₦airaland Forum

Moses, Elijah and Jesus stood at the transfiguration! No one knows what became of Moses. Elijah did NOT die! Jesus was Alive! How does the transfiguration support re-incarnation which is dead people coming back AS BABIES?

Jesus RESURRECTED and is Alive! When He comes back, He's coming the way He went up. If He came back as a baby, THAT would support re-incarnation. But He's NOT coming back as a dead person returning as a baby!

The word is RENEWAL not regeneration. At that time, they will stand as continuances - from when they died, not come back as babies.

Marlbron:
The bible states that the first man was Adam and the second man is Christ. I did not state this, its in your scriptures! The spirit that was used to create Adam, later manifested as Jesus in a later incarnation. Note that God was Adam's Father and mother, not man.

I understand that separation of body and spirit  means the person is dead, but that separation of spirit allows the spirit to return back to its initial or resure state, hence resurrection. We need to understand the natural process fully. At conception, the spirit enters the womb of a woman and becomes fully imprisoned in the body at birth. It lives inside the body till death.  Thus we have a cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth. The bible tells us that every human will resurrect - some to everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. The spirits are immortal , even the ones in hell do not die.

What defines anything  is the spirit. The spirit determines who we are, if you like think about it as our spiritual DNA. The body is just a covering which can be shed. After death, the spirit is free to come to earth to take up another assignment. Some spirits come from different planets, but the earth is the centre of the multiverse. Do you think that the planets were created for fun?

[color=#990000]I need to comment on a related topic - eternal life.

We think of it as living for ever in the world. I wonder how this can be. Will we work for ever? Will we have Children? Will our Children live forever too? Remember that birth and death go hand in hand. If there is no death, will there be birth? Has it not occurred to you that in the garden of Eden, God was the one that instigated Satan to tempt them so that they could multiply according to his pronouncement (Multiply and fill the earth)?  The thought of living for ever may be thrilling, but I think the concept is not totally correct. Let us reason from the scripture: John 11: 24 - Lazarus episode

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Clearly, everlasting life means the opportunity to reincarnate into the world ad infinitum. Note Christ's word: though he were dead, yet he lives, The old testament prophet Isaiah, captured it very well by saying that people will live to an old age, with little stress.

The main confusion for Christians is the statment from Paul which is not well understood: "It is appointed unto man to once to die and after that judgement, ". That statement has been given very wrong interpretation. Let me explain it by looking at Elijah and John the baptist.

Elijah killed about 33 prophets of Baal in the name of fighting for God before he translated. There was no evidence that he suffered any judgement while in the world as Elijah, but he had run foul of a natural law. When he entered the spirit realm, he was judged and he came down to earth to fulfill this judgement. That was why he was miserably murdered by Herod for nothing. When reading that portion did you not wonder why this tragedy should befall such a righteous man? Where was God? This guy was very righteous! The answer is that Herod was unwittingly carrying out God's judgement on Elijah who was now on earth as John the baptist. That was why when he waited in vain for Christ to save him, he doubted Christ and had to send his men to inquire if truly he was the Christ. He had to suffer his fate and pay for that exuberance as Elijah.  So Elijah after committing a crime came back to face the music of his crime.[/color]What then is the end game? My two cents:

At the end, the angel of death who prevented John from realising who he was would be defeated and the curtain over our minds will be opened. Thus we can look at our fellow man and perhaps understand who he was in a previous incarnation something we cannot do now. That I think is the essence of the vision of the transfiguration, which signified that in the kingdom of god all the old prophets will be present, though they may not answer their names but we will know them!

Finally,

Those spirits that resurrected when the earth shook at Chrit's death. Am not aware that they lived and died normally. Could you quote the scripture for me again. If they did, then does that not puncture your argument that it is appointed unto man once to die and after that judgement? Help me here, sir!

So if I say you are the first born and your brother is the second born, what I actually mean is that your brother is your re-incarnation?

How does "cycle of birth- death- resurrection- birth" support re-incarnation? BTW, can you name 4 people who have resurrected?

Your words that I have "bolded" above! What is their purpose here? What do they add to this discourse?

Much of the other words here ! Are you planning to open a church and need to practise "preaching"? What are these words here for?

Lets assume the larger sized letters even were true - which means Elijah literally came down to suffer for killing people. That would mean a living person came down, jumped into Elizabeths womb (   ) and came out an old man who then was killed for killing people hundreds of years before. We cannot explain it any other way since he never died! How then would this support re-incarnation?

Finally, in answer to your "finally", they RESURRECTED! Just like Lazarus! That was a miracle not the regular course of nature which is that you die ONCE and after that, judgment!

Bro, what is your drug of choice?

Marlbron:
Some people can ressurrect and live on earth without being born. We hear stories of people who are dead and now seen and living in other parts, even marrying. Once you ask them to take them to their village, they become reluctant and when you insist, they even disappear completely, leaving wife etc behind!

Yep, people say such things. However, even if the stories were true (which would be quite something to see), for this theory to support your argument for re-incarnation, such people would have to be born "again" as children. But they are not, are they? What is bandied about is that they disappear in one place and show up elsewhere EXACTLY the same age they were when they "died" and continue from there till confronted at which time they disappear. Does your definition of re-incarnation include "continuance" in another "form"?

BTW, you people keep referring to Elijah. Elijah didn't die so how come he is re-incarnating in your NL posts?

@Davidylan/Cobra:

This ain't fair! See as you've bitten me and poisoned me. So it was you biting me all through yesterday.

@Abuzola:

Thank you for showing me that David is a Cobra. At least I now know what I'll use for treatment. A reading of the "rubbish" coming from the pig that started this thread will cure me. Especially realising that allah was the contractor that built 3rd Mainland bridge - but what he did there was bad cos now the bridge is shaky in some portions. Don't worry, Viaro the head of NL anti-fraud will arrest the contractor and prosecute him for the poor work done there.

Meanwhile, is it only Arabic studies you people do? What kind of reasoning/idiocy suggests petroleum is a prophecy. This your prince guy ought be called "lost slave".

The only prophecy we agree to is the one that says all Muslims will totally burnt in hell. Thats why it says Allah's angels will use the "head against floor" mark on your foreheads to know you. Because you would be burnt beyond recognition.

Abu Zola:
Ok if i post one prophecy will u be glad ?

@nuclear- You have change this days, as for the verse u quoted you are wrong, the reason why the verse was revealed was when a man asked the Prophet who is his father and the Prophet told him so God revealed it. If the man was a naughty person it would ve cause him trouble till the day of his life

Who asked for who's father? the prophet told who? god revealed it "after" the prophet told who? who was the man? Be plain, Abuz, no stories.

And why did you boast of many prophecies but want to post just one now to make David happy? Why not dazzle us with your repertoire of fulfilled prophecies.

viaro:
HAHAHAHA!! What did you use to open those four threads - gramophone??

Yes O, the very latest model, power everything, adaptive controls and just arriving - all the way from arabia!

Abuz:

Why didn't you tell the slowpoke who started this thread by trying to turn truth into lies that what he was doing was sad and wrong? Does he have a right to lie about Christianity because he's a muslim? And is what I said wrong? Surah 5:101 tells you not to contest anything but believe it without reasoning and that is what he is doing - BUT with the Bible. Do it with the Quran not the Bible which says to question everything. Read, Confirm and Understand not stupidly recite is what our Bible says.

I gave you an example of understanding with the "almah" issue. Do you now understand that?

So tell the "idiotic anal portion of an old pig" to use his brain. The Bible is not to be recited.

"Almah" is used 7 times in the the OT text. EVERY single time it is used, it referred to virgins. What you do not understand is that ALL YOUNG WOMEN that were not married in Israel had to be virgins. Because of this, nobody made distinction between "almah" or "betula" and thus they were used interchangeably. The question therefore becomes if everytime it is used, it means virgin, why do you take only this one and insist it doesn't mean virgin? Why didn't you choose the dance of Miriam and the virgins of Israel where the same "almah" was used? This is the problem with you people. You think of nothing except sex and read indecency into everything.

The same way the above is disproved can be applied to your other stupid assertions.

Why not just stick to the endless mindless recitations which do not need thinking which your religion requires. I want you to know this -Christians are meant to discuss and reason because that is what Jesus did with his proverbs. So we are here doing what is natural to us. You on the other hand follow a sword, warfare and despoiling of 9 year old girls. Why not go do those since that is natural to you. But before you despoil any child, first go get a bomb and blow yourself up ALONE or with bin laden. That is what is natural to you and will not show the hole in your heads.

Discussing only shows there's a hole behind your mouths.

@Davidylan:

Prophecies? for where you go find them? What you will  find are machine guns and bombs

@bee444:

bee444:
@nuclearboy

Sorry for not clarifying that area the way I should have done!

No, I'm not saying Jesus is God, and i'm also not denying him as the begotten son of God.

Note that a son is different from a father in every aspect. Now lets look at the highlighted word 'begotten'. To beget means to father, create, to cause to exist, to produce, to bring forth, to generate, procreate etc. Now,we all call God our Creator, and if we truly sincere with ourselves, we can boldly say God has begotten us all, 1 John 3:1, Romans 8:14. Jesus while on earth was always led by the Spirit of God. God was so impressed with him that HE begat him instantly.

Anyone that does the will of God reproduces the mind of God. And as believers, we are now sons and daughters of God and join heir with Jesus,
Hallelujah!!!

God bless

Did you ever hear the expression "I am my ancestors and without me, they never existed for where are they if I am not?" ?

I love Christianity because it is an individual finding his way to life. BUT statements like what is in bold (especially the larger sized) above scare me. If we are reading the same Bible, it points numerous times to the emergence of the Messiah, who is also called the Mighty God, Wonderful, Counselor, Prince of Peace. One other word used to describe Him is "Emmanuel" which for avoidance of doubt, the Bible translates to mean "GOD with us" or "GOD in our midst".

If you hear that Bill Gates is in a meeting with you, would you say it is his son who impressed him yesterday that he sent? Or Bill Gates himself?

Also, consider the phrase, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One!". I take absolutely categorical statements like this, and then use them as a guide for other statements that could be interpreted in many ways. If the Lord our God is One, then I refuse to accept any bending of the truth to suit any fancy. My question for you, sir, is this - Do you believe God can be God, a man, a dog, a stone and a piece of wood at the same time? If not, I fear there is a misunderstanding somewhere because I read His Word and find it cogent that in describing Himself, God says "I AM THAT I AM", which in effect means "I do whatever I want and it is done and whoever doesn;t like it should go to court where he will find me as judge". The Bible supports this assertion over and over. If you want, I'll be glad to give you references.

But you say "Jesus impressed God and that was why He "instantly" begat Him? When? After the 40 day fast? After/During baptism? When He refused to sin even as a little boy? Which would make me ask "which particular sin"? When He became led with the Spirit of God? When did He start being led?

BTW, your definition of "Beget" is dictionary based, not God based. If He truly is God, He can beget Himself in another form which settles our brouhaha.

Cheers Bro.

@DeepSight:

I see you attempting to stand against Viaro's posts? What say you of mine?

@bee444:

I agreed with you, Sir. And I like your latest allegory of mobile phones. Why don't you start a thread or even continue here and rather than using phones to symbolise God, state point-blank how you understand God, Jesus and HS. I say this because your above post confuses me when you say

QUOTE
Although he talked a lot about himself, who he was and who sent him, he was very careful to say he was GOD(Creator). He couldn't be in 2 places at a time while on earth, hence, the OMNIPRESENCE of GOD remains. He died, GOD never sleeps nor slumber.
UNQUOTE

What do you mean here? Are you seperating Jesus and God yet also saying Jesus is God?

Sorry, sorry sorry. A poor web connection kept me away! I see Viaro brought his missiles online again

@DeepSight:

[1] Hebrews 9:27-28: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” In no uncertain terms, this explains that the "normal" course of man’s existence is that he dies only once, and then faces judgement based on that one life. To strengthen his assertion, the writer made it clear men die the same number of times that Christ was offered on the cross i.e. only once."normal" above excludes miraculous situations where a man came back to life as in the case of Lazarus.

[2] In the case of the Transfiguration (I, a dwarf stand on the shoulders of the Mighty Expounder Viaro), Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. If they had re-incarnated, they had to have been omnipresent to also be with Him. Would you attribute omnipresence to these gentlemen ?

[3] Luke 23:43 - Jesus told one thief he'd be with Him THAT DAY in paradise. If the body would be dead and buried and the soul with Jesus in Paradise, what portion of him would remain and be re-incarnated?

[4] Luke 16 tells a story that supports this assertion too. The 3 men mentioned as having died (Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man) were obviously consciously in the realm of death. Considering the time span between his death and Jesus parable, Abraham ought not be in that realm (except he too were omnipresent) if re-incarnation is valid. In fact, the rich man begs that Abraham send Lazarus back to warn his family; a request that was refused (supporting one death, not re-runs of an action flick).

                The case of John being Elijah is easily dismissed - Luke 1:17 - Jesus said John came in "the Spirit of Elijah" meaning he had similar attributes to Elijah. This particular quote informed my earlier seemingly "weak" argument about "A Daniel come to judgment". I try to consider the intellect of my audience to avoid accusations of being long-winded and have never refrained from saying I believe you truly blessed intellectually. I still sincerely believe you understood my meaning but like to play the intellect game. Ah well, they say you're a lawyer and that even demons feel insulted when compared to lawyers for lying and turning things on their head(s)! I find it amazing that you still came back after Viaro noted you'd discussed this on another thread and I pushed a tidbit I believe you understood.

Please note that each example above does not require a long stretch of imagination to "infer", "convince", "accept". Your postulations, on the other hand, distort, then force an inference that is to say the least, a ridicule of Biblical information - come on, Bro!

@Viaro:

I just knew you wouldn't protest over the Jesoul thing! I see and have proved you lean towards a Solomonic mindset?   I needed something over you in case I ever debate against you and I have it now - I'll disclose that mindset to the "someone important" who got you off this topic if you ever shred my arguments the way you like to do. Send her details  

@MavenBox:

I wonder what you think of bee444's post above - I think the same. Jesus is God but in the context of that conversation, I agree with bee444 that He referred to Himself not tempting the Spirit because of the Flesh!

^^^
@DeepSight:

One would assume it unlikely they would ask them at birth or would you have asked Jesus in infancy if he was Elijah?

Atimes you scare me with the sincere depth of your discourse. Othertimes, I feel let down and wonder if you are being sincere or just trying to shake the foundations of the beliefs of others at any cost. Aside what Viaro stated above which is better put than I could have delivered, let me bring an aside which also serves as an allegory -

When you read Shakespeare in "The merchant of Venice", you come across the words "A Daniel come to Judgment". Would you say Shylock believed the Prophet Daniel had come to aid him? If no, look at your postulation again!

@Viaro:

Again the Mighty Expounder rescues me from the big bad wolf call DeepSight . What do I owe you now? Obviously, we've gone past drinks. Sadly, Jesoul seems taken or it'd have been my life ambition to see that happen

Brilliant response, Chairman! I'm learning a lot at your feet.

MavenBox is Tudor and Viaro is the Ayatollah. Also, Davidylan is actually Osama bin Laden and Abuzola is Pastor Chris

Basically, what you are saying is that if I ask if you are a lawyer and you evade the question and then MavenBox says no that she knows you only as a poster on NL and not as a lawyer, you are not one!

Is the above right?

Lets not jump to a non-conclusive conclusion, Bro!

Deep Sight:
Unfortunately for you; i do have an exhaustive Bible concordance right in my personal library here in my bedroom.

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Thus you fail in your attempt to make it appear as though in that specific instance only, the writer was referring to the physical heavens - the clouds.

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

@DeepSight:


At the time of your post 11.56.34am, you are "here in my bedroom"  ? I'm jealous!!! I was at work!

I remember you abandoning the thread you named after me when I showed that 'almah' was a word used interchangeably with betula for Virgin in the OT and that in every other occurence, it referred to Virgin. How come its ok for you to do same now when I wasn't acknowledged as right when I did same?  . Oya, acknowledge me!

The combination of you being in "bed" at 11:34 and doing to Maven what I couldn't do to you is devastating!

@DeepSight:

I do NOT subscribe to the idea of re-incarnation! BTW, I want to see how you came about Jesus believing in or accepting re-incarnation.

@the_seeker:

You say we resort to lies and nonsensical anologies.

Well, we belong here where brains are used - know why? Our analogies and thinking come from a thought process built on that of Jesus who used real-world examples to pass His point across. His own online posts proverbs made sense because they were built on what others could understand. We try to emulate Him!

On the other hand, you do not belong here. Why? You follow a guy who carried weapons and raped babies! Before you grab the nearest 9 year old, please first go get a bomb from osama and blow it up whist still with him.

That way, we do what comes to us naturally and you do what comes to you naturally.

@MavenBox:

How long have you been playing Chess and to what level? Hobby, School, Club, Tournament abi MAS---?

Deep Sight:
Now that very perfection of his word and will create serious problems for you Maven -  On the Adamic legend -

  1. If God was omniscient and perfect, he would know all things - including the future
  2. If he knew all things he would know the very result of his creation leading to sin
  3. If in spite of knowing such he could not devise a creation more perfect than that, then he can scarcely be said to be perfect
You must thus see that the Adamic idea of sin is inherently incompatible with the perfection of God, which you moot. This deals with the Adamic legend.

But on golgotha -

 1. If God is changeless, why would he change the requirements for salvation by introducing the spectre at Golgotha and requiring all men to believe it in order to be saved? This was a clear change from the previous state of Judgment based on law and conscience, no? I thought you said God is changeless? Aha!
 2. If God is changeless, its really rich for you to insist that the prayer in Gethsemane was a script God himself had to follow. What do you make of the words - "Nevertheless not as i will but as thou wilt?" What do you make of the words - "If it is possible, let this cup pass over my head?" Remember that this is supposedly the almighty Deity who knows all things.
 3. Do you realize that your script analogy can only hold water if this world we live in is not real. I;e - It is virtual reality only, as once suggested by Rossike.
 4. "Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - what do you make of this statement? Is it not an affirmation of the law of Karma? And if the law of Karma holds true, do you not realize that the sacrifice on the cross is incompatible with it - because we are said to reap whatever we sow: thus - it will never be "washed away" by any sacrifice, but must unconditionally be reaped in the adamantine and perfect laws of God. Do you realize that you are thus suggesting that God put aside his perfect laws of Karma in order to "change the script" halfway? All this coming from a God that you your self have described as "unchangeable"? ? ? ?

Maven? ? ?

I hope I will not be called heretic for this post but I disagree with many of the beliefs implied in your post above, DeepSight.

Omniscient/Omnipotence/Omnipresence were dealt with (I think by Rossike) awhile back. If I recall, He mooted that if God were Omnipotent, there was nothing He could not do. But that suggests God cannot fail in anything which then means We have found something He cannot do. The same could be said for the other attributes in OOO. Which leads me to where I had an issue with your OOI - The ISSUE OF CHARACTER/PERSONALITY. You believe I want to "humanize" God but you forget that the first time we find God speaking about us in the Bible, He decides to create us to be HIS OWN IMAGE. Take that as having His Character (desires, plans, even a need to be worshipped and highly thought of). So I am not humanizing Him. He deified us or put another way, humanized Himself somewhat in that decision. Even where you say you do not believe in the Bible, I think it obvious we have a same general leaning in that direction (to have those attributes which you have yourself stated make you to believe there is a God since its innate that we seek something to worship). Strike OOO.

I find personally, I'd like to be seen as good yet there is a rakish side that even in maturity seems to want to be seen as "a bad guy", "a big boy", "the successful one" etc. This I think to be true of most of us at one time or other. If then God has a character, what is wrong in Him wanting respect. I hope no-one is holding the torch of heresy yet but I believe God deliberately allowed Eden so we "learn" for real, what it could be like after all this is done. Consider the alternative - a world filled with naked "moronic do-gooders" who smile at everyone, lay in the laps of lions and sing Hosanna all day long.

Considered in this light, I think perfection now becomes more than what we've had beaten into us. Same with Unchangeability. Especially when you realise that there is a valid argument against any attribute you attribute to God. Why not GOD IS GOD. I AM THAT I AM. Did you ever consider the total ambiguity in that very simple statement?

My experiences with the occult and many things I played with earlier have made me come to believe God has a healthy humor. Let me explain - I remember a situation  very recently where I guided someone through the aftermath of what seemed a terrible occurence and following my advise, the victim changed what seemed like a disaster into quite a triumph. Had I not these experiences and knowledge, I wonder what would have happened. I believe today that all those things I did were allowed so I COULD BE USEFUL TO SUCH SITUATIONS TODAY. How's that for perfection -looking at the benefits that comes from "evil" after. Another example of this would be Jesus on the Cross. Satan wanted to get rid of Him because He was changing people but in doing what he felt would be a triumph, he lost the keys and control of the world and the events following the Cross have been simply dumbfounding. Over and over, and I think this goes for us all, we have seen good come out of bad. How's that for perfection and humor?

So when you say changeless, please remember that there are many ways into a market. What seems a change may just not be what you make of it. Suppose I say you'll be a Pastor and over the next few years, we find you doing everything except that. Then at 60, you become a pastor and in 2 years do more good (which is relative) than most pastors could in a lifetime, have I failed? Are we restricted to seeing only the present?

Finally, what you sow, you reap! Fine! But your inheritance from your parents, DeepSight, did you sow that? What we claim here too is that salvation is an inheritance gotten from a father, BECAUSE YOU ACCEPTED HIM AS FATHER.

@Toba:

I beg O. I am not Abuzola's enemy. I just want him to see and recieve the truth because I think he's a very good and open person without guile who is just misguided.

No no no, you seem to have missed the point.

[1] "within creation"! Are you saying God is limited and doesn't surpass the limits of what is in existence?
[2] Where is the character/personality of God in this OOI theory? Or is God an abstract remote concept floating somewhere in the universe?

We are saying God is, as it were, an Individual, with a character, likes/dislikes etc. Your OOI seems to suggest an abstract infinity/whatever (forgive me but words fail me here). Can you clarify this issue?

a=b. b=c, thus a = c and DeepSight therefore defines God as the "Ultimate form of Harmony". In what context? In relation to His Creation (which limits him) or outside of it? Or both?

My problem with either/both is that you seem to be trying to fit God into a mould you have created. And that mould is sufficiently vague as to remove all personality from the object of discourse - God! Or is this actually what you would have us believe i.e. that God is abstract, unknown, remote, undecipherable etc? I've not been on Nairaland long enough to have read all the threads on this OOI but the more I read, the more it seems you look at God as many would at one of Michelangelo's masterpieces - A perfect (but intrisincally lifeless) work.

Does this OOI have a character? And what does He/She/It mean to you as an individual?

This thread is resurrected! Three months in the belly of NL

@KunleOshob, Pastor_Sy, etc:

I notice the thrust of your argument is that there is a "structure" i.e. a doctrine which you want to take as superceding the Word of God. Are you serious? Let me put it this way: The BIBLE says "leave her if she commits Adultery". The church rules says "Only if she dies". But you agree that the church rules are more binding on anyone within the system than the Word of God?

I think what you are saying is that you support that Muslims blow up everything and that Catholics are right to worship Mary BECAUSE the institutions these belong to have those as laudable rules!

@ngozi.u:

with all respect, the woman you want God to bring back to him has re-married! Would you like God kill the children she's borne for the other guy too?

@REAL TRUTH:

Good reasoning there.

All this putting men's words above God's Word is starting to turn my tummy and the only justification they find is the misused "Touch not my Anointed and do my prophet no harm". So what are you? God's Cursed? How do you know that you, reading this post that is seemingly "against" the prophets and anointed DO NOT have greater anointing from God? Or is it the fact that you do not stand in front of millions (YET) and tell them to take YOUR word over God's Word that makes you less anointed?

@Tudor:

Tudór:
If i read this one more time, . . . .i'll crash the posters laptop with a virus! Try me. . .

Didn't know there were Atheist Terrorists. I thot we reserved that only for turbaned guys

Most people worship the guy standing in front of the Altar and that is why they make judgments that are so controversial. I wonder why anyone would expect a man to stay "alone" all his life after his so-called wife had remarried? Would they rather he go (credits to Mad_Max) thru his choir like a harmattan fire?

I'm happy to hear you confess that muhammad is allah. thats why he could force safiya to sit on his laps while they tortured her husband in front of her. And after the husband told them where his gold was, they killed him and then allah took her into his room and raped her. just after killing the husband and stealing his gold

I haven't tried to defend anyone in the OT, have I? I said God has a right to do whatever He wants. Finish!

But your prophet? Wow! You guys should be afraid to even allow anyone know anything about him

@Viaro:

No worries, Bro. I'm downloading a dictionary for every language name I can pronounce! BTW, seems today has been really a moody one for you. Saw you on another thread "destroying" lady234 as per "naughty fingers".  

@MavenBox:

Hello there, Lady. nice to see you're back from your earlier withdrawal.

Okay, its about Yahweh, the Lord God of Hosts. Does God not have right over His creation? Yes or No?

But your muhammad did all those things and even more so I want to know how you convinced yourself to ignore the terrible truth and follow that path

No Abu:

None is a lie. Aisha was married at 6 to your prophet and he consumated when she became 9. Before then, He "thighed" her. He saw a revelation ( ) that his son divorce his wife so he should marry her. He slept with the Jewess the same night he murdered her husband and family.

If you claim these are lies, directly quote the Hadiths or Quran to prove your case. No need to open a thread. Just quote the DIRECTLY RELEVANT literature here

If my justification is poor, Abuzola, for the owner to do as He wishes to his possesion, what do you think of a man who kills a man then sleeps with his victims wife the same night? Or what say you to a man who got his own son to divorce his wife because he wanted to sleep with his child's wife? Or what do you say to a man who "thighed" a 6 year old till she was 9 then slept with her? Have you ever asked yourself why that child never gave birth? Is it out of place to suggest that the man destroyed her tiny womanhood and that was why she couldn't have children?

How do you justify that man for you to follow him?

At least my justification was for an owner. What is yours for this character?

Oh my God, the grand commander of the turbans has come to town now every page will be 400 pages long with nothing said.

@DeepSight:

Indefensible? Try this -

Fully Divine, Fully Human. Thus the Divine follows the script BUT the Human cannot be neglected as it is a part of this "mix". Seeing/sensing/understanding what is about to happen, the flesh recoils and wants out. I wager you have had many instances where you knew something was wrong yet found there was a conflicting will within you that wanted it. Or the other way around - knew it was right yet something made you go against it. The separation of personalities solves this issue you make such a big deal about, DeepSight. Just remember - Fully Human, Fully Divine. Thats what we always have claimed, right?

Each had its own agenda. I know you understand that. What matters to us as believers though, is that the right one won the conflict!

@Baba70:

Please leave us alone with our mature educated reasoning. No one here needs your ancient islamic reasoning! Igba baba70 ti koja

Wow! So much emotion

@DeepSight:

I recall MavenBox using an allegory in another thread where Jackie Chan WROTE the script, DIRECTED the movie and PLAYED lead. So when you say "Why do you persist in this UNSPEAKABLY HORRID contradiction? ? ? He is following a script written by A SCRIPT WRITTER AND YET YOU INSIST THAT HE IS GOD? ? ?", have you forgotten that the script writer could also be following His script?

I think the reason for the emotion shown here is that we, have/show quite a bit of respect for you and listen to you patiently even when we don't agree with you but your post suggests you do not reciprocate that. Do to others, DeepSight, as you ,  , 

@Viaro:

God forbid I get on your bad side. Chei! '

aboulia. linear tarradiddle. 'apeiron borborygmus' etc

What language dictionary should I download?

@Muhsin/the_seeker/the-turbaned-violence-brigade:

You will notice that the people discussing on this thread are educated. We went to Universities, not arabic schools and education has informed us the nature of your whatever :- stony; being a black stone! We use our intellects and thus have reason to discuss and "tell stories". This is not recitation period. I wonder what concerns slaves of allah with a discussion that makes no reference to hitting your head against the floor

I wonder why we accept that a man has a right to decide he doesn't want a shirt or possession anymore and thus gives it away, throws it in the bin or burns it.

Yet we believe that the Creator has no right to do with His property as He wishes. Maybe you ought look at it from that point of view - that you're that shirt you discarded for whatever reason (AND YOU WERE RIGHT TO DO SO) in the hands of an owner who also, has that same right.

@Ednut1:

Mercy/Good/Kind/Powerful are all relative terms even when you compare your criteria to that of another human. Idi-Amin for example or better yet - look at Adolf Hitler from the perspectives first of a German SS Officer and then from that of a Jew during his reign.

@Abuzola & other fanatics:

Please please please, read ALL of "IMHOTEP's" posts over and over until they become a part of you. And learn to stop lying to win arguments. The more you lie, the more you become a lie!

@Imhotep:

My utmost respect, Sir

viaro:
you son of a black-stone, East-facing, moon-god, arabic-kabba religious apologist!

You should have added "ancient sword-wielding" between you and son



I owe you a couple of drinks