₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Please which of God's laws inspires our "repulsion" as you put it?
Mind you I am not asking which of the consequences of breaking God's law you are repulsed by.[/quote]Here is one law for example that inspires every body's repulsion. . .there are so many but will drop just one. . .

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man is caught in the act of rap[i]i[/i]ng a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Your argument is like saying that a legal system employs evil for the sake of doing good everytime it punishes lawbreakers. If this is the case, then no law can possibly be good.

There is a part of our moral psyche that believes good should be rewarded and evil punished. Without any consequences, good and evil will become meaningless.

About acts of "genocide", by what standards do you judge it to be genocide? If a million people commit a crime should they not all be punished? Is it justice to overlook their crimes simply because of their large number?

Killing in itself is not morally evil, murder on the other hand is morally evil. The difference between judicial killing and murder is the authority/license to kill, This is why an executioner is not judged a murderer neither is a soldier judged a murderer by law no matter how many people they kill.

If God is ultimate judge, creator and moral giver who in His judgment, commands the death of criminals (a.k.a. sinners) You legally cannot dictate to Him what the extent of His judgment should be however you may question His fairness; if He is being partial and if His moral laws are contradictory.[/quote]By whose standard do you judge the Jihadist? After all they are carrying out allah's command to slay the unbelievers, because allah surely dislike the unbelievers, they must die for their sins. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The thing is that your question already assumes morality as separate from any authority. This I don't agree with.
Our morality comes from obedience to God's law (our conscience). Our morality simply has no meaning if it is not defined by any laws.[/quote]If our morality comes from obeying god's law(bible god) then why do some of the bible god's law inspire our(christians inclusive) repulsion?. . .

FXKing2012: Muskeeto, mazaje, logicmind, logicboy, etc etc, ever since you've been shouting on nairaland that there is no God or no spirit realm, have u convinced or converted a single individual? Cant u see your efforts are futile? Why not expend that time and energy into something more productive cos your rantings aint aint getting you no converts.

I am not actually seeking converts here and YES some people have left christianity by coming here and reading about the exchanges. . .Some have written about it. . .I just come here to show Nigerians that it is very OK and normal to be an atheist. . .Because even the christians here do NOT know what they are talking about. . .

FXKing2012: Why do we even bother trying to convince these atheists that there is a God or a spirit realm when they make up only about 3% of world population. In social sciences, anything below 5% is considered insignificant, so why expend so much effort and energy arguing with them? They ask stupid questions thinking they are smart as if the 3% are wiser and smarter than the 97% who believe in a higher being or the spirit realm.
So, really, why do we even care?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

God exist in the spirit realm abi?. . .When men were primitive and without any meaningful knowledge of the world around themthis same god was living with them, in fact they even tried to build a tower to reach him up in the sky. . .Now that men have scientific knowledge of the world around them the same god that was using his hands to write on walls or living inside an ark of covenant now ran away to the spiritual realm. . .I laugh in koine greek. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Let me clarify some definitions for you, so we are on the same page:
Morality: A system for distinguishing between what is good and what is evil.
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour (oxford dictionary)
Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). (wikipedia)[/quote]Legality is a part of morality because laws also determine what is right and what is wrong. You can NOT seperate the two. . .

Objectivity: The quality of impartiality and neutrality whereby facts are clearly defined irrespective of personal perceptions or bias. The opposite of subjectivity.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing fact e.g. historians try to be objective and impartial (oxford dictionary)

OK. . . .

Objective Morality: This says that there is a set standard for what is good and what is evil i.e. morality is set e.g. and evil behavior will be evil in itself irrespective of how it is perceived by individuals also a good behavior will be good in itself irrespective of how it is perceived by the individuals.

Such morality does NOT exist in reality. What ever the society and the law makers chose to label as moral to them based on reasons best known to them. I have given you an example with slavery in the bible, it was so right according to that time and people that their god was even giving them injunctions on how to sell their daugters into slavery and enslave others around them. As long as the society feels an act is right then it is right, when the society feels an act is wrong then it becomes wrong. Objective morality does NOT exist in reality, morality varies from society to society is it is NOT objective, take the endearment of sharia law by the muslims for example, to the muslims that is the greatest moral code every society should abide by, but to the west those moral codes are babaric. . .

Now i will go on to say that objectivity is the only way we can know anything for sure. To claim that morality is not objective is to claim that we cannot know for sure that something is good or that something is evil. If this is true, then what we are left with is chaos since good and evil become meaningless.

Good and evil are not meaningless as long as the society defines what is good and what is evil.

Just to note a quick point; the definitions you used were inadequate.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. dictionary.com (this alludes to an existing right i.e the quality of being moral. But remember our problem is differentiating between right and wrong) Next you skipped wikipedia's definition of morality itself and defined moral code instead (they are not the exact same thing).
Legality comes from morality but this does not automatically imply that all laws are moral. for instance if I say the dress code for my party is red jackets, it is a law as far as my party is concerned. if you turn up with a blue jacket, you have broken a ceremonial law and not a moral law. wearing a blue jacket is neither good nor evil in itself. It doesn't matter if the penalty for wearing a blue jacket to my party is death.
On the other hand if you came to my party and stabbed the DJ to death for no apparent reason, you have broken a moral law. It doesn't matter whether or not I clearly stated as one of the rules of the party "don't stab the DJ". It doesn't matter if I cheer wildly and give you a crown of gold or murdering the DJ.

What exactly are you saying?. . .What is ceremonail and what is moral law?. . .I disagree with what you have written, voilating a law is voilating a law, laws are laws. . .Good is good as determined by the society and bad is bad as determined by the society. . .

In a christian worldview, homosexuality is wrong because lustfulness and any sex outside marriage is morally wrong

Nice, but even christians now accept g[i]a[/i]ys, morality has evolved so much that christians now accept g[i]a[/i]ys, they don't believe that they should be stoned to death. . .As for sex outside of marriage it might be wrong to you but to many other it isn't and as such it is not bad. Some societies even encourage it for various reasons. This is an example that shows you that morality is not objective but varies from society to society, some societies see nothing wrong in sex before marriage or sex with another partner during marriage, some societies believe that polygamy is a good thing, others believe that an august visitor can sleep with one of the wives of his host when he comes to visit. Nothing is actually wrong or right until when society(religious, social or political) says it is. If there is objective morality then sex before marriage will be considered as an evil across the borad but it isn't. . .There are so many good reasons for sex before marriage. . .Sexual compatibility is one of them for example. . .So saying that sex before marriage is wrong doesn't make sense to a lot of people there by making it subjective. . .

So in other words, whatever speed the law of the land chooses, the law of the land is always right? (this is contradicting your argument because according to you morality is not objective and it changes. How then can any law always be right? How can we be sure that the moral code of the land is right in the first place? How can we be sure that breaking such a law is definitely morally wrong?)

Nope, the law of the land determines what is right and what is wrong, and it is constantly changing, slavery used to be right in some parts of the USA about 300 years ago, now it is a very big crime in the same country. . . .They are now trying to make laws to legalize pot in the same country that use to crminalize it and send people to jail for smoking pot. . .What ever the law says is good becomes good, what ever the law of the land says is bad becomes bad. . That is the reality of human and societal morality and code of conduct.

You are judging my worldview based on yours. I have told you that there is a difference between a moral law and a ceremonial/circumstantial law. You claim morality is subjective and ever evolving but when pressed to define exactly what is morally wrong or right, you are finding it difficult and resorting to telling me that laws which I have not defined as moral are moral laws. What I have provided for you is a standard by which you can define morals.
You obviously consider some things right and others wrong however you have not provided a basis by which your considerations may be validated.

Your differantiontion of the two is inadequate and I disagree with it. . .According to the bible it is bad for women to teach in the church weather it is ceremonial or moral law as you will like to have us believe is immaterial because it is a law, any woman that speaks in church is violating that biblical injunction and has done a bad thing. . .

I don't agree with you. I do not agree that any moral principles are created by man. I believe we are born with our morality or conscience. Studies have shown that babies as young as six months exhibit signs of having a moral compass. Check the links below;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275892/Were-born-moral-Babies-tell-good-evil-months.html

ALL moral principle are created by men. . .Remember that back in the days people very happily sacrifice their twins to the gods believing they were doing a good thing. . .People happily circumcise their female children in some socisties believing they are doing a good thing. . .I read about a primitive society that used to eat the flesh of their enemies in australia long ago believeing that it will make them better hunters, the whole society engages in it and believes it was a good thing. . .You grow up accepting the moral values of your society, if you are born a muslims you will consider eating port one of the greatest wrong a person can do, if you are born in Denmark that eating pork will not be seen as a bad thing. . .I consider the studies to be wrong because they kids were judging what was right or wrong based on their own subjective thinking and reasoning. . .

By saying that you base your morality on society, you are in other words saying that you cannot as result judge if any society is good or bad irrespective of what they do. For instance for an Nazi living in Germany of 1939, killing Jews is morally right and you don't have the right to condemn it as evil because he too gets his morals from his society as you do yours. Besides how can your society be right or wrong if morality is truly subjective? i.e. if you decide to break societal laws you are right in your own eyes and your society is also right in it's eyes therefore your societal laws can never be fair but can only always be oppressive. this is also right (or wrong depending on who is observing).
Nothing can be both morally wrong and right at the same time else the concept of morality becomes meaningless.

What I am saying is that society determine what is right and what is wrong based on many reasons and factors but ultimately it is the society that ALWAYS determines what is right and what is wrong and as such we have various laws and moral codes of conduct in different societies. . . .Right or wrong is determines by society and period in time, even in your bible when genocide was accpetable your god was its champion along with his alleged prohets. . .When slavery was accpetable your god was its champion, telling people how to enslave their own daughters and brand their slaves. . .When stealing the lands of others was the norm back then your god was telling his people to go and take the lands of other flowing with milk and honey, when people felt that stonning to death their disobedient children was the right thing your god was telling them to do it. . .My point is morality is NOT objective, all moral laws are determined by the soceity(Religious, social and political).

Men create all the moral laws they chose to abide by and men change it when ever they feel it is necessary. . .

^^

Roger. . .

okeyxyz: pls show me the bible passages you referred to, on which i attempted to correct you...

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in thechurches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to besubmissive, as the law also says. Andif they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; forit is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originallyfrom you? Or was it you only that it reached?

Clearly women are not supposed to speak in church or teach men in church. . . .

1 Timothy 2:1-15Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not withbraided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

In today's world this injunction is considered as sexist and has no place in the civilized world. . .

okeyxyz: while i agree that morality is ever evolving, I do feel the need to urge you not to promote fallacies & assumptions regarding the bible. Nowhere did the bible say that women should not speak in public or hold authority over men. The bible passage you refer to was commanded strictly on spiritual matters & that women are forbidden to hold spiritual authority over men, it has nothing to do with secular values or organizations. I assume you are not a christian (or you don't even believe in god), as a result you are entitled to oppose or misrepresent it's messages and meanings.

Pls show me where the highlighted part is written in the bible? Are you adding to the bible?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Not so, You are mistaking morality for legalism. Morality does not evolve, for instance, adultery is morally wrong and will always be whether we decide to punish it or not, it is morally wrong. On the other hand, it is not morally wrong to exceed the speed limit and will never be even if you get arrested for it.

In the bible, the old testament was a covenant of laws and legalism and the new testament was the covenant of grace and conscientiousness. In both cases the nature of God remains the same. It is this nature of God which was perfectly portrayed in the life of Christ that I base my morals on. To go against it is to go against my conscience.

My question to you is what is the basis of your morality?[/quote]Legality is a part of morality. . I have given you a dictionary definition of morality and it includes legality. . .What about homosexuality?. . .Is it morally wrong?. . .It is morally wrong to exceed the speed limit because the law of the land says it is, violating is is violating the moral code of the land, so it is morally wrong. . .Now you have gone into the religious brouhaha that makes everything senseless. . .ALL the laws and moral codes of conducts in the old testament wre the moral codes of that time, same as that of the new testament. The religious things to do morally according to the new testament is for women not to speak in public where men are and for then never to usurp the power of a man. . .In today's word we consider that to be sexist and morally wrong. If a person slaps you according to Jesus the moral thing to do is to turn the other check, if he takes you cloth you give him your jacket. . .Some of the new testament laws are pacifist, but we consider some of them to be immoral in today's world. . .

What else is the basis of my morality apart from society?. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Wrong. If the purpose of morality is survival, then all living things on every level must have a measure of morality.[/quote]The purpose of morality for humans is for their own survival, that is what will make them survive best and live make their society less chaotic. . .

Morality does not have to be in place to create order, to create order you need laws, and these laws must be no respecter of persons i.e. they must be objective. If morality is subjective as you suggest then that means that each person's definition of good and evil varies therefore we can never truly define good and evil hence we can never have a fair legal system.

What are you talking about, Laws are part of morality. . .What is your definition of morality?. . .Morality as defined my dictionary.com means conformity to the rules of right conduct. . .Law are part of morality, you can NOT separate the two. . .Moral code as defined by wikipedia is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The laws being no respecter of persons does not mean that they must be objective. . .When your god was telling people to enslave others or stone to death their disobedient children in the bible he wasn't issuing out an objective law. . .By the way who determine which law is objective and which is subjective. . .In every society the law makers create laws and moral codes of conduct that best satisfies their culture, way of life and their philosophy. . .ALL laws are made by humans through consensus of the law makers which are usually the members of the ruling class or religious leaders like in the past. Gods to NOT make laws but humans, even though humans always ascribe the laws they made to their various gods to make them binding. . .God and evil is relative, it is good to eat pork in Denmark but a very bad thing to eat pork in saudi arabia. . .

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. first you define morality as a rule based on a subjective scale of values and then you go on to try to describe the thing that prohibits murder as rooted in self.( Which self are you referring to here because if individual morality is subjective, some selves will simply not have anything prohibiting murder).
Now after defining murder as an absolute, you go on to state that "morality can never be objective", this line of reasoning does not follow

No, morality is subjective, it has never been objective, murder is not an absolute, there are cases where murder is not seen as a bad thing, when you murder an assailant for example. .Murder is bad because it causes pain and the purpose of executing a murderer is to remove a murderer from the population and deter others, not because "they deserve it." It doesn't make us "good" people to kill/imprision a murderer - it is just an action which is necessary to help preserve a society in which people aren't free to murder without retaliation. (Because people WANT to live.).

The question about using the bible as a moral guide isn't about whether the bible is followed or not but whether the morality of the bible is objective. When you talk about evolved moral codes, what you are saying is that something that used to be morally wrong can become morally right. I don't know this to be true.
The example you gave in the bible by the way was not a moral law rather a ceremonial law detailing how people should behave in church. It is just like saying that the law that demands that you stand to attention when the national anthem is playing so as to show respect to Nigeria can be defined as a moral law.

I am saying that even in the bible, you see morality evolving, let me give you a few examples. . .initially there was nothing immoral in the eyes of your god with marrying your sister(incest). Abraham married his sister Sarah. . .Later it evolved and was prohibited. . .Nothing wrong with slavery, actually your god was even giving out laws on how to sell your daughter into slavery, how to brand slaves and how to enslave others. . .All moral laws are created by humans , they vary from place to place and are constantly evolving based on consensus, culture and way of life of the people. . .Dominant cultures most times influence the weaker cultures to accept their moral principles after they have invaded them or colonized them. . . Christianity and Islam are good examples.

If you claim that morality evolves, then you must prove how it evolves, tell us the stages it has been through, what stage it is at now and what stage it is likely going to evolve into and most importantly, you must state how you know these for sure.

I have stated that so many times. . .If you try to live by the laws of the old testament in today's world you will be killed or be in prison for the rest of your life. Take slavery for example, humans have come a long way and had to teach themselves that it is wrong to enslave one another. . .Through years of moral evolution humans have know come to understand that life has value and should be preserved and protected at all times. . .We came from people that sacrifice their kids, women, enemies and animals to their various Gods for either a good harvest or when their is a drought. . .Morality is NOT objective. . .ALL moral laws and principles were created by men. . Men chose and decide what they feel is morally acceptable to them and what is not. . .Morality MIUST be learned and it is ALWAYS evolving and it varies from society to society. . . .

Do you deny that morality is does not evolve and has been the same all through time?. . .Pls show how. . . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is unfortunate that you find it hard to use simple logic. look for the meaning of the word objectivity and then compare your definition, then explain to yourself how a consensus of subjectives can possibly make up an objective phenomena. Good day to you too.[/quote]You have NOT shown how morality is objective, you have only stated so. . .How is morality objective under the christian hypothesis. . . .

truthislight: isn't he right? Morality has evolve!!!
How else do u explain that the society is pushing for ligalisation of gay marriage, and we even have gay bishops.

Hahaha.
U then want society to accept a God that condame homosexuality!!!

I am a litle bit confuse here.

Is it only God that says homosexuality is abnorma? Afteral he is not the creator.

Nature seems to have prepared things in two's (not god and no god)

fishes = male and female.
Animal = male and female
insect = male and femal.
Plant = male and female
Human = male and female

hmmmm!
(i think nature is wrong, cruel and wicked = no nature)

so, then, a God that will not accept our evolution (evolve) does not exist.

What will u or can u do? I have evolve

The same God that told men to enslave their daughters?. . .The same god that told men to commit genocide?. . .The same god that told men to stone to death their disobedient children?. . .The same God that accepts human sacrifice?. . .The same god that tells men to stone to death people found committing adultery?

What exactly is wrong with homosexuality?. . . .There are many homoisexualy goats, dogs, sheep, baboons etc?. . .Its occurs even in the animals kingdom and is not wrong to me. . .I am not gay but what two adults do behind close doors is no of your business. . .If homosexuality is wrong as stated by the bible then stoning to death of disobedient children is also right, after all the bible talks about it as a god given in junction and even Jesus was condemning the people for not abiding but such a law. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]If you claim that morality evolves, then you must prove how it evolves, tell us the stages it has been through, what stage it is at now and what stage it is likely going to evolve into and most importantly, you must state how you know these for sure.[/quote]Are you denying the fact that morality is always evolving? A simple reading of the bible shows how our own morality as a people has changed greatly from say the time of Moses. . .During the time of moses for example slavery was acceptable, we even have the god of the bible instructing people how how to sell their daughters into slavery or how to brand slaves. . . .Human morality has evolved so much that slavery is seen as a bad thing today. Morality has no stage, and it is only evolving into what human beings feel will best make their societies better for them. We have moved from where adultery and homosexuality will get you stoned to death to where homosexuality is now acceptable in some societies. . . .Even the death penalty has been abolished in some parts of the world. . .Compare that to back then when violating laws such as picking sticks on the sabath will get you stoned to death. . .Parents no longer stone their kids to death for disobedience now. any parent that tries it will be sent to preson, compare that yo when it was acceptable in the bible at one time. . .If you try out most of the moral codes of the old testament in smost developed parts of the world today you will be locked up in prison. If moses, joshua etc were alive today and did what they did back then, they will be tagged as war criminals. . .Human morality has evolved so much that a black man today is the president of the united states, something that could never happen just 200 years ago. . .

The purpose of morality morality is survival.Morality has to be in place to create order, coperation, forge togetherness, and ıt's untimate goal is to create a society that ıs less chaotic or free from chaos. Morality is a rule that guides the behaviour of each individual and it is based exclusively on the subjective scale of values of each one of those individuals. This moral guideline usually includes the same prohibitions found in the penal code and the laws regulating commercial exchanges between citizens, but the important difference is that the moral guideline that prohibits murder is obeyed “as the thing to do” as it is a ruling rooted in the self and not because of the existence of police. Morality is NEVER objectiveç it varies from place to place and is constantly evolving.

Even some of your biblical ınjunctions are now considered to be useless in today's world and according to today's already evolved moral codes. . . .Example ıs the sexist ınjuction that women are not supposed to teach in church or usurp a man's authority.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am relatively new on this site but I have come to realize that sometimes it becomes very dificult to debate a person when you don't even know exactly where he or she is coming from. I am calling on Logicboy, Martian, Cyrexx e.t.c. and whoever wants to join in to give a clear definition of their worldview, their stance on God, morality and nature.

For instance I'll start by saying: I am a Christian, I believe in God as defined by the bible. I believe that all creation i.e. all things we observe in nature was made by Him and without God, nothing can exist. I believe in moral absolutes that without God there is no standard for good and evil. I believe that God is Good. I believe that the only way to live a fulfilled life is to live a life that glorifies God. This is what I believe. This is my worldview/philosophy

I have stated my stance, I would like to hear yours and based on our worldviews perhaps we can ponder over what is good. Thanks y'all.[/quote]The constant evolution of human morality destroys your argument of morailty being objective. . . .

Favourite theist.

Davidylan : Aggressive, blunt and honest in his submissions.

Nuclearboy: Logical christian, very inteligent apologist. The best christian apologist here in my opinion. If I were a christian I will like to be like him.

Deepsight: Very inteligent as well. I don't really get what he is on about sometimes but still find my self reading his post most of the time.

Viaro: Logical and inteligent christian apologist.

Tbaba123: The only muslim that knows what he is doing on NL religion section. I like reading his post. If I were a muslims I will like to be like him.

Jesoul: You just have to love her no matter what.

Noetic: Another inteligent and logical apologist.

I like Mactunji the moderator of the islamic section. I also like Enigma because of his antics.

Reading soe comments here and LOL. . .

"A spirit wearing several non-spiritual bodies in addition to the physical body is man on earth. God created the spirits and the intrinsic quest of the spirits to know the creator and adapt itself to the living laws of God is spirituality."

The way people go about confidently talking about things they have no evidence for is really mind blowing. . .Spirit, spirituality, bla bla bla. . .The mumbo jumbo continues. . .Me i just dey for side dey laugh. ..

frosbel: Which includes atheism , the belief in nothingness !!

Why African atheists keep following the white man's 'religion' of atheism is beyond me.

Stick to your African tradition of worshipping idols and sacrificing children

Atheism a white man's religion of nothingness?. . .Is the african religion all about sacrificing children? I thought your god is also into the business of accepting human sacrifice as it was written in the bible as well?. . . .

Every religion is a bubble of delusion. . . .Its only its adherents that will not see it because they are inside the bubble. . .

vedaxcool: Really you can do better, than his, all what you deduce seems to be out of your own fancy, first his interpretation clearly underscores a general belief in Islam that Allah replaces what he closes in essence he didn't actually say why the battle occurred but the spiritual angle to the issue even his predecessors like Bukhara wrote that there were rmmours that the romaswereplanning to attack. The historical angle to the battle of tabuk is clear to all that want to see.
I will put the Hadith from Bukhara on that when I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk

What is this . . .Did you bother to read the wikipedia entry you gave as a link?. . .Western historians agree that the battle of Tabouk is non historical, it ONLY appears in islamic sources some 200-300 years after it allegedly happened. . .There is NO evidence to show that the romans and the muslims ever engaged with the muslims at that time, the armies never even meet. . .The romans are also very good record keepers that recorded all their wars, conquest and military adventures. If they truly had enganged the muslims and their prophet they would have written about it. . . I didn't want to be completely dismissive of your entries that was why I brought up the link I did, which had a different view about the battle even from muslim sources. . . .

edicolove: Don't know where to even start on the above. First, I am not talking about organized religion. I am talking about a real life that is far from outdated. I am talking about sickness being healed and supernatural occurrences. I am talking about today's experience not some dead religion. I am talking about the spiritual superimposing the natural and producing what you call miracles. And I have got good news for you, it works. That is what Jesus brought to mankind, not some dead religion. That you have never experienced it doesn't make it fairy tales.

Talking about miracles pls provide a SINGLE case of clear cut miracle then we will believe you. Remember Jesus said that if you pray and you believe what ever you ask for will be given unto you only if you believe. Why can't your God heal amputees?. . .The bible says Jesus promised his followers the ability to do greater things than he did, we were told he healed amputees, why can't you or any christian do that? I have a friend that is an amputee and I challenge you , your god and any christian to heal him and restore his amputated limbs back to show us deluded atheist that your god is not imaginary. . .

Secondly research has constantly and consistently proven the bible right. From the forming of mountains to reduction in human lifespan. Do you know for example, man is not supposed to die but still does? Do you know black and white skin coloration are just pigmentation based on your environment. Do you know the bible says aquatic life appeared before terestial life just like science says. Do you know a ship was built using the specifications of Noahs ark and was found to have perfect stability in the face of very turbulent storms.

Please if you want to spear your ignorance do that with your fellow deluded Christian and. don't come here because you will be exposed as the charlatan that you are. . ..

Firstly research has NOT consistently proven the bible right instead most scientific research have shown and proven the bible to be FALSE and a myth. . .

I challenge you to provide a SINGLE scientific peer reviewed paper that shows that human life has reduced over the years. In case you don't know, humans are presently enjoying their longest life span on earth at present. Human life span has been on the increase over the years. 5000 years ago the average life span of most human beings was 25 or less. . .The myth of people living up to 900 years was because the ancient Jews calculated ages by the number of moons according to some historians. People who lived to be 800 moons old were exceptional but certainly possible. At some point a transition way made to measure age in terms of years. But the people in charge of recording the bible did not bother to make the changes necessary for an accurate reflection of the change, for whatever reason. So today you have the absurd ages in the bible.

For example if you divide 900 by 13 (the number of moons in a year), you end up with a little more than 69 years old, not a particularly old age by today's standards.

Here are a few scientific papers that will educate you on the constant increase in longevity.

http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v2/n4/full/100139.html

http://roselab.bio.uci.edu/Publications/54%20ROse%20Mueller%201998.pdf

My challenge remains , provide a SINGLE scientific paper for any respectable scientific body that shows that human life span has reduced over the years. . . .The bible also stated that the sun earth was in existence with plants in it before the sun was created,no?. . .As for the Noah's ark hope you kn0w that a boat with the particular specification was built and it refused to float? Hope you know that?. . .

You can learn or you can scorn, its up to you. The bible shows men used to live up to 900 years and its not mythology. Its a fact. Man has the ability and should live forever. Even scientists wonder why man doesn't. Every
So technically, you should become like a new baby, but it doesn't happen that way.

It is FALSE, men to not live for 900 years in the past, it is a MYTH. . .Skeletons actually show the average lifespan about 6000 years ago was barely 25 years old. Where is your scientific studies that support the myth written in the bible? Man does NOT have the ability to live for ever, provide the scientific studies that talks about scientist wondering why man doesn't live for ever despite having the ability to do so. . .

Why? Something is wrong. Scientists have now proven that mans life span has been affected over the years by enviromental factors including the earth's atmoshpere, water pollution, deforestation, and the green house effect. Men used to be taller, bigger and lived longer. A simple proof is the average lifespan of a rural dweller compared to that of an urban dweller. An 80 year old rural dweller generally looks better than a 65 year old urban dweller. In places like japan where they are particular about their lives and health, some people live well over 120 and 130 years. If you look at the bible in Genesis, you will notice that the average lifespan dropped immediately after the noahs flood. Why because according to Genesis, it wasn't just a flood that happened, it was a combination of events that completely changed the earths structure and atmosphere and ushered in a new earth that affected mans physic and lifespan. According to bible records, that was the first rain.

You are a liar and a charlatan. . .STOP talking about what you have no knowledge about. Humans are NOW bigger, taller and live longer lives than before. . .The skeleton of the ancients is way smaller than ours today. . .There are countless scientific studies that have revealed that. . .Provide a single scientific study that supports your nonsense. . .

The lad who keeps saying my post is nonsense because he is too scared to learn is funny. He is afraid to "loose" his opinion. But like I told him earlier, life is about choice. All the things he called evidence in science means absolutely nothing and the theories could all fall to the ground any moment in the face of new knowledge. Science is belief. Someone said a theory and someone believed it. Yet there are completely unexplainable events all around us everyday and we just go on believing and living and hoping that one day, we will understand. Science if faith. Don't forget that many scientific discoveries where once called sorcery. Man is a faith being and faith is a real force, not just a mental state. Faith can create and it does create.

Your post is pure nonsense. . . .

vedaxcool: Surah9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Now what is the above verse saying?

very clear it calls the faithful to pick up arms against the people of teh scripture but is that all?

Just as the atheists on the forum are not sound neither are they know to reason well ( teh bulk of them don't) we have to first issue the Cherry picking Fallacy "card" against this people! Do Muslims just pick up the Qur'an and read a verse and then rush out? no the cretins might want to remember that the Qur'an as a book of guidance verses are not ra in isolation, hence even the above verse cannot be taken in isolation, but in consonance with other verses, hence before a muslim would act on the above verse he must have read other verses that speaks on the topic of war, hence the verse in question is better explained by other verses that makes fighting other people conditioned on the fact that they must have attacked you etc.

But what is the historical background? Read


istorical Background

Now let us consider the historical background of the Surah. The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results:
Conquest of Arabia

The first was the Conquest of Arabia. The Holy Prophet was able to send missions among different clans for the propagation of Islam. The result was that during the short period of two years, it became such a great power that it made the old order of ignorance' feel helpless before it. So much so that the zealous elements from among the Quraish were so exasperated that they broke the Treaty in order to encounter Islam in a decisive combat. But the Holy Prophet took prompt action after the breach so as not to allow them any opportunity to gather enough force for this. He made a sudden invasion on Makkah in the month of Ramadan in A. H. 8 and conquered it. Though this conquest broke the backbone of the order of ignorance, it made still another attack on Islam in the battle-field of Hunain, which proved to be its death-knell. The clans of Hawazin Thaqif, Naur, Jushm and others gathered their entire forces in the battle field in order to crush the reformative Revolution, but they utterly failed in their evil designs. The defeat of 'ignorance' at Hunain paved the way for making the whole of Arabia the 'Abode of Islam' (Dar-ul-Islam). The result was that hardly a year had Passed after the Battle of Hunain, when the major portion of Arabia came within the fold of Islam and only a few upholders of the old order remained scattered over some corners of the country.
The second event that contributed towards making Islam a formidable power was the Campaign of Tabuk, which was necessitated by the provocative activities of the Christians living within or near the boundaries of the Roman Empire to the north of Arabia. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet, with an army of thirty thousand marched boldly towards the Roman Empire but the Romans evaded the encounter. The result was that the power of the Holy Prophet and Islam increased manifold and deputations from all corners of Arabia began to wait upon him on his return from Tabuk in order to offer their allegiance to Islam and obedience to him. The Holy Quran has described this triumph in Surah AN-NASR: "When the succour of Allah came and victory was attained and you saw people entering the fold of Islam in large numbers... Campaign to Tabuk

The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.

These events convinced the Holy Prophet that a strong action should be taken in order to make the territory adjacent to the Roman Empire safe and secure for the Muslims. Accordingly, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Ula A. H. 8, he sent an army of three thousand towards the Syrian border. When this army reached near Ma'an, the Muslims learnt that Shurahbil was marching with an army of one hundred thousand to fight-with them and that the Caesar, who himself was at Hims, had sent another army consisting of one hundred thousand soldiers under his brother Theodore. But in spite of such fearful news, the brave small band of the Muslims marched on fearlessly and encountered the big army of Shurahbil at M'utah. And the result of the encounter in which the Muslims were fighting against fearful odds (the ratio of the two armies was 1:33), as very favorable, for the enemy utterly failed to defeat them. This proved very helpful for the propagation of Islam. As a result, those Arabs who were living in a state of semi. independence in Syria and near Syria and the clans of Najd near Iraq, who were under the influence of the Iranian Empire, turned towards Islam and embraced it in thousands. For example, the people of Bani Sulaim (whose chief was Abbas bin Mirdas Sulaimi), Ashja'a, Ghatafan, Zubyan, Fazarah, etc., came into the fold of Islam at the same time. Above all, Farvah bin 'Amral Juzami, who was the commander of the Arab armies of the Roman Empire, embraced Islam during that time, and underwent the trial of his Faith in a way that filled the whole territory with wonder. When the Caesar came to know that Farvah had embraced Islam, he ordered that he should be arrested and brought to his court. Then the Caesar said to him, "You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islam and win your liberty and your former rank, or remain a Muslim and face death." He calmly chose Islam and sacrificed his life in the way of the Truth.

No wonder that such events as these made the Caesar realize the nature of the danger that was threatening his Empire from Arabia. Accordingly, in 9 A. H. he began to make military preparations to avenge the insult he had suffered at M'utah. The Ghassanid and other Arab chiefs also began to muster armies under him. When the Holy Prophet, who always kept himself well-informed even of the minutest things that could affect the Islamic Movement favorably or adversely, came to know of these preparations, he at once under- stood their meaning. Therefore, without the least hesitation he decided to fight against the great power of the Caesar. He knew that the show of the slightest weakness would result in the utter failure of the Movement which was facing three great dangers at that time. First the dying power of 'ignorance' that had almost been crushed in the battle-field of Hunain might revive again. Secondly, the Hypocrites of Al: Madinah, who were always on the look-out for such an opportunity, might make full use of this to do the greatest possible harm to it. For they had already made preparations for this and had, through a monk called Abu Amir, sent secret messages of their evil designs to the Christian king of Ghassan and the Caesar himself. Besides this, they had also built a mosque near Al-Madinah for holding secret meetings for this purpose. The third danger was of an attack by the Caesar himself, who had already defeated Iran, the other great power of that period, and filled with awe the adjacent territories.

It is obvious that if all these three elements had been given an opportunity of taking a concerted action against the Muslims, Islam would have lost the fight it had almost won. That is why in this case the Holy Prophet made an open declaration for making preparations for the Campaign against the Roman Empire, which was one of the two greatest empires of the world of that period. The declaration was made though all the apparent circumstances were against such a decision: for there was famine in the country and the long awaited crops were about to ripen: the burning heat of the scorching summer season of Arabia was at, its height and there was not enough money for preparations in general, and for equipment and conveyance in particular. But in spite of these handicaps, when the Messenger of Allah realized the urgency of the occasion, he took this step which was to decide whether the Mission of the Truth was - - going to survive or perish. The very fact that he made an open declaration for making preparations for such a campaign to Syria against the Roman Empire showed how important it was, for this was contrary to his previous practice. Usually he took every precaution not to reveal beforehand the direction to which he was going nor the name of the enemy whom he was going to attack; nay, he did not move out of Al- Madinah even in the direction of the campaign.

All the parties in Arabia fully realized the grave consequences of this critical decision. The remnants of the lovers of the old order of 'ignorance' were anxiously waiting for the result of the Campaign, for they had pinned all their hopes on the defeat of Islam by the Romans. The 'hypocrites' also considered it to be their last chance of crushing the power of Islam by internal rebellion, if the Muslims suffered a defeat in Syria. They had, therefore, made full use of the Mosque built by them for hatching plots and had employed all their devices to render the Campaign a failure. On the other side, the true Believers also realized fully that the fate of the Movement for which they had been exerting their utmost for the last 22 years was now hanging in the balance. If they showed courage on that critical occasion, the doors of the whole outer world would be thrown open for the Movement to spread. But if they showed weakness or cowardice, then all the work they had done in Arabia would -end in smoke.

That is why these lovers of Islam began to make enthusiastic preparations for the Campaign. Everyone of them tried to surpass the other in making contributions for the provision of equipment for it. Hadrat Uthman and Hadrat Abdur Rehman bin Auf presented large sums of money for this purpose. Hadrat Umar contributed half of the earnings of his life and Hadrat Abu Bakr the entire earnings of his life. The indigent Companions did not lag behind and presented whatever they could earn by the sweat of their labor and the women parted with their ornaments. Thousands of volunteers, who were filled with the desire of sacrificing their lives for Islam, came to the Holy Prophet and requested that arrangements for weapons and conveyance be made for them so that they should join the expedition. Those who could not be provided with these shed tears of sorrow; the scene was so pathetic that it made the Holy Prophet sad because of his inability to arm them. In short, the occasion became the touchstone for discriminating a true believer from a hypocrite. For, to lag behind in the Campaign meant that the very relationship of a person to Islam was doubtful. Accordingly, whenever a person lagged behind during the journey to Tabuk, the Holy Prophet, on being informed, would spontaneously say, "Leave him alone. If there be any good in him, Allah will again join him with you, and if there be no good in him, then thank Allah that He relieved you of his evil company".

In short, the Holy Prophet marched out towards Syria in Rajab A. H. 9, with thirty thousand fighters for the cause of Islam. The conditions in which the expedition was undertaken may be judged from the fact that the number of camels with them was so small that many of them were obliged to walk on foot and to wait for their turns for several had to ride at a time on each camel. To add to this, there was the burning heat of the desert and the acute shortage of water. But they were richly rewarded for their firm resolve and sincere adherence to the cause and for their perseverance in the face of those great difficulties and obstacles.

When they arrived at Tabuk, they learnt that the Caesar and his allies had withdrawn their troops from the frontier and there was no enemy to fight with. Thus they won a moral victory that increased their prestige manifold and, that too, without shedding a drop of blood.

In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that the general impression given by the historians of the campaigns of the Holy Prophet about the Campaign of Tabuk is not correct. They relate the event in a way as if the news of the mustering of the Roman armies near the Arabian frontier was itself false. The fact is that the Caesar had begun to muster his armies, but the Holy Prophet forestalled him and arrived on the scene before he could make full preparations for the invasion. Therefore, believing that "discretion is the better part of valor," he withdrew his armies from the frontier. For he had not forgotten that the three thousand fighters for the cause of Islam had rendered helpless his army one hundred thousand strong at M'utah. He could not, therefore, even with an army of two hundred thousand, dare to fight against an army of thirty thousand, and that, too, under the leadership of the Holy Prophet himself.

When the Holy Prophet found that the Caesar had withdrawn his forces from the frontier, he considered thee question whether it would be worthwhile to march into the Syrian territory or to halt at Tabuk and turn his moral victory to political and strategical advantage. He decided on the latter course and made a halt for twenty days at Tabuk. During this time, he brought pressure on the small states that lay between the Roman Empire and the Islamic State and were at that time under the influence of the Romans, and subdued and made them the tributaries of the Islamic State. For instance, some Christian chiefs Ukaidir bin Abdul Malik Kindi of Dumatul Jaiidal, Yuhanna bin D'obah of Allah, and the chiefs of Maqna, Jarba' and Azruh also submitted and agreed to pay Jizyah to the Islamic State of Al- Madinah. As a result of this, the boundaries of the Islamic State were extended right up to the Roman Empire, and the majority of the Arab clans, who were being used by the Caesar against Arabia, became the allies of the Muslims against the Romans.

Above all, this moral victory of Tabuk afforded a golden opportunity to the Muslims to strengthen their hold on Arabia before entering into a long conflict with the Romans. For it broke the back of those who had still been expecting that the old order of 'ignorance' might revive in the near future, whether they were the open upholders of shirk or the hypocrites who were hiding their shirk under the garb of Islam. The majority of such people were compelled by the force of circumstances to enter into the fold of Islam and, at least, make it possible for their descendants to become true Muslims. After this a mere impotent minority of the upholders of the old order was left in the field, but it could not stand in the way of the Islamic Revolution for the perfection of which Allah had sent His Messenger.


So as you can see, it was a direct act of war by the neighbouring Christians that resulted with this verse, they killed innocent Muslim messengers who were simply passing a letter from the prophet Muhammad to them, and back then it was an international ruling and law that simple messengers carrying messages to other rulers would not be targeted or killed.

I offer Ibn Kathir's account of what started the Battle of Tabuk. The following is taken from Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidayyah wan-Nihayyah (translated by Wa'il Abdul Mut'aal Shihab as The Battles of the Prophet).

Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says,

"O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:28-29)

Therefore, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam. (Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

Notice that there's absolutely nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. The chain of events leading up to the Battle of Tabuk was:

(1) Muhammad prohibited non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. (Strange, isn't it, that Muslims condemned the polytheists when the polytheists prohibited Muslims from taking the pilgrimage to Mecca. Hypocrisy is rampant in early Islam.)

(2) The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits.

(3) Muhammad received a revelation, saying, in effect, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

Note: If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have tons of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans elected to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be raking in tons of money.

Ibn Sa'd adds that word reached Muhammad "that Haraclius had disbursed one year's salary to his soldiers" stationed in Syria (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, p. 204). An army with a year's salary is an attractive target for a religion that funds itself by raids. Indeed, Ibn Ishaq titles his discussion on this topic "the Raid on Tabuk," rather than, say, "The Muslims defend themselves from the Romans."

It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims. The early Muslims understood this. Islam's greatest commentators understood this. The only people who don't understand this are Muslims like Shadid Lewis, who view Islam through the lenses of Western Christian tolerance.

Link

tbaba1234: ^ There are several points in the article above i do not necessarily agree with.... May Allah be with all those that are persecuted.

I have met a few christians that live very good lives in Muslim majority countries. Ofcourse, the exceptions make the news.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has said that all churches in the Arabian Peninsula must be destroyed. The statement prompted anger and dismay from Christians throughout the Middle East.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah made the controversial statement in a response to a question from a Kuwaiti NGO delegation. A Kuwaiti parliamentarian had called for a ban on the construction of new churches in February, but so far the initiative has not been passed into law. The NGO, called the Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage, asked the Sheikh to clarify what Islamic law says on the matter.

The Grand Mufti, who is the highest official of religious law in Saudi Arabia, as well as the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Scholars, cited the Prophet Mohammed, who said the Arabian Peninsula is to exist under only one religion.
The Sheikh went on to conclude that it was therefore necessary for Kuwait, being a part of the Arabian Peninsula, to destroy all churches on its territory.
In February, Kuwaiti MP Osama al-Munawar announced on Twitter that he was planning to submit legislation that would remove all churches in the country. However, he later clarified that existing churches should remain, while the construction of new non-Islamic places of worship would be banned.

Another MP, Mohamemd Hayef, backed al-Munawar, saying the number of churches in the country was already disproportionate to the number of Christians.

As for Saudi Arabia, all religions other than Islam are banned and there are no churches, although a small minority of Christians is theoretically allowed to practice their religion in the privacy of their own home.

http://rt.com/news/peninsula-saudi-grand-mufti-701/

Muslims keep leaving the violent middle east in large numbers and going to the "infidel west" and expect to be accepted and tolerated despite their very backward way of life when they constantly refuse to accept and tolerate others in their own intolerant countries. What a shame. . . .

cyrexx: and the bad news is that they breed faster than other religious groups because they see children as Allah's gifts. even muslim immigrant population in europe is growing faster than ever. their biological evangelism is astounding.

i wonder if islam wont be the world dominant religion in 500 years time, i.e. if mankind has not destroyed itself

i just wonder.

Luckily the brand of islam practiced in the west is very soft and mild. . .The fundamentalist type doesn't get much traction. I like the moderate islam, but hate the fundamentalist type. . .The fundamentalist type seems to be the one practiced outside europe, in places like the middle east, some parts of asia and africa. . .Christianity used to be totalitarian, violent, and savage. Unbelievers were not tolerated at all, often they were burned at the stake or otherwise tortured to death. Those who had doubts learned to keep their mouths shut and not speak out or else they suffer.

Democracy when fully implemented came along with enlightenment, and the age of reason, and it became clear to all educated, civilized men that there were perfectly sound, material reasons for phenomena which had previously been ascribed to the "supernatural." Christianity was forced to change to deal with this new information and way of life. Churches either became much more liberal in their interpretation of scripture, or if they chose to remain stubbornly literalist, they ended up being largely sidelined. The church lost its power to dictate and terrify the people. Christianity had to change to survive.

Now, the Information age is spreading rapidly in the islamic world. Islam, in order to survive the onslaught of facts, will need to evolve just as christianity and judaism have had to evolve. Liberal Islam will have to become the home to the intellectuals who wish to continue in their faith, and fundamentalist islam will lose its grip on the masses. Muslim nations will no longer tolerate the iron fist of the fundamentalists, just as the christian nations threw off the shackles of Rome. . . .I know that I am just thinking wishfully, but islam has to be liberal to survive in europe. . .The fundamentalist type will continue to survive in places where there is very little education and lots of poverty. . .Just as fundamentalist christianity is surviving in those kind of places. . .

It may take another three or four generations, but fundamentalist Islam is doomed.

Avicenna: Ha,Mr cyrexx, how have you been?

I v been coping. I no longer attend group prayers. Give them excuses. I want to pray alone.
It just seems perpetually ridiculous and absurd when I see intelligent adults swallowing fairytales without any doubt. Its not as easy as I thought it will be.
It is true that Islam,putting it mildly, does not tolerate apostasy. Forget 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Na so dem go tell u b4 u convert,convert finish, try commot frm dat religion, see wetin go happen to u.

There is nothing like no compulsion in islam, its all a farce, muslims love selling that lie. . .I know what my mum went through when she converted back to christianity which was her original religion, she only became a muslim after she married my dad and when he died she reverted back to her original religion. . .If she had remained in kano she would have been killed period . . Liberal islamic scholars are being attacked and their houses burned in some parts of the world talk more of apostates. . ..Its all a facade. . .Once you leave islam you will be in trouble as not as you are living among the slaves of allah. . . .The only way you will be safe is when you run away from them. . .

cyrexx: one thing i observe is that Islam is inherently militant. you are to submit to Allah without questioning but you must enforce the will of Allah by all means necessary
by natural selection it will dominate other weak religions by sheer force of barbarism. turkey, lebanon, jordan, syria were once christian dominated countries.
infact i fear that Iran-Middleeast vs Israel-American tension will be a precursor to the atomic bomb warfare that may terminate human species. but i hope that rational thinking will catch up with them earlier than that. Islamic dogma,in my opinion, is the most dangerous dogma to the world at large.

while christianity emphasize love and self-sacrifice and draws its adherents by emotional appeal of a heroic loving godman who sacrificed himself for you. people who believe this story usually fall for this "hero" who loved them so much. ladies especially love heroes.
christianity usually build a low self-esteem "i am not worthy" mentality. and they like to suffer for their god. this is the most dangerous dogma not to the world but to its adherents. as those minds can easily be manipulated by tithe-collecting conartists

Islam is very militant by nature as you rightly stated, christianity as we know it today has evolved a lot, it wasn't all so turn the other cheek and Jesus loves you and died for you as it is now, it used to be as militant as islam is today. Democracy and the open and critical way of the white man is what made it very soft. Now that white people know that is is all a farce they are leaving it in very large numbers. In 200 years time there will be very little or no white Christian in Europe I believe. People used to be killed for their unbelief and many were forced to convert, for get about all the nonsense stories about how the christian missionaries came to Africa and brought the "good news" to us. . .Many people were forced to convert to christianity, others were systematically converted. Those that weren't were punished in one way or the other depending on how useful they believed the conversion will suit their interest. . .

I abhor fundamentalist islam. . .Its very dangerous. . .

Avicenna: You know,
If I met Prophet Muhammad, I will diagnose him of schizophrenia and a host of mental conditions.

It seems to me that humans prefer things gotten through hard and cruel conditions. Because I see no reason why some humans will willingly fast. I see no reason why you have to go through repetitive,time-consuming,non-productive motions of prayer.(Salat). Islam is a tough religion. They take advantage of that feeling of reward after a hard work.( Games like World of warcraft do that too. ) So, it is absolutely unthinkable to my Mom that all her arduous early morning(rain or harmattan,midnight)prayers are pointless. That Saudi Arabia fleeced her of money under a dubious hajj. Hajj is simply revenue from tourism. Muslims are the hardest believers. They cannot simply grasp all their 'hardwork' in worshipping a non existent God is futile.

Muslims are not the only hard believers. . . .Christians are hard believers as well. . . .The islamic culture is more forceful and instills more fear into the minds of its believers. . . .

How can you understand spiritual things with a carnal mind. . . .You have to be spiritually inclined to understand spiritually things. . . Favorite quote from christian apologist. . .Muslim apologist will just threaten your life or say that you are arrogant and blinded by allah already. . .

Personally, I don't believe that pastors like Sign Fireman, Benny Hinn, Paula White, Myers, Rev King, Kenneth Copeland etc are christians. . .I believe many of them are atheist but need to continue the scam for the money and fame it provides them. . . .I know of few catholic priest that are atheist. . . .

logicboy01: There are 3 types of religious people concerning this article

1) The fundamentalist; He/she will read this article but when it comes to his/her religion and its fairytale, he/she will stop reading and classify the whole thread as blasphemy.

2) The apologist; He/she will read the article and then defend his/her own religious with convoluted logic while calling the other religions fairytales

3) The skeptic; He or she will read the article and ask questions for himself or herself about his/her religion. He or she will now go and do further research on religion and mythology. This is the most honest among the three

You have summed it up very nicely. . . .

Can't stop laughing at every thing that I read here. . . . . . . .Religion and its bubble of delusion. . .People ONLY believe all these nonsense because of constant indoctrination mixed with fear of the unknown. . .In real life seeing is believing but when it comes to relgion believing is seeing. . .If most people were presented with the christian, muslims or hindu stories for the first time on their 21st birthdays most people will not accept the obvious mythologies and legends the espouse. Religion is purely a bubble of delusion. . .