₦airaland Forum

modupe01:
Agreed.  Did you know that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger?

No, I do not know that. Rather, I believe He did so in light of what the Scripture teaches.

^^^Hey Krayo my man! Howdy, dude?

I think those are very good questions that we all as 'apprentice philosophers' (and any amateur metaphysicist??) should take time to tackle. I would not shy away, and in due course will post my thoughts about them.

modupe01:
As a Christian, do you read the decalogue as an allegory or literally?

Yes and no.

Yes - because they apply in a literal sense to those who were under that covenant, Judaism.

No - because as a Christian without a Jewish background, I am not bound by the Judaistic covenant even though the Decalogue applies to me in principle.

Many good posts in this thread.

But in my thinking (which I have seen happen many times), I think the first thing that a servant of the Lord should do is go out with the mind of serving for nothing! Even where he is offered without his asking, he should refuse to take anything! And he should be able to trust God to send him out again with the primary purpose of blessing people, not for the honour he expects to be lavished with.

The question of mega-pastors paying for flights and other logistics is a non-starter. I'm not trying to castigate anyone; but why can't these same mega-pastors go out to spend on others without taking anything in return? Please pardon my ignorance (I don't know everything anyways), but which of these mega-'stars' truly has consistently demonstrated servant attitudes in their travels -

          T. D. Jakes?

          Benny Hinn?

          The TBN-crew-and-plaudits?

          etc., etc., etc., etc. . . . .??

Yes, I know how many people have tried to defend these 'stars' and their mega appetites! But where is the servant-hearts that is man enough in them to practice the integrity of Acts 20:35 - "It is more blessed to give than to receive"??!? I'm weary of folks who try to maintain that I should look at all the works they have done - build hospitals, community centers, etc, yada-yada! Oh puhleeeezze!   These folks built nada. .  zilch. . from their own purses! They took MONEY BELONGING TO OTHER PEOPLE and floated those projects in their own names!

The, no. . rather, 'My' challenge for these mega-performers is this: go out and serve others for a FULL YEAR without taking ANYTHING from them - refuse it even if they offer you!

Their bank accounts are still in digits that hard-working folks never dream of achieving; they have jets that politicians envy (no wonder a friend told me that Nigerian politicians are now having their own anointing with Vision 2010! ); yet they are never available for spiritually thirsty people, UNLESS. .  yes, UNLESS they are PAID on contract basis to open their mouths and talk stupid things to a ready-to-applaud-pity-crowd!!

Having said all that, does it surprise anyone why this thread should have been opened in the first place? Does it surprise anyone that many young people are now applying to the ministry to become [b]p[/b]erformers instead of [b]p[/b]astors?

Now, before I sign out, let me state categorically that not all servants in the ministry are mega-performers who go out for what they can get rather than for what they can give. No, not all - and I'm thankful to note that there are so many other pastors around the world whose ministries are truly a blessing to the Body of Christ.

For those who would be upset and try to remind me of the 'power' of any of these mega-players to "curse" me (as greedy Benny Hinn always does), let me tell you something: I'm not afraid of any of these buffoons, and I have enough curses that will put them out of their shameless and miserable adventures. LET THEM TRY VIARO!

^^^I like your style, dskj56. . . especially on the point that both tithe and debt are important issues to be dealt with. What I am not sure about, however, is the idea that tithe comes first and then debt. I think that both can be managed with a balance that separates them distinctly without confusing them for their varied importance.

There are many people who have managed their debts while still tithing. The ones I know of did not have to choose between debt and tithing - they rather made a budget that they tried to discipline themselves to, maintaining the importance of either matter while suspending other expenditure that they could without until another time. One such person called her creditors and arranged to pay a particular amount each month; and then she didn't have to bother so much about the question of whether to tithe or not - she found it easier to do so. And she came off clean, while increasing her giving in other areas.

I'm of the opinion that people should not confuse these matters in such a polarised manner. They can be managed in a sensible way, instead of the oft-repeated "tithe first before debt".

^^^He may not see any contradictions there; and yes, it could be argued either way that there is a coherence between both quotes. That is not to say I agree with him, as in the way he scuttles round your questions without actually addressing the substance in them. Take this as an example:

bawomolo:

Really? And if this is so, what about dreams that reveal future events

but who says dreams or imaginations can't come true. does that mean there is a spirit behind the dream?

@bawomolo, I'm afraid your answer was a copout and beggars the substance of your arguments. No one would be so confused about Deep Sight's question: he did not ask anything about whether or not anyone was saying that dreams or imaginations can't come true - that is way off the bridge, dude! Let me try and get this in a neat package:

(a) bawo, this was your claim:

[list]"Our emotions are dependent on what has been previously stored in our brains. Hence the reason we have dreams about recent or past events in our life ( which some people to be God talking to them or a "winch" trying to attack them)"[/list]

(b) whereupon Deep Sight observed this:

[list]Really? And if this is so, what about dreams that reveal future events, details of which clearly could not have been stored in the memory (since they have not yet happened!). Or will you deny that people have detailed dreams about future events, which play out in reality in surprising detail? That has been the story of my own life since I was a child. Tell me in what part of my brain such details were stored.[/list]

Now bawo. . you quipped on conveniently about dreams of the PAST, as if that was sufficient to wrap this whole stuff for you. But Deep Sight was on about dreams revealing the FUTURE - which clearly are NOT stored in the brain! If you believed that the functions of the brain on dreams are a matter of what is stored there, please explain events that occur in the future after those dreams.

Better still, you may please wish to tell us . .

- "what part of the brain" such details are 'stored'
while they are waiting to happen in the future;

- "how they are stored" in that part of the brain

- where the science of neurology has come up to
decode the information stored in that part of the brain
for such detailed events of the future before they happen

Anyone can just make up fanciful jargon about neurological science doing this and that and amazingly screwed cacophony that wow gullible audiences. We should not just lick the hands and kiss the boots of any neurologist (however celebrated) who claims he's figured out these things - he HAS NOT! This is why when you bring up these silly tales about what neurology has done to explain the workings of the brain in matters of abstract realities, you will be put on spot with very simple questions that will throw your arguments in the bin.

manmustwac:
Can u provide proof that the planet was created in 6 days? And that its not more than 6'000 years old?

Yes, I agree partly with modupe01 that the onus is on you to adduce a basis that verifies your claim about the highlighted in your statement.

As a Christian, I don't read or interpret the creation narratives in that way. For one, I contend that your assertion is a strawman; for second, I contend that the Bible does not teach that God "created" the planet in 6 days.

I notice you have repeatedly posted that same question to issues like this; but you should notice that evolution does not tell you anything about the CREATION of the planet. Since it does not, you may need to get your ideas together before assuming a position that is misconstructed.

ttalks:
The questions u ask are very reasonable ones and I think u'll find answers to them all.

N/B: The info passed across by that site is not accepted by close to 98%(in my opinion)of Christian folk but to me, it makes sense in the light of everything.

Here it is: Some answers for u.

Hmm, I don't wish to poison the well; but recommending Ray Smith to anyone may not be the best thing to do. The first thing you meet on his welcome page is. . to be 'warmly' greeted with the very 'palatable' "You Fools! You Hypocrites! You Snakes!" He even tries to justify such a greeting to his visitors by a lengthy encyclopaedic article for why he addresses people that way.

Dude, Ray Smith is full of himself - and when someone adopts that attitude, we can understand why 98% of Christian folks don't pay him any attention.

^^^are you serious. . ?!?

^^^how fast were you grubbing the pack?
Can't you buy another bucket of popsy-corns?

Krayola:
I'm gonna have my "hidden" camera rolling and I'll post it on youtube.

Haha. . depends on how 'hidden' it is. . but methinks he may not be impressed seeing his face on Youtube without consent.

^^^ you have a way of making me laugh! Good crack!

The beauty of any discussion is the point at which views can be challenged, modified and lubricated for further engagements. That beauty is well served by your rejoinder, Deep Sight.

Let me highlight my recognition of your perspective which informs your position in this discussion:

Deep Sight:
I realize that in my thinking I am working against much of scientific thinking, and aspects of the Penrose Hawkin Theorem as well as general relativity. In the thread I cited above, KAG castigated me and was very cutting in his remarks because of this. But please I reiterate that in discussing this matter with me, I would very much continue to wander outside, and indeed in many cases, postulate contrary to scientific thought, and this I will do with reason and philosophy.

That is all fine with me; and no, I would not be so presumptive as to offer cutting remarks to any discussant - it would terribly be out-of-place for me to do so. It's my opinion that there is value in much of what we may all share here with one another: some may be outright wrong (as I acknowledge in my previous views about infinities); some may be thought-provoking; a few may be necessary to crack us up with some comic relief. All things being well, we hope to enjoy our time together.

Now, the body of your comments -

Please let us attempt to define that word "time" before going further. I am of the view that Time is a necessary and not contingent factor, and accordingly cannot be created, or come into existence at any point - it is, in my view, self existent, and i am strongly at odds with the assertions that time was created by the Big Bang. I have attmpted to thrash this out before -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034

I'm not so sure that time was created by the Big Bang either; which if that was what I'd stated at some point, then my apologies. No, time was not created by the BB, in as much as one could argue that the BB describes something and is not the thing itself. Whatever there were (matter, energy, space, etc) are described by the BB rather than having been created by it.

But even so, there seems to be a slice of surprise in your assumptions as well - that time is self-existent. It would not be my wish to stretch this beyond what you meant; but if time was self-existent, would that not suggest that what you call 'God' loses that same quality of self-existence to another quality or entity (time) which you qualify by self-existence?

I would like to comment that i do not believe that matter existed within the singularity that formed the basis of the big bang. Only infinite energy could have existed, and at that, not necessarily a material form of energy. We will discuss this, yes?

Yes.

Viaro, i must say that i disagree with the statement that that singularity itself is dependent on any condition(s). At least not within my view of what a singularity is. I would view it as a necessary abstract empty point, and such emptiness requires no cause. I am sure i needn't regurgitate why i believe that that empty point can amount to somethingness. But given its essential nature, i cannot see or agree that it is dependent on any condition as i regard it as conditionless state undefined by the existence of ANY quantity.

Well noted. I could contain your perspective on the basis of the highlighted about your view of what a singularity is. Although in the broader scheme of things (and within the working definitions of the example of the Big Bang), it would be near impossible to sustain the idea that the singularity could not be dependent on any set of conditions. Not even general relativity? Well, I don't know. . but I'd scratch my head a lil bit more on that while we're musing on these things.

Anybody have an email for KAG? I would like him to join this discussion.

Goody! As many are welcome to rub minds.

Of Dimensional Existence

We’re all familiar with 1D, 2D, and 3D . . 1-dimension, 2-dimension, 3-dimension, etc. More recently, we began to increasingly hear about other dimensions as well - the 10th and 12th dimensions. Who knows, someone might muse about the 25th dimension someday, and we probably shall then have to either stretch our bandages or retire them for more soothing balms.

The 4th dimension is commonly said to be the dimension of space-time - a combination of three spatial dimensions(length, width, and height) with time. The interesting thing is that cosmologists and astronomists are of the conviction today that time has not always existed, but began to exist at some point in the history of our universe.

This is interesting for me, not so much upon the singularity and infinity indices; but rather as it brings up a lot of other questions that need to be addressed in our collective existence. Some have asked such thought-provoking questions as ‘does time exist apart from matter?’ Some argue that time is independent of matter, and as such it might not make much sense to think about an epoch before ‘time’. However, when dealing with issues about the dimensions of reality, we often tend to think in terms ‘location’ in the 4th dimension - not so much as ‘when’ an event happens, but more about ‘where’ the event is located.

Please don’t lose sight of the point that this is not a thread that attempts to demonstrate the existence of ‘God’ or other deities by mathematical imperatives - you will not find much in what is expressed here as filling that lacuna. Even so, we’re trying to explore existence itself and see the various spheres of reality that lie within our experiences and beyond.

Other applications of singularities

In all this, what value could we derive from discussing singularities (and infinities) in connection with origins and existences?

I contend there are several values. For one, it helps us to grasp this fact - that almost all detectable phenomena exist within various spheres and dimensions rather than in one singularity. Consequently, it logically leads on to the understanding that there are various 'infinities' within various dimensions, and not just one infinity within a vector space!

This is a shift from my previous position that there could not possibly be an ‘infintely small’ dimension or existence between ‘0’ and ‘1’. I was dead wrong! Since then, I have grown up within the last few days to reason outside the box and see things differently. The one thing I had thought about was that within any vector space, all values are defined between ‘0’ and ‘1’, so that no matter how long we count a recurring decimal such as . .

0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. . .,

. . there's certainly a point at which the transformation becomes a defined ‘1’ for all values of |1|. There - I was dead wrong, and I’m thankful to be challenged enough to modify my views.

Now indeed there are infinities that exist within significantly small vector spaces such that they hold quite huge transformations. I’ve always been fascinated by some physicists' inference in explaining the BB singularity as ‘a point of zero volume, but very high mass, with infinite density’. It sounded like a contradition (if we think locally) - how could ‘zero volume’ at the same time hold ‘infinite density’? I only later came to realise that that kind of question is a misconstruction that takes the physics out of the vector space and arrives at a false image of reality.

The point is not to trail off excitedly about a physics I have very little knowledge of. Rather, with the foregoing as an intro, I’d like some of us to consider certain applications of singularities and infinities in current scientific paradigms and philosophies. In other words (and perhaps in simpler expression), let us consider existence of events and phenomena that exist within other dimensions that we don't encounter every day.

Of singularities and Inifinities.

What do we do with singularities and infinities when thinking about existence - our existence?


Singularities

It shouldn't be news anymore that in attempts to unravel the mystery of the origin of our existence, our thoughts go back to the very first points of the history of the universe. Most of us are familiar with the idea of a 'singularity'. The question is not so much as to whether or not there is one; rather, we often think in terms of how far reaching such a concept could be applicable.

Long has it been heralded that discourses on various cosmologies tend to feature a 'singularity' in one form or another. It is commonly held that according to general relativity, the initial state of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was a singularity. But then, how is this singularity interpreted by various thinkers?

Some infer that the singularity = 'God'.

That inference, as we have noted elsewhere, is froth with serious problems, which would not be helpful to reproduce here. However, perhaps we should note that the singularity did not create the universe, in as much as that 'singularity' is in itself dependent on a condition. This condition is the assumption that general relativity is ‘correct’; and as such, the same general relativity must (at the very least) be broken down for the computations of the BB theory to at a singularity. What is even more remarkable is that some have argued that ‘a correct treament of quantum gravity may avoid singularity’^[1]. For the more savvy, I refer you to the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems.

Even with all that, singularity is an interesting concept in cosmological thinking about the origins and existence of our universe. Taking the BB theory again as an example, the earliest period of time in the history of the universe is measured from zero to approximately 10⁻⁴³ seconds. This is interesting in itself, because while some may assume a singularity at 1, the more workable measurement is from ‘0’. If the measurement was to begin at 1, we would not even be speaking about a singularity at the birth of the universe: we would rather be looking at some other measurement outside the Plank time (the shortest possible interval of time in cosmological physics)^[2].




_{References and notes:
[1] Big Bang on Wikipedia
[2] the Plank epoch}

Krayola:
. . It's just another way to look at things

You're absolutely right, lol.

So, Krayola. . done watching that vid. Interesting though, even where I'm not particular about natural theology.

@the_seeker,
But does Islam teach you anything about Melchizedek? If the best you can do is make silly comments, it would be most pitiful indeed to wonder what your belief is doing to your system.

Fair enough, slim-fit. I would not have bothered to read through yours or even commented; but just so you don't get me coming off wrong.

[quote author=slim-fit link=topic=296345.msg4846565#msg4846565 date=1257169853]The IT is the EARTH  and Before it was CREATED that was what verse 2 is telling us here,  i think its simple,  Its like having a box that you will name BINGO now bingo was without form and void, Note that the name can be given to anything even before it got created,  Please read Gen 1 - 3 and if you find any questions to what i said be free to ask,[/quote]I still have questions to ask you directly, but may be later (depending on how it goes between us). However, having read Gen 1-3, I don't see how you actually got the sense in those chapters or verses.

Genesis 1:1 is a statement that is complete in itself - 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. The creation of the heavens and the earth was already accomplished fact in verse 1; verse 2 is not suggesting that the earth had not yet been created in verse 1. If you get this, then there's no need to assume it was the earth before it was created.

I understand your point of view and i think you mis understood me but the truth am refering here is THE TRUTH ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELIEF,  He mentioned TRUTH in his statement and i was trying to let him understand that the truth itself based on religion cant be proven completely correctly without errors until if world ends, Which i think its the reasonable fact about any religion or atheist. If we continue to argue about religion both xtian and muslims and atheists will continue to prove and disprove their claims,

Okay, I apologise for misunderstanding you; although I don't want to enter into long arguments about why I don't agree with your summary.

@slim-fit,

I'm surprised that while you were trying to set OLAADEGBU right, you have not made one bit of rational sense yourself. This is the type of scenario that often makes us wonder about how people tend to see themselves in their own importance while failing to be objective. Just a small appendage to your assertion:

[quote author=slim-fit link=topic=296345.msg4846095#msg4846095 date=1257165554]Anyway the bible showed us water existed according to verse 2 which was telling us the status of the earth before it got created in which the same verse said it was without form and void (empty)[/quote]The bold refers, please. The status of the earth before "it" got created - what is that "it"? Before what was created?

You don't try to call others ignorant if you're not articulate yourself.

Really for every religion the only truth you seek for will be found on the day of judgment and not now or in this world, So theres no point talking about the truth here because i wont like to go into too many details about this,

Lol, now that takes the icing on the cake! There is no point talking about the truth here, did I just read you state that claim? So, the best we can do is continue to tell ourselves the direct opposite of the truth here. . and then wake up on the day of judgment to do what? Is it not some form of 'truth' that determines your fate in that day? On what grounds would your assertion here stand on that day - that there was 'no point in talking about the truth here'?

When people make the sort of statement you just did, I just shake my head in stark unbelief and the sheer space in anyone's brain to even make such an assertion. But again, since there's no point, as you said, there won't be any point reading your reaction either - for all I care, there's no point trying to see any value in what you argue.

Krayola:
By the power invested in me by Cupid, i now pronounce you . . . . . . . .   .

Hehe. . even more wicked!

Kay 17:
if there was a third option of earth without its characteristic evils but with its peculiar fun and enjoyment. WHERE WOULD YOU GO?

Em, Kay17. . that's still option 2, not option 3. Earth is still earth and is not another 'option'. I may be mistaken, but even those who want to go to heaven should realise they're still coming back here to earth! It is like tasting option 2 (earth), migrating to option 1, (heaven) and then back to homebase (option 2 again - earth).

That is how the picture looks like to me, if you read Revelation 21:2-3 & 10. In those references, at least we read that -

(a) the NJ (not New Jersey, just 'New Jerusalem') was -
'coming down from God out of heaven'
(it wasn't going to heaven out of earth)

(b) NJ was also 'descending out of heaven from God,' -
not the other way round.

Again, was it not written that the righteous shall inherit the earth? I don't know (or can't remember) if it was said that we shall inherit 'heaven', but all focus and fiscal planning has been about earth (option 2, not option 3). Read about the various people that shall inherit the earth -

* the meek - Matt. 5:5

* those that wait upon the LORD - Psalm 37:9

* the righteous - Psalm 37:29

* 'the people' - Isaiah 60:21


Now, there certainly are other options:

- option 3. . the third heavens

- option 4. . the fourth dimension

- option 5. . the Black Hole

- option 6. . the devil's domain (his number is 666, no?)

- option 7. . the domain of those responsible for Crop Circles

- option 8. . (your poison)

Hello OLAADEGBU,

I was captivated by this statement you made:

OLAADEGBU:
The Bible is clear. Water and earth were all created in Day 1 if you don't understand it is because you have refused to see it, and that's your choice.

Wait. . . wait. . wait! What do you mean by the highlighted? Could you please elucidate?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=343779.msg4845044#msg4845044 date=1257157155]If faith cometh by hearing and hearing the word of God where do you suppose "weakening of faith" comes from?[/quote]Hehe. . I don't know where the 'weakening' comes from other than its a queer comparison in your theory. Like your disclaimer, though. . just that neither of those could be narrowly blamed on anyone heretofore.

manmustwac:
@viaro
that video is shocking, but was has that got to do with christianity?

Shocking as it was, it might force some of us (Christians and non-Christians alike) to think outside the box. I wasn't sure where to raise the thread, so I relied on the wisdom of the mods to migrate appropriately to another board (especially where the vid might shock some - my fault: I should have inserted a small disclaimer!).

Deep Sight, I feel you on that and felt the same way. After my initial disgust, it forced me to think in other ways outside of the social cruelty to animals. I just wondered the dimensions we would be seeing if this was extended to . . well, you guessed it.*




_{*. . if this was extended to humans, where severed heads are tested for more sinister stuff!}

olabowale:
What kind of math is this? A new math; please expalin how this is possible since 1 is within the same numerical calculation and figures as 1 - 10!

Hasn't he explained already? Did you conveniently skip over the fact that he mentioned the base of his conclusion?

Dear davidylan, I can trust that my comments may not be the best thing you've heard on this thread. But if you allow for some considerations, my concerns are borne out of one thing: we (you and I) are Christians, and the way we portray ourselves is louder than the message we wish to bear to any audience. This is why I'd like to make some comments directly on some of the queries you raised.

davidylan:
And all these have exactly what relevance to religion?

But what really is religion, davidylan? Christianity is not the only "religion" that needs to be discussed on Nairaland - and certainly our own brand of Christianity is certainly not the only thing we think should qualify as "religion" worthy of relevance here.

Now, should anyone try to correct me that 'Christianity' is not a 'religion', I would be thankful to note that as such it should not appear on this motherboard to qualify for any discussion! Yes, for those who are always in brigade to hoot that Christianity is a 'relationship', I've got news for them: just simply take your 'relationship' type of Christianity to the Romance board on NL and stay there! If that is a bit surprising, then we should learn to allow others share their views about 'God' or 'higher powers' without trying to cast them in our own molds of what qualifies as a 'religion' to be discussed on this board!

davidylan:
Aside from the fact that you sidestepped my question . . . how is deepsight demonstrating the existence of his "god" with numerals man invented?

I feel that question is seriously misplaced. Deep Sight's demonstrations for the existence of God (or of any deity for that matter) is his own! It certainly may not have caught the interest of some of us who think otherwise; but we can all come away appreciating the fact of his attempts. Guess what? Several among us have been surprised with the challenges these discussions have birthed - such as having to go back and re-examine our own understandings about the world and existence itself.

For me, I took away the valuable lesson of seeing that nothing can be 100% water-tight correct in one singularity! That is something I cherish so much, especially because it helped me to see that even the most cherished traditional interpretations we make in our Christian faith are also NOT water-tight at all. That does not mean that the whole of Christianity in itself faulty - please note that I said "interpretations".

Now, there are two observations I'd further make:

(a) demonstrating the existence of God/god with man-made numerals:
I'm surprised you're even asking that question at all. Perhaps on seeing that the username who bravely attempted such a demonstration was 'Deep Sight', you consequently felt the need to react! That should not be necessary. Think about it for a minute: many, many of our own Christian theologians have been busy trying to do that very same thing - demonstrate the existence of God by many man-made tools and philosophies! Yes, they have travelled from mathematics to the social sciences to arts to . . (pick your poison) - all these and more are man-made and we have indeed tried (as Christians) to demonstrate God's existence (not His origin) by those man-made tools.

But just think of it for a minute: aside from numerals, did our Lord Jesus Christ Himself not make use of these man-made tools to demonstrate (or illustrate) the veracity of God's existence in His teachings? Are you shocked? C'mon, david! You can't split hairs over that - and if you may not have a clue about that, I'd be glad to dialogue with you on that (as long as we do so without acid in our exchanges).

(b) It may amaze some of us Christians that non-Christians could have the braveness to attempt discussing the existence of the divine by any tool for that purpose, and in doing so come away with dramatic effects upon us Christians (or religionists for that matter). I have no problem engaging non-Christians or Atheists or Deists or Theists on interesting topics - and this is one such interesting topic. There are no gate fees or tickets other than mutual respect for one another - where unto we find that our calcified belief systems may be shaken out of age-old slumbers. Do I suspect that one possible reason why people like Deep Sight has been at the end of your religious baton is because of that very thing - the vigorous shaking of our own molded interpretations of our worldview? Maybe not - and yes, we could say that our faith is not thereby threatened in any way. That would be an interesting claim - but why then would we be so reactive if we're undisturbed or unperturbed at all? I could easily smile and pass on, or enjoy the invitation to discuss in the thread. .  or be reactive because I feel threatened in one way or another. I don't know of any fourth option.

We can discuss. Even where we do not agree with the points passed by others, we could at least make our observations amicably. Mind battles are not necessarily won by disparagements, but by intelligent and reasoned dialogue people change their minds (or they end up changing ours).

I hope this would meet your respectable consideration. Cheers.

Lol, I can't smile and laugh enough!

@Krayola, it's obvious that even when things are spelt out in ABC, some would still not see it any day! Here:

Krayola:
Since you must know what I have learned from this thread. . .I have learned, in my attempts to counter deep sights arguments

1) That counting evolved differently in different cultures.
2) That Babylonian base 60 counting was the basis for early geometry
3) What a "vector space" is.
4) That there is romance in the air between deepsight and Viaro.

Hehe, I learned quite a lot more on vector space myself after my initial mention of that phrase - and if it wasn't that you had pointedly asked me a question (a very simple question) on that, I would still have been either swimming in my ocean of ignorance on what it entails and how far reaching it is; or I would remain calcified in the little idea I was holding about its concept! Yes, in our discussions, duduspace was absolutely right when he said that 'the whole point of discussions such as this is to test and reexamine your own beliefs and understanding,' - and it worked just fine with me.

Hey, you're wicked, you know!  How could you have stated #4?

5) That Davidylan can't stand the fact that theists, atheist, deists and agnostics alike are having a debate free of insults and ridicule, that he just couldn't help to come in and share the "Love of Jesus" with us  
etc.

Words on marble. It makes me wonder deeply why some of us feel that we cannot discuss at any level unless we turn everyone else into "us".

Progress of this sort come at a price - and comes slowly in most places.
I think it's awesome to note that there are a few things to appreciate in Nigeria presently; but it would be great to see this kind established there as well. Would the diversity in her people and political divides dash such a hope?

Krayola:
haha. As in contrast to dead.

Hehe. . you're so funny!

I was just watchin some video that i thought was pretty cool. Check it out if u have time. it's pretty long tho. But the 1st 10-15 mins is kinda neat.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2379215612075806586&ei=1QruStSkFYTYrgLkzK2tAg&q=thank+god+for+evolution&hl=en&view=2#

Will do so during the week. Thanks.