₦airaland Forum

Logical:
Someone saying mohammed might have approved of miss world was directly attacking the muslim faith. This was a response to some muslims then? Am I correct?

Logical, you need to do the calming down and reasoning. You're taking a cushioned position with respect to Islam and feel the rule does not apply when it comes to Christianity. How is "Someone saying that Mohammed might have approved of miss world" a direct attack on the muslim faith? It's made up, isn't it? And, according to your usual logic, it is based on something that didn't happen, yes? So. . . uhm, where's your justifying one and excusing the other?

Logical:
The authour of the book says the situations are made up. Only the organisations such as the Opus Dei, etc exist, which of course they do? There are much more cults in records, and that agrees to the existence of the organisation in question?

Great. So, the "Someone" says that "Mohammed might have approved" is simply a situation that was made up - it has no factual substance to what the Prophet might have said, no? And then, only the Prophet existed, but the sayings of "Someone" are made up, yes? So, why would it have been justified for Muslims to have reacted at something that was made up, but it's cool that Christians should only consider Da Vinci Code as "fiction"?

See, just take it from a balanced audience: We all agree that "Dan Brown was wrong in his depiction of our holy Jesus. . . What is wrong is wrong and no one should encourage it!" (quoting belloti). QED.

Ahh! Forgot to remind you that the line's always busy - there are more of your cases than you realise. And that they were busy speaking to me - we were all trying to figure out what pathological illness you've been suffering from.

You're talking of "a very tolerant Christian mentality" - that sounds like your snivel anytime you've been called to order. I don't game, so soliciting for my soul will be a wasted advertising effort on your part. Grow up. . . aint you called a Reverend?

@krysty, perhaps you'd like to tell us a bit more about the trials you might be facing. A Christian and graduate in accountancy, that's a good start; but it does not help much in understanding what the problems are if informed correspondence could be shared with you. I care.

Ok, point noted. I don't want to be tedious on this subject, so I'll leave it off here. Blessings.

At your age you should really have some shame. Tip: why not call 1-800-PSYCHOPATHY?

If you're willing to discuss issues, that'll be great. If otherwise, your kinky church needs your attention.

@Reverend,
Your response missed the mark and should have been directed at Afeni. I'm not advocating the end of Christianity if that's why you quoted me. Second, your statistics are very uninformed. No? Do the research yourself - the result might surprise you. Your disavowal of religion is okay, but who says I was in your supposed camp of advocating religion anyway? Sex (pre-marital or otherwise) is an issue that seems to cling to your midde name and it shows in almost all your concerns in the religious Forum. Unfortunately, you don't sell to me.

You missed it by miles. Islam is not a culture but a religious faith. So many things were acceptable in the past - did that make them acceptable today? Slavery. . . maltreatment of women. . . and servile subjugation to clan heads? There are even worse things accepted by cultures of the past - does it then become imperative that they are also accepted in the present?

That people married at a very yound age does not make a practice right and acceptable especially when it has to do with faith.

I don't disparage Islam even though I'm not a Muslim. But I wonder how people will make assertions that have no foundations. Where is Prophet Mohammed's marriage to Aisha mentioned in the Qur'an?

Glad to read your profile in your response - you've never been a god fearing person. I didn't become a Christian by force of anyone, and all the armies of the world who have tried have neither been able to put an end to Christianity, nor have they been able to revive your traditional gods, nor will they be able to better the economic lot of the nations by force. Look for more viable ways for your proposals, for no army can nor will do that for you.

Afeni:
Syrup, I never had a God. I do not take kindly to being a Sheep. If it was Gods intention that we were to be Christians, he would have made us as such. All evidence about religious points to its being a means to explain things that we find impossible to understand. Look at every Ethnic group in the world, and they all at one time or another invented their religous believes which held their society together and was a symbol of pride for their people. You are only fooling yourself if you believe these silly stories that are barely fit for children tales. Continue to spin it precious, and spread on your love of Christ. Best of luck in your entrance into British Heaven.

Even when you hate Christians, it was clearly not God's intentions at all to make us all like you, . And if your traditional gods have failed you, live with it. If you want to have a dialogue with people, address them with genuine concern and deference, not what you've been doing right from get-go. You need to calm down and realise that you're angry at something, but you're mixing up issues and that's why your vituperations are mis-directed. Christians are genuinely angry at issues that leave people under, but we don't address these issues the way you've moulded yourself into. If you hate and insult Nigerians simply because they're not atheists or agnostics, does that help your case in seeking a friendly solution for them?

I appreciate everyone's responses - we all have a right to our differing views. However, sometimes we believe something so strongly because we probably haven't taken the time to chek out what it really means. Gal. 6:7-9 does not teach karma, because 'karma' is not 'karma' once you divorce it from re-incarnation, and that's clearly at odds with Christian beliefs. If God's grace does not punish people to the Nth degree, that's no longer karma. 'Grace' and 'karma' are not relatives or cousins. When someone mocks God, (s)he will reap for their mockery. But if we're talking about karma, what about godly people who suffer - what are they reaping? Did karma apply in the case of the man in John 9 that was born blind?

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him,
saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered,
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest
in him. - [John 9:1-3].

Where is the law of karma there?

@mickplus,
Please could you be specific with your examples? If God listened to Samson and still allowed him to pay for his sins, what kind of 'God' is that? Read the text well and see what transpired. If I'm not getting you, perhaps you need to be specific. Those who mock God will reap whatever they sow - that's used for those mocking God. Does that say that believers will still have to pay for their past sins that they have sown? Karma will take you way back to what you have forgotten, and there's nothing like "old things are passed away, all things have become new" in karma.

If we know what karma really is, we would understand that it is not the same thing as what the Bible teaches. But there again, we are all free to be persuaded by our convictions.

Pardon me if I may ask - would it matter to you if Mohammed was white/caucasian?

Nothing new, like I said. I've had a good discussion with you and would like to leave it at that, unless you've something interesting to add. Do have a pleasant evening.

Blessings.

@Logical,

In seconds I can read you, so don't wish hard enough that it'll take time for me to reply. Let me quote you:

Logical:
I repeat again, a story can be based on an event that occur, but does not necessarily mean the story is true.

Now let me apply:

# Jesus had sexual intercourse with Mary Magdalene - what is the "event that occur(ed)"?

# Mary Magdalene had children by Jesus - what is "the event that occur(ed)"?

So, the story is not true; but what is the event that occured upon which the lies are based? What you've failed to reason out is that Da Vinci Code is not based on any event that occured. That's why I simply asked that you shuffled your pack of cards because the logic did not apply. I know - it is very human to err. . . and very human to be proud as well. I'll just be humble enough for now to let you stay guard on the Forum if there's nothing new you can add to that.

Peace.

Clear now. TY

Evaded nothing. You're characteristically picking and choosing; what's your whimpering about my doing the same for effect based on your "A is based on B" logic that has become worn that you had to amend?


FYI, I purposely left out some info on my profile - but I'm a lady and not a dude.

I read them alright, and incase you didn't notice, my reply followed his. What you wrote is ambiguous, and I only asked for clarification; thus my - "What in effect are you saying?"

You see how you're going round in circles simply because it suits your sentiments. Let me understand you:

Logical:
Lies for example is a perfect applicable word. Lies can also be said to be fiction, because they are untrue, but they are in refrence to an actual event that occured in the past or didnt occur in the past which can be said to be history? So what are we saying here?

Lies are in reference to an actual event that occured in the past. . . can be said to be history, hmmm? Nice. Apply that to the following:

# Jesus had sexual intercourse with Mary Magdalene - what's the "actual event" that occured in history there?

# Mary Magdalene had children by Jesus - what's the "actual event" that occured in history there?

You see, just that your logic has no application to what you're holding up - throw it away. Dan Brown sold lies and called them facts, and those who pretend to have read the novel can keep going round in circles about how "A is based on B" and all that laughable stuff.

What in effect are you saying? That Jesus was a "bastard" - and Christians are "followers of a bastard"? How does the case of Ishmael warrant or justify anyone's calling others "followers of a bastard" especially with regards to faith?

Appreciated.

I'm not re-phrasing anything, and you're still allowing the stereotype to blur your sense of judgement.

"A is based on B" as you said. A is not fact but based on B which is fact - yes? Maybe you should be thinking now. Question - is Da Vinci Code based on fact?

Since you have read the book, have you forgotten so soon that Dan Brown says that all the data in the book are "historical facts" and "accurate"? That sounds like frame-up to you that you need help? If you don't know what the feel is, keep guessing.

And, I'm not one of those in your supposed list. I'm not a hater, but I decry this idea of Muslims trying to defend their faith with a need to slur the Christian faith.

Logical:
Allow me to say Bush is christian !! But his actions are not of a christian? Or the war he is waging? Common lets call a spade a spade. I am not in favour of any particular group, but I reason objectively without sentiments, so do I expect anybody that argues with me.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, but do you really care for non-sentimental views and opinions? The fact that President George Bush is a Christian does not mean that what is clearly a political issue should now be interpreted as a religiuos one. Failing to see the difference would indeed be tantamount to a lack of objectivity.

You should understand that the mind-set of most people in the middle-East is that anything Western is necessarily "Christian". How many people among themselves are their own worst enemies by training their own children to be suicide bombers with a promise to go to paradise in the cause of blowing themselves up? This view that just because Bush is a Christian and therefore the political actions he takes must be seen as religious is actually sentimental and sadly glib.

Logical:
Da Vinci Code is a fictional historical book based on some fragments of the past that has no direct affiliation with any religious teachings. Please note that Jesus is not only respected by Christians, Muslims respect Jesus the same way they respect Muhammad.

I guess you haven't read the book and are just voicing your opinions on hear-says. The Da Vinci Code is a direct attack on Christianity in as much as it focuses on Christianity, the Church, and the Biblical naratives of Jesus Christ.

What would Muslims have done if someone had written a fictional piece depicting Mohammed to have been other than the Qur'an and Hadith say of him, tells the whole world reading such a "fiction" that all that people have been taught in Islam are lies? That is what you've failed to see, and excusing this lame cosmetic that "it is only a fictional historical book." Listen to yourself! If something is fiction, where's the history? And if it's history, where's the fiction? Please, don't let those sad fellows like Dan Brown blow smoke in your face.

Yeah right. This is the best way to demonstrate you have the interest of anyone at hand (did you mean "at heart"?). Is this your native language you're speaking - calling others "followers of a bastard"? You surely have a size of a community.

Afeni:
I do not worship any. But I realize the importance of the traditional gods in our society and I wish that they are restored to their formal glory.

So, how did they lose their glory that you're snivelling at now? There's no one stopping you from being their first 21st-century prophet/priest. Do I get a feeling that your campaign is simply because your gods have disappointed you or something; and the only way to restore their lost (and irrecoverable) glory is to disrepect and attack the faith of other people, as a reflection of your obeisance to your gods?

You know nothing, so don't cover up. Neither of those worldviews are merely "line of thought". And what's all this guess work you're trumping up about where I come from? I'm neither British nor from a Brit-colony. . . so keep up the guess work. FYI, I wasn't forced into my faith, so there's no need for you to show how lewd your mind is. If all you can do is foam in the mouth and use such language as a way of showing your family background and level of IQ, oh please. . . be my guest.

Whatever you believe in needs a clear up-bringing. First again, I did not come to a personal faith because the British told me so. Second, atheism and agnosticism are not religious beliefs, not even because they have always existed: ask them and let them school you on that.

Good then. Did you waste all your efforts just to let us know that?

Another thanks. By the way, atheism and agnosticism are not "faiths" like traditional religions, so get that clear. If you're in doubt, ask those who are atheists and agnostic. I do not have to worry about the memories of ancestors in as much as I haven't insulted them.

Thank you. First, your needless howling shows how ignorant you are. People you haven't met before merit your angst for nothing, shébi? I'm not Nigerian in the first place, nor am I by default a Yoruba. And if racism is all your own version of god is able to give you and your vexed soul, that says so much about you.

Yes, indeed. But that is not the same thing as the Law of Karma. The latter is unchangeable - whatever anyone sows, they will reap by way of being re-incarnated as many times as is necessary to correct their mishap; whether they come in their next life as a tree, a bird, a worm, or a lizard. There's just no way out of karma: it is rigid and does not abate until one has gone through the full circle.

However, Gal. 6:7 ties in with a warning at those who mock God. It does not say that a sinner who has sown so much evil before he/she accepted Christ cannot be forgiven and given a new life. But if one claims to belong to God and then lives carelessly to mock God's grace, such a person will reap God's judgement. There's no need to reap judgement when grace is available and plentiful in Christ.

So, here it is. . .

You should also understand that using just Deut. 32:8-9 as the pivotal text for your belief is very weak. As is characteristic with sloppy researchers, your scholars ignored the other various biblical texts that show conclusively that Yahweh is the very same God as the Most High and the Almighty. He is not surbodinate to God, because He is the very same God throughout the Hebrew Old Testament. The following verses point this out:


The LORD (Yahweh, יהוה) = the Most High (Elyon, עליון) = Almighty (Shaddai, שׁדּי) = the very same God!

# The LORD = The Most High God
"And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD,
the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth" - Gen. 14:22.
"But thou, LORD, art most high for evermore." - Psa. 92:8.
"For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth." - Psa. 47:2.

# The LORD = Almighty God
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram,
and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."
Gen.17:1.

# Jehovah (Yahweh) = God Almighty
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty,
but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Exo. 6:3.

# Jehovah = The Most High
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over
all the earth." - Psa. 83:18.

If the LORD (Yahweh/Jehovah) is the Most High God and the Almighty, to whom is He surbodinate? You should have read the Bible for yourself before selecting scholars who are so ignorant of the Hebrew language. Niels Lemche and his team have neither read the Tanach nor the Dead Sea Scrolls for themselves before straining at what the LXX does not suppose. There is only one God who is the same Jehovah/Yahweh, the Almighty and the Most High.

Yahweh is not separate from El - Yahweh IS the very same El (God).

If you're interested, this is what Deut. 32:8-9 says in the Tanach (the Hebrew Old Testament)
בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני ישׂראל׃ כי חלק יהוה עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו׃[color=#000099][/color].

Ask any scholar versed in the Hebrew language to translate that for you and see what cheap game Niels Lemche has played by trying to blow smoke into your eyes. Read the Bible first for yourself, and never assume that what those websites are telling you actually represents scholarship - they do not. The Bible and the Tanach do not teach what those chaps are noising on the net.