₦airaland Forum

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@Bobbyaf: Yardee, may disagree with you as to the definition of Soul, and the definition of Spirit, but I have to commend you for your boldness. You argue sensibly. Unfortunately, you are using the wrong material source. Of course, it is the only one you know. Mind you, it is an already diluted, weak product of the Pure Original.

Again, for the sake of not inviting what you won't be able to handle, may I request that you desist from referring in derogatory terms to the convictions of other people?

I have clearly and briefly answered this allegation of the Muslim mindset on accusing the Bible as having been tampered with - and I offered pointers to shawn123 in another thread that there are different Qur'ans all saying different things ("In it are textual variations from the standard Qur'an that is presently read throughout the world" - [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscripts]Wikipedia[/url]). This is not the thread to discuss your misgivings, olabowale; and if you would like to enter into that debate on a corrupt and watered-down Qur'an, please oblige us and open a thread for that so that your vexations can be put to rest once and for all.

It's no use trying to incessantly attack the Bible and Christians if you're so unsatisfied with the false claims of Muhammad in the Qur'an. Once again, I caution you to apply common sense and respect to non-Muslim convictions, and refrain from your continuous derision.

olabowale:
Those who are adovating 'acceptence by faith,' without any litmus test and observation, inference and hard fact conclusion are truly believers of anything, as long as it is dressed up fancifully! They are truly disbelievers of true faith therefore!

And just as well you have inadvertently dressed up your wrong notions fancifully and demonstrated yourself to be the very unbeliever that you allege against others. We have asked you to apply your own litmus tests and observations in several instances where you mixed up your own ideas - and typically, you vamoosed from those threads without addressing your misconceptions. Two examples:

(a) when you floated the thread out of your over-reaction from the YIM chats we had last week, it was left there for that long as a public specimen of your mindset. But the moment pilgrim.1 responded by sharing about the outcome of your actions behind the scenes, the thread vanished promptly!

(b) you are yet to apply your "litmus test and observation" to your own idea that "in heaven there are Paradise and Hellfire"; and that idea was queried several times (see it by clicking here, here and here). Where have you addressed that misconception, olabowale?

If you don't have a handle on your own misconceptions, what do you hope to achieve from your vexations against what you have no clues about?


Cheers.

@Oluchia,

Oluchia:
@Olabowale What has the discussion above got to do with the Trinity? Don't dabble into a discussion you know nothing about. The topic if am not mistaken is for christians trying to get a better understanding of what happens to the dead in Christ from their understanding of the scriptures and not about the Trinity.

Lol. . . that is just what Muslims do - they are so restless and never satisfied with what Islam offers them; that is why they must necessarily seek to dabble into what they have no clues about!

dafidixone:
The Submision ends by January 28, 2008
Good Luck to you all.

Hi all,

So far we have received a few replies - shows that people are quite interested. And a big thank you to those who promptly sent in their answers.

There are about twoo weeks more to declaring winners,a nd subsequently sending the prizes straight away! More replies welcome.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
Shut the F up you stupid bigot, of all the things i stated islam is the only thing you saw, keep deluding your self you deranged lunatic, instead of trying to explain why china and india (the most populated nations on earth) where not mentioned and chronicled in the bible islam is the only thing you saw.

There really is no need for all the over-reaction, unless a simple answer to your fallacies really got you re-thinking your misconseptions.

If you want answers, ask nicely - and you will get them. Cheers.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
The process of birth of offsprings by matured creature which will die off after completing its natural process of life, will continue until God decides to end it, and recreate man, to stand for Judgement!

Please understand that "recreation" and "resurrection" are not the same thing.

Your Islamic idea that God will "recreate" people to stand for Judgement is obfuscating any pointer to your convictions about the "resurrection".

@olabowale,

olabowale:
And we realise that in heaven there are Paradise and Hellfire.

How could both "Paradise" and "Hellfire" be "in heaven"?

olabowale:
Christians do not have a completely common mode of worship that everyone, every sect, every society follow. So you go as many desired directions as you want for your group! The Aladuras and CAC of Nigeria are very good examples. The Seventh day adventist, Jehovah witnesses and Jesuits are also good examples.

Muslims in the different sects of Islam also have diverse modes of worship. Please check with the doctrines of the other Muslim sects that are different from yours, and then I would gladly elaborate if you haven't anything to ponder about.

Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

@olabowale,

I do not see how you have faced up to the simple request I offered you in the Islam Talk thread; so, rather than keep teasing you to foam in the mouth, I'd just briefly respond to two issues in your rejoinder.

olabowale:
Truth is very far from your conscience. You can not even speak the truth if your life depends on it: Good example is the verse 71 of Surah Mariam. You do not read Arabic and even in the translation of it, it was not stated that Muslims will go int Hell, yet you dishonestly said so.

Is that all that angers you to the extent you thought I was lying? No worries, let me simply delineate issues here for you so there is no further confusion on the previous post leading to this.

#1. This was your direct quote:

[list]

I was surprised when one of the males replaced 'passing over it,' of Verse 71 of Surah Mariam with 'go into it!' The height of dishonesty!

[/list]

#2. My direct response: to yours was:

[list]

I'm surprised at your hypocrisy. The various MUSLIM translations directly use that exact clause ("go into it" in that verse! Please go there and sse for yourself!!

[/list]

#3. The only thing left now is to demonstrate that I was not lying, but that indeed Muslim translators have used that exact clause ("go into it" and its equivalent in that verse:

[list]

Translations of Sura 19 v 71

Some of these are:

~ (a) The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, by Hassan Qaribullah:

"There is not one of you who shall not go down to it:
such is a thing decreed, determined by your Lord."

- - - - - - - -

~ (b) The Holy Qur'an, by Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar:

"It is the inevitable decree of your Lord that
every one of you will be taken to hell"

[/list]

You can see indeed that Muslim translators themselves provide the idea that Sura 19 v 71 is literally saying they would:

~ "go into it"

that is. . .

~ "go down to it" [Hassan Qaribullah]

and

~ "be taken to hell" [Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar].

This is not saying the same thing as "passing over it", and this should help you see that I had not made false assertions as you alleged earlier.

Second, in regards to this allegation:

it was not stated that Muslims will go int Hell, yet you dishonestly said so.

Well, if indeed you assumed that I was being dishonest, the discussions following the same subject will help us see it so. That is why in another thread which you opened, I have offered two questions to help us contextualize and clarify this discussion:

~ does Sura 19 v 71 include Muslims or NOT?

~ will Muslims ENTER Hell fire at all or NOT?

I do hope that you can help us by providing simple straightforward answers to those questions; not long theories, please.

This is why I've asked that you please check your submissions and persuasions carefully so you don't assume things that you cannot substantiate.

Cheers.

Dear olabowale and babs787,

Thank you for expressing your vexations. I won't try to justify anything you have alleged against me. The one thing I requested of you was that you simply quote the verse where babs787 made the assertion that the Qur'an said it came to "correct" the Biblical scriptures.

All we have seen are verses in the Qur'an that state clearly that it [the Qur'an] came rather to CONFIRM the Biblical scriptures. There is not a single verse where 'Allah' said that the Qur'an came to "correct" the Bible - NOT ONE VERSE of the Qur'an said so!

That is why I opened this thread to ask: Where Did The Qur'an Say So?

The answer so far simply is this: NOWHERE did it say so!

If dishonesty is rather all you have to offer for what you cannot substantiate, what then are you trying to achieve with your excuses? It should be pretty obvious to all that we allow for honesty when discussing issues. Can you afford that?

@noetic,

noetic:
@pilgrim and tayo-d

you have successfully deviated from this beautiful thread. both of you promised to bombard us with biblibical analyses of what I and bobbyaf are not getting on this ressurection issue.

Lol, I'm sorry that you're simply overblowing issues here. Indeed I had planned to take some time of and post something more to the point in detail - but ricadelide anticipated me, and I coudn't improve on his points.

Like I just posted to Bobbyaf, I'd rather reply in concise lines to help him see in simple terms that he doesn't really have a handle on what he was arguing. There's no denying the fact that man is actually a spirit being - and even he had quoted the verse that said man's spirit goes back to God - which clearly points to HEAVEN rather than the grave.

noetic:
like I said, stop applying logic, use biblibical context.

I don't see how you have applied Biblical context in your arguments. But rest your heart, I haven't even started applying logic to anything as yet; nor do I intend to do so - unless you invite such an exercise to this discussion.

noetic:
through my posts I have emphasised to u that:
Jesus said in simple hebrew, interpreted to english that no one has gone to heaven. john3vs13
peter said in simple hebrew interpreted to english that David has not gone to heaven. acts 13vs22, acts 2:29-34

Oh dearie-dear! How would you know that Peter said in simple "HEBREW"?

Anyhow, please understand that what Peter said in Acts 2:34 ("David is not ascended into the heavens" is in view of the the resurrection of Christ ("He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ" - v. 31). You need to find out the context of the word "ascended" in that verse 34 before denying that David is presently with the Lord Jesus Christ - in HEAVEN.

That David was dead and his sepulcre "is with us unto this day" does not mean that David was still in the grave unto this day! His bones may have still been there; but where was the man David himself?

noetic:
paul said in simple hebrew interpreted to english that none of the faithfulls have recieved the promise of eternal life. he also said his reward comes on that day.

Lol. . . if eternal life was a REWARD rather than a GIFT, you need to go back and learn what Paul himself said about the GIFT of salvation in Ephesians 2 v 8!!

Meanwhile, the resurrection is not to be confused for the gift of eternal life - because even the wicked dead will be raised to life for judgement; and it cannot be argued that the wicked also possess eternal life!

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
See my set of scriptures I first gave to this thread. The bible says that the "spirit (breath of life) goes back to God from whence it came". The response to the second part of your question becomes obvious. At the resurrection God restores that same spirit to the glorified bodies of all the resurrected saints.

I actually saw your responses and read through each one before asking you my simple questions. Apparently, it is obvious that you have already favoured the FACT that man's spirit (the man himself) goes to HEAVEN when he is dead. HOW?

Obviously, God is not in the grave - and if the spirit (which "departs" from the body) "goes back to God from whence it came", you cannot be assuming that God lives in the grave where the spirit "goes back" to!

This is how simply the whole discussion is - but typically, you are ignoring even the FACT that you stated and proffering other arguments to contradict your premise.

This is one of the reasons why I have only been concise all this while in my responses.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
Religion to me is just the understanding of the supernatural through the perception and believe of people, Chritianity is purely a white man's religion while islam is purely an arab man's religion,

Islam was established by a white man. The sources in Islam clearly said that Muhammad was a white man:

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 3, Num. 63:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque,
a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque,
tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time
the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm.
We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm."

mdsocks:
Nobody is saying you should not post in here.

Afterall,its a very free world.

You can bring sensible questions and not just thrash. We are ready to answer that.

The only thing we won't tolerate or answer is your usual gimmicks of creating confusion and diverting from threads.

Salam. Enjoy

@mdsocks,

I have held discussion on this motherbaord with you before. The one thing I have asked Muslims to do is please show WHERE and HOW they feel that I have lied against them or used 'gimmicks'. I hope in all fairness you are aware that your own Muslim brethren have done precisely the very same thing you wrongly allege against me?

I am only asking you to coherently discuss issues and not make blank statements that you cannot substantiate.

Thank you.

I-spy ricadelide. . .

Lol. . . Happy New Year!! I just dey wonder whether dem don release you from your exams! How body?

ricadelide:
Sorry for the long epistle. We are with Him positionally now, our spirits will leave our bodies to literally be with Him when we die, and at his coming (I didn’t go into this latter fact), we will we reunited with our resurrected and changed bodies. Cheers all .

Well said. See your neat delinetaion of the subject - why we no go call you oga patapata!?!

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=48097.msg1841988#msg1841988 date=1200060603]Never let me catch you eating outside!!!!!!!!![/quote]Very good one!!

@dafidixone,

dafidixone:
@Pilgrim1

Please ensure you check your mails daily as regards the Quiz. I have forwarded 2 participant information to you. you will be the person that will announce the Winners on the final date.

Oh dear. . . thanks for reminding me! No vex abeg! I'll log out in a few minutes to promptly address that, and then send you any relevant info.

God bless you dear brother.

@shawn123,

There! Try to grow up and act gentlemanly in a public Forum and nto the usual Islamic mindset you guys often present to invite spirited debates that you cannot bear to finish off nicely. Whether or not you would wish to see the FACTS of the different Qur'ans is a matter of what you do with my rejoinders.

Take care and be good!

@shawn123,

shawn123:
But honestly in the Quran no letter absolutely no letter or alphabet has been change till this day.

My respects, but that is a hugely FALSE statement that blinds itself to the bare FACTS! There are indeed various Arabic versions of the Qur'an with alterations and avulsions - both in letter/alphabet and characters. Muslims in their malicious arguments and accusations against the Bible have often asked the hypocritic question or similar: "Is the Bible 100% complete?" My answer often times is that they drop their hypocrisies and then we can enter a genuine debate on the issue.

I think it is about time that this endlessly repeated and recycled hypocritic false assumption be exposed. Although I do not have time enough at this moment to walk you through clear CHANGES in the Qur'an, here is something that is just a tip of the iceberg for your consideration - from a non-Christian source, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_in_the_House_of_Manuscript_in_Sana%27a]Wikipedia[/url]:

[list]
The Sana'a manuscripts—found in Yemen in 1972—represent the oldest extent version of the Quran, dated to the latter half of the 7th century. In it are textual variations from the standard Quran that is presently read throughout the world.

<<snip>>

Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 shot 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has brought the pictures back to Germany. The texts will soon be scrutinized and the findings published freely - a prospect that pleases Puin. "So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Qur'an is Allah's unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Qur'an has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Qur'an has a history too. The Sana'a fragments will help us accomplish this."[/list]


For now, let's just wait and see further discussions on this subject as to the fact that there are different Qur'ans. It's not my style to divulge everything all at once; but at the appropriate time and thread, this issue will be scrutinized, and it would be interesting to see your reaction following the exposé.

shawn123:
the arabic language is soo unique that if an i is changed to e it could change the whole meaning.

Even with the acclaimed uniqueness of the Arabic language, it is clear that Muslims themselves are the ones who changed the texts of the Qur'an (which we shall see later on); and for all that, whatever is left in the Qur'an you read today is said to be meaningless as soon as it is translated into another language. If a book loses its meaning on being translated into another language, then it has no meaning at all in its original language since no one would understand what you are trying to cover.

shawn123:
Lets not be biased, i would rather learn aramic and get the original bible than read the edited version as we all see today the way things,constitution, law and all that is changed.

Please look again at your last line - you have already exhibited "bias" while asking that others should not be biased! If you were open to fairness, we would not be reading your prejudice of trying to "rather" learn Aramaic instead of reading the Bible in any translation of more than 2,300 languages available today!

@shawn123,

shawn123:
we all know people have different ways of translation, for example eku ijoko in youruba can be welldone, welldone for sitting down, keep sitting down, it would be translated differently by different individuals. Same way in french mon cherie would be translated as my beautiful one, my love, my dear. Also in Hausa language sannu da zuwa can be translated as welcome, sorry for coming, welcome and come. All this transformation removes the original context.

True - transformation removes context, and the result is pretext. But that is precisely what Muslim translators have done with the Qur'an. There is no single translation of the Qur'an today without a deliberate pretext of its translators; and in most cases, these pretexts have been adjudged by Muslims themselves to be misleading in their Islamic tenets. You would be amazed at the number of verses in the Qur'an that various translators have torn out of their intended contexts and wrapped around the translators' premedidated ideologies.

shawn123:
IF truth be told we all know the hipocritical nature of humans, the way we all swithch context to back up our attitudes or misdeeds.

Absolutely true - that is why we have seen how Muslims debating from the Bible have torn verses out of their contexts to back up their hypocritical attitudes and misdeeds!

shawn123:
In this world today, the American anglicans have accepted homosexualism as christianity and in cote " no where in the bible that it is written that homosexualism is a sin". My people isnt this enough that a lot has been changed in the holy book.

The sad homsexual tendencies of some wayward Anglican leaders does not "prove" that anything was changed in the Holy Book - the Bible. It only proves the Biblical FACT that man's godless nature only tends toward sin, especially under a religious garb (Romans 1:21).

The same thing is true of Muslim clerics who are homosexuals. Often, many Muslims are not aware of the fact that there are millions of gays among their own brethren - and most of them are Muslim clerics. No, I'm not going to post the ugly details (at least, not at this time - unless Muslims are rascally enough to dare me).

Yet, you would be shocked out of your socks to note that these GAY Muslim clerics see homosexuality as a positive blessing from 'Allah', and they base their convictions on the Qur'an! Should we then apply the same rule of thumb as yours - that this should be enough to hold that a lot has been changed in the Qur'an?

@shawn123,

If you had tried to be reasonable in your post, we should have borne with you. But let me walk you through yours to show you why you need to be truly sorry for Islam before attempting to talk down Christianity and the Bible.

shawn123:
You know, English is not everbody's official language, am sure you learnt english or didnt you?

Arabic is not everybody's official language either. Earlier, we asked the question: "So, people must simply have to first learn Arabic in order to be able to PRAY to 'Allah'?" - and since we asked that question, no Muslim has come forward to proffer a reasonable answer. Asking people to learn Arabic before they can pray to Allah is spiritual confusion and hypocrisy.

shawn123:
Its funny but the different translation of the bible is the cause of the religious conflicts we have today.

The cause of religious conflicts in the world today is the direct result of the fraud in the Qur'an, especially Muhammad's denials of the Biblical narratives.

There are many different translations of the Qur'an as well, all saying DIFFERENT things in so many verses, did you know that? Yet, all these different translations have given rise to different ideologies in Islam for which Muslims have been at each other's throats.

shawn123:
Original bible was in aramic right?

The manuscripts of the Bible (OT and NT) were in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

shawn123:
then translated by a german right?

The manuscripts of the Bible have been translated by various scholars from many countries.

You may also want to acquaint yourself with Gerd Rüdiger Puin, indeed a German scholar reouted as the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography.

shawn123:
o.k without saying too much let us assume the pope who was feeding the german the scripts gave him a complete script (which is soooo impossible).

Since you were only "assuming", your ideas are simply a joke. We all know as well that the Qur'an in the hands of Muslims today is not the original script; nor is it complete in its present form.

Muslims who often try to play the dubious game of attacking the Bible as an incomplete book should try and remember that the Qur'an today is the political redaction of the third Caliph, Uthman - who ordered that all the other manuscripts be burnt after his committee finished editing the Qur'an. Not only so, even the Hadiths clearly inform us without bias that a few verses of the Qur'an were lost, forgotten and cancelled while Muhammad was still alive; as well that after his death, Muslims had various Arabic versions of the Qur'an in their possession - and this was a threat to the entire Muslim world in their day.

@shawn123,

This is thread I was referring to just now in my reply to yours in the other thread. Relax. . . in 5 minutes I'll help you dress warm on your bloviates.

Enjoy.

Dear olabowale,

No be fight, abeg you. . . you hear? I have replied you in another thread (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-102400.96.html#msg1841915) so that Muslims can enjoy their thread.

Shalom.

@Olabowale

Just to behave and keep my promise to thos in the other thread, I decided to reply your rejoinder in this thread.

olabowale:
@Pilgim.1: I want you to listen and listen good. I am not going to ever repeat it to you again: Yi yo Ekun, ki nse to jo. You of all people can not scare me. I have your equal as my sons already. I am in the same level with those who can produce you as a daughter. Learn manners and then we can talk.

I am sorry, dear olabowale - but my premise was not to scare you. Not at all. The one thing I have always tried to maintain is good sense in all my discussions or debates - and I warned you several times that you respect the convictions of others so you don't get put in your place for not doing so. If you are already feeling "scared", that says so much about the person you are - and, sadly, you have missed the whole gist of my rejoinder.

olabowale:
If you know me, you will learn respect. God Almighty is the Only One I am Afraid of. So go and shed all the garments of pride that you falsely wear! There is nothing you have achieved, nothing that you are the first in it. You have lied long enough and its about time to either put up or shut up.

If I have lied, then please grow up as a man and prove your mettle by matching your intelligence to coherently walk me through with FACTS as to where I might have been greatly mistaken. Your cheap cowardice of sneaking into the Islamic Talk thread to act like a child is hardly becoming of a person who chants for "respect" all day long and yet has none to offer others.

olabowale:
Do it with your comrades. Islam is too much and it is the only reason I have tolerated you.

I have tried to endure and tolerate you guys; but when you would no longer pay any heed, I had to take you to task and demonstrate the hogwash you you noised on the Forum as an alternative to coherent submissions.

olabowale:
If I were in front of you, be it in England or your Blood country Nigeria where you have your people, and even if they were to back you up, you could not be this arrogant and not to me.

Look who's now referring to Nigeria as "your Bloody country" And you yet claim to be an Ijebuman, abi? Abeg pack your childish shakara one corner and grow up, you hear?

olabowale:
You need to find Honesty first and then your level of comrades. Enough said.

Dear sir, I have been both honest and forthright in debating with Muslims. The one reason why you remain sad is simply because your pride has been punctured (oh, not by me - there are other far more intelligent Christians on Nairaland who have thrashed your lengthy bloviates and reduced your story-telling to the lullaby that they are!).

olabowale:
I wonder if you could tell your elders that they wear nose rings or that they don't bellyfull, and they will be happy with you.

So, no just those things dey pepper you for body? Sorry sir, no vex! I thought the wahala was even far grevious than those.

Anyway, my elders do not act so frantic with lengthy theorise that arrive at nothing such as you are fond of posting on the Forum! So there!!

olabowale:
So much for the Yoruba culture! Amu ni buni, eron Ibiye, Ibiye loju kon, eron e loju kon. Oro loboro wa o. Owe ni mo de pa fun e yen.

Hehehe. . . You're simply a joke this afternoon! No be you just vex refer to Nigeria as "your Bloody country"? You really waka far!

olabowale:
My two sons, do not disrespect any elder, yet they were born outside Nigeria.

I hear! While your two sons do not disrespect any elder, their father would simply do that very thing! Well done!

olabowale:
Yet Olayiwola is already in Medical school and Oladunwo will be finishing engineering this semester!

Good advert. Tell them to send their CV over - I have jobs for them! Your pride no go let you follow my advice. . . afterall, you have lost contact with your "Bloody". . . native land!

olabowale:
Yet I have lived outside Nigeria longer than you were ever alive on planet earth! And not once do I disrespect or use horrible descriptions/qualifiers for my elders.

I agree you have lived outside Nigeria longer than my age! The sad thing to note is that you have nothing to show for it by way of intelligent and coherent reasoning.

olabowale:
Go learn humility first. Then wer can talk. Until then good ridden. I do no see your reason to puff up!

I wasn't puffing up. I humbly entered that thread to shake up your cheap sneak-and-hide cowardice. . . that's all!

Hehe. .@Bobbyaf,

There's just one reason why I keep holding back instead of rushing answers to the subject. But let me point out something and then ask you two simple questions:

Bobbyaf:
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The righteous dead will rise as complete persons. This happens when the same spirit that departed their bodies upon death returns to their now glorified bodies. Paul didn't say that those who went to heaven will rise first. What is so difficult to understand about someone dying or sleeping in the grave awaiting the resurrection?

Two questions:

(a) If the spirit departs the body at death, where does that spirit go?

(b) If the spirit is still in the grave at death, then from where does it RETURN?

You have always assumed that the dead in Christ are still in the grave - which would mean that they never left their bodies (or "departed" their bodies). If their spirits did not depart their bodies to go to some other place, then you would definitely not be speaking of the RETURN of those spirits to their (glorified) bodies! (How can you "depart" and yet "remain" at the same place, so that you can "return" when you never went anywhere else?)

Now, as you seek answers to those questions, the simple issue in all your argument would be simply this: please find out WHERE those spirits went upon departing their bodies!

@debosky,

debosky:
@ pilgrim 1

I hereby tender my application to be the focus of your interest

Hehe. . oga debosky. I ugly O - you fit accomodate me regardless?

Anyhow, this is where you fail the interview:

debosky:
[quote author=+osisi link=topic=48097.msg1840497#msg1840497 date=1200006959]Please find Mrs debo quick quick so you can have her for breakfast lunch and dinner

you forgot supper, midday tea, midnight snack, late morning cake, post-siesta refreshment. . .the list goes on and on! [/quote]If all those are to comprise your list of "interested", then I better run!

@All,

God bless una plenty! You have all added to my understanding - and I'll try and find time to share some insights as well. Well done everyone.

davidylan:
No they cannot begin to chop themselves. Until the marriage is blessed IN A CHURCH before God and man, the traditional thingy is not valid at least from a biblical stand point.

Lol. . . @davidylan,

Yes and No - your submission here is either way. From a "biblical stand point", the traditional thingy is not valid. But so does the traditionalist argue, because from his own "stand point", the CHURCH thingy is NOT valid!

This thread has kept us chatty in the office (break time). Trust us women, our mouths talk this and that! Someone silenced the rest of us when he finally asked (after a long silence, listening to us):

Abeg una well-well, which Church did Abraham wed Sarah before im own valid?

He just smiled and promptly left the staff room!

toluxa1:
I will encourage us to continue to read the bible without any pre- concived ideas as we are in the time when God is opening up the sciptures for HIS PEOPLE.

That would be great! However, when we open the Scriptures and seek to understand His revelations therein, it becomes all the more obvious that the views you are espousing are actually [b]un[/b]scriptural.

That is why we are trying to encourage and invite an open discussion on the issues you have presented in this thread.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
It was a shock to me when a non Muslim told me that 'heaven,' for them is different from 'paradise!' I try to get a read of i was told by requesting that the person give me what are the characteristics of this heaven as against that of what is known as paradise. It is at this point that I got no further respose. I wonder if this is 'heaven,' as mentioned by this Christian non Muslim, is more of a 'sect' understanding or definition, rather than what the whole Christendom believe.

With due respect, please go to the relevant thread and seek to engage a genuine discussion on that very issue. We know all too well how you no longer respond to simple queries presented to you after your initial theories.

olabowale:
Thats just by the way. I have to restrict myself from asking a Nairalander who claimed in a post that she can proof from the Qur'an that Allah the Almighty recognised another 'deity,' separate and apart from Himself and what Muhammad (as) thought about his Creator, to please provide them. Unfortunately, talk is cheap. I would have wagered with this person that if her statement, is founded to be baseless, will she then eat back her own pewk, which were the claims she made and then take Shahadah? But you see the internet is an equal opportunity deceiver or rather false pundit proclaimer. If we were all sitting across the table from one another, the equation would never be the same as this on this board, where everyone is anonymous.

I have deliberately tried to stay away from this thread to allow Muslims an enabling environment to discuss Islam. If you would rather sneak in here to be such a coward and pretentiously "restricting" yourself over issues you have never attempted to address, please be advised that you're inviting more than you can chew. If you care, again I invite you to that very thread where pilgrim.1 made that very assertion - I have not claimed to try and "prove" anything from the Qur'an. Rather, I simply want to direct your attention to it, and request that you or any other Muslim address that particular verse without the usual drama that has become your second nature. Do you please care to do so?

olabowale:
It will nice if this person can proof to us what they claim about Allah's Book, the Qur'an and His Messenger, Prophet Muhammad (as), about his Lord!

I would be glad to do so - but not in this thread. I do not want to be perceived as invading a Muslim thread univited. My sole purpose of posting a rejoinder to yours here is to discourage this sneaky cowardly attitude you have betaken for cheap glory.

olabowale:
I was surprised when one of the males replaced 'passing over it,' of Verse 71 of Surah Mariam with 'go into it!' The height of dishonesty!

I'm surprised at your hypocrisy. The various MUSLIM translations directly use that exact clause ("go into it" in that verse! Please go there and sse for yourself!!

olabowale:
Thats what you see on the board in many threads from non Muslims towards Islam!

Apologies - NOT! We have often appealed that Muslims who wish to enter into any discussion or debate on Christian issues should drop their hypocrisies and seek genuine exchanges rather than assuming that our aim is rather the same malicious intent that people like YOU olabowale have exhibited towards Christianity and the Bible.

Cheers.

- - - - - - -

PS. @All,

Please excuse my visiting this thread uninvited. This probably won't repeat itself - "probably", I said: if and only if people like olabowale will mind to save their hypocrisies and not try to invite my taking him to task on his bloviates!

Enjoy.

@Gamine,

I am thankful that each time I click to read what people are saying on this subject, there is always something interesting that strikes me in each contributor's entry. This is one more interesting line in yours:

Gamine:
"once the purpose of a thing isnt known
Abuse is inevitable"

That is a helpful line that may help a lot of us bear our minds on the subject - and it really doesn't matter whatever initials one assumes (VR, NSR, NR).

I was just have a tete-a-tete with a colleague and our chat came to something bordering on the present subject. The one question she asked before leaving my office was: "there must be something about this thing that suddenly everybody wants their pata below their ankles!"

Now, that got me thinking. WHY is there a mad rush these days in many quarters to appear in Adam's (or Eve's) suit? After the Fall, man became suddenly conscious that he was naked - and the natural thing was to try and hide his unclothedness. However, what is happening these days is that, rather than seek to adopt decorum on our bodies, many today simply seek to glorify what speaks of shame.

However, I do not mean to sound like eerything about sex is negative. The one thing that I'm seeking is to invite a good discussion on the subject so that each person's contribution will help others in their problem areas, as well foster a mindset that will hold this gift in high esteem.

@chatykrew,

chatykrew:
am i in really discussing what the thread is all about or off point ??

You're in line, and your contributions are quite appreciated.

Everyone's views on this subject are definitely going to be diverse; approaches also will be diverse. That is what makes each person's contribution unique and helps us all understand what some of us really have no clues about, but have assumed we did.

Many thanks - please contribute more as you feel led.

@cgift,

Happy New Year! How body?

Interesting post - be encouraged.