₦airaland Forum

basilico:
Haha haha.
Assault vehicles, assault trucks , assault knives, assault folks 9/11

In a nutshell, ee.slam is an assault. On humanity, but more insidiously on Christianity, denying The Lord, humanity' sole hope.


TV

DeepSight:
+
Again, this is ahistorical and illiterate. You can read up even in the best Encyclopedias -

https://www.britannica.com/video/achievements-world-mosque-Islamic-Cordoba-Spain-construction/-194004

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300077166_The_Islamic_Golden_Age_A_Story_of_the_Triumph_of_the_Islamic_Civilization

Its not a matter of your irrelevant opinion. Its a matter of historical record.

You can just as well declare that by your opinion, there were no middle ages and no renaissance.

I read the links. The first is essentially meaningless - building a mosque is not evidence of scientific or technological advancement.
Do you actually read the links. Are you able to make arguments of your own

Extract from the second

<sup>Many cultures and societies contributed to the flowering of Islam’s Golden Age. Central among them were the Persians, the predecessor people of modern Iran. Persians were the main force behind the creation of the Abbasid Dynasty (750 CE-1258 CE), one of the most culturally sophisticated societies that gave birth to the Golden Age. The Berbers of North Africa, a non-Arabic population, played a major role in the emergence of the Golden Age as did the Fatimid Dynasty (909 CE –1171 CE ) which were contemporaneous with the Abbasids. The Andalusian Dynasties (711 CE to 1492 CE) of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) also played a prominent role in the emergence of the Golden Age. Indeed, the architectural achievements of the Andalusian dynasties made some of the most remarkable, longest lasting, and internationally recognized Islamic contributions even today

Islam’s Golden Age, however, was not just the outcome of Islamic achievements. Indeed, the Islamic empires of the period included large numbers of Jews, Christians, Hindus, and even Chinese who made significant and lasting contributions to Islamic socio-cultural-scientific achievements. All worked together in relative harmony to realize the enormous intellectual, scientific, technological, architectural, and other contributions that formed the basis of the what now is called the Islamic Golden Age. The work of the ancients, but especially that of the Greeks and Romans, also were respected during the dynasties of the Golden Age and contributed, too, to Islamic philosophy and scientific achievements. Muslims, in turn, preserved the ancient texts of these scholars and in doing so made an enormous contribution to both Islamic and world intellectual heritage. Greek and Roman contributions to Islamic development were made possible through the translation of Greek, Roman, Aramaic, and other texts in Arabic—the functioning Lingua Franca of the period.</sup>

Islam conquers, converts and claims the historical progress and ongoing achievements of conquered peoples and territories as its own.


This from what is a certain sponsored piece. Another excerpt.

Many scholars believe that, even today, Muslims are awaiting the rebirth of its Golden Age and, through it, the resurgence of Islam as one of the world’s renewed cultural and religious influences. Such a hoped for outcome is a collective aspiration of Muslims and transcends linguistic, cultural, and even ethnic differences

Please tell me in which reality . The only care of ee.slam is to conquer and subjugate the whole world. At which point they will casually re-label all advances as ee.slam.meek in origin. But ultimately regress back to it's inherent savagery. Same 'ole, same 'ole.

DeepSight:
The development of mankind is not tied to religions in this way. Nonetheless, if you are consistent, please produce one good thing in same terms which was new and solely as a result of Christianity.

All advanced scientific discovery and technological innovation came from and continues to come from historically JC nations - the phone, TV, computers, satellites, motor vehicles, planes etc.

The JC ethos see's all men as created in the image of God. Fostering equality and individual liberties. This drives the pursuit of learning and research, leading to advancement and progress. It demonstrates Gods order and rationality in creation, engendering the pursuit rational inquiry and scientific discovery. Only the culture that arises out of this this ethos has proven capable of doing that. Nothng from the MAW or SSA.

DeepSight:
Christianity was all these things for a long time. Its not that long ago that the Church supervised the witch burnings of hundreds of thousands of women, and hung or persecuted scientists such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo.

Nope. Christianity was never any f those things. Christianity was abused, or at best misinterpreted by some, but when practised in truth delivers prosperity and well-being.

Till date, there are some incorrectly exegeted texts and downright non-scriptural practices. Tithing for example. But that is not Christianity.

It's interesting how the one thing no historically JC country or contemporary community practices or makes a case for slavery. It's always been the opposite when the text is read and applied as intended. Christianity which you dishonestly claim advocates slavery, has it nowhere in view.
Unlike the MAW and SSA.

Kiss the truth baybay


TV

basilico:
I have ever mocked here that their only invention is the suicide vest strapped with explosives.
Now add the Shahed kamikaze drones by Iran. That was a muslim invention too .I credit them truly as muslim inventions.
Any other thing they claim to have invented I believe would a Zero in mathematics, though I highly doubt that.
For a people who destroyed everything that conflicts with the Quran for instance the sun setting in a pool of muddy water. This was proof that the earth is flat. They lie and twist that their writings say correct translation was a carpet like symbolism. There are preachers who are on memri TV saying the earth was revealed to be flat but Allah and so the earth is flat. Because the Quran is 100% revelation from Allah.

My bad. I sould have noted the ee.sla.meek skill of re-invention. Cars as weapons, planes as instruments of demolition etc.


TV

basilico:
In my opinion there was nothing like the Islamic golden age. Everything Islam touches ends up in retrogression

Abi .

It's so easy to see - even with the most cursory of glances. A web of false claims, bogus assertions, deception, obfuscation, propaganda and downright lies.

ee.slam praches charity - did you know that the zakat must only be given to moose.slims.
ee.slam preaches peace - only when everyone is a moose.slim, otherwise it's ongoing gee.hard
ee.slam preaches it is blasphemy to insult its profit, deserving of death - but wait, not to acknowledge him as a profit is considered an insult
ee.slam preaches innocents (children, women, non-combatants) should be spared during war) - but, only muslims are considered "innocent"

One good thing, just one, that was new and as a result of ee.slam, or that we wouldn't have if not for ee.slam.

Agreed. Regressive, backward, destructive.


TV

DeepSight:
+
The modern reality has changed. The switch did happen. Republicans today are the party against colored people in every way.

Are you able to be more explicit here? "Every way" is a very bold claim. Are you saying that the Republicans actually take action\write policy solely to harm "colored people", or exists solely for that reason?

I'm actually interested to understand how it is even possible to be so precise - a practice\policy\action that hurts ""colored people" but leaves "non-colored people" unharmed?

Conversely, does the opposite hold true for the Democratic party?

Please shed more light.


TV

It's almost painful to read the ignorance you spew - and considering your profession, your inability (or is it just unwillingness?) to question any of the "marketing material" you parrot here is quite concerning. Have you been the victim of repeated scams in real life .

DeepSight:
+
Your double standards stand out. You are ready to attribute the printing press somehow to your religion, but wish to exclude the many developments in the Islamic world of antiquity from Islam.

The lacuna in reasoning is yours. The printing press is an artefact which is clearly attributable to a particular religious & sociocultural milieu. If, as you insist, religion or faith had nothing to do with it, then it must be sociocultural by default. So, what artefacts can you point to from the AM world or SSA?

DeepSight:
My position is consistent - its not the religions, its simply the people evolving. When we speak of the golden age of Islam, we are simply referring to a period when Islamic empires and people flourished with great development that impacted the world.

When asked how this "moral evolution" happens, you could only - and it still sounds so lame, even now - mutter, "wars & rebellion"

Both yourself and Lord Reed fail to grasp culture - what it is and how it is shaped. Culture is downstream of religion and scientific advancement, technological innovation and the like. Computers came - revolutionised the workplace. Further advances changed how we communicate, how we access information. Likewise, religious tenets deeply held and lived, shape conduct, behaviours relationships.

Why do the historical JC nations practice monogamy, whereas, monogamy is still extant in AM world or SSA. Why hasn't the "moral evolution" that would remove this, at best, lesser form of marriage\dysfunctional relationship?

DeepSight:
We are not so thoughtless as to attribute the development specifically to something in Islam, the way you are eager to attribute all Western Science to Judeo-Christianity.

Hopefully, you can grasp why you err here form my statement above? No ? Okay, let's move from science\tech\innovation for a mo'. Apart form the marriage example above, why does the AM and SSH still practice slavery, child marriage, subsistence pastoralism and a host of other practices that are not only of little social value, but actually deleterious in many instances?

DeepSight:
It is a fact of history that Islam had a golden age in the way I have described above. Anyone denying it is either unschooled or or simply in denial from religious extremism or bigotry.

This so called golden age is a myth. A contrived narrative, and doesn't bear scrutiny - even by an unlearned enemy . I'll give a broad overview.

The claim is that this golden age was from the 8th through the 14th century, yes? Islam started in the 7th century. So the claim is essentially within a 100 years, ee.slam, became a powehouse of scientific discovery and technological advancement - leading the world. And you believe that?

What was the mechanism by which ee.slam did this? Did the gee.hard.ests, armies pack science books which they distributed to conquered peoples ? That would explain why after each mose.slim tear.roar.wrist attack, science compendiums are found scattered at the scene .

Or perhaps once they overran all the native populations from the Copts to the Berbers to the Persians and others, they gave them strict instructions to ensure science and technology where advanced at all speed before they returned - or else!. Have you no mind of your own?

Cities like Baghdad, Cordoba and Cairo, were civilisational laggards, technologically backwards, until the advent of ee.slam. Ee.slam made all these breakthroughs and innovations, handed them off to the unbelieving West and then regressed back to the 7th century. Leaving no single scientific, technological or sociocultural artefacts that we can point to that advanced mankind? No evidence of the ME of which you speak.


I extract -

--------------

The Islamic Golden Age (roughly 8th to 14th century) was a powerhouse of intellectual activity. While Europe was in the Early Middle Ages, scholars in cities like Baghdad, Córdoba, and Cairo were synthesizing Greek, Indian, and Persian knowledge while making massive original breakthroughs. Here are the major subjects and innovations they contributed to the modern world:

1. Mathematics: The Language of Science: Perhaps the most visible legacy is in our numbers. Islamic mathematicians didn't just preserve math; they revolutionized how we calculate. Algebra: Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing. The word "Algebra" comes from his term al-jabr. He treated algebra as a distinct discipline for the first time.

Arabic Numerals & Zero: While the symbols originated in India, Islamic scholars refined the decimal system and the concept of zero (0), then introduced them to the West.

Algorithms: The word "algorithm" is actually a Latinized corruption of al-Khwarizmi’s name.

Trigonometry: Scholars like al-Battani isolated functions like sine, cosine, and tangent, which were essential for both astronomy and navigation.

2. Medicine: Systematic Healing - The Islamic world moved medicine from folklore to a rigorous, empirical science. The Canon of Medicine: Written by Ibn Sina (Avicenna), this remained the standard medical textbook in Europe and the Middle East for over 600 years. Hospitals (Bimaristans): They created the first modern hospitals with separate wards for different diseases, pharmacies, and even "internships" for medical students.

Surgery: Al-Zahrawi (Albucasis) is often called the "father of surgery." He invented over 200 surgical instruments—including the scalpel, bone saw, and forceps—many of which have designs that remain recognizable today.

Circulation: Ibn al-Nafis was the first to correctly describe pulmonary circulation (how blood moves through the heart and lungs).

3. Physics and Optics - Before this era, people believed the eyes emitted rays to "see" objects. Islamic scientists corrected this. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen): Often called the first true scientist, he pioneered the scientific method, emphasizing repeatable experiments.

The Camera Obscura: Al-Haytham explained how light travels in straight lines and enters the eye, using the "dark room" (camera obscura) principle to prove it. This is the fundamental ancestor of the modern camera.

4. Chemistry (Alchemy): The word "Chemistry" comes from al-kimiya. Islamic scholars transitioned alchemy from a mystical pursuit of turning lead into gold into a practical science. Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber): He introduced systematic laboratory methods and identified many common acids (like sulfuric and nitric acid). Distillation: He perfected the process of distillation, which led to the creation of perfumes, medicines, and refined oils.

5. Engineering and Navigation - Practicality was at the heart of many innovations, especially regarding water and travel. Crankshafts and Water Pumps: Al-Jazari, a brilliant engineer, designed intricate clocks, hand-washing automata, and the crankshaft—one of the most important mechanical inventions in human history.

6. Higher Education Universities: The University of al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco (founded by Fatima al-Fihri in 859 AD), is recognized by UNESCO and Guinness World Records as the oldest continuously operating, degree-granting university in the world.
-- - - - - - -

DeepSight:
So, TV01, what exactly is wrong with you? Did you skip classes or you are just allergic to history or what?

I can differentiate betwixt history and marketing !


TV

LordReed:
Strong defense of culture is not a hallmark of greatness IMO. The ability to push culture in positive directions is what makes any people group great.

I didn't say a strong defense of culture was a hallmark of greatness. And, l didnt list iit in the main part of my response - there are rubbish cultures and practices that are strongly defended.

My point was that, having attained to greatness - even if only relative - the ability to maintain and defend those things that enabled and delivered said greatness is important.

I noted that with particular reference to the West, which is currently under attack from within and without, due to a failure to do just that.

What does "push culture in a positive direction" mean? How does that happen in any given settling, given that in both relative and absolute terms what would be positive varies widely. I noted the defence of rubbish cultures and practices earlier.


TV

DeepSight:
+
Character is as smoke and shows in every breath, another shallow offering.

...says one whose primary contribution is "nuisance value" .
I am not chanced at the mo', but when l am, I'll be backto trigger another tantrum from you .


TV

LordReed:
The country/nation/empire that has provided the best mix of benefits for all it's citizens in accordance with the resources available to it.

One would have to factor the era of the state. For example, in it's time it would have been the Roman empire., which had proper notions of citizenship. But it also had aliens, slaves (and probably illegals )

In absolute terms, you can't get away from a country\nation (an empire is possible, but largely disqualified by the very nature of empires), which has full-suite individual freedoms and human rights. Not just miiitary prowess, an advanced economy, functioning institutions and fosters technological advancement and innovation, as well as being a haven for entrepreneurs and welcoming to immigrants.

Another element would be a strong and robust defense of it's culture. Almost all natures are losing or being pressured to loosen that . But as things stand?

USAMERICA take a bow .


TV

DeepSight:
+
Spot on re: printing press, and many other factors. A TV01 will never avert his mind to that.

Re: covering of women, this predated Islam if I am not mistaken.

What religious or cultural millieau did the printing press emanate from? Your continually fail to make sense or ably support your position. Perhaps you simply lack the wherewithal to support them - not learned enough !

Did the PP come out of Arabia or the moose.slim world? What of sub-saharan Africa? DId they develop their own "mass transmission" modalities?The moose.slim world refused to avail themselves of the PP when opportuned. Makes absolute sense for a religion of control and a natally backward people.

Nothing has changed to this day. With all the oil wealth, all they do is ape the west, buy in expertise from the west, or buy-up the west. They can't even fund any kind of relevant innovation or advancement in the own lands - it's all ee.slamic schools of this and that, ulcerating the universities of the west. And of course full-frontal sponsoring of islamisation. Nothing good ever came out of madrassas, or ile-kewu .

Even now, an Israel with only 7m Jews and a global total of 15m vastly out-innovates and out-creates all the Arab and moose.lim world (forget SSA). On top of which they are the only nation in that region that affords the personal freedoms that are a hallmark of advanced nations.

In a free market place of odeas, I have no problem with ee.slam. Like I have no issue with Hinduism or Confucianism, Bhuddism (or even Catholics ). But ee.slam seeks to forcefully impose itself on everything and offer only 2 products - 7th century Arabia or 21st century Afghanistan.

As for the "many other factors", list them na, and see your argument further trampled in the mud.


TV

DeepSight:
Who can explain the murderous callousness here?

The bible says of God "He will e found righteous when He judges and justified when He speaks". No explanation required, or available, for "His judgements are unsearchable and His ways past finding out"..

You explain this if you can. If you buy a chicken - which you can't create and take its eggs - which you can't lay - and decide to make a nice omelette or throw them at people you don't like, who can query you?


TV

I'll respond to this in 2 parts - firstly to address you romanticesed view of ee.slamic history. Then to pivot back to the question you repeatedly fail to answer

DeepSight:
+
I quote my words to ono -

[color=#990000]It is a pity that there is much that is very backward about this religion. And more so since it once experienced a golden age when it was the leading light of much advanced thought in the world.

ee.slam was never the leading light of advanced thought, or at the vanguard of scientific discovery, or the cutting edge of technological research. It cannot be by design.

This whitewashed narrative that seeks to ascribe some sort of enlightenment to ee.slam is not only false, it's ridiculous. There is nothing inherent in ee.slam to engender such. What is natal to ee.slam is the opposite, hence it's logical conclusion in boko-haram.

Any kind of intellectual advancement condemns ee.slam. That is ee.slam by default. All the whitewashed historical narratives that like to suggest ee.slam drove advancement is utterly bogus. How can?

What actually happened is that non-native converts or communities who were already undertaking scholarly pursuits were re-lbelled ee.slamic\moose.slims once conquered. Over time, ee.slam always reverts to it's default.

There was a period were certain (usually non-natal) moose.slims, built libraries and collated scientific works, but there was nothing new, no innovation. It was all extant material.

There is nothing that can be pointed too that existed solely as a result of ee.slam. Or said another way, would not exist if not for ee.slam.

DeepSight:
Sadly it has been unable to shake off the tendency towards misogyny/ gender apartheid as well as a very violent streak which is taken straight from the pages of its scripture. The insistence on dictating what women wear in many Islamic countries, and the fact that in a place like Saudi Arabia until very very recently they were even denied the right to drive, is very telling. Many women in these theocratic places cannot even travel or move at all without permission from a male, what is that?

It'sinherent, the whole point. Unwavering subjugation and unwavering control

DeepSight:
Beyond that look at the application of Shariah law in Northern Nigeria. It has been used to lock up several non Muslims for years - for alleged blasphemy in a supposedly secular country with constitutional freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Look at the gruesome murder of Deborah, a Christian student in Northern Nigeria by a Muslim mob. Those who did it were on camera and they went scot free, even the governor justified it.

Wake up!

DeepSight:
The truth is that this religion has an explicit creeping doctrine in which it seeks the total subjugation of the world to Islamic tenets. And in this they are specifically guided to appear moderate and gentle when in the minority but to become belligerent when in the majority. This is where the practice of Taqiyya often comes in. Telling lies to defend oneself and to defend Islam when in a weak position. But once they are in the majority, no one can truly be safe in terms of the rights we understand to be standard in the modern world.

Who no no go know. Play patsy with ee.slam and you willl lose your foot and much more beside.


TV

DeepSight:
+
Empty vain vacuous piffle.
You owe me a proper response.

He says! Why exactly?

TV01:
(only matched by your propensity for dodging questions .

TV

DeepSight:
+
People like benalvino3 and raumdeuter do not understand that certain words and certain things carry a specific connotation in America. Example, the N word. It is meaningless in Nigeria or even among most black people generally. But used by a white person in a derogatory way to a black person it has historical weight.

How for do we have to be removed from this history for this kind of threat to be completely enervated? Is it a forever thing? I watched the video - the brother in question did not bat an eyelid, just continued making his case. Not sure he requires someone living in the backside of iyana-ipaja to advise him of his victim status .

DeepSight:
In this same way, the threat "you should be lynched" has a specific historical weight when used against a black man in America in that way. This is the same way our friends here fail to understand the significance of depicting a black couple as apes.

Please sir, since you associated the term "weight" to this and even went as far as to say "specific", could you kindly quantify exactly what this weight is. How it specifically affects, or is supposed to affect individual Africa-Americans? Does it lead to mental or physical distress of some kind? If so, what are the symptoms - and the medical interventions required? Should there be legal redress?

One of the hallmarks of your narrative/discussive style is the ability to search far up your fundament and pull out notions that are at best ill-considered, and usually just inane (only matched by your propensity for dodging questions .

Likewise the "moral evolution" bloviate you spouted earlier . If it exists, what precipitates it? My learned friend, it takes zero competence to stand you on your head - just a read of your headache-inducing babble .


TV

Deepsight here's your weekend portion

DeepSight:
That Christians today reject these is evolution.

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

You claim that Christians rejecting slavery is evolution. A "moral evolution" that takes them away from the "slavery" you insist the bible endorses. Fine, let's work with that. If this moral evolution as you term it took place, it was either as a result of their faith or their culture - and all that entails - which led to the subsequent civilisational progress.

Could you please show evidence of that same "moral evolution" in moose.slim countries or jurisdictions - slavery is clearly embedded in their texts and they only "legally" ceased trading under threat of war - as recently as 1960 or thereabouts (you can still buy black people in those parts).

And lest I be accused of singling out moose.slims, please show where\when\how this moral evolution took place in your country? Where and when amongst the cultures or religions was it changed? I stand to be corrected, but there is nothing I can find?

Surely this ME would also encompass human sacrifice, blood offerings, money rituals etc. All of which are still rampant. Or, are they not as bad as slavery, which also still is.

Or perhaps you are just claiming the countries\nations\peples whith historic Judeo-Christian backgrounds are better . I an't callin' nobody "House N" or "Uncle R", just saying


TV

budaatum:
Please go and educate yourself that you do not have "freedom of speech" in UK!

What you have is "freedom of expression" that is a "qualified right" rather than absolute.

And know that you not knowing this simple difference made me cut you off where I have so you know I did not bother reading your expressions any further!

Evel learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth .
Freedom of speech is nested within freedom of expression - he spoke! FOE also covers other things like written pieces, pictures etc. Is the picture of the moose.slim gee.hardi at war with himself illegal?

Oya, true Orolu pikin, where are the lies I told ? DId you even read the link you posted on FOE ?


TV

budaatum:
This is the thing about you, ben. You can obviously see that he has no right to say what he said but you want to argue against what you see.

He has every right - it's called freedom of speech. They are not even his own words - direct from the sunnah!

budaatum:
Yes, my country has principles, and those principles include you not talking thrash on our streets and expect us to walk away.

The only limits of free speech are incitement to violence. It's not northern Nigeria or the Orolu capital

budaatum:
We don't have to walk away, because our principles will get your ass arrested as you can see in your post.

Tacitly endorsing violence by savages. Useful I gba n ! Whatever success this ee.slamic gee.hard enjoys, it will be largely down to utter toadies like you. He was arrested as it is easier for the police to deal with the situation that way. It's called "2-tier" after our lackey PM.

budaatum:
Incidentally, I was once in a CoE church where a Pakistani Christian came to talk about anti-islam and Christian persecution in Pakistan. Unfortunately, he lied, and the Christian congregation shut him down.

Anecdotal bollocks. 1. They likely couldn't handle the hard truth and like you prefer to pander to ROPers. 2. It doesn't change the moose.slim persecution of Christians in Pakistan any more than it does that in Nigeria.


TV

budaatum:
I wonder why a person who outright lies expects their posts or thoughts or opinion to be considered.

Provide evidence for your "outright edit" please.

First you - or anyone else - should provide evidence of outright lies in my posts .

She, shim, sham


TV

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