₦airaland Forum

Chxta,

Which people did they meet there? Is it the present-day Palestinians?

@TayoD,

I am beginnig to think you are on the pay-roll of these guys. While I do have my bias for Isreal, I can discern blind support when I see one.

Don't worry too much I have seen a lot of people that think they know what they no nothing about.

Who cares about your bias? They say when the blind lead the blind there is serious wahala so wash your eyes well to make sure you are really discerning well.

Iran till date has not gone against its obligation to the international community as regards nuclear technology. That the US and Israel believe the main goal is nuclear weapon is a matter of opinion and I ask, when has the right of a nation become a matter of what another nation thinks?

Iran is a signatory to the NPT and though US is a signatory, they keep producing nuclear weapons, Israel on the other hand refused to sign the NPT and what that means in simple english is that Israel can afford to produce nuclear weapons everyday without anyone stopping them because they have refused to ratify the document.

As regards the president of Iran, the man is really intelligent, you need to hear the man discuss issues even though his call for the destruction of Israel is wrong in my opinion, you can never take it away from the man that he is sound upstairs.

And if you can't live with the statement above, feel free to jump into a lake.

it is people like you that open their mouths to say rubbish and yet you imagine you know what's up.

So who started the abusive language here while deviating from the issue at hand?

You know what?  If you can show me who the Canaanites are today, then we can begin to have a basis for removing the Jews from where they are settled.  On the other hand, the Jews settled in Palestine ahead of the people that call themselves Palestinians and that is the basis of my argument.  If we claim both are not original owners of the land, who amongst the two settled on that land first?

Afam,

Can you please show me where I started the name-calling?

Chxta,

Iraqis are descendants of Abraham so they can have Iraq for all I care.  However, Abraham emigrated from Ur of the Chaldees and settled down in Canaan which is the present day Palestine.  This is the portion of land we are talking about and the people who has the greater claim over it are the Jews.  I will like to know if these Palestininas can trace their origin back to that time.

@nilla,

because we denounce the actions of Muslims and their faith as supportive of such actions does not mean we hate muslims.  It is possible to hate someone's actions without hating the person.  dissent does not mean hate and it is unfortunate that you take it as such.

I have muslims in my extended family and I'll tell them the same thing I am telling everybody on nairaland.  Islam is evil and it is the catayst for the present-day middle-east conflict.

I think this wahala can be solved if we want to simplify it as have been proposed here. Since the people who call themselves Palestinians actually immigrated from Lebanon, syria, Egypt etc, why don't they just go back to their countries of origin. The same should be asked of the Jews, let them go back to their State of origin. But come to think of it, isn't the Jews original State of origin the present day palestine? Looks like we are back where we started.

@kaecy5,

You are out of line by saying I am te one abusing Afam. Can you just go back on this same page and find out who started the name-calling? I only paid him back in his own coin and it is unfortunate that you now see me as the terrorist

Since when did muslims begin to walk on a "straigth path that has no crookedness"?

I wonder o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@olabowale,

First, let me attest that the Koran is not confirming anything about the Gospels nor the Torah, rather, it tries to copy what the Bile says from hearsay, and it did a fantastic job of muddling it all up.

Your explanation of the Koranic verse I quoted above is so intellectually hollow that not even a 2 year old will find it acceptable. Your Koran says God's Word CANNOT be changed, and not IS NOT ALLOWED to be changed as you have chosen to misinterprete it. It says none can alter the decrees of Allah, not none is permitted to alter his decrees. In other words, you need to provide us with something more reasonable as you all have claimed that the Koran can only be understood in the realm of logic and intelligence. Your explanation do not pass any logic and intelligence criteria.

And by the way, Jesus did not say not even a jot of the Torah is permitted to be changed. Rather, He said not a jot of the law and the prophets will go unfulfilled. Matthew 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Why are you misquoting and deliberately changing what the scriptures have said? I guess you take your cue from Mohammed, and he is the one that has deceived the whole lot of you.

We do not have so many different Bibles. Rather we have different translations of the same Bible. May I ask you, how come you guys also have difrent Korans in the sense of YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL and SHAKIR just to name a few? Arent you being hypocritical when you make such a statement? The different translations are just what it is: translations. The king James Bible for instance is almost anachronistic in its style of presentation because of the language. We do not speak such English today, and it is only logical that other translations will be required. Each translations has its style with respect to the language and that is only the difference. All are translated from the same manuscripts but the style of delivery is just the only difference. For instance, here are other translations of that same Matthew 5:18. If you are honest, you will see that the message is the same, only the delivery is different.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (New Revised Standard Version)

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. (American Standard version)

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (New Internationsal Version)

I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved. (New Living Translation).

So tell me, isnt the message the same in all? And while you are at that, please explain the difference in the Koranic translations by YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL and SHAKIR.

You people have claimed so much that the Bible is changed and I wonder, can you guys just provide us the real Bible? I ask, at what point was it changed? Where are the ones available before that time? Obviously, Mohammed must have believed the Bible available at his time was authentic for him to have said in Surah 29.046
YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our Allah and your Allah is One, and unto Him we surrender.
SHAKIR: And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.

You all are just as confused as your Prophet.

I'll deal with the issue of Paul subsequently.

@Seun,

I'm surprised you claim to be an atheist. I can almost swear I read you refer to muslims somewhere on nairaland as your fellow brothers, which I translated to mean you are a muslim. Please pardon my mistake and leave the Quranic quotes to the other muslims justling for visibility here to provide clarity.

I'll treat the issues you raise as I have the time.

@Sista,

Perhaps you misunderstand Christianity or you are mixing with the wrong crowd. Or maybe, your thought of what Africa is and should be is just plain unrealistic. Culture, like everything else is subject to change and the african culture is no exception. The European culture you talk about has been and will continue to be dynamic, so when you insists that as Africans, we are meant to do things a certain way, like it's been done over the years, I just see that as absolute unrealistic.

Christianity is not about a change of your culture. Rather, christianity teaches the diversity of people and of nations and the fact that God made it to be so. Christianity is all about faith, forgiveness and love; or rather righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. All these can be expressed within the confines of our culture. The only thing that christianity is againsts will be anything that is diametrically opposed to the elements I mentioned above.

Christianity is not new in Africa as you may be wont to believe. Rather, it dates back to the very beginning of christianity in the day of pentecost where the bible records that ll nations and tongues were presnet at teh advent of the church. 3,00 people were saved on that day and it includes men of all nations. However, the first individual conversion to christianity by an African is recorded in Acts 8:27-39. Please note that this was a decision of choice and it is written that the Eunuch went his way rejoicing. This is what christianity does. it gives joy where none exists and a reconcialiation of man to God. Here is the refernce passage for your perusal:
8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

I never assumed you are a muslim. You have stated consitently before this that you are a practicing christian. What I have failed to understand is how a 'practicing' Christian can tell someone to go jump in the lake. That to me is inconceivable and inconsistent with the practice of the faith you are so quick to associate with.

So if you decide to read whatever meaning you want into our posts, what is the point of trying to tell you anything then, since you already have your mind made-up to follow a certain slant? You've assumed too much than you should on this thread. Anyone who supports Isreal is a religious bigot etc, Perhaps you need to look at, and consider other people's perspective just as you are trying to make them see things from your view point.

My position remains that those who find it supremely difficult to discuss intelligently will be the first to resort to personal abuse and insults.

In other words, since you find it supremely difficult to discuss intelligently, you were first to resort to personal abuse and insults.  You are obviously taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

You must be kidding me to have taken my statement that you are on Iran's payroll literarily.  Men, you need to cool down a little bit.  Is that what gave way to this unprovoked vituperation?  Your mad rampage obviously began from a wrong premise, and you will do well to back-track before you eventually "enter market".

And by the way, I suppose your stating you are a Christian only shows that you agree that it takes a Muslim to carry out such a dastardly act of suicide bombing.  Now you are talking.  You have consistently side-stepped my argument that these whole middle-eastern wahala is religion based and not the ephemeral issues that have been discussed so far.

@Afam,

I thought you were complaining that others were being rude.  What do you call the rubbish you just wrote?  

Until now, I had believed the best of you, but you obviously dont deserve to be treated like a gentleman.  I leave you to your wallowing in self delusion.  I really shouldn't be surprised by your outburst.  What more can you expect from someone who considers the President of Iran like-minded.  Like your hero, you have denied and tainted history, you try to intimidate or silence all opposition by every means necessary, death to Isreal is your life's goal and an Islamo-fascist World is your life-long dream.

I definitely wont be jumping into any lake, so you can go ahead and fulfil your passionate desire:  strap on an explosive belt and come detonate your sorry ass by my door-step.  At least that way, you are guaranteed your 72 virgins and an endlesss supply of booze in your promised heaven.  ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people are just reveling in ignorance.

@Seun,

I would have chosen not to contribute anything on this thread, but I realise I will be debating with you for the very first time.  I also suppose you are not given to blind condemnation of the scriptures as some are wont to do, and as such i will oblige you with some answers.

Before I go to the scriptures, let us go to the words of the man called Muhammad compiled in the compendium called the Koran.  Since that is your final authority, I will give you something to ponder upon.  According to your faith, the Gospels and the Torah were sent from God.  However, you have all claimed contrary to the Koran, that God's Word has been changed.  Going by your book, God's Word can never be changed under any circustance, and so I wonder how the Gospels and the Torah have now suddenly become corrupted by men.  Here are your references from the Koran:

006.115
YUSUFALI: The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.
PICKTHAL: Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR: And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.


006.034
YUSUFALI: Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.
PICKTHAL: Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before).
SHAKIR: And certainly messengers before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the messengers.


010.064
YUSUFALI: For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.
PICKTHAL: Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.
SHAKIR: They shall have good news in this world's life and in the hereafter; there is no changing the words of Allah; that is the mighty achievement.


So who is the liar now?  You or your Koran? I will address the points you mentioned from the Bible as you give me the answer to the one I just raised from the Koran. That will be on subsequent postings however.

@Afam,

I only wish he will be bold enough to engage the president of Iran in an uncensored debate so he can display fully his wrong policies and strange understanding of world affairs.

So it is the President of Iran that now has a good understanding of world affairs? A man who thinks religion plays a greater role than education in universities. This is a regime that is under threat of sanction by the European Union and the UN as a whole because of his understanding of world affairs.

I am beginnig to think you are on the pay-roll of these guys. While I do have my bias for Isreal, I can discern blind support when I see one.

Common Afam, even Kofi annan knows better by visiting Iran and Syria in an effort to ensure that peace reigns. You are giving Bush more credits than he deserves.

I like Lanredaman's contribution because he wasn't cynical in expressing his views that indeed SOME, and not ALL are motivated by gain.  I often get ticked off when people just generalise and consider anyone behind the pulpit to be a thief.

Let me provide a different view from what all have contributed so far.  I am of the opinion as the Bible teaches, that in every labor, there is profit.  Laboring in the Word and in the doctrine is no exception.  I am not a preacher, and have no call into the ministry, so I hope no one will accuse me of taking this stance for such reasons.

I personally believe that God is the best Boss to work for and that it pays to serve Him.  It would be absurd to work for someone all your life and not expect to be blessed from such work, especially where it is a heavily demanding one.  Unless we all want to claim that it is scriptural for us to be poor as Christians, then Pastors et al should not be singled out.  They are also Christians, and are entitled to all the blessings that every Christian is entitled to including wealth.  As the Bible says, God has given us ALL good things to enjoy.

If the questions is How they really make their money, I will suggest the author of this thread should carry out a survey of different churches to find out.  When such is done, and I get some facts from those who choose to contribute on this thread, then I'll give you more facts that I have at hand.

@otipratt,

Where did you get the information that Pastors are not allowed to go into personal business? This is nothing but misinformation and you really need to get your facts straight.

@Orikinla,

Maybe you should back up your words with facts and figures. This is not a religious organisation where everyone else (your loyal subjects) will hold on to your words as gospel truth.

See Google's explanation here: http://googleblog..com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html

It just shows how desperate the Left have become.

I object to the notion that moslems are trying to turn the whole world to Islam because even based on the happenings in the middle east today we have a West led by the US that is forcing the people in the middle east to accept its own way of life and that is fundamentally wrong.

I assume by your response that you believe that religion is not the underlying cause of this present and past conflicts.  This is the reason why I believe this Middle East palava will never be solved.  The underlying root cause of the problem is being swept under foot by those who prefer to treat the symptoms rather than the disease itself.  There is injustice all over the world, right into each of our household.  But what makes some people so bent on the anihilation of others?  Could it be this same injustice?  I really do not think so.  The injustice just gives them the excuse to carry out a hidden (though now open) agenda.

You have failed to address the role of Islam in the lives of the Middle Eastern Arabs and what role it is playing in this conflict.  Until we address that issue and understand that the final authority over these people is the koran,  then we are yet to leave the starting blocks on the road towards peace.

If we choose to be sincere and bold to tackle this issue, and not try to be politically correct, then we must address the role of faith in this conflict.  Anything short of that is just an adventure in futility.

@m4malik,

WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't agree with you more.

I am still waiting for the originator of this topic to respond before I make some other contributions. In the meantime, I think m4malik has answered you very well.

I do wish and pray for peace in the middle east. However, I am very pessimistic about this happening for obvious reasons. While some of us feel that the fundamental cause of these conflict is religion, some feel it is just a case of stolen justice. Those of us on the conservative side of the divide believe it is a religious war while our liberal friends believe that if we do unto the Arabs as we will have do unto us, then there will be peace.

The problem I have with the liberal stand is the fact that they try to separate the Middle Eastern Arabs from their religion, and we all know that it is their religion that governs every aspect of their lives. Unlike the West that scoffs at Christianity, the Middle Easterns consider Islam and the Qu'ran their final authority in every area of their personal and national life. So to say that their religion has no say in this conflict is to show a basic misunderstanding of the people we are dealing with.

If their religion teaches maintaining peace at all cost and that it is more blessed to be the oppressed than the oppressor, then I believe the Middle East will be another place than the one we are witnessing today. We all know people like Martin Luther King Jnr were influenced by the peace that is preached by their faith in proposing and implementing a non-violent and effective resistance, but the Arabs have no foundation and the basis to go this route. Rather, their armed and violent resistance can be justified by their faith which is their final authority.

And may the rest of the world not be deceived, if the Arabs can do away with Isreal, then they will set their eyes on Europe and the rest of the world. The only way Islam maintains peace is if it is in the ascendancy. I stand to be corrected on this notion.

@Big B1,

he feels that he owes Nigerian people.

That is exactly what we are saying. Let him start by paying up what he owes in the form of the Gulf war oil windfall then we will feel he is truly genuine. Until then, it is just maradaona as usual.

Could he be trying to woo Okotie to run as his vice?  I wouldn't be surprised if that is his plan.  However, I think he is in for a rude shock as Okotie has proved over and over that he is not interested in any post less than the Presidency.  Call him an uncompromising man on a mission.

I am not in blind support of anybody.  However, I think we need to tone down the words we are using on this thread. 

Okay, maybe Big B1's response was more like the Isrealis: an excessive and disproportionate use of foul language. 

So next time Mr Big B1, just make sure you mess people according to the way they mess you, not disproportionately more or less, otherwise you risk a red card from this referree. Remember what happened to Zinedine Zidane at the World Cup!!!!!! 

While a few of us do believe in the candidacy and ability of Okotie to lead our nation to enviable heights, I must confess that support from a person like IBB came as a surprise to me.

What do you think of this open admiration for Okotie? I am not sure I've ever heard IBB speak so highly of someone, he seems to always be pre-occupied with himself. The points he raised are quite legitimate as far as I am concerned, but what might be his intentions? Can I get some contributions out there.

Here's the link to the story: http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=56495

@Big B1,

Do you have to resort to personal abuse because someone shows you the scenario you painted isn't right?

I think you are the one that should watch what you say. Bursting out like that without making a reasonable contribution does not speak well of you at all.

The sheer bravado of some to accuse those who understand the sacredness of their office of dubious manipulations of their flock sure beats me.  While there may be some who think godliness means gain, the generality I dare say serve the Lord with utmost sense of responsibility.  I am of the opinion too that it takes a dubious person to think others are always dubious.  So for you to think that these Pastors are just merely milking the flock tells me you are probably pissed off because you wish the money was coming your way and it isn't.

@Enigma,
Back to your response.

1.  If Abraham wasn't under obligation to give a tenth, why did he do it?  And why a tength I ask?
2.  If Abraham gave out of freewill, why would the scriptures consider it so imprtant that it is regarded that Levi also paid tithe through Abraham?
3.  We have no record in the Bible that Abraham paid tithe again at any other time.  But was it written expressly that he only paid it once?  Besides, tithing became necessary only because a Priest was on the scene.  If there is no preist, there will be no tithing.  So tell me, is there a priest in the New Testament today?
4.  You are very funny saying the spoils was not Abraham's property.  So are you accusing him of being a thief?  How can you take possession of that which isn't yours and have the audacity to even give it away.  Spoils of war are your property, plain and simple.  That is how it works.
5.  I have answered this point earlier.  As long as a Priest is on the scene, the tithe is offered as the gift aspect of their priestly ministry.
6.  Jacob for one vowed to pay, though we never have a record that he fufilled his vow. 

And who pressurises you to give?  I feel no pressure at all anywhere, rather I have been immensely blessed giving a tenth of all my increase to the Possessor of Heaven and Earth.  And God has blessed me severally for even going beyond that to give offerings and pay my other vows.  Do you know there are people who are so blessed today for giving a tength that they now are reverse tithers?  What I mean is they pay 90% of their income and only keep a tength for themselves.  That reminds me of Proverbs 11:24: There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.
And for your information, I pay my tithe freely with a cheerful heart.  I've had times that I've had to miss the church service but I still ensured I sent in my tithe becaue it has been such a blessing to me, and I do it with all excitement.

One thing I'd also like to bring to your attention is the fact that I can almost certainly say all who do not pay tithe never give up to a tength of their income to God.  But I ask, why should the Old Testmanet saints who lived in our shadow do better than us today in our giving?  And yet we claim now that our spirit, soul, body and all we have belond to God unlike the saints of old.

I have more scriptures to show you concerning the tithe, but since we are yet to go beyond the gift aspect of the priestly duties, I will just leave it till someone can at least provide me some answers. Your glaring neglect of this only shows me how much you regard the bible. I for one do not believe there is an idle word in the scriptures, and I consider this also a part of the scroptures.

I was hoping to let babiosisi have the final say on this topic because she made a very good contribution that cuts across all beliefs. But since some have chosen to take my silence as consent for their stand, I thought I should clear this mirage from their mind.

@winteric,

the bottomline is:
1, tithing was part of the old law,
2, tithe is not regarded as a gift but as a levy imposed on jews,
3, the new testament church ignored it since it had no bases to be retained as the fundamentals for its observance were no longer in place in the new dispensation; the church is not a subsidiary of the one temple at Jerusalem, where God chose for the payment of tithes along with other obligations, there were no levites to receive the tithes in the new church situation, etc
I' m sure Tayod now agrees with these obvious truths.

1. What law are you talking about here? If it is the Mosaic law, then tithing predates it and it is not subject to that law.
2. So can you please tell us what the gift refers to then. As indicated in Hebrews, all the Priests before and during the law must offer gifts. Please enlightene us further. As you have told us what the gift is not, please tell us what it is.
3. Who told you that? Where is it written in the New Testmanet that tithing in done away with? Can I also bring to your attention that there were no levites at the time the first tithe was offered.

From my response above, I'm sure you are aware that I still maintain my stance. You all have continued to bring the tithe under the law, and I have shown you time and time again that it is not subject to it. Try and get this confusion out of your mind, then you will begin to see my point.

@Afam,

Your claim:

Olmert on the other hand believed that war was a first option in resolving a conflict, and now we are going back to what they should have done in the first place, do a prisoner exchange.

How can you make the above statement when Olmert got the PM ticket solely because he advocated for a 2-State solution with Palestine, and clearly marking out Isreal's border after withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders?

This is fact, you can't always keep the peace no matter how much you advocate for it. Olmert learned the hard way, and I am sure he now sees clearly how Sharon's policies would not work. Isreal is dealing with people who thrive on conflict and who wont rest until one or both parties is completely anihilated. It's a kill or be killed situation and I do not forsee anything that the UN can do to resolve this blind hate.