₦airaland Forum

danwo: @Kay 17

"For though Yahweh is high, yet he looks after the lowly; but the proud, he knows from afar." - Psalm 138:6

It is true God is above the "Rule" however God is humble

With you it might be different because pride possibly might prevent you from doing what God did.

Remember that humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less

God thought of Himself less and so was humble enough to forgo any special right, advantage or immunity from the "Rule".

Thinking of man, He unceremoniously came down to earth, became the new template and sacrifice.

Ok, you have a point, God can decide to abide to his rules to show an example, however Jesus' sacrifice wasn't NECESSARY cos that's wasn't the only option for an omnipotent God.

danwo: @Kay 17

I intend no offense by these remarks.

Awwww cute but ignorance is bliss.

God will be setting a precedent

and a bad one or example for that matter if He cannot obey and abide by His word.

The original or beginning template had to be replaced

The new template within the boundaries of the rule came in the person of Jesus.

You know what a template is and what it is used for or what it is all about, don't you?

God is above the "Rule" and he is not a ceremonious God

^^ Lol!

@tbaba

Islam will by necessity not tolerate religions and thoughts that undermine its authority, which explains the hostility Muslims had for the Persians and the Hindus/Buddhists. And that explains why the Prophet never tolerated paganism

Note: that God is all-powerful, almighty, and omnipotent, therefore releasing him from any rule of necessity because they are below him.

Jesus wasn't needed to be sacrificed.

I think if God is omnipotent, Jesus wouldn't have been necessary.

^^
Good point there.

So like every other civilization, Islam uses violence to protect itself and maintain dominance. That could involve a conflict with a rival religion, eg Christianity

The question on this thread is if Islam is not violent, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

I still think Muhammad was intolerant towards pagans, that he found violence not as a taboo but a tool. And violence plays a key role in the history of islam. And it is a religion of a community not an individual.

Dudugirl01: So, if someone killed ur sister and there's no proof, would you say he didn't? Besides, there's proof everywhere you just have to open ur eyes to see

How did you manage to mention proof and faith together in one sentence? God is validated only by faith and religion renders faith unquestionable, so also God.

But atheists don't accept such presumptions.

tobechi74: i disagree. Atheist also hav faith. They havent seen a monkey chang to a human yet they bliv.

Lool!! Those are scientists. And they believe similarities btw species suggest a relationship.

Dudugirl01: I do not see my God, yet I believe in him, I have faith, I'm not a fanatic but I do believe, I didn't bring myself here,all the beautiful things around me point to His existence, take a look @ the skies, @ how beautiful they are, who created them, what about the vast ocean, with all its tempest, and the calm rivers,my thoughts? God created me, and all the wonderful things on earty, I cannot se Him because He is invisible,yet, I do believe and I will live my life believing

The key word is faith. So being faithless doesn't mean one is stupid or blind. That's the diff btw us.

Not bad

The thing the morality of that time prevented all these atrocities, rules of engagement and "civilized" warfare came just into the 20th century. Atrocities by the muslim armies simply tell us how they interpreted the Quran and it wasn't non-violently and monarchs freely harnessed the religion as a medium of control.

I will focus on Muhammed:

the massacre of the Jewish tribe in Medina

Murder of black idolater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Khalid_ibn_al-Walid_(Nakhla)

Apart from being convinced that there Gods failed them, but isn't it obvious that duress played a role? the Thalif tribe were requesting to keep their idol despite claiming to convert to Islam

All Muhammed's enemies converted, and immediately after his death, the tribes all reverted to their "failed Gods"! Until another war was fought to drag them back to Islam.

Also in Nigeria, Usman dan fodio gave out mandates to conquer territories and forciful convert the subjects. Al Mukhtar is one example

We need not go to far searching for examples of intolerance, and include the prophet's treatment of prisoners of war, of pagans and forced conversion.

Mecca fought bitterly against the Prophet for over 10 yrs and in just one day embraced Islam. The prophet declared idols as false Gods and destroyed them. The Prophet threatened Abu Sufyan with beheading. He murdered black idolaters.

That's intolernace to me at least

How do u relate/ detect such a being directly

tbaba1234: These are theological differences not blasphemy.. It is fine to disagree on details as long as it is done in a civil manner not name calling. We do not insult Jesus (peace be upon him) by calling him derogatory names... Many christians do not agree that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon him) was a prophet, it is fine.. It should not degenerate to insults on his character.

At the same time blasphemy which would have not been tolerated in 14th Europe.

Jarus: This

Now, let me summarize my take on all these brouhaha
3, On freedom on speech rhetoric, well, it's good to be free to talk, but freedom of speech ends when another person's sensibilities begin to be offended. Everyone knows the value Muslims place on their Prophet, does it cost anyone anything to leave us alone and respect our culture, our values. What benefit does the film maker stand to gain by doing such video or someone just waking up one day to announce that he will burn the Qur'an on X day? What do you stand to gain in that?

I disagree with you on so many points:

First, sensibilities or moralities don't supercede human rights. Human rights are foundational and so basic that without them, our laws will have no basis

Second, the right to religious freedom can be seen to stem from free speech, with this freedom, one is able to practice, exercise and formulate his religious principles, however sensibilities or respect for his religion is a bridge too far, cos it is a barrier to the basic rights of others! An Ahmadi can't exercise his own basic rights, if mainstream muslims think he is blaspheming and "complementing and hurting the image of the Prophet and Islam. An atheist would be unable to live an unspiritual life and publish his views.

Historians will be censored from speaking contrary to the image islam has made for the Prophet, artifacts and books that disagree with islamic principles will be burnt etc.

This thread is pure propaganda, it doesn't seek to address the difference between the Muslim world and Secularism. Peddling Islam is peace with a few random remote examples wouldn't help.

Muslim societies strip non muslim rights to the barest, condemned as second class citizens, and forced under islamic laws and morality, in essence they have a low tolerance level and are religiously homogenous

Unlike in most present Western societies, which are melting pots with various cultural backgrounds, religious and ethnic diversity, secular values become indispensable. Rights such as free speech are unheard of and unappreciated by the Muslim world.

The Muslims trying to advertise a particular critique of a religious/historical figure and the origin of their religion, are willing to face "disagreements" especially as satires.

In my view, its a paradigm divide

Ancient knowledge

According to the wikipedia article you recommended, non-intervention was a defining quality of the deist God.

Also God created the world from??

Mr Ola, one can't expect time and space, not gadgets cos they are physical.

thelastPope: Actually, create, make and form are different. Take off your glasses and read genesis 1 and 2 again. You will see it clearly. God created man in chapter 1. In chapter 2, it said clearly that there was no man to till the ground after man was already created in Chapter 1. Then God formed man from the dust. It is actually very clear. Then God breathed into man and man came alive. That signifying man was originally in spirit form. Read it again.

More conjecture

damilarelr: Geographically, it was the earth rotation that was halted because the night took extra hours to come. Biblically speaking, it was the Sun that seized..but either way, science actually proved that an unusual longer day in the Bible disorganised the calendar.

If earth took 20 rotations round the Sun, and its rotation froze, how would have the calendar being disorganised?

thelastPope: The writer neither used round nor sphere because those are English words. The bible was not written in English but in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Like I told you before, English is a very wishy washy language. Round or sphere were used by those who translated the bible to English. The bible says, God sits above the circle of the earth. That was an indication that the earth was round or sphere. But again, like I said before, the bible is not academic book and didn't focus on minute descriptions of exactly how the shape was. If the prophets focussed on those, the bible would probably have been in like 1000 volumes or more

How are you sure the author of that book meant spherical? Or its equivalent in the language he was speaking in? Except of course, you believe the Bible is inerrant.

@talking bird

Evolution doesn't say an eagle will to a hawk and the hawk to turn to a monkey, rather says life is dynamic and future species arise from the pre existing ones as you have shown. The process is a continous one and over time drastic changes will be made finish!!

If finches develop a species with curved and short beaks, those subsequently experience changes favourable the environment, probably bigger body sizes and the resulting species might grow bigger and more complex eyes, on and on.

Pasteur was testing for spontaeous generation not abiogensis. And so far abiogensis is in its infancy but incredibly backed up by evolution. It is common sense that while discussing the Origin of Life, life must arise from a non living source.

Galileo's conflict with the Church (being the arbiter and interpreter of the Christian doctrine) knowledge. It was the same struggle btw Science and Religion advertising two conflicting "Truths" with separate foundations. Science sees a natural, structured world, Religion sees a supernatural, irrational world. Religion thinks the origin of life has a natural source, Religions dismiss the question entirely. Scientific "truths" shake religious dogmas.

The Bible is yet to be authenticated and logically validated. Religious claims of omnipresence are yet to be confirmed.

phantasm: Sir, I didnt disregard any "7days" as mentioned in Genesis. I only said the "root word" translated day (and check as many bible translations as possible) has no specific time impregnated in it. The root word could mean "a period", "season" etc. Now, how many days are in a period or season?

Granted, many translations used "day" but I am quite sure that some of those translations if not most, always explain some 'translated words' the way the 'root word implies in the context' as footnotes or appendix........

But the Bible itself is clear about the issue.

In other words, with assistance from the earliest manuscripts, you have no idea of within what time frame God created everything. So why assume it conformed with present scientific views?? Isn't that dishonest?!

[quote author=Hye-Bits]Not only Nazism. May I extend my nest to include Fascism and communism. They all drink from the same source as Nazism. This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to their founders, Max and Engels. They read Darwin origin of Species as soon as it came out and they outrightly adopted it because of its dialectical materialist attitude, which they had believed. The correspondence between Max and Engel showed that they saw Darwin's theory as containing the basis in natural history for communism. Engels, in his book " The Dialectics of Nature", was full of praise for Darwin. Nazism, Fascism and Communism are of Darwinism.

Again, I'm not stretching anything to render atheism a propaganda. For your information, Atheism has ever been a propaganda for it was hurled unto the innocent world by small minds who sees a renew energy in Evolution-the greatest lie the world has ever known.[/quote]BUT communism and Nazism are ideological enemies, how come they get to praise themselves??

truthislight: no, rather, your own ignorance.

The man needed to see and ensure that the battle was conclusive.

What that needed to stop was the spinning of the earth on it axis so that the battle ground will continue to face the sun.

But since the bible was and is not a science text book but was written for all mankind to read and make sense of, then the choices of words used in the bible for ease of understanding by "all sort" of people.

Read the bible first so that when you speak you will be saying as an informed person.
Peace.

To which its presently "misunderstood" by us in these times. Maybe it wasn't written for us!

phantasm: I am not suggesting anything. All I am saying is that the Bible is scientifically true. But I'll like to understand by what you mean by gap theory so that i do not conclude on what i suppose you had in mind by "gap theory."

But I understand, from the pages of the bible that Life was created in distinctive kinds, even when they are created at "the same periods." for example, the Account of Genesis 1: 20, 21 show that during the "fifth day" or "fifth period," God created every living creature (precisely, all animals) according to its kind. Then, God blessed them and the "fifth day" ended. Then the sixth day.... So, logically, there must be some time difference in those times, days or periods but since its not specified, no one can conclude on how long or how short those gaps are....

And science confirms all these facts. I could reference some Science books/ Journals by reputable scientists and institutions if you like.....

(I hope my presumption about what you meant by "gaps" is actually what is treated. If not, please specify)

Your interpretation fills huge gaps with possibilities without considering the vast possibilities can also be filled in those gaps and too complicated.

The Genesis account mentioned 7 days. The account already provided the time measurement, why disregard it? Or is that the sacrifice to force an agreement with the present scientific view?

thelastPope: Your question is actually funny because in geography, we are told that the sun rises from the east and sets on the west. The same way the bible writer described that the sun stood still. Its funny that thousands of years later, scientists and everyone including you still use the same term. So your question is out of place.

Naturally, man describes the moon and sun from his position. A scientist doing an experiment or doing a journal will definitely use more specific description.
That is why a writer will call the moon light just the same way we refer to it as moonlight today. Or haven't you ever used the term moonlight? Do you normally say "baby, let's enjoy the moon as it reflects light from the sun"? No! You just say "baby, let's enjoy the moonlight".

Maybe you will have to go change all the geography textbooks and argue that the sun does not rise from the east and sets in the west but rather the earth falls from the west and rises on the east! You get the picture?

In your belief, what was the consequence of Joshua's command?

damilarelr: Because when you reconcile yourself to God and ask something from Him according to His words in prayer, He answers. What proof do you need again?

How thoughtful! If humanity relies on your approach we would definitely be celebrating ignorance.