₦airaland Forum

TheFinesseKid:
I'll reiterate. No be by force. Plus I'm not begging o. Infact I no do again sef. Nefarious ba? make everybody chill. I no do again abeg. I'm not desperate. Make Una no vex.

Are you expecting me or other persons to take your offer and not be paranoid about the possibility of their identity being used for nefarious or other purposes besides what is stated by an anonymous stranger we bumped into online? No, of course not. One has to be very skeptical and paranoid na.

Even if I know you in person and we talk often, I would still subtly hint same.

You may look for other interested persons here or elsewhere. I can't do this for even 10k.

TheFinesseKid:
I'm not desperate. If 5k isn't too small for you. Hop in. If it is, you're free to look away. Life no hard abeg.

An ID verification would require that the name on the account matches the name on the ID card used to verify, so you'd have to change the name on the account to the person whose ID you'd use.

They are essentially allowing you to use their identity and barring themselves from any signing-up on the site at a later date. One might also be required to verify facially. The quoted sum is too small na, honestly. I cannot do this for less than 25k. In fact, 30k is my asking price provided you would not use the account for any kind of nefarious activity whatsoever that might get me screwed.

My Grandmother could have done better! Xavier Amaechi (Magdeburg) got himself in a great position on the edge of the box after a pass, but put his shot well wide of the left post. The ball goes out of play and Braunschweig will have a goal kick.

madridguy:
[s]Congratulations Alhaji Ganduje, one of the few most reliable man in Nigeria.
Even though some people doctored a video just to tarnish the good name you have laboured for but God pass them. [/s]

Madristas do not support thieves and criminals, or do they? O what a scummy comment!

Loyalty is very, very important, but being blindly loyal is the problem.

You have a problem? Yes, you do?

DeLaRue:
It is not easy to win a defamation case in the UK, and Mr Trump will have to be present in the UK court as a witness in his own case.

And I believe the newspaper probably has enough material to support their headline.

A UK court may well rule that a man is INDEED A VILLAGE IDIOT if he wants to forcefully take a foreign territory (Greenland) and another country's infrastructure (Panama Canal), grab, seize and detain illegal migrants including little babies and their mothers from inside Churches, Schools etc

Is such a character a Saint or a Village idiot? Easy answer for most sensible people.

No! That is just the poster's subjective interpretation of who a village idiot is (and yours).

The headline is an objective defamation statement against the president that might just get overlooked, but if he sued, he would most likely win.

amadice:
cant find it on 1xbet, can you give me a hint on i can find it

Our local bookies offer the Chance Mix market. Not sure 1xbet does.

I am quite sure Sportybet, bet9ja, and Betking do.

You may check there.

PP123:
You're among those yahoo plus boy looking for girls to use for money ritual right

I am selling 1, 000 terabyte MTN data with validity of 100 years. If you want Airtel, too.

My asking price is just 100 naira, but you can still negotiate.

PP123:
me

Few comments, new account, soliciting for sex, lewd picture profile and profile comments. Even if you are, it doesn't look like you are a serious member that could answer what I would be asking of you.

I want to hear the opinion of someone who's been a member for upwards of 5 -10 years and consistently worships in church.

Any C&S member in the building?

Please signify.

I want to ask a question.

Regards.

GOFRONT:
[s] Chaiii....Masturbate....you say No, say you wan do Rev father........Okay knack pvssy, you still say No, say you wan bcome Rev Father....

Some people wake up say p3nis wey God giv dem, they no wan use am fvck just because they wan become Father or Priest........I just dey laff dem. Konji nor be anybody mate. You cant cheat God, you cant cheat mother Nature.

Only a matter of time before all the Rev fathers denounce their Fathership or Priestship and embrace real sexual life........There are pvssies around to be banged. [/s]

There used to be a vow called a Nazirite vow which is not very much different from the vow a reverend Father takes. Jesus said some have renounced marriage (and sex) for Kingdom reason. Paul said the one who marries does well and the one who doesn't does even better.

Even ancient Israelite soldiers, when they fought wars in days of yore, they abstained from sexual relations. When God would descend on Mount Sinai, the people were instructed to abstain from sexual relations. You are not making any sense.

sonmvayina:
That is the first thing I did this year...killed all the Amalikites. I did not let any one survive....

I am saving all the woman that has not known a man...
I killed the rest......
Lord, give me the grace to keep it that way...

Justice was not blown out of proportion.

The Amalekites deserve what the got.

In fact, many years prior, Moses reminds the Israelites that the Amalekites attacked them when they were very tired, weary, and hungry and that they had no fear of GOD. Read Deu 25: 17 - 19.

If God decided to settle account with them many years later through King Saul, how can one reasonably object to this decision?

I don't know what you're trying to defend here.

The command making Camel unclean for food is one of the most solid proof of the divine inspiration of the Torah.

It seems God deliberately identified some animals by name for Moses, calling them unclean, otherwise how do we explain or how does a first century fellow know that a camel doesn't have split hooves when it clearly appear to have one?

Some days to the last Eid-Kabir celebration, @Qasim6, I was walking along a busy location in my state and found different livestock for sale. What caught my attention there was the camel. I had to take a very good look, moving within some meters radius to these creatures. I was left wondering what a camel was doing there and had to look and look and look. I observed that it appears to have split hooves so I just assumed that it doesn't chew the cud since by the knowledge I had at the time, the camel is unclean.

I quickly googled and I discover that it doesn't have split hooves. That left me confused and wondering what the internet is up to because the camels I saw by the roadside appear to have one.



Those who make the rules often break the rule because there's just so much outside their purview of knowledge as it relates to the rules they make, but only God could have known this, not Moses! Muhammad contradicted this basic instruction that was clearly spelled out. A man who lived with, used, ate, and especially touched what the Torah calls an unclean animal thereby making himself unclean by this act wants to instruct us on what is clean? Is this not an irony!

MrNovo:
"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." -Matthew 15:13
-So would you interpret Matthew 15:13, verbatim or in context? If you interpret the same way you just interpreted Matthew 15:11, it means you should have been long dead of starvation
Matthew 15:11 was one of many instances where the Scribes were looking for a way to pin contravention of the law on Jesus. They brought a case (Matt 15:2) of Jesus' disciples not obeying the laws of the land or tradition (ie man made laws) and Jesus responded (Matt 15:11) in his usual way of using allegory to answer the Pharisees that they should be more concerned about Keeping God's law (Matt 15:9) and not man's law (Matt: 15:2).
But is it that you didn't read Matt 15: 19&20 or you are just struggling to be right while descending a wrong route.
Upon Peters request, Jesus in matt 15:20 explained (Matt 15:11) further that since what goes into the mouth will definitely come out the anus it "didn't matter if done with unwashed hands- so it doesn't defile you".
So, what was been discussed is not the type of food or substance that goes into your mouth but rather whether the approved substance/ food was been put in your mouth with washed or unwashed hands, which was the matter the Pharisees presented.
@Antichrist, I believe the explanation above with more quotes from where you took your "one-sided" quote has enlightened you. You can try harder, truth always prevails. Statistics don't lie. The bible is the most published book not Quran . Even death didn't stop Jesus Christ message, rather it gave it wings .

So @Baldwretch Jesus didn't contradict the law which he came to fulfil. He wasn't talking about eating of unapproved animals which Deuteronomy covered.

Noted with thanks.

Qasim6:
Even if you as a Christian don't eat pork, the opinion of the writer of gospel according to Mark is that Jesus declared all food clean in Mark 7:19. Or why do you think some Christian eat pork?

I just find it absurd that you as a Christian that believe the gospels as we have them today are inspired word of God, that have Jesus Christ declaring all food clean as against the teachings of the Torah then you will turn around and find fault with prophet Muhammad not declaring camel unclean.. but if you want Christianity out of it, no problem.

Which now bring us to the questions. Do camels even have hooves to begin with? Do rabbits chew cud?

As usual, you never disappoint me. Chop knuckles joor!

Yes the gospels are inspired, but I don't believe they are inerrant - free from errors. Just like men come to God by faith, and not by reason, man doesn't live by the inerrancy of God's word, but by its inspiration. . Human error is absolutely nothing if God has breathed his spirit into the word.

To answer the last question. Camels have what appears to be pads that would have been easily mistaken as split hooves by first century Jewish Israeli, but they do not have split hooves. If you come in contact with a camel, you'd think that they have one, but they don't. And no, rabbit do not chew the cud. I don't know why you asked these but I am very curious.

Instructions in the Torah is given to primitive men with little understanding and must be given in the most simplistic and basic form possible.

I am not supposed to talk about Christian truths, but...


When Christ snaps or taps a fellow in the presence of his disciples and what they actually understood that action to mean might be different from what he actually meant; they are fallible humans who might pick the wrong clues. The verse you shared is Mark's opinion of what Christ actually meant, not what Christ said at that time. That might not be, broadly speaking, what Christ meant.

Again, you have to understand that Mark's opinion is largely influenced by a lot of factors including but not limited to the time the gospel was written. The gospel was written after Christ was risen, not before. The gospel was written after Peter got a vision that declared all foods as clean, and not before. That might just be Mark's commentary of what Christ meant then, not an overreaching command by Christ himself. And if you don't know, now you know - Mark was a disciple of Peter, so these and many more might influence his decisions.

Regardless of what is true or false, we shouldn't be nibbling into Christian dogmas to prove that Islam is true. Just because it is true for Christianity doesn't make it true for Islam, and that is why I asked you to appeal to what you believe, and not what the Christians believe.

Qasim6:
Lol. Guy u are funny.

I'm just going to ask you a question now.

Can a Christian eat pork?

My guy well-well!

Are you going to use what Christians believe or hold as true to prove Islamic truth? Please don't. You shouldn't.

What Christians do, believe, or hold as true might not, after all, be true.

For the sake of this argument, no, Christians cannot eat pork. I don't know of others but at least I don't eat pork, never have, and I am a Christian!

Appeal to what you believe; don't bring the most corrupt religion into it.

@Qasim6 my guy, you gave it to me woto-woto in one of my alt accounts sometimes back.

This post here:

https://www.nairaland.com/8017674/dont-think-qurans-claims-divine

Please come and give me woto-woto in this one! Let me fucking cry. I need to cry. No one has been able to!

For a start, please state your position.

Edit: Let me add another scenario of an order and a counter order:

AbuTwins:
Ẹlẹdẹ kẹ!

Haram!

Ezi!

Pork? Why is it haram?

AbuTwins:
Allah forbids it in the Qur'an!

O Wow! Tell me more.

What of camel?

AbuTwins:
Pork is forbidden in Islam according to the text of the Quran, where Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“He has forbidden you only the Maytah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine…” [al-Baqarah 2:173]

Camel is not forbidden!

Christian policeman here! Officers on patrol, where are you guys na, catch this guy.

Handcuff him, he must not be allowed to escape! He has the temerity to call what is forbidden as clean! Gag him by the mouth so he's unable to talk; he must not escape.



Interrogations ongoing

Who says? Says who? God Almighty or Muhammad?

Who told you that the camel is not forbidden too? Are you going to pick and choose what is clean? Does it look like a camel has evenly split hooves? Does it look like to you?

If I may ask you, on what authority do we decide what is and what is not forbidden?

koldrun:
Abeg o ... I no wan see say person craze this morning because of bet for front page

Imagine say person miss that kind chance with the final whistle on top 1m potential winning.



The tears no be here!

O what a goal (that is) begging to be scored!

It would not have been worse if he had taken the shot blindfolded as he balloons the ball wide off the post.

Long passes, short passes and one-two passes. Brighton are showcasing great team work by keeping possession and producing pin-point passes from player to player. The opposition's players are finding it very difficult to intercept at the moment.

AbuTwins:
I think i have told you categorically that Torah was sent to the Israelites!
I am not an Israelite! And also not among those subdued by Israel through wars.

The Qur'an was sent to the whole of Mankind and Jinns!

So God, Allah in the Qur'an forbid Pork, dead animals, blood,...

I asked you to clearly state your position in my thread but you didn't.

Sorry, I had to stalk you in another thread but thank God we are still on the subject matter because this is still very much related to the "God's order and counter order.." thread I created.

Please state your position.

AbuTwins:
Pork is forbidden in Islam according to the text of the Quran, where Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“He has forbidden you only the Maytah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine…” [al-Baqarah 2:173]

Camel is not forbidden!

Christian policeman here! Officers on patrol, where are you guys na, catch this guy.

Handcuff him, he must not be allowed to escape! He has the temerity to call what is forbidden as clean! Gag him by the mouth so he's unable to talk; he must not escape.



Interrogations ongoing

Who says? Says who? God Almighty or Muhammad?

Who told you that the camel is not forbidden too? Are you going to pick and choose what is clean? Does it look like a camel has evenly split hooves? Does it look like to you?

If I may ask you, on what authority do we decide what is and what is not forbidden?

AbuTwins:
Allah forbids it in the Qur'an!

O Wow! Tell me more.

What of camel?

AbuTwins:
Ẹlẹdẹ kẹ!

Haram!

Ezi!

Pork? Why is it haram?

Warfare is supposed to affect everybody.

The Jewish religion started with the disturbance of everyone's peace (the people and the "gods" alike) and some people want us to believe that God had only them in mind.

The Torah is supposed to be a guide for all of mankind for all ages.

Catch me if you can!

AbuTwins:
I can't be able to sieve through a full thread at the moment so i will base my response on what is here. Whenever a law is made, the users and coverage are usually stated. Also whenever a messenger (or Prophet) is sent to a people or nation, the message and the audience are clearly stated. We do not judge based on what is not given which is what i see you doing.

Good morning! Thank you for taking your time to get back to me.

Your verses are simply reiterating what you posted earlier that the covenant is binding on only the Israelite, but the law on what is clean and what is not clean predates Moses, so it is not an Israelite thing. In fact, it predates Noah who lived more than 1000 years before Moses. There was a law on what is and what is not clean before these two men. Noah is not an Israelite; Muhammad broke a law given to mankind thousands of years before he was born. The Torah simply reechoes it. Compare Gen 7 : 1 - 3 and Lev 11

Again, there is what is called implied consequences. Not everything have to be "given" or "spelled out."

God relates with men, not sucklings or toddlers who have to be told a little here and a little there every time. For instance, when God's Law in the Torah instructs us that - by obeying and keeping his laws and statue we have life; then you don't need to be instructed on the implications and coverage and how much of a very wide brush this plain instruction covers most of our actions. If a man goes on self-seeking and proceeds to do that which hampers or poses a great danger to his health, for instance, then clearly, he is not obeying God's law. He is disobedient. God's law according to the text is supposed to give you life, or at least improve on your health, not diminish or kill it. We cannot say because we are not expressly forbidden from smoking then contracting lung cancer is just another coincidence that is not in anyway akin to a disobedience of God's Law. Not everything have to be spelled out.

God gave a bunch of "wanderers for God" a large piece of homeland that they are not indigenous to (and have no claim to) through war and you're assuming that God did not intend that they spread their tentacles far and wide by the very act that brought them in. Warfare has attendant consequences and implications as you know; to talk of possessing something by warring hard and for long and not having expansionist idea is a contradiction. That the Israelite expand and conquer territories as far as their legs can reach and then subjugate these conquered territories to the Laws God gave them is not for debate. It is simply a logical, inescapable consequences of the promises God had made to their ancestor Abraham.

Their victory during warfare wasn't so much contingent on their physical strength, after all, but on God's saving arm. Here, we see that they could not even displace the people completely because they were very rebellious. If they couldn't do that, expanding would seem like a fool's dream, but God would not go back on his promises to their ancestor because he is God. In fact, the old rabbis used to say that there was no punishment that came on the Jewish people in which there wasn't an ounce of the Golden Calf in it. Namely, that it was so grave a sin that in subsequent punishment and judgments, God remembered it. Would God give resounding victory during war to a bunch of fellows who had been privileged to contemplate the divine form and who still made a big idol to rival him? No!

My point is, there were far from God's ideal plan by their conduct which didn't actualize the divine plan to its fullest. They could not conquer fully or even expand. If they did succeed in the act of warfare, then they would have made their religion the de-facto one, roundabout and just because they did not succeed in the act of warfare should not give us the impetus to conclude that God's dealing with them is supposed to affect only them and not all of us. God was going to use someone to get to us and it is them. God could have settled these wanderers in the same piece of land without displacing its original inhabitants. He could have settled them in unoccupied swaths of land far from where they did finally domicile, but for good reasons, he didn't. There are more than 200 million people in Nigeria today and that is by far more than they were, but if God wanted to fit in 600 million people in this same territory called Nigeria today in addition to us without disturbing anyone's peace, then he could do it. If you travel statewide across Nigeria, you would see large swath of unoccupied land in the distance from all directions. In fact, most of the territory in Nigeria today are unoccupied. In the year 2200s, I would still be constrained to estimate that less than 10% of Nigeria's land is inhabited by humans. A bunch of wanderers for God who would hardly be up to 10 million! God certainly had an objective, a plan, an idea, that goes beyond his promises. God's idea is supposed to establish a "God Kingdom" on the earth using a bunch of people he has chosen. They were supposed to be the channel of blessing which God, in his sovereignty, would use to bless all of mankind. The conclusion is necessary.

The coverage has long been stated, even before Moses was born. God had already told Abraham that through him and his descendants, all the families on earth would be blessed.

I'm sorry, messengers are not sent until there is a law. Until there is a binding covenant. That God warns, scolds, and even promises a bunch of people who do not know him through a "representatives" whom we call the prophets, when these people have not, in fact, been given his laws is nonsensical. No! The punishment, the promises, and the admonitions are read from the law. There is nothing special about a prophet. The punishment for wrongdoings are read from the constitution. That is why I asked you to read up what I wrote earlier. I am simply reiterating some of my stances which is tiring.

Besides, the messenger is not more important than the message. It is not about the messenger, but the message. The message is more important not the messenger. God would preserve the message (because it is his word) even if he doesn't preserve the messenger.

It is simply not true that God has sent messengers (prophets) to all the families on earth in times past. A lie. Do we have records of any? No, we don't. Can we point to any group of people who covenanted themselves to God, who contemplated the divine form, who promised to obey his laws and who actually did receive his laws in a big ceremony? No of course, we don't. Ancient Israel is the only family on earth we can point to because they are the only ones there is. There is none. God would preserve his message, not necessarily his messengers. If the message is not preserved, then God never sent it.

The nation of Israel were supposed to serve as a Jewish "caliphate" of some sort (don't know the word to use to explain) where God's kingdom is being established on the earth and through which other families on earth are blessed. God's intention is very clear from day one, so the verses you share don't help much. Yes, the covenant is of the seed of Abraham through Israel, but it doesn't imply that other tribes of people are not subject to it.

Please do not appeal to any Christian truths to bolster Islamic claims.

Appeal to what you believe.

The Christians might, after all, be wrong. Just because the Christians believe it doesn't make it true.

Please state your position clearly to the main subject of this thread. Thank you very much.[/quote]

AbuTwins:
Actually, i am not that intelligent as your Abu(bakar).

Oh common, you are. . Actually you are. You responses show that.

I might need to take lessons from you someday.

That being said,

AbuTwins:
It would have made sense if you included verses from the scriptures to elucidate your points. As in, show us where the Torah was sent to the whole world instead of Israelites alone. Show us how Jesus never said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel in the Bible! Show us how you thought God contradicted or modify his laws and what laws? All your points needs verses for me to fully grasp your thought!

I made a post here about the Torah being a guide for all mankind for all ages because God's covenant with Abraham's offsprings is supposed to transcend them.

https://www.nairaland.com/8306103/torah-supposed-benefit-all-mankind

Some books in the bible are dedicated in their entirety towards wars, fighting wars; like the book of Joshua. I don't have to bring up verses for every claim I make.

In fact, after the death of Moses, God spoke to Joshua in the fifth verse of the book reiterating a promise he had made to Moses several years earlier. This is what he told him:

Joshua 1 vs 3: I promise you what I promised Moses: ‘Wherever you set foot, you will be on land I have given you— from the Negev wilderness in the south to the Lebanon mountains in the north, from the Euphrates River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, including all the land of the Hittites.’ No one will be able to stand against you as long as you live. For I will be with you as I was with Moses. I will not fail you or abandon you.

And I would remind you of one of the promises he made to Moses. But what did he promise him?

Deuteronomy. 11 vs 4:

Wherever you set foot, that land will be yours. Your frontiers will stretch from the wilderness in the south to Lebanon in the north, and from the Euphrates River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. No one will be able to stand against you....

That is a very large swath of land up for grabs right there. From east to west, from the eastern sea to the western sea. I am not making this up. The area covered under this divine promise might blow the mind. If God gave these ancient people a piece of land that covered that large of a swath of land through subjugating others; God gave the Children of Israel a land that they is not theirs and that they are not indigenous to. A land that is not theirs. How? Warfare. The idea of a warfare must necessarily include dominion and expansion. It is implied by default. No verses needed to buttress this. if it wasn't given to a bunch of slobs and drunkards on a rocking chair fermenting alcohol, then can we reasonably conclude that they weren't supposed to expand, dominate, and subject conquered territories to obey the laws that God gave them? If you won a war through warfare, wouldn't you ascribe all the glory to the God who you think, in fact, made it possible? Would you have, or would the Torah have to instruct them to do it? Do we need to provide verses for this? The question you should be asking is, do we have any prohibitions against foreigners worshiping the Jewish God, or not subjected to his laws? The answer is a resounding no. In fact, the law says in the book of Numbers that native born and foreigners are subject to the same laws.

Please read the link I shared up there.

AbuTwins:
For example the verses below are points to note that the Torah is specifically for the Israelites:
1.
"Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Exodus 19:5-6
This verse highlights the unique covenant between God and the Israelites.

2.
"This is the law that Moses set before the people of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the rules which Moses spoke to the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt." Deuteronomy 4:44-45
Here, it explicitly states that the laws were given to the people of Israel.

3.
"And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.'" Deuteronomy 5:1
This addresses the Israelites directly, emphasizing their responsibility to the laws.

4.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:2-3
The phrase "your God" is a direct reference to the Israelite people.

5.
"These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai." Leviticus 26:46
This reinforces the notion that the laws were specifically for the Israelites.

Over to you!

These verses you just quoted do not say that those who are subjected/conquered are not to be subjected to Torah rules. That would be a different thing entirely.You seriously need to explain how God's covenant with the people of Israel prevents others from worshiping him? Let me ask you one question; if God would draw mankind to himself in ancient times without subjugation, would street evangelism or smooth talk from city-to-city and from town-to-town accomplish the purpose? Would a people who are already neck deep in fetishism accept astranger's message about a God they do not know? Do you think God's strategy of using warfare is an afterthought?

AbuTwins:
So that means Yahweh Jehovah is fake with all his religion!
Numbers 31:17-18
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destruction all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.

You said Yahweh is devil above!

Engineer Abu, is that you?

Oops sorry, AbuTwins! I might need to start wearing glasses. Sorry, I interchanged names. I worked with an engineer in a construction site, a namesake, and to be quite honest, the guy is intelligent. I hope you are, too; all the Abubakar I have interacted with thus far including engineer Abu I mentioned seem to know their onions very well.

Some days ago, I stalked a user by the username AntiChrisitan in a desperate attempt to hear his opinion on the thread subject matter and I said some unprintable words about your prophet (in the process) which are actually terrible accusations. Brooks talked of a man who accused another before Julian the emperor about that which he couldn't prove. After his cross-examination, Julian the emperor dismissed them and asked them to leave his presence. To which the accuser pouted before the emperor, saying, "If it be sufficient to deny what is laid to one's charge, who can be guilty?" And to which Julian sharply responded, "And if it be sufficient to be accused, who can be innocent?"

These accusations of Muhammad being a false prophet, of being a fraud, of being everything a good prophet is not, and more need to be cleared and I would appreciate if you could do justice to the subject. It would be impossible to summarize bit by bit; I would miss some lines because my arguments are not usually of a single thoughts. I go on a tangent very often. I would put some words in quote because I want to learn; I don't want to argue with you. Anyway, so let me summarize them in twelve points.

1. God gave commandments, instructions, regulations to the tribe of Israel through his prophet Moses.

2. These instructions or commands can also be likened to an order and should be seen as such. All God's commands are actually divine orders. And since we are expressly instructed not to add to or subtract from them, it can well be inferred that all divine orders are orders of perpetual injunction that cannot be modified or broken. We are required to just obey them, not modify or tinker with them.

3. An order implies a prohibition by default. That is what is implied. An order should be prohibitive by its very nature. Yes, orders can also be instructive - saying what you should do. But we don't nitpick a prohibitive order since it is what it is by default. I am not even started about corruption of these divine orders or what have you. I am not even talking about that yet. I am just talking about the nature of orders. "They said we should" can be nitpicked, but "they said we should not" cannot be nitpicked since even honest men agree that we need to be gag quite often . Only contentious people do. It's just like Pascal's Wager where he argues thus: "if God exist, you gain everything and if he doesn't exist, then you lose nothing. Wager then that he exist."

4. Like every sphere of rationale and sentient existence, governance requires a chain of authority. Usually, the highest chain of authority (or perceived to be) is the authority that is first in line (not always the case, though) or the authority that God chooses. I would even argue that the authority that God Almighty chooses is usually the first in line for central succession, for how else would we know and identify God's scale of preference among other authorities prophesying in his name at the same time?

We don't start a relay race with a weak athlete. God agrees and confirms this truth to be the case because this authority (I am talking about) is privileged to receive these instructions at the highest and most loftiest level of prophecy - face-to-face as a man talks to a friend, or between the whirling Cherubims in the Holy Of Holies , or from the pillar of Cloud and Fire, or through a theophany, or through an Angel (which happens rarely). It was the highest a man could ever get with God. Nothing can be loftier, nothing can be higher, and nothing can be better. God himself proves his authority with instant judgment when naysayers disagreed with this authority.

5. These instruction was given to the Israelite, a Semitic tribe, which God would use to pull mankind to himself either through acts of warfare or through some other means. The Torah as a body of instruction is not meant for ancient Israel alone, but for all of mankind. The Torah, in several isolated passages, makes it very clear that foreigners are subject to the same decrees, instructions, and commands as the natives are and even makes provisions for (certain non-Jewish race) admittance into the temple.

6. In time, other authorities appeared, gave their prophecies as revealed by God, and then they disappeared. These authorities who came in quick succession have the same objectives - namely, to establish the divine government. I was supposed to call them prophets, but since prophets carry divine authority, no expatiation is needed.

Then comes a "righteous" man who claims to have had a revelation from the same God that appeared to the first authority - Moses. This authority would be renowned for starting off the groundwork for belief in the most "mischievous" of claims; namely, that one authority needs to confirm another authority or that one authority needs to confirm the messages given to another authority by the same God. Also, this authority, as the last authority of his unsubstantiated claim, would cleverly bar his own revelation from thorough "spiritual" scrutiny (not physical examination) since other authorities after him have not been sent.

6. Human government is a terrible mimicry of divine government. There is often wranglings, disagreements, discontents, jostling for power, hijacking for royal successions and more, but that is not so with divine government. Divine government with God on the throne is the most perfect there could ever be of any kind of government. All the delegated authorities agree with each other; respect each other, have the same message regardless of their location or where they live, do not pry into the little details of the contents given to one of them.

No authority re-tells or re-echoes what messages or contents that God the Almighty has revealed to other authorities before him. I didn't have to mention that, but that is actually the case. God glorifies himself immensely and shows the depth of his justice, his power, and especially his love for each of his authorities by hiding from each of the authorities what was disclosed to any of them. We see this at play over and over again. Divine government with the Devil on the throne, even though not as perfect, still show that human government need to be propped with a very long rope. Our government still pales in comparison and far more so. A study of divine government with the Devil on the throne should (or might) educate us on how perfect government is supposed to be run.

7. Also, a study of all the prophets before the authority being referred to is supposed to enlighten us on how perfect government is run.

8. The said authority usurps the role of the first authority, claiming to be a co-central authority and talks about making a couple of instructions "lawful" and "permitted/permissible"- of course, in writing and in deed as the case may be.

9. The said authority claims he has been sent to confirm all the revelations before him and then contradicts the first authority.

10. The contradiction is not a case of textual corruption.

11. Regardless of human locale, environment, or settings, God does not contradict or modify his laws which are the foundation of his government. Even the Devil doesn't. God would not go back on his words which he made to one of his servants when he calls another. That is everything God is not. And even if he does go back on his words, the first of his flock would be the unlikeliest to fall victim because he would not undermine his authority.

12. The said authority cannot be trusted to be an oracle of the Most High, and the problem is not with God, but with the messenger.

The conclusion is therefore necessary and obvious: He is not a prophet sent by God. He is a prophet of his own imagination; he concocted everything.

Please AbuTwins, change my view.

slimleo22:
Team Period With No Goals ( By Team). Team 1 or 2 Maximum Time Period With No Goals Under, which I win some and lost one, especially these four:
1. Nottingham Vs Luton : 2 - 0, scored the 1st and 2nd Goals in 40th & 68th mins Team 1 , Maximum Time Period With No Goals Under ( 54.5 ). Which I bet on home team - No & I lost.
2. PSV Vs AZ : 2-2, scored the 1st and 2nd Goals in 68th & 85th mins & conceded it's first goal in 41th min. Team 1 , Maximum Time Period With No Goals Under ( 51.5 ). Which I bet on home team - No & I win.
3. Udinese Vs Atalanta : 0-0. Team 2 , Maximum Time Period With No Goals Under ( 57.5 ). Which I bet on Away team - No & I win.
NB: There was error in the previous. That is In Nottingham and that of PSV

Double negatives. A negative and a positive.

These aren't options you should meddle in. To predict the football outcome of events that doesn't require logic-based reasoning is quite difficult, not to talk of this.

Anyway, where is my glasses?

AntiChristian:
Ah

It seems, right from time, you have not been confronted with some core truths that challenge the claims of your prophet's alleged prophet-hood otherwise you would not be running kiti-kata on this Nairaland calling yourself Antichristian and shitting down on other people's faith, especially Christians, as if Islam is genuine. Even if Christianity is not genuine, or has some elements of corruptions in it, Islam isn't either, so be humble, be very humble my friend.

Imagine two friends, Muhammad, the first person's name and Moses, the second. Now, imagine that

A) that the first person said that God told him that what He (God) told the second person (I'm assuming that what he told the second person is as received and has not been corrupted or tampered with) has been granted some leave/waivers or "pardons" and no longer applies.

That would be a shitty, fucking, mad-arse thing to say. That would so much call God's excellent character, his beautiful justice, his magnanimous government, even his being and more to question. That would be borderline witchcraft.

It would seem like the first person's godlessness is off the scales. Of course, that would be the case.

Or, imagine that:

B) the first person said that God told him that what He (God) gave to the second person (I'm assuming now that what God told the second person is NOT as received and has been corrupted or tampered with) has been granted some leave/waivers or "mercy" and no longer applies.

Scenario B is clearly not the case (at least not for this chapter of the Torah) as I showed earlier. Corruption of a religious order speaks of a let-loose, not an inhibition. An unbridled desire to pursue carnal interest, not a pursuit of containment or restrictions. It doesn't look like carnal man, or corrupt scribes as the case may be, would inhibit their freedom in an attempt to corrupt God's word. That doesn't make any sense. No, they would rather make all sea animals fit for consumption than to make as a divine command otherwise. Hence, it follows that this text is not corrupted.

And if it be argued that the entire Torah is corrupted, not just this text, that would not make any sense either because there are passages of the Torah that the Quran agrees with and even re-echoes. Clearly, those portions of the Torah are not corrupted and so by a simple syllogism, we can infer that if there are passages of the Torah the Quran agrees with, then not all Torah passages are corrupt. We are now saddled with the responsibility of plunging deep into this passages to check and cross-check what is and what is not corrupt.

Hence, scenario B is out of the equation as it pertains to any objections of this kind.

It would seem then that I asked a very logic questions that forces you to either take either a very blasphemous or a dangerous position that compromises Muhammad's prophethood. No in-betweens, here. If that passage of the Torah that restricts our freedom on seafood is not corrupted, as Muslims like to say of the Torah in general, then clearly Muhammad is a fraud or God is everything God is not. The problem here is definitely, most definitely, certainly, and most certainly not God's. The fault is all squared on Muhammad.

I hate it when people, who, obviously are in error, run around shitting down on other people's beliefs as if their own religion is from God.

Engage me as the situation permits now - nah, nah - you'd rather run as fast as you can with your tail behind your back.

No God-fearing human wants to blaspheme God Almighty to please who he thinks is his "messenger." Muhammad is everything God's messengers are not. Why people believe God can actually make a counter-order that now makes permissible what he forbade in the past is a mystery I am yet to fully understand. That is believing everything God is not.

I would not bother witch-hunting you again, haha, because it seems I have not been able to get you to engage you, but know this, Islam is a scam, a big scam and you have no moral high-ground to shit down on other people's religion until you can prove otherwise.

Anyway my guy, shake me because I have shaked you.

Caseless:
Was this post for Antichristian or Righteousness2?

O Wow! You seem like a very good and honest Muslim. You'd make a good person.

Please hop into this thread and rebuff my bullshit.

https://www.nairaland.com/8313525/gods-orders-counter-order-proves-muhammmad

Thank you.

AntiChristian:


I don't know why we always have electricity in my area!

Ikeja Electric is always on point! Even when i read here that there's a shut down on the power grid and Ikeja Electric still has a few MW, we go still get light even though it may then go off few times that day only!

We too get light 24/7!

Why are you avoiding me mr. God-Told-Me-That-What-He-Told-You-Is-Wrong.

Oops, sorry, I meant to address you as Mr. God-Told-Me-That-What-He-Told-You-No-Longer-Applies. Now, you can start eating all kinds of unclean sea animals, even carrion, lol.

I must be out of my mind. I must be crazy. I must be mad.

I was supposed to address you properly as God-Told-Me-That-What-He-Told-You-Has-Now-Been-Granted-Some-Leave.

People who dabble into spiritualism always, certainly, always certainly, most certainly fall into authority quagmire and rebellion of central authority. You guys are not any different from one christian sect - C&S Church.

If you walk into any C&S Church or pick a tract or hear the one being addressed, you would hear designations like Evangelist, Prophet, Senior Evangelist, Senior Prophet, Apostle, Special Apostle, Most Senior Apostle, Most Senior Prophet, Most Special Senior Apostle. Senior Apostle and on and on. No, I am not kidding you. I am saying what I know. I pick tracts on the floor quite often.

Quite often, it seems they get conflicting prophecies, so they need a chain of authority in the Movement that they all agree to and so the title. The reason for all these titles lies in the same trap that Muhammad got baited in, but which he covered his tracks quite well. I apologize, I really do apologize for all the labels I addressed you with, no insult is intended at all. I simply want you to see the big picture in a different light. These labels are true because that is who you are by virtue of being a Muslim.

In Heaven, there is but one authority from whom others receive orders or get their own authority.

Now, in a space, granted, there might be more than one authority, but these authorities must agree (for the kingdom to stand, for a house divided against itself as you know cannot stand), and there cannot be more than one central authority since Heaven itself has one central authority. In heaven, that authority is the strong one, the eternal one - God the Almighty who is mighty, sovereign, and strong. GOD is Heaven's central authority! His authority is universal. It permeates the entire universe!

In the Lord's Prayer which I am sure you've heard, Christ gives us a sneak peak at how, according to the will of God, things pan out on earth too - he said, God's will is done on Earth as it is done in Heaven. It would seem then that on earth, too, God did not intend that there should be more than one central authority from whom other authorities get their authority and for good reasons too.

Knowing full well that I am a Christian male, I know what you are thinking - this fellow thinks Christ is that central authority. Haha!

NO!

Christ is not earth's central authority.

He is NOT!

Moses is. Yes, Moses!

Like I once said of the Law (giving of it) - it was given at the highest level of Prophecy! You cannot receive a prophecy (message) higher than that. Even Christ came under the Mosaic authority, submitted to it, spoke under its traditions, and agreed with its tenets, decrees, instructions, and commands.

Unfortunately, Muhammad succeeded in dishing out counter-orders, disagreeing with the central authority on important matters while claiming himself a co-central authority on the Earth by dishing out new laws.

Christianity might be wrong, very, very wrong, but go back to your roots. GO BACK!

That being said, come back to my thread and answer me, please.

amadice:
please bet lovers and 1xbet ACCONT OWNERS is there chance mix on 1xbet?

NO! Not when I used them frequently.

They might have introduced it recently, though.