₦airaland Forum

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

Because the despotic tyrannical regime in Tehran just murdered a wrestler - one of Iran's star athletes.

Why - because he protested against the regime
How - a confession extracted by torture, charges were trumped up and a kangaroo court was held by e-slameek "scholars"..
What was the charge - "making war against God".

No country in the world kills it citizens like Iran - The Islamic republic of Iran.

No be only mature mind - basic humanity, conscience and a true fear of God. Nuff said.


TV

budaatum:
I did not slur you. I simply quoted the part of your post that I wanted to refer to. Those who read me, since my response to you is not only to be read by you, know very well that I do that, so please stop victimising yourself.

Mostly waffle. Try not to ascribe things to me or presume you know how or what I am thinking. Or put another way, stop thinking your soi-disant buddhic utterances have any import.

Now to your evidence against TR.

I hope you note that the first sub-heading of your "research" clearly states "alleged". Nothing has been proven.

2024 UK Riots - so you believe TR incited the riot, not the horrifically brutal murder of 3 young girls and the attempted offing of numerous others - by a rabid muslim. One of the victims had 88 stab wounds. Your persuasion is that racism was the prima facie cause? If TR was responsible for incitement, why wasn't he charged? It's a criminal offence.

Finsbury Park Mosque attack 2017 - Where did TR or the EDL print a manifesto with rammings, or stabbings or bombing? Please remind me, which religion does that as a matter of course. Why wasn't TR or the EDL charged with incitement, which is on the statutes?

2018 violence - Sikhs are amongst TR most ardent supports. The mooslim groomers tried it with Sikh girls first. The Sikhs gave them a "customary" response , so they looked for easier prey. I hadn't previously heard of this so can't comment further. Are attacks on mosques a feature of the UK social landscape? Oh no, that would be attacks on Synagogues - by ROPers!

Libel Case 2021 - TR claims the Syrian immigrant was a serial abuser of English girls. TR investigated this as a citizen journo. In court he was ordered not to publish his reportage, which he did and was found in contempt. Where did it say or how does it prove he hates non-whites?

None of the above prove TR is 1. racist or 2. campaigns to harm minority communities in the UK.


TV

DeepSight:
+
I am willing to have a proper conversation, however not one in which well researched and pertinent scientific and historical facts are dismissed with a handwave as excuses.

So am I, but about when Nigeria will be able to attain functioning statehood. I am not interested in parsing excuses about why Nigeria is teetering on the edge of being a failed state. Or why white people\racism\colonialism\the sun\flowers\too much this, or too little that, the wrong type of x or not enough y.

Unrelenting victimhood is sick-inducing.


TV

nateevs:
Lies and conjecture. Talking points of the West and Maganuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_won%27t_exist_in_25_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations#Destruction_of_Israel_in_Iranian_policy

Believe what you will - the facts remain.


TV

basilico:
Most Muslims are OK.. The really devout ones are antisemitic and are the most likely to one day be suicide bombers. They are "made' in mosques. The good ones are the ones who I call ignorant and just want to live their lives like everyone else.
Granted most of Islamic preaching is about the superiority of their religion , the abhorrence of those who don't accept it and a special damnation of Jews.

I beg to differ.

I agree that not all muslims want to strike tear.or into the hearts of unbelievers. I accept that not all muslims wish that they could engage in gee.hard, be martyred and then return to resume engagement in gee.hard and be martyred once more, ad-infinitum. I accept that not all muslims want to usher in the end-times by offing Juice.

But such muslims are essentially "bad muslims", who are knowingly or unknowingly not obeying the clear and explicit commands of their scriptures.

Most of the muslims in my family are Yoruba before they are muslims. The progressive and liberal nature of Yoruba culture blunts the extremism that e-slam exhorts. Once that position is reversed wide-scale, you will see havoc in Yorubaland.


TV

budaatum:
Tommy Robinson hating muslims because of what a muslim may have done to a family member if his is the equivalent of hating black people because one black person killed his family. That's ignorant and discriminatory!

If you hate Muslims because of your hatred of Islam, then you are prejudiced against Muslims and that's Islamophobia. It's the equivalent of racephobia, the hatred of people because of their race, just that your hate is because of others religion.

Ideologues can never argue straight or debate honestly. You quoted part of my post and tried to slur me . Your inability to deploy canned tropes and resort to slurs in defence is what makes you uniteresting. I said this

I love muslims, and like many have muslim family members. Islam is a blight on the world!

I hate Islam. It is a blight on humanity and has, and only can lead to death and destruction.

Where is the evidence for TR being a racist or hating muslims?


TV

Because ee-slam has no regard for life and no love. It see's humans as slaves, motivated only by base human desires.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, The God of the Bible created man in His image and views those who love Him as sons and daughters. So much so that He purchased them with His own blood.

Who you gon' choose?


TV

Iran that has been chest-beating and sabre-rattling for almost 50 years. And, are hell-bent on destroying the US and Israel. Funding the 3H proxy militias and sponsoring tear.roar.rism worldwide - even in Nigeria.

Animated by an apocalyptic ee-slam-hic vision that demands adherent precipitate the end-times. They will never retreat, and persist in doing everything within their power to actualise what they believe to be divine writ.

Their participation in treaty discussions are always a ruse - to buy time until they can realise their evil desire.

No believer wants to see children or anyone dead. Christians believe all men are created in Gods image and are of inestimable worth. ROPers will birth for the express purposes of producing martyrs and raise their children to think killing unbelievers is loving God.


TV

bemeruca:
This is an idiotic thing to say. Israel has not attacked any nation that recognized it. Jordan, Egypt etc.

Israel only defends itself which is why they don't have offensive frigates and carriers. There is a reason they built the irondom, it was not proactive, it was reactive.

Iran was behind the Oct 7 attacks and other groups like their proxies from Iraq, hezbollah and the Houthis attacking Israel.

I don't understand how you see Israel as the aggressor here. You said you don't support war that targets the innocent, nobody support that. So tell us,
What is Israel supposed to do when Oct 7th happened?

What are the supposed to do knowing the mastermind engineering their destruction is acquiring more and more sophisticated weapons? If you live in Israel you would have understood this issue but you don't.

The Arabs(Palestinians) living inside Israel do that's why they are part of the IDF fighting to defend their people.

budaatum:
My response might unfortunately make you think I am being Japanisist, but I am going to take the risk.

The Japanese will in all liklihood not care - they do not present as victims, and probably don't give 2 figs as to your views on them.

budaatum:
Japan has had a longer period of unity than Nigeria has had, and the national adversity they all faced further unified them to work together for the common good. Basically, the unifying glue of the Japanese is stronger than Nigeria's, so yes, "Nigeria can't solve for open defecation because complex one of deep history, environment, geography, climate, trade, wars and conquests, chance, the butterfly effect, and much much more", which, be warned I will call it bush.

And there are countries with lesser periods of unity and more\less\different adversities and complex issues relating to history, geography, location, climate wars, flower, jungle, weeds etc., but they have all managed to develop basic functioning societies and\or are clearly advancing.

budaatum:
And yes "Even flora and fauna count." Flowers produce food, and flower was always plenty in the Nigerian bush so any Nigerian could go by themself and take what they want but now the bush is small and the flower is less and the Nigerians are more plenty but we keep our bush ways.

So Nigerians where never agronomists or pastoralists. What, Nigerians couldn't even farm crops?

budaatum:
Japan was the same for centuries, some resulting in the 1637 Shimabara Rebellion, 1905 Hibiya Incendiary Incident, 1918 Rice Riots, massive 1960 Anpo treaty protests, and 1960s/70s student uprisings, so we too shall one day learn.

When? How, What will be the pivotal event\events?

budaatum:
Oh. Least I forget. The Japanese people are in many ways far superior in achievements than we Nigerians are. We have Asejire Dam. They have Fukushima.

"In many ways" - in which way or what, are Nigerians superior in achievement to the Japanese?


TV

budaatum:
TV01, I'm sorry to barge into this, but why should anyone show you if tommy robinson is racist when you can very easily consider the evidence yourself?

It is rather ironic that some here with no evidence will call others gay but can't be bothered to check available information about tommy and racism.

The below is my own bias. Do your research please.

Barging in is not the issue, it's your usual canned ideological responses. The ask was clear,

TV01:
If you can show that Tommy Robinson has an agenda to harm or disadvantage black people or minorities in the UK, then I will agree he's a rascist.

TR emergence on the social scene (he is not a politician and has no real platform) was as a result of a personal experience - his cousin was groomed by ParkiMooSlimGroomers.

The EDL was formed in direct response to this phenom. There were mostly working class, who suffered disproportionately from the gangs. And yes, they may have attracted some of the wrong sort, but that happens with pretty much all movements. So called "anti-fascist" groups are ideologically motivated and often fascistic themselves.

I hate Islam. Islam is not a RACE!!! Attempts by some muslims to conflate race with religion and cry islamophobia at every turn are just part of their strategy to impose their ideology on everyone else. I love muslims, and like many have muslim family members. Islam is a blight on the world!

Please present evidence of TR going after individuals solely because they are not white, or running campaigns or movements to harm communities in the UK because they are not white. If you can do so I'll accept TR is a racist.


TV

DeepSight:
+
Perhaps you should state what you believe are the reasons, given that you accede that there are reasons.

The truth is there is a scientific reason for most things. It's either you choose the scientific reason or you decide to be unscientific by saying something lazy such as "oh, they are just corrupt."

Of course there are reasons. There are always reasons, as for pretty much everything. And yes, I have my beliefs, but they remain under wraps for now, because the ask is, not why Nigeria (and as a metaphor for most black nations) are way down on whatever civilisational scale one chooses to use. One could circle that mountain forever, but to what effect?

The ask is how and when they will clearly start to ascend the curve and move forward? If anything they appear to be regressing...Somali incoming!!! I'll accept references to the why, only if they somehow colour the what, when and how. Long\short, I don't want excuses as to why the country is a basket-case, I want to know what will be done to attain basic societal order.

On this same thread I asked the same pointed questions to the Saffa Lionesza? Who claimed that SA was built by both it's black and white citizens. The asks where 1. what exactly did black SA contribute (and I don't mean heavy lifting) to the development of SA and 2. And now that SA has transitioned to black-majority rule , why is the country spiralling downwards and what are the black SA ruling class going to do to reverse and, at a minimum restore SA to what it was less than 2 generations ago. Over 3 responses, I got waffle, then a slur, then a hasty exit.

As for corruption? I'm a British patriot and I am certain that most of our political class and lot's of our elite are not only corrupt, they are also perverse. Please, let's not dellect.


TV