₦airaland Forum

gists:
The courts in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States have accepted the extensive and growing body of research showing that battered partners can use force to defend themselves and sometimes kill their abusers because of the abusive and sometimes life-threatening situation in which they find themselves, acting in the firm belief that there is no other way than to kill for self-preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defence

May I ask, which of those countries mensioned above is an Islamic state? Yet women face life-threatening situation everyday _{even in the US that you've so much glorified.}

And may I ask which of the countries you mentioned are declared as a Christian state in the same way you're asking the question about Islamic state?

Our concern has been what the Qur'an recommends in the treatment of women vs what the Bible recommends. The references in your weblink did not include either of the two books at the end of the article. So, what's the cheap interjection you're trying to insinuate??

And how do Prov. 11:9 and Job 13:16 prove or disprove the deity of Jesus Christ?? Or, you have a quarrel with yourself??

@lafile,

I'll post something in a while that might be of interest after settling in for the day. . . wanna go see some of my pallies b4 I travel again!

Cheers.

NB. Yep, we'll just iggy Rev.

No, and no!! . . . not when they see a lion around the corner sha!

Lol, okay. . . just kidding with those pair of goo-goo eyes  

However, I will still stand on that prayer - and will say it again:

God bless and bless and bless you today and always, from this very minute in the mighty name of Jesus Christ.

Bless all.

lafile:
A question was asked by Shahan on the thread 'Is Jesus God?'. the question is ' before Jesus became a man, WHO WAS HE (IN HEAVEN)? I like to know everyones thought on this.

Hee-hee-hee!

I go just maintain for now until others contribute. Cheers.

trini_girl:
I will concede a bit, and be open to hear the contention of women not teaching in the "church" so as not to seem as if they are better than men, since I am open to correction.

However, I am not yet convinced.

Nne trini_girl,

I'm a loser when it comes to writing igbo pidgin, but just want to rejoice in the way the Spirit of God is leading you. . . the hot parts apart. May He increase you more and more, bless you beyond me, staisfy your deepest longing. . . and above all, may He use you greater than my persuasions. God bless and bless and bless you, sis. Amen!!

Nne trini_girl,

The chauvanist and pharisaic intones notwithstanding, you still have gaping holes in your super-spirituality, my dear. We all agree that the letter kills, but still with your higher spirituality, you still haven't given us God's Word. I told you before, those women you sat under have been a help to your life - bless God and enjoy it. But they cannot explain the verses I quoted to you; neither have you attempted it.

Rest assure, no matter how super spiritual you may sound, the Word of God does not rest on guess work and probability. How many times did you quote "maybe". . . "maybe"?? And even in I Cor. 11 and I Tim. 2 verse quoted, not one time did Paul hint that what he stated there were his personal opinion "as a man." Otherwise, you're choosing and picking verses to suit your uncertainties - and, my dear, that will not do.

So, the super-spiritual camouflage notwithstanding, God's Word is clear on this issue - and let's get something more to the point in your inputs.

Bless up.

lafile:
From your interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." it follows that women should not speak at all in the churches ( which means the body of Christ and not a church building). so please specify exactly in what setting women can teach, as you said Besides, I clearly delineated that women can teach in particular settings .

Tit 2:3-5
"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be >>

       (a) sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
       (b) to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home,
       (c) good, obedient to their own husbands,

that the word of God be not blasphemed."

Arrangements mine; and that's one example. Cheers.

TV01:
It also suggests that one cannot understand scripture without an understanding of the cultural setting of the time it was written. It lends credence to the “Bible needs updating for our times” and “contextual interpretation” schools of thought, which have been largely responsible for the denial of the truth of the scriptures. Please don’t go there.

It is the same argument used by the gay-homosexual lobby in reference to the scriptures relating to same-sex relationships. It the thin end of the wedge. Again, please don’t.

Grateful.

@ufanIma,

ufanIma:
Shahan, your scriptural imputs are all right.  what am not agreeing with is your inference that if women preach they are  

usurp authority or teach.

No, that's not my inference. I didn't confuse preaching and teaching; and in clear terms I offered that women can indeed preach, but that the text in I Tim. 2:12 does not assume the role of teaching in church for women.

ufanIma:
Women that are ordained as pastors are not in anyway usurping  authority - it is God's  gift that is not partial to male or female.

It may shock you that I agree with you without risking the gist of my previous lines. The only point we should note is that many people have come a long way in traditional persuasions that a pastor is necessarily "the boss" of a local church - and that puts them in authority to be teachers. That simply misses the point. Pastors can shepherd a church in other ways without assuming roles that they are not called to perform.

So, while I agree that there are women pastors indeed according to God's Word, it still stands that women are "not to teach or usurp authority over the man as we read in I Tim. 2:12.

ufanIma:
The gifts of the spirit and the ministerial gifts are not based on men or women.

Sadly, I'm not one of those using that idea as an excuse to be blind to the roles of men and women in the church.

ufanIma:
If a women is blessed with the gift of teaching or prophesying and she is called or ordained, so must be silent because she is a woman?

Not necessarily, but until you find a verse that negates the clear Word on I Tim. 2:12, I stand on God's instruction and not men's persuasion.

ufanIma:
I agree with TV01, our God is a God of order but he is not a male chauvinist.

Lol, I don't think that the texts in my rejoinders make me a male chauvinist. If the roles are so confusing for many people, I could simply offer to quote loads of them without comments and ask that you explain them for us.

Bless.

Lol, @trini_girl

Nevermind the rubbish and nonsense parts of your rejoinders - I understand why you feel so. In anycase, those women you sat under can't teach you God's mind on the scriptures I quoted; they don't know its application, no vex.

Besides, I clearly delineated that women can teach in particular settings - and if that hasn't gone down well, what's the nonsense and rubbish about it?

Your understanding of the Corinthian case is appreciated, but not until you have gone through the whole epistle will you see the weakness of your assumptions. May I ask why you thought I Cor. 4:17 only meant the Gospel?

In all, many blessings for your inputs - I like the heat!

All this encyclopedia just to prove that Muhammad was a prophet??

Lol, it's funny how our muslim friends will come up with long tales to prove the Bible wrong, just because it exposes Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer, rapist, child molester with a twisted pedophilic drive, a pirate, murderer and a thieving marauder - all of which we have proven from their own Qur'an and Hadiths.

I Cor. 6:9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Muhammad was all and more of these, that's why he sold Muslims the cheap lie that the Bible is corrupt - he simply dreaded the consequences of his sins and yet did not find respite in his idol at the end of his life.

If you're smart, you ought to know that only the One without sin can save you from your sins - and no one is like Him: Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Men and women are together in the priesthood of the New Covenant:

I Pet. 2:5 - "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." ["Ye" refers to both men and women; and the service of this priesthood is to offer spiritual sacrifices.]

I Pet. 2:9 - "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" [again, "ye" refers to both males and females.]

Both can preach the Gospel, but women are not to usurp authority or teach.

ufanIma:
shahan, inas much as you've quoted the bible quite extensively, I beg to disagree with this. So were women created to cook and clean sicne you talk about differentiated roles in the home and at the church?

If you can quote the scriptures to show that my inputs were wrong, please do so. Cheers.

1 Cor. 14:34 >> "Let your women keep silence in the church[b]es[/b]: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

1 Tim. 2:11-12 >> "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

God's Word applies everywhere to all Christians at all times. The idea that the Corinthian's case was a separate or extreme issue is negated by the fact that churches is in the plural - it was not just to the Corinthian church, but to the churches. Paul didn't make that a separate case, because he reminds us that what he preached in one church is what he preaches in every church where he went ["as I teach every where in every church" - I Cor. 4:17].

Women are to preach the Gospel as well as the men - Matt. 28:19-20. The sphere of this ministry is to all the world, in order that people might come to know Christ and come to be saved. This was the kind of ministry that several women mentioned in texts as in Rom. 16 engaged in. Besides, women are encouraged to pray in church just as the men pray - I Cor. 11:4-5. Older or more matured women can also teach younger women in church about handling issues pertaining to family life (Tit. 2:3-5). Children and donkeys are nowhere mentioned as teaching others in Church.

It is well to note that while men and women together share the grace of life on equal terms (I Pet. 3:7), they are not called to play the same roles in the home (Eph. 5:22-24) or in the church (1 Cor. 14:34). People who push certain ideas of women teaching in churches are closing their eyes to God's Word. Bottomline: women are not to betake themselves to teaching in church; but yes, they can preach the Gospel to the unsaved.

Hi angelz,

It depends on the version you were reading. Some modern versions take the liberty of paraphrasing that verse to reflect what they think (and in most cases, the guys behind them have a hard time believing in the deity of Christ); but on the whole it turns out they fail to capture the sense.

I believe the traditional rendering of the verse as captured in the KJV (and some others) gives a good sense of Phil. 2:6, in which it says that Christ. . ."Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery[b][/b] to be equal with God."

The verse wasn't denying Christ's being equal with God; rather it affirms His equality with God, but points out that such a fact was not considered by Christ as robbing God of His divinity. Against the backdrop of any accusation that people were making out Christ to be more than He was, the verse affirms His deity and declares that Christ did not consider that as robbery.

An example of this accusation can be found in John 5:18 where the Jews accused Him of "making Himself equal with God." Now, Phil. 2:6 affirms that Christ was actually equal with God, but that He did not consider that as "robbing God".

Several other versions render that verse in just about the same sense:

(Darby) >> "who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God"

(Douay Rheims Bible, 1899) >> "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God"

(EMTV) >> "who, existing in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"

(ESV) >> "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"

(God's Word) >> "Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality"

(WNT) >> "Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped."

Hope this helps. Cheers.

Seun:
David killed 200 philistine men who did nothing to him in order to "pay" for his wife. And 'God' loved him for it.

Hi Seun,

Please could you provide me with a reference for that claim so we could just see your context. TY.

babyosisi:
In heaven,we are made as angels,the Bible says.
There is no sex and no marriage.

That's one reason why the Bible is a corrupt document to Muhammad! Infact, any holy writ is a corrupt book to him if it discounts his favourite hobbies (pedophilia, rape, coitus interruptus, indiscriminate sex, incest, frolicking with 72 virgins, and such).

babyosisi:
mukina2,sending thunder kwa?
where is the gentle lady we've all come to love?

She's still there - and we can continue to love her instead of recommend babs787 *****!

From all indications, we can't shut up when women are being treated that way by men who wanted to obey the prophet's *allah*!

Even Muhammad was said to have been repulsed at the very idea of what his *allah* recommended in the Qur'an that he advised his adherents to never beat any woman!

So, if all the incantations are the display of fear, uncertainty or shock at what you did not know previously, rest your heart: it's our privilege to unveil this barbarity of what has been covered for over 14 centuries.

Babyosisi was apt in saying that "knowledge is power!" What you refuse to know when it is presented to you might. . . harm . . YOU!! Know it now and don't be a victim!

Sallam.

babyosisi:
Shahan thanks for the youtube clips,we know gist and babs are not alone in their views.
That is very scary.

Scary it really is - and though some of our muslim friends are not aware of the reality of these issues and where they spring from, our prayer is that they may begin to seriously examine what real Islam actually is, according to the mindset of Muhammad. And to this, may God in His mercy open their eyes and give them the faith to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour.

gists:
Babs has not said any wrong or bad! He quoted the Qur'an correctly. He probably just didn't explain it sweetly enough to meet your fantasy. Let me giv it try mabe I can appeal to your sense.

You know what? I like the way you reasoned out the issue - very grown up, even if I still have concerns with the question of beating a woman. Whatever the prescriptions in any faith for issues between spouses, beating or hitting women is clearly for losers!

That said, let us think through the pasquinade of this game for losers.

gists:
Let's put away mischief, what is wrong in that verse? Why hammering on just one part, why not take a global look at it. The only problem with you guys/ladies is the beat them slightly part- right?

First, from a global perspective, only losers beat their wives - it doesn't matter whether it's lightly or violently. The message is simple: do NOT beat a woman unless you're a loser!

gists:
Generally, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure (the beating part). He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives.

That immediately presents a huge problem. What the *allah* recommended in his 'holy book' is questioned by the same 'prophet' he sent! This is especially conspicuous in Muhammad's career when he was questioned on the treatment of women: he was directly opposed to what the Qur'an prescribed >>

Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139
"I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them."

"Never beat God's handmaidens".
[Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn `Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum].

So, *allah* says something by revelation, and Muhammad says the direct opposite of what was prescribed in the Qur'an!

gists:
In one Hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

If I were a muslim back then, I would simply tell him to strike the "beating" verse out of his Qur'an. This is simply hypocrisy, because what Muhammad prescribed in the book, he repulsed among his adherents.

gists:
But the verse still stands because in some instances it might just be helpful.

'Might just be helpful' - to beat a woman?? Point made - whoever was prescribing that was a loser from the onset.

gists:
Thank God Muhammad realised the possibility of the abuse of this verse as he described intesity of the beating part as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that the face must be avoided.

"A light tap" - are you being facetious or what?? Not even the translators of the Qur'an hint any of the sort. Here, sample these various English translations of Q. 4:34 on the clause in question:

* "admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)" [YusufAli]

* "admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" [Pickthal]

* "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them" [Shakir]

* "admonish them  and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them" [Dawood]

Not one translation suggests a "a light tap".

Infact, it may interest you that an independent study by a muslim woman confirms the beatings were what she described as the culture of the electric pole (video stream link); and another muslim man it was no more than TEN BLOWS (online video stream).

Further my dear, those doing it today in Afghanistan understood Muhammad very well - and that's why they use a pole on the poor women's backside! More than that, some have carried Muhammad's prescriptions in the Qur'an to full proportions as you can see below:

https://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/images/medium_2000.5.jpg

Click on the link to see movie of these beatings/scourgings if you have windows media player.

https://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/images/medium_10000000.5.jpg

gists:
How does this resemble the description you've mensioned above?

Check again and then you'll see.  

gists:
The part in red fonts above is what the woman can do if admonishing fails to yield results. She should also try to confort him to the best of her ability just like men were commanded in Q4:19 as quoted above to save the marriage.

In reality, that is recipe for disaster - Muhammad knew it, and that is why he repudiated what his *allah* prescribed when the prophet advised his followers: "Never beat God's handmaidens".

gists:
@shahan
In Islam, woman are not animals or synonimous to animals as you earlier quoted.

Are you now convinced otherwise after all the evidence I sourced out for you?

gists:
The hadiths you quoted is talking about what are the likely things that can distract a men when praying. Muslims don't close their eyes when they pray. Hence a beautiful woman passing bye can distract a man when his heart should be 100% towards GOD.

If the praying men are easily distracted by women passing by, then Islam is a religion that has serious issues with unbridled lust. That is simply the reason why we're here to appeal to you that only Jesus Christ can truly save a person and plant righteousness and faith in the heart.

Shallom.

***dazed!! >>

damosky:
i know it is a nigerian thing to reply questions with questions, thats why i am not surprised at your reply.

What should have otherwise surprised you? The question only serves as a pointer back to your own question to help you see what you missed.

damosky:
however, to answer your question, i believe jesus was in heaven before he became a man.

Sorry, that was not my question. See again:

shahan:
@damosky,
. . .before Jesus became a Man, who was He?

"Who was He" was the question; not "where was He"!

damosky:
the scriptures indicate that to us. jesus himself said before Abraham was, he was. the book of proverbs in referring to jesus said when the earthwas been created he was there as 'his' master worker and what he was fond of were the sons of man.

In all this, WHO was Jesus before He became Man??

damosky:
i believe jesus also said that no one has seen the father except the one (son) that descended. so, sir, to answer your question, i believe jesus lived in heaven before he came to earth, in fact, i believe i read once in the bible where jesus is called the first born of all creation. however, do you have another viewpoint to your question shahan?

When you answer my question, I'll oblige you. It was a question about WHO [not where] He was!

damosky:
O enlighten us, O wise one!, ill be waiting to hear your explanation on the verses i quoted. (by the way, i hope you are aware that at no point have i taken a side on this matter, i just need further enlightenment)

I'm very aware you're neither here nor there, so no bother. And please, when you answer the question after carefully going through, perhaps you'd be further blessed before you come back.

damosky:
let me play the nigerian devil's advocate to give you a reply. would you then say the bible contradicts itself? i have quoted from the bible and you have likewise done the same, and is it the same bible that throws so much different school of thoughts in the air?

There are no different schools of thought until you make one, ala 'devil's advocate' as you said. if you carefully read through the Bible and not take a few texts here and there out of context, you school of thought(s) will disappear.

damosky:
can you blend all those scripture together, both the ones i quoted and the ones you quoted?, (i just did the nigerian thing, reply a question with a question, so can you enlighten us as well)

Easy, when you answer the first question (even with another question), then perhaps you'll understand why He was both Son of God and Son of Man.

damosky:
@nigershit or whatever it is you call it,
. . .
what has fuel scarcity got to do with anything on this tread of conversation, my personal opinion, maybe you should sit back and learn from great minds with educated point of views,

Abeg, help me ask the bobo!

damosky:
(maybe you should read more of what my fellow comrade such as shahan has to write, you might become more enlightened!) don't take it personal, its just an opinion!

Anyhow, I don't know it all or even better than anyone of us here. Point is that I throw in my bit as and when appropriate, as well as enjoy the brilliant minds in the arena.

Cheers bro.

@belloti,

belloti:
Shahan, am sorry about my language, i believe i was hard on you. i think you behave maturedly. Anyway, lets carry on nicely

Sallam. May I also in fair exchange quickly apologise for any matter my posts have been inappropriate to you. Peace bro.

Lol. . .

davidylan:
This plus the ubiquitous "i'm waiting" must top the list as the most used escape strategy!

Here's an abridged list:

1. "I'm waiting"

2. "My outsass say whenever my prophet is being abused, I must avoid"

3. "I'm in a hurry, so I will be back to reply you" (this one takes ages to materialise)

4. "What have you said? Answer my questions one by one"

5. "That is not what the Qur'an said. . . that is what we have been told!!"

. . . and still counting!

Bobbyaf:
Wrong again. That was no failed prophecy by the SDA church.

So, in other words, Jesus' Second Coming actually happened in 1844 - exactly as William Miller prophesied?

@m4malik,
Can't say much more, can I? Lies, more lies, even more lies - all for the "exclusive" denom SDA.

Some don't even know who their enemies are; as long as they're not "making progress", somebodi must die in their prayers.

Do you really have a case, . . . or your swell time translates to the fishbone in your throat? Just wondering about your vagueness.

Hee-hee-hee

8oracle, please try reading the whole Bible before you publicly reveal your flaws.

We hear you, bros

So, how about coming closer home to the real deal, since you call us "brethren"?

@islampride,

In other words, Malcolm X has become the new Imam that helps your pride? No qualms. Just turn your gaze a bit to this:

The Politically Incorrect Archives of the Real Muhammad.

Ishaq:204
“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to Muhammad we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Ishaq:327
“Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’ ”

Ishaq:510
“We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”

Ishaq:588
“When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Ishaq:576
“Allah and Muhammad humiliated every coward and made our religion victorious. We were glorified and destroyed them all. By what our Apostle recites from the Book and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the infidels received. Killing them was sweeter than drink. We galloped among them panting for the spoil. With our loud-voiced army, the Apostle’s squadron advanced into the fray.”

Ishaq:489
“Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.”

The hordes of Muhammad may not have come on ships sailing on Arabian sands. But what they left behind shames the sob complaints of Malcolm X.