₦airaland Forum

Cabali, your drama is really hilarious. I didn't know you can be such an actor.

I'll let it end here for you. . . until you grow up and come back with part 2.

Wrong for you - and, of course, you are entitled to your own opinion. . . even if you want to act them out in your own movie.

My submission may not go down well with you: it doesn't have to. But dating in itself is not wrong - rather, it is what you make out of dating that speaks volumes.

Ahem!!

Una good morning.

Cabali, true talk - nobody forced anyone to be Christian. However, not once did I try to force an idea that dating is all for sinners - unless it is sinful to be sociable. If the only thing you can do is 'concentrate on winning souls and going to heaven', no wahala - at least, that's one of the things Christians are supposed to do.

Bottomline is that what you argue you cannot sustain - not even your own recommendation has helped you.

After all the points made in your outline, there are a few concerns here:

belloti:
6. They do not make partners with God:

This is the most important quality. Without this one, the others are all useless. The real servants of God do not associate anyone with God. There are two main types of association. First, the obvious type of association is when a person includes people or other gods with Allah. The second type of association is less obvious, and it is when a person allows worldly pursuits to interfere with his worship of God. Some examples of this are: neglecting required religious duties for the sake of a job; or fearing people more than you fear Allah. Servants of Allah do not worship anyone or anything other than one and only one God.

Well, how do you defend that quality with the very same thing that the Qur'an permits? Who are these "gods" associating themselves with the *Allah* of the Qur'an? Check them out:


Sura 6 vs.94
"And behold! ye come to Us bare and alone as We created you for the first time. . ."

Sura 7 vs.11
"It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who prostrate."

Q.23 vs.12
"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth"

Q.51 vs.47-49
"And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. . . And of every thing We have created pairs. . ."

Sura 10 vs.12
"When trouble toucheth a man, he crieth unto Us (in all postures)- lying down on his side, or sitting, or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passeth on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that touched him! thus do the deeds of transgressors seem fair in their eyes!"

Q.21 vs.73
"And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve" (transl. by Pickthal: "and they were worshippers of Us (alone).".

Q.21 vs.35
"Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. to Us must ye return."

belloti:
8. They do not commit adultery:

They only have sexual relationships with their spouses and do not indulge in such acts with others. They preserve their honor and sanctity; and restrain themselves from the lust and desire which might seem good for a short period of time, but ultimately destroys the the person and the society by spreading all types of social and physical diseases. This is in addition to the grave punishment of Allah in the hereafter.

Did Muhammad not encourage sexual relations that say the opposite of what you preach here? See these:

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 136:
Narrated Jabir:We used to practice coitus interruptus while the Quran was being revealed.
(see Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 135: Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle).

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."


I wonder if you would still qualify Muhammad based on the fact that Islam sources actually show how he failed the tests you highlighted.

babs787:
shahan,
i need your proof

As already supplied by a former Muslim, here they are:

Sura 6 vs.94
"And behold! ye come to Us bare and alone as We created you for the first time. . ."

Sura 7 vs.11
"It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who prostrate."

Q.23 vs.12
"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth"

Q.51 vs.47-49
"And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample. . . And of every thing We have created pairs. . ."

Sura 10 vs.12
"When trouble toucheth a man, he crieth unto Us (in all postures)- lying down on his side, or sitting, or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passeth on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that touched him! thus do the deeds of transgressors seem fair in their eyes!"

Q.21 vs.73
"And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve"  (transl. by Pickthal: "and they were worshippers of Us (alone).".

Q.21 vs.35
"Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. to Us must ye return."


If you need more, just call for it when you have finished waiting. 

Tee-hee-hee

I know, my broda boo. And I admire his Ali baba patience!!

m4malik:
Where is shahan?

I'm here - no shaking!!

cabali:
Chidebe started this thread saying dating was easier for him when he was an unbeliever. am sure he wasnt talking about a social appointment or was he?
we need to hear from him!

At least, you're not Chidebe when you debating the issue. Whether or not you know what was in the originator's mind and thoughts, we're more interested in what you think. Afterall, no be you recommend us to www.dictionary.com ? If you could not sustain your own reco, why ask others to go there??

@babs787,

As long as you've directed your rejoinder to et al, that includes me. So, I'll take the liberty of going through what you posted.

babs787:
the Qur'an prescribes 4 wives to 1 man, but it is nowhere permitted for a woman to have 4 husbands (again, 4 is not equal to 1) / [Q. 4:3]
Quran 4v3: and if you fear that you shall not be able to DEAL JUSTLY, then marry women of your choice, two or three, or four BUT IF YOU FEAR THAT YOU SHALL NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL JUSTLY (WITH THEM), then ONLY ONE THAT YOUR RIGHT HAND POSESES. That is nearer to prevent injustice.

Let me ask u based on what u said that why its not permitted for a woman to marry 4 men. CAN YOU ALLOW YOUR SISTER TO MARRY 4 MEN AMD HAVE CHILDREN FOR EACH AT THE SAME TIME, OR U ALLOW YOUR WIFE TO MARRY THREE OTHER MEN BESIDE YOU HAVING KIDS FOR EACH. I don’t blame you for this because your bible failed in providing answer to this, no wonder you are confused. I therefore challenge you where in your bible it is stated and compel you to marry not more than one. Even your jesus didn’t tell you to marry only one. Little wonder some sects are turning themselves to FATHER and MOTHER because there is no explanation on that from your bible. Even your paul tried providing solution but it just didn’t match

What I understand is simply this: In Islam, a man is permitted to marry 4 wives; but women are not permitted to do the same by marrying 4 husbands. So, how have you proven that m4malik was wrong in his assertion? I don't even think he wanted to prove that Jesus taught to be us polygamous; so you actually made no sense at all.

babs787:
the muslim man can beat the muslim woman; but it is unthinkable for the muslim woman to dare the same to muslim men (Quran 4 vs.34 - infact, it declares there that men are superior to women)

Quran 4v34: men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has make one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property). As to those women you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (Lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance), surely Allah is ever Most High, Most great.

WHY DO U LIKE TURNING VERSES UPSIDE. U DON’T NEED TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO DECEIVE PEOPLE. GO THROUGH THE WHOLE VERSE ABOVE AND TELL IF THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ABOVE VERSE IF ANYTHING IS WRONG PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE FROM YOUR BIBLE. BETTER STILL, PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE FROM YOUR BIBLE THAT TELLS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH AN ILL-CONDUCT WOMAN TO BUTRESS YOUR ABOVE QUOTE.

Em, you still lost the gist, sir. the point is that one Dr. Tariq was rascally juxtaposing numbers in the Qur'an and thought men are equal to women. I only understand that your discussant was showing from the Qur'an that you missed the whole point.

I must add that there's something definitely wrong with beating wives - and this has been abused and turned into a barbaric hell for women in Afghanistan where Islam rules. Conversely, where does the Quran permit any woman to "beat" men of ill-conduct (if it is useful for them)?

babs787:
women can be flogged eighty stripes without evidence, whereas not so with the men (Q. 24 vs.4)

Quran 24v4: and to those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the fasiqun (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

I SAID EARLIER, MUST U QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT TO WIN PEOPLE? AFTERALL U R KNOWLEABLE ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND THE ABOVE VERSE. SO UR SAYING ABOVE IS OUT OF CONTEXT. GO THROUGH IT AGAIN FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

Okay, I went through it - four times! And the same thing you don't see is what I'll show you:

Women are flogged eighty times without evidence:
quote: "flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever" - so, even if they bring evidence or testimony, they won't matter because they can be "rejected forever", no??

Do you have some other way to explain this verse, please?

babs787:
MUKINA WAS TRYING TO TELL YOU THE NUMBER OF TIMES EACH WORD APPEAR IN THE HOLY QURAN BUT U TURNED IT UPSIDE DOWN ACCUSING HER OF EQUATING MAN AND WOMAN ETC.

Who turned it upside down - m4malik, or Dr. Tariq?? Let's see what Tariq said according to Mukina2:

Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the
. . .Holy Qur'an
That mention one thing is equal to another,
i.e. men are equal to women.
Although this makes sense grammatically,
the astonishing fact is that the number of
times the word man appears in
the Holy Qur'an
is 24 and number of times the word
woman appears is also 24,
therefore not only is this phrase correct in
the grammatical sense but also true mathematically,
i.e. 24 = 24.
Upon further analysis of various verses,
he discovered that this is consistent throughout the whole
Holy Qur'an
where it says one thing is like another.

Conclusion: Dr. Tariq wants muslims to believe that "men are equal to women", not only grammatically, but also mathematically. What then is the meaning of "equal to"?? So, you can see that no one was accusing mukina2 of equating man and woman = it was rather Dr. Tariq who sold that line to muslims for them to start circulating among themselves.

Babs787, please make some sense when you debate issues and get a good grasps of subjects: mukina2 is not Dr. Tariq, and no one was accusing the lady of anything.

Peace, bro.

****Shakes head!

What has happened to my question to Muslim apologists? They said we often detract from issues, but I left them a question and none of them have answered.

Okay, here it is again:

"Well, if Christianity is wrong because of Who Jesus Christ proved Himself to be (sinless and loving); could Islam be right if we apply the same test to who Muhammad proved himself to be?"

Over to you babs787, belloti (originator of this thread), and others who help your debate.

Good piece, Sokislam.

I'm so sorry that you only lend credence to m4malik's rejoinders and weaken your own submissions. Where have you answered the questions he posed, or do I suspect that it's actually true you don't have answers after accusing others??

@Bobbyaf,

I'm not here to fill in the gap for m4malik or anyone. But it come across to me that you have issues that you cannot bear yourself, and that's why you think people are 'aggressive' simply because you don't agree with them.

That said, you are clearly inconsistent in your bearing. This is why:

1. Jesus cannot be both God and Human at the same time:

Bobbyaf:
Christ was fully human, and fully God. He couldn't be both at the same time when He was here as a man, and that is why He had to be completely submitted to His Father.

2. Then, Christ was both God and Human:

Bobbyaf:
Yes he was both God and human, but what you need to highlight is that Christ could not have acted out His divinity while on earth,

Anyone can see that what you hold on the one hand is quickly denied in the same breath. And if someone tries to point it out to you, then you think he's being aggressive. No one is accusing you, and there's no reason why you would think m4malik's piece sounds like he was putting you on spot. And what you have just come off doing is sound like Jesus was not God on earth because He addressed His Father in submission to His divine will.

There's simply no need to make noise about anyone accusing you; it simply makes you look and sound exactly like the accusation you levy at others.

How did you come to that figure of 99% of fake tongue speakers? Just one church service in one locality in Brent Cross on only one day from only one pastor. . . and quickly you arrive at 99% of all tongue speakers

Or did you mean 99% of the people in that church you attended?

In anycase, at least you warmed my heart to know that tongues are inspired, and not taught or learned. Blessings.

mrpataki:
The true church is Christ himself.

Who will return for his members on the day of Judgement.

A bit philosophical there, I guess; but can't seem to find that taught in the Word.

****************************************************************
Bros Bobbyaf,

I have tried to carefully read through your input, but for love sake I am constrained to share these with you.

Bobbyaf:
What I do believe though is that in every denom there are God's people who will eventually come out and be apart of God's bible-believing followers. Christendom today is referred to as "Babylon" or religious confusion, of which the RCC is head. (See Revealtion 17)

Two things: (a) If in every denom God's people will come out and be a part of "God's bible-believing followers, will they come out of your own 'denom' as well? (b) Search out the meaning of 'christendom' and you will see that your idea is not substantiated by God's Word.

Bobbyaf:
Symbolical babylon is doing the same thing today, but this time it represents all false teachings, including professed christian churches. Every false prophet, the chief of which is the RCC is lumped under the general term babylon.

If I am to take you seriously here, then I pressume that the "professed christian churches" includes the one you currently attend, yes? Else, it doesn't make any sense to be so broad as to miss the point and just about lumping up every church the way you did.

Bobbyaf:
If you profess to be a true bible-believing christian then its your duty and obligation to search the scriptures so that you can fortify your minds against that day when miracles will be used by Satan working through these false churches to decieve those who didn't take the time out to study to show themselves approved of God.

It seems to me that you really have a hard time getting to grips with the authentic gifts of God - especially the gift of tongues and miracles. Tell me, does your church believe God enough for the miraculous, or they are quite content with academic search of the Scriptures alone?

To begin with, there's no such thing as a "false church" in the Word of God. There are definitely "false christs" aided by "false apostles" and "false teachers" doing the work of "false prophets" - and texts abound in Scripture to the fact. Not one time did we read of "false churches" - and this is a coinage by legalistic and rigid men who see themselves alone as "bible-believing" Christians. All other groups are wrong but theirs alone.

Please my brother, I've been in that kind of movement before; and in the true spirit of love may I offer you to see things as God sees them. If you happen to be in one of these accusers of the brethren, please reconsider your persuasions - you might be more in need of God's grace than those we used to call "false churches."

mrpataki:
Was going to come around the guy when i just discovered he knows nothing at all, i think?

Okay, he thinks we are dancing around the devil. . . 

Right, let's approach this matter as grown ups by first asking cabali: Can you please tell us what you know is the meaning of dating? This will help us share amicably without forking anyone off as a dance partner with the devil. Over to you.

I always sensed there was something "prophetic" about that "brotherlistically" produced insight.  

Well, here's one big cheer for babyosisi -

[size=18pt]Bless up and ENJOY!![/size]

May all your days be memorable with the very best!

Cool down, when we stop laughing, we'll show you what you're missing.

mrpataki:
Please where is the author of this thread sef?

Thought he went to get his facts together all the while?

Goodness, mrpataki. . . you guys really have a good sense of humour. Bless up!!

Backslider:
I can not categorically say that it is the Holy Ghost

Humility there, bro. Well done.

Backslider:
but I know that What ever anyone says We have a triune God (Elohim) Jesus that has appeared as God the Word in human flesh Worshiped by man and angels.

Hmmm, good sense in noting the 'triune God'. However, I hope that you're not bordering on monism instead of monotheism? They are not the same.

Okay, the year is still "new". If you had at least hinted that you're kidding, we would have known where you're coming from.

Thank God for that - if we let the Spirit of God administer according to His will, what we do not understand now will become evident soon.

TayoD. . . "brotherlistically"?? Lol, you guys know how to make my day and keep the fun. 

Em, hope our Muslim friends have had some good Christmas and Happy New Year celebrations as well. Looking forward to seeing some lines from them - of course, in the "brotherlistical" drive!

@Bobbyaf,

In a friendly way, I'm not one to be caught up in long drawn arguments; but I'll leave you a few remarks in response to yours.

First, my lines didn't sound like you had no knowledge of God's word, and you entirely misread me if that's what you thought. "What you don't know, you cannot expound on" was pointing to experience rather than merely talk. I guarantee you this: the day you experience the supernatural in this aspect, all arguments will cease.

Many times, non-tongue speakers are up in arms against the gift of tongues; and what is amazing is that those who haven't experienced the gift seem to know so much academically and yet have no experience of the Word. I don't infer by this that you're merely only academic; what is of concern to me is that we (yes, you and I) cannot legislate over matters we haven't experienced for ourselves.

The genuine gifts of the Spirit have nothing to do with people being "hypnotised" or "pressurised", or whatever else anyone says - and I think it was rather off the mark to be jocular with smiles about this matter in claiming that people are told all sorts of rubbish. What we are after is not what people say; rather, we're focusing on what God graciously gives His children.

Now, it is very surprising to me that with such knowledge of the word, you haven't come across references in the Bible that speak of charismata? Please bro, check it out again and see if you haven't missed something.

God bless.

Dr Tee,

I hope Leviticus is not the only text in Scripture that you base your life on. If I understand your enquiry as about relationships between both sexes, from the Christian perspective men are not exonerated willy-nilly for the sin of adultery. Jesus Christ held men and women accoutable with what they do with their bodies. And it is fascinating that He warned the men about the sin of committing adultery with their eyes (Matt. 5:28)!

What you don't know, you cannot expound on. The gift of tongues and indeed every other gift of the Spirit (you name them) can be, and have been, faked. So, using one sad occurence of a fanatical display to negate and lump all other tongue-speaking Christians is even sadder. Just one sad incident does not negate the authentic. That scores of people leave one congregation for what they faked is exactly to the point - they were fakes - and one cannot use the fake to cross out the genuine. In just the same way, we all know that many dupes have tried to fake the Christian life - do you connect the dot?

Dare I say that there are many sad incidences even among non-tongue speakers. Would it make sense therefore to lump all other non-tongue speakers as fanatical or extremely legalistic?

Remember that in Acts 16:16-17 a false spirit encouraged the preaching of the Gospel. What does that say - that in just one incident, every missionary work be lumped up with false spirits?

The point is simply this: the gift of tongues is a genuine charismata as every other gift of the Spirit; otherwise none of them is a charisma at all. Thus, if God has given someone any genuine gift, I rejoice all the more; for though I'm well aware there are fakes, it does not stop the genuine from being used for God's glory.

@cabali,

I didn't sound like I was making the devil and Christ the same, abi?

And I certainly didn't state that there is no difference between christian and non-christian dating, abi?

Thing is, it isn't only Christian dating that is difficult.

Havila:
@Shahan,
You response above is a breadth of fresh air; welcome aboard!!

Bros Havila, thank you jare - you've been one of those many blessings on Nairaland to me.

Now, let me rub minds amicably with mrmayor.

mrmayor:
If I design a machine and I knew it will fail or brake down after 3 years of use,then I can't blame the machine for failing because I designed it to fail and knew when it will fail.Why would I shout and burn the machine for doing what it was designed for?

You miss the whole point, my dear. First, you simply did not design a machine, so it does not apply. Second, God is not "shouting" at Satan; but that scoundrel will not escape judgement.

Now, let's apply this a bit further -

Lucifer was not created as "Satan" - and the exalted position given him shows the love and benevolence of His Maker. Notice he was called 'son of the morning' (Isaiah 14:12) - an attestation of a divine complement. Or, read again those texts in Ezekiel 28:12-15 and notice the benevolence of the appellations the Creator bestowed upon this fallen fellow >>

- he was called 'the seal of perfection' (vs. 12)

- he was created "full of wisdom and perfect in beauty" (vs. 12)

- covered with precious stones (vs. 13)

- exalted to the rank of "anointed cherub who covers" (vs. 14)

- "I established you!" (vs. 14)

- he was described as "perfect in your ways from the day you were created" (vs. 15).

Hope you got the drift this time - Lucifer was created "perfect" (how many times was that pronounced?). If he chose to devise iniquity for himself, how does that translate into God "shouting" at Satan, or much less "blaming" him? Lucifer was not created with a view to be sinister; and if he chose rebellion as his career, why blame the Creator for that?

mrmayor:
Yes why send him?For Jesus to die a Judas had to betray him which God and Jesus knew anyway and of course Judas would suffer forever in hell for doing the job he was appointed to do.What is the point.

Again, you don't know who Judas actually was. Second, what stopped Judas from repenting and escaping hell? What you are failing to see is the benevolence of God upon His creatures. Let me demonstrate it this way:

The very same people who slew Jesus deserved hell, yes? But rather than settle it that way, they were offered God's grace -

"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. . .Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." Acts 3:14 & 26.

Now, suppose these fellows sat on the floor, kicking the dust and grumbing till sunset about why "God sent His Son, knowing we would deny Him and put Him to death," what would you make of them? It is as if God was saying, "Right, you murdered My Son; but instead of sending you to hell, I'm sending Him to bless you - but you must turn from your iniquity!"

Rather than complain about why Satan was created in the first place, and why he lasted only '3 years' like a machine, and blah, blah. . . I would rather focus on the wonderful offer that God has for me in His Son. At least, I know that in Christ believers are not built to burn in hell or last like machines.

nuru:
This is to invite those of you non muslims to come into Islam, the religion ordained for mankind. You will do yourself a lot of good to embrace the path of Peace and attain eternal bliss. The choice is yours.

Nuru,

In fair exchange, here's an invitation to life: Jesus said =

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28.

Lol, TayoD

Keni, ask the experts on love and relationships on Nairaland.

Ok.

Em. . .

Nowhere in the Bible does membership in any church guarantee salvation - including the one in Acts 2. How is a person saved? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).

So many churches today see themselves as the 'original' or 'true' church claiming ancestry back to the 'first beginnings' at Pentecost. Without having been born again (John 3:3-5) and lived a holy life (Heb. 12:14), there is no guarantee of an express pass into heaven.

Every denomination and church group have their problems. I will leave this advise for the moment: if your tradition contradicts God's Word, do not remain there but seek to obey His word.

I can't understand you, muske.

Did you really read the rejoinders (even if not all of them)? In fair round table dialogue, have your brethren been able to answer some of the questions raised by Christians on the Forum?