₦airaland Forum

@SysUser: Do you know that the US Supreme court Building facade has a bust of the last prophet of Is"lam? Please google Prophet Mu ha mm ad on court buildings. You see people need to know the truth. Stop going about in the pitchblack darkness!

@Oineoma:

Guys lets get this straight, There is no heaven for the great religion, Whether 10th or 20th heaven, And which thron we go sit together on? I tot they only sit on mats? Those guys are allergic to comfort u know, If them eventually go there them go sit for ground, De only thing a a great one 'll covet at rapture 'll be his mat, We love them and'll pray for their repentance, The Great Religion is fake, GOD HAS NO TWIN BROTHER, God is not god, its an enchantation, there is non other name given on earth, heaven, hell. Anywhere by which we must be saved, But Jesus Christ, Acts 4, Get serious guy,

We have "Paradise," as reward through the Mercy of God the Creator. And "Heaven" is Sama'a. It is in Qur"an. Like it up "4Him." Allahu ta'ala talks about Seven Heavens (Heavens; one on top of the other; the first enveloping all that its under it "earth and other solar systems and galaxies, etc". Each heaven is a bigger envelope that enveloped all that is under it; the heaven that is immediately lower than it), where as the seventh heaven is the largest and the outermost heaven. You can use the Faberge egg analogy.

Its very ironic that you simply forgot that Qur'an gives a description of seating arrangements in Paradise. There is reclining couches, which is covered in luxury. The Mus"lims sit in them, looking at each other and are all grateful for the Mercy bestowed by the Bestower of Mercy!

You only quoted "act 4", from the act of the apostles, to support your statement? I thought act of apostles is a book of record of what the "companions" of Jesus did and said after Jesus was already lifted to heavens! How can that stand a chance and be sufficient for your argument? Very deficient. Very deficient!

And sitting on mat is no problems! Some RUGs are more expensive that the two bits couches you have in some homes. Yet best desciption of luxury can be found in the Qur"an. I wonder all the Mus"lims Billionaires of Nigeria do have a couch or two. But they must have some good quality Parsian or Turkish Rugs! Thats Luxury, my friend.

@Tpaine: How is then possible that crude oil are found in desert areas, and not exclusively off shore? You do know that there is a process being developed right here in the USA, where human sewage is being accelerated within a period of 2 days to get a usable product of biofuel? In other words, if Oil is gotten from places like saudi arabia and other desert land mass, then it proved that these lands used to be under water and or had received a good deposit of organic materials, buried under its surface and the same process of its convertion to crude has taken place. Afterall, no proof is provided that human body can not go through the same process. And no proof that water is needed for convertion any plant/animal material to crude.

@JeSoul: Why are you proud of SysUser? He said nothing, except he hyperventillates alot! Aburo, Boston po ju bayi lo. If you are going to support anyone defending Christianity, SysUser should not be it. You need to advise him to calm down. Thats the best thing you can do for him.

@Kola Oloye: Romans, Revelations, etc are not from Jesus. Why attaching such books and their contents to him? These are writings of others. It should not be used to proof anything about Jesus.

@fotodaddy; You are right. You carry out his errand. What happened to the Lord's prayer? You carry out his errend here or not? Why not the phrase that you carry out all others here?

@Tpaine;

You say, things go through a process which could be termed evolution; Were humans the result of this process? If not, why? Did this process take place in Paradise where you claim Adam&Eve were created?

There is nothing mythical about Adam and Eve. Adam was created as an adult human male. That was in heaven, but outside Paradise. If you say that the admixture of sand and water shaped into man and allowed to be cured for a time (a period of test for the Devil who was called Iblis at that time before becoming Shaitan), and later receiving soul which brought this former admixture to live, is a process of evolution, then you are right.

But it is not the same evolutionary cycle as you and all the evolutionist have proposed. Adam creation is not the same as modern man somehow coming out of monkeys, apes, humanoid, etc! That process of evolution that you believe in is a myth. In creation each end product goes through its own evolutionary process. However this evolutionary process is distinctively separate and apart from that of other creations. So for example, Monkey is created through its own evolutionary process, but that evolutionary process is separate and apart from chipanzee, or orangutan, or apes, or gorilla and definitely human!

I was thinking about you this morning and wanted to know from you when will television evolve to radio? What if we give it a billion years? Will that be enough? Or when will another Ape become another set of human? Or when will human become something else? How about a ten legged man with say four heads? Will that man be saved if one head or a limb be cut off, and not bandaged? What if you allow him to bleed as long as possible? Will he survive the cut? Or will his blood be different from the present day man?

By the way the heart of the big and some other organ of it, is almost exactly like human. Can we then say that pig is our closest relative in your type of evolutionary family? Thse who eat pigs then are eating their very close family. Would'nt you agree?

@Fotodaddy: {quote]Simple logic: Legally things are established by people. And done in their name not thought their name. "I come in the name of Ceasar" is a typical example. Means we have exactly the same authority as Ceasar in that situation ie we are running his errands.[quote][/quote]So what you are doing is running the errand of Jesus? But Jesus did not send you as an errand person to God in the prayer you are making in his name. Or idi he? You see Jesus is wiser that you. He prayed directly to God. Infact, he taught you Christian the Lord's prayer, without asking you to make that prayer through his name. If you look at this masterpiece, the Lord's prayer and othe prayers that you make, they contradict each other. I am confident to say that Jesus did not say that you should pray to God through his name, for he would have modified the Lord's prayer protocol, to be inclusive of that final instructions. Rather it is the zealot among the early followers who as in most things exagerated Jesus position and try so much to foster the Salvation position that they so much wanted.

But every prophet/messenger held the same position with his followers, the people who are covered under the period of prophethood. If they believed, they are saved! Pharaoh and his army did not believe Moses, so perished, whereas those Children of Israel who believed in salvation ability of Moses by God's permission at the crossing of the sea, were saved. Well some of them died as saved souls. Others among them later sinned and were perished.

Jesus was not the only one who ever held the office of salvation. However, his office authority began when he began his Gospel ministry as he preached about. The office ended as MuhammadAbdallah began his own prophetic calling. Only MuhammadAbdallah (AS), prophetic authority will extend till the end of time. All previous prophets authority of salvation, Jesus included are already ended.

People lets be wise.

Why don't all pray directly to God, without going through or using any creation's name? Afterall, you have a direct relationship to God> Evereyone should be able to communicate with Him!

@Tpaine: You ask too many questions. But you have failed to answer any. Is that the way the evolutionists handle hot topics? I said that I agree that the process of creation could be termed evolutionary. The reason is that whatever is deemed to be created, it starts from the most basic machanic period of it, the beginning. It goes through a process of stages, whereby it could be termed evolutionary, until the final product comes out at the end of the process. I have always used human reproduction as example, starting from Sperm and Egg as the beginning elements, which ends up with the newly born baby!

@Tpaine;

For goodness sake. How do you expect anyone to know the very first persons' names. Can you give me the names of your foreparents to the 100 generations?

I will give you the names of my forebearers; Adam and Eve. These are even further than 100th generations in my past. Can you provide the proper name of your evolutionary forebearer's name?

Listen, you want me to dance to your tune? It will not happen! Evoltion in the way you are seeing it did not happen. Period. And by the way when I have sometime, I will respond to your above analysis.

@Tpaine: Your understanding of creation is strictly through the Biblical expression. Your mere mentioning of Garden of Eden provide me with that belief from you. I happen to be a Mu"slim and we in Is"am do not subscribe that Adam and his wife Eve were created in any place on this earth!

What is known to us, and it is clearly provided in the AlQur"an, is that Adam and his wife, Eve were created in heaven, but outside Paradise. However when the devil disobey God by refusing to prostrate his face to Adam, and after Eve was later created, both man and woman were erraded to Paradise to live in. They were warned to not even go near a particular tree in the Paradise, because they would err through it.

However the Devil was determined to lead them astray. He suggested by whispering into their hearts to eat from the tree. This act of disobedience was why Adam and his wife were ejected from Paradise and made to descend to the earth. Of course, they have tasted the goodness of paradise, where there was no toilling. The same Paradise is the final abode of those who will receive the Mercy of God, on the day of Judgement.

Now, to explain the variations of the so many skin color and futures among the Children of Adam and his partner Eve, all we have to do is to go back to the creation of Adam. We the creationists accept that Eve was created from a part of Adam. Even in your "why he creationists are laughed at" video series, it was mentioned as well that they may even agree that mankind (Adam) was created from the soil. I guess they are even using it to foster their Evolutionist agenda. We all agree that the Earth contains many varied types of soil, by coloration, fineness, and even moisture contents. The soil that went into the creation of Adam is from this earth, and it consisted of all and every type of gradation. It is no wonder that his offspring can vary in coloration, physical features, etc.

Why is it then possible that in Nigeria, alone, you have so many different skin coloration, if you will deal solely on evolution? From my family in the west, you have from both sides very light skin to dark skin. My father was almost like a mulatto. Yet there was no foreign blood in him. You will find very light skin part of Niigerian east of river Niger. What happened to the hausa people who are very red, yet they have only African blood, and no direct trace of Arab blood? The reason is that God is able to remind us, by bringing out any and all types of human color through the same parent.

I have a Moroccan family, where you will find from the same parents, people who are so European looking, to the Arab looking and to the black African looking. All are from the same mother and father. How do you explain that through your evolutionist concept? You just can't! My two children are interestingly different looking in color. I am just the same with my siblings. It simply points out to the power of the Creator, and not the power of the Evolutioner! There is no Evolutioner, except that the Creator who exists allows things to evolve; as in sperm and egg to fully formed human!

@Bababuff:

All the highlighted above are known facts. The West and The East controls everything. You guys are parasities.

You say them chop Government money, no be your southerner brothers teach them how to carry money to Swiss accounts

Normally, I do not participate in politics section. But I think the Mu"slims, now that alot of northern states are practicing (political as somebody called it earlier) Sharia, those who carry "Money to Swiss accounts," should be required to return it. First if the money is theirs, acquired through legal means, it should be taken away from them and be managed by the community, and only give them enought money to mentain themselves. The reason is that they were depriving the community of the normal economic benefit of such funds, in the first place. Every mu"slim knows that is antiIslam! Your first responsibility is your community, Nigeria in this case, before other community, Switzerland in this case.

If they stole the money, be it corprate or state or federal stealing, then they should be required to return it. In additional the sharia jurispudence of cutting off of hands should be carried out. I wonder why Babangida and the likes are still walking around with 2 hands? Is"lam also encourages full education: religious and secular combined!

@Tpaine: And since crude oil is fussil/biologigal waste; eg humans, I wonder why we do not have too many places, in Africa (Southern Africa, in particular), where there is a great deposit of this stuff? It will be a natural thing that since you said that human originated in Africa and thereby migrated from there, I will take it that it started from south Africa.

Before they could begin migration, they must populated the land enough, and almost depleted the resources. It must be that it is the search for resources that will bring about migration. But to actually begin migration and survive the dangerous journey northward, they must have been on the in the south african land for tons of centuaries. There must have been a good number of death! But yet, up to now, south africa has not been considered for oil exploration consideration. Why, because the truth is that southern africa was not the place humans first inhabitted, thereby populated the region.

The place in question is the part of africa east of Suez Canal. This is the region of Africa you have signs of earliest human inhabitation of the earth, based on the fossil fuel reserve, etc.

@Tpaine: Who was that first african man? Could you give me his proper name? You are Tpaine here. Thats a proper name. Give me that of the African man. While you at it, give me that of the first African woman, since the man did not do it all by himself? Or is this possible my your own theory? What exact spot of Africa did they live in? From your evolutionary theory, what exact spot they they become the modern man from that last link? Who became modern first, the man or the woman?

I hope you will not use Adam and Eve, because as for me and those who believe in creation, say that Adam and Eve were the first to be created. They did not come out of creatures who metamorphosised from something cruder, before!

Finally which part of the earth is the oldest, emerging from under to above the water surface first? That place should be the place where modern man appeared, first! I am a creationist and if you know these things your understanding may begin to shift to real understanding, and not remaining in hypothesis of evolution!

@Davidylan: Oni wa pe mi, O pe. O wa joko sibi bayi, o nko orin; grace, grace, grace, lol!

@Nwando: And you too? Both of you are doing the Christian rock thing? O ga o! Na wa o. Like the old yappies in the day: Ago die o. And the response was always: Don die.

You guys are are real grouppies. wow.

@Tpaine: I have stated my own viewpoint; Evolution as you think it is not a possibilty. The Homosepen and Neandertal species are close in resemblance to human, but they are not humans. It is not impossible that God who is capable of creating created all types of varied upright standing beings, which in various degrees almost look like human. Yet they are not. Remember that they are almost, and not human.

My viewpoint is very diferent from yours. Just because that you will argue yours with a limited arrays of academic resources, you will never be able to come to absolute conclusion from it. Thank God that I have a good size of outside my community experience. I am thinking globally, but I am not thinking stupidly!From within and outside my community, my mind is able to accept throughout my experiences that creation is the only possibility. I do not have to present to be accepted.

How can you assert that if African lived in Alaska, they would never develop lighter skin tones. For goodness sake, we are all African, everybody on the planet is an African. PERIOD.

Your statement that everyone from Africa is unacceptable to me. And I am a good african. But I always want to be on the side of the truth. Unless Makka is considered part of Africa, it is then acceptable that humans first inhabited africa. That human wsa Adam and his wife. He did not live in Nigeria or South Africa! A proof of my statement is the Ka'aba itself. They were the original builder. The foundation is known to all who researched it. Do your own research.

Your statement that humans (Adam and his progenies), came as their own advancement from neandertal is unacceptable. You do not have a concrete evidence. And just because is said and pushed as truth with any evidence to its truth does not stand as truth. It must be unacceptable and rejected. I for one and all who think like me reject it. We do not deal in blind faith!

I said again that just because these humanoids looked like humans could not directly meant human came from them. God who created all kinda of oranges and even allows by the knowledged He gave to humans to engineer hybrids of citrus fruits, is the One who created all these things. They are similar but not exactly. Finally, you can try to argue that African group if isolated, married one another exclusively may one day produce a a white Arian person, in Siberia is just not a good argument. They can produce albinos or light skin persons, that could have happened in Africa anyway but not whites with all its features!

@Tpaine: What I tried to do is what you have done in your response: Simple proposition. Unfortunately the a good number of academias took it and run with it. Maybe because the garb of religiousty is too uncomfortable or became mind clouding.

I tried to provide that even though evolution is plausible from the surface, but when you seriously consider the initial foundation, it is just not possible. I have explained that I am never against evolution, which simply mean a change from one stage to another. From simple to complex, for the most part or vice versa.

I felt that I needed to agitate your mind to think as far back as the mind, or conscience can take you. You will find that cow, even though a cattle will not be a sheep or goat, or neither can produce cow. As a creationist, I have no doubt, and not foolishly that God Created everything, distinct from others that are supposed to be diffrerent and separate from it! All humans, regardless of diffrerences came from a common ancestor, primarily Adam. But all primates do not have a common ancestor, other than that they have a common Causer to being what they are. That Causer is the Creator. So from Islamic perspective, creation points to the many diverse varieties we find today.

My proof is very simple: polar bear will not exist in the desert of Sahara, for long unless its housed in cold place. So the Africans will not able to survive the spring of Alaska Siberia, like the natives, without putting on layers of clothings. In both cases, we will not have the offsprings looking like the natives, if there is no native blood in its body. Regardless of how long a group of Black people live in Siberia, if they do not intermarry, the future generations may be able to deal with cold better than their original parents in Siberia. However, it will not be possible for them to look like Siberian whites. That proves that evolution as you may think it does not happen. Yet I did not even go far back to prior before human ever existed.

@May Kelly

Woo to you Foolish Galatian!!!

And you were doing so well before this post. What happened? I had admired your temperament, as you had posted, before on many threads. Even though I am not a Christian, I find your ability to stop hot stops from igniting very refreshing. You should keep it up and don't lose you cool as above. I know it is difficult, but you need to try hard.

@Tpaine: I watched 2 or so segments of the video series on You tube. I did not find anything outstanding from it, that goes against the Is"lamic Creationist perspective. I think the evolutionist always try to justify or explain their theory not from the start, but always from after the truly original beginning! But the Creationist, at least from the Is"lamic point of view and I also take it that the Jews and Christians are also in on this, is that there is a Causer that brought the true start or original beginning of things to bear!

The Evolutionist can not in a Trillion years explain how the first thing began to form. If they were to attempt it, they will fall flat in their effort, since they must have to start from sometimes before the beginning of the existence of that thing. Say for example the particle that the big bang theory action took place on. How did it come into existence? What was it that made it come to existence? All of these are many more are what the evolutionists have to go back and research and come up with concrete evidence. And not just suppositions.

From Is"lamic view, all things that mankind will ever know, even when knowledge is so advance and at the highest level in the future, just before the world and mankind extinct, all of these knowledge and advancement will still be enveloped in discoveries of things enveloped by the 1st HEAVEN! All of these knowledge will still lacks something not yet discovered in that envelope. Interestingly, the first heaven is enveloped by the second Heaven. The second heaven is enveloped by the third. Each seccessive higher numbered heaven therefore enveloped the one before it, which enveloped all that the previous heaven enveloped anyway.

Since there is heaven heavens, therefore the Seventh Heaven enveloped, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and all that it enveloped. Yet the seven heavens is part of our world or universe! In other words, there is no matter of hypothesis that the evolutionists amay provide, there is a true Causer that existed long time before that. He has always remain in existence and He is God the Almighty Creator!

I remember asking KAG a question in another thread about what was happening to human being prior to the first evolutionist came with his supposition? What possible data did he present and what was he trying to proof? That Adam did not exist or that Adam came from Ape or have the same source as Ape? My additional question is this, which source did they have in common, and how did it come to being? If you go back to thefoundation of that source, and you ask the same question as you go further back, you still have to the first question: How did it come to existence? What happens and what are the facts before it came to existence?

As you and Imhotep go back and forth on a down tree in the forest, it seems that you are laying down a view that the place must have a tree in the first place. It is not so necessary that a forest must have a tree. It could have been water, as a pond that was there. The water may just have dried up, for whatever reason. Furyher it could have been a big rock or boulder that was there. The possibilities are many. So in essence an empty space may or may not have something in it all along. It could have been a phenomina. God is capable to do all things. The Creator is powerful. He created the creationists and evolutionists alike, without a remarkable differences in their physicallity and their ability to accept or reject ideas. It is no wonder you and others can reject creation. Other creationists and I are free to reject your pure concept of evolution without the Original Causer who is constantly directing all affairs, God!

@Tpaine: As I have said there is a causer. The Original Causer is God. Hence it is no surprising that God, the Causer, caused the bringing of Adam and Eve, into form/shape first, and to living breathing thing, which is known as human. Afterall, Adam and Eve are the first male and female from what is known as human.

Sure. The One who puts the evolution to occur, in stages is God Almighty Himself. Afterall, there is always a causer to bring effectiveness. This is what you may call cause and effect. Take human for example: before there is a fetus, there was just a sperm (the organism) and egg, both fusing together. The outcome, after all the stages, is completely different from these two beginning elements, sperm and egg!

But in Is"lam, if the sharia is practiced, properly, there should be a proper judicial process. What is so interesting is this, even it there is an overwhelming evidence against the accuser, but if the accuser were to invoke the curse of God on himself if he lies about his innicence, he should be allowed to go free for the matter to be between he and God alone. Only God can settle all affairs, truly!

@SysUser:

In order for a person to become a Shriner, he must not only go through all the degrees of Masonry, make all those blood-curdling oaths, worship gods who are not gods except they are of Satan, but he must make a blood both of allegiance to a.l.lah as his god and mohammmed as his prophet. The Shriner is then given a red fez with an i's.lamic sword and crescent jeweled on the front of it. This originates from 7th century Arabia when the Moslems, under the leadership of mohammmed, slaughtered all Christians who would not bow down to a.l.lah. a.l.lah, by the way, was not another (generic) name given to God by mohammmed; a.l.lah is the tribal deity --the moon god-- of mohammmed; it was the name of the god in the tribe that mohammmed was born into. That is why every mosque today has a crescent moon on the top of its spire. {/quote] And I searched the Qur"an, the Tafsir of Qur"an, the hadith books, etc, I did not see where (Allah) was the name of an idol, or moon god in any where; on earth or whereever else! You must be allucinating or and probably lying! Enu opuro ki seje! You should be ashamed of your naked stinking lies!

If you have stated that there were idols in Makka's Ka'aba and other places which the people are using as a conduit or mediator to (Allah), the Deity who they are well aware as the Creator, all along! You see, you lack great understanding of how people think, in a global sense! Even the communists, atheists, and agnostics are aware that there is a God, a Creator. This fact that they are aware of the Creator that is the singular reason that they are so hard at denying His existence!

Now let be try to stare your heart to a steady understanding: If you are familiar with any african traditional deity, pick Shango (thunder, the god of lightening), for our illustration. This god, the worshippers are aware can not creat anything and it is not always effective in taking lives, when it stricks. But they use it as a mediator between themselves and the Creator! This is the same value any of the 360 idols and even others like al uzza, etc, have among the tribes of the Arabia in general! Further, show me where you find your moon god, when moon is Qamar, in arabic? Are you aware that (Muhammad) splitted the moon, as a miracle from his Lord to show the Arabs that he was a prophet and messenger to them? This miracle was seen by even outside the boundary of Makka, anyone who dared to look up?

Let me calm your heart so that it will be easy for you to abandone "Idol" worshipping! Look, if you take anything along with your Creator, regardless of wha that thing is, be it Angel, Prophet, man, jinn or whatever, you have adopted idol worshipping! The idol which you worship will go to hellfire with you, except that you falsely take that thing up as a deity along with God or just alone. In the case of your worshipping Jesus, by calling him god, or son of god or whatever, you are actually an idolator! In this case, Jesus never asked you and did not advocate that he should be taken as a god along with God, his Creator. Regardless, how you look at it, God is far from all associations and we Mus"lims know it. And (Muhammad) was a good teacher of wha he was given by his Lord (Allahu tabaraka wa ta'ala).

Now when mohammmed's army of men, out to slaughter all the 'infidels', came to the city of Fez, in Morocco, they found a community of Christians. After killing all the Christians there with their i's.lamic-style swords, they took their hats (called a fez) and dipped them in the blood of the Christians, and wore the fezzes throughout the land glorying in their victory over Christianity. Today Shriner's put on red fezzes (representing the hats dipped in the blood of Christians) with the i's.lamic sword and crescent showing their allegiance to a.l.lah and mohammmed (and the defeat of Christianity). Men in Obscene Red Fezzes!

Just like I said before, just in the same way that Jesus never advocated that he be worshipped, yet you worship him, this is the same way that those who you described above, the killers of "Fez", who unleashed the mayhem and blood letting that you spoke about. Just in the same way as well that the knight of templer, the crusader(s), the spanish inquisition, etc are not orders from Jesus, so was the Fez killers and their actions are not from (Muhammad)!

Those who do acts against the instructions of the prophets, as these prophets were getting their commandments from God Almighty alone, these people are the evildoers. They will have no answer for their actions. Just like you and me will have to answer for ours! What is worse is that you worship (baal), whether you like it or not! Finally, Is"lam does not condone any form of association with God. And anyone who does is not a Mus"lim. It does not water whether he/she is from Saudi royal family or not!

@the poster:

Religion of Wednesday, 5 March 2008

Moses was high on drugs: Israeli researcher

NEW. Watch live television from Ghana, the latest Ghanaian movies and OBE TV.
High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week. Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As for Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

If one were to critic a religion or its icon, eg the way this stupid professor from Israel, belittled the man who had singly did the greatest thing in the lives of the Children of Israel, at least he extracated them from Egyptian bondage and received the 10 commandments from God and led them as they set on the path of the journey that got them to the "Promised land." Is this the way to pay this noble prophet by such a demeaning characterisation, as to suggest the influence of drug usage!

I am disappointed in the muteness of the leadership of Is''lam on this matter. This is a matter in which it should be vocal, if there is any. Also, this is an endictment on all of us who claim religiousity: to at least not be angry at this uneducated fool of a professor is terrible at the least of reaction to his unfounded statement, which lacks sincere scholarship. I hope that we can now say that this type of opinion simply points out to all that claiming belief from the lips, alone is not a genuine belief, unless the heart and soul do proclaim it in the truest sense of it!

However what I said about "them men" mentioning Paul and at not time Jesus was referenced, is the truth. Check it out. I will not keep my mouth shot, since my intention is to help you and others to see. Hopefully you will discover the truth and your soul and heart will accept it!

@Nwando: Sometimes I miss you, so I just have to nead you, to pry you out of your shell! I deliberately do that sometimes, because I know you will be itching for a fight.

@4Him;

1. He did say those words.
2. Christ NEVER once called on the Jews to go obeying the dead commandments . . . the purpose of His coming in the first place was to use Himself as the perfect sacrifice for sin (the sacrifice for sin under the law was the blood of bulls and goats) . . . Infact one of the accusations the pharisees level against Christ is that He was breaking the laws (i.e the sabath, eating with unwashed hands, sitting to eat bread with publicans and sinners).
He came that no longer would we be subject to the laws of Moses but that our hearts may be renewed.
3. Infact it was the pharisees accusing Him of not keeping the laws of Moses.

What is surprising is that Jesus, from his own mouth said that he came to uphold/observe/fulfill the laws. That was his statement, because he said not a single jot will pass except thaa he fulfilled it, and that if anyone were to not follow this law in the same way that he did, or encouraged anyone not to, that person will be the least in the kingdom of God!

The irony of it was that no sooner than he left this earth than Paul and company did just that. Going against the law to the point that the "law" was rendered useless! How do anybody justify this? Is this what Jesus meant or it is what he told Paul, against his own statement which was very clear and also direct to the point? There must be a liar in this argument between Jesus and Paul. The liar was not Jesus.

But David, tou are just accusing Tpaine, without any direct explanation. The more you accused him, he is therefore obligated to dig deep into the Bible. But surprisingly, he comes back with more opposing views, to what the Christians are projecting upon him as a meek personality! Should we take the Christian body as a whole over Jesus? The answer will have to be no, as well!

@Tpaine:

I am against all forms of state sanctioned Death Penalty, even for the most vile of criminals. In fact, I think that the best punishment is to keep the deserving criminal alive with all their freedoms restricted. That is the hallmark of a civilised society.

And Dukakis, the 1988 democratic flagbearer in the US presidential election, which George Walker Bush won, lost that contest solely by being presented as soft on crime. I remembered the keynote speaker of that democratic party convention, Mr. Bill Clinton, who was then an unknown governor, who gave a very boring and long winded speech. Almost everyone in the convention and at home was bored to sleep. Surprisingly, the following election cycle, he became the democratic nominee and defeated the incumbant President Bush by a simple slogan, "its the economy, stupid."

What I am say is this, even in the most secular society, there is that minimum expectation of rule of law. There are some crimes that deserves death penalty! We can not be blind on that. We even saw that in play in the just ended republican primary, where Mick Romney was using the "liberal" record of Huckerbee on crime against him. You will not survive as a politician in America, no wonder you tend to believe that there is no God! For God lays down a set of rule and laws, as a commandment that is the rule of law by which we are to abide. Otherwise there will be lawlessness and probably bloodletting may go unchecked. It is this same commandment that will be the basis of judgement by God that He will use to punish the guilty in a just manner. It is the same judgment that He will temper His justice with Mercy whereby he will reward some with Paradise.

@4Him and SysUser:

Jeol Osteen used the words "i don't know" over 40 times in his 2005 interview with Larry King, if Paul had littered his letters in the NT with "i don't know" anytime the early christians asked him a question of fundamental importance where would we be today?

Report to moderator Logged

SysUser (m)
Ibadan
Posts: 318

Offline

Re: Important Message For 4him From Sysuser
« #3 on: February 24, 2008, 07:20 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine if Paul was not sure of what he was writing we would have been in trouble today,

I wonder why jesus was not mentioned here, by either one of you men? I guess that Paul is so important that he over shadows god the son himself!

@Tpaine: Would it be possible for you to accept the killing of a mad man who is always blood tasty? Take for the sake of agument, a person who entered a town and wipe out 200 of her inhabitants, without any provocation? Would a person like that deserve to continue to live within the boundary of theat town, unchecked? What would you think that will happen to people who only have that kind of tendency, but suppressed it, until they find the inhabitants unconcerned about the new killing machine in the mist? These people who had fought against these type of evils until now, would just may test the water in a way to see if they can just burst loose and just go as far as they want to go in doing evil! Is there any society on earth that does not punish any evil deed, even your proposed liberal free all the way society? It is possible!

I am sure you remember Oyenusi of 1972, and before it Babatunde Folorunsho of 1971. The laws of God are more powerful, full of justice and mercy than any that the whole of mankind can put together. If it was true that Jesus said the above punishment about abuse of parents, we then have to look at the position of typical parents versus that of typical children. They are the vessels for which the child came to an existence. Without God using them for that process the child would never have existed!

Even if you are in disagreement with your parents, there is no reason to abuse them. But of course, there is always a was to seek forgiveness. In Is"lam, God put parent in greater level over the child! The mother in a higher level than the father. God says that one should obey the parents, except when they demend that you disobey Him, God Almighty! Even then, God never said in any place, and His Messenger never said that the Child should abuse them, in any condition! For me, I hope you are kind to your parents. Parents are put in a position that if God is not the Only Object/Focus of worship, children would have been commanded to prostrate their faces as in worship of them!

In all you will never hear a true prophet of God saying something other than what commanded. Of course, if you do not belief in God, hence His Messengers and Prophets, it will be easy for you to see no wisdom in anything that is essential to law and order among mankind and harmony and obedience to God by His commandments.

@Tpaine: Thats where you are me part ways! There was a Jesus. He was real. He was a true prophet and messenger of his Lord God Almighty. He was the Messiah to the nations of Isreal! He was the last of their prophets/Messengers! There is nothing that Paul did that was positive: he disregarded Jesus in many instances. One of them you outlined above. There was no reason to leave an agent to evil in the community. If evil was not checked, the line between it and goodness will be blurried. Sooner, many will give in to evil doing and consider it normal. On the other hand Paul exagerated the conditions and true position of Jesus with his Creator God Almighty, that it became a norm for people to yield their personal responsibility of salvation of the soul to him. In this wise, it became acceptable that all means of good effort to benefit the soul so that it may receive salvation was now on the single belief of Jesus conditions from the so called episodes leading to the trial, crucifixion, and ressurrection, etc!

This is the endictment on paul and his gang! There is no evidence that Jesus asked anyone not to take responsibility for the actions as per the rule of engagement set under God's plan, which started from the beginning of creation, of Adam and Eve, our forebearers, since we are talking about human beings!