olabowale:

@Syrup:
I must have declared may times on this board that i went to a christian shool. Raised by a mother who was a Chritian. Roomed with a christian Reverend in school. Married a Christian woman. With all of these, do you think I would not at a time had a chance to actually studied the bible? Remember WASC? I took Bible Knowledge!

olabowale:

Again, I hear you. By the way, it was a figure of speech.

olabowale:

Well. Let me try another way of bringing us going towards the same direction. We may still not agree, but it is a better sell than what is going on right now. If you make a statement that only was a page long to me as i write them down. Then at a later generation, somebody got hold of what you said as i wrote it down, but sprinkled a little of their own ideas within the body, so that they now come out with 3 pages. In good conscience can you say that this new document of 3 pages is now 100% your statement? You must consider that it has 100% of what you said and other things that the new author made out in your name. This is the condition of the Bible to all m.us.lims.

olabowale:
You can now agree with me why the Jews refused to accept the prophethood and messiahship of Jesus? You follow their pattern of denial to a T.

olabowale:

And do you read Hebrew or Aramaic?

olabowale:

I don't care about Greek, since none of the prophets in the Bible was greek.

olabowale:

Syrup, is it possible for a Yoruba woman to raise a son in yorubaland, but teach him Igbo as his first language?

olabowale:

You must have read a novel in your native tongue before, right? If you are a Yoruba person, then Oke langodo will do here. If you read this novel, you will almost believed that there is such a place so named.

olabowale:

And there are such characters in this place. But all of that is fiction. Such condition that we find fallacies in the Bible. Confusing, but yet it also says God is not the Author of confusion.

olabowale:

Your argument is in the same pattern as the young woman in England. Well, soon enough the truth will be revealed. But there is not M.uslim who recites Qur.'a.n in any other language except in Arabic. This is Q.u.r.'an.

olabowale:

I literally believe 100% of what they truly said 100%.

olabowale:

Then I 100% refuse to accept anything that did not come from them, even though it is ascribed to them.

olabowale:

Well if any prophet made a statement, his Lord knows it. He ordained it on him. All of that I take in 100%.

olabowale:

I do not know about Malachi, Micah since they are not in the Q.your'an. They may still be prophets since there were 124, 000 of them.

olabowale:

lol. The tease of the day is that I need a long break. Take care.

huxley:

I think our m-slim friend made a better and honest effort at responding to the question than you have, by admitting that according to his holy text, there is no absolute ban. But you have simply just reversed it on me. How dishonest?

My answer would be 'no - it is not OK to bear false witness against someone who is not your neighbour'.

To the question as to who is our neighbour, I take the Biblical view - especially as offered in the New Testament.

justcool:

Returning back to the scriptures, it reads, "out of the dust of the earth, God made man." It didn't say how and through what process God made man. It only tell us that man's body was made from the dust of the earth. It is left for the individual to deduce wheather this "making out of the dust of the earth" was done by actual molding or by a natural process called evolution.

justcool:

You don't see the faint of it in the scriptures, but I do.

justcool:

I don't want to go into details of the scripture here but I can do that later if you want.

justcool:

However, I give you a hint: The scriptures said, "And a thousand years are as one" My understanding of this is that earthly time and spiritual time are different. A day on paradise(spiritual place) is like a thousand years on earth. The writer of Genesis was seeing from the spiritual perspective, therefore he saw what might have taken millions of years on earth in only six spiritual days. What you see in the Scriptures is only a reflection of your inner(spiritual) maturity. People see different things in the scripture and interpret them differently, it is left for you to decide which interpretation you accept.

justcool:

I never used the word "crevoultion." Infact I don't even know what it means, so please don't attribute it to me. Show me where I used it in any of my posts.

justcool:

@syrup
I will reply your post one more time, just to clear some misconceptions that might have arisen from my last post. However, I don't wish to round and round on this issue. If you made up your mind to see the issue the way you do, then I can't change your mind.

justcool:

The fact that man evolved does not contradict the fact that man was created! I was not born a 30 years old man, I was born a baby which evolved over time into a 30 years old man. The fact that I evolved does not contradict the fact that I was born. (I hope you understand this analogy)
Our physical bodies evolved, after which our spirits incarnated into the evolved bodies. Only from the period of incarnation did we become humans(man), prior to that was just animals. I repeat myself: Evolution is the natural process through which our bodies came into being.
Most scientists agree that man is not just the physical body. If this is the case then evolution does deal with man in man's entirety. It deals only with a part of man, i.e. the physical bodies.

justcool:

Here you proved me right! In the above post you clearly pointed out the difference--One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter-- If you agree with this, then why do you think that they contradict each other. Evolution deals with change over time, and creation deals with the coming into existence of living matter(like you said) Now show me where the contradiction lies.

justcool:

I am not sure that you read my posts very well! I said, " I think"at the beginning of that statement, meaning that it is my opinion. i.e it is my conclusion from looking at both theories.

justcool:

I never said that evolution seeks to prove God's creation of man.

justcool:

I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body.

justcool:

That is entirely your's and not mine. Please read my words carefully. I started with "I think."

justcool:

Here I never said that the scriptures said exactly that our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution. What I said was my conclusion from reading Genesis and the theory of evolution. Different scriptures mean different things to different peoples. The scriptures were written metaphorically, and in a pictorial language, it left to the reader deduce the meaning. I kept saying that the scriptures tells the story from a spiritual perspective. The scriptures said: "that out of the dust of the earth, God made man and gave nab the breath of live." This is not a scientific statement, it is a pictorial rendering of a an event, given from a spiritual perspective. It left for the individual to deduce what it means. I have told you my own deduction of it, you can only accept deduction or leave it.

justcool:

The fact that the process is natural does not contradict the fact that God made it.

justcool:

All natural processes and even nature itself was set in-place by God. It does not place an asterix on "the divine" The fact that some people choose not see the hand of God in natural processes does not mean that nature is no a process set in-place by God. Once again this is entirely their conclusion, the scriptures never said that God does not use natural processes.

huxley:

I shall respond when and if you address the main thrust of this post (which is the subject of bearing false witness/telling lies). I have nothing to add to any Xian-lam dogfighting.

huxley:

Please, can we return to the central theme of these post, rather than do the Christian/Is-la-m dogfight!

olabowale:

@Syrup
When you continue to badger me with all or some about my believe in prophets. You forgot that I stated the what a prophet truly stated is diffrerent from what a prophet did not state, but ascribed to him anyway.

olabowale:
The later is falsehold while the former is truth. But both of them are different from the prophet. But going by just speech, if that is how you measure my believing in prophethood, then all that the prophets actually said i believe.

olabowale:

What they did not do or said I do not believe if they are even attached to them. What you must never forget is that Jesus or any of those prophets is not around to confirm or deny anything ascribed to them.

olabowale:

lol. I guess revelation in the sense of the books: Torah, Psalm and the New Testament. Where did you show me a copy in Sematic language?

olabowale:

The exact copy before versions, editions, revisions became the norm of what we have in christianity up till now?

olabowale:

We are talking pass each other. It is very clear to me now. I guess you are interpreting what I said. You should take what i said literally. Please interpretation will make you miss the mark.

olabowale:

We in I.s lam believe in all the prophets and I said that there were 124, 000 of them. However to claim that all that were said in the bible, all of it were from prophets, that will be false.

olabowale:

We see that paul had something said in the bible. Definitely, paul was not a prophet and he was not Jesus. Also, the disciples were not prophets and no one of them was Jesus! Are you with me lady? Good!

olabowale:

I believe in all the prophets. But what a prophet did not say, I can not accept it coming from the prophet. You are forcing my hand. Take it easy with me, woman. lol.

olabowale:

First i did not see your list of examples. But whatever they were, if any disagrees with the Q.your'an, guess what, it is already rejected. now you know my stand.

olabowale:

Pay attention to my statement again: I know what a prophet says. I know what can be claimed that a prophet said, which is not correct. Those statements that are claimed to have been said by a prophet that are contrary to the ways of God from the beginning can never be correct.

olabowale:

If God has a child, then what sets Him apart from anyone? If God dies, as you had claimed Jesus did as human, what sets Him apart from the rest of us? When you use the word father for God, either from the old or the new testaments, I wonder who God mounted and got pregnant? Yet He created Adam without any parents. He created Eve from Adam, but changed her nature, specifically her gender. Yet you can not see that this God is Mighty that no one can truly be His child, as your children are your husband's child? Which woman represents your position with your husband, when it comes to the fatherhood of god?

olabowale:

God Almighty denied this statement by first talking about the humanness of Mary and then Jesus.

olabowale:

God said that He commands what he decrees. So the creation of jesus is like the creation of adam. It is only commanded to be, so it became!

olabowale:

I do not wish anything to be apart from its place. The Q.your'an is true, 100%. What is true about the teaching of what you call the Biblical prophet can never be different from the Q.your'an.

justcool:

Therefor the definition should not include "without a creator."

justcool:

Here is a better definition:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. "
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

justcool:

I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body. Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution which was guided by the WILL of GOD. After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years, God implanted spirits into the evolved physical bodies.

justcool:

Your definition of creation is okay. Like I said earlier,nobody can prove even scientifically that the process of evolution was not set in-place deliberately and guided deliberately. Infact there are many evolutionists who have arrived to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that evolution would have taken this curse if it wasn't guided to achieve this purpose. I can elaborate later on this if you want me to.

justcool:

Some Darwinian evolutionist draw their conclusions based on what they have studied. However, this remain personal conclusions. None can tell you in a classroom or in a scientific book that evolution disproves creation or Davine plan.

justcool:

They don't study creation, they only study evolution which is a natural process.

justcool:

At best they can tell you that they have not find the Divine or the Divine plan. But this does not mean that there is no Divine nor Divine plan. The Divine and Divine plan a not physical and scientists accept that science is only limited to physical things.

justcool:

However, you might be surprised to learn that most of the greatest scientists in history were all very strong believers in God and Divine plane.

justcool:

Albert Eisenstein never failed to declare that his conviction in the existence of God and the Divine plan. I can provide quotes from him that made this clear.

justcool:

Let me rephrase your question: If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human,  then you are effectively saying that you were not born a human.

justcool:

Here again you are wrong, evolution never said that man descended from apes. That is what enthusiasts, who don't understand evolution go about saying.  Evolution only says that man and apes shear a common ancestor.

justcool:

Let rephrase this one too. If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human, then you are effectively saying that you evolved without purpose or meaning.
How does the fact that we evolved disprove the fact our lives have meaning.

justcool:

I summarize my points:
1.) Evolution only deals with the comming into being man's physical body, which came into being the same way animals bodies came into being. Infact science and evolution treats man as a specie of animal, this is because our physical bodies are basically animal bodies.  But every scientist agrees that in addition to our animal bodies, we have something that separates us from animals, certain concepts that are beyond animals, i.e. -- the concept of decency, love, art, higher cognitive ability, etc.

justcool:

2.) These concepts which is not physical and cannot be investigated by science is a prove that we have something that animals don't have, i.e. the breath of God which is the spirit in man.

justcool:

3.) The creation story in the bible explores the coming into being of man from a spiritual perspective. And confirms that our bodies are earthly --"out of the dust of the earth God made man, " The creation story also confirms that man has something animals don't have, i.e. " and The Lord God gave man the breath of life, "

justcool:

Here your problem is that you base your argument and view point on the proponents of evolution rather than the theory itself. Proponents are not always right. People read meaning into theories to suit their personal beliefs. I don't care what proponents say but I care about what the theory say. Research on evolution itself or read The the origin of species by Charles Darwin himself. The theory does not deal with God, it didn't prove the existence of God neither did it disprove it. It simply deals with how species evolved over time. Proponents use this theory and many other theories to fight believers but such war or fighting is only foolishness because the bible never claimed to be a scientific book. The bible's story of Creation deals with the issue from the spiritual perspective. It is also foolish to use the bible to change scientific theories. It's like trying to solve a chemistry problem with sociology. Read the theory of evolution yourself or talk authorities, avoid believing to enthusiasts that look for any reason to disprove the existence of God.

justcool:

Here you are very wrong. To state that evolution is opposed to creation is only a view and not a fact. The statement is based on your's and some other people's opinion which cannot be scientifically proved. To say that evolution is opposed to creation is like saying that the study of the development of the zygote is opposed to creation.

justcool:

We all started as single cells-- zygote-- which multiplied and grew over time to a human beings.

justcool:

We all agree that this statement does not oppose creation.

justcool:

Then whats the difference when applied to humankind -- the whole species started as very simple organisms which multiplied, adapted and developed to present day species. This is a natural process and there is nothing stupendous in it.

justcool:

No scientist can prove that this natural process started by chance neither can they prove otherwise.

justcool:

Actually the scientific laws actually disprove the notion of chance. Science operates on well established and inflexible laws which rules out the possibility of chance in any natural happening. Therefor it is unscientific to speak of chance. I can elaborate on this if you want.

justcool:

Here your definition of evolution is very wrong because evolution is not a study of wheather there is a creator or not.

syrup:

In simple words: evolution is a theory that makes no mention of "GOD"

KAG:

Not quite. Evolution postulates the existence of species through natural causes. It doesn't preclude the existence of a creator.

KAG:

I'm not sure I fully understand your question - for one thing it reads wrong. There is no promotion or preclusion of metaphysical creators in the theory of evolution: it's silent on the existence of such beings - they are out of its jurisdiction, same with other science theories. Arguments that assert that gods aren't necessary for parsimony can be based around the theory, but that's about it (arguments of that kind shouldn't be mistaken for the science theory itself).

KAG:

Pointers that it doesn't preclude creators? Easiest one: many theists accept the theory of evolution.

KAG:

You implied that they are synonymous.

KAG:

"Darwinist" is such a "bleh!" term. Darwin was a theist at the time he wrote the origins of species, though. I agree that there are many non-theistic evolutionists.

KAG:

If I remember correctly, he lost his faith because of the death of his child. I should look that up - I'll look it up later.

KAG:

It wasn't the crevolution thing that was wrong it was the assertins that came after.

justcool:

Lust for anything is a sin, even lust for your wife's body is a sin!

olabowale:

I guess the overturning of tables of the money changers is with love and sign of endearment and not in anger! Yo simply cherry pick whereever you will.

olabowale:

And the crucifix, crosses and the pictures in churches in Ethipia as recorded in Pilgrim's 2006 posting are not signs of pictures and idols/graven images, uh? Please lady, lets be honest here.

olabowale:

Then practice what you preach.

olabowale:

Syrup, I think we need to drop all the facade. However, I have to point to you that all mankind will be judged by God, using the same exact yardstick. Those who believe Him, those who do not, be they M.us.lim or not will be judged as human being and not like animals. The M.usl.ims will be judged differently from the others. Please bear that in mind.

olabowale:

Worship into robbery? How, except that they were charging interest or short cahnging the customers?

olabowale:

Now was it not part of the 10 commandments that there should not be a graven image made or worship? Tell me what do the christians do with the cross or the paintings in the churches, now?

olabowale:

I am not going to even talk about the statue of Mary with the catholics. And i do have respect for the catholics more than the proptestants. Well I will not even talk about the celestial and the CAC, etc of Nigeria.

olabowale:

From the way Jesus overturned the table of the money changers, it is very clear that if he saw a single imagery of him, he would have torned or destroyed it.

olabowale:

Or is thou shall not make or worship a graven image not part of the 10 commandments?

olabowale:

You will now have to present a possible argument to go against my aso called assumptions and presumptions.

olabowale:

@Syrup:
You will notice that I did not make any entry around thsi time. I was travelling on a journey. And I do not live on Nairaland.

olabowale:
As I read what Pilgrim wrote, I can simply state that she was not far from the truth, in that she stated that the mu.sli.ms deviated from what the prophets said.

olabowale:
Further, the prophet (as) confirmed that many m.usl.ims will go to hellfire. 72 different sects of m.u.slim.s will. Only 1 sect will not enter hell, while all the sects of christianity, Jews and all the others will all enter hellfire.

olabowale:

Your acciusation is completely baseless. I might have disgreed with Pilgrim in her choice of religion, however she was right because she showed some mu.sl.ims who are practicing what the prophet warned against.

4 Him:

I strongly believe it still applies. I think we need to be careful to decipher what was Paul's personal opinion and what is actually scripture.

4 Him:

Remember Paul talks about it being better we did not even marry at all!

4 Him:

If your spouse is an unbeliever and you have valid reasons to separate from her after trying your best to save the marriage then i think you can leave, you wont be bound to her.

4 Him:

Its if the spouse is a believer that complicates issues.

4 Him:

If your husband is a drunk and irresponsible father who can put you in harms way, u're better off leaving him even if he be pleased to dwell with you (since he can always use you as his faithful doormat).

Pataki:

Hope you will not run off very soon again.

KAG:

Not quite. Evolution postulates the existence of species through natural causes.

KAG:

It doesn't preclude the existence of a creator.

KAG:

Simply put, Evolution does not equal atheism.

KAG:

Ignoring the label, many scientists that accept the theory of evolution actually believe a god was the ultimate creator. Francis Collins, Ken Miller are two famous examples of theistic evolutionists.

KAG:

even Darwin believed in a creator when he formulated the theory of evolution.

KAG:

Yeah, that's wrong.

KAG:

Today.

olabowale:

Syrup, where did i claim that a prophet is not a prophet?

olabowale:

Please get me a revelation that goes so far back to each prophet, in the language that they were revealed. You will see me taking everything in.

olabowale:

@Syrup: I could truly sum up your confusion about Q.your'an injuction in the belief of all the prophets: What each prophet said is true.

olabowale:

What other people say that the prophet said may or may not be accurate.

olabowale:

Let set up an example for each so that you can get the gist of the agreement of disagreement:

Jesus is reported to have said that his lord God is the same Lord God of his audience (Mark 12 verse 29). Now that is true because it goes in the same line of Oneness of God.

olabowale:

Jesus was also reported to have said that he is a diety. This is a fllacy because it completely goes against many verses of the Bible that point to the invisibility of God or His not dying Superior state, etc. The Qur'a.n also points to this Invisibility and all the other Superior to man qualities of God.

Jagoon:

The Bible Forbids Women From Being Pastors / Church Leaders

justcool:

So many Christians today teach that the way to salvation is by Faith alone. That by having faith in Jesus and accepting Jesus as one’s Lord and personal savior one is saved. They go further to say that sin must continue, that man can never be sinless, and that by being born again, they are justified before God.

samba123:

But EVEN IF they are right and the bible is talking about birds, there still aren't any birds with 4 legs.

samba123:

No claim can henceforth be made that the bible is "inerrant", or without mistakes. But the more one reads the bible, the more it is clear that this error is only one of countless others.

leirop:

thanks a lot, sorry my reply is a little late. before i continue, i want u to know i asked this question because i really want to know the answer. i also believe that christians can divorce bc of reasons other than adultery, the only problem is on what basis do we draw the line.

leirop:

anyway to answer your questions
as per the woman in John 8, i really don't understand what your point is, please explain.

leirop:

the woman is John 5 will have to go bck to her original husband, which is the 1st husband. but i get your point. i think the other marraiges will have to be nullified cause GOD will probably not recognize them, just my thot.

leirop:

if the unbeliever walks away and starts the divorce process, then it is fine.