₦airaland Forum

tithe and offering inside bus 

the preacher is smart the givers are stupid and silly

if he was begging that is a different ball-game.

that shows the gullibility of people

firstly Mr Focused I apologise for stating that you were intoxicated but what you posted is a trash

Dear Cgift
America was not, is not and will never be a christian country.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


RELIGION
An Overview
Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
  Scholarly Commentary .--The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ''the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,'' 6 looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ''The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.'' 7   
''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9   
This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12   
  Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion .--Before considering the development of the two religion clauses by the Supreme Court, one should notice briefly the tests developed by which religion cases are adjudicated by the Court. While later cases rely on a series of rather well-defined, if difficult-to-apply, tests, the language of earlier cases ''may have [contained] too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases but have limited meaning as general principles.'' 13 It is well to recall that ''the purpose [of the religion clauses] was to state an objective, not to write a statute.'' 14   
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.
Although at one time accepted in principle by all of the Justices, 23 the tests have sometimes been difficult to apply, 24 have recently come under direct attack by some Justices, 25 and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by the Court. 26 While continued application is uncertain, the Lemon tests nonetheless have served for twenty years as the standard measure of Establishment Clause validity and explain most of the Court's decisions in the area. 27 As of the end of the Court's 1991-92 Term, there was not yet a consensus among Lemon critics as to what substitute test should be favored. 28 Reliance on ''coercion'' for that purpose would eliminate a principal distinction between establishment cases and free exercise cases and render the Establishment Clause largely duplicative of the Free Exercise Clause. 29   
Justice O'Connor has suggested that it is inappropriate to try to shoehorn all Establishment cases into one test, and has called instead for recognition that different contexts may call for different approaches. Supp.1 For example, the Justice proposes that cases involving government ''speech'' on religious topics be judged by an endorsement test that would invalidate government actions only if a reasonable observer would perceive the action as an endorsement or disapproval of religious belief. Supp.2   
Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .--One value that both clauses of the religion section serve is to enforce governmental neutrality in deciding controversies arising out of religious disputes. Schism sometimes develops within churches or between a local church and the general church, resulting in secession or expulsion of one faction or of the local church. A dispute over which body is to have control of the property of the church will then often be taken into the courts. It is now established that both religion clauses prevent governmental inquiry into religious doctrine in settling such disputes, and instead require courts simply to look to the decision-making body or process in the church and to give effect to whatever decision is officially and properly made.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

focused you can be serious at all.
your name does not depict what is coming from you. you must have been intoxicated when typing that trash you posted.

What Would You Substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide?
by Robert G. Ingersoll
**** ****

YOU ask me what I would "substitute for the Bible as a moral guide."

I know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral guide and believe that in that book only can be found the true and perfect standard of morality.

There are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good regulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad precepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel laws.

But we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many books written centuries apart, and that it in part represents the growth and tells in part the history of a people. We must also remember. that the writers treat of many subjects. Many of these writers have nothing to say about right or wrong, about vice or virtue.

The book of Genesis has nothing about morality. There is not a line in it calculated to shed light on the path of conduct. No one can call that book a moral guide. It is made up of myth and miracle, of tradition and legend.

In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage.

We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the entire story is a fiction. We know this, because there is not found in Hebrew a word of Egyptian origin, and there is not found in the language of the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. This being so, we know that the Hebrews and Egyptians could not have lived together for hundreds of years.

Certainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that book you cannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of fact, Jehovah was a believer in that institution.

The killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the first-born, so that in every house was death, because the king refused to let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was fiendish. The writer of that book regarded all the people of Egypt, their children, their flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh, and these people and these cattle were killed, not because they had done anything wrong, but simply for the purpose of punishing the king. Is it possible to get any morality out of this history?

All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so far as they are really good and sensible, were at that time in force among all the peoples of the world.

Murder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as long as a majority of people object to being murdered.

Industry always has been and always will be the enemy of larceny.

The nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth and despises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, truth- telling has been considered a virtue and false swearing or false speaking a vice.

The love of parents for children is natural, and this love is found among all the animals that live. So the love of children for parents is natural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love does not spring from a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience to commands.

So men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books or creeds.

All the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the result of experience. The commandments that were original with Jehovah were foolish.

The worship of "any other God" could not have been worse than the worship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd than the sacredness of the Sabbath.

If commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy, against wars of invasion and extermination, against religious persecution in all its forms, so that the world could be free, so that the brain might be developed and the heart civilized, then we might, with propriety, call such commandments a moral guide.

Before we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments constitute a moral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw away some, and write others in their places.

The commandments that have a known application here, in this world, and treat of human obligations are good, the others have no basis in fact, or experience.

Many of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.

The entire ceremonial of worship is insane.

Most of the punishment for violations of laws are unphilosophic and brutal. . . . The fact is that the Pentateuch upholds nearly all crimes, and to call it a moral guide is as absurd as to say that it is merciful or true.

Nothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or Judges. These books are filled with crimes, with massacres and murders. They are about the same as the real history of the Apache Indians.

The story of Ruth is not particularly moral.

In first and second Samuel there is not one word calculated to develop the brain or conscience.

Jehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David took a census of the people. David, according to the account, was the guilty one, but only the innocent were killed.

In first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical value. All the kings who refused to obey the priests were denounced, and all the crowned wretches who assisted the priests, were declared to be the favorites of Jehovah. In these books there cannot be found one word in favor of liberty.

There are some good Psalms, and there are some that are infamous. Most of these Psalms are selfish. Many of them are passionate appeals for revenge.

The story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this book there is some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but the story of this drama called Job, is heart-less to the last degree. The children of Job are murdered to settle a little wager between God and the Devil. Afterward, Job having remained firm, other children are given in the place of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is done for the children who were murdered.

The book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only redeeming feature in the book is that the name of Jehovah is not mentioned.

I like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human love, and that is something I can understand. That book in my judgment is worth all the ones that go before it, and is a far better moral guide.

There are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are selfish and some are flat and commonplace.

I like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find some sense, some poetry, and some philosophy. Take away the interpolations and it is a good book.

Of course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make men better, nothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated to lessen vice, and only a few passages in Isaiah that can be used in a good cause.

In Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.

In some of the minor prophets there is now and then a good verse, now and then an elevated thought.

You can, by selecting passages from different books, make a very good creed, and by selecting passages from different books, you can make a very bad creed.

The trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its disposition, its temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The most fiendish things are commanded, commended and applauded.

The stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel and Gideon, and of many others, are hideous; hellish.

On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral guide.

Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked all the virtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never faithfully kept a promise.

At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a natural production, that it was written by savages who were slowly crawling toward the light. We must give them credit for the noble things they said, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even their crimes.

I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.
I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we take from that book the dogmas, of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that Poverty is a preparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral guide, -- narrow, but moral.

Of course, many important things would be left out. You would have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.

On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.

If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.

It may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.

Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.

The Bible is not a moral guide.

Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of society and will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.
What is morality?

In this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are exposed to many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides these wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger of the mind.

We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon conditions. There are certain things that diminish, certain things that increase, well-being. There are certain things that destroy and there are others that preserve.

Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is good, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.

What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible answer is one word: Intelligence.

We want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. We want the history of intellectual development, of the growth of the ethical, of the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of self-denial. We want to know the paths and roads that have been traveled by the human mind.

These facts in general, these histories in outline, the results reached, the conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken together, would form the best conceivable moral guide.

[b]We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.

These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles. is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue.

All "inspired books," teaching that what the supernatural commands is right, and right because commanded, and that what the supernatural prohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are absurdly unphilosophic.

And all "inspired books," teaching that only those who obey the commands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous, and that unquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are grossly immoral. [/b]
Again I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide.


Ingersoll is awesome

Ascony you are welcome to the feast

why the CAPITAL?

Ascony:
@ IDINRETE
dude you are amazing!

i don't understand what you mean. are for me or against me?

that is a task for you to decipher,  at least i have given you a clue.

Ascony you atheist hmmmmmm

any homage to Robert Ingersoll yet?

Ascony:
Hmmmm , A WORLD WIDE BAN ON BIBLES? THAT WILL BE THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT THAT WOULD EVER BE MADE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. ITS HIGH TIME WE DO AWAY WITH THAT SILLY OLD BOOK. A BOOK THAT IS FULL OF ERRORS, FALLACIES AND OUTREGEOUS FLAWS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, LET ALONE ALLOWING IT TO ENDURE MORE FURTHER. IF YOU HAVE STUDIED THE BIBLE VERY WELL, You WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A BOOK THAT MUST BE BANNED.

dude you are amazing! 

Backslider:
When they kill the Millitants the demon in them will come and posses another person.

men backslider of all your comments in this forum this is the most hilarious,
i think you have a latent  gift of comedy in you

Horus and Pilgrim where did you get or take those pictures? men! it looks like scary

Monday, October 8, 2007  PUNCH NEWSPAPER

Supreme Court okays death sentences on two Islamic militants

By Tobi Soniyi, Abuja

The Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentences passed on two Islamic militants, Abubakar Dan Shalla and Musa Yaro, who in company of others, slaughtered another Muslim for allegedly insulting Prophet Muhammed.


In two judgments delivered on Friday, a panel of five justices of the court, comprising Justices Sylvester Onu, Adesola Oguntade, Mariam Mukhtar, Walter Onnoghen, and Tanko Muhammad, unanimously turned down the appeal of two out of the six militants who killed the deceased, Alhaji Abdullar Umaru.

The event leading to the killing took place on July 14, 1999 in Randali Village in Kebbi State.

According to the lead judgment delivered by Justice Oguntade, on that fateful day, word went round that Umaru had insulted Prophet Muhammed, which made some militants, including the two condemned persons, pass judgment on him that he must die.

They went to the village where the deceased was, arrested him and slaughtered him by slicing his throat.

“As adherents to the teachings of the Holy Quran, the appellant and the other accused persons accepted that they had a duty to kill the deceased as contained in the Holy Quoran.”

They were consequently arrested and arraigned before a high court in Birnin-Kebbi on a three-count charge of criminal conspiracy, abatement and culpable homicide. This is contrary to sections 97, 85 and 22 (a) of the Penal Code.

When the trial commenced, the six accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges even though they admitted to killing the deceased.

They were accordingly found guilty and sentenced to death on January 19, 2000 by the trial court.

According to Justice Oguntade, “The manner in which the appellant and the other accused persons behaved during their trial by not calling evidence to deny the allegations against them, and by admitting that they killed the deceased show without doubt that they laboured under a notion that they had a duty under Islamic injunction to kill the deceased.” They were convicted and sentenced to death. Two of the six convicts appealed to the Court of Appeal and lost.

They again appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the defence of justification and provocation should have availed them.

In rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court noted that the insulting words allegedly uttered by the deceased were not stated to enable the trial judge to know that they were capable of provoking the convicts and justifying their actions.

Justice Oguntade said, “In the circumstances of this case, since the trial court was not told the words alleged to have been uttered by the deceased or the act he did which were contrary to the injunction of Islam as contained in the Holy Quran, and which justified his killing, the trial court could not be criticised for not engaging in a futile speculation.

“In any case, even on the assumption, (although without proof), that the deceased had in some way done any thing or uttered any word which was considered insulting to the Holy Prophet Mohammed, was it open to the appellant and others with him to constitute themselves into a court of law to pronounce the death sentence on another citizen?

“Plainly, this was jungle justice at its most primitive and callous level.

“The facts of this case are rather chilling and leave one wondering why the appellant and others with him committed this most barbaric act.”

http://odili.net/news/source/2007/oct/8/413.html

With regards to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in my own opinion I dislike and abhor any form of capital punishment, nobody or any institution has the hegemony to take the life of another human being [except in self defence]

On the militants, I cannot just fathom why people will go to the extreme of defending their faith  by slaughtering another human being just because someone pass an insulting comment. In this matter the victim was even a muslim. What a babaric and bestial act.

what is going on inside the heads and minds of all these bloodthirsty fiends called extremists? I mean extremists in all religious persuasion.

I cannot understand this madness and insanity all in the name of defending a religion.

can the moslems please clarify whether it is contained or written in the quran that it is a duty to kill just because someone pass an insulting comment on mohammed.

nwando:
The crusaders fought against oppression by Islam.
Go read the books.
They gave an eye for an eye just like the touts in Onitsha did after Igbos were killed in the north.
They didn't take up arms unprovoked.
Then again wasn't the crusades way back in the 15 or 16th century.
How much longer before Islam shades it's violent ways?
shall we wait another 700 years for them to catch on?

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article.
CATHOLIC ENYCLOPAEDIA

did the other infidels oppressed christianity or chritendom?

why not the wisdom of solomon? 

so you think the wisdom of Kongi surpasses that of mr randy en

@focused

FYI USA is not a christian state either 

according to Kuns, dont beleive me do your research

focused:
Take a look at this so called Islamic religion and what it has done to the African continent.

First, this Satanic Arab butchers came to Northern Africa, conquer the continent, kills all the black people, occupy their land, turn it to an Arabic land, they also force others to accept this satanic religion and then they spread to other parts of Africa.

Otherwise, why would someone in his right frame of mind, want to practise Sharia law and they want people in the Southern part of Nigeria to work and pay tax which the federal government, will give to their demonic governors as budget.

Enough is enough, we have to eradicate this satanic religion from the African continent, if we really want peace to reign, and if we want to progress and if we want God to bless the continent.

They claim to worshiping god and they practise all sorts of witchcraft including worshipping moon and using their so called quran for all manner of demonic purposes.

They also carry out all manner of demonic sacrifices.

So you think that only Islam is demonic and satanic, you need to study History and  learn about all the atrocities commited by the Christian Religion on African Continent and in the rest of the world.
yes you are right enough is enough, we have to eradicate all satanic religion from the African continent especially those that are intolerant to Indigenous African belief systems if we really want peace to reign; and if we want to progress.

focused said
"Why would the Northern muslims prefer going to learn Arabic than going to proper school ? Knowing fully well that Arabic language is not their mothers tongue."

why would you as a southerner or whatever , erner christian you are, preferred to go and learn English?
definitely you are oblivious to the fact that arabic is being studied in proper schools and in institutions of higher learning.

Mr focused you need to focus on the fact that english is not your mother toungue
could you please tell the forum what is your own mother tongue!? 

Dios, these people will send hired internet-cyber killers to you soon o -watch your back!

uspry1:
There is No Comparison which one is better than this or that!!!

One God! One Holy Spirit! One Father we all have the same SPIRIT everywhere in the world!!! Forget it about the wording "religion"!

Do you familiar with the story of the Tower of Babel where everyone everywhere has spoken only one language to share as unity together before God angered to punish them?

I think it is all crap and horseshit

Backslider:
This confirms that the resurrected Jesus Knew but could not tell. but the Jesus the son of Man and Son of God did not know because this made him total man and total God. Jesus as a man Could not tell the Disciples.

jesus the son of man and son of god
total man and total god

these are incompatible statements and preposterous
how do you reconcile these utter absurdities?

how can he be son of man at the same time son of god?
how can he be total man and total god?

men! you biologist, evolutionist,scientist,avianist et al are something

quite intriguing!,

MisterMan:
I no gree. This one na: Out of the understanding of the bible, the mouth speaks. I go come that your UK give u konk for head

Read what the apostle said. You will know that he recommended it. I can bet it with u, if he had his way, he would not recommend but make it compulsory

then you will be charged with assault and battery, you try it

Dios Dios Dios

stingersmi:
Thw almighty GOD of course. The one who made heaven and earth

which almighty God?

All the Gods I have listed are separate and distinct from each other and are almighty in all of the different Religions.

stingersmi:
There are many churches that exsists !
Infact by my street they are about eleven! , All they preach is healing and tithe!!!
Is things meant to be like this and why?

I need to know

and the world is coming to an end

stingersmi:
God were are u?
And why do u let your people to suffer especially the Good ones?

which God are you referring to? Yahweh,Allah, Chi, Olorun, Mawu, e.t.c

Dios:
wtf

Dios, take it easy abeg o

@ adekennis

do you think comparing the picture with Soyinka in a comical manner is funny, what would you do if Soyinka were to be your father?

false

she has also been rebutted

Infidel where are you? 

she will probably lose her life, BUT the TRUTH shall never be LOST