₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Really, TV01? You sincerely ask this question?

Here's one for you then!

Do you agree at a minimum that there is an alternative reading that is, honest, backed by the Quran (and better than yours?

Verses
provided to assist you.

If one randomly palms any 2 or 3 of your posts, it would be hard not to see you as a garden variety ideologue at best - captured and washed - or nothing more that an ideological orc - mindlessly chundering the things you've imbibed.

Too be fair, you do have a few other tools in your kit. One is too partially quote (or outright edit) posts in your responses, or parrot questions you couldn't think of yourself, whilst being blind to context or colour .

One of my faults is sometimes second guessing myself. In trying to believe there must be something of merit, something worth the effort it must take - surely? So I reviewed the links you posted. One of them quotes surah 4:35, Neatly skipping 4:34. Another links to the sunnah and clearly states a moose.slim can beat his wife. - https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1163.

Both the articles were puff pieces designed to "sanctify" ee.slam for audiences, including the useful iee.jits and lackeys. Saying things that in no way forestall DVA once instituted. One of my faves - it swoons over the fact that ee.slam, gives women inheritance rights. True, it does, but it fails to mention the split. If you can't do the study or the deep dives, give yourself and others a rest.

I apologise to myself - wholeheartedly . I had you tagged right all along.


TV

Raalsalghul:
Him commit crime and they remember him ancestry shaperly.

I read the article - twice to be certain. Unless l missed it, there was no reference to ancestry or origins that l could see. Not in the link posted. Is there a point you wanted to make?


TV

Our learned friend, SAN etc. etc. do your legal superpowers only consist of waffle and bluster . The bible says "in the multitude of words there is sin" Please answer my questions and I'll be happy to respond to yours.


TV

^{...let me open another front}

DeepSight:
+
I am trying my best to remain clear and consistent with you, but it appears you need me to kowtow to your reading of things before you can proceed. Note that I am not a Christian, and as such it really is not my business what a Christian wants to abide by or not. What is clear to me is that -

1. The same God Christians worship made barbaric commandments in the Old Testament (including orders for genocide)

2. The same Jesus worshipped by Christians repeatedly quoted the Old Testament in many things. He would ask, what does the law of Moses tell you, for example, and when asked what it takes to enter the Kingdom of heaven he summarized the law as being loving God and loving your neighbor (and this is a summary of the ten commandments - the first four dealing with God and the last six dealing with your neighbor)

In light of the foregoing, tell me, is it not reasonable to say that it is questionable to languidly and carelessly wave away the Old Testament and its laws? Is it your position that the Old Testament has been abolished? Has it been "cancelled" the way Muslims say that newer scripture cancels older scripture? You tell me, if that is what you think.

Tell me specifically, have the ten commandments been abolished?

Have all the commandments towards love, fairness, justice, honesty and humility in the Old Testament been abolished?

Are Christians not still bound by them?

Or is it only when a Christian sees a command that he does not like that he remebers that Alhaji Jesus has changed things?

Go ahead and tell me.

You are the one trying to hold me to a thing I never said. I never said "Christians are bound by the law" for example. That is your inference. I can understand why you leap to that inference but it misses my position. I dont think Christians are bound by all of the law (I gave you the example of the edict against shaving facial hair to show you that there are many petty and absurd rules therein - the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are a sad read full of nonsensical and petty injunctions) - BUT - no one can argue that the God that Christians worship (someone who is said to be the same yesterday, today and forever) once made such injunctions and prescriptions and no one can deny that it is worrisome that he would.


+
We fulfill promises, laws are not "fulfilled" - no one makes such a usage of language either in law or everyday life. Laws are either obeyed, disobeyed or enforced. So quit the petty attempt at the professional ad hominem.

Speaking theologically however, I would say that Christ meant that the entire thrust of the events of the Old Testament found fulfillment in his coming. Certainly not that the laws and rules therein were fulfilled by him. If anything he dismissed quite a few of the said laws and rules (On Divorce/ On Revenge/ On the Sabbath, to mention a few). Thus you are the one being absurd and failing to use or understand language properly if you speak about law being fulfilled.

The facts remain -

1. Both OT and NT endorsed slavery
2. Christians and the Church justified slavery (and the murder of alleged witches) with bible verses.

Defend that.

ono:
Just to chip in that the Church approach issues differently now. I used the word "differently" so TV01 will not be pissed with the word "evolve". I hope I am safe to do this, TV01?

Wouldn't it be safer if you simply stayed away from my mentions? I have been clear. The message of the gospel has not changed or evolved. The practices and behaviour of sects or individuals who claim to be Christian certainly has.


TV

DeepSight:
+
My position remains what I said, and no, I am not lying. For example the OT counts it as a sin to shave your facial hair. I dont believe that is binding on any Christian. But I would still wonder at the God that made such prescriptions. In other words, since that is the same God that Christians worship, it does not avail them to excuse such a prescription by saying it is the law and it is the OT - because that very God is supposed to be their God, is supposed to be all wise through all times and ages and for all people.

In law, we also have something called pleading in the alternative. So I plead in the alternative here, that even if we discountenance this matter of OT vs NT, the point you make is irrelevant considering that I also provided NT verses endorsing slavery as well. Thus it is no use debating OT vs NT when the NT endorses same as well.

Please sir address the point in view and answer the questions. Based on your claim that The Lord Jesus Christ did not do away with the law (nailed it to the cross - hallelujah) and that in "fulfilling" it, not "abolishing" it, the law remains in force.

Please again, pretty please even. Do you unreservedly admit you were wrong and incorrectly exegeted the holy scriptures, in your claim about the law? Just fess' up and we can proceed. I am going about this systematically - in an orderly fashion, avoiding at all costs the "dishonesty" you clearly hate.


TV

^{A lawyer that doesn't know the meaning of fulfil . From the same Nigeria that members of the NBA offered to defend Deborah's killers pro-bono. Where they disbarred by any chance? My fault for having expectations I guess.}

DeepSight:
TV01 while I may not give you the yes or no answers you request, I will still be suitably brief -
+
This was not quite what I argued. I argued that both the OT and NT endorse slavery - and this is beyond cavil.
-
Yes, I did point out that Christ said he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and yes I said this in response tp the repeated attempts by some Christians to disown the barbaric injunctions in the OT.

Beyonnd cavil ? By an argument made from ignorance.

You posted and I quote.

DeepSight:
PS: The distinction you and others strive to make between the OT and NT is futile for Christ himself said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Clearly implying that the OT law was not abolished, but still binding on Christians as a result of The Lords Jesus Christ' "fulfilment". Please don't lie, shift the goalposts or do any of the other underhand things you love to allege against others.

I have clearly shown your error - from scripture. Now validate your point from scripture to refute my position or revert to the 2 questions. Fulfil your own self-righteousness !


TV

buda, you have partially quoted me repeatedly- only, you quote in part and perhaps misread my intent. For the avoidance of doubt.

budaatum:
No one said it was not written. My argument is that hardly any read it as justification to, and your "some" below is an illiterate few described by TV01 as "a man who is any combination of immature, neurotic, lacking n self control, empathy or a real love for his wife. Just stressed, angry or high even", which exists regardless of what religious book is read

You omitted the qualifying sentences before and after.

Think for a moment what that power affords a man who is any combination of immature, neurotic, lacking n self control, empathy or a real love for his wife. Just stressed, angry or high even. Which at some point is pretty much any man who is not perfect. With that, DA will almost certainly be endemic.

The law primarily serves 2 main purposes, to prohibit and to punish. It rarely touches on what is "permitted", taking that as read for the most part.

Further, the law - rightly or wrongly - in many ways signals what is morally acceptable. Ergo if a law stipulates "beating your wife" is permissable and "no one should question why", then DA\DVA will almost certainly become normalised, if not endemic.

To my quote, all humans are imperfect, all men are potentially prone to violence. The male "flight or fight" response is adrenaline and testosterone driven. Lashing out is almost instinctive, potentially amplified by the behaviours I listed, alone or in combination.

Men have to be transformed or develop high degrees of self-control. Like Bill Burr said "its not that there aren't any reasons to hit a woman, we just don't". If the law permits VAW, that says it is morally acceptable, then men will pander to their base instincts. Transformation or self-control is not necessary if DA is a moral good. That is ee.slam.


TV

Deepsight, you have uttered a number of claims about the bible and what it teaches. And, I have repeatedly claimed that you are ignorantly or maliciously twisting the holy scripture. Whilst not claiming to be 100% sure of your motives, a picture is beginning to form.

I am happy to defend and debunk every false allegation and untruth posted about Christianity and the bible. To begin, and to test just how honest a discussant you are, I will start with one point you have repeatedly made, and ask you questions on that basis.

You stated that the distinction Christians make between the OT and NT is futile because “Christ came to fulfil the law not to abolish it”. You failed to explicate on the meaning of fulfil or abolish, but are clearly implying that the OT laws are still binding on Christians.

Before I show you your error clearly from scripture, let me offer up a simple analogy as follows; My brother enters a contract with a 3rd party. The contractual terms mean my brother must settle a debt arising by making a payment to the 3rd party to close out the contract. As it transpires, my brother is unable to fulfil this obligation. My brother contacts me – seeking ways to solve the issue. Can we abrogate? Can we annul? Neither, I say the TVs always pay their debts. I make the payment, settling the debt, thus fulfilling or, discharging the legal requirement – not abolishing, but fulfilling by paying. Now to scripture (NKJV).

John 1 - 16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Romans 8 – 3 for what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-11 is great for understanding the difference between flesh\law\works vis-à-vis spirit\grace\faith, as is the next scripture)

Galatians 2 - 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified . (the law had to go because although righteous, it was unattainable, hence grace – hallelujah!)

Colossians 2 – 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (circumcision here is a metaphor for the law and the requirements, are those of the law itself)

The questions are as follows and only require yes or no answers.

1. Do you agree that you are wrong on your reading of the gospel in claiming the OT law is still in effect and binding on Christians?

2. Do you agree at a minimum that there is an alternative reading that is, honest, backed by scripture (and better than yours – until you provide scripture, to support your reading)

If you can honestly answer the above 2, then please do so, and I shall proceed to your claim that Christianity advocates slavery


TV

Obrigardo:
Stop engaging mentally ill people, I mean the maga cultists. Better we do this on Twitter where we are sure thousands or millions will be affected or reactive to your post.

Please don't waste time on these maga people here.

Thanks. I hear you.

I am totally unconcerned with the partisan dynamic. I post for those that are truly interested in the Gospel message or may misapprehend it due to the "noise" from some.

Cheers.


TV

Why are you blowing up my mentions - all weekend. Persistence however often demands a response . To make the point and for any reading.

budaatum:
Funny that I heard you claim loud and clear that one should make the distinction between what people do or their practices, and what Islam\The Quran actually preaches and instructs Muslims to do.

Which is exactly what I have done in my posts on The Christian message and slavery.

The Gospel is clear, nutshellingly so . Love God......love your neighbour...all the law is fulfilled in love...God is love...Jesus fulfilled the law...love does no harm to your neighbour...All searchable in the NKJV of the Bible.

The Christian texts do not teach, accept or endorse slavery. Yes, some who claimed Christianity claimed it did, probably like Deepsight is doing, selected, decontextualised readings for their own selfish and wicked purposes.

The islamic texts are clear, chattel and s3cs slavery are fine, well earned booty. The fact that some moose.slims openly or codedly reject slavery does not change that. The fact that some Christians practice polygamy or preach tithing does not mean the Gospel does.

Christianity because of the love, no harm directives, progressively eliminated slavery, "child marriage", cousin marriage, concubinage, polygamy, child labour, witch-hunts, wife-burnings, twin killings and a host of other societal pathologies. Not only that, it introduced real welfare reforms around jurisprudence, individual need, sanitation and health. It embedded charitable giving as a social norm.

No other faith, ideology or worldview has managed to deal with the pathologies, let alone introduce the welfare and charitable imperatives.,
To say Christianity endorses slavery is quite simply ignorant and\or malicious.

budaatum:
Incidentally, all religions evolve. Or at least most adherents to religions evolve. They'd be rather stǔpid not to and keep doing what a book written over a 1000 years ago tells them to do.

Per my last post, I cant speak for others. The Christian message is unchanged. The practices of people who claim to be Christians is another matter and down to them, as your motivation in interpreting is down to you.


TV

ono:
I think that you are mixing up a lot of things. There some "word problems" here too making us to not understand each other. I'll be back. Need to attend to some urgent stuff.

You should speak for yourself. I have nothing mixed up and am clear in my position. You are free to disagree with me, but failure to understand is for you to deal with. By reading carefully or asking questions. I'll try one last time.

1.
The gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ does not command or consent to slavery. Not the NT as a whole, or The Lord Jesus Christ in particular (or the Apostle Paul). In fact, as I have shown you, it's the very opposite.

2.
Some individuals or sects (mostly historically) who claimed to be Christian or followers of Christ tried to use the bible to justify slavery. The distinction between what the Bible teaches and what some tried to force it to say. or acts they tried to use the bible too justify, does not change 1. above.

3.
If indeed the bible teaches that slavery is good or acceptable, it cannot be from God. If it requires men to update, improve or discard it's teachings to ensure "neighbours are loved" and that "no harm is done to anyone", then it cannot be from God.

The Bible describes God as "Perfect in All His Ways" and The Lord Jesus Christ as "The same yesterday, today and forever", are you willing to claim God's message in Jesus Christ was not perfect, that it had to "evolve" to be fit for purpose? Or that the Gospel of The Lord requires changes to be acceptable? Please think carefully

4.
If you say the bible endorses slavery, than Christians fighting to abolish slavery and going as far as waging war to do so are effectively rebelling against God, sinning and not even Christians. And a bit daft for dying to eradicate something claimed to be acceptable in God's book.

ono:
There's something about your posts dear friend TV01. I don't like the zig zag way my brain goes trying to process your line of thoughts. Can you please pardon me when I don't respond to your calls? Please, do not take offense.

And that is fine. This is a public discussion forum, there is no obligation. I was of a mind not to reply, but as a courtesy. Feel free to respond directly to any of the points I have made above if you are wont or able. If not, happy for us to draw a line under it here. May be my bad, but I cannot be any clearer.


TV

DeepSight:
+
This is ahistorical.

The Bible contains teachings such as that commanding the murder of so called witches and injunctions authorizing slavery and these have been implemented by Christians through the ages to disastrous effect through the witch hunts where the refrain "suffer not a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) was deployed for centuries and through the slave trade where biblical verses were deployed as well in defense of and authorization of slavery.

Again, nothing evil or wicked or that causes human harm is commanded or prescribed for Christians. I have clearly explained the OT laws given to the Jews and the Jews only (and non-Jews living amongt them) in direct covenant with a holy God.

DeepSight:
That Christians today reject these is evolution.

Christianity does not teach them, that is why Christians reject them.

DeepSight:
The very fact that you have to exempt slavery when presenting this dubious challenge shows you to be acting fraudulently.

I didn't exempt slavery - if as you claim Christianity has evolved, what in addition to slavery has evolved?

DeepSight:
In the natural moral evolution of humans they gradually come to recognize certain things as barbaric and abandon them.

Yes now, like your people naturally evolved from witch hunts, killing twins or selling their kindred for brollys?

Your retorts are weak. Why was it Christians and not Atheists (who Christians had to fight) unburdened by religion that championed abolition? Wishy-washy tropes like "moral evolution" do not happen in a vacuum. Christianity did that.

DeepSight:
PS: The distinction you and others strive to make between the OT and NT is futile for Christ himself said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

It's not my fault that the meaning of fulfil escapes you. When a law\contract is fulfilled, you are discharged, no longer subject to that law - replete in the bible. The new covenant ratified by The Blood of Jesus Christ is one of grace, not law.

Please stop mis-ascribing, mis-interpreting or willfully mis-reading the bible to justify your pain and 8tred. You are easily read and more easily debunked.


TV

ono:
The bold part. Are you saying Christians still practice slavery today? If yes, can you show me an example where this is practiced? It is important that we understand each other so we don't waste time trying to reason out of context.

@Ono, have you actually been reading my posts? I ask because I made it clear that Christianity has never preached slavery. And, I made the distinction between the practices of those who claim to be Christians or to follow Christ and what the Bible\NT\Jesu\Paul prescribes as proper Christian conduct and practice. So again, Christianity does not teach or authorise or approve of slavery - and it never has. It is unchanged, it is the same message yesterday, today and forever - as is Christ Himself. Am I clear?

Now - and excuse me if I am reading you incorrectly - your insistence that Christianity has evolved is simply wrong. And leaves you compromised in your defence of the faith.

Let me demonstrate how.
1. If Christianity permits\authorises\agrees with slavery, and it is from God, then those who abolish it are against God and His commandments - effectively not obeying or submitting to God
2. If God authorises slavery, Christians fighting each other and non-Christians to abolish slavery are effectively sinning.

Hence my challenge, how has Christianity evolved as you claim? What other practice - not just slavery - does Christianity teach that Christians have done away with? Do not confuse what any sect or individual Christian may do with the true Christian message.

I believe faith is a very individual thing and understanding varies between believers in terms of when and how it is received. When I became a Christian, I was told tithing was utmost. I used to defend tithing - ardemtly. Over time I came to understand that the notion of mandatory tithing for Christians was incorrect. Was that Christianity evolving, or me coming to understanding and changing?

Be clear, if the message purportedly from God harms men or requires improvements by men, it cannot be from God.

Luke 4:18-19
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me [i]to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord

Does that sound like slavery is a feature of Christianity or the kingdom of Heaven? Or does this?

Mark 12 - 29 Jesus answered him, “The [k]first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ [l]This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Or this?

Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.

I have provided context and explained the situational approach that Paul had to take.

Please read and understand. And again. Please stop saying Christianity (the message, the truth) has evolved - it hasn't.


TV

ono:
At the time of the writing of the books of Ephesians and Colossians, the Romans were the sole superpower of the world. Slavery was the norm.....never frowned at in the society as it is today.

We discussed the evolution of Christianity earlier on. I thought you already acknowledged that the Christians have evolved through the ages to become the most accommodating, compassionate, loving and heaven-ward looking religion on earth as things stand today.

Could you make the distinction between what people do or their practices, and what Christianity\The Bible\NT actually preaches and instructs Christians to do?. I repeat, Christianity has not "evolved".

The whole charge against ee.slam is that what its texts prescribes, its very tenets are evil and the driver of moose.slim practice.

I can put my money where my mouth is. Even to those who would misrepresent me or my faith. £250 to anyone who can show me wrong in any of the following;

1. An evil, wicked or harmful practice in the NT (not just slavery) or prescribed for Christians that Christians have evolved away from.
2. Why Christians fought and died to abolish slavery when as claimed the bible supports it?

So again, the Scriptures remain unchanged. There have been and will always be departures from scripture by those who call themselves Christians or claim to follow Christ. Different sects and denominations may adopt certain unscriptural practices, but the faith first delivered to the saints however remains.

Just like we don't judge ee.slam by individual sects or personal practice, but what its texts say, likewise the Christian texts are there for all to read.

See free money - and nobody has to sell anybody to claim it


TV

DeepSight:
+
I agree with you, Christianity certainly does not teach these things and has evolved. I was only pointing out the fact that these are contained in the OT as well.

I may well add that the NT preaches that slaves should obey their masters. thereby endorsing slavery. But as you said, it has evolved.

Islam remains significantly backward in many places.

By now it's clear that you do not come here to discuss or debate in any way that could be considered honest. It's a handful of clichés and cookie cutter narratives, outside of which there is very little evidence of any meaningful content.

I wrote on this very topic, on this same thread, not that long ago. In response to a claim you made,
https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-trump-47th/5556#137573719

Firstly, Christianity has not "evolved". It remains exactly the same - unchanging. It's the NT. Anything that could be considered a moral stricture from the OT will be contained in the NT.

Secondly, the NT does not teach that "slaves should obey their masters" without context. I explained it all in that post. That is not an endorsement, it is the most effective way to deal with the situation at that time.

In due course, Christians arose to effectively end slavery in all lands they controlled or could significantly influence - even going to war and dying to abolish it.

Slavery was legal at the advent of Christianity. A slave could not leave his master any more than a legionnaire could self-discharge from the Roman Army. That would result in death, painful death.

Christianity had no army, no political power, no meaningful social influence, nothing. It was Paul a renegade and outcast Jew and a few followers. If he had instructed all slaves who believed to declare themselves free and refuse to obey their masters, that would be their death warrant - if they could survive the initial torture that would follow any such declaration.

The NT is clear
Too slaves - Continue to obey your masters, but if you can be made free do so (all free and slave are Christ bondsmen, brought at a price)
Too slave owners - the book of Philemon, where a slave owner is exhorted to free his slave and receive him as a brother - and not by compulsion, as Christianity has that transformative effect.

Being clichéd or sounding a bit cookie is passable, but your utterance on Christianity and slavery reveal something I suspected, but didn't really want to believe.


TV

^{@ono, please stop saying Christianity has evolved. Thanks.}

DeepSight:
+
Trans Saharan lasted much longer but is generally agreed to have taken less people overall. Estimates range between six and ten million while Trans Atlantic was over 12 million confirmed.

Simply not true. There is a pattern to your reading of events and narration of things that can be historically verified that I question. You also seem to have an unrelenting 8tred for white people. Why?

1. You are wrong here for a number of reasons. The arab\muslim slave trade was global. Comprising trans-saharan, red-sea, indian-ocean and mediterranean routes. No region, ethnicity or non-rop religion was spared. Africa bore the brunt of it, but it was in the tens of millions worldwide.

2. I won't dispute that there may be those saying the AMST took less people, but there are also those who put the figure as high as 15-18 million on the trans-saharan route alone.

3. Further, you (maybe due to ignorance) fail to mention that the AMST involved other ethnicities, yes white people as well.

4. Bonus fact - many of the African tribes that took slaves had already been ee.slam.icised, enabling "othering" of fellow black Africans and the culture of slavery to become normalised. Goes someway to explaining things.

5. Bonus, bonus fact - knowing that they were going to be targetted by moose.slim slave traders, many African tribes converted. That didn't save them. The moose.slims refused to accept their moose.slimness as authentic. Please remind me, where is that same notion in play today?

If there is an underlying principle at the heart of the call for reparations, it must be applied across the board and implicate all that were complicit.

I wonder how the arab\muslim nations that were involved in slavery voted for the UN resolution. I also wonder why no one ever calls them out?

https://www.nairaland.com/8579040/west-owes-africa-5000-trillion#137785984
https://www.nairaland.com/8614872/very-shocking-fact-me#138443466

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoN2zoEPrk0


TV

honesttalk21:
Here are direct answers only, matching your questions:

5. Where is the Prophet in Torah/Injeel and how verified?
By description, not necessarily name. Verified through prophetic characteristics,
continuity of message (monotheism), scriptural indicators

You do realise that this claim is so vague as to be meaningless?
Even if not named, a clear timeline and detail of the "works" the "prophet" would accomplish should be readily discernible. And said "prophet" must fil them perfectly and deliver as stated. There is nothing there!

It reads so damningly, so poorly, when moose.slims make claim like "he is mentioned in the Songs of Solomons - with nothing indicating where he comes from, how he arises or what he will do. Nothing about his antecedents, parentage or lineage.

Shocking that you can claim prophetic characteristics, when there are no signs or wonders, no witnesses and no prophecies - about him or from him - nothing!.

As for scriptural indicators. What does that even mean? From scriptures moose.lslims claim are corrupted? There are no indicators, references, pointers, shadows or precursors for the advent of a local tribal warlord from the arabian peninsula succeeding the prophets of Israel, which the same bible you reference shows culminate in The Lord Jesus Christ.

As for a message of monotheism? Both Judaism and Christianity are clear that there is only one God.

Nothing, nada, nein, no, nyet, zero, zilch. He is not there, not, prophesied, identified, verified or witnessed.


TV

Because giving birth in the hope your children grow up to be suicide bombers and mass murderers, calling that serving god and affording martyrdom is an inversion of all that is godly and good, decent and humane.


TV

I had been away for a while. I returned just as the Jarus "wife-beating" saga was playing out. Those in the know, both ROPers and non-ROPers, where quick to surmise that nothing would come of it. And there were absolutely right. In cultures that are ee.slam.eek.ally acculturated, DVA is normalised and not really questioned in any meaningful way. It can't be - it's an undisputed tenet in an unchangeable and unquestionable religious text.

Let's be clear the core.ran and hard.teeth collectively present unambiguously. A man is allowed to lay hands on his wife on the basis of suspicion alone, "unevidenced". It is clearly stated that "no one should question a moose.slim as to why he put hands on his wife".

Think for a moment what that power affords a man who is any combination of immature, neurotic, lacking n self control, empathy or a real love for his wife. Just stressed, angry or high even. Which at some point is pretty much any man who is not perfect. With that, DA will almost certainly be endemic.

It is widely known by the UK authorities (police, courts, NHS, charities etc) that DA in moose.slim communities is disproportionately high and the outcomes worse. How could it not be, as the lower end of a culture that encompasses forced marriage, eff.gee.hem, and so called "honour" killings.

Has anyone directly asked a prominent western moose.slim if he batters his spouse or more pointedly disavows the the parts of the ees.slam.eek texts that sanction DA? Who has sight of anyone's marital dynamic, let alone their thoughts or beliefs?

If the unthinkable took place and that question was ever asked, "islamophobia" chanters would be out in force. The MSM would go into full condemnation and\or blackout mode. Notably, any such exposé would clearly demonstrate ee.slams incompatibility with the West, The West which almost universally has statutes to ensure VAWG is heavily sanctioned, let alone the s3cs based segregation so beloved of ee.slam.

No moose.slim will admit it in the West. Rather taqqiyya - sanctioned deception - will be deployed to ensure this line of enquiry goes nowhere. One of the main issues here - apart from a treacherous political class - is the inability of many Westerners to fully understand the ee.slam.eek mindset and MO. And even worse, those that unrelentingly defend it without even understanding it .

Mooslims are careful to avoid or downplay the truly heinous parts or simply lie about their ideology. Inserting the word "gently" before "beat" in English translations of Surah 4.24 is one such example.

The failure of so called "moderate" muslims to decry the acts of so called ee.slam.ists - a term that should be rejected out of hand, as no moose.lim uses the term ee.slam.ist to describe themselves or others outside of taqqiyya. The extreme acts are based on mainstream and accepted readings, not disputed by any ee.slam.eek school of thought.

A recent study claims 30% of moose.slims would prefer shah.reah law. Wrong!!! One cannot be a moose.slim and reject or prefer man-made law over shah.reah.

Sure, there are self-identified moose.slims who do not subscribe to the most heinous outworking of the religion, or have even stopped believing, but they are mostly captive and silent. Speaking out risks social ostracism at a minimum and the real possibility of physical harm.


TV

_{Ergo, a man taking a 2nd wife without letting his 1st wife know and giving her a severe beating when she complained is actually an exemplar of halal male conduct (he even attempted to placate her with gifts first - a veritable moose.slim angel), which is why nothing came of it - despite the anti-DVA unit in Lagos taking an interest.}

benalvino3:
So allow budaatum to continue to tap dance around this.

Tap dancing ke? More like a steel-capped Jackboot to the head of all those who have been deceased, brutalised, physically harmed or suffered years of abuse due to codified ee-slam.hic abuse. The same peson who railes against pea.dough.feel.ya, cheerleads it's ritualisation .

I read up on Qandeel Balock...sickening.


TV

DeepSight:
+
The Quoran says so, and it is applied by many. The Quoran recommends gender apartheid and it is implemented. That's all. I don't have any interest in your twisting the matter towards irrelevancies.

Didn't tbe Jarus saga play out here on NL?

Per our "civilisational development"' discussion. Tribalism and ee.slam are 2 reasons - not the only ones - it can't happen for Nigeria in its current form. I'll respond to that and this later.


TV

DeepSight:
+
The short answer is time. We are relatively a very very very young contraption and you are comparing us with entities that have coalesced for centuries. There is nothing we are going through that Europe has not experienced a hundred times of. Some people imagine that since we live in a modern world all lessons are transferable and that's that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each people will have to do their time and resolve their contradictions. And in Africa with the many artificial boundaries there is a recipe for conflict which will have to be resolved first. Europe had to bloody it out as well. Same will apply here.

Time is the short answer.

This could have been detailed but you are way too presumptuous to be worth it.

Even the short answer of "time" needs to be expounded on. Does it bear scrutiny?

How much time? How long exactly.
When will we see green shoots, when will the corner be turned? How will we know?
Don't forget Nigeria is spiralling - at a rate of knots. When will this downward descent stop?
Why should I think or, what is there to suggest it won't hit rock-bottom - essentially a failed state?

So just saying time, is like the evolutionist - just give us billions and billions and billions of years. Not to stray, but if the wherewithal, the ingredients, the right events (or scientific possibility) do not exist, time won't make it happen.


TV

budaatum:
I am very certain you are aware that islam does not allow marriage of girls below the legal age in neither UK nor in the USA this thread is about, and nor does Islam codify "domestic abuse against women and even allows for s3cs slaves" anywhere, not even in Nigeria, but I guess I shouldn't expect you to accept this is your opinion of Islam and which you flatulate as fact.

Does islam recognise "nation states" or secular notions of sovereignty? Is islam designed to adapt to the laws in non-islamic countries or usurp them with it's own? Do you understand the islamic notion of dar-al islam and dar-el harb?

If you are interested, start by reading Al-Ahzab 33:50 or Surah 4:34 - in the Arabic if you can!

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Child_Marriage_in_Islamic_Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam

It's quite brow-furrowing listening to you go on like you really believe or know anything about what you write on islam, when it's startlingly clear that you haven't done the work - you literally don't have a scooby!. It's why I see you as one stuffed full of processed ideological tripe. Sorry, not sorry.

My apologies for allowing the "barge-in", I should have known better.

TV

budaatum:
I hope you can understand that it is my own opinion that Tommy Robinson is racist and islamophobic and that you do not have to agree with me. It's like, I don't agree with your views on Islamic ideology should be of no significance to you.

You should hopefully be aware of what they say about opinions and arseholes. I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for facts. An iota of which you could not surface. Despite mining the best "anti-fascist sites .

As for "islamophobic", what does that even mean? Fear, hatred? Firstly, even the state realises that it's a not-fit-for-purpose term. Hence the pivot to "anti-muslim hatred". Do try and keep up, it will lend import to your utterances

Second you clearly lack any depth in understanding islam or its tenets. You rail endlessly about pee.doh.feel.ya, but defend islam which allows marriage of young girls - children. Which codifies domestic abuse against women and even allows for s3cs slaves.

budaatum:
P.s. I do not waste time with those who have so little regard for the views of others that they'd call it waffle. If my words have no import to you, do stop requesting them.

As described above - it is ideological waffle, and will be clearly termed what it is. But be of good cheer, it's only my opinion., and you know...


TV

DeepSight:
+
This sounds stupid and patronising. I'll pass.

Well of course, it is both stupid and patronising to expect a black nation to be able too chart a course for societal development and civilisational advancement under its own steam, and without recourse to blaming others for any failures. What was I thinking?


TV

Because anywhere ee-slime and it's shah.ree.ah jurisprudence framework hold sway, there is no sustainable economic progress, no natal technological advancement or innovation and little by way of rights, freedoms or liberties.

Need more?


TV

bemeruca:
These people throw racist label easily on anything they see.

it's their only retort when their incoherent ideological rants fail to stick.


TV