₦airaland Forum

nuru:
Stop deceiving and confusing yourself. The question has a straightforward answer, i.e. if the Best Name in English language is God, and the Best Name in Arabic language is Allah, then Allah and God are the same.

Cheap talk! Nuru, prove your own words to yourself. As a moslem, you're invited to come to our church this Sunday and worship with us, since Allah and God are the same to you. We welcome you in Jesus' Name even if you come with a Qur'an But please note: the God we worship is the God whom Jesus Christ calls "Abba Father." (Mark 14:36) Hope you will not be offended when we say "Our Father in heaven"? 

After that experience, we'll wait to see you tell the forum that the Allah of Islam is the same as the God of the Bible. What a miracle that will be. 

4gt_m.

GL:
If you're preaching to your Muslim brethren, that's ok. Though I must say that i'm surprised your sermon should be based on the Bible - the holy book of another religion, and not the Koran - the Islamic holy book.,,, u're twisting the bible's message and doing a very terrible job of it. Maybe u should take some time out to read the New Testament all over.

Well said GL. I can't understand this sudden love that Moslems have for the Bible that they quote it to prove their religion, and yet arrive at completely different meanings from the texts. _{Is something missing in the Qur'an that they must twist the Bible to say what it does not?} Anyway, just 4get_me.

Nuru, I asked for one Bible verse and all you can do is give me this lame excuse that the use of "We" by Allah is an expression of majesty? Indeed I read the thread that you refered to, and m4malik did a good job in his reply to yours. You will not find one verse in the Bible saying that Christians believe in or worship three Gods; yet there are multiplied verses that clearly show Allah speaking as a plural deity. Your analogy of a President saying "Our Government, " is weak; it does not even correspond to the case in point. If you don't understand what Christianity is about, ask and answers will be given. But if you're trying to be sarcastic and ridicule other people's faith, you probably would not like what they'll say about your own faith, especially when the Qur'an is quoted to back what they say. Allah is not a single deity that you worship in Islam. Where did I see that? In your own Qur'an where Allah says: ", Us (alone) did they serve" [Sura 21:73]. How many gods do you serve in Islam? Take care of your own questions in Islam before you make unfounded statements about other faiths.

4gt_m. 

Softee, do you really feel 'judged' because I appealed for your use of non-inflammatory verbiage? If I had inadvertently used expressions tantamount to the same cause as you did, I apologise to anyone who feels hurt thereby.

Softee:
Secondly, Yes i believe in the power of the gospel BUT people are going to be saved by fear and God uses people to enforce that.

However, it makes me wonder what Bible you've been reading because I'm not convinced that people are going to be saved by fear. Good for you if you were saved by fear, but it doesn't work that way with everyone. The Bible tells me people are drawn to Jesus and saved by grace and love. At least I saw that one after removing the log from my own eyes. That is the reason I try to play it safe by quoting my references for what I say:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph 2:8). Infact, love and fear are not the same: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18). Certainly, I have no right to tell you what to say or not, but if you're convinced that using provocative words is better than those promoting peace and grace, I rest my case.

With love,
4get_me.

nuru:
The main difference between Islam and christianity is that Islam enjoins believe in, and worship of One God while Christianity teaches believe in three gods ( Father, Son and Holy Spirit ).

Please nuru, I challenge you to quote just one reference in the Bible that says clearly that Christianity believes in three gods. Just one verse in the Bible that says that there are three Gods in the Christian faith. If you do not understand the Trinity, then don't invite unwarranted statements that will fetch you more confusion.

Second, how many gods do you worship in Islam when Allah is a plural deity? If Allah was a singular deity in Islam, I cannot understand why he could not get his grammar right in the use of pronouns and addresses himself as "We" instead of "I" or "Me". When someone says "we do this or that," it is clear for all to see that there are more than one person speaking, regardless the excuse.

(Koran 19:67)
But does not man call to mind that WE created
him before out of nothing.

Allah in the Qur'an is clearly not one god as you so dogmatically claim - he is a plural deity!

I'm sorry that I've been busy and could not have seen the posts made earlier on. However, I'll briefly restate my points. Softee, we as Christians endeavour to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world in truth, love and understanding. However, I think it is highly offensive when you go so far as to directly call someone else's faith demonic. This was your quote:

Softee: Which is why many christians belief it is of the devil (which is my view).

I was reacting to that kind of statement and appealing for wisdom not to use inflammatory verbiage. We've heard all the bad news on all sides - Jews, Christians and Muslims. I think we should concentrate on telling the Goodnews and trust the Holy Spirit to draw people's hearts to Jesus Christ. In 1 Cor.10:32, we're told to not give offence to anyone, whether Jews, Gentiles or the Church. I believe the power of the Gospel is still effective by simply telling our own side of the story or whatever we want to say without putting down the beliefs of others, even though they might be wrong from our own point of view.

4gt_m.

Hnd-holder:
Christian are the first Cult in the whole world during the time of NERO,
So many J Witness were killed. Lot of protestants were murdered in Europe.
All religion use BLOOD! BLOOD!!, and they kill Jesus they claimed he came to die for their sin,

So then, what do we do? If all religion use "BLOOD, BLOOD," whose blood do you use?

Hnd-holder, you've got it all mixed up. Christians do not make a bogus claim as if the crucifixion was an accident that they try to explain away. There are a few things you should note about the death of Christ. First, the death of Christ was a prophecy made several hundred years before Jesus walked the earth. Two powerful scriptures that bear this out are:
(1) (Psa 22:16,18) " - the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." (please compare this with Matt.27:35 and Mark 15:24 to see the fulfillment of this prophecy).
(2) (Isa 53:10-13) "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, ,,,the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand,,, He shall see of the travail of his soul,,,for he shall bear their iniquities ,,,because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (please see Mark 15:20,25 for the fulfillment of this prophecy of Jesus death and the purpose for which He died.)

Second the death of Jesus Christ was extraordinary. It is not known in history that a man is singled out to be put to death for his extraordinary righteous life and the claims he makes about himself. True, many innocent people have been murdered in capricious and heinous ways like the holocaust that the incumbent President of Iran recently called a myth. But isn't it amazing that Jesus Christ was singled out by the maddening crowd to be put to death for no convicted crimes, and for His extraordinary claims? It was at the confession that He was the very Son of God that Jesus was condemned to death. Again, let me point this out in the Bible:
(1) His extraordinary righteous life - (John 10:32) "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" And, (Mark 15:14) "Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him."
(2) Condemned for His claim - (Mark 14:61- 64) ",,,Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."

You see, when you talk about the death of Jesus Christ but fail to see its significance in history and divine revelation, you'll make the mistake of misconstruing it only in terms of bloody political filibusters. Whatever your galls or resentments at crimes perpetrated under the name of Christianity, I urge you to patiently get a good grasp of the message of the Bible before you misinterpret its essence. It often happens that most people who try to slur Christianity have never even read the Bible with an open and fair inquiry. I trust you're not one of such. Please read the Bible to discover the love of God in Jesus Christ - it's available by faith in His name if only you're willing to lay hold of it.

4gt_m.

Misguided passions sometimes cause more problems than they do provide solutions or foster understanding between people of various cultures and worldviews. I agree with Hnd-holder that Softee ought to have made his (or her ??) contributions with decorum, especially when the faith he tries to proclaim is founded on the powerful ingredient of love. We should be wise and remember that the emphasis of our contributions is not necessarily to win arguments, but to offer the love and mutual respect we ourselves have been given to enjoy by Him in whom we put our trust - Jesus Christ. It's well to remember to "let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." (Col. 4:6). Afterall, we don't want to give the wrong impressions to people who are seeking a better understanding of the Christ we proclaim.

Peace to y'all. 
4gt_m.

Wow, it looks like we are ignoring the original question of this thread as the discussion now tends to be about skeptism and atheism. I hope that after this, we'd respect and keep to that and perhaps take our discourses on this subject to its proper forum or thread.

nferyn:
You are misunderstanding the article. He is talking about the scientific method, not about the purpose of science itself.

C'mon nferyn, I was quoting Dawkins who clearly stated that, "the invention of the scientific method ,  rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked," and I strongly disagreed; that is not the premise of the scientific method. I did not misunderstand the article as you suppose, and I believe that if a man speaks he ought to do so in order to be understood. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth by thinking that I said "the purpose of science itself" was to attack ideas. That wasn't my quote - it was Dawkins'.

nferyn:
Most scientists are just not interested in questions of religion as they felt it's just a waste of their time and energy.

You make statements like that to show how little aware you are that there are scientists who are deeply interested in religion and spirituality. I think you ought to slow down a bit and realise that science is not limited to just the disciplines of natural or physical sciences - the social sciences are as authoritative in their rights as other sciences are. It is true that not many natural scientists are concerned with questions of religion, but that does not mean every other scientist takes that position. A recent study by a postdoctoral student in the Rice University in Houston has something to say on that (see here: http://www.stnews.org/Research-1951.htm).

nferyn:
I have no doubt about the fact that there are currently questions that science cannot annswer and that there are questions that science probably will never be able to answer

How well said - and that's where we find a common ground, I suppose. The fact is, scientific methods are not the same thing as faith - and to try and force faith to be clobbered into the methods of science is to keep up the ear-kissing arguments that skeptics incessantly and unjustifiably raise. Supernatural phenomena are not the same as science. When skeptics and atheists argue that faith in God is unfounded, or that God does not exist, my question has always been that they provide proof or evidence for that claim. More often than not, all I get are arguments that fail to provide the same type of proof skeptics are asking the spiritual community to provide. Skeptism is not science; it is only a position one takes in matters relating to spirituality. Just as you could not be convinced as to the answers I may give for believing in Jesus Christ, it so happens that skeptism's answers have not satisfied questions of theism.

@ nferyn:", but to take the great leap of faith between that position and a positive assertion of a supreme being is a few bridges to far. It is a projection of human's deepest fears."

If the question is asked whether or not God exists, my most definite answer is yes, God does exist. Proof? I have prayed to Him for something that defied skeptism and science - and He answered in a supernatural way by healing me. Then again, my nephew who was ill and near the point of death in 2004 was instantly healed after I prayed. This may not make sense to you at all, especially if you want scientific answers. But then, I did not pray to God because I was afraid of Him, otherwise I should not have gone to Him in the first place; rather, His love invited me and gave me faith to verify in my own experience that, not only does God exist, but also that He is a good God. The proof of this for me is that I'm alive, healed, and have been enjoying divine healing since that encounter with Him.

May I invite you personally to seek God by faith in Jesus Christ - you may not have a "need", but just prove to yourself if God truly exists or not. God cannot be found in skeptism nor by scientific deductions. I guarantee you that if you seek Him in just the way He says we should, you will definitely find answers that far outweigh any arguments presented to you - including your own.

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jer 29:13)

With love,
4get_me.

nferyn, again I want to acknowledge your well-thoughtout philosophy. However, your position and convictions fall far short of an inclusive understanding of what religion is - let alone the Christian faith. In the first place, when a man says that the premise of scientific investigation is to attack ideas, it matters nothing to me if one accuses me of making selective and abstract quotes (need I say that is precisely what you do when dealing with matters of faith in the Bible?). By stating that premise, what it means to me is that he rests everything on one goal - that is, to attack what he does not understand or believe in; and that is something radically opposed to what is called "investigation." Even among scientists, it is commonly believed that it is not by attacking ideas that one establishes an 'understanding of the cosmos'. The American physicist Stephen Weinberg says that "Religion is an insult to human dignity," and he speaks for himself, because not many physicists would agree with him. I wonder if he counted as retarded, all physicists who were erudite in their field and still held to a religious belief. This is what Albert Einstein, the German-born physicist once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ("Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941).

I've heard many times that the skeptic mind requires evidence and proof (usually those appealing to the physical senses) for questions of religion and other phenomena; and if the answers are not tailored to their ideologies or expectations, then the religious mind is committed to the realms of 'ignorance.' I should remind you that not everything someone questions or seeks answers to can be proven this way. Bertrand Russell, the British mathematician and philosopher often quoted by skeptics, might have attested to this when he quipped, "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this."

Religion - of whatever branch - has received a bad name from people who have given a false and ugly face to it. Yet, to generalise it in the way that Stephen Weinberg has done is to throw away the baby with the bath water. I should not belabour the point any further than to simply say that there are matters of life far beyond the methodology of science, even if denied by skeptics and atheists. You may not agree, but I share the thoughts of
another scientist in this regard: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." (Richard Feynman, US educator & physicist c.1918 - 1988). Please note that I don't mean to be sarcastic towards your position; however, there certainly is a basis for faith that is both intelligent and genial.

4get_me.

@nferyn: Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer my questions. Actually, there was nothing new in your definitions - I just wanted your own statement as to what you think of life and faith. Every worldview - religious or secular - have had grey shades in their history. As an individual of atheistic leanings, you cannot deny the fact that some atheists have been directly involved in the most dastardly and inhumane actions known to mankind (I don't mean any offences). I respect your right to subscribe to Dawkins' ideas, but he does not prove anything to the effect that religion alone is responsible for his complaints.

However, I find it a bit worrisome that you have misrepresented Christianity. I define the Christian faith based on what it teaches in the Bible rather than on the opinions of people; and that is why I think that Dawkins misused words that confused matters rather than foster understanding. For example, he seemed to have narrowed the goal of scientific investigation to just one premise - attack. "Now, the invention of the scientific method... rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked." (reference from your thread of Dawkins, third paragraph, accessible here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6509.0.html). Eminent and astute scientists of more worth would strongly disagree with that premise, for science is not about attacking ideologies, but rather seeking to better the cause of humanity.

Another point to this bane of misrepresentation is your statement that Christianity "...leads to bigotry and evil acts." I suppose you take that stance based on the ugly events in history like the Crusades. However, please bear with my pointing out that Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, was not quoting the Bible or stating Christian doctrine when he gave his advice to the religious armies to kill the inhabitants of Beziers. Why do I point this out? If you had read in the Bible that Christianity actually is bigotted and evil, I would patiently wait for you to quote the references. In the same vein, may I offer to quote what Jesus Himself said to His followers:

'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.' (Mat 5:44).

That surely doesn't sound like bigotry or evil, does it? It is on Jesus Christ that Christians base their life and faith, not on any Abbot. Please look closely into your claims and ask yourself if indeed Christianity is what you think it is, especially when you haven't given it a fair hearing based on the Bible itself. I trust that you'll be better able to appreciate the fact that human dignity is not in ferreting people of other ideologies or worldviews that differ from your own by using uninformed prejudices. Although I'm not a philosopher or astute scientist, I do agree with the following statement:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely re-arranging their prejudices." William James (US Pragmatist, philosopher & psychologist c.1842 - 1910)

As regards what I think about the points you raised, I'll share my thoughts with you on this forum as amicably as I can, without prejudices or biases, hoping to warmly invite you to consider the raison d'etre of the Christian faith, not loosing sight of the main question of this thread as to if God and Allah are the same.

Very warmly yours,
4get_me.

Oh then, let him tell us by himself what he really is about - I don't think assumptions are safe grounds because that's where things are taken out of context, and the result... you already know. So devessel, we wait on you to clear the air for us.

@ devessel, at least you should have some idea or underlying statement you'd like to share with us so that anyone visiting your thread could make some contributions. Perhaps a question you'd like to pose, or an assertion you want to make?

4get_me.

Ajisafe:
...Let's teach them! Let's teach the idiots about Muhammad!

I'm sorry to note that those who think they have the truth and are serving God are the very same people who are quick to call others "idiots." Why does Islam preach so much hate? If you don't like Christians or people of other faith, why hate them in the first place? I still do not see the beauty in a religion of which its adherents use such uncultured language to propagate their beliefs. Where is the love and grace?


4get_me.

Er... I meant that as a joke - and I won't go any further in being playful with sacred matters. I came to apologise because my wife saw my post and... Phew! You know the rest of the story. Thank God she didn't move a motion to 4get_me!

Questions again:

1. How do you define Humanism, Atheism, and Utilitarianism?

2. What's your attitude towards Christianity?

Many thanks.

And em...er..., Seun, I don't know how it happens, but the time counter on my 'user info' banner seems to be faulty. I had barely spent 5 mins online when the cybercafe manager asked me to log out because I had spent over an hour online! Katakata nearly burst for here O! Abeg adjust the 'kini' or remove am kpatakpata! Or... just 4get_me!

May I ask something, nferyn? What really is your faith or philosophy of life?

Hnd-holder:
Read the history of the church and bible then you will know that European wrote some for themselves. So also did the Arabian country made Islam look as its . Isaac and Ishmael who was offered to be Killed by Abraham, The mother of Ismael is an Arab so also the Islamic family. All is Politics.

Phew! And your point is...??

I fail to see the connection between your piece and Deut.18:18 - was it Jesus or Mohammed?

M.

elbaron:
... I have told you what I set out to do. I do not think it fair that you tell me what you think I should do.

elbaron,

Easy..I didn't mean to put you on the hot seat, so to speak. I have no right at all to tell you or anyone else what to do not do. I'm waiting to see the day you provide your own proof that God does exist. And when I have any thread of interest to amuse myself with questions of the non-existence of God, you'll read my post to that effect.

I apologise if my piece rattled your nerves in any way... I'm often seeking to make friends and then...

Just 4get_me

elbaron,
Ask your teacher and I'm sure he or she would tell you better about the use of articles in spoken or written English. The context in which you used it above was clearly wrong. I'm aware of "THE Spoken English" and "The Written English" treated as subjects; and it does not appear that you used "the" in that context. Again, I followed the thread and found that Z4M4Eva only said "God Exists" twice, and the next thing you did was take a detour. I'm not the Myke in question, but I find it rather quizzical that you went that far. I wonder why you have a penchant to be so derisive.

Secondly, I know what atheists are wont to do: and you predictably towed that line - "...it was not my objective to provide proof of my own as to the existence of god." I don't expect you would. (I'm not labelling you an atheist). Wouldn't it have made sense if you provided proof outside the Bible to buttress your claim? It would make some sense, perhaps, if I tried to pray and you offered to explain why "God does not exist" and yet "God is dangerous". If I prayed according to your logic and indeed found He was dangerous even if He did not exist, then you would have made your point. However, my own experience shows that claim to be ever so false. Why? Simply because I have prayed to God for healing when I was seriously ill, and have been healed. I have also prayed for a nephew and had seen him instantly healed. This actually happened in 2004. It would be irrational for me to "prove" that the healing actually took place, just as you cannot "prove" it never happened. That is one true experience that convinces me beyond dogmas, philosophies and theology that God does exist. It may not sound "logical" to you, but you cannot disprove its reality. Incidentally, no skeptic by whatever badge has been able to provide healing to those whose illnesses defied medical practice.

If believers of whatever faith attest to the fact that the supernatural does exist, because they have experienced it for themselves, why would anyone want to make a sweeping, categorical statement without logical "proof" or evidence that God does not exist? Bertrand Russell does not present anything to the effect of the non-existence of God. I had hoped to see a reasoned and informed presentation with evidence of your own that "God is dangerous" because "God does not exist"!

Let's just be civil and keep the subject in clear view...or, just 4get_me.

Em...er... Abeg, ladies who visit this page - I need 4 more women to complete that prophecy in my life; presently, I have 2 and I've been eyeing a 3rd one (she lives just across!).

I've nothing to thrill you with and I'm in big debt. Phew!! So, If you no like my request...just 4get_me!

elbaron,
All you needed to have said to Z4M4eva was that she got her facts - instead, you went beyond bounds to personal matters, albeit you claimed it was your "passion" for the subject at hand. Second, was my diction too difficult for you that you stated I did "not understand the written English"? (If you must know, there should be no article before "written English"!). That wasn't civil on your part. Third, you are yet to advance "proof" - your own proof - that God does not exist. Instead, you tried to pick holes in Genesis to claim that God was not perfect in knowledge. I'm yet to see your own point of view. When you claim that "God does not exist" and in the same breath state that "God is dangerous," you sound contradictory to yourself. How could someone who does not exist yet become dangerous at the same time? It's alright for you not to believe in God - He might be imperfect to you and all that; but there is a God, and you're not Him.

nferyn:
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of the God concept in it's broadest terms.

I'm seeing this again - and a good one. Some who say that God does not exist will do well to note that "It is impossible to "prove" the non-existence of ...God... in it's broadest terms."

4g_m.

elbaron:
@Z4M4eva, concentrate on loving myke forever and leave things that are obviously beyond you especially since it doesn't have to do with Myke. ..

Make we clap for you or wetin happen? Z4M4eva didn't post anything about Myke...so why that detour from nowhere?! I would see the sense of your postulations if you took time out to adduce rational proof for your own claim as you ask others to do, rather than sounding so unfriendly to almost everyone who believes in God. Reading your own arguments leaves me laffing because like many of your type you didn't even present logical 'supporting facts' for your claim, but you spend all your time trying to pick holes in everyone's presentation. Okay, God is dangerous...religion is dangerous..this and that is dangerous, and the other is a mind-game. If religion makes people less derisive, that alone speaks volumes in positive light to me. Haba! If God didn't exist, then I take it that you know everything - because only someone who knows everything from start to finish can categorically state that something does not exist.

Make some sense - U'll do far better if you present your piece in a more friendly tone;

or... just 4get me

teckman:
...i just wanted to say this,hebrews say Elli,arabs say Allah,Igbos say Chneke,Yorubas say Olorun we cud go on and on,so whut would non muslim arabs call GOD,they will still use the term ALLAH so whats the fuss about. some peeps r takin it the wrong way...lets stop before we commit a sin we knoe nuthing about...sallam,shalom.

Malik, you've done a good job. Nuru, you sef, I admire your sincerity. But teckman, I wonder who u're refering to as some peeps...??!! If U wan learn, do so. If not, don't throw block - e fit land for ur backyard!

Me sef...em,..er.. I've been wondering if they're all the same - God, Allah, Chineke, Chukwu, Olorun, Aten and ...

Anyway, folks, keep it up - I'm not a free-thinker, but I'm grateful for the insights of those who have made inputs to get me thinking a bit more seriously.

Na me, ... or otherwise, 4get me