honourhim:


All he wanted?? Nah.. There is no place in the bible that he said that all he wanted was a burnt sacrifice of animal to forgive sins and thats not what i said pls.
What i said is that God does not require burnt sacrifice of human. What i mean here is that there is no place he required that a human should be used in a BURNT sacrifice. If a sacrifice should be burnt it must be only animals and NOT HUMAN. Thats the point.
Also its not all the burnt sacrifices in the scriptures that were made for sin. Some were made for thanksgiving and appreciation too God so dont mix things up. The Abraham example i gave was not even a sacrifice of atonement of sin that he required from him at that time.

deut 13:16' You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole BURNT OFFERING to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,

infact the major thing about the forgiveness of sin is the shedding of blood which was the reason Jesus died so that his blood will be shed once and for all to replace the blood of the animals which were used in the past to atone for sins. And the birth and death of Jesus was prophesied right from the old testament so dont thiink it is an invention of the new testament age as it seems you are thinking,
it is simply Yaweh's plan and how he wanted to go of which you and i cant change it.

If this had been his plan from onset, why didn't jesus just come out after Adam? What was he thinking when he was busy requesting for burnt animals when actually he can come and appease himself by himself once and for all?

He is the greatest and he runs his affairs as he wants it. Those who are angry with him can only be angry and nothing more can they do to him.

Ok

.

Rilwon:


deut 13:16' You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,

This does not in any way show that all that God requires for the atonement of sin is a burnt sacrifice of animal. It does not even contribute to the issue at hand so you have no point here bro.

Rilwon:



If this had been his plan from onset, why didn't jesus just come out after Adam? What was he thinking when he was busy requesting for burnt animals when actually he can come and appease himself by himself once and for all?

what you said here is just like saying that since God knew he will create you and me, why didnt he create us all the day he created Adam? why dont we all die same day since we will die after all?

Honestly you have no point.


God who created this world and made it to operate with time and season wants things to happen in line with time and season. His plans for us go in line with that too so keep a cool head bro. You have no point.

Again i have told you in the scripture where God said that Jesus is his beloved SON, again there are places where Jesus made it plain in the scripture that God is his father but if you choose to cling to what some persons said here and use it to judge the scripture then you are on your own.

honourhim:


This does not in any way show that all that God requires for the atonement of sin is a burnt sacrifice of animal.

Lol.. But you said he neve requested for human sacrifice?

what you said here is just like saying that since God knew he will create you and me, why didnt he create us all the day he created Adam? why dont we all die same day since we will die after all?
Honestly you have no point.

You are only trying to change the theme of my question.. Na you sabi.

God who created this world and made it to operate with time and season wants things to happen in line with time and season. His plans for us go in line with that too so keep a cool head bro. You have no point.

honourhim:
Yea so what's wrong if God requires the sacrifice of what he created? And if that's part of the reason he created animals What"s wrong about it?

I won't say it's wrong. Isn't it rather funny that the alleged creator of the entire universe loves the smell of burning meat so much, though?

Rilwon:


Lol.. But you said he neve requested for human sacrifice?

Pls read from verse 12 of that chapter and you will see that the issue there is about God punishing a city for serving other gods. King James version never referred to it as a BURNT offering. It only said that they should gather all the spoils of the city after killing its inhabitants and burn the spoils with fire. And to show you that it wasnt a burnt offering/sacrifice as you want to claim, there was no mention of God savouring the sweet smell of what was burnt (even in the bible translation you used). So what happened to "the sweet smell that pleased God" reference that you usually gave?
Again where God required for animal burnt offering he usually required them to use clean animals so even if God wants to use "human as burnt offering" (as you wrongly claim tho), why will he now use infidels/unholy people who are serving other gods?
Obviously you still have no point here bro.

Rilwon:




You are only trying to change the theme of my question.. Na you sabi.

You are only trying to dodge.
There is no difference between your question and what i related it to.

you have no point to counter my submissions so keep a cool head bro.

honourhim:

Pls read from verse 12 of that chapter and you will see that the issue there is about God punishing a city for serving other gods. King James version never referred to it as a BURNT offering. It only said that they should gather all the spoils of the city after killing its inhabitants and burn the spoils with fire. And to show you that it wasnt a burnt offering/sacrifice as you want to claim, there was no mention of God savouring the sweet smell of what was burnt (even in the bible translation you used). So what happened to "the sweet smell that pleased God" reference that you usually gave?vAgain where God required for animal burnt offering he usually required them to use clean animals so even if God wants to use "human as burnt offering" (as you wrongly claim tho), why will he now use infidels/unholy people who are serving other gods? Obviously you still have no point here bro.
You are only trying to dodge. There is no difference between your question and what i related it to you have no point to counter my submissions so keep a cool head bro.

Okay.

Seun:

I won't say it's wrong. Isn't it rather funny that the alleged creator of the entire universe loves the smell of burning meat so much, though?

yea just like some of the features you put in nairaland may appear funny to us but to you it is of importance and beneficial to you.

Like i said, a creator has reasons for creating and his primary aim is to please himself. Pleasing his creature is secondary.
God has reasons for creating animals. PART of it (not all o) maybe for the purpose it served in the old testament.
That it appeared funny to some humans is just for us bro.

Rilwon:


Okay.

Cheers.

honourhim:
yea just like some of the features you put in nairaland may appear funny to us but to you it is of importance and beneficial to you.

Does God have mixed feelings when a person is being burnt alive by a mob? On one hand, it's murder. On the other hand, it smells so nice...

Seun:
Does God have mixed feelings when a person is being burnt alive by a mob? On one hand, it's murder. On the other hand, it smells so nice...

A person being burnt by a mob committed an offence and is suffering for his evil deed so there is nothing sweet about his death if at all God requires human burnt offering but he doesnt.

And of course you also know that a mob lynching a human is not doing it with the intent of sacrifice to God and in a situation where they claim to be doing it, then they are not doing it based on biblical injunction.

God does not require human burnt offering rather animal burnt offering. And that was in the old testament.

[b]Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence . It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.






The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.

Even more peculiar is God’s obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice. These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers. What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom? A kidnapper! If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.

However, in Leviticus 27:28-29, the Lord allows for no redemptions. “Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death.” I must admit that I am a bit confused by this contradiction, but it might only apply to slaves in your possession. Not that it makes any difference. A human sacrifice is a human sacrifice, and it is just sick.[/b]

Lilbrown007:
[b]Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence . It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

First i want you to clear your mind of the deceit that makes you see human as colleagues of the creator. As if our creator had an agreement with us before creation on the conditions he must meet if he must create us, what he must do to us and what he must not do so that when he fails in any part of the agreement then you begin to speak against him as you are doing now. We are not here on our own and had no agreement with him. He has reason and purpose for everything he has created.

Now to the issues you raised here i still ask- If God wanted the smell of burnt sacrifice, what about it? If he wants to use an animal to fulfill part of the purposes they were created for then whats the cry about it?
Obviously he didnt want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac rather it remains a test of Abraham's faith as He said it and it is to serve as a lesson both for Abraham and the rest of us who have read the story. If he wanted Isaac to be slaughtered for the sacrifice he wouldnt have stopped Abraham from doing it.

Lilbrown007:
[b]
Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence . It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

To you what God did is an evil but to God there is nothing evil about using any of his creature for the purpose for which he/it was created.

And has it ever occurred to you that humans can in the same way be perceived as cruel and evil in the animal kingdom considering the rate and manner at which we slaughter these animals on daily basis? But to us there is nothing evil about it rather they are serving the purpose for which they are meant to serve in our pot of soup etc. (We are not the creators of these animals then think of the feelings of the one who created and had his purpose of creating us all)
Again Abraham couldnt have lived in our time. He lived in a time where he could serve the purpose he served. Thats the creators plan and purpose.Generations come and fulfill their purposes and go. Thats how life runs.

Lilbrown007:



The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.


.[/b]

God spelt our to the people how they can provide food for their priests and they were doing it so your assumptions here is wrong. The priests were simply carrying out God's instruction and they did it with utmost caution knowing fully well that God will strike them (as was the case then) if they are deceitful about it.

Lilbrown007:



Even more peculiar is God’s obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice. ]

Nope. To consecrate here does not imply burnt offering for human. King James version said sanctify. To consecrate is to set aside for God. He then decides how he will use each of the things set aside for him. your insinuations here are wrong bro.

Lilbrown007:



These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers. What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom? A kidnapper! If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.

]

Again the priests acted according to God's instruction. God is the owner of all creation and controls things according to the purpose he made them for. Do you know what it means to be a creator? or is it you, a creature that will set a benchmark that will make God a creator? No. Bro you are still seeing God as your colleague whom you stand on the same plaform with in this life and therefore should be judged like you. It doesnt work that way. Thats the naked truth that you must face in this life. You can only be angry and speak against His actions but then it doesnt change anything about Him.

I ve already said it that Abraham and the old testament people cannot live in our time because they are not purposed to live in our time just as we are not purposed to live in their time. We are just running according to the creators calendar for this life. Face it no matter how bitter it may sound to you.

@RILWON: The Bible God requires people to serve Him with all their Heart, all their Soul, and all their Might- therefore, a Faithful Worshipper of God should be able to see the effects of a successful sacrifice.

I am out of Network Time to elaborate further at this time...

honourhim:

To you what God did is an evil but to God there is nothing evil about using any of his creature for the purpose for which he/it was created.

How do you know what god thinks about his deeds? Did he tell you himself?

Or did you read/hear god's supposed thoughts & intentions from some other source and blindly take their word for it?

And has it ever occurred to you that humans can in the same way be perceived as cruel and evil in the animal kingdom considering the rate and manner at which we slaughter these animals on daily basis? But to us there is nothing evil about it rather they are serving the purpose for which they are meant to serve in our pot of soup etc.

So first you were saying we can't use human standards to judge god. Now you're using human standards as a yardstick to try & defend god. Which is it?

If you stick with the first, that means god can do literally anything he wants and no human can ever call it "evil" (thereby, making him completely indistinguishable from the devil). If you stick with the second, it means god IS evil by human standards, and Christians choose to follow him anyway. You have to choose one.

Again Abraham couldnt have lived in our time. He lived in a time where he could serve the purpose he served. Thats the creators plan and purpose.Generations come and fulfill their purposes and go. Thats how life runs.

Saying this means you don't believe in objective morality (the declaration that the bible is the everlasting moral code). You accept subjective morality based on the time period.

Nope. To consecrate here does not imply burnt offering for human. King James version said sanctify. To consecrate is to set aside for God. He then decides how he will use each of the things set aside for him. your insinuations here are wrong bro.

Isn't god supposed to have made the entire universe?

Which is collectively trillions and trillions of times the mass of our tiny earth, brimming with stars larger than all of the planets in our solar system & our sun combined, most of which have been around way longer than we have. He created all of this yet he wants a virtually microscopic group of organic self-replicating organisms on this tiny dot, to "set aside" some of the even tinier objects he created & supposedly already owns, so he can feel better about himself?

Not only is that extremely illogical but it also just sounds like a ridiculously petty and strange thing for an all powerful god to care about. Your small god is such a clear reflection of the small & unimaginably ignorant human minds that thought him up. The writers obviously thought the earth was the center of the universe (as our human egos would naturally lead us to do in the absense of scientific evidence).

God is the owner of all creation and controls things according to the purpose he made them for. Do you know what it means to be a creator? or is it you, a creature that will set a benchmark that will make God a creator? No. Bro you are still seeing God as your colleague whom you stand on the same plaform with in this life and therefore should be judged like you.

You're acting like it's a crime for someone to care about the moral consistency of the thing/being they're choosing to dedicate their entire lives around. I mean literally your logic is what caused things like the holocaust. "Don't question, don't rely on your own moral compass, just follow blindly". Excuses like "he's not on your level, he's not your collegue" are just EXCUSES to avoid moral accountability.

Rilwon:


I don't like e-fight, but I don't like taking shìt from those touts in politics section.



[size=14pt]
I don't believe in the 72virgins BS. The Quran never made mention of 72 virgins or assess to booze [/size]

[size=18pt]@Rilwan, careful with your statements not all Christians are ignorant of the Hadith's and the Quran:[/size]
This is what the Hadith says:

The specific Hadith in which the number of virgins is specified is Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunah (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise. The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Quranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman

Let's see what the Holy Quran says:


(QURAN 37:40-4 : "In the Gardens of Paradise, Facing one another on thrones, Round them will be passed a cup of pure wine; White, delicious to the drinkers, Neither they will have any kind of hurt, abdominal pain, headache, or sin, nor will they suffer intoxication from it. And with them will be chaste females, restraining their glances, with wide and beautiful eyes ."

(QURAN 44:51-55): "Verily! The righteous will be in Paradise. Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and also in thick silk, facing each other, and We shall marry them to Houris with wide, lovely eyes. "

(QURAN 52: 17-20): "Verily, for those who fear Allah there will be Gardens in Paradise, filled with Delight. Enjoying in that which their Lord has bestowed on them, and the fact that their Lord saved them from the torment of the blazing Fire. The Lord will say: ‘Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do’. They will recline with ease on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes."

(QURAN 55:54-59): "Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Wherein will be those houris, restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse before. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? In beauty they are like rubies and coral. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny?"

(QURAN 55:70-77): "Therein gardens will be [b ] fair wives good and beautiful [/b] ; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Houris restrained in pavilions; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Whom no man has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse before. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Reclining on green cushions and rich beautiful mattresses. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny?"

(QURAN 56:37-40): "...We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand…."

(QURAN 78:31-34): "As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup."

So you see, that your statement is not truthfull.

Rilwon:
All through the OT , God requires offerings for atonement of sins. Elaborate temples have to be built to very specific detail and for every sin that is committed , an animal has to be killed, bled and burnt . Or was God just a convenient explanation for grilling meat ? Maybe grilled lamb was really savory and funding was impossible unless it was a religious ritual ? I have to ask because the bible never explains why the smell of burnt meat is a satisfactory offering to receive his forgiveness.









[ Read more in the bible. ]

Clearly , the death of Jesus made up for the sacrificing of all the animals. If God required the scent of burnt offerings for atonement in the OT , why wasn't Jesus body charred for the smoke to go up to the air for God to smell? Maybe the explanation for that is that was because it was God himself . So, then, how is God satisfied with his own death ? Was it the smell of his own dying body ? Did the curiosity of being killed finally satisfy him? If so, why?

@Rilwan
I wish you just stayed in the closed iron-curtained "Nairaland for Muslims" section. But since you chose to come here, you are welcome.

Your post is interesting because unknowingly, you exposed the BASIC flaw in Islamic theology.

How?

Islam claims that it is NOT a new Religion. According to your teachings Adam, Moses, Solomon, David and almost all the prophets you know in Islam are supposed to be Muslims.

Secondly, the Almighty Allah through the Holy Quran claim that He gave the Nabi's the books which make up the Taurat, Ingeel, Zabur etc. Now, all these books show that Allah required them to make Animal Sacrifices.

Since the only sacrifice you know is that of Ibrahim. Do you know that it is the same God you called "suya loving" that asked Ibrahim to turn his son into suya?

It is either Allah is not the God of Ibrahim, Moses, David, Solomon, Abel, Noah etc or your ignorance of both Islam and the other revealed books of Allah is great.

Thanks for patiently reading. Happy Salah in arrears

shadeyinka:


[size=18pt]@Rilwan, careful with your statements not all Christians are ignorant of the Hadith's and the Quran:[/size]
This is what the Hadith says:

The specific Hadith in which the number of virgins is specified is Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunah (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise. The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Quranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman

Let's see what the Holy Quran says:


(QURAN 37:40-4 : "In the Gardens of Paradise, Facing one another on thrones, Round them will be passed a cup of pure wine; White, delicious to the drinkers, Neither they will have any kind of hurt, abdominal pain, headache, or sin, nor will they suffer intoxication from it. And with them will be chaste females, restraining their glances, with wide and beautiful eyes ."

(QURAN 44:51-55): "Verily! The righteous will be in Paradise. Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and also in thick silk, facing each other, and We shall marry them to Houris with wide, lovely eyes. "

(QURAN 52: 17-20): "Verily, for those who fear Allah there will be Gardens in Paradise, filled with Delight. Enjoying in that which their Lord has bestowed on them, and the fact that their Lord saved them from the torment of the blazing Fire. The Lord will say: ‘Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do’. They will recline with ease on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes."

(QURAN 55:54-59): "Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Wherein will be those houris, restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse before. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? In beauty they are like rubies and coral. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny?"

(QURAN 55:70-77): "Therein gardens will be [b ] fair wives good and beautiful [/b] ; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Houris restrained in pavilions; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Whom no man has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse before. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Reclining on green cushions and rich beautiful mattresses. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny?"

(QURAN 56:37-40): "...We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand…."

(QURAN 78:31-34): "As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup."

So you see, that your statement is not truthfull.

Well, i still can't find where the Quran made mention of 72 virgins in the afterlife, maybe you will like to quote it out explicitly.

Remember, this is not ambiguous for the discerning minds: “Enter Paradise, you and your wives, in happiness.” 43:70

shadeyinka:


@Rilwan
I wish you just stayed in the closed iron-curtained "Nairaland for Muslims" section. But since you chose to come here, you are welcome.

Your post is interesting because unknowingly, you exposed the BASIC flaw in Islamic theology.

How?

Islam claims that it is NOT a new Religion. According to your teachings Adam, Moses, Solomon, David and almost all the prophets you know in Islam are supposed to be Muslims.

Secondly, the Almighty Allah through the Holy Quran claim that He gave the Nabi's the books which make up the Taurat, Ingeel, Zabur etc. Now, all these books show that Allah required them to make Animal Sacrifices.

Since the only sacrifice you know is that of Ibrahim. Do you know that it is the same God you called "suya loving" that asked Ibrahim to turn his son into suya?

It is either Allah is not the God of Ibrahim, Moses, David, Solomon, Abel, Noah etc or your ignorance of both Islam and the other revealed books of Allah is great.

Thanks for patiently reading. Happy Salah in arrears

Rilwayne001:


Well, i still can't find where the Quran made mention of 72 virgins in the afterlife, maybe you will like to quote it out explicitly.

Remember, this is not ambiguous for the discerning minds: “Enter Paradise, you and your wives, in happiness.” 43:70

The Quran did NOT explicitly state the number of women/Houris. Some Hadiths state the number as BTW 72 and 300.

Did you not read this:

The specific Hadith in which the number of virgins is specified is Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunah (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise. The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Quranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman

Seriously speaking, are the seven Qur'anic scriptures I quoted not in context? What are their proper interpretations? Are the 7 scriptures abrogated?

Malims say Q43:70 imply that in addition to the hauris, a Muslim man will retain the wives he had while on earth.

Any contrary explanations?

Rilwayne001:

The truth sometimes is not palatable!

shadeyinka:

The truth sometimes is not palatable!

See ehn, i used to argue a lot before, you may check my previous threads and post to confirm, but then, I'm not just in the mood to argue these days. I'm just here to catch fun. Believe whatever you want and that should remain your cuppa.

You can continue arguing with yourself if you are in the mood.

shadeyinka:


The Quran did NOT explicitly state the number of women/Houris. Some Hadiths state the number as BTW 72 and 300.

Did you not read this:



Seriously speaking, are the seven Qur'anic scriptures I quoted not in context? What are their proper interpretations? Are the 7 scriptures abrogated?

Malims say Q43:70 imply that in addition to the hauris, a Muslim man will retain the wives he had while on earth.

Any contrary explanations?

I said earlier on that the Qu'ran made no mention of 72virgins.you were so quick to quote and show me where it did, and now you are saying it didn't explicitly say it. Are you these confused? And how many hadiths talked about it? How sound are they? Are you ignoring the fact that those who are married in this live will be United with their righteous wives in the hereafter?


Which Malims are you talking about as per Q43:70? I guess your neighbor is the malim'?

Typical confused christard

Rilwayne001:


See ehn, i used to argue a lot before, you may check my previous threads and post to confirm, but then, I'm not just in the mood to argue these days. I'm just here to catch fun. Believe whatever you want and that should remain your cuppa.

You can continue arguing with yourself if you are in the mood.



I said earlier on that the Qu'ran made no mention of 72virgins.you were so quick to quote and show me where it did, and now you are saying it didn't explicitly say it. Are you these confused? And how many hadiths talked about it? How sound are they? Are you ignoring the fact that those who are married in this live will be United with their righteous wives in the hereafter?


Which Malims are you talking about as per Q43:70? I guess your neighbor is the malim'?

Typical confused christard

Rilwon:


I don't like e-fight, but I don't like taking shìt from those touts in politics section.



[size=14pt]
I don't believe in the 72virgins BS. The Quran never made mention of 72 virgins or assess to booze [/size]

Me not set for argument. You said that The Quran never made mention of 72 virgins or assess to booze .

If you are worried about the high number of virgin-hauris how about booze? The Qur'an Promises beautiful, wide eyes, hymen intact ladies for the Muslim men!

PLUS

All the wives they had on earth.

shadeyinka:

[size=18pt] [/size]



Let's see what the Holy Quran says:



(QURAN 37:40-4 : "In the Gardens of Paradise, Facing one another on thrones, Round them will be passed a cup of pure wine; White, delicious to the drinkers, Neither they will have any kind of hurt, abdominal pain, headache, or sin, nor will they suffer intoxication from it. And with them will be chaste females, restraining their glances, with wide and beautiful eyes ."

(QURAN 44:51-55): "Verily! The righteous will be in Paradise. Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and also in thick silk, facing each other, and We shall marry them to Houris with wide, lovely eyes. "

(QURAN 52: 17-20): "Verily, for those who fear Allah there will be Gardens in Paradise, filled with Delight. Enjoying in that which their Lord has bestowed on them, and the fact that their Lord saved them from the torment of the blazing Fire. The Lord will say: ‘Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do’. They will recline with ease on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes."

(QURAN 55:54-59): "Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Wherein will be those houris, restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse before. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? In beauty they are like rubies and coral. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny?"

(QURAN 55:70-77): "Therein gardens will be [b ] fair wives good and beautiful [/b] ; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Houris restrained in pavilions; Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Whom no man has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse before. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny? Reclining on green cushions and rich beautiful mattresses. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you deny?"

(QURAN 56:37-40): "...We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand…."

(QURAN 78:31-34): "As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup."

So you see, I have contradicted only You and not the Holy Quran. In case you forgot, your statement was not truthfull.

Quran 2:
67. Remember, when Moses said to his people: “Allah demands that you sacrifice a cow,” they said: “Are you making fun of us?” And he said: “Allah forbid that I be of the ignorant.”
68. “Call on your Lord for us,” they said, “that He might inform us what kind she should be.” “Neither old nor young, says Allah , but of age in between,” answered Moses. “So do as you are bid.”
69. “Call on your Lord,” they said, “to tell us the colour of the cow.” “Allah says,” answered Moses, “a fawn coloured cow, rich yellow, well pleasing to the eye.”
70. “Call on your Lord,” they said, “to name its variety, as cows be all alike to us. If God wills we shall be guided aright.”
71. And Moses said: “He says it’s a cow unyoked, nor worn out by ploughing or watering the fields, one in good shape with no mark or blemish.” “Now have you brought us the truth,” they said; and then, after wavering, they sacrificed the cow.


Rilwon, Allah loved suya too o!!!!

truthmans2012:

Rilwon, Allah loved suya too o!!!!

Allah = Yahweh So whats your point?

Anas09