@Olabowale,

Thank you for your selective reading. I am quite familiar with the mus.lim idea of the 'Qur.an' says this or that, and that must necessarily be true. That is the weakest idea you can ever try to defend while using the same weak assumption to deny the statements in the Bible.

Although I am not a Musl.im and never was one, recent events (including the debates on nairaland) made me read the Qur.an out of mere curiosity. The astonishing thing I found was unmistakably simple - most of the assumptions posted and held by mus.lims like yourself are false and even go so far to contradict what is stated in the Qur''an.

If anyone is "attributing" anything to Jesus, we find loads of such things in your hadith - and we can also use your own principle and safely conclude that all we find there are false. By the same stretch, you can apply the same rule to your accusation that the statements in the Bible cannot be trusted - what you need to understand is that the Qur''an clearly says that it came to confirm the Biblical records (not cast doubts on them). I think that particular argument has been well settled in another thread - and I was disappointed that you didn't have anything meaningful to contribute in that thread.

One more point: if you keep up this idea of denying the Bible because you cannot trust what it teaches, then by extension you have put yourself in a serious dilemma - because your qu''ran asserts that you must believe in ALL the prophets. There is no way you can claim to believe in ALL the prophets when you cast doubts on what the same prophets have taught!

Does the qur''an make a vacant assessment for people like you to excuse yourself for believing in "SOME" of the prophets instead of "ALL"? If at all you believe in ALL, you have no objections to make against ANY of them! To raise such objections immediately renders your assertion of ALL as a tidy bit of meaninglessness.

This is why recycling long theories and not addressing real issues is not drawing my interest in your theories.

Blessings.

4 Him:

that is already adultery. thankfully the bible has given a leeway out of such marriages.

Okay. But here is the problem - the unbelieving partner who loves other woman than his own wife does not want a divorce! Infact, he seriously refuses a divorce! Worse than that, he is always screaming out 1 Corinthians 7:13 - "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."

Does the leeway still apply?

Hi Justcool,

Thanks for sharing. Here are a few things that seem to require further queries:

justcool:

@Pastor AIO
You couldn't have said it better. Honestly I didn't know how to reply to syrup, but many thanks to you for coming up with that wonderfull analogy which answered his question.

I actually don't see how my question has been answered. Plase share more than tersely saying so.

justcool:

@syrup
Science does not mention God because science deals with the physical only. God is beyond physical therefore science cannot investigate God with scientific means. I have already said earlier that you can only use physical means to investigate physical things; also, you can only use spiritual means to investigate spiritual things. Science does not deal with God, science deals with physical things. No scientific theory go beyond physical.

Okay. I shall tuck this neatly away for future reference. . . I believe something might prompt me to remind you of this quote/assumption.

justcool:

This guys story and the scientific story will not be the same. Because the guy will tell it from the human perspective while science will only analyze the physical means through which the guy got his destination.

Apply the same with the issue. Creation tells you the purpose the significance and the meaning and the reason behind the coming into being of man. Evolution tells you the physical means through which man came into being.

Both stories remain like the two sides of the same coin.

Both "creation" and "(darwinian) evolution" are mutually exclusive. Please consult the proponents of evolution and you will see precisely what I mean. Those holding to the theory of (darwinian) evolution do not suppose that the "origin" of the world came about by "creation". The position can be illustrated simply as:

Evolution is opposed to creation -

(a) evolution postulates the existence of the world by natural causes (without a creator)
(b) creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD.

How many Darwinian evolutionists (or even neo-evolutionists) do you know that speak of the "origin" of the world by a divine and deliberate act? Evolution is not another term or nomenclature for "creation" - they are not saying the same thing at all.

Infact, when one tries to assume a middle compromise to marry both concepts/theories together (something I might call "crevolution", it will be a very strange soup to serve indeed! WHY? Because those who are passionate about (darwinian) evolution have often said clearly that there is NO PURPOSE or MEANING to life - which immediately stands in stark contrast to what you stated for creation:

justcool:

Creation tells you the purpose the significance and the meaning and the reason behind the coming into being of man.

Can I ask this question: when was the last time you heard neo-darwinist speak of "purpose" and "the meaning" of life for the coming into being of man?

One more point:

justcool:
Evolution tells you the physical means through which man came into being.

If you assume that God created man by "physical means" of evolution, then you are effectively saying the following:

(a) man was not created as "man" - for evolution says we evolved from apes into man. Does the Bible teach that?

(b) man was evolved without purpose or meaning - the very essentials held by evolutionists. Does the Bible teach that?

Is there something I am still missing in your premise?

@4Him,

4 Him:

What if the unbelieving party were a member of a secret cult? Would you sit there because the bible didnt give you express permission to leave?

Hmm, that's a food for thought.

Rather than duck that one, let me share something small. In theory we may say we shall remain (depending on the situation); but in practice, many people might opt for the door out!

Another thought crosses my mind: what if the unbeliever seeks to remain in the marriage but believes in a worldview that he can jump from bed to bed without qualms. Ladies, what shall you do?

_{I know I am a lady as well. . . but I'm scratching my head now. Please help!}

@leirop,

Good reply - I appreciate your points.

leirop:

thanks a lot dear, but if u read the 1 Corinthians 10-13, it explains that if the wife does NOT BELIEVE AND SHE IS WILLING TO LIVE WITH HIM, LET HIM NOT DIVORCE HER, and the next verse explains the same for the husband that does not delieve.

We are both agreed there. The point I tried to make earlier was that "adultery" was not the only time (or reason for) a Christian divorcing. By extension, it seems to me that physical abuse leading to irreconciliable differences (such as "believer" vs "unbeliever" are also highlighted.

Although, it is a question of who walks away from the marriage - the Christian of the unbeliever? Certainly, the apostle makes clear that if the unbeliever seeks to either (a) remain (1 Cor. 7:12), or (b) depart (1 Cor. 7:15), the believer is not to force the opposite.

In practice, what would someone say to this situation: A man has clear evidence that his wife cheated on him. Rather than seek divorce "as the Bible says", he sought to forgive her and continue his marriage (I know the couple). Some of my Christian friends were averse and opined that the brother should have divorced her rather than forgive her. He already had answered that just as Christ did not condemn the adulterous woman in John 8, so he has asked God to give him the faith to cherish his wife. What would you say?

leirop:

What it did not say was that the believer should walk away, it said if the unbeliever wants to walk away.

True.

leirop:

The only part of the bible that specifically talks about the believer walking away is if there is adultery, and that is why i asked my question.

I follow your line of reason.

leirop:

And i understand the seperation, but my issue is divorcing, because one cannot re-marry if one is just seperated. Please let me know your thoughts.

Okay, here are my thoughts (this is personal and does not reflect what our pastor teaches):

I believe that one can re-marry. My reasons are based on the following:

(a) In John 8, Christ forgave the woman caught in the very act; and when He said that she should go and sin no more, I suppose that it did not mean that the woman in question was to remain unmarried.

(b) what about the woman in John 4? She had had 5 husbands and the man she was with was not her husband (v. 18). What would she do - divorce and remain unmarried - or remarry?

Whatever the take on this (we all have our various persuasions), I am persuaded that Christians can re-marry in some circumstances.

(a) If the Christian walks away, he/she should remain unmarried or seek to be reconciled to their spouses.

(b) If the divorce is irrecinciliable (especially if it was an unbeliever who walks away), then it seems (to me) that verse 15 does not hold a believer bound under such cases.

What do you think? Please share.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

but dear, if you go to the library and pick up any book on the history of the middle east you will see many accounts that make no mention of God.

That is true - and it all depends on what perspective the authors were penning their accounts. Certainly, a political historian may not be interested in the mention of 'God' in such accounts; an economist also. But if the author was trying to render an account of the "religious history of the Middle East", would we bet our boots that he would be passionately against mentioning 'God'?

The point again is simple - the topic is between two theories seeking to account for the "origin" of the world.

- For some, it is purely by (a) evolution with no "God" in the equation;
- for others, it is by (b) creation without darwinian evolution;
- yet for others, it is a middle course that says as far as the question of "origins" go, it has to be "creation by evolution" [that is, (a) + (b)] See? It does not even merit a (c)!

Pastor AIO:

Yet the bible clearly states that God was behind a lot of the events told in the history books. Including famines which scientists will tell you are due to meteorological events.

Okay. Here again are 3 things

(a) the Bible is a book based on theism - it is not a meteorological manual
(b) scientist may speak of famines with meteorological indices rather than with theistic vocabs
(c) yet, not many meteorists discuss effects of famine by the theory of evolution.

Pastor AIO:

Would you say that Persia conquered Babylon because of militaristic factors or would you say that it happened because the Lord gave babylon onto Persia.

Pretty obvious, isn't it? If you assume my answer purely on theistic basis, I should simply say that both factors were involved.

However, if you assumed my answer to be based on evolutionary postulations, then how does that square with "militaristic factors"? From what did "militaristic factors" evolve?

I am usually blessed by people who state their convictions succinctly and boldly.

However, let me add a few:

leirop:

The Bible says the only time a christian should divorce is if there is adultery, what if there is physical abuse?

It seems that we have narrowed what the Bible actually teaches. Adultery is not the ONLY time (or reason for) a Christian divorcing. 1 Corinthians 7 details the various issues involved in divorce questions as well. What about the question of beliefs - "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not" (as in v. 12)? There are cases when people have been divorced on grounds of whether they had different worldviews - and verse 12 (in my opinion, at least) suggests that sometimes these disagreements may be so heated as to involved physical abuses.

In such cases, is it then Biblical to be separated? The answer is given in verse 15 - "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

Just my thoughts.

Pastor AIO:

My point being that you can have a perfectly feasible theory, biological or political or in any discipline for that matter, which in itself makes no mention of God but yet there are many who will see the hand of God in it. There is no contradiction.

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

That is what I wanted to point out to those who are assuming "creation by evolution" - that is a muddled idea that is quite disconnected.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

The history of the rise and fall of empires over time does not 'smuggle in the idea of God in the equation.

If only you could show me the correlation between "history of the rise and fall of empires over time" and "evolution & creation". That is why I made a simple request:

syrup:

I think those who are espousing the middle course should seek to calmly go back to the fundamentals of evolutionary postulations before subscribing to their ideas of "creation by evolution".

@huxley,

Having defined the basic concepts above ("abrogate", "endorse", "fulfill", "ratify" etc), let me summarise the earlier question you asked:

huxley:

What does it mean to ratify a law by the blood of animals? In practice, what does this entail?

Hebrews 9 teaches us what "ratifying" a covenant is all about. What does it entail? It simply means that all who enter into that covenant are saying "yes" in pledge of their lives to the covenant they answered to. This is why the Bible distinguishes between those who were under the law and those who were not under the law -

Rom 3:19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

huxley:

Are the other 9 commandments similarly ratified?

Yes. But what is important to understand here is that "THE LAW" is far more than the decalogue (10 commandments). "The LAW" included so many other stipulations, and not just the 10 commandments. To break one of the decalogue was to be guilty of violating all the other 9; but that is not the only thing that we find in what is known as "the LAW". Please turn over to Leviticus and see examples of issues in addtion to the decalogue --

(a) "This is the law of the burnt offering" - Lev. 6:9

(b) "And this is the law of the meat offering" - Lev. 6:14

(c) "Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy" - Lev. 7:1

(d) "This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth" - Lev. 11:46

All these together with the decalogue are known as "THE LAW". What the problem is for many is that they have become used to seeing only the 10 commandments as "The Law". That is why I offered that people should first read precisely what is written before drawing any conclusions.

huxley:

Is so, how is the "injunction not to kill" ratified? Where are the biblical references justifying this interpretation?

Good question. I ask one thing - please quote the verse directly and examine what the Hebrew text says. I will come back and discuss more after you do so and find something surprising there.

@huxley,

Let me answer in reverse order:

huxley:

What do you think? Is Jesus endorsing the laws or is he abrogating them?

My honest answer to those questions:

(a) Jesus was NOT "abrogating" the laws. If one has to speak of "abrogation", then the basis of "fulfillment" is immediately removed. Not carefully consider this: was Jesus speaking of "abrogating" the Law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17 - ("I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"? I don't know how one could be fulfilling something while it is being "abrogated".

(b) But was He "endorsing" it then, since I believe He was not "abrogating" it? NO, He was not "endorsing" (in the sense of making those same stipulations applicable to Christians). Rather, the word "fulfill" does not mean "endorse" - rather, it points to something like giving it its significance.

Let me give you just one example. The Law says for one not to commit adultery. If Jesus had come to "abrogate" that stipulation in the law, then the foundation of the polity against adultery would have been rendered meaningless even before He commenced His ministry. So in application, when a woman was caught in adultery, rather than ENDORSE her stoning as required by that law (see John 8:5 and Lev. 20:10), Jesus forgave the woman without an infrigement of the saw body of Mosaic Law!

How was that possible? Because the same law stipulates that it cannot be partially applied - and what the Jews did was to bring the woman for stoning, and excuse the man who did the act!

Now back to sabbath. The Bible clearly teaches that the law was inoperative until is has been ratified by blood (see Hebrews 9:18-20) -

"Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you."

Why did Moses do this? Because verse 17 says clearly - "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth".

But the focal point is this: why was the LAW certified only to Jews and not to Gentiles? The answer was also given in the Bible - "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" [Deut. 5:2-3]

In other words, the covenant was not given as a body of LAW to those who preceded the Jews. And when the LAW came afterwards, it could not be in force - until it had been ratified. That is why it was a covenant. In Biblical teaching, a covenant goes beyond mere words - it has to be ratified.

zuluman:

Apostles of Christ,

We all have much work to do. We have to make sure that our brothers and sisters in Christ do not lose their faith in Christ.

Those who speak of reading things to lose their faith is suspect as an idea. No, I'm not demeaning anyone or seeking to do so. Rather, I'm rather wondering aloud - this kind of poser should help us realize that "conviction" goes far beyond mere words. Let me quote a verse to help this:

1 Thessalonians 1:5 - "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake."

In other words: the Gospel is not a matter of mere talk - anyone can do that. Conviction comes where the following are present:

(a) power
(b) the Holy Ghost
(c) much assurance

Nothing can substitute them.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup:Please consider that John 9; 35 to 37, and John 10; 36 can never be proven 100% without the usual ambiquity of the blind faith to be words coming from Jesus.

Which is the same thing that can be attributed to the words of Muh.hammad - every single line he spoke about knowing Jesus Christ are mere falatious statements by that same rule. You cannot pick and choose what to believe and what to deny by calculation and design.

I believe in the statement that are recorded in those verses - and if those statements pose serious problems for you, it is not my call. "Blind faith" is something which has become a glib cliche to many these days that it only makes me wonder if those who use that ducker have anything tangible to say. If one holds such fallacious theories (a clever tool to willfully deny something you don't like), then my simple query is this: what statement could YOU defend 100% as factual in your own perusals?

It is not enough to point accusing fingers simply because you are standing on the other side of the bridge. Look closely, 3 fingers are pointing back at you (a Nigerian proverb I learnt recently).

olabowale:
Further, if there is any verse that is contrary to this statement, above, it even raises more cloud to any possible accuracy of it.

Okay.

olabowale:

How can son be father and ghost all in one shot?

This is why you seriously need to clearly drop your assumptions. I can answer and at the same time waste your assumptions. HOW?

(a) Jesus never once claimed that He is both the FATHER and the Holy Ghost in one shot. That is sadly a cheap and unfair presumption to make. If you have a verse for that, could you offer sincerely to quote it?

(b) in natural human palance, we could say that a "son" could be a "father". My husband is the father of our children, but he is also son to his parents. BUT here is something distinct in our discussion - such analogies do not apply to Jesus (remember I said "human palance?"

(c) but the Son is not something that Christians devised recently - unless Mus.lims want to DENY the Old Testament (which the Qur.an verifies). where do you stand?

olabowale:

Then some of you even present the possibility that he, Jesus was Melchezdek, all the while before, during and after his time on earth! You are shrouding this mystery in heavy clothing. More like crush velvet and tampoline than shear material.

People's views differ on so many things - politics, religion, science, or other worldviews. Not all Musl.ims are agreed about their own beliefs - could I then make a case for your own "tampoline" and heavy hot-air-balloon?

I think it is only fair to save your readiness to attack people's views when you can't defend yours.

olabowale:

The denial of through is coming from you who witnessed falsehood agaianst an innocent man.

That is a funny thing with you. Here is the fact:

(a) Jesus clearly said that He is the Son of God (as quoted earlier).
(b) syrup agrees and affirms that claim
(c) olabowale accuses me of a "DENIAL"?

That is laughable. It is Mus.lim themselves who are making the DENIAL - and I don't see how you should be so desperate to assume these false accusations against me.

olabowale:

Sometimes ago a nairalander talked about jesus talking to Moses and Elijah. I just could not but ask myself how he knew that these people were Moses and Elijah?

Funny thing - I just could ask myself the same questions about how Muh.hammad knew that those he claimed to have spoken to were Moses, Jesus, and others in the Bible? HOW do you defend that kind of thing with your selective reading?

olabowale:

Was Jesus telling them that these people were who the christians say they were? Do you not wonder that God Almighty will not be raising dead prophets up to show ordinary men?

What kind of "God" are you talking about? A "god" who cannot raise the dead is actually a "god". Sorry, Olabowale. . . I believe in the resurrection - and I think you claim here is quite unisla,mic.

olabowale:

Muh.amm.ad who saw all of them in his Isra wa Miraj did not tell any m.isl.im that these people were ever raised up for the viewing of any one, except in the company of prophets: and he m.uh.am.m.ad was the last of them.

Again, HOW can you "prove" that Muh/hammad saw them 100%?

Hi again Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup: Please tell me with certain clarity, not the usual inuendos, how I.s.lam is idolatry? Remember i have made salah in a church in Manhattan. Yet my salah is acceptable, InshaAllah.

Let me first make something clear to you: I am not the sort of person who recycles endless arguements, so please leave out your recycling. This very issue has been well discussed, and like I said earlier, I waited endlessly to see how you could ratonally defend what was posted for your consideration - alas! nothing was forthcoming from you.

Secondly, I took some time to search for the relevant thread where answers to your question were given. Please consider the following:

(a) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-96254.0.html#msg1717749

(b) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-96254.0.html#msg1717750

(c) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-96254.0.html#msg1717751

(d) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-96254.0.html#msg1717752

(e) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-96254.0.html#msg1717757

After (e) above, I waited to see how you addressed the question posed to you, but although I was coming back several times to see if you had responded reasonably, I could not see how you posted a response to what you had raised.

That is the reason why I was persuaded to feel that so many people are fond on this forum to be recycling issues and presenting them as "new" topics. If you visit those links and have something worthwhile about the question of idolatry being practiced by many Mus.lims, I'd be glad to see it.

olabowale:

Further, could you tell me if there is a record that a mere rendering, sketching, painting or photographing of jesus was every made. If there is and Jesus knew of it, would you summise that he would not have destroyed it based on the hot temperament that is recorded for him, about pople who do evil?

Two things here:

(a) is there a record o a sketch of Jesus?
Ans: I am not aware of any such

(b) if there ever was, and He knew of it, would He not have destroyed it based on a supposed "hot temperament"?
The question is unfortnuately skewed. WHY? Because Jesus was not recorded as having a hot temperament on those who did evil. Example - the woman caught in adultery was indeed an evil thing. What was Jesus' reaction - destroy the woman?

I think when you make assumptions, it would help to drop sentiments and be honest and simple. These are values I aprreciate deeply.

But I should make another point here: Christianity is NOT Isla.m - and we know what Isla.m teaches about such matters of pictures. Christianity does not teach that any artist or painter would go to Hell - but I know how many Mus.lims have shown me records of Mu.hammad's teaching that artists and painters will go to Hell.

olabowale:

We will need to remember that he overturned the table of the exchangers even in the visinity (plaza) of the temple. Or would not the picturing/muralling or any of the image making not against one of the ten commandments?

The reason why Jesus overturned tables was clear - those who were buying and selling in the Temple had turned worship into a robbery - please read it for yourself (Matthew 21:13). I don't see how that should now be stretched to include destroying paintings that had nothing to do with your assumptions.

olabowale:

Syrup, just the way that the christians level accusations and do not provide evidences could not be deemed acceptable by fair minded people. That is if there is one. But God Almighty is enough as a Witness of His truth, which He sent each prophet with.

That is why I am seeking for clear facts - especially facts in your presumptions. What I read quite often are glib statements. For example, where is it recorded that Jesus would have destroyed pictures? Any hard facts or pointers beyond your mere assumptions and presumptions?

I am thankful that life is meaningfully designed for man.
Even so, I am thankful that such a meaning to life is found in Jesus Christ.
Lord Jesus Christ, I am ever so thankful that YOU more than the world to me.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup: Lying against Jesus, is a false witnessing. The consequences are dire. Knowing that Jesus was a man, a prophet, a messiah to the children of Israel, alone, never started a religion and never asked anyone to start one, etc, are bearing false witnessing against him.To deitify him is false witnessing.

Thank you for your comments - I appreciate them, and agree that lying against Jesus is false witnessing. However, what you may not have carefully considered is that DENYING what Jesus Christ said in order to keep your religion is even far worse. Are you on course?

Let me give you an example: Jesus Christ clearly referred to Himself as the Son of God (please see John 9:35-37 and 10:36).

Now Olabowale, where do you stand in those statement - do you stand to DENY those statements? If you do, then the consequences are dire indeed. Please carefully consider that DENIALS are even worse than accusations.

Bless you.

Hi huxley,

huxley:

The last time I checked, the law of the sabbath was still part of the 10 commandments. If the law of the sabbath is not binding on non-Jews, are the other 9 commandments equally not binding on non-Jews?

The simple answer would be: read the terms of the LAW. Have you?

I clearly stated that the law was ratified - did I not? Please scroll again and see it, reproduced below:

syrup:

(b) The sabbath law was ratified by the blood of animals - it was binding on all who were Jews under the law of Moses

In other words, when you read the terms upon which that law was effective and operative, the point is clear. Which brings us to the simple question again: HOW was that particular law ratified? Have you read it yet? If not, please read it, and then bear out your concerns.

huxley:

How is one to know which laws are binding and which are not?

Here is a simple point: what LAW are you here concerned with?

@tpaine,

My small input:

I don't think it is a "religion" you actually need. Believe me, that path will lead you into further disatisfaction with the inner leanings of your own heart.

I would rather say that a relationship with God is more satisfying than any "religion". I understand that any belief in God (however expressed) is quite too often referred to as a "religion" - and I have no problem with that, as long as we know why people use such descriptive qualifiers.

However, we can all understand that if GOD is whom you seek, HE is above any idea of a "something" - He longs to to make Himself known to your heart, and to give you an eternal relationship with Himself through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. A relationship with Christ is far above the mere concept of a "religion". Here is a personal invitation to seek that relationship - and I have you in my prayers.

@huxley,

huxley:

The crucial question is whether this commandment is meant as an absolute injunction against telling lies. Or are there situation were it be actually be morally right to tell a lie?

What would be your own answer? It is not enough to seek to pose questions and hold aloof from the implications of your own assumptions.

huxley:

BTW, who is your neighbour? Is it OK to bear false witness against someone who is not "your neighbour"?

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. What is your own definition of a neighbour - who is your neighbour, huxley?

@topic,

Let me add a few more lines:

"Is It A Sin To Work On The Sabbath?" NO.

It all depends on several things:

(a) The sabbath law was made for Jews - that law was not binding on Gentiles (that is people who are not Jews)

(b) The sabbath law was ratified by the blood of animals - it was binding on all who were Jews under the law of Moses

(c) Christians are not under a covenant ratified by the blood of animals - we are believers from every nation of the world

(d) the New Testament sabbath is more a Person than a day - it is Christ Himself! Christ is our blessed rest, and we are the beneficiaries of the better things through the covenant of HIS Blood.

Blessings.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

and when we say that you are idol worshippers, there is that uproar against us!

It's fascinating that you so love to point accusing fingers at others while you suffer chronically from the very same thing you accuse others of! It was not too long ago (if I remember clearly) that the idolatry in your religion was pointed out. What caught my interest was to see how logically you could defend what was posted for your consideration.

olabowale:

Is picture not an image making? Was camera available before or during the life of Jesus?

There are more ways of making a "picture" than only by CAMERA. Hint: painting and graphic arts. However, I don't see where anyone was claiming that the photopgraph of Jesus was a result of the click of cameras!

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

secularism and humanism seem to have a better effect on morality that religious fanatism

That statement does not even come close to bear. True, fanaticism is an ugly phenomenon - whether express religiously, politically, or atheistically. But what has history demonstrated about humanism and secularism?

I think the idea has be well laid to rest by the various contributors; particularly these two caught my attention:

(a)

4 Play:

Never mind the attempts to stretch stats,this is a clear example of someone mistaking correlation for causation.

(b)

WesleyanA:

I don't think the US is predominantly atheist. not even close. it's secular but not atheist.

Besides, dear bawomolo, just what precisely do you mean by "Atheist Countries" in your thread topic?

Hello all,

It's interesting to see the turn of events in this discussion. However, it seems rather curious that recently, some discussants have sought to marry both ideas of creation and evolution to arrive at a compromise. Please correct me where I might be mistaken, but between times as I tried to follow the discussions, here is one point I came across that highlighted the point in my query:

justcool:

According to the biblical account of creation God created man out of the dust of the earth and then gave unto man the breath of live.
From this we can deduce that man is made up of two parts:
1.) The part made out of the dust of the earth--- The physical body
2.) The breath of life given by God -- The spirit of man.
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.

This actually leaves a few disturbing questions unanswered. The two standard positions held by those investigating the question of evolution are:

(a) Evolution does not smuggle in the idea of God in the equation
(b) Creation does not suppose the idea of "physical bodies evolving" by theories of darwinism.

I think those who are espousing the middle course should seek to calmly go back to the fundamentals of evolutionary postulations before subscribing to their ideas of "creation by evolution". So far, there doesn't seem to be a slice rational thought in the middle course.

Interesting.

olabowale:

Allam was never a devouted Musl"im.

Just curious: WHO is a "devouted Mus'lim?"

tpaine,

tpaine:

The word atheism occasions a lot of confusion if not unease in the general public particular the god-fearing public. This word carries with it many connotation, but in fact its meaning is quite simply

If atheism carries MANY CONNOTATIONS, why narrow it down to just one - particularly one that YOU cannot defend?

tpaine:

Atheism, means lack of a belief in god.

Atheism is a BELIEF stated as positively as theists state their propositions.

tpaine:

On this basic meaning atheism makes no statements about the existence or non-existence of god(s).

This is poor logic. No wonder it has gone largely ignored! My dear, atheism ACTUALLY makes a statement about the question of the existence God. Hint: Atheism is reknowned as the only belief that states passionately that "THERE IS NO GOD!" That is a statement - consult your dictionary.

tpaine:

An atheist just lack the belief.

An atheist of your type has always believed his lack.

tpaine:

Thus a child who has not been instructed in god-beliefs is an atheist.

I am not aware of any child (or child-atheist) who has made any statement such as "THERE IS NO GOD". Furthermore, no child of atheistic leaning has sought to debate the existence of God - simply because they are not making any statement (whether positively stated ["GOD exists"] or negatively stated ["GOD does NOT exist"/"There is NO God"]).

tpaine:

People who live in civilisation where they do not have god-beliefs are atheists.

Such examples as. . .?

tpaine:

These are my working definitions of these words. I know other non-theists have other definitions, but these are the ones I prefer.

The ones you "prefer" actually say it all - it is too narrow to be taken seriously.

@TayoD,

You anticipated me on that, and my thanks. You often seem to say what's in my mind on a few topics, and that's very much appreciated. However, I'd like to highlight some of the points you made with a different approach.

#1. Moses was a Jew while Muhammad was not.

That is precisely the point in Deut. 18:15 that the Prophet to be raised was to be from among the Jews - "of thy brethren." This is doubly confirmed in the statement Jesus made that 'salvation is of the Jews' (John 4:22).

#2. Moses was a Monogamist while Muhammad was a polygamist.

That is true; however, I really don't think that the profile of the Prophet in Deut. 18:15 should rest on the criteria of marital status. The Lord Jesus wasn't married; whereas both Moses and Muhammad were. However, Muhammad was very much unlike Moses in that the former promoted polygamy while both Jesus and Moses preached monogamy.

#3. Moses was literate while Muhammad was illeterate 9at least that is what they claim).

True again; but anyone could argue against this as Moses receive his training in Egypt, which is not the case with Jesus. I would be more inclined to argue that the circumstances surrounding their births in connection with Egypt are identical; which is not the case with Muhammad.

#4. Moses was a Shepherd while Muhammad was a trader (and later a raider)

Occupation, like marital status, may not be advanced as a criteria, as Jesus was a carpenter.

#5. Moses heard directly from God, Muhammad did not.

This is a very sound point, and one that Deut. 18:15 indicates by the clause 'like unto me' in reference to the Prophet being like unto Moses. Not only was the point made that the Prophet like unto Moses was to speak directly from God ('will put my words in his mouth'); but such suggest that the Prophet would hear directly from God. Muhammad does not qualify in this role at all; while Jesus was exactly like unto Moses here.

#6. No one knows where Moses was buried, while Mohammeds grave is known.

Same could be argued for Jesus, for His tomb/sepulchre was known to His followers.

#7. Moses had numerous eye witnesses to his divine encounters while Muhammad had nothing.

In the sense of the miracles performed, another strong point in my opinion and agreeable to the profile of the Prophet in Deut. 18:15 & 18; especially the miracle of compared in the discourse of the Lord Jesus in John 6:31-32.

#8. Moses appeared with Jesus in the New Testament while Muhammad did not.

Another strong point.

#9. Moses performed miracles, while Muhammad did not.

There again.

#10. Moses saw God face to face while Muhammad did not.

Yet another very strong point.

I really haven't had much time these days on the Forum; and when I can, then more points will be posted.

Cheers all.