date=1267608565]Hello friends,this topic is very interesting,but i must confess that am being swayed by Ijele's comments,he supported his claims with more clarified bible quotes better than others. karo made some good points but seems to be quitting or running out of ideas. Image and viaro is equally good but their supporting quotation is more deductive and seemed as to be derived than realistic(based on probablity). You guys has made me to stick close to my bible than ever. Am afraid am begining to think there's absolute nothing like Trinity. Can ijele pls speak more.[/quote]Tell me: did you find any words like monotheism, atheism, economics, incarnation or even "Bible" in your copy of the Bible? So, if you don't find such words in the Bible, would you also say that there's absolutely nothing like them? Did you not arrive at such by the same deductive reasoning? Would you say that any conclusions you come to on such terms are realistic if you use deductive reasoning to arrive at them?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with deductive reasoning. The porblem is that the basics that are pointed out is what is constantly being evaded by those arguing against the Deity of Christ. If Christ is not Deity, why acknowledge that He is to be worshipped?

karo93:
Finally when thinking of the trinity what is your take on the fact that there are 7 spirits of GOD making them more than just 3,but dont sweat it there is no trinity thereby saving you the headache.

That question has been discussed in another thread: Seven Spirits of God?. You can start from the beginning or start from this point where I also gave answers. The "seven spirits" does not mean that there are a number of seven different Holy Spirits.

karo93:
In your bid to create a point from thin air you just tried mixing water and oil as one liquid.
Here Jesus TRIED BUT WAS NOT ALLOWED but God did gather and protect them.
now you have a point against yourself!

The words in bold - where did you read them from the Bible? Can you show me any other verses in the Old Testament that showed where Jesus has been trying to do what He said in Matthew 23:37? Don't excuse this, because you may not like what you get.

karo93:
Jesus is to be worshipped because according to john.3.35 the father loves the son and puts everything in his power.
God is to be worshipped because everything in under his power so all those under him must worship him but seeing that the father has given Jesus equal rights then all must worship him too for all are under him too.

Jesus is to be worshipped because He is Deity. There is nothing else that qualifies our worship other than Who He is in Himself. If He was a created Being, then it would be wrong to ascribe worship to Him - because that would be the same as worshipping created beings like the angels. John 3:35 is not the reason why anyone worships Jesus; rather, it is because He Himself is Deity.

@viaro
What's your complaint? you keep complaining that i have not addressed points and yet you have not addressed mine

I have not been complaining, so please kindly stop all the drama you've been waving in our faces and stand up once to be somebody or remain a nobody. I have addressed your problem in post #70 - if you missed ot skipped it, please go back by clicking that link. If you deliberately ignored it, please save your complaints to yourself and do something fresh.

[and u just swept alimat's about the hour under the carpet]

I asked her a question - did she answer? There's nothing wrong with muslims discussing issues around the Deity of Christ; but we have been on Nairaland for a while to know that Muslims have no reference to Jesus Christ in the Biblical sense as to agree any dot with you that anyone should worship Jesus. Go and ask her if she believes in worshipping Jesus Christ and then we can discuss more if you are still wondering.

we wont get anywhere like this i have told you to lay your points as simply as possible and i will answer you[as i just did above] i also gave you a format to narrow our points so we get somewhere but it seems like you are just interested in going round in circles. i dont swing that way

You karo93 are known throughout this thread to never address ANY question. If the way you complained and dismissed my previous reply without discussing anything is what you call "answer", you only confirm you're not seeking a discussion but here to waste your own time.

My point remains in revelation;address it and lets move on or drop yours for me to answer.We should be able to reach a verdict together[everyone who posts on this thread]

Your point does not remain anywhere. Not until you stop pretending you can't find answers in our replies. If all you want to do is this thread is thoroughly mess yourself up, please let me know - I can do that so well for you.

dejiariyo:
Still finding it hard to get what your point is, if u have any evidence to disagree with my post, pls do it instead of calling me names.

All i know is,When Christians call Father they mean God, Father comes in when they wanna use the trinity theory.

Or do i need to quote verses to buttress my point?

I didn't call you any names. Your assumptions are patently wrong, for Islam and Christianity are not the same. Ask those who are informed Muslims and Christians, and they'll tell you what you need to know.

'Father' is not only mentioned when Christians are thinking only in terms of the Trinity. There are Christian groups that deny both the Deity of Christ and the Biblical teaching of the Trinity - yet these Christian groups also refer to God as 'Father'. Besides, in the Jewish scriptures you find God also being referred to as "Father" (Deut. 32:6 and Isaiah 63:16). Yet, not in one instance would you find Allah in Islam being called "Father".

There may be some identical features in many religions; but these features do not make these religions "the same" in what you are trying to argue.

MyJoe:
Good day viaro -

Your arguments on this thread do not add up. I will highlight just two.We both know 1 Corinthians 15:28 does not present Christ's Humanity so you have not addressed karo93's point. Thanks.

Hello MyJoe,

I did not have the desire to go into detail on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and that was why I summarised all that could be said by noting two things: (1) that Scripture does not confuse between the Deity and Humanity of Christ; and (b) that both His Humanity and Deity are united in Him.

It is in that summary that I suppose all other arguments stand to either make sense or else not at all. Christ's subjection to the Father does not take anything away from His Deity. Even the Father refers to the Son as "God" as cited in Heb. 1:8 - "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom".  It is in the essential nature of the Son that He is confessed as "God". Yet, His submission to the Father is not a matter of only the future - for He has shown that same submission to the Father in His vicarious work on the Cross, whereby He is called "Lord" (Phil. 2:8-11). Even at that, the Son is not said to lose His essential nature of Being in 1 Cor. 15:28, for that verse does not negate the fact that even in the future, He is still worshipped.

Further, it is clear that 1 Cor. 15:28 is not the first or only time that the Son is seen in such relationship to the Father or God. Both before His Incarnation and after His Resurrection and glorification, the Son is seen as the One through whom creation has to do with God. Not only that all things are reconciled to God in Him (Col. 1:20), but also: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" (Eph. 1:10). When this happens, shall the Son cease being worshipped? No, for even those who argue against His Deity (like karo93) still acknowledge that the Father and the Son are worshipped. Do you care to ask karo93 why he acknoweldges that fact?

This gathering all things together in Christ is what 1 Cor. 15:28 also points to - it is in Christ that the full expression of Godhood (Deity/Divinity)  will be expressed - that is also the essential message you find in Col. 1:19 - "For it pleased the Father that in Him (Christ) should all fulness dwell". That "all fulness" are found in the Son still expresses the fact that God is "all in all". The verse in 1 Cor. 15 does not mean that the fullness would no longer be expressed in Christ at that time; rather, it affirms that all existence will find that thing fully expressed in the Son.

You appear to be proceeding on the basis that one either accepts Jesus as Almighty God Yahweh or as a mere man. What I think your opponents are saying, which I believe is supported by the Bible, is that Christ's position is a unique one. He is in the image of God, the nearest to God, the first being created by God who then created everything else that exists. He is thus a divine being. This cannot be compared with prophets and doing so is either misguided or disingenuous. From this biblical position, he is thus eminently qualified to be worshiped. From that point also, I think your "Deity of Christ" can be said to be scriptural since you can hardly get more deity than this. The problem with the "Deity of Christ", though, is that its Trinitarian proponents take it to mean that Christ is the supreme Deity, the Almighty Yahweh himself, which is not scriptural.

I think you're mixing up issues here. Although you attempted to reconcile both diametric views, it still does not help to assume, that - (a) Christ was created by God at anytime; or that (b) worship could be rendered to a created being in the same way as the Father [John 5:23]. I still ask: why do those who argue against the Deity of Christ also acknowledge that He is to be worshipped? Does that even make sense to them in the body of all their arguments? If Christ is Deity and indeed to be worshipped, WHAT essentially has been their problem in yet arguing against that same thing?

The OP has not shown a good grasp of his own arguments - he continues to evade simple issues that have been pointed out to him and only interested in feeding his own confused arguments. On that note, like I have said, I wish him good luck to keep pursuing whatever he already has made up his mind to believe. But he should ask himself why he still acknowledges that Christ is to be worshipped if He is not Deity?

alimat 2:
@ All,

If truly Jesus is God as claimed by xtians why is it that Jesus said no 1 knows the hour and day except Almigthy God alone?

Did the Allah of Islam tell you anything about "the hour"?

Deep Sight:
Quote from viaro -

The atheist cannot claim that he is not responsible to adduce 'proof' for his negative claim - because that would be something other than metaphysics. This was why I earlier talked about propositional logic.

No no no, son. Let's go back to Russell's Tea Pot -

I said this on another thread early in my arrival on NL -

Prizm disagreed with me -

And i responded with -

Lol, I took the time to go through the responses, but it seems you guys don't understand what propositional logic is all about. Prizm has quite an interesting response to your arguments; but you seemed to have been going merely by the sound of your ideas than by any substance on the ground.