₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
It is mentioned in the book of Leviticus, .12:1-5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partum period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus: 1-5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. If she gives birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like you to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

Mightysparrow can you explain the science behind this addition when a female is given birth to that of mail?

MightySparrow:
All you have referred to are spiritual nothing scientific about it. I hope you know scientific laws are universal and timeless. The instructions here are only for Israelites and time bound.

AntiChristian:
Explain how spiritual it was then? And what stops it from being spiritual now? We

MightySparrow:
In levitical laws, there are something called ceremonial cleansing (theological term). It covers almost all the Israelites lifestyle. There is nothing scientific there. You just take one out of many. There are clean animals, cleanliness for ovulation, cleanliness for man's discharge, types of farming and crops to plant, etc. This was primarily because when the Israelites were journeying from Egypt to Canaan, God desires to visit their camps. He gave this orders.

After reaching Canaan, some of these were no longer necessary. So, today, no one goes to any Temple in Jerusalem. In fact, the Temple was destroyed according to the prophecy of Daniel about 700 CE and Jesus in Matthew 24. Today, we have worshippers all over the world. Moreso, the Old Testament has be revoked, replaced with a new one with new laws.
That is why we laugh when you go into the trash can to bring a topic and begin to criticize and drum it hard for consideration. No one takes such serious again.

The Bible has a record of progressive revelation till we arrived where we are now. In the last post, I qouted in Galatians where we are told the Law was a school teacher, it was to point us to holiness of spirit, soul, and body.

A very good analogy, I don't know if you are a science person. For instance, none of Dalton atomic theory is true today, yet, any student of chemistry would still learn it just to know the road taken to where we are now.

Bless you.

AntiChristian:
Of course i am a lab scientist and chemistry is my specialization. Dalton's atomic theory is not entirely false as some just needs modifications! And that's science. The science of today may be modified in the coming generations!

Are you saying this is what God did in the Bible? He modified the laws as he wishes for particular people according to the time!

Stop quoting letters of Paul as Paul never met Jesus. Jesus already said it was finished according to your Bible. So he needed no Paul.

Can you explain why different number of days exist when a female is born to when a male is born? How is this spiritual?

MightySparrow:
Don't let us debate science. I said, nothing to explain. It was given to a people, in their dispensation, land and clime. We are in different dispensation now under new revelation and spiritual understanding. Any Rabbi still practicing Judaism will know better. Look for one online, he could be of help.

MightySparrow:
All you have referred to are spiritual nothing scientific about it. I hope you know scientific laws are universal and timeless. The instructions here are only for Israelites and time bound.

AntiChristian:
He don tire you?

You started the science and religion thing!
I am just starting with you!

God brought Judaism and later upgraded his syllabus to Christianity, why?

sonmvayina:
For the Israelites and has nothing to do with you. We have similar tradition in my place. It is just so the man can't mate with her again...most times to allow the woman's milk flow well and not contaminated....unclean is usually used in this context...

MightySparrow:
I hope you followed the discussion.

AntiChristian:
It is mentioned in the book of Leviticus, .12:1-5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partum period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus: 1-5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. If she gives birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like you to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

Mightysparrow can you explain the science behind this addition when a female is given birth to that of mail?

Baldwretch:
Hello AntiChristian, this is a nice question.

Women, by virtue of birth, take twice as long to be cleansed from their ceremonial defilement as men are. The law is clear. God is clear on this matter. God gave the law. He knows why. There is nothing scientific about this. It has to do with the inherent nature of both sexes and how much of their nature alienates them from worship.

If you read the law carefully, you'd discover that women's nature hinder them from communion with God. They cannot serve as priests or Levites; they are not allowed to enter the temple of God for at least nine days every month; their redemption price is half as much as men's; their service to God is only so far as their male guardian permits them and many more. If anything, a woman's biological nature is a great hindrance to worship. Actually, women are just men who had to take a subordinate reproductive role, so there's not much of spirituality .

We cannot rationalize the ways of the Theos Pantacreator as the old Greeks call him except you just want to argue. Why are some apparently sweet, nutritious, and big catch deemed "unclean" for consumption, what makes them unclean, why is a man declared unclean for nocturnal emission, why do we have to rest one day in seven, why do we have to.... Well, let me stop here, but suffice to say that there are many why's that have no scientific backings. These instructions have to do with God's sovereign pleasure and his sovereign rights to demand of his creatures as he deems fit. There might be many reasons why these instructions might be scientifically-wise, but which we are oblivious to.

Take, for instance cleanliness, cleanliness might be good and God requires it, but it is not required because it is good, it is required because God commands it. It becomes good because of God's command. There is a difference.

AntiChristian:
I agree with your position but if it's Islam Mightysparrow will kill us with women enslavement! Women equality! Women this and that!
So why has this syllabus of cleansing expired now?

AntiChristian:
I agree with your position but if[b] it's Islam Mightysparrow will kill us with women enslavement![/b] Women equality! Women this and that!
So why has this syllabus of cleansing expired now?

Baldwretch:
God makes the rules, not us.

However, attacking and asking for scientific backing for a position you agree with (online) is very unwise. The position of the law on certain matter is quite clear and no need to talk about that. I honestly do not have problems with Muhammed's personal lifestyle and choices whether he owned slaves or he didn't; whether fought wars or he didn't; whether he married many women or only a few. A man's moral failings might be as high as Everest and still be used by God. And still be called by God.

What I have problem with his theological opinion. His theological opinion has led many astray. He seems to be, in all honesty, demon-possessed. He has succeeded in creating a gulf between two groups under his emilokan mentality. That is why he is, to me, a garbage. A reeking, filthy piece of shit. A putrfying nonsense.

AntiChristian:
By what standard do you judge the moral failings that are not in the Bible from your God?

I will like you to mention the theological opinion! Let's dive into the emilokan mentality and the Putrefying nonsense from the Bible!

Baldwretch:
Muhammad's moral or might I say religious standing, if scrutinized, would be found to be very deficient, but I don't judge him on the basis of that since his humanity, like other humans, would pale in comparison to God's righteous demands. In that regards, he is everything but a saint.

However, what I judge him by is his theological opinion and his claims about being the last line of prophets of the "Abrahamic convenant."

He clearly does not know what he is talking about. Let me point to one of his theological blunders: the death of Christ.

Muhammad claimed that Christ was not crucified, but was only made to appear so. Clearly, this man has not a single clue what he is talking about. If he contradicted only the New Testament, that would have bee a little tolerable, but he contradicts the Old as well.

He is the second person to trigger a campaign of calumny against Moses under his Awalokan mentality claiming like Miriam did - Has God spoken to only Moses - no - he has spoken to all of us too! It is extremely disconcerting I must say that he would, in his tales of lies, contradict the Law, and not in one or two or three isolated cases, and yet, this same man claims to be a confirmation of what has been sent before him.

You cannot, for the life of you, compare the bible and the Quran. You cannot. You should not! That would reduce you to something less than nothing. It is the Quran that should be scrutinized, not the bible. If God suffered the Arabs to worship idols, to continue in their paths for many hundred of thousands of years AFTER THE BIBLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND CANONIZED, then it is the Quran that should be scrutinized not the bible. Muhammad met the bible, and not the other way round.

AntiChristian:
Every nation had messengers sent to them!

AntiChristian:
Scrutinize it and show your standard of criticism so that we can judge the Bible too with your standard!

AntiChristian:
Those who read the old testament alone do not believe in Jesus at all. You must have the prior knowledge of Jesus and the trinity to see both in the old testament. Jews don't see Jesus anywhere in the old testament! So why is this lie against the Prophet of Islam?

AntiChristian:
What did he contradict? Make clear your claims? When the people brought a fornicator to Jesus for stoning according to the law of Moses did Jesus let them use the law on her?

AntiChristian:
Didn't God destroyed the people of Noah with flood?
Also the people of Lot?
Also Pharaoh and his armies?

And don't add lies to your speech! Muhammad met some scripts of the Injeel and Torah not "the Bible"!

AntiChristian:
He don tire you?

You started the science and religion thing!
I am just starting with you!

God brought Judaism and later upgraded his syllabus to Christianity, why?

Baldwretch:
This is the first point I want to address. You said:



WRONG! VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG! Every nation has not had messengers sent to them. In fact, most nation have not had an intimate relationship with God like the Jews had. God permitted the Arabs and other human race to suffer in their idolatry, to go their various ways for many, many years before the Law and even after, even the Arabs, for many years before Muhammad was born. Do I hear you still insist that - No, God did not suffer most nations to go their way for a large part of history? Well, if that is not the case, you would not be in need of Islamic missionaries from distant lands to preach Islam to you. The messengers from your own nation as sent by God should have proselytized you before those Arab missionaries had the slightest clue of your location on the map. Why do you need a bunch of missionaries thousands of miles away if God has not suffered you and your peers to wander in your ways? It is because God has not called most nations to himself and hasn't prophets from that bunch, and that is why people from distant lands have to come over with their parchments and scrolls to preach their own religion to you. My ancestors were traditionalist and so were yours. If God has not suffered most nations to go their various ways, there would be, by any rough estimate, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of religious groups, movements, and religion each claiming to emanate from the Abrahamic God with their versions of the truth and there would have proof to back it up.




There's nothing to scrutinize about Muhammed because he even admitted that he is a sinner.

Talking to the Jews, Christ and none else could say what he said. Not Moses, not Daniel, Ezekiel, or any of the other prophets of the past could say what Christ said. Asking, he said, "Which of you can truthfully[b] accuse me of sin[/b]?" That is a very bold statement. A very loud statement! Can Muhammad say same? No, of course not, he can't.

I don't have to repeat this. Like other prophets before him, he is a sinner, period. And if we would judge him by God's righteous standards in his morality and day-to-day life he would fail woefully and miserably.



No, you must not. The Prophets of Old predicted with great clarity the coming of Christ. Daniel gives a very precise timeline of his coming and of his exist. In fact, Daniel saw Jesus. If you doubt me, go and read Daniel 7 very well; when you've done that, identify who the Son of Man is. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Malachi, Joel and other Jewish prophets talked about a future messenger. Now, let me ask you: Did Moses exist before he was born? NO! What about Elijah? NO! Daniel? NO! Now, let me ask you again, did Christ exist before he was born as a human being? YES! There is a hell of a difference, my man.

Going further, did Muhammad exist before he was born? No, of course not. You see, all human existence is contingent on their birth, but the same is not true and cannot be said of Christ. The divinity of Christ is a hot topic, even in some Christian circles and I do not claim to have a definite answer, but whether you believe Christ is not God or not the Son of God or not... Well, we all can agree that he is one of Heaven's dwellers before his birth. He was with God in Heaven and was sent down to earth before his birth. That cannot be said of anyone, not Moses, Ezekiel, or even Muhammad. All prophets are called to serve in time. After their birth. Their prophet-hood is contingent on their birth. Not so with Christ. He was called outside time. Before his human birth. That makes him more than just another human prophet even as the circumstances surrounding his birth clearly shows, so no, I am not peddling lies against your prophet.




God's laws can neither be improved upon or redacted. It should not be added to and nothing should be subtracted from it. What I am trying to say is this, there's a chain of authority in the Law. Yes, all scriptures do not have equal authority. You heard that right. Let me fixate on the Old since it is the cornerstone, the foundation of anything that might follow. Now, in the Old Testament which the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, there's a chain of authority. The books are divided into three: the Law, which is the first five books of Gen - Deu., then the prophets, which encompasses several prophetic books and then finally the Writings. So, we have the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

The chain of authority is as follows; The Law first and foremost, and then the Prophets, and then the Writings. If, for example, a book grouped among the Writings contradicts the Law, then the Law is to be followed, or if a book grouped among the Prophets contradicts the Law, even still, the Law is to be followed. The Law is the be all and end all of all true religion. It is the first and the last instruction for all true adherents. Now, as you know, Muhammad claims to be a prophet (I might have to write a piece today or morrow and tag you along) but he contradicts the Law. He contradicts the Law in no small way. He does this in two ways: He adds to its instructions, he cast doubts in the instructions given, and then removes from it. He is guilty of all three. All the prophets who came before him neither added, subtracted, or gave a new body of laws as revealed from God. None at all. If God wanted his people to fast more than once a year, for instance, or if he wanted his worshipers to pray five times in a day, he would not have to wait more than 2000 years to effect it.

Jesus could bend the rules because he is more than a human prophet and not under the chain of authority I just spoke about. He is not bound to the law. He is greater than the lawgiver. Muhammad is not. The prophets who came before him are not.




What is the Bible if not the Gospel and the Torah. And how do you know how many scripts he had. He even had pseudo-epigraphas, non-canonical books, deutero-cannonical books and many more. Lol.

Baldwretch:
This is the first point I want to address. You said:

WRONG! VERY, VERY, VERY WRONG! Every nation has not had messengers sent to them. In fact, most nation have not had an intimate relationship with God like the Jews had. God permitted the Arabs and other human race to suffer in their idolatry, to go their various ways for many, many years before the Law and even after, even the Arabs, for many years before Muhammad was born. Do I hear you still insist that - No, God did not suffer most nations to go their way for a large part of history? Well, if that is not the case, you would not be in need of Islamic missionaries from distant lands to preach Islam to you. The messengers from your own nation as sent by God should have proselytized you before those Arab missionaries had the slightest clue of your location on the map. Why do you need a bunch of missionaries thousands of miles away if God has not suffered you and your peers to wander in your ways? It is because God has not called most nations to himself and hasn't prophets from that bunch, and that is why people from distant lands have to come over with their parchments and scrolls to preach their own religion to you. My ancestors were traditionalist and so were yours. If God has not suffered most nations to go their various ways, there would be, by any rough estimate, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of religious groups, movements, and religion each claiming to emanate from the Abrahamic God with their versions of the truth and there would have proof to back it up.

There's nothing to scrutinize about Muhammed because he even admitted that he is a sinner.

Talking to the Jews, Christ and none else could say what he said. Not Moses, not Daniel, Ezekiel, or any of the other prophets of the past could say what Christ said. Asking, he said, "Which of you can truthfully[b] accuse me of sin[/b]?" That is a very bold statement. A very loud statement! Can Muhammad say same? No, of course not, he can't.

I don't have to repeat this. Like other prophets before him, he is a sinner, period. And if we would judge him by God's righteous standards in his morality and day-to-day life he would fail woefully and miserably.

No, you must not. The Prophets of Old predicted with great clarity the coming of Christ. Daniel gives a very precise timeline of his coming and of his exist. In fact, Daniel saw Jesus. If you doubt me, go and read Daniel 7 very well; when you've done that, identify who the Son of Man is. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Malachi, Joel and other Jewish prophets talked about a future messenger. Now, let me ask you: Did Moses exist before he was born? NO! What about Elijah? NO! Daniel? NO! Now, let me ask you again, did Christ exist before he was born as a human being? YES! There is a hell of a difference, my man.

Going further, did Muhammad exist before he was born? No, of course not. You see, all human existence is contingent on their birth, but the same is not true and cannot be said of Christ. The divinity of Christ is a hot topic, even in some Christian circles and I do not claim to have a definite answer, but whether you believe Christ is not God or not the Son of God or not... Well, we all can agree that he is one of Heaven's dwellers before his birth. He was with God in Heaven and was sent down to earth before his birth. That cannot be said of anyone, not Moses, Ezekiel, or even Muhammad. All prophets are called to serve in time. After their birth. Their prophet-hood is contingent on their birth. Not so with Christ. He was called outside time. Before his human birth. That makes him more than just another human prophet even as the circumstances surrounding his birth clearly shows, so no, I am not peddling lies against your prophet.

God's laws can neither be improved upon or redacted. It should not be added to and nothing should be subtracted from it. What I am trying to say is this, there's a chain of authority in the Law. Yes, all scriptures do not have equal authority. You heard that right. Let me fixate on the Old since it is the cornerstone, the foundation of anything that might follow. Now, in the Old Testament which the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, there's a chain of authority. The books are divided into three: the Law, which is the first five books of Gen - Deu., then the prophets, which encompasses several prophetic books and then finally the Writings. So, we have the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

The chain of authority is as follows; The Law first and foremost, and then the Prophets, and then the Writings. If, for example, a book grouped among the Writings contradicts the Law, then the Law is to be followed, or if a book grouped among the Prophets contradicts the Law, even still, the Law is to be followed. The Law is the be all and end all of all true religion. It is the first and the last instruction for all true adherents. Now, as you know, Muhammad claims to be a prophet (I might have to write a piece today or morrow and tag you along) but he contradicts the Law. He contradicts the Law in no small way. He does this in two ways: He adds to its instructions, he cast doubts in the instructions given, and then removes from it. He is guilty of all three. All the prophets who came before him neither added, subtracted, or gave a new body of laws as revealed from God. None at all. If God wanted his people to fast more than once a year, for instance, or if he wanted his worshipers to pray five times in a day, he would not have to wait more than 2000 years to effect it.

Jesus could bend the rules because he is more than a human prophet and not under the chain of authority I just spoke about. He is not bound to the law. He is greater than the lawgiver. Muhammad is not. The prophets who came before him are not.

What is the Bible if not the Gospel and the Torah. And how do you know how many scripts he had. He even had pseudo-epigraphas, non-canonical books, deutero-cannonical books and many more. Lol.

AntiChristian:
This is essentially false. All nations got one or more messengers from God ! But as time goes on the message becomes corrupted or entirely forgotten!
Noah was sent to his people and later the flood happened. Again People populated the land and reverted to their corrupt ways! Noah as well as Abraham were not Jews! Same Noah and Abraham became the ancestors of the Arabs, Israelites and others!

AntiChristian:
Of course the Bible also says Jesus was a man and all man has sinned and come short..... So Muhammad as well as all humans are not free of sins!

You should tell us the full context. What you mentioned there is John 8:48. And in John 8:37, Jesus mentioned that they wanted to kill him because they have no room for his word! So what crime did he commit for them to want to kill him! That's the context!

AntiChristian:
Daniel saw Jesus? lol. The future messenger talked about fits many other people than Jesus! And Jesus didn't exist before he was born! That "before Abraham was i am" verse na lie! He never existed anywhere! Just as he's unaware of anything on earth at the moment!

Nobody existed before they were born! All these are mere fabricated conjectures upon Jesus to make him share of God's divinity! It is only the Christian God that needs partners and son to help in his dominion! Abeg your premise is already faulty!

AntiChristian:
Who classified the Books in this way i.e. Law, Prophets and Writings? When was it classified? So What you are saying should be if God wanted his son to have died for humans, he should have died for everyone before Adam to save us the stress! He shouldn't have waited for several millennia to come and die! I guess God was unaware of what would happen so he forgot to plan ahead!

AntiChristian:
Stop quoting letters of Paul as Paul never met Jesus. Jesus already said it was finished according to your Bible. So he needed no Paul.

Can you explain why different number of days exist when a female is born to when a male is born? How is this spiritual?

Padipadi:
Ya headache has always been Paul.
What about accounts from Matthew, Mark, Luke & John?
What about Peter and James?
Didn't they meet Prophet Issa?
Will you throw away their accounts?
Did they do anything related to Momoh?
Didn't they receive anointing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? Are they related to ya religion?
Now answer this with sense.

You discredit Paul but Allah his honoring him.
All the plan of you and ya janjaweèds is to twist doctrines and use it to confuse gullible ones but the whole world now have less gullible people. Many have found light in Christianity. The remaining dûmbass are with you and ya imams of hellfire.
Paul didn't meet Jesus but you still discredited those that met Issa. A times to argue blindly, you go say new testament isn't good and Christians should do old testament. And when ya mentãl illnëss resurface, you go still condemn the old testament. Janjaweèds like you go talk say Koran is mixture of old testament and ya own version of Arabia. All to suit ya narratives. Repent, you fit be a chosen to be a Catholic priest but you must be castrated by force because you look like a criminal, like a rapist wannabe. No chances must be taken to deradicalize you.

AntiChristian:
But Paul wrote more than all of them disciples and Jesus put together!
Without Paul Christianity is thrash!
In fact, your religion is Paulinity!

Paulinity, also known as Pauline Christianity, Pauline theology, or Paulism, is a Christian theology and belief system that originated from the writings of Paul the Apostle.

Padipadi:
To ya tents oh janjaweèd. You can call him Paulinus or Paulister.
Who Jehovah don bless no janjaweèd and jealous negro can curse. Not even ya slave masters from arab deserts.
Keep defiling underaged girls and govt agencies worldwide will be focused on ya.
Paul was one of the apostles and he was filled with spirit of Allah. He didn't convert anyone to Christianity by raising a sword. You can't boast about that from ya end in Arabia religion. And if you are jealous why not hug transformer? You are becoming a lunatic that will be abandoned by all mairalanders. Ya threads will be dumped in abyss. Keep crying mofø. Moan loud cos you ain't getting any 72 faaageeens.
Come and talk about accounts of Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and James. They all Issa (PBUH). Let's assume Paul is out of context. Shey you go talk say make people forget new testament in total?
If an Imam or Sheikhs lived several years after Momoh but contributed to ya religion, will you say he isn't qualified like Paul?

AntiChristian:
Your level of asininity don peak o!

Padipadi:
You are the asininity. So be it for you in the name of Allah.
You have raised too many blasphemous topics and you were answered legitimately. The best option for you is to live and let others live.

AntiChristian:


Pele! Ezi!