@simmy,

simmy:

I'm just stating facts. im not making any conclusions. Xtians in the name of xtianity have killed more people and shed more blood than ANY other religion in the world. and don't go 'Xtianity doesnt preach violence' line, because most religions (including Islam) does not preach violence (at least directly), The old testament is full of gory details of killings of gentile men women and children and xtians extrapolated these killings to their own lifetimes.

When you mix up facts and arrive at such inferences, it still leaves your remarks hanging. I'm not a Jew, please; and yes I believe in the revelations of the OT. Your inferences against Christianity are flawed if you are still unable to delineate issues clearly.

simmy:

All im saying is before u accuse Islam of being bloodthirsty (it actually is) consider the bloodthirstiness of at least some people who professed to be membersof your religion in the past. MAN! the catholic church alone has the blood of millions and millions and millions of men, women and children on its hands which will never wash off; protestants have been almost as bad!

How have I been accusing Islam against its obvious adventures if you could state in as highlighted that "it actually is"?? I've noticed that in recent times people simply magnify the ills of the Catholic Church as basis for their allegations against Christianity. And yes, Christianity preaches peace - even if you may not wish to examine the NT for yourself.

Cheers.

@babs787,

babs787:

Thanks brother. I have seen it too. Jihad there did not include only taking up arms for defence but also any good deeds in the cause of Allah. Now go to the second paragraph and without being biased, it is clearly understood that Jihad mentioned there is for self defence when a muslim land is usurped, muslim is allowed to fight the opperessed.

I understand that Jihad has various meanings in Islamic theology. Please refer to my response to the thread starter: my concerns were in reference to the other meaning that he did not mention at all.


The second paragraph that you are calling attention to does not nullify what was stated before it:

By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah
has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated.

I'm asking a basic question here: does Islam have to be established by weaponry and force of numbers? What does that say about the "no compulsion in religion"?

babs787:

Now for better understanding, I will provide you some verses on the meaning of jihad

Jihad by preaching word of Allah

Quran 25 v 52: So obey not the disbelievers but strive against them (by preaching) with utmost endeavors with it (the Quran)

Quran 22 v 78: And strive hard in Allah's cause as you ought to strive (with sincerity and with all you efforts that his name should be superior). He has chosen you (to convey his message of Islamic monotheism to mankind by inviting them to His religion of Islam) and Has not laid upon you a religion of any hardship.

The above verse is saying that Jihad is performed through preaching ALLAH's word.

Quran 8 v 72: Verily, those who believed and emigrated and strove and fought with their property and their lives in the cause of Allah as well as those who gave ( them) assylum and help, these are (all) allies to one another and as to those who believe but did not emigrate (to you o Muhammed) you owe no duty of protection to them until they emigrate but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance and Allah is the All seer of what you do.

I can go on but will stop there.

Is that all there is to the meaning of Jihad? Please again refer above and see that I'm concerned about this practice of Muslims telling only partially the story and not being open to acknowledge discussions quite simply for what they are. Again, is the other meaning of Jihad outlined above not a fundamental pillar of Islam?

babs787:

Can you back it up with verses from the Quran/Hadith

I'm referring to a factual attitude of Muslims towards the West: is that something that does not exist at all?

babs787:

Brother, have you found out the reason behind hatred against Islam by the Jews?

Maybe I have my views; but I'm still asking questions and trying to understand what is at stake between both faiths. Yet, I simply want to understand how it is that Muhammad made several pronouncements as hinted earlier against the Jews.

babs787:

Let me have the verses please

Babs787, I don't know if you're deliberately trying to deny the obvious, or you simply are not aware. Please what do you make of the following report? --

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam
should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4841334.stm

Was the Judge wrong; or was that statement his personally opinion?

@babs787,

babs787:

This is one of his quotes

Here: I was referring to this --

Telly B:

@topic,

Actually, it is not as simplistic an issue between the Qur'an and the aHadith. There are FOUR sources of Islamic doctrine and social views, known as the fundamental principles (usul):


(a) Qur'an - the word of Allah
(b) Sunnah - the traditions and sayings of Muhammad
(c) ijma - the consensus
(d) ijtihad - individual thoughts

A lot of people may known about the Qur'an and Hadith/Sunnah. However, not many are aware about the ijma. Introduced in the 2nd century AH (i.e., the 8th century AD), the doctrine of ijma cannot be questioned once a "concensus" has been reached. The crucial thing here is that accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and the actual contents of the Sunnah (Hadith) all rest finally on the ijma. Of course, this does not mean that the ijma has any authority at par with the Qur'an. Rather, it simply upholds the interpretations of the Qur'an in their finality.

So, here it is not merely a question between the Qur'an and Hadith; but the other sources must be included in the fundamental principle (usul)as sources of Islamic doctrine and social views.

That is what caught my interest, and that was what I based my remarks on earlier before your resumption.

babs787:

Brother in all honesty, one should think twice before posting anything particularly when it comes to religion. He said that there are many practices which are not in the Quran nor the Hadith, I will want him to serve those things

Perhaps, he would do that in due course. But then, are you denying the fact that Muslims both preach and practice a lot of issues that we cannot read in the Qur'an or Hadiths? At least, I haven't read all of the Hadiths; but I've seen things which none of my Muslim friends have been able to point a verse in the Qur'an for.

babs787:

and he shouldn't forget that there are some issues practised by some christians today which are not in anyway in the bible and will be served him after he might have served those he felt muslims do that are not in the Quran/Hadith. He should also know that anything outside the Quran/Hadith is regarded as Bidiah.

We Christians also have a name for what is not in the Bible: heresy.

Of course, when it comes down to bare facts, we Christians recognize that there are so many things that some Christians hold and practise outside the Bible. However, I don't see how that calls for a quarrel or complaint against what Telly B has said. On both sides, we find divergent views and practices outside holy writs.

@babs787,

babs787:

Same issue brother. My understanding of your post above is that it is one of the articles of faith to believe in the prophets and their books. You are not a muslim until you believe in the prophets and their books.

That being the case, what books of the prophets do Muslims believe in? What are contained in those books? Can you categorically make a reference of some of the contents of those books besides the Qur'an?

babs787:

If I say the prophets, I mean those that came right from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Jesus to the last prophet Muhammed (saw).

Even so, my questions above refer.

babs787:

Quran 5 v 19: O people of the scripture! Now has come to you our Messenger making things clear unto you, after a break in the series of Messengers, lest you say: 'there came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner'. But now has come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner. And Allah is Able to do all things

What break in series of Messengers can we deduce from this verse of the Qur'an?

babs787:

Quran 33 v 40: Muhammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the last of the prophets and Allah is cognizant of all things.

That verse does not name Muhammad as the greatest prophet, as in Telly B's question. Do you have any verse in the Qur'an that so named Muhammad?

babs787:

Brother, we Muslims make no distinction.We Muslims believe in all prophets and their books. The coming of the prophets is like a chain in which a prophet takes over from another. There is always a difference of many thousand years between one prophet and another. Every prophet before the last prophet were sent to their community. As a result of the years between the going and coming of another prophet, the community of the earlier prophet would have perished hence the coming of another prophet to another set of people.

There are three things you have highlighted here that inform my questions now:

       (a) since Muslims do not make distinctions between prophets, why then is Muhammad regarded with a distinction by Muslims who refer to him as the greatest prophet? That is precisely doing what you disavow?

       (b) which of the prophets do Muslims actually believe in?

       (c) are you as a Muslim willing to believe in the books of those prophets you name in answer to the above question?

babs787:

I don't know what you may be thinking to be the distinction but I am telling you that, all the prophets came for their people alone except the last prophet (Muhammed) that came for the whole world. You have the stories of the prophets in the Quran to show you that we believe in them.

If you can make such a claim for Muhammad, then isn't it true that Jesus Christ actually came for the redemption of the entire world?

babs787:

We believe in all the prophets likewise in their books because it is one of the articles of faith but can we say the revelations in existence are the same as those given to the prophets?

Who are those prophets; and what happened to those books of the prophets that Muslims are asked to believe in?

Wow!

You guys have definitely added to my understanding on this subject. It is amazing that several people here are pointing to the same thing about Melchizedek not being deity and that Heb. 7:3 points to his not having been recorded among the genealogies of priests.

Another thing that amazes me is that he seems to have been the very first priest to be mentioned in Scripture; and at a strategic connection -

Gen. 14:18 - And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:
and he was the priest of the most high God. (19) And he blessed
him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor
of heaven and earth: (20) And blessed be the most high God,
which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave
him tithes of all.

I've always wondered - how did Abraham come to the understanding of giving tithes to Melchizedek - even though he was not reckoned among the genealogy of priests? And again, I wonder that the priesthood of the Lord Jesus should be patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood!

Is that not saying something about our giving as Christians? Could people carefully look into this and let's have what you think? Blessings.

@Telly B,

Telly B:

Gentlemen, Please.

@Bobbyaf,
If you've got anything to say, please do so. If nothing, then you are not helping your sabbatical position with these recent games.


@bari_kade,
Point made. There are no exemptions in the Sabbath Law; and any excuses thereto are simply dishonest and rebellious.


Can we expect to read something more mature henceforth, please?

I've been away for a few days; but thank you for your simplicity - as well the good sense you made in your balanced input. God bless.

@sage,

Please don't try to dress up your flawed assumptions. I appreciate Telly B's simple entry to this thread: you cannot reconstruct the HISTORICAL FACTS of WWII to make it read as if it is a war fought in the name of Christianity. Period.

babs787:

@bari_kade,
Thanks for the wonderful post.

I should rather be thanking every reasonable reader and contributor on the Forum - from whom I have leart so much (goodguy, my thanks as well).

Perhaps, it might be a good opportunity to state this: if any post is going to make sense at all, it should be devoid of wild passions that debate topics without considering their contexts. Unfortunately, we don't find this happening quite often.

ricadelide:

@Tomiwa
bros,
there's nothing to be pitied here; it only shows how important TRUTH is and how ERROR in any form (even if it has the 'Christian' name tag appended to it) is to be exposed. we are to be wary of any form of falsehood, even if it were to be in our own house.

Exactly. Well appreciated.

@babs787,

What do you personally understand by the claim in the Qur'an admonishing Muslims to believe in ALL the prophets? Which prophets, please? And how can you believe in them apart from their writings?

@babs787,

What do you have to fault in Telly B's post that you quoted?

@babs787,

babs787:

Can you please serve me the other meanings?

Muslim translators in their commentaries point to the meaning of Jihad as including armed/military warfare; not just as retaliation - but just so that Islam may be established through those armed warfare. Besides, the commentators actually believe that this idea of Jihad is binding upon ALL Muslims; so that even those Muslims who are opposed to such an idea are considered hypocrites.

My persuasions above are taken from the footnote on The Noble Qur'an, Sura 2:190 --

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry.
It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars.
By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah
has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated.

By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position;
their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.
Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty,
or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."

babs787:

You make me laugh with this your non-hostility. Did Muhammed kill christians during his time and in all honesty, can you tell me why muslims fought during his time and when you are through with that, other issues will come in from your bible.

Can I answer your question with these, so that we can focus on what is at stake here: why do Muslims today often refer to the West as "Christian" with such hate? And what did Muhammad actually mean in his several pronouncements against the Jews? Why does Islam seek to kill a Muslim convert to Christianity or any other religion according to its teachings?

babs787:

Let us have the verses please and the reason behind the verses. When you finish serving me, I will take you to some verses in the bible where Jesus ordered the killing of everything that breathes including kids and animals and we will look into why some violent acts in the bible.

I hope you'll be gentlemanly about this and not have to copy and paste repeatedly the same verses which have already been addressed in another thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-53042.96.html#msg1196207

@babs787,

What do you understand by tithes and zakat? Please I just want to know what you personally understand by those terms; rather than someone else's material that I probably have seen on another website.

@babs787,

babs787:

N[b]ow therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.[/b] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

Can you explain the reason for the above killing?

Needless repetition - dealt with above.

babs787:

Brother, you claimed that Muhammed was a warmonger, please explain the below verses and the reason for killing by your God Jesus of the OT.

Is this merely for the sake of argument; or you actually believe that Jesus Christ is the God of the OT?

babs787:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

He even ordered the killing of women

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

Another needless repetition: refer above.

babs787:

Now Muhammed fought the pagans to repel oppression and never transgressed limit, but here God Jesus of the OT, ordering the killing of men, women, children and everything that breathes

The case you're bringing up for Muhammad as never transgressing limits is not supported by Muslim sources; neither does Muhammad's adventures square with what Moses did. By making reference to "God Jesus of the OT", it would mean that you see Him as the God of the OT, yes or no?

babs787:

Deuteronomy 20:16: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Can you tell me why he ordered the killing of living things, even animals?

Deuteronomy 20:17 & 18
"But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

babs787:

1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

Why did they kill woman, infant, sucking, oxen, sheep, camel and ass, please for what purpose and did those animals and the innocent children offend God?

So, they offended God - which would mean that Islam teaches precisely the same thing, NO?

babs787:

It is not my problem, you may shout from now till tomorrow for all I care. You keep mentioning babs as being the one that has been deriding your faith, give me just a verse where I have done that and I will back it with verses from both the bible and the Quran. I learnt that when you post anything about muslims, nobody cautions you nor do muslims accuse you of 'deriding' but when muslims ask any questions, you quickly conclude that they are deriding your faith. Babs has not been around now and you have not stopped you mischief, but trust me, when I am back, I will be back for good.

When you go through the threads, you will find that you're clearly mixing up issues. I simply want to know just one thing, babs787: what is the basis of your deriding Jesus Christ, regardless of whatever anyone does or says? I just simply want to know what is informing your attitude so that I know how next to relate with you.

@babs787,

Even though we all get busy and we're not always on the Forum, I'd like to respond to your resuming post before I get busy again.

babs787:

Are you referring to God of the Ot or NT? In case you missed it, read below please.

Are your arguments against Jews or Christians, babs787?

babs787:

2 Chronicles 15:13:All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

Can you please explain the reason behind the killing?

That verse did not state that God ordered a jihad there, please. It was rather pointing to the covenant that the Jews made among themselves, if you read it in its context:

(12) And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart
and with all their soul; (13) That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put
to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (14) And they sware unto the LORD
with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets.

As you can see, there were no killings in the verse you quoted.

babs787:

Numbers 31:7,17-18: ""They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man, 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.

What is the reason behind the killing?

Read from verse 1:

Numbers 31: (1) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) "Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Afterward you shall be gathered to your people." (3) So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD's vengeance on Midian.

Now, it may be asked: what was Midian's fault? Were they entirely blameless as to have invited unprovoked attack upon themselves?

On the contrary, we find the reason for this engagement given earlier in Numbers 25. The Midianites were the principal instigators of idolatory and lewdness - two very serious issues that were deliberately forged against Israel to weaken them spiritually:

(16) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (17) "Harass the Midianites and strike them down,
(18) for they have harassed you with their wiles, with which they beguiled you in the matter of Peor,
and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the chief of Midian, their sister, who was killed on
the day of the plague on account of Peor."

The Israelites did not just get up and go after the Midianites in order to 'prove' that Moses engaged in jihad. The verses you quote should be read in their contexts.

babs787:

Numbers 25 v 17: Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,
18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor."

Can you please explain the above too?

Refer just above.

babs787:

Numbers 31 v 7-12: 7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

Explain the above please.

As above.

babs787:

# Is there any Hadith or even verse in the Qur'an that teaches that Jesus Christ went to war against people in just the same way that Muhammad did?

In case you missed the verses above, here is another verses for you.

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2)

Since when did Zechariah 14:1-2 become a part of the Hadith or Qur'an? Do you mind taking a second look at his question inserted in your quote, please? Did Jesus go out to war against people in just the way that Muhammad did?

babs787:

Why the killing and sharing of spoils?

Zechariah 14:1-2 does not rpove Jihad; if it does, then you have clearly made the case that the fundamental meaning of Jihad is warfare; since you're using those verses in the Bible to suppose the meaning of Jihad.

Meanwhile, Zechariah 14:1-2 declares what the hostile nations will do against Jerusalem: they shall besiege the city and take it captive as they had always wanted to do (cf. Psa. ) - so God gathers them against Jerusalem to do just as they had always wished:

(1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
(2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and
the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity,
and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

But when you read on through verse 3, you will find what happens next: the LORD visits those hostile nations who came against Jerusalem, and He judges them for their plunders against the city and its inhabitants:

(3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought
in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives,
which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst
thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and
half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
(5) And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall
reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days
of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Compare this with Joel 3:1-3  --

(1) For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity
of Judah and Jerusalem, (2) I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into
the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my
heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.
(3) And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold
a girl for wine, that they might drink.

So, if you take time to read the verses you quoted, they do not have the meaning of the Islamic Jihad you're trying to cop out from the Bible.

Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

You still haven't gotten it have you? We will see sooner or later who is in the dark or the light! Just keep in mind what Jesus said and everything will fall in place.

Your latest tantrums are not really making up for your loses. If you've got anything to say, bring it on.

Lol @davidylan,

www.nairaland.com/attachments/40331_mag_19_jpg6675f11ea528877a9eecee47655b56c0

I heard that the number 19 is one of the miracles of the Qur'an. Abi no be so?

MP007:

And if u want to know the sin that he(Jesus) came and died for, let him come into your life .Ask Jesus and u will be surprised, God bless you, JESUS IS LORD,

Amen again!

Horus:

This show that,Christianity,this fabricated religion is nothing but politics

Another fabrication.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

Well, I am at home today and I am responding to Bari_kade's reply on the sabbath. I wonder if he will accuse of me of breaking sabbath stipulations for even responding to a religious point of view?

I also notice you are avoiding the words of Jesus saying its lawful to do good on the sabbath, because you very well know you cannot gainsay what the Lord has said.

Lest I forget have a happy sabbath.

Don't try being a child. I haven't argued against what the Lord Jesus said; and not in one verse did He make an excuse for the sort of exemptions you have repeatedly been drumming up.

I've no problem with anyone wanting to keep the Sabbath based on a Law given in EXODUS - as long as such sabbatarians carefully study and adhere to its stipulations in that same book.

Cheers.

Al Raheem:

@topic only
A Naija movie about stupid fools of both religion and Rigteous Children of both.
Do not reply me Am so so tired
pt1 http://video.onlinenigeria.com/Drama/ad1.asp?blurb=960
pt2 one nation/one god http://video.onlinenigeria.com/premiumvideos/ad11.asp?blurb=961
pt3 one natio, one God http://video.onlinenigeria.com/Drama/ad1.asp?blurb=962
this negative talks lately by Nairaland users, against islams, won't their comments attract A religious violence in Naija again?. So basicall dissin Yoruba Muslims along with Al Qaedas 2gether. THough, only one is acting up. Am am sorry but i just can't ignore them. Its better to fix and correct rather than ignoring-as the same trouble(s) maker will end up back on your path. Or on the paths of your future seed. And yes I do know the answer is not aguments, so then what would it be
pt 4 one nation one God http://video.onlinenigeria.com/premiumvideos/ad11.asp?blurb=963

They're empty skits. Worse than that, it's the same recycled material that is now worn out after re-use.

Al Raheem:

David don't be talkin to me man what are you talkin abvout do u not know of Christian wars. Guy am telling u, i can' put up wit your arrogancy. Please alway ignore me on Nairaland. You don't think properly what about christian wars again christians. Look man this time i won't insult u as i am learning. Just stay the hell away fom me. You've been very irritatin man. Keep trying me if you like u little boy with your darken heart<--my last to u

@Al Raheem,

'Christian wars' do not "prove" that Christianity is as belligerent as Islam. Even if Jesus never asked any of His disciples to engage in such atrocities, those who did so still went to their murderous wars under the guise of "Christianity". In your heart, would you still account that as the Christianity Jesus came to preach?

In the case of Islam, it is rather those who do NOT want to fight in the name of Allah that are being reprimanded by Muhammad in the Qur'an. Many Muslims do not want war; but Muhammad scolded them for refusing to go to war. In your heart, can you exonerate Muhammad from laying the foundation for Islamic violence which is still being fought today after 14 centuries??

Whatever conclusion you draw from the above, your expression in replying to posts makes me wonder if you are actually proving the case for Islamic violence. Are you really doing that?

@nyabinghi,

nyabinghi:

same egocentric responses from Christians.
What about all the women engineers,doctors,lawyers. Just because some nations have strict islamic laws does it make women gagged. How come Usa hasn't produced awoman leader, same as Russia. Even half of cabinet members in most part of the world.

First of all, when the USA comes to the Muslim mind, the first thing they think of is that it must be a "Christian" nation, just like Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country. However, the USA is a democratic country; and not one that you could compare with Islamic nations ruled by the Sharia; or ruled by the Hudood Law in Pakistan. Even Russia is not a "Christian" country; so your argument is more a noise than an effort to make any sense.

As for women leaders, you might have been arguing for women Presidents of countries. Yet, that does not produce any substance in your arguments against Christianity. Meanwhile, if English spares your reading skill and you're not confused about the meaning of 'leader', then please note that the same USA has produced thousands of such women leaders in many walks of life:

1) Madeline Albright - First woman to become the United States Secretary of State

http://secretary.state.gov/www/albright/albright.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright


2) Newsweeks Feature Article on 12 Women Leaders:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9712114/site/newsweek/page/3/


3) Women in charge of San Francisco's Security Team:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9712126/site/newsweek/

Not to mention business leaders, political leaders, medical research experts, etc. In the USA, women have the freedom to pursue careers that will better their lives; and many of them thrive on the challenges that inspire them from their predecessors. Can you say the same for the Muslim countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan?

nyabinghi:

Why are women not occupying the Exalted posts in the vatican.

In Catholic tradition, women do not occupy such "Exalted" post in the Vatican. However, if they were to occupy such, even Catholics themselves no that no woman would come close to the honour Catholics accord Mary the mother of Jesus.

However, when you argue like this, do you care to look behind you and check if any woman has been allowed to occupy the "Exalted" positions in Islam? I heard sometime ago about a rumoured woman Imam (which up until now I have not been able to ascertain) - can you please share about such exalted positions in Islam occupied by women when you steam settles?

Lol, I know. I've tried to follow your previous posts.

MP007:

And if u want to know the sin that he(Jesus) came and died for, let him come into your life .Ask Jesus and u will be surprised, God bless you, JESUS IS LORD,

Amen!

MP007:

cover your hair .thats all i have to say , westernization has destroyed the chruch , cover your head .na bible talk am,

Abi?

@needeg,

needeeg:

What I humbly submit to the Muslim jurists is to construct a Ka'bah on the moon, at the point which would be face to face with the earthly Ka'bah, during equinox time, during a full moon night when our satellite is just above Mecca. That is, a bit North of the centre of the face of the moon that we see. I think that would lie in the region named "Ocean of Tranquillity". I am personally so much the more convinced of this solution, since the Ka'bah is not confined to the building of the ten odd yards high, but also what is above in the atmosphere up to the heaven.

Abeg, have mercy on our Muslim friends. It is enough to live on earth and not on the moon. Small time now, some folks will follow your rule of thumb and carry jihad to both the moon, the stars and other entities of the galaxy!

@topic,

NGCOM:

Does evil spirit or witchcraft really exist?

Please I want to know how somebody will know when he/she is possessed or under the influence of any form of evil spirit or curse. The signs and convinctions as well as the necessary action to take.

If you read of the examples of spirit/demon possession in the Bible, you might come away with a few pointers to the answers you're seeking. I'm not so sure how many cases are highlighted to demonstrate that the victims know in themselves that they are possessed; since demon possession is a matter of an overwhelming invasion of a person who is possessed.

A few 'signs' of demon possession:

Demons cause a victim to experience some of the following:

#1. irrationality of mind and soul

#2. strange and aberrant behaviour

#3. satanic and demonic worship

#4. extreme hatred towards God

#5. insatiable lust for lewdness and obscenities

and in extreme cases:

#6. a strong suicidal feeling

#7. deliberate effort to turn people away from God.


Now, a few verses where you might find some of these symptoms:

Mark 5:1-20 Luke 8:26-39 Acts 13:6-12
Mark 1:23-26 Mark 9:17-22 Matt. 15:22


What to do in such cases?

1. Seek help from God's Word: demon spirits demonstrate a strong aversion to God's Word.

2. Seek God's help in true repentance: demon spirits operate mainly through rebellion,
and repentance demolishes their authority over a person's life.

3. Seek God's help through fellowship and prayer with truly anointed men and women of God:
please read Matthew 18:18-19 to understand the power available to believers.



I make no claim of being an authority on this subject; but I do hope this would be somewhat helpful.

bodsibobo:

I used to be like that long long time ago when I usedc to have a HANG OVER from Saturday Night!

Hehe. . I'm not sure the guy was speaking in terms of a hangover.

Hmm, I don't know if I have a favourite Psalm. Every chapter of the Psalms highlights something special for me in particular situations or circumstances.

Lately, I have come to love Psalm 26. We are daily exposed to sets of choices; and one that often comes up is that about choosing close friends. I'll just let the Psalmist David speak as he does in this Psalm:

1 Judge me, O LORD; for I have walked in mine integrity:
I have trusted also in the LORD; therefore I shall not slide.

2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart.
3 For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.
4 I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers.

5 I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.
6 I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O LORD:
7 That I may publish with the voice of thanksgiving, and tell of all thy wondrous works.

8 LORD, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth.
9 Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with bloody men:
10 In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes.

11 But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity: redeem me, and be merciful unto me.
12 My foot standeth in an even place: in the congregations will I bless the LORD.


It doesn't make me feel superior to others; but it is one of those precious gems that help me reflect on whether or not I'm aiming to be a good influence to others.

@Telly B,

Telly B:

@Bobbyaf and bari_kade,

You have both argued back and forth on this issue and have passionately put your views across. However, I am concerned that the discussion is spiralling out of context on either side and thus leaving some fundamental questions yet unattended. This will only lead to more questions being raised, more arguments fomented, heated debates vamped up, and readers somewhat more confused than when we first began.

On either side, we should please aim for simplicity in our discussions. While not quickly laying blame yet on anyone (as surely there are shortcomings), there are yet fantastic points which could be sifted from both sides.

For instance, I'm strongly persuaded by bari_kade's insight that any Christian making a case for keeping a Sabbath Law is bound to do so by following its stringent stipulations. That at once deflates Bobbyaf's evasions and counter arguments for any so-called 'exemptions'. The Law allowed for no such exemptions at all.

On the other hand, Bobbyaf makes a good point about connecting the origins of the Sabbath to Genesis 2:3; but his premises are all the more flawed by confusing the Sabbath commandment in Exodus and divorcing it from its stipulations.

My concerns, however, are about whether or not we have been asking the right questions and seeking to address the fundamental issues on this topic. We should not so be enslaved to observing a day - any day for that matter (Gal. 4:9-11). The one thing that should occupy our hearts is the Lord Himself. That is why I so appreciate the point bari_kade brought up about 1 Cor. 11:24 & 25 where the apostle Paul reiterated the Lord's appeal: this do in remembrance of ME!

But is there anything wrong with worshipping on Saturday? Romans 14:5 gives us freedom in the Lord Jesus Christ where each person should be fully persuaded in their own minds. The base line is that, Sabbatarians should not argue to judge other Christians who do not keep a Saturday sabbath (Col. 2:16). And non-sabbatarians should be careful that they do not judge their sabbath-keeping brethren. Remember that whatever we do, we should not put a stumbling block in the path of others (I Cor. 8:9).

Although we individually possess brilliant minds in our various persuasions, we should aim for simplicity and the grace given us in the Lord Jesus Christ to seek the welfare of others. For this reason, perhaps Gal. 5:14-15 is appropriate to close my comments:

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.


God bless y'all.

Wise words there. Thank you, and God bless.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

Its people like you that Jesus would have rebuked about falsely representing the sabbath. Your attempt to pin down stipulations that were meant for the hebrews in a particular setting, and applying them to SDAs is nothing short of ridiculous, and you know it.

God's Word is not ridiculous. But if this is getting you really upset, I'll forebear.

The Jewish teachers prided themselves on their knowledge of the Scriptures, and in the Saviour's answer there was an implied rebuke for their ignorance of the Sacred Writings. "Have ye not read so much as this," He said, "what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, . . . which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?" "And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple." "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Luke 6:3, 4; Mark 2:27, 28; Matt. 12:5, 6.[/

and:

If it was right for David to satisfy his hunger by eating of the bread that had been set apart to a holy use, then it was right for the disciples to supply their need by plucking the grain upon the sacred hours of the Sabbath. Again, the priests in the temple performed greater labor on the Sabbath than upon other days. The same labor in secular business would be sinful; but the work of the priests was in the service of God. They were performing those rites that pointed to the redeeming power of Christ, and their labor was in harmony with the object of the Sabbath. But now Christ Himself had come. The disciples, in doing the work of Christ, were engaged in God's service, and that which was necessary for the accomplishment of this work it was right to do on the Sabbath day.

I've seen those articles before and they do not represent a clear picture from Scripture. This is where I read about them a few weeks ago:

http://www.sabbathtruth.com/jesus_taught.asp

Bobbyaf:

Was David condemned for not following temple stipulations? Were the priests condemned for having to work in the temple on the sabbath? Obviously not! Why not?

I appreciate Telly B's response to that.

Bobbyaf:

I notice you keeep harping on my choosing to help the sick on the sabbath, as if to judge me of breaking the stipulated ways of sabbath observation, yet you do not dare accuse Jesus of sabbath breaking when He Himself asserted that it was lawful or permitted to do good on the sabbath, despite the work expended to do good. How come? I wonder who is being pharasaical about keeping the sabbath? You amaze me!

Again, Telly B's response is appreciated.

Cheers.