₦airaland Forum

starving is a great idea.

4 Play:
Beyond that,his proposal exposes a growing tendency in the West-motivated by cowardice-to kowtow to Muslim perceived wishes even where Muslims aren't making any particular demands.

Whether this is reflected in banning certain toys or children's stories,it reveals a disturbing trend towards appeasement that does neither the West nor Muslims any favors.

this is the real problem and the earlier we begin to address it the better for our collective survival. It is the same trend that has suddenly begun to rear its head even here on a supposedly benign internet forum. We can no longer type the word "Muslim".

GoldCircle:
Aisha2 where art thou

leave aisha2 alone.

pahtahkee:
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Isnt it surprising that those "citizens" all happen to be m uslims? So what happens if hausas do not relate to the Nigerian legal system? we create a special one for them?

pahtahkee:
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

the kind of "social cohesion" we see in afghanistan and Iran?

pahtahkee:
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

or they could choose to go settle those disputes in Pakistan.

pahtahkee:
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

no they shldnt. I'm just wondering why so many of them are so desperate to emigrate to these "stark alternatives of cultureal loyalty".

pahtahkee:
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

but sir williams . . . you cant divore those "extreme punishments" from sharia law.

pahtahkee:
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

England has survived for centuries on just "one law for everybody" mr rowan. There has been no danger.

pahtahkee:
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

no you dont. Is the 10 commandments part of British laws?

pahtahkee:
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

what we really dont want is when a minority decide to force their religious preferences down the throats of others.

pahtahkee:
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

that's why you have the law.

pahtahkee:
But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

Why did they emigrate to Britain then if they had other affiliations?

pahtahkee:
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

the legalisation of abortion is relatively a new concept in all countries of the world, christian or not. Abortion is not treated as a religious issue but as a moral issue in most countries.

pahtahkee:
Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".

at this rate it wont be long before u have absolute social exclusion. Allowing sharia law would just be the begining.

hotfunmi:
The truth is that our generation don't give a damn about where our spouses come from. My childhood friend married a white guy from Kansas in 2005 and my elder sister in Pennsylvania married one cute ibo brother. I like ibo guys so much but I must confess that they are not as open minded as yoruba guys when it comes to inter ethnic marriage, they always like to stick to their own. Generally, most of our parents were against inter tribal or ethnic or state marriage but thank God that this generation knows better. Gone are the days my dad will tell me never to bring home an ijebu man because he'll be lucky if i marry a yoruba man sef. My prayers is to marry a Naija man tho, precisely yoruba or ibo.

You pray to marry 1-minute men?

JeSoul:
2. By exposing them to the world whenever we have the chance and proof Eph5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

3. By teaching, speaking truth and charging people to study the scriptures for themselves. Acts17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

You run the risk of being accused of "judging" . . . or "touching God's anointed". Even by so called christians.

Gamine:
even a toddler understands that [b]my issue is not about robbery.[/b]
You made something general into YOUR issue

My head is firmly on the ground, it is ridiculous that i'm even bothering with ur nebulous drivel.
If you could read at all . . . the generall issue had long since developed into a debate between myself on one side and Tayo-D and joshjosh on the other.
I was simply stating my position but of course i assumed you had any idea what this was all about. Sorry.

therationa:
4HIM,

Please, could you refrain from ad Hominins. I am making my point without being insulting to you. I thought you were a christian.

1. they are no ad hominins directed at your person.
2. You have insulted the personality of Christ for so long . . . its hypocritical that you dont see it.
3. If indeed you see them as insults then i tender unreserved appologies.

@ therationa, i decided against going to read thru the genealogies again to reply your obvious borrowing from other sites while cleverly dressing up the questions as urs.

I explained why Mary was not mentioned in either of the 2 genealogies . . . the jews defined lineages along patriachal lines. The only way a lineage went thru a woman was if the man died without having any sons.

The 600yr generational gap is simply twaddle and exposes the desperate dearth of logic in people like you who peddle this alleged contradictions.
This gap is only possible if we make the huge assumption that every single Jew got married at about the same age and had children at exactly the same age.

When David was but a tiny teenager tending the flock, his oldest brothers were perhaps already grandfathers. If you traced 2 lineages, one thru David to Jesse and the other thru Eliab to Jesse . . . there would be a gap of at least 2 generations . . . would that mean a discrepancy?

Abraham did not have Isaac until he was 100, his brother Nahor by that time was long dead and had greatgrandchildren!

JeSoul:
I think you should be banned from creating anymore of these kind of pointless threads! Oya Seun do your thing!

we will not descend to the depths of the m uslims my sister. Only people who are confused will be afraid of questions.
Indeed there is no point going into some of these cleverly provocative "questions" as they do nothing but engender strife and endless genealogies but as the Lord giveth wisdom we shall continue to set them straight.

Who knows, somene might be touched by the TRUTH. Its not their fault, the enemy hath blinded their eyes . . . seeing they see and do not percieve.

@ stimulus,
We thank God . . . this link explained it in a lot more detail than i could go into. Perhaps therationa might be interested in doing some real "research".

this is now beyond desperate.

therationa:
Nowhere in the genealogies of Luke and Matt is Mary so much as mentioned. I challenge you guys to show me a reference to Mary in Luke and Matthew's genealogies.

Notice this verse: Luke 3: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

1. The key phrase here is in highlights: it is clear that the Jews traced their lineages primarily through men and NOT through females so it is unlikely that Dr. Luke would have described the lineage of Jesus Christ through Mary.

2. There is a clear difference between the lineages in Matthew and Luke so we know that both writers were talking about 2 different persons.

3. Look at that phrase in highlights again: the greek word there is "nomizo" which means "by custom". This indicates that Jesus Christ was refered to as the son of Joseph . . . not by reason of birth but by reason of custom . . . clearly it is Mary that is being refered to here as the descendant of Heli and not Joseph.

toluxa1:
4HIm is the only one that has answered your question. The purpose of the account of Matthew id to ahow us that Jesus was not born of Joseph. He was born of God through Mary. Thats why the account of Luke points to the family of Mary. If also helps us to understand that Christ did not come from the lineage of the Kings of Judag as we can see the deviation at the point of David and then Nathan. So He did not come from the Solomon line.

May His will be done

The bible never called Him the son of Solomon . . . always Jesus Son of David.

bawomol:
How can an abstract entity ( imagined by man, which can not be proved or disproved) be accused of having MPD

i'm asking a question from your perspective and not mine. hypothetical questions are regularly used to question the validity of things. what i am asking is an hypothetical question. i find it strange u guys are arguing about sematics rather than explain why God went from God of war to God of peace. change of hearts??

Trying to use the idea that going from a God of peace to a God of war proves that God does not exist is not only arguing about semantics but making a mockery of your ability to reason logically.
Germany went from a belligerent nation out to eliminate the Jews to a secular sovereign nation . . . does that mean Germany does not exist or has MPD?

bawomol:
this is tantamount to hiding behind your finger. You claim God does not exist - prove it!

i'm unable to prove something that can't be experienced by mankind.

again you make a mockery of logic. That you have not experienced God does not automatically mean others do not/cannot.

bawomol:
Jesus Christ existed in history outside of the Holy Books

no it didn't. the holy books are the principle accounts of jesus christ. any idea of God originated from the holy book and not independent sources. plato himself claimed God couldn't be defined.

That Plato could not define God is not the same thing as saying Plato meant God does not exist. Science cant explain the formation of the earth . . . does it mean it does not exist?
Jesus Christ existed as a historical figure . . . it is an archeological fact.

bawomol:
Therefore you cannot prove that God does not exist.

you are right, the problem is can u prove it exists??

I've never had a problem with God's existence or not. Atheists cannot continue claiming that God does not exist (without valid proof) then hiding behind their fiingers by asking us to prove he exists. The onus is on you.

bawomol:
True. But not all types of logic adhere to your own idea of "proof" - it all depends on the type of "proof" you're asking for.

the kind of proof am asking for is the existence of a "God" and how "God" transformed to the God of peace from the God of war.

Can i ask you for "proof" of how you transform from a happy man to an angry fellow?

bawomol:
Discussing the nature of any being does not disprove his existence

at it can, the bohr atomic model can be discussed but that doesn't mean the atomic model is true. anything, real and unreal is open for discussion and analysis.

does that also mean that since the nature of air can be discussed it does not exist?

bawomol:
i told u the reason i am unable to do this already. the ball is in your court to show he/she/it exists. [b]

Typical atheist twaddle. They come up with a premise and then expect you to do the proving for them. If God does not exist indeed then prove it to us.

Jairzinho:
4Him,please don't lets overflog the issue,'slangs' is a good word in scrabble(yes most OSW make little sense,but English itself is full of contradictions).

Apart from being a noun(with a plural),its also a transitive verb,so you can have slangs,slanging etc

I sure hope you're just trying to pull my legs. . . .

That it exists in the scrabble dictionary does not mean it exists. I am yet to see that word "slangs" in any reputable dictionary.

KA is a TWL scrabble word . . . what does it mean?

To summarise Bawomol's state of clinical psychosis:

God does not exist even though He has MPD . . . however since God is an abstract entity imagined by man it is unlikely that we can prove or disprove His existence.

bawomol:
my proof is that u guys have no proof.

this is tantamount to hiding behind your finger. You claim God does not exist - prove it!

bawomol:
it's the job of u guys to prove to the existence of an abstract concept not me. it was Isaac newton's job to proof the viability of calculus and not vice versa.

Obviously you have never had much experience with science. When you bring up a hypothesis (in this case that God does not exist or has MPD), it behoves you to show us WHY you think so with adequate proof. The onus then lies on us to show you why your proof is right or wrong.

bawomol:
besides holy books, there is no justification or a need for God.

Jesus Christ existed in history outside of the Holy Books. What you call the bible is simply parts of His every words while on earth just the same way we read the works of Shakespeare, Plato e.t.c.
That i dont believe Plato does not mean he never existed.

bawomol:
i won't repeat this again. for the last time, an abstract entity imagined my man can not be proved or disproved. may i recommend an intro to philosophy class by the way.

Therefore you cannot prove that God does not exist.

bawomol:
the trinity is accepted as true by many Christian denominations. this is a viable discussion. what about God's mood. why switch from God of war to god of peace. seems drastic doesn't it.

The trinity is a concept of who God is. It is not possible for you to bandy around the incredulity of this concept while at the same timey baying that God does not exist. Choose one side and stick to it.
Can i ask about your own mood too . . . why do you cry sometimes or laugh some other times? Isnt that a sign of your own MPD?

bawomol:
so u agree the bible is inconsistent?? to be honest, u guys avoid every question by asking for proof while providing none of your know. forget about proof, let's discuss the trinity and the mystical God's mental state

You, on the other hand, are yet to prove outside of the bible that God does not exist and that the theories (speculations) of science are true.

therationa:
Is this a touch of desperation or what? Shouldn't there be some semblance of veracity in the stories of the bible?

There is a semblance its just that you are deliberately blinding urself not to see it. The lineage in Matthew is that of Joseph while that in Luke is that of Mary. On that basis Jesus Christ IS of the tribe of David.

bawomol:
i'm actually not confused, my stance is that God doesn't exist and it's basically abstract thinking by man. i'm just performing an analysis of the bible and the nature of God as explained by Christians. this is a thread to discuss the trinity and the nature of the Abrahamaic "God". the square root of -1 doesn't exist but it definitely can be discussed.

The "trinity" does not exist in the bible so what are you intending to discuss?
You cant be intending to discuss from an untenable position in the first place.

not really,, get ur head out of the sand. Its a forum because we are not obliged to reply ONLY to the issues we saw our names associated with. If that was the case no one would reply any thread since their names were not mentioned.

Sometimes you people like to stick ur boots in ur mouth. Not a good place for a shoe i must say.

bawomol:
i want answers people. why does God seem to have mood swings and a change of heart. accusing me of blasphemy is away of avoiding basic questions. why is God contradicting himself in the book he inspired.

you dont want answers, you're simply confused. Like Imhotep says . . . it is either God does not exist or He does exist AND has MPD. Which one are u choosing?

If this were directed at allah MC Usman would have been issuiing threats.

@ bawomol i shall be back soon as i get the opportunity to give u a succint reply. Enjoy the freedom of being able to insult the personality of the christian God without any fatwas.

Gamine:
@4Him

so its a crime to wonder/think
nawa oh!

i didnt address the post@you
silly you!

lets assume i mention ur name in a post . . . wont u be curious as to why i did so or would u just pass it by since "its not a crime to wonder"?