₦airaland Forum

@gists,

gists:
No way!! Its too much of a task to read just one or two verses down. They just want to pick a verse or preferably a half sentence from the Qur'an. But when we quote their book and ask them to read from verse 1, they turn around and say craps like we don't understand.

Please excuse my unawareness; but where have Christians said craps like "we don't understand" when you asked them to read from verse 1 of the books of the Bible? Please could you point that out let's see?

gists:
Question is, is by quoting half a sentence or at best a verse that they'll understand?

If quoting a particular verse does not help until the whole Qur'an is quoted, would that help or change anything that Muhammad actually accused the Arabs of being the "worst in unbelief and hypocrisy"? Some Muslims would say that was during the time of "ignorance" - if that were so, what do Arabs have to do with 'Allah' before Muhammad started preaching Islam? And how would 'Allah' have made the Arabs remain in a period of "ignorance" until Muhammad had to accuse them with such language before they became enlightened?

gists:
They're in my opinion a bunch of hypocrites and people of double standards. But I don't blame them

Many thanks. We only asked questions to be addressed - what's with all the hytensive come backs?

gists:
@Pilgrim.1
re-read verse Q4:90 (the four or five lines won't hurt you) and my explanations (though not comprehensive) and you'll find out that the muslims were attacked first (by whoever xtians, jews. . . . it doesn't matter).

Please don't make blanket statements. If you cannot find me a clear piece of historical antecdents that Christians and Jew sfirst attacked Muhammad, then you leave us no other alternative than what it actually is: it is fraud and nothing less than that.

For the many years I was a Muslim, we were made to believe that propaganda that Christians and Jews first attacked Muhammad. WHERE did that happen - Muslims cannot say. And now you want me to just woosh it away and believe it because Muhammad said so - with no proof to his case? The funny thing is that history proves Muhammad and the Qur'an wrong on that allegation!! And that is why I have been asking, nay "begging", that you guys should simply help us by making clear historical references so we could see the facts for ourselves.

Having nothing to showcase, all I have seen are the excuses of the Battle of Badr. If that event was directly in answer to the questions I asked, then I am sorry to note that something is truly wrong with this Muslim hypocrisy which seems to have been inherited from the Arans whom Muhammad accused.

gists:
If Muhammed was violent and an opressor (as you have been programmed to bliv) he would hav fought with the christians and tha Jew upon arriving at Medinna after Hijrah.

If Muhammad was not a violent man, would we be reading his jubilation of having been made victorious through TERROR? A man who jubilates on TERROR and you call "peaceful" should make us simply be amazed at your choice of vocab.

gists:
Question is why didn't fight them?

There are loads of Muslim excuses; and I would rather not offer any. Excuses are not my thing - I deal with sane facts.

You should ask yourself on the other hand, that if Muhammad had respect and amicable relations with Jews and Christians, why was a CURSE against the same people the last words on his lips when he lay dying?

gists:
Rather they coexisted peacfully.

They co-existed "peacefully" - that is why he stated that two ummah cannot dwell in the same place? Have you forgotten that so quickly. . . or you're just hoping to apply a revisionistic theory to cream it all for us against the facts?

gists:
Why did he even had to leave his native home and travel in the first place?

Because he could not be satisfied minding his own business and letting others live their lives.

gists:
He had a choice of fighting at home where he and his followers were being persecuted. Afterall he had a few strong men- but he didn't.

Of course a few strong men were no match against a far numerous army.

gists:
Again I've done this before with the very same attitude from other xtians, so I'm not supprised at your responses

I thought we were having a fair deal of a discussion. The one thing I cannot buy from Muslims is hypocrisy. I may let a lot of things pass - but not the idea that we should accept dihonesty as truth.

meanwhile, I am still waiting for the Kufar thing O!

@davidylan,

davidylan:
that is not the question. I ask WHAT was that covenant? Surely allah must have told you . . . again, do NOT peep in the bible for the answer.

If I was still a muslimah, thou shouldest have received your head on a rolling stone! That is the "covenant"!!

_{Uh-oh. . . abi I fail am? Need to go peep in the Bible again. . . since Qur'an didn't say!}

mdsocks:
[size=1]just peeping around

awaiting someone's response, not busy today [/size]

Pilgrim the answer is in my earlier post.

Please show me naw. . . which one be dis hide-and-seek game today?

@mdsocks,

mdsocks:
Called someone kafirs?

Nobody has theright to call another person kafir,
pilgrim is that your innovationor what?

No, it is not my innovation. Unfortunately, that is what MUSLIMS have aclled others without waiting for your right/permission to declare them so. Sample:

Ajisafe:

[list]

@ Dearzi,
kufar=kafir or "kenferi" or "genferi," a very beautiful euphemism, meaning the disbeliever or unbeliever.

[/list]

- - - - - - -

dayokanu (quoting a source):

[list]

A Muslim may not be punished for killing a non-Muslim: "No Muslim should be killed for killing a kafir (infidel)." Vol 9:50 .

[/list]

- - - - - - -

olabowale

[list]

Later on in the lives of Ibrahiim and Ismail, they erected the Ka'aba, including the black stone that is the biggest thorn in the hearts of most of you Kafir!

[/list]


You can see that the word Kafir was not my innovation.

More than this, please turn over to Qur'an 70 v 17 of Hilali-Khan translation and tell me why they used the word there in that verse in referring to others if "nobody has theright to call another person kafir". Why would Hilali-Khan use that word in his translation then?

mdsocks:
That was during Jahiliya period, (Period of Ignorance) .

Most of them are now muslims and great men have been produced from the arabs.

They are one of the greatest mathematicians and scientists.

I hear. Anything you want to excuse is swept under the carpet of the period of "ignorance". When Muhammad cursed Jews and Christians, I guess he was not being ignorant, abi?

mdsocks:
Next time Pilgrim read further and just don't quote verses with reading it fully.

009.099 But some of the desert Arabs believe in God and the Last Day, and look on their payments as pious gifts bringing them nearer to God and obtaining the prayers of the Apostle. Aye, indeed they bring them nearer (to Him): soon will God admit them to His Mercy: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Is it not ironic that when Muhammad finds political favours with a group of people, then he flatters them to his advantage?

Please go through the Qur'an and gather all the favourable verses he made towards the Jews and Christians. After you have done so, then ask yourself WHY he went on to curse the same people he seemed to have favoured earlier!!

This inconsistent attitude of back and forth devices is one of the reasons why Muslims ought to very carefully weigh issues before trying to assume that there was a divide between the period of "ignorance" and the science you're now touting in Islam.

@mdsocks,

mdsocks:
It was not the jews or vhristains the verse was referring to, HAve you forgottent the Battle of Badr?

What made Prophet Muhammad make an hijrah to Medinah ?

I am using a question to answer a question

For now, your persuasions are quite the opposite to that of gists who offered that the verses of the Qur'an I cited for the Muslim hate for Christians and Jews were actually directed at Them (Jews and Christians).

Of course, I do not hold your neck down on another man's persuasions - we are all free to share what we hold as our personal convictions.

However, my questions still is that Muslims should please find me any pointer in history where Christians and Jews first attacked Muhammad before he sought to launch his attacks on them.

mdsocks:
Check the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr

http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/badr.asp

Yeah, he has been made victorious over his enemies with terror.

terror--an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety.

You can recall from the badr battle that muslims had a very small army then, but when he won over the idolaters they were gripped by fear.

And Islam is the religion of . . ."peace" you say?

No wahala. I wasn't addressing the battle of badr - unless you can magically weave that as an answer to my question about any historical pointers to the idea that Jews and Christians got up to attack Muhammad first before he sought reprisal attacks in defence.

You see, up until now, you guys have not been able to offer any sane answers to that request. I sympathize with you. . . because as a former Muslim, we were told to view such attacks as reprisal attacks and wars fought in defence. I held unto to that idea all my Muslim life; but when the chips and facade began to fall, you could imagine my shock that we had been gooned all along with a false premise. Hard to acknowledge - but such was life.

There are a number of Muslim websites with articles about claims of those wars as "defences", though. Craftily written. . . almost convincing and hard to controvert, etc. But again, such articles made me work hard to go back to the real gist in Muslim sources and dig out the truth. I was ashamed to discover that quite the opposite was the truth. Muhammad launched those attacks on the Jews and Christians for nothing at all other than his belief that the world belonged to him and his 'Allah'.

Are you aware that Muhammad made that claim at all - that the earth belonged to him and 'Allah'? If you study the real events that made him declare such, you will find the truth of what I am sharing with you.

mdsocks:
The fear is not that of Muhammad but That unseen hand who helped them win a battle over about 3000 strong men with just a small army of about 300.

For all of that, where did Jews and Christians FIRST attack Muhammad before he launched warfare against them?

@dragnet,

dragnet:
Pilgrims1,. . . . . .belloti launched no "personal/religious" attack. . . . . . Al-JANAAT (PARADISE) is for the believers . . . . . Muslims likewise Christians. . .except for those who count themselves out

If belloti's thread is considered not as an attack in any way, please rest your Muslim complainats about threads opened to address Muslim interests in the same negative connotations. QED.

There are lots of things I can take from people - hypocrisy is not one of them.

dragnet:
RasuluLLAH(S.A.W.) says. . ."Any one among the jews & christians that believes in me & with what I've been sent shall receive a double reward(1st reward is for believing in ISA(A.S.). . .2nd reward is for beliving in RasuluLLA(S.A.W.). . . . )and would be of the people of the PARADISE"

That may well be suited to your persuasions. I have deep convictions for leaving Islam; especially because that quote was not the standard practice of Muhammad. If Muhammad actually believed that he had no problems with Christians, why was he cursing the same Christians (and Jews) unto his last breath? I am not one who can endure such double standards, sorry.

@mdsocks,

I enjoyed your piece as well. I'll post a link that logically explains them from the zero dimension to the tenth dimension easier than we have attempted - whe I find it.

Cheers.

@dragnet,

dragnet:
In addition to mdsocks quotes
RasuluLLAH (S.A.W) says " respect & cherish the visitors even if they were kafirs(Non-believers/muslims e.t.c.)

How did Belloti respect others (Christians - the same people that Muslims refer to as kafirs) - by opening a thread to deliberately celebrate the Muslim hypocrisy for which you are now praising him?

WHY is it so hard for you Muslims to be consistent for once? First, you are averse to anyone saying unpleasant things about Islam. But you are happy to bless belloti for the very same crime for which you cannot endure from others, abi?

dragnet:
belloti ,may the ALMIGHTY ALLAH guide you,me & all the muslims to the right path & grant us all AL-JANAAT FIRDAUS . . . Ameen
Its no use flogging a dead horse 'because ALLAH (S.W.T) states in the GLORIOUS QURAN "In their hearts is a disease, . .and GOD multiplied the disease . . .to them is a painful torment because of what(our verses,signs,revelations. .etc) they used to deny"
. .

Please stop flogging a dead wasp in your camp. The disease is not in those you allege or accuse from your Qur'an. Turn to Sura 5 v 81 - even the Qur'an salutes the fact that Christians are men devoted to learning and they are not arrogant. Whoever fabricated that fallacy that there is a disease in the hearts of Christians or non-Muslims is the same man who accused the Arabs of being the "worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance" (Qur'an 9 v 97). Today you want us to buy into that same "hypocrisy and ignorance" - and where we don't bow down to such tales, you assume the Qur'an is worth a double look because it claims that others have a disease in their hearts.

Please rest your shakara. If nobody understands the Qur'an after it is being translated from Arabic into another language, there's really no reason why you want to be mischievous quoting it in English.

@mdsocks,

mdsocks:
pilgrim, most of the verse which states that kill are during war times that muslims were facing persecution.

My simple request was that gists should show us any historical antecedents of WHERE Jews and Christians FIRST attacked Muhammad before he launched such operatives against them.

Don't just sit down and wave that claim in our face. Simply show us that Muhammad was first attacked BEFORE he attacked them. Is that too hard a request to make?

mdsocks:
You can read the following and Enjoy.

"He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)

Lol. . . could you please help us get the particular reference next time? Thank you.

On the sharp side of things, is it not true that Muslims (and Muhammad himself) never sought to follow that very tenet? Is it not in the same Bukhari and Muslim that Muhammad did more than harm his neighbours far and near?

mdsocks:
"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

You're being selective and making it sound like Muhammad didn't so much as even hurt a fly. In the same Sahih Bukhari (Book #52, Hadith #220), Muhammad jubilated with these words: "I have been made victorious with terror".

mdsocks:
"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

Muhammad did not wait for judgement day before he demonstrated that he was the arch adversary of Jews and Christians. That was why I asked again and again what did the Jews and Christians do Muhammad to have merited his hate towards them till his last breath?

mdsocks:
"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall mysefl be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)

Lol. . . Muhammad was known to have deprived people of what rightfully belonged to them naw. . . U don forget again?

@gists,

gists:
God bless you for those quotes, but I think their hearts are made up no matter what we say.

@pilgrim.1
maybe you should google christian missionaries attrocities.

I'm quite aware of their atrocities - and what's more, I am not afriad to discuss them, and have done so several times on the Forum.

The one thing that baffles me is Muslim hypocrisy that pretends these issues are non-existent in the Muslim world. Have you taken the time to Google up the atrocities of Muslim clerics?

I was actually waiting for some rascal Muslim propagandists to dare their hypocrisies one step further about Gays in the naglican Church. I simply requested thm to look inward into their Muslim world - and if they pretended they can't find anything, I would help them by posting a dozen articles (complete with PHOTOS, STATISTICS, MAPS, and incontrovertible other evidence) of MUSLIM clerics who were caught red-handed in their shame! Nobody ever hears of such - because we all know the threats to the lives of the journalists who investigated them. If you want them, please be frank and forthright to ask for them - and after you have seen for yourself the shame, come back and let's talk.

Cherio.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
You make me laugh when i point out difference you call it attack,

Please stop hiding behind your finger. Call it anything you may; but you don't just jump into a thread and assume that others are "deranged" and hope to run away with that thought.

mazaje:
i wont spend my time arguing or rubutting all what you have said because that is not what i will care to do because i have better things to do than that,

You disappoint me. Seriously. I had hoped that you would help with some pointers so I could learn from you all the more - especially in those areas where I might have been holding unbalanced views about the origins of the Catholic Church.

mazaje:
each to his/her own i don't believe in christainity simple and to you that means i am troubled chie na wa ohhh the only person troubled here is you.

I am not troubled. For long this attitude of yours to just barge in and accused others of being "deranged" had gone on unchecked. We just had to be sure that your temperature was normal, that's all.

mazaje:
i believe you don't have the peace of mind i have and thats not something i will like to spend time talking about either, i don't believe simple, i will say it again all you guys do here is spend time trying to prove that you cult(faith and believe) is better than that of others and the manner which you go about it is very ridiculous to me.

No worries. You may assume anything you want to about Christians; but isn't it ironical that none of them in your allegations of paranoia against them has referred to you as "deranged"?

Easy, mazaje. Enjoy your life and drop the misgivings.

May kelly:
CHILDREN OF THIS GENERATION FOR CHRIST SAKE - WHEN WILL YOU MIND YOUR BUSINESS AND STOP ASKING AND TALKING FOOLISHLY.

When will you mind your own business and not assume to asking others to mind theirs?

@gists,

gists:
I don't want to overflog this because its leading nowhere. But the hard undisputable fact is that both the Torah and the bible gave clear-cut commands to kill humans.

For what reasons - that they are not Muslims?

Indeed we should not belabour the issue. But what I often see is the frantic attitude of Muslims running to the OT and using that as an excuse for why Muslims MUST kill. I haven't seen any Muslim coherently discuss with us on why the Qur'an commands them to kill Jews and Christians specifically - apart from others that they are commanded to kill.

gists:
Kill, slay, spear them not, smite, utterly destroy are some of the words used.

Like this one wielded by MUSLIMS:

https://img146.imageshack.us/img146/274/captsgeoms55180906131616photo03photodefault512x347yh9.jpg

https://www.jihadwatch.org/PATV300307.jpg

https://www.omdurman.org/europe_cancer.jpg

https://www.omdurman.org/butcher_kafirs.jpg

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/nrelig05b.jpg

gists:
Your argument that muslims are not mentioned hold no water at all.

Put the other way, it does make sense to you rather that the Qur'an mentions clearly that Muslims are to kill specifically Jews and Christians? And why?

gists:
Kill is kill be it specifically muslims or not.

And we should already assume that it is alright to kill Muslims just as they also seek to kill Jews and Christians by Allah's command?

gists:
I'm sure you are aware that those orders in your book also said in clear terms that women and children get no exemptions!!

Where have Muslims spared women and children in their killing adventures?

gists:
You're far more guilty of the crime you're accusing us of.

Not so. Within a month alone, Muslims have murdered and maimed more numbers than Christian or Jewish efforts to free these same Muslims from their own plights.

gists:
I've done that here on nairaland before and some of your xtian friends can testify to it. Bliv me its no use trying to get u guys come to terms with the attrocities your early leaders committed (just as you find it difficult to accept the kill order in your books).

If what you term atrocities has been your bane, then indeed the Qur'an should be ignored once for all. The bitter truth is that Islam thrives on murder. QED. If it is difficult to accept that fact, please drop the Qur'an today. You cannot stand on a neutral fence claiming that we should look at the Torah as an atrocious book while you close your eyes to an even worse case with the Qur'an.

gists:
Please try and understand my point before replying so we both won't end up wasting time. For the sake of fainess, Belloti and everyone else (like I said in my last post) is free to start any thread but let them not make irrelevant off topic posts to on-going discussions thus making a nuisance of themselves. I think this is logical and straight forward enough.

Please look closely again. Would you be willing to welcome the same "fairness" if a non-Muslims had rather started a thread and titled it for Islam the way belloti did about Christianity?

amsky:
@pilgrim1
please what do you know about the Grail message book.kindly enlighten me.are you one of them?

I've held discussions with Grail friends in the relevant threads (from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-3321.0.html#msg1349453). Maybe there's something specific you'd like for me to address - I'd be gald to in that thread so we don't detract the topic in this one.

Cheers.

Chukacarlo:
Islam sucks.

>>sigh!<<

@olabowale,

olabowale:
I did not see how your simple question is now a request that I go and get an adulterated copy of what your Christian forebearers had poluted and remains so since over 14 Centuries, since the Qur'an was revealed.

The Qur'an did not even last a single century before it was adulterated by the hands of Muslims themselves. They have denied this so many times until our eardrums ached. Now it has come to light from independent sources that indeed the Qur'an today is different from the one used in the advent of Islam - ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts]here again[/url]).

olabowale:
I do not have a need for 'torah, sabuur and "bible" injiil.' The Al Qur'an is sufficient, for all conditions, and all times!

Which is a nice way of saying that Muhammad's reference to them in the Qur'an was simply a a waste.

@imhotep,

imhotep:
Performing miracles, signs and wonders are also NOT a guarantee for making heaven.

People should hear that piece of simple truth again and again!

There are people who have done sadder things without ascribing their actions to religion. Should we also abolish them?


Results from logistic regression analyses indicated that significant correlates
of parental corporal punishment were: children's young age, male gender,
and externalizing behaviors as well as parents' young age, non-employment,
and marital dissatisfaction.

For parent-to-child physical maltreatment, significant correlates were externalizing
behaviors of children and parental marital dissatisfaction. Conclusions: Hong Kong
Chinese parents commonly used corporal punishment on their children, which was
associated with characteristics of children, parents, and family.
~ (here)


Chinese Deny Maltreatment at Orphanage

Although there have been counter accusations that these are false allegations, there also have been well-documented evidence that such abuses are real:

Exposing the Abuse of Chinese Orphans


Now, in this one example among many others, these abuses were not predicated on religion. We might as well argue according to your headline that all Chinese people are "Abolished"; or that everything about the Chinese is evil.

Do you ever try to reason with your brains and conscience before you type at all? Just because you find some news about religious people abusing children, it automatically means that "Religion Should Be Abolished"?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
@ Rockiedink and Noetic

I asked Pilgrim to respond to my question as to what happens to the spirit of the wicked when he/she dies. She's clueless. Like Rockiedink says the bible is its own interpreter. Instead of extrapolating we need to simply accept what it says. If it says the dead are asleep then lets accept that.

If I was clueless, I would not have answered. If being "clueless" is synonymous with not answering a question, then the fact is that you have been clueless all along for refusing to answer simple questions that have been offered you.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
@ Pilgrim

Really now!

I know what I quoted. You need not remind me. The point I am making is very simple. I am not the one who started out with the idea that when the righteous dies his spirit is aware and conscious. The fact is you are in agreement.

Lol. . . dear Bobbyaf, I think that was a clever way of trying to scuttle behind the real gist of your argument. If I was in agreement all along with everything you stated, would you even have asked me any questions at all in the first place - even repeatedly? Is that how you repeatedly asked the same questions to noetic and Rockiedink?

No, you didn't read me as being in "agreement". Your query was about the whereabouts of the spirit of the wicked dead - and not about whether the spirits of the righteous are aware or conscious. See again:

#1.

Bobbyaf:
So let me ask a question. When the wicked dies where does his spirit go? 

#2.

Bobbyaf:
I want to hear from you as to what happens to the wicked man when he dies? What happens to his spirit?

However, when someone asked about some righteous saints in another thread, you did not sound like you were in "agreement" with the recent persuasions. You did not agree at that time that they were in HEAVEN - see again:

#3.

Bobbyaf:

So u think mary and the Apostles ARE IN THEIR GRAVES!

Very much so until Christ comes to resurrect them.

Well, all this is the reason why I've been carefully trying to follow your persuasions and hoped that you would have made things easy enough for others to engage you in this discussion.

Bobbyaf:
Let me repeat it again since you either failed to comprehend the question, or are just skipping around it. What happens to the spirit of the wicked who dies? Is his or her spirit aware when compared to that of the righteous after death?

I wasn't skipping round the question at all - and I had hoped you would realize that your repeated query was unnecessary - since it has been addressed earlier.

Nonetheless, if it was not now a matter of the spirits of the righteous, but that of the wicked dead, again I would say that they exist in another, entirely different, consciousness.

It only now would mean that you'd request me to go through in more detail and elaborate upon that persuasion - even though it has been addressed once and again.

Bobbyaf:
Why should I see the need to quote you when we already know your stance on the subject matter.

I would appreciate that you quote me directly where you tend to be reading issues into my rejoinders and attributing things I never said. I didn't once confuse the soul for the spirit either way; but you had misread me on the matter of the soul - and that was why I requested you to quote me directly. If you were not sure, it would have helped that you do not assume that you knew my stance (or anybody's) on a particular matter - until you have quoted them particular, which would then provide a basis for what you intend to query.

Bobbyaf:
All the pointers are very much the same, but they are nowhere near what the bible teaches.

If that is what you assume, why then have you refused and continually ducked responding to the simple questions that were offered you by longman83 and ricadelide? Isn't it ironic that every question you offered has been addressed (not minding that you were repeating yourself over them)?  For fairness sake, if we had no grasp on our convictions, we would not have addressed your query. But it is only clear that one who has systematically and consistently ducked questions offered him is in fact the very one who has no grasp on his own queries - which is what you have done!

If you actually have anything solid on your persuasions, may I request formerly that you please address the questions offered you by ricadelide and longman83 (Tayo-D's later where you may). (here and here), thank you.

It is because you did not directly answer their questions (IMHO), that was why I took the time to post matters about the spirit of man - viz:

   ~ (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-104156.32.html#msg1853560)
   ~ (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-104156.32.html#msg1853567)
   ~ (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-104156.32.html#msg1853595)

You did make any serious issues on those entries - disagreeing or agreeing anywhere; but the next we know was your terse remark that I tried to quote you directly or in full:

   ~ (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-104156.32.html#msg1854096)

So, Bobbyaf, I have taken the time to make things easier for us all. Do please share with us and save the mechanical devices.

Bobbyaf:
In either case I am afraid you simply don't want to answer fearing that in responding your ideas will come to naught.

I have answered. If you don't get me, don't assume a cheap victory that is non-existent. I'd rather you asked me to clarify where you might not have understood me - which is why I appreciate noetic's rejoinders: he often asks, rather than assume anything.

Bobbyaf:
To avoid that simply speak the truth. Answer the question.

I have done so. Where do you not understand any matter in my persuasions?

Cheers.

@noetic,

noetic:
@ pilgrim

uhmn! u sounded like u were cross with me. please don't be.

No, I wasn't cross with you. Certainly rather, I was quite surprised that you'd require me to repeat myself in a few places. I'm sorry it came across to you that way, though.

noetic:
I tot d tone of your lat two posts were rather coversational, that neccesitated the same tone in response. and I guess that my attempt to reply your 2 posts immediately and together, made u feel I was overstretching matters.

Er, no - it was not the fact of your combining the answers into a neat single package as you did; but as explained above.

noetic:
i hate typing too, I wish there was a machine I would talk into, n will just type what I say.

none the less, forgive my excesses.

Nevermind my surprised reactions.

noetic:
u carefully evaded some things I mentioned, and u also raised certain other issues, to which I will respond as soon as I can

be cool
cheers

Ok, I'll be looking forward to the issues I might've evaded.

Cheers.

Hi @Tayo-D,

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=104156.msg1863226#msg1863226 date=1200636057]@Bobbyaf,
- - -
If you'd like to argue with the passage, then we'll provide you with more evidence.[/quote]It appears that "more evidence" is not what they are genuinely interested in. If he (Bobbyaf) was actually interested in the discussion and arriving at sane inferences, he would not be offering cheap cuts here and there and seeking sympathy from his club - all of whom (except perhaps noetic) have refused to attend the simple questions offered them by yourself, ricadelide, and longman83.

That kind of evasive drama is a well-known mechanical device to evade truth and project one's own ideas that cannot be substantiated. I guess if they actually could substantiate their ideas or persuasions, they no doubt would have sought to address those questions and not coming back with cheap jubilations.

I now understand why my other "seniors" (longman83 and ricadelide) apart from yourself, have demonstrated their maturity in not saying too much. . . unless where needs be. I am tempted to take their reservations as well - except that I'm just being lazy to do other stuff.

@hotfunmi,

I usually would not like to take you apart; not because we share the same gender, but because I would rather you made some sense from your persuasions. More than anything, your posts are nothing short of recycled excuses that are so skewed from the core concerns of biblical Christianity. I hope to simply lead you carefully through a clear perspective, if you may:

hotfunmi:
@pilgrim,

There are so many articles that points to the fact that pentecostals worship money and materialism?

Pentecostals do NOT "worship" money and materialism. They may be sadly caught in the web of the insidious "Prosperity Gospel"; but that is not to assume that they worship money.

However, if you look carefully (and I have shared on this before), you'll be staggered to see what the Catholic Church has done with money and materialism.

Just a case in point, a thread was floated in December about Redeemed Church (RCCG) building an auditorium costing about N7.7 billion. Many contributors "complained" about what a waste it actually was; and someone helped us calculate the figure by forex exchange to the tune of about $57 million.

Guess what? Nobody has carefully turned the spotlight on the most expensive Church building in history! It's known as Cathedral of Christ the Light; and news has it that its costs has climbed "from $131 million in 2003 to $190 million in 2007" (here). And by the way, that is a CATHOLIC cathedral. . . hehe.

Please do the simple maths: $190 million for your Catholic Cathedral is thrice over the humble $57 million RCCG building.

Who's worshipping money and materialism now?

hotfunmi:
why is divorce so high inpentecostalism today with their intense knowledge of the bible?

I don't know. I honestly don't know. But does that say that Catholics (especially in America) have no HIGH divorce rates?

"I think it is hypocritical for the Vatican and the Bishops
to pretend that they are not promoting divorce when,
in fact, they increasingly have taken practical measures
to make it easy and to speed up the process."
~ (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/082bev11-20-2006.htm)

Who's fooling who?

hotfunmi:
Almost every pentecostal preacher in America is divorced? Don't they also see God's injuction on divorce?. Will you also agree to that?

No, I do not agree with that. To agree with you on that would require me to know who and who are "Almost every pentecostal preacher in America" - and I honestly do not know every one of them.

hotfunmi:
Mother theresa said, "if you criticise people so much, you will not have time to love them as our heavenly father commands".

Unfortunately, mother Theresa was sadly known to be a smiling saint in public eyes, but a skeptic sister in the recesses of her own enclave. So I'd take her poetic fluctuations with a pinch of salt.

hotfunmi:
I've been to the catholic church over 10x in my life and have never seen them worshipping mary.

You were born recently - you should have lived in the days of Pope Pius XII and challenged him too his face when he asserted that Catholics have worshipped Mary "heavenly mother" from theearly Christian era.

hotfunmi:
How can they be worshipping mary when they themselves were very instrumental in the compilation of the early version of the bible that includes the 10 commandments?

I don't know. In the same way, let me ask:

How could they be bowing down to images when they were "compiling" the canon that stated that God expressly forbids such?

hotfunmi:
Pentecostals are the reason why America is thinking of investigation churches now and impose them with taxes.

Maybe so - I don't live in America to be able to say something more cogent. But I guess part of the investigations into churches these days are not about money and taxes - we know about Catholic priest who have been and are still being investigated for sexual vices and abuses on children.

hotfunmi:
haba, God knows how else you'll nail catholics to the cross if they accepted homosexuality and marry gay gay people like 'some' other churches including pentecostals.

I won't nail anyone to the Cross. But I have enough courage to tell them to their faces that such activities are Biblically unacceptable - and it doesn't matter whether they are catholic or Pentecostals.

hotfunmi:
Take the speck out of your own eye first because it's not today that we started seeing the hausas with arrows.

I don't brandish arrows, nor am I Hausa.

hotfunmi:
Gone are the days when we hear and accept that catholics are evil while pentecostals and born again and heaven bound[b]. Practice what you preach by showing brotherly love first.[/b]

I do practise what I preach - and love for the brethren includes warning them of God's disapproval of the activities they engage in today that still lead many astray.

@mazaje,

If your rejoinder was crafted for the sake of conscience, honesty and fairness, I would not read YOU producing what is far from simple historical truth. In many ways, your misgivings (whereever they derive from) point again to the fact that you are not seeking a discussion, but rather seeking an avenue to express the unsettlement of your troubled heart. I know many people who are in that state of existence - and whether you believe it or not, they are no better than the ones they have sought to ridicule.

Let me address your misgivings in brief:

mazaje:
The only thing that is troubling me  is the fact that people like you waste time spreading hate and division  all in the name of religion(christianity, islam,hinduism etc).

You haven't done better either but only further expressed hate yourself. What did Christians, Muslims or any other do to YOU that your entry into discussing any matter has to be so callous in the first place? Talk about peace - do YOU sound like you have a clue what it is all about?

Now when you assume that we are "spreading" hate and division because we debate issues that are publicly affecting, it points out the fact that you haven't taken the time to look carefully into the subjects being discussed. This is not about whose "cult" is the best in the pack - it is rather about two things:

     ~ (a) honest acknowledgement of Biblical truths regardless the denomination:
       which is why I refrained from making my discussions with Catholics a matter
       of which denomination I attend. If the Bible says "A" and forbids ð¿,
       our conscience should be humble enough to uphold what the Bible offers and
       reject what it forbids.

     ~ (b) affirmations of our convictions that should not misrepresent our faith:
       if non-Christians assume just about anything (as you have done), it is an index
       of the fact that such misrepresentations have been esposed and honoured by
       careless Christians who, for tradition's sake, have jettisoned the Bible itself and
       replaced their Christian convictions with falsehood.

Christianity is not about being mute in the face of heresies. The tacit acknowledgement of such falsehood is the reason why we have screaming headlines today of clerics abusing children, sexual perversion, 419 in high places, etc. What would people like yourself mazaje do in the face of such bad news? Of course, you will join hands with people to condemn the whole of Christianity - as if Christianity "approves" of such vices.

In the same vein, where any group or movement projects the very same root idea that give rise to such vices, we as Christians have the moral responsibility to counter such issues and make it clear once and for all that the foundation of such vices are UNBIBLICAL. A case in point is why this thread was started by someone to ask an honest question - for whatever reason he might have asked it.

It is quite a lazy adventure for someone to sit behind closed curtains and assume that we are spreading "hate and division" for pointing out these issues. I, for one, will readily choose to separate from clerics who mount the pulpits and declare that it is alright for them to be engaged in homosexual activities, and look the other way when leaders become pedophiles. We have heard it once too many times how such clerics tell us that the reason why we should all be "united"  under such clandestine activities is that "God loves", "God loves" "God loves" and does not discriminate!!

Don't sit down lazily and tell me that I should be "united" with pedophiles and homosexual clerics because you're too scared to tackle the real issues that we should HATE! I am not afraid to speak out against these issues and others even if your holy cows are gutted! if you truly have any clue about "peace and unity", you should understand why we MUST discuss these issues PUBLICLY and not sit lazily pointing accusing fingers at discussants in your sanctimonious idea of "spreading" hate and division.

mazaje:
Who told you that your faith is better than the catholic faith? how did you know?

I never said anywhere that my faith is "better" - but I have made bold again and again to share why MARIOLATRY is a serious departure from Biblical Christianity.

mazaje:
who were the ones that formed the christian religion?

Definitely NOT Catholics. Go and get your facts right and let us know where you read anywhere that any of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ was a Roman Catholic.

mazaje:
who were the people that choose the books that are now called the bible? who were the ones that choose the various symbols of christianity(cross,rossary,trinity,hyme,choir etc), who were the ones that choose the christain day of worship and christain festivities?

Sorry, that anyone sat down in any committee to choose anything does not attest that those who chose anything actually adhere to the teachings of the Bible. The ones who "chose" the canon of Scripture are not the ones who "wrote" them. The doctrine of the Trinity predates the catholic Church - unless you want to suddenly make the OT prophets into Catholic monks. And as for hymns, you only demonstrate the FACT that you are arguing from a cublicle with a runaway mentality that has refused to carefully check with the facts - for those who sang hymns were NOT Catholics: go see for yourself - [Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Col. 3:16].

mazaje:
Who were the ones that made sure the christianity is what it is today by exterminating all dissidents and making sure that their own way and idea is what remains and is practised all over the world?

Don't make me laugh, mazaje! The Catholics might have murdered hundreds of thousands of dissidents in order to preserve their "Catholic" traditions; but not all Christians practise Catholicism today all over the world. Christians who are non-Catholics do NOT share the ideas of catholicism - that is why they are NOT Catholics - and that is why you have to edit your idea that the Catholic "own way and idea is what remains". Wrong sir.

mazaje:
Have you ever heard of the chattars and the Knight Templers(read about them incase you have no idea of who the are)? would the present day christianity still have been the way it is if not for the catholic church?

Christianity began before Catholicism - it survived inspite of catholcism - it would still have remained despite Catholic efforts to extermintae non-Catholics. Did you ever think of that?

mazaje:
stop wallowing in ignorance and dessist from skewed judgement.

You really need that advice more than anyone on Nairaland.

mazaje:
The answer to all the question I asked above is tha catholic church, The whole christain idea and concept emanated from the catholics

Hahaha! Who was your history teacher again? He or she really shortchanged you for the many years you sat under their tutleage. Please drop your revisionist and edited history and open the books to understand HOW your answer to all those questions have scored you a zero!

mazaje:
no wonder  Pope Leo X (1475-1521), was alleged to have said "the fable of Christ has been quite profitable to us".

Oh dear, many Popes said worse things than Pope Leo X - before and after him. And for all that, they were proven to be nothing short of liars. They might have believed that Christ was a "fable" - for the simple reason that they never had a living relationship with Him. I for one would have been a pagan when I left Islam; but I had a living encouter with the living Christ and proved for myself that Pope Leo was an incorrigible liar. Sorry, truth hurts anyways.

mazaje:
Keep on deluding your self and pretending that your cult is better than that of the others.

I haven't started out anywhere with that as my aim - and your troubled heart needs a peaceful resolve which you can only find in Christ. To attack others in the insane manner you have attempted does not make you a better person, did you ever think of that?

Cheers.

@Blackcat,

Blackcat:
@Pilgrim1

Women are still screaming in the labour wards, was that not pronounced on Eve (Curse)

I have only asked you to look at the text, please. That was not a CURSE - God never cursed Eve.

If God did curse Eve, the implication of a divine curse on her simply means that there is NO REDEMPTION for you - and my dear, that is a more colossal misfortune than you can scream your guts out in any hospital ward!

The problem is that you have been trying to force the word "curse" upon Eve where God did not curse her at all. Where God placed a curse on anyone, He expressly said so - that is why we read that He pronounced a curse upon the serpent (Gen. 3:14 - "thou art cursed" and upon the ground (Gen. 3:17 - "cursed is the ground for thy sake" - but never upon Adam or Eve!!

Blackcat:
Men still find it hard to survive. Was that not pronounced on Adam(Curse)

Men were not cursed for Adam's sake - for Adam was not cursed; nor did God say that he would find it hard to survive!

That Adam was punished to live ALL his days in sorrow does not mean that everyone lives ALL their days in sorrow.

Second, the curse upon the ground for Adam's sake has been repealed during Noah's time:

Genesis 5:29
And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us
concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground
which the LORD hath cursed.

Genesis 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart,
I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the
imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again
smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

I have shared on those before, abi?

Blackcat:
Men still rule over women was that not pronounced on Eve(Curse)

God reiterated His divine purpose for creating Eve - that was not a curse. Eve was created as a helpmeet for Adam. Adam was to rule over his wife even before the Fall - and what God established in Genesis 3 in this regard is simply re-affirming her place in the family as originally intended.

Blackcat:
Now let me educate you by giving you an example each of a curse and a punishment.

Eve you will never in your life again be able to have children without screaming on top of your voice from severe indescribable pain (Curse)

Eve go and do ten frog jumps for eating this apple and after that everything is normal. (punishment)

I appreciate your analogies; but they simply do not bear any weight here.

The Bible is clear when it speaks about a CURSE. When Jesus died upon the Cross for us, He was not simply being PUNISHED for our sins. The wages of sin is death = that's the punishment he endured on our behalf. But remember that besides being punished, the Bible teaches that He was being made "a CURSE for us" in order to redeem people from the CURSE of the LAW (Gal. 3:3)!

Neither Adam nor Eve knew anything about the LAW nor its curse; and how then shall we read a curse into Genesis 3 upon them when there is none?

@+osisi,

[quote author=+osisi link=topic=26946.msg1861759#msg1861759 date=1200589613]bless you pilgrim.[/quote]Bless you plenty, my sister.

(And you, too. . . holythug)

[quote author=+osisi link=topic=26946.msg1861759#msg1861759 date=1200589613]I'll like to start a thread on what Muslim kids are taught.
I need your inputs there[/quote]Well, I do hope that I would not be seen as being deliberately offensive to anyone.

[quote author=+osisi link=topic=26946.msg1861759#msg1861759 date=1200589613]I want to get an insight to the teachings that breed terrorists and turn Gombe children to kill an innocent teacher.[/quote]Hmm. . . that's quite a task. I'll try and shed offer some insight as well.

Cheers.