DorisB: why do guys behave like this?i think it is the guys that cause breakup in a relationship especially when they are tired,i mean tired of the lady,i met a guy on nairaland ,we just talked small and he started saying i love you,he asked me for my pixture and i told him i don't have,he gave me his own and started saying he has met his miss right,please what do i do?why is it that you guys will just meet a girl today and use the 1 4 3 mode or code to yarn the girl immediatly?
Maybe because of konji, AKA they are họrny! Did you think.of that?
ChizzyBuna: so me I don't have right to be angry too. Abeg keep it shut. U don't know what you're saying
Did you read? I said you have a right to be angry if she says "I have a headache" too many times. Sometimes put yourself in the other person's shoes. Say you just chilling, minding your business, then a woman comes and gets you aroused to have sex then messes you up inside and quickly climaxes and stops just when you're getting into it. It'd have been better for you if she left you alone. Remember, sex happens inside the woman unlike the man
LordviccoDaGuru: Wailer rest Na. I just received my monthly stipends send me ur account number lemme surprise you with money to buy food because I can see that you are hungry
I only asked you a question: "Shall we tell him?" How that make me a wailer?!?
ChizzyBuna: Sometimes I try to understand what kind of creature women are??
She see nothing wrong with denying me sex. But the moment I deny her sex Everywhere go burst. WW3 go start.
U deny me puna U dey smile I deny you back. You wan die. Wahala for who no understand women
Ok, let's analyze. If she agrees to sex, while you're doing it is when she'll finally get aroused, then after all that trouble she probably won't climax because most times they don't, plus you'll traumatize her insides and she could possibly catch an infection from bacteria being pushed in, plus mess up her hair and make-up, plus she could get pregnant, etc. While you, all you do is stick your dick in, have your fun and climax. That's it. Women are slow to get in the mood so when she's already in the mood, maybe she's already near climax, you ought accommodate her. So you see, it's not equal. She has a right to be angry if you refuse even once just as you have a right to be angry if she refuses too many times!
Factcheck0001: hope u realize Isaac adaka baro was the first to want secession and ojukwu went to war with him n he was defeated and stripped naked only to b tried for seccesion.
nony43: Stop lying Where is it on record to that Ojukwu went to war with a Boro.
Which kind "secession"? How can ojukwu "go to war" with a rag-tag group of few deluded students??
gidgiddy: Gowon should stop lying to Nigerians, the records are there. Regional Army was one of the things agreed at Aburi, and it was agreed that the Regional Armies would be under the control of the Regional Military Governors
Watianoengineer: If not for Ojukwu that failed to honor the aburi accord there would not be a civil war. Gowon was ready for the implementation of the aburi accord and all of a sudden Ojukwu declared independence of Biafra which was treasonous. The rest they say is history
Factcheck0001: God bless u According to all history books I have read as regards d war.
From BODY LANGUAGE below you can EASILY tell who is lying
kelvin21887: Jesus Christ did not change the course of human history, rather preserving it. He's the only reason man is evolving and still existing, else with level of Man's wickedness, man was on self annihilation. Chemical, biological, nuclear weaponry is enough to stop the existence of man. He's the reason man knows the significance of PEACE 🕊️, else by Man's logic, it's an eye for an eye, who's more Superior
Ok, but pandemics would have wiped out humanity if vaccines no invented, right?
VDM don't mind this guy. In John 8:44, Jesus states that the Pharisees ("men of God" of that time) are "of their father the devil". Many of these people of today are exactly that - their spiritual identity and lineage is of the devil. Wolves in sheep clothing. Have the courage to expose as many of them as you can. God will bless you for it!
I remain open to continuing this dialogue sincerely and respectfully.
Peace to those who seek the truth.
Since you're open to continuing the dialogue, taking into account all that happened with Christ, words of the prophets, words of Christ himself, thousands of years of him being worshipped, etc, if all that didn’t convince you he is God, (and bearing in mind you're incapable of comprehending God, and therefore discounting your own preconceived notions of God), please tell us what would reasonably convince you that a person is God
I appreciate your willingness to return to the theological question, even if only partially. However, I must again raise concern over the way this dialogue is being handled. Rather than directly addressing the theological issue I posed, the conversation is again being steered toward sociopolitical generalizations and personal epistemological claims. For the sake of a meaningful exchange, I’d like to respond to both strands: the moral critique of Islam and your argument about logic versus evidence.
1. On the Moral Critique of Islam
You claim that the presence of extremist groups among Muslims delegitimizes the truth of Islam. This is a non sequitur. Truth is not established by the misdeeds of followers — if it were, no religion would be exempt from invalidation. Consider:
The Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed in the name of Christianity.
European colonization justified slavery and genocide while invoking Christ.
The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda commits atrocities claiming Christian motivation.
Ku Klux Klan members burn crosses and claim to represent Christian values.
Would it be rational for me to argue that Christianity is false because of these actions? Of course not — and I choose not to, out of fairness and intellectual integrity.
Islam should be evaluated based on the Qur’an, the Prophet’s example (peace be upon him), and the core ethical framework it teaches — not the actions of misguided or politically motivated groups. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) consistently forbade the killing of innocents, destruction of property, or oppression of civilians. Qur’anic verses like “Whoever kills a soul…it is as if he has killed all mankind” (Qur’an 5:32) are not obscure — they are foundational.
So, respectfully, let's not dismiss a 1,400-year-old faith followed by over a billion people based on sensational headlines or the selective actions of fringe elements.
2. On the Claim That Logic Is Invalid in Theology
You state:
> “The HUGE flaw in your reasoning is that for something to be true, it has to make sense or be logical to YOU.”
This line of argument is deeply problematic. If you claim logic and coherence are irrelevant to truth, you essentially abandon all grounds for evaluating any belief — including your own. If contradictions are allowed, then any and all claims could be simultaneously true — even if they oppose each other.
This approach undermines all theological discourse. For example, if someone claimed:
> “God is one and not one at the same time, in the same way, and that’s okay because it doesn’t have to make sense,” you’d rightly reject this as incoherent.
Even Scripture — whatever one’s tradition — appeals to reason:
“Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18)
“Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an?” (Qur’an 4:82)
Islam encourages reason, reflection, and consistency in theology. God is not subject to human limitation, but He gave us reason as a tool to distinguish truth from falsehood. If you argue that logic is unreliable when it comes to theology, then why debate at all? Why offer “evidence,” make claims, or try to persuade?
3. On Your Appeal to “Evidence”
You suggest that Jesus must be God because:
He predicted he would be worshipped.
He is still worshipped.
His worshippers are strong and prosperous.
With respect, this is an argument from popularity and power, not from truth. Many false ideologies have gained massive followings and empires — that doesn’t make them divine.
The Roman Empire worshipped Caesars as gods — they were prosperous.
The Hindu pantheon has hundreds of millions of worshippers — are all their gods divine?
Communism once dominated half the globe — should we accept it as truth because of its reach?
Truth is not determined by the number of adherents or geopolitical power, but by the soundness of belief and the consistency of doctrine.
4. Returning to the Core Question
Once again, I respectfully return to the original theological challenge:
> If Jesus is fully God, how can he possess attributes that contradict divinity — such as ignorance (Mark 13:32), weakness, temptation, and death?
Saying “the Word became flesh” or “this is beyond human logic” does not resolve the contradiction. It simply bypasses it.
If divinity took on limitation, then either:
God changed — contradicting His perfection and immutability, or
Jesus is not fully God — contradicting Trinitarian doctrine.
In Islam, God is utterly One — indivisible in essence and attributes. He does not become human, does not suffer death, and is never subject to creation. He sends messengers, like Jesus (peace be upon him), as signs and guides, not as incarnations of Himself.
Conclusion
I welcome honest theological disagreement. But let’s root it in clarity, consistency, and respect. Resorting to emotional appeals, fear-based assumptions, or dismissing reason altogether only weakens the possibility of mutual understanding.
If you believe the Trinity and incarnation are rationally coherent, I invite you to explain how God can be fully divine and fully subject to human limitation without contradiction.
I remain open to continuing this dialogue sincerely and respectfully.
I appreciate your willingness to return to the theological question, even if only partially. However, I must again raise concern over the way this dialogue is being handled. Rather than directly addressing the theological issue I posed, the conversation is again being steered toward sociopolitical generalizations and personal epistemological claims. For the sake of a meaningful exchange, I’d like to respond to both strands: the moral critique of Islam and your argument about logic versus evidence.
1. On the Moral Critique of Islam
You claim that the presence of extremist groups among Muslims delegitimizes the truth of Islam. This is a non sequitur. Truth is not established by the misdeeds of followers — if it were, no religion would be exempt from invalidation. Consider:
The Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed in the name of Christianity.
European colonization justified slavery and genocide while invoking Christ.
The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda commits atrocities claiming Christian motivation.
Ku Klux Klan members burn crosses and claim to represent Christian values.
Would it be rational for me to argue that Christianity is false because of these actions? Of course not — and I choose not to, out of fairness and intellectual integrity.
Islam should be evaluated based on the Qur’an, the Prophet’s example (peace be upon him), and the core ethical framework it teaches — not the actions of misguided or politically motivated groups. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) consistently forbade the killing of innocents, destruction of property, or oppression of civilians. Qur’anic verses like “Whoever kills a soul…it is as if he has killed all mankind” (Qur’an 5:32) are not obscure — they are foundational.
So, respectfully, let's not dismiss a 1,400-year-old faith followed by over a billion people based on sensational headlines or the selective actions of fringe elements.
2. On the Claim That Logic Is Invalid in Theology
You state:
> “The HUGE flaw in your reasoning is that for something to be true, it has to make sense or be logical to YOU.”
This line of argument is deeply problematic. If you claim logic and coherence are irrelevant to truth, you essentially abandon all grounds for evaluating any belief — including your own. If contradictions are allowed, then any and all claims could be simultaneously true — even if they oppose each other.
This approach undermines all theological discourse. For example, if someone claimed:
> “God is one and not one at the same time, in the same way, and that’s okay because it doesn’t have to make sense,” you’d rightly reject this as incoherent.
Even Scripture — whatever one’s tradition — appeals to reason:
“Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18)
“Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an?” (Qur’an 4:82)
Islam encourages reason, reflection, and consistency in theology. God is not subject to human limitation, but He gave us reason as a tool to distinguish truth from falsehood. If you argue that logic is unreliable when it comes to theology, then why debate at all? Why offer “evidence,” make claims, or try to persuade?
3. On Your Appeal to “Evidence”
You suggest that Jesus must be God because:
He predicted he would be worshipped.
He is still worshipped.
His worshippers are strong and prosperous.
With respect, this is an argument from popularity and power, not from truth. Many false ideologies have gained massive followings and empires — that doesn’t make them divine.
The Roman Empire worshipped Caesars as gods — they were prosperous.
The Hindu pantheon has hundreds of millions of worshippers — are all their gods divine?
Communism once dominated half the globe — should we accept it as truth because of its reach?
Truth is not determined by the number of adherents or geopolitical power, but by the soundness of belief and the consistency of doctrine.
4. Returning to the Core Question
Once again, I respectfully return to the original theological challenge:
> If Jesus is fully God, how can he possess attributes that contradict divinity — such as ignorance (Mark 13:32), weakness, temptation, and death?
Saying “the Word became flesh” or “this is beyond human logic” does not resolve the contradiction. It simply bypasses it.
If divinity took on limitation, then either:
God changed — contradicting His perfection and immutability, or
Jesus is not fully God — contradicting Trinitarian doctrine.
In Islam, God is utterly One — indivisible in essence and attributes. He does not become human, does not suffer death, and is never subject to creation. He sends messengers, like Jesus (peace be upon him), as signs and guides, not as incarnations of Himself.
Conclusion
I welcome honest theological disagreement. But let’s root it in clarity, consistency, and respect. Resorting to emotional appeals, fear-based assumptions, or dismissing reason altogether only weakens the possibility of mutual understanding.
If you believe the Trinity and incarnation are rationally coherent, I invite you to explain how God can be fully divine and fully subject to human limitation without contradiction.
I remain open to continuing this dialogue sincerely and respectfully.
Peace to those who seek the truth.
Thanks. So we differ on that point: I believe real-world results matter and that 99% of religious terrorism of today is from Islam. You believe what matters is some nebulous "truth" (knowing fully well there is no such thing and if there were, you wouldn't know it if you saw it!)
As for the original point, these posts answer it:
Likewise, you cannot assert that God is eternal and unchanging, and then say he STARTED creating at some point. That implies change both internally and externally. Massive change at that.
AND THIS:
But I asked you b4: How can eternally unchanging anything create something? And How can there be an all powerful and all good anything yet bad things still happen.
Bottom line, man gave God His attributes when in fact man is incapable of comprehending God! Example, we know Jesus Christ is God the Son, yet Jesus Christ doesn't know the last day. Does God the Father know absolutely everything? So how come we're encouraged to be a certain way to obtain a certain outcome?
** It’s not just his being worshipped thousands of years, Christ himself said he was God, forgave sins, accepted worship, raised himself from dead (as he said he would), and most importantly, is alive and active in people's lives TODAY!
JimRohn: Thank you for your detailed explanation. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this dialogue and clarify your theological perspective. Allow me to respond respectfully from an Islamic standpoint, while focusing on the core philosophical and theological issue raised.
1. The Request for Internal Consistency Still Stands
My initial question was not about whether the Trinity can be stated doctrinally — I am well aware of the claims regarding the Word becoming flesh, the eternal Father, and the omnipresent Spirit. My question was more precise:
> How can the same being who is said to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchanging also be ignorant of the Hour, tired, tempted, and crucified?
Simply saying “the Word became flesh” does not resolve the philosophical contradiction — it relocates it. If “Jesus is God,” and Jesus is ignorant of the Hour (Mark 13:32), the divine attribute of omniscience is compromised in the person of Jesus. This is not a question of rejecting the Trinity outright, but of pointing out that, by its own terms, the doctrine raises unresolved contradictions between divinity and humanity that cannot be ignored.
2. The Appeal to “Trinitarian Logic” Is Theologically Circular
You mentioned I must not impose the lens of Tawhid when evaluating the Trinity. I understand that. But every theological system must still be coherent within itself. Saying “it makes sense because in our view YHWH can be three and one” is not sufficient. If the One Being of God becomes weak, hungry, or ignorant in any person, this challenges the absolute perfection of that Being. Appealing to a special “Trinitarian logic” that is not answerable to rational coherence does not resolve the contradiction — it shelters it.
3. Multiplicity of Manifestations vs. Multiplicity of Persons
You cite many Old Testament passages where God is said to appear in forms or act in various ways — as Spirit, as enthroned King, as appearing to Abraham, etc. Muslims have no issue affirming that God can act in creation, manifest signs, speak to Prophets, or veil Himself however He wills. But none of this logically requires God to be divided into distinct persons with distinct roles, such that one can pray to the other, or one can die while the others do not.
Islam maintains that Allah is One in Essence and One in Person, without needing to become human to relate to creation. He knows all, sees all, and acts upon His will without undergoing change, limitation, or incarnation.
4. Divine Attributes Cannot Be Compartmentalized
You stated:
> “The Word took up limitation, but YHWH remains unlimited.”
This is a serious theological problem. If Jesus is God, then God took on limitation. You cannot divide the divine nature like a pie — some limited, some unlimited — and still maintain that the full divine being was present in Jesus. Either the divine nature was fully present in Jesus, in which case divine perfection was compromised, or the divine nature was not fully present in Jesus, in which case he is not truly God.
In Islamic theology, perfection is indivisible. God's knowledge is not split; His power is not shared; His essence is not incarnated. He does not become less than what He is — not for any purpose, not for any mission.
In Conclusion
I am not denying your right to believe in the Trinity. What I am doing is inviting a deeper inspection: can a being who is uncreated, all-powerful, and all-knowing, truly become limited, tempted, and crucified — and yet remain unchanged in His divine essence?
I respectfully maintain that logical consistency is not a foreign imposition, but a tool for genuine theological reflection. As a Muslim, I believe in a God who is utterly transcendent yet near, who sends guidance, not incarnations, and who is never subject to the limitations of His creation.
I am happy to continue this dialogue in the spirit of mutual understanding.
But I asked you b4: How can eternally unchanging anything create something? And How can there be an all powerful and all good anything yet bad things still happen.
Bottom line, man gave God His attributes when in fact man is incapable of comprehending God! Example, we know Jesus Christ is God the Son, yet Jesus Christ doesn't know the last day. Does God the Father know absolutely everything? So how come we're encouraged to be a certain way to obtain a certain outcome?
JimRohn: Thank you for your response, though I must express disappointment at the direction it took. I posed a sincere theological question regarding the nature of Jesus and the coherence of the doctrine of the incarnation. Rather than addressing that question, your reply shifted entirely to a sociopolitical accusation against Islam.
With respect, this kind of diversion neither answers the question nor contributes to constructive interfaith dialogue. If the truth of a religion were determined by the actions of some of its adherents, then no religion — including Christianity — would stand without criticism. After all, history has seen atrocities carried out in the name of nearly every major faith, from the Crusades and Inquisitions to modern sectarian violence.
However, theological truth is not established by misbehavior, extremism, or geopolitical conflicts. It is determined by examining the core teachings, scriptures, and principles of a faith.
To respond briefly:
Islam explicitly condemns the killing of innocents (Qur'an 5:32), suicide (Qur'an 4:29), and compulsion in religion (Qur'an 2:256). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade harming non-combatants, religious clergy, and even trees during conflict.
Terrorism and criminal violence committed by some individuals claiming Islam are not proof of the faith itself — just as crimes by those identifying as Christian are not proof against Christianity.
If an ideology must be judged, let it be judged by its foundational texts and the example of its prophets, not the selective misdeeds of misguided followers.
Returning to the original point, I would encourage us to stay focused on the theological question I raised, which remains unanswered:
> How can Jesus be fully God and fully man, while simultaneously experiencing limitations — such as ignorance, hunger, temptation, and death — that contradict divine attributes?
This is not an attempt to “score points” or promote hostility. It is a genuine question seeking clarity about the internal consistency of Trinitarian belief. If Christianity offers a rational, theologically coherent explanation, I am open to hearing it.
But to respond to a theological inquiry with accusations about violence or geopolitics is to sidestep the question entirely and, frankly, to shift into an ad hominem fallacy.
If you are interested in continuing a serious and respectful dialogue about the nature of God, Jesus, and the truth of revelation, I remain willing to engage.
Peace and sincerity in seeking truth.
Thanks for your polite response. Well, results matter, if not in fact the only things that actually matter. Whatever is written in the Koran, it matters that quite a sizeable number of muslims has interpreted it to mean they become terrorists. I'd say that's the wrong religion to belong to - because even if you don't become a terrorist, your child or other relatives might! Mention a Christian or other religions' equivalent of these: Taliban, Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc, and more being added everyday. Na only them follow come?!
Now, on to your original point, NairaLTQ tried but I'd articulate the response in a way you'd more readily understand.
>How can Jesus be fully God and fully man, while simultaneously experiencing limitations — such as ignorance, hunger, temptation, and death — that contradict divine attributes?
The HUGE flaw in your reasoning is that for something to be true it has to make sense or be logical to YOU! The problem is that this "you" is incapable of knowing what makes sense outside his extremely limited purview. "You" can only see, hear, and feel an extremely small percentage of what is there. As for ability to know what makes sense, "you" is so limited in that aspect that we can make bold to say his ability in that aspect is zero. I mean, even quantum mechanics doesn't make sense to "you", talkless of things not in his dimension or realm, talkless of God! So that leaves us with EVIDENCE as the only way "you" can know anything - NOT through reasoning or logic. The evidence we have is that the scriptures said for thousands of years that God was coming to stay amongst us for a while, then someone came and said he was indeed that God and that we'd know this because thousands of years from then he'd still be worshipped and his words would never die. We are now thousands of years later and he's indeed still being worshipped as God without God punishing his worshippers but instead they're stronger and more prosperous everyday. These are the things we know for sure.
JimRohn: You cannot assert that God is eternal and unchanging, and then say He took on mortality and change. That is not divine mystery—it is theological contradiction.
Likewise, you cannot assert that God is eternal and unchanging, and then say he STARTED creating at some point. That implies change both internally and externally. Massive change at that
JimRohn: If you wish to discuss further, I’m happy to continue — but let us elevate the discussion beyond ridicule and into reason.
Why do you think the net result of this Islam is hyper individual terrorism. Suicide bombers and Fatwas all over the place. Almost every religion-based acts of terrorism is Islam. Take Nigeria, see all these Islamic terrorist groups and burning people for "insulting the Koran or Prophet", etc Do you really think this is the right religion to belong to?
JimRohn: Thank you once again for continuing this discussion. However, it is important that we raise the standard of dialogue and avoid circular repetition, mockery, or emotional outbursts. If this conversation is to continue, it must remain respectful, rational, and theologically coherent.
Let me now respond to your main points, and then offer a final word.
1. “Mystery” Is Not a License for Contradiction
You said: “Anything that violates logic but is nevertheless true is a mystery.” That statement is self-defeating.
A mystery is something beyond comprehension, not something logically impossible. Saying God is “unseen” is a mystery because His essence transcends empirical observation. That is not illogical.
But to say “God is finite and infinite, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, visible and invisible—all simultaneously in one being” is a logical contradiction, not a mystery.
Contradictions are not made acceptable just because they’re labeled “divine.” Logic is not a man-made invention—it is the framework by which meaning and coherence are even possible. If we remove logical consistency, any incoherent belief (including polytheism, paganism, or atheism) could claim to be a “mystery.”
> God being unlike creation (Qur’an 42:11) does not mean God becomes illogical or self-negating.
2. Omnipresence ≠ Multiplicity or Incarnation
You said that YHWH can be “everywhere and somewhere in particular” and then asked if Allah can do this.
This is another category confusion.
In Islam, Allah is not limited by space, nor does He require embodiment to be active in creation. His Knowledge, Will, and Power encompass all things. He is not a spatial being, so the question of “being somewhere and everywhere” is based on a flawed assumption of divine spatiality.
> Allah is not a body, a spirit, or a physical entity. He is not composed of parts. He does not “localize” Himself.
Asking whether Allah can do what YHWH does assumes the Trinitarian framework as a default. But that is precisely what is under dispute.
3. On Forgiveness: Paying a Price?
You argued that forgiveness must always involve a cost. But that is not a universal truth—it is an emotional analogy.
If God is all-powerful and self-sufficient, He is not emotionally wounded or harmed by sin in the way humans are. He is not subject to trauma, pain, or ego.
> Forgiveness in Islam is based on God’s Mercy, not emotional cost or psychological pain. There is no cosmic wound needing healing.
Yes, a human may “bear the cost” emotionally when forgiving—but God is not a human. He is al-Ghaniyy (Self-Sufficient) and al-Haleem (Most Forbearing). To anthropomorphize Him in order to justify atonement theology is theologically misguided.
4. “Gravity of Sin” Does Not Require Blood
You insist Islam does not grasp the gravity of sin because we do not believe it “violates” God’s integrity. But this claim stems from a misunderstanding of divine sovereignty.
Sin in Islam is serious—not because it harms God—but because it is rebellion against His command. But God remains perfect and unharmed, regardless of who disobeys Him.
You said, “Sin causes God’s command to fail.” That is false by definition. God’s command is not defeated when creatures disobey—it is fulfilled when they are held accountable. His authority is not contingent on universal obedience.
5. Substitutionary Atonement Is Morally and Logically Flawed
You continue to defend the idea of substitutionary atonement by giving human analogies. But here’s the issue: morality must remain coherent at the divine level.
You asked: “If your son crashes a car and you pay, is that unjust?”
But let’s clarify:
In that case, the father owns both the car and the money and chooses to cover a material loss. That’s not moral substitution.
In atonement theology, the innocent is punished instead of the guilty, for moral debt—not property damage.
In any just legal system, punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is unjust—even if done “voluntarily.”
Islam teaches:
> “No soul shall bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164)
That is pure moral clarity—not human analogy.
6. Repeating the Same Challenges
You keep repeating questions that were already addressed:
On God descending or being on the Throne: Islam affirms Allah’s transcendence without anthropomorphism. “Descent” is understood in a manner befitting His majesty—not as spatial relocation.
On the nature of sacrifice: We’ve addressed that sacrifice in Islam is not for atonement but submission.
On who the sacrificial son was: That is not the central point of Islamic theology regarding obedience and faith.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please stop returning to these same rhetorical questions without engaging the actual answers provided.
Conclusion:
To summarize once more:
Contradictions are not “mysteries”—they are logical impossibilities.
God’s perfection is not shown by embodying opposites, but by remaining unchanging, unique, and free from flaw.
Divine mercy is not weakness—it is sovereignty.
Moral justice is not punishing the innocent, but holding each accountable.
You cannot win a debate by laughing off the points you cannot refute, or by repeating the same questions already answered.
If you are genuinely interested in continuing a dialogue, I welcome it—but only if it moves forward.
If you intend to keep mocking, repeating, and ignoring the core arguments while shifting topics, then this conversation may have reached its conclusion.
Let me know how you would like to proceed—with reason, or with rhetoric.
So why then worship this God you describe. Why does it (it can't be "he"} require worship?
NairaLTQ: We know it is a scientific error that sperms become babies: my contention is that Allah should know better .
I am quoting Allah, but you don't want me to quote him but yourself and the scholars you believe.
Judge!
Unfortunately, quoting your prophet, this is a scientific error. BUT You would prefer that I quote you and the scholars you subscribe to rather than your prophet!
Please Judge this yourself.
Allah says that Dhul Qarnyn reached the setting place of the sun!
You say, I should disbelieve that but believe the re-interpretations you are giving it. Doesn't this make sense to you that I choose you over Allah?
Secondly, I showed you the physical impossibility of the act of Dhul Qarnyn's perceptions.
The sun ALWAYS set in the Horizon The Horizon is the farthest place a human can see of the earth. At that distance, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a people at this Horizon because, the nearer you move towards any horizon, the farther it moves away from you.
Don't you get this simple thing!?
Yes, just like under Nigeria is another country of giants deep within the earth. Trust me, it's only because we have not dug deep enough, we would have found this people! SMH!
This is how you sound.
The whole earth except the Antarctica has been mapped for aeromagnetic data. The whole earth including Nigeria had been mapped for aeromagnetic data. Any significant iron deposits would have been noted sir.
The structure is too huge to be missed as it is not a pin we are looking for but huge IRON walls (not even the weakly magnetic iron ores)
I challenge you then to show that the sleepers of the cave is a historical reality!
All I did was to show you that Allah claimed to be involved with this myth as Allah thinks that it was a real story.
I used Batman to show that talk is cheap: you did not believe me did you? Batman stories are myths, thus should you believe me when I insert myself into the myth. Judge please!
I am waiting!
No problem! I have chosen to value the words of Allah and the words of Mohammed higher than you or your scholars re-interpretations of what is clearly stated. That seem to be my crime!
yinkus6750: It's now obvious this statistics has no sense. Price of foreign rice has drastically dropped within the past few weeks. Currently sold at 58-60,000 in Ogun State. The rate was even a slight increase which is attributed to Sallah celebration.
I have noticed this Sentisense or whatever they call it is USELESS!!!
miketayo: I don't even understand how people record themselves crying. It's funny if you think about it. Warehouse job could be tedious but it is not even that cold in UK
You can't really blame her. It's like, you finally leave Nigeria and it's time to start enjoying life like you see on the web, only to find out that your suffering just started!
Sure, and come disgrace yourself after you've sold everything to move to UK and home folks are envying you enjoying and making all that pounds! It'd be like a masquerade revealing that he is really just a human being inside a mask!😅
Romance › Re: Men,what's Love ( 1 4 3 Code Or Mode) by FreeIgboho: 1:19pm On Jun 19, 2025
