₦airaland Forum

Bastage:
Who is lying? Anyone can read this thread and see what I've said and compare it to your gibberish.

You say that the scriptures are the work of fallible men, chosen by infallible men and then you use them as proof that the Catholic church is the only way to God.

Do you realise how illogical and dumb you are being?

A negative and a positive make a negative.

LOLOL OH BASTAGE.

All you have done is shown that you lack english comprehension skills, and that you refuse to see what you clearly wrote. Abi no be you talk say if we no follow man we no fit follow God?

You haven't answered my questions oh?

Did God write the Bible?
Are mathew, mark, luke, john, and co, God?
pls try answering questions, it makes you look unintelligent when you don't

Idiot. You are making man your God.

It's funny this is what the Jews and muslims and non-christians say about Christians.

Ok so I went and looked up Deuteronomy, and it very well doesn't mention the Ishmaelites. Infact at this point in time when the Israelites mention brothers they are only referencing themselves. The tribe of Israel is very well established, and note that they weren't allowed to marry outside of their kinsmen and they certainly weren't allowed to marry ishmaelites, therefore the kinsmen referred to there was that from one of the tribes of Israel, they wouldn't have two different meanings for kinship. Infact the other time when Ishmaelites were mentioned is when the sons if Israel sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites and not once did they mention them as their brothers. To the Islraelites the prophet that will rise up was to rise up from within the tribes of Israel, and then as the Bible continues and the prophecies become even clear this prophet was to be born of the tribe of Judah, last time I checked muhammad wasn't from the tribe of Judah.

I know you had yourself convinced, and I knew there was a reason you didn't want to post the actual passage because you know you were being deceiving, I bet you were hoping no one would bother to look for the passage. We're not fools, we know that the kinsmen referred to there was not the ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites were long gone from the kinship of Israel.

uplawal:
you said it could not be Muhammed,then who was it, could u count down to new testament and point out the prophet that was refers to and the prophet should be an Ishmaelite not an Isrealite,because God said we should listen to him anyway and jesus could not be the prophet so was it then pls.

Who told you the prophet should be an ishmaelite? couldn't the isrealites be brothers to themselves? last i checked israel didn't start with isaac, it started with jacob. Abraham wasn't an israelite, neither was Isaac, so the brother couldn't be an ishmaelite. you would have a better chance saying the brother referred to was from Esau's line, and well muhammad isn't from Esau's line. sorry but your so called facts are wrong. try something else because this attempt failed badly.

You'll have to be more direct than that. No one knows what ur talking about.
You could try posting deuteronomy and then develop your question from there.
But I can honestly tell u that it couldn't be talking about muhammad, Deuteronomy was written way before muhammad and no one is disputing whether the israelites and ishmaelites are brothers. They are and we accept them as so, and Ishmael wasn't an evil person in the Bible, I don't know why the muslims are desperate to make it seem so. I guess it shatters their whole argument.

Kanayo,

I've never been pregnant but have been around enough pregnant women to know that each one deals with it differently. I have two cousins, one with a baby already, and the other is still preggers.

Both of them had a rough time in the beginning of their pregnancy, especially because it is their first. I remember them crying their eyes out almost all the time. The one with the baby already, kept hitting her husband for no reason. Then she'll stop and give this blank stare and start crying and apologising. It was weird. And it got even more weird. The second one could hardly walk. Both had to give up working as they kept ending up in the hospital. Pregnancy is stressful.
Also she didn't get pregnant by herself you caused it. She has to bear the pain with her body, you too can help in sharing that pain.

Bastage:
That proves absolutely nothing.

You've said yourself elsewhere that the Bible is not the word of God but was written by men.

Either you're a follower of the words of men or you're a follower of God. Which is it?

Hahaha you can't even keep your lies straight. Sorry for you. I have posted what the scriptures say, either you want to believe it or not. It is up to you. You can shout foul till thy kingdom come, it doesn't change the fact that you are unbiblical in your beliefs. Sorry sir you can't force the Bible to say what you want it to say. PLease allow it to say what it says. Thanks.

kenny888:
Yes kunle you are right what i had for her was LUST but it was as the result of her sedusive dressing.

LOLOL, I'm glad you told the truth.
But I always say, women are not to lead men to sin, men are not to lead women to sin. We should all be modest in our dressing. If all will be protruding do not wear it.

You're not preaching to the converted here. The simple fact is that we don't know. The books that were defined as scripture were defined to be so by men

So then the Bible is fallible? You're loosing me here.

Again, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You're saying that all defining is down to fallible man but that you should put your trust in his fallible church.
Have you actually read anything you've written?

Oh yes and you are proving my point slowly, so please continue.

Remember I am not the one who said men are fallible, it was you, so I'm using your own definitions here.

Last I heard, you guys were stating that he was man and god and therefore infallible.

Exactly, just because something is said by man or run by man does not mean it cannot be infallible. That was the whole point of Christ, he as man is also infallible, not just as God but as man also, so man can speak infallibly, and as the Bible proves man can write and teach infallibly. So what were you saying about the Church run by men again? Wasn't the Bible written by men?

Just as God can inspire men to teach infallibly he has also inspired his Church to speak infallibly, especially since he said "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth" and "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" in reference to his Church. He wasn't speaking to the Bible, he was speaking to men, and it was man he gave authority to, not the Bible. So where does the authority of the Bible come from?

gozzilla:
dumb reply. In scotland to date men wear skirt its there traditional wear. oya talk to us now you know this,

Not just in scotland, in Nigeria sef, men tie wrapper. In rivers it's the traditional wear, in edo it is the same thing for men. So I don't know what dude is yapping about. Women too tie wrapper. Even in the middle east, the men wear dresses, Jesus too, looking at the time he lived their wear were dresses. It was different from the women, and till date it is different from the women, so the question still remains what is men wears and what is women wears.
ppl it depends on your location and the culture of the people in that area.

mazaje:
how are we letting them? i just got banned and my post was deleted on an islamic website i frequent because i posted this topic and wrote a few commentary on it. . . . . . the slaves of allah are really dangerous. . . .

Lol eya sorry eh, it has happened to the best of us. But I am pretty sure you were trying to be rude. If you were, good for you, if not, well sorry o, join the club, lol.

Read the second post of mine, that should pretty much explain it.

noetic:
They come to the west and agitate that their inhuman and antediluvian laws be respected, yet they refuse to grant others in their country this same privilege they get here in the west.

bloody nefarious slaves of allah. . , . .cousins of the irrational atheists

referencing the bolded, that was uncalled for. Atheists are sufferring in their hands too. All of us are in the same boat, we can join hands and fight this oppression.

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=235021.msg3742487#msg3742487 date=1239973048]@lady
oga madam, I asked 3 questions you didnt answer any instead you threw 3 questions to me. well let me start with the civilization aspect, most of the scientific inventions that changed the world was discovered after the reformation (1517). encarta can prove this so how did the RCC help civilization? infact it was the invention of the printing press that that freed men (to an extent) from your hellish bond, no wonder you burnt william tyndale, john huss, john wycliffe but mysteriously only God knows how you couldnt burn Luther (am not saying luther is a good man). if not for sir isaac newton that prevented universities being handed back to the catholic church you would dragged the world back to the dark ages.

from the bible you gave us(both protestant and catholic) I cant find anywhere that says the bread is christ's actual body (remember you burnt people in scotland and some other areas who denied this hellish doctrine) by the way who gave the priest power to turn bread in christ's body and finally, when I take communion in a catholic church, I'm chewing Jesus HA! I REFUSE TO BE A CANNIBAL! Its a crazy doctrine.

I dont believe in the doctrine of once saved forever saved, hebrew 11:6 (in the bible you gave us) says 'if anyone draws back' its possible to draw back. Perharps your church's belief in this draw back is why your church/popes excommunicate people! thank God, THEY ARE NOT GOD.

ABEG I no know the doctrine of faith alone OH! I know (in the bible you gave us) St James said Faith without works is dead

As per the RCC been the world's headache is not hearsay its glaring, there are some things I cant say here and if you notice I havent given any link cause I know some minds are very fragile you cant afford to let them know or hear some things. Please dont lets start what we cant finish, am an engineer but some much in love with history, (not the one you find in those lying encyclopaedia) your RCC is the world's biggest fraud

Remember I told you I am not a protestant, catholic or any group men has divided christianity into, I'm been lead with the intellect God has given me and that inward voice(some say Holy Spirit) God has put in man. have a great day, my phone has been beeping![/quote]Maybe you missed it, but this thread isn't about defending the Catholic belief it is about defending the Protestant belief, if you wish to know what the Catholic belief is please use the serach button and you will see that the questions you asked have already been answered several times. Now because I follow the rules that says do not derail the thread, I wish not to derail the thread by answering your questions as this thread isn't about Catholics answering questions but about Protestants answering questions.
It does make one wonder why it is Protetants can't answer a simple question, and they feel they need to resort to derailing the thread. Incase you are confused as to what this thread was started for, kindly go back to the first page and read the first post, hopefully if you are well versed in the english language you will understand the purpose for this thread. Thank you.

Please answer the questions that have been posed for you or is it that you are not capable of answering the questions?

Well you say you can't find the passages that show that the bread is the body of Christ.
How about here when Christ says the Bread and Wine are his body and blood.

John 6
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. (Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? )

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (The jews knew he was talking about his flesh)

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever
(Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically)

John 6:51-53 however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque (I believe you called that Carnibalism and do not wish to partake in it, it's ok, it's not for everyone, only for those who want to follow Christ, word for word)

You asked who gave the priests the power to turn the bread and blood into the body and blood of christ. The answe Jesus Christ, he does so right here when he instituted the Eucharist (Holy Communion)

Matthew 26
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body
27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
(Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood)

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me
(the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so)

to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

1 Corinthians 10
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread
in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Corinthians 11
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord

in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

Bastage:
LMAO. That totally defeats your own argument you dimwit.
If it's the work of men, it is fallible. Therefore following a Church or other men doesn't matter because they are fallible too.

Think before you type, you idiot.

So God wrote the Bible? Really, I didn't know Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and co are God. Please explain how those men are God.

Work of men can be infallible, remember Jesus himself is also a man. They can be infallible under the inspiration of God. We Know St. Paul is a sinner, and yet he wrote infallibly, we know that St. Peter denied Christ and yet he wrote infallibly. Impeccability does not mean infallibility. I think the problem is you don't know what Infallibility means. I suggest you learn about it before you say believe the Bible is infallible. And that is the point. The men whom God chooses to be his leaders are still sinners however, by the direction of the Holy Spirit they do teach infallibly. The Church teaches infallibly. However they are still men.

So sir unless those ppl mentioned above are God, I don't see how your argument holds water. God did not write the Bible he however inspired it. But because God didn't write the Bible, how do we know that it was truly inspired by God? Can you give me that answer mr Bastage? How do we know that several men didn't come together and say these books are inspired when infact they're not. How do you know that the books of the Bible were supposed to be defined as scripture?

both are equal. it is still sex outside of marriage.

ogazi007:
Lmao, pls the above theory is applicable to both sexes(male/female).
as ungodly as it might sound,dont overlook it,cos its the key to a successful marriage.

Actually statistically that's not true. Those who practice self control are more likely to have successful marriages than those who have sex before marriage, and there is a higher divorce rate for those who live together before marriage.
I guess it all comes down to trust. The two will find it hard to trust each other in the marriage because they know that it was hard for them to practice self control, so who's to say they won't find it hard to practice self control with others. Basically if you have sex outside of marriage you believe that sex outside of marriage is ok, so there's nothing stopping you from having sex outside of your marriage when you do marry.

@ bawomolo and mazaje

You guys are letting them.

No one answered Dae's question, please can someone give me an average cost of a wedding in Naija. I don't want "it depends on your budget" kind of answer, lol.
For someone living abroad, how much should one take to naija for wedding? Advice and answers would be greatly appreciated

I am a bit confused on what ur asking but will try my best.

In the U.S. the average cost of a wedding is $10,000.
I am not sure how much it is in Naija but I've heard about #1,000,000
If ur asking about how much would a person spend on a wedding in naija, i would say look at my above statement.
If ur asking how much should a person take to naija for a wedding that is not their own, i would say it depends on the person and the relationship they have with the bride/groom

Ohh good idea, so, like where's the best place to buy the clothes at? I am tired of davids bridal, you know any other places? just curious oh, i just wanna feed my eyes, Just in case, ya know

Girl u don't have to buy it, get it made. Even my wedding dress will be made. I don't plan on doing the english wedding dress. Afertall I am a Naijarian and not a brit. I and everyone in my bridal train are wearing native. Today we do ourstyles in english and it still looks traditional, so dats my plan. It won't cost me over $200 to get my dress made, not to talk of my bridesmaid, it would only cost about $50-$60 to get their dresses made, and I am not having the whole world in my wedding.

Seriously ppl can have elaborate weddings on a budget. You don't have to do like everybody else, do it your own way, be creative, and be happy, and debt free.

HAHAHAHAHA

That was hilarious.

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Islamists are no fools. They know Modernism is weak and self-destructive. They will attempt to use the liberal sensibilities of westerners against themselves, by banning any possibility of criticizing Islam. Once passed, this legislation will allow Islamists, via the United Nations, to declare any criticism of Islam a "hate crime." While the legislation is non-binding, meaning the UN will have no power to arrest individuals under this measure, it does not prohibit individual nations from constructing their own laws that allow them to arrest, convict and sentence critics of Islam. In effect, the measure legitimatizes Shariah Law throughout the Islamic world, and gives a UN stamp of approval on the arrest and detention of Christians, Jews and Secularists in Islamic countries. Of course, there would be nothing stopping secularized western nations from enforcing a similar ban against criticizing Islam under the guise of "tolerance

http://catholicknight..com/search/label/Civil%20Rights

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&content_id={AF491436-ED3D-46F5-8CC4-E14577482787}&notoc=1

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)



UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam.



While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."



It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.



The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.



Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the "deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons."



Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

The resolution's core premise -- that "defamation of religion" exists as legal concept -- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks -- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.



Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side.





___________________________________





Following is a copy of the draft U.N. Human Rights Council resolution obtained by UN Watch. Prepared by Pakistan on behalf of the Islamic group, the text was circulated today to Geneva diplomats in advance of a council vote scheduled for the end of March. Emphasis added.



Human Rights Council Resolution
A/HRC/10/L, Combating Defamation of Religions



The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the pledge made by all States, under the Charter of the United Nations, to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Reaffirming also that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,

Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/1 of 24 October 2005, in which the Assembly emphasized the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and acknowledged the importance of respect and understanding for religious and cultural diversity throughout the world,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

Welcoming the resolve expressed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 20006 to take measures to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies, and looking forward to its effective implementation at all levels,

Underlining in this regard the importance of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, welcoming the progress achieved in implementing them, and emphasizing that they constitute a solid foundation for the elimination of all scourges and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,

Welcoming all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and interfaith harmony, including the Alliance of Civilizations and the International Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation and their valuable efforts towards the promotion of a culture of peace and dialogue at all levels,

Welcoming further the reports of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Council at its fourth, sixth and ninth sessions that highlight the serious nature of the defamation of all religions and the need to complement legal strategies;

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence against followers of certain faiths, occurring in many parts of the world, in addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001, and that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

Convinced that respect for cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, as well as dialogue among and within civilizations, is essential for global peace and understanding while manifestations of cultural and ethnic prejudice, religious intolerance and xenophobia generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations,

Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves acceptance by the public of and its respect for diversity,

Noting various regional and national initiatives to combat religious and racial intolerance against specific groups and communities and emphasizing, in this context, the need to adopt a comprehensive and non-discriminatory approach to ensure respect for all races and religions,

Recalling its resolution 7/19 of 27 March 2008 and UNGA resolution 63/154 of 18 December 2008,

1. Takes note of the report of the High Commissioner on the compilation of existing legislation and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt of religions and the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance presented during the 9th session of the Human Rights Council;

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief, still evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these religions;

3. Strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of holy sites, religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; )

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general have, become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards any religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons;

9. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law including articles 19 and 29 of UDHR and 19 and 20 of ICCPR, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference, and has the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals, and general welfare;

10. Reaffirms that General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

11. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts;

12. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

13. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness building;

14. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

15. Calls for strengthening international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and urges States, non-governmental organizations, religious leaders as well as the print and electronic media to support and foster such a dialogue;

16. Appreciates the High Commissioner for Human Rights for holding a seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in October 2008, and requests her to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

17. Requests the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers, to the Council during its 12th Session;

18. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Council at its 12th Session on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world.

The bridesmaid pays for it. I turned down my cousin cus I had no money

mactao:
You're good. _{I hope you understand what I mean.}

Believe me I am very clueless. True talk.

hmmm two different interpretations, this could be interesting.

@noetic dat was so uncalled for

@tenry
ignorance is the best way to silence anyone

ok peeps if u like let me know

noetic:
very rubbish talk.

any evidence that he is the devil?

Did I say that he is the devil?
I simply made a statement, and it was just to keep it in the mind of others that the devil comes in the angel of light, and it certainly may not refer to him or to him alone.

Gen 3:15 God was talking to the serpent, and that he would put enmity between him and the woman and between his offspring and her offspring (singular) the offspring is one child not all the children that were to be born.
Then God turns to the woman (eve) and then said she will give birth with child pains.
We know the woman God was talking about to the devil wasn't Eve because Eve was already under the influence of the devil, so there was no way she could have enmity with the devil. Now let's go back to Gen 3:15, and we look at the offspring, the offspring is the key here, as the offspring is the key in the Immaculate Conception, that offspring is the messiah, and we know who he is. We know that is the first prophecy of Jesus who is to come, so we look at the woman who is to give birth to that offspring and we know that the woman is Mary, and that's how we can tell, that in that passage, God wasn't talking about Eve or all women, he was now talking about a particular woman, and that woman is going to give birth to the messiah who would bruise the heel of the devil's offspring (his demons), since we know who that particular messiah is, we also know who the particular woman is, and that is his mother, the mother of the messiah, whose name is Mary, and she will have enmity with the devil. The devil will not be her friend, she will not be inclined to sin.

So why did God have to start at Mary?

Not to be rude or anything, but why did God have to start with Jesus? He could have simply just wiped off the first Adam (Man) and the first Eve(Woman) and started over, why did he have to do it through Jesus? If you can answer this, you have answered your own question. All there is about Mary is about Jesus, it is because of her role as Jesus mother that she is given honour, unfortunately while Catholics are aware of it, Proestants aren't and then they go on a bashing spree instead of thinking, hey maybe I don't know all there is in the Bible.

The devil comes as the angel of light

Kunle I pray you find the answers you are looking for. Believe me ppl will insult u for it, but u have to go with God on this one. Questions lead to finding the truth, the problem is ppl have misguided intentions with their questions, and instead of seeing what is really there, they want to see something else. Maybe it is to justify what is in their mind. Trust me anyone can rationalize and justify anything. Just make sure you are not doing that.
I will keep u in my prayers.

Bastage:
Absolute and utter crap.

You can't have God unless you follow the Catholic faith?

Basically that's saying "If you don't follow other men, you can't follow God".
It's making man and God the same thing. Isn't that called blasphemy?


Mind you what do you expect a pastor to preach? If he doesn't have followers, he doesn't get paid.

You would have to tell us how you got that from the post sir. That's not what the post says. The post is actually telling u what the Bible says, and I guess then the Bible is blasphemy. The post tells us that we can't interpret the Bible on our own.

Now to address your issue of following other men. Let me take it one by one.

1st) The Bible was written by men it didn't drop from the sky, it wasn't penned by God. So if you follow the Bible you are already following men.
2nd) The Catholic Church wrote and put together the Bible, well the NT for the most part, so if you follow the Bible or at least the NT, you are already following the Catholic Church so you are already following men
3rd) Even if you don't think that you are following the Catholic Church by following the Bible, and you don't think the Church wrote the Bible, you are still following the Catholic Church because you are following the Books that we defined as scripture for you. So if you don't want to follow the Catholic Church denounce the books we wrote and compiled for you.
4th) As stated earlier the Bible was written by men, these men were also sinful, how do we know that they wrote infallibly? Because the Church in her infallibility by God, stated that these men wrote infallibly. So you are still following the Catholic Church and her infallibiloty because you allowed her to determine which books were infallibble for you.

So you see sir, to follow the Bible is to follow men, and ultimately the Catholic Church. Anyway Christ commissioned his Church and not the Bible to spread the word.

so per

"If you don't follow other men, you can't follow God".

On the contrary if you don't follow the men that God has commissioned, you can't follow God. You can't tell God 'well I follow you but I won't follow the men that you chose to be leaders of your church.' That's basically saying that God cannot choose the right ppl to lead his church.
And considering that he said "whoever hears you hears me" he is pretty much saying when you hear these ppl that he has called to be leaders in his church, you are hearing him.

And so it follows that Mary's mother wasn't sinful either. And her mother. And her mother. And her mother. And her mother. And her mother. And her mother.

no it follows that a special grace was given to mary, however the women in her family were holy women. since the beginning of time God her planned in his mind. Just read Genesis 3:15. God already knew that he would send a saviour into the world and he knew that he would be born of a woman. It is no doubt that the woman's seed refered to in Gen 3:15 is Jesus, we know whose offspring he is, he is Mary's offspring, therefore if the woman is Mary, then Mary must have enmity with the devil. No one has complete enmity with the devil because everyone is still under the influence of sin and can sin. But to say that Mary, the woman in Gen 3:15 is sinful, then it is to say that Gen 3:15 is untrue.

So which is it?
Is the woman in Gen 3:15 under the influence of the devil or not? Does she have enmity with the devil or not?
Is the offspring in Gen 3:15 Jesus or not? Is the offspring's mother Mary or not?

@ ttalks.

u are the one closest to it.

the real question is how does one define men wears and women wears. it depends on ur culture and society

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=235021.msg3737915#msg3737915 date=1239891485]@lady
abeg lets hear word jare, am not catholic, protestant or any deceiving sect men has classified christianity to be, the RCC has been the problem of the world and is the problem of the world I wonder what the world would be without a catholic church? well I have some questions for you about your BLOODY CHURCH can you please justify the RCC's acts during the bloody inquisition period, the doctrine of trans-subtantiation and prove that mary's birth was immaculate(just these 3 out of your numerous heresies, remember I haven't mentioned 'purgatory' what the council of , I cant remember oh added). And if you think the world will come back to the days of those senseless burnings, judas chair, iron virgin and senseless inhumane torture you must indeed be joking.

@KUNLE
I wish all christians were opened to study and research like you, I cry for those people that call themselves 'christians' 95% of them are ignorant men dancing in the churches, sowing seed, giving senseless 'tights' and offering and ofcource buying PRIVATE JETS for the propagation of the gospel.

Really the catholic church has sabotage us, that's why people like Bawomolo can accurately quote errors, conflicting stories and contradictions in the bible.

so lady keep your questions to yourself, we have question too, I dont know why reasonable people are answering you. I have some systems to network jare let me do something better with my time [/quote]oga i started this thread, because protestants claim that the church doesn't teach the truth, and they misinterpret the bible alot, and you guys have been asking questions a lot about catholicism, we have answered u full and well, now it's time to check whether the prots actually have the truth. for example, u guys say the Bible is the only authority well if u read on page one, u will see that the Bible itself proves that doctrine wrong. You guys have asked questions, we have given answers, and now it's time for u to answer questions.

Now the Catholic church has not been the problem contrary to popular belief. In fact the Catholic church is the reason western civilization stands today. Yup it is the reason u have universities, and hospitals and such, it is the reason science flourished, yes that's right. so instead of going by what you heard on the street and what someone said that someone said that someone said. Do some more research sir and u will see that.

Now answer my questions.

How is the bread and wine not the Body and Blood of Christ?
How does the doctrine of once saved always saved work?
How does the doctrine of faith alone work?

Answer instead of the usual cowardice would suffice, thanks