₦airaland Forum

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=186815.msg2983665#msg2983665 date=1224789981]I have the tape of this story, quite intriguing.[/quote]That's nothing; I've got the DVD

Meanwhile: it's very easy to test out the power of this miracle. I say let's go to the mortuary at Ikeja General hospital, and let's pick out about 5 well-appointed remains, and let the wonderful pastors get to work. You'd think there'll be pastors who'd take this up.
.

Ally.Emeka asked: Can God be persuaded?

It appears so, and with many things. David danced his way to God's heart; God, it appears, is impressed by dancing in praise of him. But there's no evidence he prefers a trado-Nigerian mix of music and dancing to harps and strings and stuff like that, the sort that David employed. What's more important: God is persuaded by cold, clear, irrefutable logic. A favourite encounter was with Moses, when God, angry as could be, boomed he was going to exterminate the Israelites after they's survived Egypt and Pharaoh's army. Moses - clearly in his elements - reason with God: don't do it, eh; if you did, the Egyptians will get to know, and they'll figure what the heck! they got away from us and their God couldn't help them in the wilderness, Not even the offer of making Moses a great nation doused Moses' relentless logic. God, of course, saw reason. There's another encounter (probably this same with Moses, don't recall clearly), but the question God was asked was: '. . . will God not do what is right?". Damn! a shocker. To His credit, on those occasions, the Hebrew tribal God was reported to have seen reason. This is powerful, and enlightening.
.

olabowale:
@Nimshi: « #64 on: Today at 02:58:19 AM »
I have no problem with either and neither. Whatever make your roll is okay with me. I just needed to check your status, and intention.

And you think my response would've helped with checking my intention? Chasing after intentions is like chasing after the wind, especially on iNet discussion boards.

So his pronouncement, or renouncement is based on "fear" and not true conviction? We call those types of people in islam Hypocrites. And their case with Allah is worse than outright Disbelievers. The outright disbelievers are always not in the Muslim's camp. But the Hypocrites drape themselves in the garment of Islam, while what is inside them is the 180 degrees to what is seen on the outside!

You're missing the point. One could speculate as to Rushdie's motivation when he issued the statement; you could hardly be sure about why he did it; in any case, the statement should have been taken at face value; but that did not happen. the murderers still chased after him.

By the way MI5 and MI6 are few of the best agencies of the world. If they have difficulty in protecting Salman Rushdie without a tentative apprehension about their full capability, know that the only One to rely upon and put your trust in is Allah the Almighty.

Here: reasonable agencies attempt to diffuse tension, they don't chase after trouble if it could be avoided. So everything was in accordance with strategy. And the fact that Sir Salman is alive is a triumph for freedom of speech, and the British security apparatus. Good work they did; excellent work. Almighty Allah isn't a bodyguard, so Rushdie was correct to employ the services of those who knew how to do the job.

And where do you stand? Do you agree with him, in anything that he wrote against Islam? Those muslims who agreed with him, where and what do they agree with him on agaisnt Islam? Remember Rushdie did not not write about the Islamic figures of todays, The Qur'an itself and Muhammad and his generation. Please tell me what is wrong with either the Qur'an and or Muhammad (AS)?

Why would this discussion be worth it when you haven't read the book? You're not qualified to have a rational discussion about anything Rushdie wrote since you don't meet the fundamental requirement for discussing it. How did you know what he wrote about? Your attitude isn't any different from that of the murderous crowd: you heard Rushdie wrote sth offensive, so you accept that must be it. And, I didn't say some agreed with him, only that even those Muslims who disagreed with him knew he must be protected from harm, and rightly so. And, in case it's of interest to you: I did support the protection of Rushdie (in principle only, not materially); my opinion was that he needed to be protected and alive for the sake of Islam. And I am happy he lives.

We want to see the the faces of Hypocracy; Its those among the "muslims," who are against Qur'an and or Muhammad (AS)! Is there a third category apart from the "simple and straight forward 'for or against' categories?

One of the most dangerous things I see with people like yourself, Olabowale, is that you only see things in "black" or "white"; you must recognise that there're shades of gray, and seldom are issues as simple as "for" or "against". There are Muslims who don't like the trouble caused by Rushdie's work, but who also knew Rushdie mustn't die at the hands of an assassin carrying out the Ayatollah's order. Those are true Muslims, and they're the voices Islam needs. Do you understand why?

Allah says in His Book, the Al Qur'an, which means; When Allah and His Messenger have "decided" on a matter, it does not befit a "believing Muslim" to have any "opinion" but to say, "I hear and I Obey!" Tell me your own position. You already know mine; it is I hear and I obey.

Obedience is fine. But look, I don't obey against my own understanding, ok? I'm not a robot. And I'll never teach anyone to obey without the conviction that what they're doing is fine. And, is the Ayatollah God? How do you encourage people to carry out an execution within the borders of a sovereign State where murder is illegal? Please, stop defaming Islam and supporting the illegal.

You are correct. Allah says in His Book, which means: Do not be unjust because of the hatred you perceive a person have for you. Another verse also talks about avoiding injustice because of the evil of a person. Yet another verse encourages that when an enemy of a muslim seeks the protection of muslims, even in war, this enemy should be treated with kindness and then help to reach a safe and secure place, away from any harm. Muslims were also encouraged, rather demamnded to be kind to captives of war.

So, where's the goodness shown above? This are the verses that need to be drummed into the hearts and minds of those who wish to murder. These are the truths that we propose to spread. This is the face of compassionate Islam; why are people covering it up?

If muslims do not practice this, it is not an endctment on islam, rather endictment on the unjust muslims who do this evil.

You have a good point here; yet, why is it that Islam now has a reputation synonymous with violence? Why has this happened? One reason is that the reasonable voices within Islam do not speak loudly and consistently enough to denounce violence. For example, your earlier posts on this thread appear to have sidestepped the condemnation of random murder, and you sounded defensive (as at least one other poster has mentioned); it is important the we condemn what is wrong and unlawful without reservations.

Its title is a dead giveaway. Then the fact that it is said things that are "Untrue" about Islam. I did not say Muslims, but Islam, which included Muhammad (AS), the prophet and he being described as a "walking Qur'an." Should I take what Rushdie say wrong about Islam to be "true?"

If a man says evil things about my beloved father (ra), who I carry his blood. If I heard from others what he has said about my father were all lies. If I was told that he was giving a speech in the civic center, talking about the same thing, should I go to listen to him before I know that I should avoid his lies?

You would be acting irrationally were you to listen to reports in evaluating a heavy crime. What if all the reports you've heard are wrong? This isn't impossible.

The decision is clear, since my father (ra) is even more beloved to me than my mother. Yet my mother Mariam Victoria Samuel is less beloved to me than "Muhammad (AS)." What would prompt me to read "Satanic Verses?" Please tell me what I need to learn from it?

Since you did not read Rushdie's SV, you are not qualified to offer any opinion about the contents of the book.

Look, one of the ways I avoid sexual temptations is not to indulge myself in what will lead me to "think hard," about it. So I do not read overtly sexual materials. How do I keep my Iman over the "borderline;" is not to read garbages.

If this works for you, fine. Yet, if there was a magazine said to be sexually explicit, you would be out of your depths to comment on it if you haven't read it. And what pollutes your mind may not disturb another's; it isn't correct or right to condemn others for reading material you shun.

Satanic Verses is nothing short of it. From your statement about Rushdie's recounting of his own book, if he did it with sincere heart, it simple shows that he probably suffered from "temporary insanity or disollusionment" when he penned it. If he recounted it under duress, fearing for his life, then you see him as the face of hypocracy. What do I need from either?

You're very ill-equipped to comment about Rushdie's work. And, I don't consider a man who made a tension-dousing statement in the wake of threats to his life a hypocrite. You may not have anything to learn from Rushdie, but he's got empathy; that's perhaps sth that you'd need loads of. What Pope Benedict (XVI?) attempted to do not so long ago, Rushdie has attempted in his work. You don't have to be a supporter of a writer to consider the writer's work.

.

DavidDylan:
Essentially beacuse Paul was sent as the apostle to the gentiles. Much of the new testament epistles were written to gentile churches.

Ok, a good point. But, the book of Hebrews, say, what was that about?

strangely, this "history" is "clear" ONLY to muslims. If you bothered to read through the bible at all rather than making "smart"remarks, Paul said absolutely nothing different from Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost, Philip's message or that of Stephen's.

You're incorrect. Since you wrote "strangely, this "history" is "clear" ONLY to muslims": will you change your opinion if I gave references from Christians? I'm making a definite challenge here, will you rise up to it? The fact is that it is Christian scholars, including Catholics (and a nun, at least) who have adcanced this line of reasoning.

The portion i highlighted in blue is strange to me, in 20 years of reading the bible i have yet to come across a part of christianity where Paul differed from the teachings of Christ. if u have an example please share.

Although I wasn't talking about "disagreement", but here, I'll give you an example since you asked for one: Read Matthew Chapter 6, with the focus on prayer. Compare with Paul's first to Timothy in Chaper 2 v 8, say.

That's false. Paul "came up" with nothing new. He took the very same gospel to the gentiles.

Quite the contrary. Paul came up with plenty new. There's one up here for you to attend to.

The history of the prophet is muddy at best, much of his "tales" are non-existent at worst. What did the "prophet" do in 23 years beyond merely plagiarising the bible? Have you ever wondered why the prophet specifically hated the jews?

You are ignorant of history, David. there're many good things you could say for Jesus, but it is quite weak to compare historicity.

Why have we no archeological evidence to corroborate the quran? Why has much of the excavation in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria been based on documented biblical evidence?

What're you talking about? Do you know the use of archeological evidence? Why're you asking for "archeological evidence to corroborate the quran"??

I don't see any "facts" in ur post.

Of course, you see all you want to see.

mazaje:
I have seen a moslem on TV who said he went to paradise and saw angels and what not,two doctors came on air and said he really died. . . . why is his story not to be accepted? he went to the moslem heaven saw the gates of heaven and that of hell he said. . . why is his story not to be considered?

Oh! Some story 

Were the gates made of platinum too? What about the streets? Paved with gold? Were the angels in bright white, wings and all, bowing and praising with bows and little arrows singing beautiful songs? We need all the evidence we can get; it's got to be comforting to know that there's agreement on the architecture of heaven from both sides; what ya think? 
.

DavidDylan:
"Measuring up" in what sense? The bible is not about eloquence or the human wisdom of the writers . . . both Paul's epistles and Peter's contained the central message of Christ's redemption of man.

Agreed. Paul, the lawyer, is credited with waaaay more books than Peter the fisherman; hey, that's 13 of the 27 books of the NT. Heck, Paul had to sound Peter out on a matter of old law based on sound logic.

This is a favorite islamic lie. Acts 11:26 records the origin of the word "christians". It tells us that the DISCIPLES (not Paul's followers) were first called christians in Antioch.
Acts 11 also tells us the disciples were already in Antioch well before Paul's conversion and it was in the Antioch church that Paul (who was still known then as Saul) grew in the christian faith for 1 whole yr before he began his ministry.

Getting exercised again, David? Did Islam coin "Pauline Christianity' too? Look at Christianity today and tell what part of the practice of Christianity could be attributed to the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus. The history of Christianity is clear about how Paul "came up with the doctrine that would turn Christianity from a small sect of Judaism into a worldwide faith that was open to all."

Bottomline - Paul did not "author" christianity. There were already "Christians" before Paul himself became saved.

You're missing the point. Paul came up with the doctrine that would turn Christianity from a small sect of Judaism into a worldwide faith that was open to all."

Enough of this lie!

Calm down, David; it's only a discussion. And it's not an Islamic one.

1. The quran isnt any easier actually, its way worse and more than 50% of muslims don't read it because they don't understand much of the mumbo jumbo there that seems to be bits and pieces of other stories patched together to fill space.

Again, the "you too" argument. even if what you wrote here is true, how does that invalidate the original post?

2. I mentioned earlier, the bible is not for those who are merely reading it simply to find an excuse to criticise it. Its those people who end up claiming it isnt easy to read.

That's very funny. What're your favourite bible passages?

3. The bible so far has been proven to be archeologically accurate and till tomorrow is the yardstick for much of the archeology in the area of Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

You may be right. But there's yet to be much evidence of the crosing of the Reed, eh; plus a few other stuff.

- The quran on the other hand is of no use, most of the places it mentions have been shown not to even exist at all.

On the contrary, there is more proof of the historicity of the Prophet than there would ever be of Jesus. And, what the Prophet did in 23 years, the older religion couldn't do for thousands. You're way out of your depths to try to compare the historicity of the Prophet with that of Jesus; there's no comparison there. Don't even go there.

Yet, that's not what we're talking about. I you like, open a thread on this, we could discuss rationally.

Mr. Nimshi, when next you want to make senseless arguments look at your own book first!

Tu quoque. Never a valid course of argument.

And, tone down with the exclamation marks; what's it with you? Don't get worked up. Facts are facts.
.

Mike Tyson. Look, that guy did boxing a whole lot of good. You'd think it was professional wrestling; big guys were tumbling over like crates, and it wasn't for show. Heavy hitters became punch drunk you'd think it was fake. See the clips again. Complete entertainment and disbelief. But he wasn't a good 'politician'; couldn't manage the image. He - with lots of help - to self-destruct.

Ali was the master, and Ali lifted boxing to unbelievable heights; he made boxing watchable, not a thug sport. Of course, Ali got a lot of help from his opponents already mentioned. What's sport without character? It's the whole package- Which is why Ali will always win this. Ali, the greatest. 

.

DavidDylan:
the epistles of Peter.

It was Peter's preaching on the day of pentecost that brought over 3000 to the church in one day and began the movement that the likes of Paul continued.

Yeah, we know the books bearing Peter's name. How do those measure up with Paul's?

And, of course, there's no shortage of powerful speakers in the faith (which is why I was wondering about that Church asking pastors to go back to school. . .); see the rest of my post above: do you have any response to the rest of the post?
.

JeSoul:
Au contraire . . . Jesus chose disciples that were fishermen, uneducated and yes illiterate. Christianity is for those who have a willing and humble heart, open to receiving wisdom from the only place it truly comes from, God.

You've a good point. But, how did the fishermen do? How many books did Peter write?

But Paul, a man well versed in Law, is credited with several books, some of them with engaging logic; I liked the book of Hebrews. As you know, tough people aren't quite easily recruited: Paul's conversion on the Damascene road was short of violent intimidation. There's a difference in winning over fishermen and a lawyer and a doctor (like Luke, say); even Jesus knew it, and well enough to emerge from the heavens to execute the invaluable conversion of Paul, the author of Christianity.

And, if we'd look at the 'Old' testament, there's lots not to be easy about; try having a discussion with a Christian concerning the period of the exile; or the powerful book of Job, or some of the minor prophets? And what about aspects of the Israelite journey? And other historical accounts? I don't usualy get to hear anything beyond the talking points in the churches. No mistake: there're many Christian scholars and many who've delved into these things, but it's certainly not a conversation that could advance with many folks.
.
.

One creature began to speak to me in a heavy unknown accent and told me to follow it.

An unknown accent that's heavy; cute.

Many things were revealed to me there, on that rock, too numerous to record.

Many things. Why not share some?

(The Following five paragraphs are a direct quote from my book: A Land Unknown: Hell’s Dominion,Chapter Seven, used with my permission) . . .

Nice plug.


.

olabowale:
@Nimshi: « #58 on: Today at 07:17:42 PM »
Are you here as a critic, or you will give me your "view" about the topic?

I am here as both; to critique opinion I may find unclear, and to express mine. Do you have a problem with that?

I wonder what prompted Salman Rushdie to write a book that he himself, according to your statement
above, "condemned" his own attack of Islam, after he had been "lionised" so much about his brilliance in this work?

I could give an answer to that: Sir Salman gave the statement in 1990, that's shortly after the sentence of death. Apparently, the man feared for his life, after the threat became very present and very credible. It is also been suggested that the agencies protecting him thought making such a statement would help douse the fire; he may have had other motivations, but it is quite credible that his safety was a major consideration.

And, please, don't fall for the popular talk of Rushdie being lionised: even those who disagreed with him - including Muslims who were quite furious at the events following the publishing of the book - knew he must be protected from harm. And there are some who agreed with what Rushdie wrote but felt he should face the bad music all the same; things weren't as simple and straightforward as "for or against".

For the attention of Plus_Queen, Salman Rushdie, has just done exactly what Allah says about the "chances to return to Islam after leaving it," if what Nimshi said above, is correct. You see the miracle of Qur'an, predicting what will happen to those who may want out, temporarily of Islam?

What I wrote was a public event, and it is easily verifiable. But of course, by then, the terror unleashed by the Ayatollah was already out; few of those willing to liquidate Rushdie thought anything of the statement. In fact, many on his side made him out as a coward, and a cop-out. Damned if he did; damned if he didn't.

Nimshi, innocent people die in the hand of good people, even in time of peace. When people are upset they are emotional and often irrational. bad things do happen. This reminds me of the ahadith of Prophet Muhammad (AS), where he advised a person who asked him, not to get upset, each of the three person asked him, in one single occasion; "Laa Dubdub!" (don't be angry: 3 times).

I agree with you here. But must things be this way? Can we argue that it was right of the ayatollah to unleash this sort of thing on Rushdie (and the world and British tax payers?). If people can be prevented from getting irrational and emotional and submit to rational thought, things will probably be better, no?

According to your answer above, it is true that no one was upset because "Rushdie" left Islam. Now tell me what is not a lie in any of his "writing" that upset the Muslims who were "angry" at him? Please don't be shy! Is there any truth in the portions that the Musliims say he "lied?"

First, you have restated your claim; the original claim was about 100% of the things in Rushdie book; I will not be reserved in debunking the claim that everything in the SV was 100% lies. I respond to the last question above in my post below.

If his name is Salman Rushdie, we know that he was correct in telling us his name. The muslims are not saying that he lied about his names. Talk to me about anything Truthful about what the Muslim says he lied about on "ISLAM?"

His full name: Ahmed Salman Rushdie; and yes, his family are (were?) Muslims.

By the way, I did not read the book for a very simple reason; "It is garbage and I have no interest in wasting my time on it."

Twice above you've requested a discussion of some of the contents of the book; since you haven't read the book, how did you come to a conclusion about its contents? This is what is irrational: to assert that something you haven't examined is garbage. People do this all the time; people say it about Al Quran, some do about the Bible. And I suspect the Ayatollah Khomeini did not read Rushdie's book before rushing to pronounce an execution. You have shown that in your case, there's no need of suspicion.

How could you possibly intelligently discuss a book you haven't read?
.

ayinba1:
@nimshi
Since I did not address it the first time, which/what smears are you refering to?

Since you have asked, then we could get specific: it is this particular thing of applying the litmus test of a declaration of faith, and implying - without so much as veiling it - that one isn't what one appears to be, and demanding, - against all decency - that one makes a declaration of faith for the benefit of you and those who appear to share your view. It is to these that I have asked the questions: why? (See the rest of the related questions in my last post).

I have not implied that people who do not declare their religion are afraid,

You may say that, yet, you have declared that you're not afraid to say you're a Muslim. Were fear to be off the table as a motivation, why would your statement be relevant in this discussion except for its use for drawing a contrast?

. . . what concerns me about your posts is that instead of making meaningful contributions to what any one posts as a muslim, you try to interprete it in a way that is contrary to the intended message.

You're fine to interpret my posts as you please, but, where is this 'contrary interpretation'? And, isn't it beyond hubris to suggest that one does not make meaningful contributions? Who are you to make such a statement? If I read meanings to your statements and those of others, why do you not accept in in good faith and correct the misconceptions? Why do you impute bad motives? I don't post on the rub-my-back-and-I-rub-your-back threads; I am attracted to contemporary issues, and misconceptions fostered by the media regarding the Islamic faith; this is my choice, and there's plenty of these on this board, including quite exceptionally troubling things coming from the voices claiming to speak for Islam. If there're subtle meanings, I go after them if I'm able to identify them; apparently, you don't appear to like it; but why should I post the way it pleases you? If you find specific posts disagreeable, why don't you get specific about those posts?

This is how it appears to many readers, what your intention is, is what I ask.

Now that you purport to speak for "many readers", why don't you also mention who these readers are? Why don't you all get specific? the method is simple: make a direct reference to the "offending" post, and be clear why you consider it "bad"; this, as I know, is the way of discussion.

Again, on not imitating women, I say it refers to copying feminine traits and has nothing to do with acts of piety that are gender neutral. Why do you insist on a different "unspoken, yet well understood, thought"?

Did I begrudge your interpretation? Did I say your interpretation is wrong? No, and no. I only added to the discussion by posting the possibility of another interpretation. Your interpretation was hinged on the meaning of an Enlish word, and I made a post to expand the discussion, that the English word has more than one meaning, and attempted to tie it to the historical mistreatment of women evident in Islam (and the other Abrahamic Faiths). I did not claim that The Prophet mistreated women, but the claim (unwritten, though inherent), will be that women have been systematically disenfranchised in the faith and other faiths. That is is 'unspoken, yet well-understood, thought'; do you have a difference of opinion on that?

With hope that you understood me before you posted, I have not advocated not obtaining "western education". I have only cautioned against getting yourself brainwashed.

First of all, "brainwash" is a very inappropriate word to use here. No one is being forcibly indoctrinated. Quite the contrary. And though I agreed that Western education could be a good tool, what is at work - and what should be at work, isn't Western education; logic, rationality, and clarity isn't particularly Western; I could argue that it is Middle-Eastern, Arabic even, before been Western; so, what's the hot air about? And, who are you to caution one about indoctrination? You are presenting yourself as intolerant of views contrary to yours, what moral leverage do you have to submit this caution? I am of the firm belief that Islam 'can be reconciled with modernity, human rights,' and things like that. How does one do this without getting involved with the other side, or without entertaining and confronting dissenting opinion?

And tell me, what is "news" to Allah, Oh nimshi.

This has already been answered; and in case you missed it, here, again: nothing. So, are you happy now?

Please, continue to engage xtians and Buddhists etc, the question is, what value do you add in your engagement?

That you ask this question is a palpable shame in itself. I will not bother to answer this one in great detail, only because the answer has been given in my previous post. Here is a hint: almost everyday, I meet people of other faiths, and quite often, I have to confront misconceptions about Islam. Included in the peoples I meet are Christians (of course, they're plentiful an everywhere), Buddhists (of which I have many friends; heck, I had lunch with a Buddhist only yesterday), and atheists (plentiful too, these ones, and quite interesting). Aren't they all God's creations too? Aren't they humans too? don't they have motivations too? I am happy to say that one of the things that make me the happiest, is the understanding that not one person can speak for all Muslims, and they they not trust the loudest voices of violence that purport to represent Islam. We discuss many issues, including the most troubling issues of violence that those who wish to defame Islam have hung over the faith like a dark cloud. If I have succeeded in convincing these that Islam isn't a religion of violence, then I am more than happy to incur anyone's disafeection. And if you do not see any value to this sort of interaction, then I wish you good speed.

to your life? to theirs? Or is it just an exercise to show who's smarter?

You have my answer above. And, I make bold to write that what's eating at your core is surfacing. I only advice that you could rise beyond it, you shouldn't let it dominate you. It's not a good thing to harbour in the mind. This is afterall, a faceless board. And, to avoid any doubt, yes: I think the people I deal with are smart people. And if they perceive me as "smart", that is a complement that wouldn't do much harm. I am humble enough to let them know this is not unique, that there're several other smart people, including Muslims (and non-Muslims who understand the faith quite well), who're too busy to be engaging in these discussions.

Now, I have responded to all your post. Where is the response to mine? Where are the responses to the questions and issues I have raised in my post? Or, is your aim just to vilify, and to smear? You can't sharpen what Almighty Allah gave you if you don't use it; and you don't have to be right all the time.
.

That's really tough.

But, do you know why he feels this way?
.

MeGaStReEt : why is your friend regretting joining the confraternity? Perhaps there's stuff happening there that's disagreeable?

Confraternities aren't necessarily evil, so I just wonder.
.

I will tell you about persons who left Islam and no one did anything about it.

This is correct. Not all who have changed religions from Islam have been persecuted.

Salman Rushdie probably left Islam long time, earlier for the "enjoyments" of his literal society's incrowd, before penning "the satanic Verses!"

Brilliant work with the "probably". A note: Sir Salman, though having said he was irreligious, did, in 1990 issue a statement to the effect that had had renewed his Islamic faith and condemned all the attacks on Islam in his own book. And, it is quite a stretch to claim that Rushdie wrote what he did to please his literary friends and fans. Serious attempts were made on Rushdie's life; some of his collaborators were attacked; at least one was killed. These weren't empty threats. That Rushdie is alive says a good lot about the British agencies that've protected him, not about the generosity of those willing to carry out the sentence of death.

No one said anything about his apostasy, but only for his lies in his infamous Book! Did you get that? And I am hoping that anyone can tell be what is true and not 100% lies about "Satanic Verses?"

Of course, Rushdie's book isn't 100% lies. Have you read the book? Are you really serious in writing that it is 100% lies? I don't suppose that the Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued the fatwa read the book either, and that's about as true for many who have taken offence. Have you read the book?
.
.

Interesting topic for discussion.

babs787, olabowale, ayinba1: this is a contemporary issue; where're you all?
.

ayinba1:
@Nimshi

You are not very different from Davidylan.

In what sense do you make this assertion? It is quite a stretch to write this about two people. Davidylan I have disagreed with, many times; but I have admired his position when appropriate. That he is a Christian does not mean we couldn't agree on issues religious, but I am on firm ground to say that we disagree more than we agree. So, again, why do you write so?

The fact is you have not at any point declared that you are a muslim. If you say what you are, your posts can be viewed from that angle. Not just for my benefit, but for every viewer's.

First, this: any 'viewer' who evaluates these opinions based on religion alone has quite a narrow view. And, you're failing to respond to my questions about the meaning fo the declaration you seek.

You want me to write that I am a Muslim.

If I did, will all my submissions become more acceptable?

Will my submissions escape scrutiny?

What is the advantage?

What is the difference?

And, again:

If I did, would you stop the smears?

If I don't, does it make me any less a Muslim?

See, I am a muslim, so I am biased.

It has been your choice to make this declaration this openly; will you respect the choice of anyone who wishes not to do as you have done? And, everyone is biased; proving that is elementary.

If something is stated in the Quran, I will never post against it, even if I do not understand it yet.

This is not new. there are Muslims, Christians, and other people of faith who hold the same position as you do. But, do you think all Muslims are like you (in this matter)? Or, does disagreement with you on this matter invalidate one's faith?

To tell you my own opinion: let's say I read in Al Quran that 2+2 = 10, will I post against it? Well, I may or may not come out of the blues to make such a post, but if the situation warrants it, and if discussion warrants it, then I will not be afraid to state that in the field of integers and numbers and arithmetic, 2+2=10 is absurd. I may qualify my view with the comment that may be in 'heavenly arithmetic' 2+2 could be 10, but, see, I wouldn't try to support the proposition; I'd rather be quiet, and, should I have to say something, I definitely would not speak in favour.

I suppose that you would take a different position, would you?

So I am not afraid for anyone to know that I am a muslim and they can read my posts with that at the back of their minds.

I'm certain you don't state in every post you make that you're Muslim. And, your posts stand irrespective of any claim you make; one could peek through a little window into your mind from what you post, but would only take you at your word as to whether you're a Muslim. Yet, there's nothing "Muslim" about clear reasoning; even in the House of Islam, your views don't represent the views of all Muslims, so, what's the use of colouring your views with religion? And, do you suppose that people who don't declare their faiths on this board do not because they are afraid? And, suppose they are afraid, so what?

You are also very insultive, from the very first post that I saw from you responding to someone on the Islamic boards, if one disagrees with you, you regard the person's thinking as quite inferior to yours.

Could you give an example of where I have shown the sort of arrogance you describe above? Could you give an example where I have regarded a person's opinion as inferior only because I disagree? Please, quickly, find such as example. I beg you to.

Here is my claim: if I have insulting, it is because I have been insulted. If I have sounded harsh, it is because there have been probable cause. Yet, since I'm not perfect, I may have overreacted, and I will apologise were such to be brought to my notice. I may also have posted in annoyance or in defence. But what you describe above, I can be certain I am not. I am very used to accommodating different opinions, and in fact, celebrating this difference.

Well oh smart and mighty nimshi, contrary to your thought, I think very well before posting.

Here, you're demostrating and displaying a clear as crystal persona; I will not characterise it, but those who know what it is would take good note. Enough said.

No point in the post presented women as second class citizens, how did "do not imitate women" suddenly transform women to 2nd class citizens? When it is said that "women should not imitate men, does it make men 2nd class citizens too?"

Then the advice should be relevant that you see beyond the tip of your nose. Here, if it may be of some help: the imitator is thought of as being 'inferior'; beneath the admonition not to imitate women is this unspoken, yet well understood, thought. And the history of women in all Abrahamic Faiths is well known; again, enough said.

Please do not try to introduce things that are unIslamic into Islam, Not that you'll be the first, just that there is no gain in it.

Like what? Unlike you - and the other loud voices on this board - I don't claim to speak for Islam; my contention is that you people are only loud voices, and that you do not speak for all Muslims; your views are yours. Why is this so difficult to understand?

My prayer is to Allah the Lord of the worlds. Gain western education BUT save your brain from all the suds and cleansing agents. There is nothing happening in the world today that is news to Allah.

In stating the obvious, you miss what's relevant to you. "There is nothing happening in the world today that is news to Allah", so, are you Almighty Allah? Almighty Allah does not need to educated; you, however, need to be continually educated; more than that, you need to use your powers of reasoning so that you don't lose them; Almighty Allah has played His part, will you play yours? Western education is a means to an end; it is only a tool, and a very useful tool; why not use a very good tool? And, one way to sharpen your reasoning powers is to entertain and engage dissenting opinion, not getting yourself imprisoned in your own little parallel universe. This is why I will engage Christians, Buddhists, and atheists and people of alternative religions. It is sad for me to note that at least on this board, there's much more brain fibre to be exercised in discussion with the Christians and the atheists than one would find in the section for Muslims; do you know why this is??

Oh Allah, I seek refuge against knowledge that is of noo benefit to me, AMIN

Oh Almighty Allah, I seek you to bless me with wisdom and understanding, to be able to appreciate all of Your creation, even those I may find disagreeable; to be able to entertain ideas from Your universe, to be able to sharpen the gifts You have graciously bestowed upon me, to find peace, and knowledge, and the good desires of my heart, and to be humble; for me, this me, I am flesh and blood; melting flesh, and pounding blood.
.

.

ayinba1:
@nimshi

I've asked before what exactly you aim for on these Islamic threads. Some non muslims keepp refering to you as a muslim. I am yet to find ONE post where you said. "I am a MUSLIM"

And, why should I do this for your benefit?

If I did, would you stop the smears?

If I don't, does it make me any less a Muslim?

It's useful for you to think through things before putting finger to keyboard.

Yes, I see you have posted the definition of imitate, In this case of describing what a true muslim man should be/not be, it means copying feminine xtics. Islam is simple, but you are free to twist it whichever way you like. You would not be the first.

No; I tried to show you that the word "imitate" has more than one meaning. You should appreciate that. Of course, you're free to choose which suits our purpose, but you're not free to claim another is wrong for taking a meaning supported by context. I would think that was elementary and clear.

Ask for the tafsir of "men imitating women" and see if acts of piety are included in what you should not copy. But, I'm sure you know the answer already.

I believe I do. My post was to speak to the issue beneath the treatment of women as second-class citizens, and to be clear that there are women in Isma who are way much more accomplished than many men.

Again, Oh Allah, I seek refuge against knowledge which is of no benefit to me, AMIN

How ould you know knowledge which is of no benefit if you're unable to think things through yourself? There's something more important that knowledge itself. Pray that you find/have it.

Are you trying to call the prophet a liar in which you claimed you are following the religion Adam. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (PBUT). The prophet said something and you trying to turn it to something else.

So you don't know that eyes fornicate huh? What of looking at a woman lustfully? What of your legs that goes to where you fornicate? Legs and your private part answer that Common, that is under 'eyes' What was your intention when you looked at her? First look is permitted and the second one is sin.

Now, to expose the meaninglessness of your literal interpretation, could you explain why "first look is permitted and second one is sin"? As you attempt to answer, you should think a wee bit about the meaning of "first look" and "second look"; think if these are meant to be literal. Again, think about whether it is impossible to "fornicate" (in the sense you meant it) on the first look; think about the possibility of the "second look" being chaste and Godly. If you're able to sort through these, you may have done youself some good.

I still don't know why you asked this question when I gave you hadith on shaking hands with a woman
Are you saying that the holy prophet lied? Nimshi, come out and tell your stand.

No, I have not claimed that the Prophet lied; where did that come from? Why're you making up claims you wish to disprove?? I have only claimed that the proposition that "the Prophet did not shake a woman's hand" is absurd. Sorry, but, are you challneged at simple reasoning, and clear statements? I added a (rather playful, I suppose) hint to why this proposition - as stated - ought to be modified for it to be true; it is presently obvious, yet, you missed it. When making claims, one ought to be as clear as possible to protect the claim from elementary attacks. The claim that the Prophet never shook any woman's hand is patently absurd, and based on an elemenatary assumption. If you don't see why, then I' am unable to help you at this time.

.You claimed to be a Muslim but your posts didnt portray you as a Muslim and I even think the best thing to do is to quit arguing with you because you argue without backing it up with Qyran or Hadith. Do you have it somewhere where he did that and it seems you didnt go through the link I supplied.

First off: I think you have at least a slight reading comprehension problem. Now, I will not necessarily be going to all links you supply. And, I do refer to Al Quran; where have you been? And, look, I've even have been requested to tone down on the Arabic words; I have a very modest knowledge of Arabic, but the use of these make sense if they are understood; discussion should be to make things clear. And if I don't explicitly make references, it is probably because I understand them in principle. I am happy to say I have not learned by cramming things. As to the rest of your words, they're as absurd as any claims you've tried to make on these pages about me.

Actions would be judged according to intention.

By whom? This is - I'm quite sorry to say - quite a foolish assertion.

Quran 36 v 65: This day We shall seal up their mouths and their hands will speak to us and their legs will bear witness to what they used to earn.

T[b]hen, his body parts will be talking, and they will not hide anything of his deeds. Thereafter, he will rebuke them (body parts) for saying all they had said and witnessed. Their (body parts) reply will be[/b]:

Quran 41 v 21: , Allah has caused us to speak, and He created you the first time and to Him you are made to return.

And you interpret all these literally? What a shame (I wouldn't say 'pity', but it's quite a susbtitute there).

You may still call the above verses lie as well just like you did to the Hadith. A muslim indeed

Bigot indeed.

You're one of those loud voices who attempt to bring disgrace to Islam; as more people of faith who are decent and have been exposed to the world get involved, Muslims like you will be puched backward. You do not represent Islam, you defame Islam and give decent Muslims a bad name.

babs787:
@Nimshi

I could remember that I asked you for your 'declaration of faith in one of the threads' in which you took to mean something else. I want to arrive at something hence my asking you and do you believe in Hadith NARRATED by Aisha (RA)?

You're failing to answer the important question of why I should make a declaration of my faith to you. It is quite a heap of hubris on your part to suppose that I'll take your request seriously. Who are you for me to make a declaration of faith for your benefit? Beyond discussions on this public board, you matter not in my world - and I suppose I should not matter in your world. You don't have the decency to see that you're demanding for something that's way beyond what any decent person should ask; you don't see it, and that's becomeing much less of a surprise anytime you repeat this asinine request.

I have been following your posts and none that makes you a MUSLIM. Your last post here is the worst of it all and make me think if you are a MUSLIM.

What is new abou this? Denying anyone who refuses to conform to your ideas as an outsider/outlier is a very old tactic. You've got a set rule sin your mind for a Muslim, you meet someone who doesn't fit it, ergo, he's not a Muslim. This is more than deception of the self, it speaks - you must forgive me - to an ineer lack of self-criticism that is needed to get one grounded. Is there a uniformity of beliefs in the house of Islam on every issue? You injure your credibility each time you attempt to malign, and especially one whom you know quite little about, including their views.

I even remembered your argument in support of Muta marriage after proving Hadiths going against it.

We have a difference in the understanding of Mut'a marriage. I don't deny you your position, although I am convinced you are wrong. Why do you seek to invalidate those views simply because you disagree with them? You mention Hadiths, yet, I have made Al Quran my reference, and have supported it with expositions from scholars from both and all sides. What more do you want? If you don't agree with someone, you don't force your view on them; you do what all reasonable people do, which is: appeal to reason, and persuade by some other means, not got out on a limb and expose yourself as a bigot.

Like I said, it would not cause anybody any harm if you would be honest to yourself.

It is foolishness to suggest I am dishonest as much as it is self-serving for you to hint you're honest. I'll stop there; but your attempts are quite ridiculous, and that's why they need to be ridiculed.

In another thread again, I read you claiming to be listening to a song by someone (a Nigerian female singer) and you asked Frizy to listen to it. You called her ASA. Is there anywhere you were told to listen to that kind of music?

Could you educate me on what is wrong with listening to Asa's delightful music. Have you? It isn't perfect music (I can, of course suggest improvements in the instrumentation, ) but it is excellent music. Have you listened to it? If not, then who are you to criticise sth you have not examined? Tell me, what is the problem with a faithful Muslim listening to Asa's music? Tell me exactly what the problem is, and tell exactly how that invalidates the Islamic Faith? Do you listen to music? If no, why not? If yes, which? And whatever your answers are, you take a stab at explaining your comments as quoted above.

Now, I will proceed to comment on the other part of your post.
.

Very soon a European or, Eastern nation is going to default on its
international loan,

Wow! European or Eastern nation. . . sounds like close to half of the world economy to me.

and when that happens, within two weeks Mexico is going
to default. Mexico owes $100 Billion--80% of it to American banks--and here
is what is going to happen:

What's new? Mexico's defaulted before.

About two weeks after the first country goes bankrupt we are going to
survive that because most of the money is owed to European banks: German,
Swiss, and French banks.

"About" two weeks. . . will 4 weeks count? Or 5? Or 6? Or 9? Ok; since Iceland "officially" went bankrupt between the 7th and 10th of this month, this prophecy's stil got some says. I say, let's be watching it.  

The second country is going to go down, probably Argentina or Brazil, and we
will kind of live that out and people will settle down and say, "Well, maybe
its not going to hurt."

"Probably Argentina or Brazil". . . that wording is quite very slippery, eh.

Probably.
Argentina.
Brazil.

Argentina had it a while ago, but before the Icelandic bankrruptcy; so, let's see.

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=8351.msg2920065#msg2920065 date=1223586332]At least most of them are not gay by choice are you sure there are gay Lions? i have not seen that on Nat Geo sha[/quote]Aren't you assuming that all humans who're gay are gay by choice?
If animals aren't gay by choice, why should you assume humans are gay by choice?
Are humans heterosexual by choice?

.

manmustwac:
I came from a catholic background and all my brothers and sisters are christian ok. Its when i started to form my own ideas and opinions about life in my teens that i became an atheist, not while i was stll in my moothers womb.

Appears it's still unclear. Now: were your brothers and sister Catholics when then were 2 hours old?

So why dose Africa want to split up from the Anglican church then? Isn't it because of those openly gay preists they have there?

There's a difference between the homosexual state and the homosexual act. Many priests know this. "Openly gay" priests are priests who are gay and have no problem with living the full life in homosexuality; the bible clearly condemns homosexual acts in all circumstances.
.

ola: Salaam!

Were you at UI??
.

Now, you ask me, what it means to call Olumba God. But my answers will mean nothing to you since the understanding I have was revealed personally to me and to those who know what they know. Just like the personal revelation to Christ’s disciples.

That's not correct. That your understanding was revealed personally to you does not mean anyone else couldn't understand it were you to explain clearly. These things are so far out that I'm only seeking clarity. And, since you referred to Jesus the Christ, when Peter gave the correct answer, Jesus confirmed, and no doubt, some of the apostles understood too. And, others, not just the apostles, came to recognose Jesus as the son of the living God.

Calling Olumba God means the exact same thing it means to anyone and everyone that believes in God. Especially since I believe that we all worship the same God but we identify him differently.

Is it them correct - from the first sentence - that you believe that Olumba is God the Father himself manifested in the flesh?

Does it then follow from the second sentence that you believe that Olumba is the God all Christians call on to?

One simple but crucial fact I believe most Christians seem to ignore or are ignorant of, is that there is only one God in existence, regardless of the name God is called or the religion!

And your belief is that Olumba is this God?
.

This sin is considered a fornication of the hand, as the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, said, "The eyes fornicate, and the hands fornicate, and the feet fornicate, and the intimate parts fornicate." (Ahmad)

Quite a peculiar, keyhole definition of fornication. The eyes fornicate, eh? How about the feet? And the thighs? And the knee? And why stop there? What about the eyebrows (yeah, eyebrows could do stuff too)? What about your breath? Like, when standing next to a woman about your height in the elevator/lift, and you've no choice than to look right at each other, and as you exhale, the spent air mixes just outside your form? that should be fornication too, no?

And yeah; just before that meeting. . . I see me shaking the guys but not the only lady; why? Because I'm afraid I'm going to be aroused, eh? This, my friend, is primitive to the roots.

Aisha, radhiallahu anha, said, "No by Allah, the Prophet's hand never touched a woman's hand, he used to accept their pledge of allegiance by [hearing their] words only." (Muslim)

This is a most definitely a lie. The Prophet never touched the hand of a woman?

Come to think of it, aren't there exceptions? If you're to rescue a drowning woman from Bar Beach, say, wouldn't that necessitate lots of body contact? Or, would a decent human be daft enough to pass because of, er, body contact?? This, is absurd. This whole thing.
.
.

ayinba1:
"should not imitate women.

The simple word imitate is used here, NOT "emulate". Mimicking such as voice, hairdo,dressing,etc, as opposed to emulating piety in a woman

Oh Allah, I seek refuge against knowledge which is of no benefit to me. Amin

Since we're talking simple English, perhaps a dictionary would be useful? Here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imitate

4 dictionary results for: imitate
1. to follow or endeavor to follow as a model or example: to imitate an author's style; to imitate an older brother.

That should be useful.
.

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=184782.msg2957508#msg2957508 date=1224272710]The Vision", written in 1973. The first paragraphs of the book read like something out of today's headlines.[/quote]You too write a prophecy about economic conditions, like, say, that there'll be serious economic problems; seal it in an envelope; then wait 35 years and see if you won't be right.  

Easy. Like fufu and correct ofensala soup. Wash down with p-soup and Maltina.

Easy.
.

Now I'm giving you a word of advice. The first country that goes bankrupt,
and I've documented this and I've got it sealed in an envelope and I'm going
to call all my friends, and I'm telling you: this is the first time I've
said it in a public meeting like this; but the first country that bellies
up - YOU GET EVERY DIME YOU HAVE - CHURCH - GET YOUR MONEY OUT OF THE BANK
because you've got two weeks; because there's going to be a bank holiday and
you won't be able to get a dime for six months.

No kidding?!

Er, when did Iceland go bankrupt? Looks like much longer than two weeks ago to me. What about you?

.

wuciwug:
*** What is the scriptural basis for calling him God?
*** What is the scriptural basis for calling OOO the Holy Spirit?

I will treat these two questions as one and the same.

Let’s rephrase your second question: What is the scriptural basis for calling Christ God? My response; whatever scriptural extract that can be produced to support our Lord Jesus Christ as the being been prophesied about before his actual coming, can equally be disputed, by those lacking spiritual understanding! After all the orthodox Jews maintain that Christ is yet to come, talk less of being the son of God!

I think I understand your point; but, the fact that answer could/would be disputed does not preclude giving an answer at all.

The following bible passages confirm/answers questions about the basis of referring to Olumba as God or the Holy Spirit. But then again, isn’t this a futile exercise?

The exercise need not be futile. If the explanations are clear, one may "understand" them, even if one disagrees with them. Understanding, here, is much more useful than agreement.

What these texts point to is the fact that someone is to come, not a spirit, but a person! You don’t have to accept that Olumba is the one been referred to, but that at least someone will come.

Agreed. But conventional Christianity knows the identity of he who is to come;

If someone is to come, he has to be born, if he has to be born, he needs to come through the womb of a woman. This means whoever this being is will go through the pains of childhood into adulthood! Remember this being is supposed to teach, guide and lead us, which means that he will live amongst us.

Interesting. Do you exlcude that the person to come would be born of the fusion of the sperm of the male and a female? (I ask this question specificall because of the ambiguity in "he needs to come through the womb of a woman".

Consider Daniel 2: 1 – end, but more specifically verse 44:
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

I'm curious as the the application of this scripture to Olumba (I have now adopted "Olumba" for "OOO" since it appears that is fine to you). Which kings are the "these kings" in this verse of scripture? And, how does the new kingdom "break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms"? How is this fulfilled?

Now, considering the fact that God is supposed to set up his kingdom on earth and not leave anyone else in charge of it, who else but God will govern his kingdom? For this same reason Christ gave the parable of the wicked husbandmen. The Lord of the vineyard being spoken about is God. He sent his prophets and then his Son. Finally he himself had to come to put things straight.

How does this parable apply to Olumba? A clear explanation will be helpful.

Another key text that helps clarify things is Acts 1: 10 – 11. The angel asks the disciples, why do you stand gazing into the sky? That is to say the answers you seek do not lie in staring at the skies. The same way you see him go is the same way he will return, which many think means he will descend from the sky, but the actual meaning is that as he ascended in human form, he will also return in human form!

How do we verify that Christ ascended in the flesh? After his resurrection, it was no longer possible for those who previously knew him to identify him. One of two things had happened if not both, after the resurrection he was now operating from a higher spiritual plane which required ones eyes to be opened spiritually so as to identify him and Christ took on a new appearance and not the appearance his disciples were used too. This was why Thomas asked to be shown the crucifixion marks. He also did touch the wounds, only then did they truly recognise Christ.

The interpretation of the story appears contradictory to me. If If Jesus ascended to heaven in the flesh (and in the same mantle of flesh he had before his death and resurrection) why weren't people able to recognise him, including the beloved Mary Nagdalene? I'll exlude the obvious question of how regular human flesh will have survived in extreme conditions. As for Thomas, why did he have to see the marks? What happened to looking at the face to identify the person?

The point here is that they saw and physically touched Christ, confirming that he ascended in physical form.

I don't think it's this straighforward: Jesus may have shown a physical form necessary for him to be identified to the disciples, and then took another different form that's still somewhat recognizable to ascend into the skies. In any case, it remains a curious question that people who knew him couldn't recognise him after his resurrection. This is certainly unique among the resurrections recorded in the bible. Lazarus, say, was fully recognizable.

John 14:16 (KJV)

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 (KJV)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Do you mean that Olumba is this Comforter?

John 15:26 (KJV)[/b]But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
[b]
John 16:7 (KJV)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Luke 17:20-26 (KJV)

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Acts 1:10-11 (KJV)

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Revelation 2:17 (KJV)

17He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 12:5 (KJV)

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

Revelation 19:11-15 (KJV)

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Revelation 21:1-5 (KJV)

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

I'm trying to avoid any misunderstanding on my part; do you conclude that Olumba is the manifestation of the one being referred to in these scriptures?

*** What was OOO's reaction to being called God by his true followers?
As explained previously in my last post, Olumba does not have any reaction to being called any name whatsoever. Whatever name you choose to call him, either God, demon, devil or prophet, means nothing to him. He remains impervious to whatever name you call him. Remember, Christ had no cause or compulsion to respond to the various names he was given.

I am yet unclear about this answer. I can understand someone being called the devil; heck, I have been called the devil; yet, I'm completely harmless; I may not even respond to anyone calling me the devil; but being called God would elicit some response. As for Jesus the Christ, he made clear, unambiguous comments to clarify that he is not the Father; he refused being called "good", saying only God was good. Herod was punished in quite a disgusting way for accepting praise due to God.

When called God, does Olumba's silence indicate consent? I am interested in knowing the reaction to being called God; the other names are not quite relevant to my enquiry.

Interesting.

Because there is at least a sin that will not be forgiven, and because there are sins that do not leasd to death, it follows that all sins are not equal; or that some sins are more equal than others.

This not only makes biblical sense, it makes logical sense too.
.

uchkochi:
(OMEGA CYBER MINISTRIES)

Not "Omega Ministries"

Just "Omega Cyber Ministries"

. . .

"Let Jah be Praised".
.