₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
That being said, God did forbid many things for the previous generations that he permitted for the later generations!
Allah says of Jesus in the Qur'an what means "And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me. (Qur'an 3:50)
And Alcohol was permitted sometime during the Prophet's time till it was later forbidden totally!
So there's no case here.

Baldwretch:
This is simply untrue. What this means is that God can give a law to one prophet and another prophet would come to nullify it in the name of God. No, just no, what a very, very blasphemous thing to say. Even evil spirits never leave humans at the command of another evil spirit except by some higher authority or power. Doing so would screw the Devil's reign and break the order and hierarchy of power. God would not screw his glorious reign by giving orders and counter-orders. Muhammad is a big fraud, period. That is not how God works. That is not how he works. God does not make permissible to a prophet what he has forbidden to other prophets prior. Seriously, you are in for a shocker. Not a single Jewish prophet who came after Moses have made a claim to that effect - that God has now made this-and-that lawful that he didn't make in the past. Dangerous, dangerous teaching! Poisonous poison!

What was made permissible for Christians was after Christ death, not during his lifetime. During his life-time, Christ did not say you can now do this-and-that that Moses. the lawgiver, forbade earlier. He never said that. In fact, in the Gospels, he said that he has not come to abolish the laws of Moses or the writings of the prophets but to fulfill them. In another passage, he said, not one jot, one title can be abolished from God's law until everything is fulfilled. There is a world of difference, my friend.

Baldwretch:
Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:

9 “Of all the marine animals, these are ones you may use for food. You may eat anything from the water if it has both fins and scales, whether taken from salt water or from streams. 10 But you must never eat animals from the sea or from rivers that do not have both fins and scales. They are detestable to you. This applies both to little creatures that live in shallow water and to all creatures that live in deep water. 11 They will always be detestable to you. You must never eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies. 12 Any marine animal that does not have both fins and scales is detestable to you.

46 “These are the instructions regarding land animals, birds, marine creatures, and animals that scurry along the ground. 47 By these instructions you will know what is unclean and clean, and which animals may be eaten and which may not be eaten.”

AntiChristian:
Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water-game and its use for food – for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel…” [al-Maidah 5:96]. So with this all animals that live only in the sea are permissible to eat.

Baldwretch:
This post is an addendum


When an acclaimed prophet gives counter-orders supposedly from God, you know beyond reasonable doubt that he is everything a good prophet is not; it seems something a false prophet would say that God said. God would not screw his beautiful reign by making everyone rich (because he still needs suffering and pain in the world) anymore than he would give an order and then counter what he had said earlier or make a leave or something. NO! NO! Even the devil doesn't

RealityKings1:
One important thing to note is that

Islam developed roughly 600 years after Christianity. Christianity originated in the 1st century CE, while Islam developed in the 7th century CE

RealityKings1:
One important thing to note is that

Islam developed roughly 600 years after Christianity. Christianity originated in the 1st century CE, while Islam developed in the 7th century CE

AntiChristian:
This is partly true and partly false!

All Prophets from Adam to Muhammad practiced Islam.
It's like a relay race with baton!

That's why many other Prophets are mentioned in the Qur'an as Muslims!

AntiChristian:
That's why many other Prophets are mentioned in the Qur'an as Muslims!

RealityKings1:
Wait so, what you mean is Abraham was a Muslim?

AntiChristian:
Yes! He was!

Even Noah, Moses, Joseph and all others!

RealityKings1:
Nothing can be partly true or false.
You either admit it is TRUE or false

How can you practice what was invented several centuries after the existence of the actual source?

RealityKings1:
You are confused

AntiChristian:
I would say the same of you too!

RealityKings1:
One important thing to note is that

Islam developed roughly 600 years after Christianity. Christianity originated in the 1st century CE, while Islam developed in the 7th century CE

AntiChristian:
Jesus said:
A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it. Matthew 15:11

Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him; but the things that come out of a man, these are what defile him. Mark 7:15

You said:


Baldwretch quoted:



So how do we reconcile all these?

Baldwretch:
I must admit your objection is very sound.

However, it is still a red-herring because, as I can see, your objection is a diversionary tactics.

If I said to you that "AntiChristian, stop being a bs, it is not by fasting that you can actually please God, but by doing good deeds and living in fear before your God,", if I said that you you, am I in anyway saying that fasting is not good or is not necessary or requiredof you to please God? No, of course, not.

That appears to be what Christ is saying. Jesus did not give a counter-order. Did he? No of course, he did not. The words of Christ must not be seen as a counter-order; it is simply a reinterpretation of the intents of the law.

Yes, Jesus said it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you (which, for example, appears to contradict the law's demands of not eating ceremonially unclean animals) but he did not replace his words with something else. This clearly shows that he simply reinterpreted the intents of the law, not contradict it. People who give counter-orders usually, not always, make a replacement or a prescription.

And besides, the law never said that what comes out of your mouth does not defile you, or does it say that? In fact, the law agrees with Jesus' interpretation that what comes out of your mouth defiles you. Clearly, it does. That is the central teaching of Christ at the time. The first is obvious, but the latter has not been elucidated very much. If we are not to call God's name in vain, then certainly, even the law agrees that what comes out of your mouth can actually defile you which appears to be what Christ is saying. Haha, gotcha!

And again, Jesus lived among the Jews and understood how much they prioritized external religion, nitpicking little details and abandoning the very essentials of the faith. In one instance, he calls them out because they were careful to tithe every dime and nickel, but ignored the more essential teachings of the law. Did he ask them not to tithe because they neglected weightier doctrines of the law? NO! You have to understand that Jesus had to speak in what I see as a shade of negative to reorient his hearers and to magnify what he thinks is the positive - on what is chiefly required of them. The application is easy here. Positives used to magnify the below positive with descriptors which appears to make below positive seem unnecessary and irrelevant just so the positive can be seen in a different light, but both are required.

They, as well as Jesus, know what it says on eating some defiled things, so when Christ made that statement, it wasn't with the intent of countering what had been laid down or making ceremonially unclean animals look okayish. It was supposed to educate and reorient the hearers on God's holy internal demands which transcends the externals, which, by the way, was also required. It was a sermon on personal holiness, a sermon on a lifestyle that is supposed to trump and that actually trumps external religion. When two things are weighed side by side, the weightier object would make the less weighty object seem like nothing. That is what was at play here, not an abrogation, a contradiction, or something to that effects. There is a difference!

AntiisIam:
I'm coming

AntiChristian:
You are just speaking form both sides of the mouth! Jesus did cancelled that law you brought. That was why the Jews were angry at him after the verse.

A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.” Then the disciples came to Him and said, “Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” Matthew 15:11-12

Abeg no capping!

Your reasoning is faulty!

Peter said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” “Do you still not understand?” Jesus asked. “Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.” Matthew 15:13-20

ChirstFireAltar:
Any religion that supports rape and killing other people is fake religion.

You take women, ladies and girls by force and rape them... You're devil.

You kill people who doesn't support your religion... you're devil.

AbuTwins:
So that means Yahweh Jehovah is fake with all his religion!
Numbers 31:17-18
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destruction all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.

You said Yahweh is devil above!

Baldwretch:
Engineer Abu, is that you?

Oops sorry, AbuTwins! I might need to start wearing glasses. Sorry, I interchanged names. I worked with an engineer in a construction site, a namesake, and to be quite honest, the guy is intelligent. I hope you are, too; all the Abubakar I have interacted with thus far including engineer Abu I mentioned seem to know their onions very well.

Some days ago, I stalked a user by the username AntiChrisitan in a desperate attempt to hear his opinion on the thread subject matter and I said some unprintable words about your prophet (in the process) which are actually terrible accusations. Brooks talked of a man who accused another before Julian the emperor about that which he couldn't prove. After his cross-examination, Julian the emperor dismissed them and asked them to leave his presence. To which the accuser pouted before the emperor, saying, "If it be sufficient to deny what is laid to one's charge, who can be guilty?" And to which Julian sharply responded, "And if it be sufficient to be accused, who can be innocent?"

These accusations of Muhammad being a false prophet, of being a fraud, of being everything a good prophet is not, and more need to be cleared and I would appreciate if you could do justice to the subject. It would be impossible to summarize bit by bit; I would miss some lines because my arguments are not usually of a single thoughts. I go on a tangent very often. I would put some words in quote because I want to learn; I don't want to argue with you. Anyway, so let me summarize them in twelve points.

1. God gave commandments, instructions, regulations to the tribe of Israel through his prophet Moses.

2. These instructions or commands can also be likened to an order and should be seen as such. All God's commands are actually divine orders. And since we are expressly instructed not to add to or subtract from them, it can well be inferred that all divine orders are orders of perpetual injunction that cannot be modified or broken. We are required to just obey them, not modify or tinker with them.

3. An order implies a prohibition by default. That is what is implied. An order should be prohibitive by its very nature. Yes, orders can also be instructive - saying what you should do. But we don't nitpick a prohibitive order since it is what it is by default. I am not even started about corruption of these divine orders or what have you. I am not even talking about that yet. I am just talking about the nature of orders. "They said we should" can be nitpicked, but "they said we should not" cannot be nitpicked since even honest men agree that we need to be gag quite often . Only contentious people do. It's just like Pascal's Wager where he argues thus: "if God exist, you gain everything and if he doesn't exist, then you lose nothing. Wager then that he exist."

4. Like every sphere of rationale and sentient existence, governance requires a chain of authority. Usually, the highest chain of authority (or perceived to be) is the authority that is first in line (not always the case, though) or the authority that God chooses. I would even argue that the authority that God Almighty chooses is usually the first in line for central succession, for how else would we know and identify God's scale of preference among other authorities prophesying in his name at the same time?

We don't start a relay race with a weak athlete. God agrees and confirms this truth to be the case because this authority (I am talking about) is privileged to receive these instructions at the highest and most loftiest level of prophecy - face-to-face as a man talks to a friend, or between the whirling Cherubims in the Holy Of Holies , or from the pillar of Cloud and Fire, or through a theophany, or through an Angel (which happens rarely). It was the highest a man could ever get with God. Nothing can be loftier, nothing can be higher, and nothing can be better. God himself proves his authority with instant judgment when naysayers disagreed with this authority.

5. These instruction was given to the Israelite, a Semitic tribe, which God would use to pull mankind to himself either through acts of warfare or through some other means. The Torah as a body of instruction is not meant for ancient Israel alone, but for all of mankind. The Torah, in several isolated passages, makes it very clear that foreigners are subject to the same decrees, instructions, and commands as the natives are and even makes provisions for (certain non-Jewish race) admittance into the temple.

6. In time, other authorities appeared, gave their prophecies as revealed by God, and then they disappeared. These authorities who came in quick succession have the same objectives - namely, to establish the divine government. I was supposed to call them prophets, but since prophets carry divine authority, no expatiation is needed.

Then comes a "righteous" man who claims to have had a revelation from the same God that appeared to the first authority - Moses. This authority would be renowned for starting off the groundwork for belief in the most "mischievous" of claims; namely, that one authority needs to confirm another authority or that one authority needs to confirm the messages given to another authority by the same God. Also, this authority, as the last authority of his unsubstantiated claim, would cleverly bar his own revelation from thorough "spiritual" scrutiny (not physical examination) since other authorities after him have not been sent.

6. Human government is a terrible mimicry of divine government. There is often wranglings, disagreements, discontents, jostling for power, hijacking for royal successions and more, but that is not so with divine government. Divine government with God on the throne is the most perfect there could ever be of any kind of government. All the delegated authorities agree with each other; respect each other, have the same message regardless of their location or where they live, do not pry into the little details of the contents given to one of them.

No authority re-tells or re-echoes what messages or contents that God the Almighty has revealed to other authorities before him. I didn't have to mention that, but that is actually the case. God glorifies himself immensely and shows the depth of his justice, his power, and especially his love for each of his authorities by hiding from each of the authorities what was disclosed to any of them. We see this at play over and over again. Divine government with the Devil on the throne, even though not as perfect, still show that human government need to be propped with a very long rope. Our government still pales in comparison and far more so. A study of divine government with the Devil on the throne should (or might) educate us on how perfect government is supposed to be run.

7. Also, a study of all the prophets before the authority being referred to is supposed to enlighten us on how perfect government is run.

8. The said authority usurps the role of the first authority, claiming to be a co-central authority and talks about making a couple of instructions "lawful" and "permitted/permissible"- of course, in writing and in deed as the case may be.

9. The said authority claims he has been sent to confirm all the revelations before him and then contradicts the first authority.

10. The contradiction is not a case of textual corruption.

11. Regardless of human locale, environment, or settings, God does not contradict or modify his laws which are the foundation of his government. Even the Devil doesn't. God would not go back on his words which he made to one of his servants when he calls another. That is everything God is not. And even if he does go back on his words, the first of his flock would be the unlikeliest to fall victim because he would not undermine his authority.

12. The said authority cannot be trusted to be an oracle of the Most High, and the problem is not with God, but with the messenger.

The conclusion is therefore necessary and obvious: He is not a prophet sent by God. He is a prophet of his own imagination; he concocted everything.

Please AbuTwins, change my view.

AbuTwins:
Actually, i am not that intelligent as your Abu(bakar).

AbuTwins:
It would have made sense if you included verses from the scriptures to elucidate your points. As in, show us where the Torah was sent to the whole world instead of Israelites alone. Show us how Jesus never said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel in the Bible! Show us how you thought God contradicted or modify his laws and what laws? All your points needs verses for me to fully grasp your thought!

AbuTwins:
For example the verses below are points to note that the Torah is specifically for the Israelites:
1.
"Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Exodus 19:5-6
This verse highlights the unique covenant between God and the Israelites.

2.
"This is the law that Moses set before the people of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the rules which Moses spoke to the people of Israel when they came out of Egypt." Deuteronomy 4:44-45
Here, it explicitly states that the laws were given to the people of Israel.

3.
"And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.'" Deuteronomy 5:1
This addresses the Israelites directly, emphasizing their responsibility to the laws.

4.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:2-3
The phrase "your God" is a direct reference to the Israelite people.

5.
"These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai." Leviticus 26:46
This reinforces the notion that the laws were specifically for the Israelites.

Over to you!

Baldwretch:
I made a post here about the Torah being a guide for all mankind for all ages because God's covenant with Abraham's offspring is supposed to transcend them.

https://www.nairaland.com/8306103/torah-supposed-benefit-all-mankind

Some books in the bible are dedicated in their entirety towards wars, fighting wars; like the book of Joshua. I don't have to bring up verses for every claim I make.

In fact, after the death of Moses, God spoke to Joshua in the fifth verse of the book reiterating a promise he had made to Moses several years earlier. This is what he told him:

Joshua 1 vs 3: I promise you what I promised Moses: ‘Wherever you set foot, you will be on land I have given you— from the Negev wilderness in the south to the Lebanon mountains in the north, from the Euphrates River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, including all the land of the Hittites.’ No one will be able to stand against you as long as you live. For I will be with you as I was with Moses. I will not fail you or abandon you.

And I would remind you of one of the promises he made to Moses. But what did he promise him?

Deuteronomy. 11 vs 4:

Wherever you set foot, that land will be yours. Your frontiers will stretch from the wilderness in the south to Lebanon in the north, and from the Euphrates River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. No one will be able to stand against you....

That is a very large swath of land up for grabs right there. From east to west, from the eastern sea to the western sea. I am not making this up. The area covered under this divine promise might blow the mind. If God gave these ancient people a piece of land that covered that large of a swath of land through subjugating others; God gave the Children of Israel a land that they is not theirs and that they are not indigenous to. A land that is not theirs. How? Warfare. The idea of a warfare must necessarily include dominion and expansion. It is implied by default. No verses needed to buttress this. if it wasn't given to a bunch of slobs and drunkards on a rocking chair fermenting alcohol, then can we reasonably conclude that they weren't supposed to expand, dominate, and subject conquered territories to obey the laws that God gave them? If you won a war through warfare, wouldn't you ascribe all the glory to the God who you think, in fact, made it possible? Would you have, or would the Torah have to instruct them to do it? Do we need to provide verses for this? The question you should be asking is, do we have any prohibitions against foreigners worshiping the Jewish God, or not subjected to his laws? The answer is a resounding no. In fact, the law says in the book of Numbers that native born and foreigners are subject to the same laws.

Please read the link I shared up there.

These verses you just quoted do not say that those who are subjected/conquered are not to be subjected to Torah rules. That would be a different thing entirely. You seriously need to explain how God's covenant with the people of Israel prevents others from worshiping him? Let me ask you one question; if God would draw mankind to himself in ancient times without subjugation, would street evangelism or smooth talk from city-to-city and from town-to-town accomplish the purpose? Would a people who are already neck deep in fetishism accept a
stranger's message about a God they do not know? Do you think God's strategy of using warfare is an afterthought?

AbuTwins:
I can't be able to sieve through a full thread at the moment so i will base my response on what is here. Whenever a law is made, the users and coverage are usually stated. Also whenever a messenger (or Prophet) is sent to a people or nation, the message and the audience are clearly stated. We do not judge based on what is not given which is what i see you doing.

AbuTwins:
Ẹlẹdẹ kẹ!

Haram!

Ezi!

AbuTwins:
Allah forbids it in the Qur'an!

AbuTwins:
Pork is forbidden in Islam according to the text of the Quran, where Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“He has forbidden you only the Maytah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine…” [al-Baqarah 2:173]

Camel is not forbidden!

Baldwretch:
@Qasim6 my guy, you gave it to me woto-woto in one of my alt accounts sometimes back.

This post here:

https://www.nairaland.com/8017674/dont-think-qurans-claims-divine

Please come and give me woto-woto in this one! Let me fucking cry. I need to cry. No one has been able to!

For a start, please state your position.

Edit: Let me add another scenario of an order and a counter order:





Pork? Why is it haram?





O Wow! Tell me more.

What of camel?








Christian policeman here! Officers on patrol, where are you guys na, catch this guy.

Handcuff him, he must not be allowed to escape! He has the temerity to call what is forbidden as clean! Gag him by the mouth so he's unable to talk; he must not escape.



Interrogations ongoing

Who says? Says who? God Almighty or Muhammad?

Who told you that the camel is not forbidden too? Are you going to pick and choose what is clean? Does it look like a camel has evenly split hooves? Does it look like to you?

If I may ask you, on what authority do we decide what is and what is not forbidden?

Qasim6:
Lol. Guy u are funny.

I'm just going to ask you a question now.

Can a Christian eat pork?

Baldwretch:
My guy well-well!

Are you going to use what Christians believe or hold as true to prove Islamic truth? Please don't. You shouldn't.

What Christians do, believe, or hold as true might not, after all, be true.

For the sake of this argument, no, Christians cannot eat pork. I don't know of others but at least I don't eat pork, never have, and I am a Christian!

Appeal to what you believe; don't bring the most corrupt religion into it.