₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus:
3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

SalC:
Can someone who is not a Catholic go to confession in the Catholic Church?

Cc Syncan, Ubenedictus, Jnrbayano and co

Syncan:
Nne it's a tough one to be possible, if one scale the hurdle of a valid baptism, what about schism or heresy that makes you a non-catholic, what will happen to that one?

Syncan:
Na wa, now he thinks am Lucifer(Lk 10:18, Is 14:12) ...What will I not hear from Ubenedictus. Thanks for the birthday wish anyway, God bless you.

SalC:
You have this affinity for trouble making

DoctorAlien:
That does not mean that the book of Acts did not cover the history of the early church up until a few years before Peter's death.

When was Peter the head of the whole church? When was Peter the Bishop of Rome? Who gave the church of Rome primacy over all the churches?

kjhova:
I chuckle...not to deride you, man. I understand how you can hold a very flat and patronizing narrative of the crusades. The crusade is not a very well known topic for Nigerian Christians in general and is hardly ever mentioned or taught in school and in church.

The Byzantine empire was effectively faded from the Earth when her capital was invaded and burnt to the ground by the 4th crusade in 1204. That was a crusade called by a pope, financed by merchants of Venice and carried out by Christian knights to destroy the 2nd most important Christian empire after Rome!

Please study the crusades a bit more than you have already and you'd have a more balanced view.

Ubenedictus:
farmerforlife Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.

Kay17:
There are Sufis that reject violence absolutely.

alfarouq:
In addition to what Farmer 4life has said, scholars explained that the statement submitting willingly or by force to mean
Allah has the power to enforce all humans to obey and always follow his commands like he did with the angels but he decided to allow man to chose whether to willingly submit or not.
But there are instances he has also forced man to obey his will which include forcing all to eat, sleep, excrete, drink, etc whether such person is theist or atheist, old or young, rich or poor.
Those that willingly submitted are the Muslims.
Islam encourages peace and order but it does not support pacifism.
Sometimes to establish peace and order, you need both the stick and carrot approach.

kjhova:
Do a more tedious review of the crusades, man. Princes secure papal bulls from the pope as standard cover for plundering the Orient. Essentially, the crusades were mostly an immoral gang up by vile kings, princes and knights under the banner of religion to plunder, massacre and enslave the new east. Same way today's Jihads are savage acts by barbaric groups in the name of religion to maim, plunder and enslave. No pope is known to have ever condemned the Lionheart or any other king for all the atrocities committed in the middle east during the crusades. I will be eager to be schooled to the contrary if there is any evidence for such.

Regards.

Farmerforlife:
This incident is not authenticated. Scholars have long had issues with the stories of historians that have dubious chains of narrators. In most cases historians themselves have stated that all the stories they have narrated are not authentic (such as atTabari, who also related this incident). This is why Muslim scholars have differentiated between stories from historians and hadith from compilers of narrations. Also, in extracting religious rulings, only hadith narrations are relied upon in interpreting Quranic verses, historical stories are not.


As a by-the-way, even if we accept the story as true, we realise even from ibn Hisham himself that the prophet (ﷺ) was not very happy with the actions of Khalid ibn alWaleed

Splinz:
Ironically, arguing with someone like you amount to mental torture. I mean, aside the fact that you're completely devoid of Biblical truths (not a surprise anyways. Your false Catholic church does not know either), you're also without even commonsense.

What reasonable human will foolishly says that God forfeits, of course irrationally, the making of images for whatever purpose, and then that same God turned around and condemned defaulters for His impossible task You're worse than even an atheist!

What! You dig out whatever dumb piece you see online from bloggers and used it to tell me about the Jews and their uncompromising Ten Commandment? What nonsense!

kjhova:
Your assertion is right that the need to stop Islamic expansion was a root cause of the 1st crusade. However, there were tens of crusades over a thousand years and many were nothing more than devious campaigns by greedy or overzealous European princes supported by Venetian merchants seeking booty. These crusades were countered by many Muslim jihads and in the period, wanton killing, maiming, raping and enslavement of many people were carried out by Christians and Muslims in the names of Allah and Jehovah.

I am not so sure that at any point in those thousand years Jehovah or Allah ever told their people that killing of other humans is bad.

Splinz:
If I say I've ever enjoyed any of your arguments, I'd be a great liar.

My friend, do I look like one of those kids in your catechism classes

Please on a very serious note, if you can't grasp the basic and most simplest of things like the Ten Commandment in the Bible, do not bother mentioning me again. It gives me no pleasure at all seeing your kindergarten arguments. Kindly take them to babies in your fold.

Splinz:
Oh really- two commands? You mean just like you Catholics deceitfully split the last commandment into two, after doing away with the original second commandment So then, the commandment is no longer the "Ten Commandment" but probably eleven, twelve or thirteen?

Hmm. Clap for yourself! SMH

Splinz:
Oh really- two commands? You mean just like you Catholics deceitfully split the last commandment into two, after doing away with the original second commandment So then, the commandment is no longer the "Ten Commandment" but probably eleven, twelve or thirteen?

Hmm. Clap for yourself! SMH

Splinz:
"...You shall not bow down to them or worship them". Do you see that it is talking of making such image an object of worship like you do

Farmerforlife:
We understand all verses of the Quran in the context in which the prophet (ﷺ) applied them. The abrogated verses are clear (from the explanatory hadith), what verses abrogated them is also clear. We cannot just declare a verse abrogated because it does not agree with our desires. There must be backing evidence.

Splinz:
[i]I see. Your own god must be as irrational as a mad man to forbid images intoto. I say "your own god" because the God of the Bible that I know to be the wisest and most loving, can't give a law that He knows people can't keep- an impossible task, and then turned around and condemned defaulters. Such a god must be insane!

If you are guilty of your lawlessness/idolatry (I am not an idolater), then repent from it. Sheepishly lying that the second commandment covers images for whatever purpose is as silly as the "proponents" whose aim is to give the deceived ones like you a false hope of not being a alone in your full scale disobedience/idolatry.

So bro, this deceitful explanation coined by you to further your idolatry is at best, workable among your fellow travelers.

Splinz:
I see. Your own god must be as irrational as a mad man to forbid images intoto. I say "your own god" because the God of the Bible that I know to be the wisest and most loving, can't give a law that He knows people can't keep- an impossible task, and then turned around and condemned defaulters. Such a god must be insane!

If you are guilty of your lawlessness/idolatry (I am not an idolater), then repent from it. Sheepishly lying that the second commandment covers images for whatever purpose is as silly as the "proponents" whose aim is to give the deceived ones like you a false hope of not being a alone in your full scale disobedience/idolatry.

So bro, this deceitful explanation coined by you to further your idolatry is at best, workable among your fellow travelers.


PS: You guys really sucks when it comes to knowledge of the Scriptures. In fact, if I were to rate you on a scale of 10, it will be 1/10. Your ridiculous explanation reminds me of one of your brothers who was arguing the other day that the "woman" of Rev. 12 (which is a symbolic representation of the true Church), is in fact, Mary. Hehehe... very funny people.

Kay17:
In order to judge Islam solely on its merits we require a deep understanding and insight of the historical background of the religion as well as the competing theologies and perspectives within the religion.

For me there is hardly the expertise within this forum to judge Islam or a united perspective within Islam to form the basis of a criticism against it.

Ubenedictus:
OK, lets see.

surah 2 says there is no compulsion in religion while surah3:83) - "Are they seeking a religion other than Allah's, when every soul in the
heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by
compulsion?

Hope u can see? one verse says no compulsion another says every soul must submit willingly or by compulsion. How do u reconcile them without abrogateing the earlier for the later?

Farmerforlife:
We understand all verses of the Quran in the context in which the prophet (ﷺ) applied them. The abrogated verses are clear (from the explanatory hadith), what verses abrogated them is also clear. We cannot just declare a verse abrogated because it does not agree with our desires. There must be backing evidence.

kjhova:
As for the hate verses from the quran and the bible, of course they are there and they were meant to be understood as they were written. However, as today's adherents cannot deal with the vile portions of their "holy books", they rationalise. That is an escape valve only available for the religious folks who live in suspension of their sensory organ.

kjhova:
The Crusades cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be referred to as just wars. There were many crusades lasting over 1,000 years, organized by allied European kingdoms to ship thousands of warriors across the continent, over the Mediterranean and across deserts only to attack Muslim lands.

The whole purpose of the Crusades was to establish European (so-called Christian) control over the "holy lands" of Jerusalem etc which were Muslim territories at the time. They were not just wars by any fraction, they were pure colonial enterprises.

murtalaa:
agreed, only problem is that you don't make the same excuse for Islam. 0.0001% percent OF Muslims claim to kill in the name of Islam but instead of Christians to see them for the criminals they are they tend to condemn Islam as a violent religion when in fact Christianity is inherently more violent in its teachings and indeed people have killed for it before.

TeamSimple:
Fool..The anti-balakas are presently following it,the crusadees followed it,the Lord resistance army,the orange volunteers. The aforementioned terrorist groups followed it.

DoctorAlien:
Read Matt. 5:17-19. Christ never asked us to disobey the commandments, neither did He set aside the 10 Commandments of GOD.

Splinz:
[i]You lot always try to be smart by half, which is really pathetic. Again, I'd help teach you wisdom.

Yes, the second commandment forbids the worship of "images", whether of things in heaven, earth, or waters. The dictionary definition of an image is "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art".

So when God forbids the making of, worshiping or bowing down to carved images, commonsense dictates that He wasn't speaking of one making a photograph of himself for probably identification purposes, but giving worship/adoration/reverence to such an image as either a representation of God Himself or a mediator.