₦airaland Forum

@ poster

how come u had no good friend to advise u, long before this stage?

I just cant pity u. pick up the pieces and move on.

server34:
Because cute guys usually have small *prick*. Take me for example, as I ugly reach, na so 'my guy' huge. Girls are not scared of me.

osasp:
if una dey claim say una fine, upload ur pic on ur profile den, . .just so we r sure ur mirror isnt one of those ones that show u what u want 2 c . .

seconded!!!

Flancey:
Ekiti Again. Pls let justice reign in this state.
DONT FORCE a governor on them.
Let the power that be hear this.
We need peace.

do those who make and implement policies think like this?

unless and until we realise that those who run the government are humans too.

uplawal:
i just got converted to ISLAM this month of APRIL 2009 and am really enjoying the faith, am feeling truth in ISLAM, i was a christian, even a good one for that matter, but having read the bible so well and so many contradictions in it and can't fathom why a book that is said to be inspired by God could contain so much confusion, and the ones that struck me most was the peter of cyerene that helped him to carry his cross and they dnt mention it that he was giving back to jesus in some gospel books, could it be is the PETER that was cruxified or could it be the JUDAS ISCARIOT that was cruxified and JESUS anscended to heaven with the four Angels i.e Rafeal,Micheal,Uriel,Gabriel according to Gospel Of Barnabas?that was not included because of it facts about it,apart from it, the death of JUDAS is not clear because one account contradicts another, saying he just pour the 30pieces of gold on the temple floor and hung himself also another account says he used the money to purchase a land and hung himself after,which one do we believe,its so confusing and i believe GOD is not a GOD of confusion,all these made me think JESUS didn't die on the cross.

The last straw that broke the camels back is the issue of the HOLYSPIRIT which has been manifesting right from creation,and even JESUS gave the desciples the holyspirit and told them he will send another PARACLATE for them to teach them ALLTHINGS, but will not send HIM to them until hes gone to GOD to beg him to give them, and i think since hes breathe on them to receive the HOLYSPIRIT while not yet gone to the FATHER that means HES the one that manifested in ANGEL GABRIEL'S form to Muhammad. All i can say is that the QURAN teaches ALLTHINGS even to the fact that how the embryo is formed to the last day it will be born is there, TIME formation is there and all others, its a complete science for way of life,how the earth is justified in both QURAN and sciences saying is round or spherical and the bible says its flat imagine!

The amazing thing there is that i always tell my fiance to receive christ as lord and personal saviour that hes GOD in flesh but will humbly tell me that, though as a muslim he acknowledge him and believe hes coming back but hes been annointed by GOD to deliver his message to mankind and hes not GOD,and truly if JESUS is GOD why would he cry to GOD my GOD my GOD why hath thou forsaken me thats if truly he was cruxified, my own thinking is that it could be either JUDAS or the PETER that carried hiis cross was cruxified instead, till this APRIL 2009 my guy never forced me to become a muslim but always tell me that i will know the truth one day,and about my GUY as a muslim is so devoted to GOD,hes caring, loving,understanding, faithful,sexy, brilliant,handsome and tall this not really necessary though but got to add it join, respectful,truthful, clean, he doesn't have to break the commandment to drink alcohol maybe when hes friends are drinking, he does not smoke, for a guy to be like this and u think hes not worshipping a true GOD? I thank GOD for his showing us the truth and i pray others too will see it, even DAVIDLYAN, NOETIC,OSISI and others, i wanna say a big thank you to NAIRALANDERS for their support in these and most websites.

this must be a joke

Badriyyah:
You say this because you're a muslim. If you were a christian you'll be singing a different tune.

and what tune are u singing?

uplawal:
@sissy
am not deceiving myself for accepting ISLAM, if u know me verywell you will never believe i could change, if am not judging myself i try to keep GODS commandment active in the church, study BIBLE, atleast i was not a kind of christian that sleep with my boyfriend and still jump in the choir to sing GOD IS SO GOOD, GOD IS SO GOOD,HES SO GOOD TO ME, and still not okay with the ways the bible was constructed,its upto anyone to receive him as ONE ALMIHJTY GOD OF ALL CREATURES

if mohammed could have lied, misled and deceived many, why should u be believed?

whats the discrimination?

so how about the daily suicide bombings in gaza, iraq, pakistan, afghanistan et all?
how about the killings in kano, kaduna, sudan, libya and other islamic states all over the world?
how about the daily amputation, beheading, flogging, human/women/children rights violations, underage marriages?

none of ur postulations dispute the fact that islam is a VERY VERY VIOLENT RELIGION.

uplawal:
thats hes own business if hes paid to change to a muslim atleast he will have to account to GOD ALMIGHTY at the end, but i dont think he was paid o, i think[b] it actually came from his mind,[/b] asides that if you know his bro jermaine he too is a muslim since alongtime, would you say EVE RUFFRIDER, and others too were paid, i was not paid either, but the the paraclete came on me too to see the truth

thats because u can see his mind, right?

what does ur conscience say?

jagunlabi:
Hmmmm!The truth that lies underneath this religion is slowly coming out from the folks who help spread it.

why is it taking 2000 years to get unearthed? any chance it is actually the TRUTH?

babs787:
@Davidylan & Noetic


I thougt you said in one of your posts that its three daugters, how come its now two? Who is lying now?

what difference does 2 or 3 make. allah was shagging allat, and they had daughters

littleb:
We celebrated it together when your ignoramuses forefathers used to be sold for slavery.

what are u talking about?

uplawal:
@noetic
they almost killed him because he was preaching on ALLAH because the pre ISLAM were aborishas.

was allah not worshipped before the birth of mohammed?

littleb:
@neotic,

I don't think you are harsh, but you are parochialy thinkworth in your response.



See, I don't equate ALLAH to GOD. Historically, grammatically and scripturally undeniable ALLAH=GOD. god not equal GOD admittedly. However, grammatically, Lord of Lords never equal to GOD. If I begin to analyse the verse where the lord of lords appear in the bible you will get tired of this conversation. Moreso, your fellow christians will even deny that Jehovah is God's name because Jesus never recognise that name from your bible. So, where do you want to hide?


Many christians deny that. Even Jesus never used the word, JEHOVAH.


Mr man, I am not a learner regarding arab history and arabic. Are you a student of arab history? I read it as a course. Site your historical books and authors to ref allah, his wife and children. I have many arab manuscripts regarding pre islamic period in MAKKAH. If Muhammad elevated one of the idols, why were the arabs against him? The idols worshipped in makkah were all physical (lat, Uzza etc), and as yoruba would called egungun, my lord(oluwa mi), my lord(oluwa mi), they also refer them as illahi or illah. In arabic, first character is "alif with kezro". Allah is "alif with fatha". Why will you be more knowledgible than arabs, historian and linquistics? From Quran, babs has already explain to you where Lat, Uzza were cleared. That is why I said you have a mindset.


You have no response to that?

I honestly cant deduce anything from this.

was he paid to convert?

mazaje:
that is the argument that creationist always use to try to prove non existent points. . . they are quick to point out that no one knows where god or the creator came from, they always say that nobody has ever been able to say where god came from i.e the theological first cause argument. . .this has never really gotten anybody anywhere, because if they argue that everything has to have a cause, or a creator, then they have to face up to the question of who created god and if they argue that there are some exceptions, or even one, then why not accept that the exception might as well be the physical universe as god?

can evolutionists state the origin or composition of the pioneer organisms that started life?
what is the very first complex reaction that started evolution? what are the simpler reactions that made up this very first complex reactions?
which of this simpler chemical reactions came first?

uplawal:
@noetic
tell me if ALLAH is not GOD why do the HAUSA'S and ARABIC CHRISTIANS refer to him as ALLAH, the HAUSA'S says NAGODE ALLAH, NAGODE ALLAH ALLAH SERIKI, or are they worshipping idol? he just made himself more acceptable by using ISLAM to correct the contraditions of the bible, SHALLOM, AS SALLAM,ALAFIA all means PEACE.

whats the meaning of all this?
did u read my last post at all?

huxley:
I concur with Toneyb that the highlighted is pure brilliance.   In fact, the entire post is just great.   Well done mazaje.

This is not surprising considering that u have NEVER formed or defended any of ur googled or copied opinions, no matter how annoying or stupid they sound.

@ mazaje
I was only being polite to say that I will respond as soon i could, cos in reality ur post is lacking in basic commonsensical analysis that would elucidate the "naturalism" concept which was the basis of this correspondence. your post was very uninspiring to warrant a response.

You are not competent enough to ascertain what is relevant or irrelevant in analysing the coherence of ur beliefs.
Do u believe in the existence of "fili-ban-gbaski"? ur continuos refusal to answer this question is called COWARDICE and sparks lack of objectivity and RATIONALITY of thoughts.

mazaje:
you believe in the unsubstantiated writings of unknown men who thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and you say that naturalism is intellectually lazy? does christianity not thrive on intellectual laziness? does the bible not warn you not to seek for knowledge and accepet everything on based on faith? does christianity not label intellectuality as blasphemy? even the bible god did not want adam and eve to eat the tree of "knowledge" according to the bible. . .we have so many anti intellectual statements in the bible like man' cleverness is foolishness in the eyes of god. . . but the same man has shown that he is much more clever than the imaginary bible god. . .such statements are there to keep people in line because the writers of the bible know that their assertion can not stand for them selves. . .

why are you so ignorantly beclouded? this new chapter was opened to examine ur beliefs, which u postulated as naturalism.
why then are u subscribing to anti-biblical stuffs to make no point? I consider this uninteresting and very unintelligent.

what are the convictions of naturalism?
why is ur concept sustained on the perceived flaws of the bible alone?
dont u think it is STUPID AND INTELLECTUALLY LAZY to assume everything came into existence by an "uncreated" big bang and yet deny the existence of an uncreated GOD?
dont u think it is stupid to assume all things have no beginning, and yet the origin of pioneer micro-organisms cannot be established?
dont u think it sparks illiteracy to discard a postulation without an alternative? whats ur alternative for the biblical account of "creation" "sin" et all?

now to naturalism. . .the cause of lightning was once thought to be god's wrath, but it turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces the same goes for earth quake. people once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. disease were once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons or due to the wrath of god(the bible says that alot), but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. in case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be god's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all.

another one of ur meaningless rhetoric.  this is just an attempt to divert the issues at stake.
how have u explained the meaning of your naturalism? whats the relevance of all that u just said to naturalism?


your assertions that demons cause disease reveals illiterate postulations. how? where did u deduce this from the scriptures?

The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural.

Is naturalism consistent with lying?
where and when was spiritualism tested? by whom?  WHY MAKE UP RUBBISH TO POSTULATE RUBBISH ?

you are just throwing words here. . .the basis of naturalism is that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. . .does it require any sacred convictions?

what is the truth? what is nature's truth?  it doesnt require "sacred" convictions? but isnt it pointless if a belief has no conviction at all?
otherwise, do u know d meaning of a belief?

what do you mean that naturalism can not be substantiated?  . . .i have defined and given you the concept of naturalism. .

you must think u are addressing a bunch of uninformed atheists. how have u explained naturalism?

.naturalism can sand on its own. . .i for one just like ridiculing and pointing out the inconsistencies of all religions. . . .does christianity not depend on disproving others? christians always discard or try to explain all the super natural claims of other religions through natural means but fail to do that to their own faith. . . .you can't have it both ways. . .

NO it doesnt.

naturalism is what you see every day and everytime, while the whole christian concept relies on faith in unproven and unsubstantiated words of unknown men that are sometimes not in accrodance to the laws of the natural world. . .why do you keep throwing words around? do you really know what you are saying when you keep on using words like lack of conviction?

what do I see everyday and every time?

i believe you do not know what irrationalism means. . . .do some of the writers of the bible not concede that some of their writings are completely irrational and should be accepted based on faith alone because of how irrational they sound and appear?

sounds like u dont even know the meaning of faith. cos this u said is false.

because such a being does not exist. . . of course. . .it has stood the test of logic and objective analysis. . .even the bible discorages objective and logical analysis. . .it relys only on faith. . .christains have conceded that logic and objectivity belongs to science labs. . because christianity demands complete faith. . .why does the bible discourage logical thoughts and objective analysis?

mazaje, this is the only meaningful attempt u have made to answer a question.  How do u reconcile HIS non-existence to the ontology u subscribe to?

based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans. the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. [b]what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, [/b]so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible. the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.

yes His ontology includes perfection. He made a perfect man, as told in the book of genesis.
have u ever of "sin"? thats what made man imperfect.

all others u said are rubbish and very unobjective attempts to digress the issue at stake.

No offence intended, I am very busy now, but the quality of ur response did not inspire a spontaneous response. Address the basic issues and stop gallivanting.[quote][/quote]

littleb:
@neotic,
All could not be rubbished. Just point out the rubbish part and correct me since we are all learners.

I am sorry if I was harsh, but I dont think u should start a response by telling me that all my questions have been answered and then discard my questions on the basis that I have a set mindset.

littleb:
@noetic,

All your questions were answered. You could not be satisfied because you have a mind set. The questions posted to you were just to straightened your reasoning. However, you woefully failed because your response seem incoherence with the questions and full of baseless reference. However, I will point out your errors in order for you to be more objective rather than being biased.

This is very false and subsequently rubbish.

Logically incoherence, grammatically inbalance and scripturally incorrect. god does refers to idol only in limited concept. There are many ways in which god had been used and still being used presently.

logically I dont believe u are competent enough to decide if my analysis of "god" is right or wrong. Cos u have a pre-conceived mindset of equating allah (god) to GOD. so how could I be logically wrong?
grammatically "god" is not the same as "GOD". I expected u to know that. so how could I be grammatically wrong?
Spiritually, there is no connection whatsoever between "mohammed" as a prophet and the bible. his coming was never foretold.
There is also no connection between "allah" and Jehovah GOD. u have been unable to explain the mysterious "allah" mohammed's father worshipped. so how could my analysis be spiritually wrong?

Semantically, olu/oluwa(yoruba), god, lord have the same meaning.

This is not true. "god" refers to an idol. GOD is Jehovah.

Only GOD is differ in which if you translate to Arabic it would mean nothing other than ALLAH. Grammatically if somebody is either claimed or imposted to be LORD of lords, never mean anything special other than repetition of the word lord. Scripturally, where Jesus called himself LORD of lords other than people calling him.
You failed!lo

why would u base ur argument on a linguistic translation?
"allah" had a wife and children and was worshipped alongside 360 other idols before the coming of mohammed. mohammed only elevated him to be the only "god" of arabia. I believe he deceptively assumed that allah is GOD.

"LAILAHI ILA ALAH". Means there is no other gods except ALLAH. ILAHI is a plurality of "lah" 'gods/idols'. From arabic, something physical which you bow down/prostrate, ALLAH from arabic context, one unique and unseen supernatural being. The idolators in pre islamic period refers thiers idols as gods(illahi), just like yoruba(oluwa/olu) and or lord.

whats new in this, that disproves what i stated earlier?

Another shot in the leg. Eloi is Aramaic, just "my God" and not my Gods and another form is "Eli" as it was said by Jesus, which has the root word ALLAH in Arabic. The question is why could jesus used such word if ALLAH is not GOD?
ELOHIM is an hebrew word for God and mostly the biblical english writers used it as plurality "gods" in bible and not GODS. If I could be so stupid like you, based on your claim trinity and your first answer god=idol. Logically means you worshiped three idols/gods. Absolutely a failure!

uhmn

There is no correlation in your response. The biblical writers have no other word to call God in Arabic other than ALLAH.

I believe I already told u y.

do u now agree with me that ur post was meaningless?

uplawal:
i really do support ISLAM in everyway, why don't you people look deep into Nigeria herself that civilization in Africa itself started with the MUSLIM of the NOK culture,no doubt about that, also the first university in the world "UNIVERSITY OF TIMBUKTU" even in NIGERIA most northerners or most most muslim student from any tribe i should say then, are good in mathematics, law and sceinces, its cos there life revolves round it, they have perfect knowledge of how to handle things bestowed upon them by ALMIGHTY ALLAH.was once a CHRISTIAN but now a MUSLIM, and am loving it, thanks to ALMIGHTY GOD and to MUSLIM NAIRALANDERS for revealing truth, pls my MUSLIM BRO& SIS in all always maintain your truth as MUSLIMS, don't be hurt by any of their insults rather continue telling the truth and clarifying it.

where ever ignorance is celebrated, delusion is rampant.

littleb:
@noetic,

All your questions were answered. You could not be satisfied because you have a mind set. The questions posted to you were just to straightened your reasoning. However, you woefully failed because your response seem incoherence with the questions and full of baseless reference. However, I will point out your errors in order for you to be more objective rather than being biased.


Logically incoherence, grammatically inbalance and scripturally incorrect. god does refers to idol only in limited concept. There are many ways in which god had been used and still being used presently. Semantically, olu/oluwa(yoruba), god, lord have the same meaning. Only GOD is differ in which if you translate to Arabic it would mean nothing other than ALLAH. Grammatically if somebody is either claimed or imposted to be LORD of lords, never mean anything special other than repetition of the word lord. Scripturally, where Jesus called himself LORD of lords other than people calling him.
You failed!lo



"LAILAHI ILA ALAH". Means there is no other gods except ALLAH. ILAHI is a plurality of "lah" 'gods/idols'. From arabic, something physical which you bow down/prostrate, ALLAH from arabic context, one unique and unseen supernatural being. The idolators in pre islamic period refers thiers idols as gods(illahi), just like yoruba(oluwa/olu) and or lord.

Simply incoherence. I never asked for obatala/sango, you should have ref that in no1 response. god and God are the same if not written down.


Another shot in the leg. Eloi is Aramaic, just "my God" and not my Gods and another form is "Eli" as it was said by Jesus, which has the root word ALLAH in Arabic. The question is why could jesus used such word if ALLAH is not GOD?
ELOHIM is an hebrew word for God and mostly the biblical english writers used it as plurality "gods" in bible and not GODS. If I could be so stupid like you, based on your claim trinity and your first answer god=idol. Logically means you worshiped three idols/gods. Absolutely a failure!

There is no correlation in your response. The biblical writers have no other word to call God in Arabic other than ALLAH.

what rubbish is all this u wrote?

sistawoman:
Please define that because I am lost for understanding it

its as simple as stated.

jay bee:
Poster is ONLY talking about black american women.

and I am including black ladies in uk.

@ mazaje.

lots of the same old stuffs.

will reply in detail in due course. . . . . .busy at the moment.

mazaje:
abraham married his half sister because his culture does not frown at it at that time. . . mohammed on the other hand married an underaged girl because his culture  at that time does not frown at it too. . . what is the difference? the mordern and civilized society that we live in today frowns at both of these practices. ,  . and considers both to be criminal ofences in some cases. . . . .

because their culture does not frown at it.  . .   there was a time when your "fathers" Moses, Joshua etc killed unbelievers and scarificed them unto yahweh because of their unbelief. . . . they did it because it was conventional and some of them are a yard stick for the jewish and christian morality. . .

my point is to expose you hypocrisy. . . you call mohammed a phedophile but your own "father" abraham whom you also revere so much is also incestuous. . . .

how rational are ur posts? why are delusively biased?

mohammed married a 9 year old girl and had sex with her .
he denied her a right or priviledge of having a childhood. would u give ur 9 year old daughter to mohammed to marry?

Abraham married a CONSENTING ADULT, who stayed with him for more than 50 years before they had a child.

now its obvious who the hypocrite is. . ,  ,

mazaje:
how do you know that i have no alternative? naturalism is my alternative. . . .

what is the concept of naturalism? I believe it is intellectually lazy, totally incoherent and inarticulate to hide under the scope of naturalism.
believing that there is no explicit explanation to the "events" of life and that natural processes are the basis of all that there is, is in my a latter day postulation of illiteracy and ignorance.

this is ignorance beyond the scope and borders of objective reasoning. naturalism equate "criticism without convictions" "passing judgement without character".
Whats the basis of naturalism, when it in itself holds no sacred convictions? whats the basis, when it runs contrary to all objective analysis, understanding and investigation? whats the basis when it cannot be substantiated to mean and/or illustrate a particular concept? when it cannot be substantially defined as a concept on its own, but it depends on disproving others?

what is that concept of naturalism that distinguishes it from Christianity, other than "disbelief", lack of convictions and running foul of known statues?

ur concept explains my definition that atheism "as an irrational state of mind". unguided, unstated and "convictionless" beliefs amount to irrationalism.

here is my own belief. . .i deny existence of all gods, that of the muslims, the hindus, the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, chinese, south americans and the god of the old and new testaments. all of these are fictional constructs invented by very clever humans for purposes, a variety of diferent purposes, ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, dominance and entertainment. i believe in naturalism. . .

whats the basis of the denial of this existence? can ur answer withstand the test of logic and objective analysis?

atheist know your beliefs too, i was once a christian like you so i know and understand very well everything that christianity is all about. . . .so i can also question ridicule or antagonize it. . .

If it helps, I am least interested in what u are or were, I am simply interested in the RATIONALITY of ur beliefs.

toneyb has given you the basic ontology of the christian god. . i agree with it and that shows that i know what his supposed ontology is even though some christians can not even agree to the basic ontology of the christain god. . . the catholic ontology of the christains god is quite different from that of the protestant christian, the white garment wearing christain may have a very different ontology of the bible god compared to say a conservative american evangelist christian or a prosperity nigerian christain pastor. . . the bible god's ontology varies from church to church and from denomination to denomination. . .no two diffeent sect of christianity agree on his ontology. . .but the one provided by toneyb is the basic one i agree(i presume you also agree with it) with even though there are christian that might not agree with it. . . .

u are the first atheist to agree to that. huxley and his youtube mentors disagree with this ontology.
If u agree with toneyb's ontological definition of GOD, how then can u disbelief the existence of GOD? dont u consider this a contradiction? or should i say irrational?

this is irrelevant. . . red herring i must say. . . .

why is that irrelevant? why dont u answer yes or no?

This is intended to illustrate the rationality of ur belief(s). and also to put those beliefs under the microscope of logic and objectivity, which u readily proclaim.

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? yes or no

[quote author=amebo no1. link=topic=267588.msg3805565#msg3805565 date=1241115844]agreed, but i wish some of you men will go practice your supposed boxing skills on your fellow men,lets see how it goes

why u lot choose the feminine species,understand i not[/quote]injuries from punches heal naturally, words (other times curses) said in anger dont.
the punches or curses are usually done by both parties cos they think they can get away with it.

is as much as the man should withhold the punch, the woman should also withhold the curses or words.

mazaje:
what is this you are doing to yourself? cousins marrige is different from sibling marriage. . . . so because a tribe in austraila eats people means eating people right eh? can you show me where chinses marry their siblings? why is that not allowed in today's civilised societies. . .

. . .half sibling is a cultural thing only when it invloves or is been practiced by your father abraham eh? when others practice it i know for sure that you will be swearing at them. . . you still havent answered my question. . .will you allow your half sibling to inter marry? lets asume you marry and lose your wife through divorce or death and marry another woman will you allow your kids to inter marry? why is such a thing not allowed into days mordern and civilized societies?. . . .abraham commited incest just the way mohammed commited pedophilia. . . .

My siblings are supposed to be adults, my opinion makes little or no difference here.
My kids will naturally not marry each other, once they realise that they are related by the same father, cos the CULTURE frowns at it.
It has nothing to do with their father.

i can also say that phedophile is a cultural thing as well and it has nothing to do with religion.

why is it rampant amongst islamic states including saudi arabia, iran, iraq, nothern nigeria, egypt and the rest?
why did mohammed, the moral bearer of the islamic faith practice it? considering that he is the yard stick for islamic morality.

what exactly is ur point?

@ pilgrim

welcome back.

why did u go on exile?

mazaje:
what are the falsehoods? care to show me? go through this thread:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-260977.32.html , read your reply #44 you will see it for yourself. . .

do u know the meaning of an "apologetic"? if u do, compare it to the context of my post in the link u pasted.

ur statement that u corrected my misuse of words is "falsehood", intended to make u feel like u are winning an argument. My usual tactic is to ignore u.

so how had the bible god's ontology proved that his existince is real? has the biblegod ever appeared to you and told you what his ontology is in person? is it not your parents, preachers and the writers of the bible with their unverifiable claims that have told you that? i can go ahead and clearly disprove all the so called ontology. . . .

that's my problem with u. why should u disapprove something when u have no alternative.

I am ready to debate ur reservations about the christian ontology of God, but start by stating ur own beliefs.
I feel free to attack the muslim beliefs I disagree with, in the full knowledge that they know my beliefs and can question or antagonise it.

How can u attack an ontology, when u cant define one? how can u debate who GOD is(existence/non-existence), when u dont know Him?

do u believe in the existence of "feli-ban-gbaski"? YES or NO

If yes, what is his/its ontology? what is "feli-ban-gbasky"?
if no, dont u consider it unintelligent and presumably irrational to discuss "feli-ban-gbansky" when u dont know who/what he/it is?

women who tongue-lash their hubby's also require psyco test.

Its very easy to condemn the poster, but no one has taken the pain to analyse the content of what he has said.

while i am against his tendency to generalise, there is however more sense in his comments about girls attitudes and manners.
the truth is most black girls born here or who have stayed in the uk for a while, tend to talk carelessly. they unfortunately misinterpret it as "playing hard to get" "being in control" "having an independent mind" or "not being a dummy".

From experience the "process" of longing after or chasing a girl in the uk is not as interesting as back in 9ja.
while every guy wants a strong, independent and intelligent woman. talking carelessly (sometimes unknowingly) is the wrong approach.
I will go for a pretty well mannered girl regardless of race any day.