₦airaland Forum

hmm I finally agree with David on something, who knew?

well except the part about the "blind hypocrites" Davidy you are not one to preach.

Read all about the full monty in the weblink below, it will inform you of the 37 false RCC doctrines and how they compare with the Bible. You don't have to read it if you don't want to be confused with the facts.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

If you want to learn about history you don't go to the chemistry professor. If you want to learn about the Catholic Church you don't go to a non-catholic source. Only ignorant ppl do that. Or better yet if you want to learn about Christianity you don't go to a muslim website, only misguided fools do so.

Now if you feel you know the truth then by all means go through what Carl and I wrote and explain line by line or item by item how wrong we are. Use logic pls, I don't have time for ppl who don't know how to use their brains. God gave us brains for a reason, pls let's use it.

rotimy:
the thread is on one's favourite saint and not on belief in intercessions by the saint! one can believe in the teaching of the intercessions of the saint without having a favourite saint. it is not a must! identity of a true catholic does not lie on having any favourite saint or membership of jesuits, opue dei or any other group in the church. cradle catholics, ghetto catholics and post-vatican two catholics are miles apart but still in one church. that my lady, is the beauty and mystery of our church

I understand that one may not have a favourite saint, I stated that already in my posts earlier, I am talking about you stressing the point that you are Catholic who prays to Jesus and not through any saint as if intercessions of the saint is wrong. I am not saying it is wrong to pray directly to Jesus afterall even while asking the saints to interceed for us we are praying to Jesus directly, the way you said it seems like you don't share that belief with the Church.

Well show us a passage of scripture that matches up with sacred tradition saying that Mary didn't see death but went straight to heaven. If you're bent on accepting an assumption, no puns intended, having gotten not an iota of evidence in scriptures, to prove or back up Catholic tradition, then what do you expect me to think?

Show us scripture that says that everything that is true must be written in scripture. When you can prove that "scripture alone" is scriptural then I will give u an answer.

Besides St. John already told us that he saw the ark of the covenant in the temple of God (this would be in heaven) in the form of a woman who is pregnant and then she gives birth to the savior of the world, abeg tell us who the mother of the saviour of the world is.

How did the bible say you should interpret it? Didn't the very one you said became the first pope instructed us how not to do it? Let me give you a little reminder.

2 Peter 1:20 says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

In other words no one person is allowed to interpret the scriptures in a way that will suit his or her fancy. One is not allowed to put a slant to the meaning of scriptures so as to suit oneself. Many persons have introduced teachings based on one passage alone, without fully grasping the context in which such a passage was derived

Then why are your privately interpreting it? You're adding your own spice to the Bible o, all u have done is said what you believe the Bible to be saying. What you believe the Bible to be saying is wrong. You are wrong, plain and simple. Luther was wrong, which by the way, if you think he did the right thing, why do you still ocnsider Revelations, James, and others especially the writings of St. Paul to be legitimate Bible books when he didn't consider them as such. Did you know he told St. Paul that he was wrong in his writings?

Your case is somewhat different. You have ignored the scriptures all together, and have adopted Catholic traditions that don't even come close to what the scriptures teach.  Not once have I gotten a Catholic to show from scriptures where it says that Mary didn't see death, but was taken to heaven before she died

Not once has a non-catholic proven that scripture alone is scriptural, when you guys are able to prove to us the logic behind scripture alone, we'll then adhere to your rule of scripture alone.

When you guys are able to tell us that the only revelations or actions or practices of Jesus and the apostles in the Bible are the ones that are legitimate then we'll follow your rule, but sorry I cannot follow something that isn't scriptural.

And I will say this much that the church to which I belong uses the bible as the rule of faith and practice. We look to Jesus' life and ministry as the perfect example. We dare not look to men as examples. The apostle Paul says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. John says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Is it any wonder to you and the world for that matter that big grown men in robes are raping off little boys, and that men of the cloth are smoking and drinking and having no remorse about it whatsoever. Is that what you call not understanding the faith?

So did Jesus give authority to the Bible or did he give it to men? I asked this question before and received no answer, pls provide me with an answer. Where did the Bible get its authority from?

Prove to me how using the Bible alone is actually scriptural.


You mentioned something earlier about the missing books of the Bible or that the Bible is incomplete. The only Bible that is incomplete is the Bible you protestants use. The Catholic Bible is complete. There is no such thing as missing books from the Bible when one uses the Catholic Bible. There wasn't a Bible and then the books were taken away, the books that were meant to be in Bible are in the Bible the ones that were not meant to be are not in there. None of the books of the Bible were written to be scripture. They were defined as scripture by the Church. If the Church didn't define it as scripture it is not scripture, so truly there is no such thing as missing books or missing scripture. They were never scripture in the first place. The only scripture we have are those in the Bible, the Catholic Bible, you guys are missing books of the Bible.

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993: “Baptism is necessary for salvation , the Church does not know of any [other] means . . . that assures entry into eternal beatitude , ”

“, Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians” (Catechism 1271).

The above contradicts the bible:

Romans 5:1-2
(1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 3:24-28
(24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(26) To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16
(16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:26
(26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The bible's accounts show that we are justified/saved by faith in Jesus Christ which does not agree with being justified by faith in Baptism as put forward by Cathecism.

Clear contradiction,won't you say?!!

From your interpretations those passages contradict the Bible where Christ himself said to Nicodemus "5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So is JESUS right or is he wrong?

Ok so there's more to write, sorry but writing about Mum makes me happy.

Mother of God.

The most sublime of Mary's privileges is her Divine Maternity. Without that Maternity, her other privileges would not exist; she herself would not exist, for she was created only to be the Mother of God.

Mary's Divine Maternity is great also because this privilege is the reason for her other privileges, her Immaculate Conception, miraculous virginity, fullness of grace, Assumption, and the spiritual maternity of all mankind. The Divine Maternity explains everything in her; without this Maternity nothing in Mary can be explained.

In her teaching concernig the union of the human and the Divine natures in Christ the Church states that Jesus Christ is God and Man, perfect God and perfect Man, and that this Divinity and Humanity are united in only one Person so that the actions of the Divine Nature or the Human Nature are the actions of one person, the Divine Person.

Since God was born of Mary, she is the Mother of God. If we could not say that she is the Mother of God for having given a body to the Son of God, then neither could we adore this Body; nor would we have been redeemed by the sacrifice of this Body on the Cross; nor would we be united to the Divinity in receiving this Body in the Eucharist.

Mary's Divine Maternity is a such a sublime privilege that no creature, not even Mary herself, can understand it fully. Tp understand her dignity as Mother of God in all its fullness, we would have to understand fully the dignity of the Son of God whose Mother she is.

The dignity of the Divine Maternity raises Mary above all the rest of creation. As Mother of God she surpasses, in an immearuable degree, all other creatures, Angels, and human beings. They are God's servants, but she is His Mother.

We have the sublime dignity of being children of God by adoption; Jesus alone is His Son by nature. But Mary is not the adoptive Mother of the Son of God; she is His real Mother. We can lose our Divine adoption, but Mary can never lose her Divine Maternity. God might have created a more beautiful world, more perfect people, more marvelous spirits; He could not have made anything more wonderful than a Mother of God.

Mary's Divine Maternity places her in a very wonderful relationship with the three Divine Persons. She is the loving daughter of the Father, because, before all creatures, she was predestined to be His daughter at the same moment that He decreed the Incarnation of His Son. He bestowed marvelous privileges upon her and loved her more that all other creatures together. As Mother of the Son of God, she is associated with the Father in the generation of His Son as man. With the Father she, too, can say: "This is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased."

Mary is the Mother of the Son of God. She fulfills the duties and enjoys the rights of a true mother. From her own flesh and blood, she formed the Body of her Son. SHe nourished Him, clothed Him, educated Him. She commanded Him and he obeyed. How can we ever understand the great love that bound their hearts together!

Mary is the spous of the Holy Spirit because according to the Gospel and the teaching of the Apostles' Creed, she conceived of the Holy Spirit the Son of God, made Man. She is also called the temple of the Holy Spirit because, in virtue of her Immaculate Conception and her fullness of grace, He dwells within her in a most singular manner.

hi guys thanks so much for your prayers, I really appreciate it and do still need it, times are really rough for me.

Jesus loves you, Mary loves you, I love you

Carl, I love that, don't mind Olaadegbu he already affirmed he is battling his own beliefs.

Just to add to what u wrote on Mary.

When protestants deny Mary the title of Mother of God, they deny also the divinity of Jesus without even knowing it, for if Mary didn't give birth to God then the child that came from her womb could not be God, but if in fact the baby that came from her womb is God then there is no doubt that she is the Mother of God. If they continue to deny her then they are of the belief that Jesus was not born a person, but as an empty body without a soul. But infact he was born a person as all of us are, and that person is God then Mary gave birth to the person, God.

abi no be so?

On the Immaculate Conception.

This honestly is the easiest to see.

She was the throne of God, the wonderful palace in which the Son of Gos chose to dwell for nine months. Her womb was the chose place honoured by the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. If everything that comes in contact with God must be pure and immaculate, purity was necessary for her, the vessel in which the Son of God formed His Flesh and Blood. (If Mary was stained with original sin then Jesus must have been stained also, as the inclination to sin is inherited by all humans, if God didn't cleanse Mary from original sin then Jesus would've inherited it too, and we know he didn't, so Mary must have been kept from original sin). Her Immaculate Conception is a witness to the sanctity of Jesus, her Son.

If Jesus, the Son of God, could choose for His Mother her who please Him most, He would surely choose one acceptable to the Blessed Trinity and worthy of the great honour for which she was destined. Mary was therefore not only free from actual sin, but also she remained exempt from original sin; otherwise she would not have been a Mother suitable for Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

As Eve received natural life from Adam, Mary received spiritual life, the life od grace, through her Son. If Eve was originally immaculate, Mary, who is superior to Eve in merits, could not be inferior to her in dignity. Since Eve was immaculate in her formation, Mary must have been immaculate in her conception.

@Olaadegbu

When Carl asked you which part, he is asking you to point to what is wrong and explain how you think it is wrong. How do you expect to free us from Catholicism if you can't explain how the teachings of the Church is wrong. Oya start using logic to explain jo, it shouldn't be hard, afterall we're the ones that are wrong and you are the right one, so you should be able to point us to the right path, so start o, we're waiting.

ttalks:
Links to the truth about the Roman Catholic Church:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine10&item=1104072955

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Catholic_church_by_scripture.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/10-rcc.htm

These are just a few of the links among many that show the real deal behind the RCC.
Those who've been ordained to salvation who're still within the RCC will definitely heed the message being put forward and "COME OUT OF HER".
The rest that don't,well,too bad.

Oh great another misguided person, when u guys are ready to use logic instead of just posting crap that isn't true then we'll take u seriously, until then you prove ur ignorance day by day.

rotimy:
None of the Saints is my favourite! I AM A CATHOLIC BUT I PRAY TO JESUS CHRIST not via any saint!
@ SEA-GODDES, How can you be talking about saints in heaven while your user name glorifies the evil spirit under the water? It's a pity and I will never take you serious. Is your true favourite saint, the mammy water?

Do u accept the teaching of the Church on the saints?
I am asking bcus u made ur statement as if u don't believe in intercessions by the saints.
If u don't accept it then u are not Catholic.

@ Poster

There seems to be many interpretations of that verse. So I'm just going to add this thought to it.

Jesus asks whose image it is on the coin and they said it was ceasar's, therefore that coin belongs to ceasar, that's the whole paying taxes. He then goes on to say give unto ceasar what belongs to ceasar and unto God what belongs to God. If the image on the coin is ceasar's then and that coin belongs to ceasar, what or where is the image of God?

Man, human, give unto God what belongs to God, we are made in his image, give urself to God.

Just wanted to throw that in there.

Not sure if you're too young to remember about the article that came out in the Time Magazine about the Co-Redemptrix status of Mary. Aren't you even aware of your organization's doings?

oh so you think the co-redemptrix status of Mary is wrong abi? No wonder, you lack basic understanding of the christian faith. Lol@ you thinking that if I saw co-redemptrix status of Mary that would make me leave the Church.

Um did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the one that is wrong? That you are the one that doesn't understand the Bible? That you are incorrectly interpreting the Bible? That you miss a lot of what the Bible says?

If you think you know all about the Bible, then I would say you are from the devil because you are too proud. The problem is not that we don't know what the Church teaches, the problem is that you don't understand your own faith. The problem is that you are fighting your own beliefs.

If I ask you questions will you be willing to answer, because those questions will get you to see that you believe in what the Church teaches too, you just don't know it.

The difference between Catholics and Non-Catholics, is that Catholics believe in sacred tradition and know it, non-catholics believe in sacred tradition and don't know it. I pray that one day you will realise what you believe. You believe in what Catholics believe you just don't know it yet. That's why I laugh at you guys a lot.

", the Blessed Virgin can do whatever she pleases both in heaven and on earth, At the command of Mary all obey, even God, God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands, Yes Mary is opnipotent, " - Glories pp 154-156

This can't be found, why?

Catholic leadership declares: "The pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and on earth" - Pope Pius V ,

Please I am begging you to provide this papal document, I want you to do so with your hands so that people can see the deceit in this. Every source that has this is an anti-catholic site, and yet they all couldn't provide the actual document stating this. Why?

Could it be that it doesn't exist?

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men , Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.

When a King is absent from his throne who sits on it, and what does that person do?

The sources are right in the quotes. Probably the sources have been destroyed, but you can copy what you see and consult your bishop. Or better yet read some of those old Cathechisms.

The sources are not there, anyone can create a paragraph and attribute it to a book, the thing is did the book contain those things? Nope absolutely not. So now it is for you to back up your claim that those things came from the book, especially the one about Mary being omnipotent and all, it is even told in the catechism that she isn't omnipotent, she cannot take the place of Jesus and it has always been so. Read the actual vatican documents and you will see that.

So until you provide us with the sources, what you posted will be counted as fallacies and lies and meant to be deceitful. Afterall you just posted them, they shouldn't have been destroyed so soon. Within a day of you posting they were detroyed? Comon, source please.

This is a good observation on your part as we are now seeing it unfold on this thread. May the Lord deliver those who are ignorant of the idolatory that they have been trapped in and open their eyes to the lies of the devil and bring them to the knowledge of truth.

May God open your eyes so you can actually stop fighting your own belief

Carlosein:
hi lady, good to read from you after a while.

will remember you

Thanks dear

lol, I see some people are still deluded, they can't answer questions and they can't post their sources, why? Because they know they are being deceitful.

Bobbyaf and Olaadegbu, tell the truth and shame the devil.

Like I have said so many times before, if you don't know about the Church's teachings ask. Don't go to any random website and feed yourself with nonsense and come here and spew crap.

If anyone follows what you two have said without questioning it then they are placing you as God and do not care for their salvation.

Anyway, Omenuko, I love you, Jesus Loves you, Mary loves you, the Church loves you, and we will never fall, as Christ said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
Thank you for dealing with this crap

They think they're the first to try, newsflash, you're information is nothing new and it has been shown to be false. SO try something else.

Olaadebu, you still haven't added compilation of the Bible to that list of yours, why?

Your information is wrong and you know it, I already showed it to you, and I remember you running away with shame. Don't embarass yourself again o.

There I have stated it now state your source and explain how each item was introduced. If you will make a claim you should be able to back it up, put your money where your mouth is.

Nonsense, you guys know very well that this is the internet and you can disappear for a while and this thread will disappear after your foolishness has been shown. I like having conversations like this in person, too many people have apologised for their disrespect of the Church, that's right the True Church of God, and the rest have converted. Truth will always be truth whether you like it or not.
Can you handle this conversation in person? I bet you not.

Why can't you guys answer questions? Is it because you know you are wrong?

Oh by the way guys, the Jews don't believe in Sola Scriptura and here's them telling you guys how wrong you are.

Sola scriptura - Solely scripture. Scripture alone and nothing else. This is the rallying cry of Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity accepts no divine message other than the one that they believe to be recorded in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Consequently, Protestant Christianity rejects any component of the national Jewish tradition that is not recorded in the books of scripture.

Earlier in this work we articulated the Jew’s rejection of this position. The same medium that informed the Jew that the Jewish scripture is an authentic document also informs him that there is more to the teachings of Moses. If God expected us to accept one portion of the testimony of our ancestors, there is no reason to assume that He wants us to reject the other portion of that same testimony. Furthermore it is only by means of the unwritten teachings of Moses, that the Jewish scriptures were canonized. So the Protestant insistence on rejecting any unwritten message from God is not very rational.

The missionary activity of Protestant churchmen belies the Protestant’s loyalty to the axiom of Sola scriptura.  If the missionaries truly accepted the principle of “Sola Scriptura”, their methodology would be entirely unlike the methods they actually use. If scripture is truly the only authorized divine communiqué as the missionary would have us believe, they would limit themselves to distributing copies of scripture and would do nothing more. If the principle of “Sola Scriptura” is the factual basis for Protestant Christianity, a plain reading of scripture should teach the reader everything there is to know about Christianity. All one would have to do is to pick up a copy of the scriptures, and read them from cover to cover. The fact that the missionaries find it necessary to go beyond the distribution of Bibles, tells us that they feel that something is lacking in the axiom - “Sola Scriptura
Our analysis of scripture will begin with the very basis of Protestant Christianity. Sola Scriptura. This principle that rejects any unwritten directive from God, has no scriptural foundation. In fact, an examination of scripture will reveal that God truly does use instruments of communication, outside of the written words of scripture.

Probably the most important difference separating Christianity from Judaism, is the Christian assertion that one Jesus of Nazareth ought to be worshiped as a god. Judaism considers the Christian deification of Jesus to be a form of idolatry. Christianity considers this same activity to be the highest moral imperative. The basis of the Jewish position is the revelation at Mt. Sinai. The revelation at Mt. Sinai revealed to the Jewish people whom it is they are to worship. At the same time the Jewish people were taught whom it is they should not be worshiping. The revelation was all-inclusive. God showed them that there is no other divine entity. “To you it was shown in order that you know that the Lord is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is none else” (Deuteronomy 4:35). The fact that the Jewish people do not report seeing Jesus at Mt. Sinai, tells us that he is not deserving of worship. 

Protestant Christianity refuses to rely on the Jewish nation’s report of that momentous event. The fact that the Jewish nation’s understanding of God was impacted by that event means nothing to the Christian. The Protestant rejection of the national Jewish testimony stands in direct contradiction to the words of the Jewish scriptures.

Scripture records that God directed the Jewish people – “you should make it known to your children and to your children’s children. The day that you stood before the Lord you God at Horeb (another name for Mt. Sinai)” (Deuteronomy 4:9,10). It is clear from the words of scripture that God expected the Jewish people to preserve the message of this revelation. When God talks to the later generations, He uses the revelation at Mt. Sinai as a point of reference. Scripture identifies a false god by a negative comparison to this national revelation. God uses the terms “that which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3) or “those that your fathers did not know” (Deuteronomy 13:7) in order to make reference to a false god. God is directing the later generations that they look to their father’s testimony in order to recognize the false gods.

The words of scripture clearly testify to the fact that God uses the collective memory of the Jewish nation as a medium of communication. Scripture tells us that God trusts the testimony of the Jewish nation, and that God requires of us to do the same. The Church position that would have us ignore the testimony of the Jewish nation, is clearly refuted by the words of scripture.

The living legacy of the Jewish nation is commissioned by God not only to preserve the basic understanding of God’s oneness. God also utilizes the national Jewish testimony to deliver to the later generations many details of the Law that Moses did not record in the Five Books. It is only through the living testimony of the Jewish nation that we can understand the spirit of Sabbath, the practical application of the laws of kosher, as well as a host of other scriptural directives. Christianity refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Jewish nation’s testimony concerning any of these matters. The Church would have us believe that in the forty years Moses lived among the Jewish people, he said not a word more than was recorded in the Five Books. Again, it is the scripture that the Christians revere, that testifies to the falsity of the Christian position.

Scripture records the divine directive to observe the holiday of Passover. Any Jew who eats leaven during this seven-day holiday is threatened with the heavenly penalty of having his soul cut off from the midst of his nation. Scripture tells us that this holiday takes place, from the fourteenth day until the twenty-first day of the first month. Scripture does not tell us when this first month is supposed to begin. In fact, scripture says nothing about the construction of a calendar. If we assume, as the Church proposes, that Moses taught nothing more than the words he recorded in the Five Books, we will find ourselves facing a serious problem. How are we to know when the holiday of Passover is to begin?

Similar questions can be asked concerning most of the scriptural commandments. At what age is a person considered responsible for the practice of the Law? What exactly is meant by the term “betrothal” mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:23? What is the court procedure to be followed in a case where capital punishment is to be applied? What are the necessary qualifications required of the judges presiding over such a court, and who elects these judges? The scriptures provide no information on these matters, yet it is obvious from the words of scripture that these laws are to be observed by a living nation. Could it really be as the Christian argues? Is it possible that Moses said nothing more on these matters? How could a nation be held accountable to a Law that is so vague and ambiguous? How could people be threatened with divine penalties for violation of a Law that leaves so much unsaid?

It is quite evident that Moses did provide instructions outside of scripture’s terse terminology. Clearly Moses guided the people in the practical application of the Law. God expected that these instructions be available to the last generation. The only medium that God provided for the transmission of this information, is the living testimony of the Jewish nation. This living chain, which travels along the generations, father to son, teacher to disciple, is the means through which God elected to transport His holy Law to the end of time.

Christianity refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the rabbinical courts. The Church position is then, that no man is authorized to render judgment in matters relating to the divine directives of Moses. Scripture explicitly repudiates this Christian contention.

Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy records Moses’ injunction to the people that they consult with the judges and the priests. The verse goes on to say that the decisions of these men are to be followed. One who blatantly ignores the court’s decision is to be put to death. Chapter 19 of second Chronicles vividly describes how the righteous King Jehosaphat established courts throughout his kingdom. Jehoshaphat makes reference to two leaders to whom the judges can turn to with their questions. One of these leaders was to direct the courts in matters pertaining to the Laws of God, while the other officer guided the judges in matters relating to civil law. Scripture leaves the reader with no doubt that these men were authorized to pronounce judgment in the application of the Law of Moses.

Chapters 13 and 17 of Deuteronomy document Moses’ directives to the people in regard to idolaters. If a comprehensive investigation reveals that an individual or a community is truly guilty of idol-worship, the transgressors must then be killed. Scripture directs the entire nation to participate in the execution of these idolaters. It is obvious from the context of these passages that the guilt of these men was determined by a court of qualified judges. Still, all the people must take part in the implementation of their decision.

It is abundantly clear that not only does God authorize people to make decisions in the application of his holy Law, but God also commands His people to abide by those decisions. Scripture openly contradicts the Christian assertion that no human is authorized to render judgment in matters concerning the divine Law. The Christian position is not based on the words of scripture. Instead the Christian doctrine stands in direct conflict to the clear words of scripture.

Furthermore it is only by means of the unwritten teachings of Moses, that the Jewish scriptures were canonized

It is only by means of the unwritten teachings of the apostles, that the Christian scriptures were canonized.

[size=20pt]Without sacred tradition there would be no Bible. Got that?[/size]

Source: http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368&Itemid=408

Hello all

Sorry I've been away, I am going through a trying time, please pray for me and my family.

I see I have been gone for too long, I shall be back to speak on them.

It is really foolish for people to not research the sources of those who have information on the Catholic Church.
If you take what bobbyaf showed here as solid then you certainly don't care for your beliefs.

Bobbyaf, before I open your yansh and lies please tell us the sources of the quotes you posted for me in the first page.

I will give you the chance to come clean first o.

Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you earlier? And can you give me a honest answer this time around? Here is the question again, Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command, or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

No Church has the authority to change any teaching of Christ. The only Church that has not changed the teaching of Christ is the Catholic Church. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you don't know fully the teaching of Christ and that they weren't all written in the Bible? Oh yeah that's right John tells us that many things that were done by Christ were not written down.

The Church has the authority to interpret scripture (that it wrote and defined as scripture) and teach it to its members, use it to address every situation that the Church faces in every age or era.

And where in this passage did it say that Mary went to heaven?

And where in the Bible does it say that unless it is written down it isn't true.

The passage shows the woman who gave birth to the Messiah in the temple of God as the ark of the covenant. Who gave birth to the messiah?

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

Oh let us be honest, it has everything to do with Catholic tradition, this passage here tells you that the Church is the authority. If the Church did not have a canon who would you listen to?

Anyway, we know as Christians that Jesus on the Cross admonished John the beloved disciple to take care of Mary His mother. It is obvious she too died, and remains dead until Jesus comes back again and call her from the grave. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that remotely indicates that Mary was later resurrected from the dead.

So who is the woman that gave birth to the messiah that is in the book of Revelations? When you answer this question it would lead to another mystery of Christ.
How disrespectful of Christ to allow his mother's body to rot like the rest of us. He would dishonour her if he did. How can he be against himself?

Your task is to show from scriptures that Mary was resurrected. Any attempt at extra-biblical material will only prove the purpose of my thread true, and the purpose of my thread is to show that the RCC leaders have taken it up on themselves to attempt to replace God's truth with their doctrines and traditions.

And I show you from Revelations that Mary appears in the book of Revelation as the ark of the covenant. Anyone who can reason will see that. We also see the apostles in heaven in the book of Revelations, if the apostles can make it to heaven, do you expect God to allow his mother to be in the ground?

So if there isn't a word for cousin then what did the angel mean when he said these words? "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

The word translated is actually kinswoman, but thanks to sacred tradition of knowing that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Bible replaces kinswoman for cousin. There really isn't a word for cousin in aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek, don't forget that. If you think I am lying, go ahead and research it and see for yourself, but make sure you let me know what you find.

So what! Not in all cases are the original transcripts translated word for word. Think before you write, you're not making any sense. What genius would it require for a translator to simply express the relationship between cousins? Why would brothers, or sisters as words be used instead? LOL

Because when those people speak of Jesus' brothers they speak aramaic and there is no word for cousin in aramaic. There are also instances in the Bible where the word brother is used for cousins, take a look at Lot and Abraham.

As per your scholars are they Catholic scholars by chance?

Some are and some are not, I take it you haven't done any research on these things and you are only spewing what comes to mind. Well my advice to you is to actually ask scholars and see.

If a Jewish mother had a daughter first, and a son afterward, did you know that the son would be called the first-born? Literally he wasn't, but as regards preeminence he was considered the first-born.

Lol, you must really be grasping at straws, I already showed you that first-born refers to whomever opens the womb of the woman, so the daughter is actually called first-born and the son is called first-born son.

What would you say about a woman who has a daughter only, would you say that she doesn't have a first-born?
So she hasn't given birth?

So what!

So first born does not require a second born.

And if you were never taught by catholic scholars that this passage pointed to Mary's experience I guess you yourself would not have thought of it, correct? If I as much as randomly came across this passage I'd be at my wits end trying to figure out what is being said here.

Well then you better get on that theology.
How do you know the other prophecies? Did you pick up the Bible and automatically start knowing what the prophecies were?

Not once is the word virgin mentioned in that passage, or Messiah, yet you'd rather extrapolate a single passage blindly, because some priest gave his take on it through private interpretation. Interesting indeed

Lol, so unless the word virgin and messiah is used it cannot be a prophecy?
You do know that Jesus is Lord, and that there are plenty of passages that do not say messiah or virgin that refers to Christ and Mary?

Doesn't make a difference if its a son or the son. Isaiah did not say "the son is given", he said "unto us a son is given"

In the context of Isaiah we know that the passage is talking about one person that would come, in the context of Mary we know that there if we say the son we refer to one son and if we say a son we assume there is more than one son.

Imagine brother Joseph having fallen in love with this beautiful virgin was now preparing himself to put her away. How broken hearted he must have been, as one who had big family dreams.

Thank God Joseph isn't presumptous and doesn't consider himself equal to God that he would touch the womb God dwelt in. Mary is the ark of the covenant and no man can touch the ark as you well know.

Notice the phrase, "knew her not till". So in other words Joseph made love to his wife some time Jesus was born. He gave her time to recover. Its not in me to speculate as to how soon after they had more children, but from the previous biblical passages I quoted from my opening post, together with Matthew 1:24,25, it is undeniably a fact that Mary had more children with Joseph.

Stop forgetting that the Bible was not written in English, but even at that knowing her not till does not imply that he had sexual relations with her. "not until" does not mean "did not, until after"

the greek word used there is "heos"

I have to go, I will be back to finish.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

And how did he preach the gospel? Did he write it down and ask them to read and interpret for themselves.

Look if you guys think we are wrong can you please go through the passages I provided and show me what they actually mean?

Tell me how those passages prove that you should go by Bible alone.

And can someone please answer my questions?

Did God give the Bible authority or did he give the authority to the Church?

Plain and simple, answer my questions and we will get somewhere.

Lady,
they might have defined the bible we see today,but it is a fact that they did not write the bible. The fact is, even if they did define the books to make up the bible, their so called extra traditions and extra biblical practices should not be in contradiction with what the bible puts forward.
There is no place in the bible's accounts that the apostles ever contradicted themselves; therefore, the Catholic traditions would only have been valid if they were in equal harmony with the message from the bible.
And we all know;youself inclusive,that the Catholic traditions,extra biblical practices, are in heavy contradiction with the bible.

They could have presented the manual or guideline(the bible) but have derailed from keeping to it

The Catholic traditions are not contradictory to the Bible, and it is a known fact that the apostles were Catholic. If not would you mind telling me what happened to the Church that Christ founded? If something did happen to it, then wouldn't that make Jesus a liar when he says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church.

Do you seriously think the Church would put together a canon and use a canon that is contradictory to its belief? How stupid would that be?

How do you think the Bible came together? They just found a set of books and decided to call it scripture? Who gave them the authority to call it scripture and why do you regard those set of books in the Bible as scripture?
If the Church is so infallible, how can she define something that is infallible?

Have you read the other writings of the early church, and I'm not talking about the gnostic gospels that were just discovered?

The traditions of the Church have not changed since the apostles, what they handed on to us is what you see, and I presented scripture from above that proves that there were traditions that were handed down not just written down but were passed down orally? How do you know which ones were passed down orally?

The only people that don't go with the Bible are protestants.

I see Bobbyaf praised Martin Luther, I wonder what he thinks about Martin Luther challenging the apostle Paul and disagreeing with Paul's writings, originally from the Bible, he removed the books of James, Revelation and several others. The protestants later on added it, I wonder why? Why didn't you guys stick to what Martin Luther stated?

I also have to ask you, how did the apostles teach before the New Testament became canon by the Church?

Do you believe in solely by the scriptures, if so, then why, because scripture disproves scripture alone?

The difference between the Catholic church and everyone else is that we are right, and we are the ones that can logically explain the Bible. We are the ones that don't contradict ourselves with scripture.

Here's what protestants usually do, they quote passages to support their view and the we Catholics quote scriptures to support our view, so it seems that the scriptures are contradictory when infact they are not. The contradiction comes from the interpretations and you can't possibly think we put together a Bible we cannot interpret.

What about the Church's teachings do you find contradictory and what do you think we deviated from? If I show you that these teachings of the Church have actually been taught since the founding of the Church what would you say?

hey peeps!
hapi hapi new year!!!

ok guys, itz like this
having met Pamperme and Carl
and also seeing the chemistry b t w the 2 of them
i took it as duty to make sure that we wear ashebi this year
so folks, I'm delighted to annouce to u'all the newest couple on ths this thread
Mr. & Mrs. PamCarl
sweet couple

where is Lindiwe sef?

ROTFLMBO

I can't wait to wear aseobi o. lol

ok, this is the big for me:
asked you'all yo join in prayers for my sistas and my dad. . .
like a big thank you for everyone that did
your prayers worked miracle!
Dad is getting beta, my sis got what she prayed for
and i also got what i have been praying for. . .
please say a thank you prayer for me
i pray that the good Lord will meet us all at the point of our need.
may his name be praised. . . .

Thank you Lord.

We thank God for another year again and we hope it will be a better year than the former.
Viee, Lady, carlos,karlie, lawyer (this must b a brand new lawyer, lol, ) pamperme Lindiwe (wir hv u been) chukwudi, This year will surely b a blessed year for all of us. A year to draw even more closer than before to God.

Hello, Oby, I loved your write up, the convo was nice.

abi o, Happy new year to you too. ow are u?

lol, I am fine, and u?

chukwudi44:
i know it is belated, but all the same happy new year to everyone in the house

Happy belated New year to u too.

Magz:
The idea of any African person professing to be Catholic, the Pagan idoler White Man's forced religion, is beyond stupid.

Sorry, but to me that is the truth.

You are aware that Christianity reached AFRICA before it reached the white man right? But like you said it is your truth, not THE TRUTH.

tope2000:
Excatly the u guys should answer the question then since I'm wrong

Tope having sex with someone outside of marriage even though you love them purely is wrong. That person is not your spouse and you should only be having sex with your spouse. But we all know we are weak, and some of us fall into the sin of fornication, we can redeem ourselves, but we should not think that it is ok to sleep with someone outside of marriage even though we purely love them.

In my life, I have purely loved two men and almost married one, today we are not together, so it would be wrong for me to sleep with them or to have slept with them.

All i know i don't want a man who has been around the world and back.  next ting you know he's falling asleep after one shot.

[size=20pt]AMEN!!![/size]

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

The task for interpretation was given to the magisterium, this is true, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't use the Bible and that the Bible isn't authority. Since you want to quote from the catechism, do you mind telling us what the catechism says about the Bible please?

I'm sorry but who was buried alive and pulled asunder? Are protestants non-existent today? And weren't many heresies flying everywhere? If they were put asunder we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Thank you for stating the obvious. That wasn't the question I asked initially. There is a vast difference between what came out of inspiration, that is the word of God, and what was invented by a group of men, called the cathechism.

Lol, the catechism is not used for instruction, it isn't used as the Word of God, it is not used in the Church as a preaching tool, and neither is it an interpretation of the Bible.
The catechism simply spells out doctrines so people won't be confused but these doctrines are from the Bible and oral tradition (sacred tradition) and it isn't compulsory to own one, you don't have to own one to be a faithful Catholic. Even the catechism will tell you that.

I stated that you should get rid of the contempt you hold towards Catholicism before you engage in this discussion, you wouldn't want to hold hatred in your heart.

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

You asked who gives us authority and I said God gives us authority and I provided you with biblical proof showing that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (authority). There is only one Church that was founded by Christ, that is the Catholic Church.
So to be honest, it has everything to do with it.

Well, hang around and you will see where I am heading. I hope for your sake you will hang around.

Oh trust me I will hang around and I will tell you what the Church really teaches. Believe me you're not the first one to have tried this, you just may know the truth after this and become Catholic.

I just hope you're willing to answer my questions as we move along. Most people tend to dodge them because it will require them to admit they are wrong.

On Catholic sacred tradition.

The Bible is sacred tradition, that is how we were able to tell who wrote what in the Bible and which books were legitimate to be included in the Bible. Without sacred tradition there is no Bible.

The Bible was not used to teach instead the scripture that was used to teach was the Old Testament, but the Bible as you know it today (Old Testament and New Testament) was not used.

The Bible tells us to hold on to tradition, that tradition is what the Church has held on to for centuries.

Here's scripture to prove so.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. Those things are not less important.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - 9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.

11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat

this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Philipians 4:9 Keep on doing what you have learned and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. Nothing here about reading the scripture alone, we hold on to what Paul and the other apostles have taught us.

Colossians 4:16 And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, ” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? You can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation)

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, borthers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. - The Church teaches from the letter (Bible) and oral statement (sacred tradition not in the Bible, but supported by it)

2 Thess 3:6 We instruct you brothers in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition received from us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.-- the tradition doesn't stop with them and what they wrote, it passes on to future generations.

ok I'm tired, so dats all. Just wanted to point a few things out to you all about what scripture says about tradition before you all start pointing fingers, ok carry on.

Another doctrine that is not bible-based that has become a Roman Catholic doctrine is the one that says that Mary mother of Jesus remained a virgin.

The word of God says to the contrary:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and  James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of  Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one  accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN."  Acts 1:13-14

God says "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD'S BROTHER."  Galatians 1:19

As favoured as Mary was of God, do Catholics really believe that God Almighty would punish her with a barren womb after being used as a chosen vessel to deliver His Only Begotten Son? Wouldn't this be an indictment on God Himself? What kind of an all-loving God would do something like that?

Scholars will tell you that those brothers of Jesus most likely belong to Joseph from a different marriage. It is also possible that James was the son of another Mary related to Jesus, Mary the Mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. In Aramaic there isn't a word for cousins, everyone is simply referred to as brother and sister, unless we are to assume that Mary had a sister also named Mary, I would say that Mary called her sister is a relative, a cousin.

Let's not forget that Jesus spoke aramaic and not english. and the Bible was not written in english, it is translated word for word without regard to the culture or custom or use of a word of the language it was originally written in.

Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezekiel 44:2
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. Why would she leave her other children behind, why would they leave their other siblings behind and go searching for Jesus alone.

John 19:26-27 - 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would Jesus commit Mary into the hands of a disciple if she had other children to care for her? it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25  25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene - I spoke of the other Mary related to Jesus, you see her here in scripture.

Matt. 27:61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre , 28:1 - 1 And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.
Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee
Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Mark 15:47 47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.

We know that the 'other Mary' is the one that accompanied Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and here she is called mother of Joseph. We see from Matthew 27:56 that Mary the mother of Joseph is also Mary the mother of James.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Do not forget that there are several Mary's in the Bible.

Lol@ punish Mary with a barren womb. A barren womb is one that cannot conceive, Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus so how is she barren?

Look when you are ready to discuss the doctrine of the Church without contempt in your heart, you may do so, until then make sure you are not holding animosity in your heart because it will be clear for all to see and no one will take you seriously.

Don't mind the catholics.They are just another set of deceieved deceivers.

A set of deceived deceivers that defined your Bible for you, so what does that make you? Or what do you think, the Bible just fell from the sky?

Most of my Catholic contacts often say that they are taught to believe that they must be more loyal to the church than to the bible. In other words they don't see the bible as the final arbitre of truth and doctrines

Don't come here and lie, the Church does not teach any such thing. If anyone told you this they are lying. Be careful who calls themselves a Catholic, we already many on Nairaland who try to validate their statements by saying that they were once Catholics, but when we ask them questions about Catholicism they run away.

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

Well the authority comes from God, even the Bible will tell you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Bible calls the Church (not the Bible) the foundation and pillar of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

I hope you actually know what the traditions of the Church is before you start speaking false things.

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

Did God give the Bible authority to preach and spread the good news, cast out demons, and such or did he give it to the Church (the people)he founded?
If you can answer this you can answer your question.

A case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

That isn't a teaching of the Church. The teaching is that Mary fell asleep, which is death, and then was taken to heaven. There is biblical basis for it, go to Revelations 12
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

This man child is Christ, while the woman here is mostly applied to the Church and the crown of twelve stars as the apostles, it can be applied, by allusion, to Mary. As we know that she is the one who gave birth to the man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Mary is seen as a type of Church (that's a discussion for another day)

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

It isn't appealing at all, which is why many of you do not understand it. She is a part of the mystery of Christ, and if you deny her mystery, you deny Christ's too. A child is always tied to his mother.

But may I ask you, did Mary give birth to a person or just to an empty body?

Not really sure about what the bible says about marrying non-virgins but what i do know is that Of course u can marry a non-virgin. If you genuinely love someone, you have already committed yourself to them emotionally. Even God himself recognises that bond if you ask him to and if you have sex with a person before marriage, this is no sin if it is done purely for love.   Surely as Corinthians tells us, love is the greatest gift of them all

[size=16pt]WHAT THE H***?[/[/size]

You can have sex with a person if it's purely out of love before marriage? So why should we all get married? Do you know how many people have fallen in love with several others before settling for one? So should they sleep with all of them because they purely love them? What then is fornication?

I hope that this could be applied Christianity, too, if we look at it, from the Jews and the pagans of the worlds view point, just before they became Christians. Afterall, the Jews who became Christians were made to believe that their former ways, Judaism was completely wrong. So were the pagans, too as they trooped in, into Christianity.

If a Christian converts to islam doesn't it mean that they say Jesus is not God? Do you see how this does not relate to my post?
I asked what kind of mercy is there in Islam? The one after they convert to Islam?
In Christianity you do not receive mercy because you become a Christian, you receive mercy for being human, all human life is sacred, whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or other, including unborn babies from the onset of conception. ALL HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED. MERCY IS NOT GIVEN IF YOU CONVERT, MERCY IS GIVEN ALL THE TIME.

In the case of Islam, read Chapter 9. In the second to the last verse, you will see that Muhammad was declared as Mercy and Forgiveness for people. I need to explain this to you, since you are too stubborn to call me;

and what happens to when he killed those who are kafir for not converting is that mercy?
All the more reason why I say muhammad was confused.

The fact that Islam came to warn, all mankind, and just tribes or a region, of the awaiting punishment of hell, and then giving the road map to avoid this horrible destination,

Uh Christ already did this, that's why we tell you islam copied off of christianity. Muhammad just couldn't understand a lot and that's why he thought it was wrong. Trust me several others tried before Muhammad, go back in history and check.

Ignorant speech. Please prove it in history. If this is the case, would there have been a single soul that is not Islamic when islam dominate a society? Lets think about it for a minute. If you had argued about Choose Islam or choose Payment of "disbeliver" as in Taxation; Jizyah, I will agree with you. ~Lady~, you are the big time liar here!

Ok let's get specific, christians and jews were given the option of choosing Islam or the jizyah tax, but what about pagans were they given that choice? No, they were given the choice of choosing Islam or death? That is why Muhammad was warring with Arabia, Arabians were pagans, but even they are humans, and their life is sacred. They converted because they were given the choice of Islam or death.

Do some research and notice that everyone who talks about the spread of Islam says that Christians and Jews were given the choice of jizyah tax, but what about those who weren't Christians and Jews. Why did they have to die?

Ok, you want proof, here it is!!!

http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/sword.html Read the first paragraph, the author says the non-believers were simply given the freedom to choose either Islam or death.

And even at that, choose Islam or pay the Jizyah? Isn't that oppression on its own? Why do I have to pay to believe in my faith? You are not paying to have your faith, why am I paying to have mine? You guys are making it sound as if it's a good thing. It's not. I shouldn't have to be subject to a tax because of my belief, it's called injustice.

Where is equality when I am a second class citizen because of my belief?
Muhammad made a decree that no other religion can be practiced in Arabia and that's why till today no religion but Islam can be practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Your aunt left Islam. She hadn't been killed, yet

Uh she lives in the United States, and her husband knows we would get him in jail in a heartbeat. We don't actually go around announcing that she was a muslim that left Islam, a stupid woman tried doing that and we almost got harmed, so we don't mention it again. We value our lives.
But what about those who are in majority muslim places? Why are they dying for leaving their faith? Why do they run when they leave their faith? Why can't they stay where they are and change their faith? Why can't they feel free when they leave the faith?
Why does the quran encourage the killing of those who leave the faith? What does that mean?

And what do you mean by yet? Are you going to put a hit out on him?

If everyone who left Islam was killed, except those who entered it by deceit in their hearts, thinking that by their leaving it, they will bring about discredit into it, I wonder what will be the reason for the verse where it is expressed that people who leave Islam many time, there will be a time that their forgiveness (reentering) will not be acceptable.

And you don't see anything wrong with this? They should be killed for bringing a disgrace to Islam? So how is Islam not a compulsory religion again? Who would want to leave if they know that they'll be killed for leaving?
Most of those who left Islam, were born into it and they are being killed, infact those are the only converts from Islam and they are being killed, they didn't join to ridicule Islam, and even if they did, let them go and live their lives, vengeance is the Lord's.
That is AGAINST humanity.

In Christianity, anyone can join and leave and join and leave without any threat of being killed. They can come in to discredit it if they want to, we are confident in God that he can defend himself, we don't need to defend him, God can hold his own, he isn't insecure where he has to kill people because they speak negatively of him.

Let Allah defend himself if he's confident enough.

One should think before asking silly question. It is obvious that not all Jews were turned to Pigs and Apes

LOL, even the quran doesn't say they were turned to apeas and swine, it calls them apes and swine. Not in that they are physically turned to apes and swine, but that they are apes and swine as a way of insulting them and getting muslims to wipe them off the face of the earth.

Read about the word "Infidel" in the book of Timothy. There is no "Infidel" as a word in Qur'aan. If you don't find it in Timothy, ask for whatever you want as a reward. If you find it in the Qur'aan, show it to me, and then ask for your reward. You have two chances to win. But you to be in it, to win it. I am not asking for anything, from you, because, you will taking for all you got. And I will be unfair, if I do that. Thats my Islam.

An Infidel is an unbeliever and we know that it is in the Quran, so stop trying to deviate from the question. Why did kill the infidel, kafir, unbelievers, nonbelievers become mercy?

Am still talikng to you. Isn't that a sign of mercy?

Mercy for what? You can't see me, you don't know where I live, so how can you kill me?
Um I asked you not to talk to me so actually you're not being merciful by talking to me. SO there.

Just imagine a non-muslim Nigerian, around my age who you are rude to, as much as you have been rude to me. And mind you, there is no just cause for it

Dude I have reason to curse you out, for the many times you've lied to me and insulted me and my belief, I have every right to curse you out.

Now, tell us my lies to you. I now call your bluff.

I was referring to when you told me that if Allah says telling the opposite of the truth is not a lie, it isn't a lie.
Do you remember this conversation?
You were telling me that Allah said that if a muslim is facing death and they asked him if he was a muslim he can deny it if he is afraid to die. And so I asked isn't that lying? And you said no, it is not lying, because Allah says it is ok.
I asked you what lying is and I'm still waiting for an answer.
How can the opposite of truth not be a lie?

We will have to ask about the Jehovah/Yahweh of the Jews, being one single God, and then in Christianity, suddenly we see three separate and distinct gods.

No he showed himself in the Old Testament, and all he does is fully reveal himself in the New Testament.
He is still One God, that 3 and distinct God is your imagination and lack of understanding of God.

If they werent separarte and distinct, then we have to agree that when son god died, father and ghost must also have died, leaving you with no god, at all!

lol, a person's body dies but the spirit never does, the spirit can go to eternal life or eternal damnation, but I think I remember you saying that the spirit is created after death. Can you explain that please?
In the case of Jesus, his humanity was dead but his divinity wasn't, but he goes a step further by resurrecting his body and promising us the same. So we too will be resurrected.
This helps us more in understanding what is meant by man being created in God's image.

Let me help you. I am sure that you think that you pretty much cover up when you go out. But if I were to tell you that you didn't, that you are in some cultures considered naked. I believe you will have a tiffy about it. Well, to bring you up to standard where by no one will think that you are improperly dressed, may be gradual. The best thing is to advice you that the clothing, should not be too tight to the body. Then longer and covers all the limbs. Soon, enough, the advice that you should cover your head like the Nuns may be easy for you to swallow. Then to cover neck and lower your gaze will come later. If these prcesses are recorded, will it be so difficult to see, by anyone who has good and sound intelligence that the destination, is not just that your cloth doesnt stick to the skin, alone. But that you cover all the way, from the top down, hiding the family charms and jewels, that are for your husband, alone. If this is changing mind, then, you need to know that this points to mercy, because God gradually guide who ever accept guidance away from evil. So in your case it will be proper covering up, instead of nudity disguised as covering up.

lol, hmmm dats interesting for a book that is meant for all peoples at all times. So some of those things aren't standing and well that shows that Allah cannot make up his mind on his word. So I guess it stands that the nicer ayats were abrogated by the violent ayats since they were written before to appeal to the different communities and when they refused to accept muhammad as a prophet he decided to state the violent suras.

When you read in sequence, do you read the last portion first? Lets take the Bini language alphabet for example. Sorry I don't speak bini and neither do you. So let use the english Alphabets. If you read in complete sequence, would read M before L? Of course not. It is the same situation, when it comes to drinking. If Muslims don't drink, wouldn't it make sense that it is clear that this verse that commands prohibition is the last to be revealed on alcohol consumption, instead of it being in any other sequence?

So then everything in the Quran is not binding. Then the ayats about "religion is not compulsory" is not binding and the other ones that are nice are not binding because the violent ones came after them.

You already know that Muslims are commanded not to not talk in Salah, so any verse that even allows talking was abrogated by the one that says not to talk. So when a new community, say you and your friends who are ignorant of Islam, right now, enters it, you will graduate from disorganized in prayer, to regular and organized Salah and where there is no idle talk.

Anyone who is praying whether Christian, muslim, Jews or whatever knows not to have idle talk when praying. So this isn't about Islam.

Ogbeni. You havent changed abit. Now show me where in the Qur'aan this is written? I will love to read it for myself. I mean the enboldened. Or where it is written in the ahadith.

If you can't, I will then provide you verses from Qur'aan that forbids suicides, taking one's life. I will also do the same from Ahadith.

Quran: 9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran


Quran-4:74- Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory (i.e. killed or be killed) - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value)

Quran-4:95- Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons (sacrifice both life and wealth) than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.

Do you see how the Quran calls for violence?

And in all of these, you did not remember "yoking or not yoking?" Seriously? You did not even pay attention that you as a woman in Christianity was just referred to as the mere extension or crown of your husband. Look into Islam. It says believing men and "believing women!" You need Islam, seriously!

yoking doesn't say you are better than the non-christians, it is telling you not to do as they do. Go and find out what yoke is first before you start speaking. It isn't a law that says you should treat unbelievers worse than yourself. It in no way says a christian is worth more than a muslim or atheist or jew or other. That is equality.

You did not even pay attention that you as a woman in Christianity was just referred to as the mere extension or crown of your husband. Look into Islam. It says believing men and "believing women!"

And what does a crown signify? Why do Kings and Queens wear crowns? What is a crown? A crown is glory, I want to be the glory of my husband. Go find out what glory is.

I don't need Islam, I have all I need, Christ.

You need to look into Christianity to resolve this first. Then come to Islam and see the position of honor and equality that Islam gave women.

There is equality in Christianity, we see that with the way Christ deals with the women. We see this in the discussion with the samaritan woman, not only does he speak to a Samaritan, a race that is supposedly unpure, but he speaks to a woman and asks her for a drink. Jesus also sat and taught women and as we know it wasn't the norm of his day. The Bible speaks on creation as God creating them "male and female" in equality. Also in Christian marriage the two become one, so there is no inferiority there. The Bible also mentions that there is no unequality amongst all human, whether male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free, all are equal in the eyes of God.

This is not a Christian society. You must have heard of separation of Church "because the are not Jewish and the only religion that they know from the bayou of Europe is Christianity, otherwise they would be out right pagans", and state "Politics, the rule of law! I ask you, is the USA not a secular society? There is no principle of Christianity here. At best it is Judeo-Christian, if any. The founding fathers cared less for religion that they just resolve relious matter of the constitution by saying "freedonm of religion." You can practice or you may not. Its up to you. Maybe this is Christianity. And you know that the Jews don't care too much about Christianity.

Um do a little search on U.S. history and like I said it is built upon Christian Principles, Judeo-Christian? Same thing. Freedom is in Christianity. No one will make you pay a tax for believing in what you want to believe, and no one will try to kill you for changing your belief.
Little known fact to you? The legislators are sworn in using the Bible mostly and some with the Torah, they've been doing that for centuries, since the founding of America. America was founded by Christians. "freedom of religion" is Judeo-Christian principle.
Secular? Maybe, but we all Know that America is in "God we trust."

Which country practices this sidewalk apartheid? Ask any one from any so called Muslim society, if there is a payment of Jizyah, today? When the Kalifat is restored, however, I hope Benin City is a muslim city. Then you have to pay Jizyah. And my tax payment, may not be something that I am comfortable with, since it can serving something that I am uncomfortable with. But it must be paid, anyway.

All of them, unbelievers are looked at with disdain. But Iran passed a law making all non-believers wear a badge to make themselves known.
If that isn't injustice I don't know what is.
http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=49095

And I do disturb the community with my worship. This is why I am able to practice it. America knows it.

And we accept you as you are, but you all do not accept us. You may say things nicely in public but many imams have been caught speaking ill of us. You guys tell us how Islam is peaceful but behind doors you tell each other to spread Islam and fight the unbelievers.