₦airaland Forum

@OlaAjia,

First, don't go round euphemizing the object you were holding in your profile picture - flash or knife, a juvenile like you doesn't know how to pose for a pix. Not that it's important, but it just accentuates your delinquency and retard.

OlaAjia:
Sorry @babyosisi, but the Holy Quran is not a book of X-RATED pornography.

No wahala. The only problem then was that the Bedouin prophet Muhammad was himself a pedophile, womanizer and a pornographer per excellence. He may have pretended to leave a book behind for his followers to abide by, but his career reveals that he was far from keeping the tenets that he preached. Let's see -

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

I had made reference somewhere else that the Quraish Prophet Muhammad received "revelation" to lust after as many women as he wanted while limiting his followers to only 4! For Muhammad, the "Allah" of the Qur'an permitted the Bedouin prophet's indiscriminate lust, but did not so permit it to others, as it was only for Mo - as stated in the Qur'an:

Sura 033.050
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." - Yusuf Ali trans.

In other words, Muhammad was free to lustfully chase after his paternal and maternal cousins, more women from war (those often called "booties", and as many Muslim women who 'gave' themselves (almost like prostitution with a "revelation" to Muhammad - and all these besides the seraglio of women regarded as "wives". Notice that this licentious "revelation" to be promiscuous was only for Muhammad and not for his followers at large! "Do as I say, not as I do" would be aptly descriptive of the Bedouin prophet.

So, who is saying that the Qur'an is not a book of X-RATED pornography?? Or is not Sura 33:50 in the Qur'an anymore - a licence for lewdness for the 'holy' prophet of Islam alone?? Consequently, several women were flocking to "offer" themselves to Muhammad - afterall, the "revelation" had finally come down from Muhammad's "Allah" to him with a licence for his sexual adventures:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 53:
Narrated Thabit Al-Banani: I was with Anas while his daughter was present with him. Anas said, "A woman came to Allah's Apostle and presented herself to him, saying, 'O Allah's Apostle, have you any need for me (i.e. would you like to marry me)?' "Thereupon Anas's daughter said, "What a shameless lady she was ! Shame! Shame!" Anas said, "She was better than you; she had a liking for the Prophet so she presented herself for marriage to him."

Can you imagine? What was the shame about it when Muhammad himself had been directed by "revelation" to open a free house for women to parade and advertize themselves to him? Good point Anas, o jaré - for making the point that the "shameless lady" was better than his daughter!

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3240:
Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

Let's notice something here - Muhammad's lust manifested itself just about anytime he saw a woman. In order to explain away why he could not hold his long-john on sighting 'anything in skirts' (so to speak), he blamed it on women with such calumny as to refer to them as 'a devil'! And yet, Muslim apologists take offence when Muhammad's sexual adventures and his disrespect for women are pointed out.

So, for the juvenile whimper that "the Qur'an is not  a book of X-RATED pornography", it only shows that either the crybaby has not read the Qur'an, or that he skipped the relevant X-RATED porn texts, or he just hopes no one notices it, or he refuses to acknowledge that his beloved Quraish prophet was a pedophilic womanizer and a lascivious adventurer who received "revelations" to pursue his licentious career - even claiming in the Qur'an itself that the licence was given only to him.

I have stated severally that the morality of the Bedouin Prophet Muhammad was antithetical to his vocation as a 'prophet', let alone a 'holy' one for that matter. No wonder he snivelled in view of his destiny and end of his career that he did not know what "Allah" will do to him in that Day - after all the sexual promiscuity??

@Darkchild,

I believe 4get_me's answer was straight forward as well - anyone who parades himself or herself as a Christian and does not hold to the basic beliefs of the confession of the Christian faith in the Bible is NOT a Christian. It is the same thing as saying that a Muslim is not one until he believes in the tenets of Islam.

On the issue of the Trinity, some who don't want to see Jesus for who He says He is would rather present a soft-sell 'Gospel' (which is no Gospel at all but a perversion of true Biblical faith). The one thing to realise is that it is not evangelical Christians of the 21st century that are trying to make a deity out of Jesus - it is the Biblical faith and confession that recognizes Jesus for who He Himself said He is - the Son of God. A so-called Christian who believes anything about Jesus but denies what He said He was and is - that kind of "Christian" is no Christian by what Jesus said.

I hope this helps.

So, whatever group is advertising themselves as "Christian" and re-writing the image and person of the Son of God into something else - that group is NOT Christian by God's Word.

Don't bet on your bargain, because the Bible makes clear that anyone who has heard the Gospel and rejected it has no covering for their sin on the Day of judgement. So, it might help to reconsider carefully your middle course.

We've been through the aspect of 'joining partners with Allah' - and it shows that Allah himself is the one joining partners with himself in the Qur'an.

If the answers already provided are not sufficient or have not addressed a particular aspect of your concern, then perhaps you need to expatiate a bit more on your question.

OlaAjia:
So Moses and his army killed women and children. Moses broke the 6th commmandment, thou shall not kill ANYONE. Or I see, when its in war it okay? Yet when Muslims say the 6th commandment is followed, but in war its different, Christians say nooooo. Either way, The Quran does not say kill women and children, I CHALLENGE ANY CHRISTIAN TO BRING THE VERSE RIGHT NOW. We see it in your Bible, one of your greatest prophets killing women and children by God's permission, meaning Jesus allowed it! So hence Jesus was responsible for killing women and children,

This is why arguing with a juvenile like you is either a hilarious past time or it's simply amazing to read your circus theories. Did you forget that the "Allah" of the Qur'an is the one who was making noise that he sent down, confirmed and revealed the Law of Moses, the Gospel (to Jesus) and the Psalms to David? You're now crying hoo-ha about Bible, Bible, Old Testament this and that. Muhammad only interpreted the Bible in the way that suited his-blood thirst and murderous adventures. And at other times when it was not convenient for him, he "received" revelation that the Bible was corrupt and changed, and yet he could not tell from what to what or who made the changes and when - a cheap lie that he has sold to you chaps.

Look at another bogus juvenile lie you're exposing here. Did I read you well - that the Qur'an does not say that kill women and children. So, when Muhammad ordered the killing of Jews and Christians in the Qur'an, that order did not include the slaying of women and children, abi? And what has been the consequence of Muhammad's murderous adventures? Simple - the Bedouin prophet laid a precedence for murder, so that his followers today have followed in his steps to slay their own children and women under the excuse of "honour-killings" in the Muslim enclaves of the middle East. Bottomline - Muhammad killed women and children; and those he didn't kill, he took them to his arabian hut and slept with them, including the children. His followers know this fact, and Ayatolla Khomeini has preached it several times to encourage Muslims to follow in the footsteps of the Quraish prophet.

That you're accusing Jesus Christ of the killings in the OT under Moses' Law shows your shallowness in the understanding of the Bible. I'm not surprised anyway, since you've stated that you enjoy posting lies. Clap for you.

OlaAjia:
Now why can't these people go into the congregation of the lord? What happened to the God who hears all, and accepts all? It seems at one time Jesus did not like bastards, and did not like men without their private parts! I wonder what the Christian has to say to this. Why cannot Ammonites and Moabites go into the congregation of the lord? What again happened to the God who loves all and hears all? It seems that the Christian God Jesus is not very loving after all and that Christians have been spreading a myth about their God. Anyway, can we really accept such rubbish like this?

Keep foaming out your juvenile ignorance - I can forgive your poor reading skills. The congregation of the LORD is a holy place where chosen people called unto holiness present themselves in worship before God's presence. With Muhammad's overloaded sins and more than seventy repentance in a day, he surely would be less qualified than the Moabites and the Amonites. And where did you read that Jesus did not like bastards?

The Moabites and Ammonites had an incestuous history when the daughters of Lot got pregnant by their father (Gen. 19:36-38). That they were not to enter the congregation of the LORD is a result of two things: (a) their incestuous background, and (b) their engagement in witchcraft in having hired Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia against the Israelites. These were their most serious issues; but that did not mean that the redemption in Christ would exclude them. That is why under theocratic rule of the Mosaic Law for the Israelites, the Moabites were not to enter into the congregation of the LORD among the Israelites. However, that was until the tenth generation. Even so, you find that Ruth was a moabitess and she was not expelled from Israel when she followed her Israelite mother-in-law to the land. However, in the redemption that Jesus Christ, everyone is offered an entry into God's presence - based on the two conditions of repentance from sin and faith in Him.

So, my dear, read more. Unless you open your eyes and remove your jiga, you will continue to see Jesus in Moab and will never understand what the Old Testament you're quoting indiscriminately point to.

OlaAjia:
Old tesatament right? Yes I know, But the God of the Old testament does not change his mind!
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" Numbers 23:19
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." 1 Samuel 15:29

I haven't stopped laughing at your desperations. . . you really give good comic relief in weekends. Of course, God does not lie - that is why Muhammad acknowledged the Old Testement in the Qur'an. So, tell me - your vexations: to whom are they directed? To Muhammad, or to the "Allah" of the Qur'an who said he was the one that sent down and confirmed the law of Moses?

You know, unlike the "Allah" of the Bedouin prophet, the God of Isreal does not changed His mind even though He reveals His counsel in time and history. But this is what I don't really understand about your perfect "Allah" - he's so crafty that when he knows some fraud would be exposed in his Qur'an, the he leaves a disclaimer about his ability to abrogate a verse in the Qur'an.

OlaAjia, read well and ask those who can train you more on your Bedouin stereotype - Muhammad used it well, even though you can't figure the difference.

OlaAjia:
I don't worship him I will repeat, however, it will not be right for me to sitdown and watch someone I love even better than my parents being blasphemed against, especially somebody that has propagated the words of God. I know I will do the same for Jesus too, as well as otthers I recognise as prophets.

Abeg, tell me what I don't know. What planet have you been living on that you haven't heard the blasphemies against Jesus already? And what have you done? Zero. Just be as simple as you can without the unnecessary cosmetics next time - we all know that Muslims many times tend to cover up this MO-worship by pretending he was more than what he claimed to be. How many times do we read of people saying to Muhammad, "May my parents be sacrificed for you?" And that is supposed to be what?

OlaAjia:
I have always seen Muhammed(SAW) as a man. I just saw him as first among equals. An exalted man chosen by God to spread the message of God to man. If your claim about him not being able to take his eyes and hands off women, he would not have encouraged Muslim women to dress modestly and to always gaurd their chastity indeed, as he will always have good sights to benefit from(God forbid).

What is the "God forbid" inside what you have stated? That is precisely correct o jare - the guy used "chastity" as an excuse to dress up women like Egyptian mummies so that it perhaps could have helped him reduce his womanizing adventures. For all of that, he spread his net on over more than 22 women, while limiting his followers to just 4! (Of course, there were a few others who adjusted the figure for themselves and managed to climb above the modest 4, but MO didn't seem to mind at all).

And this cliché of seeing Muhammad as 'first among equals' needs important qualification. In what sense was he 'first' - and who are you comparing him with to make him 'equal'? I hope you're not trying to give him a face lift by comparing him with the Biblical prophets. For one thing, I didn't read any one of them chasing under-aged kids as 'wives'; nor could one compare Muhammad's morality and disrespect for women with any one of them.

OlaAjia:
I have never stated anywhere on this forum that Christ odered anybody to be Killed. I only quote what is in your bible, be it the words of Christ or the teachings of Moses. The Bible always remains the Bible! Why did Christ never teach that Christians were superior to others? Because during Christ era, there was nothing like Christianity. There is little or no record of him being worshiped when he was on earth, as he himself had somebody to worship:God! If you know of a Muslim that got converted by reading the Quran, then how much more will I know of Christians(Both known and unknown) that converted from Christianity mere reading your Bible that is filled with Contradictions!

It's either you've been reading another book or watching too much TV for your own good! What was that I read again - that there was little or no record of him being worshipped when He was on earth? Take a look again:

Matt. 2:11 - At Birth
"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child [that is, Jesus] with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh."

Matt. 8:2 - At Earthly Ministry
"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean."

Matt. 9:18 - At Teaching Ministry
"While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live."

Matt. 14:33 - At Missions Trip
"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

Matt. 15:25 - At Times of Desperate Need
"Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me."

Matt. 28:9 - At The Triumph In Resurrection
"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."

Matt. 28:17 - At His Showing Forth Unto the Disciples
"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."

"Little or no record", you called it? And all these from Matthew alone? You want more, or you're just sounding off your poor reading skills?

Now about the contradictions in the Bible, that has been bantered about for ages. What about the double shot of Caliph Uthman's burning of the Qur'an, and the contradictions in its many pages as well?

Everyone has their various ways of looking at the Israeli-Arab conflict and the other pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in the Middle East. God has His eyes on a spot - Jerusalem - and it has been the most contested spot in that region for ages. Not because it has oil, or some other stuff to dig for money; but because in the prophetic arrangement, this is what God has said about it in Luke 21:24 -

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,

and shall be led away captive into all nations:

and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,

until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Psa. 9:10 - And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

Knowing God's name personally is the secret to discovering God's faithfulness.

I knew that was coming.  Sometimes one can't imagine how prophetic things turn out. But there again, I'm just being facetious - nothing big to it. 

@ajia23,

Your honesty is well appreciated.

However, it is rather queer to me that the admittance to paradise in Islam is somewhat arbitrary. It's alright for Muslims to see themselves as being the only ones who will not be in Hell afterall, even though they are Muslim sinners. And therefore, only pagans, atheists and "those who associate partners with Him" (which is the Islamic cliché used for Christians) will abide in Hell FOREVER. The rather arbitrariness in this is that even "sinners in Islam" will escape Hell afterall - simply because they are Muslims; but other "sinners" will not be so lucky - simply because they are not Muslims.

The Christian teaching, however, sees a holy God who is zero-tolerant of sin - regardless who commits them. Yes indeed, most of the very icons of righteousness in the Old Testament sinned in one way or the other - some even glaringly so, like the adultery of David with Bathsheba, the polygamous pursuits of Solomon, etc. You will find that not at one time did God condone their sin; but in His mercy He called and gave them the opportunity to repent.

There are others as well who were neither Jews nor Christians, but will be spared the damnation of Hell. The reason is because they knew in their consciouses (which God provided them with) that there was a Supreme Being who rules over the lives of people, and watches over the paths of men to bring them to righteousness. So, while they pursued their causes without having even heard of Moses or Jesus, God promised that:

"[God] will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." - Rom. 2:6-12.

God is no respecter of persons and a sin-hating God; and for Him there is no question of claiming to be a member of a religion or the name of a clan, tribe or philosophy. "The soul that sinneth shall die" was the rule under the Old Testament times, and it applied to both Jews and Gentiles (that is, people of other nations). It is not a different rule in the NT times - for everyone who persists in his or her sins will be judged, and it does not matter whether that person claims special privileges of being either a Jew (Rom. 2:28), a Christian (Luke 6:46 and Matt. 7:22-23), or a sincerely religious or non-religious moralist (Rev. 20:12).

Perhaps, thi is one more difference between Christianity and Islam - the understanding of the character of God, as a sin-hating and impartial God, and a merciful and gracious Provider who Himself seeks to save the sinner.

ajia23:
Consequently, even the Propht of Islam Muhammed (SAW) asked for this grace because he couldn't be too sure about God's pleasure. Allah indeed offers His Grace to anyone deserving of it. If you have tried hard to be good, and you have your failings and foibles, after a perusal of your innermost intentions, Allah does admit such people into His grace and eventually Paradise.

You're right about the Prophet of Islam Muhammad not being too sure about God's pleasure - which is another radical difference between Christianity and Islam. Grace to us is a reality that is unambiguous, so that again and again the Christian knows for certain that he/she is saved by that same grace which God freely provides to all; and upon that grace he/she knows that the Father's House is their place (John 14:1-6). We find such assurance and certanity of the Christian grace mentioned severally in Scripture:

1 Cor. 2:12 - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

1 Cor. 15:58 - "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."

1 John 3:24 - "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."

1 John 5:19 - "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

For the Christian, the faith and reality in Christ that we experience and enjoy is a certainty - there are no guesses or uncertainties about it.

1 Thes. 2:5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed--God is witness.

It is unChristian to use mind games to propagate the Gospel. We believe in laying bare the goodnews by invitation, persuasion, conviction, and righteousness evidenced in our lifestyle. Fruit born out of mind games don't last, and where they remain, they will do more damage to good causes than promote them. That is why authentic Christianity still bears fruit in the lives of those who know Christ for real. Only quacks and frauds promote mind games.

In context of the first entry, Christianity has no need to compare itself with any religion - much less with Islam. It is rather the other way round, because it is even contained in the Qur'an that 'Allah' tries to compare and measure Islam with Judaism and Christianity. In that context, Christianity does not use mind games, nor does it need to compare itself with any 'prophet' or message.

@ajia23,

ajia23:
I do not deny being gleeful, however that does not detract from the intention of the message . I concede to you that indeed some chrisitans in the Western world actually oppose the American government poicies against Muslims and the middle eastern countries. But it is rather curious that African christians seem to be mute and I can say that christians simply are not doing enough to impress it upon the war-mongering christian sect that Bush and his fellow neo-cons belong to, that they are errant and have gone against the word of God in the bible.

For one thing, it does not help to encourage bigotry and prejudices, so your glee at such Muslim exercises were really uncalled for.

On the other hand, I think you're still taking a lopsided view of issues. In just the way African Christians seemingly have been mute about the goings-on in the political events of the West, we observe with rather bemused curiosity the same muteness by African Muslims concerning the terrorist acts perpetrated by fundamentalist Muslims against their own people and non-Muslims. Again, it is obvious that the Muslim world is not doing enough to impress it upon the war-mongering Muslim sect that most of the leaders in the Middle East and their fellow jihadists belong to, that they are errant and have gone against the word of Allah in the qur'an.

What you have to understand is that, when you put all the cards on the table, it is rather characteristic of some Muslims debating publicly-affecting issues to pick and choose a few 'designed' cards while ignoring the rest that call for equal attention.

I'm not at all aware that the charter of the White House is the Bible; so whatever President Bush did in the capacity of a political leader should not necessarily all at once and constantly be translated as the preaching of a Christian Pastor. You should understand that the United States Constitution is a political machinery put in place to serve the democratic interests of a collective people known as Americans; and the United States is a political entity and not a theocratic state. So, seeking to blame the actions of the US President (who is a political leader) on the Bible sounds really out of place. It is not a "war-mongering christian sect" that Bush belongs to, as the Republican Party is not a religious establishment but a political group within the political system of the United States.

This is why most often, the reasoning of most Muslims is beclouded and they perennially interprete the 'West' in terms of religion rather than politics, because that's all they can think of. So, if Bush coughs or sneezes, Muslims are very quickly wont or accustomed to asking, 'where is that in the Bible?', or if he does anything else, they would still very quickly hold his feet over the fire based on their mindset against the Bible.

Indeed, there are many issues that call for the religious concerns of most people in America, such as the on-going battle on same-sex unions/marriages. However, even that is not something that is settled with the Church, but rather fought in civil courts. The recent outcome on the issue in the states of Georgia and New York where same-sex marriages were turned down were not fought in church, but in civil courts - which are clearly political institutions.

I had to take the pains to outline this often-confused and mixed up notion of the Muslim mindset about the West. When you try seeing the difference between politics and religion, then it would be all the more easier to see why it is out of place to interpret the US policies as a "Christian" thing.

ajia23:
You think the Sharia law is oppressive? But majority of the people governed by that law submit to it willingly. It's just the same way some people feel the Judeo-Christian laws used to govern most countries in the world are oppressive.

It is my persuasion that those who 'submit' willingly to the Sharia do so out of fear because they have no choice and can't protest for fear that they are protesting against "Allah"; or that they submit willingly under oppression. Please don't be upset about this - it's just my conviction or persuasion. The Sharia is used as a political weapon by the high-class to oppress the lower-class, and my persusasion about this is that the Muslim authorities pretend that such laws are not applicable to those in their ranks who commit crimes worthy of the long and strict arms of the Sharia.

Take, for instance, the issue of gay, homsexual and related activities. We understand that in Islamic law these activities are strictly punished, regardless who is affected. However, I observed that so many cases either go unattended to; or those revelaing them are threatened with death because the Muslim political religious leaders would rather conceal members of their ranks or high class. I made reference sometime ago to the child molestations by Muslim clerics in Ismalic schools and how the authorities would rather want to conceal the cases; but when it comes to the poor and lower class the Sharia law is all too gladly carried out.

You might have heard of the case of Crown Prince Tameem Bin Hamad Al-Thani of Qatar in a GAY club in London where he was reported to have been involved in a fracas with 'his partner'. Although some authorities would be glad to apply the Sharia Law to him, others just brush it off - afterall, he is not a commoner but a Crown Prince for goodness sake! (see example: http://www.somalilife.com/ftopic18705.html )

But there again, women come heavily under the discriminate use of Islamic law and could be killed and wasted, as if they too are not human. I can't begin to inundate this page with so many links about the point, but my heart cries out anytime I read through and even watch some of the clips of these indiscriminate executions of women on high-handeness by the 'high-class'.

Some people may feel that the 'judeo-christian' laws are oppressive. It all depends on what you mean by that, and especially if you have any "christian" law that serves as oppressive. The Judaic/Mosaic law was harsh - we don't deny that; but they served only for the theocratic entity known as Israel, not for the people known as Christians. We've often pointed out the difference between the two, and hope that Muslims would not forever keep blinding themselves to that.

ajia23:
Please ignore my Islamic mindset, and try to answer my questions about the divinity of christ and the relationship between christianity and secular states. May be the respondents have not been able to explain it simply enough to me. You will have observed that when indeed someome convinces me on a point, I readily concede, as I do not argue for the sake of argument. But, the answers I have gotten so far have not convinced me, but confused me further as you have noted. So please continue in this calm disposition to try and explain the matter to me knowing that I am a sceptic of the Bible. Putting this into perspective will help you fine-tune your responses appropriately.

Okay, I'll do my best to calm down and talk to you - as long as you help me do that.

However, I've attempted just above to outlie the relationship between Christianity and secular states. If there's anything missed out, then I'll be glad to take it one step further.

As for the Trinity, I couldn't respond further to that because you wanted my hands tied behind me by stating a rule of non-applicability; meaning, that you didn't want me to quote from the Bible, even though you could tolerate Odeche's quotes from the same Bible. Once you outline the areas you don't get clear, then I'll attempt to clear that up.

Enjoy.

Lol, Seun. It depends on the meaning of celebrity. There are a few I've been privileged to watch on TV who are not in that class and do not encourage such lifestyle. One is the late Adrain Rogers on Bellview Baptist Church in TN, USA; another id Dr. David Jeremiah of Turning Point Ministry (another Baptist in USA); a third is Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministry (Presbyterian minister), and a fourth is Zac Poonen of Bangalore, India.

Okay, these are admittedly 'foreign' ministers, but I've been out of Nigeria for so long as to know what's happening back home. I know there are a lot of Televangelists who are flamboyant and celebrity-style ministers; but perhaps there are others in Nigeria or on the Africac Continent who are not so lavish or extravagant in their tastes and lifestyles.

@ajia23,

I wouldn't want to be pedantic about your inputs, but permit me (if you may) to ask a few questions:

ajia23:
Thus, if a muslim commits sins before he dies, and he is not forgiven those sins, he will have to go to Hell. After a period determined by GOd only, he will then be admitted to Paradise.

So, in effect, there's not going to be any sinner in hell afterall?

ajia23:
We believe that your good deeds are not sufficient to take you to Heaven, but as a muslim, you also require the Grace of God. And if He is pleased with a servant of His, and that servant supplicates for say a dead relative, God may as He chooses, forgive that dead person.

This is somewhat new to me. Could you expatiate a bit on the "Grace of God" that you mentioned - particularly about "Grace." Does "Allah" in Islam offer 'grace' to anyone?

Second, I don't understand the probability (so to speak) of God's forgiveness in Islam - as you stated: "God may as He chooses, forgive that dead person." This sounds like in Islam there's no assurance of one's destiny inspite of one's devotion. I may be mixing up things here, so please help clear them for me.

lioness:
we MAY be misinformed and ignorant of the facts.
Thats why your here to clear up the ignorance. So if you've got something to say say it.

Were you reading my mind? Straight out of my mouth.

nferyn:
The feeling is mutual

You see why you continue to have my respects? I only hope that even though my rejoinders were somewhat impulsive (regrettably so) when we debated issues, you could forgive me for the past. And thanks.

nferyn:
I wouldn't agree with that. Most Christians (and Atheists, Muslims, etc) couldn't care less about logic and scientific principles, it's just rationalisation of already held beliefs with an intellectual coating.

It's only a matter of one's view on things - just like yours, which I would be inclined to respect regardless of the fact that I may not agree with you when it comes to belief. To be sure, most people often see this idea of "already held beliefs with intellectual coating" as applicable to Christianity more than to Islam. All the same, I'm sure that you'd agree that there are experiences that cannot be scientifically explicated, even though more and more scientists are making effort to query them. We'll just wait for their summations when they do come up with something.

nferyn:
I really don't know why he participated in this thread. There was another Christian person (forgot his username, Lioness' last post here was about that) that did the same. I don't understand why Seun removed that post and not the one from ajia23

Well, I cannot hold his legs over the fire for having even said anything on this thread - else I'm guilty as well, since my posts have not really been in sync with the subject. I was jut wondering that his input was a bit of a distraction to the thrust of the subject.

Thanks for your observations.

ajia23:
Please give me a solution to the outnumbering of women by men in this present day. How would you want the women who have no husbands to feel, if every man were to marry only one wife? If you know one of such women, what will be your advice to her?

I'm sorry, but are you therefore endorsing polygamy? Or, are you saying that the solution to balancing the ratio between the number of men to women is polygamy? "If every man were to marry only one wife" is highly suggestive of this idea you're posting.

I'm just trying to make sense of your query. If every man were to marry four or more wives encouraged in Islam, how does that help to provide a better solution than monogamy?

@Darkchild,

I'm not standing brief for 4get_me, but I think his response was to the point. It's just as well the same thing in asking who a true Muslim is - do we take all that is done in the name of "Allah" and the Qur'an as authentic Islam just because suicide bombers dress in Qur'anic motifs and recite ayah or suras during their operations? I guess not. A true Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and applies His teachings in his or her life. Perhaps you may wish to recast your question if that answer does not suffice.

KAG:
[quote author=ajia23 link=topic=11284.msg484695#msg484695 date=1152595236]Kag, Nferyn, Simmy, Rhodalyn etc,
Please check out this thread to see how logical and scientific our christian brethren are.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-17418.32.html#msg484688

Okay? What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? You do know many Christians are both logical and scientific right?[/quote]That's what amazes me - biko, helep me ask am well: what really has ajia23's whining got to do with the subject at hand? At least, I've discoursed with Kag and nferyn, agreed and disagreed, and they continue to have my respects at the end of the day; and I've learnt tremendously from them. True, some of us Christians may not be both logical and scientific all the time, but most often we do our best to be. By snivelling here, has it proven that ajia23 is actually logical in his irrelevant interjection in the subject of this thread?

Glad you can see that now. Read the Bible for yourself and you'll discover more.

@ajia23,

ajia23:
The exchange between softee and 4get_me proves one thing to me, when people look at Muslims, they see only the streotypes in their heads. I wish that could change as it may be a starting point for an understanding that could lead to peaceful coexistence in the world.

That is because you're being very narrow in your observation. What did you do with the "stereotype" of your twin (OlaAjia) on the very first page on this thread when he stated:

Not only are you liars You're also rebellious to your lord who has commanded these things unto you.

Your reaction was so gleeful that you followed through with:

Yeparipa!! Ogbeleu. Are those quotes really from the bible? Oh my God. So much for peace. Now, I am getting convinced that I was right afterall.

Where in your reaction did you sound like you were actually fostering a spirit of calmness and dialogue in that kind of attitude? Only when you get put in your place that you come back crawling with snivels and waving a white flag. I've offered you several times to calm down and talk to people - we're grown-ups and mature enough to deal with issues (well, I don't know for the youth OlaAjia); and I also offered that if you'd rather go the way of seething with sly invectives and encouraging Islamic derision on this thread, then I would refuse to iggy your pranks and serve you in just the way you have chosen to understand the inputs that follow your posts.

ajia23:
Pacifism also means the doctrine or belief that the use of violence is never justifiable. Meaning there is no need for violence at all in the world. So, is that what christianity believes? At least from some of the responses I got on this thread, I can come to the conclusion that christianity actually supports the use of violence if it is by a secular state to enforce the laws of the land.

No matter how many times this issue is explained to you, it's only too obvious that your Islamic mindset will continue to block out your reasoning faculty. Christianity is based on the NT in the Bible and not on the political consensus of any civil government. To mix up both is only too typical of one that is called ajia23. Christians are asked to respect the civil authorities and not take the laws into their hands; but it does not endorse a passive submission to injustice. This has been said several times over, but it will perhaps take omo and bleach to wash away your stereotype so you can see the point.

ajia23:
Consequently, I can also conclude that should christians find themselves in a land whichis governed by Sharia, they will not oppose it or use the Sharia law as justification that Islam is violent, or supports violence. In the past, they had wanted me to believe that the Sharia law is babaric. Now I know better.

Oh yes, Sharia is injustice to the poor Muslim men and women who cannot speak for themselves and oppose a barbaric practice - that's why in a secular state like Nigeria, good meaning people should bring that rubbish to an end immediately. If Muslims in Nigeria cannot endure that, they could and should gather themselves and praying mats and move to Afghanistian, Pakistan, or Iran. Nigeria is neither an Islamic or theocratic state, and the Bedouin politicians in the north imposed their jiga over the Federal Law of the land. That is why Nigerian Christians and non-Christians (including well-meaning muslims) should throw out that blight and bane called Sharia as soon as possible, so that development will become a reality in the north.

@emmie4j ,

Please, don't be so miffed. I was infact trying to post a reply in that thread when it happened that he took it the political/crime arena. Perhaps he meant well and wanted the issue to be widely discussed. Let's cheer up about that and commend the admin/moderator for his foresight - we'll follow the link and make inputs as and when necessary.

@lordimpaq,

Nah-nah, I'm not picking on ajia23 - he knows only too well that he should not be asking rhetorical questions where the answers have already been provided in several other threads on Nairaland.

@ajia23,

Don't use that cheap poser as a yardstick for measuring Christianity. There are so many questionable practices in the Catholic Church that one cannot endorse as Biblical, and evangelical Christians continue to challenge them from the Bible - even on Nairaland. You should know better than to pose that rhetoric - it would just mean the same thing as asking: "Where did Muhammad get his proof of pedophilia from?" or "Where do Islamic fundamentalists and suicide bombers get their proof for committing their acts from?"

It's quite commendable for people to live in harmony. But when we look out to what's happening in everyday life in the mindset of Muslims in the East, and the vehement statements they make against ordinary Christians, one could only hope that we'll all set politics aside and examine what is religiously at stake.