₦airaland Forum

Told you before: not saying much until later. For now, I've left the above on the persuasion that those who call themselves humanists do not banter to any expression of "religion" pr "spirituality".

Red card, TV01!!

I said I conduct the game, and no one else: you hear??

8oracle:
@shashan think and meditiate on those scriptures, if you actually know what thinking and meditiation is all about

In other words, you have a quarrel with him simply because his points differ from yours? Hmmm!

Reverend:
Humanism is defined in the encyclopedia as:

. . .A society in which human rights are completely realized: the right to health, instruction, freedom, spirituality, search for the meaning of life, and an existence with dignity.

I'm not saying much for now until those two emboldened words play themselves out in coming days. Hint: real humanism does not believe in spirituality or meaning in life.

Okay, em. . . change sides: from henceforth I conduct the game!

1 Thes. 5:22 - "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Pre-marital sex is fornication. Period.

E easy like that??

We haven't heard the end of the story - na sentence them serve am; later the "king" Emeka go waka!

I just hope the devil will not use this as another tribal war between the Yorubas and Ibos; it's not a matter of Oyewole and Ezeugo, but of the crime commited.

Good word. I've wondered about that verse a while back; but have to agree after studying it that the above carries weight.

Na wah! January salary koo; oju kokoro nii!

It's sad that many jobless self-ordained "pastors" will go any length to take their congregation to the cleaners. What's in vogue today is the new philosophy of taking a verse and giving it another meaning to suit the atmosphere for the explosion of miracles or breakthrough. Example: Isaiah 53:5 says by His stripes we are healed. Then one of these suave fellows will come up and say something like this: "If you give a one-time offering of $535 or $53 and 50cents for the next two years, you will see healing in every aspect of your life!"

Abeg, before you laugh, this is a serious matter. Don't let any MOG take your God-given first month's pay to settle his personal bills under the excuse of a breakthrough. No one will afterwards be held accountable for the breakthrough those MOG make into your pocket.

I believe in giving, seriously. But it beats me for someone to stand up and noise this January salary issue. Actually, it works. . . but it works only for them and no one else.

Here - have some peace!

belloti:
here you go again,

What's the "again" inside? Wetin happen?

belloti:
mr4maliki, you are seriously misrepresenting Islam and the Rasoul (SAW). i, like everyother muslim take serious exception to this. i demand an unreserved apology.

I am staggered! 'Seriously misrepresenting Islam and the Rasoul' - how?? That what [b]m4malik is posting are false - and which one of them? And let me say, if Malik apologises without your explanations for the so-called 'misrepresentations', I'll kick him out of Nairaland!

belloti:
I have no problem with u being a christian, its your life. but i can't sit here and watch you scandalously disrespecting my religious symbols.

We wouldn't be reading any 'scandals' if Muhammad didn't commit them.

belloti:
Just for a moment, can you guys just let us be?[/b]

Nooo O! As Davidylan said, you guys have to come back and show us how Muhammad "let others be" when he called for the death of recanters (Muslim converts to other religions) - how the Zamfara State Governor is letting others be by destroying Churches; how Muslim suicide bombers are letting others be; and how some Muslim Nairalanders have let others be on this Forum with their own misrepresentations.

wormedup:
what i'm asking is this; if you are to help a sinner change his/her ways for the better, would you tell him/her to stop sin or look for a lesser sin to commit ??

I hope you saw the references I offered from the Bible? How many times did I quote Romans 6:1-2? Let me remind you -

bari_kade:
Rom. 6:1-2 - 'Shall we continue in sin. . .? God forbid!'

and. . .

bari_kade:
2. The Word of God does not encourage any sin in our relationship with the Lord.
¤ 1 John 2:1 - 'these things write I unto you, that ye sin not'.
¤ Rom. 6:1-2 - 'Shall we continue in sin. . .? God forbid!'

I have made it abundantly clear that God's Word does not encourage any sin in our relationship with Him - neither have I suggested anywhere what you're insinuating.

wormedup:
i've seen the texts clearly and so far you have been making it clear that there are categories of sin .
what i want to understand is, why bother stressing the categories of sin - of which the consequences are the same ?

Why don't you ask the Lord Jesus why the inspired Word of God "bothered" to stress the categories in several texts? I'll make it simple again:

(a) if the Word of God did not make such a categorization, I really would not have done so - because there would have been no text in the Bible warranting such a distinction;

(b) if the Bible makes such a distinction, what is the crime in plainly saying so?

(d) if the Word of God does not make such a distinction, why don't you tell us what the following mean -

1 John 5:17 - (i) there is a sin unto death (ii) there is a sin not unto death - are they the same?

Exo. 22:1 & 4 and Lev. 20:10 - did stealing and adultery have the same punishments in the OT - were they the same?

Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10 - blashphemy against the Son of Man and against the Holy Spirit - are they the same?

The basic question posed by the topic of the thread is not about the consequence of any sin, but as simply put: "All Sins Are Equal?" (in other words - Are All Sins Equal?). If there's anything wrong with what has been offered so far to the effect that sins are not equal before God, then why haven't you discussed the texts provided earlier that show indeed that sins are not equal in the Bible?

wormedup:
when you give people reason to believe that the Bible categorize sin, it's like giving them an option to choose the type of sin they should commit; which should probably have less punishment - which is not true.

I beg your pardon - where in my posts have I remotely alluded to that idea? Besides, I'm not the writer of the Bible, so please understand that the texts of Scripture explicitly teach that sins are not equal. To further strengthen my point, I have offered again and again that God's Word does not enocurage any sin in our lives - scroll up and read again what I said earlier, reproduced below:

The Word of God does not encourage any sin in our relationship with the Lord.
¤ 1 John 2:1 - 'these things write I unto you, that ye sin not'.
¤ Rom. 6:1-2 - 'Shall we continue in sin. . .? God forbid!'

Where in my rejoinders have I offered people any "option to choose the type of sin they should commit"? You make me wonder if you're actually reading entriess at all before you post replies. Perhaps it would help you answer the simple question of this thread by discussing the verses I offered to the point that sins are not equal before God. If they are, what do those texts mean?

ISAHO:
i actually read the explanations of my muslim brothers on these issues and the way they have explain them with utmost simplicity but you never accepted those explanations, on the contrary you all want to impose your own understanding on a religion you claim not to know much about thereby disregarding explanations from those who actually practice and understood what they practiced.

Please help me do just one thing - could you re-post some of those explanations by your Muslim brothers explaining how Muhammad married only 4 women and their reason for rejecting the rest? Second, who are those four women?? Mind you, I haven't come across any Muslim website that yet denies the fact that Muhammad married more than 4 women - and you haven't really explained why you think that those Muslims who list at least 9 wives are wrong!

ISAHO:
if you read my postings so far i`ve not quoted the Quran neither am i going to quote the hadiths, why? because am not here on nairaland to defend the Quran but instead the protection is what i held with high esteem just for the simple reason that you will not accept it but rather prefer to bastardised it.

I don't think you're making any sense here. If the Qur'an says anything, why are you ignoring what it says simply because you hold its protection in high esteem, and yet you're bastardizing it yourself by rejecting what it says? It seems to me that you're afraid to quote any text - Qur'an or Hadith - because you fear they would confirm what we're saying and reject your own denials of what actually happened in Muhammad's marriages with those women.

ISAHO:
so my dear friend am only using your reported findings to show the lapses on your reports.

What lapses? That those Islamic websites are producing sloppy reports or what?

ISAHO:
concerning the verse you quoted, as i`ve explained to you already, consider my explanation on it and connect it with the list on your ali dashti reports, you will vividly see the answer to your question(s).

The only thing I could pick out from your explanation is denials and outright rejection of what the quoted verses point out. You really surprise me, because this is the first time I'm coming across a Muslim who strangely rejects what Islam's holy books say!

ISAHO:
of course i will not be surprised to see you post your rape accusation. it happens everyday in our lives when wrong evidences are levied against one another.

Sorry, but I didn't post anything about rape - even though some people feel persuaded that such a thing happened. The basic point I need to clarify from you is whether or not Muhammad married more than 4 wives, and if he did not - what are your reasons for rejecting what Islamic history glaringly state - that Muhammad indeed had more than 4 wives?
[quote][/quote]

Rom. 6:1-2 - 'Shall we continue in sin. . .? God forbid!'

I don't know what you're really getting at, wormedup. Where did you ever read in the Bible that a believer is to advise a sinner about sin? You may be of the opinion that all sins are equal, and that's okay if it suits you. However, if the Word says it is not so, it's all up to you to reject or ignore what God says and push your luck.

The Bible does not teach that all sins are equal, and I've given several texts to bear that out. It's this simple - why don't you take those texts and discuss them and show us how you see the sins described in them as all equal? Let me outline them once again:

¤ did the Bible say in the OT that stealing and adultery are equal sins?
   Text: Exo. 22:1, 4 and Lev. 20:10.

¤ did the Bible say in the NT that blasphemy against Jesus and against the Holy Ghost are the same?
   Text: Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10.

¤ did the Bible say that 'the sin unto death' and 'the sin not unto death' are the same?
   Text: 1 John 5:16-17.

The basic point is that we should not favour some texts and ignore the others. Just because the ultimate consequence of any sin is eternal separation from God does not mean that we should ignore how God sees each sin on earth. Maybe I'm missing out on something in the texts I provided; so why don't you discuss them and show how those texts seem to teach that the sins in them are equal?

You know what is creating so much problems in understanding this matter? Here, let's make some delineation -

1. Sin is sin, no matter what it involves.
    ¤ 1 John 5:17a - 'All unrighteousness is sin'.

2. The Word of God does not encourage any sin in our relationship with the Lord.
    ¤ 1 John 2:1 - 'these things write I unto you, that ye sin not'.
    ¤ Rom. 6:1-2 - 'Shall we continue in sin. . .? God forbid!'

3. Are all sins equal before God? The Bible says NO.
    ¤ I John 5:16-17 - 'There is a sin unto death. . . and there is a sin not unto death.'
    ¤ John 19:11 - 'therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.'

4. Do all unrepented sins lead to the same ultimate end and consequences? The Bible says YES.
    ¤ Luke 13:3 - 'I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.'
    ¤ Rev. 21:8 - 'But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
       whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the
       lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.'

5. Does God treat all sins as equal on earth today? The Bible says NO.
    ¤ Matt. 12:32 - 'And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:
       but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,
       neither in the world to come.

Just because the ultimate consequence of sin is eternal separation from God does not mean we should lump all sins together as equal where in fact God's Word does not say so at all. To do otherwise is to reject the Word and run along with human ideas which fall far short of the explicit statements of Scripture.

My guy @Remmzy,

No vex, I was also seconding your statements even though I'm a sinner saved by grace - but not the sinner who has no forgiveness by committing the unforgiveable sin.

In addition to the question I asked earlier and would repeat, here are some more:

¤ when were the 10 commandments given, and to whom specifically did God give them?

¤ what law of the Sabbath are we dealing with specifically - that contained in the 10 commandments or some other one?

¤ what exactly are the stipulations of the Sabbath: how is it supposed to be observed as God gave it?

And if Hebrews is removed from the Bible, where does that leave us?

m4malik:
Islam creates a people who know nothing like peace and will go to any length to deny others of the same.

Very strong statement there. On the one hand, not all muslims would follow the tenets of Islam's holy book about some grey areas; on the other hand, that most Muslims would promote some of those tenets like killing a Muslim convert to other religions is a very distrubing trend indeed.

Remmzy:
weighing one sin to be greater than the other shows your insincerity to totally obey God,

Look well again my dear, I'm not the one doing the weighing - God is, because so far I've only been quoting what He says. And if there's any talk of insincerity, talk about your uneasiness to accept what God's Word says on the issue.

Remmzy:
once you go contrary you are a sinner no matter how little. Every disobedience no matter what equate you to a complete sinner. that's it

Thank you. Then I take it that you're as guilty as the one who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost - yes?

Before God, the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable, no matter how sincere the repentance that may follow (Matt. 12:31). The Bible teaches that sins are not equal before God -

(a) There is a sin unto death. . . (b) and there is a sin not unto death - I John 5:16-17.

ayinla2005:
bari-cade or whatever your name is.i hope God will forgive u.

I'm sincerely sorry to have frayed your nerves, but believe me that I didn't mean at all to sound unduely in the way that might've informed your complaints. The point is that these are very pressing issues that need to be discussed and the time for drinking coffee round a table and treating these matters with 'politically correct' verbiage is over.

Today people are not safe to travel by air anymore because some Muslims believe that the way to preach Islamic peace is to plant bombs in planes and leave thousands of travellers stranded at airports.

Today people are not free to worship because some lunatic Governor of Zamfara State in Nigeria believes that destroying churches would please Muhammad and *Allah* more than developing his people and State.

Today people cannot walk the streets of Iraq without fearing that some crazed Muslim radical on assignment would blow himself or otherwise detonate a car bomb in a crowded and busy area.

Today people are told to just shut up and not question the insanity in these barbaric acts pretended as a means to propagate the "peace" that Islam preaches.

For all of these and more, I enjoy the forgiveness of God for not joining the camp of the 'politically correct' and gullible who don't want us to question these acts.

I'm not abusing or harrassing other people's faith - or you would have had to ask Muhammad in his grave to have stopped the abuses in the first place by not killing people who were of a different faith than his.

If there's anything at all in your inputs, it fails to consider the fact that Islam propagates terrorism, and ardent Muslims are the ones who have been using violence to propagate their religion. The problem didn't start today nor is it a matter constrained to any divide between the West and the Arabs. Muslims are the ones bombing Indonesia, they're the ones killing themselves in Iraq where Shiites and Shias cannot agree on their doctrine, they are also the ones both bombing and throwing bomb scares in London.

To suggest that these incidents are not religious but painted to be so simply begs the question. What 'book' have the terrorists been waving when chanting *Allah's* praise as incentives for the unleash of terror to their neighbours? I would like to believe that it is otherwise than the religion of Islam - but facts are staring us in the face otherwise that ardent Muslims who 'believe in Allah and the last day' have been carrying out in Muhammad's true spirit the terror they find on the pages of Islam's holy book - the Qur'an.

Em. . . Malik, Gwaine, TayoD, Davidylan, Babyosisi and others more knowledgeable than me - guys this is where I need help - where are you?          Especially you Gwaine 

ISAHO:
u did not miss any words in your quotations but the only thing u missed was just the application;from history like you rightly said lets start counting how many the Prophet really had.

I'd have to give that to you and acknowledge my very limited understanding of Islam; so I really can't make application of what isn't my specialty. However, if we start counting from history, this is what I found for our perusal:

One source (anwary-islam.com) gives the number of Muhammad's women as 12; while another source (muslimhope.com) stretches it as many as 31, including wives and concubines while remarking that Ali Dashti missed at least nine possible other wives. I here reproduce a list of some of them -

1. Khadija/Khadijah bint Khuwailid/Khywaylid - died first
2. Sawda/Sauda bint Zam’a
3. 'Aisha/Aesha/’A’ishah - 8 to 9 years old, 2nd wife
4. Omm/’Umm Salama/Salamah
5. Hafsa/Hafsah
6. Zaynab/Zainab of Jahsh
7. Jowayriya/Juwairiyya bint Harith
8. Omm Habiba
9. Safiya/Safiyya bint Huyai/Huyayy bint Akhtab
10. Maymuna/Maimuna of Hareth
11. Fatima/Fatema/Fatimah
12. Hend/Hind
13. Asma of Saba
14. Zaynab of Khozayma
15. Habla?
16. Asma of Noman / bint al-Nu’man

    slaves / concubines

17. Mary the Christian/Copt
18. Rayhana/Raihana/Rayhanah bint Zayd/Zaid

   uncertain relationship

19. Omm Sharik
20. Maymuna/Maimuna (slave girl?)
21. Zaynab/Zainab the third?
22. Khawla / Khawlah

ISAHO:
Q33:50 does not interprete that he married all of them. this verse mentioned paternal and maternal daughters, shall we say he married his relative .NO

But wasn't Zaynab bint Jahsh his cousin and who had been the wife of his adopted son Zaid?

ISAHO:
Prophet Muhammad was a man of God in whom the oppressed, the widow, the poor, the needy found succour. God knew the heart of men very well that HE let these women be under his care not as wives but more functional to the propagation of Islam.

It does not appear that Muhammad's marriages were functionally for the propagation of Islam. Besides, there's a problem with that kind of reasoning - that God would countenance the idea of a prophet marrying and having sex with several women in order to propagate a religion. And again, these women were not under his care for the function you offered - the fact is that he had sex with them, married some of them as his wives indeed, and had sex with both his concubines and other women his right hand possessed as 'war booties' (female captives in war).

If Muhammad's marriage was functionally for care and succour, what are we to understand from his divorces from some of these women - that he no longer cared for them?

ISAHO:
He was appointed to them as their Father as well as Husband. Let me make u understand the word husband here. this is not the type of husband that u and i know but the one who serves as a custodian to these women, cater for their needs. there are old women among them, older than the prophet, shall we say he married those ones too? NO.

I should have passed over this line and shelved it for future reference; but here's a problem in them that misses the obvious - which of these older women were known to have been connected with Muhammad without his having married them?

ISAHO:
did u ask yourself why would God ask us to follow the steps of the Prophet and yet gave him the monopoly of being the custodian of these women. because the heart of men can do otherwise. because maximum protection can be guaranteed in the Prophet.

This misses the point - read the text again in Q.33:50 - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers. . . and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); . . . in order that there should be no difficulty for thee." There is no going round the clear implication that marriage was implicitly intended by such words as "wives" and "wed" - which nullifies the idea that Muhammad was merely acting as a "custodian". It was not for protection that a prophet would have sex with the women under his roof.

ISAHO:
There are lot of verses that u might misunderstand, quote them and Insha Allah i will be able to make u understand them, and if there is any i do not understand then i will need to go further to get the explanations for u. i think that`s what naira land was actually created for.

Many thanks for your kind gesture - and indeed there are many verses that are not clear to me. With time, I'll try and offer them for rounded discussion. Shalom.

It's funny how people would make so much of a word where there ought not be any issues. Anyone reading the Bible knows that the Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost = God's Spirit = the Spirit of God = the Spirit of the LORD = the Comforter.

Perhaps we should move on from here and add a little more to the spirited discourse by asking whether Christ is the Messiah and which one is the correct appellation? 

Well then, I suggest the reason that best answers to most of the questions you raised is simply this: Islam was established on a terrorist scheme. Now this may sound inflamatory, but that is not intended; rather, it's hard to see otherwise when the only conclusion from reading the history of the founder of Islam is that he spread his religion by sword and terrorism. The democracies of the West have treated this monster with "politically correct" lingo - now they have a hard time dealing with the same issue they initially had no qualms with.

Tell you what - I hardly know what to say in a situation where innocent civillians are caught in crossfires. There are a few things that come to mind in discussing issues like this:

1. No innocent civillian deserves the pain and death of any war - whether they be Israelis, Lebanese, Pakistani, American. . . or even Nigerian. In practice, the rules of engagement in any conflict do not respect civillian areas or demilitarized zones, especially where the perceived target(s) have infiltrated civillian areas.

2. It does not appear that Israel went out with an agenda to slay innocent lives as part of her stragedy; so perhaps the topic of this thread needs a little recast. Unfortunately, in warfare innocent people that have nothing to do with the politics of war most often happen to be caught in the thick of any garboil.

3. On either side, what has been the underlying agenda? Israel would like to see an end of Hezbollah/Hizbullah and her activities; while Hizbullah has been calling for the annihilation of Israel and her existence. In my constrained understanding, in the latter case a minority group is calling for the extinction of a nation - which does not make sense.

4. That some of the "innocent civillians" in Lebanese quarters are purported to have been encouraging Hizbullah's activities (by hiding them and joining their ranks) makes it all the more difficult for Israel to sieve through the target areas.

In all, on either side of the conflict, my heart goes out to civillians suffering from the crossfires - both Israelis, Labanese and multi-nationalities in the region who actually may have nothing to do with Hizbullah's ideology.

Hi guys,

I'd like to ask - what exactly are the stipulations of the Sabbath: how is it supposed to be observed as God gave it?

That's not what I'm saying. Read again -

bari_kade:
Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between various kinds of sins. The ultimate consequence of all sin is eternal separation from God, but that doesn't make them all the same sin!

That's what I said before. Now the point is that most people feel just because the ultimate consequence is eternal separation from God, therefore all sins are the same! There could be nothing further from the truth. Some would argue: what's the point of saying one sin is grosser than the other? My counter argument is that the Bible makes clear that in fact one sin is grosser than another, regardless the consequences. Those who feel that since the consequences are ultimately the same, therefore all sins are the same. That kind of reasoning is only possible where people take their eyes off God's Word.

@wormedup,

Rom 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Question: if any sin at all could be forgiven (stealing, shoplifting, adultery, pedophilia, etc.) after repentance, what do you think of this? -

        "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:

         but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."
         (Matt. 12:31).

Clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between various kinds of sins. The ultimate consequence of all sin is eternal separation from God, but that doesn't make them all the same sin!

There is (1) a sin unto death, and (2) there is a sin not unto death - did you see that at all? 1 John 5:16-17.

Again look at this -

Luk 12:47-48 >>
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

This is not an arbitrary gradation of man - it's what is stated in the Bible. God doesn't deal with people all at the same level simply because everyone has different levels of sin they commit - sins of commission and ommission.

ISAHO:
consistent backup from the Quran like marrying 12 to 16 wives? you can't be fed with an assertion and believe just like that without comfirming it. what the Quran said was marry at most four, and there is a clause there "except if you can put equality among them"

C'mon, ISAHO. . . Muhammad's number of wives is not backed up in the Qur'an, is it? Unless you'd like to re-interpret history, we know for a certain from Islamic sources that Muhammad married more than four times the prescribed number of wives stipulated in the Qur'an - that would be anywhere from 4 x 4 number of wives (= 16) to 7 x 3 number (= 21) according to other sources like Ali Dashti. Infact, when you take a look at Q. 33:50, you begin to get an idea of the precedence for Muhammad's adventures. Bottom line was that Islamic sources knew that he had more than 4 wives, equality among them not withstanding -

Q.33:50
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Caught that? So, there was no "difficulty" for Muhammad to do as he thought fit in this matter. . . or what did I miss?

ISAHO:
reaction after an action. may be i said it but not with the intention as an avenue of condemning christianity, i respects it like i always do, no strings attached.

I understand. Forgive me, but sometimes one can't help stating these things, even though it sounds like condemning. Well, I'd like to respect anyone's faith. . . but one couldn't just ignore those aspects that are being posted on the Forum. Respects.

Add this -

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. - John 8:31-32.

Regards.