₦airaland Forum

Long and full of crap.

A few Western people are converting to Islam through either idleness or rebellion. But never forget that this is like many, many other things in the West - a passing fad. And believe me - they would convert back like a shot if their societies actually did turn Islamic. They certainly aren't converting for reason of "a different and better life than this society provides" as Islam most certainly does not provide that. If it did, one could easily explain away why there are so many Muslims who travel to live in Western society and so few Westerners who wish to live in Muslim society without blaming Islam's backwardness. The fact is that Western society is superior in almost every single aspect. If not, there would be a flood of Muslims heading back to their countries of origin, wouldn't there? There would be a flood of Westerners wanting to emigrate to Islamic countries, wouldn't there? But no. It's the other way around.
The overwhelming majority of people in the West have never experienced slavery like those in Asia or Africa. They are used to having relative freedom. They will never swap that freedom for Islam. They will never swap the ability to think for themselves, to criticise that which they don't believe in, to have the freedom to worship what they want, when they want for a religion that demands slavery to an illogical god.

People like those in the OP don't realise the damage that they are causing. In the end, you shoot your own religion in the foot. This conspiring to convert as many people as possible and take over the West is only going to end one way - with war. A war that Islam will lose utterly.
At the moment the West is not at war with Islam. It takes on it's fundamentalists carefully, with precision and with half-heartedness. Look at Western societies and you will see that the vast majority of its' people are opposed to any fighting with Islam - even when Islam attacks first. They are bred to believe that any critisism of Islam is wrong and that they are racist if they point out it's failings - even if that critisism is utterly justified. But now those people are starting to wake up. They're starting to realise that they've been fed a lie.
Don't think for one second that these won't be the same people who will be calling for every Muslim head once they feel threatened enough. And don't think for one second that their governments and armies won't hand them those heads on silver platters. If the West were to take the threat of Islam seriously, listen to it's people and turn it's full military might on Islam (not the half-hearted attempts witnessed in the last 20 or so years) , Islam will be finished.

Attempt your conversion of the West at your own peril. Just don't revert to typical Muslim victim-hood and whining when it blows up in your face with terrible consequences.
Be careful for what you wish for my friend.

You mean Pilgrim1 that couldn't keep her points straight sure.
Others sha cannot face me, what?

Don't kid yourself. You're not in Pilgrim's league.
For all her failings, Pilgrim was a very, very good debater. You on the other hand are an idiot.

You post nothing of substance - just a load of claptrap and then you burble "I'm right. I've won".

The only place you are superior to anyone is in your arrogance and self-conceit.

Like Christ said not everyone who hears will understand. I hear I understand, you hear you don't.

You don't hear - let alone understand. You are deaf.

Last I checked it is protestants that can't get their truth straight that give Christianity a bad name.

And with that sweeping statement you wipeout 1900 years of Catholic atrocity. No Lady. The Catholic church caused more damage to the reputation of Christianity than Bin Laden could ever cause to the Muslim faith even if he lived to be 1000 years old.
Protestantism didn't sully the reputation of Christianity. If anything, it started dragging it out of the gutter once Martin Luther nailed his note to the door.
Why do you think people turned to Protestantism? They weren't forcibly converted as in Catholism, they converted by choice. Could it be because they were sick and tired of the lies and corruption of the Catholic church? Lies that vermin like you and your ilk still propogate?
The answer is a resounding "YES".

do you think these two great civilizations can coexist side by side ?

Firstly, there is no Islamic "civilisation". A loose group of totalitarian nations practising a barbaric religion can in no way be termed "civilisation".

Secondly, Islam does not want to coexist with any religion. One only has to take a look at the many instances where it interacts with other religions to see that it's only aim is to destroy all that it does not agree with.

The Bible does not forbid tattoos.

As usual the idiots who think they know it all come out quoting Bible passages saying that God forbids it but they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

The Bible passages in the Old Testament do not forbid tattoos. They are referring to writing the name of pagan gods.
Back then it was commonplace to tattoo your god on your body - it was like branding cattle. You wore the tattoo of the particular god to show that you were a member of that tribe and religion.

The Bible forbids the "branding" of pagan gods upon your body. Just that - nothing more.

Islam is so stupid at times, one has to wonder if Mohammed just came up with it as a joke.

Muslims are not allowed to drink, yet they are allowed to take copious amounts of drugs. Walk around a Muslim kasbah and you will find plenty of people stoned out of their heads on hookah hashish or hallucinating from opium.
And the country with the most heroin addicts per head of population? Iran. 

Where is the logic in that? Ban alcohol so everyone can get screwed up on harder drugs.
But then, one must never forget the probability (almost a certainty) that good old Mohammed was probably stoned when he came up with the Q'ran. They can hardly ban the chemicals that founded their faith.

According to National Crime Victimization Survey Bureau of Justice (U.S. Department of Justice) in the year 1996 alone everyday on an average 2,713 rapes took place. The statistics tell us that the majority of the rapists, were intoxicated while committing the crime.

2,713 in a year? In Islam that many take place in a day!!! A husband can rape his wife legally even if she doesn't want sex. You can guarantee that 2,713 would be an underestimate for the number of rapes that take place daily in Islamic society.

@Huxley.

The first half of the first video is very good. Basically, Hitchens is saying - "Who gives a crap wether or not Christ was for real. Christians should just enjoy the message".
That's pretty much where I stand with my religion.

After that, he unfortunately just goes to shit with just typical atheism rhetoric that don't make him any different from any of the religious fundamentalists out there.

I figured out that this would be one of the simplest ways for him to prove his existence to we unbelievers. If this works, I assure you that there won’t be a single unbeliever left in this world because this would be a proof beyond reasonable doubts.

OK Ascony. I tried your suggestion and it worked - God appeared to me.

Now, are you going to convert as you say you will? No?
Then that makes you a liar as well as an idiot doesn't it?

Let me remind you of your own words just a couple of posts ago.

So if you follow the Bible you are already following men.

So you're now denying the fallibility of man because other men have said that they are infallible?

Idiot. You are making man your God.

Hahaha you can't even keep your lies straight. Sorry for you. I have posted what the scriptures say, either you want to believe it or not. It is up to you.

Who is lying? Anyone can read this thread and see what I've said and compare it to your gibberish.

You say that the scriptures are the work of fallible men, chosen by infallible men and then you use them as proof that the Catholic church is the only way to God.

Do you realise how illogical and dumb you are being?

A negative and a positive make a negative.

Work of men can be infallible, remember Jesus himself is also a man.

Last I heard, you guys were stating that he was man and god and therefore infallible.

God did not write the Bible he however inspired it. But because God didn't write the Bible, how do we know that it was truly inspired by God? Can you give me that answer mr Bastage? How do we know that several men didn't come together and say these books are inspired when infact they're not. How do you know that the books of the Bible were supposed to be defined as scripture?

You're not preaching to the converted here. The simple fact is that we don't know. The books that were defined as scripture were defined to be so by men.

Again, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You're saying that all defining is down to fallible man but that you should put your trust in his fallible church.
Have you actually read anything you've written?

That proves absolutely nothing.

You've said yourself elsewhere that the Bible is not the word of God but was written by men.

Either you're a follower of the words of men or you're a follower of God. Which is it?

1st) The Bible was written by men it didn't drop from the sky, it wasn't penned by God. So if you follow the Bible you are already following men.

LMAO. That totally defeats your own argument you dimwit.
If it's the work of men, it is fallible. Therefore following a Church or other men doesn't matter because they are fallible too.

Think before you type, you idiot.

Now answer my questions.

How is the bread and wine not the Body and Blood of Christ?

Would you like to explain how it is?

Wine is fermented grape juice.
Bread is made from wheat, sugar and yeast.
Nothing more.

Explain how they are literally the body and blood of a possibly mythical figure.

Simple answer - you can't. It's simply a representation taken from older pagan beliefs that were around a long time before Christianity.

Oh the smugness, ignorance and arrogance of a "true believer".
The Catholic Church has done more to rape, pillage and plunder this planet than almost any other organisation on this planet and yet you have the temerity to preach about how it is the only way to find God?
Get back under your rock.

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (I'm not talking about those fools in Evangelical Protestantism) is that Catholics answer to men - ie: the Popes.
Protestants answer to God.

One can't even claim that Catholicism is the "Universal" and original church. It usurped it's way to power by murdering and destroying everything it disagreed with by way of power and money.

Absolute and utter crap.

You can't have God unless you follow the Catholic faith?

Basically that's saying "If you don't follow other men, you can't follow God".
It's making man and God the same thing. Isn't that called blasphemy?


Mind you what do you expect a pastor to preach? If he doesn't have followers, he doesn't get paid.

The important thing is one should be born again and then should stop worrying about the twisting or big theological arguments and the hebrew and greek debates, etc. etc. But simply read on with humility like a child or better a weaned child(Psa 139). Everything will be crystal clear and will make a person wise.

There's your problem.

Children can't always understand what they are reading. They are also susceptible to other peoples' definitions. They can easily be moulded by others who may not have their best intentions in mind.
Surely it's better to approach with a critical but open mind?

Being born again is not the be-all and end-all. In some case you can swap the word "born" for "dead". Anyone can say that they are born again yet not really understand what it entails.

The ones who shout loudest are normally the men of money.

Those who just quietly get on with it are normally the men of God.

I hate neither God nor the Bible.

I do believe that mankind has twisted much of the latter beyond recognition though.

I also believe that the OT is a separate book from the NT. One was clearly written for Jews and it's relevance to Christianity is so small as to it now being worthless, whereas the other is so important yet it's message almost always overlooked.

If Nope, then can i have a word with you?

Type away.

No. I'm not born again.

I do read the Bible though and I cringe at a lot of the crap that evangelicals state that it says when it plainly doesn't.

Neither Christians or Muslims are more relgious.

There are fundamentalist whack-jobs on both sides.

Nazarene?
If it refers to Nazareth, it cannot be anything but a later addition can it?
If it refers to the Nazarene sect of the Essenes, that blows most fundamentalist Christian arguments regarding Christ out of the water.
You've shot yourself in the foot by making an argument that condemns you with your own logic.

But as stated, the passage refers to a Nazarite and not a "nazarene" as you so wrongly claim.

Nazarites were nothing more than Jews who took the ascetic vow described in Numbers 6:1-21. Nothing whatsoever to do with Christ. Any Jew could take that vow.
The so called "prophecy" refers to Samson. Nothing more.

LMAO. If you're going to accuse me of lies, at least do so with a question that can't be so easily blown out of the water and which makes you look like a complete idiot.

Do you mind giving me the source of the prophecy "He shall be called a nazarene"

The above is not a prophecy - it does not feature anywhere in the Old Testament and was written well after Christ's death. The word you're actually looking for in Judges 13:5  is "Nazarite".
How do we know it was written long after?  Well, Christian apologetics whine that ""Nazarite" really means "Nazarene" and refers to the town of Nazareth. Big mistake as they totally shoot themselves in the foot.

Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus. There was no such place. The town only came into being long after his death.

Add to that the fact that the "prophecy" you lifted (badly) from Judges refers to Samson and can in no way be construed to be related to Jesus and you're just a laughing stock.

Yet more proof that the New Testament was written long after the time of Jesus and that the Old Testament has been modified.

Old Testament:

Compiled whilst the Hebrews were in exile in Babylon. 585-539BCE.
Contains old oral tradition and assimiliates many aspects of Babylonian religion and older myth.


New Testament:

Written and compiled 60-200 years after the death of Christ.
Contains aspects of older Eastern religions and Judaism.

Ghaddafi is a basket case. He is not a politician but rather some sort of self made celebrity who yearns to become a leader of much more than just Libya. If there weren't politicians in Africa who take his deluded ravings seriously, he would just be a total figure of fun to be laughed at.

How can this guy be head of the AU when he categorically states that all African countries should become one party dictatorships like his own? With stupid statements like that, he spits on the graves of all those Africans who have fought, suffered and died for freedom.

Ghaddafi is not African. He is an Arab with an Arab's head on his shoulders. Allbeit a head full of shit.

As for a US of Africa? Africa is too big and too diverse to lump the whole continent under one banner.

When you go to a cocktail party, no one forces you to take a drink, you need to ask for it BUT it is free . . . you dont pay.

We attend different cocktail parties. In the ones I go to, the drinks are offered. I never need to ask for one - there is always a waitress floating about with a tray who will come up to me if my glass is empty.

And that's your problem. You have to ask. You have to beg. Sure it may be free, but if the host was doing his job properly, it would be there in front of you without you having to lift a finger.

You have a choice to accept salvation or reject it. You made the conscious choice to reject it . . . by all means dont worry.

You silly little man, where do I say that I reject it? I merely say that it is irrelevant.
I'm at the cocktail party because I enjoy the company of the host - not to beg for drinks and get drunk.

salvation is slavery to you because you dont understand it.

It is slavery to you because you cant imagine life without sin.

LOL no.

"Salvation" to you is something to strive for. It is a reward. Would you still be so fervent in your fundamentalism if there were no offer of Salvation.

Salvation to me is irrelevant. It is something that is out of my hands, and if it comes my way or not then so be it. Either way, it doesn't affect my faith.

You say that Salvation is a gift that you must accept. That isn't a gift. It's either a threat or a bribe.

Contrary to your (as usual) incorrect assertion, I can imagine a life without sin. I'm just not as arrogant as you so that I recognise myself as incapable of living that life.

It is slavery to you because you cant imagine submitting your will to Him who has called you into eternal fellowship with Him.

Choice, David. Comprehend the meaning of being able to choose and then come back to me and tell me that I don't understand.
He gave you a choice. There's no must, there's no bribe, there's no carrot or stick.
Discover that you have the freedom to choose and then come back and preach to me.

I stay away from the Islam forum for this reason:

A forum for Muslims to share their faith. Muslims only please, even the moderators are Muslims.

I find that statement to be extremely unfair and totally biased but unfortunately am well aware that this is not a private forum and that one can be banned for transgressing.

On the few occasions that I have visited that forum, I have found it's occupants to be blinkered, unreasonable and a total waste of time. Show me one post in there today that discusses the events in Lahore - they sweep everything under the carpet.

I never shy away from expressing my distaste for Islam but the cold truth is that I spend most of my time in this forum and therefore it is not a concern in any of the subjects I discuss. But rest assured, I do not avoid it.

That said, claiming that atheists or non-fundamentalist Christians do not hold aspects of Islam in the same contempt with which they view aspects of all other religions is a misleading smokescreen. The fact remains that this is the religion forum and that Christianity is normally the subject under discussion here - not Islam.
The argument that non-fundamentalists only pick on Christianity is illogical.

Salvation is free BUT IT IS A GIFT YOU MUST ACCEPT . . . it wont be forced on the unwilling.

What a load of contradictory bullshit.
Your version of Salvation is only free if you sell yourself into slavery.

the numbers have references to ancient hebrew, where numbers could be assigned to letters or words.
as the wiki article states, 616 is the 'original' reference and 666 is the mistranslated christian nonsense reference.

I've read the 616 theory and even posted it here but it's only a theory and 666 looks the better candidate.
Also, the New Testament was written in Aramaic and Coptic Greek. The numerology fits Aramaic and Hebrew isn't of relevance here.

Revelation is about the fall of the Roman Empire.

The Beast is the Emporer Nero.
His name written in Aramaic is valued at 666.

Revelation was a book of it's time. It was written when the Christians were persecuted by the Romans and was only included in the New Testament at a late stage with much controversy.
It is a mistake to think it has some factual relevance today.

There is some evidence that the may have been female apostles:

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

There were certainly many women disciples - some of whom the Bible tells us were very close to Christ.

But as to the question of sexism? If Jesus did not have any female apostles it's hard to level that accusation at him. In the times and the circumstances in which he lived, women weren't much more than property. The fact that he had female disciples shows that he was more liberal than most of his contemporaries.

What is this fight all about? Is it a fight against self, science, brethren, of opposite sex, churches, and religion?

It's a fight against every single one of your fellow men. Even those from the same religion hold different views that you won't agree with.

That's the problem with fundamentalists. Their view never totally coincides with someone else's - even their own. Therefore, they are always fighting. The degree to which the fighting is done varies - in extreme variances it's physical, in less extreme verbal.

Do you really think God created you so that you could fight against every other man on Earth?