₦airaland Forum

Arda1000:
the records are there in British archives argue with ur brain

Show me mental assessment results of the person who wrote the information in British archive.
Also, show me evidence that the person was an eye witness.

If not, uuu are a chiamless hypiokrit

Arda1000:
ur reasoning is baffling and alarming

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-Lugard

Most followers of Jesus today are schizophrenic,no different between those who follow Jesus today,infact it’s more rampant today,people hallucinating and seeing Jesus,Mary etc what other evidence do u need?

The person who wrote Britannica, show me evidence that he is an eye witness to the event.
Also show me the result of his mental evaluation.

I'm waiting

getinspired:
Hello, i am looking for an editor that can be creating sermon shots for social media, 10-15 videos monthly, please send an email to gtinspire@gmail.com if you are interested,

I sent you email many days ago but haven't received any response from you

Arda1000:
peter might schizophrenic for all we know,I have seen mentally deranged folks claiming to talk with Jesus,but yet can’t prove it to me beyond mere claims.

Show me evidence that Peter was schizophrenic. Show any sensible evidence that Jezus didn't exist. Till now, uuu can't.

Uuu are a disgriace to nonreeligious pipu

If you are serious, name all the sponsors

All qq

honesttalk21:
Your rude pun noted.

You confuse history with obligation.

Uuu are coming home gradually. From "It was a CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGY" to "Meuslims were doing it before, but it's not eternal command"

I wonder the new lai uuu will tell when I prove uuu wrong again.

First of, when uuu say PBUH to Minamed, are uuu trying to say, he doesn't have peace where he is and that's why uuu pray for peace upon him?!

If minamed laks peace after dieth, where is the assurance that uuu Meuslims will have peace after uuu die?!

Prophet Muhammad pbuh did not rule Mecca. He ruled Madinah, and Mecca was entered without resistance, and its former persecutors who had expelled Muslims from their homes and waged war against them were granted amnesty instead of being placed under a new state administration.

If minamed didn't rule mecca, what Right has he to grant amnesty to the quraish people there? Can someone who is not in authority grant amnesty to citizens?

In 630AD, minamed invaded Mecca with 10,000 soldiers from Medina. The quraish leader there, Abu Safiyah, surrendad to Minamed and converted to eeeslam when he saw that he wouldn't be able to defeat minamed. He converted, not because minamed preached to him, but because minamed intimidiated him with higher militry might! Only Khalid bin Walid, another quraish militay leader, put up a fight. So, stop deseiving ursef that Mecca was entered without resistance! Stop lain. It's chiameful.

Following the surrender, minamed became the POLITICAL and Spiritual ruler of mecca and medina. Stop laing that minamed didn't rule mecca. The whole world know that uuu are lying and it's chiameful!

Even the conquests of the early caliphate were historical contingencies and not eternal commands. Classical Islam never argued that Muslims once ruled, therefore Muslims must always rule. Law is derived from clear, general texts rather than from reading empires into doctrine. Making selective and in this case inaccurate history into a permanent political mandate is a modern ideological maneuver; it is not classical nor factual about Islam.

Read Quran 4:141 again. Meuslim rulership over nonmeuslims is eternal, not just a historical contingency. Stop laing!

What's the meaning of a Caliphate?! It means POLITICAL-religious rulership on Muslim lands. Muslim lands are lands conquered by Meuslims! Caliphate had been existing since 632AD after minamied's death and it is still in force till today. So, Isleam had always been political from inception. Your lai is exposed in uuur comment!

What I wrote is neither selective nor inaccurate.

The Rashidun caliphate (POLITICAL-religious rulership) was established in Egypt in 642AD after the conquest of Egypt! They conquered Egypt and replaced the existing government with a Caliphate ( Isleamic government) And uuu dare lai here that Isleam doesn't tak ova government?! Why this briazien lai?!

The Umayyad caliphate was established in Tunisia in 670AD following conquest of Tunisia.

The sokoto Caliphate and others in northern Nigeria were established later on.
The world is too informed to be deseived by Isleam!

Arda1000:
point of correction “witnesses”

Don't hide your fulechnes behind spelling correction. Peiter was a direct witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jezes Christ.


I challenge you to bring evidence that Jezes didn't exist..

honesttalk21:
Rethink your thoughts as political power struggles are human, not uniquely Islamic, and no Islamic text mandates perpetual government takeover everywhere. Conflating modern Islamist movements with Islam itself is a category error, not an argument..

The world's leading weapons manufacturers are mainly in non Muslim states.

Mecca and medina were taken over by minamed and he established his government over these cities.

After minamied's dear, his fellow Meuslims tuk ova several nations and also took ova their governments, ruling the nations according to Isleamic rules.

So, why are uuu laing dat the idea is contemporary ideology?!

Arda1000:
oh you now believe in carbon dating?
Hope you know that carbon dating refute many bible claims?

Carbon dating proved that peter wrote About Jezes, which means he is an eye witness.

The book of 1Peter is a historical letter from Peter. It is proven to be real.

If uuu still ask for eye witness, then uuu aren't really sienseble!

Sannisege:
This is true because once victims see the faces of their kidnappers, they will definitely be killed because the kidnappers don’t want to face death penalty. The law should be that kidnapping attract 25 years imprisonment but if the victim dies in your custody, then the kidnapper gets the death penalty.

At least, kidneapas can go about their kidneaping business in peace now, knowing that the FG will not Kiel them if they are caught! They can even Kiel their victims and the FG will still.not Kiel them.

What a wonderful time to be a kidneapa!

Salewa97:
FG's position is well articulated.

The bill should be reviewed.

If they had terorized and kidniaped uuur family members, will uuu be sayn dis?

Arda1000:
no wonder the bot keep hitting u with numerous bans whenever you write

Peiter was a direct witnesses. He wrote a letter to some other Christiians in his life time in which he establjshed the trut of Jezus exiistence. Carbon daiting confirmed that the letter was written around 60 AD, which put it exactly during Peiter's existence.

Is it not strange that uuu can't bring forward a single evidence to countier the existence of Jezus?!

MaxInDHouse:
@ olabrad
If you are reading this know that the bot on Nairaland forum is against any of your posts so stop quoting the same post or trying to repost what the bot has registered it will continue to ban you!😟

Thank you bro. Are you one of the admins?

Arda1000:
the burden of proofs falls on you

I gave uuu proof, but uuu rejiected then all like a man who has made up his mind to be bilaind.

Uuur socalled rejections even showcased uuu r steuped igneuriance. It doesn't show uuu as someone with comon sience!

Is it not strange that uuu can't bring forward a single evidence to show that Jesus didn't exist.

I thought nonreeligioous pipu are some especially clever pipu, but uuur show of chiam here has changed my mind about them!

Arda1000:
you really think the acclaimed Jesus is so relevant that all the world would write about him?
Lol
Even his native Jews never bothered to write about him aside his cult groups no other people were interested in him so aside the story written by his group member which other independent source wrote about him?

So, you don't have any evidence to disprove the existence of Jesus?!

So, what's now the basis for your steuped comments for the past 2 days?

PigTormentor:
You are clueless like a rock. The white men used and quoted the Bible yo justify slavery. Go and read books and then come back. Olodo

The White man (Americans and Europeans) didn't start Christianity.

Uuu are showing uursef to be steeuped by using the White man as the standard for Christianity.

Even the Jews that started Christianity are not capteurin pipu as sliavs anymore, which means they understand that any Old testament Verse talking about sliavs is outdated.

Uuur reeiliegion approves captiurin pipu as sliave. Isleam has been captiurin pipu as slaves from the time of minameid till today!

PigTormentor:
"Pro-slavery advocates in the U.S. used specific Bible passages, primarily Genesis 9 (the "Curse of Ham", Leviticus 25, and parts of Paul's letters (Colossians 3/Ephesians 6, Philemon), to claim divine sanction for race-based chattel slavery, twisting texts about servitude and conquest to justify perpetual bondage, though modern interpretations largely reject these justifications as misapplications of scripture. "

When they tell you to read, you won't. You allow your pastor to bw you with jargons.jargon.
More information for you.

For much of North American history from the 1600s to the end of the US Civil War, biblical passages were commonly used to affirm the institution of slavery. In colonial Boston, Cotton Mather, the celebrated American intellectual and Puritan minister, frequently turned to the Bible to affirm the enslavement of Africans. He justified his position by exhorting white slavers to “use” the practice to “Christianize” those whom they enslaved. In the antebellum South, well-respected ministers such as Thornton Stringfellow (1788–1869) wrote influential and widely read treatises to demonstrate the Bible’s support for slavery. Scholars of religion such as Charles C. Jones (1804–1863), who was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary, spent much time using Ephesians to exhort enslaved people in Liberty County, GA to be obedient to their “masters.”

Since that verse wasn't talking to Christians, it means those Americans using it are misinterpreting the verse.

Any Christian church leader that approved sliavry is a fiake Christian.

Uuur reliegion directly approves slavery.

After the true Christians have put an end to sliavry, Uuu Meuslims were still capturing sliavs in Africa for siegz.

In fact, you still capture Africans as sliavs today in Libya!

PigTormentor:
"Pro-slavery advocates in the U.S. used specific Bible passages, primarily Genesis 9 (the "Curse of Ham", Leviticus 25, and parts of Paul's letters (Colossians 3/Ephesians 6, Philemon), to claim divine sanction for race-based chattel slavery, twisting texts about servitude and conquest to justify perpetual bondage, though modern interpretations largely reject these justifications as misapplications of scripture. "

When they tell you to read, you won't. You allow your pastor to bw you with jargons.jargon.
More information for you.

For much of North American history from the 1600s to the end of the US Civil War, biblical passages were commonly used to affirm the institution of slavery. In colonial Boston, Cotton Mather, the celebrated American intellectual and Puritan minister, frequently turned to the Bible to affirm the enslavement of Africans. He justified his position by exhorting white slavers to “use” the practice to “Christianize” those whom they enslaved. In the antebellum South, well-respected ministers such as Thornton Stringfellow (1788–1869) wrote influential and widely read treatises to demonstrate the Bible’s support for slavery. Scholars of religion such as Charles C. Jones (1804–1863), who was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary, spent much time using Ephesians to exhort enslaved people in Liberty County, GA to be obedient to their “masters.”

Did uuu see any mention of christian in that verse?

Even the Jews that the verse is addressing are not taking anybody as sliavs anymore.

Uuu Meuslims are still taking pipu as sliavs since the time of minameid till today!

honesttalk21:
Islamist doesn't equate to Islam.
Islamism represents a contemporary radical political ideology that claims to integrate Islamic principles into every facet of government and society. This approach differs significantly from Islam as a personal belief system and often stands in opposition to democratic ideals like individual rights and freedoms which Islam itself respects.

Integration into government and taiking ova government had always been the main goal of eesliam from minamied's time.

That's how minamed tuk ova the government in Medeina and Meca. That's how Meuslim modrers tuk ova government in Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and North Africa

Why are uuu laing that it is a contemporary ideology?! Why this chaimless laing?! Is uuur ailia a g0d of laing?!

Eesleam had always been a poilitical cullt prietiendng to be a reeligieon. Esleamists are the true representatives of Eesliam.

Please stop deciivng uursef. The world is too informed about the eiviil of uuur reeleigion