₦airaland Forum

What do women get? You really don't wnat to know!

As for the 70 virgins, Muslim MALE terrorists would feel short-changed, because they were told the number is 72! They won't even mind if they were Taliban-ordered or special delivery from Asia. 'Virgin' is 'virgin', and the number must be 72!!

@Goodguy,

You don't get the joke and the joker. He's living his true Muslim faith - no pretences at all, because Islam is violent by design. He's been watching too much wrong TV soaps in Kenya for his good, and he needs to pep up his vocab!

@ajia23,

I can't believe what I'm reading. Can you really be that low in your dishonesty? Did you really ask a question when you opened this thread, or you actually opnened it with a conclusion even before you started? You said clearly that "Christianity supports Immorality and Pacifism" and pursued your mindless myopia stating a desire that you want people to confirm what you already have concluded! Read again:

ajia23:
Christianity supports Immorality and Injustice.

. . . Thus, according to christianity, just believing in Jesus redeems you, and you will enter heaven even if you commit the most heinous crimes.

I will like other people to confirm that my views about christianity are correct, and ask christians themselves to state the position of christianity on morality, and if retialation is a sin.

Did you really open this thread for a discussion or dialogue - or you actually made up your mind before get-go? Now you're coming back with the verbiage you picked off Comedy Central - "Now we can see the quintessential christian doctrine of hypocrisy on display." Dash across the street and get tissues to wipe your eyes and nose, because I'll be poised to remove more Iroko and mahogany trees from your red pupils the next time you attempt such sleight of hand!

ajia23:
Now, Gwaine, Instead of attacking odache, I would expect you to use your learned status to address some of the posers he raised. Please do not go it the biblical way of quoting to me some biblical verses to support your explanations.

Thanks for that military command - NOT! First, I didn't attack him - I beat the shit outa him!! You read yourself - ever so clever at your hollow thinking. In my first response to your posting odache's article, I don't remember quoting as many Bible verses as he did; so why are you all of a sudden instructing me on how to go about dealing with 'some of the posers he raised' - when you already have a mindset not to take my response seriously enough? What you have requested is just the same thing as asking a Muslim to defend the religion of the Arabian Prophet (Muhammad) without reference whatsoever to the Qur'an. Keep waiting, for when civility returns and rascality exits, then you'll be in good capacity to read something from me to the infantile misgivings of odache. And yes, the Quraish Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile and child molester!

Meanwhile, keep up your sob-story and snivels until your temporary deliverer Ajisafe shows up (you can call him up to hurry before your keyboard suffers a freeze) - at least, reading you whimper like that gives us some real titters.

If ajia23 is willing to talk to people and reason with them, then he will be served in same manner. But if he goes round with a "put-down" agenda on matters he does not understand, then he'll find replies to be as "mean" as can be - not because we choose to be 'mean'; rather, to bring him round to understanding that Christians are not what he thought they were.

Very observant, Davidylan, Lol. Eddy, let us Tell you something.

Muslims will do whatever they can to protect the pedophilia of the Quraish prophet - Muhammad. One source puts the number of women who passed under Muhammad's long-john at 22 (Ali Dashti); another puts it at a greater figure, especially considering those he received as 'booty' from war. For Muhammad, others are welcome to pursue no more than 4 wives on planet earth. . . if they want more, they should fight for "Allah" so that they could be guaranteed 72 virgins in paradise. If that is nor adultery and fornication by "revelation", somebody should explain ajia23's reason behind opening this thread.

Apart from that, there's another "revelation" that the prophet received and passed down to pacify his followers - they could go ahead and arrange two types of marriages: a stable one and a temporary one. So, a Muslim male could jump from bed to bed with the "divine revelation" of marrying several women temporarily, divorcing them, marrying others again under the same arrangement. . . until he has completed his 72 rounds on earth. Do the maths:

72 divided by 4 = 18. So it will take about rounds of marry-divorce-marry-again-divorce-again to complete his 72 virgins on earth,
and if he fights the Jihad for "Allah's cause", another frolic of 72 child-brides/virgins await them - don't forget the rivers of ogogoro
to go along with the gambol.

Shébi they want to know which religion "supports immorality and pacifism"? We'll be doing some educating about this as much as they desire and require of us.

I hope you thought carefully and recognized that 'vengence is for GOD' before you wrote that. Remember, if Muhammad slaughtered millions for not following him, what vengence are you talking about then? Or, if knocking you over is 'against one of the teachings of Jesus Christ,' do Muslims even believe that - with their frequent calls for anti-pacificism and 'turning the other cheek'? Why is it that you can hardly take the heat from Christians, but can endure the same rule of engagement from Muslims?

That doesn't say much - submission to One God is known in Christianity, Islam, Bahá'ísm and a few others. I knew from the onset that Darkchild is most probably Muslim - judging from other threads as well.

This is what continues to amaze me - one malam sits somewhere and lets his imagination run wild, until he comes to his myopic conclusion that "Christianity supports immoral activities." This only shows that you don't know what Christianity is, and you're letting your stereotype blind you further.

Nowhere does Christianity support immorality. Please reference a Bible text that proves Christianity supports that. Again, you're wrong in presupposing that while Christianity is about love, grace, etc., Jesus' love redeems us inspite of whatever sins we 'commit'. First, whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness (Luke 12:10) - neither in this age nor in that to come (Matt. 12:32), and is in danger of eternal damnation (Mark 3:29).

Second, Christianity does not suppose that just about anyone can be forgiven by the redemptive grace of Jesus Christ and still go on committing sins. So, the question of "whatever sins they [U]commit[/u]" does not arise - and to insist on it simply means you have not read a dot about it in the NT.

Christianity does have a strict moral code - but it is not the same thing as "legalism" or "rigid asceticism", for those would be contrary to grace. Evil offenders and pertrators will be punished by the various civil and political agencies in every country wherever Christians live; and the Bible asks us as Christians to respect those agencies and not take the law into our hands. Ultimately, God will deliver divine justice to all evil doers - and all these warnings are clear in the Bible.

The very important point not to miss is, that our morality does not stem from the weaknesses of the carnal mind of man - for that is why all who continue by their own fleshy strength and wisdom to please God will find a battle in their heart to be just the same thing that they are trying to avoid. God has provided mercy and grace that effectively produces a hunger and the capacity to produce righteous living through the help and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Christianity is quite distinct from Islam, and most often Muslims make the mistake of trying to judge Christainity and other religions by the standard of Islam. Such an exercise only quite often shows that Muslims arrive at slanted ideas about the religions they scrutinise. So, ajia23, you're dead wrong about your hypothesis of Christianity.

@lioness,
My dear, God's blessings follow you from now till Jesus comes!! Just don't let the stupidity of anyone make you descend to their level - they're just being too cheap when they do that. We know when to answer and when not to be bothered with their noise. See it here -

Prove. 26:4 - "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

                                            and

Prov. 26:5 - "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

@Darkchild,

Darkchild:
lioness,
I hope thats not gwaine you're talking about ooo. It aint fair to insult your brother like that!!!

Wake up - lioness knows how to read, and she defintely knows I'm not talking trash about Christianity but setting you and your beloved Muslims straight about certain things they don't know. And you really shouldn't be trying to ask Christians to be civil - I didn't read that you asked OlaAjia and Ajia23 to be "civil" instead of resorting to abuses.

OlaAjia:
Thanks @Ajia23 for that! You know, I often used to wonder why many of my Christian friends told me that all sins are equal!!!
. . .

I know their next move! Old testament! Old Testament!! right? Oh please don't give that lame excuse. Or why then is the old testament featured in your Bible? Pacifists indeed. Not only are you liars You're also rebellious to your lord who has commanded these things unto you.

I feel so sorry for you, OlaAjia. You're only a youth who needs to understand loads of issues about life. Ajia23 finds solace in your applause for his ignorance, and I haven't stopped laughing at the comical relief that you both put up. Don't waste your talent - please pick a slot in prime-time television and let's see more of your performance at Comedy Central!

First of all, what many of your "Christian friends" tell you may not necessarily be the position of the Bible, in just the same way that many of my "Muslim friends" may say things that are just not taught in the Qur'an or Hadith. To be sure, the Bible does not say that all sins are equal!!! Rather, God sees all men as sinners without exception - Rom 3:23: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." The only Man that ever lived without a sin is Jesus Christ - because He is God who through the Incarnation became Man.

Since all men are sinners, not all sins are equal. Again, the Bible:

John 19:11 - "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

But, even if we all know that men commit sins and are therefore sinners in the sight of a Holy God, you may see the solution as a Muslim differently from what Christians believe. The Bible shows us clearly that no man can save himself or herself; and that salvation is provided for man by God in God's own way:

Rom. 3:24 - "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Others may want to work for it and not receive God's offer of grace. But in God's own mercy, since He sees our hearts and knows that the best of us is still a sinner at best, He sent grace through His Son Jesus Christ to everyone who would receive it by simple faith. That's why salvation is a gift, not a reward. We are rewarded for our deeds; but no one will be "rewarded" for grace - because it is provided freely by God Himself, and no one can boast anything towards God, just as Jesus stated:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
(Luke 18:10-14).

                    =====================================================================

Now, with regards to quoting the Old Testament and trying to force it on Christians, you have not demonstrated clear reason - if indeed you have read through the Bible, instead of trying to 'hunt' a few verses to be taken out of context. Yes, indeed, I acknowledge those verses in the Bible that record the killings; and I cannot defend it as a Christian doctrine. For anyone to ask me to do that is tantamount to asking me to lose my Christian calling and become a Jew of Moses' day. God did not order Christians to go about killing people - not even as Muhammad pursued his career. The difference between the OT and the NT is the people to whom they were given and the covenants under which they were enacted.

Only to the Jews were the OT Law given, and that was clear in Moses' repeated decalaration:

Deut. 5:2-3 - "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day."

Deut. 31:11 - "When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing."

Unless you want to make all Christians to become Jews, then I don't see how you who pretends to have read the Bible would have missed those points. So there - Christians are not liars, as you charged - it's simply that in your youthful exhuberance, you just don't understand them nor their holy Scriptures. Take my advice: engage in dialogue and be very slow to accuse others of what you don't know or understand. Ask ajia23, he knows just when some of us cannot be bothered with his caprices and when we can afford to send him scurrying.


PSSST: that picture at your profile page is cool. . . but, was that a knife you have under your arms, ready to slaughter those who disagree with you?

@ajia23,

I thought you'd be cool and grown up when discussing issues. It's an understatement to say that I'm disappointed. However, since you have resumed your use of lack of common sense, you'll be reading my posts in just the same way as you serve others.

With regards to answering your questions, you should understand a few things. I'm least interested in noise, if at all. If you're asking questions with a mindset already to "prove" what you really want to read, you can as well waste your future on the forum. If, however, you want to understand Christianity in the Bible, I'll be pleased to share with you what you jst don't understand and have continued to exhibit your ignorance thereto.

Since you chaps are running out of steam, the best you can do is recycle articles from thread to thread. That's fine - as long as it helps your immaturity and provides some titters for some of us. Yet, sit down and ask yourself a simple question about the latest post: if Odache has posted the same things about the "Allah" of the Qur'an, would the Guardian have carried the article? If that had happened, would the Guardian Newspapers have survived another hour without suffering the inferno and rampage characteristic of Muslims in Nigeria?

It's just okay for Odache et al to fuel your misgivings about Christianity, and you're all too happy to quote him, repost his infantile thesis, and continue to recycle that and others you can fetch from just about any source. But does that "prove" all his arguments? Not one bit - for the mere reason that he's towing the very same line that half-baked ignoramuses appeal to. It's all too glaring to see that the gentleman has asked runaway questions without having done a careful study of the words in their original languages and contexts. That is forgiveable - as we can often  afford to forgive any such fool that foams in the mouth and makes noise in the streets.

Since the Da Vinci Code has given you sleepless nights such that you could bring up the issue (Still On the Da Vinci Code), I could as well ask a few more salient questions in a similar occurence about Islam. This time, rather than quote the likes of Osaro Odache, turn for a moment to Salman Rushdie who dared to query some of the missing links in the Qur'an in his "fictional" work, The Satanic Verses. What did you Muslims do to him and his publishers? You're grown-up enough - go figure, and then ask yourself if by any stretch real Christians who know their Bibles have bothered Dan Brown with a pen-knife.

Again, what did you Muslims do to Ali Dashti who exposed the hypocrisy of Muhammad for his insatiable lust for child brides and women? Your "holy" prophet couldn't keep his long-john is his zippers, and just about any woman could be taken to bed under the "revelation" of 'women taken as booty in war!' Ali Dashti was not a Christian, but having grown up as under Islamic influence, his only crime was not to pursue 'faith' without reason - and for all that, even at the elderly age of 83, he was tortured to death in Khomeini's prisons.

These are the few things thinking people do not speak about, that's why my appraoch is different - I don't peddle recycled stuff on Nairaland. So, if you're trying to be sly about my scholarship, there's still time for you to go back to school and pursue a degree. At least, grow up, ajia23. . . grow up.

You might also be interested in researching a bit on Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'. Oh no, don't suppose that by that he's an atheist or a Christian. Far from it. The point is that, when you try to put down others for their scholarship, then you might just be surprised about what they know that you don't.

When you calm down and talk to me, then I'll serve you in just the same manner. Amicably.

Darkchild:
no mind them jaare. All the misunderstanding stems from the ignorance of not understanding Islam. How many Xtians have u met that have read the Koran. Less than a Handful.

@Darkchild,
Let me ask: how many Muslims have taken the time to read through the Bible? I'm a Christian and have read the Qur'an in English back cover to back cover in four English translations. I've also read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and last week was the 13th time I completed reading it - in five English versions: NKJV, KJV, NIV, Amplified and ESV. Besides, I have 'gone through' some other English versions like the Good News Bible (GNB) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

When you take a position like that expressed in your post, you fail to realise that there are so many Christians who dwarf what I have done in reading both books. Recently at the airport after a short visit to Nigeria, I was amazed to have the rare opportunity of meeting another well-read Nigerian who was also on a short visit. I was gobsmacked at his diction, his library (which he came to freight to his home abroad) and his scholarship - he has read the Bible in many English versions, the Qur'an in more than 8 translations, more than 34 'gnostic gospels'. . . and he still has the time to pursue a doctorate and his professional career in GIS (Geographic Information Systems), besides family life (he's yet to be married). Guess what - he's a Nigerian, and I've obtained his permission (after serious pleading) to make passing reference to him on the Forum - he's welborn! And yet he tells me that he's just a 'nobody' in the number of 'quiet' Nigerians abroad who are erudite in a number of other professional career and know five times more than he does about the things of God.

Christians are not what you think of them - and 4get_me has opened a thread for you to post your misgivings and stereotypes about Christians and Christianity on this Forum: use it!

Welcome. More to follow on enquiries.

@Darkchild,

I have followed the recent arguments and posts between Muslims and Christians, and the reason why
I decided to keep calm up until now is to avoid beclouding issues and promote the noise trumped up
by some Muslims who haven't taken the time in their poor scholarship to look at their misconceptions. The
Trinity is one of them, and I do hope that your enquiry is unpretentious.

A few things you have to understand is that you cannot fully understand God, let alone the Trinity. That's
why I would rather follow through on a discussion about certain texts people find difficult to understand
rather than attempt to fully explain the Trinity.

Deut. 29:29 - 'The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong
unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.'

In the OT, God was not fully known by His people - but He has always been the One eternal and unchanging
God. The Trinity is simply a term employed to seek an understanding of the One true and living God who has
revealed Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This revelation was only possible when the Son
came to earth to reveal the Godhead in the NT.

Analogies have been used in trying to explain the Trinity; but in my opinion, no analogy comes close to doing
a good job at conveying the mystery of the Triune God. Trinity does not suggest "three gods" - as Muslims
often misconstrue it to be. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a pagan or NT ideology - it has been there all along
right from the OT. The very first chapter of Genesis says: "Let Us make man in Our image after Our likeness"
(vs. 26). Everyone who reads that verse agrees God was speaking - but to whom was He speaking? Some say
He was speaking to the angels; but that is thrown out by the collective testimony of The Bible - because not
one verse suggests that the angels were involved in the creative work of God in anything at all. The only way
to understand that verse is to realise that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt - and none else - spoke in
creation to bring man into existence.

The point becomes all the more clearer when we do a word study of the Biblical languages - Hebrew, Greek and
Aramaic. Concisely, you will find that whatever the Father was, the Son and the Holy Spirit were in essence. So,
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are together called "God" (Elohim) and "LORD" (Jehovah/Yahweh). Jesus was not
a created being - otherwise He could not have been the Creator of the world and all that is in it. Neither did He
creat anything on His own initiative without the involvement of the Father and the Spirit. Jesus Christ was and is
God all through eternity; but He became Man in redemptive titles.

What the world wants us as Christians to do is renounce what is clearly taught in the Bible. But no matter what
anyone thinks, as long as the OT and NT have always carried the message that the One true and living God is
and has always been the only Trinity, I'm happy to testify to what the Scriptures say.

@ajia23,

Good morning. Could I offer my appreciation for your calm and frank response just above. In
the spirit of good dialogue, I'll temper my inputs with the same. I'm also challenged by some
of the genuine enquiries raised by non-Christians concerning the Christian faith, and I admit
my limited understanding and human weakness in some of those concerns. Good to know in
all that you take the time to look into the matters presented,  so we could all reason from
various perspectives as to the reason for our convictions and persuasions.

I completely agree with you that principles are the basis of our search for truth and life of faith
and not a fastiduous and often sentimental attachment to dogma. I look forward to more
seasoned discourses with you, and will do my best to convey the same calmness you've offered
here.

Nice joke your dad gave you this morning, eh? Anymore?

@Logical,

Logical:
I have learnt something by reading all of your posts in the religion section, and that thing is, I am better of not arguing with you . This is because from what I have discovered, you don't reason beyond what you have been taught or fed with. You don't see beyond the circle of quoting and quoting what the bible says, even though you perfectly know, that the bible is only approved by christians as a valid document.

What are you trying to achieve? Let me guess , are you trying to push Christianity down my throat , I hope not

This happens to be one more logic that has made sense in recent times - you don't argue with me, my guy!!
Especially when your tales are lacking substance. The point is, Prophet Muhammad's claims of Biblical knowledge
should be examined more closely. . . and at the end of the day, I bet he too would have said the same thing as
you did: "Gwaine, I can't argue with you, kai!! So, I can't pull the wool over your eyes. . unless, em . . I settle it
with the sword!"

Okay, jokes apart, let me remind you of a few things: Yes, I reason beyond what I've received by teaching from
others - my pastor and other friends who continue to challenge my faith. Yes, I quote the Bible as freely and as
often as I can until the Muslim apologists who often abandon the Qur'an and quote the Bible to "prove" that the
Prophet Muhammad and his religion Islam are found on its sacred pages. And yes, I quote and also teach those
Muslim apologists to see how their efforts are at best wasted - especially the new entrants who are wet behind
the ears: abdul fata and QuranSearc. Yes, even though the Bible is approved and believed in as a valid document
by Christians, the Qur'an also confirmed it until the tide turned for Muhammad! (did you forget that, too?).

And what am I trying to achieve?? Pardon?? Haa, of all things, it is not to force or ram my convictions down your
throat. Rather, I'll continue to present these matters to you and the gentlemen who should please, please and
please calm down and take a second look at the claims of the Qur'an where it "confirmed" a library of documents
well in circulation before Muhammad was born! After that, it's up to you to make informed decisions as to who is
the Messiah and Saviour as the same Qur'an statutorily confirmed.

Please, don't end this debate - we shall miss you terribly if you do that  , and you know that's not a joke! It's
quite a huge effort on your part to recognise that some people don't want to reason beyond what they have
made up to believe - which happens to be the case with most of our Muslim friends who won't rationally take a
second look at the Biblical verses they quote to try and prove that the Kaa'ba is in Psalm 84!!

TayoD:
As an extension, you owe it to yourself also to discover the Gospels that Muhammad validated in the Qu'ran. The process is very simple. Just find the Bibles and the manuscripts that constituted what was known as the Bible during Muhammad's days. Compare them to the Bible of today and see if any corroborates Muhammad's claims as laid out in the Qu'ran.

That's always been my point - long before Muhammad was born, the Bible was already in circulation with
everything we read in it as essentially as found in the Bible today:

¤ Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is Lord _ Mark 1:1.

¤ Jesus Christ was crucified, died and rose again_Mark 14-16.

¤ In both the OT and NT the Messiah is called "God" - Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1.

All these were already well known and preached from the very earliest days of Christianity - even before
Paul was commissioned as an apostle! A few centuries later, an Arab from the Quraish tribe receives some
'visions/revelations' purporting that he has been sent as the last prophet by the same God who 'sent down'
the Gospel to Jesus. And yet, while the Qur'an was first "confirming" the same Gospel that called Jesus the
Christ "the Son of God", Muhammad was busy seeking ways to deny what he said he had received from the
angel and by 'revelation'!

Well, Dave. . . the thing is that there are plenty of examples of people marrying young, and plenty of others who took
child brides. I had hoped that Logical would provide me with good answers in my enquiries earlier, not because I was
unaware of the fact; but because I wanted to persuade him to see that the practice of child brides is unethical in the
case of a "Prophet" who claimed to have done his by 'revelation'. In another thread, he referenced the case of Fatima
(Muhammad's daughter) who got married to Imam Ali (Muhammad's cousin) - and he called that: "to name just a few".

Point noted; but what I can't get is that Aisha was married off to the "Prophet" at such a tender age (as she testified
herself) - and without her express consent; and yet, when it came to the "Prophet's" own daughter, he didn't just do
the same thing by snatching her hand and giving her off to his cousin, Ali. First, he embarrassed others who had come
seeking Fatima's hand in marriage (they were just his 'companions' and not related to him); but in Ali's case - you just
wait to read the story! E plenty, no be small! As time permits, I'll arrange some on the Forum - if you've not read them
already. The difference is that while Aisha is often reported to have been married off to the 'Prophet' at 6 yrs of age,
the same Prophet waited until his daughter Fatima was 9 yrs of age before he gave her to his cousin. So, for once, I'll
concede that ajia23 made some good sense that he would not just follow dogma and give out his 6 y.o. to some man
nearly 10 times her age.

@abdul fata,

There are other run-away statements you made that I must address, especially those bogus statements of denial of texts in
the Bible; and those about early Church history about Paul and Irenaus. It doesn't matter whether you choose to come in as
"abdul fata" or "QuranSearc" or yet another ID/username. The point is that, even though you don't agree with Christianity at
all, at least I beg you to quote the texts as they appear, and tell history as it is rather than re-casting it. You would not want
to gravely disappoint your brethren as someone representing Muslim apologetics skilled in misrepresenting issues. Following
that, I think you'd have to come back and do some serious explaining about some of the things you posted on this thread, as
Davidylan has suggested - so as to minimise the serious embarrassments you cause your religion.

@abdul fata,

As concerning the second part of your assertion:

abdul fata:
Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).

Did you read a magazine or what? Let me quote you a few texts you again conveniently avoided in your pursuit to hold this
weak allegation:

Question 1: Did Jesus ask people to believe in Him for salvation?

Answer: Yes indeed, He invited His listeners to believe in and have faith in Him in precisely the way anyone would believe
in God for salvation:

(a) "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me". (John 14:1).

(b) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - that was Jesus speaking in that verse).

(c) "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 6:29).
He clearly was referring to Himself as the One in whom men should believe.

(d) "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the
Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast
both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." (John 9:35-38 ).
Notice that this man both believed in and worshipped Jesus, and yet He did not refuse worship in this instance or when
His disciples did so at another time in Matt. 14:33.

So where did you get your information that Jesus specifically did NOT say, or that He even denied/refuted that men should
believe in Him or that He would die for their sins?

Question 2: Did Jesus say He would die for sins?

Answer: Yes, He did also! No less than twice we read of Jesus clearly teaching His disciples beforehand that He would be
condemned by the chief priests and put to death (see Mark 9:31; and 10:32-34) and it happened precisely as He'd forewarned
them (Mark 14:64 and Luke 24:20). This is the very thing that Islam denies because Muhammad had no answers for the sins of
his own heart and conscience. Fact is, no matter how many times anyone wishes him peace and prayers (PBUH, ASW/SAW, etc),
it will avail Muhammad nothing as long as he denied the very sacrifice that was to have cleansed his heart and given him the gift
of eternal life in Jesus Christ. (Sorry, I don't mean to be derisive - but that is as plainly as I can state it).

It was not until after His resurrection that Jesus taught the disciples the implication of His death and resurrection, because up until
before the crucixion, they did not really understand the Scriptures relating to that event, even though some of the OT prophecies
had mentioned it, such as Isaiah 53. So, after He rose from the dead, this is what He told the disciples: "And said unto them, Thus
it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission
of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luk 24:46-47 ). Before then, He had indicated
as well in the Supper that His blood would be shed for the remission of sins: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28 ).

Not only did Jesus declare His death to be for the remission of sin, but the apostles taught the same thing as He had
instructed them by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - that Jesus' death was indeed to be preached to the whole world
for remission of sins and for salvation (few examples - John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; and Rev. 1:5). Again, Isaiah 53
prophesied centuries earlier that Jesus' suffering and death would be a sacrifice for sin:

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was
upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. . . for the transgression of my people was he stricken. . . Yet it pleased
the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin. . . for he shall
bear their iniquities. . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors"
(see Isa. 53:5, 8,10-12).

Among other things, Jesus' death was to atone for sin and He said so Himself, thus fulfilling the OT Scriptures, just as
He taught His disciples from the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). There is an abundance of
texts in the OT and NT showing that Jesus' death was a sacrifice for sins, and I'm baffled at how you could have missed
that at all - unless again, you conveniently adopted the Islamic stereotype of quoting the Bible as cosmetic for your weak
arguments, albeit sadly, you misapplied the texts you quoted.

@abdul fata,

First of all, I asked you a few questions earlier - none of which you addressed in your subsequent posts. The next thing was that
you came back in desperation to post more brouhaha. So, let me continue here with what again you missed in your "study of the
Christian scriptures."

abdul fata:
4.
Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity
Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).

Pardon me, but it's almost hilarious that your poor scholarship could be so glaring as to make one wonder if you had been reading
another book than the Bible itself. First, Jesus did not "Refute even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity" - and I've shown earlier
how that stands in the Bible where you conveniently avoided those texts in which He indeed established His divinity on a number of
occasions. Notice that your complaint about Matthew 19:16-17 does not suggest at all that Jesus was refuting His divinity, for the
man asking the question simply opened with "Good Master." It's interesting that Jesus did not refute His being called "Master" in
those verses, because He had already declared His Lordship as well the fact He was "Master" in John 13:13 - do you deny that?

Jesus was forcing the enquirer to open up to his own assumptions - which is characteristic of His ministry. In effect, He was pointing
out to the man that if he really acknowledged Him as the "Good Master", then He ought to recognise the import of his confession -
that there was none good but God. Therefore, since there was none good but God, was the enquirer equally ready to recognise and
acknowledge Jesus as the "Good Master"? Notice that Jesus did not at all imply that He was refuting His divinity - He did not say, -
"I am NOT God!" Rather, He would leave enquirers in His day to discover, recognize and acknowledge His deity/divinity by faith, and
this was consistent all through His ministry. Let me demonstrate another example of this trait in Jesus' life and ministry:

Earlier, He had asked His disciples, "Who do men say that I the son of man am?" The answers pointed to just one thing: the
crowd saw Him as merely "one of the Prophets!" Then He focused on His own disciples and asked again:  "But whom say
ye that I am?" Peter answered: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" Question: why didn't Jesus refute or deny Peter's confession?
Rather, He went on to acknowledge that very confession as a revelation from only the Father and not from men (Matt. 16:13-17).

Now my dear friend, Peter's confession as the very foundation upon which Jesus would build His Church (verse 18). Then notice
the very next thing that did occur: "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ"
(verse 20). Question: was Jesus refuting even the 'remotest suggestion' that He was the Christ? If He ever was doing that,
then by admittance of any Muslim, the Qur'an was wrong in referring to Jesus as the Messiah/Christ (see Sura 3:45), and that
would obviously mean the testimony of the Qur'an is not to be trusted.

But if on the other hand, Jesus is actually the Christ, why then would He charge His own disciples not to tell any man that He
was, in fact, the Christ? Again, just as is consistent with His ministry, one may know Him as "Jesus"; but it takes faith and
God-given revelation to see that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." This ties in with His open declaration earlier in
the same  Matthew that "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father,
and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt. 11:27). Follow the
sequence in Matthew's account - you can't miss this point, since your complaint is in the same Matthew, chapter 19. You
can't confess one and leave the other - for Jesus is both Christ and Son of God!

So, to the ordinary man and those who would prefer to base their faith on "logic" (in the grand idea that the Qur'an is
based on 'logic'), the revelation of Jesus as Christ will continue to elude all such until they abandon their 'logic' and come
to Him by faith. That is what the Qur'an and Muhammad missed out, and Islamic scholars have continued to miss this
revelation on the simple premise that the Qur'an lacks a true revelation from God. It's not surprising therefore that modern
Islamic thinking is desperately seeking to "prove" that Muhammad and Islam were "prophesied" in the Bible! We read in
another place when the maddening crowd asked Jesus to tell them if He was the Christ: "Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he
said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe" (Luke 22:67). They had eyes but couldn't see, and ears that couldn't hear;
so He let them make a choice - either they acknowledged Him as Christ by faith, or He would not tell them what they already
knew and refused to believe.

It is in this same setting that He quizzed the enquirer in Matt. 19:16-17 - "Why callest thou me good?" This is not to be
misconstrued as a refutation of His divinity at all; and it was not meant to refute that Jesus was actually the "Good Master"!
Rather, He was urging the enquirer to open up to his assumptions and truly acknowledge Him for whom he called Him:
"Good Master." In the same way, if Muslims are saying that Jesus is the Christ, one day He is going to ask them:

"Why callest ye Me the 'Christ' if ye were unwilling to truly acknowledge the meaning of what ye confess?"

Ask yourself a simple question here: what is the purpose of the Qur'an acknowledging that Jesus is the "Messiah" if the
'Allah' of Islam does not want you to believe in Jesus as such? Is such a confession not meaningless and empty Islamic
dogma if Jesus is merely the Messiah by name and not by deeds, words and Person?

Continuing. . .

The important questions that can help you about the essence of Christ's Person is not whether or not He explicitly said:
"I am God" or "worship me" or any such, as if to put words in His mouth. Rather, it would be more helpful to ask the
following:

   # What is the meaning of "Son of God" and "Lord" as used of Jesus in the Scriptures?

   # Did Jesus ever deny worship, Lordship or deity ascribed to Him in the Bible?

   # Where in the Bible did Jesus place Himself on the same level as God/Divinity?

   # If Jesus therefore declared His divine Sonship, what implications was He pointing to thereby?

The interesting thing is that not one verse indicates that Jesus refuted worship or deity ascribed to Him. In just the same way as
Jesus never uttered explicitly that "I am God", so He [u]never[/] said "I am NOT God!" At least, when John the Baptist was questioned,
he clearly refuted any notion that he was the Christ: "And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ." (John 1:20).
If Jesus was not Who the Bible said He was and is, then in a similar way, we could have read this same refutation when He was
asked by the same class of Jewish priests before whom He stood on trial and was condemned in Mark 14 - for openly confessing:
"I am" when He was asked, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (verses 61-62). We see clearly that by His admittance,
He wanted everyone present to hear it from His lips: He was the Son of God - just as He had openly declared earlier before His
arrest in John 10:36. Nowhere do you read of Jesus refuting or denying His divine Sonship.

In the same vein, He did not deny, reject nor refute worship at anytime. As a matter of fact, we've read in one text referenced
earlier that the disciples came to worship Him and also confessed Him as the 'Son of God' (Matt. 14:33). Notice also that when
Thomas confessed Him as "My Lord and my God", Jesus did not rebuke him for that; rather, he further strengthened his faith all
the more by His response (John 20:28-29). Before even He was crucified, Jesus already declared His Lordship to the disciples in
John 13:13 - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am". Does that sound like He denied Who He was?

Now what do all these point to - what's their conclusive inference? Without prejudice, Jesus wanted to reveal His deity/divinity to
those who were willing to discover it for themselves by faith in Him. This is why He had openly announced that, "All things are
delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Matt. 11:27). This is the one reason why you don't find Him going about bragging
around that "I am God - worship me!" In fact, if He had done that, He would have contradicted the OT prophecies that declared the
submissive, gentle and meek character of the Messiah, who would not go about raising His voice in the streets or market place with
such bragado (see, for example, Isaiah 42:1-2). If Muslims want to know the Living Saviour - the very Christ that Muhammad missed
- there's only one way to do so: by faith and humility of mind. And I pray they do come to know Him!

All this lead to just one thing: if Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord of the universe, He was clearly claiming deity and inviting
worship of both angels and men. That is why He said with His own mouth that men should ascribe equal honour to Him as they did to
the Father: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father.
Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." (John 5:23). Those who say that this honour Jesus was
speaking of just means the honour given to a prophet, should realise that if that were the case, then they are saying that Jesus was
asking people to give the honour of a prophet to the Father as if the Father was a prophet! Please!! Jesus in that verse unequivocally
declared that all men are to honour Him in the same way that they honoured the Father - nothing more and nothing less!

He went further to invite men to have faith in Him in just the same way that they believe in God: "Let not your heart be
troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me." (John 14:1). It resonates with the prophecies of the OT about Him, that
He is the Saviour and infact the divine Son in whom the people would trust (see Psa. 2:12 - "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,
and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him".

Even in the Revelation, Jesus Himself used the very title that is used by God for Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and
my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,
the first and the last." (Rev. 22:12-13 ).

There's only one way your "study of the Christian Scriptures" could have failed to see all these texts about Jesus' deity/divinity -
you conveniently avoided them for the simple reason that they are the very text that Muslims are trained to avoid, as all your
arguments and attempts to strip Jesus of the essential confession of His deity are deflated and rubbished by them. If Muslims
are really sincere in quoting the Bible to acknowledge what Jesus says about Himself and His mission in some texts, that sincerity
should extend as well to acknowledging that Jesus made those other statements that point to His divinity. Quoting a few texts
here and there in strong belief that Jesus made the statements in those Biblical texts for His Humanity, while ignoring the others
where He made equally valid and explicit statements pointing to His Deity/Divinity, is at best quintessentially sloppy scholarship.

So, your assertion that "Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity" is both bogus and empty as far as you're ignoring the very
texts that show where He verily claimed divinity by Himself.

And so. . .

(d) Jesus explicitly declared He was the Son of God
First, at the discourse on salvation with Nicodemus: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).

Next, in His encounter with the Jewish leaders of His day: "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent
into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:36).

Then at His trial before the Jewish high priest of His day:  "But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high
priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see
the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62).

(e) Even demons whom He cast out cried out in confessing His deity:
"And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment
us before the time?" (Matt. 8:29). "And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God.
And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ." (Luke 4:41).

(f) The Disciples Worshipped Jesus and Confessed Him as the Son
Notice Jesus didn't stop the disciples when they offered Him worship - which is clearly a pointer that He wanted them
to discover for themselves that He truly was the divine Son: "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him,
saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." (Matt. 14:33).

(g) The Jeering Crowd acknowledged that Jesus Called Himself The Son
If Jesus never said He was the Son of God (John 10:36), where did the crowd get this from when they accused Him of having
said that? "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God" (Matt. 27:43).

(h) The Centurion Also Acknowledged His Deity
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done,
they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." (Matt. 27:54). Is it just a passing event for a menacing soldier
who stands ready as His own executioner to turn round and confess the very thing for which He hung condemned on the Cross?

I could go on and on to furnish you more than a dozen other texts that you conveniently avoided from the Gospels alone - the
same Gospels that the Qur'an endorsed as having been sent down by Allah - establishing the deity/divinity of Jesus Christ. From
the above so far, the following are obvious: Jesus is both Christ, Son of God, and Lord!

This brings us to a very important question: what then is the meaning of "Son of God" and "Lord" as used for Jesus in the
Scriptures you had purportedly "studied"? There is no other way to see them than that they pointed to His deity! The weakness
of your sloppy treatise is that you concentrated on those texts declaring both the humanity of Christ and His loving subjection to
the Father's will. He is the divine Son who in the full display of divine grace assumed the place of the divine Servant for our sakes;
and as such He was often heard referring to Himself as both the Son of Man and Son of God. At least, if you are happy to
acknowledge His perfect Humanity from the Christian Scriptures, what's your dread in acknowldeging His Divinity from the same
Christian Scriptures you alluded to having studied?

@abdul fata, (or QuranSearc - whichever you choose)

Allow me to walk you through your assumptions and point out where you made a few slips.

Position of Jesus (peace be on him) in Islam:
(iii)
We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe.
(iv) 
We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).

No true Christian who knows the Bible denies the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus Christ. And if Muslims
actually believe that Jesus was the Messiah (translated "Christ", why then is it such a marvel that you can't trust
Him for whom you acknowledge He is? This is the reason why we are persuaded that the Jesus of Islam is not the
Christ of the Bible as far as Muslims believe that He was the Messiah and still can't see Him as the Saviour of their
souls.

Muhammad got his idea of "Messiah" from Chrisianity as he was familiar with the Ebionites of his day. Even so, the
meaning of Messiah as used of Jesus in the Bible, (especially in the Gospel that the Qur'an "confirmed" as having
been sent down from Allah) is none other than the Saviour. It's a joke for anyone to miss the real essence 'Messiah'
as pointing to no other meaning than 'the Saviour' in the Bible:

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matt. 1:16).

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matt. 1:21).

"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias,  which is, being interpreted,
the Christ." (John 1:41).

Jesus = Christ = Saviour, and if Muslims believe that He is the Messiah, then there should be no problem believing
that He is the Saviour, otherwise that Muslim belief is simply cosmetic.

CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY:
1.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity
 
One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christians’ insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh). A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, "I am God" or where he says, "worship me". In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh)

You are absolutely correct in your analysis as to the difference between Islam and Christianity; but note well: Christians
are not the ones insisting on the "supposed divinity of Christ." You had offered 'a study of the Christian scriptures', but
you had cleverly avoided some explicit texts in the same scriptures that deflate your denials of Jesus' deity. Note the
following in the Christian Scriptures where the divinity/deity of Jesus are established:

(a) The angel that announced His Conception called Him the Son of God:
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).

(b) The angel who spread the news of His birth called Him 'Lord':
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11).

(c) The Father called Jesus His Beloved Son
This happened twice: first, at the baptism (Matt. 3:17) and at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5) "This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" is the declaration of the Father (compare with the testimony of Peter who
was an eyewitness of the event in 2 Peter 1:17 - "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there
came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased).


Continues shortly.

First, many thanks to TayoD, Davidylan, syrup, and others who've helped provide good
answers to some of the issues raised by our Muslim friends. Where necessary, I'll try to
add a few more lines to clarify other matters and strengthen the gist of my arguments
that follow subsequently. The new Muslim entrants have made some surprising yellow-
card posts that require some very important attention, and no "maradona" is going to
be tolerated in this matter, especially because abdul fata has fatalistically introduced a
new wave of twisting the records and posting them as "research". He really needs to
come back and do some serious explanations, as davidylan has said.

As for ajia23, common sense should have returned sanity to your talk, unless you have a
natural gift for blowing hot, empty air. You don't throw words as "hypocrisy" carelessly at
other discussants unless you want them to point out your own rascality. You have a fine
way of advising others without heeding your own advice, such as the line of caution you
gave to QuranSearc:

"I must also advice you to tread carefully because subtle personal attacks are also a trick
employed to get you off track and allow them to avoid the contentious issue and instead
look for appelations that support their stereotypes."

I really applaud that; albeit sadly, you characteristically are first to launch personal attacks
as tricks employed to veer a discourse off track so you can buy a cheap leeway out of the
contentious issues that inform your Islamic stereotype. What you really don't see and can't
come to terms with in your Islamic imbroglio is what informed Christians will continue to
tender at your tuff. You could do either of two things: calm down and engage in dialogue
without the usual sly remarks, derision and/or invectives; or, continue to spin more spider
webs. Like I said, this time around, I refuse to iggy your use of such until you wake up and
act like the gentleman you pretend to persuade your Muslim brethren that you are.

Now, which one is it - abdul fata or QuranSearc? Could I lump both usernames just
incase you forgot your password; or because my response to your reposting of Dr. Gary
Miller's was alarming enough to bring you round to a desperate corner that you had to
device a new user ID? I don't see how ajia23 could be thanking abdul fata, and
QuranSearc could be acknowledging the thanks and taking cheap glory at wasted sweat.

Anyhow, I'll outline a few things that you missed, so dress warm, or remove your shirt to sweat
some more. At any rate, ajia23 has thrown out both a warning and an advice to you; problem is
that he rarely takes his own advice and returns with more desperations than reason allows.

@Rev.

Oh, keep guessing. When you've run out of jokes, cry out to your dad.

@onfire,

onfire:
1 corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her HAIR is giving her for a COVERING.

1 Cor. 11:6 - So if a woman doesn't cover her head, she should cut off her hair.
If it's a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, she should
cover her head.

1 Cor. 11:10 - Therefore, a woman should WEAR SOMETHING on her head to
show she is under someone's authority, out of respect FOR THE ANGELS.

Ha, I care about what people say about me anywhere, anytime - whether
they are my family, friends, colleagues at work, neighbours. . . or even
those on Nairaland - and it can be good or bad, it just all depends on what
they talking about.

I've come to appreciate people telling me the truth about me so I can have
a chance of improving myself where I fall short. What could I have ever done
if not for my mates who warned me about my lousy mouth - and I got the
sack twice before my present job; so I've learnt, and I'm thankful.

I've also come to appreciate my ex-girlfriend's "counsel" (more like warnings
and threats actually), which I never took seriously until she vamoosed outa
my (formerly) sick life! Well, . . . uhm, I'm thankful all the same

Hey dad and mum - you're great, so I owe you a space here (whenever you
get to read them!). Just want to say, Dad, those things I did that made you
almost kick me in the wrong place. . . let's laugh it off, abeg! Mama, you're
just the greatest (I'll make up for those hard times this your stubborn pickin
gave you, trust me!).

And if there's anything else, I don't give %#%]. . . no, that's not me -
I don't use that lingo anymore. But really, I have learnt not to take seriously
anything false that people say about me, and even though some of those
things hurt, I just know now how to smile and let them trouble themselves
with the gossip.

Ehen?? This guy who was beautiful and consequently hideous after his fall -

- the same guy whom we shall narrowly look upon and wonder about all his
brouhaha in making the earth to tremble and shaking kingdoms (Isa. 14:16)

- this fellow who was defeated on the Cross as he watched the Son of God
being nailed there by those whom he had instigated for that act (Acts 2:23)

- the old grump who doesn't know what image to bear but goes about like
a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (I Pet. 5:8 ). . .

- you mean the same fellow who was called the "great dragon" and that old
serpent, the Devil and Satan? (Rev. 12:9)

. . . beautiful he may be, but he's both baaaaddddd and hideous, no - ugly,
mba - I mean, he's uuggggggglllllyyyyyy!! Son of the morning he once was;
but ever since he got thrown out of heaven like lightning, he's always and
ever operated in darkness. Nevermind that he transforms or disguises as an
angel of light, the disguise will wear off soon.

Let's not forget that the guy is musical as well - you can't outdo his rhythm
and beat.







Nice one, Drusilla