₦airaland Forum

author=LegalWolf post=120589360]We would not give up in exposing the folly of your religion. Nah we won’t. And this is not a question of you insisting, but of common sense. Just a few questions:

1. Is Moses an Hebrew Name or a Jewish Name ?

2. Is Chiamaka an Igbo name or a Christian name?

3. Is Umar a Muslim name or an Arabic name?

Please don’t stray. Just keep your answer simple and short !

We would not give up in exposing the folly of your religion. Nah we won't.
Did I mention specific prophets names? Did I say all the names of the prophets bear Yahweh appellations? Did I say their names appear in Islam in the Hebrew language? Clearly refer me to where I made these assertions. Otherwise your questions are useless.

I was talking about imported prophets of Islam for crying out loud!

LegalWolf:
Hey TenQ

On the 13 December 2022, I canvassed the following argument (which you were mentioned) reproduced below. Just to clarify - I never said I responded to you or answered your question. Why would I spend my time explaining my religion to a person destined by a thief? A future armed robber - Lawrence TenQnih. Nah. I have other things to do. But for the sake of completeness, here you have it



cc: Lawrence TenQnih the future thief

FxMasterz [you can run through the post and that gives you an insight into my explanation. I made further rebuttals and you should check that as well]

I have gone through the post but I don't think it answers the question at hand.

The main point you made is what you referred to a clash of cultures. By that I think you're trying to excuse the use of Yahweh's name in Israel's prophets as a cultural clash, or perhaps, you're trying to excuse the names of the prophets's appearance in Islam with the Yahweh appellation as a cultural clash. None of these two proposals address the issue in any way.

This is because the matter is not just in the names of these prophets but in their person. Judaism and Islam are religions and not cultures in the actual sense of the word. There's no cultural clash whatsoever. What we have here is an importation of persons from one religion to the other.

Yahweh has many names or may I say appellations to His name. One of such is Yahweh Elshaddai or to use the Latin form, you'll often hear Christians say "Jehovah Elshaddai" which means The Lord My God or The Lord the God of Heaven (Psalm 91:1) it also means The All Sufficient God. This name is used to refer to Yahweh in the old testament.

These persons had their names in the Quran and recognized as prophets. The Quran does not in any way deny that these prophets are of Jewish origin. The issue of what these prophets practiced or who these prophets worshipped or even who gave these prophets the messages they bore cannot be explained away as a cultural clash. This is absolutely illogical.

I still maintain my position and actually still remain baffled by the fact that Mohammed imported these prophets into Islam, gave them a new God, denied their messages and their modes of worship, and also gave them new histories still baffles me.
How come their messages were beheaded and their modes of worship completely reinvented in Islam?
These people believed and preach the atonement. If Islam rejects what they preached, how can they be Islam's prophets?

LegalWolf:
It’s draining having logical arguments with you Christians. In fact, almost impossible.

I asked very specific questions and you ended up not answering them. Please could you refer to my previous posts and answer my questions.

Let us start from there!



Just a side note - you said messianic concept of Judaism and Christianity is the same. Yet in the same line, you went ahead to mention at least THREE differences! Really?

I don’t even want to waste my energy typing, please provide unambiguous answers to the questions I asked you. Thank you

It’s draining having logical arguments with you Muslims. In fact, almost impossible.

I told you the first question you asked does not apply to me because it has nothing to do with my position.

I told you your second question would be given a broad answer with well populated scripture verses only if you show the fruits of a truth seeker.

I told you you that Jews and Christians have same views and infact expectations about the Messaiah with only slight differences which I enumurated while the Islamic concept is a complete distortion. What's the confusion in that?

LegalWolf:
Lol! Your logic is always antithetical to common sense. ALWAYS!



Lol. Do you know that Muslims believe that prior to the Prophet, every nation (tribe/clan) etc. had their prophets?

If I tell you that don’t let anyone deceive you, Christianity is a mixture of Judaism, Hellenistic Polytheism and Roman Polytheism etc., what would be your response?

Please answer those two questions



I have dealt with this logic of Israelites prophets bearing yhwh name extensively somewhere else. Even TenQ could NEVER in a thousand years rebut the logic of my argument. Please run through my post as I am unwilling to repeat myself.



You folks like muddling points up. First of, the Jewish concept of messiah is radically different from Christian concept. In fact, it is irreconcilable and that is why Jews do not even believe in Yehoshua is a prophet not to talk of being a god!

Before I even go into further analysis, this attempt to work your answer backward is infantile. So tell me, I beseech thee (relying exclusively on OT) the following:

1. Clear text of the Bible that contradicts the Islamic position that God would not forgive if you come to him in true repentance

2. Very clear text of the Bible that says that a Messiah would have to be sacrificed and his blood will atone for the sins of all humanity.

Just the writings of the Israelite prophets and not NT, please.

I don't know why you like starting all your posts with insults for your opponents, always trying to ridicule their intelligence to claim that yours is superior. I think you do that as a tactic to make the fellow feel inferior to you so that he'll consider himself incompetent for any argument with you. This tactic is already stale, it doesn't work. Meanwhile your own logic seemingly looks very faulty to those who do not buy your ideologies. Yet, out of courteousness, civility and a sense of mutual respect, no one insults your intelligence to make a point. I advise you to remember always that you too do not make sense to your opponents.

Whatever you've ever said or written or explained logically regarding Israel's prophets would never change the fact that Israel and her prophets have been worshippers of Yahweh from Moses till today. Your so called superior logic cannot erase that history. If you have a contrary opinion, give me an extra-islamic source that confirms that Israel's prophets were Allah worshippers.

The Messaianic concept in Christianity and Judahism is the same. The only differences are the process of fulfilment, mode of fulfilment as well as the personality that fulfils the role. Apart from this two, both Jews and Christians agree on everything Messaiah, meanwhile, Islam has a completely opposing concept.

To your requests:
1. You are not actually getting the points. I have told you clearly in a previous post that it is one thing to be forgiven and another thing to be cleansed from the contamination left behind by sin. What that tells you in simple terms is that God forgives a repentant sinner, but to bring the sinner close to Himself, the sinner must undergo cleansing. God loves fellowship, but He can't fellowship with you while your contamination still remains. So, the request you made here is not in tandem with my position.

2. Of what use will this Messaianic scripture reference be to you? 1,000 such scripture verses would make no difference regarding your position, so I don't see the logical reason why I should be obliged.

But in brief, I'll let you know that there are whole scriptures in the prophetic literature of the Old Testament that predict the coming of the Messaiah, the rejection of the Messaiah, the sufferings of the Messaiah, the reason behind His sufferings, the death and ressurection of the Messaiah, the salvation of the gentiles through the Messaiah, the return of the Messaiah in the later days and His late acceptance by Israel.

All the above listed are in the old testament scriptures including the reason for His death which the scriptures (Particularly the Prophet Isaiah) refer to as 'the sacrifice for sin.'

The current disillusioned state of the Jews regarding the Messaiah was well prophesied, and the time of their recovery was well documented prophetically as well.

If you are truly seeking the truth, I'll provide scriptural references for all the above listed, more than what you personally requested - all in the Torah.

LegalWolf:
This is quite a bold take. Unlike the stray advocatejare , you appear to be a little bit sensible and I’ll give you a little bit of attention



This is interesting. So who told you Christians concept of sin is the correct one??!!!!!!! I am curious and please enlighten me.



Again, this stems from a position of ignorance than insight. And you folks keep missing the point. Being a MMuslim is not a condition for forgiveness. Your sins may be forgiven and you’ll find yourself in paradise if God so wills.

The key thing here here is the ABSOLUTENESS of his discretion and nothing else. And he exercises that discretion as promised. Because he is the omniscient and omnipotent, knowing everything that happens in the recesses of our minds, he will always forgive us if we come genuine repentance. After all, is sin not individual rather than communal?

Is that not uncomplicated to a simple mind like yours?



I think you are more interested in rebutting than appreciating logic and the deficiency of your religion. Because I clearly answered the question you are referring me to. Please go back to my previous post, read it objectively, digest it and come back to me where you have issues. We are talking of logic here?



I’ll take the last parts together. Why would God cast people into hell and the Quranic concept of sin right?
The point is: Our religion invites us to use our reason every single time and you know deep down you that faulting our example is just exercise in futility. I have demonstrated that whole concept of blood atoning sin is just hogwash and something we should not find with right thinking men. It should be in the dustbin.

This does not answer your question of why God cast anyone into eternal fire. The answer is a very simple one. IT DEPENDS ON THE CHOICES THEY’VE MADE IN LIFE . Shikena! Hypothetically, if I was born in deserts of Namibia where I was raised well, did not hear the word of Islam and died living a righteous life, I may find myself in paradise.

Again, hypothetically, a non- Muslim sin may be forgiven if Allah so wishes and he lives in true repentance thereafter. There is NO REQUIREMENT for blood sacrifice. This is the point I’ve toiled to stress for TenQ and all right thinking humans.

Salaam

I think I'll focus only on this question you asked: "This is interesting. So who told you Christians concept of sin is the correct one??!!!!!!! I am curious and please enlighten me." All other discourse without the clarification of this question would yield no positive result.

First, I want you to understand that Islam is a mixture of Judaism in small measure, Christianity in small measure, and some purely Islamic elements in great measure.

For the most part, the prophets of Islam are Israel's prophets. Don't let anyone deceive you; all of Israel's Prophets were Yahweh worshippers. NON of them knew about or ever heard the name of any God called Allah.

Some of these prophets bear Yahweh names. Even the name Jesus means Yahweh saves. These prophets didn't just bear Yahweh names but also fully exercised themselves in the practices that Yahweh established including the atonement rituals for sins.

How Mohammed imported Yahweh's prophets into Islam, gave them another God and even associated some new stories with them really baffles me.

If the issue of atonement for sins in Islam is contrary to Yahweh's perspective, then Yahweh's prophets shouldn't be Islam's prophet.

These prophets made atonement for sins and even prophesied the coming of a Messaiah who'll make Himself a sacrifice for sins.

The Messaianic concept has a Jewish and Christian origin but the moment it got Imported into Islam, the concept changes in definition and form.

Now, how can you logically reconcile the fact that Yahweh's prophets are Islam's prophets but the practices of the prophets are not followed in Islam. Of what import is their prophethood?

Also, how do we logically resolve the issue of Messaiah, a word only used by Jews and Christians which have the same meanings to both sect but once it got Imported into Islam, the story changes entirely?

The prophets of Israel whom Islam references do not conform to such doctrines or notions that promote forgiveness of sins without atonement.

AntiChristian:
Of course you'll never see it. Even in the post he asked me a question there are lies! But you guys only have eyes but no insight!

Can you show me the word "Taqquiya" in the Qur'an or Hadith? These are part of the lies you guys always bring up! You will claim we read your book out of context but when we say you read ours out of context you'll say we are liars!
This is hypocrisy!

As for your claim that you understand your text why not agree we understand ours too?

Your whole body and soul stinks of hypocrisy!

That's your way. Your means of defense is to always use the word 'liar' against someone who didn't lie, and hypocrite against someone who's telling you all the truth he knows. It's your usual antics. We know you too well. But you calling me a liar or hypocrite doesn't make me one.

So, direct quotes from your Quran and hadiths are all lies. You're asking me to show you where Taqquiya is in your Quran or Hadith? Who on earth doesn't know that Taqquiya is Islamic? Who doesn't know that Islam practices it too well? Who's the hypocrite? You or I?

AntiChristian:
When you guys quote from the Qur'an and hadith you don't quote out of context! But when we quote from your Bible, then it is out of context! You are simply a hypocrite!

Paul is the starter of Christianity! That is the person you allegedly follow! Our Salvation is to obey Allah and his messenger Muhammad till we die!


It's not that we see it as attacks. It is falsehood! You lie to promote Christianity! You can never preach Christianity to a Muslim without telling lies. Even your Christianity you don't understand not to talk of Islam.

And Paul said:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?…

Na una love be that!

There have been many Christian-made Islamic threads on this forum Including the one we're currently on, which of them are out of context? Oftentimes, rather than expose the alleged non contextual nature of a thread, you rather ignore the thread or come to post deception scriptures quotes to counter the truth. I've never seen anyone alleging that a text from the Quran or Hadith was quoted out of context. As for you, your modus operandi is to deviate from the questions asked by the OP to start talking about the wars or Cannan or how Jeremiah said he was deceived, or how God was praying to Himself in Jesus or some other fallacious representations of scripture for which you're well known. So, tell me how you came about Christians quoting your books out of context.

Do we indeed promote lies when we say exactly what your books say and juxtapose it with current reality? Tell me the Christian equivalent of Taqquiya which is a well permitted lying format in your religion. Christians would preach the gospel with power only when preached with truth. The gospel loses its power when emeded with lies, and that's why, we do all we can to avoid lying in order for the gospel to have effect. On the other hand, Taqquiya is the Permissable lie that makes Islam Islam. This isn't so with Christiendom.
We're instructed not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. That message is for us, we understand it fully. What you think it says is not what was implied. We have the commandments severally in scripture to love all men. And it's out of that love that we go out of our way to share the gospel to those who care to listen.

LegalWolf:
Lol 😂

You’ve never constructed any logical argument since I know you. The more you try to explain, the bigger your folly. I don’t envy you at all.



You fail to appreciate common sense. The issue of “need” I raise is not from the perspective of the son but the incapacitated judge. And a fine rebuttal to your logic has been made in my previous post.

I think I need to make it clear here that I rubbished your “exchange” analogy and even threw a question at you. As expected, you’re mute on that point.



Did I not respond to this question in my previous post? Repeating questions can’t save you lol!



You’ve thrown up many questions and I’ll strive to answer them. I can drink from either of the two cups, to the extent they are very clean. When cleaning our nephew’s poo, at times my hand gets stained. Should I cease to eat with that hand because it is stained with poo AFTER washing my hands?

For your comprehension, you just argued exactly what I have been struggling to say. If you say it is impossible to pay the fine of our sin without god first executing his justice (which is done by blood of Jesus - whatsoever that means), it invariably means your God cannot forgive sins without blood.

To avoid any doubt, blood is a sine qua non for the forgiveness/atonement of sins. Not your subjective state of mind. Not your willingness to repent. Just blood of animals or his co-god. Lol 😂 I really love yhwh! Hallelu….what?

Now you posed a question to me on what I do for atonement. All I do is to intend to ask for forgiveness and manifest it. Shikena! Sins are individual and not communal and the blood of one god or animal is not needed for me to be forgiven.

Islam is no match to the nonsense of a religion whose god requires blood in order forgive. That’ll lead to me to further questions later on.



Again, your argument is puerile. I’ve written so much for the morning and I would not want to spend time doing a line-by-line rebuttal. I’ll just answer your question. I’m not suggesting that God can change the laws of Kun fayakun. I am ASSERTING that he can if he wills. Simple.

I think I need to make this point quite clear. Hypothetically, God is unconstrained. He does not need our intention and work to forgive us. Again, hypothetically, we can seek forgiveness with intent and good work and he can refuse it. We may not seek forgiveness and he can forgive us.

This is just theory. But we are certain as Muslims that he is going to forgive us because he has given us his words that he will if we come in true repentance. Not with blood of goats or ashes of heifers. Neither does he need the blood of one Yehoshua to atone for our sins.

You’ve been moving with low quality stray people like Advocatejare and your rapist defending lawyer friend. That has affected your thinking process. Think TenQ !

Bro, you Muslims don't know what sin is. TenQ, in order to make his points clear, he first described sin as it is before God. He used the bowl contamination analogy.
The human concept of sin is quiet different from God's. What we have in the Quran is the human concept. To God, sin is beyond what humans are making of it.
Let's start analysing things from your own angie.

Again, your argument is puerile. I’ve written so much for the morning and I would not want to spend time doing a line-by-line rebuttal. I’ll just answer your question. I’m not suggesting that God can change the laws of Kun fayakun. I am ASSERTING that he can if he wills Simple.

At the bolded, if the sin issue is that simple, why didn't God simply forgive the whole world and usher everyone to paradise instead of asking humans to believe in a religion and follow a certain lifestyle?
Do you know that your Quran says everyone would first enter hell before Allah would save those whom he would save? Why should that be if the issue of sin is such a simple issue?

God is unconstrained. He does not need our intention and work to forgive us. Again, hypothetically, we can seek forgiveness with intent and good work and he can refuse it. We may not seek forgiveness and he can forgive us.

The contamination analogy should be recalled at the bolded. The previous questions I asked also applies.
The bolded means 'We're just doing what God says we should do, there's no guarantee.'
But God is a definite God. He does His things on purpose with a definite and clear end in sight. There's no ambiguity.
Please kindly answer the questiobs TenQ asked about the 2 contaminated bowls. Your answer to those questions would let you know what sin is and how exceedingly sinful, sin could be.
The human concept of sin as found in the Quran is grossly at variant with God's concept.
Why would God cast anyone into eternal fire if sin is such a simple thing?

Special Note
It's one thing to be forgiven of sins. It's another thing to be cleansed from the contamination that sin leaves on the soul.

advocatejare:
Allah said in the Quran that if he desired a son, he can choose from among his creation.

Allah then chose Mary and breathe his spirit (Ruh) into her vagina (farjaha) and got her pregnant.

All I see is Allah performing mouth action. Allah sef dey enjoy!

jaephoenix:
I guess this means no to all my questions.
Alright then

If that's how you see it.
What I've been telling you is simple. if a previous method didn't give you the answers you seek, apply another method. No one can help anyone answer the questions of life. The best anyone can do for you is to provide guidance.

Maynman:
And Where did I mention “church” in the post you replied too?, slow down and read.

Why is the new revelation not showing to existing groups?
The new splinter group will also become old and stop receiving revelations too lol

Exactly, both abrahamaic worshippers are confused because they have no knowledge on what they are doing, they only have BELIEFS AND FAITH, so, how does that make the rest of the human race confuse, especially ones with FACTS AND EVIDENCES?

You are welcome again.

God reveals Himself to available vessels and once men become satisfied with old truths without trying to see what God is doing in their midst today,God abandons them and moves on with the few who align themselves. Nothing to lol about. There's no one who is confused while practicing any form of religion because they often find something to hold on to that keeps telling them they're on the right lane.
The whole human race is a confused race. That's not a reference to individuals, sects or belief systems. If you disagree, then tell us why everyone is not an atheist or why everyone is not a theist. This should not be the basis for an argument. The situation is apparent except we want to deny the truth in order to promote our position. That's not what I'm doing here. I'm not promoting anything.

Maynman:
What’s the belief of atheism?
We’ve also seen christians that became muslims and vice versa. So nothing is new.

Why is the new revelation not showing to existing groups?
The new splinter group will also become old and stop receiving revelations too lol

You're still not getting my point bro. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I never mentioned new churches did I?
And yeah Muslims become Christians and vice versa. That further buttresses the fact that the human race is confused. That confusion is nothing new. I hope you're getting my drift?
It's all well anyway. Thanks again bro.

jaephoenix:
This is fast turning into a circular argument, which is my problem with theists.
What god rules are you talking about, AND HOW DO WE KNOW ITS FROM GOD?

I'm not here to answer your questions bro. That's because you're the only one who can answer yourself. I'm only nudging you to have a shift in methodology since you said you all atheists tried in the past and returned empty.

Maynman:
Christianity is just one of the types of theism out of thousands. Mention other 5 religions that are not dogmatic.
And besides, The split during great schism and Protestant Denomination is on political stands and has nothing to do with “spiritual”. You should look up on the word “spiritual”.

Only the ignorant man is the architect of his own confusions. When you worship deities that are foreign to you, you lose your root and create problems for yourself especially christians that worship israelite god, yahweh.

When I talked about confusion, I wasn't referring to an individual man but the entire human race with the multiplicity of beliefs. Even atheism itself is a belief system looked down upon by some others.
Whatever you say about someone's belief is what that individual is also saying about you.
Everyone is correct and absolutely satisfied until moved upon by higher discoveries.
We've seen theists who became atheists and atheists who became theists. So nothing is new.
I'm not taking about Protestant denominations here when I mentioned new revelations. New revelations are continuously following and more and more splinter groups keep emerging which you as a person would know nothing about. What I'm telling you is that even theists evolve.

jaephoenix:
Good. So
1. What did those people find or see?
2. How do we know they are telling the truth?
Please answer these 2 questions, follow-ups are on their way, when you're done answering these. Thank You

1. They found what you didn't find.
2. To know whether they're lying or not, experiment on their systems and see where it leads.

jaephoenix:
1. So which is the correct one out of those scammers?
2. How do we know your own 'rule' is the correct one?

For question 1, knowing the original of anything takes time and study. We must apply this rule to our search.

For question 2, you can't follow my rules, neither can you follow yours. If you must seek God, you must seek Him according to His own rules.

jaephoenix:
So what should we rely on? Hearsays, like the one you're proposing?

Anyone relying on hearsay is a fool bro.
Don't assume that people are doing what they're doing based on hearsay. Nobody wants to fool himself when it comes to these things.
You should understand and accept that some people have found or seen things you never found or saw.
And you see, it happens in real life. We can watch the same events, and yet we could end up seeing different things in that same event.
I think coming to a conclusion that people are running their lives on hearsay is too fast.

Maynman:
Science is perfect it’s scientists that are evolving, and the reason they are evolving is because once they see new facts, data and evidence they accept it and not remain Dogmatic like theists.
Science is the best explanation to understanding man’s history, it deals with facts and not logic.

Homo sapiens, homo erectus….etc are established FACTS.

You are welcome.

Good assertion.

Indeed science is perfect, humans evolve as they discover more about science. That's true.
Theists evolve too even though there are some who remain dogmatic.
For instance, all the many denominations of Christianity you see today are mostly as a result of new spiritual discoveries.
New groups form when the mother group becomes rigid and dogmatic. Those who have fresh encounters move away to form new groups.
New groups also emerge from new groups until we arrive at where we are today.
The truth is that man is the architect of his own confusions. Man is the very problem of himself.

jaephoenix:
Remember in the bible and other 'sacred books', those gods spoke directly to their subjects. Even sent them blessings and curses directly. They saw action, first hand!
Now what is happening? Hearsays! And from these hearsays, pastors, imans, etc scam these gullible people, using the religion to scam them.
And talking of seeking god, you think atheists haven't tried all those stuffs and came up empty?

Bro, there are scammers everywhere but that doesn't mean anyone is a scammer. The problem is that scammers are many in this world. Counterfeits are always surplus but the originals are few.
I understand as you said that Atheists have made their own efforts before coming to a conclusion. But, while making those efforts, whose rule did they follow?

Maynman:
I never said animism started with the first humans. I said it’s the oldest religion. And where is your evidence that first humans did theism?
And besides what do you mean first humans? Homo sapiens — homo erectus.
And also the first humans were scattered, they didn’t live together in the same community..

So how do we know if ALL The first humans worship anything?

Personally I don't think we can rely on science for understanding man's history. Science itself isn't perfect, that's why it continues to evolve.

Anyway, thanks for your input.

TenQ:
First, as they hear a direct gospel, the Holy Spirit pricks their hearts. They trying to appear strong either run or display aggression as their hearts skip a bit. The average Christian is in aware of the force of the Gospel against the Muslims. Their greatest strength lies in having other Muslims to support them but as individuals, they are ordinary.

It's a tactics to shut down their conscience especially to justify themselves that "God knows they are sincere about worshipping him alone"!

They shut down their minds to ask the basic questions of
1. Why Jesus was an ENIGMA they won't want to discuss?
2. Why Mohammed was so VILE as a "prophet" yet presented as the best of mankind ?
3. Why it looks as someone else if feigning to be Al-Lah in the Qur'an?

Christians are feared by Muslims yet too gentle and easy to dominate with violence.

Hmm. I see.

This means a constant and continuous bombardment with truth would eventually shatter all the lying defences especially when truly supported by prayer until lost is saved.
Even these Nairaland contents could be prayerfully helped. Hell must be massively depopulated and heaven must swell.

TenQ:
Thank you so much bro!
The average Muslim think we hate them by exposing the deception of Islam and thus they become militant. The shackle of satan on their reasoning is deep because of indoctrination from early age.

The fact that the whole of Islam is based on a cascade of lies does not help matters because they need more lies to protect a preceding lie.

There are two ways of reaching out to a Muslim and both the of them must be used concurrently.
1. Breaking down and Exposing the deceptions of Islam.
2. Explaining the Gospel of Christ unto salvation to them.

They don't mind the first but they are terrified of the second as deep down they know Islam has no guarantee for their salvation.

Thank you once again bro

You're welcome brother.
I got really touched by the bolded. Are you really sure about this? Why then do they vehemently oppose any other forms of reasoning when they know deep down, their faith provides no guarantee?

Maynman:
Don’t you understand?
Atheism couldn’t have existed first.
Did “anti corruption” exist first?
It was corruption that existed first, then one of the answers of corruption was “anti corruption”.

Theism came first, then one of the answer is “A’theism”.
This is simple enough for even a big fool to understand.

Which most religions?
Where did you get that from? Logic?
We have millions of religion, mention 10 that says that.
Or you mean monotheistic religion which are the most popular?

Do you think the religion we have now existed during the first humans?
The oldest religion is Animism.

Even animism might not have started with the first humans or do you have any evidence for that?
But, the real question is why should Theism come first? Or, why should Theism ever exist. What's the prelude to Theism?

jaephoenix:
So if whatever the ancestors were worshipping showed themselves to our ancestors, how come they have been doing hide-and-seek with us? Shyness?

They can choose to relate with us the way they please. You're the one who calls it 'hide and seek' because of your limited experience. My question to you is that, have you ever sought for God? Also, why do you think God must seek you or deliberately show Himself to you without seeking Him?

jaephoenix:
Religion came from ignorance. The first man saw the earth, lightning, water etc and decided they must be created. And they decided there has to be a higher being who they had to complain to. Thus prayers were born. No god revealed anything

That's an assumption. How come human beings speak to the supposed God in prayers and still believes He hears. You can't speak to someone you don't see except you know for sure He exists. The first humans weren't fulls. They knew exactly what they were doing.
I've not written this for argument sake anyway. Just to introduce some new line of thoughts. I do not have any doubt as touching what I believe.
Thanks for your input.

TenQ:
Can you please give me Allah's plan of Redemption/Salvation?
After all, not every human being will make paradise!


A Deciever is a NOUN sir.
YAHWEH is Not a Deceiver: Satan is the deceiver

Show one verse in the bible that calls God a deceiver!

Genesis 3:4-5
The serpent said to the woman, You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

2 Corinthians 11:14
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

This thread bears a complete message for anyone who is sincerely looking to be saved. The language is simple and the explanations are clear. You've almost summarised the entire gospel message in very few sentences. God bless your soul.
Any riped soul would be reaped into salvation with this. I pray God that all who are lost, over whose soul the devil currently rejoices, would come in contact with your message here, and their eyes being opened, would find their liberty from satanic bondages and be set on a path towards a glorious eternity.
You've done a great task, God bless you real my brother. Please allow the Holy Spirit again to use you to write out God's salvation plan as captured in the Bible. We'll be earnestly waiting to be blessed again by it.
Do not mind those who oppose themselves. Their likes have always been, and would continue to be. No matter what we do, those who would be saved would be saved, and those who'll be damned would be damned.
You can see someone like Mrcodesolo, in spite of the clarity of the message you presented here, went and brought Bible verses out of context in order to use lies to obliterate the truth. Knowing fully well in himself, while typing those scriptures that he was deliberately deceiving some ignorant folks who do not know the full context of what he posted.
Allow legalwolf to ask you his questions, who knows what God could do through him. No matter the insult he hauls your way, God doesn't reject anyone, and no devil can stop anyone whose time of salvation has come. Paul was far worse than legalwolf in his attacks against the gospel.
The question you poised to antichristian is a great question. 'What would you say to me if I have just 5mins to live...' I really want to see his answers to that question.
Oh, how the devil works to blind the hearts of man from seeing how deeply God loves them. Rather than accept the love, they even insult the Lover.
I'm sure that you do all you do here out of love for perishing souls. They would never see it as such, rather, they see it as a attacks. It's the devil's tactics. Nevertheless, we would never cease loving, for so we are commanded. It is our sole responsibility to rescue those that are perishing because God loves all sinners, and that's why He gave all men the opportunity to be cleansed through Jesus, so that all men could have eternal access to Him and to His throne in paradise for all eternity.
God bless you real my brother. I was really so blessed by this thread today.

Maynman:
Atheism is one of the answer to theism.
The difference between Atheism and theism is A. A in greek means Without.
If there is no theism there’s no A’theism.

Why can’t the first humans worship themselves among themselves? We have people that worship animals.

Where did you read this from “ supreme being beyond the blues? Or a supposed mighty Creator of the universe?” maybe it was there that it was conceited from.

But you'll agree that if Atheism existed first, there'll be no theism. Or at least, anyone towing that lane would be considered a big fool. That which existed with the first humans is the major thing in this discourse.

I didn't talk about reading up on a supreme being or Creator of the universe. I was talking about a common element of most religions.

LordReed:
You did. You said:


You even declared it as a fact. Show me how you know it for a fact.

Fact from logic. Please take a look at the logic I presented. And also from my subsequent discourse. You'll see why I came to that conclusion.

LordReed:
How do you know the first humans were theists?

I never said they were. I was using logic to find out what they could have been because that points us to truths derived from the roots.

Maynman:
Religion has nothing to do with gods. Look up the origin of the word.
The first humans might have worshipped themselves as subjects do to their kings, how does that concern theism?

Please know the definition of theism and atheism.

You're still talking in terms of what the first humans might have done.
This is not about theism or atheism right now. This is about what produced what we have today. We're talking about the roots and its relevance to the present to make deductions. The first question to ask is 'Why do we have religion? why not Atheism?' And then, we look into the roots to find answers. The first humans couldn't have been worshipping themselves. If they did, from whence came the conceit of a supreme being beyond the blues? Or a supposed mighty Creator of the universe?

Maynman:
We also don’t know for sure if the first humans(homo sapiens) worshipped anything.
It could have been a later invention, the burying of dead people didn’t start with the first humans.

As you said, Since the first humans invented their own thing to worship, why don’t we also invent our idols to worship?

Different humans from different areas of earth had something they were worshipping, they did not pass it down to “human race”.

if there are no gods there are no kings.
They use gods and religion for control.

Because first humans were worshipping deities doesn’t mean we should also do, there are so many things that they do that we don’t do now. Why is the deity worshipping the only one we want to emulate?

You’ve so many hasty generalisation in what you saying.

No, that's not my point. Let me come more elaborately.

I'm using logic to see why humans are practicing religion.

So, I was trying to find the answer from the first humans who ever existed.

Logically speaking, if the first humans worshipped nothing, that's because they saw nothing to worship or better still, they saw nothing worthy of being worshipped. Therefore, Atheism would be the order of the day, not theism.

If atheism was handed down by the first humans, then, it would be very difficult for anyone in any generation to invent religion. It wouldn't be easy at all to force people to worship something that they know does not exist.

I think you're getting my drift. Atheism wasn't the root, theism is. Theism therefore couldn't have been ab invention. Whatsoever is the root, whether theism or atheism wouldn't be an invention because those first humans would know exactly why they were doing what they were doing. This EXACT knowledge is lost on us, hence, we need education about the roots.
The roots carries originality. Things at the roots would be as is. Whatever came afterwards is an invention.

If religion was in our roots, then, the first humans knew what they were worshipping. They probably even saw at the time what they worshipped. If Atheism was in our roots, then, the first humans knew there's nothing to worship. There'll be no need for anyone to even invent religion. All of us would be Atheists, and the concept of religion would then be alien to us. We'll see anyone who follows that path as a fool. But, strikingly, the reverse is the case. Religion has been in the roots, atheism came later. We might have lost the very import of the entire religious concept of the first humans but they evidently worshipped something or someone they knew about.
Furthermore, all rekigons have deferring concepts and practices but they have amazing comon grounds.
The common ground is in something or someone beyond the sky. All or at least most theists believe that there's an all powerful being or beings somewhere beyond the sky. This concept has survived many generations.
Normally, we should just have seen the sky as it is without reading any other meanings to it. But the human mind has been shaped to conform to that ideology until you grow to question it.
This ideology is in itself a pointer. Why look up? And, you see, this ideology is as old as religion itself. It wasn't an invention. And, I believe the first humans have a clear understanding of these things before handling down religion to the entire human race.
If Atheism is the root, then, we wouldn't even be talking about these issue today. Whatever was in the root carries some evidences along with it.

Maynman:
Maybe The first human were deity worshippers, they were also illiterate and not educated.
Should we be like them?

How can atheism be the first? you need to have various gods, then some people reject the gods, some even acknowledge their own gods but reject others,that’s we have monotheism.

We can say our human ancestors were polytheists, and from polytheism evolve to monotheism.

I think we can get somewhere with this.
Frankly speaking, no one has the records of what the first humans worshipped. Our ancestors who were polytheists were still a later generation. Yet, we can still make judgement on their basis because at least they're theists, and we can safely say that theism was handed down to them by their predecessors.
For the first humans, we cannot talk about education because they wouldn't have needed it. These set of people would definitely see, touch and know whatever they were worshipping for them to have passed it down to all human race. We're the ones who need education because we don't know what they knew. All our religious education or research should be geared towards knowing what they knew. Or towards seeing what they saw.

This is very strong because they wouldn't pass down religion without having a cogent reason for doing so. I'm very sure that the first humans who passed it down didn't do so as a fabrication because there'll be nothing to gain from such. If atheism was the root, then we can discard religion because, if the first humans saw nothing, the human race would worship nothing, and it would be very difficult for anyone to convince anybody to worship something that does not exist.