₦airaland Forum

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=345254.msg4833045#msg4833045 date=1256949665]Any discussion of this type invariably leads to some esoteric explanations by followers of one movement or another.[/quote]True talk.

Now this is a very interesting topic. I'm of the view that there are possible indications that 'man' (as human) might have existed before Adam. This is not because of the idea some people have that Cain married one of his own sisters, or of some presupposed people dwelling in Nod, etc. Rather, while tracing our own humanity back to Adam as the head of the present human race, this does not mean that there have not been other intelligent beings that may be classed as homo sapiens.

Certainly, many, many Christians (and other religious minds) may strongly disagree - and they may quote several verses here and there to support their own views. That is all okay: I know of many of those verses; but after all is considered, it still does not negate the fact of a strong possibility that there might have been humans in existence before Adam and Eve - and that can be established as a Biblical fact as well.

For starters, let me leave an interesting note that not many people might be aware of, viz: the Christian faith is predicated upon the revelations of the Jewish people. As such, one helpful hint might be to draw from something that the Jews themselves hold as a fact. It is common knowledge that the Talmud (in Shabbos 88; Chagiga 14) speaks of 974 generations before Adam. Further, they see this as accounting for the prehistoric humanoid remains that have been discovered hidden in caverns and layers of time.

Now I know that some who are accustomed to traditional interpetations of the Bible may split hairs over this; but I only mention the matter of the Talmud to help stir our interest towards the fact that even the Jews themselves do not hold that Adam is the very first man ever to exist. More on this later, where needs be.

Krayola:
Using a different base system that pyramid probably won't look like that.

Indeed, I noted that at some point when I tried to increase the digits to 12 and obtained a new singularity.

Using some funny number pattern as proof for a deity, especially when it depends on one counting system, when many others exist, seems shady to me. I thought a different base system would totally alter that pattern. Correct me if i'm wrong. I no know maths reach that side.

You're also correct, as has been observed in demonstration with the Lie Algebra.

I have no idea what u're gettin at. 

Well, I think that what Deep Sight was discussing has quite some profound value (IMO) - not because I wish it so, but rather because we should not forget the perspective from which he has repeatedly been stating his points. Even where I had initially raised some queries, he had made a good attempt to address them quite well (and I quickly saw that the mistake was mine, because I'd missed the fact of what he already stated as defining his parameters).

I also think that the objections variously expressed from others are valuable (again, IMO). The question on everyone's mind has been whether or not his defined space vector (if you pardon my use of that) was valid. This erudite point was well put by duduspace, who quizzed whether or not Deep Space had tried to eliminate all other options before drawing some conclusions so that the latter's inferences were not arrived at hastily.

So, on all sides, there are issues of considerable value that help us refine our thoughts about what has gone before so far. That was basically what I meant.

Deep Sight:
The point is well taken and i will return to it later, but  i need it to be clearly understood that this is a side issue arising from viaro's post and deals with the existence of dimensions and not the existence of God. Thus these points take nothing away from the premises which were about the mathematical existence of God.

Senior, that is one thing I had feared all along.  
You're absolutely correct that some of my observations may have led towards that direction, for which I complained earlier that it was my hope mine were not tangential to the grain of the discussion. Even then, I also quipped that we're not into the number system per se; but the postulations nonetheless are very interesting indeed to have been engaging.

Honestly, even though I'd been busy the last few days, your recent inputs made me think a lil deeper (especially on the dimensions). . so much so that I think there's absolutely concrete gist in your summaries about the 10th dimension. I don't want to risk diverting the thread yet again, so I shall just hold that observation until such a time as might occasion the subject to be discussed further (here or on another thread).

Enjoy.

Krayola:
@ deepsight. . . counting does not end at 9. We just use the system we do because we don't want to have to remember any more symbols. IMO our counting system is utility driven and not some divine cosmological set-up that tells us some secret about how anything is the way it is.

Lol, while not playing PRO for Deep Sight, I would like to make a small observation here. I fail to see where he might have intoned that counting ends at 9. . . did he say so at any time? Honestly, I might have missed that. Just reminds me of one of the oft-repeated quotes in my class: 'please listen carefully to what I am saying, and also to what I am not saying.' hehe.

As long as every number up to the base number has its own symbol, and we have a "place holder" (has no value but tells us something), we can compute all sorts of shit. Base ten just works fine. The babylonians used base 60. .  and we still use this in our 60 seconds or minutes, 360 degree circles and 180 degree triangles. So a different base system was able to teach us stuff that we still use today long before we started using base ten counting. The system just wasn't practical because to do really complex stuff one would need to have a different symbol for every number from 1 to 59, and a place holder, zero. 1-9 is easier and IMO that is why we use it today.

I think we all still have some value in this zero-thingy and the recurrent 9. The only point is that we seem to be approaching the subject from various perspectives rather than just one.

davidylan:

. . namely that you need to limit yourself to Bible discussions because cosmological discussions and abstract philosophy are clearly way out of your league.

The unfortunate fact here is that the above in highlights are just what it is . . . absolute nonsense.

I'm sorry but i cant understand what cosmology and philosophy have to do with understanding the existence of God.

This reaction is quite unfortunate and unnecessary, davidylan. Of all things to have said, surely not the categorical assertion that you can't understand what cosmology and philosophy have to do with. . . understanding the existence of God?!? Huh?

It is one thing for you to write off other discussants; quite another thing to be so disconcerted as to make statements like that. The first thing that would have crossed our minds is the common meaning of cosmology (let alone philosophy). I take for granted the common meaning of cosmology being the study of the origin and nature of the universe - now the question is, does that in itself not have anything whatsoever to do with understanding the existence of God? If not, then there is no rationale for your assertion of an "evidence" of His existence anywhere. Methinks that such reactions as in yours are ill-conceived and quite unnecessary.

adefash:
The topic says"Who Says Tithing Is Not New Testamental?"
I FASH stand to tell you categorically that TITHING is not a new testament practice.

i hope you will be convinced and not to be confused that tithing is not new testament.ok?

And then. . what?
You FASH stand to say absolutely nothing. . nada. . zilch.
You may 'convince' yourself one way or another; but if you haven't seen it in the NT unless you see it as a "practice", your assertion is your private affair and not conviction for the Body of Christ.

You, Deep Sight, are very, very smart indeed!

_{For a moment, I thought my name would be on the list of most wanted for crimes to humanity - at least, for almost highjacking your thread. Yet, thank goodness that's not the case - and yes, we're onto some very interesting stuff here.}

Let me start from the end bit:

Deep Sight:
Viaro. . .  we are onto something here. . .

Could such a double zero within a close perimeter such as this be the secret of transiting between dimensions?. . .  Just a thought. . .

Could the quadruple appearance of the figure 2 be a replication of the principle of duality. . . again, just a thought. . .

There could be such a thought in gestation, I believe - who knows?

As for transitions between dimensions, you're absolutely correct to infer that a zero (or possibly a double zero) holds the key of that possibility. A computer's binary operation is a ready example (albeit really insufficient an analogy) - because the two digits commonly used are '1' and '0'. So, who knows how many possibilities are there on the zero index. . .?

And no – look again, 8 does not appear only once.

Hmm, that's interesting. I fed the operation into an algorithm system and it showed just one occurrence of 8. Also got down to brass tacks working it out manually - again just one occurrence of 8 there. We should notice that the 8 appears on the right side of the set of numbers but is absent on the left side (between the highlighted 7 and 9):

           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

That's just a small matter.


However, the rest of your observations still command my respect; albeit, some comments at 'nothing' and 'zero' may not yet go the distance.

Now this affirms the point – Zero cannot exist, both by definition and implication.

Agreed, only in context of "abstract quantifying". But when testing out other factoring, the zeros are necessary, or all other entities immediately lose their values and become meaningless. Meaninglessness does not mean non-existence; it only demonstrates that qualities and quantities are there but undefined.

Take the earlier result for the 12 digits multiplied by themselves in that order

            1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1    x    1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

. .  the result, we know, is a large number:

           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

Now, removing the '0' from that result would give a false 'mirror'. The point is that the '0' does not appear in the equation; but the same is not true for the transformation (or result) which has the '0' by definition, implication and necessity.

That illumination is this: within the context of the infinity axis, it must be that in terms of dimensions, possibly only 9 dimensions exist. Because going beyond this would introduce a zero, and lead to the annihilation of existence, and is accordingly not possible, because existence is.

Well, there is a dimension beyond the 9th. I earlier noted the example of existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension. Perhaps the video at the link below might help to stir your interest in that direction? here:

    http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagine-the-tenth-dimension.html

On the whole, you've made my entry to Nairaland worthwhile.

Hehe. . my apologies. If Oetzi is a photoshop product, damn!

Pardon me, but those guys at Bianco have me scratching my head. I wonder what they have in their 'museum' that is an original dig? I'm just wondering.

What they have on their website don't sound archaeologically convincing. For one, how do you convince anyone that a "cast" is an impressionable find? And then to advertize them for sale as low as between $200 and $500. That light up my suspicion, but I may have got it wrong. However, that femur appears to be advertized as a "cast" as well.

Serious researchers don't sound the way those chaps do at Bianco. I remember the case of the iceman, Oetzi, which was discovered by two German tourists, Helmut and Erika Simon. Their find was not a "cast", and the price is not as paltry as what Bianco advertizes for their "cast".

               https://www.crystalinks.com/otzitable.jpg

Krayola:
maths na evil thing.

That's why I said this:

As long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that.

Chrisbenogor:
Ok if you say so viaro, I am really struggling here so help me understand more, let me go back to his very first post.

There is a common denominator in all of deep sight numerical proof's of God's existence, the question of existence. Can we say I own -5 books? I think not, so for the sake of the argument a more correct model I think contrary to yours should have been

0----------->Infinitely small-------------->1-------------->Infinitely large

Which pastor tried to point out to him.

Can we start from here?

Yes, we could start from there; and already I find serious problems in your model. This was why I initially started out in post #10 to set certain parameters for my model, among which was:

       (b)  what is meant by 'infinity'?

Macmillan English Dictionary has 3 definitions on that word:

          1 [uncount] a space, time, or distance that continues without end or limits:

          2 [singular] a very large amount of something or a very large number of things:

          2a. [uncount] TECHNICAL the largest number that exists

In my context, the first definition was what I was looking at - a quantity that "continues without end or limits". Yes, some may see it as the "largest number that exists" - but that is just not going to work here as far as fractions less than 1 are concerned. Anything less than 1 but greater than '0' is neither "the largest number" nor does it continue without end or limits. In which case, I would have to cross out "infinitely" from your model -

     0----->Infinitely small------>1------>Infinitely large

and leave us with just:  |'0'| -----> |'1'| ------> |'∂n'|

where ∂ is a partial differential for a defined number
and 'n' is the number at a certain defined infinity.

The idea of "infinitely small" or "infinitely large" does not add up, especially because there are no infinities between 0 and 1 - all sets of numbers or fractions are defined for their values.

Phew. This was why I expressed concern that my comments might muddy the waters. But if not, here are a few to consider.

---

Krayola:
@ viaro. .  please what does "vector space" mean?. Please explain in simple english. ,  I checked wikipedia and they were just talking gibberish

Well, at the risk of repeating the Wiki 'gibberish', here's what I was considering:

A vector space defines objects that may be "added together and multiplied ("scaled" by numbers, called scalars in this context. Scalars are often taken to be real numbers, but one may also consider vector spaces with scalar multiplication by complex numbers, rational numbers, or even more general fields instead".

In simple English? Quantities that can be added together or multiplied within a set of operations. Does that help?

If so, then computing a simple binary operation between '1' and '0' would deliver a set of quantities. These may either be in a pattern, like the pyramid in Deep Sight's post; or they may not follow that pattern.

Please forgive me, Deep Sight, but I couldn't resist. Numbers are not exactly my thing, but my eyes light up any time I see 'em in such an inviting array.

So, let me make a small observation.

Deep Sight:
Abstract quantities by the very nature of co-existing multiply mathematically to infinity. Thus it is no coincidence that this pyramid matches the infinity axis which i drew up in the first post. This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom, in terms of abstract quantification.

In terms of abstract quantification, yes. . maybe. . and no. But I choose to follow your ink and answer yes. Which was why I hinted earlier that your postulations would satisfy my initial queries in terms of your contexts.

But this was what I wanted to draw out:

This backs up the assertion that [1] (a singularity or oneness of infinity) = God, and spawns contnuous infinity therefrom

Continuous infinity by that factoring would point back to singularity of oneness - in which case you score a double when you stated in post #8 that "Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all". As long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that.

(Oh dear me, where are those smart heads that bullied me in class with Lie Algebra?!?   )

No, Lie Algebra does not mean the mathematician was 'lying'. Rather, he was trying to work out a vector space with a specific kind of binary operation on it. That's all I should say there and shut up!

Moving on now, once anyone steps outside the vector space (which for you defines an infinity where the factoring of zero does not come into play at present), then the whole theorem collapses. Please note: I'm talking in terms of a vector space that includes '0' within its abstraction, not one within the domain of your factoring of singularity. The reason why I point out this is just to show that once a zero is introduced, the singularity theorem for infinity collapses into a black hole.

Am I making sense so far? If so, read on:

Now, if the pyramid number factoring remains within an abstract quantifying clearly defined as in yours, the theorem stands 100% every single time. But here is the difficulty: the moment you step outside that defined domain, a black hole occurs faster than twice the speed of light! This can be simply tested by a Lie Algebra (pronounced 'Lee Algebra'). We use the Lie Algebra to test domains, and here's a test for the undefined domain that includes zeros -

        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  x  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =

                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9[b]0[/b] 1 2 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Please note carefully:

(a) I increased the digits of singularity to 12 (pls count them) -

(b) counting above 9 digits of singularity immediately introduces a 'black hole' - '0'

(c) that 'black hole' shows a double '0' within a close perimeter

(d) the define pyramid result would introduce "mirrors"

(e) these mirrors are such that a single digit appears at least four times (that digit is '2')

(f) notice in all the results of the pyramid, 8 appears only once!

(g) guess what? 8 is the new singularity, not 1.


Now, please leave all my useless rants behind - they are useless only in terms of the fact that using the Lie Algebra to test your postulations simply does not hold any grounds. Why? Because you already defined your parameters in post #8 when you stated that "nothingness does not come into the equation at all".

I only tested the pyramid for singularity of oneness outside your domain to show what I stated earlier:

Within the context of your postulations and all things considered, you have addressed my initial concerns. But some might argue (and rightly so) that they may not quite stand up in the wider context of other factors (such as existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension).

Okay, I couldn't resist playing with numbers. Forgive me. But ride on, Deep Sight - I'm enjoying your domain.

Chrisbenogor:
If anything numbers is the one thing you really suck at deep sight , lol and pastor tried to correct you by saying infinitely small or as we call it tending to zero. Every time you raise threads like this I just shake my head and laugh, why did you skirt around viaro's questions that is a good place to start, me I am at the comfortable junction where you turn your very very shaky mathematics into matter, you have never ever managed to get there, quite sad.

Lol, forgive me guys. . em, Chrisbenogor. I don't tink Deep Sight skirted around my questions, no. Infact, I dare say that he nailed them away for good. I was damn too broad in my strokes and missed his own point - the fault was mine.

I know, numbers suck - it does to me too. But allow me to indulge a little more.

chukwudi44:
(
there is basically no difference between asking your pastor to pray or you and asking a saint to pray for you.The righteous departed are not dead but lives on,thats why Jesus replying the saducees in matt (not so sure of verse) s when asked about resurection f the dead

said haven't you heard what God told moses in the burning bush I am the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob,I am the God of the living  not of the dead.
He refered to them as living even though they have physically departed from this physical world.

Moreso the number of miracles attributed to sains have furjer reinforced this beleif,in fact before u re are canonised there must be at least 2 post humous miracles attriobuted to your intecssion.

Pardon me, but using Catholicism to argue your point over the convictions of others is another waste of time. Whatever you may claim from your interpretations, they still do not hold for the vast number of Anglicans who know the difference between praying to a departed person and praying straight to God. If one wants to get specific, we could consider some of the things that Catholicism believes about their Marian theology and see how many people would agree that such a thing is indeed what Christians in the Bible practised.

Great saints like st Anthony of padua have actually performed more miracles after his death than when he was still here on earth,after his death through his intercession God raised about five people from the dead shortly after he died,countless miracles have bbeen attributed to the intercessionof this great saint, I can go on and on but these wiill suffice for now.

That's okay. That people make these claims does not establish such as doctrine for Christians in the Bible, nor for Anglicans who do not see them in the sacred pages. I don't know how many people prayed to Elijah or Elisha after their deaths for them to intercede for anyone. Who ever prayed to Moses after his death? I'm not aware that anyone prayed to David after his death - are you aware of such? What about Noah? And Abraham? Joshua? Are we missing something here?

Dont forget even in the bible after elisha had been buried his bones raised a man from the dead

Yeah, I don't forget that. But do you remember anyone praying to Elisha after his death?

I see you read with your ears

That's because I'm not gullible.

how on earth did you think their prayers got to heaven ?,you think they put in on arik air to transport it to heaven?

Are you suggesting Arik Air now operates on that service? Thou sayest it - not viaro!

chukwudi44:
(
WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU THAT IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE ?WE WERE PLAINLY TOLD IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION THAT THE PRAYER OF GOD'S PEOPLE ASCENDED BEFORE THE LAMB FROM THE HANDS OF THE ELDERS IN HEAVEN

ALSO IN THE BOOK OF 2 MACABEES THAT YOU PROTESTANTS REMOVES FROM THE CHRISTIAN CANON WHILE PREFERING THE JEWISH CANON PLAINLY STATED WHERE JEREMIAH AND SIMON ONIAS APPEARED TO JUDAS MACABEES IN A VISION AND WERE PRAYING FOR HIM AND THE ENTIRE ISREALI NATION.

Em, sorry. . . but did I do or say something so hot as to warrant the shouting?
Both points you made are still hanging on the laundry lines - the prayers of God's people in Revelation does not teach that people on earth were praying to dead saints for help anywhere. Appearances in Maccabees also do not teach your assertion in context of our enquiries. Sorry, but there.

Deep Sight:
Viaro -  With this singular post, you have no idea how high my estimation of you has leapt. You have always deployed very sound reasoning, but I must say in this you have exceeded yourself. This is absolutely brilliant. You are now within my Secret Hallowed Cult of Revered Nairaland Minds, entering as the fourth person!

No dude! I can't take all that accolade for myself. So allow me to defer to you.
There's no gainsaying the fact that you've always been of a sound mind in
engaging discussions.

I would like to make a few comments.
Absoluteness is only a degree that shows an extreme, in this instance, the extreme of nothingness. Now within this peculiar extreme, we can no longer speak of degrees because nothing exists! (I know it’s a nightmare trying to conceptualize such a state). The adjectives I used (“black”, “empty”) were mere words struggling to imagine what such a state would be like.

Apt! There again, I agree.

Exactemente! Now here, you are really onto it. . . emptiness itself is something! That is the singularity! And that is how nothingness is the “mother” of somethingness.

Okay, again within the context of your postulations, I defer and quite agree. It may be difficult for some to get the hang of what you're on to; so allow me for now to hold on until the thread progresses.

Thank you again.

chukwudi44:
The veneration of saints is as old as christianity itself . . .


b]we ask these saints to pray for us the same way protestants ask their pastors to pay for them

The problem is claims that are made out of hand in such a manner are never achieving anything for anyone. Both claims above are personal and not convincing at all.

(a) if the veneration of saints is as old as Christianity, how come we do not find them in the Christianity of the Bible? How come none of the apostles are seen to ever have been involved in such a practice?

(b) Praying to saints as Catholics do is not the same thing as asking pastors to pray for anyone. I don't know if Episcopalians are to be included in your claim above where we know that such is clearly not the case.

Zikkyy:
I am cool. Been busy. Was hoping this war ooops sorry  i mean discussion will extend to next week so i can be part of it (less busy then).

Hehe, good man!

Well, i can say attempts to stop some tithers from rendering his/her tenths could have some health/psychogical implications. In the course of discussing tithing with some tithers, the look on some faces make me wish i never tried explaning/educating him/her about tithe. I think the war/protest at the abuses of tithing should be directed at the churches/MOGs. Encouraging people to read the bible (and not just the verses quoted by the MOG while in church) is not a bad idea as well. A tither wishing to tithe after obtaining a clear understanding of tithe can better defend his/her position (which is usually what i want to see and not the MOG's quotes). Its sad a good number of our people are either illiterates or just not prepared to reason things for themselves and therefore vulnerable to manipulation.

Good points, helpful for everyone to note.

People like Tonye-t should always prepare to be attacked if they keep coming up with "funny" theories on tithing.

Lol, we all should expect to be planked where our theories do not add up - it does not matter whether we wear the anti-tithing badge or carry a pro-tithing vignette. I don't mean to be a put-off, because one way or another I don't even give two scoobies about anybody's overzealous career in these arguments. I have seen very good sense made by few people on either side of the divide. But for anyone to assume that their own arguments become law for the Body of Christ. . ? Hmm. _{I'm just waiting to waste some people's crass whenever they come.}

Cheers and enjoy.

chukwudi44:
This is avery fat lie,what the hell is the meaning of the word[b] many[/b],how many churches preach that tithing is voluntary?I doubt if we can count up to 10 out of over 40,000,is that what u refer to as[b] many[/b]?

If you have drawn a conclusion without having first considered a matter, that tells me you're not seeking a dialogue but just charging blindly like a wounded bull in Spanish festivals - Proverbs 18:13. I'm sorry, but there's no need to humour you on further excoriations when you haven't recovered from the previous ones.

Every keeps talking about abraham paying tithes to melchizedek,how come no one is talking about Abraham offering burnt offerings ,does that mean we ar also free to offer burnt offerings?

Nothing is binding unto you, unless you deliberately want to bind yourself to offering burnt offerings.

In Hebrews 7 where Abraham's tithes was discussed, the author did not waste time on the unrelated argument you're bringing up. Why? Because every careful student of the Bible (and even sincere anti-tithing theologians) is familiar with this statement: "burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Again, every careful student of God's Word (and even anti-tithing theologians) knows that there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that condemns tithes. Some mischievous twats ignorantly argue that Hebrews 7 negates tithes; but that just shows how low their IQs are.

On the other hand, if someone asks me as you have done why we don't offer burnt offerings, my answer is simple - because there are many verses in both the OT (eg., Psa 40:6) and the NT (Heb. 10:5) showing that God had not required them nor did He have pleasure in them. Yet, you will not see any verse that says anywhere that God condemned tithes at any instance. Not one verse throughout the Bible. While He categorically denounced the burnt offerings of Israel at various times (eg., Isaiah 1:11-15), there is not a single verse where He ever condemned tithes at any time. Drones who do not see that fact will hang themselves looking for a verse that denounces tithes; but when they find none, they hang all their anti-tithing hopes on Hebrews 7 and confirm their crass mentality.

So, if you're having a bad hang over on burnt offerings, stay there on your miserable altars and drink your poison for all I care.

Deep Sight:
I have two answers to your supposition involving the zero factor, and i can only hope that they would be satisfactory.

A singularity is perforce single, thus 1. Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all.

I hope this addresses your concerns, even as i accept it may be too difficult for most to grasp.

Deep Sight,

Yes, I am quite satisfied within the context of your explanations. I also dare say that your summations summarily addressed the initial 4 questions (a, b, c & d) in my previous observations. That was why I hinted earlier that there's all possibility that my initial inferences might have been skewed from what you intended to convey. The weakness in mine was that I applied broad strokes to your simple assumptions. My apologies.

On the other hand, your postulations are very interesting - as long as we follow your ink and style. I'd not go into technicalities here; but this one got me thinking a lil deeper:

What is nothingness really? Can you imagine such a state. Fine. Conceptualize it. Absolute emptiness in stark blackness. If you conceptualize this aright, you will see that it is by its very nature infinite. Emptiness is emptiness in an eternity of emptiness. And this emptiness being infinite cannot be segregated, because it is nothing.

That's okay. The huge problem for me (not for you) is that I cannot fathom or conceptualize "absolute emptiness in stark blackness". That would necessitate three things:

(a) it would necessitate my defining what is -
* absolute
* emptiness
* blackness

(b) it would also require me to define my index for -
* the degrees of "absolutes"
* the degrees of "emptiness"
* the degrees of "blackness"

(c) whereupon from (a) and (b) above, the resultant indices would
form the basis for my correlation between all factors aforementioned.

Phew! I sincerely hope that my musings there are not tangential to the grain of this fine discussion. However, the point in all that is that I am not convinced as yet that either emptiness or blackness is nothing. No. Blackness is actually something existing in relation to other indices - or it would not be "blackness". Emptiness, for me, would actually point to something as well, however hard to conceptualize that 'something' might be. More on this later.

However, your point is well noted and appreciated; and consequently I would not like to muddy the waters. Within the context of your postulations and all things considered, you have addressed my initial concerns. But some might argue (and rightly so) that they may not quite stand up in the wider context of other factors (such as existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension).

Cheers.

Zikkyy my man, howdy?

Zikkyy:
@viaro, going by the tone of your posts, i will say you feel very bitter with what you believe is the anti-tithers mission to eradicate tithing and how they go about it. Somehow, i believe i understand how you feel. but i dont think anti-tithers preach wholesale eradication of tithe (well, thats my understanding of anti-tithing arguments). Fifteen years back, tithing was not an issue that would merit the kind of attention being given in a forum like NL, i guess its more about the scale abuse here. For me i would sy the economic and other societal problems we face today contribute significantly to the controversy surrounding tithing or prosperity preaching. People are so disillusioned with the state of our economic environment and the desire to make something out of their lives has driven most Nigerians to seek spiritual refuge in churches or other spiritual place of worship. You will agree with me the number of churchgoers (agreed there is an increase in population) has really increased as well as activities undertaken in church.  Is this increase just because people are getting to know God and therefore seek salvation? or is it because of the need to sort out problems? i dont know cos i cannot speak for anybody. But i do know that preaching directed at solving people economic and other societal problems is on the increase, and most will likely accept what they told out of desperation. So another question is, do most people really understand why they tithe? (i believe you do, cos you said so). Probably this is what anti-tithers have issues with. You see Viaro, i have been harrased a number of times by tithers for not tithing. The believe is i am missing out on some blessings and this is justified by quoting Malachi or Mathew 23: 23 (i think?). My reaction most times to tithing is usually defensive and not otherwise as you might think. Its rare to see a tither that claim to tithe out of personal conviction (from my experience).

In many things we agree, as especially captured in the highlighted above; so there's really no need for long rejoinders from me. Tersely, I detest the broad demonizing of anyone (tithers or anti-tithers) just because we see things differently.

Depending on your location/place of residence on the global map, i would say tithing practice/prosperity preaching as being done today is a serious issue that requires attention (i beleive it's an issue in Nigeria where i currently reside). Every body want to be rich. But is this achievable in any society? I dont usually object to anti-tithers preaching against the some church practice of making tithing an obligation if it will bring some level of awareness/education. At the same time, i believe that people should be allowed to tithe if thats what they want to do. Its a free world.

Another feather to your cap. People should be allowed indeed both to tithe or otherwise not to tithe if they choose either way. But for Christians to be divided over this issue to force their opinions one way or the other on the entirety of the Body of Christ is not healthy.

Some pro-tithing arguments are not helpful where people are made to feel "forced" to give anything - and people are actually "forced" to give in many ways and not in tithes alone. At the same time, the majority of anti-tithing arguments to altogether stop Christians from tithing is unhelpful. Neither extremes should be encouraged - because extremities cause far more havoc than health to our collective existences and purpose. This is why discussions of this nature ought not be too generalized as to make one set of people to be guilty for simply 'tithing'.

Cheers.

Pastor AIO:
Talking of one hour journeys and 'arrogantly disturbing people', what is the difference between the boys behaviour and the nightmare inflicted on poor travellers whose one hour journey from Lagos to Ibadan in turned into a 3 hour nightmare by the Redeemed camp. Does not everything that applies to boy not applied to Pappy GO? Or has he got license to Nuisance?

Glad you asked; but no. The boy was obviously forcing his preaching on other passengers; whereas I don't know about the Redeemed camp (only heard about it from friends). In the one, arrogantly disturbing people is one thing; for the other, I don't know if the Redeemed camp acts in "everything" like the reported case of the boy on a BA flight.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=342795.msg4814540#msg4814540 date=1256717218]paul was a very smart guy who rode on the Glory of jesus to earn cheap popularity. Jesus said to peter 'thou art cephas, And on you i will build my church". Then uncle paul comes out of the blues claiming to have an encounter with christ. A man whom he never met when he was alive. Just go through the differnt narrations of his encounter and  the contradictions and inconsitencies are obvious. He went ahead to write over half of new testament blatantly opposing the teachings of christ.
The guy is just a liar. Here is what he has to say for himself
"If i lie to the glory of God where do they still judge me a sinner"[/quote]I usually don't like to engage in this kind of arguments; but I think it was really out of step with reason for you to make those inferences. The encounter that Paul had with Christ does not make him a liar - in just the same way, Muhammad and several others who claim to have known Christ are lying by the same reasoning, because they never met Christ when He was alive. And just think about it: does Muhammad not blatantly oppose the teachings of Christ? When people like you are on an NGO mission to castigate other people, you little realise the huge problems in your own house before barking the way you do.

Me thinks the guy was acting on his own. Sharing the Good News is one thing, arrogantly disturbing people is quite another world. The destiny of any man does not stand or fall upon what that guy did - in fact, if he were thrown off from that flight, his own destiny at that point can't be blamed on anyone else than himself.

rabzy:
The pentecostal churches have even become worse. Those ones don't go to extremes to collect money from you, But they use hynotism and psychology to prompt people to give all they have to God, claiming if you want God to bless you massively you have to donate massively. They preach financial freedom and tell you if you serve God, you cant be poor financially, your business cant go bad, that is an outright lie and a heresy. They tell you God is not a God of thousand nairas but of millions and billions.

Name any particular branch in Christianity (including yours and mine) and see if there is a single one that is so holy and spotless as to be free from one form of abuse and scandal or the other. Pentecostal? Protestant? Catholic? Non-Denominational? Free-Churches? House Church Movements? Holiness Movements? Just which one does not have a sorry page in their history to make others shake their heads? I feel this misanthropism of pointing fingers at people is quite unnecessary. Yes, there are abuses - face those abuses and don't try to castigate people broadly. Just in case you don't, I happen to know several pentecostal churches which are not guilty of what you complain about - so why make it seem as if "pentecostal churches" so broadly do what you're kick against?

They shamefully display their siphoned wealth and tell you, they bought their suits in designer shops, their shoes are specially made, one said God has blessed him so much, he does not wear a shirt twice.

We know them aplenty. Yet, these are not representative of Pentecostal at large.

when you consider all these with their grandiose reverential titles which they wear like a toga, you would want to throw up.

You want to throw up only because you're too concerned with such matters. Pardon me, but I don't spend my life focusing on such things to the detriment of other important issues in the Body of Christ. One way or another, even if tithes are never mentioned at all in Christianity, we know that financial scandals will never come t an end in Christianity. Not that we should not be concerned at all - but that should not distract us from what promotes the health of our brethren in the faith.

For me, anybody who has a career of endlessly arguing "anti-this" and "anti-that" can do so - but let them note that their anti-that&this arguments are many times flawed and ill-conceived. An anti-tithing argument is not law for anybody - so we can let (and even encourage) Christians to practice the freedom of tithing voluntarily for good purposes without demonizing them for what they do. It turns out that many anti-tithers are self-confessed stingy people who will never give beyond their arguments.

rabzy:
Anti-tithers have always been argueing the binding issue because the church has preached that it is binding on us for centuries and they are still preaching it. Some churches have rosters where they tick those who have paid their tithes and those who have not. Marriages and burials have been refused to a lot of people in the east because their parents were owing tithes, the kids have to pay or the church would not officiate, use the church hall nor the church cemetary until the kids pay what is owed the church, all this on a lie that the tithe is binding not just on the dead parents but on their children (what nonsense). The catholic church has confiscated people's properties for reneging to pay a ten percent, they evaluate the estates of nobles/rich men etc and determine the tithe for them which becomes binding or else you lose much more when the might of the church descends on you.

So it is not a mistake, it is an attempt to correct wrong teachings.

There are many churches which do not make tithing a binding issue upon their members. Why then try to tar every tither with the same brush just because some people are misrepresenting it to their congregation? If believers want to correct wrong teaching, that's good - but charging blindly like wild bulls at one another in the Body of Christ to make anti-tithing the new law for Christians is quite misplaced, misdirected, and malignant.

rabzy:
Like i said in my earlier post, there was little in the wilderness for the Israelites to store, they had little to tithe, definitely not manna. When they became prosperous in the promise land, it became necessary to build stores.

The building of store houses are not part of the Law. If anti-tithers want to argue all day by legalistic acumen, they should recognize that simple fact. There are no excuses for arguing every single issue about tithes upon the law while baulking at other irreconcilable matters that are not established by the Mosaic Law.

The mosaic did not have to tell them to build stores, common sense would tell them to do so, the law acknowleges that the tithes be collected, so  where it is collected, whether jars, barns, sacks, rooms or storehouses is of little consequence, it does not have to be pointedly stated.

How is it that the 'common sense' that you infer here cannot be applied elsewhere? You make the simplistic argument that there was not much in the wilderness for them to tithe - as if the tithing was to take place in the wilderness! Ha! When the Law established tithing, it was not based on their paucity, but rather on what they had acquired. Common sense would have led you to understand that if the issue of the store house was to be by legalism, it would have been given as a Law at the same time, rather than as a knee jerk afterthought.

Just by the way, am a guy. So you wont have to spend extra time typing he/she, lol

Noted, my guy. I did not want to misrepresent you as those girlies in skirts often confuse themselves on the issue.

KunleOshob:
Rantings of a deluded lunatic whose fraudulent business is being threatened. You are already condenm and your end is near. 2 peter 2:1-3

I have no business under your license nor do I demonize others as you do. But I can be sure that those who practice your condemning craft are self-condemned - Matthew 7:2.

rabzy:
I only oppose those who say tithing is compulsory for Christians, who teach that as if it is a duty they must perform. If anyone decides to voluntarily donate tenth part of his whatever to God, let him do that of his own volition. Not because he sees it as an obligation.

That's fine with me. Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek without any obligations, no law, no legal bindings upon him. Many people who tithe today do so not because they are trying to fulfil anything in Judaism. True that some people argue for a compulsory tithe; but what I oppose are the many fallacies of anti-tithing arguments that criminalizes and demonizes every tither just because anti-tithers will never give beyond their arguments. To make everyone guilty by association is not only demonic, but also unintelligent.

And honestly that is what most christians believe, because their Pastors did not tell them the truth? They have an Obligation to teach the truth, even if it would affect their purse.

How are you sure that many pastors are not already teaching their congregation the balanced truth on the subject? The problem many anti-tithers have is to take a few examples and make it the totality of every single case of tithing. That is just simply wrong by conduct and reason. Just because there are many illiterate anti-tithing arguments does not mean 'every' anti-tither is wrong or illiterate. The same balance should be promoted when it comes to the persuasions of those who tithe voluntarily. Where there are abuses, they should be dealt with; we should not demonize every tither because of the abuses coming from any certain quarter.

If you agree with what i said above, then all else would just be straining the gnat and splitting the hair.

regards

You may notice that I'm not on NL to split hairs with anyone. I've stated my position too many times that the divide is quite unnecessary; and no argument one way or the other is so water-tight that it becomes law for the Body of Christ.

rabzy:
It is true that by virtue of conquering a people, the conqueror can lay claim of what is conquered.

If that is true, as you admit it is, what then differs from that same rule in Abraham's case? Nada. One cannot serve a rule in one place (it is called the law of nations) and then choose to make it different in another place within the same context.

But by virtue of Abraham's statements himself, he did not see the goods as spoils that are worthy of him, he saw them properties that were recovered back for the King of Sodom.

Nope, that is not true. If that were true, it still would have made a Abraham a thief (something that violates conscience and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). Taking somebody else's property to act like it was your own for tithing to someone else is theft, not virtue. The sources discussed earlier have shown that Abraham was acting in accordance with the law of nations - and many anti-tither theologians know this for a fact. The goods taken (called 'spoils of war') were not recovered for the king of Sodom - the king knew this himself that was why he could not lay claim to anything but rather asked for the people.

They were taken by force from him from the invasion and most of what was recovered were still from Sodom, except for the provisions which the invading army brought with them, which would most likely have been depleted.

Nope again - please read the whole of chapter 14 of Genesis. You will find that it was not only Sodom that was attacked in that war - there were other kings as well (five against four). We only tend to narrow down the issue to only the king of Sodom because we often tend to forget the scenario already narrated in earlier verses of that chapter. The king of Sodom fell in the war - there was nothing he could claim as his own after the war.

So Abraham did not see them as something he could take, or own even if he could lay a claim to them.

No, for if Abraham did not see them as his own, he could not have given from the spoils to other people - that would be theft. That he gave from that spoil to Melchizedek and his confederates would have no other interpretation as to that he was actually seeing them as his own in the first place.

The British took artifacts by way of conquer from here, but the Benin people still wants them back, and the British could not dare say, it is rightfully theirs, their argument is that, we cant provide security for them.

On what grounds does that correlate with what happened in Genesis 14?

So i still say they were not his own. He only went to war to recover those spoils to those who it originally belongs.

If they were not his own, then giving anything from the spoils to others was theft, not tithes. But we know that is not the case, and all the pointers (including those used by anti-tithing theologians) already show that the goods belonged to the conqueror, Abraham.

Deep Sight,

Here are my preliminary thoughts on your interesting OP. Certainly, I'm a Christian - which makes me a theist. However, when trying to convey our convictions about the existence of God to any audience (whoever they may be), our theories would be closely examined before any conclusions could be reached. Now, that is not to mean that a faulty or falsified theory necessarily negates the existence of God; rather, we may come off with the realisation that no theorem or theory is categorically 'conclusive' in furnishing "proof" for issues like this - at least, not one that I know of at the present.

Following therefrom, the idea as set forth in your OP for the "oneness of infinity" may actually not add up for the "conclusive proof" of the existence of God - as far as arguments/polemics go on this issue.

For one, I contend that no argument is so water-tight as to be "conclusive" on the matter of proving the existence of God or anything for that matter.

Second, the simple formula set forth in the OP . .

       (← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity →)

. . is quite flawed, because it assumes a "given" at '1' where '0' should have been placed. If every digit counts and is not to be taken for granted in the argument, then their value should not only be  graphically represented, but also be correctly identified. So, I would propose a simpler model for the infinity index to be:

        ← Infinity  ← -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 |[zero]| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 → Infinity →

This is not only true but also rational because the value of any digit in either direction (left or right) is predicated upon its relationship to '0'. We may further develop this point where need be; but I shall not be tedious thereto.

Third, in as much as we're not focusing on the number system per se, the idea of the 'oneness of infinity' drawn from your postulations yet do not stand up. The questions such an idea necessitates may include the following and more:

        (a)  what is meant by 'one' and 'oneness'?

        (b)  what is meant by 'infinity'?

        (c)  what parameters define both 'oneness' and 'infinity' in such a relationship
              as to provide "proof" for the existence of God or any deity,
              (let alone a "conclusive" proof thereto)?

        (d)  why choose to start at 1 for the 'infinity' in that theory/theorem -
              why not any other number, even '0'?

You see, the assumption held out in the OP for the "conclusive proof" of the existence of God is froth with problems - not because I wish it so; but rather because that assumption, when queried, may not seem to go the distance.

However, I would say that my preliminary remarks might have missed the point in your persuasions - and it would be great to see what you might have meant.